Timeline for How to sketch the Bode diagram of the output filter of a Buck converter?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 15:10 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 7, 2019 at 2:24 | history | edited | jonk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| May 21, 2019 at 6:49 | history | edited | jonk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 563 characters in body
|
| Apr 22, 2019 at 17:36 | comment | added | jonk | @jmgonet No. Maybe I didn't make a mistake..... \$\omega=\frac{1}{\sqrt{10\:\mu\text{H}\cdot 100\:\mu\text{F}}}=31,622.7766 \:\frac{\text{rad}}{\text{s}}\$. And that really does work out to about \$5\:\text{kHz}\$. Whew!! \$f=\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{10\:\mu\text{H}\cdot 100\:\mu\text{F}}}\approx 5\:\text{kHz}\$ | |
| Apr 22, 2019 at 17:14 | comment | added | jmgonet | @jonk I've followed your calculation and, when solving the quadratic expression I've got s1 = a + j*sqrt(a^2 - w0^2) and, just as you, w0 = 1 / sqlrt(LC) = 5000rad/s = 795Hz. Is it possible that you've mixed up Hz and rads? | |
| Apr 21, 2019 at 5:47 | comment | added | jonk | @jmgonet The most recent example, from which I took the above "quote," is found here. It's one of dozens of related discussions over the years. Not the best example. Not the worst. Just yet another. I only wanted you to not spend time worrying about the down-vote. If someone wrote a good criticism, I'd have thanked them for it and improved my answer immediately. But they didn't. So it's just an irrelevant part of the backdrop scenery here and entirely meaningless. It's just harmless child-play stuff to break up the monotony. | |
| Apr 21, 2019 at 5:30 | comment | added | jmgonet | @jonk I had no idea of this disagreement. But then... why anyone would think that I cheat? Is it because the question looks academic? | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 21:18 | vote | accept | jmgonet | ||
| Apr 20, 2019 at 19:50 | comment | added | jonk | @Andyaka Thanks for the kind thought. :) | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 19:45 | comment | added | Andy aka | Well I think it's a great answer and it gets my vote. | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 19:37 | history | edited | jonk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1238 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 18:57 | comment | added | jonk | @jmgonet Regarding down-votes, there is a disagreement between me and a self-proclaimed "consensus of the majority of active users and managers of this website" (actually a very tiny minority.) They would like me to become a willing part of their "staatspolizei" (state police) and I refuse. This minority down-votes on occasion when they feel I crossed their line. It's not my problem and doesn't bother me. I feel that a good answer helps far more people, even if the OP "cheats" by measure of this minority. I think they are ruining the site. We (they and I) disagree. So don't worry about it. | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 18:49 | comment | added | jonk | @jmgonet I hope it helps, some. It takes a little getting used to, complex numbers and some of the reasons why the standard form for analysis is useful. I avoided the standard form here, but it also might be of some small help, too. There, you can see \$d\$ (which has units and is the damping value I mentioned above.) But it may be better to just stick with what I wrote here. | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 15:48 | comment | added | jmgonet | Thanks for your answer. This is what I was looking for, and I'm studying it right now. I'm sorry that at least two people down-voted it without leaving any explanation. | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 10:34 | history | edited | jonk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 175 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 10:26 | history | edited | jonk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 789 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 9:49 | history | edited | jonk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 317 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 9:43 | history | answered | jonk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |