Frequency response function (polar diagram)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the transition from a frequency response function to its representation on a polar diagram. The user seeks clarity on how to eliminate the variable ωT to derive the equation for a semi-circle on the Argand diagram. Responses suggest squaring the terms and manipulating the equations to achieve the desired form, although the user initially struggles with the process. The exchange highlights the complexity of the mathematical steps involved and the challenge in recognizing the simplification methods. Ultimately, the user gains insight into the elimination technique, though they still find the lecturer's description of the process as "straightforward" to be misleading.
Sci-Fry
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
This isn't really a homework question but I felt this is the most relevant section for this. I therefore apologize for not following the standard post template.

I was going through my electrical engineering notes on frequency response functions. It was explaining how to plot frequency response functions on polar diagrams and had the following two steps, which I didn't quite understand. It got to this:

G(j\omega) = x + jy = \frac{1}{R}\frac{1-j\omega T}{1+(\omega T)^2}

It is easy to write:

x=\frac{1}{R}\frac{1}{1+(\omega T)^2} ; y=\frac{1}{R}\frac{-\omega T}{1+(\omega T)^2}

That's fine, but I didn't understand how they jumped to the next step:

From which it is straightforward to eliminate \omegaT to give

(x-\frac{1}{2R})^2 + y^2 = (\frac{1}{4R})^2

The point of writing it in this form is that the frequency response can now be plotted as a semi-circle on the Argand diagram. However, I don't understand how they did this step so easily. Is there something I'm not spotting? What is the method from getting from the previous step to this one?

Many thanks,
Sci-Fry
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Sci-Fry! :smile:

(have an omega: ω :wink:)

square y, and multiply by R2(1 + (ωT)2) …

that gives you (ωT)2/(1 + (ωT)2), which is 1 - … ? :smile:
 
Hi tiny-tim, thanks for the response (and the omega :P)!

Hmmm... I'm probably being incredibly daft, but I see what you're doing...

[note: couldn't get some of the latex to work so I'm using mimtex off another server]

{1+%28%20\omega%20T%29^2}%20=%201%20-%20\frac{1}{1%20+%20%28%20\omega%20T%29^2}%20=%201%20-%20xR.gif


Is that what you were getting at? I'm still not sure what exactly to do after that. Playing around with the numbers gets me to the wrong answer:

mimetex.gif


mimetex.gif


That gets rid of the omega, but it's not what I'm looking for. I know I'm being stupid, just wish I knew where...
 
Last edited:
hmm … now i look at it, my "1 -" is missing the point :redface:

square (x - 1/2R), and multiply by R2(1 + (ωT)2) :smile:
 
Oh that makes sense now, got it. Thanks.

Still difficult to spot though. I don't get how the lecturer can call that a straightforward elimination :P
 

Similar threads

Back
Top