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

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

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

Well, Brian, it is actually you above who is resorting to abuse as your
contribution
to what was a technical discussion.

What is it that makes you want to come across as a complete fool by
blurting out silly infantile remarks in an international forum?

Shame on you.

"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?

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.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
He struggled with the idea that, as the phasor rotated, the angle became
more negative, and thus decreased. eg -20 -10

Brian, is there some truth in G7FUJ, Cum's assertion that you were
dismissed without references from your job as a mathematics teacher,
for your confusion about a change in direction of a phasor as you
express above would be very worrying?

When you say "more", in "more negative" above, you are saying
that the magnitude of the angle is increasing

There seems to be a fundamental problem in your grasp of the direction
of vectors, because there is nothing beween clockwise and anti-clockwise,
left and right, up and down, or, in this case, negative and positive, for
they
are merely words used to disnmbiguate the direction of the vector.

Brian, why don't you just give up whilst you are still behind?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

You been shot down again.
You are hurling abuse, as you always do.
Only you thinks otherwise.
Everyone else is laughing at you.

Well, brian, once again I re-iterate that it is only you who
is hurling abuse, just as you do above.

Shame on you.

Why do you behave like that when it is you who has repeatedly-ad-nauseam
raised the spectre of DSP mathematics over the past week; why resort to
rather
silly and infantile abuse; why not discuss the technical matter that you
have
raised over and over again?

Why resort to abuse when you have been challenged, for despite what you
say, I do not?

"gareth" wrote in message
...

We should not forget that he who sneers loud and long about others' grasp
of
the mathematics of DSP maintains that changing the direction of a rotating
vector
(A Phasor, and not related to the weapons of Star Trek!) causes it to
decrease in sixe.

Interesting that I mentioned no names but someone appeared in the NG to
sneer long and loud!

Brian Reay wrote:
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

That Gareth is still stewing over the correction you gave him 11 years ago
underlines his mental instability.

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

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




laughing at others would appear to be your speciality.......

"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?

For those who might have missed it, quoted above is reay's attempt
"to stir up trouble and create a row" by being the first to discuss DSP.

However, the point of my challenge above was to lay to rest (yet another???)
of reay's infantile sneers when it seems that he has no answer and is hoist
by
his own petard because he hasn't "understood say, super regeneration, after
40
years"

(And he has had more than enough time to google for the answer and get it
wrong, just as he did with the BC221 frequency meter)