Sign up Calendar Latest Topics Donate
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
Walt Strong

Sr. Member
Registered:
Posts: 889
Reply with quote  #31 
"I know it as peak hold, can't see it's advantage during a cast down over a waterfall"

Both signal processes can help identify a resonance. If a person has a very capable analyzer that can do both well, then choose the method (Peak Hold or Waterfall Spectra) that works the best and is easier to interpret. A 3D waterfall spectra plot can miss a sharp resonance, based on time between spectra and resolution. In the old days data was analog recorded so that different analysis methods and settings could be tried for best results!

Walt
John from PA

Sr. Member
Registered:
Posts: 963
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fburgos
I know it as peak hold, can't see it's advantage during a cast down over a waterfall


One also has to look at the instrument capabilities and how the capabilities may affect the data.  Lets take Adre for Windows as an example; I can set up to data every 25 RPM.  That can be filtered, like 1X amplitude and phase but can also be used for a peak hold type of plot.  But the waveform data which is used for a cascade or waterfall plot, it acquired every 10 samples.  That means the interval for waveforms is 250 RPM.  If using a waterfall the 250 RPM sampling might cause you to miss a peak.  The newer Adre Sxp allows much tighter sampling of waveforms and eliminates the issue.

Why was it done that way for Adre for Windows?  It was all about computer capabilities!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.