the arrl handbook is too basic for that.
i think the ee programs are more theoretical at an undergraduate level then they were 40 yrs ago
i have about 2 yrs of college but have never taken an "electronics" class.
they just taught me about "i" and how to integrate and differentiate
alot of advanced math is quite simple once you understand the concepts and models.
we live in a wonderful time where we can throw away our slide rules , log tables and hand held calcs
and let a computer crunch away on stuff for us.
many engineers designed complex stuff mostly using compiled tables and graphs
and then tweaking their designs until they worked "good enough"
thats what test equipment is used for in engineering.
to prove theoretical designs
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: pink_floydian_rockstar
To: TekScopes@...
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: SV: [TekScopes] Invitation for another exchange of questionably useful information.
Reactance, Negative Frequency, Imaginary numbers, Inductance,
Capacitence, complex phasors, complex exponentials, Transform math...
If you have issues with these concepts then look at your options:
1. Become an EE student (I am one and it has done miracles for my
understanding of systems)
2. Get yourself a copy of the ARRL Handbook
3. Get copies of older electronics books
4. Read Wikipedia articles
5. Take an Applied Math class
It's all out there all you have to do is read.
What I don't understand is why my inbox gets filled up with sillyness
that EE students understand at a basic level.
P.S. If you don't believe in Negative Frequency, don't debate it with
me, just take a Communications Systems class or a DSP class and you
will see where the math and concepts are justified.
