About the Quality factor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xoxo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quality
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the equivalence of two definitions of the Quality factor Q for high Q resonators. Participants highlight that while Q can be expressed as the ratio of resonance frequency to 3dB bandwidth, this relationship primarily holds for second-order RLC circuits. A general proof requires assumptions about the circuit's behavior, often modeled as an effective series or parallel LCR resonant circuit. It is noted that the 3-dB rule is not universally applicable, particularly in systems with non-linear elements or significant resonance distortion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for rigorous proof while acknowledging the limitations of the Q factor in practical measurements.
Xoxo
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

It's known that the Quality factor Q is defined as :

Q = 2*pi*(Energy stored at resonance) / (Energy loss per cycle)

and for high Q resonators, It's known that Q can be also given by :

Q = Resonance frequency / 3dB Bandwidth

My question is, How can i prove that ? that both expressions of Q are equivalent if Q is large enough ?
I can prove it for many circuits, but i want a general rigorous proof of that.

Thank you in advance
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.
Q is a quality factor and not a precision measure.
There are situations where the different definitions converge.

See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor#Physical_interpretation
“ The factors Q, damping ratio ζ, attenuation rate α, and exponential time constant τ are related such that: [12] ”
Reference [12]. Siebert, William McC. Circuits, Signals, and Systems. MIT Press.
 
  • Like
Likes Xoxo
Xoxo said:
How can i prove that ? that both expressions of Q are equivalent if Q is large enough ?
I believe I have shown this holds for a second-order system, with series R- L-C.

Its TF involves the term ##\dfrac 1 {s^2\ +\ \frac {\omega_o} Q s\ +\ {\omega_o}^2}##[/color]
 
  • Like
Likes dakeeper and Xoxo
NascentOxygen said:
I believe I have shown this holds for a second-order system, with series R- L-C.

Its TF involves the term ##\dfrac 1 {s^2\ +\ \frac {\omega_o} Q s\ +\ {\omega_o}^2}##
Where did you show this holds for 2nd order RLC circuits ?
 
Xoxo said:
Where did you show this holds for 2nd order RLC circuits ?
Sorry. I meant that I believe it can be shown to be true. :smile:

I'd start like this:
Apply a voltage to the circuit at the resonant frequency and see what current flows. All losses occur in the resistance.
 
NascentOxygen said:
Sorry. I meant that I believe it can be shown to be true. :smile:

I'd start like this:
Apply a voltage to the circuit at the resonant frequency and see what current flows. All losses occur in the resistance.
I know, i can prove that, my question is that i want a general proof assuming the circuit is a black box
 
Xoxo said:
I know, i can prove that, my question is that i want a general proof assuming the circuit is a black box
A black box containing any general nth order linear system, do you mean?
 
  • Like
Likes Xoxo
NascentOxygen said:
A black box containing any general nth order linear system, do you mean?

yes
 
Xoxo said:
yes

The most "general" way of doing this would be to start with say the ABCD matix for a two-port systems and then derive an expression for S21 near resonance; this would then give you the results you want.
However, in order to do so you STILL need to make some assumptions about the circuit; and these assumptions basically amount to assuming that the circuit can be described as an effective series- or parallell LCR-resonant circuit (near resonance). Note that this does NOT mean that the resonator is made up of discrete component; the same procedure works for e.g. cavity resonators or lambda/2 and lambda/4 resonators.

Moreover, the 3-dB "rule" for the Q value of a resonance is not a general result; it ONLY works for circuits that can be described as a 2nd order RCL circuit (which fortunately includes most systems of interest). It does not work for systems which e.g. include non-linear elements (which skews the resonance) or systems where the resonance is heavily distorted for some other reason (because it e.g. is coupling to other spurious modes in the circuit), For any real circuit it is an approximation at best. I never use it for any "serious" measurements.
 
  • Like
Likes Xoxo
  • #10
f95toli said:
The most "general" way of doing this would be to start with say the ABCD matix for a two-port systems and then derive an expression for S21 near resonance; this would then give you the results you want.
However, in order to do so you STILL need to make some assumptions about the circuit; and these assumptions basically amount to assuming that the circuit can be described as an effective series- or parallell LCR-resonant circuit (near resonance). Note that this does NOT mean that the resonator is made up of discrete component; the same procedure works for e.g. cavity resonators or lambda/2 and lambda/4 resonators.

Moreover, the 3-dB "rule" for the Q value of a resonance is not a general result; it ONLY works for circuits that can be described as a 2nd order RCL circuit (which fortunately includes most systems of interest). It does not work for systems which e.g. include non-linear elements (which skews the resonance) or systems where the resonance is heavily distorted for some other reason (because it e.g. is coupling to other spurious modes in the circuit), For any real circuit it is an approximation at best. I never use it for any "serious" measurements.

You're my hero :D
That's what i want, thank you
 
Back
Top