0
$\begingroup$

I was wondering if the equation 1) is correct in this example. The author described the difference between equations for $X(w)$ and $X[k]$. The only difference I see is the $\frac{1}{T}$ coefficient. Thus I can't see where $w$ comes from in eq. 1) denominator, or small $t$ in its middle part. Shouldn't it be a big $T$?

Now assuming that indeed ${|X[k]|}^2$ equals the energy contained at that frequency of periodic signal. How could we use the relation between equations for $X(w)$ and $X[k]$ to derive eq. 2)? I'm not sure how we know that ${|X[w]|}^2$ represents density of a non-periodic signal. Isn't it just equal to energy contained at frequency $w$ multiplied by $T^{2}$, where $T \to \infty$?

Source: http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e101/lectures/handout3_tex.pdf

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The notation is really confusing. It took a while for me to understand. But he is talking about units in 1).

So [XX] refers to the unit of XX.

Essentially he is saying, the unit of the continuous spectrum (X[w]) is the unit of the discrete spectrum (X[k]) times the unit of time ([t]), or divided by the unit of frequency ([w]). That is a rather obvious statement, and has nothing to do with 2).

So 1) and 2) are in my opinion totally unrelated. Probably this is where the confusion is coming from.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Any idea where 2) comes from, knowing that ${|X[k]|}^2$ equals signal energy at k-th frequency? The equation just appears there with no justification. $\endgroup$ – user4205580 Dec 27 '14 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ There is no formal mathematical derivation of 2), so formally it is a definition. You can motivate it from the unit (i.e. |X(w)|^2 is energy per frequency) and the fact that the total signal energy is obtained by integrating over -inf .. inf (This is the Plancherel theorem). I dont see any benefit from relating it to |X(k)|^2 - maybe just that it looks similar. $\endgroup$ – Andreas H. Dec 27 '14 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Just making sure - in eq.1) X(w) is not equal to X[k] * w, but it's just about the difference in units of X(w) and X[k]? Secondly, is there any easy explanation of why we are squaring X[k] or X(w) in the energy formula? $\endgroup$ – user4205580 Dec 27 '14 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ 1) Yes. 2) Hmm, I think of it as X(w) being kind an "amplitude" so X(w)^2 is a "power/energy". $\endgroup$ – Andreas H. Dec 27 '14 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ You mentioned Plancherel theorem - didn't you mean Parseval's theorem? (quote: The interpretation of this form of the theorem is that the total energy contained in a waveform x(t) summed across all of time t is equal to the total energy of the waveform's Fourier Transform X(f) summed across all of its frequency components f.) $\endgroup$ – user4205580 Dec 27 '14 at 17:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.