Talk:Phasor notation

	Mathematics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Electrical engineering

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles

Does anyone know how an expression such as "4 + j4" can be converted into the angle notation form "5.66 ∠ 44°" ??? Fresheneesz 20:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea... i figured it out.. Fresheneesz 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

errors

The line:

Ae^{i\theta _{1}}\times Be^{i\theta _{2}}=X_{1}X_{3}-Y_{1}Y_{3}+i(X_{1}Y_{3}+X_{3}Y_{1})\,\!

should be:

Ae^{i\theta _{1}}/Be^{i\theta _{2}}=X_{1}X_{3}-Y_{1}Y_{3}+i(X_{1}Y_{3}+X_{3}Y_{1})\,\!

And this statement:

In the field of signal processing, much of the math involves multiplying or dividing sometimes large matrices of complex numbers. In such cases, phasor notation can be applied for significant computational speedup.

is incorrect, because addition cannot be done in polar form.

--Bob K (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Product of phasors is an illegal operation

Come to think of it, why are we even talking about products and quotients of phasors? Those non-linear operations are illegal for phasors. There really isn't much to say about angle notation. Are we just trying to justify its existence as an article? Is there a rule against short articles?

--Bob K (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is too short. Please revert to the 6 June 2007 version (or at least merge that information). I looked at the current version and did not find a clear explanation of what I needed until I looked back at the history. The 6 June 2007 version is the most recent version with what I needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.200.217 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing "missing" is the conversion from rectangular to polar coordinates, which isn't the subject of this article. So that info was replaced by a link to another article.

--Bob K (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]