Series RLC filter (trap filter)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a series RLC trap filter, focusing on its behavior at resonance frequency and the relationship between resistance and the width of the frequency band rejected. Participants are examining the implications of resonance on voltage and current in the circuit, as well as the definitions and calculations related to the bandwidth.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand the implications of resonance in the circuit, particularly how the reactance of the inductor and capacitor affects the overall impedance. Questions arise regarding the definitions of delta-omega and its relation to the width of the stop band. There is also exploration of voltage divider concepts and how they apply to the circuit at resonance.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and clarifications on the calculations and concepts involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of delta-omega and its potential definitions, as well as the implications of the voltage divider approach at resonance. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may impose specific definitions and expectations for the calculations involved. There is mention of a discrepancy between the textbook and participants' calculations regarding the bandwidth, indicating a potential misunderstanding or miscommunication about the definitions used.

Lisa...
Messages
189
Reaction score
0
Hey! I need to solve the following problem:

a) Show the trap filter below acts to reject signals at a frequency
\omega = \frac{1}{\sqrt{LC}}

http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/8168/rlc2wf.gif

b) How does the width of the frequency band rejected depend on the resistance R?


For a) I thought that at resonance (when

\omega = \frac{1}{\sqrt{LC}} )

the reactance of L & C = 0 and therefore Z= R. In a series circuit the current is the same everywhere, but the voltage divides itself according to V= IR. Therefore the voltage on L & C is 0 (R=0) and the voltage on R= IR. But is that correct? I think Vout is measured on R and NOT L & C, but how would I know? Btw what is the function of that grounded symbol, what does it mean and is it relevant for this question?

As for b) I know that
Q= \frac{\omega_0}{\Delta \omega}

so

\Delta \omega = \frac{\omega_0}{Q}

with

Q= \frac{\omega_0 L}{R}

Substitution gives:

\Delta \omega = \frac{\omega_0}{\frac{\omega_0 L}{R}}

=\frac{R}{L}


\Delta f= \frac{\Delta \omega}{2 \pi}

= \frac{\frac{R}{L}}{2 \pi}

= \frac{R}{2 \pi L}


Though my textbook says that


\Delta \omega = \frac{R}{2L}


Could anybody please tell me what I'm doing wrong?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
How are they defining delta-omega? Are they maybe defining it as one side of the width of the stop band, and you are defining it as the full width?

BTW, in your first part, since the reactive impedance of the series LC goes toward zero at resonance, think of the R as the top part of a voltage divider and the LC as the bottom part of the voltage divider. What do you get for the transfer function of a voltage divider as the bottom impedance goes towards zero?
 
berkeman said:
How are they defining delta-omega? Are they maybe defining it as one side of the width of the stop band, and you are defining it as the full width?

In my book you have this graph that shows the average power supplied by the generator to the series combination as a function of generator frequency. The resonance width (delta omega) is the frequency difference between the two points on the curve where the power is half its maximum value... so I guess they are defining it as the full width?

So... where did I go wrong in part b?

berkeman said:
BTW, in your first part, since the reactive impedance of the series LC goes toward zero at resonance, think of the R as the top part of a voltage divider and the LC as the bottom part of the voltage divider. What do you get for the transfer function of a voltage divider as the bottom impedance goes towards zero?

Do you mean this equation:
http://img286.imageshack.us/img286/3289/naamloos6tv.gif

Well that one will equal 1, so Vout= Vin ?
So the voltage on the resistor (the Vout) = the whole signal, so the whole signal gets transferred at resonance? But that doesn't match the question, I mean it is given that at resonance the whole signal is blocked...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The impedance of a parallel LC goes to infinity at resonance, and the impedance of a series LC goes to zero at resonance. So | Vo/Vi | goes to zero at the resonance of the circuit you show. The equation that you wrote is for when the LC is at the Vin spot, and the R is from Vout to ground.
 
Ah I see, thanks!
But what about this delta omega? Is my thinking correct and the answer in my book wrong or not?
 
Well, to check the delta-omega, you can write the equation for the input impedance at Vi, and solve for the two omega values where the input impedance goes to SQRT(2) of the minimum impedance (which is R). Subtract the two omegas to see if you get your previous answer or the book's answer.
 
This is what I've done. Please tell me if I've done it okay, cause I need to deliver it in 2 hours...:

V= IR, so Vin= IZ = I \sqrt{R^2 + (wl - \frac{1}{wc})^2}

Vin= IR \sqrt{1 + (\frac{wl - 1/wc}{R})^2} so

\frac{(wl - 1/wc)}{R} = + or - 1 to give sqrt(2)

\frac{wl}{R} - \frac{1}{Rwc} = + or - 1

\frac{w^2 l C}{RwC} - \frac{1}{Rwc} + or - \frac{RwC}{RwC} =0

so

w^2 l C + or - RwC - 1 = 0

using the abc formula
with
a= LC
b= + or - RC
c= -1

gives

w = \frac{+ or - RC + or - \sqrt{R^2 C^2 + 4 LC}}{2LC}

Substracting

w = \frac{-RC + or - \sqrt{R^2 C^2 + 4 LC}}{2LC}

from

w = \frac{+ RC + or - \sqrt{R^2 C^2 + 4 LC}}{2LC}

gives

w= \frac{2 RC}{2 LC}

which is:

w= \frac{R}{L}


So may I conclude that the book is wrong? Or did I make a mistake somewhere?!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
914
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K