RLC Series Circuit Problem: Find V_source from V_R, V_L, V_C

nucleawasta
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In an L-R-C series circuit, the rms voltage across the resistor is 32.0 , across the capacitor it is 90.1 and across the inductor it is 51.5 .
What is the rms voltage of the source?


Homework Equations



Well there are lots of equations V_rms =V/sqrt(2)
V_R=IR
V_L=IX_L(I\omegaL)
V_C=IX_c(I/(\omegaC)

The Attempt at a Solution



So what i did was convert all the values from rms into their amplitude voltages and summed them. Then took the resultant rms of that answer. This is not correct however.

I was using kirchhoffs rules of the sum of voltages around loop =0. Does this principle hold true in this situation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For an AC circuit, the voltage across the source is equal to the vector sum of the voltages of the components. Using the phasor diagram, you can graphically determine the direction of the source voltage, if it leads the current or not, and how to find the vector sum of the voltages. Rms and peak amplitude voltage are proportional by sqrt{2}, so you don't need to convert to peak and then back to rms, just leave everything in rms and the source voltage will be in rms. The source voltage is related to the other voltages like this:

Vs = sqrt{ Vr^2 + (VL - Vc)^2 }
 
GRB 080319B said:
For an AC circuit, the voltage across the source is equal to the vector sum of the voltages of the components. Using the phasor diagram, you can graphically determine the direction of the source voltage, if it leads the current or not, and how to find the vector sum of the voltages. Rms and peak amplitude voltage are proportional by sqrt{2}, so you don't need to convert to peak and then back to rms, just leave everything in rms and the source voltage will be in rms. The source voltage is related to the other voltages like this:

Vs = sqrt{ Vr^2 + (VL - Vc)^2 }

Thank you so much! I've ben stuck on this for so long.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top