Phasors: How to go from Re{} to Re{}+Im{}

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaydnul
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Phasors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transition between the representation of voltages in the time domain and the phasor domain, specifically how to move from the expression V=Re[e^{j(wt+\phi)}] to V=e^{j(wt+\phi)} for calculations in electrical engineering contexts. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarification related to phasors and their application in circuit analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that V=cos(wt+\phi) can be expressed as Re[e^{j(wt+\phi)}], but questions how to transition to V=e^{j(wt+\phi)} for calculations, suggesting a potential misunderstanding of the equivalence between these forms.
  • Another participant argues that the two expressions do not represent the same quantity, emphasizing that while they share the same concept, they should not be equated directly due to their different contexts (time domain vs. phasor domain).
  • A request for a more rigorous mathematical explanation is made, specifically asking for proof of the validity of using P_0 as the voltage in the phasor domain.
  • One participant offers a partial proof by demonstrating the addition of phasors and their relationship to the real part of the exponential form, but seeks clarification on what exactly needs to be proven.
  • Another participant expresses a moment of confusion regarding the properties of real parts of complex exponentials, leading to a realization about the correct application of these properties in calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit some agreement on the utility of phasors in simplifying calculations, but there remains disagreement on the precise mathematical relationships and representations between the time domain and phasor domain values. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the need for a rigorous proof or the interpretation of the expressions involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the mathematical properties of phasors, indicating that assumptions about their equivalence may not be universally accepted or understood. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in definitions and the application of transforms.

jaydnul
Messages
558
Reaction score
15
I understand that V=cos(wt+\phi)=Re[e^{j(wt+\phi)}]

But when doing calculations (like loop voltage analysis or junction current analysis) you're just using V=e^{j(wt+\phi)} (where all of the e^{jwt} will cancel out and you're just left with the phasors)

Example: A_se^{j\phi _s}{e^{jwt}}=A_1e^{j\phi _1}e^{jwt}+A_2e^{j\phi _2}e^{jwt}

So how do you get from the initial V=Re[e^{j(wt+\phi)}] to the form V=e^{j(wt+\phi)} to do calcuations? Those two don't equal.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
They do not represent the same quantity, even though they represent the same concept. It is an error to equate both to V; my book used v (lower case) for the time-domain value, and V (capital) for the phasor (or "frequency") domain value. The units are the same, but the values are not!

The important thing is that addition and multiplication in the phasor domain are very meaningful. But, to get the final, physically meaningful answer after doing these calculations, you must return to the time domain.

Edit: Transforms (like the phasor transform) are actually very interesting to me. They allow us to solve hard problems by instead working on easy problems that have no real connection to the original ones. It's just an incredibly useful coincidence that changes in the phasor domain can be mapped directly to changes in the time domain.

I'm rambling, but I wish I could convey this idea more clearly. Understanding it is very helpful as you learn more and more transforms.
 
Last edited:
Is there a more rigorous mathematical answer? So we define the phasor P_0 as V=Re[P_0e^{jwt}].
Now what is the mathematical proof that we can just use P_0 as the voltage in the phasor domain?
 
For a rigorous proof, we need a precise question.

The units of P_0 are clearly volts, so that much is self-evident. It is also evident that if V_0=Re[P_0e^{jwt}] and V_1=Re[P_1e^{jwt}], then V_0+V_1=Re[P_0e^{jwt}]+ Re[P_1e^{jwt}]=Re[(P_0+P_1)e^{jwt}].

What do you want to prove?
 
It's like counting people with your fingers; you are representing each person with a finger, because math works similarly for both fingers and people, but fingers are more convenient.

Or maybe I should sleep.
 
Aaaaaaaah. I'm an idiot.

I was confusing myself because \frac{Re[e^{j\theta}]}{Re[e^{j\phi}]}\neq Re[\frac{e^{j\theta}}{e^{j\phi}}]

But Re[e^{j\theta}]+Re[e^{j\phi}] = Re[e^{j\theta}+e^{j\phi}]

I'm good now. Thanks a bunch Nick O!
 
No problem! I'm glad that helped, because I haven't used phasors since learning them a few semesters ago, and I wouldn't have been able to make many more useful observations in my sleep-deprived state [emoji14]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K