Well, some authors treat it as such. After all, it is a complex number.
Let Z = R + jwL = 100 + j100 = 141.4 @ 45
Now apply a voltage, 120VRms @ 0, the current is,
I = V/Z = (120Vrms @ 0)/(141.4 ohms) @ 45 = 0.849A @ -45
Well, some authors treat it as such. After all, it is a complex number. ...
Per IEEE 100, def 1, yes, by extension, even though strictly, they are not time dependent.IEEE 100 said:phasor
(1) (metering) A complex number, associated with sinusoidally varying electrical quantities, such that the absolute value (modulus) of the complex number corresponds to either the peak amplitude or rms value of the quantity, and the phase (argument) to the phase angle at zero time. By extension, the term ?phasor? can also be applied to impedance and related complex quantities that are not time-dependent. (ELM) C12.1-1988
(2) A complex number expressing the magnitude and phase of a time-varying quantity. Unless otherwise specified, it is used only within the context of steady-state alternating linear systems. In polar coordinates, it can be written as Aej
, where A is the amplitude or magnitude (usually rms, but sometimes indicated as peak value) and
is the phase angle. The phase angle
should not be confused with the space angle of a vector. See also: electric field strength. (T&D/PE) 644-1994
(3) A complex equivalent of a simple sine wave quantity such that the complex modulus is the sine wave amplitude and the complex angle (in polar form) is the sine wave phase angle.
IEEE 100 said:phasor notation
For monochromatic fields, the complex notation used in the expressions for field quantities with the exponential
time factor exp{jt}. For example, for plane waves
(r, t) Re{E(r, )exp(jt)}
where
(r, t) the instantaneous electric field
Re indicates the real part
E(r, ) the phasor notation for the electric field
(AP/PROP) 211-1997
IEEE 100 said:phasor quantity
(A) A complex equivalent of a simple sinewave quantity such that the modulus of the former is the amplitude A of the latter, and the phase angle (in polar form) of the former is the phase angle of the latter.
(B) Any quantity (such as impedance) that is expressed in complex form
IEEE 100 said:phasor power (rotating machinery)
The phasor representing the complex power. See also: asynchronous machine. (PE) [9] (2)
(A) (polyphase circuit) At the terminals of entry of a polyphase circuit into a delimited region, a phasor (or plane vector) that is equal to the (phasor) sum of the phasor powers for the individual terminals of entry when the voltages are all determined with respect to the same arbitrarily selected common reference point in the boundary surface (which may be the neutral terminal of entry). The reference direction for the currents and the reference polarity for the voltages must be the same as for instantaneous power, active power, and reactive
power. The phasor power for each terminal of entry is determined by considering each conductor and the common
(B) (single-phase two-wire circuit) At the two terminals of entry of a single-phase two-wire circuit into a delimited region, a phasor (or plane vector) of which the real component is the active power and the imaginary component is the reactive power at the same two terminals of entry. When either component of phasor power is positive, the direction of that component is in the reference direction. The phasor power S is given by S P jQ where P and Q are the active and reactive power, respectively. If both the voltage and current are sinusoidal, the phasor power is equal to the product of the phasor voltage and the conjugate of the phasor current.
That last is a bit messy, but anybody that is interested surely understands. And the exact representation is in IEEE 100.IEEE 100 said:phasor product (quotient)
A phasor whose amplitude is the product (quotient) of the amplitudes of the two phasors and whose phase angle is the sum (difference) of the phase angles
Fpp cos ( )
the phasor product is
AB |AB|ef(AB)
and the quotient is
A A ej(AB) B B
(Std100) 270-1966w
:lol::lol::lol:roger -
This should be the end of it. There is no more to say.
Well, some authors treat it as such. After all, it is a complex number.Let Z = R + jwL = 100 + j100 = 141.4 @ 45 Now apply a voltage, 120VRms @ 0, the current is,I = V/Z = (120Vrms @ 0)/(141.4 ohms) @ 45 = 0.849A @ -45
Power is a phasor
ice
The road goes on forever and the party never ends.These threads remind me of "The song that never ends" -- It goes on and on my friend.
You got that wrong. It's:
Sorry yes, but that issue is off topic
You got that wrong. It's:
Sorry yes, but that issue is off topic
But the general equation for p(t) has a dc offset? How can a phasor represent a dc offset?
Please refer to the comments in the other thread you started, but impedance is a vector, not a phasor. As was pointed out, all phasors are vectors, but not all vectors are phasors. There is no rotational component in impedance, so it cannot be a phasor (well it can, but the rotation is zero and it no longer fits in the same frequency domain).
As I stated in the thread that got closed last week, the difference between a vector and a phasor is that a phasor contains a suppressed rotational component. Phasor = rotating-vector = phasor. By suppressing the rotating component of a vector and giving it the new name "phasor" we can then intermingle the two for performing analysis.
You're welcome to take that approach, but that is the equivalent to reading CliffsNotes for a Shakespeare play. IEEE did not invent the concept of phasors. It is a math concept that is far broader than IEEE. I don't read Shakespeare, but if I did, I wouldn't base my knowledge on a CliffsNote.According to IEEE100, "phasor(1)(metering): Impedance can be considered a phasor.
Rick - you are pretty sharp. But I'll take the IEEE 100 definition over yours most days - okay any dy.
ice
According to IEEE100, "phasor(1)(metering): Impedance can be considered a phasor.
Rick - you are pretty sharp. But I'll take the IEEE 100 definition over yours most days - okay any dy.
ice
Rick -You're welcome to take that approach, but that is the equivalent to reading CliffsNotes for a Shakespeare play. IEEE did not invent the concept of phasors. It is a math concept that is far broader than IEEE. I don't read Shakespeare, but if I did, I wouldn't base my knowledge on a CliffsNote.
BTW, the word "considered" doesn't contradict what I said.
Why guess when one can look up the exact definitions. This is not philosophy.
roger -
This should be the end of it. There is no more to say.
Per IEEE 100, def 1, yes, by extension, even though strictly, they are not time dependent.
By def 2 and 3, no. So that is an unequivacable Who knows.
This one is good. It essentially says no.
And another vote for no or yes.
The next two are way off topic asides
Power is a phasor
And here is how it is calculated
That last is a bit messy, but anybody that is interested surely understands. And the exact representation is in IEEE 100.
ice
It is defined. It is defined in the broader field of Mathematics.Rick -
That doesn't make any since at all. Phasor is a word - that's all, just a word. It is a collection of letters. It needs a definition if it is to be used in communication. IEEE 100 provides definitions that are agreed upon by most authorities. IEEE not inventing the concept of phasors has no bearing on validity of the definition.
You want to redefine "phasor" to something other than the IEEE 100 definition - that's okay with me. But you should not count on anyone understanding what you mean when you make up your own definitions.
ice
rick -... Here's an analogy: ... how many of our members would be scrambling to their trucks to fabricate their best Romex noose. ...
So I mis-read it and it actually agrees with you. uh-hu :huh:... You misread your IEEE reference to say one thing, but it actually makes a broader statement that agrees with what i stated. ...
So IEEE only counts when it is convenient to your argument. okay :blink:...IEEE is no different. It is a reference to remind us of our education....not intended to supplant our education. It's a subset of what we should already know from our education. ....
However, I agree with this statement.... These published documents don't use words willy-nilly. Care must be taken when reading them.