Timeline for Nyquist's Stability Criterion and Cauchy's Argument Principle
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2021 at 12:53 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added image link
|
| Aug 11, 2020 at 18:57 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| May 8, 2020 at 12:55 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 20:11 | vote | accept | Dan Boschen | ||
| Mar 20, 2017 at 20:09 | answer | added | Matt L. | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 18:45 | answer | added | Tendero | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 17:31 | answer | added | oldlab | timeline score: -1 | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 2:40 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 2:33 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSignals/status/843651785512435712 | ||
| Mar 20, 2017 at 0:01 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | Yes good. I do have a contribution toward an explanation that is still consistent with Cauchey's Argument Principle, but perhaps your stated question will bring out an explanation that doesn't require that at all. | |
| S Mar 19, 2017 at 23:59 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Rewrote the question to try make it clearer
|
| S Mar 19, 2017 at 23:59 | history | suggested | Tendero | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Rewrote the question to try make it clearer
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:55 | comment | added | Tendero | I wrote something, check if that makes sense to you. That's how I understood the question, at least. | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:53 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 19, 2017 at 23:59 | |||||
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:46 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:45 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | Well, if you think of any way to help make the question clearer so that others will get it right away, that would also be appreciated! I am having trouble with that obviously. | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:44 | comment | added | Tendero | Aha, now I understand the question. Thanks for helping me understand it! I don't think I could write an answer, however... but I'll give it some thought. Nice puzzle btw! | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:38 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | I could convince myself that with the same path and the same Nyquist result, that we took a contour around the left half plane. (The same way I convinced myself that we went around the right half plane...). Hmmmmmm. (Thanks for wasting brain cells on this!) | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:37 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | Off track- sorry I'm not being clearer. I don't want to explain too much since this is a "puzzle" but review the graph above showing the semi circle around the RHP, and the route we take from positive infinity down to minus infinity via an "infinity path" around the right half plane. That part of the path could just as well been around the left half plane WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING except convincing ourselves that we went around the right half plane. | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:32 | comment | added | Tendero | Let's assume that somebody comes to me and shows me a Nyquist plot. Is your question related to how I could be sure that that plot was made via mapping a RHP contour and not a LHP one? Or am I still on the wrong track? | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:24 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 338 characters in body
|
| S Mar 19, 2017 at 23:19 | history | suggested | Tendero | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor formatting
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:18 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | I will try to make my final question a little clearer. | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:16 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | I'm not saying I would, I am saying if you consider the logic in how we describe that we are taking a contour around the right half plane when we are sweeping $j\omega$ from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, you could apply that same logic to show that with the same sweep in the same direction, we are taking a contour around the left half plane, except in that case the contour is going counter-clockwise around the region. So I did not change anything except the description (using the same appraach of applying a radius with a limit)- Yet there is no paradox! | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:13 | comment | added | Tendero | I don't know if I understand your question. Why would you take a contour around the LHP if you are looking for zeros in the RHP? | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 23:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 19, 2017 at 23:19 | |||||
| Mar 19, 2017 at 22:51 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 22:32 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 21:59 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 21:38 | history | edited | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 19:10 | history | asked | Dan Boschen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |