Understanding L-C-R Circuits: Can Voltages Exceed the Source? | Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reshma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around an L-C-R circuit with an alternating current (AC) source, focusing on the relationship between the peak voltages across the inductor, resistor, and capacitor, and the source voltage. Participants are exploring whether the voltages across the capacitor and inductor can exceed the source voltage, and the implications for the resistor voltage.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the mathematical relationships between the voltages using equations, questioning the conditions under which the voltages can exceed the source voltage. They discuss peak versus instantaneous voltages and the implications of Kirchhoff's laws in the context of AC circuits.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and clarifications regarding the relationships between the voltages. Some participants have offered guidance on understanding the differences between peak and instantaneous voltages, while others are exploring various interpretations of the equations involved.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion between peak voltages and instantaneous voltages, and participants are addressing this distinction. The discussion also highlights the importance of considering the signs of voltages in AC circuits and the implications of Kirchhoff's laws for voltage relationships.

Reshma
Messages
749
Reaction score
6
I have an L-C-R circuit with an ac source. [itex]V_L[/itex], [itex]V_R[/itex] & [itex]V_c[/itex] are the peak voltages across the inductor, resistor and capacitor. V is the source voltage. Can the voltage across the capacitor and inductor exceed the source voltage? Can this be true for the resistor?

My answer:

Well, the formula relating the voltages is:
[tex]V = \sqrt{V_R^2 + (V_L - V_C)^2}[/tex]

So the voltages across the inductor and capacitor can exceed the source voltage but the voltage across the resistor must always be less than or equal to the source.

Now is my answer correct? Is there any furthur explanation required here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, just look at the equation mathematically :

[tex]V^2 = V_{R}^2 + (V_{L}-V_{C})^2[/tex]

So you have that :

[tex]V^2 >= V_{R}^2[/tex]
[tex]V^2 >= (V_{L}-V_{C})^2[/tex]

Now, when taking the square root, just divide the problem in two cases:
1) V is positive so that [tex]\sqrt{V^2} = V[/tex]

2)1) V is negative so that [tex]\sqrt{V^2} = -V'[/tex], and V' is positive.

For example you can have :
[tex](-3)^2 > (-2)^2[/tex] ---> (-3) < (-2)
[tex](3)^2 > (2)^2[/tex] ---> (3) > (2)

You see ?

marlon
 
marlon said:
Well, just look at the equation mathematically :

[tex]V^2 = V_{R}^2 + (V_{L}-V_{C})^2[/tex]

So you have that :

[tex]V^2 >= V_{R}^2[/tex]
[tex]V^2 >= (V_{L}-V_{C})^2[/tex]

Now, when taking the square root, just divide the problem in two cases:
1) V is positive so that [tex]\sqrt{V^2} = V[/tex]

2)1) V is negative so that [tex]\sqrt{V^2} = -V'[/tex], and V' is positive.

For example you can have :
[tex](-3)^2 > (-2)^2[/tex] ---> (-3) < (-2)
[tex](3)^2 > (2)^2[/tex] ---> (3) > (2)

You see ?

marlon

Thanks for the reply.

So, if V is positive:
[itex]V>=V_R[/itex]
[itex]V>=V_L - V_C[/itex]

if V is negative:
[itex]V<=V_R[/itex]
[itex]V<=V_L - V_C[/itex]

But I don't infer much from this. One thing is for sure, either VL or VC can exceed V, since we consider their difference. But what about VR?

There is also another inequality, I wonder if that can be applied here. :rolleyes:
[tex]V \neq V_R + V_L + V_C[/tex]
 
Reshma said:
Thanks for the reply.

So, if V is positive:
[itex]V>=V_R[/itex]
[itex]V>=V_L - V_C[/itex]

if V is negative:
[itex]V<=V_R[/itex]
[itex]V<=V_L - V_C[/itex]

But I don't infer much from this. One thing is for sure, either VL or VC can exceed V, since we consider their difference. But what about VR?

There is also another inequality, I wonder if that can be applied here. :rolleyes:
[tex]V \neq V_R + V_L + V_C[/tex]

Reshma, I think there's a little confusion here. Let's consider the series R, L, C circuit a little more carefully.

The equation [tex]V^2 = (V_L - V_C)^2 + V_R^2[/tex] pertains to peak voltages. Each of the voltages should be assumed to take only positive values, since they are all peak values (amplitudes of phase-shifted sinusoidal functions).

To avoid confusion, let's rewrite that as [tex]V_{s,peak}^2 = (V_{L,peak} - V_{C,peak})^2 + V_{R,peak}^2[/tex] where I introduced the suffix 's' to denote supply.

In the above, certainly both [tex]V_{L,peak}[/tex] and [tex]V_{C,peak}[/tex] can exceed [tex]V_{s,peak}[/tex]. [tex]V_{R,peak}[/tex] can never exceed [tex]V_{s,peak}[/tex].

I hope all that's quite clear to you by now.

Now let's consider instantaneous voltages across each component, representing them as functions of time, viz. [tex]V_{L}(t), V_{C}(t), V_{R}(t)[/tex]. The supply will be represented as [tex]V_{s}(t)[/tex].

When we're considering instantaneous voltages, the following equality always holds true :

[tex]V_{s}(t) = V_{L}(t) + V_{C}(t) + V_{R}(t)[/tex]

and you can prove that with a little complex number or trigonometric manipulation. That's simply Kirchoff's first law, there's no reason it fails in reactive a.c. circuits. But what you must keep in mind is that each of those instantaneous voltages is a signed quantity. The voltage over the inductor may be of opposite sign to that across the capacitor, and you should take care when adding them up algebraically. In addition, note that any of the instantaneous voltages (including that across the resistor) may be greater (in magnitude) than the corresponding instantaneous supply voltage; however, the instantaneous voltage across the resistor can never be greater than the peak supply voltage. In contrast, the instantaneous voltages across either the inductor or the capacitor may actually be greater in magnitude than the peak supply voltage.

To put it simply, when considering peak voltages, the inequality you mentioned can hold; however, when considering signed instantaneous voltages, you will get an equality correspoding to Kirchoff's first law.
 
Wow, thank you very much, Curious3141. I guess I was confusing the peak voltages with the instantaneous voltages :biggrin:.
So from the loop rule, at any instant the sum of the voltages across the resistor, capacitor and inductor equals the applied emf.
But, when plotting the phasors of each of the voltages, we consider only the peak voltages. [itex]V_{s,peak}[/itex] must be equal to the vector sum of the three voltage phasors [itex]V_{R,peak} V_{L,peak}V_{C,peak}[/itex]. Since phasors [itex]V_{C,peak}[/itex] & [itex]V_{L,peak}[/itex] have opposite directions they can be combined to form a single phasor [itex]V_{L,peak}-V_{C,peak}[/itex].
 
Reshma said:
Wow, thank you very much, Curious3141. I guess I was confusing the peak voltages with the instantaneous voltages :biggrin:.
So from the loop rule, at any instant the sum of the voltages across the resistor, capacitor and inductor equals the applied emf.
But, when plotting the phasors of each of the voltages, we consider only the peak voltages. [itex]V_{s,peak}[/itex] must be equal to the vector sum of the three voltage phasors [itex]V_{R,peak} V_{L,peak}V_{C,peak}[/itex]. Since phasors [itex]V_{C,peak}[/itex] & [itex]V_{L,peak}[/itex] have opposite directions they can be combined to form a single phasor [itex]V_{L,peak}-V_{C,peak}[/itex].

Yes, the usual convention when plotting a phase diagram is to let the length of the phasors represent the peak values. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K