Understanding the Derivation of Complex Impedance in AC Circuits

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the derivation of complex impedance in AC circuits, specifically addressing the relationship between voltage and current expressed in both time and phasor domains. It clarifies that while the equations for voltage and current are correct, expressing them as real parts of complex exponentials can be confusing. The impedance is defined as Z = V/I, with a focus on understanding the distinction between time-domain and frequency-domain representations. Participants emphasize the importance of recognizing that phasor representations are not equal to their time-domain counterparts but are related through transformations. The conversation concludes with a consensus on the need for clarity in mathematical expressions to avoid confusion.
Apteronotus
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
I have a quick question regarding how the complex impedance of an AC circuit is derived.

The voltage and current in an AC circuit are given by the equations
<br /> V=V_{m}cos(\omega t) = V_{m}Re(e^{i\omega t}) <br />

<br /> I=I_{m}cos(\omega t-\phi) = I_{m}Re(e^{i(\omega t-\phi)})<br />

The impedance is given by
<br /> Z = \frac{V}{I}} = \frac{V_{m}Re(e^{i\omega t})}{I_{m}Re(e^{i(\omega t - \phi)})}<br />
Some online resources state that
<br /> Z=\frac{V_{m}}{I_{m}}e^{i\phi}<br />

Do they actually mean that
<br /> Z=\frac{V_{m}}{I_{m}}Re(e^{i\phi})<br />?

if so...
<br /> \frac{Re(e^{i\omega t})}{Re(e^{i(\omega t - \phi)})}\neq Re(\frac{e^{i\omega t}}{e^{i(\omega t - \phi)}})<br />

What am I failing to see?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok.. I think I've figured it out. For the benefit of others stumbling on this or similar problems, here's my attempt at a solution. I would be happy if anyone could confirm this

The voltage and current given by
<br /> V=V_{m}cos(\omega t) = V_{m}Re(e^{i\omega t}) <br />

<br /> I=I_{m}cos(\omega t-\phi) = I_{m}Re(e^{i(\omega t-\phi)})<br />

have the Phasor Representation
<br /> V \rightarrow V_{m}<br />​
and

<br /> I \rightarrow I_{m}e^{-i\phi}<br />

Though the impedance Z is given by
<br /> Z = \frac{V}{I}} = \frac{V_{m}Re(e^{i\omega t})}{I_{m}Re(e^{i(\omega t - \phi)})}<br />
its phasor representation is given by
<br /> Z = \frac{V}{I}} \rightarrow \frac{V_{m}}{I_{m}e^{-i\phi}}<br />
 
this should probably go to the Electrical Engineering forum, but makes no difference to me.

Apteronotus said:
I have a quick question regarding how the complex impedance of an AC circuit is derived.

The voltage and current in an AC circuit are given by the equations
<br /> V=V_{m}cos(\omega t) = V_{m}Re(e^{i\omega t}) <br />

<br /> I=I_{m}cos(\omega t-\phi) = I_{m}Re(e^{i(\omega t-\phi)})<br />

now you realize that the 2nd or right-hand equal signs in both equations are wrong, do you?

edit: oooops, i didn't see the "Re" in there. so the equations are not wrong, but expressing a real sinusoid as the real part of the complex exponential is a bit clunky (and i take issue with the pedagogical reasoning behind it in beginner's textbooks).

i would express it as this:

v(t) = V \cos(\omega t + \phi) = \frac{1}{2} \left( V e^{i (\omega t + \phi)} + V e^{-i (\omega t+\phi)} \right)

= \frac{1}{2} \left( (Ve^{i \phi}) e^{i \omega t} + (Ve^{-i \phi}) e^{-i \omega t} \right)= \frac{1}{2} \left( \mathbf{V} e^{i \omega t} + \mathbf{V}^* e^{-i \omega t} \right)so that the understanding is that for every real sinusoid, there is a positive-frequency component and a negative-frequency component. it's not hard to see that whatever happens to the positive-frequency component, precisely the same happens to the negative-frequency component except it's the complex conjugate of what was done to the positive-frequency component. to get the real result, in a linear electric circuit, we apply superposition and ask what happens if we just send the positive-frequency component through the circuit (what happens with the negative is not different, but a "mirror image" so nothing is new when investigating that).

v(t) = \mathbf{V} e^{i \omega t}

you will notice that for every R, L, and C in the circuit that both the current and the voltage on every element is some constant times the same complex exponential e^{i \omega t}, so that factor (which is never zero) is factored out of all of the R, L, C volt-amp equations and it's factored out of the Kirchofff's Current Law equation for every node and out of the Kirchoff's Voltage Law for every loop. then you have simpler algebraic (with some complex terms) equations that have no function of time in them.

The impedance is given by
<br /> Z = \frac{V}{I}} = \frac{V_{m}Re(e^{i\omega t})}{I_{m}Re(e^{i(\omega t - \phi)})}<br />
Some online resources state that
<br /> Z=\frac{V_{m}}{I_{m}}e^{i\phi}<br />

Do they actually mean that
<br /> Z=\frac{V_{m}}{I_{m}}Re(e^{i\phi})<br />?

if so...
<br /> \frac{Re(e^{i\omega t})}{Re(e^{i(\omega t - \phi)})}\neq Re(\frac{e^{i\omega t}}{e^{i(\omega t - \phi)}})<br />

What am I failing to see?

what you need to do is play a little less "fast and loose" with the math. there are time-domain expressions of voltage and current (both as a function of time), and then there are "phasor" or frequency-domain representations of sinusoidal voltage and current signals. usually we use small-case letters for the time-domain functions (like v(t)) and the corresponding large-case letters for their frequency-domain counterparts (like \mathbf{V} or V(i \omega)). they map to each other, but they are not equal. there's a transformation in between in there.
 
Last edited:
Thank you kindly for your reply rb-j.
I did not realize that the equations
<br /> V_{m}cos(\omega t) = V_{m}Re(e^{i\omega t}) <br />

<br /> I_{m}cos(\omega t-\phi) = I_{m}Re(e^{i(\omega t-\phi)})<br />
are wrong. In fact I'm not sure why the would be, given that V_{m} and I_{m} are just real numbers.

Also, the transformation that you alluded to, is it
v(t)=Re(Ve^{i \omega t}).

Knowing that small-case letters represent time-domain functions and upper-case their frequency-domain counterparts saves me a lot confusion. Thank you.
 
Looks like you were already ahead of me.
Thank you again for your help.
:)
 
well, now i think i corrected all of my mistakes, so i hope the confusion is reduced.
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
730
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K