Connect with us

square wave harmonic theory (time domain)

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Thomas Magma, May 30, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Thomas Magma

    Thomas Magma Guest

    Hello,
    I'm trying to determine if the higher harmonics of a low frequency square
    wave are actually AM modulated. For instance, I can see the harmonics of a 1
    KHz square wave all the way up at 100 MHz if I zoom into them on a spectrum
    analyzer. Are those harmonics really there when the 1 KHz square wave has
    finished it's transition and is in a steady state for half a millisecond? If
    I was to sample this steady state with a ultra fast ADC and FFT the samples,
    would I see the harmonics extending up through 100 MHz?

    It's a bit of a mind bender when converting between the time and frequency
    domain in the case of a square wave.

    Thanks,
    Thomas Magma
     
  2. Marra

    Marra Guest

    I thought a square wave could be broken down into a sum of many sine
    waves?
     
  3. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    Assuming an ideal constant-frequency square wave, all the (odd)
    harmonics are there all the time, invariant in phase or amplitude. It
    is mind boggling.

    In real life, any square wave has a little frequency modulation
    (jitter, in the time domain) and that makes higher harmonics jump
    around, essentially amplitude modulated sort of at random.

    It would be hard to sample and FFT such as to resolve the 100,000th
    harmonic of any waveform.

    John
     
  4. Phil Hobbs

    Phil Hobbs Guest

    Fourier's theorem is correct, yes.

    Maybe it's easier to see in the case of a delta-function, whose
    transform is 1 (i.e. unit amplitude, zero phase at all frequencies). If
    you imagine starting with a lowpass filter and gradually widening it,
    you'd see the central spike getting taller (because all the frequency
    components add in phase there), and narrower, because they all cancel
    out everywhere else, once you turn the bandwidth up sufficiently.

    Now make a periodic alternating sequence of those delta-functions, which
    gets rid of the frequencies that aren't harmonics of the rep
    rate--you'll be left with individual unit-strength spikes in the
    spectrum, placed at all the odd harmonics of the rep rate.

    Now integrate. That multiplies all those spikes by 1/(j omega), and
    presto, a square wave.

    HTH,

    -_-_-_Phil-_Hobbs-_-_-_-_-_
     
  5. Jim Backus

    Jim Backus Guest

    No, they aren't.
    Of course you would.
    Yes it is, but if you have any programming skills, try working the
    other way round. Start with a sine wave at 1 kHz, then add the
    appropriate level of 3rd, 5th, 7th etc. harmonics and see the sum of
    the components gradually turning into a square wave. You'll see that
    each frequency term is present continuously.

    HTH

    Jim
     
  6. Thomas Magma

    Thomas Magma Guest

    I was only kind of talking a theoretical ADC. Even though there are ADC's up
    in the Giga samples per second, lets talk about a theoretical test with an
    ADC that samples at 1Gsps with 24 bit resolution (kick-ass ADC). If I took a
    1 KHz square wave and triggered my ADC on the rising edge of the
    pulse...delayed a bit waiting for the transistor to settle (say
    200uS)...then took 65536 samples (65uS) of the steady state and did an FFT
    on them...what would I see? In the time domain it would appear I was
    sampling DC. If the FFT shows high frequencies relating to 1KHz where are
    they coming from?

    Thomas
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Guest

    The fundamental assumption for the FFT is that the data taken during your
    sampling interval repeats from negative infinity to positive infinity. If
    you take 65K samples of an unchanging DC level, you will get only DC energy
    in the result, (plus all the artifacts from windowing, roundoff, etc.)

    So as John pointed out - the harmonics are really there if you sample the
    entire 1 kHz wave and it has instantaneous rise/fall times. But if you only
    look at a piece of the signal, you get a completely different result.

    To minimize the sampling artifacts, make the sample interval an exact
    multiple of your waveform's period, so that the "repeating to infinity"
    assumption is valid. Since its not usually practical to do that exactly,
    window functions are used to reduce the artifacts that will appear when the
    FFT algorithm "assumes" its seeing an integral number of periods of an
    infinitely repeating waveform.

    Steve
     
  8. Jamie

    Jamie Guest

    In theory, an ideal square wave should generate infinite frequencies in
    harmonics.
    But then again, we don't exist in a ideal world! .
     
  9. Thomas Magma

    Thomas Magma Guest

    I was only kind of talking a theoretical ADC. Even though there are ADC's
    So now I'm really confused, are you saying that during certain times of a
    square wave there is no harmonic content? Would that not imply that the high
    frequency harmonics are stronger at certain instances of time compared to
    others?

    Thomas
     
  10. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    A square wave is forever. If you examine a little time slice of a
    square wave, it's not a square wave... it's a rise, or a fall, or DC.

    John
     
  11. As a general rule, if you modulate the fundamental, you modulate the
    harmonics.

    Digitize it and run a Fourier Transform.

    Otherwise, phase lock to a harmonic and see what demods out.

    http://www.tinaja.com/glib/magsn01.asp


    --
    Many thanks,

    Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
    Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
    rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email:

    Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
     
  12. Phil Allison

    Phil Allison Guest

    "Thomas Magma"

    ** They simply do not exist in the " time domain".


    ** Sorry, that is not a " time domain" instrument.


    ** There is the sudden step change in voltage followed by a steady voltage
    until the cycle repeats.

    YOU asked for the " time domain" (ie real life ) view, so you cannot
    simultaneously crap on about imaginary harmonics.


    ** No - it is just a fixed voltage.


    ** Has no-one ever informed you the " frequency domain " does not really
    exist - except as an abstract mathematical conception.

    Albeit, a very useful one.



    ........ Phil
     
  13. J.A. Legris

    J.A. Legris Guest

    Really? How about the domain of an optical Fourier plane? Seems pretty
    real to me:

    http://www.icm.edu.pl/vip2007/pdf/Borucki-vip2007.pdf
     
  14. Phil Allison

    Phil Allison Guest

    "J.A. Legris **** Brain" "


    ** Yep.





    ........ Phil
     
  15. Steve

    Steve Guest

    What I am saying is that if you only look at a small piece of the wave
    period, you do not get any information about what frequencies are required
    to produce the parts you aren't looking at. The FFT cannot analyze portions
    of a waveform it never saw. If all 64K samples are at 3.34578 volts, then
    the FFT has to say its looking at a 3.34578 DC voltage. How can it know
    anything else? That's why I pointed out that the assumption of infinite
    periodicity must be considered when you interpret the results. Otherwise
    it's garbage in garbage out analysis.

    Steve
     
  16. Phil Allison

    Phil Allison Guest

    "Steve the Jerk Off"

    ** Read the damn heading - Steve !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Says " time domain" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Got the fucking faintest what that is ??????????

    Obviously NOT !!!!!!!!!!! !!



    ** It cannot " time domain" analyse any damn thing

    - you dopey fuckwit !!


    Why the **HELL** are so many otherwise quite knowledgeable folk * totally*
    off the PLANET on such a simple issue.




    ........ Phil
     
  17. MooseFET

    MooseFET Guest

    On May 30, 1:50 pm, John Larkin
    [....]
    Here's how I first go a grip on the idea in a time domain sense. It
    may help others.

    Imagine you have a tuned circuit with a very high Q being driven by
    the squarewave. On each edge, the tuned circuit will be "shock
    excited" and then start to ring down. This is like a bell being
    struck, if you want to imagine a sound for it.

    If the Q is high enough, when the next edge comes along, the circuit
    is still ringing. If the tuned circuit is tuned to an odd harmonic,
    the next edge will be timed perfectly to pump the ringing up.

    Now imagine the shape of the envelope. It jumps up and decays and
    jumps up and decays. The decay rate decreases for higher Qs. In your
    mind crank the Q up. Luckily, you can imagine better inductors than
    you can buy. At a stupendous Q value, there is no longer any
    modulation and the signal is a good sine wave.

    We know that the tuned circuit is a filter so it doesn't invent
    frequencies just selects them. This means that the sine wave we see
    on the output must have been in the input.
     
  18. MooseFET

    MooseFET Guest

    On May 30, 1:50 pm, John Larkin
    [....]
    Here's how I first go a grip on the idea in a time domain sense. It
    may help others.

    Imagine you have a tuned circuit with a very high Q being driven by
    the squarewave. On each edge, the tuned circuit will be "shock
    excited" and then start to ring down. This is like a bell being
    struck, if you want to imagine a sound for it.

    If the Q is high enough, when the next edge comes along, the circuit
    is still ringing. If the tuned circuit is tuned to an odd harmonic,
    the next edge will be timed perfectly to pump the ringing up.

    Now imagine the shape of the envelope. It jumps up and decays and
    jumps up and decays. The decay rate decreases for higher Qs. In your
    mind crank the Q up. Luckily, you can imagine better inductors than
    you can buy. At a stupendous Q value, there is no longer any
    modulation and the signal is a good sine wave.

    We know that the tuned circuit is a filter so it doesn't invent
    frequencies just selects them. This means that the sine wave we see
    on the output must have been in the input.
     
  19. Steve

    Steve Guest

    I didn't get hung up on the heading. I was trying to answer his question in
    a way that is helpful instead of dismissive. Correcting his heading and
    ignoring what he really asked just seems like a way to exhibit personal
    indignation and feel superior, but it helps no one.

    Steve
     
  20. Phil Allison

    Phil Allison Guest

    "Steve the ASD Fucked Jerk Off"

    ** You failed to even read it - FUCKWIT !!!


    ** You failed to n comprehend the OP's question

    - FUCKWIT !!


    ** Exactly what ** YOU ** just did - fuckwit.

    PISS OFF - BLOODY IMBECILE !!!!!!!!!!




    ........ Phil
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-