Series/Parallel impedance problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blastrix91
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Impedance
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a complex impedance problem involving series and parallel components. Participants analyze the equations for impedance and admittance, attempting to simplify and derive a solution. Key points include the need to ensure that the overall admittance remains constant with respect to frequency, which leads to setting the derivative of admittance to zero. There are debates about the correctness of algebraic manipulations and the identification of terms in the derivative. Ultimately, the focus is on isolating the variable R2 from the derived equations to find a solution.
Blastrix91
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Problem description:
http://imageshack.us/a/img707/2060/beskrivelse.png

Homework Equations



http://imageshack.us/a/img543/5302/lign1.png

Z = Z_1 + Z_2 + ... +Z_n (Series),

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{1}{Z_1} + \frac{1}{Z_2} + ... + \frac{1}{Z_n} (parallel)

The Attempt at a Solution



\frac{1}{Z}= (\frac{1}{i \omega C} + R)^{-1} + (i \omega L + R)^{-1}

\frac{1}{Z}= (\frac{R + i \omega C R}{i \omega C R})^{-1} + (i \omega L + R)^{-1}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{i \omega C R}{R + i \omega C R} + \frac{1}{i \omega L + R}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{i \omega C R (i \omega L + R)}{(R + i \omega C R)(i \omega L + R)} + \frac{R + i \omega C R}{(R + i \omega C R)(i \omega L + R)}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{i \omega C R (i \omega L + R) + R + i \omega C R}{(R + i \omega C R)(i \omega L + R)}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{i C L \omega^2 + C R \omega + L \omega - iR}{i C L \omega^2 + C R \omega + C \omega - i}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{i C L R \omega^2 + C R^2 \omega + L \omega R - iR^2}{i C L R \omega^2 + C R^2 \omega + C \omega R - i R}

R^2 = \frac{L}{C}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{i C L R \omega^2 + L \omega + L \omega R - i \frac{L}{C}}{i C L R \omega^2 + L \omega + C \omega R - i R}

.. and here I'm stuck. I need to eliminate those frequencies. (My approach may have been wrong all along?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Blastrix91 said:

The Attempt at a Solution



\frac{1}{Z}= (\frac{1}{i \omega C} + R)^{-1} + (i \omega L + R)^{-1}

\frac{1}{Z}= (\frac{R + i \omega C R}{i \omega C R})^{-1} + (i \omega L + R)^{-1}
That first term, the rearrangement of the capacitor's admittance, doesn't look right. Rework the algebra.

Regarding your approach, note that if the overall impedance Z remains constant with respect to frequency, then the overall admittance Y = 1/Z is also constant.

What can you say about the derivative of a constant?
 
You are right I screwed up there. I worked out a new solution by the same principle:

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{(i \omega C)}{1+R} + \frac{1}{i \omega L+R}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{(i \omega C)(i \omega L+R) + 1 + R}{(1+R)(i \omega L+R)}

Z= \frac{(1+R)(i \omega L+R)}{i \omega C(i \omega L+R)+1+R}

Still can't see it

I don't get what you're saying in your second sentence though. (derivative of a constant is zero) Is that part of solving the problem?
 
Blastrix91 said:
You are right I screwed up there. I worked out a new solution by the same principle:

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{(i \omega C)}{1+R} + \frac{1}{i \omega L+R}

\frac{1}{Z}= \frac{(i \omega C)(i \omega L+R) + 1 + R}{(1+R)(i \omega L+R)}

Z= \frac{(1+R)(i \omega L+R)}{i \omega C(i \omega L+R)+1+R}

Still can't see it

I don't get what you're saying in your second sentence though. (derivative of a constant is zero) Is that part of solving the problem?

Still a problem with the first term. Start with the series impedance:

##R + \frac{1}{j ω C} = \frac{j ω R C + 1}{j ω C}##

multiplying top and bottom by j:

## = \frac{ω R C - j}{ω C}##

The admittance term is the inverse of this, so: ##\frac{ω C}{ω R C - j}## and altogether:
$$\frac{1}{Z} = Y = \frac{ωC}{ωRC - j} + \frac{1}{R + jωL} $$

If Y is a constant w.r.t. ω then, as you say, its derivative w.r.t. ω must be zero, right? So take the derivative and find out what the value of R2 must be that makes it so.
 
Last edited:
Okay so I've taken the derivative with respect to ω

\frac{d Y}{d \omega}= - \frac{i C}{(C R \omega -i)^2} - \frac{i L}{(R+ i L \omega)^2} = 0

I'm supposed to calculate the parenthesis and isolate R2 from there?
 
Blastrix91 said:
Okay so I've taken the derivative with respect to ω

\frac{d Y}{d \omega}= - \frac{i C}{(C R \omega -i)^2} - \frac{i L}{(R+ i L \omega)^2} = 0

I'm supposed to calculate the parenthesis and isolate R2 from there?

The idea is to simplify the derivative (giving it a common denominator) and then isolating R2. But your derivative does not look right. There should be three terms in the initial expansion of the derivative.
 
My math calculator program says it's correct? What's wrong with it?

Tried finding R2 from the derivative i calculated:

- \frac{iC(R+iLω)^2}{(CRω−i)^2 (R+iLω)^2} - \frac{i L(CRω−i)^2}{(CRω−i)^2 (R+iLω)^2} = 0

\frac{- iC(R+iLω)^2 - i L(CRω−i)^2}{(CRω−i)^2 (R+iLω)^2}= 0

\frac{- iC (R^2+2 i L R ω-L^2 ω^2) - i L(-1-2 i C R ω+C^2 R^2 ω^2)}{(-1-2 i C R ω+C^2 R^2 ω^2) (R^2+2 i L R ω-L^2 ω^2)}= 0

\frac{-C i R^2-2 C i^2 L R ω+C i L^2 ω^2 + i L+2 C i^2 L R ω-C^2 i L R^2 ω^2}{(-1-2 i C R ω+C^2 R^2 ω^2) (R^2+2 i L R ω-L^2 ω^2)}= 0

I plotted all this into a math calculator. The denominator in the last term was incredibly huge.

Btw thanks for the help so far. I at least got the idea behind solving the problem now.
 
Blastrix91 said:
My math calculator program says it's correct? What's wrong with it?
My mistake; I failed to recognize that you'd already applied a simplification.
Tried finding R2 from the derivative i calculated:

- \frac{iC(R+iLω)^2}{(CRω−i)^2 (R+iLω)^2} - \frac{i L(CRω−i)^2}{(CRω−i)^2 (R+iLω)^2} = 0

\frac{- iC(R+iLω)^2 - i L(CRω−i)^2}{(CRω−i)^2 (R+iLω)^2}= 0

\frac{- iC (R^2+2 i L R ω-L^2 ω^2) - i L(-1-2 i C R ω+C^2 R^2 ω^2)}{(-1-2 i C R ω+C^2 R^2 ω^2) (R^2+2 i L R ω-L^2 ω^2)}= 0

\frac{-C i R^2-2 C i^2 L R ω+C i L^2 ω^2 + i L+2 C i^2 L R ω-C^2 i L R^2 ω^2}{(-1-2 i C R ω+C^2 R^2 ω^2) (R^2+2 i L R ω-L^2 ω^2)}= 0

I plotted all this into a math calculator. The denominator in the last term was incredibly huge.

Btw thanks for the help so far. I at least got the idea behind solving the problem now.

Since the derivative is being set to zero, you can ignore the denominator. You only need to expand the numerator and collect the R2 terms.
 
Back
Top