Since its conception and development during the last 20 or 30 years of the 19th century, Gibbs's vector system was not well understood, although people have considered it a masterpiece to formulate classical physics. It is unnecessary to emphasize its usefulness. In recent years this system has been broadened by some and ridiculed by a few others. Some physicists argue that it is a special case, though it is not a particular case of Clifford's algebra, which is useful in Quantum Mechanics. Engineers (like myself and other authors) develop the Polyadic Calculus showing its usefulness for treating engineering problems (and, indirectly, its usefulness in classical physics itself). In this paper I show that certain erroneous arguments, used to demonstrate an "internal incoherence" in Gibb's algebra, have been issued since the beginning of the 20th century and accepted in drove spirit fashion; yet, their authors lacked full understanding of the subject. This implies banishing from Vector Calculus the so-called polar and axial vectors and scalars which, in practice, were never necessary in actual fact. The concept of reciprocal vector systems intervenes strongly in my demonstrations. They have been defined by Hamilton, little developed by Gibbs and his followers, and slightly mentioned in the good works on Vector Analysis throughout the 20th century. Such systems constitute the natural form of operating with non-orthogonal bases and reference systems. The orthogonal systems are extremely useful in so many situations but not always do they simplify calculations nor are they opportune.
vector; vector product; Gibbs's algebra; Clliford's algebra
