+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Full Member level 5
    Points: 2,632, Level: 11
    Achievements:
    7 years registered

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    266
    Helped
    11 / 11
    Points
    2,632
    Level
    11

    Clarification on RMS value

    The statement in wikipedia about RMS value is
    "For alternating electric current, RMS is equal to the value of the direct current that would produce the same average power dissipation in a resistive load." My understanding about the statement is, if a sine signal of peak value is 5V then its RMS value is 5/Sqrt(2) = 0.707*5 = 3.535Volts. The power it will dissipate in resistance for example 1 Ohm is (3.53) *(3.53) = 12.5Watts. Am I correct in my understanding? Please advise.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Points: 81,029, Level: 69
    Achievements:
    7 years registered
    Awards:
    Most Frequent Poster 3rd Helpful Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,431
    Helped
    3730 / 3730
    Points
    81,029
    Level
    69

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    Hi,

    Yes.
    The other way round:
    * 3.53V DC will cause the same power in a resistor as
    * 3.53V AC RMS, which - if pure sinewave - has an amplitude of 5.0V

    "If pure sinewave":
    RMS value is not related to sinewave only. You may use any random waveform, but then the relationship of: peak_value / RMS_value is not sqrt(2).

    Klaus
    Please don´t contact me via PM, because there is no time to respond to them. No friend requests. Thank you.


    1 members found this post helpful.

    •   AltAdvertisement

        
       

  3. #3
    Full Member level 6
    Points: 3,187, Level: 13
    Achievements:
    7 years registered

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    395
    Helped
    75 / 75
    Points
    3,187
    Level
    13

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	28.0 KB 
ID:	157032

    Ratch
    Hopelessly Pedantic



    •   AltAdvertisement

        
       

  4. #4
    Advanced Member level 5
    Points: 18,454, Level: 32
    Achievements:
    7 years registered

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,269
    Helped
    816 / 816
    Points
    18,454
    Level
    32

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratch View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	28.0 KB 
ID:	157032

    Ratch
    The correct statement will be over a complete period; not over half-cycles.



    •   AltAdvertisement

        
       

  5. #5
    Advanced Member level 2
    Points: 2,869, Level: 12

    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    523
    Helped
    138 / 138
    Points
    2,869
    Level
    12

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    c_mitra is correct, the integral should be over a full cycle
    0 to 2 pi, or -pi to pi or ...

    for signals other than sin, replace 5 sin(theta) with the appropriate other function

    the pi (should be 2 pi over a full cycle) in the denominator is from integral with same limits
    as integral in numerator, but the argument is 1, so can take divide the squared "sum" (integral)
    by the "number of things added up" (integral from 0 to 2pi d(theta)


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #6
    Full Member level 6
    Points: 3,187, Level: 13
    Achievements:
    7 years registered

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    395
    Helped
    75 / 75
    Points
    3,187
    Level
    13

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    Quote Originally Posted by wwfeldman View Post
    c_mitra is correct, the integral should be over a full cycle
    0 to 2 pi, or -pi to pi or ...

    for signals other than sin, replace 5 sin(theta) with the appropriate other function

    the pi (should be 2 pi over a full cycle) in the denominator is from integral with same limits
    as integral in numerator, but the argument is 1, so can take divide the squared "sum" (integral)
    by the "number of things added up" (integral from 0 to 2pi d(theta)
    As long as the wave form is symmetrical (after being displaced for half its period) about the x-axis, the interval need only be taken for its half-period. The correct value will still be obtained if the interval is a integral value of the half-period. See the example below where interval is 5 times the half period. If you go for the full cycle, then you are doing 2 times the half-period interval and getting the correct answer, but doing twice as much integration as necessary for a symmetrical wave.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.JPG 
Views:	2 
Size:	14.1 KB 
ID:	157039

    Ratch
    Last edited by Ratch; 24th December 2019 at 17:26.
    Hopelessly Pedantic



  7. #7
    Advanced Member level 2
    Points: 3,123, Level: 13

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    548
    Helped
    93 / 93
    Points
    3,123
    Level
    13

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    Ratch is right too. If the waveform is symmetrical, the the effect that the positive excursion has will be the same as that of the negative excursion.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Notice that he integrated for a half cycle and he averaged over a half cycle still.
    -------------
    --Akanimo.



    •   AltAdvertisement

        
       

  8. #8
    Newbie level 1
    Points: 43, Level: 1

    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    3
    Helped
    0 / 0
    Points
    43
    Level
    1

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    If Symettrical implies no DC component, then this is correct. Otherwise not.



  9. #9
    Full Member level 6
    Points: 3,187, Level: 13
    Achievements:
    7 years registered

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    395
    Helped
    75 / 75
    Points
    3,187
    Level
    13

    Re: Clarification on RMS value

    Mater of fact, as long as the waveform can be discerned to be symmetric with respect to its partial period, that is enough period needed to determine its RMS. For instance, a sinusoid can be determined to be symmetric from a quarter of its period. Therefore, its RMS can be calculated from a quarter period as shown below.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.JPG 
Views:	1 
Size:	12.9 KB 
ID:	157041

    As shown above, the RMS can be calculated from 0 to π/2 because a similiar symmetric sinusoid can be constructed from a quarter sinusoid by repositioning and flipping the quarter sinusoid areas.

    Ratch

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Swrmeter View Post
    If Symettrical implies no DC component, then this is correct. Otherwise not.
    Ifa DC component is present, square the DC value, square the symmetric RMS AC value, add the sums, then take the square root for the composite RMS DC-AC value.

    Ratch
    Hopelessly Pedantic



--[[ ]]--