03-18-2010 07:34 AM
03-18-2010 08:04 AM
so you think the approach can work (zero crossings sounded like it may have possibilities)
here is the graph with data saved as default
good trick, this is smaller than the tab delimited text file
when I use the Peak Detector.vi and input a subset of the data (between the cursors) say 4 cycles; depending on the actual window the peak detector might return 4 peaks or 5 or 7(?) At 60KHz the peaks should be about 1000 samples apart, most are but the 'extras' are only 23 or 71 (or whatever) samples from a true peak. I've tried different values for the 'width' input parameter of the Peak Detector.vi, from 3 to 11 - no real difference that I noticed
thanx
03-18-2010 08:37 AM
03-18-2010 08:52 AM
thanx for the update, fine-tuning how? there isn't much configuration
I really appreciate you following through with this,
03-18-2010 09:41 AM
I think I am into something is this correct acording to the data you sendt me?
03-18-2010 09:56 AM
that would seem to be what I am experiencing - certainly not a smooth response
is that true instantaneous frequency, or is there some sampling error or something?
03-18-2010 10:29 AM
03-18-2010 11:39 AM
if I am not being rude, can you explain how you generated these plots. Seems to be instantaneous frequency versus time. very cool
also can you speculate as to what is causing the error in the sampling process?
and thanx again for all your help
lmd2
03-18-2010 11:58 AM
It was not very hard. Here is the code. But now you ove me some beer if I come to your place sometime 😉 I shall speculate during the night and see what I can come up with
03-18-2010 12:10 PM