Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Register Log in

Transfer function of this circuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cocopa

Junior Member level 2
Junior Member level 2
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
24
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,281
Activity points
1,508
Hi! What is the transfer function of this circuit when the potentiometer is at 10%,50% and 90% respectivelly? Can anyone help me?
Thank you. pot 2.png
 

The circuit doesn't work at any potentiometer position due to missing DC feedback.

Apart from this problem, the potentiometer divider factor will be multiplied with the feedback factor of the basic circuit, so you should be able to calculate total feedback factor and resulting gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cocopa

    C

    cocopa

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Thank for your reply, but what do you mean by DC feedback? How should it be connected to work?
 

Also you can add a high value resistor in parallel with C2.
Anyway, will continue in problems when the pot is near closed.
 

cocopa,

See the attachment for the transfer function.

Ratch
 

Attachments

  • EDA.pdf
    277.5 KB · Views: 175
  • Like
Reactions: cocopa

    C

    cocopa

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
My comment about missing feedback didn't consider a possible outer feedback loop. If the circuit is used e.g. as PI controller, there's no problem. As Eduardo stated, the potentiometer ratio shouldn't approach zero.

The potentiometer simply introduces a gain multiplier for the circuit (assuming sufficient OP loop gain and neglecting potentiometer resistance). If k is the potentiometer ratio, e.g. 0.1, than the gain is multiplied by 1/k, e.g. 10.

Eo/Ei = -1/k * (1 + jωR3C2)/jωR4C2
 

yes, i agree with FvM,
the transfer function is Eo/Ei = -1/k*(R3/R4 + 1/jωR4C2).
but i think there is an effect because of resistance of potensiometer which is parallel with C2 and R3.
the output resistance of opamp is small,but in that circuit the output resistance will be Rp1 parallel with Rp2..see my attachment..
So i think the transfer function will be
Eo/Ei = -Rp1/(Rp1+Rp2)*((R3+Rp1||Rp2)/R4 + 1/jωR4C2).
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    5.7 KB · Views: 146

FvM,

Your calculation agrees with mine, IF the resistance of the pot is low enough so as not to compete in value with R3 and C2. I did calculate the transfer function in post #6 assuming a general value for the pot, and it becomes a much more complicated expression.

surz90,

I don't get the same transfer function as you posted. Perhaps you can look at the equations in post #6 and see if they agree with what you came up with.

Ratch
 

Your result is identical for Rpot = 0, suggesting that the derivation is correct as well. But it's in a rather confusing form. Numerator and denominator should be preferably written as products of zeros and poles.
 

Hi Ratch, i have see your attachment, actually i rather confuse with how you solve that equation..in your result i see an j is alone,but i consider in equation j must follow with jωC2..
I solve your equation using my way...you can see in my attachment..
I solve the transfer function of the circuit in 2 ways,and all of that give me the same transfer function..i directly assume that OP is ideal..because if it is non ideal the analysis become very confusing..
Hi FvM,,the complete analysis see in my attachment...i have written numerator and denominator in zero pole form..

if you have see my attachment, if the potensiometer don't burden the circuit, the transfer function will be same with transfer function which FvM did..
what do you think?
 

Attachments

  • I.doc
    296 KB · Views: 130

i think that the potensiometer doesn't give effect to the circuit, it must require that R3 >> Rpot..
 

surz90,

Hi Ratch, i have see your attachment, actually i rather confuse with how you solve that equation..in your result i see an j is alone,but i consider in equation j must follow with jωC2..
I solve your equation using my way...you can see in my attachment..
I solve the transfer function of the circuit in 2 ways,and all of that give me the same transfer function..i directly assume that OP is ideal..because if it is non ideal the analysis become very confusing..
Hi FvM,,the complete analysis see in my attachment...i have written numerator and denominator in zero pole form..
Click to expand...

I followed your solution, and you came up with the correct solution both times. You should multiply both the numerator and denominator of your solution by j to get rid of j in the denominator. Then your solution will have a lone j in the numerator. Othewise, your solution is identical to mine. Look at equation #6 in my solution. It is identical to yours. I did solve the problem with the amplification not equal to infinity (see equation #5) and there many more terms.

if you have see my attachment, if the potensiometer don't burden the circuit, the transfer function will be same with transfer function which FvM did..
what do you think? .
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I posted earlier.

Ratch
 

thank you Ratch,
i see now..now,i understand your solution..:)
i didn't aware that if i multiply both numerator and denominator with j,i got same solution with you in your equation #6..
:)
 

Hi Ratch, i have see your attachment, actually i rather confuse with how you solve that equation..in your result i see an j is alone,but i consider in equation j must follow with jωC2..
Click to expand...

As already mentioned, the form with the "lonely j" is confusing. Writing transfer functions in a standard form serves a purpose, I assume that Ratch will learn it as well, the latest when presenting similar calculations in an examination.
 

FvM,

What is the "standard form"? Who designates it or what is its rationale. I usually rationalize my equations, i.e. remove "j"s from the denominator. I will never sit for an examination again.

Ratch
 

I will never sit for an examination again.
Click to expand...
Me neither. But others contributing to this forum are required to use an understandable form, because they are teaching the stuff, writing reports for coworkers or customers, or passing examinations.
What is the "standard form"?
Click to expand...
I think, writing numerator and denominator as products of zeros and poles. It gives an intuitive view on the transfer function's properties. Or other forms found in text books. Surely no detached "j".
 

Fvm,

Do you mean in the frequency domain like they do in tables of LaPlace transforms? If not, then perhaps you could show me an example.

Ratch
 

Hi Ratch, i usually see the transfer function represent as a function of jw..F(jω) or F(s) in Laplace..
i never see tf write like yours, so at first it makes me confuse..
if tf present as a product of zeros and poles form, i think it is more easy to consider the frequency response of the circuit
for example(consider the magnitude response),

FvM; Eo/Ei = -1/k * (1 + jωR3C2)/jωR4C2[/QUOTE said:
at 1st sight, i can see that the circuit have pole at ω = 0 and zero at -1/R3C2,
so i know that magnitude response will decrease -20dB each decade (start at ω = 0) until ω = 1/R3C2 after that the magnitude response will be constant.

and if the tf represent like you did,

Quote from your attachment,
Eo/Ei = (-R3ωC2 + j)/ωC2R4.

i can't make analysis like that at first sight.

How do you think?
i'm an undergraduate student.i'm learning about this and i'm not yet understanding it well.so,correct me if i'm wrong,
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: FvM

    FvM

    FvM

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
surz90,

How do you think?
i'm an undergraduate student.i'm learning about this and i'm not yet understanding it well.so,correct me if i'm wrong,
Click to expand...

I think that once you have the correct equation, you can convert it into any form you like.

Ratch
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top