Good explanation, but squaring a graph - say sin(x) - will not make the graph look the same with pure positive values, like the graph that appears around 3:32. Put sin^2(x) and |sin(x)| into a grapher and notice dy/dx differ by as much as 45 degrees near y=0. What you say, however, is precisely correct:)
The 0.707 multiplication value or division to the sqrt of 2 is only applicable to perfect sine wave form which gives a quick calculation or approximation to the RMS value. In the real world, wave forms has some distortion and you need to calculate based on the true RMS formula as per described in the video
AC is alternating current. It performs work when the voltage is positive *and* negative. This means that the standard mathematical average is an invalid measure of voltage or current. Instead, RMS is used. With RMS the quantity is first squared, to "flip" the negative to positive. It is then integrated, and finally, the square root is taken to remove the error caused by squaring.
AC is alternating current. It performs work when the voltage is positive *and* negative. This means that the standard mathematical average is an invalid measure of voltage or current. Instead, RMS is used. With RMS the quantity is first squared, to "flip" the negative to positive. It is then integrated, and finally, the square root is taken to remove the error caused by squaring.
@@AEMCInstruments but it isn't, an RMS is different from a numerically intigrated absolute value. I think he's wondering why this different value is mathematically valid
@@AEMCInstruments if the error was removed then the sum of the squares would be divided by the square of the period over which you've intigrated but that's not how an RMS is taken
Looks like he quared half the value using either half,but said we square the value.AC is a directional power by convention from negative to positive.AC has power coming and going it will turn a motor both ways.As students we need a different way of understanding electricity than convention teaches.It may be fine for the mathematics to say we have a negative voltage but the power is not negative and this leads to confusion.PS I am probably wrong as I am not versed in electronic or physics but this whole convention thing sucks confusion like a vacuum.
Finally, I find out what RMS means. Thank you so much.
Wow , i found very unique chennal
Your video finally cleard my doubts realated THD and this topic thanks
This video is uncomparable...totally incredible.....this actually cleared all my doubts.....aemc rocks....lots of love😀😁
As an EE instructor, very nice intro indeed!
Great explanation!
Glad it was helpful!
its really good way to exp;ain rms value
So nice
Incredible video. Thanks a lot.
Glad you liked it!
And again: super great video, thank you for your effort!!
Good explanation, but squaring a graph - say sin(x) - will not make the graph look the same with pure positive values, like the graph that appears around 3:32. Put sin^2(x) and |sin(x)| into a grapher and notice dy/dx differ by as much as 45 degrees near y=0. What you say, however, is precisely correct:)
C'mon Man.....Its 1.41...Use Calculator
Håkon Andreas Skjold p what is your real nick name
what a clear explanation, thank you so much!
You're very welcome!
great explanation thanks
wow this was really helpful
Excellent
Thanks
Thank you. Much appreciated.
You're welcome!
hi .Thanks for the detailed explanation
You are welcome!
Excellent. Thx!
True RMS method is suitable for distorted waves???
Yes, it is.
Great video
If taking the average RMS is peak mutiply by 0.707, what nmber will i multiply to get the true RMS from peak?
The 0.707 multiplication value or division to the sqrt of 2 is only applicable to perfect sine wave form which gives a quick calculation or approximation to the RMS value. In the real world, wave forms has some distortion and you need to calculate based on the true RMS formula as per described in the video
6:40 then what is 2nd harmonic?
vp is not the effective voltage while vrms is right ???? so we need to find out rms value ???
Correct. RMS is needed to calculate the effective voltage, not the peak.
Can this method can be use also in determining the RMS power of an amplifier?
Yes, for AC outputs.
Thank you
what is the need of Rms value? still it is not cleared to me. please.
AC is alternating current. It performs work when the voltage is positive *and* negative. This means that the standard mathematical average is an invalid measure of voltage or current. Instead, RMS is used.
With RMS the quantity is first squared, to "flip" the negative to positive. It is then integrated, and finally, the square root is taken to remove the error caused by squaring.
@@AEMCInstruments why cant we use max voltage or current .
Why R.M.S ??? How did they come to that conclusion
Thankx for the help:)
Perfect
☺️tiny#1💝
what is the need of Rms value? still it is not cleared to me.
AC is alternating current. It performs work when the voltage is positive *and* negative. This means that the standard mathematical average is an invalid measure of voltage or current. Instead, RMS is used.
With RMS the quantity is first squared, to "flip" the negative to positive. It is then integrated, and finally, the square root is taken to remove the error caused by squaring.
@@AEMCInstruments but it isn't, an RMS is different from a numerically intigrated absolute value. I think he's wondering why this different value is mathematically valid
@@AEMCInstruments if the error was removed then the sum of the squares would be divided by the square of the period over which you've intigrated but that's not how an RMS is taken
Still doesn't help me understand: why is RMS different from simple average of absolute value of signal readings.
You want to get the power equivalent for a constant voltage. You are constrained by the equations for power.
Looks like he quared half the value using either half,but said we square the value.AC is a directional power by convention from negative to positive.AC has power coming and going it will turn a motor both ways.As students we need a different way of understanding electricity than convention teaches.It may be fine for the mathematics to say we have a negative voltage but the power is not negative and this leads to confusion.PS I am probably wrong as I am not versed in electronic or physics but this whole convention thing sucks confusion like a vacuum.
So nice
Thanks
Excellent. Thx!