Math and electrical desgin

Mike Coon <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com> wrote in
news:MPG.38ebfce98c859c7baf@news.plus.net:

In article <r5s8tc$992$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org>,
jasen@xnet.co.nz says...

On 2020-03-28, Mike Coon <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com> wrote:
In article <r5lujd$1pt7$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org says...

It is not an uninterruptible power supply. It is a
microprocessor.
Need the Latin Mu symbol ľ And you knew that. You're just
lazy.

And you are just intentionally setting out to annoy the Greeks
by calling "symbol ľ" "Latin"!

According to ISO it's Latin.

ľ - "Latin-1" "micro sign". code point U+00B5

This one is Greek

ľ - "Greek" "lower case Mu" code point U+03BC


Thanks for that; very subtle!

You spelled Sľbtle incorrectly.

 

Le 30/03/2020 à 15:28, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org a Êcrit :

Nice try. I learned to swim by 2 and knew my alphabet and could
easily count the number of blacksnakes my brother had outside in the
garbage cans.

Enchanted!
Swimming, learning Alphabet (which one by BTW?)...pfff as anyone down
here, running after snakes, a kid-retarded of a retarded family of yours
.... who cares?? You should better learn something useful. You asshole
Numero Uno

 

bilboard@eu.eu wrote in news:5e820499$0$16830$426a74cc@news.free.fr:

Le 30/03/2020 Ă  15:28, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org a
Êcrit :
Nice try. I learned to swim by 2 and knew my alphabet and
could
easily count the number of blacksnakes my brother had outside in
the garbage cans.
Enchanted!
Swimming, learning Alphabet (which one by BTW?)

Learn to read, you retarded fuck.

>...pfff

Is that a word, peter puffer boy?

as anyone
down here,

Down where, dumbfuck? You already down in Satan's domain?

> running after snakes,

You are mumbling again, fucktard. You must be a Trump supporter.

> a kid-retarded

Speak English, dumbfuck. You sully the human race with the depths
of your stupidity.

of a retarded
family of yours ... who cares??

You are mumbling again, twerp. And your assessment regarding "who
cares", I could give a fat flying fuck about, but I don't.

You should better learn something
useful.

Yuo should take a remedial English grammar and composition course,
you stupid sub-human fucktard.

> You asshole Numero Uno

Nope. Just one among billions. You do not even rate with a
paramecium, however, but your stench tops them all.


I have a nice nine inch blade to go up in your retarded punk fuck
ass with, boy. But you'd probably like that.

 

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in
news:r5t1o2$r1d$1@dont-email.me:

On 30/03/2020 15:44, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in
news:r5sq20$3h4$1@dont-email.me:

On 27/03/2020 23:26, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:86ns7fhvf1jenfnj92adirpc8t17vkne50@4ax.com:

uPs

It is not an uninterruptible power supply. It is a
microprocessor.
Need the Latin Mu symbol Âľ And you knew that. You're just
lazy.

Alt-0181

Just like math, certain key combinations should be known by
today's
modern computer user.

ÂľPs

Looks better.
Sounds better.
Feels good.
Real good.
Get some.

Degree symbol is alt-0176
37° C

39° C would be where I start looking for other symptoms.

Another way is to hit the windows symbol key and the R key
to bring
up the Run dialog, and enter 'charmap' in the dialog box and
press return. Grab any character you want at that point, and
see the key combo down in the lower status bar.


Surely as a Linux use you can just type these symbols directly?
Maybe you first have to choose a better keyboard layout if you
have picked the severely limited standard US keyboard layout.

Maybe you should rememeber the roots of the machine you are
typeing
on, special keyboard boy.

I
get ¾ from AltGr+m, and ° from Shift+AltGr+0. Easier to type,
and easier to remember.


Alt Gr m??? We have no Gr key over here, boy! (Foghorn
Leghorn)

And it is easy to tell why.

And easy to rememeber why.

The ALTernate character set is not part of the main 128 character
set, and is accessed on a perfectly NORMAL keyboard using the alt
key and a numeric sequence that ALL personal computers started
with. What the fuck a "Gr" key is we do not know. But I can
assign keyboard shortcuts as I wish without the need for some
strange character.

ANY "user" of ANY computer should possess enough brains to
learn
basic computing paradigms, or be relinquished to asking others
for help. But the text substitute thing is bad.

U R Stew Pid and LOL and all that crap is really dumb. TYPE IT
OUT.

That's the same realm we got pants down past the asscrack
stupidity
from. And any odd keyboard layout adopted since the AT spec
emerged are the odd men out, not us. And if Linux or BSD does
not allow me to simply tyrpe in the standardized alt + numeric to
get an otherwise unavailable character up, then fuck them too.


I think someone needs to calm down a little!

Awww... Get yourself a napkin. Get yourself two.

And once you have relaxed, you can read a little history.

Remember Firsesign Theater? "How 'bout you, Brown?"
"Well, you can kiss my ass, you honkey motherfucker!"

Maybe you can 'feel' the suggesstion.

Then
you could read a little about how to type different characters on
a Linux system.

I use Linux AND BSD. I do not need a primer from you, Brown.

"I need volunteers to go weed out this marijuana patch..."
-George Leroy Tirebiter

Or if you can't use Linux, you might like to
change your pseudonym.

You really are thick. I am allowed to dislike it. I am allowed to
like it. My embrace of whichever HID input method I wish is MY
choice.

I think you can't use your fucking brain. --Uhh Clem.

I think we are all bozos on this bus.

 

[David Brown]

On 30/03/2020 15:44, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in
news:r5sq20$3h4$1@dont-email.me:

On 27/03/2020 23:26, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:86ns7fhvf1jenfnj92adirpc8t17vkne50@4ax.com:

uPs

It is not an uninterruptible power supply. It is a
microprocessor.
Need the Latin Mu symbol Âľ And you knew that. You're just
lazy.

Alt-0181

Just like math, certain key combinations should be known by
today's
modern computer user.

ÂľPs

Looks better.
Sounds better.
Feels good.
Real good.
Get some.

Degree symbol is alt-0176
37° C

39° C would be where I start looking for other symptoms.

Another way is to hit the windows symbol key and the R key to
bring
up the Run dialog, and enter 'charmap' in the dialog box and
press return. Grab any character you want at that point, and see
the key combo down in the lower status bar.


Surely as a Linux use you can just type these symbols directly?
Maybe you first have to choose a better keyboard layout if you
have picked the severely limited standard US keyboard layout.

Maybe you should rememeber the roots of the machine you are typeing
on, special keyboard boy.

I
get ¾ from AltGr+m, and ° from Shift+AltGr+0. Easier to type,
and easier to remember.


Alt Gr m??? We have no Gr key over here, boy! (Foghorn Leghorn)

And it is easy to tell why.

And easy to rememeber why.

The ALTernate character set is not part of the main 128 character
set, and is accessed on a perfectly NORMAL keyboard using the alt key
and a numeric sequence that ALL personal computers started with.
What the fuck a "Gr" key is we do not know. But I can assign
keyboard shortcuts as I wish without the need for some strange
character.

ANY "user" of ANY computer should possess enough brains to learn
basic computing paradigms, or be relinquished to asking others for
help. But the text substitute thing is bad.

U R Stew Pid and LOL and all that crap is really dumb. TYPE IT OUT.

That's the same realm we got pants down past the asscrack stupidity
from. And any odd keyboard layout adopted since the AT spec emerged
are the odd men out, not us. And if Linux or BSD does not allow me
to simply tyrpe in the standardized alt + numeric to get an otherwise
unavailable character up, then fuck them too.

I think someone needs to calm down a little!

And once you have relaxed, you can read a little history. Then you
could read a little about how to type different characters on a Linux
system. Or if you can't use Linux, you might like to change your pseudonym.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:17:41 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:39:16 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-28 23:31, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:55:47 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/20 22:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Instinct is super useful for generating ideas.  We come up with some scheme by
instinct, but then test it by math.  The math involved is super familiar--what's
the noise floor, the bandwidth, the settling time, and so on.  It's the
familiarity that makes that seem like it's the same as design instinct, but it
isn't.

Very true, IMNSHO.

Practice without theory is blind fumbling.

It built aqueducts, ships, roads, cathedrals, all sorts of stuff.

Not by fiddling, though--experience accumulates. Even a pyramid will
fall down if you build it too steep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meidum_Pyramid

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Sure, fiddling evolved and techniques were passed down and evolved.
But as long as we don't already know everything, some occasional
fiddling can discover stuff.

It is often said that the most exciting sound in science
isn't "eureka", but is "that's strange".

That's as good a design strategy as inserting "fundamental
advance occurs here" into a plan. Infamously that didn't
work for the HP Itanium processor's compilers, as those
that were knowledgeable predicted.

x86 was obsolete the day it was invented.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-29 21:25, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

-------------------


Please spare me.

Phil Hobbs makes money out of collaborating with John Larkin - collaborating with an egomaniac isn't easy.


** I was unaware of that - explains a lot of the crap going on here.

So Hobbs is not just an arrogant prick Septic, he's a paid cock-sucker too.

Maybe they need to get a room....

The concept of having friends must be new to you,

** Ridiculous.


JL and I are friends and occasional collaborators,


** No - you are a lot more here.

There is collaboration and then there is conspiracy.

The latter is what criminals engage in.

The cap bloody fits you both.

You do think that designing electronics is an arcane black art.
Actually, it's easy.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:05:20 +1100, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 30/3/20 1:07 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:51:34 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 30/3/20 9:43 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
There's a story told about Roy Cohn.  He was giving a speech at a
convention for magicians.  At the end of the speech, he asked somebody
to shuffle a deck of cards, and announced that he would pull out the
jack of diamonds.  He cut the deck, and some other card came up.

A friend asked him later, "Why did you do that, Roy?"  Cohn replied, "I
had one chance in 52 of becoming a legend among magicians."

Similar story (probably apocryphal) about a kid who wanted to get hired
as a stockbroker.

He made a list of 4096 broking companies, and sent half of them one
prediction, the other half the opposite prediction.

When the outcome was decided, he did the same with the 2048 companies
he'd sent the correct answer to.

After repeating 12 times, he had one company left, and they offered him
a job. Right twelve times in a row, that has to be worth something, no?

Sort-of how JL "designs" electronics

Clifford Heath.

Pick a product from my web site and tell us how you would design it.
Something trivial like a delay generator, laser driver, resistive or
capacitive or thermocouple transducer simulator, synchro processor,
something easy like that.

I do start with a lot of crazy ideas, accidental simulations, wild
guesses. But that's just to conceive an architecture; the next step is
to define a product and implement it with brutal discipline and get it
right first try. Not many people are comfortable performing both of
those roles.

Hey, don't be too sensitive, I'm just poking fun. I actually admire you
in the "play" aspect of inventing stuff and have used it a lot in my
career too.

Oh, I'm not too sensitive. More like oblivious. But a lot of people
here complain about the way I design stuff, but don't design much
themselves. If putting parts in a box with glue and shaking it worked,
I'd do that.

Edison reckoned he found many different ways to not make a lightbulb,
too. I think that's important. Systematic approaches to design only
works after you have enough experience to systematise things. When
you're expanding frontiers, the approach only works for the support
stuff, not for the core innovations.

Didn't Einstein design some bad refrigerators?

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 30/03/20 18:54, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:17:41 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:39:16 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-28 23:31, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:55:47 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/20 22:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Instinct is super useful for generating ideas.  We come up with some scheme by
instinct, but then test it by math.  The math involved is super familiar--what's
the noise floor, the bandwidth, the settling time, and so on.  It's the
familiarity that makes that seem like it's the same as design instinct, but it
isn't.

Very true, IMNSHO.

Practice without theory is blind fumbling.

It built aqueducts, ships, roads, cathedrals, all sorts of stuff.

Not by fiddling, though--experience accumulates. Even a pyramid will
fall down if you build it too steep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meidum_Pyramid

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Sure, fiddling evolved and techniques were passed down and evolved.
But as long as we don't already know everything, some occasional
fiddling can discover stuff.

It is often said that the most exciting sound in science
isn't "eureka", but is "that's strange".

That's as good a design strategy as inserting "fundamental
advance occurs here" into a plan. Infamously that didn't
work for the HP Itanium processor's compilers, as those
that were knowledgeable predicted.

x86 was obsolete the day it was invented.

I never liked the x86 architecture, but it is still
available and going strong.

Are you thinking of the iAPX432 or i860? The former was
glacially slow, the latter was /another/ processor where
the compiler people couldn't produce a compiler that
made use of the hardware.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:55:10 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 30/03/20 18:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:17:41 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:39:16 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-28 23:31, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:55:47 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/20 22:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Instinct is super useful for generating ideas.  We come up with some scheme by
instinct, but then test it by math.  The math involved is super familiar--what's
the noise floor, the bandwidth, the settling time, and so on.  It's the
familiarity that makes that seem like it's the same as design instinct, but it
isn't.

Very true, IMNSHO.

Practice without theory is blind fumbling.

It built aqueducts, ships, roads, cathedrals, all sorts of stuff.

Not by fiddling, though--experience accumulates. Even a pyramid will
fall down if you build it too steep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meidum_Pyramid

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Sure, fiddling evolved and techniques were passed down and evolved.
But as long as we don't already know everything, some occasional
fiddling can discover stuff.

It is often said that the most exciting sound in science
isn't "eureka", but is "that's strange".

That's as good a design strategy as inserting "fundamental
advance occurs here" into a plan. Infamously that didn't
work for the HP Itanium processor's compilers, as those
that were knowledgeable predicted.

x86 was obsolete the day it was invented.

I never liked the x86 architecture, but it is still
available and going strong.

Are you thinking of the iAPX432 or i860? The former was
glacially slow, the latter was /another/ processor where
the compiler people couldn't produce a compiler that
made use of the hardware.

No I'm thinking of x86, the lineal descendent of 8008 and 4004.

The PDP-11 and 68K and VAX were elegant cisc architectures. The story
was that IBM preferred 68K for the PC but thought Intel would be
easier to control.

432 and 860 and the HP3000 were bloated. Imagine a risc cpu being
bloated!

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 4:46:02 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-29 21:25, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

-------------------


Please spare me.

Phil Hobbs makes money out of collaborating with John Larkin - collaborating with an egomaniac isn't easy.


** I was unaware of that - explains a lot of the crap going on here.

So Hobbs is not just an arrogant prick Septic, he's a paid cock-sucker too.

Maybe they need to get a room....

The concept of having friends must be new to you,

** Ridiculous.


JL and I are friends and occasional collaborators,


** No - you are a lot more here.

There is collaboration and then there is conspiracy.

The latter is what criminals engage in.

The cap bloody fits you both.

You do think that designing electronics is an arcane black art.
Actually, it's easy.

It's certainly not an arcane black art, but it isn't easy to do it well.

As far as I can see, John Larkin doesn't do it at all, but rather evolves his designs by small incremental changes, going with the changes that seem to work.

He thinks that what he does is design, but his capacity to think to about any other subject is obviously pretty much non-existent, so that this is probably one more of his face-saving misconceptions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:00:32 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:05:20 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 30/3/20 1:07 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:51:34 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 30/3/20 9:43 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
There's a story told about Roy Cohn.  He was giving a speech at a
convention for magicians.  At the end of the speech, he asked somebody
to shuffle a deck of cards, and announced that he would pull out the
jack of diamonds.  He cut the deck, and some other card came up..

A friend asked him later, "Why did you do that, Roy?"  Cohn replied, "I
had one chance in 52 of becoming a legend among magicians."

Similar story (probably apocryphal) about a kid who wanted to get hired
as a stockbroker.

He made a list of 4096 broking companies, and sent half of them one
prediction, the other half the opposite prediction.

When the outcome was decided, he did the same with the 2048 companies
he'd sent the correct answer to.

After repeating 12 times, he had one company left, and they offered him
a job. Right twelve times in a row, that has to be worth something, no?

Sort-of how JL "designs" electronics

Clifford Heath.

Pick a product from my web site and tell us how you would design it.
Something trivial like a delay generator, laser driver, resistive or
capacitive or thermocouple transducer simulator, synchro processor,
something easy like that.

I do start with a lot of crazy ideas, accidental simulations, wild
guesses. But that's just to conceive an architecture; the next step is
to define a product and implement it with brutal discipline and get it
right first try. Not many people are comfortable performing both of
those roles.

Hey, don't be too sensitive, I'm just poking fun. I actually admire you
in the "play" aspect of inventing stuff and have used it a lot in my
career too.

Oh, I'm not too sensitive. More like oblivious. But a lot of people
here complain about the way I design stuff, but don't design much
themselves. If putting parts in a box with glue and shaking it worked,
I'd do that.

Edison reckoned he found many different ways to not make a lightbulb,
too. I think that's important. Systematic approaches to design only
works after you have enough experience to systematise things. When
you're expanding frontiers, the approach only works for the support
stuff, not for the core innovations.

Didn't Einstein design some bad refrigerators?

He and Leo Slizard invented a new sort of refrigerator - novel enough to be patented, with 45 patents on three different models.

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

They weren't so much bad as optimised for safety over efficiency.

None of them are in commercial production yet, but there do seem to be applications where they might be useful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Le 30/03/2020 à 17:27, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org a Êcrit :

bilboard@eu.eu wrote in news:5e820499$0$16830$426a74cc@news.free.fr:

Le 30/03/2020 à 15:28, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org a
écrit :
Nice try. I learned to swim by 2 and knew my alphabet and
could
easily count the number of blacksnakes my brother had outside in
the garbage cans.
Enchanted!
Swimming, learning Alphabet (which one by BTW?)

Learn to read, you retarded fuck.

...pfff

Is that a word, peter puffer boy?
Yeah I puff you puffy vain old man!

as anyone
down here,

Down where, dumbfuck? You already down in Satan's domain?

Not as deeply as you are, remember You and yours kill snakes ...
probably for some sort of black sabbath ceremonies ... and you are
haunting Usenet for years with your shitty posts.

running after snakes,

You are mumbling again, fucktard. You must be a Trump supporter.

a kid-retarded

Speak English, dumbfuck. You sully the human race with the depths
of your stupidity.
I don't feel to polish my English for you Numero Uno.

of a retarded
family of yours ... who cares??

You are mumbling again, twerp. And your assessment regarding "who
cares", I could give a fat flying fuck about, but I don't.

Easy to yell with a mouth if you have and two arms you haven't, so you
cannot.

You should better learn something
useful.

Yuo should take a remedial English grammar and composition course,
you stupid sub-human fucktard.
That proves that's enough for you.

You asshole Numero Uno

Nope. Just one among billions. You do not even rate with a
paramecium, however, but your stench tops them all.
Being you among those billions parameciums?


I have a nice nine inch blade to go up in your retarded punk fuck
ass with, boy. But you'd probably like that.

You better think, go to your Church and conclude on your sins you old
man in a wheelchair and that it's always you the ass hole Numero Uno :-D
>

PS. Take it easy, I'm enjoying and laughing these days about my assault
.... ! Bwa aha ah ah

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-03-31 09:49, George Herold wrote:

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 4:05:05 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-29 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 15:09:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-29 11:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:47:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-29 07:59, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:fd467d02-06d6-78e5-bd05-d420a9f8948f@electrooptical.net:

On 2020-03-28 23:12, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:494f975a-54da-46d1-bdfb-9eaeb783919b@googlegroups.com:

Designing something cool with a few smart people at a whiteboard
is the

most fun you can have standing up.
Amen,
George H.

Barefoot water skiing.

Running off a whole rack at pool.


You've apparently never done it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Going over my design ideas with supportive co-engineers is one
thing. Having one or more unable to see what you've come up with
'providing' stupid input is entirely another, and therefore is not a
favorite thing to do. I'll design it, they'll do their pieces. No
need for a white board discussion, just a white board project
declaration, and any issues they have can be brought up while they
are doing their assigned part.

Which is not what I was referring to, at all, and sounds boring, I agree.

Collaborative design at a whiteboard may go something like this example
of a phase-sensitive laser microscope. Somebody says, "How about using
a heterodyne interferometer with an acousto-optic cell and a Wollaston
prism to recombine the beams? That way we can make the whole thing
common-path so we can use normal galvo scanning." (A real example from
long ago--an English guy improving on an idea of mine.)

Then everybody chimes in with questions such as the following.

"You'll need at least a milliwatt of laser power to get to the shot
noise in that bandwidth. That's about 200 kilowatts per square
centimetre--will your sample stand that?" (Leading to a discussion about
3-D heat conduction in solids.)

"The topological phase shift in the galvo scanner will screw up the beam
recombination in the return path, won't it?" (This is a real issue that
constrains the scan range.)

This isn't rock-throwing at all--everybody wants the thing to work, and
ideally they're all friends. After half an hour or so, everybody has a
much better idea of whether the scheme can be made to work, and the
final version probably doesn't look much like the initial proposal.

It's better if there are two or three schemes being discussed, along
with lots of ideas for improvements. You also need a few harebrained
notions tossed in. (*)

It only works if nobody minds having their pet ideas demolished, because
that's definitely going to happen. Personally I'm very glad when it
happens to me, because it may save a lot of wasted work. I have lots of
ideas, so I'm not at all attached to the bad ones.

You've apparently moved toward the Larkin attitude of presumimg
things which you know no facts regarding as it relates to me. That
is a character and integrity hit you do not want. But you live as
you like.


Not intending to be insulting at all, but as your first paragraph
suggests, you've probably never done what I'm attempting to describe.
(Or perhaps I just didn't describe it well enough initially.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) The use of helicopter propwash to knock ice off high-tension wires
allegedly came out of a discussion like that.

We did a brainstorm session once, with DR, about reflections off a
liquid metal sphere. That was wonderful. You and DR did, in about 20
minutes, astounding math. My function was just to make a lot of random
noise that could be filtered.

Pretty good quality noise, that.

I have a really big bag of tricks for doing those sorts of calculations,
mostly consisting of amusing facts, such as that in the ray model, a
shiny sphere scatters parallel light exactly equally into 4 pi
steradians, and that the scattering cross section is twice its projected
area.

No, that's impossible. It defies all common sense.

That's why it's an amusing fact, and therefore memorable. The law of
reflection tells you that tipping a mirror by an angle theta steers the
beam by 2*theta, so going from the centre to the edge, the reflected
angle rotates through 180 degrees. So you do illuminate all 4 pi
steradians. The growth of the circumference with radius is exactly
balanced out by the obliquity of the surface and the solid angle vs.
deflection, so the illumination is uniform.

Hey Phil, this stuff is great. (I'm sorry the thread went into the
tank.)
You said upstream that the scattering X-section would be twice the
physical area.. (sorry projected area.) I don't understand the factor
of two.

The factor of exactly two applies only in the wave picture, and is
easiest to see in the scalar model. A largish, lossless plane scatterer
punches a hole in the wavefront as well as directly scattering, and
both hole and scatterer produce identical amounts of scatter.

The directly scattered field is Psi_scat(x,y), and the field with the
hole punched is therefore Psi_incident - Psi_scat(x,y) because in the
absence of loss the two have to add up to Psi_incident. Psi_incident is
unscattered by hypothesis, so up to a minus sign the field perturbation
is the same in the forward and backward directions.

So in the backscatter direction you get one copy of Psi_scat, and in the
forward direction you get another copy, so the total scattering cross
section is twice that of the scatterer alone.

Maybe I don't understand what cross section means.
It's pretty easy to count the number of photons hitting the
sphere. And that's the total scattered intensity into all space
(4 pi steradians)

Oh and how much do I/we have to pay for a copy of your 'bag a tricks'
photon budget book/notes? Is there some way to self publish and make sure
you get paid? (if a publisher doesn't want it.) Hey maybe you need someone
to read and comment on it.

Sure, when I get that far that would be great. I'm still not ready with
the third edition.

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

 

[George Herold]

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 4:05:05 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-03-29 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 15:09:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-29 11:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:47:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-29 07:59, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:fd467d02-06d6-78e5-bd05-d420a9f8948f@electrooptical.net:

On 2020-03-28 23:12, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:494f975a-54da-46d1-bdfb-9eaeb783919b@googlegroups.com:

Designing something cool with a few smart people at a whiteboard
is the

most fun you can have standing up.
Amen,
George H.

Barefoot water skiing.

Running off a whole rack at pool.


You've apparently never done it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Going over my design ideas with supportive co-engineers is one
thing. Having one or more unable to see what you've come up with
'providing' stupid input is entirely another, and therefore is not a
favorite thing to do. I'll design it, they'll do their pieces. No
need for a white board discussion, just a white board project
declaration, and any issues they have can be brought up while they
are doing their assigned part.

Which is not what I was referring to, at all, and sounds boring, I agree.

Collaborative design at a whiteboard may go something like this example
of a phase-sensitive laser microscope. Somebody says, "How about using
a heterodyne interferometer with an acousto-optic cell and a Wollaston
prism to recombine the beams? That way we can make the whole thing
common-path so we can use normal galvo scanning." (A real example from
long ago--an English guy improving on an idea of mine.)

Then everybody chimes in with questions such as the following.

"You'll need at least a milliwatt of laser power to get to the shot
noise in that bandwidth. That's about 200 kilowatts per square
centimetre--will your sample stand that?" (Leading to a discussion about
3-D heat conduction in solids.)

"The topological phase shift in the galvo scanner will screw up the beam
recombination in the return path, won't it?" (This is a real issue that
constrains the scan range.)

This isn't rock-throwing at all--everybody wants the thing to work, and
ideally they're all friends. After half an hour or so, everybody has a
much better idea of whether the scheme can be made to work, and the
final version probably doesn't look much like the initial proposal.

It's better if there are two or three schemes being discussed, along
with lots of ideas for improvements. You also need a few harebrained
notions tossed in. (*)

It only works if nobody minds having their pet ideas demolished, because
that's definitely going to happen. Personally I'm very glad when it
happens to me, because it may save a lot of wasted work. I have lots of
ideas, so I'm not at all attached to the bad ones.

You've apparently moved toward the Larkin attitude of presumimg
things which you know no facts regarding as it relates to me. That
is a character and integrity hit you do not want. But you live as
you like.


Not intending to be insulting at all, but as your first paragraph
suggests, you've probably never done what I'm attempting to describe.
(Or perhaps I just didn't describe it well enough initially.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) The use of helicopter propwash to knock ice off high-tension wires
allegedly came out of a discussion like that.

We did a brainstorm session once, with DR, about reflections off a
liquid metal sphere. That was wonderful. You and DR did, in about 20
minutes, astounding math. My function was just to make a lot of random
noise that could be filtered.

Pretty good quality noise, that.

I have a really big bag of tricks for doing those sorts of calculations,
mostly consisting of amusing facts, such as that in the ray model, a
shiny sphere scatters parallel light exactly equally into 4 pi
steradians, and that the scattering cross section is twice its projected
area.

No, that's impossible. It defies all common sense.

That's why it's an amusing fact, and therefore memorable. The law of
reflection tells you that tipping a mirror by an angle theta steers the
beam by 2*theta, so going from the centre to the edge, the reflected
angle rotates through 180 degrees. So you do illuminate all 4 pi
steradians. The growth of the circumference with radius is exactly
balanced out by the obliquity of the surface and the solid angle vs.
deflection, so the illumination is uniform.

Hey Phil, this stuff is great. (I'm sorry the thread went into the
tank.)
You said upstream that the scattering X-section would be twice the
physical area.. (sorry projected area.) I don't understand the factor
of two.
Maybe I don't understand what cross section means.
It's pretty easy to count the number of photons hitting the
sphere. And that's the total scattered intensity into all space
(4 pi steradians)

Oh and how much do I/we have to pay for a copy of your 'bag a tricks'
photon budget book/notes? Is there some way to self publish and make sure
you get paid? (if a publisher doesn't want it.) Hey maybe you need someone
to read and comment on it.

George H.

(This is easy to show for a plane obstruction--the hole it
punches into the plane wave scatters just like the obstruction, except
180 degrees out of phase. Add them back together and you get the
original beam.)

That's how I do photon budgets for instruments all the time, but it's
way more fun doing it live.

How's DR doing? Have they started paying him what he's worth?

He is sort of a systems architect and futurist, looking ahead at where
semiconductor fab may go. I think his pay is OK now. It would be cool
to repeat the fun we had. There is maybe a 5% chance that we will.

Here's hoping.




Old cars, like MGs, and old Honda motorcycles, had carburetors that
obviously couldn't work. There was way too much static friction for a
little bit of differential air pressure to move the needle valve. But
there was a lot of engine vibration too.

There's a recent physics coinage for that: "stochastic resonance". Like
that famous remark of Voltaire's about the Holy Roman Empire, of course
stochastic resonance is neither stochastic nor resonance.

Any time you need a little chaos, I'm available.

Sure, we should figure out something to do together again.

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

 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 06:49:01 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

Designing something cool with a few smart people at a whiteboard
is the

most fun you can have standing up.
Amen,
George H.

Barefoot water skiing.

Silly sport. Only one person gets to do it at a time, for a few
minutes behind a stinky outboard, and all the other people sit in the
boat and watch. Snow skiing, everybody can do it together, all day
between food+drink breaks in the clubhouse.

I'm impressed by how many ski boats are blocking driveways, under
tarps that haven't been moved in years.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[George Herold]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:31:05 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-03-31 09:49, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 4:05:05 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-29 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 15:09:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-29 11:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:47:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-29 07:59, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:fd467d02-06d6-78e5-bd05-d420a9f8948f@electrooptical.net:

On 2020-03-28 23:12, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:494f975a-54da-46d1-bdfb-9eaeb783919b@googlegroups.com:

Designing something cool with a few smart people at a whiteboard
is the

most fun you can have standing up.
Amen,
George H.

Barefoot water skiing.

Running off a whole rack at pool.


You've apparently never done it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Going over my design ideas with supportive co-engineers is one
thing. Having one or more unable to see what you've come up with
'providing' stupid input is entirely another, and therefore is not a
favorite thing to do. I'll design it, they'll do their pieces. No
need for a white board discussion, just a white board project
declaration, and any issues they have can be brought up while they
are doing their assigned part.

Which is not what I was referring to, at all, and sounds boring, I agree.

Collaborative design at a whiteboard may go something like this example
of a phase-sensitive laser microscope. Somebody says, "How about using
a heterodyne interferometer with an acousto-optic cell and a Wollaston
prism to recombine the beams? That way we can make the whole thing
common-path so we can use normal galvo scanning." (A real example from
long ago--an English guy improving on an idea of mine.)

Then everybody chimes in with questions such as the following.

"You'll need at least a milliwatt of laser power to get to the shot
noise in that bandwidth. That's about 200 kilowatts per square
centimetre--will your sample stand that?" (Leading to a discussion about
3-D heat conduction in solids.)

"The topological phase shift in the galvo scanner will screw up the beam
recombination in the return path, won't it?" (This is a real issue that
constrains the scan range.)

This isn't rock-throwing at all--everybody wants the thing to work, and
ideally they're all friends. After half an hour or so, everybody has a
much better idea of whether the scheme can be made to work, and the
final version probably doesn't look much like the initial proposal.

It's better if there are two or three schemes being discussed, along
with lots of ideas for improvements. You also need a few harebrained
notions tossed in. (*)

It only works if nobody minds having their pet ideas demolished, because
that's definitely going to happen. Personally I'm very glad when it
happens to me, because it may save a lot of wasted work. I have lots of
ideas, so I'm not at all attached to the bad ones.

You've apparently moved toward the Larkin attitude of presumimg
things which you know no facts regarding as it relates to me. That
is a character and integrity hit you do not want. But you live as
you like.


Not intending to be insulting at all, but as your first paragraph
suggests, you've probably never done what I'm attempting to describe.
(Or perhaps I just didn't describe it well enough initially.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) The use of helicopter propwash to knock ice off high-tension wires
allegedly came out of a discussion like that.

We did a brainstorm session once, with DR, about reflections off a
liquid metal sphere. That was wonderful. You and DR did, in about 20
minutes, astounding math. My function was just to make a lot of random
noise that could be filtered.

Pretty good quality noise, that.

I have a really big bag of tricks for doing those sorts of calculations,
mostly consisting of amusing facts, such as that in the ray model, a
shiny sphere scatters parallel light exactly equally into 4 pi
steradians, and that the scattering cross section is twice its projected
area.

No, that's impossible. It defies all common sense.

That's why it's an amusing fact, and therefore memorable. The law of
reflection tells you that tipping a mirror by an angle theta steers the
beam by 2*theta, so going from the centre to the edge, the reflected
angle rotates through 180 degrees. So you do illuminate all 4 pi
steradians. The growth of the circumference with radius is exactly
balanced out by the obliquity of the surface and the solid angle vs.
deflection, so the illumination is uniform.

Hey Phil, this stuff is great. (I'm sorry the thread went into the
tank.)
You said upstream that the scattering X-section would be twice the
physical area.. (sorry projected area.) I don't understand the factor
of two.

The factor of exactly two applies only in the wave picture, and is
easiest to see in the scalar model. A largish, lossless plane scatterer
punches a hole in the wavefront as well as directly scattering, and
both hole and scatterer produce identical amounts of scatter.

The directly scattered field is Psi_scat(x,y), and the field with the
hole punched is therefore Psi_incident - Psi_scat(x,y) because in the
absence of loss the two have to add up to Psi_incident. Psi_incident is
unscattered by hypothesis, so up to a minus sign the field perturbation
is the same in the forward and backward directions.

So in the backscatter direction you get one copy of Psi_scat, and in the
forward direction you get another copy, so the total scattering cross
section is twice that of the scatterer alone.

Huh... thanks. I'll first say I'm not too good thinking in the wave picture.
(i'm a lazy photon user.)
So in the photon picture I'd get a x-section = area of circle, if the
photons were all just absorbed by the sphere. A black sphere
gives x-section = 1*area, and then following your logic chain,
a perfectly reflecting shpere gives x-section = 2*area.


I once got deep into the weeds of atomic scattering (Ramsey's, "Molecular
Beams") trying to understand some weird Rubidium effects... The effect
went away with time and I never understood it... Mostly likely
due to H2 in the Rb cell.

George H.

Maybe I don't understand what cross section means.
It's pretty easy to count the number of photons hitting the
sphere. And that's the total scattered intensity into all space
(4 pi steradians)

Oh and how much do I/we have to pay for a copy of your 'bag a tricks'
photon budget book/notes? Is there some way to self publish and make sure
you get paid? (if a publisher doesn't want it.) Hey maybe you need someone
to read and comment on it.

Sure, when I get that far that would be great. I'm still not ready with
the third edition.

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

 

[George Herold]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 11:07:52 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 06:49:01 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:


Designing something cool with a few smart people at a whiteboard
is the

most fun you can have standing up.
Amen,
George H.

Barefoot water skiing.

Silly sport. Only one person gets to do it at a time, for a few
minutes behind a stinky outboard, and all the other people sit in the
boat and watch. Snow skiing, everybody can do it together, all day
between food+drink breaks in the clubhouse.

I'm impressed by how many ski boats are blocking driveways, under
tarps that haven't been moved in years.

I'm more of a fishing boat fan. One 'thing' about being
on a boat in the middle of a lake with your buddies, is not what you're
doing, but just being there, where no once can bother you.

It's certainly better when the fish are biting.

George H.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:17:41 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:39:16 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-28 23:31, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:55:47 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/20 22:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Instinct is super useful for generating ideas.  We come up with some scheme by
instinct, but then test it by math.  The math involved is super familiar--what's
the noise floor, the bandwidth, the settling time, and so on.  It's the
familiarity that makes that seem like it's the same as design instinct, but it
isn't.

Very true, IMNSHO.

Practice without theory is blind fumbling.

It built aqueducts, ships, roads, cathedrals, all sorts of stuff.

Not by fiddling, though--experience accumulates. Even a pyramid will
fall down if you build it too steep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meidum_Pyramid

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Sure, fiddling evolved and techniques were passed down and evolved.
But as long as we don't already know everything, some occasional
fiddling can discover stuff.

It is often said that the most exciting sound in science
isn't "eureka", but is "that's strange".

That's as good a design strategy as inserting "fundamental
advance occurs here" into a plan. Infamously that didn't
work for the HP Itanium processor's compilers, as those
that were knowledgeable predicted.

x86 was obsolete the day it was invented.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Curious....What is the analytical basis for this sweeping statement?

it is one example of a segmented hw architecture.
Whether one 'likes' or 'dislikes' the architecture is somewhat based on what seems more intuitive to them. It's a machine that performs computing tasks, of which there are many approaches to accomplish the same thing.

 

bilboard@eu.eu wrote in news:5e831d67$0$15173$426a74cc@news.free.fr:

> Not as deeply as you are, remember You and yours kill snakes ...

You're an idiot. He didn't kill any of them.

You and yours should be erased from the human gene pool.