![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Non-sinusoidal waveform page were merged into Sine wave. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
It contains material merged from sine curve; see the history of that article for details.
In the first formula, (wave number) is multiplied by an undefined quantity. --Bob K 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Great article! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauberk">Hauberk</a>
The human ear can recognize single sine waves because sounds with such a waveform sound "clean" or "clear" to humans; some sounds that approximate a pure sine wave are whistling, a crystal glass set to vibrate by running a wet finger around its rim, and the sound made by a tuning fork.
To the human ear, a sound that is made up of more than one sine wave will either sound "noisy" or will have detectable harmonics.
The sound of a violin is full of harmonics and they don't sound noisy (if played well) and I don't hear the harmonics but I know they are there. Vibrating guitar strings have lots of harmonics. Why wouldn't a vibrating tuning fork have them?-Crunchy Numbers 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course I am hearing the sum of the harmonics and of course the harmonics give instruments distinctive sounds; but that wasn't the point.
This article talks about discernable harmonics as if someone could pick them out individually. I listened to the example ogg file with the sine wave and as always a sine wave sounds really bad and harsh to me. Whistling doesn't sound the same to me as wine glass tones and I don't believe either is a pure harmonic.-Crunchy Numbers 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
See some of the arguments regarding perception at just intonation. Hyacinth 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC) I didn't see the connection to harmonics in a single timbre. It is an interesting article though.-Crunchy Numbers 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are these sections here? Neither explains why it is included in this article. Also they both have their own articles.-Crunchy Numbers 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you explicitly state that D has to be nonzero? D being zero just means that you picked the right spot to start measuring your sine wave, and it falls off as soon as you start taking derivatives (velocity, acceleration, jerk).
Since Bob K mentioned beat frequencies I looked up this article. It is pretty interesting. Bob, if you don't add a link to this article I might.-Crunchy Numbers 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
In the first section, it says: initial phase (t=0) = , referencing the general form of the sinusoid which was stated: . shouldn't it say: initial phase (t=0) = (the same without the minus sign)?Rgrizza 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to figure out the length of one period of a sine curve, thinking that it would be a fairly simple task, or at least a simple and elegant answer. Turns out it is not analytically solvable. I was quite surprised. Anybody think that is interesting enough to mention in the article? maxsch 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The math formulas yield the following errors on my browser (Firefox version 3.04; Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1.2600).
"Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): y (t) = A \cdot \sin(\omega t + \theta)"
"Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): \omega,"
"Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): y(t) = A\cdot \sin(kx - \omega t+ \theta ) + D.\,"
"Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): k = { \omega \over c } = { 2 \pi f \over c } = { 2 \pi \over \lambda }"
"Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): \cos(x) = \sin(x + \pi/2),"
Sorry I can't be of any more help than mechanically reporting; I don't have enough background to understand these errors. --72.177.97.222 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I hope that the paper below will help to evaluate the sampling process of a sine wave:
ET 4 CO 198.pmd www.ieindia.org/pdf/88/88ET104.pdf
Best regards Petre Petrov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
I would like to clarify the topic about the “general form”:
1. Linear function parallel to the axis of the time (It (DC or vertical displacement) does not depend on the time t);
2. Sine function which depends on time t. (The "phase" is displacement into time).
Conclusion:
The given “general form” is the equation of the simplest band limited signal (SBLS) and that should be mentioned in the front page.
I hope that is useful.
BR
Petre Petrov
References:
http://www.ieindia.org/pdf/88/88ET104.pdf, page 18, Table 1.
http://www.ieindia.org/pdf/89/89CP109.pdf, page 55, Figure 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
PP: How you will make a difference between a "sinusoidal signal" and the "simplest band limited signal" or "the simplest signal with two lines into its spectrum?
Is there a difference or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PetrePetrov (talk • contribs) 13:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
PP: The points is that may be there should be clear definitions of what are:
a SS,
a CS.
a SBLS with SS component,
a SBLS with CS component
and not to make a mixture of them on the from page.
78.90.230.235 (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
PP:
The definitions of the circle, triangle, SS, CS, XY coordinate systems and the evolution in time are quite old. You could find them even in school books. Nothing new. OK?
Is DC offset a convention? Revisiting one of the above points, can we really call it DC offset in the general form? That's certainly a common way to refer to it, especially among electrical engineers, but I think to be general it should just be called the "offset". Mattski (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
“DC offset” is a bad and unclear replacement or the “horizontal function” in the formula above written by me.
I apologize for the inaccurate language.
May be it is better to say “constant signal”, “constant voltage signal”, “constant current signal” according to the case.
In my opinion the SS has two possible equations:
A = Am*sin(w*t+i) + 0
or
A = Am*sin(w*t+0) + 0
Zeros are important from electrical point of view and should be mention explicitly in the definition.
Also in my opinion the SBLS with SS component has two possible equations:
A = Am*sin(w*t+i) + B
or
A = Am*sin(w*t+0) + B
Zeros are important from electrical point of view and should be mention explicitly in the definition.
I think that only accurate definitions (widely used or not at the moment) must be included on the front page articles in Wikipedia.
May be I am wrong again?
BR P Petrov 78.90.230.235 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We specify the "general form" as:
Why not:
And it should also be explained in the article.
--Bob K (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I dislike using the term 'wave' for
In my terminology (I am a Dane) the above is named an 'oscillation', while the term 'wave' is used for a spatial variation. 83.89.116.106 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
How did someone decide that it would be interesting to perform repeated measures on a leg of a pair of superimposed right triangles where the radius of the circle was a constant hypotenuse?Bmarmie (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The fields above need different definition of the “sinus” applied to them.
There are differences in the mathematical description and the properties between:
“Sinus” as trigonometric function.
“Wave” as material object, e.g. in fluids.
“Sinusoidal signal” as electrical signal.
“Mechanical oscillation” as motion.
“Electrical oscillation” as process in electronic circuit, etc.
Each of these cases and even some more should be treated separately.
Also “natural waves”, e.g. in water and air are very different from the “sinusoidal shape”.
I have never seen natural “sine wave” in water (“ocean waves”).
In conclusion the term “wave” in sense of “sinusoidal wave” or “sine wave” seems misleading to me.
Also to say that “cosine wave is said to be sinusoidal” is like to say that the axis Y is the axis X because both of them are lines or axis.
The text about Fourier seems different from historical and engineering facts.
In my opinion the material should be rewritten in more precise way.
I hope that is useful.
BR
Petre Petrov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should mention something about the complex exponential function at the bottom of the article. Akilaa (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The supposed 220hz sound sample sounds a little too low to be 220hz, or perhaps my software is a little too high for 220 hz. In using NCH's Tone Generator, I played the 220 hz sine frequency at the same time as the sample on the page, and no resonance was present. I tuned mine down to around 215 hz and I could feel the resonance fine, so I think the tone is either a little off, or maybe a lossy codec was used in producing the tone used for the sample 220 hz noise on the page. Just pointing this out; not much of a big deal, but it's still noticeable when comparing the sample to the actual 220hz sine tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.13.147 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
A lossy codec would not shift frequencies consistently. As you should know. Greglocock (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey tough guy, I never said I was an expert on the subject. I'm just a kid with a tone generator who knows what resonance is. Maybe that sound clip isn't 220 hz, have you considered that? IOA94 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I want to day thank you and I'm lost on what to do Shannonrice788 (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose to merge the content of Sine wave into Sine as the former article can be adequately expressed within the context of the latter. Jamgoodman (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
"Non-sinusoidal waveform" now redirects to this article, but this seems incorrect: a "non-sinusoidal waveform" is a waveform that is not a sine wave. Jarble (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) And it seems that section about non-sinusoidal waveforms was also removed in a recent revision. Jarble (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The opening lumps "sine wave" and "sinusoidal wave" as being the same thing: "A sine wave, sinusoidal wave, or sinusoid ...".
Although the terms will often loosely-speaking be lumped together, however to be pedantic, the terms "sine wave" and "sinusoid" maybe shouldn't be considered the same thing. The section Sine_wave#Cosine currently describes the distinction when it writes: "The term sinusoidal thereby collectively refers to both sine waves and cosine waves with any phase offset." Pedantically, a "sine wave" is is odd and without any phase shift , while a "cosine wave" is is even and without any phase shift . So for instance, Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Fourier inversion can accurately be said to express functions in terms of a sum of sine waves and cosine waves.
I would suggest renaming this article to "Sinusoidal wave" and have "sine wave" redirect to that. And so at the intro would avoid conflating the two things together, and instead start with "A sinusoidal wave, or sinusoid, is a ... with any phase" and then later say that loosely speaking the term "sine wave" may often refer to any sinusoidal wave. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
That is, we should be linking to wave not to graph of a function. These are two entirely separate concepts, and it's really weird to say that one is the other. The purpose of having an article entitled sine wave is to talk about the use of the trigonometric sine function for characterizing waves, whether (a) as physical waves, e.g. pressure waves or electromagnetic waves, or (b) as abstract "waves" in contexts such as analog signals or Fourier analysis of general periodic functions. Discussion of the "graph" (per se) of the sine function belongs at sine and cosine rather than here. –jacobolus (t) 21:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)