Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Unexpected phase shift in results

Parent

Unexpected phase shift in results

+1
−0

I find the current flowing through the capacitor

$$\begin{align} I_{C_1}(t)&=\dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left[V_1(t)-I_{C_1}(t)R_1\right] \\ {}&= \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left[\sin(t)-I_{C_1}(t)\right] \end{align}$$

and by solving this differential equation we get

$$I_{C_1}(t) = \dfrac{\sin(t)+\cos(t)-\mathrm{e}^{-t}}{2}$$

To find the voltage of the capacitor we use Ohm's law:

$$V_{C_1}(t) = V_1(t)-I_{C_1}(t)R_1 = \sin(t)-\cos(t)+\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{t}{2}}$$

Check me

But when I plot them on Desmos I get a phase shift of 90 degrees between voltage of the capacitor and current through the capacitor which doesnt make sense it should be 45 degrees what am I doing wrong?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+1
−1

There is a mistake in the last line: $$\eqalign{V_{C_1}(t) &= V_1(t) - RI_{C_1}(t) \cr &= \sin(t) - \dfrac{\sin(t) + \cos(t) - \mathrm{e}^{-t}}{2} \cr &= \dfrac{\sin(t) - \cos(t) + \mathrm{e}^{-t}}{2} \cr &= \dfrac{\cos(t-90^\circ) - [-\sin(t-90^\circ)] + \mathrm{e}^{-t}}{2}\cr &= \dfrac{\cos(t-90^\circ) + \sin(t-90^\circ) + \mathrm{e}^{-t}}{2}\cr &= I_{C_1}(t - 90^\circ)},$$ where the last equality is to be understood as true at the limit $t\to +\infty$, that is, it becomes more and more true as $t$ becomes large, as the "charging" term $e^{-t}$ vanishes.


I answer here to the comments of @Carloc, as this may be of some help for other persons.

You wrote that Vc1=Ic1, this is wrong, volts cannot be amperes.

Indeed, volts are not Ampere. But in physics (and electricity is part of physics), the intermediate computations are very often dimensionless, as you could seen in physics books.

In fact, this method is even used everywhere in theoretical physics to simplify the appearance of the computations: I quote here Wikipedia at Maxwell equations, section "Formulation in Gaussian units convention" (please, read the whole section there):

The definitions of charge, electric field, and magnetic field can be altered to simplify theoretical calculation, by absorbing dimensioned factors of ε0 and μ0 into the units of calculation, by convention. [...] The equations are particularly readable when length and time are measured in compatible units like seconds and lightseconds i.e. in units such that c = 1 unit of length/unit of time. [...]

There are many many other examples, but again, that's not the point here. The point is that writting dimensionless equations is the way problems are often solved and presented everywhere in the Academy.

You wrote cos(t-90°), this is wrong because the argument of trigonometric functions must be radiants, [continued below]

By definition $1^\circ = \pi/180$ rad, so $90^\circ = \pi/2$ rad. Notice that both radians and degrees are not units, but only a convention. Angles are essentially dimensionless in physics.

and t is seconds instead. The same (t-90°) is again wrong because you cannot add seconds and degrees.

Again, you are apparently unaware of the customs in electrical physics and electromagnetism, where the pulsation $\omega$ is normalized to 1 rad/s, and droped from the computations.

These points are mathematical truth, not my opinions.

Isolated from the context of the OP, these points are indeed true. But they turned to be pointless and even a burden in the context of theoretical problems, as they are solved in the academy, especially after the OP has noted the normalized values of the resistor, capacitors and frequencies in his schematic.


I would like also to address the answer of Olin. While there is nothing wrong in what he said (in fact, I'm pretty certain the OP knew the material there very well), this does not really apply here, as the voltage at the terminals of the cap is not sinusoidal. What the OP desired was a correct mathematical derivation, and to understand why his derivation disagreed with the simulation.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (12 comments)
General comments
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Why did this get downvoted?

carloc‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

I find it below what I feel an acceptable level answer. Beside the later edit taking into account the exp term, what I read is that some Vc1 equals a current, i.e. volts=amperes unit mismatch. Clear enough to experienced readers there must be some hidden 1ohm constant to fix it up. The same applies to seconds as argument of the sine and also to the sum of seconds and degrees. All this trivial mistakes should be corrected in the OP post explaining why and how and not repeated in the answer.

coquelicot‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@carloc. The OP had clearly indicated from the beginning that R1 = 1 Ohm (see the schematic, and that's also clear from the second equality at the beginning of the question). Similarly, the OP had clearly indicated that the frequency is 1 Hz (schematic again). Even without the schematic, this normalized frequency would be acceptable for a theoretical problem. /continued

coquelicot‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

But I've never seen that a person who answers should be punished because someone dislikes the question, especially after the question itself has not be downvoted !!! Really really strange at the least!

carloc‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

I don't feel the question can be down voted for mistakes, it's done just to get advice and eventually being corrected. I'd down vote a question only for being rude or trolling. On the other hand, in my opinion, if someone decides to answer he/she should try fix OP mistakes, otherwise the didactical purpose is lost. - Obviously nothing personal, I do respect your efforts.

coquelicot‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

@Carloc. So, you address the last part of my comment, but you consciously avoid to address the first part that proved there were no mistakes or mismatches in the question of the OP.

carloc‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

I didn't want to avoid anything, I just tried not to repeat myself, anyway:

  1. You wrote that Vc1=Ic1, this is wrong, volts cannot be amperes.
  2. You wrote cos(t-90°), this is wrong because the argument of trigonometric functions must be radiants , a pure number, and t is seconds instead.
  3. The same (t-90°) is again wrong because you cannot add seconds and degrees. These points are mathematical truth, not my opinions. I'm sad you somehow seem to feel me hostile, once more just wanted to talk
coquelicot‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@Carloc. I've edited my previous comment to make it less aggressive, as you seem to be honest. Regarding your last comment, see my new edits inside my answer.

coquelicot‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@Carloc. >>once more just wanted to talk. On the contrary, I was hostile because you didn't come to talk, but only come to downvote this answer. That's your prerogative, but really, there are better ways to do it. I am also tired because there is a troll with several accounts in that site who often downvotes my questions/answers. So, I tend to see him everywhere.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@Carloc: If you feel something is wrong and downvote, the author really deserves an explanation unless it's just a crackpost post (which I think we can agree is not the case here). That way the author knows what to address and who to ping in case the error is fixed (so that the downvoter can undo the downvote). Or, the author knows what issue to address in case the downvoter is wrong. Silent downvotes do this site a disservice.

coquelicot‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@Olin. Your last interventions are not only extremely welcome for the atmosphere here, but seem in fact necessary to avoid the spoilage of this site by trolls or like (not related to Carloc).

carloc‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@Olin I do agree the author deserves an explanation and I apologize for having given one only after your prompt. I was mislead by the apparently low activity in this thread. @coquelicot As far as the units are concerned nothing changes to me, those relations are wrong, of course feel free to write whatever answer you believe appropriate instead.