SMath

8 likes in 172 posts.

Group: User

Hello,
I am getting the following:

Basile

#2 Posted: 6/24/2016 9:39:49 PM

992 likes in 1674 posts.

Group: User

Hi Basile.

That's is the expected way to work with smath.

To get the value of X.C you must to call the function after defining X.C with X.C(f)=

Best regards.

Alvaro.

#3 Posted: 6/24/2016 10:34:38 PM

8 likes in 172 posts.

Group: User

Alvaro,
Look to the left the of X.C , the X.L
Should behave the same?

Basile

#4 Posted: 6/24/2016 11:02:38 PM

992 likes in 1674 posts.

Group: User

Wrote
Alvaro,
Look to the left the of X.C , the X.L
Should behave the same?

Basile

Depending which version, it could be. I guess that must to be an election from author, this is, if eval functions in that way. The "not evaluation" option, as the attached picture, it's ok for me.

Best regards.

Alvaro.

#5 Posted: 6/24/2016 11:13:38 PM

8 likes in 172 posts.

Group: User

i am using

Basile

#6 Posted: 6/25/2016 12:46:19 AM

983 likes in 6866 posts.

Group: User

Same problem as before: you have no circuit, then no LC project.
The only thing you can do is calculate the resonance frequency: 'fo'
Then plot it as sin(fo)

#7 Posted: 6/25/2016 9:41:27 AM

8 likes in 172 posts.

Group: User

Jean,

I am calculating the reactance of the inductor and the capacitor at a frequency f.

Basile

#8 Posted: 6/25/2016 1:53:44 PM

983 likes in 6866 posts.

Group: User

In my times, pure L, C were strictly imaginary. Just by themselves they don't have much use
whereas there is no such thing as pure L , pure C. They both have physical resistiviy.

#9 Posted: 6/25/2016 6:30:56 PM

8 likes in 172 posts.

Group: User

Jean,

You are right that:
X.L=jωL
and
X.C=-j(1/ωC)
and the magnitude is that I calculate.

You can simply consider ideal elements without the loss resistance.

Basile

#10 Posted: 6/25/2016 9:51:28 PM

992 likes in 1674 posts.

Group: User

Hi Basile. That's isn't.

Correct XL and XC (reactances) are without j, as in your worksheets.

ZL and ZC (impedances) are with j.

Actually the total impedance is Z = R + jX, where X = XL + XC is the total reactance.

Best regards.

Alvaro.

#11 Posted: 6/26/2016 12:35:47 AM

8 likes in 172 posts.

Group: User

Alvaro,

You are confusing things.
What you say are correct but have to do nothing to do with the question.
X.L, X.C are reactance (with j or without j)

Z is impedance of R and X.

Basile

#12 Posted: 6/26/2016 1:03:00 AM

992 likes in 1674 posts.

Group: User

Wrote
Alvaro,

You are confusing things.
What you say are correct but have to do nothing to do with the question.
X.L, X.C are reactance (with j or without j)

Z is impedance of R and X.

Basile

Hi Basile. I don't confusing. Reactances ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance ) are reals and impedances ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance ) are complexes. So X.L, X.C can't have j.

About the numerical evaluation for a function, check this old post: http://en.smath.info/forum/yaf_postst640_Function-as-a-program.aspx

In X.L, X.C definitions as functions, f must to be a local variable. X.L(f) -> (symb evaluation) must to set the answer with "f", not with "100 Hz". And the numerical evaluation X.L(f) = must to be in red, as f as local variable isn't defined.

As a choice of the program writer, and what you can see in the last post of the above referenced, you can set all the local variables as globals with f(x) = 1*(line ... ). Actually I'm not comfortable with that behavoir, but is the choice of Andrei.

Best regards.

Alvaro.

#13 Posted: 6/26/2016 2:01:29 AM

983 likes in 6866 posts.

Group: User

Just like this Basile, for a family of "C's"
at a fixed frequency 8 the magenta line.
On the plot, 'f' => 'x'.

#14 Posted: 6/26/2016 2:59:10 PM

8 likes in 172 posts.

Group: User

Jean,
Yes, I can plot X.C(f) and X.L(f) but if I try to plot the difference or take the aritmetic difference does not work.
Please see figure and figure in post #1 on top, if it helps.

Basile

#15 Posted: 6/26/2016 7:42:21 PM