Dwnload Full Contemporary Communication Systems 1st Edition Mesiya Solutions Manual PDF
Dwnload Full Contemporary Communication Systems 1st Edition Mesiya Solutions Manual PDF
Contemporary Communication
Systems 1st Edition Mesiya Solutions
Manual
Visit to get the accurate and complete content:
https://testbankfan.com/download/contemporary-communication-systems-1st-edition-
mesiya-solutions-manual/
Chapter 2
2.1 Consider the signals displayed in Figure P2.1.Show that each of these signals can be
expressed as the sum of rectangular Π (t ) and/or triangular Λ (t ) pulses.
Figure P2.1
Solution:
⎛t⎞ ⎛t⎞
a. x1 (t ) = Π ⎜ ⎟ + Π ⎜ ⎟
⎝2⎠ ⎝4⎠
⎛t −3⎞ ⎛t −3⎞
b. x2 (t ) = 2Λ ⎜ ⎟− Λ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 6 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 11 ⎞ ⎛ 7⎞ ⎛ 3⎞ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎛ 5⎞ ⎛ 9⎞
c. x3 (t ) = ... + Π ⎜ t + ⎟ + Π ⎜ t + ⎟ + Π ⎜ t + ⎟ + Π ⎜ t − ⎟ + Π ⎜ t − ⎟ + Π ⎜ t − ⎟ + ...
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
∞
= ∑ Π ⎡⎣t − ( 2n + 0.5)⎤⎦
n =−∞
2.2 For the signal x2 (t ) in Figure P2.1 (b) plot the following signals
a. x2 (t − 3)
b. x2 (−t )
c. x2 (2t )
d. x2 (3 − 2t )
Solution:
x2 (t − 3) x2 (−t )
1 1
0 0 t
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 1 2 3
x2 (2t ) x2 (3 − 2t )
1
1
0 t 0 t
1 2 3 4 5 6 −2−1 1 2 3 4
a. x1 (t ) = 2Π (t / 2) cos(6π t )
⎡1 1 ⎤
b. x2 (t ) = 2 ⎢ + sgn ( t ) ⎥
⎣2 2 ⎦
© 2012 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
c. x3 (t ) = x2 (−t + 2)
d. x4 (t ) = sinc ( 2t ) Π ( t / 2 )
Solution:
2 x2 (t )
1.5
1
2
x1(t)
0.5
0
0 t
-0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6
-1
1
-1.5
0.8
-2
x3 (t )
4
0.2
2
0
-0.2
0 t -0.4
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1 2 3 4 tt
2.4 Determine whether the following signals are periodic. For periodic signals,
determine the fundamental period.
a. x1 (t ) = sin(π t ) + 5cos(4π t / 5)
Solution:
2π
sin(π t ) is periodic with period T1 = = 2 . cos(4π t / 5) is periodic with period
π
2π 5 T
T2 = = . x1 (t ) is periodic if the ratio 1 can be written as ratio of
4π / 5 2 T2
integers. In the present case,
T1 2 × 2 4
= =
T2 5 5
© 2012 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
at m; but the violet rays radiating from the same focus, being more
refrangible, will emerge in a state of convergence, as shewn at mv,
nv, the red rays being mr, nr. The part of the object, therefore, from
which the red rays come, will appear nearer to the observer than the
parts from which the violet rays come, and if there are other colours
or rays of intermediate refrangibilities, they will appear to come from
intermediate distances.
If we place a small red and violet disc, like the smallest wafer,
beside one another, so that the line joining their centres is
perpendicular to the line joining the eyes, and suppose that rays
from both enter the eyes with their optical axes parallel, it is obvious
that the distance between the violet images on each retina will be
less than the distance between the red images, and consequently
the eyes will require to converge their axes to a nearer point in order
to unite the red images, than in order to unite the violet images. The
red images will therefore appear at this nearer point of convergence,
just as, in the lenticular stereoscope, the more distant pair of points
in the dissimilar images appear when united nearer to the eye. By
the two eyes alone, therefore, we obtain a certain, though a small
degree of relief from colours. With the lens ll, however, the effect is
greatly increased, and we have the sum of the two effects.
From these observations, it is manifest that the reverse effect
must be produced by a concave lens, or by the common
stereoscope, when two coloured objects are employed or united.
The blue part of the object will be seen nearer the observer, and the
red part of it more remote. It is, however, a curious fact, and one
which appeared difficult to explain, that in the stereoscope the
colour-relief was not brought out as might have been expected.
Sometimes the red was nearest the eye, and sometimes the blue,
and sometimes the object appeared without any relief. The cause of
this is, that the colour-relief given by the common stereoscope was
the opposite of that given by the eye, and it was only the difference
of these effects that ought to have been observed; and though the
influence of the eyes was an inferior one, it often acted alone, and
sometimes ceased to act at all, in virtue of that property of vision by
which we see only with one eye when we are looking with two.
In the chromatic stereoscope, Fig. 42, the intermediate part mn of
the lens is of no use, so that out of the margin of a lens upwards of
2½ inches in diameter, we may cut a dozen of portions capable of
making as many instruments. These portions, however, a little larger
only than the pupil of the eye, must be placed in the same position
as in Fig. 42.
All the effects which we have described are greatly increased by
using lenses of highly-dispersing flint glass, oil of cassia, and other
fluids of a great dispersive power, and avoiding the use of compound
colours in the objects placed in the stereoscope.
It is an obvious result of these observations, that in painting, and
in coloured decorations of all kinds, the red or less refrangible
colours should be given to the prominent parts of the object to be
represented, and the blue or more refrangible colours to the
background and the parts of the objects that are to retire from the
eye.
Geometrical Solids.
Representations of geometrical solids, were, as we have already seen,
the only objects which for many years were employed in the reflecting
stereoscope. The figures thus used are so well known that it is
unnecessary to devote much space to their consideration. For ordinary
purposes they may be drawn by the hand, and composed of squares,
rectangles, and circles, representing quadrangular pyramids, truncated, or
terminating in a point, cones, pyramids with polygonal bases, or more
complex forms in which raised pyramids or cones rise out of quadrangular
or conical hollows. All these figures may be drawn by the hand, and will
produce solid forms sufficiently striking to illustrate the properties of the
stereoscope, though not accurate representations of any actual solid seen
by binocular vision.
If one of the binocular pictures is not equal to the other in its base or
summit, and if the lines of the one are made crooked, it is curious to
observe how the appearance of the resulting solid is still maintained and
varied.
The following method of drawing upon a plane the dissimilar
representations of solids, will give results in the stereoscope that are
perfectly correct:—
Fig. 43.
Let l, r, Fig. 43, be the left and right eye, and a the middle point
between them. Let mn be the plane on which an object or solid whose
height is cb is to be drawn. Through b draw lb, meeting mn in c; then if the
object is a solid, with its apex at b, cc will be the distance of its apex from
the centre c of its base, as seen by the left eye. When seen by the right
eye r, cc′ will be its distance, c′ lying on the left side of c. Hence if the
figure is a cone, the dissimilar pictures of it will be two circles, in one of
which its apex is placed at the distance cc from its centre, and in the other
at the distance cc′ on the other side of the centre. When these two plane
figures are placed in the stereoscope, they will, when combined, represent
a raised cone when the points c, c′ are nearer one another than the
centres of the circles representing the cone’s base, and a hollow cone
when the figures are interchanged.
If we call e the distance between the two eyes, and h the height of the
solid, we shall have
e
ab : h = : cc,
2
he 5h
and cc = or, ,
2ab 4ab
which will give us the results in the following table, e being 2½, and ac 8
inches:—
Height of object. ab = ac - h cc
bc = h Inches.
1 7 0.179
2 6 0.4166
3 5 0.75
4 4 1.25
5 3 2.083
6 2 3.75
7 1 8.75
8 0 Infinite.
If we now converge the optic axes to a point b, and wish to ascertain
the value of cc, which will give different depths, d, of the hollow solids
corresponding to different values of cb, we shall have
e
ab : - d : cc′,
2
de
and cc′ = ,
2ab
which, making ac = 8 inches, as before, will give the following results:—
Depth. ab = ac + d cc′
cb = d Inches.
1 9 0.139
2 10 0.25
3 11 0.34
4 12 0.4166
5 13 0.48
6 14 0.535
7 15 0.58
8 16 0.625
9 17 0.663
10 18 0.696
11 19 0.723
12 20 0.75
The values of h and d when cc, cc′ are known, will be found from the
formulæ
2ab · cc
h= , and
e
2ab · cc′
d= .
e
As cc is always equal to cc′ in each pair of figures or dissimilar pictures,
the depth of the hollow cone will always appear much greater than the
height of the raised one. When cc = cc′ = 0.75, h:d = 3:12. When cc = cc′
= 0.4166, h:d = 2:4, and when cc = cc′ = 0.139, h:d = 0.8:1.0.
When the solids of which we wish to have binocular pictures are
symmetrical, the one picture is the reflected image of the other, or its
reverse, so that when we have drawn the solid as seen by one eye, we
may obtain the other by copying its reflected image, or by simply taking a
copy of it as seen through the paper.
When the geometrical solids are not symmetrical, their dissimilar
pictures must be taken photographically from models, in the same manner
as the dissimilar pictures of other solids.
Fig. 44.
The Rev. Mr. Egerton and I have obtained photographs of a bust, in the
course of ten minutes, with a very faint sun, and through an aperture less
than the hundredth of an inch; and I have no doubt that when chemistry
has furnished us with a material more sensitive to light, a camera without
lenses, and with only a pin-hole, will be the favourite instrument of the
photographer. At present, no sitter could preserve his composure and
expression during the number of minutes which are required to complete
the picture.
But though we cannot use this theoretical camera, we may make some
approximation to it. If we make the hole h a quarter of an inch, the pictures
br, &c., will be faint and indistinct; but by placing a thin lens a quarter of an
inch in diameter in the hole h, the distinctness of the picture will be
restored, and, from the introduction of so much light, the photograph may
be completed in a sufficiently short time. The lens should be made of rock
crystal, which has a small dispersive power, and the ratio of curvature of its
surfaces should be as six to one, the flattest side being turned to the
picture. In this way there will be very little colour and spherical aberration,
and no error produced by any striæ or want of homogeneity in the glass.
As the hole h is nearly the same as the greatest opening of the pupil,
the picture which is formed by the enclosed lens will be almost identical
with the one we see in monocular vision, which is always the most perfect
representation of figures in relief.
Fig. 45.
With this approximately perfect camera, let us now compare the
expensive and magnificent instruments with which the photographer
practises his art. We shall suppose his camera to have its lens or lenses
with an aperture of only three inches, as shewn at lr in Fig. 45. If we
cover the whole lens, or reduce its aperture to a quarter of an inch, as
shewn at a, we shall have a correct picture of the sitter. Let us now take
other four pictures of the same person, by removing the aperture
successively to b, c, d, and e: It is obvious that these pictures will all differ
very perceptibly from each other. In the picture obtained through d, we
shall see parts on the left side of the head which are not seen in the
picture through c, and in the one through c, parts on the right side of the
head not seen through d. In short, the pictures obtained through c and d
are accurate dissimilar pictures, such as we have in binocular vision, (the
distance cd being 2½ inches,) and fitted for the stereoscope. In like
manner, the pictures through b and e will be different from the preceding,
and different from one another. In the one through b, we shall see parts
below the eyebrows, below the nose, below the upper lip, and below the
chin, which are not visible in the picture through e, nor in those through c
and d; while in the picture through e, we shall see parts above the brow,
and above the upper lip, &c., which are not seen in the pictures through b,
c, and d. In whatever part of the lens, lr, we place the aperture, we obtain
a picture different from that through any other part, and therefore it follows,
that with a lens whose aperture is three inches, the photographic picture is
a combination of about one hundred and thirty dissimilar pictures of the
sitter, the similar parts of which are not coincident; or to express it in the
language of perspective, the picture is a combination of about one hundred
and thirty pictures of the sitter, taken from one hundred and thirty different
points of sight! If such is the picture formed by a three-inch lens, what must
be the amount of the anamorphism, or distortion of form, which is
produced by photographic lenses of diameters from three to twelve inches,
actually used in photography?[46]
But it is not merely by the size of the lenses that hideous portraits are
produced. In cameras with two achromatic lenses, the rays which form the
picture pass through a large thickness of glass, which may not be
altogether homogeneous,—through eight surfaces which may not be truly
spherical, and which certainly scatter light in all directions,—and through
an optical combination in which straight lines in the object must be conic
sections in the picture!
Photography, therefore, cannot even approximate to perfection till the
artist works with a camera furnished with a single quarter of an inch lens of
rock crystal, having its radii of curvature as six to one, or what experience
may find better, with an achromatic lens of the same aperture. And we may
state with equal confidence, that the photographer who has the sagacity to
perceive the defects of his instruments, the honesty to avow it, and the skill
to remedy them by the applications of modern science, will take a place as
high in photographic portraiture as a Reynolds or a Lawrence in the sister
art.
Such being the nature of single portraits, we may form some notion of
the effect produced by combining dissimilar ones in the stereoscope, so as
to represent the original in relief. The single pictures themselves, including
binocular and multocular representations of the individual, must, when
combined, exhibit a very imperfect portrait in relief,—so imperfect, indeed,
that the artist is obliged to take his two pictures from points of sight
different from the correct points, in order to produce the least disagreeable
result. This will appear after we have explained the correct method of
taking binocular portraits for the stereoscope.
No person but a painter, or one who has the eye and the taste of a
painter, is qualified to be a photographer either in single or binocular
portraiture. The first step in taking a portrait or copying a statue, is to
ascertain in what aspect and at what distance from the eye it ought to be
taken.
In order to understand this subject, we shall first consider the vision,
with one eye, of objects of three dimensions, when of different magnitudes
and placed at different distances. When we thus view a building, or a full-
length or colossal statue, at a short distance, a picture of all its visible parts
is formed on the retina. If we view it at a greater distance, certain parts
cease to be seen, and other parts come into view; and this change in the
picture will go on, but will become less and less perceptible as we retire
from the original. If we now look at the building or statue from a distance
through a telescope, so as to present it to us with the same distinctness,
and of the same apparent magnitude as we saw it at our first position, the
two pictures will be essentially different; all the parts which ceased to be
visible as we retired will still be invisible, and all the parts which were not
seen at our first position, but became visible by retiring, will be seen in the
telescopic picture. Hence the parts seen by the near eye, and not by the
distant telescope, will be those towards the middle of the building or
statue, whose surfaces converge, as it were, towards the eye; while those
seen by the telescope, and not by the eye, will be the external parts of the
object, whose surfaces converge less, or approach to parallelism. It will
depend on the nature of the building or the statue which of these pictures
gives us the most favourable representation of it.
If we now suppose the building or statue to be reduced in the most
perfect manner,—to half its size, for example,—then it is obvious that
these two perfectly similar solids will afford a different picture, whether
viewed by the eye or by the telescope. In the reduced copy, the inner
surfaces visible in the original will disappear, and the outer surfaces
become visible; and, as formerly, it will depend on the nature of the
building or the statue whether the reduced or the original copy gives the
best picture.
If we repeat the preceding experiments with two eyes in place of one,
the building or statue will have a different appearance; surfaces and parts,
formerly invisible, will become visible, and the body will be better seen
because we see more of it; but then the parts thus brought into view being
seen, generally speaking, with one eye, will have less brightness than the
rest of the picture. But though we see more of the body in binocular vision,
it is only parts of vertical surfaces perpendicular to the line joining the eyes
that are thus brought into view, the parts of similar horizontal surfaces
remaining invisible as with one eye. It would require a pair of eyes placed
vertically, that is, with the line joining them in a vertical direction, to enable
us to see the horizontal as well as the vertical surfaces; and it would
require a pair of eyes inclined at all possible angles, that is, a ring of eyes
2½ inches in diameter, to enable us to have a perfectly symmetrical view
of the statue.
These observations will enable us to answer the question, whether or
not a reduced copy of a statue, of precisely the same form in all its parts,
will give us, either by monocular or binocular vision, a better view of it as a
work of art. As it is the outer parts or surfaces of a large statue that are
invisible, its great outline and largest parts must be best seen in the
reduced copy; and consequently its relief, or third dimension in space,
must be much greater in the reduced copy. This will be better understood if
we suppose a sphere to be substituted for the statue. If the sphere
exceeds in diameter the distance between the pupils of the right and left
eye, or 2½ inches, we shall not see a complete hemisphere, unless from
an infinite distance. If the sphere is very much larger, we shall see only a
segment, whose relief, in place of being equal to the radius of the sphere,
is equal only to the versed sine of half the visible segment. Hence it is
obvious that a reduced copy of a statue is not only better seen from more
of its parts being visible, but is also seen in stronger relief.