Zeke Smith

PHY 224

Final Exam

Lab EM-6

Introduction / Theory:

Voltage sources of alternating polarity can be created by rotating a coil inside of an

external magnetic field. Voltages of alternating polarity produce a current that alternates in its

direction, so circuits of such a nature are hence called “alternating current” (ac) circuits.

Alternating current circuits are widely accepted as the most useful due to the fact that they permit

the usage of transformers that can raise or lower voltages to correspond with changes in current,

allowing the product of the two values to remain constant. This has a practical application in that

transformers allow us to reduce voltages to safe values in buildings that humans are likely to

come into contact with circuits. The objective of this lab is to validate the theoretical relationship

with the resonant behavior of ac circuits and confirm the models for capacitive and inductive

reactance. The lab will also make use of the phasor technique used to add voltages in series ac

circuits.

For this lab we will be working with a series RLC circuit (a circuit containing a resistor,

inductor, and capacitor). At any moment, every component of the circuit must have the same

amount of current flowing through it. In order to conserve energy, the sum of voltage drops

across each individual part of the circuit must add up to the total voltage across the circuit for

every moment as well, as described by the following equation.

𝑣(𝑡) = 𝑣𝑅 (𝑡) + 𝑣𝐿 (𝑡) + 𝑣𝐶 (𝑡)

Though the current is the same for every element of the circuit, the resistor is the only

component that is in phase with the current. The voltage drop of the inductor leads the current by

90⁰ while the voltage drop of the capacitor is 90⁰ behind the current. In order to obtain the total

voltage across all of these components at a given moment, we need to take the instantaneous sum

of each voltage drop. This summation requires a vector approach using a phasor diagram. Phasor

diagrams allow us to make visual depictions of each voltage drop in relationship to one another

and take the sum of each individual component’s voltage drop to obtain the total voltage drop by

using the Pythagorean Theorem.

𝑉 = √𝑉𝑅2 + (𝑉𝐿 − 𝑉𝐶 )2 (where the capacitor’s voltage drop is along the negative y-axis)

Using this formula, we find that the combined reactance and resistance of the circuit, known as

the impedance is found using the following math model.

𝑍 ≡ √𝑅 2 + (𝑋𝐿 − 𝑋𝐶 )2

This model for impedance accounts for the different phases of the voltage drops by modeling

them as vectors, which is why we must use this model rather than the traditional version of

Ohm’s Law (V=IR).

One noteworthy aspect about RLC circuits is that, due to the phase nature of the

components’ voltages, there is a specific frequency at which the voltages across the inductor and

capacitor cancel one another out. This is called the resonance frequency for which XL = XC.

Using this basic equality, we can derive the following expression for the resonance frequency.

1
𝜔𝑜 = 2𝜋𝑓 =
√𝐿𝐶
Since the capacitive reactance and inductive reactance cancel one another out at the resonance

frequency, the total impedance is at its minimum for this frequency, which means the current

reaches a maximum at the same frequency.

Methods:

Due to extenuating circumstances, we did not get the opportunity to perform the

experiments and record the measurements for ourselves in this lab. Instead we were provided

with measurements for the values of the resistor, capacitor, inductor, as well as voltages across

each component and the total circuit obtained at varying frequencies. These measurements were

made, of course, using an RLC circuit with a function generator attached that was capable of

varying the voltage and holding it relatively constant for extended periods that allowed

measurements to be taken of the voltages across each respective component.

Discussion of Results:

Listed below are the measurements provided for the values of each circuit component.

R = 2.91 ± 0.01 k

C = 1.10 ± 0.06 F

L = 30 mH

Resonant Frequency = 850 ± 10 Hz

In order to continue with this lab, the first necessary step was to calculate the current for

each frequency. By recognizing that the current varies with frequency, and is dependent on the

model V r = I R, I was able to calculate the current at each frequency by using the provided data

for the voltage across the resistor at each frequency as well as the resistance of the resistor in the
circuit. Below is a table of the values of voltages across each component along with the current

for each frequency. The voltages all have an uncertainty of ± 0.1 mV, while the currents have an

uncertainty of 0.05 μA. This uncertainty is an average obtained by factoring in the uncertainties

of R and VR.

Frequency (Hz) V r (mV) VC (mV) VL (mV) V total (mV) I (μA)

98.59 12.8 10 0.6 16.75 4.3
200.77 14.4 5.5 0.7 15.98 4.95
300.56 14.7 3.8 0.7 15.79 5.05
399.56 14.9 2.8 0.8 15.72 5.12
499.54 14.9 2.3 0.9 15.69 5.12
600.16 15 1.9 1 15.68 5.15
700.28 15 1.6 1.1 15.67 5.15
800.33 15 1.4 1.2 15.66 5.15
899.95 15.1 1.2 1.3 15.66 5.29
1000.58 15.1 1.1 1.4 15.67 5.29
1100 15.1 0.9 1.8 15.67 5.29
1203.8 15.1 0.8 1.7 15.67 5.29
1300 15.1 0.7 1.8 15.69 5.29
1399.98 15.1 0.7 1.9 15.68 5.29
1507.5 15.1 0.6 2 15.69 5.29
1600 15.1 0.5 2.1 15.7 5.29
1700.3 15.1 0.4 2.3 15.7 5.29
1803.6 15.2 0.4 2.4 15.71 5.22
1900.9 15.2 0.3 2.5 15.72 5.22
2000.02 15.2 0.3 2.6 15.73 5.22
3000.23 15.1 0.1 3.8 15.85 5.29
4010.39 14.9 0.1 4.9 15.98 5.12
5008.5 14.6 0.1 6 16.18 5.02
6000.1 14.3 0.1 7 16.34 4.91
7005.2 13.9 0.1 7.9 16.53 4.78
8008.2 13.3 0.1 8.8 16.75 4.57
9002.7 12.8 0.1 9.5 16.94 4.4
10093 12.2 0.1 10.2 17.17 4.19
Table 1. Voltages for Varying Frequencies

After calculating the current at each given frequency, I was then able to find both the

capacitive and inductive reactance (X C and X L respectively) using the math models X C = V C / I
and X L = V L / I. Because each of these models is dependent upon current, and current is

dependent upon frequency, I knew each reactance would depend upon frequency. With this in

mind, I created a plot of both the capacitive and inductive reactance as functions of frequency.

Below are the plots for both.

Graph 1. Inductive Reactance

Recognizing the model for inductive reactance can be written as X L ≡ 2 π f L, I was able

to use the plot above to validate the manufacturer’s claim of a value of 30 mH for the inductance

of the inductor used in the RLC circuit. Since the slope is X L / f, it should be equal to 2 π L.

0.2324 ± 0.0017  s
=𝐿
2𝜋

L = 36.99 ± 0.27 mH
The uncertainty for this value was taken by simply using the one provided by the linear

regression, which is more precise than a manual calculated uncertainty, because linear

regressions must account for every single data point simultaneously. I performed the same

operations to the uncertainty that I did to the inductance value in order to adjust the provided

uncertainty of the slope to match the inductance value.

After plotting the inductive reactance as a function of frequency, I did the same we

capacitive reactance, however capacitive reactance required a little more attention, as plotting it

in the way I plotted inductive reactance does not naturally produce a straight line. To address this
1
complication, I considered the math model X c ≡ 2𝜋𝑓𝐶 . Using this model, I realized I had to

1
graph 𝑓 on the x-axis rather than just f.
 Graph 2. Capacitive Reactance

This plot validates the math model for capacitive reactance for low frequencies, as the

data points for low frequencies generally adhere to a straight line that, within a reasonable

uncertainty, passes through the origin.

However, it does not suggest that at higher frequencies the capacitive reactance adheres to the

straight line that it should. The data points for the larger values of 1/f , or smaller values of f,

visibly adhere to a line that suggests a strong correlation. At the smaller values of 1/f though, the

same cannot be said. Below is an image that displays how for larger frequencies, the capacitive

reactances do not appear to verify the model used to plot them. Clearly, at the bottom of the

graph, there are numerous high frequency value points that do not align well with the linear trend

of the rest of the plot

Graph 3. Capacitive Reactance: high frequency deviation

 The slope for the plot above is X C f . With this knowledge, I was able to calculate the

capacitance for the capacitor in the RLC circuit used in the experiment.

1
𝑋𝐶 =
2𝜋𝑓𝐶

1
=𝐶
2𝜋( 232000 ± 1743 /s)

C = 0.686 ± 0.052 𝜇𝐹

For the uncertainty for the calculated capacitance obtained by the plot, I again made use of the

uncertainty provided by the graph, and included in my calculations in order to adjust it to the

capacitance value rather than the slope value. Below is a statistical comparison between the

value from capacitance obtained graphically and the provided, measured value.

(1.10 𝜇𝐹 − 0.686 𝜇𝐹)

= 3.6 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
0.06 𝜇𝐹 + 0.052 𝜇𝐹

Considering the graphically obtained value and the measured value are within a more or less

reasonable agreement with one another (although typically I’d prefer if they showed stronger

agreement), the best determination for the actual capacitance of the capacitor in the RLC circuit

would be the average of these values, and the uncertainty for this value would be half the

difference between them (i.e. the standard deviation between two measurements.)

C avg. = (1.10 μF + 0.686 μF) / 2 unc. C avg = (1.10 μF − 0.686 μF) / 2

C avg.= 0.893 ± 0.207 μF

Using this as my accepted capacitance value for the capacitor used in the circuit, I made a

comparison with the manufacturer’s claimed value to determine whether their claim of 1 μF

for the value of capacitance on their capacitor was accurate. Below is the statistical comparison.

(1.0 𝜇𝐹 − 0.893 𝜇𝐹)

= 0.52 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
0.207 𝜇𝐹

Based off of the small discrepancy between the manufacturer’s value for capacitance and the

value that I calculated, I have verified that their claim is accurate within a reasonable degree of

uncertainty.

Having obtained multiple capacitance values, I was able to use these values, along with

the measured resonant frequency to determine a value for the inductor. In order to do so, I made

use of the following math model.

1
𝜔0 = 2𝜋𝑓𝑜 =
√𝐿𝐶

1
𝐿 = 𝐶(2𝜋𝑓 )2
𝑜

1
𝐿=
(0.893𝑥10−6 𝐹)(2𝜋(850𝐻𝑧))2

𝑢𝑛𝑐. 𝐿 10 𝐻𝑧 0.207𝑥10−6 𝐹
= +
𝐿 850 𝐻𝑧 0.893𝑥10−6 𝐹

L = 39.3 ± 9.56 mH

In order to determine whether this inductance value was in agreement with the one determined

from the plot earlier I made a statistical comparison.

(39.3 𝑚𝐻−36.99 𝑚𝐻)

=0.24 standard deviations
9.56𝑚𝐻+0.27 𝑚𝐻
The comparison between the value obtained by the plot and the value obtained by using the math

model of resonant frequency and capacitance great statistical accuracy, as there was a minimal

discrepancy between the two values. Using a similar procedure to that which I used for

capacitance, I took the average of the two inductance determinations be my accepted value, and

half of their difference to be the uncertainty.

L avg. = (39.3 𝑚𝐻 + 36.99 𝑚𝐻) / 2 unc. L avg = (39.3 𝑚𝐻 − 36.99 𝑚𝐻) / 2

L avg.= 38.14 ± 1.16 mH

After obtaining a confident determination for the inductance using two different values obtained

two different ways, I made a statistical comparison to the manufacturer’s claim of 30 mH for the

value of the inductor.

(38.14 𝑚𝐻−30.0 𝑚𝐻)

= 7.02 standard deviations
1.16 𝑚𝐻

The comparison showed that there was significant discrepancy between the manufacturer’s

claimed value, and the determination that I made. Accounting for this discrepancy, I performed a

calculation to show approximately what “percentage-tolerance” the manufacturers should

warrant for their product.

(38.14 𝑚𝐻−30.0 𝑚𝐻)

100 𝑥 = 21.3 %
38.14 𝑚𝐻

Based off the determination that I made for the inductance value of the manufacturer’s inductor,

they should quote approximately 22% or more of a “percent-tolerance” for their product.
 After working with the capacitance and inductance of the circuits along with the

reactance caused by these circuit elements, I explored the voltage for the circuit at different

frequencies. I wanted to verify that the phasor method for adding voltages consistently adds up to

the total voltage over the circuit. The math model for this method is as follows:

𝑉𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = √𝑉𝑅2 + (𝑉𝐿 − 𝑉𝐶 )2

Using this phasor technique, I added up the voltages at a low frequency (499.54 Hz), a medium

frequency (2000.02 Hz), and moderately high frequency (6000.01 Hz).

499.54 Hz:

𝑉𝑙𝑜𝑤, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = √14.9𝑚𝑉 2 + (0.9𝑚𝑉 − 2.3𝑚𝑉)2

𝑢𝑛𝑐. 14.92 0.1 𝑚𝑉 𝑢𝑛𝑐. (0.9−2.3)2 0.2 𝑚𝑉

= 2 14.9𝑚𝑉 = 2 (0.9−2.3)𝑚𝑉 (uncertainty of squared values)
14.92 (0.9−2.3)2

𝑢𝑛𝑐. (14.9𝑚𝑉 2 + (0.9𝑚𝑉 − 2.3𝑚𝑉)2 ) = 2.98 𝑚𝑉 + 0.28 𝑚𝑉 (adding squared value uncertainties)

𝑢𝑛𝑐.𝑉𝑙𝑜𝑤, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 1 3.26 𝑚𝑉

= 2 223.97 𝑚𝑉 (final uncertainty accounting for square root)
𝑉𝑙𝑜𝑤, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑

𝑉𝑙𝑜𝑤, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 14.97 ± 0.11 mV

Comparison of predicted and measured value:

15.69 𝑚𝑉−14.97 𝑚𝑉
= 3.71 standard deivations
0.11 𝑚𝑉+0.1 𝑚𝑉

2000.02 Hz:

𝑉𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = √15.2𝑚𝑉 2 + (2.6𝑚𝑉 − 0.3𝑚𝑉)2

𝑢𝑛𝑐. 15.22 0.1 𝑚𝑉 𝑢𝑛𝑐. (2.6−0.3)2 0.2 𝑚𝑉
= 2 15.2𝑚𝑉 = 2 (2.6−0.3)𝑚𝑉 (uncertainty of squared values)
15.22 (2.6−0.3)2

𝑢𝑛𝑐. (15.2𝑚𝑉 2 + (2.6𝑚𝑉 − 0.3𝑚𝑉)2 ) = 3.04 𝑚𝑉 + 0.92 𝑚𝑉 (adding squared value uncertainties)

𝑢𝑛𝑐.𝑉𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑚, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 1 3.96 𝑚𝑉

= 2 236.33 𝑚𝑉 (final uncertainty accounting for square root)
𝑉𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑚, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑

𝑉𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑚, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 15.37 ± 0.13 mV

Comparison of predicted and measured value:

15.73 𝑚𝑉−15.37 𝑚𝑉
= 1.57 standard deviations
0.13 𝑚𝑉+0.1 𝑚𝑉

6000.01 Hz:

𝑉𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = √14.3𝑚𝑉 2 + (7.0𝑚𝑉 − 0.1𝑚𝑉)2

𝑢𝑛𝑐. 14.32 0.1 𝑚𝑉 𝑢𝑛𝑐. (7.0−0.1)2 0.2 𝑚𝑉

= 2 14.3𝑚𝑉 = 2 (7.0−0.1)𝑚𝑉 (uncertainty of squared values)
14.32 (7.0−0.1)2

𝑢𝑛𝑐. (14.3𝑚𝑉 2 + (7.0𝑚𝑉 − 0.1𝑚𝑉)2 ) = 2.86 𝑚𝑉 + 2.76 𝑚𝑉 (adding squared value uncertainties)

𝑢𝑛𝑐.𝑉ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 1 5.62 𝑚𝑉

= 2 252.1 𝑚𝑉 (final uncertainty accounting for square root)
𝑉ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑

𝑉ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 15.88 ± 0.18 mV

Comparison of predicted and measured value:

16.34 𝑚𝑉−15.88 𝑚𝑉
= 1.64 standard deviations
0.1 𝑚𝑉+0.18 𝑚𝑉
Conclusion:

Considering that the medium and high frequency measured V total values were within very

reasonable statistical discrepancies of the value obtained using the phasor addition method, the

data in this report and the calculations I performed demonstrate that, for high and medium

frequencies, the phasor technique is an effective way of predicting the total voltage for an RLC

circuit by accounting for the capacitance’s trailing voltage and the inductance’s leading voltage

with respect to the current.

For the low frequency voltage, the measured V total had a notable discrepancy from the

value I obtained using the given data and the phasor technique. Assuming the provided voltages

were collected properly and effectively, this report suggests that the phasor technique is not an

ideal way to predict the total voltage in a circuit. Though the discrepancy wasn’t enormous, it

was certainly enough to suggest that, for low frequencies, the phasor technique may not be the

best method to use for practical applications.

1
Another noteworthy discovery from this lab, was that the math model 𝑋𝐶 = 2𝜋𝑓𝐶 was

shown to be invalid for very high frequencies based off the measurements provided. This was

shown by using a linear plot. The same was not shown to be true for the math model for

inductive reactance.