"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
His 'problem' was that he insisted that the use of the Dirac Delta (which
is 'infinite in amplitude and infinitely narrow') needed to be compensated
for by 1/K , his Big K. According to his theory, K need to by 'Big' to
compensate for the amplitude of the Dirac Delta.
Eventually, he claimed that he hadn't noticed (in the mystery book) the
1/T term (which appears in the standard formula) served the same purpose,
and thus his theory was correct and all he had done was to have 'missed'
the 1/T term. This was 'dubious' for the simple reason he had missed it
for years alone. It would be in ANY book on the topic. However, it was
technically flawed, as he thought the T referred the width of the sampling
pulse. Not only wasn't that 'large' (or Big as in his Big K) but it
doesn't refer to the width of the pulse, it is the spacing or of the
pulses. This was explained at the time, it is all in the archive, as is
his abusive responses

Brian, M3OSN, Old Chum, get a grip, for you are picking up and
resuming an argument from 10 years ago on a matter that was resolved
satisfactorily 9 years ago.

Is your life _REALLY_ that shallow and lacking in substance?

Can you really be the same brian reay who in almost the
same breath talked about others with nothing to do bouncing
off the walls in their spartan hovels?

Ye gods and little fishes!