Talk:Step response
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
Better figures
[edit]I have added two vector images for second order system response
-
Different damping conditions
-
Underdamped system parameters
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)
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)