Understanding Algebra: Step-by-Step Guide from vout to vcm and vd

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter simpComp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical steps required to transition from one expression for output voltage (vout) to another, specifically in the context of circuit analysis involving common-mode voltage (vcm) and differential voltage (vd). The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanation related to algebraic manipulation in electrical engineering.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Participants request clarification on the algebraic steps needed to transform the expression for vout from one form to another.
  • Some participants suggest using the distributive property and rearranging terms to achieve the desired expression.
  • One participant expresses confusion about how to isolate vcm and vd from the original equation, indicating a lack of understanding of the algebra involved.
  • Another participant proposes defining new variables to simplify the expressions, suggesting a potential approach to the problem.
  • Several participants challenge the correctness of attempted manipulations, pointing out errors in factoring and simplification.
  • One participant expresses a breakthrough in understanding after receiving guidance, indicating that the discussion has helped clarify the problem for them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the best approach to solve the problem, as participants express differing levels of understanding and various methods for tackling the algebra involved. Some participants provide guidance while others express frustration with the original poster's attempts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of algebraic manipulation, dependence on the definitions of variables, and the complexity of the expressions involved. Some participants may not have a clear grasp of the necessary mathematical concepts to proceed effectively.

simpComp
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Can someone show some mathematical steps on how we go from step 1 to step 2 please.

Step#1
vout = (vcm + vd/2)(Ro/Rb + Ro) (1+Rf/Ra)- (vcm - vd/2)(Rf/Ra)

Step#2
vout = vcm [(Ro/Rb + Ro) (1+ Rf/Ra) -(Rf/Ra)] + vd(1/2) [(Ro/Rb + Ro) (1+ Rf/Ra) + (Rf/Ra)]


thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
simpComp said:
Can someone show some mathematical steps on how we go from step 1 to step 2 please.

Step#1
vout = (vcm + vd/2)(Ro/Rb + Ro) (1+Rf/Ra)- (vcm - vd/2)(Rf/Ra)

Step#2
vout = vcm [(Ro/Rb + Ro) (1+ Rf/Ra) -(Rf/Ra)] + vd(1/2) [(Ro/Rb + Ro) (1+ Rf/Ra) + (Rf/Ra)]


thank you in advance!

Is this what you wrote?

[itex]v_{out}=(v_{cm}+\frac{v_d}{2})(\frac{R_0}{R_b}+R_0)(1+\frac{R_f}{R_a})-(v_{cm}-\frac{v_d}{2})(\frac{R_f}{R_a})[/itex]

[itex]\Rightarrow v_{out}=v_{cm}[(\frac{R_0}{R_b}+R_0)(1+\frac{R_f}{R_a})-\frac{R_f}{R_a}]+\frac{v_d}{2}[(\frac{R_0}{R_b}+R_0)(1+\frac{R_f}{R_a})+\frac{R_f}{R_a}][/itex]

If so, you should write it out and do it yourself. It is just two uses of the distributive property and then a slight rearrangement and the distributive property again (but backwards). When all is said and done, it should be no more than 6 lines (probably less, but it depends on your brain's current math RAM). Or maybe I misread what you wrote and it is completely different.
 
"If so, you should write it out and do it yourself. "

thanks
 
Last edited:
Are you able to figure it out, or you need some help with that?
 
simpComp said:
"If so, you should write it out and do it yourself. "

thanks

I checked out your other posts and there is nothing here that you weren't able to figure out before. I also outlined the steps. I apologize if you find that to be a rude statement, there is no point in people feeding you answers. Sorry if that is what you wanted.
 
Hello Electric Red,

I am totally baffled and don't even know where
to start... I attempted to get vcm out of the brackets like so:

vcm(1+vd/2) and vcm(1-vd/2)

but then don't know where to go from there. I tried going further by dividing vcm on both sides but I have to be honest here ... I am totally lost... I tried looking up some math tutorials but could not relate them to a resolution in respect to my problem.

A step by step illustration would surely help getting me started and would really be appreciated.

Thanks with sincere regards
 
simpComp said:
Hello Electric Red,

I am totally baffled and don't even know where
to start... I attempted to get vcm out of the brackets like so:

vcm(1+vd/2) and vcm(1-vd/2)

That is not correct. From that you just wrote ##v_{cm}(1+\frac{v_d}{2})=(v_{cm}+\frac{v_{cm}v_d}{2})## which does not appear anywhere. As I said earlier, but more explicitly now, distribute over the first and fourth parentheses and then rearrange to isolate ##v_{cm}## and ##v_d##.

It might be easier if you define new variables for yourself. Let
##A=(\frac{R_0}{R_b}+R_0)## and
##B=(1+\frac{R_f}{R_a})##
 
simpComp said:
Hello Electric Red,

I am totally baffled and don't even know where
to start... I attempted to get vcm out of the brackets like so:

vcm(1+vd/2) and vcm(1-vd/2)
Neither of these is correct, so I can see why you're having some problems.

If you factor vcm out of vcm + vd/2, you don't get vcm(1 + vd/2). As a check, expanding the last result here gives vcm + vcmvd/2), which isn't what you started with.
simpComp said:
but then don't know where to go from there. I tried going further by dividing vcm on both sides
This is not valid either. You don't really have "both sides." All you are doing is simplifying an expression, so you are very limited in what you can do, unlike when you have an equation to work with.
simpComp said:
but I have to be honest here ... I am totally lost... I tried looking up some math tutorials but could not relate them to a resolution in respect to my problem.

A step by step illustration would surely help getting me started and would really be appreciated.

Thanks with sincere regards
 
Try looking at it like this.

##v_{out}=(v_{cm}+\frac{v_d}{2})(\frac{R_0}{R_b}+R_0)(1+\frac{R_f}{R_a})-(v_{cm}-\frac{v_d}{2})(\frac{R_f}{R_a})##

is the same as

##v_{out}=(v_{cm}+\frac{v_d}{2})A-(v_{cm}-\frac{v_d}{2})B##

where

##A=(\frac{R_0}{R_b}+R_0)(1+\frac{R_f}{R_a})##
and
##B=\frac{R_f}{R_a}##

With these new definitions (not the ones I made before), you are trying to show that

##v_{out}=(v_{cm}+\frac{v_d}{2})A-(v_{cm}-\frac{v_d}{2})B=v_{cm}[A-B]+\frac{v_d}{2}[A+B]##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #10
Hello DrewD,

totally swamped here... I will get back as soon as I have a bit of free time...
Thanks
 
  • #11
Ahhh!

The light from the sun hit my head!

I see it now...

thanks DrewD
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K