Skip to main content
Signal Processing

Return to Answer

Making superscripts superscripts.
Source Link
Peter K. ♦
Peter K. ♦
  • 26k
  • 9
  • 47
  • 93

Filters are agnostic to the sampling frequency you use. What matters is the normalized cut off frequency. As a result the filter obtained from a function like butter will work for any sampling frequency. A value of 1 corresponds to half the sampling frequency. 

In your case your sampling frequency is 1 hr^-1hr$^{-1}$. Hence a value of 0.01 corresponds to a frequency cutoff of .01*001 $\times$ 0.5 = .005 hr^-1hr$^{-1}$ or 200 hrs time.

Filters are agnostic to the sampling frequency you use. What matters is the normalized cut off frequency. As a result the filter obtained from a function like butter will work for any sampling frequency. A value of 1 corresponds to half the sampling frequency. In your case your sampling frequency is 1 hr^-1. Hence a value of 0.01 corresponds to a frequency cutoff of .01*0.5 = .005 hr^-1 or 200 hrs time.

Filters are agnostic to the sampling frequency you use. What matters is the normalized cut off frequency. As a result the filter obtained from a function like butter will work for any sampling frequency. A value of 1 corresponds to half the sampling frequency. 

In your case your sampling frequency is 1 hr$^{-1}$. Hence a value of 0.01 corresponds to a frequency cutoff of .01 $\times$ 0.5 = .005 hr$^{-1}$ or 200 hrs time.

Post Migrated Here from stackoverflow.com (revisions)
Source Link
Karthik V
Karthik V
  • 121
  • 3

Filters are agnostic to the sampling frequency you use. What matters is the normalized cut off frequency. As a result the filter obtained from a function like butter will work for any sampling frequency. A value of 1 corresponds to half the sampling frequency. In your case your sampling frequency is 1 hr^-1. Hence a value of 0.01 corresponds to a frequency cutoff of .01*0.5 = .005 hr^-1 or 200 hrs time.