Talk:Step response

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Dicklyon in topic Major rewrite needed?

WikiProject class rating

edit

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Formal mathematical section

edit

This portion of the article is clearly a work in progress, and presently is no more than a "door stop" with a few definitions and absolutely no results, conclusion or commentary. It could be deleted with no loss of content or interest. Brews ohare (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Section on Feedback Amplifiers

edit

This article is meant to be a discussion of the uses of the step response. However the article is dominated by the section on Feedback Amplifiers, a topic which can only be considered a specific application, not general discussion.

Should this be split somewhere? Or just trimmed back a bit, perhaps add a new section on applications of the step response?

Closetsingle (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Better figures

edit

I have added two vector images for second order system response

Major rewrite needed?

edit

This article evolved to be mostly about second-order systems, which are covered pretty well elsewhere, but here are treated both in unnecessary gory detail and shabbily, omitting for example any mention of "critical damping" which is key to distinguishing the curves where the step response overshoots and those where it doesn't. It doesn't mention "damping factor" at all except for one non-standard usage, and it uses atypical notation for the variable such as the real and imaginary coordinates of the pole locations. If it used more normal terms it would connect better to improved images like the one above left. Anyone up for working on it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The source cited in the "control of overshoot" section doesn't have the quoted result on the page cited. On later pages 280-283 it works it out, but in terms of the damping ratio, zeta. This treatment and citation came in with the initial creation diff of the section. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply