Fourier Series - Asymmetric Square Wave

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating Fourier coefficients for an asymmetric square wave in a signals and systems course. The user seeks clarification on whether to treat the constants ±1 as functions for integration, specifically using u-substitution or integration by parts. Responses indicate that the constants can be treated simply, as the integral of the exponential function applies regardless of whether the coefficient is constant or variable. Additionally, there's confusion about the term (-1)^k in the final equation for a_k, with suggestions to compute initial values to understand its behavior. Understanding these concepts is essential for mastering Fourier series analysis.
DmytriE
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Good morning everyone,

I am taking a signals and systems course where we are now studying the Fourier series. I understand that this is for signals that are periodic. But I get hung up when determining the Fourier coefficients. In the video by Alan Oppenheim, he derives the equation for the Fourier series. Below is the analysis equation.

a_{k} = \frac{1}{T_{0}} ∫ x(t)*e^{jk\omega_{0}t}

He goes through an example using an asymmetric square wave with an amplitude of 1. I understand the bounds that he chooses (-T_0/2, 0) and (0, T_0/2).

This leads to a Fourier coefficient equation of the following:
a_{k} = \frac{1}{T_{0}} [∫ (-1)*e^{jk\omega_{0}t} + ∫ (1)*e^{jk\omega_{0}t}]

To compute the general equation for a_k should I treat the ±1 as a function and use u-substitution / integration by parts? If so, can someone at least show the first step or 2? I haven't done I.B.P. or U-substitution in some time. If I can treat the x(t) as a constant then how can I integrate to get the answer below?

General equation: a_k = \frac{1}{jkπ} (1 - (-1^{k}))

This example is from M.I.T. Open Courseware Alan V. Oppenheim Signals and Systems course Lecture 7 approximately 20 minutes into the video.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
DmytriE said:
This leads to a Fourier coefficient equation of the following:
a_{k} = \frac{1}{T_{0}} [∫ (-1)*e^{jk\omega_{0}t} + ∫ (1)*e^{jk\omega_{0}t}]
To compute the general equation for a_k should I treat the ±1 as a function and use u-substitution / integration by parts?[/itex]
You don't need to do all that. "1" and "-1" are just constants. If you are studying this, you should know ##\int e^{at}dt##, and that formula works when ##a## is a complex number as well as when ##a## is real.

You should also know ##e^{j\omega t} = \cos \omega t + j \sin \omega t##.

You also have an equation connecting ##T_0## and ##\omega_0##, which is why they both disappeared in the final equation for ##a_k## (and that's also where the ##\pi## came from).

If you are confused by the ##(-1)^k## part, just work out the first few values of ##a_1##, ##a_2##, etc and see what happens.
 
AlephZero said:
If you are confused by the ##(-1)^k## part, just work out the first few values of ##a_1##, ##a_2##, etc and see what happens.

This is precisely what I am confused about. Is there a rule that applies to the (-1)^k or do I have to input a couple numbers for a_k?
 
Hi all I have some confusion about piezoelectrical sensors combination. If i have three acoustic piezoelectrical sensors (with same receive sensitivity in dB ref V/1uPa) placed at specific distance, these sensors receive acoustic signal from a sound source placed at far field distance (Plane Wave) and from broadside. I receive output of these sensors through individual preamplifiers, add them through hardware like summer circuit adder or in software after digitization and in this way got an...
I have recently moved into a new (rather ancient) house and had a few trips of my Residual Current breaker. I dug out my old Socket tester which tell me the three pins are correct. But then the Red warning light tells me my socket(s) fail the loop test. I never had this before but my last house had an overhead supply with no Earth from the company. The tester said "get this checked" and the man said the (high but not ridiculous) earth resistance was acceptable. I stuck a new copper earth...
Thread 'Beauty of old electrical and measuring things, etc.'
Even as a kid, I saw beauty in old devices. That made me want to understand how they worked. I had lots of old things that I keep and now reviving. Old things need to work to see the beauty. Here's what I've done so far. Two views of the gadgets shelves and my small work space: Here's a close up look at the meters, gauges and other measuring things: This is what I think of as surface-mount electrical components and wiring. The components are very old and shows how...
Back
Top