1

enter image description here

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/harmonics.html

The problem with AC harmonics is that each term has a different frequency, being a integer factor of the first frequency. I was wondering if there was a way to conveniently express equations in AC harmonics in terms of phasors without any confusion. By that I mean, some additional detail would be added to indicate the frequency of each phasor so that it would be clear that they cannot be added together directly.

AndroidV11
  • 439
  • 4
  • 18

1 Answers1

1

Yes, that is fine. As long as you clearly label your different harmonic phasors so you don’t mix them up.

It is nothing more than a convenient short-hand description of the original harmonic content.

That is what I am doing in this example where I calculate the harmonic content of a transformer inrush current. I actually re-constructed the original waveform from the phasor data at the end (as a check).

Here was the inrush waveform (about 18 cycles worth at 60Hz): enter image description here

I did a sliding DFT across it so that at each sample point I computed the phasors for harmonics from fundamental up to Nyquist. Then, to make sure my approach was correct I took those phasors, and at each point, reconstructed the original waveform (below):

enter image description here

Remember that with my approach I am calculating a set of N/2 phasors (N was my sample rate) at each sample point along the waveform - a sliding window for the dft.

relayman357
  • 3,415
  • 1
  • 8
  • 20
  • I was wondering if there is some official notation of putting frequency or angular frequency in phasors. Regularly, you don't put that in phasors since it is implied you would work with phasors that have a common frequency. Is there anything like that? Or would it be probably too obscure and I'm better off making up my own modification of the phasor notation to introduce the frequency and be able to mix phasors of different frequencies? – AndroidV11 Jan 28 '21 at 23:58
  • I've never seen anything that could be called a "common notation" for such. I think you just come up with your own sub/super-script approach and footnote it so the next person will understand. – relayman357 Jan 29 '21 at 00:01