Understanding the Definition of Average Power in Sinusoidal Functions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of average power in sinusoidal functions, specifically why average power is typically calculated over one period. It highlights that averaging over a single period simplifies calculations and provides a long-time average, while averaging over a longer or arbitrary interval can yield different results. The example of the power function p(t) = 1/2(1 + cos(2x)) illustrates that the average power varies based on the interval chosen. It emphasizes that for accurate mean power calculations, the chosen period must be clearly defined, as different intervals can lead to varying outcomes. Ultimately, averaging over one period is a standard practice to achieve a reliable approximation of the mean power.
jakey
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
I am slightly confused by the definition of average power if the power function $p(t)$ is sinusoidal. Why is it that only one period is considered?

I mean I know that it simplifies calculations but if we assume that the period of $p(t)$ is $T$ and I compute the average power over $[0,\sqrt{2}T]$, I do not get the same result had I computed the average power over $[0,T].$

Case in point: If $p(t)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos(2x))$ then the average power is not the same for both cases mentioned...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you want to know the instantaneous power then you would use VI. For a mean power value, you could choose any period you liked, to integrate over, but you would need to state that period (absolute phase intervals). It seem perfectly reasonable to me to choose a single cycle (or any integral number) because it's the most likely thing that anyone else would do. Any other period would be arbitrary and could introduce a massive range of possible outcomes (as you seem to be finding).
 
so are you saying that this is simply a definition? I'm sorry but I still can't seem to understand it...so the average power based on this definition, then, is merely an approximation of the "real mean"?
 
Think how you'd tackle a 1kW electric heater. If you took the first 10ms of one cycle, the average power would be somewhat less. Would that make sense?
 
jakey said:
so are you saying that this is simply a definition? I'm sorry but I still can't seem to understand it...so the average power based on this definition, then, is merely an approximation of the "real mean"?

The "real" mean depends on how long you are averaging over the power. Averaging over one period gives the long-time average. If you were given a power function and asked the average power over a certain period of time, then you would average over just that time. If the period (of the power function) is short, you are probably interested in the average over many periods rather than one small random interval. The average over one period approximates this quite well.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top