- 4,572
- 4,292
What's the point here? You do know that the 3 of us all understand this, right? It's not "rocket science" for analog EEs after all. My apologies for getting involved. I have been duly chastised.Baluncore said:And now you have done it.
What's the point here? You do know that the 3 of us all understand this, right? It's not "rocket science" for analog EEs after all. My apologies for getting involved. I have been duly chastised.Baluncore said:And now you have done it.
tech99 said:It was thought by most people until about 1920 that the side frequencies were just a mathematical artifact ... Carson in the USA experimented with narrow quartz crystal filters and found that the side frequencies do exist.
"any form" is an overstatement. Phase and amplitude changes are linear.Averagesupernova said:I think what the OP is looking for can be summed up most simply by saying that you cannot change a sine wave in any manner without generating new frequencies.
Another overstatement. A rectifier circuit will be operating with different charge and discharge time constants. A 'good' transformer with loads of copper and iron will produce a fast charge slope and a high resistance load will produce a slow discharge slope. The mean (DC) Voltage will be affected by both time constants. Without some regulation, audio amp psu's have to be over-engineered to reduce hum.DaveE said:Because, the phrase "time constant" implies a linear response, which can't make more DC than whatever it gets.
Linear relative to what? Any change made to a sine wave will put energy in a different part of the spectrum than the original carrier during said change.sophiecentaur said:"any form" is an overstatement. Phase and amplitude changes are linear.
No, they are nonlinear.sophiecentaur said:"any form" is an overstatement. Phase and amplitude changes are linear.
Yes you are strictly right but it involved a second varying (modulating) signal. I put it badly but I was assuming a non varying parameter - like the gain of a fixed attenuator. That is very different from the effect of a diode etc where the input signal can 'affect itself' without the need for a modulating signal or any changing parameter.Baluncore said:No, they are nonlinear.
It is difficult trying to follow your tall tales, but I am not chasing my tail.sophiecentaur said:But, as has been mentioned above, we are chasing our tales.
Yes you are strictly right but it involves a second varying (modulating) signal. I put it badly but I was assuming a non varying parameter - like the gain of a fixed attenuator. That is very different from the effect of a diode etc where the input signal can 'modulate itself' without the need for a modulating signal or any changing parameter.Baluncore said:No, they are nonlinear.
It is too easy to hope something that looks linear is linear.sophiecentaur said:We know a linear device when we see one.
This is getting a bit daft. A 3dB attenuator, made with metal resistors 'looks; linear and it behaves linearly. I was merely trying to contrast this with a resistor network which has a diode nestling in there somewhere. I reckon we could tell the two circuits apart with a simple spectrum analyser. In one case there will be detectable products and not in the other. Why are you bothering to argue with this? Is it a "tall tail"?Baluncore said:It is too easy to hope something that looks linear is linear.
If you include what the quoted above network does as part of my statement about changing a sine wave will always create new frequencies then I guess I stand corrected. But I think you know better than to suggest I'm saying that. If you truly believe I would suggest such a thing then why not take it a step farther and suggest I am claiming the same thing when a carrier signal is completely dissipated in a load resistor?sophiecentaur said:A 3dB attenuator, made with metal resistors 'looks; linear and it behaves linearly. I was merely trying to contrast this with a resistor network which has a diode nestling in there somewhere.
But yet it seems you claim that @Baluncore and I do not see the difference.sophiecentaur said:We know a linear device when we see one.
I know you guys know all this and also the definition of a linear medium. Where components are concerned, you have to look at both Current and Voltage to decide on the linearity. Saying that the "carrier signal" is completely dissipated in a load resistor requires the concept of matching and this is going much further than necessary. We're only choosing to use different words to partially describe a situation. We'd have no argument if we wrote the Maths out.Averagesupernova said:But yet it seems you claim that @Baluncore and I do not see the difference.
Right here. What you just said is the basis of the issue I am having with your posts. It is just more confusion added for no good reason (in my opinion). We can impedance match or not match. Any sidebands generated due to this is not relevant to the basics of this thread.sophiecentaur said:Saying that the "carrier signal" is completely dissipated in a load resistor requires the concept of matching and this is going much further than necessary.
That's the most common problem with PF threads. Someone asks a question to which there is either a hand waving answer or a full one. In actual fact, the wording of a basically simple answer can be a minefield but otoh, the mathematical answer can confuse the questioner. Then the chat on the sidelines gets even more confusing and our use of terms can get very loose.Averagesupernova said:It is just more confusion added for no good reason (in my opinion).
There are only thousands of ways to accomplish this. It's not practical to answer all of them. Don't expect perfection. Keep it as simple as possible. If related questions arise, they can be answered or the op can be shown links that lead to answers.semc said:If new frequencies are actually generated, what is the physical mechanism that generates these new frequencies?