0
$\begingroup$

Given the following RLC circuit with an AC driving source,

$\hskip3in$ enter image description here

I have found an expression for the amplitude to be

$$ I(t) = \left(\frac{V_{0}}{R}\right)\frac{(\omega \tau)}{\sqrt{(\omega\tau)^{2} + \left(\frac{\omega^{2} / \omega_{0}^{2}}{1 - \omega^{2}/\omega_{0}^{2}}\right)^{2}}}, \tag{Equation 1} $$ which when plotted using Python for three different values of $R$ whilst simultaneously normalizing each plot's amplitude from $0$ to $1$, yields the following result :

$\hskip3in$ enter image description here

From here I was wondering if the resonance plot is the right hand side figure or the left hand side. Because, wherever I look on the internet or any available literature, the resonance plot is similar to that of the left of this figure. But, in that case the frequency ration $\omega / \omega_{0}^{2}$ is negative , which doesn't make sense to me. Could a resonance plot , be reverted ,i.e., it is the right hand side plot ?

My reasoning is that it is the right hand side plot , i.e the domain $[0, 2]$ ,because a negative frequency ratio is unrealistic for the given circuit. While negative currents are possible I don't see how a negative frequency would be possible as well. I guess that this whole negative frequency thing arises from the square root of the denominator in Equation 1, which in return allows for a negative frequency ratio, but in a real setting I presume that we implicitly assume $\omega >0 \implies \omega/ \omega_{0} > 0 \ \forall \omega.$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your expression does not make sense. what does $\tau$ stand for? Your expression looks like an amplitude expression, but you also have a $t$ on the left side. You should fix your expression first, then we can take a look of whether your python code is correct. $\endgroup$ – verdelite Mar 13 at 17:39
0
$\begingroup$

The complex impedance $Z$ of the parallel arrangement of the inductor $L$ and capacitor $C$ is $\dfrac 1 Z = j\omega C + \dfrac {1}{j\omega L} \Rightarrow Z = \dfrac{j\omega L}{1-\omega^2LC}$.

You will note that as $\omega \to \sqrt LC$ then $|Z| \to \infty$ so it is not unreasonable that your analysis shows that as resonance is approached the current in the circuit decreases being a minimum at resonance.

In your eqaution for the current it is the $1-\dfrac {\omega^2}{\omega_0^2}$ term which is dominant as resonance is approached.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Yes, it makes sense to have the plot with a minimum. Why would you plot for negative frequencies, anyway? The reason for this is that you plot the total current, the current in the main branch. What you have there is a parallel LC circuit. At resonance the impedance of this circuit becomes very large (ideally infinite) so the current in the main circuit decreases.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The plot has several flaws. At small $\omega \equiv \epsilon$ $I$ should have the following behavior: ($\delta = \epsilon/\omega_0$)

$$ I \sim \frac{\epsilon\tau}{|\epsilon\tau|} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ \frac{\delta^4}{((1-\delta^2)\tau\epsilon)^2 }}} \approx \pm 1\cdot C \quad \text{at} \quad |\epsilon|\ll \omega_0 $$

(C is some appropriate constant), so the jump at $\omega=0$ should be symmetric, whereas on the plot it is not (it starts at 0, but should start at -1) In particular the equation (1) as a function of $\omega$ is odd, whereas the function on the plot is not odd.

The circuit is that of a band-stop filter, so it is obvious that it has a negative resonance: At the resonance frequency it should not let any signal through. So the value of the resonance peak should be zero. However, it has a value of $\sim 0.5$ on the plot.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.