On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

....Keith

On Jul 3, 2:07 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:





On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

...Keith-

Ooops. I misspoke. They are not quite the same.

The spectrum is the same, but if you want to get exactly
the same result, the lower frequency needs a 90 degree
offset and the upper frequency needs a -90 degree offset.

And the amplitudes of the the sum and difference
frequencies need to be one half of the amplitude of
the frequencies being multiplied.

....Keith

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:05:52 -0700, Keith Dysart
wrote:

On Jul 3, 2:07 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:





On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

...Keith-

Ooops. I misspoke. They are not quite the same.

---
That's right. They can't possibly be because the first instance
_was_ multiplication and the second instance addition.
---

The spectrum is the same, but if you want to get exactly
the same result, the lower frequency needs a 90 degree
offset and the upper frequency needs a -90 degree offset.

---
That makes no sense since the frequencies are different and,
consequently, the phase difference between the signals will be
constantly changing.



--
JF

On Jul 3, 4:19 pm, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:05:52 -0700, Keith Dysart





wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:07 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

...Keith-

Ooops. I misspoke. They are not quite the same.

---
That's right. They can't possibly be because the first instance
_was_ multiplication and the second instance addition.

Quite counter intuitive, I agree, but none-the-less true.
To convince myself, I once created an Excel spreadsheet
to demonstrate the fact.

It along with some other discussion and plots are available
here http://keith.dysart.googlepages.com/radio5

The spectrum is the same, but if you want to get exactly
the same result, the lower frequency needs a 90 degree
offset and the upper frequency needs a -90 degree offset.

---
That makes no sense since the frequencies are different and,
consequently, the phase difference between the signals will be
constantly changing.

To get exactly the same results, if, at time t0, the phases
for the signals being multiplied together are 0, then at
time t0, the initial phases for the signals being added
must be 90 and -90.

....Keith

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:02:59 -0700, Keith Dysart
wrote:

On Jul 3, 4:19 pm, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:05:52 -0700, Keith Dysart





wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:07 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

...Keith-

Ooops. I misspoke. They are not quite the same.

---
That's right. They can't possibly be because the first instance
_was_ multiplication and the second instance addition.

Quite counter intuitive, I agree, but none-the-less true.
To convince myself, I once created an Excel spreadsheet
to demonstrate the fact.

It along with some other discussion and plots are available
here http://keith.dysart.googlepages.com/radio5

The spectrum is the same, but if you want to get exactly
the same result, the lower frequency needs a 90 degree
offset and the upper frequency needs a -90 degree offset.

---
That makes no sense since the frequencies are different and,
consequently, the phase difference between the signals will be
constantly changing.

To get exactly the same results, if, at time t0, the phases
for the signals being multiplied together are 0, then at
time t0, the initial phases for the signals being added
must be 90 and -90.

---
OK, but that's just for the single slice in time where the circuit
reactances for both frequencies are complex conjugates, and cancel,
leaving only pure resistance for both signals to drive at that
instant.


--
JF

In article ,
John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:05:52 -0700, Keith Dysart
wrote:

On Jul 3, 2:07 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:





On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

...Keith-

Ooops. I misspoke. They are not quite the same.

---
That's right. They can't possibly be because the first instance
_was_ multiplication and the second instance addition.
---

The spectrum is the same, but if you want to get exactly
the same result, the lower frequency needs a 90 degree
offset and the upper frequency needs a -90 degree offset.

---
That makes no sense since the frequencies are different and,
consequently, the phase difference between the signals will be
constantly changing.

After you get done talking about modulation and sidebands, somebody
might want to take a stab at explaining why, if you tune a receiver to
the second harmonic (or any other harmonic) of a modulated carrier (AM
or FM; makes no difference), the audio comes out sounding exactly as it
does if you tune to the fundamental? That is, while the second harmonic
of the carrier is twice the frequency of the fundamental, the sidebands
of the second harmonic are *not* located at twice the frequencies of the
sidebands of the fundamental, but rather precisely as far from the
second harmonic of the carrier as they are from the fundamental.

Isaac

"isw" wrote in message
...

After you get done talking about modulation and sidebands, somebody
might want to take a stab at explaining why, if you tune a receiver to
the second harmonic (or any other harmonic) of a modulated carrier (AM
or FM; makes no difference), the audio comes out sounding exactly as it
does if you tune to the fundamental? That is, while the second harmonic
of the carrier is twice the frequency of the fundamental, the sidebands
of the second harmonic are *not* located at twice the frequencies of the
sidebands of the fundamental, but rather precisely as far from the
second harmonic of the carrier as they are from the fundamental.

Isaac

I can't speak to second harmonics of a received signal, though I can't think
why they would be any different than an internal signal.. but:

When you frequency multiply and FM signal in a transmitter (As used to be
done on most FM transmitters in the days before PLL came along), you not
only multiplied the extant frequency, but the modulation swing as well. i.e.
if you start with a 1 MHz FM modualated crystal oscillator, and manage to
get 500 Hz swing from the crystal (using this only as a simple example),
then if you double that signal's carrier frequency, you also double the FM
swing to 1 KHz. Tripling it from there would give you a 6 MHz carrier with a
3 KHz swing, and so on.

In message , Brenda Ann
writes

"isw" wrote in message
...

After you get done talking about modulation and sidebands, somebody
might want to take a stab at explaining why, if you tune a receiver to
the second harmonic (or any other harmonic) of a modulated carrier (AM
or FM; makes no difference), the audio comes out sounding exactly as it
does if you tune to the fundamental? That is, while the second harmonic
of the carrier is twice the frequency of the fundamental, the sidebands
of the second harmonic are *not* located at twice the frequencies of the
sidebands of the fundamental, but rather precisely as far from the
second harmonic of the carrier as they are from the fundamental.

Isaac

I can't speak to second harmonics of a received signal, though I can't think
why they would be any different than an internal signal.. but:

When you frequency multiply and FM signal in a transmitter (As used to be
done on most FM transmitters in the days before PLL came along), you not
only multiplied the extant frequency, but the modulation swing as well. i.e.
if you start with a 1 MHz FM modualated crystal oscillator, and manage to
get 500 Hz swing from the crystal (using this only as a simple example),
then if you double that signal's carrier frequency, you also double the FM
swing to 1 KHz. Tripling it from there would give you a 6 MHz carrier with a
3 KHz swing, and so on.


For multiplying FM, yes, of course, this is exactly what happens. And as
it happens for FM, it must also happen for AM.

However, I feel that the subject of the effects of harmonics of an AM
signal needs to be investigated. I think what you hear depends on how
and where the harmonic is produced, and the characteristics of the
receiver.

In the good old days of AM, on those occasions when I listened to the
2nd harmonic of my transmissions, I got the impression that the quality
of the audio was not very good, and that the mod depth was lower than on
the fundamental.

Assuming that the signal is coming from a 'normal' AM transmitter, you
could have two scenarios:

(a) In the first scenario, the signal is initially clean, but gets
multiplied by two, along with the sidebands. [This may occur in the
transmitter itself, or in the receiver, or in some external device.] In
this case, the frequencies and bandwidth of the sidebands will be
doubled (like FM multiplication). The signal should definitely be of
poor quality (it should sound rather 'toppy'), but may still be fairly
intelligible. If the bandwidth of the receiver is be insufficient to
embrace the full (doubled) bandwidth of the signal, you will only hear
the lower part of the audio spectrum. This will limit the toppiness, and
the level will be rather low, but, in practice, the signal quality may
be quite 'acceptable'.

(b) In the second scenario, the 2nd harmonic is effectively present
BEFORE modulation, so it gets modulated along with the fundamental. In
this case, the lower frequencies of sidebands of the 2nd harmonic will
be 'normal', and the signal will sound normal.

In practice, both (a) and (b) probably occur together (certainly in the
transmitter). Again, as the receiver will only select the lower part of
the audio spectrum, what you hear might sound OK. I suspect that, if you
'off-tune' a bit, you will find a lot of sideband 'splash' either side
of the signal.

It should not be difficult to set up a simulation of the above, and do
some quantitative tests. Any volunteers?

Ian.
--

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Brenda Ann
writes

"isw" wrote in message
...

After you get done talking about modulation and sidebands, somebody
might want to take a stab at explaining why, if you tune a receiver to
the second harmonic (or any other harmonic) of a modulated carrier (AM
or FM; makes no difference), the audio comes out sounding exactly as it
does if you tune to the fundamental? That is, while the second harmonic
of the carrier is twice the frequency of the fundamental, the sidebands
of the second harmonic are *not* located at twice the frequencies of the
sidebands of the fundamental, but rather precisely as far from the
second harmonic of the carrier as they are from the fundamental.

Isaac

I can't speak to second harmonics of a received signal, though I can't think
why they would be any different than an internal signal.. but:

When you frequency multiply and FM signal in a transmitter (As used to be
done on most FM transmitters in the days before PLL came along), you not
only multiplied the extant frequency, but the modulation swing as well. i.e.
if you start with a 1 MHz FM modualated crystal oscillator, and manage to
get 500 Hz swing from the crystal (using this only as a simple example),
then if you double that signal's carrier frequency, you also double the FM
swing to 1 KHz. Tripling it from there would give you a 6 MHz carrier with a
3 KHz swing, and so on.


For multiplying FM, yes, of course, this is exactly what happens. And as
it happens for FM, it must also happen for AM.

If you start with, say, a 1 MHz carrier AM modulated at 1 KHz, tuning to
the second harmonic gives you a 2 MHz carrier AM modulated at 1 KHz; not
2 KHz as your "must also happen for AM" would suggest.

Isaac

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

(b) In the second scenario, the 2nd harmonic is effectively present
BEFORE modulation, so it gets modulated along with the fundamental. In
this case, the lower frequencies of sidebands of the 2nd harmonic will
be 'normal', and the signal will sound normal.

I believe that will be the likely scenario for any AM transmitter
which uses plate modulation or a similar "high level modulation"
system. If the RF finals are running in a single-ended configuration
(rather than push-pull) even the unmodulated carrier is likely to have
a significant amount of second-harmonic distortion in it... and I'd
think that this would tend to grow worse as the audio peaks push the
finals up towards their maximum output power.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!