Post History
You are asking for a filter that passes 2% at 60 Hz and 99% at 90 Hz. That comes out to a transition of 97% of the amplitude within 0.6 of an octave, which is quite aggressive. The real answer My ...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-09-25T12:46:45Z (over 3 years ago)
- You are asking for a filter that passes 2% at 60 Hz and 99% at 90 Hz. That comes out to a transition of 97% of the amplitude within 0.6 of an octave, which is quite aggressive.
- <h2>The real answer</h2>
- My first reaction is that this smells like attempting to fix bad system-level design in the wrong place. Step back a few levels and think about the real problem, not the imagined solution of filtering out 60 Hz in a specific location in the signal path. What are you really trying to measure? What frequency range is the desired signal? Where is the source of 60 Hz noise coming from?
- If your real problem is 60 Hz noise from the power line is getting into some low level signal, ask about that directly, probably in a separate question here.
- It is also suspicious that a ±8 V signal of limited bandwidth needs to go into an opamp at all. Manipulating a signal like that in the analog domain went out in the 1980s. Again, pop up a few levels and explain what the overall system is trying to accomplish. It smells like this signal should go into a microcontroller, perhaps with DSP capability, and be dealt with digitally from there.
- <h2>Answer about the filter</h2>
- Forget about doing this with analog components. A purely analog filter would be quite complex, the part values would need to be within an accuracy you can't get, and would likely require complicated trimming.
- What you want is a sinc filter. Actually the convolution with a sinc yields a low pass filter. You want the inverse of that, but the underlying math is still that of a sinc. For the specified sharpness of the transition region, you will probably need several 100 points in the convolution kernel. How tractable this is depends on the highest frequency of interest, which you haven't told us.
- Again, though, the right answer is to not be in this predicament in the first place. Go back and fix whatever the real problem is at the system level.
- <hr>
- <blockquote>Indeed, the 50-60Hz noise comes from ambiant capacitive coupling of my fieldmeter probe with the near power lines.</blockquote>
- I'll assume by "fieldmeter" you mean what is usually called a "field mill"? That is two electrodes rotating on a drum, used to measure static electric field. These are used, for example, to measure the field buildup before a lightning strike.
- If the above is true, then there is a much easier way to deal with 50 or 60 Hz power line interference. That is to process the measurements synchronously to the drum rotation. With the drum rotation speed sufficiently different from the noise frequency, a notch filter at the drum frequency should do.
- Put another way, your frequency range of interest is only a narrow band around the drum rotation frequency. Selecting only for that is much easier than trying to make a tight high or low pass filter.
- Since the drum speed is "slow" compared to what a modern microcontroller can do, this is rather easily done digitally. The measured signal is multiplied by sin and cos of the drum frequency. After some additional manipulation, you get the field amplitude and direction in the plane of the drum rotation.
You could also probably just buy a field mill.
- You are asking for a filter that passes 2% at 60 Hz and 99% at 90 Hz. That comes out to a transition of 97% of the amplitude within 0.6 of an octave, which is quite aggressive.
- <h2>The real answer</h2>
- My first reaction is that this smells like attempting to fix bad system-level design in the wrong place. Step back a few levels and think about the real problem, not the imagined solution of filtering out 60 Hz in a specific location in the signal path. What are you really trying to measure? What frequency range is the desired signal? Where is the source of 60 Hz noise coming from?
- If your real problem is 60 Hz noise from the power line is getting into some low level signal, ask about that directly, probably in a separate question here.
- It is also suspicious that a ±8 V signal of limited bandwidth needs to go into an opamp at all. Manipulating a signal like that in the analog domain went out in the 1980s. Again, pop up a few levels and explain what the overall system is trying to accomplish. It smells like this signal should go into a microcontroller, perhaps with DSP capability, and be dealt with digitally from there.
- <h2>Answer about the filter</h2>
- Forget about doing this with analog components. A purely analog filter would be quite complex, the part values would need to be within an accuracy you can't get, and would likely require complicated trimming.
- What you want is a sinc filter. Actually the convolution with a sinc yields a low pass filter. You want the inverse of that, but the underlying math is still that of a sinc. For the specified sharpness of the transition region, you will probably need several 100 points in the convolution kernel. How tractable this is depends on the highest frequency of interest, which you haven't told us.
- Again, though, the right answer is to not be in this predicament in the first place. Go back and fix whatever the real problem is at the system level.
- <hr>
- <blockquote>Indeed, the 50-60Hz noise comes from ambiant capacitive coupling of my fieldmeter probe with the near power lines.</blockquote>
- I'll assume by "fieldmeter" you mean what is usually called a "field mill"? That is two electrodes rotating on a drum, used to measure static electric field. These are used, for example, to measure the field buildup before a lightning strike.
- If the above is true, then there is a much easier way to deal with 50 or 60 Hz power line interference. That is to process the measurements synchronously to the drum rotation. With the drum rotation speed sufficiently different from the noise frequency, a notch filter at the drum frequency should do.
- Put another way, your frequency range of interest is only a narrow band around the drum rotation frequency. Selecting only for that is much easier than trying to make a tight high or low pass filter.
- Since the drum speed is "slow" compared to what a modern microcontroller can do, this is rather easily done digitally. The measured signal is multiplied by sin and cos of the drum frequency. After some additional manipulation, you get the field amplitude and direction in the plane of the drum rotation.
- You could also probably just buy a field mill.
- <hr>
- <blockquote>I know nothing about digital electronics, microprocessor etc. It's a pity because this would probably simplify things, but it's not really needed for this research project. In a word, you can see me as a high level analog electronic tinkerer.</blockquote>
- That doesn't change what is possible with analog electronics. Although we need more details about this "fieldmeter" you are trying to build, it sounds like the processing would be rather simple in a microcontroller, and quite difficult in analog electronics.
- If this is not your area of expertise, work with someone for whom it is.
#2: Post edited
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-09-25T12:43:37Z (over 3 years ago)
- You are asking for a filter that passes 2% at 60 Hz and 99% at 90 Hz. That comes out to a transition of 97% of the amplitude within 0.6 of an octave, which is quite aggressive.
- <h2>The real answer</h2>
- My first reaction is that this smells like attempting to fix bad system-level design in the wrong place. Step back a few levels and think about the real problem, not the imagined solution of filtering out 60 Hz in a specific location in the signal path. What are you really trying to measure? What frequency range is the desired signal? Where is the source of 60 Hz noise coming from?
- If your real problem is 60 Hz noise from the power line is getting into some low level signal, ask about that directly, probably in a separate question here.
- It is also suspicious that a ±8 V signal of limited bandwidth needs to go into an opamp at all. Manipulating a signal like that in the analog domain went out in the 1980s. Again, pop up a few levels and explain what the overall system is trying to accomplish. It smells like this signal should go into a microcontroller, perhaps with DSP capability, and be dealt with digitally from there.
- <h2>Answer about the filter</h2>
- Forget about doing this with analog components. A purely analog filter would be quite complex, the part values would need to be within an accuracy you can't get, and would likely require complicated trimming.
- What you want is a sinc filter. Actually the convolution with a sinc yields a low pass filter. You want the inverse of that, but the underlying math is still that of a sinc. For the specified sharpness of the transition region, you will probably need several 100 points in the convolution kernel. How tractable this is depends on the highest frequency of interest, which you haven't told us.
Again, though, the right answer is to not be in this predicament in the first place. Go back and fix whatever the real problem is at the system level.
- You are asking for a filter that passes 2% at 60 Hz and 99% at 90 Hz. That comes out to a transition of 97% of the amplitude within 0.6 of an octave, which is quite aggressive.
- <h2>The real answer</h2>
- My first reaction is that this smells like attempting to fix bad system-level design in the wrong place. Step back a few levels and think about the real problem, not the imagined solution of filtering out 60 Hz in a specific location in the signal path. What are you really trying to measure? What frequency range is the desired signal? Where is the source of 60 Hz noise coming from?
- If your real problem is 60 Hz noise from the power line is getting into some low level signal, ask about that directly, probably in a separate question here.
- It is also suspicious that a ±8 V signal of limited bandwidth needs to go into an opamp at all. Manipulating a signal like that in the analog domain went out in the 1980s. Again, pop up a few levels and explain what the overall system is trying to accomplish. It smells like this signal should go into a microcontroller, perhaps with DSP capability, and be dealt with digitally from there.
- <h2>Answer about the filter</h2>
- Forget about doing this with analog components. A purely analog filter would be quite complex, the part values would need to be within an accuracy you can't get, and would likely require complicated trimming.
- What you want is a sinc filter. Actually the convolution with a sinc yields a low pass filter. You want the inverse of that, but the underlying math is still that of a sinc. For the specified sharpness of the transition region, you will probably need several 100 points in the convolution kernel. How tractable this is depends on the highest frequency of interest, which you haven't told us.
- Again, though, the right answer is to not be in this predicament in the first place. Go back and fix whatever the real problem is at the system level.
- <hr>
- <blockquote>Indeed, the 50-60Hz noise comes from ambiant capacitive coupling of my fieldmeter probe with the near power lines.</blockquote>
- I'll assume by "fieldmeter" you mean what is usually called a "field mill"? That is two electrodes rotating on a drum, used to measure static electric field. These are used, for example, to measure the field buildup before a lightning strike.
- If the above is true, then there is a much easier way to deal with 50 or 60 Hz power line interference. That is to process the measurements synchronously to the drum rotation. With the drum rotation speed sufficiently different from the noise frequency, a notch filter at the drum frequency should do.
- Put another way, your frequency range of interest is only a narrow band around the drum rotation frequency. Selecting only for that is much easier than trying to make a tight high or low pass filter.
- Since the drum speed is "slow" compared to what a modern microcontroller can do, this is rather easily done digitally. The measured signal is multiplied by sin and cos of the drum frequency. After some additional manipulation, you get the field amplitude and direction in the plane of the drum rotation.
- You could also probably just buy a field mill.
#1: Initial revision
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-09-24T16:44:19Z (over 3 years ago)
You are asking for a filter that passes 2% at 60 Hz and 99% at 90 Hz. That comes out to a transition of 97% of the amplitude within 0.6 of an octave, which is quite aggressive. <h2>The real answer</h2> My first reaction is that this smells like attempting to fix bad system-level design in the wrong place. Step back a few levels and think about the real problem, not the imagined solution of filtering out 60 Hz in a specific location in the signal path. What are you really trying to measure? What frequency range is the desired signal? Where is the source of 60 Hz noise coming from? If your real problem is 60 Hz noise from the power line is getting into some low level signal, ask about that directly, probably in a separate question here. It is also suspicious that a ±8 V signal of limited bandwidth needs to go into an opamp at all. Manipulating a signal like that in the analog domain went out in the 1980s. Again, pop up a few levels and explain what the overall system is trying to accomplish. It smells like this signal should go into a microcontroller, perhaps with DSP capability, and be dealt with digitally from there. <h2>Answer about the filter</h2> Forget about doing this with analog components. A purely analog filter would be quite complex, the part values would need to be within an accuracy you can't get, and would likely require complicated trimming. What you want is a sinc filter. Actually the convolution with a sinc yields a low pass filter. You want the inverse of that, but the underlying math is still that of a sinc. For the specified sharpness of the transition region, you will probably need several 100 points in the convolution kernel. How tractable this is depends on the highest frequency of interest, which you haven't told us. Again, though, the right answer is to not be in this predicament in the first place. Go back and fix whatever the real problem is at the system level.