wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:33:17 -0500, "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


I agree, although in my particular case, my scope will do that for me,
along with a lot of other handy functions.


New fangled devices. Last scope I saw was a big ass, dual trace Tektronics
with Navy inventory stickers.

Eisboch

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:30:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:33:17 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
m...

It can be measured using an oscilloscope.



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

Eisboch


I agree, although in my particular case, my scope will do that for me,
along with a lot of other handy functions.


New fangled devices. Last scope I saw was a big ass, dual trace
Tektronics
with Navy inventory stickers.

Eisboch


Yeah, mine even has a built in curve tracer (they call it a component
tester) so I can examine the health of the p/n junctions in
transistors.


Who makes it?

Eisboch

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:34:19 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:50:09 -0800 (PST), 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.
|
|Wavelength is the length measurement from the beginning to the end of
|one full cycle. Or think of it another way, the distance a wave at a
|given frequency to travel from 0 degrees to 360 degrees.
|
|Frequency is the number of wave periods passing a point in time and is
|inversely proportional to wavelength - the higher the frequency of the
|signal, the shorter the wavelength.


Wavelength is the distance between repeating units of a propagating
wave of a given frequency. SI units are used, where the wavelength is
expressed in meters, the frequency in Hz, and the propagation velocity
in meters per second.

"Waveheight" is called "amplitude" and is the magnitude of the maximum
disturbance in a medium during one wave cycle.

The amplitude is not measured by time.... it is most likely measured
by voltage. Hence, one is a measure of physical distance between
repeating units (frequency) and the other is a measure of relative
strength not measured in time. It is what you see on an oscilloscope.
Time (distance) on the "X" axis and voltage on the "Y" axis.

For further confusion, please see Time Domain Reflectometer.....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

spectrum analyzer.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

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? ;-

360 degrees.

Eisboch


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.

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.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

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? ;-

360 degrees.

Eisboch


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.


180 degrees positive peak to negative peak or negative peak to next positive
peak.
360 degrees positive peak to positive peak or negative peak to negative
peak, or as you say, any from any point to the next exact point on the sine
wave.

Eisboch

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


"Eisboch" wrote in message
m...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

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? ;-

360 degrees.

Eisboch


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.

The period of the function y = sin x, is 2pi or 360 degrees. The period can
be measured peak to peak or in an infinite number of other ways.Perhaps I
should have been more explicit.
--
John H

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

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? ;-

360 degrees.

Eisboch


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.


180 degrees positive peak to negative peak or negative peak to next
positive peak.
360 degrees positive peak to positive peak or negative peak to negative
peak, or as you say, any from any point to the next exact point on the
sine wave.

Eisboch
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)

"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

"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.