Maximum power transfer theorem leading to erroneous result Why?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the maximum power transfer theorem in a circuit where the goal is to maximize power dissipated in a resistor by varying the angular frequency and resistor value. The first approach involves deriving an expression for average power and solving for optimal values, but results in a high-order polynomial that complicates finding analytical solutions. The second approach uses the Thevenin equivalent and applies the maximum power transfer theorem, suggesting that maximum power occurs when the load impedance equals the source impedance. However, a conflict arises as the solutions from the theorem do not satisfy the conditions derived from the first approach. The conclusion is that the theorem may not apply in this scenario due to the simultaneous alteration of both load and source impedances when varying frequency.
Barloud
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody,

Below is a circuit that I am investigating. All the components are linear, nothing fancy here.

circ1.jpg


My goal is to maximize the average power P dissipated in the resistor Re. To this aim, I am only allowed to play with the angular frequency ω of the voltage source and with the value of the resistor Re. All the other parameters are set to fixed values.

First approach: from Kirschoff's law, I derive an expression for the average power P dissipated in Re. I have then to solve simultaneously dP/dRe=0 and dP/dω=0 in terms of Re and ω. The second equation does however correspond to a high order polynomial in ω (7th I think I remember) for which analytical solutions are not known.

Second approach: I transform the initial circuit into the Thevenin equivalent shown below. I then apply the maximum power transfer theorem stating that maximum power will be dissipated in Ze when Ze=Zm*. If some conditions on the parameters other than Re and ω are fulfilled, I obtain two couples of solution in Re and ω respecting Ze=Zm*. And here comes my problem: while these couple of solutions respect dP/dRe=0 from the first approach, they are not solutions of dP/dω=0.
circ2.jpg


While one may suggest an error in the derivations, I checked it many times with symbolic computations software. I rather believe that the maximum power transfer theorem does not yield in the particular situation that I consider, but I do not manage in finding the reason, neither from a mathematical or physical point of view. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The maximum power theorem deals gives the optimum load impedance (Ze) for a given power supply impedance (Zm).

I don't think it applies here, because, by allowing ω to alter, you no longer have a given (i.e. constant) Zm. You alter both Ze and Zm at the same time.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top