Talk:Sine wave

message: In the first formula, k (wave number) is multiplied by an undefined quantity.  --Bob K 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an arbitrary dimension - the x-axis, or any axis, really. This may confuse the average high schooler but is standard notation for a sinusoid that varies in space as well as time. 131.111.5.173 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the <math>x</math> in <math>kx</math> 

message: Hello!
I hope that the paper below will help to evaluate the sampling process of a sine wave:
ET 4 CO 198.pmd  
www.ieindia.org/pdf/88/88ET104.pdf 
Best regards
Petre Petrov  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sampling Sine Wave 

message: Hello!
I would like to clarify the topic about the “general form”:
* This is not the general form of the sine wave. (The general form has a DC component equal to zero).
* This represents SUM OF TWO FUNCTIONS:
1. Linear function parallel to the axis of the time (It (DC or vertical displacement) does not depend on the time t);
2. Sine function which depends on time t. (The "phase" is displacement into time).
Conclusion: 
The given “general form” is the equation of the simplest band limited signal (SBLS) and that should be mentioned in the front page.
I hope that is useful.
BR
Petre Petrov
References:
http://www.ieindia.org/pdf/88/88ET104.pdf, page 18, Table 1.
http://www.ieindia.org/pdf/89/89CP109.pdf, page 55, Figure 2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not helpful.  You keep spamming talk pages with references to your own nonsense papers.  Whether one includes the DC term in the general form is a matter of convention, of how general you want to be.  See the first entry in your Table 1, page 18.  The is no reliable source for your new notion of a "simplest band limited signal", so, no, we shouldn't mention that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure, there's a difference between a signal with one frequency and one with two.  So what is the relevant point here? Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not appropriate for wikipedia to use your new terminology or taxonomy.  If there's a reliable source for this distinction, cite it here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General form? 

message: We specify the "general form" as:
:y(t) = A\cdot \sin(kx - \omega t+ \theta ) + D.\,
Why not:
:y(t) = A\cdot \sin(kx + \omega t+ \theta ) + D?\,
And it should also be explained in the article.
--Bob K (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With this convention, positive wavenumber corresponds to propagation in the positive x direction.  That's why. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  nice answer. that is, distance represents a phase delay. It is only a convention, the software I use regards positive x as a backward motion, for example, so +t and +x are aligned, for +w. Greglocock (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the minus sign? 

message: How did someone decide that it would be interesting to perform repeated measures on a leg of a pair of superimposed right triangles where the radius of the circle was a constant hypotenuse?Bmarmie (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can read this book and summarize the answer for us.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Who discovered the sine wave and how did it originate from geometry?

message: The fields above need different definition of the “sinus” applied to them.
There are differences in the mathematical description and the properties between:
“Sinus” as trigonometric function.
“Wave” as material object, e.g. in fluids.
“Sinusoidal signal” as electrical signal.
“Mechanical oscillation” as motion.
“Electrical oscillation” as process in electronic circuit, etc.
Each of these cases and even some more should be treated separately.
Also “natural waves”, e.g. in water and air are very different from the “sinusoidal shape”.
I have never seen natural “sine wave” in water (“ocean waves”).
In conclusion the term “wave” in sense of “sinusoidal wave” or “sine wave” seems misleading to me.
Also to say that “cosine wave is said to be sinusoidal” is like to say that the axis Y is the axis X because both of them are lines or axis.
The text about Fourier seems different from  historical and engineering facts.
In my opinion the material should be rewritten in more precise way.
I hope that is useful.
BR
Petre Petrov  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trigonometric function, mechanical motion, physics of fluids, electrical engineering…?

message: I think that we should mention something about the complex exponential function at the bottom of the article. Akilaa (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex exponential function 

message: The supposed 220hz sound sample sounds a little too low to be 220hz, or perhaps my software is a little too high for 220 hz. In using NCH's Tone Generator, I played the 220 hz sine frequency at the same time as the sample on the page, and no resonance was present. I tuned mine down to around 215 hz and I could feel the resonance fine, so I think the tone is either a little off, or maybe a lossy codec was used in producing the tone used for the sample 220 hz noise on the page. Just pointing this out; not much of a big deal, but it's still noticeable when comparing the sample to the actual 220hz sine tone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.13.147 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I recorded the lossy sound into my computer and analyzed it. The analyzer says 220.2 Hz. I counted samples making up one cycle and there were 200 at 44,100 samples per second. 200 goes into 44,100 220.5 times. It's not a super clean sine wave (there are distortion harmonics present) but it is good enough for this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sine sample 

message: I want to  day thank you and I'm lost on what to do Shannonrice788 (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to  day thank you and I'm lost on what to do 

message: I propose to merge the content of Sine wave into Sine as the former article can be adequately expressed within the context of the latter. Jamgoodman (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If we tried to merge everything about sine and cosine into that sine article, the article size would explode. Best to leave that article as is focused on primarily being a function of an *angle*, while this sine "waves" article is specifically talking about sine "waves" that are a function of a *time or space* dimension with a phase. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that you are replying to a comment from 4 years ago which was not followed up (and should probably have been archived a while ago). –jacobolus (t) 05:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal: [[Sine wave]] into [[Sine]] 

message: "Non-sinusoidal waveform" now redirects to this article, but this seems incorrect: a "non-sinusoidal waveform" is a waveform that is not a sine wave. Jarble (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating that topic was certainly a mistake, but now that it exists, the only target for it is this article. The variety of "non-sinusoidal waveforms" is so broad that it certainly doesn't merit an article of its own, while this article defines it by exclusion.  An alternative I would support is to request its deletion.  --ChetvornoTALK 01:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Non-sinusoidal waveform"

message: The opening lumps "sine wave" and "sinusoidal wave" as being the same thing: "A sine wave, sinusoidal wave, or sinusoid ...".
Although the terms will often loosely-speaking be lumped together, however to be pedantic, the terms "sine wave" and "sinusoid" maybe shouldn't be considered the same thing. The section Sine_wave#Cosine currently describes the distinction when it writes: "The term sinusoidal thereby collectively refers to both sine waves and cosine waves with any phase offset." Pedantically, a "sine wave" is A\sin(\omega t) is odd and without any phase shift \varphi, while a "cosine wave" is A\cos(\omega t) is even and without any phase shift \varphi. So for instance, Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Fourier inversion can accurately be said to express functions in terms of a sum of sine waves and cosine waves.
I would suggest renaming this article to "Sinusoidal wave" and have "sine wave" redirect to that.  And so at the intro would avoid conflating the two things together, and instead start with "A sinusoidal wave, or sinusoid, is a ... with any phase" and then later say that loosely speaking the term "sine wave" may often refer to any sinusoidal wave. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is extremely pedantic, missing the forest for the trees. In most cases the choice of reference origin phase is arbitrary, and any "sinusoidal wave" is also a sine wave (even under your narrow definition) in the appropriate coordinate system. Most importantly though, it does not match either prevailing common usage or the most likely target of links and searches. ("Sine wave" is something like an order of magnitude more common as a term, despite ostensibly being more specific.) I am opposed to any such move. It's plausible the article text needs to be clarified, but that can be done without changing the title. –jacobolus (t) 05:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I get it. I did manage to resolve my qualm by moving what was previous a section "Cosine" to be in the intro, because it introduces the concept that these are both sinusoids and that any can be sine or cosine with a phase shift. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sinusoidal wave" is better title, because this article talks about sine waves with any phase 

message: That is, we should be linking to wave not to graph of a function. These are two entirely separate concepts, and it's really weird to say that one is the other. The purpose of having an article entitled sine wave is to talk about the use of the trigonometric sine function for characterizing waves, whether (a) as physical waves, e.g. pressure waves or electromagnetic waves, or (b) as abstract "waves" in contexts such as analog signals or Fourier analysis of general periodic functions. Discussion of the "graph" (per se) of the sine function belongs at sine and cosine rather than here. –jacobolus (t) 21:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Please change it. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A sine wave should be defined as a wave, not a graph