Conical inductors--still $10!...

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-07-15 15:38, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 6:01:54 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
So I was chatting with my local Mini Circuits rep, who also
handles Gowanda. He asked if I was interested in conical
inductors, which I certainly am, and how much I wanted to pay for
them.

Remembering that JL had said that the Coilcraft patent had expired,
I said \"forty cents in reels\".

Turns out that Gowanda won\'t go below $10 apiece in reels. I
pointed out that I mostly wanted to use it with BFP640s and really
wasn\'t going to use a $10 inductor to decouple a 20-cent
transistor--especially since I can use series-connected
0201/0402/0603 inductors and beads to do almost as good a job, for
$0.12 total.

Those things are just ordinary ferrite or powdered iron, wound
with ordinary copper, and can\'t be that hard to make, so once the
patent(s) expire, it\'s hard to imagine how they can maintain that
pricing level.

What gives, do you suppose?

I suppose they are harder to make than we\'d like, although I don\'t
know why..

I have used Gowanda and Piconics. Yep--still pricy even though the
patents are out.

My latest idea is to emulate a conical with a series of 2-4 \"stepped
sizes\" of CCI ferrite core 0201,0402, 0603 inductors. I haven\'t had
time to develop a library of \"favorite combinations.\" Some people are
hesitant to use these coils above the first self resonance, but it is
fine to do so.

Yup, that\'s my trick too. Starting with the 0402 they\'re actually beads
(Murata BLM15BA/BLM18BB). That helps control the effects of the pads in
between the beads. I haven\'t spent enough time on it to optimize them,
but they\'re pretty good medicine.

For stabilizing BFP640s, I like to use a single BLM15BB050SN1 in the
base. Works like the bomb--I mostly use them for their studly beta,
Early voltage, and low noise--the Infineon model has BF=450, VAF=1000,
and RB=3 ohms, and the 1/f noise corner is pretty low considering it\'s a
40-GHz transistor.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:32:28 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 20:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 19:53:51 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 19:42, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-07-15 19:25, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:43:26 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 15:38, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 6:01:54 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
So I was chatting with my local Mini Circuits rep, who also
handles Gowanda.  He asked if I was interested in conical
inductors, which I certainly am, and how much I wanted to pay for
them.

Remembering that JL had said that the Coilcraft patent had expired,
I said \"forty cents in reels\".

Turns out that Gowanda won\'t go below $10 apiece in reels.  I
pointed out that I mostly wanted to use it with BFP640s and really
wasn\'t going to use a $10 inductor to decouple a 20-cent
transistor--especially since I can use series-connected
0201/0402/0603 inductors and beads to do almost as good a job, for
$0.12 total.

Those things are just ordinary ferrite or powdered iron, wound
with ordinary copper, and can\'t be that hard to make, so once the
patent(s) expire, it\'s hard to imagine how they can maintain that
pricing level.

What gives, do you suppose?

I suppose they are harder to make than we\'d like, although I don\'t
know why..

I have used Gowanda and Piconics. Yep--still pricy even though the
patents are out.

My latest idea is to emulate a conical with a series of 2-4 \"stepped
sizes\" of CCI ferrite core 0201,0402, 0603 inductors. I haven\'t had
time to develop a library of \"favorite combinations.\" Some people are
hesitant to use these coils above the first self resonance, but it is
fine to do so.


Yup, that\'s my trick too.  Starting with the 0402 they\'re actually beads
(Murata BLM15BA/BLM18BB).  That helps control the effects of the pads in
between the beads.  I haven\'t spent enough time on it to optimize them,
but they\'re pretty good medicine.

For stabilizing BFP640s, I like to use a single BLM15BB050SN1 in the
base.  Works like the bomb--I mostly use them for their studly beta,
Early voltage, and low noise--the Infineon model has BF=450, VAF=1000,
and RB=3 ohms, and the 1/f noise corner is pretty low considering it\'s a
40-GHz transistor.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


The Murata datasheet is 277 pages long!

Surely a bead in the base kills Ft, which is why it\'s there. But does
it also add HF noise? Seems like it would.

Yup.  But there are a lot, a lot of good uses for a BFS17 equivalent
with a beta of 500, no Early effect to speak of, and 0.3 nV 1-Hz noise
in the flatband.  Especially at 17 cents in reels.

Oh, and 0.08 pF C_CB.


I recently replaced a couple of BFT25s with BFS17s in a 120 MHz
Colpitts oscillator. The \'25s were just too hot. BFS17 is a nice
stable part.

Plus you can still get them.

I might try your combo transistor and bead, just for fun.

I\'d be interested in hearing about the difference in the low-frequency
jitter.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

We start the oscillator when we get a trigger, and it\'s the time base
for making delays. But we phase-lock it to an OCXO within a few
microseconds, so the long-term jitter goes away. What I want is
picoseconds of jitter for those first few us. The passives in the
circuit probably dominate jitter, I\'m guessing.

I invented the phase-lock idea, and on a good day with a lot of coffee
I can mostly understand how it works.

I could turn off the PLL and free-run it, and measure jitter vs time
delay. OK, I\'ll do that.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:32:28 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 20:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 19:53:51 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 19:42, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-07-15 19:25, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:43:26 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 15:38, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 6:01:54 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
So I was chatting with my local Mini Circuits rep, who also
handles Gowanda.  He asked if I was interested in conical
inductors, which I certainly am, and how much I wanted to pay for
them.

Remembering that JL had said that the Coilcraft patent had expired,
I said \"forty cents in reels\".

Turns out that Gowanda won\'t go below $10 apiece in reels.  I
pointed out that I mostly wanted to use it with BFP640s and really
wasn\'t going to use a $10 inductor to decouple a 20-cent
transistor--especially since I can use series-connected
0201/0402/0603 inductors and beads to do almost as good a job, for
$0.12 total.

Those things are just ordinary ferrite or powdered iron, wound
with ordinary copper, and can\'t be that hard to make, so once the
patent(s) expire, it\'s hard to imagine how they can maintain that
pricing level.

What gives, do you suppose?

I suppose they are harder to make than we\'d like, although I don\'t
know why..

I have used Gowanda and Piconics. Yep--still pricy even though the
patents are out.

My latest idea is to emulate a conical with a series of 2-4 \"stepped
sizes\" of CCI ferrite core 0201,0402, 0603 inductors. I haven\'t had
time to develop a library of \"favorite combinations.\" Some people are
hesitant to use these coils above the first self resonance, but it is
fine to do so.


Yup, that\'s my trick too.  Starting with the 0402 they\'re actually beads
(Murata BLM15BA/BLM18BB).  That helps control the effects of the pads in
between the beads.  I haven\'t spent enough time on it to optimize them,
but they\'re pretty good medicine.

For stabilizing BFP640s, I like to use a single BLM15BB050SN1 in the
base.  Works like the bomb--I mostly use them for their studly beta,
Early voltage, and low noise--the Infineon model has BF=450, VAF=1000,
and RB=3 ohms, and the 1/f noise corner is pretty low considering it\'s a
40-GHz transistor.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


The Murata datasheet is 277 pages long!

Surely a bead in the base kills Ft, which is why it\'s there. But does
it also add HF noise? Seems like it would.

Yup.  But there are a lot, a lot of good uses for a BFS17 equivalent
with a beta of 500, no Early effect to speak of, and 0.3 nV 1-Hz noise
in the flatband.  Especially at 17 cents in reels.

Oh, and 0.08 pF C_CB.


I recently replaced a couple of BFT25s with BFS17s in a 120 MHz
Colpitts oscillator. The \'25s were just too hot. BFS17 is a nice
stable part.

Plus you can still get them.

I might try your combo transistor and bead, just for fun.

I\'d be interested in hearing about the difference in the low-frequency
jitter.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

We start the oscillator when we get a trigger, and it\'s the time base
for making delays. But we phase-lock it to an OCXO within a few
microseconds, so the long-term jitter goes away. What I want is
picoseconds of jitter for those first few us. The passives in the
circuit probably dominate jitter, I\'m guessing.

I invented the phase-lock idea, and on a good day with a lot of coffee
I can mostly understand how it works.

I could turn off the PLL and free-run it, and measure jitter vs time
delay. OK, I\'ll do that.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/2020 3:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:59:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/15/2020 1:05 PM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Trying to \"educate\" people about exponential growth with an obtuse paper is not a good strategy. What is the takeaway in a couple of sentences?


I will tell you, but you\'ll have to pay me. But only in pennies - I work
very cheap!

Just take this checkerboard and put one penny on the first square, two
on the second, four on the third...

And you soon run out of pennies, and places to stack them. That\'s the
reality of exponential growth in real systems.

Look at the covid case curves. They went linear very early on, at a
few per cent of the ultimate peak.

Don\'t you people ever analyze systems?

<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-book-john-bolton-room-where-it-happened-execution-journalist-a9573186.html>

Systems are scumbags, who should be executed

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/2020 3:31 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:59:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/15/2020 1:05 PM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Trying to \"educate\" people about exponential growth with an obtuse paper is not a good strategy. What is the takeaway in a couple of sentences?


I will tell you, but you\'ll have to pay me. But only in pennies - I work
very cheap!

Just take this checkerboard and put one penny on the first square, two
on the second, four on the third...

And you soon run out of pennies, and places to stack them. That\'s the
reality of exponential growth in real systems.

Look at the covid case curves. They went linear very early on, at a
few per cent of the ultimate peak.

Don\'t you people ever analyze systems?

<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-book-john-bolton-room-where-it-happened-execution-journalist-a9573186.html>

Systems are scumbags, who should be executed

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:32:28 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 20:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 19:53:51 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 19:42, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-07-15 19:25, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:43:26 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-07-15 15:38, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 6:01:54 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
So I was chatting with my local Mini Circuits rep, who also
handles Gowanda.  He asked if I was interested in conical
inductors, which I certainly am, and how much I wanted to pay for
them.

Remembering that JL had said that the Coilcraft patent had expired,
I said \"forty cents in reels\".

Turns out that Gowanda won\'t go below $10 apiece in reels.  I
pointed out that I mostly wanted to use it with BFP640s and really
wasn\'t going to use a $10 inductor to decouple a 20-cent
transistor--especially since I can use series-connected
0201/0402/0603 inductors and beads to do almost as good a job, for
$0.12 total.

Those things are just ordinary ferrite or powdered iron, wound
with ordinary copper, and can\'t be that hard to make, so once the
patent(s) expire, it\'s hard to imagine how they can maintain that
pricing level.

What gives, do you suppose?

I suppose they are harder to make than we\'d like, although I don\'t
know why..

I have used Gowanda and Piconics. Yep--still pricy even though the
patents are out.

My latest idea is to emulate a conical with a series of 2-4 \"stepped
sizes\" of CCI ferrite core 0201,0402, 0603 inductors. I haven\'t had
time to develop a library of \"favorite combinations.\" Some people are
hesitant to use these coils above the first self resonance, but it is
fine to do so.


Yup, that\'s my trick too.  Starting with the 0402 they\'re actually beads
(Murata BLM15BA/BLM18BB).  That helps control the effects of the pads in
between the beads.  I haven\'t spent enough time on it to optimize them,
but they\'re pretty good medicine.

For stabilizing BFP640s, I like to use a single BLM15BB050SN1 in the
base.  Works like the bomb--I mostly use them for their studly beta,
Early voltage, and low noise--the Infineon model has BF=450, VAF=1000,
and RB=3 ohms, and the 1/f noise corner is pretty low considering it\'s a
40-GHz transistor.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


The Murata datasheet is 277 pages long!

Surely a bead in the base kills Ft, which is why it\'s there. But does
it also add HF noise? Seems like it would.

Yup.  But there are a lot, a lot of good uses for a BFS17 equivalent
with a beta of 500, no Early effect to speak of, and 0.3 nV 1-Hz noise
in the flatband.  Especially at 17 cents in reels.

Oh, and 0.08 pF C_CB.


I recently replaced a couple of BFT25s with BFS17s in a 120 MHz
Colpitts oscillator. The \'25s were just too hot. BFS17 is a nice
stable part.

Plus you can still get them.

I might try your combo transistor and bead, just for fun.

I\'d be interested in hearing about the difference in the low-frequency
jitter.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

We start the oscillator when we get a trigger, and it\'s the time base
for making delays. But we phase-lock it to an OCXO within a few
microseconds, so the long-term jitter goes away. What I want is
picoseconds of jitter for those first few us. The passives in the
circuit probably dominate jitter, I\'m guessing.

I invented the phase-lock idea, and on a good day with a lot of coffee
I can mostly understand how it works.

I could turn off the PLL and free-run it, and measure jitter vs time
delay. OK, I\'ll do that.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/2020 4:07 PM, Ricketty C wrote:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:01:28 AM UTC-4, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old. Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Give what a rest exactly? Providing information that others wish to minimize or directly addressing the shortcomings of Larkin?

I would be happy to never mention Larkin and the pandemic again if Larkin stops spouting his crapola.

I mean really... first he tries to tie minor flareups in countries in their winter season as if it were the second wave of the pandemic, then tries to tie massive flareups in the southern US to the use of air conditioning while totally ignoring the opening of such areas.

Larkin just refuses to accept the very clear and very easily understood connection between disease spreading behavior and the spread of the disease. It\'s almost like he has a compulsion.

I think I respond to Larkin\'s irrational behavior so strongly because to me he represents the illogical thinking of many of our politicians. At least the politicians have an excuse in that they don\'t understand the basic math of a pandemic. Oh yeah, Larkin isn\'t so good with math either.

Republicans are like \"By God if we don\'t open up these schools we\'ve
intentionally underfunded for years and have Americas kids get back to
learning about history and math and science and other stuff we ignore
and laugh at and don\'t give a shit about it\'s going to be a total
catastrophe\"

/shrug

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/2020 4:07 PM, Ricketty C wrote:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:01:28 AM UTC-4, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old. Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Give what a rest exactly? Providing information that others wish to minimize or directly addressing the shortcomings of Larkin?

I would be happy to never mention Larkin and the pandemic again if Larkin stops spouting his crapola.

I mean really... first he tries to tie minor flareups in countries in their winter season as if it were the second wave of the pandemic, then tries to tie massive flareups in the southern US to the use of air conditioning while totally ignoring the opening of such areas.

Larkin just refuses to accept the very clear and very easily understood connection between disease spreading behavior and the spread of the disease. It\'s almost like he has a compulsion.

I think I respond to Larkin\'s irrational behavior so strongly because to me he represents the illogical thinking of many of our politicians. At least the politicians have an excuse in that they don\'t understand the basic math of a pandemic. Oh yeah, Larkin isn\'t so good with math either.

Republicans are like \"By God if we don\'t open up these schools we\'ve
intentionally underfunded for years and have Americas kids get back to
learning about history and math and science and other stuff we ignore
and laugh at and don\'t give a shit about it\'s going to be a total
catastrophe\"

/shrug

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/2020 4:07 PM, Ricketty C wrote:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:01:28 AM UTC-4, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old. Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Give what a rest exactly? Providing information that others wish to minimize or directly addressing the shortcomings of Larkin?

I would be happy to never mention Larkin and the pandemic again if Larkin stops spouting his crapola.

I mean really... first he tries to tie minor flareups in countries in their winter season as if it were the second wave of the pandemic, then tries to tie massive flareups in the southern US to the use of air conditioning while totally ignoring the opening of such areas.

Larkin just refuses to accept the very clear and very easily understood connection between disease spreading behavior and the spread of the disease. It\'s almost like he has a compulsion.

I think I respond to Larkin\'s irrational behavior so strongly because to me he represents the illogical thinking of many of our politicians. At least the politicians have an excuse in that they don\'t understand the basic math of a pandemic. Oh yeah, Larkin isn\'t so good with math either.

Republicans are like \"By God if we don\'t open up these schools we\'ve
intentionally underfunded for years and have Americas kids get back to
learning about history and math and science and other stuff we ignore
and laugh at and don\'t give a shit about it\'s going to be a total
catastrophe\"

/shrug

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 1:38:14 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 08:00:21 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old. Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Ignore him. That\'s easy.

John Larkin\'s capacity for ignorance is remarkable. I seem to spend a lot of time making remarks about it.

His capacity to ignore the fact that he has posted ignorant misconceptions isn\'t unique - Flyguy gets stuff wrong even more frequently - but he isn\'t stupid enough for the obvious explanation to be entirely credible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 1:38:14 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 08:00:21 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old. Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Ignore him. That\'s easy.

John Larkin\'s capacity for ignorance is remarkable. I seem to spend a lot of time making remarks about it.

His capacity to ignore the fact that he has posted ignorant misconceptions isn\'t unique - Flyguy gets stuff wrong even more frequently - but he isn\'t stupid enough for the obvious explanation to be entirely credible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 1:38:14 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 08:00:21 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old. Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Ignore him. That\'s easy.

John Larkin\'s capacity for ignorance is remarkable. I seem to spend a lot of time making remarks about it.

His capacity to ignore the fact that he has posted ignorant misconceptions isn\'t unique - Flyguy gets stuff wrong even more frequently - but he isn\'t stupid enough for the obvious explanation to be entirely credible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/2020 9:37 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 7/15/2020 4:07 PM, Ricketty C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:01:28 AM UTC-4, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...if
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old.  Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Give what a rest exactly?  Providing information that others wish to
minimize or directly addressing the shortcomings of Larkin?

I would be happy to never mention Larkin and the pandemic again if
Larkin stops spouting his crapola.

I mean really... first he tries to tie minor flareups in countries in
their winter season as if it were the second wave of the pandemic,
then tries to tie massive flareups in the southern US to the use of
air conditioning while totally ignoring the opening of such areas.

Larkin just refuses to accept the very clear and very easily
understood connection between disease spreading behavior and the
spread of the disease.  It\'s almost like he has a compulsion.

I think I respond to Larkin\'s irrational behavior so strongly because
to me he represents the illogical thinking of many of our
politicians.  At least the politicians have an excuse in that they
don\'t understand the basic math of a pandemic.  Oh yeah, Larkin isn\'t
so good with math either.


Republicans are like \"By God if we don\'t open up these schools we\'ve
intentionally underfunded for years and have Americas kids get back to
learning about history and math and science and other stuff we ignore
and laugh at and don\'t give a shit about it\'s going to be a total
catastrophe\"

/shrug

You\'d think the fahkas would be happy if every American kid got to stay
home at home-school and learn that babies come from storks and the Earth
is 8000 years old

 

[bitrex]

On 7/15/2020 9:37 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 7/15/2020 4:07 PM, Ricketty C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:01:28 AM UTC-4, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 7/15/2020 12:16 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...if
It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who ...

This is getting really old.  Why don\'t you give it a rest?

Give what a rest exactly?  Providing information that others wish to
minimize or directly addressing the shortcomings of Larkin?

I would be happy to never mention Larkin and the pandemic again if
Larkin stops spouting his crapola.

I mean really... first he tries to tie minor flareups in countries in
their winter season as if it were the second wave of the pandemic,
then tries to tie massive flareups in the southern US to the use of
air conditioning while totally ignoring the opening of such areas.

Larkin just refuses to accept the very clear and very easily
understood connection between disease spreading behavior and the
spread of the disease.  It\'s almost like he has a compulsion.

I think I respond to Larkin\'s irrational behavior so strongly because
to me he represents the illogical thinking of many of our
politicians.  At least the politicians have an excuse in that they
don\'t understand the basic math of a pandemic.  Oh yeah, Larkin isn\'t
so good with math either.


Republicans are like \"By God if we don\'t open up these schools we\'ve
intentionally underfunded for years and have Americas kids get back to
learning about history and math and science and other stuff we ignore
and laugh at and don\'t give a shit about it\'s going to be a total
catastrophe\"

/shrug

You\'d think the fahkas would be happy if every American kid got to stay
home at home-school and learn that babies come from storks and the Earth
is 8000 years old

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:05:18 AM UTC+10, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message
Trying to \"educate\" people about exponential growth with an obtuse paper is not a good strategy. What is the takeaway in a couple of sentences?

Quite a few people don\'t understand what \"exponential growth\" means in practice, and if you spend enough time to get the idea across, they acquire a more realistic idea of the extent of the disaster a worst case Covid-19 epidemic could represent.

That\'s just one sentence.

It\'s got much the same content as the subject line of this thread, which was cut and pasted from the title of the paper.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:05:18 AM UTC+10, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message
Trying to \"educate\" people about exponential growth with an obtuse paper is not a good strategy. What is the takeaway in a couple of sentences?

Quite a few people don\'t understand what \"exponential growth\" means in practice, and if you spend enough time to get the idea across, they acquire a more realistic idea of the extent of the disaster a worst case Covid-19 epidemic could represent.

That\'s just one sentence.

It\'s got much the same content as the subject line of this thread, which was cut and pasted from the title of the paper.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:27:25 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:45:40 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:31:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Look at the covid case curves. They went linear very early on, at a
few per cent of the ultimate peak.

Don\'t you people ever analyze systems?

That\'s not analysis, when you aggregate all cases into curves.

Are single cases exponential?

Obviously not.

> Would you graph single cases?

Graphs reflect the aggregations of single cases.

How can you plot the progress of an epidemic without aggregating
cases?

We aren\'t talking about plotting progress. We are talking about explaining why the curves have the shape that they do.

You seem to be working from the hypothesis that if the shape of the curve changes, the behavior of the virus has to be changing.

In reality, the virus is much too simple to change it\'s behavior, and the shape of the curve is changing because of changes in the behavior of the people who might have got infected, and mostly didn\'t because they had changed their behavior.

It\'s not a subtle point, but one that hasn\'t yet registered with you.

Analysis is breaking down the situation into parts, and dealing individually
with the parts. Drastic measures taken to control the spread of the disease... those are important parts, and aren\'t visible without analysis. That\'s why John Larkin doesn\'t see the importance; he\'s not conversant with the analysis principle.

Word salad. Insults. That\'s all you\'ve got.

He\'s made a real point, and you\'ve decided that you don\'t want to go to the trouble of understanding it, probably because - at the subconscious level - you are aware that to take it on board would make you feel unhappy about your performance.

It\'s not a flattering observation about you, and you perceive any observation about you that falls short of flattery as an insult.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:27:25 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:45:40 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:31:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Look at the covid case curves. They went linear very early on, at a
few per cent of the ultimate peak.

Don\'t you people ever analyze systems?

That\'s not analysis, when you aggregate all cases into curves.

Are single cases exponential?

Obviously not.

> Would you graph single cases?

Graphs reflect the aggregations of single cases.

How can you plot the progress of an epidemic without aggregating
cases?

We aren\'t talking about plotting progress. We are talking about explaining why the curves have the shape that they do.

You seem to be working from the hypothesis that if the shape of the curve changes, the behavior of the virus has to be changing.

In reality, the virus is much too simple to change it\'s behavior, and the shape of the curve is changing because of changes in the behavior of the people who might have got infected, and mostly didn\'t because they had changed their behavior.

It\'s not a subtle point, but one that hasn\'t yet registered with you.

Analysis is breaking down the situation into parts, and dealing individually
with the parts. Drastic measures taken to control the spread of the disease... those are important parts, and aren\'t visible without analysis. That\'s why John Larkin doesn\'t see the importance; he\'s not conversant with the analysis principle.

Word salad. Insults. That\'s all you\'ve got.

He\'s made a real point, and you\'ve decided that you don\'t want to go to the trouble of understanding it, probably because - at the subconscious level - you are aware that to take it on board would make you feel unhappy about your performance.

It\'s not a flattering observation about you, and you perceive any observation about you that falls short of flattery as an insult.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 5:31:37 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:59:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/15/2020 1:05 PM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Trying to \"educate\" people about exponential growth with an obtuse paper is not a good strategy. What is the takeaway in a couple of sentences?


I will tell you, but you\'ll have to pay me. But only in pennies - I work
very cheap!

Just take this checkerboard and put one penny on the first square, two
on the second, four on the third...

And you soon run out of pennies, and places to stack them. That\'s the
reality of exponential growth in real systems.

Look at the covid case curves. They went linear very early on, at a
few per cent of the ultimate peak.

But you don\'t seem to understand why. You keep on telling us that the virus \"burns out\" when the virus doesn\'t change at all, but rather enough people have got frightened of getting it to change their behavior in a way that makes them less likely to get it

> Don\'t you people ever analyze systems?

Do you ever really understand what\'s going on in the systems you analyse? Or do you always settle for the first faintly plausible explanation you come up with?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 5:31:37 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:59:09 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/15/2020 1:05 PM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Trying to \"educate\" people about exponential growth with an obtuse paper is not a good strategy. What is the takeaway in a couple of sentences?


I will tell you, but you\'ll have to pay me. But only in pennies - I work
very cheap!

Just take this checkerboard and put one penny on the first square, two
on the second, four on the third...

And you soon run out of pennies, and places to stack them. That\'s the
reality of exponential growth in real systems.

Look at the covid case curves. They went linear very early on, at a
few per cent of the ultimate peak.

But you don\'t seem to understand why. You keep on telling us that the virus \"burns out\" when the virus doesn\'t change at all, but rather enough people have got frightened of getting it to change their behavior in a way that makes them less likely to get it

> Don\'t you people ever analyze systems?

Do you ever really understand what\'s going on in the systems you analyse? Or do you always settle for the first faintly plausible explanation you come up with?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney