What is the “Nyquist” rate for sampling the derivative of a signal?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








12












$begingroup$


Background: I'm sampling the current through a capacitor. The signal of interest is the voltage across the capacitor. I will digitally integrate the current measurement to obtain the voltage.



Question: Given that the voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited, and I am sampling the derivative of this voltage, what is the minimum sample rate required to perfectly reconstruct the voltage signal from the current samples?



If there is no canned answer to this question, anything that could point me in the right direction would be helpful. Thank you in advance for any help!!










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You want to "perfectly reconstruct" the original signal from the samples? What do you mean by that?
    $endgroup$
    – Elliot Alderson
    Aug 28 '18 at 22:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Nyquist rate is twice the highest frequency in the original signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    Aug 29 '18 at 8:25










  • $begingroup$
    @Dweerberkitty as Dave mentioned, signal is just a signal :). On a serious note, if you are using real-measurement systems, then there could be delays which will have impact on your derivative operation. So, if you account for them (with some luck, if the system is simple), you could analytically derive the necessary sampling period.
    $endgroup$
    – Raaja
    Aug 29 '18 at 10:58











  • $begingroup$
    "The voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited". Why?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 30 '18 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    @RodrigodeAzevedo, this is just an assumption to simplify the problem statement. In reality, it's not bandwidth limited, but the frequency range of interest is well-defined in this problem. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Dweeberkitty
    Aug 31 '18 at 16:23

















12












$begingroup$


Background: I'm sampling the current through a capacitor. The signal of interest is the voltage across the capacitor. I will digitally integrate the current measurement to obtain the voltage.



Question: Given that the voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited, and I am sampling the derivative of this voltage, what is the minimum sample rate required to perfectly reconstruct the voltage signal from the current samples?



If there is no canned answer to this question, anything that could point me in the right direction would be helpful. Thank you in advance for any help!!










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You want to "perfectly reconstruct" the original signal from the samples? What do you mean by that?
    $endgroup$
    – Elliot Alderson
    Aug 28 '18 at 22:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Nyquist rate is twice the highest frequency in the original signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    Aug 29 '18 at 8:25










  • $begingroup$
    @Dweerberkitty as Dave mentioned, signal is just a signal :). On a serious note, if you are using real-measurement systems, then there could be delays which will have impact on your derivative operation. So, if you account for them (with some luck, if the system is simple), you could analytically derive the necessary sampling period.
    $endgroup$
    – Raaja
    Aug 29 '18 at 10:58











  • $begingroup$
    "The voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited". Why?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 30 '18 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    @RodrigodeAzevedo, this is just an assumption to simplify the problem statement. In reality, it's not bandwidth limited, but the frequency range of interest is well-defined in this problem. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Dweeberkitty
    Aug 31 '18 at 16:23













12












12








12


2



$begingroup$


Background: I'm sampling the current through a capacitor. The signal of interest is the voltage across the capacitor. I will digitally integrate the current measurement to obtain the voltage.



Question: Given that the voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited, and I am sampling the derivative of this voltage, what is the minimum sample rate required to perfectly reconstruct the voltage signal from the current samples?



If there is no canned answer to this question, anything that could point me in the right direction would be helpful. Thank you in advance for any help!!










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




Background: I'm sampling the current through a capacitor. The signal of interest is the voltage across the capacitor. I will digitally integrate the current measurement to obtain the voltage.



Question: Given that the voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited, and I am sampling the derivative of this voltage, what is the minimum sample rate required to perfectly reconstruct the voltage signal from the current samples?



If there is no canned answer to this question, anything that could point me in the right direction would be helpful. Thank you in advance for any help!!







dsp sampling data-acquisition






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Aug 28 '18 at 22:03









DweeberkittyDweeberkitty

1289




1289







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You want to "perfectly reconstruct" the original signal from the samples? What do you mean by that?
    $endgroup$
    – Elliot Alderson
    Aug 28 '18 at 22:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Nyquist rate is twice the highest frequency in the original signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    Aug 29 '18 at 8:25










  • $begingroup$
    @Dweerberkitty as Dave mentioned, signal is just a signal :). On a serious note, if you are using real-measurement systems, then there could be delays which will have impact on your derivative operation. So, if you account for them (with some luck, if the system is simple), you could analytically derive the necessary sampling period.
    $endgroup$
    – Raaja
    Aug 29 '18 at 10:58











  • $begingroup$
    "The voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited". Why?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 30 '18 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    @RodrigodeAzevedo, this is just an assumption to simplify the problem statement. In reality, it's not bandwidth limited, but the frequency range of interest is well-defined in this problem. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Dweeberkitty
    Aug 31 '18 at 16:23












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You want to "perfectly reconstruct" the original signal from the samples? What do you mean by that?
    $endgroup$
    – Elliot Alderson
    Aug 28 '18 at 22:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Nyquist rate is twice the highest frequency in the original signal.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Karlsen
    Aug 29 '18 at 8:25










  • $begingroup$
    @Dweerberkitty as Dave mentioned, signal is just a signal :). On a serious note, if you are using real-measurement systems, then there could be delays which will have impact on your derivative operation. So, if you account for them (with some luck, if the system is simple), you could analytically derive the necessary sampling period.
    $endgroup$
    – Raaja
    Aug 29 '18 at 10:58











  • $begingroup$
    "The voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited". Why?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 30 '18 at 3:25










  • $begingroup$
    @RodrigodeAzevedo, this is just an assumption to simplify the problem statement. In reality, it's not bandwidth limited, but the frequency range of interest is well-defined in this problem. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Dweeberkitty
    Aug 31 '18 at 16:23







1




1




$begingroup$
You want to "perfectly reconstruct" the original signal from the samples? What do you mean by that?
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
Aug 28 '18 at 22:10




$begingroup$
You want to "perfectly reconstruct" the original signal from the samples? What do you mean by that?
$endgroup$
– Elliot Alderson
Aug 28 '18 at 22:10




1




1




$begingroup$
The Nyquist rate is twice the highest frequency in the original signal.
$endgroup$
– Peter Karlsen
Aug 29 '18 at 8:25




$begingroup$
The Nyquist rate is twice the highest frequency in the original signal.
$endgroup$
– Peter Karlsen
Aug 29 '18 at 8:25












$begingroup$
@Dweerberkitty as Dave mentioned, signal is just a signal :). On a serious note, if you are using real-measurement systems, then there could be delays which will have impact on your derivative operation. So, if you account for them (with some luck, if the system is simple), you could analytically derive the necessary sampling period.
$endgroup$
– Raaja
Aug 29 '18 at 10:58





$begingroup$
@Dweerberkitty as Dave mentioned, signal is just a signal :). On a serious note, if you are using real-measurement systems, then there could be delays which will have impact on your derivative operation. So, if you account for them (with some luck, if the system is simple), you could analytically derive the necessary sampling period.
$endgroup$
– Raaja
Aug 29 '18 at 10:58













$begingroup$
"The voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited". Why?
$endgroup$
– Rodrigo de Azevedo
Aug 30 '18 at 3:25




$begingroup$
"The voltage across the capacitor is bandwidth limited". Why?
$endgroup$
– Rodrigo de Azevedo
Aug 30 '18 at 3:25












$begingroup$
@RodrigodeAzevedo, this is just an assumption to simplify the problem statement. In reality, it's not bandwidth limited, but the frequency range of interest is well-defined in this problem. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dweeberkitty
Aug 31 '18 at 16:23




$begingroup$
@RodrigodeAzevedo, this is just an assumption to simplify the problem statement. In reality, it's not bandwidth limited, but the frequency range of interest is well-defined in this problem. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dweeberkitty
Aug 31 '18 at 16:23










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















19












$begingroup$

Taking a derivative (or an integral) is a linear operation — it doesn't create any frequencies that weren't in the original signal (or remove any), it just changes their relative levels.



So the Nyquist rate for the derivative is the same as that for the original signal.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    True in an ideal world in which there are perfectly bandlimited signals, ideal lowpass filters and no thermal noise at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 29 '18 at 5:10










  • $begingroup$
    The whole SNR balance changes. A small high-frequency component, which might alias, but not do much because of it's size, can become a sizable, sure-to-cause-big-low-frequency-components-on-sampling monster.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 30 '18 at 12:33


















-1












$begingroup$

Taking the derivative multiplies the transform by s, which effectively rotates the magnitude graph counterclockwise. Thus, may well be higher frequency components in the derivative. A more succinct way to put this is that derivation amplifies the high frequency content.



The Laplace Transform $ frac1s+1 $ (which would be the step response of a single pole high-pass filter)



 bode(tf(1, [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The Laplace Transform of it's derivative, $ fracss+1 $



bode(tf([1 0], [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The derivative in this case clearly has higher frequency components. Perhaps more correctly, it has much larger high frequency components than the non-derivative. One might choose to sample the first signal at 200 rads/s with some confidence, as the energy is very small at the nyquist rate, but aliasing would be substantial if you sampled the derivative at the same rate.



Thus, it depends on the nature of the signal. The derivative of a sinusoid will be a sinusoid of the same frequency, but the derivative of band limited noise will have higher frequency components than the noise.



EDIT: In response to the downvote, I'll hammer this home with a concrete example. Let me take a sine wave, and add some random normal noise to it (one tenth the magnitude of the sine wave)



enter image description here



The fft of this signal is:



enter image description here



Now, let me take the derivative of the signal:
enter image description here



and the fft of the derivative



enter image description here



Undersampling will, of course, alias either the signal or the derivative. The effects of the undersampling will be modest for the signal, and the result of undersampling the derivative will be absolutely useless.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you think you're plotting here, but it isn't band-limited signals.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    The Fourier Transform of a signal, and the Fourier Transform of it's derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:46










  • $begingroup$
    What language is that, anyway?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ah. In that case, tf() does not represent a signal, it represents a transfer function. Definitely not band-limited.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are still missing the point that the signal is bandlimited. You're adding non-bandlimited noise to the signal to make your point, which is outside the scope of the question. Yes, that's a practical consideration, but the question (as I see it) is theoretical.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 31 '18 at 13:39


















-2












$begingroup$

You can't.



Integration will only tell you about how the voltage changes during the time you're sampling.



The capacitor will always start with some charge present though, so there will be some initial voltage. Your calculation cannot know that voltage, so it cannot know the actual voltage across the capacitor during your measurement time. This should be familiar from maths classes - you always integrate between two points.



You also have a problem that although your current measurement samples are Nyquist-limited, the actual current through the capacitor may not be. Unless you can guarantee that the current through the capacitor has a hard low-pass filter somewhere below the Nyquist limit, you can never measure the current accurately enough to reproduce the voltage. I need to be clear that this is actually mathematically impossible, because it would require a sample rate of infinity.



But if you know the starting voltage and if the actual current through the capacitor is suitably low-pass-filtered, then DaveTweed is correct that the Nyquist limit for the integral is the same as for the sampled data.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you need to make a difference between the actual current through the capacitor and the band-limited measured value. What's so magic with this situation that the well known linearity of derivatives, filters, and integration no longer applies?
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:23










  • $begingroup$
    @pipe In a word, sampling. Suppose we're sampling at 1kHz. Now suppose we have a 0.5ms long current spike. The sampled version will never see the spike, but the actual capacitor voltage certainly will. Then you have the residual errors between every form of digital integration and the actual value. And I haven't even started on anything related to resolution, which is yet another can of worms.
    $endgroup$
    – Graham
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:44










  • $begingroup$
    But the energy in that pulse will spread out into bands that the sampler will see. For example: a pulse train with very short pulses will, after band-limiting, amount to a slightly elevated DC level. The area of your pulse will still be the same, and integrating the band-limited version ends up with the same result.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:00











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
StackExchange.schematics.init();
);
, "cicuitlab");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f393179%2fwhat-is-the-nyquist-rate-for-sampling-the-derivative-of-a-signal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









19












$begingroup$

Taking a derivative (or an integral) is a linear operation — it doesn't create any frequencies that weren't in the original signal (or remove any), it just changes their relative levels.



So the Nyquist rate for the derivative is the same as that for the original signal.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    True in an ideal world in which there are perfectly bandlimited signals, ideal lowpass filters and no thermal noise at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 29 '18 at 5:10










  • $begingroup$
    The whole SNR balance changes. A small high-frequency component, which might alias, but not do much because of it's size, can become a sizable, sure-to-cause-big-low-frequency-components-on-sampling monster.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 30 '18 at 12:33















19












$begingroup$

Taking a derivative (or an integral) is a linear operation — it doesn't create any frequencies that weren't in the original signal (or remove any), it just changes their relative levels.



So the Nyquist rate for the derivative is the same as that for the original signal.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    True in an ideal world in which there are perfectly bandlimited signals, ideal lowpass filters and no thermal noise at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 29 '18 at 5:10










  • $begingroup$
    The whole SNR balance changes. A small high-frequency component, which might alias, but not do much because of it's size, can become a sizable, sure-to-cause-big-low-frequency-components-on-sampling monster.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 30 '18 at 12:33













19












19








19





$begingroup$

Taking a derivative (or an integral) is a linear operation — it doesn't create any frequencies that weren't in the original signal (or remove any), it just changes their relative levels.



So the Nyquist rate for the derivative is the same as that for the original signal.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Taking a derivative (or an integral) is a linear operation — it doesn't create any frequencies that weren't in the original signal (or remove any), it just changes their relative levels.



So the Nyquist rate for the derivative is the same as that for the original signal.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Aug 28 '18 at 22:09









Dave TweedDave Tweed

123k9152266




123k9152266







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    True in an ideal world in which there are perfectly bandlimited signals, ideal lowpass filters and no thermal noise at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 29 '18 at 5:10










  • $begingroup$
    The whole SNR balance changes. A small high-frequency component, which might alias, but not do much because of it's size, can become a sizable, sure-to-cause-big-low-frequency-components-on-sampling monster.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 30 '18 at 12:33












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    True in an ideal world in which there are perfectly bandlimited signals, ideal lowpass filters and no thermal noise at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Aug 29 '18 at 5:10










  • $begingroup$
    The whole SNR balance changes. A small high-frequency component, which might alias, but not do much because of it's size, can become a sizable, sure-to-cause-big-low-frequency-components-on-sampling monster.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 30 '18 at 12:33







3




3




$begingroup$
True in an ideal world in which there are perfectly bandlimited signals, ideal lowpass filters and no thermal noise at all.
$endgroup$
– Rodrigo de Azevedo
Aug 29 '18 at 5:10




$begingroup$
True in an ideal world in which there are perfectly bandlimited signals, ideal lowpass filters and no thermal noise at all.
$endgroup$
– Rodrigo de Azevedo
Aug 29 '18 at 5:10












$begingroup$
The whole SNR balance changes. A small high-frequency component, which might alias, but not do much because of it's size, can become a sizable, sure-to-cause-big-low-frequency-components-on-sampling monster.
$endgroup$
– Scott Seidman
Aug 30 '18 at 12:33




$begingroup$
The whole SNR balance changes. A small high-frequency component, which might alias, but not do much because of it's size, can become a sizable, sure-to-cause-big-low-frequency-components-on-sampling monster.
$endgroup$
– Scott Seidman
Aug 30 '18 at 12:33













-1












$begingroup$

Taking the derivative multiplies the transform by s, which effectively rotates the magnitude graph counterclockwise. Thus, may well be higher frequency components in the derivative. A more succinct way to put this is that derivation amplifies the high frequency content.



The Laplace Transform $ frac1s+1 $ (which would be the step response of a single pole high-pass filter)



 bode(tf(1, [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The Laplace Transform of it's derivative, $ fracss+1 $



bode(tf([1 0], [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The derivative in this case clearly has higher frequency components. Perhaps more correctly, it has much larger high frequency components than the non-derivative. One might choose to sample the first signal at 200 rads/s with some confidence, as the energy is very small at the nyquist rate, but aliasing would be substantial if you sampled the derivative at the same rate.



Thus, it depends on the nature of the signal. The derivative of a sinusoid will be a sinusoid of the same frequency, but the derivative of band limited noise will have higher frequency components than the noise.



EDIT: In response to the downvote, I'll hammer this home with a concrete example. Let me take a sine wave, and add some random normal noise to it (one tenth the magnitude of the sine wave)



enter image description here



The fft of this signal is:



enter image description here



Now, let me take the derivative of the signal:
enter image description here



and the fft of the derivative



enter image description here



Undersampling will, of course, alias either the signal or the derivative. The effects of the undersampling will be modest for the signal, and the result of undersampling the derivative will be absolutely useless.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you think you're plotting here, but it isn't band-limited signals.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    The Fourier Transform of a signal, and the Fourier Transform of it's derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:46










  • $begingroup$
    What language is that, anyway?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ah. In that case, tf() does not represent a signal, it represents a transfer function. Definitely not band-limited.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are still missing the point that the signal is bandlimited. You're adding non-bandlimited noise to the signal to make your point, which is outside the scope of the question. Yes, that's a practical consideration, but the question (as I see it) is theoretical.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 31 '18 at 13:39















-1












$begingroup$

Taking the derivative multiplies the transform by s, which effectively rotates the magnitude graph counterclockwise. Thus, may well be higher frequency components in the derivative. A more succinct way to put this is that derivation amplifies the high frequency content.



The Laplace Transform $ frac1s+1 $ (which would be the step response of a single pole high-pass filter)



 bode(tf(1, [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The Laplace Transform of it's derivative, $ fracss+1 $



bode(tf([1 0], [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The derivative in this case clearly has higher frequency components. Perhaps more correctly, it has much larger high frequency components than the non-derivative. One might choose to sample the first signal at 200 rads/s with some confidence, as the energy is very small at the nyquist rate, but aliasing would be substantial if you sampled the derivative at the same rate.



Thus, it depends on the nature of the signal. The derivative of a sinusoid will be a sinusoid of the same frequency, but the derivative of band limited noise will have higher frequency components than the noise.



EDIT: In response to the downvote, I'll hammer this home with a concrete example. Let me take a sine wave, and add some random normal noise to it (one tenth the magnitude of the sine wave)



enter image description here



The fft of this signal is:



enter image description here



Now, let me take the derivative of the signal:
enter image description here



and the fft of the derivative



enter image description here



Undersampling will, of course, alias either the signal or the derivative. The effects of the undersampling will be modest for the signal, and the result of undersampling the derivative will be absolutely useless.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you think you're plotting here, but it isn't band-limited signals.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    The Fourier Transform of a signal, and the Fourier Transform of it's derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:46










  • $begingroup$
    What language is that, anyway?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ah. In that case, tf() does not represent a signal, it represents a transfer function. Definitely not band-limited.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are still missing the point that the signal is bandlimited. You're adding non-bandlimited noise to the signal to make your point, which is outside the scope of the question. Yes, that's a practical consideration, but the question (as I see it) is theoretical.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 31 '18 at 13:39













-1












-1








-1





$begingroup$

Taking the derivative multiplies the transform by s, which effectively rotates the magnitude graph counterclockwise. Thus, may well be higher frequency components in the derivative. A more succinct way to put this is that derivation amplifies the high frequency content.



The Laplace Transform $ frac1s+1 $ (which would be the step response of a single pole high-pass filter)



 bode(tf(1, [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The Laplace Transform of it's derivative, $ fracss+1 $



bode(tf([1 0], [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The derivative in this case clearly has higher frequency components. Perhaps more correctly, it has much larger high frequency components than the non-derivative. One might choose to sample the first signal at 200 rads/s with some confidence, as the energy is very small at the nyquist rate, but aliasing would be substantial if you sampled the derivative at the same rate.



Thus, it depends on the nature of the signal. The derivative of a sinusoid will be a sinusoid of the same frequency, but the derivative of band limited noise will have higher frequency components than the noise.



EDIT: In response to the downvote, I'll hammer this home with a concrete example. Let me take a sine wave, and add some random normal noise to it (one tenth the magnitude of the sine wave)



enter image description here



The fft of this signal is:



enter image description here



Now, let me take the derivative of the signal:
enter image description here



and the fft of the derivative



enter image description here



Undersampling will, of course, alias either the signal or the derivative. The effects of the undersampling will be modest for the signal, and the result of undersampling the derivative will be absolutely useless.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Taking the derivative multiplies the transform by s, which effectively rotates the magnitude graph counterclockwise. Thus, may well be higher frequency components in the derivative. A more succinct way to put this is that derivation amplifies the high frequency content.



The Laplace Transform $ frac1s+1 $ (which would be the step response of a single pole high-pass filter)



 bode(tf(1, [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The Laplace Transform of it's derivative, $ fracss+1 $



bode(tf([1 0], [ 1 1 ])) 


enter image description here



The derivative in this case clearly has higher frequency components. Perhaps more correctly, it has much larger high frequency components than the non-derivative. One might choose to sample the first signal at 200 rads/s with some confidence, as the energy is very small at the nyquist rate, but aliasing would be substantial if you sampled the derivative at the same rate.



Thus, it depends on the nature of the signal. The derivative of a sinusoid will be a sinusoid of the same frequency, but the derivative of band limited noise will have higher frequency components than the noise.



EDIT: In response to the downvote, I'll hammer this home with a concrete example. Let me take a sine wave, and add some random normal noise to it (one tenth the magnitude of the sine wave)



enter image description here



The fft of this signal is:



enter image description here



Now, let me take the derivative of the signal:
enter image description here



and the fft of the derivative



enter image description here



Undersampling will, of course, alias either the signal or the derivative. The effects of the undersampling will be modest for the signal, and the result of undersampling the derivative will be absolutely useless.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Aug 31 '18 at 13:30

























answered Aug 29 '18 at 13:35









Scott SeidmanScott Seidman

22.7k43286




22.7k43286







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you think you're plotting here, but it isn't band-limited signals.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    The Fourier Transform of a signal, and the Fourier Transform of it's derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:46










  • $begingroup$
    What language is that, anyway?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ah. In that case, tf() does not represent a signal, it represents a transfer function. Definitely not band-limited.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are still missing the point that the signal is bandlimited. You're adding non-bandlimited noise to the signal to make your point, which is outside the scope of the question. Yes, that's a practical consideration, but the question (as I see it) is theoretical.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 31 '18 at 13:39












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you think you're plotting here, but it isn't band-limited signals.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    The Fourier Transform of a signal, and the Fourier Transform of it's derivative.
    $endgroup$
    – Scott Seidman
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:46










  • $begingroup$
    What language is that, anyway?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ah. In that case, tf() does not represent a signal, it represents a transfer function. Definitely not band-limited.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 29 '18 at 13:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are still missing the point that the signal is bandlimited. You're adding non-bandlimited noise to the signal to make your point, which is outside the scope of the question. Yes, that's a practical consideration, but the question (as I see it) is theoretical.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave Tweed
    Aug 31 '18 at 13:39







2




2




$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you think you're plotting here, but it isn't band-limited signals.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 29 '18 at 13:40




$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you think you're plotting here, but it isn't band-limited signals.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 29 '18 at 13:40












$begingroup$
The Fourier Transform of a signal, and the Fourier Transform of it's derivative.
$endgroup$
– Scott Seidman
Aug 29 '18 at 13:46




$begingroup$
The Fourier Transform of a signal, and the Fourier Transform of it's derivative.
$endgroup$
– Scott Seidman
Aug 29 '18 at 13:46












$begingroup$
What language is that, anyway?
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 29 '18 at 13:47




$begingroup$
What language is that, anyway?
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 29 '18 at 13:47




1




1




$begingroup$
Ah. In that case, tf() does not represent a signal, it represents a transfer function. Definitely not band-limited.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 29 '18 at 13:49




$begingroup$
Ah. In that case, tf() does not represent a signal, it represents a transfer function. Definitely not band-limited.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 29 '18 at 13:49




1




1




$begingroup$
You are still missing the point that the signal is bandlimited. You're adding non-bandlimited noise to the signal to make your point, which is outside the scope of the question. Yes, that's a practical consideration, but the question (as I see it) is theoretical.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 31 '18 at 13:39




$begingroup$
You are still missing the point that the signal is bandlimited. You're adding non-bandlimited noise to the signal to make your point, which is outside the scope of the question. Yes, that's a practical consideration, but the question (as I see it) is theoretical.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed
Aug 31 '18 at 13:39











-2












$begingroup$

You can't.



Integration will only tell you about how the voltage changes during the time you're sampling.



The capacitor will always start with some charge present though, so there will be some initial voltage. Your calculation cannot know that voltage, so it cannot know the actual voltage across the capacitor during your measurement time. This should be familiar from maths classes - you always integrate between two points.



You also have a problem that although your current measurement samples are Nyquist-limited, the actual current through the capacitor may not be. Unless you can guarantee that the current through the capacitor has a hard low-pass filter somewhere below the Nyquist limit, you can never measure the current accurately enough to reproduce the voltage. I need to be clear that this is actually mathematically impossible, because it would require a sample rate of infinity.



But if you know the starting voltage and if the actual current through the capacitor is suitably low-pass-filtered, then DaveTweed is correct that the Nyquist limit for the integral is the same as for the sampled data.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you need to make a difference between the actual current through the capacitor and the band-limited measured value. What's so magic with this situation that the well known linearity of derivatives, filters, and integration no longer applies?
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:23










  • $begingroup$
    @pipe In a word, sampling. Suppose we're sampling at 1kHz. Now suppose we have a 0.5ms long current spike. The sampled version will never see the spike, but the actual capacitor voltage certainly will. Then you have the residual errors between every form of digital integration and the actual value. And I haven't even started on anything related to resolution, which is yet another can of worms.
    $endgroup$
    – Graham
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:44










  • $begingroup$
    But the energy in that pulse will spread out into bands that the sampler will see. For example: a pulse train with very short pulses will, after band-limiting, amount to a slightly elevated DC level. The area of your pulse will still be the same, and integrating the band-limited version ends up with the same result.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:00















-2












$begingroup$

You can't.



Integration will only tell you about how the voltage changes during the time you're sampling.



The capacitor will always start with some charge present though, so there will be some initial voltage. Your calculation cannot know that voltage, so it cannot know the actual voltage across the capacitor during your measurement time. This should be familiar from maths classes - you always integrate between two points.



You also have a problem that although your current measurement samples are Nyquist-limited, the actual current through the capacitor may not be. Unless you can guarantee that the current through the capacitor has a hard low-pass filter somewhere below the Nyquist limit, you can never measure the current accurately enough to reproduce the voltage. I need to be clear that this is actually mathematically impossible, because it would require a sample rate of infinity.



But if you know the starting voltage and if the actual current through the capacitor is suitably low-pass-filtered, then DaveTweed is correct that the Nyquist limit for the integral is the same as for the sampled data.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you need to make a difference between the actual current through the capacitor and the band-limited measured value. What's so magic with this situation that the well known linearity of derivatives, filters, and integration no longer applies?
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:23










  • $begingroup$
    @pipe In a word, sampling. Suppose we're sampling at 1kHz. Now suppose we have a 0.5ms long current spike. The sampled version will never see the spike, but the actual capacitor voltage certainly will. Then you have the residual errors between every form of digital integration and the actual value. And I haven't even started on anything related to resolution, which is yet another can of worms.
    $endgroup$
    – Graham
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:44










  • $begingroup$
    But the energy in that pulse will spread out into bands that the sampler will see. For example: a pulse train with very short pulses will, after band-limiting, amount to a slightly elevated DC level. The area of your pulse will still be the same, and integrating the band-limited version ends up with the same result.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:00













-2












-2








-2





$begingroup$

You can't.



Integration will only tell you about how the voltage changes during the time you're sampling.



The capacitor will always start with some charge present though, so there will be some initial voltage. Your calculation cannot know that voltage, so it cannot know the actual voltage across the capacitor during your measurement time. This should be familiar from maths classes - you always integrate between two points.



You also have a problem that although your current measurement samples are Nyquist-limited, the actual current through the capacitor may not be. Unless you can guarantee that the current through the capacitor has a hard low-pass filter somewhere below the Nyquist limit, you can never measure the current accurately enough to reproduce the voltage. I need to be clear that this is actually mathematically impossible, because it would require a sample rate of infinity.



But if you know the starting voltage and if the actual current through the capacitor is suitably low-pass-filtered, then DaveTweed is correct that the Nyquist limit for the integral is the same as for the sampled data.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



You can't.



Integration will only tell you about how the voltage changes during the time you're sampling.



The capacitor will always start with some charge present though, so there will be some initial voltage. Your calculation cannot know that voltage, so it cannot know the actual voltage across the capacitor during your measurement time. This should be familiar from maths classes - you always integrate between two points.



You also have a problem that although your current measurement samples are Nyquist-limited, the actual current through the capacitor may not be. Unless you can guarantee that the current through the capacitor has a hard low-pass filter somewhere below the Nyquist limit, you can never measure the current accurately enough to reproduce the voltage. I need to be clear that this is actually mathematically impossible, because it would require a sample rate of infinity.



But if you know the starting voltage and if the actual current through the capacitor is suitably low-pass-filtered, then DaveTweed is correct that the Nyquist limit for the integral is the same as for the sampled data.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Aug 29 '18 at 12:28









GrahamGraham

2,925512




2,925512











  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you need to make a difference between the actual current through the capacitor and the band-limited measured value. What's so magic with this situation that the well known linearity of derivatives, filters, and integration no longer applies?
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:23










  • $begingroup$
    @pipe In a word, sampling. Suppose we're sampling at 1kHz. Now suppose we have a 0.5ms long current spike. The sampled version will never see the spike, but the actual capacitor voltage certainly will. Then you have the residual errors between every form of digital integration and the actual value. And I haven't even started on anything related to resolution, which is yet another can of worms.
    $endgroup$
    – Graham
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:44










  • $begingroup$
    But the energy in that pulse will spread out into bands that the sampler will see. For example: a pulse train with very short pulses will, after band-limiting, amount to a slightly elevated DC level. The area of your pulse will still be the same, and integrating the band-limited version ends up with the same result.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:00
















  • $begingroup$
    I don't see why you need to make a difference between the actual current through the capacitor and the band-limited measured value. What's so magic with this situation that the well known linearity of derivatives, filters, and integration no longer applies?
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:23










  • $begingroup$
    @pipe In a word, sampling. Suppose we're sampling at 1kHz. Now suppose we have a 0.5ms long current spike. The sampled version will never see the spike, but the actual capacitor voltage certainly will. Then you have the residual errors between every form of digital integration and the actual value. And I haven't even started on anything related to resolution, which is yet another can of worms.
    $endgroup$
    – Graham
    Aug 29 '18 at 18:44










  • $begingroup$
    But the energy in that pulse will spread out into bands that the sampler will see. For example: a pulse train with very short pulses will, after band-limiting, amount to a slightly elevated DC level. The area of your pulse will still be the same, and integrating the band-limited version ends up with the same result.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:00















$begingroup$
I don't see why you need to make a difference between the actual current through the capacitor and the band-limited measured value. What's so magic with this situation that the well known linearity of derivatives, filters, and integration no longer applies?
$endgroup$
– pipe
Aug 29 '18 at 18:23




$begingroup$
I don't see why you need to make a difference between the actual current through the capacitor and the band-limited measured value. What's so magic with this situation that the well known linearity of derivatives, filters, and integration no longer applies?
$endgroup$
– pipe
Aug 29 '18 at 18:23












$begingroup$
@pipe In a word, sampling. Suppose we're sampling at 1kHz. Now suppose we have a 0.5ms long current spike. The sampled version will never see the spike, but the actual capacitor voltage certainly will. Then you have the residual errors between every form of digital integration and the actual value. And I haven't even started on anything related to resolution, which is yet another can of worms.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Aug 29 '18 at 18:44




$begingroup$
@pipe In a word, sampling. Suppose we're sampling at 1kHz. Now suppose we have a 0.5ms long current spike. The sampled version will never see the spike, but the actual capacitor voltage certainly will. Then you have the residual errors between every form of digital integration and the actual value. And I haven't even started on anything related to resolution, which is yet another can of worms.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Aug 29 '18 at 18:44












$begingroup$
But the energy in that pulse will spread out into bands that the sampler will see. For example: a pulse train with very short pulses will, after band-limiting, amount to a slightly elevated DC level. The area of your pulse will still be the same, and integrating the band-limited version ends up with the same result.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Aug 29 '18 at 19:00




$begingroup$
But the energy in that pulse will spread out into bands that the sampler will see. For example: a pulse train with very short pulses will, after band-limiting, amount to a slightly elevated DC level. The area of your pulse will still be the same, and integrating the band-limited version ends up with the same result.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Aug 29 '18 at 19:00

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f393179%2fwhat-is-the-nyquist-rate-for-sampling-the-derivative-of-a-signal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

Edmonton

Crossroads (UK TV series)