A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

On Jan 16, 9:17 pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"Jim" wrote in message
.. .

The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A school.
I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative peak to
positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak is
180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on the
waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

OK, for radio waves, there are several straightforward ways to
directly measure wavelength instead of calculating it from frequency.
The easiest is with a waveguide with a variable end. This is simply a
metal tube whose diameter is roughly the wavelength. You adjust the
length of the tube (it should have a sliding metal end) till a
electric field prob in the center measures a maximum indicating that
your wave terminates at the end. Then you move he slide in and you
will find another position where you have a maximum. The distance you
have moved the slide is the wavelngth. The electrical engineers here
can tell you how this relates to SWR etc and all about Smith Charts
but this is a very straightforward physical measurement.
You can also use two vertical antennas each emitting a sin wave of
exactly identical in phase signal. When the two antennas are exactly
one half wavelength apart, you will see a maximum signal along a line
that passes exactly betwen the two antennas.
For visible light, one uses a device called an interferometer to
directly measure the wavelngth. Because such devices are so sensitive
to movement, they are often used to align extremely precise equipment.
For x-rays, one uses crystals where the wavlength is given by
wavelength=2dsin(q) where 2d is the crystal spacing and q is the
reflection angle (I do this every day)
For sound waves, I would use a tube with a variable slider so the tube
would resonate with teh applied sound when the slider is set to the
correct length corresponding to the wavelngth.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:20 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


Actually is 180 degrees for a peak to peak on a sign wave. But for
frequency, it is point to same point on the next wave. You could measure
it
anywhere on the wave. But Positive peak to Positive peak or Negative peak
to Negative Peak or + or - zero crossing all work.

Frequency = 1/ time.

Wave length = speed of wave / frequency. This will work for sound at
about
1126 ft/ second or 300 m/s for radio.


What's the matter Bill? Didn't the website you Googled know how to spell
sine?

Bwhahahahahahaha!



Me bad. Especially for misspelling sine. I know all that stuff. My degree
is in Electronic engineering. As well as the fact I worked on repairing
Radar and Instrument landing systems and nav aids in the Air force. As
well as part of my patent includes Sine Square + Cosine Square = 1.

If I had googled it, I would have spelt Sine correctly.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on the
waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 9:17 pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"Jim" wrote in message
.. .

The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school.
I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative peak to
positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak
is
180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the
waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

OK, for radio waves, there are several straightforward ways to
directly measure wavelength instead of calculating it from frequency.
The easiest is with a waveguide with a variable end. This is simply a
metal tube whose diameter is roughly the wavelength. You adjust the
length of the tube (it should have a sliding metal end) till a
electric field prob in the center measures a maximum indicating that
your wave terminates at the end. Then you move he slide in and you
will find another position where you have a maximum. The distance you
have moved the slide is the wavelngth. The electrical engineers here
can tell you how this relates to SWR etc and all about Smith Charts
but this is a very straightforward physical measurement.
You can also use two vertical antennas each emitting a sin wave of
exactly identical in phase signal. When the two antennas are exactly
one half wavelength apart, you will see a maximum signal along a line
that passes exactly betwen the two antennas.
For visible light, one uses a device called an interferometer to
directly measure the wavelngth. Because such devices are so sensitive
to movement, they are often used to align extremely precise equipment.
For x-rays, one uses crystals where the wavlength is given by
wavelength=2dsin(q) where 2d is the crystal spacing and q is the
reflection angle (I do this every day)
For sound waves, I would use a tube with a variable slider so the tube
would resonate with teh applied sound when the slider is set to the
correct length corresponding to the wavelngth.

Similar to how a CD works. The distance from the laser to the reflective
backing is very close to the wave length. So when it reflects back to the
detector you get a dark spot.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:52:36 -0500, "Jim" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:07:42 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 15, 7:50 pm, Tim wrote:
OK, I picked this up on another board,a nd seeing that Eisboch, Tom,
Gene and Larry have had dealings with this stuff. I thought I'd
present it here. It has my curiosity up as well.

I'm not up on physics, concerning this so here goes:

"I searched the web but couldn't find an answer to a simple question
which for my purposes is really a matter of curiosity. Of course,
sometimes these
kinds of questions end up teaching me the most.

Most defintions of wavelength are along the lines of the distance
between points of corresponding phase of two consecutive cycles of a
wave. I'm not
an idiot , so I understand what is a pretty
straightforward definition.

What I don't get is why the term length? I mean, they don't call the
amplitude the waveheight. I kind of think of it as a wavegap. If you
painted a big sine wave on the street and asked me how long it was,
I'd get one
of those little rolling doohickies for measuring and trace the line
through its curve. Without knowing the definition in advance, I
wouldn't think you would
be asking me the straight distance between two points of
corresponding
phase.

I ask this question because I don't understand why it's called what
it's called, not because I want to tell the experts they got it
wrong. It's bugged me for a while, so I've finally decided to take the
plunge and risk looking stupid.

Thanks in advance for any responses or links to read..."

--
Jim Carr

It is called "length" because it truly is a length.

Wavelength is usually stated as "Peak to Peak", or pp


which is 180 degrees, right? ;-

For a sine wave, 2 pies (apple?), or 360 degrees.
--
John H

what if it is not a sine wave?

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?


You mean like a pulse train with unequal pulse lengths?

I don't know.

Eisboch

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:05:01 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 16, 9:17 pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"Jim" wrote in message
.. .

The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A school.
I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative peak to
positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak is
180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on the
waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

OK, for radio waves, there are several straightforward ways to
directly measure wavelength instead of calculating it from frequency.
The easiest is with a waveguide with a variable end. This is simply a
metal tube whose diameter is roughly the wavelength. You adjust the
length of the tube (it should have a sliding metal end) till a
electric field prob in the center measures a maximum indicating that
your wave terminates at the end. Then you move he slide in and you
will find another position where you have a maximum. The distance you
have moved the slide is the wavelngth. The electrical engineers here
can tell you how this relates to SWR etc and all about Smith Charts
but this is a very straightforward physical measurement.
You can also use two vertical antennas each emitting a sin wave of
exactly identical in phase signal. When the two antennas are exactly
one half wavelength apart, you will see a maximum signal along a line
that passes exactly betwen the two antennas.
For visible light, one uses a device called an interferometer to
directly measure the wavelngth. Because such devices are so sensitive
to movement, they are often used to align extremely precise equipment.
For x-rays, one uses crystals where the wavlength is given by
wavelength=2dsin(q) where 2d is the crystal spacing and q is the
reflection angle (I do this every day)
For sound waves, I would use a tube with a variable slider so the tube
would resonate with teh applied sound when the slider is set to the
correct length corresponding to the wavelngth.

No offense, but it's a hell of a lot easier to determine wavelength
for a specific RF frequency (or any frequency for that matter) using
simple arithmetic.

To each his own though.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:44:04 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
.. .

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on the
waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

The same way.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:27:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

You mean like a pulse train with unequal pulse lengths?

I don't know.

Thanks.

Now I have to go dig out the books. :)

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

In that case you would probably be talking PRR. This discussion is starting
to get over my head so I'll bow out and let you engineers have at it.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:48:33 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:52:36 -0500, "Jim" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:07:42 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 15, 7:50 pm, Tim wrote:
OK, I picked this up on another board,a nd seeing that Eisboch, Tom,
Gene and Larry have had dealings with this stuff. I thought I'd
present it here. It has my curiosity up as well.

I'm not up on physics, concerning this so here goes:

"I searched the web but couldn't find an answer to a simple question
which for my purposes is really a matter of curiosity. Of course,
sometimes these
kinds of questions end up teaching me the most.

Most defintions of wavelength are along the lines of the distance
between points of corresponding phase of two consecutive cycles of a
wave. I'm not
an idiot , so I understand what is a pretty
straightforward definition.

What I don't get is why the term length? I mean, they don't call the
amplitude the waveheight. I kind of think of it as a wavegap. If you
painted a big sine wave on the street and asked me how long it was,
I'd get one
of those little rolling doohickies for measuring and trace the line
through its curve. Without knowing the definition in advance, I
wouldn't think you would
be asking me the straight distance between two points of
corresponding
phase.

I ask this question because I don't understand why it's called what
it's called, not because I want to tell the experts they got it
wrong. It's bugged me for a while, so I've finally decided to take the
plunge and risk looking stupid.

Thanks in advance for any responses or links to read..."

--
Jim Carr

It is called "length" because it truly is a length.

Wavelength is usually stated as "Peak to Peak", or pp


which is 180 degrees, right? ;-

For a sine wave, 2 pies (apple?), or 360 degrees.
--
John H

what if it is not a sine wave?


Then the period may be different. The function y=sinx has a period of 360
degrees. The function y=sin2x has a period of 180 degrees. The function
y=x/2 has a period of 720 degrees.

If the function is changed to y=2sinx, then the period is 360 degrees, but
the amplitude is 2, instead of 1.
--
John H

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
It can be measured using an oscilloscope.



You can measure the amplitude and frequency. You'd have to calculate the
wavelength.

Eisboch


Never used a slotted waveguide, eh?

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
It can be measured using an oscilloscope.



You can measure the amplitude and frequency. You'd have to calculate the
wavelength.

Eisboch
Never used a slotted waveguide, eh?


For microwave or radar, yes. For HF or VHF RF , no.
I *have* used Gene's Time Domain Reflectometer though, for finding faults in
long transmission coaxial lines.

Eisboch

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:44:04 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
. ..

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period. A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the
waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying
to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

The same way.

I know the measurement is the same, but if a square or triangular wave,
would it be 360 degrees?

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:28:39 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:


"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative
peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period.
A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative
to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying
to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

In that case you would probably be talking PRR. This discussion is
starting
to get over my head so I'll bow out and let you engineers have at it.

Giving you a sinuous headache? :-)



LOL.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:41:45 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:20 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


Actually is 180 degrees for a peak to peak on a sign wave. But for
frequency, it is point to same point on the next wave. You could
measure
it
anywhere on the wave. But Positive peak to Positive peak or Negative
peak
to Negative Peak or + or - zero crossing all work.

Frequency = 1/ time.

Wave length = speed of wave / frequency. This will work for sound at
about
1126 ft/ second or 300 m/s for radio.


What's the matter Bill? Didn't the website you Googled know how to spell
sine?

Bwhahahahahahaha!



Me bad. Especially for misspelling sine. I know all that stuff. My
degree
is in Electronic engineering. As well as the fact I worked on repairing
Radar and Instrument landing systems and nav aids in the Air force. As
well as part of my patent includes Sine Square + Cosine Square = 1.

If I had googled it, I would have spelt Sine correctly.


Harry... Dat you?

Nope, I actually did work on the stuff. I have part of a patent on flaw
scanning disk drives where part of the circuitry depends on Sine Square +
Cosine Square = 1. Interesting part of a flaw in the media, is if it is
under the head, you will get reduced amplitude, but if off to the side, you
will get a phase shift. Was always hard to detect the flaws off to the
side. So if you compare the signal coming off the disk if it is written so
it will be a sine wave, and compare the signal + and - 45 degrees and run it
through a adder circuit and the output will be 1 until a phase shift and the
output signal will decrease and you can detect defects off the center line
of the tract.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:28:39 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:


"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative
peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period.
A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative
to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying
to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

In that case you would probably be talking PRR. This discussion is
starting
to get over my head so I'll bow out and let you engineers have at it.

Giving you a sinuous headache? :-)

No. But i am experiencing sinusoidal disenchantment

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:28:39 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:


"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...


The definition of peak to peak must have changed since I was in A
school. I was taught that positive peak to negative peak or negative
peak to positive peak shal be called peak to peak. (Neener Neener)

Sure. I don't disagree. Usually the term "peak to peak" relates to
amplitude measurements. But, a positive peak to the next negative
peak
is 180 degrees if you are looking for frequency over a time period.
A
positive peak to the next positive peak is 360 degrees. Or negative
to
the next negative. Or any other point to the next repeating point on
the waveform.

Eisboch

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying
to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

In that case you would probably be talking PRR. This discussion is
starting
to get over my head so I'll bow out and let you engineers have at it.

Giving you a sinuous headache? :-)

No. But I am experiencing sinusoidal disenchantment.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:24:22 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:41:45 -0800, "CalifBill"

wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:20 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


Actually is 180 degrees for a peak to peak on a sign wave. But for
frequency, it is point to same point on the next wave. You could
measure
it
anywhere on the wave. But Positive peak to Positive peak or Negative
peak
to Negative Peak or + or - zero crossing all work.

Frequency = 1/ time.

Wave length = speed of wave / frequency. This will work for sound at
about
1126 ft/ second or 300 m/s for radio.


What's the matter Bill? Didn't the website you Googled know how to
spell
sine?

Bwhahahahahahaha!



Me bad. Especially for misspelling sine. I know all that stuff. My
degree
is in Electronic engineering. As well as the fact I worked on repairing
Radar and Instrument landing systems and nav aids in the Air force. As
well as part of my patent includes Sine Square + Cosine Square = 1.

If I had googled it, I would have spelt Sine correctly.


Harry... Dat you?

Nope, I actually did work on the stuff. I have part of a patent on flaw
scanning disk drives where part of the circuitry depends on Sine Square +
Cosine Square = 1. Interesting part of a flaw in the media, is if it is
under the head, you will get reduced amplitude, but if off to the side,
you
will get a phase shift. Was always hard to detect the flaws off to the
side. So if you compare the signal coming off the disk if it is written
so
it will be a sine wave, and compare the signal + and - 45 degrees and run
it
through a adder circuit and the output will be 1 until a phase shift and
the
output signal will decrease and you can detect defects off the center line
of the tract.


I was just teasing you, Bill.



And it is pretty kool that one can expound on a patent concerning disk
drives on a boating newsgroup. ;-

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:24:22 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:41:45 -0800, "CalifBill"

wrote:


wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:20 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


Actually is 180 degrees for a peak to peak on a sign wave. But for
frequency, it is point to same point on the next wave. You could
measure
it
anywhere on the wave. But Positive peak to Positive peak or Negative
peak
to Negative Peak or + or - zero crossing all work.

Frequency = 1/ time.

Wave length = speed of wave / frequency. This will work for sound
at
about
1126 ft/ second or 300 m/s for radio.


What's the matter Bill? Didn't the website you Googled know how to
spell
sine?

Bwhahahahahahaha!



Me bad. Especially for misspelling sine. I know all that stuff. My
degree
is in Electronic engineering. As well as the fact I worked on
repairing
Radar and Instrument landing systems and nav aids in the Air force.
As
well as part of my patent includes Sine Square + Cosine Square = 1.

If I had googled it, I would have spelt Sine correctly.


Harry... Dat you?

Nope, I actually did work on the stuff. I have part of a patent on flaw
scanning disk drives where part of the circuitry depends on Sine Square +
Cosine Square = 1. Interesting part of a flaw in the media, is if it is
under the head, you will get reduced amplitude, but if off to the side,
you
will get a phase shift. Was always hard to detect the flaws off to the
side. So if you compare the signal coming off the disk if it is written
so
it will be a sine wave, and compare the signal + and - 45 degrees and run
it
through a adder circuit and the output will be 1 until a phase shift and
the
output signal will decrease and you can detect defects off the center
line
of the tract.


I was just teasing you, Bill.



And it is pretty kool that one can expound on a patent concerning disk
drives on a boating newsgroup. ;-

This is a boating newsgroup?

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:24:22 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:41:45 -0800, "CalifBill"

wrote:


wrote in message
news:111to39qmnvmde3smd65enr2jkrfk5plih@4ax. com...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:20 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


Actually is 180 degrees for a peak to peak on a sign wave. But for
frequency, it is point to same point on the next wave. You could
measure
it
anywhere on the wave. But Positive peak to Positive peak or
Negative
peak
to Negative Peak or + or - zero crossing all work.

Frequency = 1/ time.

Wave length = speed of wave / frequency. This will work for sound
at
about
1126 ft/ second or 300 m/s for radio.


What's the matter Bill? Didn't the website you Googled know how to
spell
sine?

Bwhahahahahahaha!



Me bad. Especially for misspelling sine. I know all that stuff. My
degree
is in Electronic engineering. As well as the fact I worked on
repairing
Radar and Instrument landing systems and nav aids in the Air force. As
well as part of my patent includes Sine Square + Cosine Square = 1.

If I had googled it, I would have spelt Sine correctly.


Harry... Dat you?

Nope, I actually did work on the stuff. I have part of a patent on flaw
scanning disk drives where part of the circuitry depends on Sine Square
+
Cosine Square = 1. Interesting part of a flaw in the media, is if it is
under the head, you will get reduced amplitude, but if off to the side,
you
will get a phase shift. Was always hard to detect the flaws off to the
side. So if you compare the signal coming off the disk if it is written
so
it will be a sine wave, and compare the signal + and - 45 degrees and
run it
through a adder circuit and the output will be 1 until a phase shift and
the
output signal will decrease and you can detect defects off the center
line
of the tract.


I was just teasing you, Bill.



And it is pretty kool that one can expound on a patent concerning disk
drives on a boating newsgroup. ;-

This is a boating newsgroup?

Says do on the label.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:06:27 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:

This is a boating newsgroup?

Dammit - beat me to it again. :)

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:42:32 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:

I know how to measure amplitude or time with a scope. I just can't figure
out how to measure distance.

You don't measure distance on the scope, it measures time. Given the
speed of the wave, typically 300,000,000 meters/sec, it is easy to
calculate distance, e.g., a 1 microsecond wave equals 300 meters
wavelength.

True, except when the dielectric constant (relative
permittivity) of the medium is higher than free space, then
the wavelength is reduced by 1/sqrt(Er). Common coax cable
dielectrics usually have an Er ~ 2.2 and most PC board
material is about 4.4 or so.

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

CalifBill wrote:

If I had googled it, I would have spelt Sine correctly.


And maybe been closer to the actual speed of light instead
of being off by 6 orders or magnitude. ;)
c = 3e8 m/s

A question about radio, sound, "wave length" etc.
 

CalifBill wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...

360 degrees= 1 cycle is the description I was looking for. Quit trying to
confuse me with facts.
Check tonights Tampa news videos.

Actually may not be 360 degrees. What if it is a square wave?

Then it is composed of the fundamental and odd harmonics.
360 degrees is still one cycle of the fundamental.