Angle_Speed f(?)

[Capiert]

 is called "frequency"
 f=(theta/t)*(1 [cycle]/360°) =1/T
 for the angle theta in (units) [degree(s)]=[°];
 t is an amount of time (duration, e.g. difference in time)
 in (units) [second(s)];
 & period T is the (amount of) time (duration), per cycle.

There are several ways
 to express angle
 & (thus, also) angle_speed.

But I prefer
 to express angles
 in cycles(' fractions, &/or multiples),
 e.g. as fractions, &/or multiples
 of a cycle.

1=100%.

E.g.
1 [cycle]=360°.

That is(=means),
 a degree
 1°=[cycle]*(1/360)
 is 1/360th part
 of a(=1, complete=whole, single) cycle.

E.g.
 90°=0.25*[cycle]=[cycle]/4.

1 [cycle]=(t/T)*(360°/theta), or (rearranged)
1 [cycle]=(t/theta)*(360°/T).

Or regrouping the angles together
 as a ratio
 f=(theta/360°)*(1 [cycle]/t) =1/T.

A few other variations
 for the angle_per_time ratio, are

theta/t=(360°/T)*(1/(1 [cycle])), or swapping (Rt side) denominators
theta/t=(360°/(1 [cycle]))*(1/T), is also
theta/t=(360°/(T*[cycle])), 1/T=f
theta/t=f*360°/[cycle].

The period, is
 T=t/(1 [cycle]))*(360°/theta), or
 T=(t/theta)*(360°/(1 [cycle])).

The angle (in degrees), is
 theta=(t/(1 [cycle]))*(360°/T), or
 theta=(360°/(1 [cycle]))*(t/T).

The angle (in cycles), is
 f*[seconds].

(Even) although
 I'( a)m in the habit
 of using degrees.

I hope that clears
 any confusion.

Motivation:

I noticed
 a general formula
 for angle_speed
 was a little bit
 more involved,
 & (so) I was searching
 for an appropriate syntax (symbol, hieroglyphics).

I hope that will (simply) do
 with an (already) existing symbol f.

?
 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Capiert

[Bufofrog]

-1 for your insistence on using this terrible formatting and your reluctance to use LaTex.  It's bad enough that your ideas are wrong but to then make these ideas almost unreadable is intolerable. 

[swansont]

It’s angular speed and typically expressed in radians/sec. The symbol is a lower-case omega. f implies a linear frequency

Using non-standard nomenclature does indeed cause confusion 

[Capiert]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s angular speed and typically expressed in radians/sec. The symbol is a lower-case omega. f implies a linear frequency

Why the adjective "linear"?

Is NOT frequency (just) frequency?

You are implying a NON_linear frequency (also) exists
 but I see NO need for it
 if the frequency is constant(ly the same, or varying linear(ly))?

I suppose you are making the analogy to straight_line speed(s),
 which can be either linear &/or NON_linear.
Which is also possible (for angle_speeds, I guess).?

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Using non-standard nomenclature does indeed cause confusion 

Perhaps (yes), but I was NOT aware
 until I posted this (speculation) thread
 that I could (=might) also use frequency f
 (which simply uses other (so_called, NON_standard) convertable units)
 to represent angle_speed.

That's new to me!

I guess you guys & gals
 are NOT yet so far
 as to recognize that.
(It took me at least a few days,
 to say the least.)

A radian (unitless radius/circumference=r/cir=r/(r*2*Pi)=1/(2*Pi)=0.1591549 ratio
 for the ~1/6.28.. fraction of a "cycle", as angle; 57.2957795°)
 & does seem (to me)
 to be an encrypted other alternative (for angle)
 57.2957795°/360°=0.1591549 (of a [cycle]);
 instead of the (more) common [degree], (f)or circle, or e.g. cycle=360°.
The advantage of using the cycle directly
 is "1"=360°.

It (=1 [cycle]) is less complicated.
Cycles (=360° multiples) are a very common unit, e.g. cycles_per_second cps=[Hz].
(If you had to explain a [Hz] to someone,
 how else would you do it
 than with that definition?)

I see NO advantage
 for the invention of the radian
 other than to make things more obscure
 with irrational numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian

---

The radian is defined in the SI as being a dimensionless value, and its symbol is accordingly often omitted, especially in mathematical writing. One radian is defined as the angle subtended from the center of a "circle" which intercepts an arc equal in length to the radius of the circle.

 

I doubt that you all recognized
 the radian is a (circle's) circumference fraction;
 & what that implies.
E.g. An angle as "part" of a cycle, e.g. part of a circle.

9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

-1 for your insistence on using this terrible formatting and your reluctance to use LaTex. 

Sorry!

9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

It's bad enough that your ideas are wrong but to then make these ideas almost unreadable is intolerable. 

I'm sorry if you can NOT digest it (=my ideas) fast enough.
I doubt that it (f as angle_speed) is wrong;
 because it is convertable
 to other formats,
 such as degrees/sec or radians/sec or RPM
 & is perhaps
 too new for you, yet.

I mean somebody had
 to have invented the degree (definition);
 & somebody else the radian (definition)
 with its questionable syntax.

The cycle (as unit) is NOTHING new.
---
Very many people use Rich text
 it is very common.

Disclaimer:

Winword's copy paste
 into this sfn website
 deletes the formulas.

I DON'T need those stupid surprises
 with your incompatible software.

(I suspect the solution would be to convert to .pdf
 & then copy paste that.)

I'm NO pro(fessional)
 with LaTex
 for that little
 that I do with it;
 & I constantly=repeatly
 forget its details.
(I am NOT gifted
 with the patience
 to use such a rare software,
 found on (mostly only) this website.
I DON'T speak Chinese either.)

I also would like my threads
 to look nicer than they are.

But the ERROR possibility
 is NOT worth the risk yet.
I'm already making too many errors
 (as I (have to) scramble to correct them).

& I know some of you would like me to bumble.

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Capiert

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Capiert said:

Why the adjective "linear"?

Is NOT frequency (just) frequency?

Because there are two different situations: rotations (angular frequency) and not (linear frequency)

Angular frequency measures how much the angle changes (radians/sec) and linear frequency has no angle (cycles/sec). They differ by 2*pi

 

10 hours ago, Capiert said:

Perhaps (yes), but I was NOT aware
 until I posted this (speculation) thread

Yes, ands this is an ongoing problem. You are not aware of standard physics.

10 hours ago, Capiert said:

I see NO advantage
 for the invention of the radian
 other than to make things more obscure
 with irrational numbers.

People that do physics professionally see an advantage, or are at least used to using it.

Quote

I doubt that you all recognized
 the radian is a (circle's) circumference fraction;
 & what that implies.
E.g. An angle as "part" of a cycle, e.g. part of a circle.

I think you would be wrong and are vastly underestimating what people learn in math and physics classes

 

 

10 hours ago, Capiert said:

I'm sorry if you can NOT digest it (=my ideas) fast enough.
I doubt that it (f as angle_speed) is wrong;
 because it is convertable
 to other formats,
 such as degrees/sec or radians/sec or RPM
 & is perhaps
 too new for you, yet.

Your formatting and use of nonstandard terminology are a barrier to digesting your ideas.

It's not a matter of being new (though it isn't, really); it's that it's unnecessary. We have it covered already, and AFAICT you offer nothing that's better than what we have.

[Mordred]

I have a very simple policy. When I see a posting that the author cannot be bothered to ensure its legible and easy to read. Then I cannot be bothered with that posting. I am positive numerous other readers feel the same way.

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I am positive numerous other readers feel the same way.

Count me in.

[joigus]

27 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I have a very simple policy. When I see a posting that the author cannot be bothered to ensure its legible and easy to read. Then I cannot be bothered with that posting. I am positive numerous other readers feel the same way.

My feelings exactly.

[Markus Hanke]

14 hours ago, Mordred said:

I have a very simple policy. When I see a posting that the author cannot be bothered to ensure its legible and easy to read. Then I cannot be bothered with that posting. I am positive numerous other readers feel the same way.

Definitely.

On 1/21/2023 at 3:44 AM, Capiert said:

I am NOT gifted
 with the patience
 to use such a rare software,
 found on (mostly only) this website.

People here generally aren’t gifted with the patience to wade through gibberish either.

LaTeX isn’t “rare”, and it’s not found only on this website - it’s the international standard for typesetting documents that contain mathematical notation. Every major science discussion forum uses this to display maths. It’s really not that hard, and there are also many free online LaTeX editors you can use, for example:

https://www.mathcha.io

Give it a try sometime.

[Capiert]

On 1/21/2023 at 2:19 PM, swansont said:

Angular frequency measures how much the angle changes (radians/sec) and linear frequency has no angle (cycles/sec). They differ by 2*pi

Is NOT a (=1) cycle=360°?

Is NOT

On 1/21/2023 at 3:44 AM, Capiert said:

A radian (unitless radius/circumference=r/cir=r/(r*2*Pi)=1/(2*Pi)=0.1591549 ratio
 for the ~1/6.28.. fraction of a "cycle", as angle; 57.2957795°)

?
I see 2 different angles (360° & ~57°)
 but both per second.

& as you said
 they differ
 by the factor 2*Pi.

I guess, maybe you mean,
 using a "cycle"
 is a bit more complicated statement
 if for an angle.?

E.g. If ruffly intuitively
1 degree#cycle/360°?
That clashs.
There is something missing
 in the conversion (constant)?

If
 1 cycle=360°, /360°
 then
 1°=1 cycle/360, *360 [cycle/°]
 1°*360 [cycle/°]=1 cycle.

That seems right=correct
 to me (now).

(Please) let me put it another way.
Is 1° an angle? y/n
Is 360° an angle? y/n
If you say no, then why?

E.g. If units
 can be correctly converted
 then why should they be wrong?

Factors
of the Radian is surely NOT the only way to measure angle.
Or is it?

Edited April 7, 2023 by Capiert
Touchups

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Is NOT a (=1) cycle=360°?

It depends on the system in question. Does a pendulum swing through 360 degrees to complete a cycle? No. Does a piston? No. 

 

Quote

Factors
of the Radian is surely NOT the only way to measure angle.

Nobody claimed otherwise. But if you are using angular frequency, that’s what the measure is defined to be.

[Capiert]

Capiert: Is NOT a (=1) cycle=360°?
Answer: NOT always.
But am I confusing vocabulary?
"cycle" instinctively tells me "circular".
E.g. Bicycle.
2 circular wheels;
NOT 720°.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It depends on the system in question. Does a pendulum swing through 360 degrees to complete a cycle? No.

 ..Even though we can make=force the pendulum
 to (circulate=)revolve around 360°
 (at least once)
 with a strong enough push (or swing),
 like (a) Newton's bucket.

But I guess it would NOT have the same Period T, then.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Does a piston? No. 

The piston itself does NOT,
 but it is connected
 to the circulating crank_shaft.
I guess we extrapolate that ((crank_shaft's) motion), there
 (onto the piston).

Factors
of the Radian is surely NOT the only way to measure angle.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Nobody claimed otherwise.

So I guess there is hope
 (for me)
 for progress there.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But if you are using angular frequency, that’s what the measure is defined to be.

Yes, but didN'T I call it angle_speed f?
 using the same or similar syntax?

I'm attempting
 to draw parallels=similarities
 from existing (or similar) syntax.

Slight modifications (simplifications?)
 that might be useful
 (to me).

Is there any reason why
 to use (the archaic? outdated?)
 radian (any more)?

Irrational numbers,
 like Pi=3.14..,
 unnecessarily cost
 more computing time,
 depending on their complexity
 for their accuracy.
Very messy.
We'( a)re lucky enough
 when we can use just (only) a (=1) symbol,
instead of the (irrational) number in full.
Why both at all,
 getting that messy,
 when other (alternative) methods will do?

I used to think omega
 was cool=neat
 till I understood it (a bit) better.

E.g. I (once) thought it was neat
 (but only)
 because I did NOT understand it enough.
Mysterious.

Now I'd like to forget it.
(Which sometimes happens,
 most of the time.)
(I) DON'T need
 so (I) DON'T want it.
It's a waste of time figuring it out,
 everytime.

The decimal part
 of (2 identical, but 1 delayed) frequencies,
 multiplied by time,
 will give the phase shift (angle),
 as a fraction
 of a cycle.

What more could you ask for?
It's decimal (cycle, angle).
It's consistent,
 with the metric_system
 based on tenths, etc;
 instead 1/60ths.

& guess what?
"I" made it up.

Disclaimer:

Instead of just complaining,
 I want to see improvements
 (being made).
Simplicity is the way;
NOT unnecessary=superfluous complexity.

But unfortunately
 some things
 (have to)
 get more complicated
 to get there.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Capiert

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, Capiert said:

But am I confusing vocabulary?
"cycle" instinctively tells me "circular".

Yes, you are imposing your own bias on the technical terminology 

Quote

 ..Even though we can make=force the pendulum
 to (circulate=)revolve around 360°
 (at least once)
 with a strong enough push (or swing),
 like (a) Newton's bucket.

The atypical case is not what it’s based on. 

[npts2020]

Actually, (on Earth, anyway) a pendulum does a 360 degree swing because the rotation of the planet will make it swing in an ever widening ellipse beginning with the first movement. This does take quite some time to be noticeable so can be ignored to make the apt analogy valid.