Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: "Phil Newman" <phillenium2002@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Feb 2007 02:04:01 -0800
On 21 Feb, 00:11, max...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:37 pm, "john jardine" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<max...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1171928681.715064.75550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 19, 6:14 pm, "john jardine" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Phil Newman" <phillenium2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1171898397.535879.120540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
L),If your X is frequency invariant then it is a resistor.
If you have L C R in series (where R can be the resistance of the
then in resonance you will see R (real).
R also sets the Q factor of your series circuit, so its bandwidth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLC_circuit
thanks for your answer.
However, I beleive the job of the susceptance/reactance is to shift
the resonant frequency of the LC series from w = 1 to another
frequency, which denotes the transmission zero of the filter.
Phil
just aIt's very difficult to understand the wording.
It is possible to drop the resonant frequency to say 0.5 Rads, using
resistance. Maybe that's what's wanted in this case.
john
To drop the res freq you increase the inductance and/or capacitance.
Increasing resistance increases the bandwidth not the resonant
(center) frequency. Reactance is XL=2*pi*F*L, XC=1/(2*pi*F*C), so
changing the reactance requires change L, C, or F.
Yes. But ... It's not the size of that resistor that's the problem, it's
knowing where to put it!.
As example, for a parallel tuned circuit we always go ...
Fres=1/2*pi*root (L/C). Fine, no problem!.
It's not correct. The true formula is ...
Fres=1/2*pi* root(1/L*C-R^2/L^2). [a ballache to use so we don't]
But ... look how that coil resistance "R" has slimed itself in and
ingratiated itself with the resonant frequency. (only rears it's head at
very very low Q values ). That "R" can become big enough to noticeably
poison the reactive effect of the inductor and drop the Fres.
Idle thought could suggest maybe it's not unreasonable that a series tuned
circuit, which is a kind of inversion of a parallel one, might for a similar
reason also suffer an "R" caused resonant frequency shift. I.e same lousy Q
and lower Fres.
In this case (as you note), the "R" can have no Fres effect if in series
with the inductor, so maybe it needs to go in ... with the ... :)
(Dragged out I know but I'm constantly surprised at the number of ways a few
RCL components can be put together yet offer distinct features)
john
Don't think so..., resistor placement is for microwave this is
subsonic (0.160Hz),It's an impedance mismatch problem between stages,
just do a simple norton transform to match 'em up.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks, how can I do this? my network theory isn't great.
basically, I've been using the equation Lw^2 + Xw + 1/C to find the
resonant frequency, and then using w^2 = 1/LC to calculate the new
values of L or C.
This works in terms of shifting the resonant frequency, but in terms
of the whole circuit really doesn't work very well.
How can I do these norton transforms?
Phil
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: Phil Newman
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: Phil Newman
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- References:
- absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: Phil Newman
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: Phil Newman
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: john jardine
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: maxfoo
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: john jardine
- Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- From: maxfoo
- absorbing reactance into series LC
- Prev by Date: MC3362 input front-end.
- Next by Date: Re: Supercomputer OS's
- Previous by thread: Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- Next by thread: Re: absorbing reactance into series LC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|