-
1
Electrical resonance and signal filtering
1 Abstract In this experiment we investigated the following
properties of a resonant circuit consisting of an inductor, a
capacitor and a resistor (LCR): 1. The voltage response of the LCR
to the falling edge of a square wave- We analyzed transients
obtained for 5 different resistances, paying particular attention
to the change in transient behavior with resistance. 2. The
impedance response of the LCR to sinusoidal signals of varying
frequency- By identifying the resonant frequency we determined the
unknown inductance to be 0.124H. This value was used to calculate
the capacitance in the signal filtering circuit we constructed. 3.
Using the resonance of the LCR to separate a Morse code signal from
electrical noise (signal filtering). 2 Introduction The behavior of
an LCR circuit in Figure 1 is one instance of a system present in
numerous contexts, such as the damped motion of a mass hanging from
a spring. The same form of differential equation characterizes the
behavior of both systems, and hence their behavior is essentially
the same, though the physical quantities involved are different.
Spring-mass system: !!!!!! + !"!" + = where is the position of the
mass, m is the mass, b is the damping constant, k is the spring
constant and F(t) is the driving force. LCR system: !!!!!! + !"!" +
!! = (), where q is the charge on the capacitor, L is the
inductance, R is the resistance, C is the capacitance, and V(t) is
the input voltage. Hence L, R, 1/C and V(t) are the electrical
analogues of m, b, k and F(t).Therefore the LCR circuit is a useful
way to study mechanical systems, which can often be difficult to
construct and analyze.
-
2 In order to characterize the given system, we vary the voltage
input using certain test inputs. First we determine the voltage
response of the system to an impulse input; next we study the
impedance response of the system using various sinusoidal inputs.
Finally, we use the knowledge gained to build a signal filtering
system, which can be used to separate messages from noise picked up
during transmission.
-
3 3 Theoretical background A magnetic material gets magnetized
when placed in an external magnetic field. This process involves
energy losses, resulting in the material retaining some
magnetization even when the external field is turned off. This is
the phenomenon of magnetic hysteresis. Crystals of magnetic
materials such as iron contain domains of particular
magnetizations, separated by domain walls. When an external
magnetic field is applied, these walls shift to increase the size
of those domains whose magnetization is more favorable to the
field. An ordinary piece of iron is polycrystalline, in which each
crystal has its own set of magnetic domains. Additionally each
crystal contains impurities and imperfections, which are the source
of the hysteresis effect. In weak magnetic fields, the domain walls
within each crystal reversibly shift very slightly. As the field is
made stronger, the domain wall rearrangement is hindered by crystal
impurities. Domain walls get stuck at such impurities, and will
only move past if the field is raised further. Thus the motion of
the domain wall is not smooth, but involves a series of jerks and
breaks. As the domain walls quickly shift from one impediment to
the next, the changing magnetization produces rapidly varying
magnetic fields in the material. These induce eddy currents in the
crystal that lose energy by heating the metal. The domain wall
movements also alter the dimensions of the crystal, generating
small sound waves that dissipate energy. Due to these frictional
losses, when the external field goes to zero, the domains do not
all return to their original configurations and the iron block
gains a net magnetization. Therefore, a graph of B against an
alternating H produces a loop. The area contained within the loop
gives the energy lost per cycle by a unit volume of the
material.
-
4 4 Experimental background Our primary goal is to observe the
hysteretic properties of three materialsmild steel, transformer
iron and a Cu/Ni alloy. Consequently, we require a way of plotting
the behavior of flux density B within these materials, versus
magnetizing force H. This is achieved through the circuit in Figure
. The voltages ! and ! are measured by the oscilloscope probes and
displayed as ! versus ! on the oscilloscope output. ! = !!! ! = !!!
where ! - Number of turns in primary coil ! - Number of turns in
secondary coil ! - Cross sectional area of secondary coil ! -
Length of primary coil Since these quantities are constants, the
graphs of ! against ! and of B against H are equivalent.
Accordingly, with the use of appropriate scale factors on the ! and
! axes, the hysteretic energy loss can be calculated as the area
enclosed in the loop of the ! -! graph.
-
5
4 Methods and Results 4.1 Building and testing the circuit We
built the circuit as in Figure with component values given in Table
1 The integrator is built as in Figure We set the gain at 0.4,
considering the following: 1. The integrator should produce an
output that is easily measurable on the oscilloscope. 2. The gain
should not be large enough to saturate the integrator output given
its 15V power supply. A 50Hz sine wave was directly input into the
integrator from the signal generator. !" and !"# are displayed
simultaneously on the oscilloscope output, and !"# is obtained as a
50 Hz cosine wave. We conclude that the integrator functions as
desired at 50 Hz. The impedance ratio of ! to C for this frequency
is 47, large enough to stabilize the DC conditions required for the
correct functioning of the integrator.
-
6 4.2 Relationship of and for air cored secondary coil The flux
density B and magnetizing force H are related by = !! , where !
generally varies with H. For air !=1, and therefore for an air
cored secondary coil ! = !!!!!!! ! = !
4.2.1 Theoretical calculation of As = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! , we
calculate using the values of its constituent quantities. Our
measurements of these quantities are tabulated in Table 1
Table 1 Values of quantities required to calculate Quantity
Value ! 241 2 10!!! ! 4.314 0.002 10!! ! 400 ! 500 ! 2.2 ! 9.852
0.001 959.7 0.1 Accordingly, we obtain = (6.75 0.06)10!!
4.2.2 Measurement of from oscilloscope output We calculate as
the gradient of the ! -! graph displayed on the oscilloscope
screen. We obtain = (8.26 0.26)10!!
-
7
4.3 Hysteresis Loops and energy calculations We observe
hysteresis in three materials of dimensions tabulated in Table 2.
Table 2 Dimension and Area of Samples
Sample Radius/m Cross sectional Area/ Mild steel (0.164
0.001)10!! (84.5 0.1)10!! Transformer iron (30.2 0.4)10!! Cu/Ni
alloy (0.255 0.001)10!! (204 16)10!!
Each sample is inserted into the secondary coil, and the
hysteresis loop seen on the oscilloscope display is plotted on
graph paper with the axes scaled as follows = !! = !! Where ! = !!!
= 4160 and ! = !! A is the cross sectional area of the sample
inserted into the secondary coil. The values of ! are tabulated
below in Table 3. Table 3 values for the three samples
Sample Mild steel 2.24 Transformer iron 6.26 Cu/Ni alloy
0.926
-
8
-
9 5 Discussion 5.1 Determination of In Section 4.2 we found that
our two measurements of did not agree within the bounds of
experimental error. We identified the following sources of
error-
1. Uncertainty in the Cross sectional area of the secondary coil
To calculate the Area of the secondary coil we required measuring
its radius. Accordingly we measured the radius of the coil cavity
using a pair of Vernier calipers. However, we note that the cross
section of the coil probably looks like Figure , and so in
measuring the cavity radius we have not actually measured the
effective radius of the coil. An improved procedure would have been
to measure both the cavity radius and the radius of the entire
coil, and include the effect of this range in the error in !. 2.
Uncertainty in the value of In our calculation of we used ! = 2.2 ,
as this was its recorded value. We attempted to verify this in the
following ways- First we measured ! on the bridge while the
resistor was still hot and found ! = 2.1992 . Second we measured !
in the active circuit with a pair of multimeters to measure the
current through it and the voltage across it. This process yielded
! = 2.23 . Thus we found a range in the value of ! which was not
taken into account in our calculations. 3. Uncertainty in We took
the values of ! and ! to be 400 and 500 respectively. We note,
however, that these are nominal values, and expect the true values
to be slightly different. Due to the casing around the coils we are
unable to directly measure these quantities, and so are unable to
calculate a plausible error in them. Of these three errors we
believe our uncertainty in determining the radius of the
-
10 secondary coil to be the most significant error in our
calculation of . 5.2 Hysteresis loops and energy calculation In
working with our samples of Section 4.3, we noted that , the cross
sectional area of the sample (which is used in the calculations
that followed), was not the same as !, the cross sectional area of
the coil. We justify this by the fact that !(!"#$%&) !(!"#),
allowing us to neglect the area of the secondary coil not filled by
the sample. The are contained in the hysteresis loops of Figures is
estimated by counting squares, and scaling by the energy content of
a unit square on the graph. We find mild steel shows the greatest
rate of energy loss (36.3 ), followed by transformer iron (15.1 ).
For the Cu/Ni alloy shows the least degree of hysteresis, with no
hysteresis loop for a sample temperature ~40C, as displayed by the
linear graph of Figure . However, once the Cu/Ni alloy was cooled
to ~10C by immersion in a beaker of ice water, a relatively small
hysteresis loop was seen (Figure ) , whose rate of energy loss is
found to be only 241J per cycle, much lower than the values for
mild steel or iron.
Using water bath to observe hysteresis change over a few degrees
of temperature We do not feel this method is adequate to observe
hysteresis variations over the range of a few degrees of
temperature for the following reasons
We are unable to measure the sample temperature accurately by
measuring the temperature of the water. It would be advisable to
use a thermocouple to track the changes in sample temperature
Secondly, we are unable to precisely control the temperature of
the water bath well enough to observe hysteresis variations over
the small range of a few degrees.
-
11 5.3 Signal filtering When filtering a signal using the LCR
system in Figure 7, we want the noise voltage to be dropped across
the 100k resistor, and the message voltage dropped across the LCR.
As explained in the Theoretical Background, matching ! to the
signal frequency partly achieves this. To produce a LCR network
with != 5.0kHz, we kept the original L=0.124H, and used a new 8.2nF
capacitance, which was calculated using the equation ! = !!! !"
Matching the resonant and message frequencies doesnt cleanly filter
the signal, as the noise with frequencies close to 5.0kHz would
also come through the LCR. To eliminate this noise we required a
LCR with a tall, narrow resonance peak so that the noise
frequencies would produce much lower impedance than the message
frequency, and hence a much less significant voltage output. By
considering the graphs in Figure 6 we decided R=0.5k was the most
suitable resistor available.
-
12 6 Conclusions We set up the LCR circuit in Figure 1 and
observed its transient response for 5 resistances. By increasing
the resistance we changed the transient from underdamped to
overdamped, demonstrating that resistance is indeed the damping
effect in this system. The steady state impedance response of this
LCR network was investigated for a range of sinusoidal input
frequencies. We repeated this using R=1.5k and R=4.0k, and
determine that damping reduces the strength of resonance. From the
results of the impedance response experiment, it was concluded that
the 0.5k resistor produced the sharpest resonance peak. This was
deemed a desirable property for the signal filtering system that
was designed Section 4.4 We successfully built a signal filtering
circuit, matching the resonant frequency to the message frequency
at 5.0 kHz and selecting the resistance corresponding to the
sharpest resonance peak. This setup separated the Morse code from
the noise adequately, such that the message could be detected and
decoded. 7 References 1. NST Part IA Physics Practicals Class
Manual, Lent term 2011, pp30-35.
-
13 . Although the magnetization vector alignment is slight for a
general weak field, much stronger fields induce a magnetization
parallel to the field. When a small magnetic field is applied to a
piece of polycrystalline material, the domain walls shift slightly
and so domains with more favorable magnetizations grow larger. This
growth is reversible as removing the magnetic field would restore
the initial magnetization state. However, for stronger fields, the
shifting of the domain walls involves interaction energy with the
crystals impurities. For particular field strength, the domain wall
may get stuck at such an impurity, and can only move past if the
field is raised further. Thus the motion of the domain wall is not
smooth as for a pure crystal, being rather jerky instead. When a
domain wall moves past one impediment, it moves quickly into the
next, and so produces rapidly changing magnetic fields inside the
material. These changing fields produce eddy currents in the
crystal that lose energy by heating the metal. Secondly a domain
change alters the dimensions of a crystal, setting up a small sound
wave that carries further energy away. As a consequence of these
energy losses, when the external field is made zero, all the
domains do not return to their initial states, and so the iron
block retains some magnetization. This magnetization can be reduced
by increasing the external field in the opposite direction. The
magnetization follows the curve in Figure . It can be seen that
after the material is initially magnetized, it retains
magnetization whenever the external field goes to zero. The area
under the resulting loop is proportional to the energy loss per
unit volume per cycle. Energy losses during the process of
magnetization result in retention of magnetization even in when the
external field is zero. This phenomenon is magnetic hysteresis.
Crystals of magnetic materials such as iron contain domains of
particular magnetizations, separated by domain walls. The precise
arrangement of domains within a crystal depends on a balance of a
number of energy factors involving stresses due to
magnetostriction, domain wall energy, and the energy in the
materials magnetic field itself. The crystals goal is to reach an
energy minimum, and consequently a stable condition. (is explaining
the nature of the domain walls really relevant to the main text?)
On application of an external field to such a crystal, its domain
walls shift to increase the size of domains whose magnetization is
more favorable to the field. This alignment is slight for a general
weak field, but for much stronger fields the magnetization becomes
parallel to the field.
-
14 Our secondary goal is to evaluate and assess the errors
present in a physical measurement. This is done in Section by
testing the following relationship between ! and ! . ! = !!!!!!! !
Explanations and derivations of these quantities are given in
Appendix We want to look at hysteresis loops, and so we need a way
of measuring B and H. The circuit in Fig is used throughout the
experiment. Part A and B of the circuit are connected only through
the magnetic flux between the primary and secondary coils. The
alternating voltage supply creates a time varying magnetic field
through the primary coil, which induces an emf in the secondary
coil. This voltage passes through the integrator to produce ! ,
such that ! = !!!!!!!! Similarly the voltage in part A, ! =
!!!!!!!!!!! ,
-
15 And so ! and ! are related through the equation ! =
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! The oscilloscope displays ! against ! , which is
essentially a graph of B against H, where H is the magnetizing
field and B is the magnetic field inside the core of the primary
and secondary coils, as ! and ! are proportional to B and H
respectively. ! = !!!!! ! = !!! The graphs in Figures 3 and 4 show
the systems transition from underdamped to overdamped with
increasing resistance.
Underdamped motion
For resistances of 65.1 and 502.1, the system clearly oscillates
more than once, allowing us to determine their oscillation periods
to be 532.0s and 537.0s. This is in agreement with the theoretical
prediction that the period of oscillation should increase with
resistance. We later calculated the time periods using the formula
= !!"!!! !!! to be 568.6 and 578.2 respectively. The time period
was calculated using the picoscope program by taking the difference
between two markers placed on successive crests. The placing of the
markers could be the source of error which resulted in the ~40s
difference between theoretical predictions and experimental
readings. A better method would possibly have been to place the
markers at points where the oscillation was zero. For R=1.5k, only
a single oscillation occurred. The period of this oscillation
(467.9s) was much lower than the theoretical prediction of 679.1s.
However it is possible that the second zero on the graph was
produced by the exponential term going to zero rather than the
cosine term. This would result in one underestimating the period as
we have done in the experiment. The half-lives decreased with
increasing resistance, as expected from the theoretical prediction
! ! = !"#!! . However it is hard to confirm this trend as only
three values of ! !were recorded.
Overdamped motion
-
16 The system is clearly overdamped for resistances of 10k and
100k, with half-life increasing with resistance. As the system was
underdamped at R=1.5k and overdamped at R=10k, we conclude that the
resistance producing critical damping is in the region 1.5k < R
< 10k. We expect LCR systems with low resistances to produce a
strong and narrow resonance peak. As the resistance is increased
the damping in the LCR becomes more significant, and subsequently
its resonance peak becomes shorter and flatter. This effect is
clearly illustrated by the three graphs in Figure 6. The LCR
network is only lightly damped when R=0.5k, and so it produces a
tall and narrow resonance peak. However when the resistance is
raised to 1.5k, only a small, flat resonance peak can be observed,
shifted to the left of the previous peak. For R=4k, the circuit is
so heavily damped that there is no observable peak; in fact the
circuit barely resonates and Z /! decreases to zero with increasing
frequency. These observations played an important role when we
built our signal filtering LCR system, as explained Section 5.3
4.4 Signal filtering A coaxial cable carried a Morse code signal
in a modulated carrier wave of frequency 5.0kHz. The signal is
buried in electrical noise with a wide frequency spectrum.
Therefore to separate the signal from the noise using the LCR
resonance, we need ! to be 5.0kHz. To construct this LCR network we
used the same inductance L=0.124H, with a new 8.2nF capacitor and a
0.5 k resistor. The LCR network was connected in series with a 100k
resistor. The diagram of this setup is shown in Figure 7.
-
17 Figure 1: Signal filtering LCR system We connected the filter
to the coaxial cable and set up the picoscope as instructed on pg34
of the lab manual [1]. We decoded the Morse code using the key on
pg35 of the lab manual [1]. The message was MISSION OVER.
-
18