Skip to main content
Best answer by StuartBruff

It took me a couple of seconds to work out why Tetsuro's phase plot looks different to yours - it's the linear vs logarithmic x-axis. 

 

To add my minor tuppence worth, I've modified your phase plot, removed the symbols, and added gridlines (I believe they're normally shown in Bode Plots?).  I didn't necessarily like the auto-scale's choice of min/max values and steps, either.

 

.2024 09 14 B.png

 

Stuart

 

 

 

.

2 replies

25-Diamond I
September 11, 2024

Your function would return all  non-real results which can't be plotted, like

Werner_E_0-1726067926579.png

 

You type a square bracket and this creates a matrix - guess this was not your intention.

Maybe you meant it to be the absolute value? Then of course you also would get real results.

But because f is a vector, you will also use vectorization as otherwise only the absolute value of the vector would be the only single scalar value.

Werner_E_1-1726068115581.png

 

Vectorization is also what you need in your second plot

Werner_E_2-1726068151009.png

 

 

P10 file attached

23-Emerald V
September 14, 2024

It took me a couple of seconds to work out why Tetsuro's phase plot looks different to yours - it's the linear vs logarithmic x-axis. 

 

To add my minor tuppence worth, I've modified your phase plot, removed the symbols, and added gridlines (I believe they're normally shown in Bode Plots?).  I didn't necessarily like the auto-scale's choice of min/max values and steps, either.

 

.2024 09 14 B.png

 

Stuart

 

 

 

.

25-Diamond I
September 15, 2024

@StuartBruff wrote:

It took me a couple of seconds to work out why Tetsuro's phase plot looks different to yours - it's the linear vs logarithmic x-axis. 

Correct. All I edited was the vectorization and I left the original of @FC_10037391 otherwise unchanged. Actually I avoid opening the chart component because its so slow and awkward to use.

ttokoro
21-Topaz I
21-Topaz I
September 14, 2024

image.pngimage.png

t.t.