- #26
Femme_physics
Gold Member
- 2,547
- 1
Then this logic does not match Nascent's graph who posted right before you. The break point seems to be at 0.1I think you'll find that the factored version of the transfer function spells out the poles conveniently in terms of the natural angular frequency (rad/sec).
Increase or decrease - that depends whether this expression is in the nominator or denominatorthe slope increases by 40 db/decade
Right. His graph has frequency f in Hz along the x-axis. Natural frequency ω is in rad/sec, where ##ω = 2\pi f##.Then this logic does not match Nascent's graph who posted right before you. The break point seems to be at 0.1
Heh. Yes, by "increase" I meant steeper descent for each pole. Zeros in the numerator have the opposite effect, tilting the slope upwards by 20 db/decade for each zero.Increase or decrease - that depends whether this expression is in the nominator or denominator
That's because gneill helpfully threw in a new transfer function, for clarity.Then this logic does not match Nascent's graph who posted right before you. The break point seems to be at 0.1
Certainly.Increase or decrease - that depends whether this expression is in the nominator or denominator
Ah yes, er, that tooThat's because gneill helpfully invented another transfer function, for clarity.
The original TF had poles at -1 and -4. Though easy to get confused here, I know.I went back to the original transfer function for the thread, since I though it might be helpful to compare with the related plots.
Aurrgh! So much for short term memory. Heck, it was only three pages ago, too!The original TF had poles at -1 and -4. Though easy to get confused here, I know.
I'm sure that FP will track us down in due course. Probably just waiting for the dust to settleBTW, I think we have left FemmePhysics some miles back along the way. Should we turn back to look for her?