Driver to drive?

[Martin Brown]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin wrote:
Science used to rely on experiment.
Newton's astronomical experiments are famous, as are Darwin's
evolutionary experiments.
Physics in particular also relies on repeatable OBSERVATIONS.
Name a single observation that the warmingists can show is even real,
never mind repeatable.
Graham
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.

Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.

You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.

Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.

A graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.

A version of Shewarts graph updated is online at
http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml

It was around 1945 that a new method with the corrections all applied
correctly came into play. I forget who the experimentalist that skewed
the distribution from 1922 onwards. During that period there was
considerable interest in the numerological conjecture that the fine
structure constant might be exactly 1/137. We now know it isn't.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Unfortunately in the public mind there is still controversy about
whether or not AGW is happening. The science is now pretty well settled.
We are changing the atmosphere by measurable amounts and in the long
term it will have consequences - mostly for low lying populous areas
like London, Tokyo, New York, and New Orleans (not worth rebuilding).
And in some cases whole countries like Bangladesh on a river delta.

But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that
about the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving.
Indeed some of the same practitioners have been working as Exxon
sponsored denialists that were involved in keeping the suckers smoking
tobacco. Their product is spreading uncertainty in the public mind to
prevent people making a rational informed decision. It was so bad at one
point that the UK's premier scientific society wrote an open letter to
Exxon complaining about them deliberately misrepresenting the science.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
(facsimile of the actual letter)

There is some point in scientists standing up to be counted on this one
rather than ceding the high ground to handful of ultraright US free
market think tank spokesmen who pretend that the science is unclear. It
is curious that extremes of left and right both deny climate science.

In the UK it was the right wing Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
that first put the issue on the agenda so we do not have the same rabid
political polarisation of the issue as in America.

But for reasons of "balance" TV debates frequently put up one denialist
and one mainstream scientist for a discussion without making it clear
that there is a big difference in the validity of their arguments. The
denialist arguments are well honed to appeal to the general public with
a cunning mixture of half truths and plausible lies. Pretty much the
same happens with UFO abductees - and the devil has all the best tunes.

I don't really like petitions, but scientists do have to stand up for
the truth. I am reminded of 100 authors against Einstein and his retort
"Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!".

Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.

With the regards to the same published people being involved with tobacco defenders
and being AGW skeptics, please do provide names and publications and dates. Please
note that the implication that science for hire can (and has been) be used against
AGW as well.

OK. Allowing for the UK being the libel law tourism capital of the world
(something which has brought the UK legal profession into disrepute) and
the litigious nature of the USA I will name only one key player who is
now dead (the dead cannot sue for libel).

Take a look at the later work of Frederick Seitz who was once an
excellent solid state physicist and educator but after his retirement he
sold his soul to R J Reynolds as a denier for hire on tobacco smoke. His
official biography in the mainstream press is very kind:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3523253.ece

The Washington Post makes his deep involvement with the tobacco industry
slightly clearer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503524.html

The public disclosure of tobacco related documents shows hard evidence:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/508263286-3286.html

It is also worth knowing what Phillip Morris thought of him:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwj53e00/pdf;jsessionid=FC140D71858F79431662F7E03E333274

The links from any of the usual source watch sites will allow you to
easily work out who are the other "deniers for hire" today, and also
which are the front organisations for their propaganda. Here is the
sourcewatch link to get you started if you want to find out more:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz

They are not all complete liars and charlatans but you do not have to
look that hard to find other tobacco "deniers for hire" in the game.
They are an incestuous little bunch so the links are not hard to find.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:15:01 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin wrote:
Science used to rely on experiment.
Newton's astronomical experiments are famous, as are Darwin's
evolutionary experiments.
Physics in particular also relies on repeatable OBSERVATIONS.
Name a single observation that the warmingists can show is even real,
never mind repeatable.
Graham
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.

Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.

You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.

Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.

A graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.

A version of Shewarts graph updated is online at
http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml

Note how the step response is underdamped, with a period of roughly 40
years. Light doesn't work this way, but people do.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:08:06 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:21:47 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:20:26 +1100, "APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com
wrote:


"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:14910c77-6d8e-400d-8f58-25a9d4166a83@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data.

Bill, have a look at the video in the following link. You can download the
data yourself, from what is supposed to be a most reputable source, and do
your own analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04

Doesn't this make a a light come on or are you still in the dark.


At last, some real climate science!

John

Less than 1000 years, less than 100 years, it is not climate. I learned
of urban heat islands some 40 years ago and they were centuries old news
then. Nor is anything that does not span 1000 years climate. Climate
runs from kiloyears to megayears.

Meaning the models can't be tested.

John

 

[Andrew Swallow]

Son of a Sea Cook wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:00:34 +0000, Andrew Swallow
am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Son of a Sea Cook wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:40:13 +0000, Andrew Swallow
am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:

No need to be paranoid, the jammers have
operators who are out to get you.

The reason not to be paranoid is because "the jammers" will not be able
to "jam" tommorow's (today's) gear. Tommorrow's battle theaters will be
fast, secure, and clean and consistent links.
Not against a sophisticated enemy such as a member of the G20.

Andrew Swallow

Bullshit. First off, your adjective constitutes an oxymoron.
"sophisticated" and "G20 member" do not go together.

Know what you are taking about. The USA is a G20 member, so are
Britain and Japan.

Andrew Swallow

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the
same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB.

A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has
the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB.

(Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...)

Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences.
I get stuff like that backwards all the time.

Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't.

I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their
basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems
at 1 mbps might also.

I'm less skeptical now.

Right.

The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than
rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional
codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity.

The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB
from capacity, sometimes less.

Steve

Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link,
I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code
over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since
transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more
believable, my skepticism remains healthy.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

 

[Jerry Avins]

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the
same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB.

A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has
the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB.

(Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...)

Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences.
I get stuff like that backwards all the time.

Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't.

I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their
basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems
at 1 mbps might also.

I'm less skeptical now.

Right.

The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than
rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional
codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity.

The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB
from capacity, sometimes less.

Steve

Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link,
I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code
over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since
transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more
believable, my skepticism remains healthy.

Remember: this is military money. Those birds are $30 million a pop.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Steve Pope]

Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the
same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB.

A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has
the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB.

(Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...)

Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences.
I get stuff like that backwards all the time.

Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't.

I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their
basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems
at 1 mbps might also.

I'm less skeptical now.

Right.

The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than
rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional
codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity.

The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB
from capacity, sometimes less.

Steve

 

[Steve Pope]

Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

Since the context was a satellite link,
I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code
over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since
transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more
believable, my skepticism remains healthy.

You're right in that the rate 1/2 convolutional code (which is
very popular for SATCOM and is specified for such use in MIL-STD-188)
just misses working at the 10% raw BER channel condition point.
For noisier satellite channels it's more popular to lower the signalling
rate than it is to lower the code rate.

(We could also have a philosophical discussion as to whether adding
spreading constitutes lowering the code rate...)

Steve

 

[krw]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:35:34 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Son of a Sea Cook wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:00:34 +0000, Andrew Swallow
am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Son of a Sea Cook wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:40:13 +0000, Andrew Swallow
am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:

No need to be paranoid, the jammers have
operators who are out to get you.

The reason not to be paranoid is because "the jammers" will not be able
to "jam" tommorow's (today's) gear. Tommorrow's battle theaters will be
fast, secure, and clean and consistent links.
Not against a sophisticated enemy such as a member of the G20.

Andrew Swallow

Bullshit. First off, your adjective constitutes an oxymoron.
"sophisticated" and "G20 member" do not go together.

Know what you are taking about. The USA is a G20 member, so are
Britain and Japan.

You're talking to AlwaysWrong.

 

[Son of a Sea Cook]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:11:34 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the
same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB.

A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has
the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB.

(Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...)

Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences.
I get stuff like that backwards all the time.

Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't.

I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their
basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems
at 1 mbps might also.

I'm less skeptical now.

Right.

The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than
rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional
codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity.

The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB
from capacity, sometimes less.

Steve

Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link,
I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code
over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since
transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more
believable, my skepticism remains healthy.

Remember: this is military money. Those birds are $30 million a pop.

Jerry

Yer nuts. Satellites are $400 million each, and that is a commercial
bird!

 

[krw]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:31:33 -0800, Son of a Sea Cook
<NotaBrewster@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:11:34 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the
same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB.

A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has
the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB.

(Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...)

Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences.
I get stuff like that backwards all the time.

Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't.

I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their
basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems
at 1 mbps might also.

I'm less skeptical now.

Right.

The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than
rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional
codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity.

The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB
from capacity, sometimes less.

Steve

Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link,
I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code
over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since
transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more
believable, my skepticism remains healthy.

Remember: this is military money. Those birds are $30 million a pop.

Jerry


Yer nuts. Satellites are $400 million each, and that is a commercial
bird!

AlwaysWrong gets it wrong once again. The "bird" in question was the
Predator, not the Satellite, DimBulb.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:51:29 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


krw wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:29:48 -0800, Son of a Sea Cook
NotaBrewster@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:30:29 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

It took them 6 years and $11 billon to discover this,

You're an idiot. The system is working. You just cannot handle the
fact that it is.

Wow! A DimBulb six-pack spotted! While certainly not unheard of
(seven is still the record, I believe), you don't see these every day.


These two are like a bad episode of 'Spy VS Spy' in a '60s Mad
magazine.

Except SvS was funny.

I did say it was bad, didn't I?


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Jerry Avins]

Son of a Sea Cook wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:11:34 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the
same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB.

A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has
the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB.
(Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...)
Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences.
I get stuff like that backwards all the time.
Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't.

I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their
basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems
at 1 mbps might also.
I'm less skeptical now.
Right.

The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than
rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional
codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity.

The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB
from capacity, sometimes less.

Steve
Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link,
I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code
over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since
transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more
believable, my skepticism remains healthy.
Remember: this is military money. Those birds are $30 million a pop.

Jerry


Yer nuts. Satellites are $400 million each, and that is a commercial
bird!

Predator, ijit!

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:52:39 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:34:06 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:03:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:41:39 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:58:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 18, 2:19 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip

Design any interesting circuits lately?

John's regular get out of jail free card, usually played after a long
post explaining why he is free to post denialist nonsense, while the
people who respond to point out that he doesn't know what he is
talking about should confine themselves to electronics.

I've been around the group long enough to have seen this card played
by John, time and time again. It's a highly predictable knee-jerk,
now. Rather than deal with his own overflowing ignorance.

Jon

Sloman is probably the single most-frequent poster to this group and
is literally 99% off-topic. And virtually every one of his posts
contains pompous insults. He is never helpful, never amusing, never
hopeful, never has ideas; he hasn't done interesting electronics in
decades and probably never will again.

Pick your friends as you will.

Who's picking friends here? I still suspect you were giving me a
bunch of bull about the holier-than-thou high road you want to take
here when you, on the same very day, continue the very thing you were
saying you don't want to encourage.

Jon

WTF is wrong with you? Do you have insufficient drama in your life?
This is an electronics design discussion group, not some self-help
online neurosis therapy clinic.

John

John you just made it to first class jerk on this one.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:52:39 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:34:06 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:03:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:41:39 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:58:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 18, 2:19 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip

Design any interesting circuits lately?

John's regular get out of jail free card, usually played after a long
post explaining why he is free to post denialist nonsense, while the
people who respond to point out that he doesn't know what he is
talking about should confine themselves to electronics.

I've been around the group long enough to have seen this card played
by John, time and time again. It's a highly predictable knee-jerk,
now. Rather than deal with his own overflowing ignorance.

Jon

Sloman is probably the single most-frequent poster to this group and
is literally 99% off-topic. And virtually every one of his posts
contains pompous insults. He is never helpful, never amusing, never
hopeful, never has ideas; he hasn't done interesting electronics in
decades and probably never will again.

Pick your friends as you will.

Who's picking friends here? I still suspect you were giving me a
bunch of bull about the holier-than-thou high road you want to take
here when you, on the same very day, continue the very thing you were
saying you don't want to encourage.

Jon

WTF is wrong with you? Do you have insufficient drama in your life?
This is an electronics design discussion group, not some self-help
online neurosis therapy clinic.

John

John you just made it to first class jerk on this one.

Tell us more about that exponential RTD thing.

John

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:33:29 -0800, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:19:40 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Design any interesting circuits lately?

Let's just take you at your word that you sincerely mean to avoid
discussing climate here and that you will do your part to avoid _any_
further ignorant comments about a subject you haven't spent any time
at. I'll buy it for the next day or so, until I see otherwise. So
let's go with that.

So what's interesting?

I'm thinking about using the headphone jack output (since it often
disables the speakers on many of the audio systems we have, unlike the
line outputs) and conditioning that signal (controlled by the existing
volume control in the device I attach to) for a specialized 2-3 watt
output amplifier (into 8 ohm speakers let's say, so about 5V peaks)
that auto-mutes in a settable 1-15 minutes. No volume control on the
unit, itself -- depending instead on the input signal which does have
a volume control. (I may need to have a front end that can be adapted
easily by the change of a single pot, for example, to accomodate
variations between headphone jacks.)

I have designed my own common-emitter amplifier stages (including one
or two with emitter to base bootstrapping to stiffen the input) for
voltage gain and have done a class-A pair of complimentary emitter
followers for output drive before. (I think I've got my terms right,
but then I'm just a modest hobbyist.) I'd like to do a quasi-
complimentary output stage this time. (For personal education.) And
I need to do some thinking about the first stage that needs to mediate
between the headphone jack output and the intermediate stage (which
I'm kind of thinking about using a diff-amp pair for, prior to the
quasi-comp output stage.) I'd love some constructive thoughts,
questions, and input. The circuit needs to detect significant changes
on the input level to manage the auto-mute. Care to offer some
constructive ideas? I know a little and I may get there on my own
after some more learning, but there's a lot I can learn from you
without as many mistakes along the way, yes? Suggest some directions
and I'll pony something up and let you know what I find out. I'd like
to stay with what I know better -- BJTs. No ICs or opamps. (I am not
looking for high fidelity. It's Petula Clark, for gosh sake.)

Meantime, show me you are serious about moving the group (which only
5% of those using the internet even know about, and far, far fewer
still ever bother to even look at) away from drawn out ad hominems and
uninformed commentary on the quality of climate science. I'd be very,
very happy to see the subject entirely dropped from the group where
essentially noone has spent a nickel's worth of their own time on it,
anyway. None of it is really worth listening to. And I really like
learning electronics. I really do.

Jon

I haven't done a quasi-complementary in a long time. I would have to
study up on some existing working circuits. LTSpice will be really
handy for that.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:29:24 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:50:29 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:01:42 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
SNIP

I think I'll play with some latching relays today. I need to store
enough energy in enough capacitors to have an FPGA set the states of
75 relays *after* a power failure. About 12 volts, 1.5 amps for around
6 milliseconds should do it.

John


With that many latching relays no reasonable capacitor will hold up if
you try to switch them all at the same time. I found out the hard way.
I had to sequence them.

Why does sequencing help? Charge is charge. Only too much ESR would
suggest sequencing.

John

There was quite a bit of wiring involved. Various strays and other non-local
losses could very well have made the difference. And a 40 A spike is non-trivial.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:28:59 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:08:06 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:21:47 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:20:26 +1100, "APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com
wrote:


"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:14910c77-6d8e-400d-8f58-25a9d4166a83@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data.

Bill, have a look at the video in the following link. You can download the
data yourself, from what is supposed to be a most reputable source, and do
your own analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04

Doesn't this make a a light come on or are you still in the dark.


At last, some real climate science!

John

Less than 1000 years, less than 100 years, it is not climate. I learned
of urban heat islands some 40 years ago and they were centuries old news
then. Nor is anything that does not span 1000 years climate. Climate
runs from kiloyears to megayears.

Meaning the models can't be tested.

John

Worse, they are substituting a weather model that demonstratedly does
not work, and calling it climate.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:49:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Unfortunately in the public mind there is still controversy about
whether or not AGW is happening. The science is now pretty well settled.
We are changing the atmosphere by measurable amounts and in the long
term it will have consequences - mostly for low lying populous areas
like London, Tokyo, New York, and New Orleans (not worth rebuilding).
And in some cases whole countries like Bangladesh on a river delta.

But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that
about the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving.
Indeed some of the same practitioners have been working as Exxon
sponsored denialists that were involved in keeping the suckers smoking
tobacco. Their product is spreading uncertainty in the public mind to
prevent people making a rational informed decision. It was so bad at one
point that the UK's premier scientific society wrote an open letter to
Exxon complaining about them deliberately misrepresenting the science.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
(facsimile of the actual letter)

There is some point in scientists standing up to be counted on this one
rather than ceding the high ground to handful of ultraright US free
market think tank spokesmen who pretend that the science is unclear. It
is curious that extremes of left and right both deny climate science.

In the UK it was the right wing Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
that first put the issue on the agenda so we do not have the same rabid
political polarisation of the issue as in America.

But for reasons of "balance" TV debates frequently put up one denialist
and one mainstream scientist for a discussion without making it clear
that there is a big difference in the validity of their arguments. The
denialist arguments are well honed to appeal to the general public with
a cunning mixture of half truths and plausible lies. Pretty much the
same happens with UFO abductees - and the devil has all the best tunes.

I don't really like petitions, but scientists do have to stand up for
the truth. I am reminded of 100 authors against Einstein and his retort
"Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!".

Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.

With the regards to the same published people being involved with tobacco defenders
and being AGW skeptics, please do provide names and publications and dates. Please
note that the implication that science for hire can (and has been) be used against
AGW as well.

OK. Allowing for the UK being the libel law tourism capital of the world
(something which has brought the UK legal profession into disrepute) and
the litigious nature of the USA I will name only one key player who is
now dead (the dead cannot sue for libel).

Take a look at the later work of Frederick Seitz who was once an
excellent solid state physicist and educator but after his retirement he
sold his soul to R J Reynolds as a denier for hire on tobacco smoke. His
official biography in the mainstream press is very kind:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3523253.ece

The Washington Post makes his deep involvement with the tobacco industry
slightly clearer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503524.html

The public disclosure of tobacco related documents shows hard evidence:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/508263286-3286.html

It is also worth knowing what Phillip Morris thought of him:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwj53e00/pdf;jsessionid=FC140D71858F79431662F7E03E333274

The links from any of the usual source watch sites will allow you to
easily work out who are the other "deniers for hire" today, and also
which are the front organisations for their propaganda. Here is the
sourcewatch link to get you started if you want to find out more:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz

They are not all complete liars and charlatans but you do not have to
look that hard to find other tobacco "deniers for hire" in the game.
They are an incestuous little bunch so the links are not hard to find.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hmmm. This "tobacco denier", became to "AGW denier". One instance. Care to
try some more? Please remember that AGW'ers are being accused of "science for
hire" as well.