Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781785482861500024

DOI: 10.1016/B978-1-78548-286-1.50002-4

Hope someone can help :)

Which stability paradigm in classical control can help me generalize Barkhausen's criterion and how exactly do I have a sufficient(not just necessary) condition for stable, unity-amplified oscillations? This just looks like another way of saying having a pole at origin brings an oscillator to the verge of stability.

Here's a study aid that I had created a while ago. It tries to pictorially summarize stability analysis using the Routh Hurwitz criterion in Control Theory.

https://preview.redd.it/icty5rphnxk51.png?width=1131&format=png&auto=webp&s=8fbe8f7ab2a69d2711fec28d3e3895d874084c1c

Could anyone help to derive the following expression (4.23) which is the stability criterion for type 3 digital PLL ?

PLL architecture

Type 3 PLL

"Forward Euler has a stability criterion in the form a time-step restriction ∆t < s, where s is a real number."

I need to find s, given a matrix (four of them actually) and the knowledge that for a linear ODE dy/dt=Ay and y=ynought.

"Consider the linear ODEs with A equal to each of the matrices you loaded. Find s for each matrix."

I do not have any code yet and am really unsure how to begin, its possible that I missed class. Any links to helpful places or hints would be excellent. I've been searching the web but haven't found much on this particular thing.

Thank you!

From a Youtube comment thread under a "Hello Future Me" poll asking whether Arcane is a dystopia.

OP

> I'm not sure why Arcane doesn't feel like a dystopia when I think it technically is close enough to be counted as one. Honestly the best reason I think I'm unsure is just because of how nuanced and real the show made its world and characters. It's almost like to count Arcane as a dystopia, we might as well count our own world as one. Also super hyped to hear Arcane discussed in a video!

Reply from 'A'

> That's because, in the eyes of many many many many many many many MANY people, the world we currently live in IS a dystopia.

My reply to 'A'

> That sort of robs the word “dystopia” of any meaning. Most people today live far, far better from their ancestors. It’s so different it is not really even comparable. Certainly many people, particularly in the West, are unhappy with the current state of affairs, and often justifiably so. But if we live in a dystopia today, then the nearly all humans who have ever been alive lived in a dystopia. That doesn’t feel right to me.

'B' replying to my reply

>so I think there's a lot of relevant bits you are either missing or overlooking here. For example: think of any techno futuristic dystopia in fiction. Anything that you think clearly counts as a dystopia, but where the technology is advanced way beyond modern day technology. There are likely countless ways in said dystopia that the lives of the people are "improved" by technology compared to today, if you narrow your vision and only look at that technology and not the wider scope. They must have it so much better! No, brushes like dystopia have to be painted by looking at the broad picture.
>
>And some of the broad picture elements that justify viewing our own world as a dystopia have to do with things like the disparity between the top amount of wealth and access and the bottom. It didn't used to be so wide of a gap. In fact, go back far enough and the gap was only mildly better for those at the top! This disparity is at absurd levels. Another element is how technology is being used. Think of a new technology. When it starts to exist, who does it primarily serve? Who does it continue to serve? Who benefits, who is harmed? Tech in our current world has a strong focus on benefitting those who have over those who do not have. If there's some benefit to those who do not have, then the tech is almost required to be benefiting "the haves" m

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

As far as I understand stability analysis based on bode plot gain/phase margin doesn't always hold up. However there is no clear derivation of this bode plot stability criterion, the best I can get is this https://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/amwiki/index.php?title=FAQ:_Under_what_conditions_is_the_Bode_plot_misleading_versus_the_Nyquist_plot_for_stability%3F

But with no derivation why that is the case. For me, I do think Nyquist gain/phase margin is the correct way to look at stability analysis instead of bode plot. But it seems there must be a reason that bode plot analysis is so popular.

So my question is, can we derive bode plot stability criterion? At what condition?

By bode plot analysis I mean, system is unstable if phase is less than -180 when it is unity gain. Or gain is more than 1 when phase is -180

According to Barkhausen stability criterion, the system will be unstable due to n360° degree phase shift. But when calculating gain margin with Bode diagram, they will look for -180°. Why? Some said that it will shift positive feedback to negative feedback?

What is disruptive technology?

Disruptive technology is an innovation that significantly changes the way consumers, industries or businesses operate. Disruptive technology replaces or fundamentally changes the old systems or people’s habits because using the new technology has recognizably better features. Adoption is quite natural, as there are advantages in terms of cost, user-friendliness, performance, or simply convenience.

Examples of disruptive technologies are television, the automobile, and the Internet. The Internet has managed to disrupt literally almost every industry in its years of existence. Many global companies have emerged with significant societal impact. Amazon has been disruptive with respect to the business model of traditional bookstores. Google has been disruptive with respect to searching for and verifying information. In fact, disruption happens almost constantly and the blockchain industry can be seen as a logical extension of the success of the Internet.

It is important to remember that no disruptive technology comes into the world with a better solution right from the start. Disruptive innovation creates an entirely new market or model that is initially judged to be inferior based on performance indicators valued by mainstream customers and users. Most people are satisfied with existing services, but new entrants can quickly capture a large market share by serving needs that did not previously exist.

To ensure that the adoption of disruptive technology will continue, it is important to keep working on improvements, efficiency, and performance. New disruptive services must align with what people in mainstream markets already value. In other words, it is necessary to outperform existing solutions on the market. It is even said that innovation needs to be up to 10 times better than existing solutions to be massively successful. The innovation may be the best, but if it does not meet the expectations of a large number of users, there will be no mass adoption and only a small group of enthusiasts or fans will use the technology. Notice that if there is no mass adoption, we cannot talk about disruption, because there will be no fundamental changes in society.

Let’s explain with an example. The first automobiles did not disrupt the market of horse-drawn vehicles in the late 19th century. Most people were very skeptical at the beginning and continued to make extensive use of horses. The first cars were expensive, unreliable, less

Buenosdillas

They’re on standbi

Pilot on me!!

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

I find myself in an unusual place right now, and it is gradually and utterly destroying my world. A few months ago, I started on the road towards deconstruction and personal catharsis of almost five years of being a devout Christian. I did it consciously in my mind but I was always hesitant to confidently admit it to other people, whether they were Christians or not because I felt that I did not have a sufficient reason to justify my deconversion. I subconsciously set up a criterion that in order for me to be sufficiently justified as an atheist, I need to assent to atheism through rationalism alone. No emotions or personal experiences are to be involved. It sounds stupid at first but I denied my emotions or personal experiences because I didn't think they were as rigorous as rational reasoning and using logic to dismantle my personal involvement with Christianity. However, the prolonged suppression of my emotions and personal experiences burnt me out and only increasingly made me frustrated and resentful towards Christianity. I did have a fair share of traumatic experiences of my local church along with the tumultuous emotions that was produced from it as a consequence. Hence, it just kind of exploded. Now, I really don't want to be a Christian.

However, at the same time, Christianity and my local church was the crux of my childhood development and the more I distant myself away from it, the more I feel nostalgic melancholy and depressed because it feels like I'm removing a huge chunk of my who I am and the person I am today. So I'm stuck in the middle: wanting to fully become an atheist because of the gross injustices and negativity committed by the local church, but at the same time, wanting to stay as a Christian because the majority of my core values and principles were developed from the outset of Christianity: the more I act or try to be secular, I can feel the grossness of it all and thus, feeling uncomfortable (due to being taught total depravity, sin, and purity) and wanting to retreat back to my safe haven--Christianity. But I want to be an atheist. So I'm not sure how to move forward with the whole thing. I feel confused, alone, hurt, and lost: above all, I have frequent moments of existential dread and angst because of my uncertainty. Because of this apparent duality, it is very difficult for me to maintain a stable identity and self-image in social settings. I feel inauthentic, pretentious, superficial, disingenuous, and half-hearted when

When I got home, they were still there.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

I won't be doing that today!