Why is the phase angle not just -90 degrees?

Cyrus
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
17
Can someone show me how they got this:

\frac{\omega_n^2}{-\omega^2+j2 \zeta \omega_n \omega}

Has this phase:

-90-tan^{-1} \frac{ \omega}{2 \zeta \omega_n}

Why isn't it simply:

0 -tan^{-1} \frac{- 2 \zeta \omega_n}{ \omega}
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi Cyrus. Look at the denominator, it's phase is clearly a "second quadrant" angle. Inverse tan however only covers quadrands I and IV, so you want to express it as 180 - invtan(2 zeta omega_n / omega) right.

Now you're right to do what you did next, subtract the phase of the denom from the phase of the num to get :

-180 + invtan(2 zeta omega_n / omega).

Now just use invtan(x) = 90 - invtan(1/x) to get the desired expression.

BTW. Sorry that I'm too lazy to latex today, I hope you can follow it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks uart!

Im so used to using arctan2() command in MATLAB that I forgot all this stuff.
 
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