"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...
I think we wound up this way because some people tend to think more
"comfortably" when they treat RF as a rotating vector, instead of a
recurring sine curve. I'm not one of them and omega-t has always been a
pain.

It's another example of a little advancement in mathematics making your
whole life
easier because if you use the complex representation of cos(wt) as ..

( e^(jwt) + e^(-jwt) ) / 2

.... then it is much much easier to differentiate and
integrate exponentials than it is trig functions.

In the complex expressions above, you do, indeed, have two counter-rotating
vectors, but the simple addition of the two leaves you with a real graphical
quantity only, the
cosine that you love.

"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" wrote in message
...

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...
I think we wound up this way because some people tend to think more
"comfortably" when they treat RF as a rotating vector, instead of a
recurring sine curve. I'm not one of them and omega-t has always been a
pain.

It's another example of a little advancement in mathematics making your
whole life
easier because if you use the complex representation of cos(wt) as ..

( e^(jwt) + e^(-jwt) ) / 2

.... then it is much much easier to differentiate and
integrate exponentials than it is trig functions.

In the complex expressions above, you do, indeed, have two counter-rotating
vectors, but the simple addition of the two leaves you with a real graphical
quantity only, the
cosine that you love.

================================================== ==========

Sure enough but I dislike the whole process of RF analysis. It stems
entirely from the fact that I'm no good at it. I struggle, I get it wrong
and I wish I had never started.

Aversion is a good teacher. Thus, I have learned, as I age, not to start
things I know I will not like.

Add "baking" to that list, if you would be so kind. :-)

"Sal"