RL vs LR Circuits: Low-Pass/High-Pass Filters Explained

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter terryds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuit Lr circuit
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
13 replies · 9K views
terryds
Messages
392
Reaction score
13
Is there any difference between RL vs LR circuit? Which one is for low-pass/high-pass filter?

Please help
 
on Phys.org
terryds said:
Is there any difference between RL vs LR circuit? Which one is for low-pass/high-pass filter?

Please help
They are one and the same.
 
cnh1995 said:
They are one and the same.

Really? But RC and CR are different, RC is a low-pass filter and CR is a high-pass filter.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: terryds
NascentOxygen said:
RL is high pass, LR is low pass. Brevity for its own sake is generally discouraged.
why can I only find references to RL and not LR ?
do you have any references please?
 
davenn said:
why can I only find references to RL and not LR ?
do you have any references please?
These filters work by potential divider action. We can have series R and shunt L, giving high pass action, or the converse. We can also connect the filter either way round. It is important to consider the impedance (usually resistance) of the source and the load, so that we are considering the full circuit.
 
NascentOxygen said:
RL is high pass, LR is low pass. Brevity for its own sake is generally discouraged.
Frankly, I would not make any assumption about the actual layout of an LR or and RL circuit, if there was no information provided about how it has been connected. Wait till you see the circuit diagram and then you have a chance.
Trying to generate special rules for the meanings of letters in particular orders is a dodgy pastime and very likely to produce as confusion as enlightenment. Leave it to lexicographers and etymologists.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NTL2009, davenn and phinds
NascentOxygen said:
in light of the answer options being given.
Personally, I wouldn't want to get involved in a system that appears to force a reader into such a bad choice with such open ended assumptions. The only thing one could say about RL or LR would be that the associated time constants would be the same. (Same comment for RC and CR)
 
davenn said:
why can I only find references to RL and not LR ?
It shows that 'the system' actually has a certain amount of sense, perhaps. :wink:
The more familiar RC / CR is a terminology which, as I have said before, is confusing. In fact it is bad and makes assumptions about the connection and orientation of the R and C in a circuit that are not justified. How would one describe the filter function (HP /LP) if the source for the circuit was more constant current than constant voltage, for instance? And would it always be the case that the output connection would always be across the second of the pair of letters?
RL circuits do not tend to be discussed or used anything like as much and, when they are, it is probably by more informed users or designers. They have avoided the problem by just not going down that road.
You could say I'm being elitist but I must insist that using 'unofficial' conventions and terminology will always risk errors. EE is littered with similar fuzzy terminology which has been introduced in a misguided effort to make it more 'approachable'.
 
I can picture it being a local shorthand, perhaps introduced by a lecturer for his introductory class on passive filters, and not intended to be used beyond that. Best kept inhouse, and used only with those who've been inducted to interpreting what's meant.

Of course, it could even be debated whether substituting RC filter for RC LPF is actually shorthand at all.

I fear we've lost the OP.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur