LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

How do I calculate the RMS overall of a linear spectrum?

Solved!
Go to solution

this is a post data capture calculation, so it should be no big deal, but I can't get it right.  I have a 16,250 line linear spectrum.  I want the RMS overall for that spectrum.  That means, take each y value for each point and square it.  Add up all those squared point values and then take the square root of the summation.  THAT is the RMS overall of that spectrum.  There are ways to do it in time galore.  I am assuming I need to do it with a point to  point vi and the formula node.

Regards,

Ron

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 9
(5,855 Views)

If you have the full development system, just use http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/371361K-01/gmath/rms/#parent

 

If not try this:

 

rms.png


CLA CTAChampionI'm attending the GLA Summit!
Subscribe to the Test Automation user group: UK Test Automation Group
Message 2 of 9
(5,844 Views)

Hello,

 

I don't really understand why you see it so complicated. ^^

 

Here are 2 different ways to calculate your RMS value :

RMS.JPG

 

Is it what you need to do ?

Message 3 of 9
(5,838 Views)

The RMS.vi is found in the Mathematics->Probability & Statistics palette.  Makes life a lot easier on you.


GCentral
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
Message 4 of 9
(5,822 Views)
Solution
Accepted by topic author rwbrook@integratedps.com

Thank you.  I wanted to try that vi but could not find it.

Regards,

Ron

0 Kudos
Message 5 of 9
(5,819 Views)

Gentlemen,

Same issue, different slant.  If I have already calculated the RMS overall for a time domain waveform, it is correct to multiply that overall value by 25.4 to change it to a metric reading?  Is it correct to multiply it by 0.707 to change that overall value to an RMS overall?

Regards,

Ron

0 Kudos
Message 6 of 9
(5,697 Views)

Umax = 1.414 * Urms is true only for "perfect" sinus signals...That's just an approximation. And the mathematical definition if RMS is as follow :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

0 Kudos
Message 7 of 9
(5,695 Views)

Yes, but if you consider the original RMS calulation was performed by treating every invidual frequency (bin by bin), then the conversion should work....no?

0 Kudos
Message 8 of 9
(5,693 Views)

No. Because of spectral leakage some components appear in multiple bins.  Calculating RMS on a bin by bin basis does not correctly account for the energy in each component. This is aggravated if the spectral leakage of separate components over lap in some bins.

 

Lynn

0 Kudos
Message 9 of 9
(5,673 Views)