Why didn't I see a peak at half the frequency in my FFT analysis of two waves?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on FFT analysis of two waves, one resembling a sine wave and the other featuring a dip at half the main frequency. Initially, there was an expectation of observing a smaller peak at half frequency, but the analysis revealed no such peak, suggesting the presence of higher harmonics instead. The original wave consists of two sine waves in opposite phases, modulated by a rectangular wave, complicating the expected FFT results. The interaction of these components leads to a more complex frequency representation that is not straightforward. Clarification of the waveforms through images was requested to enhance understanding.
Sam Smith
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I am carrying out FFT analysis to compare two waves. One looks very much like a sine wave the other has an extra dip occurring at half the frequency of the main wave. I have been thinking around how I might expect this to show up in the FFT analysis. At first i was expecting to see a smaller peak at half the main frequency but after a while I thought that it may just result in a few more higher harmonics due to the fact that the wave is becoming more complex. I did the FFT and I didnt see a peak at half frequency. so I guess the second conclusion is correct btu I still can't reconcile why I would expect to see a peak at half frequency of the main peak?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does the "dip" look like?
 
Well the original wave is a two sine waves put together each mirroring the other. The dip is in between them so instead of going back to zero the graph dips instead :)
 
OK, so two sine waves mirroring each other have the same frequency but opposite phase. Each of those sine waves is multiplied by a rectangular wave in the time domain, which means that it is convolved with the transform of the rectangular wave in the frequency domain. So you will expect to see a signal that looks much more like the sum of two Fourier transforms of a rectangular wave. Since they are each modulated by the same frequency but opposite phases the resulting sum is not obvious to me. I would expect it to look "complicated".
 
Can you post images? Your description is unclear.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top