Understanding of Voltage potential

AI Thread Summary
Voltage potential terminology can be confusing, particularly regarding the notation Voa, which denotes the voltage of point "A" with respect to point "O." The "O" node is typically considered the reference or common node, often referred to as 'Ground,' even if not physically connected to the Earth. Consistency in sign definitions is crucial when applying Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) to avoid errors, especially in complex circuits with multiple current directions. While definitions may vary, maintaining clarity and consistency within a single analysis is essential for accurate results. Understanding these concepts is key to mastering voltage potential in electrical engineering.
PhysicsTest
Messages
246
Reaction score
26
TL;DR Summary
I want to understand the voltage potential
I am bit confused with voltage potential terminology again to basics
1691477770970.png

When it is referred as Voa it is Voltage of "o" wrt "a". Is it correct?
But other major question is
1691477865309.png

as per the document

I would have written KVL as Voa - I1 * Z = Vn. I am really confused with notation used.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
PhysicsTest said:
TL;DR Summary: I want to understand the voltage potential

When it is referred as Voa it is Voltage of "o" wrt "a". Is it correct?
Since all of the measurements are relative the the "O" node, i"O" is the 'reference' node (or 'common' node), this is often referred to as 'Ground', even if it is not connected to the actual Ground or Earth.

So VOA is Voltage of "A" wrt "O".

In general, the first subscript (in this case 'O') is the Reference point and the second subscript is the point being measured. Another way to remember it is 'from' and 'to' for the subscripts.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,
Tom
 
  • Like
Likes PhysicsTest
PhysicsTest said:
I would have written KVL as Voa - I1 * Z = Vn. I am really confused with notation used.
Me too. But as long as you are consistent with the sign definitions the equations will give you the correct answer regardless.
 
PhysicsTest said:
I would have written KVL as Voa - I1 * Z = Vn.
I too agree. But (though not an electrical engineer) can I add this.

Using ##V_{on} = V_{oa} + ZI_1## etc. is not consistent with the assumed current-directions shown in the diagram. It is not the usual practice in my experience. I would (as an ex-teacher) mark it wrong.

When setting up the equations, the signs in the equations must be consistent with the assumed current directions.

For example, in more complicated circuits with 'loops', different currents can flow through the same component. E.g. there might be ##I_4## flowing through a resistor in one direction and ##I_5## flowing through the same resistor in the opposite direction. In such situations, not following strict rules about the use signs can lead to errors. Is thecurrent through the resistor ##I_4+I_5, I_4-I_5, -I_4+I_5## or ##-I_4-I_5##? You need to be able to pick the correct one!
 
Tom.G said:
Since all of the measurements are relative the the "O" node, i"O" is the 'reference' node (or 'common' node), this is often referred to as 'Ground', even if it is not connected to the actual Ground or Earth.

So VOA is Voltage of "A" wrt "O".

In general, the first subscript (in this case 'O') is the Reference point and the second subscript is the point being measured. Another way to remember it is 'from' and 'to' for the subscripts.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,
Tom
In my experience, you will not find a consensus either way with this definition. The important thing is to be consistent within a single analysis and to understand as best as possible from the context which definitions are being used.

Again, the definitions of various polarities can be arbitrary, but strict consistency in their application is mandatory.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top