Does not have any harmonics
karthikbalaguru
Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
distortion ?
For example, (Reference -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
harmonics or distortion ?
I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
detail about these .
Any ideas ?
Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru
Joerg
David Wright
transmission medium would only have the fundamental in its spectrum.
However, real-world finite duration sinewaves in distorted transmission
system would have some harmonics. These harmonics would not be as
pronounced as those of an impulse waveform. However, by running the impulse
through an integrator circuit, the harmonics can be reduced. With a series
of integrators, of course, you return to to something approaching a
sinewave. Since most radio transmission are bandwidth limited with filters,
many of the higher harmonics are hopefully missing.
"karthikbalaguru" <karthikb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7c6948d-f327-4eaa...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Mike Wahler
"karthikbalaguru" <karthikb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7c6948d-f327-4eaa...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
As I understand it, a harmonic *is* a sine wave. So I suppose if
you consider something to contain itself, a sine wave contains a
(single) harmonic.
From http://www.ethnomusic.ucla.edu/systematic/definiti.htm :
Harmonic: Sine component of a complex signal. Thus, a complex
signal is composed of harmonics. Its frequency is obtained as
the integer multiple of the fundamental frequency
Also see:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-017/_2542.htm
-Mike
David Wright
mirror image of the waveform. This brings up all sorts of interesting
possibilities - such a SSB or single-sided sideband and DSB or double-sided
sideband.
"Mike Wahler" <mkwa...@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:13nl7tm...@corp.supernews.com...
Don Bowey
Wright" <dwri...@mc.net> wrote:
> Mike is correct. A frequency spectrum consists of a positive and negative
> mirror image of the waveform. This brings up all sorts of interesting
> possibilities - such a SSB or single-sided sideband and DSB or double-sided
> sideband.
>
> "Mike Wahler" <mkwa...@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
> news:13nl7tm...@corp.supernews.com...
(It's not nice to Top Post)
YOU are talking of modulation products, which is not what the OP was asking.
Whatever Mike had in mind, it is wrong WRT the OP's question.
>>
>> "karthikbalaguru" <karthikb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b7c6948d-f327-4eaa...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hi,
>>> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
>>> distortion ?
It could have some distortion. It depends on the quality of the signal
generator. For practical purposes the distortion may not be significant,
but may be measurable.
>>>
>>> For example, (Reference -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
>>> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
>>> Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
>>> Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics.
Yes. Complex waveforms are constructed of various harmonics.
A single frequency sinewave is not a "harmonic" (it is NOT a multiple
frequency of itself)
>>>
>>> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
>>> harmonics or distortion ?
See above.
>>> I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
>>> detail about these .
>>> Any ideas ?
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, a harmonic *is* a sine wave. So I suppose if
>> you consider something to contain itself, a sine wave contains a
>> (single) harmonic.
Nope
>>
>> From http://www.ethnomusic.ucla.edu/systematic/definiti.htm :
>> Harmonic: Sine component of a complex signal. Thus, a complex
>> signal is composed of harmonics. Its frequency is obtained as
>> the integer multiple of the fundamental frequency
OK
Eeyore
karthikbalaguru wrote:
> Hi,
> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> distortion ?
Because it doesn't. Read up 'simple harmonic motion'.
Graham
John Fields
---
Q. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"
A. "Because it is."
--
JF
John Fields
<karthikb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
>distortion ?
---
Because it's a single pure tone.
---
>For example, (Reference -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
>Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
>Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
>Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
>But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
>harmonics or distortion ?
---
Every waveform which isn't a perfect sine wave is made up of more
than one sine wave, and when they combine they result in the shape
of the final waveform.
---
>I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
>detail about these .
>Any ideas ?
---
Yes. Go to this wonderful tutorial:
--
JF
bill....@ieee.org
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:13:58 +0000, Eeyore
>
>
> >karthikbalaguru wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
> >> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> >> distortion ?
>
> >Because it doesn't. Read up 'simple harmonic motion'.
>
> ---
> Q. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"
>
> A. "Because it is."
You were badly brought up. My parents told me that fine dust particles
suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light
- than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
It didn't make much sense to me at the time - I was around four - but
at least I wasn't mis-informed.
In fact Eeyore has done a litttle better than your parents did -
"simple harmonic motion" as a search string does get you to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion
which in turn points you to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_harmonic_motion
which gets you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_analysis
which is probably where the OP needs to go, though they may need a
fair bit of education before they can get much out of it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John O'Flaherty
<karthikb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Odd and even harmonics are themselves pure sine waves that are
frequency multiples of a fundamental sine wave. Distortion of a sine
wave produces odd and/or even harmonics. So, sine waves are
irreducible pure signals that other signals can be analyzed into.
--
John
john jardine
"karthikbalaguru" <karthikb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7c6948d-f327-4eaa...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Myself I'd say a triangle waveform looks like it should be the one to have
no harmonics.
But it's all down to how smoothly the waveform voltage changes. The triangle
and square have significant 'shape' discontinuities during each cycle and
these have the effect of creating harmonics.
The sine wave although a horrible looking non linear waveform, is the one
with the absolutely smoothest rate of change over all its cycle.
(DC is even smoother but isn't a frequency :)
Eeyore
John O'Flaherty wrote:
> Distortion of a sine wave produces odd and/or even harmonics.
Not QUITE correct.
Distortion as caused typically by non-linearities in a transfer
characteristic such as in an amplifier may be modelled and indeed measured
as harmonic distortion but the mechanism producing it is typically
producing a wide range of harmonic products of which typically only a few
may usually be considered of interest.
Graham,
Eeyore
john jardine wrote:
> Myself I'd say a triangle waveform looks like it should be the one to have
> no harmonics.
Uh ? With those rapid discontinuities ?
> But it's all down to how smoothly the waveform voltage changes.
Exactly. Simple harmonic motion. As in a child's swing or a pendulum for
example.
Graham
Fred Bartoli
It's more a matter of definition. When you take the view of decomposing
a waveform on a sine waves base, it is not abnormal that a sine wave has
just one component on that base: itself. The contrary would be abnormal.
If you were to decompose a sine wave on a triagular waveforms base
(which is as valid as the sine waves case), it'd had lots of 'harmonics'
and a triangular waveform would have just the fundamental.
--
Thanks,
Fred.
John O'Flaherty
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>John O'Flaherty wrote:
>
>> Distortion of a sine wave produces odd and/or even harmonics.
>
>Not QUITE correct.
Sorry, but I think it's exactly correct.
>Distortion as caused typically by non-linearities in a transfer
>characteristic such as in an amplifier may be modelled and indeed measured
>as harmonic distortion but the mechanism producing it is typically
>producing a wide range of harmonic products of which typically only a few
>may usually be considered of interest.
That's a different question.
--
John
Phil Allison
"Fred Bartoli"
>
> It's more a matter of definition.
** No it is not - you posturing wanker.
> If you were to decompose a sine wave on a triagular waveforms base (which
> is as valid as the sine waves case),
** No it is not.
A sine wave uniquely has the property of no harmonics.
Unlike all other periodic waves, its shape is unaltered after passing
though any kind of filter.
....... Phil
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
Phil's right too.
Graham
Eeyore
John O'Flaherty wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >John O'Flaherty wrote:
> >
> >> Distortion of a sine wave produces odd and/or even harmonics.
> >
> >Not QUITE correct.
>
> Sorry, but I think it's exactly correct.
The non-linearities that are/cause distortion *result* in the production of
harmonics. They don't actually *make* harmonics.
It's a subtle distinction.
Graham
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> Hi,
> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> distortion ?
>
> For example, (Reference -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
> Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
> Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
Fourier analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis)
demonstrates that any periodic waveform can be expressed as the sum of a
series of sine waves. The relationship between the waves frequencies of
the series is that there is one, called the fundamental, which is a sine
wave of frequency equal to that of the periodic waveform. All of the
other waves of the series have frequencies that are integer multiples of
the fundamental. These are called harmonics.
If, for your periodic wave, you select a sine wave, then the fundamental
of the series emulates it exactly. No other harmonics are needed.
> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> harmonics or distortion ?
Distortion is a bit different. It is a broad term that refers to a
change in a waveform between the input and output of some system.
Used in the context you, it refers to the change in harmonic content
introduced when driving a system with a pure sinusoidal input.
> I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> detail about these .
> Any ideas ?
>
> Thx in advans,
> Karthik Balaguru
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" while looking for a rock.
John Fields
>On Jan 2, 12:09 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:13:58 +0000, Eeyore
>>
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >karthikbalaguru wrote:
>>
>> >> Hi,
>> >> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
>> >> distortion ?
>>
>> >Because it doesn't. Read up 'simple harmonic motion'.
>>
>> ---
>> Q. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"
>>
>> A. "Because it is."
>
>You were badly brought up.
---
Not at all.
In fact, my parents weren't technical at all, but they taught me
manners and that a library is a resource.
---
>My parents told me that fine dust particles
>suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light
>- than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
>
>It didn't make much sense to me at the time - I was around four - but
>at least I wasn't mis-informed.
---
Unfortunately, you were and you're obviously still in the dark about
it, not having been able to give up what you were taught even though
the truth is glaringly obvious.
Here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html
---
>In fact Eeyore has done a litttle better than your parents did -
>"simple harmonic motion" as a search string does get you to this
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion
>
>which in turn points you to this
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_harmonic_motion
>
>which gets you to
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_analysis
>
>which is probably where the OP needs to go, though they may need a
>fair bit of education before they can get much out of it.
---
LOL, you're as bad as the fucking donkey with your less than helpful
links that, by your own admission, will probably be useless.
--
JF
John Fields
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>John O'Flaherty wrote:
>
>> Distortion of a sine wave produces odd and/or even harmonics.
>
>Not QUITE correct.
---
That's _precisely_ correct.
For instance, what happens when you run a perfect sine wave through
a diode?
---
>Distortion as caused typically by non-linearities in a transfer
>characteristic such as in an amplifier may be modelled and indeed measured
>as harmonic distortion but the mechanism producing it is typically
>producing a wide range of harmonic products of which typically only a few
>may usually be considered of interest.
---
So what?
It's the nonlinearity of the transfer function which is causing the
distortion and, ergo, the generation of the harmonic products.
--
JF
Buttered
wrote:
Hi,
You may need to read or on some basic harmonic theory.
Waveforms that are symmetrical above and below their HORIZONTAL
CENTERLINES (does not necessaryly have to be at x-axis) contain no
even-numbered harmonics. Sawtooth wave is not symmetrical above and
below their horizontal centerlines hence you have both odd and even
harmonics.Whereas square and triangle wave is symmetrical above and
below their horizontal centerlines hence you only have odd-numbered
harmonics.
ref: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_7/4.html
--
M Zhafran
John Fields
---
Nice...
--
JF
John Fields
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>John O'Flaherty wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >John O'Flaherty wrote:
>> >
>> >> Distortion of a sine wave produces odd and/or even harmonics.
>> >
>> >Not QUITE correct.
>>
>> Sorry, but I think it's exactly correct.
>
>The non-linearities that are/cause distortion *result* in the production of
>harmonics. They don't actually *make* harmonics.
>
>It's a subtle distinction.
---
Bullshit.
O'Flaherty wrote:
"Distortion of a sine wave produces odd and/or even harmonics."
which, no matter how fine you slice it, is true.
--
JF
Michael A. Terrell
>
> You were badly brought up. My parents told me that fine dust particles
> suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light
> - than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
I'll bet they told you that you were worth something, too.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
John Popelish
> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> harmonics or distortion ?
> I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> detail about these .
> Any ideas ?
Picture a rotating disk on a horizontal axis, with a dot
near its edge, and you are looking at that dot from the
axis. The disk is spinning at a fixed speed (constant
rotations per minute, perhaps), so its rotational cycle
represents a perfect single frequency.
The vertical height of the dot (with zero height being the
height of the axis) produces a perfect sine wave as time
passes, if you call time zero a moment when the dot was
beside the axis. The horizontal position of the dot, with
zero position being he axis, is a perfect cosine wave. So
either the sine wave or the cosine wave is a representation
of the single rotational frequency of the disk. The
combination of the sine and cosine components of the dot's
position completely describe its rotational cycle at one
pure frequency.
--
Regards,
John Popelish
Clifford Heath
> Unlike all other periodic waves, its shape is unaltered after passing
> though any kind of filter.
... as long as the filter consists only of passive/linear components :-).
Tim Wescott
> Hi,
> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> distortion ?
>
> For example, (Reference -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics Square
> wave of constant period contains odd harmonics Triangle wave, (an
> integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> harmonics or distortion ?
> I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> detail about these .
> Any ideas ?
>
> Thx in advans,
> Karthik Balaguru
Reading all the responses to this has been like hearing of all the wise,
blind men who are describing an elephant.
So, IMHO, an elephant is like a rope. And by the way, why is it suddenly
raining fertilizer?
At any rate, a sine wave doesn't have any because that's how harmonics
are defined. Harmonics are defined in the context of the Fourier series,
and the Fourier series for a pure sine wave is just -- that sine wave.
That's it, no more. Only a periodic wave that deviates from a perfect
sine wave can have harmonics, and (thanks to Fourier) we know that we can
express that periodic wave, if we so choose, as a sum of sine waves at
the fundamental frequency and all of it's multiples.
--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Eeyore
John Fields wrote:
> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> >In fact Eeyore has done a litttle better than your parents did -
> >"simple harmonic motion" as a search string does get you to this
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion
> >
> >which in turn points you to this
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_harmonic_motion
> >
> >which gets you to
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_analysis
> >
> >which is probably where the OP needs to go, though they may need a
> >fair bit of education before they can get much out of it.
>
> ---
> LOL, you're as bad as the fucking donkey with your less than helpful
> links that, by your own admission, will probably be useless.
You think sinewaves AREN'T simple harmonic motion ?
Fairly shitty education you must have had.
Graham
Jon Slaughter
"karthikbalaguru" <karthikb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7c6948d-f327-4eaa...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> distortion ?
>
> For example, (Reference -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
> Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
> Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> harmonics or distortion ?
> I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> detail about these .
> Any ideas ?
>
> Thx in advans,
> Karthik Balaguru
>
>
Most people have no clue what they are talking about.
Sinusodial's don't have "harmonics" because that is what we are using to
decompose the signal into. If it did then it wouldn't make any sense.
Basically we have some process, call it P, that when it acts on something
returns a decomposition into "special" objects say, S1, ..., Sn that depends
on that object.
Something like P(x) = S1(x) + ... + Sn(x)
But we expect that we we decompose one of the special objects we should get
it back... else it wouldn't be so special and mathematically wouldn't make
any sense.
Just so happens that sin waves have very nice properties but guess what? The
do have harmonics!!!?!?!?!! if you take your "special" objects as something
else(such as wavelets).
Basically there is a theorem in mathematics that says you can write any
function(well, there are some conditions) as a sum of sinusoids. This is
the decomposition. But its obvious that the only way to write a sinusoid in
terms of a sinusoid is the sinusoid itself. i.e., sin(x) === sin(x)... but
x^2 === sum(sinusoids).
All that stuff is whats called fourier analysis but in fact is much more
general. Wavelets do a similar thing by decomposing functions(signals) using
a different basis and a slightly different principle. In those systems one
might say that sinusoids do have harmonics because sinusoids are not
"simple".
If you are familiar with polynomials then its similar.
You might say that every function that is expressiable as a
polynomial(taylor series, for example), has polynomial harmonics... but the
simple function x, x^2, x^3, etc... have no harmonics. Why? Because they are
simple in that system. They are not simple in when the basis is
sinusoids.(just as sinusoids are not simple when the basis is polynomials)
In short, your answer is that it does have sinusoidal harmonics... they are
all just zero.
bill....@ieee.org
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:36:10 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >On Jan 2, 12:09 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:13:58 +0000, Eeyore
>
> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >karthikbalaguru wrote:
>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> >> >> distortion ?
>
> >> >Because it doesn't. Read up 'simple harmonic motion'.
>
> >> ---
> >> Q. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"
>
> >> A. "Because it is."
>
> >You were badly brought up.
>
> ---
> Not at all.
>
> In fact, my parents weren't technical at all, but they taught me
> manners and that a library is a resource.
> ---
Pity that the education didn't take.
> >My parents told me that fine dust particles
> >suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light
> >- than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
>
> >It didn't make much sense to me at the time - I was around four - but
> >at least I wasn't mis-informed.
>
> ---
> Unfortunately, you were
How?
> and you're obviously still in the dark about it, not having been able to give up what you were taught even though the truth is glaringly obvious.
A deceitful claim that you won't be able to sustain.
> Here:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html
> ---
And where does this story differ significantly from the one I was
told? Tyndall and Rayleigh (John William Strutt) are great names, but
not of much use to four-year-olds.
> >In fact Eeyore has done a litttle better than your parents did -
> >"simple harmonic motion" as a search string does get you to this
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion
>
> >which in turn points you to this
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_harmonic_motion
>
> >which gets you to
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_analysis
>
> >which is probably where the OP needs to go, though they may need a
> >fair bit of education before they can get much out of it.
>
> ---
> LOL, you're as bad as the fucking donkey with your less than helpful
> links that, by your own admission, will probably be useless.
They would certainly be useless to you. The OP may not have had to
struggle with the Texas indoctrination system and might have less of a
problem with chardonnay abuse.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > You were badly brought up. My parents told me that fine dust particles
> > suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light
> > - than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
>
> I'll bet they told you that you were worth something, too.
That the elementary chemicals in the human body were worth about six
pence. It was a joke.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
For people who aren't in the habit of choosing their words carefully.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Fields
---
Bad reading comprehension I see, as well.
---
>Tyndall and Rayleigh (John William Strutt) are great names, but
>not of much use to four-year-olds.
---
About as much use as the dust mote story which you admittedly didn't
understand either.
---
>> >In fact Eeyore has done a litttle better than your parents did -
>> >"simple harmonic motion" as a search string does get you to this
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion
>>
>> >which in turn points you to this
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_harmonic_motion
>>
>> >which gets you to
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_analysis
>>
>> >which is probably where the OP needs to go, though they may need a
>> >fair bit of education before they can get much out of it.
>>
>> ---
>> LOL, you're as bad as the fucking donkey with your less than helpful
>> links that, by your own admission, will probably be useless.
>
>They would certainly be useless to you. The OP may not have had to
>struggle with the Texas indoctrination system and might have less of a
>problem with chardonnay abuse.
---
Grasping at straws, Billy boy?
--
JF
Martin Brown
> On Jan 2, 1:38 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:36:10 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > >My parents told me that fine dust particles
> > >suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light
> > >- than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
>
> > >It didn't make much sense to me at the time - I was around four - but
> > >at least I wasn't mis-informed.
>
> > ---
> > Unfortunately, you were
>
> How?
Most dust is usually too large for Rayleigh scattering. Only extremely
fine nano-particles or smaller can cause wavelength dependent Rayleigh
scattering. The blue sky is seen due to scattering from the air
molecules (which are very much smaller than the wavelength of light).
It is also quite strongly polarised.
Dust and other particles larger than the wavelength of light Mie
scattering predominates (which isn't wavelength dependent). Only at
shallow angles near to the sun does Mie scattering in the atmosphere
become significantly visible. Although it can be dominant when
extremely rare and colourful stratospheric nacreous clouds are
present.
>
> > and you're obviously still in the dark about it, not having been able to give up what you were taught even though the truth is glaringly obvious.
>
> A deceitful claim that you won't be able to sustain.
>
> > Here:
>
> >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html
> > ---
>
> And where does this story differ significantly from the one I was
> told? Tyndall and Rayleigh (John William Strutt) are great names, but
> not of much use to four-year-olds.
This one apart from the equations probably is about the nicest online
description with pictures.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
Best wishes to all for a prosperous 2008.
Regards,
Martin Brown
MooseFET
[....]
>
> Odd and even harmonics are themselves pure sine waves that are
> frequency multiples of a fundamental sine wave. Distortion of a sine
> wave produces odd and/or even harmonics.
Place "time independent" in front of "distortion" for a more accurate
answer. An extreme example of the case is:
1N400X
IN--->!----+------Scope
!
)
) 680uH
)
!
GND
Tune the signal generator for resonance between the diode and the
inductor and adjusts tha amplitude around 1V and observe.
So, sine waves are
> irreducible pure signals that other signals can be analyzed into.
>
> --
> John
Don Bowey
94Hej.1278$pA7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
As is the help you gave the OP.
Rich Grise
> On Jan 2, 12:09 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:13:58 +0000, Eeyore
>>
>> >> Hi,
>> >> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
>> >> distortion ?
>>
>>
>>
>> A. "Because it is."
>
> suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light -
> than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
In short, because air is blue.
But that's *HOW* the sky is blue.
Nobody knows *WHY*, other than "because that's the way it is."
Cheers!
Rich
the.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi,
> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> distortion ?
>
> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
> Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
> Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> harmonics or distortion ?
> I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> detail about these .
> Any ideas ?
>
> Thx in advans,
> Karthik Balaguru
simple answer.. saw and square waves are made up of hundreds of sine
waves.. sine wave is made up of one.
Fleetie
>>>
>>> A. "Because it is."
>>
>> You were badly brought up. My parents told me that fine dust particles
>> suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light -
>> than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
>
> In short, because air is blue.
NO.
Surely you know of Rayleigh scattering.
It doesn't require DUST in the air for the skyy to look blue. The very air molecules
themselves are sufficient.
ALSO: Wiki "water", and you'll find that pure H2O is blue-green in colour, i.e. in
its absorption spectrum. That blue-green colour arises from TWO mechanisms:
1) Optical absorption from bend/stretch/whatever in Willy Water Molecule (who is
bent!)
2) Rayleigh scattering from the molecules themselves.
Interestingly, D2O (heavy water) only exhibits effect (2) within the visible part
of the EM spectrum so should look LESS blue than H2O. That is because the
higher mass of the D atoms shifts the frequencies into the IR region.
H2O absorbs ONE HUNDRED TIMES more at the far red end of visible than at
the far blue end. Quite interesting!
> Nobody knows *WHY*, other than "because that's the way it is."
Not true at all; see above and Wikipedia.
Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie
Richard Henry
<the.i...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62cc912d-bdd9-44b2...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Hundreds?
Rich Grise
I wrote, but flemmy snipped the attribution:
>> In short, because air is blue.
>
> NO.
>
> Surely you know of Rayleigh scattering.
Yes. As I've said, that's _how_ the sky is blue, i.e., the mechanism.
("Rayleigh Scattering" is just another $.50 word for "air is blue". ;-)
But that does nothing to address _why_ it's that way.
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> <the.i...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> On Jan 2, 8:58 am, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
>> > distortion ?
>> >
>> > For example, (Reference ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
>> > Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
>> > Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics Triangle wave,
>> > (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>> >
>> > But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
>> > harmonics or distortion ?
>> > I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
>> > detail about these .
>> > Any ideas ?
>>
>> waves.. sine
>> wave is made up of one.
>
> Hundreds?
No, it's infinity, but above some number of them their amplitudes
go below any measurable value.
Cheers!
Rich
bill....@ieee.org
Nope. Another case of "it isn't what you don't know ... but what you
think you know that ain't so".
Rayleigh scattering is proportional to the sixth power of the diameter
of the scatterer, so I automatically discounted scattering by air
molecules in favour of sub-micron dust. Thanks for the correction.
It is possible my parents didn't know better - I was four at the end
of 1946, and their university educations dated from the 1930's.
Einstein had sorted out quantitative scattering formulas in 1911, so
they could have known better, but they both majored in chemistry - and
I didn't get Rayleigh scattering in my undergraduate courses in the
1960's.
> >Tyndall and Rayleigh (John William Strutt) are great names, but
> >not of much use to four-year-olds.
>
> ---
> About as much use as the dust mote story which you admittedly didn't
> understand either.
> ---
The scattering story was right - the nature of the scatterers is less
important than the fact of the scattering - and a whole lot better
than "because it is".
You are grasping at a minor flaw in the story in much the same way as
a creationist grasps at minor uncertainties in the theory of
evolution, and probably for much the same reason - you've been brought
up to believe that authority figures can give you a definitive story,
while science is all about putting together the best description that
fits the facts - Newton's Law of Graviation wasn't diminished when
Einstein extended and reinterpreted the data with general relativity.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:10 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 1:38 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:36:10 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > >My parents told me that fine dust particles
> > > >suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light
> > > >- than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
>
> > > >It didn't make much sense to me at the time - I was around four - but
> > > >at least I wasn't mis-informed.
>
> > > ---
> > > Unfortunately, you were
>
> > How?
>
> Most dust is usually too large for Rayleigh scattering. Only extremely
> fine nano-particles or smaller can cause wavelength dependent Rayleigh
> scattering. The blue sky is seen due to scattering from the air
> molecules (which are very much smaller than the wavelength of light).
> It is also quite strongly polarised.
I don't recall my parents being any too specific about size of the
particles doing the scattering. They've got to be smaller than the
wavelength of visible light to do Rayleigh scattering, and liquid
water droplets that small don't last long, but there are other
candidates. Scattering strength decreases as the sixth power of the
diameter of the scatterer, so you don't need all that much sub-micron
dust to beat out 0.1 nanometer-sized molecules.
> Dust and other particles larger than the wavelength of light Mie
> scattering predominates (which isn't wavelength dependent). Only at
> shallow angles near to the sun does Mie scattering in the atmosphere
> become significantly visible. Although it can be dominant when
> extremely rare and colourful stratospheric nacreous clouds are
> present.
I'm happy to accept Rayleigh scattering by molecules as a sufficient
explanation for the blue of the sky. My gut feeling is that there will
often be enough sub-micron dust/ice/sulphate in the sky to make it
appreciably bluer than it would be if the air was perfectly clear.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
You *are* posting as Rich the Crap Philosopher here?
In this particular case, the explanation of how the sky is blue is a
perfectly adequate explanation of why the sky is blue.
A sufficiently daft theologian might explain that God fudged the laws
of physics to make the sky blue because she liked the colour blue, but
that would just be moving the goal-posts.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> >>> Q. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"
>
> >>> A. "Because it is."
>
> >> You were badly brought up. My parents told me that fine dust particles
> >> suspended in the air scattered my short wavelength light - blue light -
> >> than longer-wavelength light - the other colours.
>
> > In short, because air is blue.
>
> NO.
>
> Surely you know of Rayleigh scattering.
>
> It doesn't require DUST in the air for the skyy to look blue. The very air molecules
> themselves are sufficient.
>
> ALSO: Wiki "water", and you'll find that pure H2O is blue-green in colour, i.e. in
> its absorption spectrum. That blue-green colour arises from TWO mechanisms:
>
> 1) Optical absorption from bend/stretch/whatever in Willy Water Molecule (who is
> bent!)
The fundamental hydrogen-oxygen stretching frequencies for water are
in the near-infra red, not the visible. The bending frequencies are
all a lot lower
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
You do see some overtones absorption in the visible spectrum but it is
very weak.
> 2) Rayleigh scattering from the molecules themselves.
>
> Interestingly, D2O (heavy water) only exhibits effect (2) within the visible part
> of the EM spectrum so should look LESS blue than H2O. That is because the
> higher mass of the D atoms shifts the frequencies into the IR region.
As if they weren't there to start with.
> H2O absorbs ONE HUNDRED TIMES more at the far red end of visible than at
> the far blue end. Quite interesting!
If you are interested in combination bands ...
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Rich Grise
> You *are* posting as Rich the Crap Philosopher here?
Geez, Sloman, you're nothing but a Thompson clone, but the cloning
machine reversed the polarity of your blind fanatical extremism.
Cheers!
Rich
Eeyore
Rich Grise wrote:
> bill.sloman wrote:
>
> > You *are* posting as Rich the Crap Philosopher here?
>
> Geez, Sloman, you're nothing but a Thompson clone, but the cloning
> machine reversed the polarity of your blind fanatical extremism.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Nice to see the flakes favouring one another's nonsense.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Frnak McKenney
> On Jan 2, 8:58 am, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
>> distortion ?
>>
>> For example, (Reference ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
>> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
>> Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
>> Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>>
>> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
>> harmonics or distortion ?
> simple answer.. saw and square waves are made up of hundreds of sine
> waves.. sine wave is made up of one.
At the risk of wandering in and appearing ignorant in two newsgroups
at once...
I think my answer to Karthik's original question would be that a
sine wave only appears "perfect" because sines (and cosines) are
(normally) the "units" of our analysis of periodic waveforms. Once
you start down that path, that is, once you say that every waveform
is "made up of" ("will be described as the combination of") some set
of scaled and shifted sine waves, then your "units" will appear to
be... um, "unitary".
But suppose some truly evil and sadistic <grin!> mathematician
decided that his classes would forever analyze periodic waveforms
using some other basis, say square waves?
Suddenly a sine wave would be seen as a truly horrible combination
of shifted and scaled square waves, a thing chock-full of
"harmonics"... it would no longer be the pristine, pure thing it
appeared when we looked at it through Fourier's eyes.
Does this make sense (even if my choice of square waves turns out to
be poor)? Or did I miss something?
--
It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books
and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we
should cultivate the habit of thinking about what we are doing.
The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by
extending the numbers of important operations which we can
perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are
like cavalry charges in battle -- they are strictly limited in
number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at
decisive moments. -- Alfred North Whitehead
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)
Martin Brown
<fr...@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:39:45 -0800 (PST), the.ioni...@gmail.com <the.ioni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 8:58 am, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> >> distortion ?
>
> >> For example, (Reference ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> >> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
> >> Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
> >> Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> >> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> >> harmonics or distortion ?
> > simple answer.. saw and square waves are made up of hundreds of sine
> > waves.. sine wave is made up of one.
>
> At the risk of wandering in and appearing ignorant in two newsgroups
> at once...
>
> I think my answer to Karthik's original question would be that a
> sine wave only appears "perfect" because sines (and cosines) are
> (normally) the "units" of our analysis of periodic waveforms. Once
> you start down that path, that is, once you say that every waveform
> is "made up of" ("will be described as the combination of") some set
> of scaled and shifted sine waves, then your "units" will appear to
> be... um, "unitary".
It is also because of a nice property that.
d/dt cos(wt) = -wsin(wt)
and
d/dt (d/dt cos(wt) = -w^2 cos(wt)
We have Fourier to thank for this approach to periodic boundary
problems. And the sin cos functions do have some very nice proprties
like being orthogonal, complete and continuous in every derivative.
>
> But suppose some truly evil and sadistic <grin!> mathematician
> decided that his classes would forever analyze periodic waveforms
> using some other basis, say square waves?
Walsh basis functions and various others that form the Hadamard matrix
can do this. In some applications they are more use than Fourier
analysis since with a bit of cunning the codec only needs add and
subtract.
Simplest being
1 1
1 -1
Then
1 1 1 1
1 -1 1 -1
1 1 -1 -1
1 -1 -1 1
Left as an excercise to the reader to generate the next order. These
are by construction orthogonal and complete.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WalshFunction.html
>
> Suddenly a sine wave would be seen as a truly horrible combination
> of shifted and scaled square waves, a thing chock-full of
> "harmonics"... it would no longer be the pristine, pure thing it
> appeared when we looked at it through Fourier's eyes.
>
> Does this make sense (even if my choice of square waves turns out to
> be poor)? Or did I miss something?
If you can live with the stepwise approximation to the function then
it will work just fine. It doesn't help you solve any differential
equations though where Fourier methods are clearly superior. And the
DCT still has the edge over Hadamard the matrix for encoding images to
concentrate power in the smallest number of components.
There are lots of other decompositions of functions into orthognal
basis. Tchebechev approximation is probably the next best known and
most useful for a bounded approximation to a continuous function.
Wavelets have gained popularity for the combination of spatially
localised decompostion.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> On Jan 3, 6:13 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
>> > bill.sloman wrote:
>>
>> > > You *are* posting as Rich the Crap Philosopher here?
>>
>> > Geez, Sloman, you're nothing but a Thompson clone, but the cloning
>> > machine reversed the polarity of your blind fanatical extremism.
>>
>> You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
>
> Nice to see the flakes favouring one another's nonsense.
Yeah, I'm a flake. ;-) (at least _I_ _admit_ it!) The thing is,
being hated equally by both you and JT is pretty much prima facie
evidence that I'm right. ;-)
And another thing - when you crosspost, don't leave the blank
after the comma - it screws up people's newsreaders.
Cheers!
Rich
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:28:42 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 6:13 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> >> Rich Grise wrote:
> >> > bill.sloman wrote:
>
> >> > > You *are* posting as Rich the Crap Philosopher here?
>
> >> > Geez, Sloman, you're nothing but a Thompson clone, but the cloning
> >> > machine reversed the polarity of your blind fanatical extremism.
>
> >> You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
>
> > Nice to see the flakes favouring one another's nonsense.
>
> Yeah, I'm a flake. ;-) (at least _I_ _admit_ it!) The thing is,
> being hated equally by both you and JT is pretty much prima facie
> evidence that I'm right. ;-)
Hatred is a strong word. I don't think much of Jim, but I'd be
delighted if someone managed to find a treatment that arrested or
reversed his cognitive decline, not least because I've got at least
one relative who is also declining into Alzheimers.
I've even less reason to dislike you. You do enjoy saying silly
things, presumably to be provocative, since you don't seem to take
anything much seriously, but you aren't malicious.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
> Hatred is a strong word. I don't think much of Jim, but I'd be delighted
> if someone managed to find a treatment that arrested or reversed his
> cognitive decline, not least because I've got at least one relative who
> is also declining into Alzheimers.
Interestingly, I'd be delighted if someone managed to find a treatment
that arrested or reversed _YOUR_ cognitive decline as well, as I'm sure
Jim would. ;-) (be delighted ...)
From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
syndrome. )-;
And you still haven't fixed your crossposter.
Good Luck!
Rich
bill....@ieee.org
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:17:47 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
>
> > Hatred is a strong word. I don't think much of Jim, but I'd be delighted
> > if someone managed to find a treatment that arrested or reversed his
> > cognitive decline, not least because I've got at least one relative who
> > is also declining into Alzheimers.
>
> Interestingly, I'd be delighted if someone managed to find a treatment
> that arrested or reversed _YOUR_ cognitive decline as well, as I'm sure
> Jim would. ;-) (be delighted ...)
I don't think I'm showing much sign of cognitive decline. My
psychological condition could be better - I need somewhile more
useful to do that correcting the daft ideas of the anti-global-warming
nitwits on this usergroup (of which you seem to be one) but at least
I'm aware that I've got a problem in that area. As yet there aren't
any signs of florid symptoms - like reporting people to the FBI.
> From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
> syndrome. )-;
Perhaps, but at least I'm citing external evidence, rather than
relying on my inner certainies - I've still got enough insight left to
realise that what I think I know may not necessarily be so, even if it
is about something as basic as why the sky is blue.
>
> And you still haven't fixed your crossposter.
It isn't "my" crossposter - Google groups just copies the cross-
posting line from the post I'm replying to, which is yours in this
instance, and Eeyore's when you first complained.
For the record, a newsreader that gets screwed up by spaces in a
string does no credit to the programmer who wrote the relevant bit of
code - I'd worked out how to sort out that kind of problem back in
1970 when coding in Fortran 4.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Fields
>On Jan 4, 12:17 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <r...@example.net>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:17:47 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
>>
>> > Hatred is a strong word. I don't think much of Jim, but I'd be delighted
>> > if someone managed to find a treatment that arrested or reversed his
>> > cognitive decline, not least because I've got at least one relative who
>> > is also declining into Alzheimers.
>>
>> Interestingly, I'd be delighted if someone managed to find a treatment
>> that arrested or reversed _YOUR_ cognitive decline as well, as I'm sure
>> Jim would. ;-) (be delighted ...)
>
>I don't think I'm showing much sign of cognitive decline.
---
That, of course, is one of the first symptoms in that since it isn't
apparent to you, you think nothing's wrong ergo comments made by
others must be wrong.
---
> My psychological condition could be better - I need somewhile more
^^^^^^^^^
something
>useful to do that correcting the daft ideas of the anti-global-warming
^^^^
than
>nitwits on this usergroup (of which you seem to be one) but at least
>I'm aware that I've got a problem in that area. As yet there aren't
>any signs of florid symptoms - like reporting people to the FBI.
>
>> From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
>> syndrome. )-;
>
>Perhaps, but at least I'm citing external evidence, rather than
>relying on my inner certainies
---
Except that since you're pretty set in your ways, old boy, your own
inner certainties are what drive you to believe that the external
"evidence" presented is either right or wrong, so when you read
something your inner voice tells you is wrong you reject the
"evidence" whether or whether or not it may have merit, and only
post links to "authorities" with whom you agree.
---
>I've still got enough insight left to
>realise that what I think I know may not necessarily be so, even if it
>is about something as basic as why the sky is blue.
---
So you _are_ a scientist, after all.
My hat's off to you.
--
JF
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:48:56 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>On Jan 4, 12:17 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <r...@example.net>
>>> From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
>>> syndrome. )-;
>>
>>Perhaps, but at least I'm citing external evidence, rather than relying
>>on my inner certainies
>
> inner certainties are what drive you to believe that the external
> "evidence" presented is either right or wrong, so when you read
> something your inner voice tells you is wrong you reject the "evidence"
> whether or whether or not it may have merit, and only post links to
On the other other hand ....
;-) ;-) ;-)
> "authorities" with whom you agree. ---
>
>>I've still got enough insight left to realise that what I think I know
>>may not necessarily be so, even if it is about something as basic as why
>>the sky is blue.
But apparently not about your Anthropogenic Global Warming faith, since
that's already Established Scientific Fact, right?
Feh.
"Your pulse: 98.6. Very scientific!"
"Quant Suff! Quant Suff!"
Cheers!
Rich
John Fields
<rt...@example.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:20:37 -0600, John Fields wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:48:56 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>On Jan 4, 12:17 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <r...@example.net>
>...
>>>> From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
>>>> syndrome. )-;
>>>
>>>Perhaps, but at least I'm citing external evidence, rather than relying
>>>on my inner certainies
>>
>> Except that since you're pretty set in your ways, old boy, your own
>> inner certainties are what drive you to believe that the external
>> "evidence" presented is either right or wrong, so when you read
>> something your inner voice tells you is wrong you reject the "evidence"
>> whether or whether or not it may have merit, and only post links to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>On the other other hand ....
>;-) ;-) ;-)
---
Sometimes I tend to be tend to be repetitious.
How about just "whether or not"?
:-)
--
JF
bill....@ieee.org
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:48:56 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 12:17 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <r...@example.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:17:47 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
>
> >> > Hatred is a strong word. I don't think much of Jim, but I'd be delighted
> >> > if someone managed to find a treatment that arrested or reversed his
> >> > cognitive decline, not least because I've got at least one relative who
> >> > is also declining into Alzheimers.
>
> >> Interestingly, I'd be delighted if someone managed to find a treatment
> >> that arrested or reversed _YOUR_ cognitive decline as well, as I'm sure
> >> Jim would. ;-) (be delighted ...)
>
> >I don't think I'm showing much sign of cognitive decline.
>
> ---
> That, of course, is one of the first symptoms in that since it isn't
> apparent to you, you think nothing's wrong ergo comments made by
> others must be wrong.
> ---
That isn't the way it has worked with those of my relatives who have
suffered from Alzheimers (though most of the blood relatives managed
to die before Alzheimers set in).
The first deficits are in short term memory, and that is at least as
obvious to the victim as it is to everybody else.
<snipped the rest, even the flattering bits ...>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:20:37 -0600, John Fields wrote:
> >>On Jan 4, 12:17 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <r...@example.net>
> ...
> >>> From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
> >>> syndrome. )-;
>
> >>Perhaps, but at least I'm citing external evidence, rather than relying
> >>on my inner certainies
>
> > Except that since you're pretty set in your ways, old boy, your own
> > inner certainties are what drive you to believe that the external
> > "evidence" presented is either right or wrong, so when you read
> > something your inner voice tells you is wrong you reject the "evidence"
> > whether or whether or not it may have merit, and only post links to
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> On the other other hand ....
> ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
> > "authorities" with whom you agree. ---
> >
> >>I've still got enough insight left to realise that what I think I know
> >>may not necessarily be so, even if it is about something as basic as why
> >>the sky is blue.
>
> But apparently not about your Anthropogenic Global Warming faith, since
> that's already Established Scientific Fact, right?
>
> Feh.
Established Scientific Fact is a contradiction in terms. Scientific
facts are always subject to improved instrumentation and more
illuminating analysis.
Unfortunately for your anti-warmingist point of view, the people who
don't believe in anthropogenic global warming aren't coming forward
with better data or better ideas, but are rather puffing up minor
controversies and exploded hypotheses in order to sow fear,
uncertainty and doubt.
It's competent propaganda - Karl Rove should be proud of the way the
anti-warmingist crew have learned from him how to promote a defective
case against what ought to be overwhelming odds - but its still looks
terribly feeble if you know anything about the science involved.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
krw
sci.electronics.design, rt...@example.net says...
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:20:37 -0600, John Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:48:56 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> ...
> >>> From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
> >>> syndrome. )-;
> >>
> >>Perhaps, but at least I'm citing external evidence, rather than relying
> >>on my inner certainies
> >
> > Except that since you're pretty set in your ways, old boy, your own
> > inner certainties are what drive you to believe that the external
> > "evidence" presented is either right or wrong, so when you read
> > something your inner voice tells you is wrong you reject the "evidence"
> > whether or whether or not it may have merit, and only post links to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> On the other other hand ....
> ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
>
> > "authorities" with whom you agree. ---
> >
> >>I've still got enough insight left to realise that what I think I know
> >>may not necessarily be so, even if it is about something as basic as why
> >>the sky is blue.
>
> But apparently not about your Anthropogenic Global Warming faith, since
> that's already Established Scientific Fact, right?
>
> Feh.
>
> "Your pulse: 98.6. Very scientific!"
> "Quant Suff! Quant Suff!"
Pulse is kinda rapid there (and measured to three decimal places
too). Does getting between Jim and Sloman get you excited?
--
Keith
ehsjr
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:20:37 -0600, John Fields wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:48:56 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 4, 12:17 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <r...@example.net>
>
> ...
>
>>>>From outside your box(es), you both appear to be victims of the same
>>>>syndrome. )-;
>>>
>>>Perhaps, but at least I'm citing external evidence, rather than relying
>>>on my inner certainies
>>
>>Except that since you're pretty set in your ways, old boy, your own
>>inner certainties are what drive you to believe that the external
>>"evidence" presented is either right or wrong, so when you read
>>something your inner voice tells you is wrong you reject the "evidence"
>>whether or whether or not it may have merit, and only post links to
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> On the other other hand ....
> ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
Yep, I've noticed that about John, too. That
"repetitive syndrome", or whatever it's called,
is very noticeable in the newsgroups. He sees
a posted problem, then posts a good solution, with
a schematic and an analysis and an .ASC listing.
Then he sees another posted problem, and posts
another good solution. That repetitive activity
continues and has gone on hundreds and hundreds of
times - maybe thousands and thousands - I dunno.
It's a shame, really. That syndrome does not appear
to be infectious - apparently you have to be born
with it.
Ed
Jon Slaughter
"Frnak McKenney" <fr...@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote in message
news:13nplms...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes, this was what I was trying to explain in my post.
Essentially sine waves are the "Basis"(in fact, that is what it is called in
mathematics) that we use to write signals in terms of.
Now sine waves have very special properties but you could try and decompose
a sine wave in terms of other functions.
Again, this happens all the time. Polynomial expansion, Exponential
expansion, Gabor expansion, Wavelet decomposition, etc are all ways to
decompose signals(functions) in terms of some units.
Sine waves are just special in that they have very simple ways to decompose
and nice properties. They are not necessarily the best for all types of
signals or for all types of analysis but they work very well and lots of
theoretical research has been done.
Its kinda like if your "units" are nickels and you ask why a quarter can be
"decomposed" into nickels but a nickel cannot be decomposed in terms of a
nickel(in fact it can, its just "special" in this case). Now if we use
pennies then we can decompose both but again a penny is "special" because it
is now our "basis".
A side note: "Square waves" are essentially whats call a haar wavelet(sorta)
and one can decompose any "normal" signal in terms of them. The
decomposition it a bit different than fourier analysis but in some sense its
also very similar.
Basically the idea is to try to explain some phenomena(functions, signals,
etc) in terms of things we understand very well. We understand sinusodial
functions very well.
John Fields
MooseFET
[.....]
> A side note: "Square waves" are essentially whats call a haar wavelet(sorta)
> and one can decompose any "normal" signal in terms of them. The
> decomposition it a bit different than fourier analysis but in some sense its
> also very similar.
The code for docomposing into Walsh waveforms looks a lot like the one
for doing an FFT. It runs a lot faster than FFT because no sin(X)
needs to be done.
Even the non-fast version looks like the non-fast FT. You need the
ability to do a parity check computation. It looks a lot like this:
Sum = 0
Mask = BitReverse(Freq)
for I = 0 to N-1
if Parity(Mask AND I) Sum = Sum + X[I]
else Sum = Sum - X[I]
next I
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> don't believe in anthropogenic global warming aren't coming forward with
> better data or better ideas,
Then it's clear that your faith blinds you to any facts that
contradict your dogma.
Here are facts coming out your ears:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hmrer
But, like all dogmatic fanatics, you will simply not see it.
Why do I waste my time? It's like trying to talk sense to a brick.
Good Luck!
Rich
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> >>On Jan 4, 12:17Â am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>>
>>
>> "Your pulse: 98.6. Very scientific!"
>> "Quant Suff! Quant Suff!"
>
> Pulse is kinda rapid there (and measured to three decimal places too).
> Does getting between Jim and Sloman get you excited?
That's a quote by "The Scientific People" in "The Stars My Destination."
It would be difficult to explain - it would take about three pages to
set the context. See, 98.6F is normal body temperature, and these "scientific
people" are anything but scientific. "Quant Suff!" is their chant.
Have you ever read a book?
Thanks,
Rich
Richard Henry
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <rt...@example.net> wrote in message
news:czxfj.6811$8Z1.3285@trnddc05...
So the best "scientific" facts you have at your disposal are provided by a
band of political hacks?
How is that any better data than Al Gore's movie?
krw
rt...@example.net says...
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:17:58 -0500, krw wrote:
> >>
> >> Feh.
> >>
> >> "Your pulse: 98.6. Very scientific!"
> >> "Quant Suff! Quant Suff!"
> >
> > Pulse is kinda rapid there (and measured to three decimal places too).
> > Does getting between Jim and Sloman get you excited?
>
> That's a quote by "The Scientific People" in "The Stars My Destination."
> It would be difficult to explain - it would take about three pages to
> set the context. See, 98.6F is normal body temperature, and these "scientific
> people" are anything but scientific. "Quant Suff!" is their chant.
>
> Have you ever read a book?
Certainly not tripe like that.
--
Keith
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>
>
> Certainly not tripe like that.
Ah! The perfect example of the fanatic mindset. You won't
even read it, because your mind is already made up that it's
"tripe".
The real truth is, you refuse to read it because you know that
it will expose the fallacies of your faith, so rather than even
try to refute it, you simply deny it. And, of course you are
convinced that your denials are an accurate picture of reality.
This wouldn't really be a big deal, but Al and his minions
want to force everyone to behave within the ludicrous confines
of his own psychopathic fantasy world, and has the bucks to
actually try. He's a very dangerous man, because he believes
his on delusions.
Good Luck!
Rich
Eeyore
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:20:21 -0500, krw wrote:
> > Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> >
> >> Have you ever read a book?
> >
> > Certainly not tripe like that.
>
> Ah! The perfect example of the fanatic mindset. You won't
> even read it, because your mind is already made up that it's
> "tripe".
>
> The real truth is, you refuse to read it because you know that
> it will expose the fallacies of your faith, so rather than even
> try to refute it, you simply deny it. And, of course you are
> convinced that your denials are an accurate picture of reality.
His attitude is just like Bill's wrt global warming. Simply shut out
what you don't want to see/hear and/or dismiss it using simple
assertionms of worthlessness.
Fancy that Bill = krw !
Graham
krw
rt...@example.net says...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:20:21 -0500, krw wrote:
> > Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> >
> >> Have you ever read a book?
> >
> > Certainly not tripe like that.
>
> Ah! The perfect example of the fanatic mindset. You won't
> even read it, because your mind is already made up that it's
> "tripe".
Nope. Like most here (I know you believe you're special) I have
finite time on this Earth. That sort of thing interests me not one
bit.
> The real truth is, you refuse to read it because you know that
> it will expose the fallacies of your faith, so rather than even
> try to refute it, you simply deny it. And, of course you are
> convinced that your denials are an accurate picture of reality.
No, the real truth is that I have no interest in reading that
tripe, nor the time to if I did.
> This wouldn't really be a big deal, but Al and his minions
> want to force everyone to behave within the ludicrous confines
> of his own psychopathic fantasy world, and has the bucks to
> actually try. He's a very dangerous man, because he believes
> his on delusions.
What the hell are you yakking about?
--
Keith
krw
rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
Dumbass, you're the dumbest donkey on the planet! Wow!
--
Keith
Joseph2k
wrote:
> Hi,
> Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> distortion ?
>
> For example, (Reference ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
> Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
> Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> harmonics or distortion ?
> detail about these .
> Any ideas ?
>
> Thx in advans,KarthikBalaguru
It is really quite simple, can you integrate it or differentiate it
once or more times and have a self similar repetitive signal?
There are very few waveshapes that can to that.
Joseph2k
> "Fred Bartoli"
>
>
>
> > It's more a matter of definition.
>
> ** No it is not - you posturing wanker.
>
> > If you were to decompose a sine wave on a triagular waveforms base (which
> > is as valid as the sine waves case),
>
> ** No it is not.
>
> A sine wave uniquely has the property of no harmonics.
>
> Unlike all other periodic waves, its shape is unaltered after passing
> though any kind of filter.
>
> ....... Phil
OK My filter is a full diode bridge; do you pretend that the
output of that is a sine wave?
Phil Allison
"Joseph2kook"
>
>>
>> > It's more a matter of definition.
>>
>> ** No it is not - you posturing wanker.
>>
>> > If you were to decompose a sine wave on a triagular waveforms base
>> > (which
>> > is as valid as the sine waves case),
>>
>> ** No it is not.
>>
>> A sine wave uniquely has the property of no harmonics.
>>
>> Unlike all other periodic waves, its shape is unaltered after passing
>> though any kind of filter.
>>
>>
** Your ugly head is your arse hole too.
> do you pretend that the
> output of that is a sine wave?
** Go drop dead - you asinine, bloody wanker.
....... Phil
Don Bowey
f3560368-54b3-4291...@e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
"Joseph2k" <quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Give us a break.......
the.i...@gmail.com
> <the.ioni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:62cc912d-bdd9-44b2...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 8:58 am, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> > > distortion ?
>
> > > For example, (Reference ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> > > Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
> > > Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
> > > Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> > > But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> > > harmonics or distortion ?
> > > I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> > > detail about these .
> > > Any ideas ?
>
> > > Thx in advans,
> > > Karthik Balaguru
>
> > waves.. sine
> > wave is made up of one.
>
the more there are the more of an exact square wave it is.. if you
take a signal generator and put on an ociliscope and zoom righ tin
youll see little bumps all over it.
Simon S Aysdie
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:58:45 -0800, karthikbalaguru wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> > distortion ?
>
> > For example, (Reference ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> > Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics Square
> > wave of constant period contains odd harmonics Triangle wave, (an
> > integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> > But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> > harmonics or distortion ?
> > I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> > detail about these .
> > Any ideas ?
>
> > Thx in advans,
> > Karthik Balaguru
>
> blind men who are describing an elephant.
>
> So, IMHO, an elephant is like a rope. And by the way, why is it suddenly
> raining fertilizer?
>
> At any rate, a sine wave doesn't have any because that's how harmonics
> are defined. Harmonics are defined in the context of the Fourier series,
> and the Fourier series for a pure sine wave is just -- that sine wave.
> That's it, no more. Only a periodic wave that deviates from a perfect
> sine wave can have harmonics, and (thanks to Fourier) we know that we can
> express that periodic wave, if we so choose, as a sum of sine waves at
> the fundamental frequency and all of it's multiples.
Thanks. I had similar thoughts to your's.
I had to giggle when Bartoli correctly said, as you did, that it
basically a definitional matter, and Allison jumped to the moon.
redbelly
> <the.ioni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:62cc912d-bdd9-44b2...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 8:58 am, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur...@gmail.com>
> > > Hi,
> > > Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
> > > distortion ?
>
> > > For example, (Reference ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform),
> > > Sawtooth wave of constant period contains odd and even harmonics
> > > Square wave of constant period contains odd harmonics
> > > Triangle wave, (an integral of square wave) contains odd harmonics
>
> > > But, How is it possible that sinusoidal wave alone does not have any
> > > harmonics or distortion ?
> > > I searched the internet,but i did not find any link/pdf that talks in
> > > detail about these .
> > > Any ideas ?
>
> > > Thx in advans,
> > > Karthik Balaguru
>
> > waves.. sine
> > wave is made up of one.
>
> Hundreds?
Yes, hundreds. The plural form of hundred, in other words AT LEAST 2
hundred.
An infinite number is consistent with "at least 2 hundred".
:-)
Mark
Phil Hobbs
simple sorts of motion (a mass on an ideal spring, the motion of a point
on a rotating sphere, and so on) are sinusoidal. Sines and cosines are
the eigenfunctions of all sorts of vibrations, including drum heads.
(Drum heads go 'thump' instead of 'bonnnnggggg' because their sinusoidal
oscillations don't occur at evenly-spaced frequencies.)
Frequency-dependent loss, for instance due to damping, makes essentially
all vibrations become more and more like damped sinusoids as they die
away.
In optics, a (weak) sinusoidal grating produces only one diffracted
order (one on each side of the specular reflection). All other profiles
produce multiple orders.
In quantum mechanics, the time evolution of every eigenstate is
sinusoidal. Sinusoids are the only functions for which the Planck
relation e = h * nu applies.
So it isn't just a matter of definition--exponential functions,
including sines and cosines, really are fundamental to a wide range of
physical processes. Another way of saying this is that just about all
the equations of mathematical physics are second-order differential
equations.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
John Fields
---
Yes, but in the vernacular, 'hundreds' is considered to be, in the
limit, less than a thousand.
An apt comparison, using your method, might be to say that placing
rovers on Mars took tens of hours.
--
JF
redbelly
You're absolutely correct. I was kidding around, sorry if that wasn't
obvious.
Mark
Simon S Aysdie
wrote:
> Simon S Aysdie wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 8:35 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:58:45 -0800, karthikbalaguru wrote:
> > I had to giggle when Bartoli correctly said, as you did, that it
> > basically a definitional matter, and Allison jumped to the moon.
>
> It isn't just a matter of definition...
It is a definitional matter.
Originally:
"Why does a sinusoidal waveform alone does not have any harmonics or
distortion?"
The fundamental ("alone") is the "first harmonic." That is, it is
self-referential which in ordinary language also comes out to
"definitional," "self-evident," "axiomatic" and other such lingo. It
is the _basis_.
You can look at it mathematically too. It is energy at a single
"line": cos(wt) for example. The single line "is what it is," and as
a _fundamental_ it refers to nothing else because that is what it
means to be fundamental. Anytime you end up having no choice but to
speak in tautology to "explain" something, it is a basis; it is
definitional.
Robert Baer
That is to say, X = -X'' (or -X double dot).
Phil Hobbs
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
<big snip>
>> So it isn't just a matter of definition--exponential functions,
>> including sines and cosines, really are fundamental to a wide range of
>> physical processes. Another way of saying this is that just about all
>> the equations of mathematical physics are second-order differential
>> equations.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
> That is to say, X = -X'' (or -X double dot).
That's an undamped oscillator equation, which qualifies but isn't the
only example...Maxwell's equations, the heat equation, the Schrodinger
equation, the harmonic oscillator equation with damping, the wave
equation--they're all second order linear DEs. (Laplace's equation is
too, but it doesn't have a time dependence.)
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs