George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-
frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe and why?

On Jul 14, 4:11 pm, "George Dishman" wrote
in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...05843c0?hl=en&
:
"Radium" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 14, 1:17 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Radium" wrote in message

groups.com...
..

Isn't it true that the carrier-frequency must be at least 2x the
highest intended frequency of the modulator signal?

No.

Karl Uppiano sharply disagrees.

Karl Uppiano explained in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...cea47a5?hl=en&

He is wrong. The basis of AM is that the sine wave
carrier is multiplied by another signal which can be
treated as a sum of sines. The relevant maths is:

http://www.sosmath.com/trig/prodform/prodform.html

If the carrier frequency if fc and the modulation has
frequencies up to fm then you get sidebands like
this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Am-sidebands.png

If you multiply 44.1kHz by a band from 20Hz to 20kHz,
you get an upper sideband given 44.12kHz to 64.1kHz
and a lower sideband from 44.08kHz down to 24.1kHz

The highest modulating frequency for AM must be less than 1/2 the carrier
frequency. Conversely, the lowest carrier frequency must be twice the
highest modulating frequency. Period. I don't care what specific
frequencies
and/or energies and/or colors you propose.

If you want to modulate at 20KHz, the carrier must be at least 40KHz. It
is
no coincidence that CD audio uses a 44.1KHz sample rate. It is
essentially
the same principle. If you exceed the Nyquist criterion, the sidebands
overlap the baseband (i.e., aliasing occurs) and you cannot unambiguously
decode the original modulation.

Nyquist applies to sampling.

So who is right and who is wrong?

Look at the maths, it is never wrong. Modulating fc
with fm gives a lowest frequency of fc-fm so as long
as fc fm, you don't get aliasing.

George

So is it possible for me to receive a 10 KHz audio sine-wave tone on a
1 Hz AM radio receiver? If not, why? My guess is it violates Nyquist/
Shannon. Right?

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-
frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe and why?

The math; it is always correct.

He is wrong. The basis of AM is that the sine wave
carrier is multiplied by another signal which can be
treated as a sum of sines. The relevant maths is:

http://www.sosmath.com/trig/prodform/prodform.html

snip remaining idiocy

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

On Jul 14, 8:35 pm, wrote:

http://www.sosmath.com/trig/prodform/prodform.html

That link says nothing about Amplitude Modulation

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio,carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

Radium wrote:

......snip..



So is it possible for me to receive a 10 KHz audio sine-wave tone on a
1 Hz AM radio receiver? If not, why? My guess is it violates Nyquist/
Shannon. Right?

Don't guess, read the papers and do the math!



Later...

RC
--

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-
frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe and why?

On Jul 14, 4:11 pm, "George Dishman" wrote
in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...05843c0?hl=en&
:
"Radium" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 14, 1:17 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Radium" wrote in message

groups.com...
..

Isn't it true that the carrier-frequency must be at least 2x the
highest intended frequency of the modulator signal?

No.

Karl Uppiano sharply disagrees.

Karl Uppiano explained in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...cea47a5?hl=en&

He is wrong. The basis of AM is that the sine wave
carrier is multiplied by another signal which can be
treated as a sum of sines. The relevant maths is:

http://www.sosmath.com/trig/prodform/prodform.html

If the carrier frequency if fc and the modulation has
frequencies up to fm then you get sidebands like
this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Am-sidebands.png

If you multiply 44.1kHz by a band from 20Hz to 20kHz,
you get an upper sideband given 44.12kHz to 64.1kHz
and a lower sideband from 44.08kHz down to 24.1kHz

The highest modulating frequency for AM must be less than 1/2 the
carrier
frequency. Conversely, the lowest carrier frequency must be twice the
highest modulating frequency. Period. I don't care what specific
frequencies
and/or energies and/or colors you propose.

If you want to modulate at 20KHz, the carrier must be at least 40KHz.
It
is
no coincidence that CD audio uses a 44.1KHz sample rate. It is
essentially
the same principle. If you exceed the Nyquist criterion, the sidebands
overlap the baseband (i.e., aliasing occurs) and you cannot
unambiguously
decode the original modulation.

Nyquist applies to sampling.

So who is right and who is wrong?

Look at the maths, it is never wrong. Modulating fc
with fm gives a lowest frequency of fc-fm so as long
as fc fm, you don't get aliasing.

George

So is it possible for me to receive a 10 KHz audio sine-wave tone on a
1 Hz AM radio receiver? If not, why? My guess is it violates Nyquist/
Shannon. Right?

Since my name came up here, I decided to chime in. It must have been very
late when I typed my original post. George is right. Sorry about any
confusion.

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies,and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

This looks like a good time to point out that equivalent-time and random
sampling oscilloscopes display waveforms having bandwidths in the tens
of GHz which were captured by sampling at rates from a hundred kHz to a
few MHz, and have done so for decades.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Ron Capik wrote:
Radium wrote:

......snip..



So is it possible for me to receive a 10 KHz audio sine-wave tone on a
1 Hz AM radio receiver? If not, why? My guess is it violates Nyquist/
Shannon. Right?

Don't guess, read the papers and do the math!



Later...

RC
--

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-
frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe and why?

you can believe whoever you prefer, makes no difference to me.

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:8gjmi.831$s25.461@trndny04...
....
Since my name came up here, I decided to chime in. It must have been very
late when I typed my original post. ...

A problem I often suffer from too :-(

best regards
George

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies, and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:35 pm, wrote:

http://www.sosmath.com/trig/prodform/prodform.html

That link says nothing about Amplitude Modulation

Try this one:

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/ele...modulation.htm

and this one:

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/...lation_AM.html

and see if you notice any similartity in the equations.

Of course, anyone with more than half a brain could have done a Google
search for AM modulation equation and come up with thousands of hits.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

George Dishman says Karl Uppiano is wrong about AM radio, carrier-frequencies,and aliasing. Who should I believe? Why?
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
This looks like a good time to point out that equivalent-time and random
sampling oscilloscopes display waveforms having bandwidths in the tens
of GHz which were captured by sampling at rates from a hundred kHz to a
few MHz, and have done so for decades.

For random sampling of periodic signals the resolution is about the aperture,
not the rate.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein