|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > August 2007 > Difficulties in understanding e^(-jwt)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Difficulties in understanding e^(-jwt)
|
|
| Anonymous. 2007-08-22, 1:25 pm |
| In message <brep3e$2keco$1@ID-140397.news.uni-berlin.de> which was published
in these
newsgroups on 13 Dec 2003, the following is asserted.....
"The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
is a value that decreases as t increasing. "
Surely this is quite wrong?
Surely e^(-jwt) is a cyclic phenomenon, the value, or modulus, of
which remains absolutely constant and of the value unity?
| |
|
| "Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fahqgi$sp3$1@aioe.org...
> In message <brep3e$2keco$1@ID-140397.news.uni-berlin.de> which was
> published in these
> newsgroups on 13 Dec 2003, the following is asserted.....
>
> "The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to "minus
> time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
> is a value that decreases as t increasing. "
>
> Surely this is quite wrong?
I remember it well. I later found out that the statement was correct.
Blair
| |
| Salmon Egg 2007-08-22, 5:25 pm |
| On 8/22/07 10:07 AM, in article fahqgi$sp3$1@aioe.org, "Anonymous."
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
> In message <brep3e$2keco$1@ID-140397.news.uni-berlin.de> which was published
> in these
> newsgroups on 13 Dec 2003, the following is asserted.....
>
> "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. "
>
> Surely this is quite wrong?
>
> Surely e^(-jwt) is a cyclic phenomenon, the value, or modulus, of
> which remains absolutely constant and of the value unity?
>
>
Please do not take this the wrong way. You need a bit more experience and
understanding in order to interpret this notation well.
e^(jwt) = exp(jwt) or e^(-jwt) = exp(-jwt) is talking about mathematical
notation. exp(jwt) = cos(wt) + j*sin(wt). If you do not understand that and
how to get the equivalent for exp(-jwt), you should not go any further until
you understand the mathematics in terms of elementary exponential and
trigonometric functions and complex notation. There is no point in moving on
to electrical applications unless you are willing to settle for monkey see,
monkey do.
This notation is usefully applied to electrical circuits and other
applications because derivatives of exponential functions are the same
functions except for scale factors. If you used sines and cosines, you would
get similar (sine wave) functions but shifted in time. It turns out, in the
long run, that the conversion to imaginary exponentials makes life simpler
than using mixed sine and cosine expressions.
For most lumped linear circuits, analysis consists of solving a linear
differential equation (DE) with constant coefficients driven by a sine wave.
The conversion to complex notation converts the solution of the DE into the
solution of a polynomial algebraic equation.
Bill
--
Fermez le Bush--less than 18 months to go.
| |
| Anonymous 2007-08-22, 5:25 pm |
|
"Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C2F1D203.9543F%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
> Please do not take this the wrong way. You need a bit more experience and
> understanding in order to interpret this notation well.
You are incapable of admitting when you are in the wrong.
Your response above is that of a disruptive maladjusted child, squirming
evasively, changing the subject and lashing out.
Shame on you, Salmon Egg.
Grow up! Stupid boy!
| |
| Anonymous 2007-08-22, 5:25 pm |
|
"Blair" <bfonvil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fahs4i$1ov$1@aioe.org...
> I remember it well. I later found out that the statement was correct.
On a daily basis, this NG is a forum seemingly for escapees from the school
playground, with gratuitous and offensive personal remarks originating from
even those who have not been part of a conversation and who could have no
reason, other than uncontrolled infantile emotions, for interjecting as they
do.
Is such public and international demonstrations really the way forward; the
way for PR for the future of Ham Radio. I say, "No!".
I cannot see how something that is a technical pursuit with traditions of
gentlemanly behaviour could possibly give way to the childish sneering that
is typical of this NG."
Really Blair, the number of times you appear here with the intention of
flinging infantile insults says more about you than perhaps you had hoped
for.
Grow up, Blair!
| |
| Sponger's Conscience 2007-08-22, 8:25 pm |
|
"Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C2F1D203.9543F%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
> trigonometric functions and complex notation. There is no point in moving
> on
> to electrical applications unless you are willing to settle for monkey
> see,
> monkey do.
Beanie can do that. He's the biggest monkey in this NG!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| I will not get into this.,
though I am tempted.
Once you I numbers deep there is no turning back, and it usually leads
right out the door with convention 
=AE
| |
| Don Kelly 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
| "Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fahqgi$sp3$1@aioe.org...
> In message <brep3e$2keco$1@ID-140397.news.uni-berlin.de> which was
> published in these
> newsgroups on 13 Dec 2003, the following is asserted.....
>
> "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. "
>
> Surely this is quite wrong?
>
> Surely e^(-jwt) is a cyclic phenomenon, the value, or modulus, of
> which remains absolutely constant and of the value unity?
>
--
It is wrong in the interpretation which appears to be based on real numbers.
You have it right but in light of your reaction to Salmon Egg's comments, it
seems that you really don't know why.
He was simply pointing out that you should know that and what he said is
absolutely correct. Your reaction to his comment was rather childish.
Look up Euler's equation and the whole concept of complex numbers
e^jwt =cos(wt-jsin(wt)
e^-jwt =cos(wt)-jsin(wt) which happens to be 1/e^jwt
--
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
| |
| Salmon Egg 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
| On 8/22/07 1:50 PM, in article fai7cn$1h5$1@aioe.org, "Anonymous"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> "Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:C2F1D203.9543F%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
>
> You are incapable of admitting when you are in the wrong.
>
> Your response above is that of a disruptive maladjusted child, squirming
> evasively, changing the subject and lashing out.
>
> Shame on you, Salmon Egg.
>
> Grow up! Stupid boy!
>
>
>
I am sorry for you, but not what I posted.
--
If intelligent design trumps evolution, please explain hemorrhoids.
| |
|
|
"Salmon Egg" wrote
> On 8/22/07 1:50 PM, "Anonymous" wrote:
>
> I am sorry for you, but not what I posted.
He's acting true to form. You give him an opinion which he doesn't like and
he slags you off.
And you wonder why the OP is unemployed and unemployable.
What he doesn't realise is that most employers now do websearches to
determine the strengths, weaknesses and overall merits of a prospective
employee.
| |
| Brian Reay 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
| "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Q57zi.82544$fJ5.28921@pd7urf1no...
> It is wrong in the interpretation which appears to be based on real
numbers.
No, it is based on looking at the direction of rotation- CCW or CW. Taking
CCW as +ve (the normal convention), CW is -ve. So a CCW rotation increases
the argument whereas a CW rotation decreases it. Around time the original
post was made Anonymous (under one of his many aliases) had been posting of
negative frequency and the context was clear to all but him. His
confusion is clear enough, especially as he recently added the word "size"
into his argument (as in "his case", not angle).
> You have it right but in light of your reaction to Salmon Egg's comments,
> it seems that you really don't know why.
> He was simply pointing out that you should know that and what he said is
> absolutely correct. Your reaction to his comment was rather childish.
Well, that is normal of for him. Over the years, I've tried to educate this
fellow (as have many others) and he always reacts like this. Sometimes I
just leave him to rant on, he seems happier that way.
> Look up Euler's equation and the whole concept of complex numbers
>
> e^jwt =cos(wt-jsin(wt)
I'm sure you mean:
e^jwt = cos (wt) + jsin (wt)
> e^-jwt =cos(wt)-jsin(wt) which happens to be 1/e^jwt
Oh, I remember showing the sock puppeteer that on one of the newsgroups. He
has previously claimed that division isn't valid in complex numbers.
Unless you want him stomping all over alt.engineering.electrical, I suggest
you let him stew.
--
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
| "Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C2F1D203.9543F%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
> On 8/22/07 10:07 AM, in article fahqgi$sp3$1@aioe.org, "Anonymous."
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Please do not take this the wrong way. You need a bit more experience and
> understanding in order to interpret this notation well.
Thank-you for your extended reply. Unfortunately you have
missed the boat. The point of my posts was to draw attention
to the heinous error, "is a value that decreases as t increasing"
which was published by a teacher of mathematics in Britland.
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
| "Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C2F25E1B.9579B%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
> On 8/22/07 1:50 PM, in article fai7cn$1h5$1@aioe.org, "Anonymous"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> I am sorry for you, but not what I posted.
Unfortunately you have responded to one of my stalkers and not to me.
He is Nathan Hull with the CB Handle of G7KUJ and posts with the
id of "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org". Many of his posts
are parodies of what I post and for many months he has masqueraded
as me, and usually adopts the pseudonym that I do shortly after I change
pseudonym because of his harassment, in this case "Anonymous".
Nathan Hull is one sick, sick kiddie.
I post with the id of "Z3IpgFh83JnnDIiU15n1gQ.user.aioe.org".
However, I note that you feel sorry for him, as do I.
(I had already responded to your first post)
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
|
"Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fai7l5$2f7$1@aioe.org...
> "Blair" <bfonvil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fahs4i$1ov$1@aioe.org...
> On a daily basis, this NG is a forum seemingly for escapees from the
> school playground, with gratuitous and offensive personal remarks
> originating from even those who have not been part of a conversation and
> who could have no reason, other than uncontrolled infantile emotions, for
> interjecting as they do.
> Is such public and international demonstrations really the way forward;
> the way for PR for the future of Ham Radio. I say, "No!".
> I cannot see how something that is a technical pursuit with traditions of
> gentlemanly behaviour could possibly give way to the childish sneering
> that is typical of this NG."
> Really Blair, the number of times you appear here with the intention of
> flinging infantile insults says more about you than perhaps you had hoped
> for.
> Grow up, Blair!
Unfortunately, another obsessive post from my stalker, Nathan Hull, G7KUJ.
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Q57zi.82544$fJ5.28921@pd7urf1no...
> "Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fahqgi$sp3$1@aioe.org...
> It is wrong in the interpretation which appears to be based on real
> numbers. You have it right but in light of your reaction to Salmon Egg's
> comments, it seems that you really don't know why.
Thank-you for your input, Don, but unfortunately you also have fallen from
the reaction
of my stalker, Nathan Hull, G7KUJ who posts as
"+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org", and who adopted the pseudonym
of "Anonymous" immediately after I changed to Anonymous.
He has also posted recently as...
Ne Plus Ultra, (Adopted immediately after me)
ne plus givre,
Lazy-Arsed Class A,
Gareth Tesla Evans, nee G8DXY,
pope benedict,
fr neil evans,
WPC Pullman,
Cool For Twats,
Beanie Simon,
Hypocrite,
Evans is a Lying Useless Sack of Shit,
Big K,
"Gugliemo Sponger Evans",
The G3VKI4KFK7KUJ Triumvirate of Mediocrity,
Counsellor for Comportment,
Dictator of Dogma,
Anonymous (Adopted immediately after me)
(Despite that I am gareth evans and my brother Fr. Neil Evans, but from
those two pseudonyms alone plus the abusive references to me you can
see that he is one sick, sick kiddie)
I post as "Z3IpgFh83JnnDIiU15n1gQ.user.aioe.org"
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Q57zi.82544$fJ5.28921@pd7urf1no...
> "Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fahqgi$sp3$1@aioe.org...
> --
> It is wrong in the interpretation which appears to be based on real
> numbers. Look up Euler's equation and the whole concept of complex numbers
> e^jwt =cos(wt-jsin(wt)
> e^-jwt =cos(wt)-jsin(wt) which happens to be 1/e^jwt
Indeed. However it was the blatant misunderstanding, "a value that
decreases as t increasing" that I was discussing.
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
|
"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:eY9zi.21930$ph7.15221@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Q57zi.82544$fJ5.28921@pd7urf1no...
> numbers.
>
> Anonymous (under one of his many aliases) had been posting of negative
> frequency and the context was clear to all but him. His confusion is
> clear enough, especially as he recently added the word "size" into his
> argument (as in "his case", not angle).
> Well, that is normal of for him. Over the years, I've tried to educate
> this fellow (as have many others) and he always reacts like this.
> Sometimes I just leave him to rant on, he seems happier that way.
> Oh, I remember showing the sock puppeteer that on one of the newsgroups.
> He has previously claimed that division isn't valid in complex numbers.
> Unless you want him stomping all over alt.engineering.electrical, I
> suggest you let him stew.
Brian Reay is unfortunately another person who has been stalking me
for several years and is well aware that the person who posts under
"+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org" is not I.
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 3:25 am |
|
"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:eY9zi.21930$ph7.15221@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Q57zi.82544$fJ5.28921@pd7urf1no...
> numbers.
> No, it is based on looking at the direction of rotation- CCW or CW.
> Taking CCW as +ve (the normal convention), CW is -ve. So a CCW rotation
> increases the argument whereas a CW rotation decreases it.
I think I can see where your misunderstanding arises. (In Britland, this
is easily covered by KS2, so see if you can sit it on a class given
by a competent maths teacher)
If there had been previously some rotation CCW, then a rotation CW
would represent a decrease BUT ONLY UNTIL THE ANGLE
CAME BACK TO ZERO, at which point the angle would then
grow in a negative direction, INCREASING.
However, this is all by the way. In the function e^(-jwt) there
NEVER WAS ANY CCW ROTATION, so that a statement to
the effect, " 1/(e^jwt) which is a value that decreases as t increasing"
is just plain hogwash and pig-ignorance and would be dangerous if
made by a schoolteacher.
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 9:25 am |
|
"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:eY9zi.21930$ph7.15221@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> Oh, I remember showing the sock puppeteer that on one of the newsgroups.
> He has previously claimed that division isn't valid in complex numbers.
As indeed it is not.
You can certainly evaluate a quotient by multiplying by unity
(a unity that is the quotient of the original denominator over
itself), but evaluating the quotient by the action of multiplication is not
the
action of division.
How would you evaluate (253 + 16j) / (4 +3j) by a dividing
process? Would you divide the 253 by the 4 in the first instance
or the 16j by the 3j?
Division is only valid for vector quantities when those vectors
are related by simple colinearity.
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-23, 5:25 pm |
|
"Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:faji7i$t94$1@aioe.org...
>
> You can certainly evaluate a quotient by multiplying by unity
> (a unity that is the quotient of the original denominator over
> itself), but evaluating the quotient by the action of multiplication is
> not the
> action of division.
Oops!
The _COMPLEX CONJUGATE_ of the original denominator over itself!
| |
|
|
"Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fajf6i$lcp$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eY9zi.21930$ph7.15221@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> I think I can see where your misunderstanding arises. (In Britland, this
> is easily covered by KS2, so see if you can sit it on a class given
> by a competent maths teacher)
>
> If there had been previously some rotation CCW, then a rotation CW
> would represent a decrease BUT ONLY UNTIL THE ANGLE
> CAME BACK TO ZERO, at which point the angle would then
> grow in a negative direction, INCREASING.
>
> However, this is all by the way. In the function e^(-jwt) there
> NEVER WAS ANY CCW ROTATION, so that a statement to
> the effect, " 1/(e^jwt) which is a value that decreases as t increasing"
> is just plain hogwash and pig-ignorance and would be dangerous if
> made by a schoolteacher.
It is you that is posting hogwash AND being very rude about it you jerk off.
Blair
| |
| Anonymous 2007-08-23, 8:25 pm |
|
"Blair" <bfonvil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fakrpl$nlh$1@aioe.org...
> It is you that is posting hogwash AND being very rude about it you jerk
> off.
I an never rude, nor have I ever used these International Fora to broadcast
hogwash.
It seems almost inconceivable that the contributors to the gangrenous
degeneration that is alt.electrical.engineering would have such a primitive
understanding of the level of arithmatic required to pass an examination
written for 6 year olds!
I append some text to disambiguate.
-----ooooo-----
Copyright 1999 G.A.Evans. All Rights Reserved.
OK, you're still with me - good! I am pleased that you are determined to
make the effort to improve yourselves. I was a bit worried that my audience
would consist of only negative CB whingers, who never get anywhere, and who
gripe persistently that we Radio Hams never do anything to encourage
newcomers. In fact, such is the bigotry of such whingers in this NG, that I
half expected them to interpret my opening comments in Lesson 1 as a polemic
against CBers. How wrong can you be!
Where do we go from here? OK. I'm going to take you through some essential
ideas in maths, and then I'm going to leave the maths behind for a while and
start
talking about electrical matters. (It's electricity that matters for Radio
Hams!) My first topic on electrical matters will be "Energy"; this should
give you advanced notice to enable you to think about what energy means to
you.
For the moment, though, let's get back to the maths.
Some of the topics I am going to cover may seem to you to be far too simple,
but let's get the foundations secure before we build the walls. The topics I
have
selected come from my experience as a part-time tutor in adult education,
dealing with the common problems that my students come up with.
Here's the road map :- Addition, Multiplication, Finish Off Addition,
Subtraction, Negative Numbers, Division, Fractions And Decimals, Brackets.
Algebraic Puzzles.
At this point, you will have enough under your belt to solve electrical
formulae, I will stress time and time again that THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN
MATHS - most of what you will come across will be a different way of writing
down something that you already know. The different way is a shorthand to
make life easy. But remember! If at any time you are confused by the new
short-hands, you can always go back and work in the older, simpler ways,
(although it might take you longer, you'll still get the correct answer!)
ADDITION
Suppose that you've got three eggs (and continuing my pun of "X's" for eggs,
you will have XXX.) Someone now gives you another five XXXXX. How many have
you got? Well, you put your three, XXX, next to the new five, XXXXX giving
you XXXXXXXX, and you count them again. This is the simple rule for
addition. You had three, you add another five, giving you eight. You don't
need to understand how to do adding, because after putting them together,
you can count them again from scratch.
OK. Suppose that your weekly income is £200, and you get a raise of £37
pounds per week, the same principle applies - put down 200 ticks, then write
down a further 37, and count them all from scratch - you're doing
addition.....
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX
This soon gets tedious, so let's devise a shorthand to make life easier -
but remember! You don't HAVE to use the shorthand, because it's just another
way of writing down something that you already know - you can carry on
putting down two lots of ticks next to each other, and count them all again
from scratch.
The short-hand is "5 + 3", where the "+" is known as a "Plus Sign". When you
see this Plus Sign ("+"), it means take the number on the left side, and
write down that many ticks. Then take the number on the right side, and
write down THAT many ticks, right next to the original group of ticks. Then
count how many ticks you've got altogether.
So, let's recap... you can see in the example TWO short hands, firstly the
use of "5" instead of "XXXXX", and then the use of "+" to read as the
instruction to do an addition. OK. I bet you've never seen that presented
like that before, but you see, even addition, which you did right in the
early days at school, is a convenient way OF WRITING DOWN SOMETHING ELSE
WHICH YOU ALREADY KNEW ABOUT.
Now, whether you do 5 + 3 :- XXXXX then XXX to give XXXXXXXX or 3 + 5 :- XXX
then XXXXX to give XXXXXXXX you get the same result. This effect is known in
the trade as "Commutativeness", which means "switching around". The word has
the same origin as the "commutator" in an electric motor which "switches
around" the coils in the armature.
OK, in the early days, one concept per lesson is more than enough. I need to
digress into multiplication in the next lesson, before I can finish with
addition.
| |
| Don Kelly 2007-08-24, 3:25 am |
|
----------------------------
"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:eY9zi.21930$ph7.15221@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Q57zi.82544$fJ5.28921@pd7urf1no...
> numbers.
>
> No, it is based on looking at the direction of rotation- CCW or CW.
> Taking CCW as +ve (the normal convention), CW is -ve. So a CCW rotation
> increases the argument whereas a CW rotation decreases it. Around time
> the original post was made Anonymous (under one of his many aliases) had
> been posting of negative frequency and the context was clear to all but
> him. His confusion is clear enough, especially as he recently added the
> word "size" into his argument (as in "his case", not angle).
------------
Read again- the interpretation that I said was wrong (and appeared to be
based on real numbers) is that e^-jwt decreases (in magnitude as I
assumed -otherwise it makes even less sense.) as t increases. However,
e^jwt is strictly a mathematical concept which happens to be useful in many
situations (particularly in electric circuit theory) but does't actually
directly describe something physically real.
--
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
>
>
> Well, that is normal of for him. Over the years, I've tried to educate
> this fellow (as have many others) and he always reacts like this.
> Sometimes I just leave him to rant on, he seems happier that way.
>
>
> I'm sure you mean:
>
> e^jwt = cos (wt) + jsin (wt)
>
>
> Oh, I remember showing the sock puppeteer that on one of the newsgroups.
> He has previously claimed that division isn't valid in complex numbers.
>
>
> Unless you want him stomping all over alt.engineering.electrical, I
> suggest you let him stew.
>
> --
> 73
> Brian, G8OSN
> www.g8osn.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-24, 3:25 am |
|
"Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fal1kr$903$1@aioe.org...
>
> Copyright 1999 G.A.Evans. All Rights Reserved.
>
Nathan Hull G7KUJ posting as, "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org" at
least
acknowledges my copyright.
One is forced to ask, however, what it is that Nathan Hull G7KUJ hopes
to achieve by flooding this thread with evidence of his mentally deficient
obsession? Has he no life of worth of his own?
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-24, 3:25 am |
| "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%hszi.86344$rX4.29132@pd7urf2no...
> "Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eY9zi.21930$ph7.15221@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> ------------
> Read again- the interpretation that I said was wrong (and appeared to be
> based on real numbers) is that e^-jwt decreases (in magnitude as I
> assumed -otherwise it makes even less sense.) as t increases.
Brian Reay take note!
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-24, 3:25 am |
| "Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:T_vzi.29743$rr5.24761@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> "Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fam0r7$9t4$1@aioe.org...
> I have, as he points out you interpreted as the real numbers which I was
> not implying. You are still hung up on what happens when you pass through
> zero. Until you master directed numbers, you will keep getting it wrong.
But the whole idea of directed numbers is that the direction changes when
you pass through zero, and you then _INCREASE_!! Brian, please think
about what you type in your desperation to divert attention away from your
own error!
You're digging a bigger hole for yourself in attempting to divert a
technical
discussion into one of a slanging match. That you try to do this shows to
a greater and greater extent the error in your original publication. What is
of
concern is that you are a teacher of mathematics, the truth basis of all
science
and yet here you are, not only spouting nonsense, but also seeking to defend
nonsense!
> Now, we could try getting you to understand directed numbers and why,
> for example -5 < 1 is a valid statement, as is -PI/2 < PI/2
> (which is at the centre of this problem) but you don't want to learn and
> there is nothing in it for me to educate you. Plus, as I said before, you
> are unlikely ever to teach anyone and I doubt you ever get to use this in
> a real application, so please continue as you are. You can write up your
> collected works covering heat bands, nuclear emissions, DSP, complex
> numbers, "whizzing electrons", etc....................... in your own
> time.
As I said above, you're digging a bigger hole for yourself in attempting to
divert a technical
discussion into one of a slanging match.
Brian, you are pathologically incapable of recognising or even admitting,
when you are in error, to the extent that you even removed the cross-post
to alt.engineering.electrical to prevent those in the know witnessing your
further
squirming.
Did you not notice that Don Kelly's remarks,.....
"Read again- the interpretation
that I said was wrong (and appeared to be based on real numbers) is that
e^-jwt decreases (in magnitude as I assumed -otherwise it makes even less
sense.) as t increases.".....
referred only to _YOUR_ assertions and not to anything that I had posted.
It referred to _YOUR_ assertions and not to any interpretation that I had
put on them.
Give up now while you're still on a losing streak!
| |
| Anonymous. 2007-08-24, 3:25 am |
|
"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:T_vzi.29743$rr5.24761@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> "Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fam0r7$9t4$1@aioe.org...
>
> I have, as he points out you interpreted as the real numbers which I was
> not implying.
That doesn't make any sense, which wouldn't matter except for you being
a schoolteacher. Are you claiming that you measure
angles using something other than real numbers?
Brian! Stop and think what you type!
| |
|
|
"Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fajd9u$gc4$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fai7l5$2f7$1@aioe.org...
>
> Unfortunately, another obsessive post from my stalker, Nathan Hull, G7KUJ.
>
>
Pray tell how you figured that one out?! No wonder you are unemployable -
your logic is perma-flawed!!!
| |
|
|
"Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C2F1D203.9543F%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
> On 8/22/07 10:07 AM, in article fahqgi$sp3$1@aioe.org, "Anonymous."
> Please do not take this the wrong way. You need a bit more experience and
> understanding in order to interpret this notation well.
>
No, he needs to be reborn.. this time as a non meths drinking, sheep
shagging, bell ringing freak!
| |
|
|
"Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fajd6h$g76$1@aioe.org...
> "Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:C2F25E1B.9579B%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
>
> Unfortunately you have responded to one of my stalkers and not to me.
>
> He is Nathan Hull with the CB Handle of G7KUJ and posts with the
> id of "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org". Many of his posts
> are parodies of what I post and for many months he has masqueraded
> as me, and usually adopts the pseudonym that I do shortly after I change
> pseudonym because of his harassment, in this case "Anonymous".
>
> Nathan Hull is one sick, sick kiddie.
>
> I post with the id of "Z3IpgFh83JnnDIiU15n1gQ.user.aioe.org".
>
> However, I note that you feel sorry for him, as do I.
>
> (I had already responded to your first post)
>
It's not me.. how many more times!
| |
|
|
"Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fam0og$9e5$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fal1kr$903$1@aioe.org...
>
> Nathan Hull G7KUJ posting as, "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org" at
> least
> acknowledges my copyright.
>
> One is forced to ask, however, what it is that Nathan Hull G7KUJ hopes
> to achieve by flooding this thread with evidence of his mentally deficient
> obsession? Has he no life of worth of his own?
>
>
I'm on holiday, and haven't been on the web for the last few days... What
have you been upto? Oh yes, countless posts of utter drivel, as per norm.
Now run along and have another Special Brew. Have you trimmed your front
hedge yet?
| |
|
|
"Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fajee8$jao$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Q57zi.82544$fJ5.28921@pd7urf1no...
>
> Thank-you for your input, Don, but unfortunately you also have fallen from
> the reaction
> of my stalker, Nathan Hull, G7KUJ who posts as
> "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user.aioe.org", and who adopted the pseudonym
> of "Anonymous" immediately after I changed to Anonymous.
>
> He has also posted recently as...
>
> Ne Plus Ultra, (Adopted immediately after me)
> ne plus givre,
> Lazy-Arsed Class A,
> Gareth Tesla Evans, nee G8DXY,
> pope benedict,
> fr neil evans,
> WPC Pullman,
> Cool For Twats,
> Beanie Simon,
> Hypocrite,
> Evans is a Lying Useless Sack of Shit,
> Big K,
> "Gugliemo Sponger Evans",
> The G3VKI4KFK7KUJ Triumvirate of Mediocrity,
> Counsellor for Comportment,
> Dictator of Dogma,
> Anonymous (Adopted immediately after me)
>
>
No I haven't... but I am actually seriously thinking that you are posting
this stuff just so you can reply to it... it's the sort of drugged up,
drunken thing that a mentally challenged nutter like you would do. I'll
await an apology on the newsgroup for your false accusations. Thanks.
| |
| Salmon Egg 2007-08-24, 5:25 pm |
| On 8/24/07 11:38 AM, in article
4uqdnVFONv_8uFLbnZ2dnUVZ8tmhnZ2d@giganews.com, "huLLy" <you@me.com> wrote:
>
> Pray tell how you figured that one out?! No wonder you are unemployable -
> your logic is perma-flawed!!!
There are too many people trying to teach a pig how to sing.
--
Support the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney.
| |
|
|
"Salmon Egg" <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C2F4762B.96422%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net...
> On 8/24/07 11:38 AM, in article
> 4uqdnVFONv_8uFLbnZ2dnUVZ8tmhnZ2d@giganews.com, "huLLy" <you@me.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are too many people trying to teach a pig how to sing.
He needs to learn how to crawl first....
| |
| Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI 2007-08-24, 8:25 pm |
| on 24/08/2007 19:43 huLLy said the following:
> "Anonymous." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fam0og$9e5$1@aioe.org...
>
> I'm on holiday, and haven't been on the web for the last few days... What
> have you been upto? Oh yes, countless posts of utter drivel, as per norm.
> Now run along and have another Special Brew. Have you trimmed your front
> hedge yet?
>
>
Should he put hedge trimming on his CV?
--
;-)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
| |
|
|
"Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:OMIzi.43788$h11.33785@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Guys of uk.radio.amateur, having one of our number post drivel to
> alt.engineering.electrical is bad enough. Unless you want to help him to
> destroy the image of our hobby, can I suggest you don't cross post. He
> will, of course, restore the cross post so watch follow ups.
It seems to me that the only drivel that was cross posted
was.....
" e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt) which
is a value that decreases as t increasing"
......in the first instance and then.....
"I have, as he points out you interpreted as the real numbers
which I was not implying."
......in the second instance.
Everything else that was cross-posted was done so in the search
of acadaemic truth, a matter which should never be secreted away. One
is surprised that someone who is a teacher of mathematics should so opine.
So I suggest that if you are at all worried about "the image of our hobby",
then "can I suggest you don't cross post"?
I did wonder how someone whose psyche is pathologically incapable
of admitting an error would react when shown up not only to have
committed an error, but then also to have bullshitted ad nauseam
in an effort to cover up that error.
Now I have my answer.
You lash out in an infantile temper tantrum in a further desperate
effort to draw attention away from yourself.
Just admit that you are in the wrong, OM....it's much easier
to avoid trouble than it is to dig yourself out of it!
| |
| Sponger's Conscience 2007-08-25, 9:25 am |
| 8 years later and hes still working on lesson 2...
"Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fal1kr$903$1@aioe.org...
> Copyright 1999 G.A.Evans. All Rights Reserved.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
|
|