"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Paradoxes abound in Gareth's world.

You continue to post messages that are merely a vehicle for abuse.

Why not prove me wrong and make a contribution relevant to the
technical matters about which you sneer, lest you be perceived
as an empty vessel making much noise?

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
After all, if they haven't understood say, super regeneration, after 40
years, what hope is there for their understanding, say, DSP?

Put your money where your (big) mouth is and explain to all why a
super-regenerative receiver will not resolve CW or SSB, when the
oscilation, although quenched, is effectively amplitude modulated
by the quenching?

Brian?

Hullo?

Are you there?

Here is your big chance to prove your superiority of knowledge about
the super-regrenerative method, but you've gone strangely silent, which
is a bit bizarre when you consider how many times you have oft
repeated your childish sneer?

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in
:


"robert bristow-johnson" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/15 12:46 PM, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
As I said, as I had some difficulties which were resolved, that
places me
in
a good position to
assist others who may also have such difficulties.



don't worry about it...teechers don't do nuffin wurfwhile at skool
....


yoos to b i cudn't even spel injunear, now i arr won.

--

r b-j

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


fenestrating.....



Defenestration would be a better option as far as some here are
concerned.

"Bernie" wrote in message
...
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.

Q: What's the difference between intelligence and stupidity?

A: Intelligence is limited.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On 25/02/15 18:24, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 11:54 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
"gareth" wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Isn't that a valid example of a
negative frequency? There are some DSP experts in comp.dsp who talk about
negative frequency often.

If you, or, indeed, anyone else has any difficulties with the subject matter
and DSP in general, then do ask me, because having worked through
what appeared as a number of anomalies (all resolved 9 years ago
when I was working as a DSP manufacturer, picoChip in Bath, UK)
I feel sure that I'm well positioned to understand the difficulties that
others might encounter in this area.

WARNING! Make sure to search the archives and read all about his "Big K"
theory before taking seriously anything Gareth says about DSP. It'll
quickly become apparent that he has no understanding whatsoever of the
subject and you'll save yourself from wasting any time talking to him about
it.

Interestingly, the true experts of comp.dsp refer to Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW as "that idiot from uk.radio.amateur".

LOL! I see this is cross posted to comp.dsp. I don't feel like
researching the "Big K" theory, but I would be interested in hearing a
bit if anyone cares to share the humor.

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".


To clarify:


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

He did vary his 'problem' from time to time (as he usually does) but the
above was the general theme.

As you say, he insisted everyone was wrong and simply 'followed the text
books' without understanding them.

Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a
cosine identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that
level or it was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave for
others to decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13) knows
that sines, cosines, etc. refer to angles.

This is just one of his many bogus theories. Of course, everyone has to
learn but the thing with him is that he spends his time being abusive to
newcomers etc. when it is clear that his own technical abilities are, at
best, somewhat limited. Plus, of course, his habit of being abusive is
hardly conducive to people treating him as someone who is deserving of
help and assistance. Especially, when he starts taking his abuse to
extremes.

He seems to fill his days by trying to stir up rows and upset people. He
hasn't realised he has the 'village idiot', a malicious one, but still
the village idiot who people laugh at. He has a fan club of similar
village idiots who seem to have similar backgrounds (unhappy careers
etc.) and it is quite amusing to watch their antics and mutual back
slapping at times. They remind me of the 'bad guy' in the Cartoon series
called 'Whacky Races', whose plans always went wrong. The only
difference is, there is a pack of 'Multy the Dogs'.

Anyway, I'm going to see if I can work a few more stations then turn in.
Busy day tomorrow.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
To clarify:
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
He did vary his 'problem' from time to time (as he usually does) but the
above was the general theme.
As you say, he insisted everyone was wrong and simply 'followed the text
books' without understanding them.
Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a cosine
identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that level or it
was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave for others to
decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13) knows that sines,
cosines, etc. refer to angles.
This is just one of his many bogus theories. Of course, everyone has to
learn but the thing with him is that he spends his time being abusive to
newcomers etc. when it is clear that his own technical abilities are, at
best, somewhat limited. Plus, of course, his habit of being abusive is
hardly conducive to people treating him as someone who is deserving of
help and assistance. Especially, when he starts taking his abuse to
extremes.
He seems to fill his days by trying to stir up rows and upset people. He
hasn't realised he has the 'village idiot', a malicious one, but still the
village idiot who people laugh at. He has a fan club of similar village
idiots who seem to have similar backgrounds (unhappy careers etc.) and it
is quite amusing to watch their antics and mutual back slapping at times.
They remind me of the 'bad guy' in the Cartoon series called 'Whacky
Races', whose plans always went wrong. The only difference is, there is a
pack of 'Multy the Dogs'.
Anyway, I'm going to see if I can work a few more stations then turn in.
Busy day tomorrow.

Once more brian you turn your hand to tirades of completely false personal
abusive remarks
in the manner of a 5-year-old.

Shame on you.

And a bit rich for you to accuse another of, "He seems to fill his days by
trying to stir up rows and upset people"!

Physician, heal thyself.

On 2/25/2015 5:21 PM, gareth wrote:
"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.

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long ago...

--

Rick

On 2/25/2015 8:53 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 5:21 PM, gareth wrote:
"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.

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long ago...


Pot - kettle - black.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

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

On 2/25/2015 10:52 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/25/2015 8:53 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/25/2015 5:21 PM, gareth wrote:
"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.

Huh? Are you still here? I thought you would have gone home long ago...


Pot - kettle - black.

I've got my very own personal troll... lol

--

Rick

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 voice of reason.....amazing