| ??? 12/21/09 03:01 Read: times |
#171809 - magnitude Responding to: ???'s previous message |
And yes, I had used the MAGNITUDE of the repetitive peak. It still came out to be the DC offset. I was using an if, else if statement to differentiate between the negative and positive portions. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| ADuC816 Problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sample rate ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Isn't that exactly what you should get? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Indeed! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hmm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| average of the repetitive peak ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Clarification | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Signal Frequency | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| magnitude | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dump a number of samples to check | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it is possible? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| fast sample-and-hold | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sorry, but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it won't | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Undersampling often quite powerful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| what is conclusion for OP? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How about precision rectification? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re:ADUC816 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sure, you can | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Most cheaper digital scopes uses repetitive sampling | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how about | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SF=1 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Consistent not a simple subset of accurate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dumping Values | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| *EDIT* | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Circuit | 01/01/70 00:00 |