Dear all! JustAnAngel has informed about impressive and revolutionary technology of spectral transform. I'm afraid this technology was well known and well forgotten. In the 30 years old good book of Tietze & Schenk there was paragraph about frequency detector. For the frequency W(t) which needs to be detected, each subsequent samle of signal A(t) is multiplied by Sin(Wt) and Cos(Wt). Each result of A(t)*Sin(Wt) multiplication comes to the input of first low-pass filter, and each result of A(t)*Cos(Wt) multiplication comes to the input of second low-pass filter. Both filters are identical. For the cut-off frequency F of filters, 1/F = T is a window of detector. Then, one takes outputs of filters Out(Sin) and Out(Cos) and calculates the magnitude as Sqrt(Out(Sin)**2 + Out(Cos)**2). One may take frequencies W1, W2 ... Wn, then may perform the abowe calculations for each frequency and have the spectral transform as a result. Yours sinfull engineer, V. Malakhov.
Revolutionary tech from JustAnAngel
Started by ●April 20, 2008
Reply by ●April 21, 20082008-04-21
Vladimir Malakhov wrote:> Dear all! > JustAnAngel has informed about impressive and revolutionary technology > of spectral transform. > I'm afraid this technology was well known and well forgotten. > In the 30 years old good book of Tietze & Schenk there was paragraph > about frequency detector. For the frequency W(t) which needs to be > detected, each subsequent samle of signal A(t) is multiplied by > Sin(Wt) > and Cos(Wt). Each result of A(t)*Sin(Wt) multiplication comes to the > input of first low-pass filter, and each result of A(t)*Cos(Wt) > multiplication comes to the input of second low-pass filter. Both > filters are identical. For the cut-off frequency F of filters, 1/F = T > is a window of detector. Then, one takes outputs of filters Out(Sin) > and Out(Cos) and calculates the magnitude as Sqrt(Out(Sin)**2 + > Out(Cos)**2). One may take frequencies W1, W2 ... Wn, then may perform > the abowe calculations for each frequency and have the spectral > transform as a result. > Yours sinfull engineer, > V. Malakhov.If I understand what you wrote, that's the old "by hand" way to do a Fourier transform. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●April 21, 20082008-04-21
On Apr 20, 3:44�pm, Vladimir Malakhov <schnei...@yandex.ru> wrote:> Dear all! > JustAnAngel has informed about impressive and revolutionary technology > of spectral transform. > I'm afraid this technology was well known and well forgotten. > In the 30 years old good book of Tietze & Schenk there was paragraph > about frequency detector. For the frequency W(t) which needs to be > detected, each subsequent samle of signal A(t) is multiplied by > Sin(Wt) > and Cos(Wt). Each result of A(t)*Sin(Wt) multiplication comes to the > input of first low-pass filter, and each result of A(t)*Cos(Wt) > multiplication comes to the input of second low-pass filter. Both > filters are identical. For the cut-off frequency F of filters, 1/F = T > is a window of detector. Then, one takes outputs of filters Out(Sin) > and Out(Cos) and calculates the magnitude as Sqrt(Out(Sin)**2 + > Out(Cos)**2). One may take frequencies W1, W2 ... Wn, then may perform > the abowe calculations for each frequency and have the spectral > transform as a result. > Yours sinfull engineer, > V. Malakhov.How did you determine that this is what their "Revolutionary" technology is? Dirk
Reply by ●April 22, 20082008-04-22
On 21 ���, 19:24, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:> If I understand what you wrote, that's the old "by hand" way to do a > Fourier transform.Oh, yes. That's the old agorithm of Fourier transform with "moving" (or "sliding") window. Vladimir.
Reply by ●April 22, 20082008-04-22
On 22 ���, 02:50, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:> How did you determine that this is what their "Revolutionary" > technology is? >Sorry, I wrote "I'm afraid", not "I'm sure". JustAnAngel noticed some features (looking like key advantages) of this "Revolutionary" technology. All same things are available with the old method of spectral (Fourier) transform. Vladimir.
Reply by ●April 22, 20082008-04-22
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Vladimir Malakhov <schneide1@yandex.ru> wrote:>On 21 ���, 19:24, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >> If I understand what you wrote, that's the old "by hand" way to do a >> Fourier transform. > >Oh, yes. >That's the old agorithm of Fourier transform with "moving" (or >"sliding") window. >Vladimir.I pointed out in the original thread that the sliding-window DFT was also O(N), like they were claiming, and the swdft is nothing new. Ah, well...I anxiously await the next "new thing" announcement on comp.dsp. ;) Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Reply by ●April 23, 20082008-04-23
On 22 Apr, 22:54, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:> >On 21 ���, 19:24, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> If I understand what you wrote, that's the old "by hand" way to do a > >> Fourier transform....> Ah, well...I anxiously await the next "new thing" announcement on > comp.dsp. � �;)Not too long ago I came across a device to facilitate the spatial translation of objects. The device has a rather surprising potential for usefullness. In short, the device seems to be based on minimizing the bending moments required induce an angular motion of the object, as well as the friction involved in the process. As far as I can see, there seems to be no particular restrictions on materials or sizes for the device, which acts to reduce the static friction between an object to be spatially translated and whatever substrate is involved. From what I can tell, the device is surprisingly effective at said task, but remarkably, no patents seem to have been claimed! Ought to be some commercial potential there, if a patent can be secured... ;) Rune
Reply by ●April 23, 20082008-04-23
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 22 Apr, 22:54, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote: > >>>On 21 ���, 19:24, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>>>If I understand what you wrote, that's the old "by hand" way to do a >>>>Fourier transform. > > ... > >>Ah, well...I anxiously await the next "new thing" announcement on >>comp.dsp. ;) > > > Not too long ago I came across a device to facilitate the > spatial translation of objects. The device has a rather > surprising potential for usefullness. In short, the device > seems to be based on minimizing the bending moments required > induce an angular motion of the object, as well as the friction > involved in the process. As far as I can see, there seems to > be no particular restrictions on materials or sizes for the > device, which acts to reduce the static friction between > an object to be spatially translated and whatever substrate > is involved. > > From what I can tell, the device is surprisingly effective > at said task, but remarkably, no patents seem to have been > claimed! Ought to be some commercial potential there, > if a patent can be secured... ;) > > Runeand how well "lubricated" wast u ? OWL _ducks_ ;/
Reply by ●April 23, 20082008-04-23
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 22 Apr, 22:54, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote: >>> On 21 ���, 19:24, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >>>> If I understand what you wrote, that's the old "by hand" way to do a >>>> Fourier transform. > ... >> Ah, well...I anxiously await the next "new thing" announcement on >> comp.dsp. ;) > > Not too long ago I came across a device to facilitate the > spatial translation of objects. The device has a rather > surprising potential for usefullness. In short, the device > seems to be based on minimizing the bending moments required > induce an angular motion of the object, as well as the friction > involved in the process. As far as I can see, there seems to > be no particular restrictions on materials or sizes for the > device, which acts to reduce the static friction between > an object to be spatially translated and whatever substrate > is involved. > > From what I can tell, the device is surprisingly effective > at said task, but remarkably, no patents seem to have been > claimed! Ought to be some commercial potential there, > if a patent can be secured... ;)My most frequent moments of inertia come in the morning, just as I'm coming awake. but I confess that such moments also come upon me when I'm first faced with an unpleasant task. How do bending moments* relate to translation? Jerry ___________________________________ * Ignore, for now, the act of putting on shoes. -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●April 24, 20082008-04-24
On 24 Apr, 00:09, Richard Owlett <rowl...@atlascomm.net> wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > On 22 Apr, 22:54, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote: > > >>>On 21 ���, 19:24, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > >>>>If I understand what you wrote, that's the old "by hand" way to do a > >>>>Fourier transform. > > > ... > > >>Ah, well...I anxiously await the next "new thing" announcement on > >>comp.dsp. � �;) > > > Not too long ago I came across a device to facilitate the > > spatial translation of objects. The device has a rather > > surprising potential for usefullness. In short, the device > > seems to be based on minimizing the bending moments required > > induce an angular motion of the object, as well as the friction > > involved in the process. As far as I can see, there seems to > > be no particular restrictions on materials or sizes for the > > device, which acts to reduce the static friction between > > an object to be spatially translated and whatever substrate > > is involved. > > > From what I can tell, the device is surprisingly effective > > at said task, but remarkably, no patents seem to have been > > claimed! Ought to be some commercial potential there, > > if a patent can be secured... ;) > > > Rune > > and how well "lubricated" wast u ?Not at all. The translation of objects can be achieved by lubricating the surface the object rests on. This device shows the potential to avoid that. Rune
