From: Chris Carlen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Subject: Re: How to increase PLL order?
References: <3DF99AEF.80FA3424@NAESPAM.yahoo.com> <%QhK9.email@example.com> <3DFA3DAA.E103628F@NAESPAM.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 02:50:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:50:55 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Kevin Aylward wrote:
> And this is exactly what I *explicitly* addressed above. You claimed
> that one usually used a lag-lead filter, and this, of *course*, rolls of
> the gain, i.e. limits the BW. To the contrary, I pointed out that in
> slow systems, it is quite possible to have a lead on its own that can
> stabilise the loop, with the advantage that it obviously keeps the BW
> up, i.e. no lag.
> Kevin Aylward
So would the correct terminology for what I have been calling a
"zero-pole" filter be a lead-lag?
When you say lead-lag does that imply that the zero occurs at a lower f
than the pole? Ie., would you call it a lead-lag just because it
contains a zero and a pole or would you change it to lag-lead if the
pole were at lower f than the zero?
Hmm, I just realized that a high pass is s/(s+wc), (I'm new at this so I
don't have it all ingrained yet), so that means what I think you are
calling a "lead" has an H(s) which contains both a pole and a zero at
DC, ie., a simple high-pass.
What would you call my filter with H(s)=(s+wz)/(s+wp) ?
Any tips on how to communicate with effective terminology about this
stuff will be appreciated. Of course, equations really clear up any
Christopher R. Carlen
Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19