This is how my mains looks like

[gmphadte]

search for a book 'Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers' on Google Books.

It is a very big and good book. Will come handy for electrical questions on the mind.

Gajanan Phadte

[SoNic_real_one]

Originally Posted by mr_push_pull

well my impression is that it mostly depends on the teacher. there are good ones and there are bad ones.
I guess it's an issue all around the world, some of them force students into thinking that physics equals a lot of formulas and the need to understand what lies beneath is optional.

That is EXACTLY my point. College/highschool professors became a cast that is closed in itself, with very little touch to real world. Most of them are concentrated only on abstract because they "know" that they lost touch with physical aspect of the world. They act like "eeehw, THAT is dirthy, we don't DO that here".
The product of their system (enginners) is of very little use to society that entrusted them with the task of prepering engineers. After the students get a diploma they go "out" of that academic bubble and they find out they are unprepared for real world. They have to learn a whole new set of skills. Employers have to pay.
Like the aspect that I tried to show - that there is no REAL electrical angle, there are no pointed vectors traveling inside our wires. It's just a representation of time-domain effects, for ease of teaching those phenomens.

[zigzagflux]

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

Like the aspect that I tried to show - that there is no REAL electrical angle, there are no pointed vectors traveling inside our wires. It's just a representation of time-domain effects, for ease of teaching those phenomens.

That angle is just as 'real' as a two thirds pitch roof having an angle of 33.7 degrees. Says Maxwell.

Maybe to you an angle isn't real unless it's labeled on a protractor?

[DF96]

Originally Posted by soNic_real_one

that there is no REAL electrical angle, there are no pointed vectors traveling inside our wires.

That is 'real' in the sense of the man in the street, or the concrete thinker, or (dare I say it?) the mechanical engineer. Electrical engineers are supposed to do abstract thought too.

Just out of interest, do you believe that a propagating (i.e. transverse) EM wave has a real 90 degrees between E and H fields, and their plane and the direction of propagation, or is that not a real angle either?

[mr_push_pull]

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

...

actually it seems that we have opposing views.
for me, "formulas" does not equal "abstract", quite the opposite. the abstract is really needed, as long as one views complex numbers as something that human mind invented to make otherwise intuitive things unnecessarily complicated, there is a problem and actually institutionalized school reached its target. "j" is not sqrt(-1), that's only a way to simplify calculus. you can't buy j*4 cans of beer, true, but that doesn't mean complex numbers don't exist. based on that definition natural numbers don't exist either.

I don't think that anyone wants you to believe that arrows (graphical vector representation) travel through wires, your notion of "real" seems ill-defined.

[210]

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

That is EXACTLY my point. College/highschool professors became a cast that is closed in itself, with very little touch to real world. Most of them are concentrated only on abstract because they "know" that they lost touch with physical aspect of the world. They act like "eeehw, THAT is dirthy, we don't DO that here".
The product of their system (enginners) is of very little use to society that entrusted them with the task of prepering engineers. After the students get a diploma they go "out" of that academic bubble and they find out they are unprepared for real world. They have to learn a whole new set of skills. Employers have to pay.
Like the aspect that I tried to show - that there is no REAL electrical angle, there are no pointed vectors traveling inside our wires. It's just a representation of time-domain effects, for ease of teaching those phenomens.

@Sonic:
It's unfair, when physicist give you explanations
by knowing that you don't understand them.

They combine frequency with energy (in quantum phyiscs),
but ignore, that an impulse has no exact frequency
(the shorter the impulse, the more uncertainty the frequence),
and use this (power) impulse to exhibit the frequency response of an electromechanical system (speaker).
They use overlapping fourier components (weighted sinus functons) to form transient shapes,
and know that the components start even before the impuls (pre-ringing).

Originally Posted by mr_push_pull

actually it seems that we have opposing views.
for me, "formulas" does not equal "abstract", quite the opposite. the abstract is really needed, as long as one views complex numbers as something that human mind invented to make otherwise intuitive things unnecessarily complicated, there is a problem and actually institutionalized school reached its target. "j" is not sqrt(-1), that's only a way to simplify calculus. you can't buy j*4 cans of beer, true, but that doesn't mean complex numbers don't exist. based on that definition natural numbers don't exist either.

I don't think that anyone wants you to believe that arrows (graphical vector representation) travel through wires, your notion of "real" seems ill-defined.

I once talked to a theroetical physicist (leader of an institute of mathematical physics) and said:
"Of course, the particle isn't running around with an impulse in his pocket".
He said: Yes, you understand.

[SoNic_real_one]

Originally Posted by zigzagflux

Maybe to you an angle isn't real unless it's labeled on a protractor?

For me and for that guys at International Standard of Units:
SI base unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SI derived unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the measurement unit for that "electric angle"? I see Ampere, second (primary) and Coulomb, Ohm, Siemens, Watt, Volt, Hertz, Farad, Henry (derived)...
Angle (Radian) is defined and measured from lenght as m/m.

[mr_push_pull]

I can't even tell what this is about anymore.
there are only so many ways of explaining a simple thing.

[DF96]

Originally Posted by 210

They combine frequency with energy (in quantum phyiscs),
but ignore, that an impulse has no exact frequency
(the shorter the impulse, the more uncertainty the frequence),
and use this (power) impulse to exhibit the frequency response of an electromechanical system (speaker).

It is precisely because an impulse has no exact frequency (but all frequencies) that it can be used to determine the frequency response of a system.

That wikipedia entry must have been written by a mechanical engineer! Angle is a pure number, a ratio, as it is a fraction of a circle. You can define an angle between two complex numbers, when no physical distances are involved at all.

[zigzagflux]

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

What is the measurement unit for that "electric angle"?

You have been asked to provide (and support on the basis of time) the equation for electrical torque, with no answer. You have been asked about the right hand rule regarding Maxwell's equations, with no answer. You have been challenged about EM waves having 90 degrees between E and H waves, with no response.

Now you ask about the units of angle, as if that makes your case? At some point, repeated questions with no answer, with only reply being more irrelevant challenges to those trying to teach, becomes trolling.