EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

Trigonometry terminology

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Trigonometry terminology

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 11:03:44 AM UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quote:
On 2/7/19 4:53 PM, jurb6006_at_gmail.com wrote:
""Phase-locked" strikes me as better."

That seems linguistically better. The OP wanted frequency the same but phase locked does not specify frequency. In fact one of these days, probably this year... Since the audiophiles seem to like second harmonic distortion in their single ended triode amps, I want to see what the phase relationship does to the sound. In generally the second harmonic pollution is locked to the fundamental, but the phase is almost always exactly 0º or 180º due to its source.

Once I got results I will send them to the asylum, and asylum is right, fifty grand for a turntable is insane. They're starting to approach the cost of the lathe that cuts the record.

I have heard "both" phases of third harmonic distortion, but only at 0º or 180º.

Phase locked, or phase and frequency locked is the way to put it, IMO.


"Phase locked" implies to me that (a) some sort of PLL is involved,
which may be true but is not inherent in the idea of two sine waves of
different amplitudes and phases but the same (average) frequency.


"Phase locked" is entirely neutral about how the two different waveforms get to have the exactly the same (instantaneous) frequency. Since one way of visualising frequency is as the rate of rotation of the complex voltage vector, one can talk about an instantaneous frequency.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:45 am   



On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 00:17:37 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Quote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:q3ih0r$fn$1_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/7/19 4:53 PM, jurb6006_at_gmail.com wrote:
""Phase-locked" strikes me as better."

That seems linguistically better. The OP wanted frequency the
same but phase locked does not specify frequency. In fact one of
these days, probably this year... Since the audiophiles seem to
like second harmonic distortion in their single ended triode
amps, I want to see what the phase relationship does to the
sound. In generally the second harmonic pollution is locked to
the fundamental, but the phase is almost always exactly 0º or
180º due to its source.

Once I got results I will send them to the asylum, and asylum is
right, fifty grand for a turntable is insane. They're starting to
approach the cost of the lathe that cuts the record.

I have heard "both" phases of third harmonic distortion, but only
at 0º or 180º.

Phase locked, or phase and frequency locked is the way to put it,
IMO.


"Phase locked" implies to me that (a) some sort of PLL is
involved, which may be true but is not inherent in the idea of two
sine waves of different amplitudes and phases but the same
(average) frequency.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



The military uses both 1 pps and 10MHz and even has timestamped
pings that get sent. Everything else can get referenced to that for
synching, etc.

quote:

10MHz is a frequency reference, PPS is a time reference
its an important distinction.

You use 10 MHz to discipline the oscillators in connected
equipment so that they having matching and accurate frequency.
You use PPS to coordinate time (As in wall clock) between
devices, often in connection with a UTC time value emitted
via the RS232 port on the GPSDO.

The PPS signal is already synchronous to the 10MHz clock
in such a way that all connected devices will sample a
PPS edge on the same 10MHz clock edge.
/quote


In a GPS receiver, the prime signal is the 1 PPS pulse. A 5 or 10 MHz
oscillator is often phase locked (or "disciplined") by the 1 PPS.

What's interesting is that the 10 MHz does not usually have a defined
phase relationship to the 1PPS. In fact it can't. There could be
9,999,999 or 10,000,002 cycles of 10 MHz between two 1PPS ticks, and
the 1PPS rising edge can wander across 10 MHz cycles.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 12:23:24 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 00:17:37 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:q3ih0r$fn$1_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/7/19 4:53 PM, jurb6006_at_gmail.com wrote:
""Phase-locked" strikes me as better."

That seems linguistically better. The OP wanted frequency the
same but phase locked does not specify frequency. In fact one of
these days, probably this year... Since the audiophiles seem to
like second harmonic distortion in their single ended triode
amps, I want to see what the phase relationship does to the
sound. In generally the second harmonic pollution is locked to
the fundamental, but the phase is almost always exactly 0º or
180º due to its source.

Once I got results I will send them to the asylum, and asylum is
right, fifty grand for a turntable is insane. They're starting to
approach the cost of the lathe that cuts the record.

I have heard "both" phases of third harmonic distortion, but only
at 0º or 180º.

Phase locked, or phase and frequency locked is the way to put it,
IMO.

"Phase locked" implies to me that (a) some sort of PLL is
involved, which may be true but is not inherent in the idea of two
sine waves of different amplitudes and phases but the same
(average) frequency.


Phil's ideas about what "phase locked" might imply are trifle daft, as his idea that Jeroen's situation might involve an "average" frequency - in Jeroen's case the instantaneous frequency is to be identical for both signals.

Quote:
The military uses both 1 pps and 10MHz and even has timestamped
pings that get sent. Everything else can get referenced to that for
synching, etc.

quote:

10MHz is a frequency reference, PPS is a time reference
its an important distinction.

You use 10 MHz to discipline the oscillators in connected
equipment so that they having matching and accurate frequency.
You use PPS to coordinate time (As in wall clock) between
devices, often in connection with a UTC time value emitted
via the RS232 port on the GPSDO.

The PPS signal is already synchronous to the 10MHz clock
in such a way that all connected devices will sample a
PPS edge on the same 10MHz clock edge.
/quote

In a GPS receiver, the prime signal is the 1 PPS pulse. A 5 or 10 MHz
oscillator is often phase locked (or "disciplined") by the 1 PPS.

What's interesting is that the 10 MHz does not usually have a defined
phase relationship to the 1PPS. In fact it can't. There could be
9,999,999 or 10,000,002 cycles of 10 MHz between two 1PPS ticks, and
the 1PPS rising edge can wander across 10 MHz cycles.


GPS receivers wander around, which automatically messes up their phase relationship to the notional 10MHz reference frequency that the receiver infers from the real signals it gets from satellites whizzing overhead.

This is a long way from Jeroen's original post.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney.


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:45 am   



jurb6006_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:216fb00c-d213-47b7-b13f-6130cd33b1a2_at_googlegroups.com:

Quote:
" It made
scratched recordings sound good."

I found conical styli in cheap cartridges to be better at fucked
up records, but I never owned an Ortofon so I can't say.



I never made any comparisons. It was my first (and only) turntable
aside from the '60s era Grey speaker cabinet that opens up into a
'record changer'. Yeah those 'changed' your records for you.

But that one I got was given to me by my Boss' son at a place I
worked at. He was pretty well to do, and it already had that cartridge
on it. He also sold my my favorite car. My first year model, 1970
Chevrolet Monte Carlo in Plum (burgundy) Vinyl top... for only $35!
I loved that car.


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:45 am   



John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:f4mp5el4kk0tdbqfh4eroo9rbfho2n0p0u_at_4ax.com:

Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 00:17:37 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:q3ih0r$fn$1_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/7/19 4:53 PM, jurb6006_at_gmail.com wrote:
""Phase-locked" strikes me as better."

That seems linguistically better. The OP wanted frequency the
same but phase locked does not specify frequency. In fact one
of
these days, probably this year... Since the audiophiles seem to
like second harmonic distortion in their single ended triode
amps, I want to see what the phase relationship does to the
sound. In generally the second harmonic pollution is locked to
the fundamental, but the phase is almost always exactly 0º or
180º due to its source.

Once I got results I will send them to the asylum, and asylum
is
right, fifty grand for a turntable is insane. They're starting
to
approach the cost of the lathe that cuts the record.

I have heard "both" phases of third harmonic distortion, but
only
at 0º or 180º.

Phase locked, or phase and frequency locked is the way to put
it,
IMO.


"Phase locked" implies to me that (a) some sort of PLL is
involved, which may be true but is not inherent in the idea of
two
sine waves of different amplitudes and phases but the same
(average) frequency.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



The military uses both 1 pps and 10MHz and even has timestamped
pings that get sent. Everything else can get referenced to that
for
synching, etc.

quote:

10MHz is a frequency reference, PPS is a time reference
its an important distinction.

You use 10 MHz to discipline the oscillators in connected
equipment so that they having matching and accurate frequency.
You use PPS to coordinate time (As in wall clock) between
devices, often in connection with a UTC time value emitted
via the RS232 port on the GPSDO.

The PPS signal is already synchronous to the 10MHz clock
in such a way that all connected devices will sample a
PPS edge on the same 10MHz clock edge.
/quote

In a GPS receiver, the prime signal is the 1 PPS pulse. A 5 or 10
MHz
oscillator is often phase locked (or "disciplined") by the 1 PPS.

What's interesting is that the 10 MHz does not usually have a
defined
phase relationship to the 1PPS. In fact it can't. There could be
9,999,999 or 10,000,002 cycles of 10 MHz between two 1PPS ticks,
and
the 1PPS rising edge can wander across 10 MHz cycles.



It is like the grid and all synching to 3600 rpm to get 60 cycles.
It wanders small amounts but ends up staying fully synched.

So the thing is meant to guage long term points within systems
meant to work together. The bigger the distance between components
the more it needds to be there.

In a 14 rack stimulator for the F-35 having over 1000 channels,
all synched up and combined such that events stimulated and
subsequnetly "read" by the aircraft sensors is occurring and being
recorded at known points in time synched to within nanoseconds of
each other at the big anechoic chamber down at Hughes.

Each rack had 9 4U devices with 16 channels in each all fed into a
central 5U combiner which then feeds all of those to yet another
rack where all of the event logging and stimulus gets calibrated
out.


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:45 am   



Quote:
"Just find a good machinist friend and have him cut you a custom
heavy platter..."


I know a few people who can do that.

Quote:
"All you need to do is decide on
material(s) and construction."


Yeah, piece of cake...

>"Of course, my $80 plastic POS sounded just as good, as long as you played it from another room..."

Get a Dual 12XX series. They are excellent at that and I got a secret forya. If you get feedback, change the absolute phase of both speakers. If you get the feedback you are going to get the feedback but the absolute phase determines at what frequency.

>"$150 Ortofon cartridge..."

I had the Audio Technica AT13Ea wit the 2X7 hyperhyper elliptical. Silky smooth highs. Flat from 10Hz to 30,000Hz. The Ortofon might be better but I didn't see one locally so I bought the Audio Technica.

Quote:
" It made
scratched recordings sound good."


I found conical styli in cheap cartridges to be better at fucked up records, but I never owned an Ortofon so I can't say.

Jeroen Belleman
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:45 am   



George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 9:26:55 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:51:43 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman
Same frequency, different amplitude and phase, is the best I can do :^)
I'd be using the term in a write-up about frequency-domain
reflectometry. I'm trying to put together a clear argument
that a terminating impedance different from Z0 is equivalent
to a signal of equal frequency, but different in amplitude
and phase being injected in the backward direction from
a Z0 impedance source.

In other words, that one can make a terminating Z0
impedance look like any impedance by putting another source
of the correct phase and amplitude in series with it.

As you can see from the above, I have trouble wording
this clearly and concisely.

Thanks for your collective input!

Jeroen Belleman
(You don't understand a theory if you can't explain
it to your grandmother .)
An unmatched impedance will give a reflected wave at the same frequency, but different amplitude and phase.

George
Thanks George, but I clearly failed to get my point across.
My point was that this is indistinguishable from injecting
a well-chosen backwards travelling signal through a matched
impedance.

Jeroen Belleman

OK, I think I read too fast and missed your point.

So this is CW reflectometry?

George H.


This particular phrase, yes. I'll be going into frequency-domain
and time-domain reflectometry, the relation between the two and
some pros and cons of each. My target audience is mathematically
sophisticated, which is why I have to get my terminology right,
but they have limited knowledge of electronics.

Jeroen Belleman


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:38:12 PM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:e7e0fea5-b4b7-43cb-bfc8-9fd1ce792053_at_googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:51:43 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman

Same frequency, different amplitude and phase, is the best I
can do :^)


I'd be using the term in a write-up about frequency-domain
reflectometry. I'm trying to put together a clear argument
that a terminating impedance different from Z0 is equivalent
to a signal of equal frequency, but different in amplitude
and phase being injected in the backward direction from
a Z0 impedance source.

In other words, that one can make a terminating Z0
impedance look like any impedance by putting another source
of the correct phase and amplitude in series with it.

As you can see from the above, I have trouble wording
this clearly and concisely.

Thanks for your collective input!

Jeroen Belleman
(You don't understand a theory if you can't explain
it to your grandmother .)

Call it the simulated return wave.


stimulated.


No, it's simulated because he's simulating a return from an unmatched termination with a synthesized signal.

noun
imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:45 pm   



bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:d3468b91-e488-41df-89b4-b9282e9ecd98_at_googlegroups.com:

Quote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:38:12 PM UTC-5,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:e7e0fea5-b4b7-43cb-bfc8-9fd1ce792053_at_googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:51:43 AM UTC-5, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman

Same frequency, different amplitude and phase, is the best I
can do :^)


I'd be using the term in a write-up about frequency-domain
reflectometry. I'm trying to put together a clear argument
that a terminating impedance different from Z0 is equivalent
to a signal of equal frequency, but different in amplitude
and phase being injected in the backward direction from
a Z0 impedance source.

In other words, that one can make a terminating Z0
impedance look like any impedance by putting another source
of the correct phase and amplitude in series with it.

As you can see from the above, I have trouble wording
this clearly and concisely.

Thanks for your collective input!

Jeroen Belleman
(You don't understand a theory if you can't explain
it to your grandmother .)

Call it the simulated return wave.


stimulated.

No, it's simulated because he's simulating a return from an
unmatched termination with a synthesized signal.

noun
imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.


No, it is "stimulated" because it is a reflection you are
observing and that had to be generated by the initial wave, that is
the very definition of stimulation.

It matters not whether the 'signal' was "synthesized" or not. It
matters not the termination. The fact that there is a reflection
makes that reflection a stimulated signal and your observation of it
is "reflectometry".

You may think that you "simulated" the signal because it was
"synthesized", but your 'simulated' signal STIMULATED the circuit it
was fed into and observed operating on. That 'circuit' is your
'unmatched termination'.

He is simulating the signal with which he is STIMULATING a return
event with. One observes the return event data.

Again, that is the very definition of circuit stimulation.

Sorry, but it is a common mistake.


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:45 pm   



On Thursday, 7 February 2019 22:05:30 UTC, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
jurb6006_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:774a67e3-ecb3-497a-bb6f-5aef9d24b257_at_googlegroups.com:

Just find a good machinist friend and have him cut you a custom
heavy platter for your cheaper drive, and then suspend it from
rubber bands (the entire turntable) instead of putting it on a stand
or floor connected hard mount.


or put a sheet of something heavy on the platter. I'm not sure it's an ideal solution though.

> That's as pro as it gets.

A Technics deck is as pro as it gets - pro does not mean best quality.

Quote:
All you need to do is decide on
material(s) and construction. Get the mass right and you excede
their methods. Press a nice, sintered bronze bearing into it and
slide it onto a hard, micro-polished center shaft, and knock 'em all
dead.

Of course, my $80 plastic POS sounded just as good, as long as you
played it from another room than the one with the sound playback,
and put a nice $150 Ortofon cartridge on it (1984 dollars). It made
scratched recordings sound good. Best cartridge I ever owned/used.


I got a bunch of Ortofons, pointy things that came in plastic cylinders, never was a fan. I see they've got even pointier since then. Shures were always my fave.


NT

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:45 pm   



On Feb 6, 2019, Don Kuenz wrote
(in article <20190206a_at_crcomp.net>):

Quote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman

Those types of signals are called coherent. It is a very broad area of
study, but, when you say coherent sine waves, the people who know the
field will understand it to mean exactly what you describe.

Yes indeed. My _IEEE Dictionary_ says it this way:

coherent (1) (fiber optics). Characterized by a fixed phase relationship
between points on an electromagnetic wave. Note: A truly monochromatic
wave would be perfectly coherent at all points in space. In practice,
however, the region of high coherence may extend only a finite distance.

Thank you, 73,


_Coherent_ is correct, and it applies to reference signals generated from one
another by frequency multiplication or division. The key is that the ratio of
the rates of phase advance is constant. In the case of a signal and a
frequency-doubled (or -halved) version of the same signal, that ratio is
exactly two.

All correlated signals are coherent, but not all coherent signals are
correlated. A signal and a frequency doubled version of that signal are
coherent, but are uncorrelated.

The original definition of coherent was simply that coherent beams of light
could be made to interfere and cancel. This was subsequently expanded to
handle such things as frequency-doubled light.

Useful ref: "A unifying view of coherence in signal processing", William A.
Gardner, Signal Processing, Volume 29 Issue 2, Nov. 1992, Pages 113 - 140.

Joe Gwinn

John S
Guest

Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:45 pm   



On 2/8/2019 2:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:d3468b91-e488-41df-89b4-b9282e9ecd98_at_googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:38:12 PM UTC-5,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:e7e0fea5-b4b7-43cb-bfc8-9fd1ce792053_at_googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:51:43 AM UTC-5, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman

Same frequency, different amplitude and phase, is the best I
can do :^)


I'd be using the term in a write-up about frequency-domain
reflectometry. I'm trying to put together a clear argument
that a terminating impedance different from Z0 is equivalent
to a signal of equal frequency, but different in amplitude
and phase being injected in the backward direction from
a Z0 impedance source.

In other words, that one can make a terminating Z0
impedance look like any impedance by putting another source
of the correct phase and amplitude in series with it.

As you can see from the above, I have trouble wording
this clearly and concisely.

Thanks for your collective input!

Jeroen Belleman
(You don't understand a theory if you can't explain
it to your grandmother .)

Call it the simulated return wave.


stimulated.

No, it's simulated because he's simulating a return from an
unmatched termination with a synthesized signal.

noun
imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.


No, it is "stimulated" because it is a reflection you are
observing and that had to be generated by the initial wave, that is
the very definition of stimulation.

It matters not whether the 'signal' was "synthesized" or not. It
matters not the termination. The fact that there is a reflection
makes that reflection a stimulated signal and your observation of it
is "reflectometry".

You may think that you "simulated" the signal because it was
"synthesized", but your 'simulated' signal STIMULATED the circuit it
was fed into and observed operating on. That 'circuit' is your
'unmatched termination'.

He is simulating the signal with which he is STIMULATING a return
event with. One observes the return event data.

Again, that is the very definition of circuit stimulation.

Sorry, but it is a common mistake.


Yes, you are uncommonly sorry. You are also a genetic mistake.

Jeroen Belleman
Guest

Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:45 pm   



On 2019-02-10 19:58, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2019, Don Kuenz wrote
(in article <20190206a_at_crcomp.net>):

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman

Those types of signals are called coherent. It is a very broad area of
study, but, when you say coherent sine waves, the people who know the
field will understand it to mean exactly what you describe.

Yes indeed. My _IEEE Dictionary_ says it this way:

coherent (1) (fiber optics). Characterized by a fixed phase relationship
between points on an electromagnetic wave. Note: A truly monochromatic
wave would be perfectly coherent at all points in space. In practice,
however, the region of high coherence may extend only a finite distance.

Thank you, 73,

_Coherent_ is correct, and it applies to reference signals generated from one
another by frequency multiplication or division. The key is that the ratio of
the rates of phase advance is constant. In the case of a signal and a
frequency-doubled (or -halved) version of the same signal, that ratio is
exactly two.

All correlated signals are coherent, but not all coherent signals are
correlated. A signal and a frequency doubled version of that signal are
coherent, but are uncorrelated.

The original definition of coherent was simply that coherent beams of light
could be made to interfere and cancel. This was subsequently expanded to
handle such things as frequency-doubled light.

Useful ref: "A unifying view of coherence in signal processing", William A.
Gardner, Signal Processing, Volume 29 Issue 2, Nov. 1992, Pages 113 - 140.

Joe Gwinn


Thanks Joe, Don. To me, 'coherent' had the stronger meaning of
'same phase', but I see now that that was too restrictive.
It looks like it's a winner then. Thanks again.

Jeroen Belleman

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:45 am   



On Feb 10, 2019, Jeroen Belleman wrote
(in article <q3q7hg$p4l$1_at_gioia.aioe.org>):

Quote:
On 2019-02-10 19:58, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 6, 2019, Don Kuenz wrote
(in article <20190206a_at_crcomp.net>):

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman

Those types of signals are called coherent. It is a very broad area of
study, but, when you say coherent sine waves, the people who know the
field will understand it to mean exactly what you describe.

Yes indeed. My _IEEE Dictionary_ says it this way:

coherent (1) (fiber optics). Characterized by a fixed phase relationship
between points on an electromagnetic wave. Note: A truly monochromatic
wave would be perfectly coherent at all points in space. In practice,
however, the region of high coherence may extend only a finite distance.

Thank you, 73,

_Coherent_ is correct, and it applies to reference signals generated from
one
another by frequency multiplication or division. The key is that the ratio
of
the rates of phase advance is constant. In the case of a signal and a
frequency-doubled (or -halved) version of the same signal, that ratio is
exactly two.

All correlated signals are coherent, but not all coherent signals are
correlated. A signal and a frequency doubled version of that signal are
coherent, but are uncorrelated.

The original definition of coherent was simply that coherent beams of light
could be made to interfere and cancel. This was subsequently expanded to
handle such things as frequency-doubled light.

Useful ref: "A unifying view of coherence in signal processing", William A.
Gardner, Signal Processing, Volume 29 Issue 2, Nov. 1992, Pages 113 - 140.

Joe Gwinn

Thanks Joe, Don. To me, 'coherent' had the stronger meaning of
'same phase', but I see now that that was too restrictive.
It looks like it's a winner then. Thanks again.

Jeroen Belleman


Youre welcome.

By the way, while in the above example the constant ratio happens to be an
integer, this is not required. It can be any real number, and is often a
rational number.

Joe Gwinn


Guest

Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:45 am   



John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in news:q3q8ra$dpd$1_at_dont-
email.me:

Quote:
On 2/8/2019 2:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:d3468b91-e488-41df-89b4-b9282e9ecd98_at_googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:38:12 PM UTC-5,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote in
news:e7e0fea5-b4b7-43cb-bfc8-9fd1ce792053_at_googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:51:43 AM UTC-5, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-5, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
Do we have a handy term to say that two sinusoidal waves
of equal frequency differ only by amplitude and phase?
I would say 'correlated', but would that be the most
common term?

Jeroen Belleman

Same frequency, different amplitude and phase, is the best I
can do :^)


I'd be using the term in a write-up about frequency-domain
reflectometry. I'm trying to put together a clear argument
that a terminating impedance different from Z0 is equivalent
to a signal of equal frequency, but different in amplitude
and phase being injected in the backward direction from
a Z0 impedance source.

In other words, that one can make a terminating Z0
impedance look like any impedance by putting another source
of the correct phase and amplitude in series with it.

As you can see from the above, I have trouble wording
this clearly and concisely.

Thanks for your collective input!

Jeroen Belleman
(You don't understand a theory if you can't explain
it to your grandmother .)

Call it the simulated return wave.


stimulated.

No, it's simulated because he's simulating a return from an
unmatched termination with a synthesized signal.

noun
imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in
testing.


No, it is "stimulated" because it is a reflection you are
observing and that had to be generated by the initial wave, that
is
the very definition of stimulation.

It matters not whether the 'signal' was "synthesized" or not.
It
matters not the termination. The fact that there is a reflection
makes that reflection a stimulated signal and your observation of
it
is "reflectometry".

You may think that you "simulated" the signal because it was
"synthesized", but your 'simulated' signal STIMULATED the circuit
it
was fed into and observed operating on. That 'circuit' is your
'unmatched termination'.

He is simulating the signal with which he is STIMULATING a
return
event with. One observes the return event data.

Again, that is the very definition of circuit stimulation.

Sorry, but it is a common mistake.


Yes, you are uncommonly sorry. You are also a genetic mistake.


Leave it to a twerp whom constantly makes such immature posts to
do so yet again.

How UNscientific of you, dork boy.

Injecting a signal into a circuit IS STIMULATION.

Too bad you are such a bullheaded putz.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Trigonometry terminology

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map