Why Does My Inductive Impedance Calculation Seem Incorrect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thepipersson80
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Head
thepipersson80
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

Firstly I apologise that I'm even asking this... I have gone over it so many times now I don't know what to believe is the right answer, can someone please help me out and let me know where I'm going wrong PLEASE

Ok so first is the inductive impedance

Z= SQRT R^2 + (WL)^2

R = 2.7*10^6 2.7MΩ
W= 2piF = 2pi*10 2pi*10Hz
L= 300*10^-3 300mH

R^2 = 7.29*10^12
WL = 18.84955592 WL^2 = 355.3057584
R^2+WL^2 = 7.29*10^12 + 355.3057584 =7.29*10^12

How can that be right? I may of well just squared R to start with... so what am I doing wrong?

Second,

Impedance in RLC circuits

Z= SQRT R^2 +(Xl - Xc)2

W = 2piF = 628318.5307

F = 100*10^3 = 100000
C = 300*10^-6 = 3*10^-4
L = 300*10^-3 = 0.3
R = 2.7*10^6 = 2700000
Xl = WL = 188495.5592
Xc = 1/WC = 5.30516477*10-3

so R^2 +(Xl - XC)^2 = 7.325530574*10^12 and to me that just does not seem the right answer??

Can you guys see where I would be going wrong? and if so how do I put it into my calculator?
Many thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Why do you think you are doing something wrong? The reactance factors are frequency dependent. What you have learned is that at 10Hz (a very low frequency) the reactive elements have very little effect. Try higher frequencies.

Side note. Do NOT copy every digit off of your calculator display. It would do you much good to find a explanation of significant digits. This bit of work will save you time and effort in the future.
 
I just don't think it's right? and when I go to a online calculator I get different answers.

My maths is not that great to say the least, so to be honest I don't know what is significant and what isn't (sorry)
 
thepipersson80 said:
I just don't think it's right? and when I go to a online calculator I get different answers.

My maths is not that great to say the least, so to be honest I don't know what is significant and what isn't (sorry)
Don't forget to take the square root, to end up with Z.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top