Another Larry Brasfield Self-Aggrandizing Put-Down Anecdote

[Larry Brasfield]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:4244C542.6040301@nospam.com...
[Referring to my absence of a little more than a half day]

He is dropping posts left and right now. After shooting his mouth off in his usual vague and non-informational way in the "How to
Verify the Correction of the Optical Encoder on Motor" thread, and then asked by the OP to clarify- he never responded.

That's funny, Fred. You claimed to be amused by
the "fact" (your claim) that "Electronic Swear" was
a troll who had sucked me in. I went through most
of that entity's recent posts to determine whether
there was any substance to that claim, and decided
you were right. Now, you would appear to take
the position that not answering a troll's followup
represents some kind of laxity.

All I can say to your effort is that I do know better
than to worry about your opinion.

It doesn't take much to backlog that windbag.

Hmmm. Had lunch with a friend, did some work,
spent a few hours in the park with my grandson, and
spent a pleasant evening with my wife. Yep, some
burdensome backlog had me completely occupied.

If you are so smart, why have you not learned to
stick to the evidence?

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:10u8411r1ki01cbl4tl3f9pspvffkql1b3@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:36:41 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:22j841db7unbaq3es8p6mniees46cic3ui@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:12:10 -0800, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:

My issue (and Fred's, I'm gussing) wasn't really about the puzzler
itself, it was with the "Let's see if we can show this guy up" attitude
it was originally posted with.

That whole line of thinking is insulting and founded
only on misreading between the lines. How anybody
can take it as more than a mystified kid asking the
question because he wants an answer says more
about the conjecturers as it does about my motive.

---
Actually, it says a a lot about _you_. You're the one who's telling
the story in the present, and you relate it in a vein which is
designed to show the teacher up as incompetent

You prove my point here. Your "designed" conjecture
can only result from imaginary remote mind reading skill
or from cherry picking one of numerous interpretations
of the sentence, "My physics teacher could not resolve it,
(but, to his credit, that bothered him)."
Here are some questions that you cannot answer (in any
rational way) by reading the anecdote:
- How much time was allotted for the attempted resolution?
- To how many students was the attempt addressed?
- What unstated constraints applied to the attempt?
- What did that attempt involve in the way of explanation?
- What ability or inability did the kid have to follow same?
Take careful note of the word "resolve", with its implication
of getting the kid to understand. It is neutral with respect
to what the teacher actually knew.

You choose, for reasons I can only surmise, to interpret the
"could not resolve" as a portrayal of incompetence. To do
that goes beyond the evidence. Some equally consistent
interpretations are:
The attempt was cut short for unstated reasons.
The discussion focused on E = m v^2 / 2 and why it
applies to the rocket regardless of the puzzle.
The offered explanations went over the kid's head.
The kid was given an approach to work out on his own
time and never got around to it.
None of those implicates the teacher's competence and
are equally supported by my wording of the anecdote.

There is, of course, the very real possibility that the teacher
was taken in by the puzzle's implicit assumptions, at least
for the time that he attempted to "resolve" it. I think to
call somebody incompetent for that is highly inappropriate
and conflates talent with infallibility.

My personal view of that teacher is, in fact, very favorable.
He prepared his lectures and demonstrations very well, had
an engaging manner of presentation, encouraged questions,
and could usually find alternative ways of explaining what
confounded some students (including myself). In addition,
he made himself available after regular classroom hours for
long discussions with students who wished to do so. During
those sessions, (in which I and some friends partook), he was
usually able to answer our questions and go on to illuminate
interesting related issues.

I consider myself indebted to that teacher, (Mr. McMurtry
of Seattle's Ingraham High in 1968), not only for his extra
effort and dedication, but for being a friend as well during
a difficult time. He proved that by efforts that went well
outside of his classroom.

Because of my high regard for the man and his talent, I
would never attempt to impugn his competence as has
been so vilely proclaimed by a few ill-motivated people.

My anecdote is true, insofar as I am able to accurately
remember the incident 37+ years later, and I would be
craven beyond words to warp his effort(s) on my behalf
into the ploy John and his pal(s) have tried to portray.
I deny it, unequivocally and vehemently.

I further deny that I have any desire whatsoever to
impress John Fields, Fred Bloggs, or anybody else
who is willing to assume or invent the worst possible
interpretation of sparse facts. In my estimation, such
people's "good" regard is worth a tad less than nothing.

Their insult, (which I do not take personally), is the
suggestion that I would court their good opinion in any
way, let alone the despicable manner they have alleged.
Their imagination to that effect is completely baseless.

and you as, well, once
again, Larry must stay on top of it all... That's what's behind most
everything you've posted, and seems to be the driving force in your
life.

Conjecture, speculation, and surmise. Your forte.

Why?

Why is your speculation and conjecture true? Is that
what you're asking? You do realize, I should hope,
that when you build speculation upon conjecture
upon surmise, the result differs little from fantasy.

(John's speculation regarding his own speculation cut.)

In general, I will not be answering your conjectures and
innuendos. This is more certain when they are obviously
strung together flights of fancy and self-serving conclusion.

He posted another, challenging us to explain why a transistor's Ic
goes down when you zener the b-e junction. This one also has a trick
answer: it doesn't.

You have misconstrued what I said.

I wrote "One 2nd order effect is that the extra
majority carriers reduce the equilibrium density of
minority carriers in the base region, reducing what is
usually thought of as the C-B leakage."

I never claimed it was the only 2nd order effect,
and explicitly said it was not: "I'm only stating the
effect of the 2nd order effect I mentioned. There
are a few others. You have to add them all up if
you're nuts enough to want to predict how they
will show up in real devices."

And the posed question said nothing about Ic going
down. On that, it said only "What happens to the
current as indicated by the meter? Now, why?

You have already seen that the effects are small,
being 4+ orders of magnitude down. Why do you
insist that what you see is contrary to what I've
stated? I only claimed that there would be small
effects. The fact that I named one whose sign
differs from what you saw does not contradict
the thrust of my prediction, which is that there
is no 1st order (ie "large") effect.

And to deal with another matter, there is no
"trick" answer. There are answers founded
on facts and reasoning, and all the rest.
---
As usual, someone (of course) misconstrued what you said and you have
to jump in there and spend an inordinate amount of time defending your
former "position", but not without introducing an out or two for next
time.

Why do you not deal with the merits? I was misconstrued;
there has been no change of position, and your conjecture
about why my answer was not complete and final is silly.

I never wrote "(emphasis mine)" or "_usually_" as "quoted" below.

"What is _usually_ thought of as the C-B leakage"? (emphasis mine)
To contradict that point would take an inordinate amount of study just
for the purpose of blowing your statement off and would also provide
you with a convenient jumping-off place to start yet another thread
for the purpose of taking the heat off of you by diverting the focus
from the point at hand.

So, do you mean to imply that you *could* blow it off if only you wished
to take the time and did not prefer your usual conjecture and innuendo?
Or are you merely suggesting it might be wrong if only you could learn the
relevant subject matter and decide? You are a most amusing specimen.

I believe JL asked you in another post whether you were going to do
the testing you claimed you were going to do or whether you were going
to talk the thing to death. Which is it going to be?

You could consult my answer to him if you were actually interested in an
answer instead of posturing. I think, given your absence in the b-e zener
discussion and lack of device physics study, you really could care less.

Unless you have something intelligent to say in response to this,
any reply of yours will likely [1] go unanswered. Your posturing,
games, and habitually low tactics are too insufferable for me.

[1. I may elect to refute new slurs in a new thread. ]

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:4244C542.6040301@nospam.com...
[Referring to my absence of a little more than a half day]

He is dropping posts left and right now. After shooting his mouth off in his usual vague and non-informational way in the "How to
Verify the Correction of the Optical Encoder on Motor" thread, and then asked by the OP to clarify- he never responded.


That's funny, Fred. You claimed to be amused by
the "fact" (your claim) that "Electronic Swear" was
a troll who had sucked me in. I went through most
of that entity's recent posts to determine whether
there was any substance to that claim, and decided
you were right. Now, you would appear to take
the position that not answering a troll's followup
represents some kind of laxity.

Right- because it should have been a no-brainer to post a quick
demodulator like you pretended to know about.

All I can say to your effort is that I do know better
than to worry about your opinion.

That is what you say, but what you mean is that you are withdrawing.

It doesn't take much to backlog that windbag.


Hmmm. Had lunch with a friend, did some work,
spent a few hours in the park with my grandson, and
spent a pleasant evening with my wife. Yep, some
burdensome backlog had me completely occupied.

And in which of your alternative realities did this occur?

If you are so smart, why have you not learned to
stick to the evidence?

We don't play those games around here and you are in no position to
dictate the rules.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote
in message news:q4o9415s1uh4dgctj8dflpseqivdqvialo@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:36:41 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:22j841db7unbaq3es8p6mniees46cic3ui@4ax.com...
....
He posted another, challenging us to explain why a transistor's Ic
goes down when you zener the b-e junction. This one also has a trick
answer: it doesn't.

You have misconstrued what I said.

I wrote "One 2nd order effect is that the extra
majority carriers reduce the equilibrium density of
minority carriers in the base region, reducing what is
usually thought of as the C-B leakage."

I never claimed it was the only 2nd order effect,
and explicitly said it was not: "I'm only stating the
effect of the 2nd order effect I mentioned. There
are a few others. You have to add them all up if
you're nuts enough to want to predict how they
will show up in real devices."


Well, I measured the zero-order effect, the initial leakage. And I
measured the first-order effect, the linear increase in Ic with Ie. If
there are higher-order effects, I didn't have the resolution or
enthusiasm to resolve them. The linear effect was clearly the biggie.

I'm hoping, with some distortion analysis, to pull some
of that out, if there. I don't expect any because I do not
see more than one large input, (the tunnelled carriers),
and its primary or direct effect is practically zero.

And the posed question said nothing about Ic going
down. On that, it said only "What happens to the
current as indicated by the meter? Now, why?

Well, the only answer you provided was that it would go down.

The only "answer" I provided was not, strictly speaking,
an answer. I suppose one would be timely, (although it
can be readily inferred from what I've stated). To wit:
I do not predict the sign of the effect for either transistors
having relatively low b-e breakdown voltage or those
having b-e breakdown in the neighborhood of 6 V.
This non-prediction is due to my awareness of several
indirect effects, patiently explained to me by a couple
of the more knowledgable interviewees I have had the
pleasure of interviewing. There is more than one sign
in that set, and I have little basis upon which to guess
whichs ones will predominate in their summed effect.

You have already seen that the effects are small,
being 4+ orders of magnitude down. Why do you
insist that what you see is contrary to what I've
stated? I only claimed that there would be small
effects. The fact that I named one whose sign
differs from what you saw does not contradict
the thrust of my prediction, which is that there
is no 1st order (ie "large") effect.

"First order" doesn't mean "large"; it means linear on input.

I agree with your point that there is such a precise meaning
for the term, and that I have abused the term in that sense.
There is a common and still useful (I think) meaning which
relates to effects that show up indirectly, often delayed or
obscured in some way. I did not invent that usage.

Or maybe
you're using a different kind of polynomial than the ones I'm used to.

<g> Maybe. Who can say? Want a polynomial shootout? <g>
(It could be the most boring technical argument of all time.)

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:20:28 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

The only "answer" I provided was not, strictly speaking,
an answer.

OK, I'll grant you that!

I suppose one would be timely,

Don't go to any trouble. I did it.

(although it
can be readily inferred from what I've stated). To wit:
I do not predict the sign of the effect for either transistors
having relatively low b-e breakdown voltage or those
having b-e breakdown in the neighborhood of 6 V.
This non-prediction is due to my awareness of several
indirect effects, patiently explained to me by a couple
of the more knowledgable interviewees I have had the
pleasure of interviewing. There is more than one sign
in that set, and I have little basis upon which to guess
whichs ones will predominate in their summed effect.

So you and the interviewees for, I think you stated, 27 years,
patiently pontificated on "indirect" effects, and never actually tried
it? What's the point of abstractly philosophising on a transistor
effect when you can't even decide on the sign, and you can measure it
in five minutes?

And, as far as I can tell, you've posted thousands of words on the
subject and you *still* haven't measured it.

This is silly.

John

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote
in message news:a9ib41d6d6p5u8m30la055u9mmr456ad50@4ax.com...

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:20:28 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

The only "answer" I provided was not, strictly speaking,
an answer.

OK, I'll grant you that!

I suppose one would be timely,

Don't go to any trouble. I did it.

Your experiment is such a small sample that it does not answer
the question either. Do you have reason to predict the same
answer for a PNP, or an RF transistor, or a cooler one?

(although it
can be readily inferred from what I've stated). To wit:
I do not predict the sign of the effect for either transistors
having relatively low b-e breakdown voltage or those
having b-e breakdown in the neighborhood of 6 V.
This non-prediction is due to my awareness of several
indirect effects, patiently explained to me by a couple
of the more knowledgable interviewees I have had the
pleasure of interviewing. There is more than one sign
in that set, and I have little basis upon which to guess
whichs ones will predominate in their summed effect.

So you and the interviewees for, I think you stated, 27 years,
patiently pontificated on "indirect" effects, and never actually tried
it? What's the point of abstractly philosophising on a transistor
effect when you can't even decide on the sign, and you can measure it
in five minutes?

I believe somebody has already declared the uselessness of
the effect. So running out to the lab was not a priority during
or after those interviews. However, I did perform a similar
experiment back when the question first arose in a practical
context. The answer I got was "not much", and I could not
tell you the sign to save my life because it did not matter.

As for "you ... pontificated", that has not happened. There
is too much to discover in too little time during an interview
to be spending time on anything as silly as that.

And, as far as I can tell, you've posted thousands of words on the
subject and you *still* haven't measured it.

You've gone beyond the evidence again.

This is silly.

Ok, I have to agree, in this context. But that question has
worked very well for interview purposes. I doubt that my
employer's would consider it silly or misconceived.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <qIm1e.70$ml6.656@news.uswest.net>,
Larry Brasfield <donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote
in message news:a9ib41d6d6p5u8m30la055u9mmr456ad50@4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:20:28 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

The only "answer" I provided was not, strictly speaking,
an answer.

OK, I'll grant you that!

I suppose one would be timely,

Don't go to any trouble. I did it.

Your experiment is such a small sample that it does not answer
the question either. Do you have reason to predict the same
answer for a PNP, or an RF transistor, or a cooler one?

I don't see what question you mean is not answered. You proposed a theory
and suggested a result of an experiment based on this theory. An
experiment has shown that the results do not match your theory. You have,
as of yet, not proposed an adjusted theory that matches the expermental
data we have. Until you have said "I have a theory X that predicts the
results of experment Y as being Z" there really is no need for anyone to
perform the experiment to test the improved theory.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:48:27 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:32:13 -0800, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


Actually, the puzzle is that the power is constant (a constant rate of
fuel burn) but the rocket's kinetic energy is increasing quadratically
with time, since the velocity is increasing linearly (if you ignore
changes in acceleration due to the changing mass of the rocket).

Why is that a puzzle? It starts out at zero efficiency and, just
before it runs out of fuel, it's worked its way up to rotten
efficiency; that violates no physical laws.

John

And it's dragging on the ground as well. Sno-o-o-o-o-o-ort ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Robert Monsen]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:32:13 -0800, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:

Actually, the puzzle is that the power is constant (a constant rate of
fuel burn) but the rocket's kinetic energy is increasing quadratically
with time, since the velocity is increasing linearly (if you ignore
changes in acceleration due to the changing mass of the rocket).

Why is that a puzzle? It starts out at zero efficiency and, just
before it runs out of fuel, it's worked its way up to rotten
efficiency; that violates no physical laws.

Actually, that doesn't help at all. We all know it's OK, and that
rockets don't violate conservation of energy. The puzzle is why do these
two ways of looking at the energy at a given time give different answers?

I think it's a fair puzzle. It points out that conservation of energy is
harder than it sounds initially, and that you have to be careful when
adding up the energy. It's no deeper than that.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Active8 wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:17:48 -0600, Ratch wrote:


Look at it another way, the conversion of the rocket fuel into thrust is not
a proportional relationship to KE.


Now you're becoming a bore really - Read my posts *and* the OP.
I've been saying something close to that all along, to wit: KE is
proportional to the square of velocity which is proportional to
acceleration which is proportional to force or thrust. You don't
have to ponder/know/guess the conversion of fuel to thrust or the
efficiency to see that. At least I don't, nor others here that are
most likely sitting back laughing at this bullsh*t.


For instance, if a rocket burns without
sufficient force to take off, it can shoot its whole fuel energy wad and
accumulate no KE at all. If a rocket is going fast, it accumulates KE at a
faster rate than it did going slow. I proved that above. So it is a
mistake to say that when a rocket is burning and expending its energy at a
constant rate, its KE is increasing proportionately. Ratch


I said it better with my math - once with conservation of momentum
principles and once with conservation of energy principles. Thanks
for writing out your thoughts with equations, but as you said, the
non-puzzle was why a linearly varying quantity (mass) does not
produce another linear varying quantity (energy)

To say that v^2 is proportional to 3*KE is nothing more than
plugging in numbers. It kind of obscured the real problem with the
non-puzzle, at least for me. And all those words.

Thanks again.

I think you can work with a constant momentum of close system with no
external force applied- so that M(t)*dV/dt=-V*dM(t)/dt is just another
way of saying the rocket acceleration is proportional to mass rate of
burn of fuel, and also that a linear time rate of change in velocity is
produced by the linear time rate of change of fuel mass, the requirement
of constant thrust.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Robert Monsen wrote:

Active8 wrote:

I'll have to check google for that 'cause it's not in my seb headers
(I only pulled 100) I went ahead and did the total differential with
a changing mass (i think I left that out of the accel/velocity part)
and integrated that and ended up with a sum of 2 energies for the
total kinetic energy. I think that's what JT suggested I do (write
it wrt time)

One of the terms looks like it contains impulse and I forget what
you multiply impulse by to get E (I could have checked the
dimensions) but it looks normal.


Actually, the puzzle is that the power is constant (a constant rate of
fuel burn) but the rocket's kinetic energy is increasing quadratically
with time, since the velocity is increasing linearly (if you ignore
changes in acceleration due to the changing mass of the rocket). Just
looking at those two facts, it's a puzzle, because it seems to
contradict conservation of energy. The answer is to also consider the ke
of the burnt fuel.

If you look at it that way, it is puzzling. If the fuel burn process
results in constant thrust, Fthrust, then the power this imparts to the
rocket is Fthrust*Vrocket. This should tell you that fuel burn does NOT
apply energy to the rocket at constant rate, it increases with
increasing velocity.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:22j841db7unbaq3es8p6mniees46cic3ui@4ax.com...

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:12:10 -0800, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


My issue (and Fred's, I'm gussing) wasn't really about the puzzler
itself, it was with the "Let's see if we can show this guy up" attitude
it was originally posted with.


That whole line of thinking is insulting and founded
only on misreading between the lines.

There is no reading between the lines required. *ALL* of your little
anecdotes are the same: 1) Larry Brasfield is brilliant, 2) Larry
Brasfield discovers associate who is not brilliant, 3) Larry Brasfield
poses puzzle to associate, 4) associate collapses in wonderment at Larry
Brasfield's brilliance, and 5) his/her/its life changed forever. This is
all quite explicit and does not involve any inference-and your narration
style also betrays a profound lack of intelligence on your part in the
way you assume everything needs to be spelled out with no allowance for
subtlety.

How anybody
can take it as more than a mystified kid asking the
question because he wants an answer says more
about the conjecturers as it does about my motive.


He posted another, challenging us to explain why a transistor's Ic
goes down when you zener the b-e junction. This one also has a trick
answer: it doesn't.


You have misconstrued what I said.

It seems that quite a few people have been misconstruing what you have
said lately, Larry- maybe you need to get a clue, instead of insisting
on the same tired old model of Larry educating the inferior world.

[...snip the rest of your gibberish...]

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Robert Monsen wrote:

No, that is a consequence of doing the computation with a fixed mass
rocket. If you let the mass of the rocket vary, then the rocket can
achieve any velocity. My old physics book claims the final velocity is
related by

Mf/Mo = exp(-vf/Vt)

where vf is the final velocity, Mf is the final mass, Mo is the initial
mass, and Vt is the velocity of the thrust with respect to the rocket.
Thus,

vf = Vt * ln(Mo/Mf)

Since Mf can get as small as you want, the final velocity can get as
large as you want. Clearly, the more Vt you can get, the better off the
situation is.

Interesting little problem- let's solve it. Note that it is understood
that Vt is relative to rocket V so that thrust exhaust products have
velocity V-Vt. Then the total differential of momentum in time interval
dt must sum to zero and this is -(V-Vt)*(dM/dt)*dt +
(M+(dM/dt)*t)*(dV/dt)*dt + V*(dM/dt)*dt , where first term is increment
of exhaust mass contribution to momentum, second term is rocket
acceleration contribution, third term is rocket time rate of mass
change contribution, and dM/dt is fuel burn rate <0. This is then
-(V-Vt)*dM+(M+(dM/dt)*t)*dV+V*dM=0 , and M+(dM/dt)*t=M(t)=M, the
instantaneous mass of the rocket. Collecting terms, Vt*dM+M*dV=0, or
dV/dM=-Vt/M => V=-Vt*Ln(M) + k0 where ko=Vt*Ln(M0) by simple
integration, and assuming V=0 at M=M0. Then V=-Vt*Ln(M/M0)=Vt*Ln(M0/M)
or V/Vt=Ln(M0/M) in agreement with your textbook equation.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:36:41 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:22j841db7unbaq3es8p6mniees46cic3ui@4ax.com...

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:12:10 -0800, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


My issue (and Fred's, I'm gussing) wasn't really about the puzzler
itself, it was with the "Let's see if we can show this guy up" attitude
it was originally posted with.

That whole line of thinking is insulting and founded
only on misreading between the lines. How anybody
can take it as more than a mystified kid asking the
question because he wants an answer says more
about the conjecturers as it does about my motive.


---
Actually, it says a a lot about _you_. You're the one who's telling
the story in the present, and you relate it in a vein which is
designed to show the teacher up as incompetent and you as, well, once
again, Larry must stay on top of it all... That's what's behind most
everything you've posted, and seems to be the driving force in your
life.

Why? Was your childhood so painful that you've had to spend the
greater part of your life proving to yourself that you're _not_
worthless by trying to prove that everyone else is?
---


He posted another, challenging us to explain why a transistor's Ic
goes down when you zener the b-e junction. This one also has a trick
answer: it doesn't.

You have misconstrued what I said.

I wrote "One 2nd order effect is that the extra
majority carriers reduce the equilibrium density of
minority carriers in the base region, reducing what is
usually thought of as the C-B leakage."

I never claimed it was the only 2nd order effect,
and explicitly said it was not: "I'm only stating the
effect of the 2nd order effect I mentioned. There
are a few others. You have to add them all up if
you're nuts enough to want to predict how they
will show up in real devices."

And the posed question said nothing about Ic going
down. On that, it said only "What happens to the
current as indicated by the meter? Now, why?

You have already seen that the effects are small,
being 4+ orders of magnitude down. Why do you
insist that what you see is contrary to what I've
stated? I only claimed that there would be small
effects. The fact that I named one whose sign
differs from what you saw does not contradict
the thrust of my prediction, which is that there
is no 1st order (ie "large") effect.

And to deal with another matter, there is no
"trick" answer. There are answers founded
on facts and reasoning, and all the rest.


---
As usual, someone (of course) misconstrued what you said and you have
to jump in there and spend an inordinate amount of time defending your
former "position", but not without introducing an out or two for next
time.

"What is _usually_ thought of as the C-B leakage"? (emphasis mine)

To contradict that point would take an inordinate amount of study just
for the purpose of blowing your statement off and would also provide
you with a convenient jumping-off place to start yet another thread
for the purpose of taking the heat off of you by diverting the focus
from the point at hand.

I believe JL asked you in another post whether you were going to do
the testing you claimed you were going to do or whether you were going
to talk the thing to death. Which is it going to be?

He is dropping posts left and right now. After shooting his mouth off in
his usual vague and non-informational way in the "How to Verify the
Correction of the Optical Encoder on Motor" thread, and then asked by
the OP to clarify- he never responded. It doesn't take much to backlog
that windbag.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Active8 wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:12:10 -0800, Robert Monsen wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:42:44 -0800, Robert Monsen

snip

"A canoeist in a still pond can reach shore by jerking sharply on the
rope attached to the bow of the canoe. How do you explain this? (yes she
can! - it's true)" (question 11, chap 9, "Physics, Part I", Halliday and
Resnick, 3rd edition).


That's the book I had in HS and used at U of PA. I bought it when I
moved to a new school. And that's a damned good question. Thanks,
I'll remember to look at those noodle twisters when I'm bored.

Sadly, I don't know the answer to this, other than some hand wavings
about friction of the water on the boat. The chapter is entitled
"Conservation of Linear Momentum", so it probably has something to do
with conservation of momentum... Maybe somebody with a few more
intact brain cells left over from college can explain it.


I think it's because the energy she uses to jerk her hand is
internal to her [strike lewd remark] body. If she stopped the motion
on her own, an oppositely directed energy from inside her body would
negate that. But the rope stops her motion and that is external to
her body.

It has to do with F=M*dV/dt which for small time intervals (jerk)
becomes F*dt=(Vf-Vi) or in this simple case, Vf(velocity imparted to
canoe)=F*dt, where F is impulse force she applied to rope during the
jerk of duration dt- so many pounds*milliseconds.