Summing amplifier results dont agree with theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter thedemon13666
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Amplifier Theory
thedemon13666
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
i had to do a study using a summing amplifier to see if the results i got agreed with theory, the answers i got was something like 9.62, the answer i should of got was 10, now this doesn't seem that far away, BUT the errors didnt agree at all, they only agreed within 4 standard errors, so i was looking for a reason why they may not have agreed.

My orginial thought was that:

The summing amplifiers summing equation made an assumption that the current inside of the op am was 0 and as a result wud overestimate the summed voltage.

I spoke to my instructer and he said it would be negligable.

So i don't really have a reason why

The theory equation is

Vout = -(\frac{Rf}{R1}V1 + \frac{Rf}{R2}V2)

the measured value i get is -(9.620±0.005)V
the expected value i get is -(10.00±0.01)V

as you can see they only agree within 4 standard errors of each other.

Im a bit stumped at a reason why
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We don't have enough information to help you. I would immediately suspect that the resistor values introduce more error than you have anticipated. Did you actually measure their values? If not, and you truly have such small error, then you are using quite expensive resistors.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top