In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Hein ten Horn wrote:

I've once listened to the first five harmonics of a
powerful medium wave transmitter (400 kW) at
a distance of some 300 m.
All harmonics gave normal audio; no strange
switching effects (Sony ICF-7600D).

What I'd like to know is if in such an 'experiment'
it can be excluded that (some of) these signals are
generated by the receiver itself.


That much power that close to the receiver? Its a wonder you didn't
destroy the receiver's frontend.

That particular receiver doesn't have much of a "front end"; diodes
(with protection) and straight into the first mixer. No RF stage, tuned
or otherwise.

Isaac

isw wrote:

That particular receiver doesn't have much of a "front end"; diodes
(with protection) and straight into the first mixer. No RF stage, tuned
or otherwise.


It can exceed the PIV of the protection diodes and cause them to
short, or explode. That crappy Sony design is where the harmonics came
from. The diodes, (or any other semiconductor) with enough RF can
generate a lot of spurious signals. It can even come from a rusty joint
in the area.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Fields wrote:

log(sin(a))+log(sin(b))


describes the addition of the logarithm of the amplitude of sin(a)
to the logarithm of the amplitude of sin(b), which still produces
only a sum.

That is, no sidebands.

log(x)+log(y)=log(x*y)

jk

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
isw wrote:

That particular receiver doesn't have much of a "front end"; diodes
(with protection) and straight into the first mixer. No RF stage, tuned
or otherwise.

It can exceed the PIV of the protection diodes and cause them to
short, or explode. That crappy Sony design is where the harmonics came
from. The diodes, (or any other semiconductor) with enough RF can
generate a lot of spurious signals. It can even come from a rusty joint
in the area.

Is the ICF-SW7600GR significantly better performing
than the ICF-7600D on this?

gr, Hein

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" wrote in message news:469db833$0$20583
"Hein ten Horn" wrote in message
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" wrote in message
"Hein ten Horn" wrote in message
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Hein ten Horn" wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Hein ten Horn wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Hein ten Horn wrote:

As a matter of fact the resulting force (the resultant) is
fully determining the change of the velocity (vector) of
the element.
The resulting force on our element is changing at the
frequency of 222 Hz, so the matter is vibrating at the
one and only 222 Hz.

Your idea of frequency is informal and leaves out
essential aspects of how physical systems work.

Nonsense. Mechanical oscillations are fully determined by
forces acting on the vibrating mass. Both mass and resulting force
determine the frequency. It's just a matter of applying the laws of
physics.

You don't know the laws of physics or how to apply them.

I'm not understood. So, back to basics.
Take a simple harmonic oscillation of a mass m, then
x(t) = A*sin(2*pi*f*t)
v(t) = d(x(t))/dt = 2*pi*f*A*cos(2*pi*f*t)
a(t) = d(v(t))/dt = -(2*pi*f)^2*A*sin(2*pi*f*t)
hence
a(t) = -(2*pi*f)^2*x(t)

Only for a single sinusoid.

and, applying Newton's second law,
Fres(t) = -m*(2*pi*f)^2*x(t)
or
f = ( -Fres(t) / m / x(t) )^0.5 / (2pi).

Only for a single sinusoid.
What if x(t) = sin(2pi f1 t) + sin(2pi f2 t)

In the following passage I wrote "a relatively
slow varying amplitude", which relates to the
4 Hz beat in the case under discussion (f1 =
220 Hz and f2 = 224 Hz) where your
expression evaluates to
x(t) = 2 * cos(2pi 2 t) * sin(2pi 222 t),
indicating the matter is vibrating at 222 Hz.

So where did you apply the laws of physics?
You said, "It's just a matter of applying the laws of
physics." Then you did that for the single sine case. Where
is your physics calculation for the two sine case?
Where is the expression for 'f' as in your first
example? Put x(t) = 2 * cos(2pi 2 t) * sin(2pi 222 t)
in your calculations and tell me what you get
for 'f'.

And how do you get 222 Hz out of
cos(2pi 2 t) * sin(2pi 222 t)
Why don't you say it is 2 Hz? What is your
law of physics here? Always pick the bigger
number? Always pick the frequency of the
second term? Always pick the frequency of
the sine?
What is "the frequency" of
cos(2pi 410 t) * cos(2pi 400 t)


What is "the frequency" of
cos(2pi 200 t) + cos(2pi 210 t) + cos(2pi 1200 t) + cos(2pi 1207 t)



So my statements above, in which we have
a relatively slow varying amplitude (4 Hz),

How do you determine amplitude?
What's the math (or physics) to derive
amplitude?

are fundamentally spoken valid.
Calling someone an idiot is a weak scientific argument.

Yes.
And so is "Nonsense." And so is your idea of
"the frequency".

Note the piquant difference: nonsense points
to content and we're not discussing idiots
(despite a passing by of some very strange
postings. ).

Hard words break no bones, yet deflate creditability.

Well, I think I've had it. A 'never' ending story.
Too much to straighten out. Too much comment
needed. Questions moving away from the subject.
No more indistinguishable close frequencies.
No audible beat, no slow changing envelopes.

Take a plot, use a high speed camera or whatever
else and see for yourself the particle is vibrating at a
period in accordance with 222 Hz. In my view I've
sufficiently underpinned the 222 Hz frequency.
If you disagree, then do the job. Show your
frequencies and elucidate them. (No hint needed,
I guess.)

Bravo. Well done. What an impressive
display of applying the laws of physics.
Newton, Euler, Gauss, and Fourier have nothing
on you.

Thanks for your constructive contributions.

gr, Hein

Jim Kelley wrote
Hein ten Horn wrote:

That's a misunderstanding.
A vibrating element here (such as a cubic micrometre
of matter) experiences different changing forces. Yet
the element cannot follow all of them at the same time.
As a matter of fact the resulting force (the resultant) is
fully determining the change of the velocity (vector) of
the element.

The resulting force on our element is changing at the
frequency of 222 Hz, so the matter is vibrating at the
one and only 222 Hz.

Under the stated conditions there is no sine wave oscillating at 222 Hz.
The wave has a complex shape and contains spectral components at two
distinct frequencies (neither of which is 222Hz).

Not a pure sine oscillation (rather than wave), but a near sine
oscillation at an exact period of 1/222 s. The closer the source
frequenties, the better the sine fits a pure sine. Thus if you
wish to get a sufficient near harmonic oscillation, conditions like
"slow changing envelope" are essential.

It might be correct to say that matter is vibrating at an
average, or effective frequency of 222 Hz.


No, it is correct. A particle cannot follow two different
harmonic oscillations (220 Hz and 224 Hz) at the same
time.

The particle also does not average the two frequencies.

Hmm, let's examine this.
From the two composing oscillations you get the overall
displacement:
y(t) = sin(2 pi 220 t) + sin(2 pi 224 t)
From the points of intersection of y(t) at the time-axes you
can find the period of the function, so examine when y(t) = 0.
sin(2 pi 220 t) + sin(2 pi 224 t) = 0
(..)
(Assuming you can do the math.)
(..)
The solutions a
t = k/(220+224) with k = 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.
so the time between two successive intersections is
Dt = 1/(220+224) s.
With two intersections per period, the period is
twice as large, thus
T = 2/(220+224) s,
hence the frequency is
f = (220+224)/2 = 222 Hz,
which is the arithmetic average of both composing
frequencies.

The waveform which results from the sum of two pure sine waves is not a pure
sine wave, and therefore cannot be accurately described at any single
frequency.

As seen above, the particle oscillates (or vibrates) at 222 Hz.
Since the oscillation is non-harmonic (not a pure sine),
it needs several harmonic oscillations (frequencies,
here 220 Hz and 224 Hz) to compose the oscillation at 222 Hz.

Obviously. It's a very simple matter to verify this by experiment.

Indeed, it is. But watch out for misinterpretations of
the measuring results! For example, if a spectrum
analyzer, being fed with the 222 Hz signal, shows
that the signal can be composed from a 220 Hz and
a 224 Hz signal, then that won't mean the matter is
actually vibrating at those frequencies.

:-) Matter would move in the same way the sound pressure wave does,

To be precise, this is nonsense, but I suspect you're trying
to state somewhat else, and since I'm not able to read your
mind today, I skip that part.

the amplitude of which is easily plotted versus time using Mathematica,
Mathcad, Sigma Plot, and even Excel. I think you should still give that a
try.

No peculiarities found.

gr, Hein

Hein ten Horn wrote:

Hmm, let's examine this.
From the two composing oscillations you get the overall
displacement:
y(t) = sin(2 pi 220 t) + sin(2 pi 224 t)
From the points of intersection of y(t) at the time-axes you
can find the period of the function, so examine when y(t) = 0.
sin(2 pi 220 t) + sin(2 pi 224 t) = 0
(..)
(Assuming you can do the math.)
(..)
The solutions a
t = k/(220+224) with k = 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.
so the time between two successive intersections is
Dt = 1/(220+224) s.
With two intersections per period, the period is
twice as large, thus
T = 2/(220+224) s,
hence the frequency is
f = (220+224)/2 = 222 Hz,
which is the arithmetic average of both composing
frequencies.

As I said before, it might be correct to say that the average, or
effective frequency is 222 Hz. But the actual period varies from
cycle to cycle over a period of 1/(224-220).

the amplitude of which is easily plotted versus time using Mathematica,
Mathcad, Sigma Plot, and even Excel. I think you should still give that a
try.


No peculiarities found.

Perhaps you would agree that a change in period of less than 2% might
be difficult to observe - especially when you're not expecting to see
it. To more easily find the 'peculiarities' I suggest that you try
using more widely spaced frequencies.

gr, Hein

gr right back at ya,

jk

How do you determine amplitude?
What's the math (or physics) to derive
amplitude?

The fundamental formular Acos(B) + C is all you need to describe angular
modulation.
Changing the value of A over time determines the amplitude of an AM
modulated carrier.
Changing the value of B over time determines the amplitude of an FM
modulated carrier.
The rate of change of A or B changes the modulation frequency respectively.
C is DC, Y axis offset and has not been discussed here.

r, Bob F.

Hein ten Horn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
isw wrote:

That particular receiver doesn't have much of a "front end"; diodes
(with protection) and straight into the first mixer. No RF stage, tuned
or otherwise.

It can exceed the PIV of the protection diodes and cause them to
short, or explode. That crappy Sony design is where the harmonics came
from. The diodes, (or any other semiconductor) with enough RF can
generate a lot of spurious signals. It can even come from a rusty joint
in the area.

Is the ICF-SW7600GR significantly better performing
than the ICF-7600D on this?

gr, Hein

I haven't seen the schematics of either model, but most portable SW
recievers suffer from no filtering on the front end, so are susceptible
to overload. A properly designed front end is expensive. Most
manufacturers would rather spend the money on eye candy to make it
attractive to those who don't know what they really need. This is
crossposted to: news:rec.radio.shortwave where the relative merits of
different SW radios are discussed.

I tend to use older, rack mounted equipment that I've restored and
when I have the time, I like to design my own equipment. I only have
one portable receiver, the RS DX-375, which is kept in my hurricane
emergency kit. It was bought on price, alone when it was discontinued
for $50, about eight or nine years ago. The power line and ignition
noise is so high around here that a portable is almost useless. After
the last hurricane, the nearest electricity was over 5 miles away for
about two weeks, and I was picking up stations from all over the world.
It reminded me of visits to my grandparent's farm back in the early
'60s, when their farm was the last one on their road with electricity.
They had nothing that generated noise, other that a few light switches,
when they were flipped on or off. I didn't have a shortwave radio, but
I could pick up AM DX from all over the country, late at night.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Jim Kelley wrote:
Hein ten Horn wrote:

Hmm, let's examine this.
From the two composing oscillations you get the overall
displacement:
y(t) = sin(2 pi 220 t) + sin(2 pi 224 t)
From the points of intersection of y(t) at the time-axes you
can find the period of the function, so examine when y(t) = 0.
sin(2 pi 220 t) + sin(2 pi 224 t) = 0
(..)
(Assuming you can do the math.)
(..)
The solutions a
t = k/(220+224) with k = 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.
so the time between two successive intersections is
Dt = 1/(220+224) s.
With two intersections per period, the period is
twice as large, thus
T = 2/(220+224) s,
hence the frequency is
f = (220+224)/2 = 222 Hz,
which is the arithmetic average of both composing
frequencies.

As I said before, it might be correct to say that the average, or effective
frequency is 222 Hz. But the actual period varies from cycle to cycle over
a period of 1/(224-220).

the amplitude of which is easily plotted versus time using Mathematica,
Mathcad, Sigma Plot, and even Excel. I think you should still give that a
try.


No peculiarities found.

Perhaps you would agree that a change in period of less than 2% might be
difficult to observe - especially when you're not expecting to see it. To
more easily find the 'peculiarities' I suggest that you try using more
widely spaced frequencies.

Before we go any further I'd like to exclude
that we are talking at cross-purposes.
Are you pointing at the irregularities which
can occur when the envelope passes zero?
(That phenomenon has already been
mentioned in this thread.)


gr right back at ya,

:-)
"gr" is not customary, but, when writing it satisfies
in several languages: German (gruß, grüße),
Dutch (groet, groeten) and English.

Adieu, Hein