Airy Watching ;-)

On 16/01/2004 Graham W opined:-

I have been watching the exchange and it rather defies belief, that a person of his supposed knowledge could assume that a crystal could possibly oscillate at 4mHz (several minutes per cycle). It was obvious to everyone else that 4mHz had to mean 4MHz, yet our Mr Bean insisted it meant milli.

"Airy has been shown up"? No, she hasn't. I challenge you to bring evidence of your assertion. All that has been shown up is the silly and childish behaviour of someone using the pseudonym, "Chimera"; you, perhaps?

Looks to me like you've been shown up and the evidence is there for all to see.

I like Chimera's style and he has got the measure of you perfectly.

Incidentally, your anger in such that you are getting confused over your own gender.

-- 73 Brian G8OSN

for FREE training material for all UK amateur radio licences - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing to learn more about amateur radio

You like the style of someone who resorts to rather silly childish remarks and who presents arguments other than those which might support the points they make?

That figures, coming from you!

What was that you said about e^(-jwt) being a function that decreases with increasing time?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

I have no anger, but truthfulness has never been your strong point before, so why should it bother you now?

I've gotten the impression that Bean is a sophomoric wannabee who insists that only he/she is correct on EVERY ISSUE and that everyone else is wrong on EVERY ISSUE, so I'm going to clear one thing up real fast.......

There is no such thing as negative frequency, voltage, current, water, money, time or anything else for that matter EXCEPT BY CONVENTION WHEN REFERRED TO IN RESPECT TO OTHER THINGS. That is why we have the concept of "absolute value" to explain that while in proportion/relation to other measurements something might appear to be negative, it is in fact only by relation to another something, that it appears to be negative. Note the word APPEARS.

Negative Voltage does not exist except in relation to a common, and then only by convention and for the sake of mathematics. When something has a Pos and Neg rail, its only because its in relation to a common reference point we like to call ground. The proof of this is if you measure across the entire rail you get a positive reading. If in fact the voltage were truly negative, it would cancel the positive leg and not add to it.

Same with frequency. In relation to null, fine, we can SAY its negative, but in reality its a PHASE RELATIONSHIP.

Some of us believe that current flows from ground to positive (Electron Theory) and some of us follow Conventional Theory (positive to negative) for the purposes of the math but we all use Positive Logic when using our calculators.

There is no negative time except on paper for the purposes of the math, and even that is in relation to other time events.. Nobody has ever grown younger, no circuit has ever reacted prior to being powered, and no frequency has ever turned back on itself to back feed into its generating circuit although there have been parasitics that APPEAR to be doing just that. Some would argue that a frequency that can cancel out noise by being 180deg OOP with the noise is a negative frequency, but its not, its still a positive, but out of phase (noise canceling).

I don't really care if you agree or not Airy; engineers can agree to disagree......you can't.

You CAN attempt to start a discussion based upon such a childish outburst as you employ below.

You can, but it would not do much for your reputation, nor for any discussion that might follow.

An interesting philosophical point, but unrelated to anything that has passed here before. A non-sequitur, in fact.

Another non-sequitur, there has been no discussion of negative voltage of which I'm aware.

You seem to be vociferously arguing something that no-one else has raised.

Frequency is a phase relationship? That's a moot point, but certainly not true in respect of one frequency, because then there is no other entity with which to have any sort of relationship.

It's not a question of belief, but of historical accuracy. the early workers were concerned with the behaviour of electrolytes and not of external circuitry.

Their theories came before JJThompson discovered the electron, but they proved to be correct, in that the main current flows from positive to negative within the electrolyte. Clearly, in any circuit external to the electrolyte (of a cell) the opposite direction applies.

You get the same difficulties when considering charge flow within a semiconductor- the explanation of fields within the BJT, for example, is not a good mechanism for describing the behaviour of the circuit into which the BJT may be placed.

I don't agree with you. If you take any time, such as now, as time zero, then there is negative time. Negative Time is particularly important in the evaluation of Fourier's maths.

That seems to be another non-sequitur.

From the start point of the discussion, complex frequency of the form e^(-jwt) is negative frequency.

As I said in another post, you CAN start a discussion based on rather silly ad hominem blurt-outs, but it won't do much for your reputation.

What childish outburst? He simply pointed out, quite correctly, that to understand engineering principles one must understand the underlying physics that allow those principles to be.

Can you say "divide by zero"? Apply this to "Big K" and see where you get the idea that an impulse with no width, zero t has infinite amplitude. You were thinking like a computer and not applying what is known about the quantum measure principle or any other supporting physics that theorises that a zero time period cannot exist. It can't be measured in a sample, for sure.

Don't think I'm being abusive. I had a momentary lapse of reason on the subject of RCDs which needed one kind gentleman to correct me via email. I learnt from the experience and modified my approach. Hopefully, this was the right thing to do and I recommend it to you.

Before you go steaming off into another area you don't understand, I suggest you go back an look at the definition of frequency as 1/Period.

As Chimera has pointed out (as I have in the past) the time to complete one cycle is always +ve. In the model you use but seem to want Chimera to explain to you, the time to complete one rotation is always +ve. The fact that one rotation is cw and the other ccw is irrelevant to the definition of frequency. It does, however, explain another point relating to e(-jwt) that you can't seem to comprehend either.

You are confusing frequency and phase and you scanty understanding of sampled waveforms is confusing you even more.

For most people, I urge them not to 'stove pipe' ideas and concepts as linking them is the crux of true understanding. However, in your case, I suggest you stick to the stove pipe approach as you are just getting confused.

Mr.Reay would appear to be cyber-stalking once again.

I wonder what it is about his psyche that causes him to interpret every discussion as a childish playground-pissing contest?

Normal people are quite capable of a technical discussion without needing to resort to yah-boo-sucks at every turn, as he seems to need to do.

"Graham W" wrote in news:EpRNb.4859$YV1.2377 @newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net:

I've just had a look - and he's resorting to calling them the usual FUR f 'Stupid Boys'. He's been made as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit!

Better than that - they've called him - wait for it - "picabrain".

Absolutely perfect.

Leigh....