On 2/25/2015 6:02 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...


He is (deliberately) misrepresenting the discussion. The point was made
that the phasor was rotating clockwise, thus the angle decreasing, ie
becoming negative.

Untrue, no mention of the angle, as below ...

-----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:

Equally, it is easy to mis-interpret the maths as Gareth has done in:

cos(wt) = 1/2 * ( e^(jwt) +e^(-jwt) )

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.

I see what you guys mean. He doesn't even understand what e^jwt is. He
sees it as no different from e^wt.

--

Rick

On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 25/02/15 08:53, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:


Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Sadly, Gareth absolutely cannot explain it. He doesn't remotely
understand
anything he's talking about, as per.


That is a major part of his problem. He just isn't up to the level of
technical stuff he aspires to, in fact he has glaring gaps in even the
basics.

I don't see that as a fault. I often tackle difficult issues I don't
understand in the hope of learning more.


Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even
that is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme
steps.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many are
so happy to pile on and give the guy grief.


As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.

It's good to eat your vegetables too, but how many actually do it?

--

Rick

On 2/25/2015 5:39 AM, 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.

Yeah, well this is not really correct unless I misunderstand what you
mean by "decreases". When the j factor is included in the exponent of
e, the function changes dramatically so that it does *not* exponentially
decrease in magnitude as t increases.

--

Rick

I think that the problem here is that a good question was asked and it has been turned into a ****ing match.

Its not about who is smarter then who, but answering the question in a fashionable manner.

Here is an observation that I am going to make and maybe some forum members can comment in a positive manner.

For the first 70 years of radio, it has been the amateurs that has come up with the new technology. This technology was then transferred to the commercial side of radio.

Even the slow scan television that was used by NASA when they landed on the moon.

Today the technology is developed for public service radio and then it is converted to be used by amateur radio - after it is perfected by field testing it on the amateur radio frequencies..

You see - the problem is that there isn't any bandwidth left on the public service frequencies and so anything that they implement has to work before they deploy it.

It has nothing to do with using the frequencies that we have been given - more efficiently. Heck we have whole segments of bandwidth that isn't even used in most area's of the country.

Our biggest problem is that we use these frequencies for free, while other entities such as cellular telephone is willing to pay for that bandwidth.
Eventually what is going to happen is that it is going to be taken away from the amateurs, which is the reason why we left the barn door open and left the morons into amateur radio so we could swell our ranks so we could justify keeping the bandwidth given to us.

Talk around the FCC is that the FCC has received proposals to revoke privileges on the HF bands to operate AM Phone.
Most of the amateurs that uses digital is screaming for a larger portion of the spectrum to be set aside for digital only and to keep CW and phone away from their frequencies. As the rule is now written, you can operate CW anywhere on most any HF band.

The only way to give the digital people the bandwidth that they require is to take bandwidth away from others such as phone operators.
The only place they can take it from would be the amateur extra portion of the bands.

There has also been petitions filed to allow amateurs with just a technician class license to operate digital modes on more bands then just 10 meters and up. The FCC's response has been if they want to work digital that they need to upgrade their license. This is how the incentive license program works. Our problem is that the people that are lowly technicians are just technicians because they are either too stupid to pass another 35 question test or they are too lazy to take the test to get a General Class License...

"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
It all sprang from Gareth being corrected over one of his routine total
misunderstandings and he went off the deep end about it, as per, and cooked
up "Big K", a Time Cube like confabulation and misrepresentation of known
physics. Some time later, after receiving much mocking, he declared that
he'd found some obscure textbook (AIUI, nobody has been able to verify the
contents of this supposed textbook, or even its existence) that proved that
he was correct and that every other person on the planet was wrong and
always had been. Thereafter, he refused to be drawn further on "Big K",
saying that he had settled the matter "to [his] satisfaction".

But ... if EVERYONE else was wrong that included the author of the booK
he was quoting from.
Time for a drinK

Paradoxes abound in Gareth's world.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Michael Black wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, gareth wrote:

What is the point of digital voice when there are already AM, SSB
and FM for those who want to appear indistinguishable from CBers?

Perhaps it is cynicism from the manufacturers who introduce such things
as they see their traditional highly-priced corner of the market
being wiped away by SDR technologies?

Because it's something new, at least to amateur radio.

The phasing method of sideband was common in the early days of amateur
SSB (I recall reading the first rigs were filter type, but with really
low IFs, then phasing, then crystal and mechanical filters took over from
phasing). It offered up a lot on transmit and receive, though not perfection.

But now phasing is used a lot, because digital circuitry has made it
viable. I remember seeing some of the potential when phasing was still
analog, but I also remember reading articles where it was clear others
didn't see the potential. Sometimes ideas become lost when something
becomes commonplace.

Who knows what would come from digital voice. But I remember 30 years
ago one local ham being interested in it, not to the extent of putting
something on the air, but as information from the computer world started
flowing in, the potential started being there. YOu can't resist new
things and say "they have no use", you have to embrace the new and see
what can be done with it. Maybe not as initially seen, but maybe it fits
in somewhere else.

Amateur radio has never done much with envelope elimination and
restoration (was that what it was called? I now forget). It's in one of
the sideband books, and Karl Meinzer of AMSAT fame wrote about it in QST
about 1970. Break the SSB signal into two components, so you can
multiply it up to a higher frequency, then modulate the output stage. If
you have an efficient modulator, you can do away with linear amplifiers
(which is why it was in that SSB book). I gather he used the scheme in
at least one of the amateur satellites after Oscar 6.

But what happens in the digital age? Can you generate the two streems,
in essence but not so simple an FM component and an AM component, without
needing to generate SSB and then extract the two streams? I don't know,
but so much digital processing is being done now, it may be something to
look into. With solid state devices and class D amplifiers, modulating
high level class C amplifiers can't be as much trouble as in the old
days. Maybe it amounts to nothing, but maybe it overall becomes more
efficient, if it can be done.

Maybe there's no value to digital voice, except that in the process of
learnign about it, and implementing it, one can learn something. Maybe
something merely new to the person learning, but maybe something
completely new. No advances are made without learning, the learning
triggers new advances.

Michael

You do realise that you're responding to a troll post, right?

Only because you continue to keep that war going even as it spills out of the UK newsgroup.

I didnt' "feed the troll", you do that all the time by keeping up the
vendetta. I chose to say something about the topic, certainly about how
ideas advance, and it exists whether or not he is a troll.

Michael

Sadly, Michael, your efforts were wasted on Gareth. He wouldn't have
understood a single word you said.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:56:42 -0500, rickman wrote:



I see what you guys mean. He doesn't even understand what e^jwt is. He
sees it as no different from e^wt.

He's a polyidiot - there really is no boundary to his idiocy.

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even
that is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme
steps.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many are so
happy to pile on and give the guy grief.

The reason that it isn't so good is that it is untrue.

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 5:39 AM, 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.

Yeah, well this is not really correct unless I misunderstand what you mean
by "decreases". When the j factor is included in the exponent of e, the
function changes dramatically so that it does *not* exponentially decrease
in magnitude as t increases.

WHS

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Sadly, Michael, your efforts were wasted on Gareth. He wouldn't have
understood a single word you said.

You continue to post messages which are nothing but abuse.