Hc1: Fill & Download for Free

Let's make analog NF filter of order 5 using Butterworth, Chebyshev filter of type 1 and Chebyshev filter of type 2. I will take R_p=1, R_s = 20. Where R_p is maximum allowed attenuation, and R_s is the minimum required amplification.Here's code in Matlab:N = 5; Rp = 1; Rs = 20; w = logspace(-1, 1);  %filter construction   [zB, pB, kB] = buttap(N);  bB = kB*poly(zB);  aB = poly(pB);  [zC1, pC1, kC1] = cheb1ap(N,Rp);  bC1 = kC1*poly(zC1); aC1 = poly(pC1);  [zC2, pC2, kC2] = cheb2ap(N, Rs); bC2 = kC2*poly(zC2); aC2 = poly(pC2);   %amplitude and phase characteristics of each filter  hB = freqs(bB, aB, w); HB = abs(hB); phaseB = phase(hB);  hC1 = freqs(bC1, aC1, w); HC1 = abs(hC1); phaseC1 = phase(hC1);  hC2 = freqs(bC2, aC2, w); HC2 = abs(hC2); phaseC2 = phase(hC2);  %attenuation characteristic of each filter  SB = ones(size(HB))./HB; SC1 = ones(size(HC1))./HC1; SC2 = ones(size(HC2))./HC2;  %drawing of amplitude characteristics in linear scale  figure(1) semilogx(w, HB, w, HC1, w, HC2);  %drawing of amplitude characteristics in logarithmic scale  figure(2) loglog(w, HB, w, HC1, w, HC2);  %comparison of attenuation characteristics  figure(3) loglog(w, SB, w, SC1, w, SC2);  %comparison of phase characteristics  figure(4) semilogx(w, phaseB, w, phaseC1, w, phaseC2); Here are the pictures:Where color blue stands for Butterworth, green for Chebyshev filter of type 1, and red for Chebyshev filter of type 2.From here we see that:At the start of pass range the best results come from Cheb2, and after that Butterworth. Cheb1 isn't that well there.As far as the slope is concerned Cheb2 gives the closes thing there is to a vertical line, and Butt is the worst since the range of transition is the biggest one.In the stop range the best one is Cheb1 and Butt since they have far bigger attenuation. But this isn't really an advantage since all filters provide minimum required attenuation.We want the phase characteristics that is as close as possible to linear, so for that matter the best one is Butt and after that Cheb1.As far as the realization goes, the best ones are Butt and Cheb1 since it's easier to make them.

Exercise is of paramount importance onboard the ISS. The crew must rigorously exercise in order to stave off muscle and bone loss. They are scheduled for 2.5 hours of exercise each day. Both the US and Russian segments have equipment that allows the crew to perform most of the exercises that the typical Earth-bound gym does. They can bicycle, run, and lift weights.BicyclingUS Segment: CEVIS (Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization)Russian Segment: VELO (bicycle ergometer)RunningUS Segment: T-2 (AKA COLBERT) (Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill)Russian Segment: TVIS (Treadmill with Vibration Isolation & Stabilization) (Service Module)Weight-liftingUS Segment: ARED (Advanced Resistive Exercise Device)Russian Segment: HC1 (force loader)ARED provides resistance of up to 600 lbs using vacuum cylinders and flywheels. The crew can do a full spectrum of exercises such as deadlifts, squats, calf raises, bicep curls, tricep extensions, hip adductions, and bench presses.

I still have my HVR-A1, which was the professional version of the HDR-HC1. If you’re asking why regular amateurs didn’t buy the HDR-HC1 for better video, I might as well ask why anyone would buy the HDR-HC1 and have to deal with terrible audio. Audio is at least as important as video.And consider, too, that these cameras were not quite full HD. They shot in 1080i60, 1080i50, and maybe 720p50/60, though many did not. And that wasn’t square pixels. The HDV standard — the video the HVR-A1 wrote to tape — was 1440x1080 pixels, although the sensor was an honest 1920x1080. Many pro HD cameras of the day didn’t deliver real HD, just “better than SD”. But the HVR-A1, with its single-chip sensor, was terrible in low light.The fact is, when I bought the HVR-A1, it was about $2,600 for a full system. The average consumer camcorder in those days ran around $350, and they didn’t shoot 240p, they shot 480i. In fact, they only shot 480i… most consumer camcorders in 2005 only had one video mode: 480i60 in North America and Japan, 576i50 everywhere else. A few SD cameras may have shot 480p24 “NTSC Film" mode to tape, that about the only option in that generation… 24p pretending to be 60i. Tape didn’t allow much flexibility in video format… it wasn’t until cameras moved to memory card media that shooting options got really flexible.It’s presumptive, ignorant, and perhaps a little childish to call these people “stupid”. They were actually smart enough to understand that they were just shooting home videos, and that HD did them absolutely no good at that time. Most people in 2005 didn’t have HDTV.Almost no one in 2005 had the means to deliver a consumer-ready HD video in any format, because there was no high definition consumer video format. The HD Disc format war didn’t start until 2006, and it didn’t end until 2008. HD Disc writers: BD-R or HD-DVD-R, were a huge gamble during the format war, so very few existed. Practically no one bought HD videotape for home viewing. Most people didn’t even have HD television.Most PCs couldn’t play back HD video, much less render it. And even when they could, they didn’t have the storage to make that practical. HDV video is about 12GB/hour. Small for today, huge for 2015. A typical PC in 2005 had a 100–200GB hard drive. That’s maybe enough for one video project. The first time I rendered HD video from my HVR-A1 to a distribution format, my early-era 1GHz processor took 28 hours to render an hour of video. And don’t even think about actually editing on a PC like that. I spend another $2500+ upgrading to a bleeding edge PC when I started dealing with HD video back in the day.