The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3DB1F8E0.1464@Spam.Bots> <4Vrs9.92$0J6.firstname.lastname@example.org><3DB27E3A.F0C@Spam.Bots> <0Wts9.218$0J6.email@example.com><3DB3411D.1B53@Spam.Bots> <7WMs9.18$JW5.firstname.lastname@example.org><7ZDLAbAr77s9Ew6C@jmwa.demon.co.uk><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><4Zsu9.378$lU1.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Aylward, Engelhardt: Noise in a transient sim?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:05:32 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:05:34 GMT
wrote in message news:email@example.com...
> "John Woodgate" a écrit dans le
> news: ge49xJBO0su9Ew4n@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
> > I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> > wrote (in
> r.ntli.net>) about 'Aylward, Engelhardt: Noise in a transient sim?',
> > Sat, 26 Oct 2002:
> > >I disagree that I have been talking past the dude.
> > Well, he clearly doesn't understand you, and I don't think you
> > understand him too well.
> > You are just standing too close to the argument to see what is
> > happening. I've no doubt that if you could understand each other,
> > would agree. So I tried posting something you MAY be able to agree
> > --
> > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
> > Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution?
> > http://www.isce.org.uk
> > PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
> I quite agree with you John. I just think that they're just not
> about the same thing.
> So here's my attempt :
But that's not true at all. I know *exactly* what he believes. I have
explained the distinction between what he believes and what is the
reality in great detail. Unfortunately, he wont see the forest because
the trees are in the way.
> Suppose a 100MHz waveform that have harmonic contents up to the now
> 7GHz and that the waveform is time invariant (repetitive).
> Its spectrum is *only* made of *discrete* n*100MHz frequencies and
> absolutely nothing else. So it's BW is absolutely 0.
> Another way of seeing that is that it can be transmitted without loss
> through a bank of bandpass filters centered on n*100MHz of arbitrary
> That's what Mike fails to grasp.
And I have explained this in detail. There is *nothing* wrong in my
explanation, imo, at all. Mike simple won't listen! Its not always the
fault of the teacher while a student wont understand.
The most classic example of the principle of signals spanning a large
BW, but actually having very little real BW has been around for about 60
years. Its in everyone's home. Its called the colour TV set.
The black and white signal forms a line spectrum an n.f, where f is
around 15khz, which extends to several MHz. This signal contains
information by virtue of the fact that each of the nf's have little BW
regions around their centre value. However, much of the region between
each spectral line is unused. This is where the colour information goes.
A colour signal is arranged so that its harmonics interleave with the
black and white signal harmonics. Colour television as we know it,
simple would not exist without a correct understanding of what BW really
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup