In Reply to: Re: test for transients posted by john curl on July 18, 2003 at 15:42:14:
Hi,> In truth, you can find out just as much with a single sine wave in
> this situation.Regarding the static IM test you mention above, that
is what I was thinking as well. This makes it easier because the
triangle wave results surprised me.> a truncated square wave, with only a few harmonics is a joke when
> trying to find TIM. It just won't do it.That is good to know. The paper suggests low pass filtering the
square wave. With a 1.27Khz square wave and a 30Khz low pass filter
this is quite a few harmonics (23). How far do you recommend I go
out in terms of harmonics? Its easy to add harmonics, it just
increases the sim time.I'm working on getting the leakage out of the FFT so the harmonics
of the sine wave can be seen. To do this, I need to know how many
harmonics for the square wave are neccessary.Thanks
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: test for transients - mfc 07/18/0320:10:44 07/18/03 (11)
- Re: test for transients - john curl 22:34:11 07/18/03 (2)
- Re: test for transients - john curl 14:35:37 07/19/03 (0)
- Re: test for transients - mfc 22:53:22 07/18/03 (0)
- Re: test for transients - mfc 21:14:44 07/18/03 (7)
- Re: test for transients - Scott Frankland 21:56:29 07/18/03 (1)
- Re: test for transients - mfc 22:17:05 07/18/03 (0)
- Re: test for transients - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 21:29:55 07/18/03 (4)
- Re: test for transients - mfc 22:14:39 07/18/03 (3)
- Re: test for transients - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 21:05:22 07/19/03 (2)
- Re: test for transients - mfc 17:01:29 07/22/03 (0)
- Re: test for transients - john curl 15:09:36 07/21/03 (0)