Integration w/o Smoothing; Demodulate, Integrate and then Ta

[Bret Cahill]

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.


Bret Cahill

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 19, 10:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

Bret Cahill

What is smoothing?

"simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied

by the reference."

Low pass filtering is smoothing. Your low pass filter time constant
sets the effective "Q" of the lockin.

George H.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

George Herold wrote:

On Feb 19, 10:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

Bret Cahill

What is smoothing?

In Brett's case? Using a belt sander to remove the humps from a
camel.

"simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference."

Low pass filtering is smoothing. Your low pass filter time constant
sets the effective "Q" of the lockin.

George H.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:59:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

But it's not. So the possibilities are...

1. It's been thought of before, but it doesn't work

or

2. You, law clerk or whatever you are, thought of it first, and tens
of thousands of control engineers, over the last 100 years, missed it.

John

who never was a big fan of dividing by zero.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:02:51 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

But it's not.

Then it will make a perfect method patent.

Enjoy!

John

 

[Bret Cahill]

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

But it's not.

Then it will make a perfect method patent.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

More generally, if you are only trying to reduce the noise by a
limited amount.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

Bret Cahill

What is smoothing?

Say a rectifier outputs a voltage proportional to |sinwt|. It's not a
constant DC voltage.

If you want a constant DC voltage then you must smooth somehow.

"simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied

by the reference."

Low pass filtering is smoothing.  

Which takes time even if the noise in an ac signal is low or non
existent.

If you are taking a quotient of two low noise signals as in the OP,
however, then no smoothing of each (ref.) X (signal) output is
necessary. You only need to integrate just long enough to reduce the
noise to an acceptable level.

Any voltage fluctuations due to the signals will cancel in the
quotient.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Greed is the root of

Eating like a pig is the root of all obesity.


Bret Cahill

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Greed is the root of

Eating like a pig is the root of all obesity.

You should know, fat ass.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Greed is the root of

Eating like a pig is the root of all obesity.

   You should know, fat ass.

You're projecting.

At one time I was obese but I started reading up on Jefferson and
after I acquired freedom of mind I started to leave the fat, grease
and corn syrup products on the display rack.

Now I'm only a few pounds overweight.


Bret Cahill

 

[Magnetic]

CENR leader and other criminals do not come to my town. You are banned
here forever, not depending from the results of the LHC experiment.

Between Mars and Jupiter there was a planet, which was probably
exploded with the help of collider. Now there is an asteroid belt
there.

In a week or slightly more CERN physicists can transform the Earth
into new asteroid belt.
In a billion years your remnants will drop at the decks of Venues
pirates.

Somebody asks: “Ivan, how does a magnetic hole turn a whole planet
into an asteroid belt?”

Magnetic hole grows by millions times more rapidly than black hole. It
captures protons, ruins them onto x-bosons and positrons, swallows x-
bosons and becomes bigger; eject positrons, releasing the energy,
which is equivalent to 1/3 of rest energy of proton per each act of
induced proton decay.
Let’s suppose that magnetic hole had already ruined the hundredth part
of the Earths internal core. Then the external core of the Earth will
receive the energy in the form of heat Q = (M/(3*100))*c^2. This heat
will transform the internal core’s matter from liquid state into hot
plasma. The pressure of this plasma will be so great that the Earth’s
radius will grow with acceleration. The thickness of the Earth’s
mantle and crust will become smaller. At last Earth’s surface will be
torn on peaces and start into cosmos. These filaments will be
accelerated further by plasma wind, occurring from the central region
there the magnetic hole continue to capture the rarefying plasma
matter.
I can say without any computation that about of 1/100 of Earths matter
will be captured by magnetic hole; 1/10 of Earths matter will form the
new asteroid belt; the rest of Earth’s matter will leave the Solar
system with high velocity in the form of hot plasma.
If magnetic hole will be captured by the solar magnetic field, then
the Sun will undergo an explosion as supernova or several successive
explosions as nova.
From the other had, it is not excluded, that the magnetic hole will be
thrown out from the Solar system by magnetic forces, soon after the
Earth collaptical explosion.
In a billion years your remnants will drop at the decks of Venues
pirates, if you will be happy to enter into that 1/10 of Earth’s
matter, which had formed the new asteroid belt.


Existence of high energy cosmic rays (protons or ions) does not give
any guarantee that the same particle collisions are safe at head-on
colliders.
Indeed “dangerous particle condensate” (Condensate) can be created at
both cases.
It is obvious that Condensate has its rest energy and binding energy.
It was proved that total binding energy of Condensate is smaller than
kinetic energy of atmospheric particles in the system of Condensate,
if it was created by collision of cosmic particle with atmospheric
one. Consequently, cosmo-atmospheric Condensate would be ruined
immediately. But collider Condensate will not be ruined and it can
grow, if this growth is permitted by physical laws.

Till now there were theoretically described several types of
Condensates: pion condensate, stranglet, magnetized vacuum, magnetic
vacuum domain, magnetic holes and so on. In fact, the mentioned types
of condensates are different approximations to one and the same
Condensate, which can be created in Nature or in a physical
experiment. These approximations were grounded on different types of
forces. I tried to investigate Condensate, which is connected
presumably by magnetic forces. Now I can see that my results coincide
quite good with the results, received in the investigations of
Condensate, connected by pions (pion condensate, Migdal), gluon
condensate (Savvidy?), sea quark-antiquark pairs, strange quarks..

The main conclusion: Condensate can be created at particle collision
with energy of about 1-TeV per particle.

It is clear, at least for me, that microscopic droplet of Condensate
will be created very soon at LHC. This can lead to further rapid
explosion of Earth and extermination of our Civilization. Particle
physicists will not stop their experiments, because the stop of these
high-energy experiments will mean that they do recognize that these
collisions are really dangerous for the whole Earth. The recognition
of the danger will mean that most of particle physicists are already
criminals or global terrorists, - they did not stop their dangerous
experiments despite court cases and disputes, lasting nearly ten
years.

So, dear citizens, be ready to near death. You all will be murdered
soon by criminals, who name themselves as “scientists”.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/


Dear citizens, in a week or slightly more you all will be killed by
physicists, promoting and performing particle collisions at LHC. What
can we do to save ourselves? Politicians and prosecutors did not help
us, despite of our call to them. They believe CERN physicists. So we
have no any other options, except physical extermination of potential
killers. Citizens of Geneva do not seat silently, block entrances to
CERN building, kill resisting murders, who name themselves
“scientists”, because they are global terrorists. Dear Arab
terrorists, drop a nuclear bomb at LHC. Citizens of Ukraine and
Russia, explode oil and gas pipe-lines, leading to Europe.

It is pity, but most of you do not believe us. Consequently, be ready
to be murdered by criminal physicists. It will happen in a week or
several days latter.

--------
The new start of Planetary Guillotine is planned on the next Thursday,
February the 25-th. Physicists will start from 450-GeV energies per
proton. In a couple of weeks they will welcome journalists and will
show us the 7-TeV collisions (3.5 TeV per proton). Now they remind me
those young people, who tried to squeeze out from their car all what
it can give. Kids withdrew their exiting race on a camera, not
realizing yet that they had made the film about their last minutes of
life. Nothing had left from the car and kids, except the video-film.
Somebody had taken it and uploaded it into Internet. I’m curious,
where will journalists try to upload the film about the Last Minutes
of Earth’s Life?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/18/lhc_fireup_2010_forecast/

 

[spudnik]

ah, the old exploded planet hypothesis;
even Kepler could have been wrong about *some* thing (although,
he was not, about most things: http://wlym.com .-)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/18/lhc_fireup_2010_forecast/

--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Stop Cheeny, Ricw & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Greed is the root of

Eating like a pig is the root of all obesity.

You should know, fat ass.

You're projecting.

No need. You're the fat ass. You can't stop talking about it. Like
Shakespear said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

At one time I was obese but I started reading up on Jefferson and
after I acquired freedom of mind I started to leave the fat, grease
and corn syrup products on the display rack.

Now I'm only a few pounds overweight.

Yeah, right. And they only had to remove half the wall to get you
out. Too bad for you that Heraldo Rivera doesn't do those "fat ass
rescues" anymore.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

[Darwin123]

On Feb 20, 9:39 am, Magnetic <magnetic.t...@yandex.ua> wrote:

CENR leader and other criminals do not come to my town. You are banned
here forever, not depending from the results of the LHC experiment.

Between Mars and Jupiter there was a planet, which was probably
exploded with the help of collider. Now there is an asteroid belt
there.

In a week or slightly more CERN physicists can transform the Earth
into new asteroid belt.
In a billion years your remnants will drop at the decks of Venues
pirates.

I just realized. On 25 February, I am delivering a public talk

about the history of germ warfare! The world could end during my
speech!
All these people concerned about germ warfare will suddenly be
destroyed by the ultimate in nuclear physics. That would be a
dramatic, if not ironic, end to my speaking career. Not to mention the
rest of the world.
You do know on 26 February, you are going to be inundated with
internet mockery. If there is an internet, that is.

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 20, 12:52 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

More generally, if you are only trying to reduce the noise by a
limited amount.





If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

No smoothing of either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics..

Bret Cahill

What is smoothing?

Say a rectifier outputs a voltage proportional to |sinwt|.  It's not a
constant DC voltage.

If you want a constant DC voltage then you must smooth somehow.

"simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference."
Low pass filtering is smoothing.  

Which takes time even if the noise in an ac signal is low or non
existent.

If you are taking a quotient of two low noise signals as in the OP,
however, then no smoothing of each (ref.) X (signal) output is
necessary.  You only need to integrate just long enough to reduce the
noise to an acceptable level.

Any voltage fluctuations due to the signals will cancel in the
quotient.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you have any 'scope pictures to share of your quotient idea.

If you've got a known frequency, low noise signal, then you can sample
synchronosly(sp.) and get a measure of the signal size with no low
pass filtering.

George H.

 

[Magnetic]

Read the Great Job of Luis Sancho!
I would give him the Best Prize from the saved humanity, if the
humanity will have a brain to listen him and will have the time to
stop the CERN!

http://miniblackhole.achtphasen.net/Sancho/madolf_ct.pdf
Luis Sancho. A Quark Cannon in the Fractal Universe.

p.149
Mr. Wilczek, a Nobel prize, called the liquid with a more ominous
name, ice-9 and said it could blow the Earth.
…Instead of opening an investigation of the matter, CERN asked all
employees NOT to talk about Ice-9 and state there was no risk…

p. 153 Sheldon Glasgow, a Nobel Prize…
“…A new-born strangelet could engulf atomic nuclei, growing
relentlessly, and ultimately consuming the entire Earth..”

But after, Wilczek and Glasgow were hired by CERN to defend their
Global Guillotine.

Be ready to be killed, or take action to stop the global suicide.
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/

 

[Bret Cahill]

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

More generally, if you are only trying to reduce the noise by a
limited amount.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

Nosmoothingof either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

BretCahill

What issmoothing?

Say a rectifier outputs a voltage proportional to |sinwt|.  It's not a
constant DC voltage.

If you want a constant DC voltage then you must smooth somehow.

"simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference."
Low pass filtering issmoothing.  

Which takes time even if the noise in an ac signal is low or non
existent.

If you are taking a quotient of two low noise signals as in the OP,
however, then nosmoothingof each (ref.) X (signal) output is
necessary.  You only need to integrate just long enough to reduce the
noise to an acceptable level.

Any voltage fluctuations due to the signals will cancel in the
quotient.

BretCahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you have any 'scope pictures to share of your quotient idea.

With a divider circuit you could model it on SPICE. Make up your own
noise with a lot of voltage sources.

It would be easier to make up each signal, the sum of sinwt (the clean
signal) and cos(vt+phi) (the noise) terms and then multiply by a ref.
sinwt and then integrate to the same time for both signals.

And then divide to see if it homes in on a const. number

If you've got a known frequency, low noise signal, then you can sample
synchronosly(sp.) and get a measure of the signal size with no low
pass filtering.

The goal is to get the noise down from 5 - 20% to below 0.5% so any
tactic that might be commonly used to do that is of interest here.

It may very well end up digital as that can be cost effective as well
as more flexible but it would be very surprising if this situation
isn't very common and a similar analog solution didn't appear decades
ago, long before netbooks cost $200.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Greed is the root of

Eating like a pig is the root of all obesity.

   You should know, fat ass.

You're projecting.

   No need.  

Yet you do it anyway.

You're the fat ass.  

I've never been charged for two seats on SW Airlines.

You can't stop talking about it.  

You were the one who brought up your obesity problem.

Like
Shakespear said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

At one time I was obese but I started reading up on Jefferson and
after I acquired freedom of mind I started to leave the fat, grease
and corn syrup products on the display rack.

Now I'm only a few pounds overweight.

  Yeah, right.  And they only had to remove half the wall to get you
out.  

I asked an engineer at GE if it was possible build an engine powerful
enough to get you lard buckets off the runway.

He said they kept increasing the bypass ratio for more thrust until
finally the fan was larger than the fuselage of a wide body [aircraft]
and the ducting became a drag.

So they invented a ductless turbofan.

Too bad for you that Heraldo Rivera doesn't do those "fat ass
rescues" anymore.

You need to stop sitting around watching so much TV.

And when you so watch TV don't stuff so much junk food into your face.

Admit it. You are stuffing chips into your face right now.


Bret Cahill

 

[Michael Moroney]

Enough with your stupid predictions that won't ever come true. 4 billion
years of earth's history of not being destroyed by cosmic rays at least
8 orders of magnitude larger than CERN can ever produce shows you to be
the fool you are. I'm not going to hold yet another "yay! the earth
wasn't destroyed _again!_" party Feb 26th.

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 21, 12:22 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

There is no reason to smooth after demodulation in some low noise lock
in amplifier situations.

More generally, if you are only trying to reduce the noise by a
limited amount.

If you are taking the quotient of two signals that are identical
except for magnitude and noise, i.e., shape, frequency and phase
angle, simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference.

Once the S/N ratio is high enough simply take the quotient without
wasting time to smooth either signal.

Nosmoothingof either demodulated signal is necessary because the
rectified humps appear in both the numerator and denominator in phase
and with the same relative size as the quotient.

This is important in low noise situations where there isn't time to
smooth the humps.

This simple filtering solution should be fairly common in electronics.

BretCahill

What issmoothing?

Say a rectifier outputs a voltage proportional to |sinwt|.  It's not a
constant DC voltage.

If you want a constant DC voltage then you must smooth somehow.

"simply low pass integrate each signal after each is multiplied
by the reference."
Low pass filtering issmoothing.  

Which takes time even if the noise in an ac signal is low or non
existent.

If you are taking a quotient of two low noise signals as in the OP,
however, then nosmoothingof each (ref.) X (signal) output is
necessary.  You only need to integrate just long enough to reduce the
noise to an acceptable level.

Any voltage fluctuations due to the signals will cancel in the
quotient.

BretCahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you have any 'scope pictures to share of your quotient idea.

With a divider circuit you could model it on SPICE.  Make up your own
noise with a lot of voltage sources.

It would be easier to make up each signal, the sum of sinwt (the clean
signal) and cos(vt+phi) (the noise) terms and then multiply by a ref.
sinwt and then integrate to the same time for both signals.

And then divide to see if it homes in on a const. number

If you've got a known frequency, low noise signal, then you can sample
synchronosly(sp.) and get a measure of the signal size with no low
pass filtering.

The goal is to get the noise down from 5 - 20% to below 0.5% so any
tactic that might be commonly used to do that is of interest here.

It may very well end up digital as that can be cost effective as well
as more flexible but it would be very surprising if this situation
isn't very common and a similar analog solution didn't appear decades
ago, long before netbooks cost $200.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Got any pictures of what you call noise and what is signal. (Or I
guess to put it another way, is your noise fundamental. (Thermal
noise, shot noise and amplifer noise.) or is it something else?

George H.