On 25/02/15 11:24, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
On 25/02/15 10:39, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or
how
does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change its
"size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a + to
a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?
Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?
Not my gibberish, refer to the original posting ...
-----ooooo-----
From: "Brian Reay"
Newsgroups: alt.engineering.electrical,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Phase noise
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:54 -0000
Message-ID:
The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt)
which
is a value that decreases as t increasing.
See, he has trimmed his part, which clearly didn't refer to the true usage
of negative frequency. I simply over estimated is ability to grasp the
meaning of what I'd said without more detail. This was obvious as he also
claimed claimed that division was impossible with complex numbers.
He will attempt to drag this out, as he always does, but a look in the
archive will show his claims to be nonsense. He drags this up from time to
time, generally after a drubbing, He really doesn't like being proven
wrong. Look at the date, he has been dragging this up with boring
regularity since then. I've lost count of the times it has been explained
to him. He has finally got the idea of the clockwise rotating phasor. He
struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the angle became more
negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

Well, brian, once again you resort to personal abuse which is not
recommended
for giving the impression that you are a competent engineering grownup
engaging
in an international debate.

You are correct in that you point out that I trimmed the post, and I did so
to limit
it to answer the question that was posed by Rickman

There was nothing in Rickman's query about negative frequency so I do not
see what it is that you are setting out to achieve by introducing that
non-sequitur
of a red herring?



You been shot down again.

You are hurling abuse, as you always do.

Only you thinks otherwise.

Everyone else is laughing at you.