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.
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?
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.soNic_real_one said:
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?
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.
Hello, I know that you're unhappy...
@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).
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:
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).
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.210 said:
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.
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.
Physicists are 'Teufelskerle'
@Sonic:
Time is a Si unit,
and angle can be converted into time (under circumstances).
The angle velocity of a ball circling around a center is constant,
whereas the velocity of the ball [m/s] depends on the distance to the center.
I should have write 'the bandwidth of the frequency spectrum of an impulse depends of it's duration (and it's shape)',
(there are some more (formal) questionable (and forgotten funny) statements in my last post, sry!).
Btw., even a sinus impulse has to be measured some time to ensure it's certain frequency
(I once scientifically added a Rule to the Shannon Theorem about that).
@Sonic:
Time
and angle can be converted into time (under circumstances).
The angle velocity of a ball circling around a center is constant,
whereas the velocity of the ball [m/s] depends on the distance to the center.
I should have write 'the bandwidth of the frequency spectrum of an impulse depends of it's duration (and it's shape)',
(there are some more (formal) questionable (and forgotten funny) statements in my last post, sry!).
Btw., even a sinus impulse has to be measured some time to ensure it's certain frequency
(I once scientifically added a Rule to the Shannon Theorem about that).
No, there is no "conversion under certain circumstances". Angle is defined as an adimensional, but is a lenght derived unit (m/m).
Electrical manuals call some adimensional number derived from time (s/s) as "electrical angle" but that is not an "angle" per recognized SI definition.
Otherwise everything adimensional would be an "angle".
Like... bank interest rate would not be 10%, would be 5.71 "bank degrees". Flipping a coin would not have 50% probability to fall heads up, it would be 26.56 "probabilistic degrees". So on...
Don't get stuck on manuals formulas, think behind them!
The only real-world "angle" is a space derived one. That's what SI says too. "Vector" is another thing that has no measurements.
The time-delay is NOT an angle. It has already an unit - the second. A coil will DELAY the curent passing thru it in respect to applied voltage. A capacitor will DELAY the voltage raise on it in respect to current. That is all it is, it works in DC too (and then you really don't have a period to report to).
We choose to report it to another time (period of the signal), just to make our understanding easier, but there is no physical support for that "angle".
The time-delay is NOT an angle. It has already an unit - the second. A coil will DELAY the curent passing thru it in respect to applied voltage. A capacitor will DELAY the voltage raise on it in respect to current. That is all it is, it works in DC too (and then you really don't have a period to report to).
We choose to report it to another time (period of the signal), just to make our understanding easier, but there is no physical support for that "angle".
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.