RLC Circuit: Calculating Current I(ω)

  • Thread starter Thread starter VictorWutang
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parallel Rlc
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the current I(ω) in an RLC circuit, emphasizing the importance of considering phase angles when determining impedance. The user initially proposes a formula for impedance but realizes that adding resistive and reactive components directly is incorrect due to differing phase angles. The conversation shifts to using complex impedances, which inherently account for these phase differences. It is explained that for reactive components, the current and voltage have a 90-degree phase shift, and complex numbers can simplify calculations in this context. Ultimately, using complex impedances allows for straightforward application of standard formulas in analyzing the circuit.
VictorWutang
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Write the current I(ω) for the RLC circuit above

Homework Equations



I = V/Z

The Attempt at a Solution



I believe Z should be Z = ( 1/R + 1/XL + 1/XC)-1

which would give Z = ( 1/R + 1/(ωL) + ωC )-1

and I is simply emf / Z


but I don't think you can add R L and C like this since they have different phase angles.


Help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VictorWutang said:

Homework Statement



Write the current I(ω) for the RLC circuit above

Homework Equations



I = V/Z

The Attempt at a Solution



I believe Z should be Z = ( 1/R + 1/XL + 1/XC)-1

which would give Z = ( 1/R + 1/(ωL) + ωC )-1

and I is simply emf / Z


but I don't think you can add R L and C like this since they have different phase angles.


Help?

You are correct that phase angle must be taken into account. Rather than use reactances (XL, XC), have you considered using complex impedances (ZL, ZC) which take into account the phase angles automatically?
 
Oh I see... in that case

I know for RL and RC circuits in series

ZL = √ R2 + ω2L2

and

ZC = √ R2 + 1 / (ω2C2)

but I don't understand how I would use this for RLC in parallel. Help?
 
Are you familiar with complex numbers?
 
I think I'm familiar enough that i'll understand whatever you explain using them.EDIT* sorry, I realized that was a little vague. Yes, I understand basic use of complex numbers but have not taken a college level class on them yet.
 
VictorWutang said:
I think I'm familiar enough that i'll understand whatever you explain using them.


EDIT* sorry, I realized that was a little vague. Yes, I understand basic use of complex numbers but have not taken a college level class on them yet.

Okay, well you already know that there is a phase shift of 90 degrees between the voltage and current for reactive components; For the capacitor the current leads the voltage by 90 degrees, while for the inductor it lags the voltage by 90 degrees. Complex numbers are convenient to use here because one can consider the imaginary portion to be "at right angles to" the real portion of a complex number. This is made obvious when you plot the numbers on a complex plane, since the imaginary axis is at right angles to the real axis.

So, if you write the impedances as complex values, then you can use all the usual formulas that you use for resistances but with the complex impedances. Obviously you need to use number arithmetic in the manipulations, but otherwise it's just plug and chug with the formulas.

For capacitors and inductors the impedances have the same magnitude as their reactances (That is, reactance is the magnitude of the complex impedance). To find the impedance of these components just replace ω with jω in the reactance expressions. Here "j" is the imaginary value ##\sqrt{-1}##.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top