Difficulties in understanding e^(-jwt)

[Don Kelly]

----------------------------

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.

 

[Anonymous.]

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.]

Brian Reay take note!

 

[Fred]

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!