Brian Reay _RUNS AWAY_ but the challenge remains!

12WPM.....

You keep sneering about this "Big K" on the assumption,
or even a declared desperate wish on your part, that I'm
wound up by it.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken, but continue to make
yourself appear to be a somewhat immature silly fool
on the issue. I'm quite willing to challenge you
on your infantility for as long as you wish to keep it up;
indeed, that infantility is useful for it shows that all those
who are associated in any way with the gangrenous degeneration
that is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme, either as
licensees or as L.I.A.R.s will _NEVER_ make it into the
ranks of _REAL_ Radio Hams with their gentlemanly traditions.

I've always been keen on technical matters and in
learning thereof, and have never had any difficulty
in admitting my own misunderstandings. (You're going
to have a hard time as a teacher, BTW, if you sneer
at those who are quite open about ignorance and
their willingness to be taught)

You're obssessed with "Big K", but seem incapable of
discussing the technical issues.

OK, let me help you......(and I'm confident that the folks
in comp.dsp will be really really pleased with you for
dragging this subject up again)

Many texts and websites associated with DSP try to claim
that the action of sampling is represented by the multiplication
of the incoming waveform by a Shah function. Now, although
the Dirac Delta Function is a very useful analytic tool once
a network has been reduced to a mathematical equation, it is
far from respectable to claim that such Delta Functions
feature in the circuits used for sampling because no pulses
of heights approaching infinity or of areas approaching unity,
appear anywhere in the sampling circuitry.

Therefore I suggested that some other scaling factor must
be employed, that I dubbed "Big K". You, Brian, have sneered
about this vacuously for some years now, but have been
incapable of explaining why you sneer despite your _BOAST_
of having _TWO_ degrees, one in mathematics and the other
in electronics. That alone is a sad condemnation of the standards
of teachers in Strood, Kent, Britland. Perhaps you should lay off the
whiskey that you keep discussing on Usenet?

I have since discovered, by an embarrassingly simple explanation
that the proposal of "Big K" was technically sound. "Big K" is no
more than the sampling interval, normally shown as "T".

Buttocks-Johnstone (or some such similar name, sorry don't
recall what it is) in his treatment of sampling stated quite clearly
that this T factor was necessary (in order to make the reconstruction
maths work out) but even he couldn't explain where it came from,
and to state that a factor is necessary to make the answer come
out correct is a piss-poor (M3OSN-poor?) demonstration of technical acumen.

The various text books and websites that discuss sampling continue
to omit this crucial factor of T, so, if you were trying to resolve
this difficulty, as I was, you repeatedly came up against the
nonsensical assertion that sampling was the multiplication
of an input waveform by a Shah function.

Brian - you claimed that the answer was given to me quite
early on in my Usenet enquiries, but I've not found such an
explanation of the derivation .....perhaps you could now
quote this answer?

On 30/03/2007 at 19:11:10 G.A.Evans G4SDW wrote :

When you get the polis boot to the head again, for harassment, can you 
video it and put it on you tube.  A lot of people would love to see it 
this time :)

Best Regards ...........

-- 
P~K
It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny 
day
that you realise how often they burst into flames.
- Harry Hill

Grow up, Eric!

I can best deal with the Childish Broadcast (CB) of
the rather silly and infantile child below by re-iterating one of
 the threads of the past few days....

"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."


"Pun_Krocker @gmail.com>" <punkrocker62<noSPAM> wrote in message 
news:mn.f4b37d73dd44d63b.54200@gmail.co...
> On 30/03/2007 at 19:11:10 G.A.Evans G4SDW wrote :
>
> When you get the polis boot to the head again, for harassment, can you 
> video it and put it on you tube.  A lot of people would love to see it 
> this time :)
>
> Best Regards ...........
>

On 30/03/2007 at 20:10:47 G.A.Evans G4SDW wrote :
> Grow up, Eric!

Good man, .......classic answer ...... and well executed!

-- 
P~K
It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny 
day
that you realise how often they burst into flames.
- Harry Hill

On 30 Mar, 19:11, "G.A.Evans G4SDW" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> (You're going
> to have a hard time as a teacher, BTW, if you sneer
> at those who are quite open about ignorance

Everybody has the right to be open about their ignorance occasionally,
but you're abusing the privilege!

In article <mn.f4b37d73dd44d63b.54200@gmail.co>, Pun_Krocker 
<punkrocker62<noSPAM>@gmail.com> says...
> On 30/03/2007 at 19:11:10 G.A.Evans G4SDW wrote :
> 
> When you get the polis boot to the head again, for harassment, can you 
> video it and put it on you tube.  A lot of people would love to see it 
> this time :)


Can we have a DVD with commentary as well :)

"G.A.Evans G4SDW" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:eujjrs$jr1$1@news.datemas.de...
> 12WPM.....
>
> You keep sneering about this "Big K" on the assumption,
> or even a declared desperate wish on your part, that I'm
> wound up by it.
>
Lets be honest who cares what you think.
 All  cobblers.
Keith g8ixn 

"G.A.Evans G4SDW" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:eujjrs$jr1$1@news.datemas.de...
> 12WPM.....
>
> You keep sneering about this "Big K" on the assumption,
> or even a declared desperate wish on your part, that I'm
> wound up by it.
>
> I'm afraid that you are mistaken,

Well, you do seem a tad wound up. Then again, maybe it is something else 
that has you so prickley.

Far be it from me to wind you up, please continue to believe your 
confabulations, if it makes you happy.

Good night.

Brian

On 30/03/2007 at 23:04:32 Brian Reay wrote :
> confabulations

Excellent word ........ very smoothly executed ;)

-- 
P~K
It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny 
day
that you realise how often they burst into flames.
- Harry Hill

"G.A.Evans G4SDW" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:eujjrs$jr1$1@news.datemas.de...
> 12WPM.....
>
> You keep sneering about this "Big K" on the assumption,
> or even a declared desperate wish on your part, that I'm
> wound up by it.
>
> I'm afraid that you are mistaken, but continue to make
> yourself appear to be a somewhat immature silly fool
> on the issue. I'm quite willing to challenge you
> on your infantility for as long as you wish to keep it up;
> indeed, that infantility is useful for it shows that all those
> who are associated in any way with the gangrenous degeneration
> that is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme, either as
> licensees or as L.I.A.R.s will _NEVER_ make it into the
> ranks of _REAL_ Radio Hams with their gentlemanly traditions.
>
> I've always been keen on technical matters and in
> learning thereof, and have never had any difficulty
> in admitting my own misunderstandings. (You're going
> to have a hard time as a teacher, BTW, if you sneer
> at those who are quite open about ignorance and
> their willingness to be taught)
>
> You're obssessed with "Big K", but seem incapable of
> discussing the technical issues.
>
> OK, let me help you......(and I'm confident that the folks
> in comp.dsp will be really really pleased with you for
> dragging this subject up again)
>
> Many texts and websites associated with DSP try to claim
> that the action of sampling is represented by the multiplication
> of the incoming waveform by a Shah function. Now, although
> the Dirac Delta Function is a very useful analytic tool once
> a network has been reduced to a mathematical equation, it is
> far from respectable to claim that such Delta Functions
> feature in the circuits used for sampling because no pulses
> of heights approaching infinity or of areas approaching unity,
> appear anywhere in the sampling circuitry.
>
> Therefore I suggested that some other scaling factor must
> be employed, that I dubbed "Big K". You, Brian, have sneered
> about this vacuously for some years now, but have been
> incapable of explaining why you sneer despite your _BOAST_
> of having _TWO_ degrees, one in mathematics and the other
> in electronics. That alone is a sad condemnation of the standards
> of teachers in Strood, Kent, Britland. Perhaps you should lay off the
> whiskey that you keep discussing on Usenet?
>
> I have since discovered, by an embarrassingly simple explanation
> that the proposal of "Big K" was technically sound. "Big K" is no
> more than the sampling interval, normally shown as "T".
>
> Buttocks-Johnstone (or some such similar name, sorry don't
> recall what it is) in his treatment of sampling stated quite clearly
> that this T factor was necessary (in order to make the reconstruction
> maths work out) but even he couldn't explain where it came from,
> and to state that a factor is necessary to make the answer come
> out correct is a piss-poor (M3OSN-poor?) demonstration of technical
acumen.
>
> The various text books and websites that discuss sampling continue
> to omit this crucial factor of T, so, if you were trying to resolve
> this difficulty, as I was, you repeatedly came up against the
> nonsensical assertion that sampling was the multiplication
> of an input waveform by a Shah function.
>
> Brian - you claimed that the answer was given to me quite
> early on in my Usenet enquiries, but I've not found such an
> explanation of the derivation .....perhaps you could now
> quote this answer?


     well........you can dazzle them with brilliance, or baffle them with
bullshit, and i reckon this bloke would be a past master at the
latter........:^)  cornflakes and shah`s ?????????


>
>
>