Timeline for z-Transform Methods: Definition vs. Integration Rule
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2020 at 16:20 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | @MattL. are you available to chat? chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/107224/mapping-s-to-z | |
| Apr 26, 2020 at 15:52 | comment | added | Matt L. | @DanBoschen: OK, I added a 1. and 2. to it, hoping to make things clearer. Thanks for pointing out this possible misunderstanding. | |
| Apr 26, 2020 at 15:50 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Apr 26, 2020 at 15:27 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | @MattL. In your third paragraph it can sound like you are saying that the Bilinear Transform is also called the forward Euler, so a little confusing. It would be clearer to just put the "aslo called the Bilinear Transform" in parenthesis- as in "the two methods mentioned in your question, Tustin's method (also called bilinear transform) and forward Euler, there is..." | |
| Dec 11, 2018 at 13:48 | vote | accept | Help Appreciated | ||
| Dec 11, 2018 at 13:34 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2018 at 8:17 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1062 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2018 at 7:26 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 76 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2018 at 7:17 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2018 at 7:06 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 98 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2018 at 6:46 | comment | added | Matt L. | @HelpAppreciated: Tustin's method maps the continuous frequency axis to the unit circle in the complex plane. I.e., the frequency response of the digital filter is just a compressed version of the analog frequency response. An analog filter with an optimal frequency response (butterworth, chebyshev, etc.) remains optimal after transformation. This is not the case with other transforms. | |
| Dec 10, 2018 at 21:10 | comment | added | Help Appreciated | Is the benefit of Tustin's method that it tends to preserves the characteristics of the continuous-time transfer function, but has some frequency warping? To paraphrase your answer, forward and backward Euler methods are good for integration but do not preserve frequency response? I am sorry to be redundant, but I want to confirm that I understand your answer. | |
| Dec 10, 2018 at 18:27 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 120 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2018 at 17:30 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2018 at 17:24 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2018 at 17:14 | comment | added | Matt L. | @HelpAppreciated: I've added more information to my answer. | |
| Dec 10, 2018 at 17:14 | history | edited | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 959 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2018 at 16:47 | comment | added | Help Appreciated | This makes sense. I understand that the s-to-z maps have different regions of convergence, but what other properties do they have? Why choose one approach instead of another? Why use Tustin's method instead of pole zero mapping or some other method? | |
| Dec 10, 2018 at 16:28 | history | answered | Matt L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |