Recent content by phantomvommand

I am unsure about why in the case where bisect_flag == False, we should check b-1 - b-2. Is the objective not to check that we are halving the interval between our best guesses b, so it should be abs(b - b-1), regardless of whether the previous step was a bisection or not?

Thanks for this, however, as an undergrad, could you explain the significance of the resonant frequency as calculated in the 2nd approach? I understand that the 1st approach gives the frequency where current is in phase with voltage, but what does the 2nd approach give, and why do you feel that...

How should resonance be defined then?

I don't think Norton's theorem was applied erroneously. The short circuit current across the voltage source and inductor is indeed v/jwL.

I am confused as to why 2 different approaches to finding the resonant frequency of the above circuit contradict; below are the 2 approaches: Approach 1: Total Impedance Z = ##j \omega L + (\frac {1} {R} + j \omega C)^{-1}## At resonance, impedance is purely resistive, i.e. imaginary term = 0...

This contradicts the textbook method of combining R_load with R, since you would effectively have ignored R_load. BTW, I can understand the textbook method of combining R_load with R -- they are simply taking the Norton equivalent and applying Q = 2pi * energy stored / energy loss per cycle...

While I can see why this is true, this does not explain why the energy approach is incorrect. Is there any direct reason for why the energy approach is wrong?

Yes (see denominator)

Yes, that will explain why R_load can be approximately combined in parallel with R, but does not explain why the energy derivation is incorrect.

This would explain why R load can be (approximately) combined in parallel with R, but does not explain why the energy derivation is wrong?

Sorry I did not understand this. Exactly which line in the energy approach to derving Q is wrong? Thanks

Thanks, this makes sense. Regarding my 2nd qn: converting the norton back into its equivalent thevenin will result in R being in series with a tank circuit, which is a set up with infinite impedance. Therefore, there should be 0 current flowing through R. Contradictorily, applying the current...

I have 2 questions, the first has been asked (unfortunately not directly answered) below: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/199977/loaded-q-factor-of-parallel-rlc-with-series-resistive-load I have reposted the question below for ease of reference. For the given circuit...

I should note the text is assuming everything is at resonance. The math seems to work out, but I am interested in understanding the physical significance of being able to perform this switch at resonance for ##R_L >> R##.

The above content discusses the conversion of RL (in series) to RL (in parallel). Importantly, the context is that the RL (in series) was in parallel with a capacitor. I am interested to know the following: Q1. Why is ##\frac {\omega L} {R} = Q## true for this circuit, given that this formula...