×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Noise equ.

Noise equ.

Noise equ.

(OP)
For uncorrelated noise, to find the total noise we do the foll.:
(en1 ^2 + en2^2)^1/2
I was wondering why do we do this. I read that for independent signal we must add them and that we must add noise power for noise and take the mean square.
I still want to know the proof. Not convince at all.
 I was also told that the above equation is just like adding 2 vectors (yeah but what is the point?).

How do we prove the equation for total correlated noise?
thx

RE: Noise equ.

"prove the equation for total correlated noise"

I hope that you meant to say "prove the equation for totally uncorrelated noise". It is only for uncrrelated noise (or signals) that the sqrt(sum of squares) is valid.

I have never seen any proof - but it works.

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

RE: Noise equ.

(OP)
No for correlated noise:
et = (e1 + e2 + 2*C*e1*e2)^1/2
where c is correlation factor

How to derive this?

RE: Noise equ.

I think that you are changing your mind mid-way. First you talk about "(en1 ^2 + en2^2)^1/2" and then "(e1 + e2 + 2*C*e1*e2)^1/2".

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

RE: Noise equ.

I think you missed the squares of the e1 and e2 terms in your formula for correlated noise.

En= (e1*e1 + e2*e2 + 2*C*e1*e2)^1/2

If they are uncorrelated then C=0 and you go back to the original equation.

The point is that noise powers add. There is no proof it is an assertion that is bourne out by experiment and experience. From this you can say that the noise voltages sum as the root of sum of squares because power is V*V/R.

The second equation is effectively a definition of the correlation coefficient. If two sources are partially correlated their sum will be greater than the root sum of squares would suggest. Clearly the maximum value for total correlation would be sqrt( (E1+E2)*(E1+E2) ) which gives C=1.

RE: Noise equ.

Get a good intro to RADAR book and look under coherent integration.  Stimson has a very easy to follow "proof" (actually more of a thought experiment).  Barton addresses this in a more mathematical fashion.

The key really is that noise has an amplitude AND phase.

Peter

RE: Noise equ.

The proof is also in books on statistics and random variables.  The equation is correct in the limit.

Also, logbook mentioned proof by experience.  You can do this yourself.  Generate uncorrelated normal (Gaussian) random variables with zero mean and standard deviations e1 and e2.  Find out what the average power is and see if it matches your equation.  Otherwise, see Davenport.

Here is an unscientific heuristic (which means it is off the cuff and has not been peer reviewed, so please, no flames!)
We can think of independent as uncorrelated or as orthogonal.  If we use the term orthogonal to mean perpendicular (90 degrees in a geometric picture of the problem) then we can say that adding two numbers that are perpendicular gives us a distance from start to finish that is the Pythagorean theorem C^2 = A^ + B^2 or C = sqrt( A^2 + B^2).

now if the noise is correlated, we can say that the angle between them is not 90 degrees.  So the formula would give a bigger answer for angles above 90 (but less than 180). We could consider this case, positive correlation.  If the noise is negatively correlated the angle is less than 90, so the length of C would be less than the Pythag theorem.  This does not tell you how to relate the correlation amount to the angle, but it does give you aa perception of the issue (hopefully).

dafter gave you the modification of the Pythag theorem for non perpendicular or correlated noise.  Hope this helps with the concept, but I know it is not a proof.  A good book would be a better source for a proof like this.

RE: Noise equ.

(OP)
Well I was searching for the proof in books like van der ziel, electronic noise, etc. I guess those were the wrong books. I should have focused more on radar books.
Unfortunately, the library (here) don't have Barton, Davenport and others.
I will better go and  search in a radar book for the topic "coherent integration" as I have been told by pstuckey. Thx!"

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources