OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[Kevin Aylward]

Clarence wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:Zik4d.288182$Lj.82906@fed1read03...
Clarence wrote:

I made an assumption (about Kevin's possible analogization) and
deduced from there. If you choose to take offense at that on others'
behalf, go right ahead; I just don't care.


I should have known, your cut from the same cloth, you think you can
demand that others much jump through your hoop.
I expressed an
opinion, and you object to any but your own.

No, you mean that you object to any but your own. Tyhat why you are
unable to rtespond to any of the valid point Mark made.

Well..... in the words
of someone on this NG "I just don't care."

Mark asked you to validate your claims. Obviously, this is beyond you.
It is you who are making the claims, so be prepared to support them or
retract them go away.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Wednesday 22 September 2004 11:24 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to
[snip}

PLONK!

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Clarence wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Lrj4d.57774$U04.21779@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

You seem to good at one thing, name calling.

Thank you. Complements much appreciated.

I will shut up if and when I decide, you have no credibility to
recommend or to order.

Coming from you...leeev it out mate.

Do not ask me why.
I will not reply to questions.

You also seem to ignore what was said, or failed to understand it.
More likely the latter.

Ho humm....

Your past misconduct tells me that no matter what is said you have a
lame excuse for it. Recognized experts are 'all' wrong, only you
know because wrote it.
^^^^^^

You really do need to do something about your grammar. Its still
atrocious.

Secondly, why do you persist with these lies. Show me where I claimed
that "Recognized experts are 'all' wrong".

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us with the following:

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

I once had 30 school kids, when I was at school, chase me for a
mile.

I applaud your decision to start pissing off entire newsgroups
rather than entire classrooms. Much safer.

I didn't start anything. Rich, followed by Porridge did.

Hey, I've never even BEEN to England! You'll have to find somebody
else to blame for pissing off those kids, Kevin.

The fact that in situation after situation Kevin Aylward manages to
enrage large groups of people is certainly something that he should
think about before this trait of his kills him.

And what "large" groups would these be? I count 4, inconsequential, main
individuals. And what other situations would these be?

You have this amazing talent for inferring the general from an
individual occurrence.

Your certainly full on your own grandeur arnt you.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us with the following:

DNA is a self replicating machine. It does this with no help from
anybody, as in the usual sense meant by such a statement. There was
no technology in the days of the primal soup 4 billion years ago.

Can you give a reference for that claim? Or at least, tell me how
you know?

Don't hold your breath; it's wrong. DNA cannot replicate without the
complex support system found in a cell.

What part of "as in the usual sense" did you not understand? If we have
to add every little qualifier to every argument, we would get nowhere.

Sure, DNA needs fuel and other such mundane stuff, so what.

Whatever the first replicator
in the primordial soup was, it was *not* DNA.

And this matters to the argument?

You have this amazing inability to address the content. The point of
this bit of discussion is that there are Replicators an Replicatants.
Indeed, what you have done here is given more support for my claim that
an "expert", i.e. Richard Dawkins, got it wrong when he referred to
self-replicating memes and genes. As you so rightly point out, and
indeed agree with myself, such entities don't exist.

Just one more obvious error from Kevin "Many can't accept that I am
formally enough qualified in science such that I am not out to lunch
on the basic issues" Aylward, Crackpot Supreme.

The basic issues being things like Replicator an Replicatants,
irrespective of how they are physically implemented.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Tuesday 21 September 2004 02:03 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to
grace us with the following:
Rich Grise wrote:
On Monday 20 September 2004 12:55 pm, Guy Macon
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...
You tell me, according to "that which is observed, is that which
replicates the most". What are the replication consequences if I
don't?
I cannot answer because I cannot parse the statement. I can come up
with a half dozen possible interpretations for it. It is unclear.
I think he means, "whatever you see the most of, you're seeing them
because they're prolific."
I'm worried that he finds this profound.
It is. It's otherwise known as "survival of the fittest". When Darwin
came up with it, it revolutionised all understanding of what we
humans are. Never heard of the Scopes trial?

OK, here we finally, after all of this time, claw and scratch our way
through the beebleberry bushes of syntax errors, we get to the crux
of the thing.

"Survival of the Fittest," which I don't actually know if Dr. Darwin
said those exact words, seems to be the generally accepted
consequence, yes.

Howsomever.

Yes, it did revolutionize all understanding of what we humans
_believe_we_are_. Just like that guy with the Earth orbiting the Sun.

But you, and very, very, very many other people seem to think that
we're done.

Indistinguishable from the guy who wanted to close the patent office,
because "everything has already been invented."

You sound like you've discovered that Science is complete, we know
everything there is to know, and that's that, now and ever shall
be, world without end, amen.

Of course I don't. I just don't see any evidence that supernatural
explanations need to be introduced.

This is ludicrous on the face of it, notwithstanding I, personally,
am privy to information that blows all of known science out of the
water.

Oh?


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

There are no experts that reject my thories. No expert has seen them.

They don't need to. The fact that the vast majority of experts
disagree with your claim that free will has been proven to not
exist is easily verified.

Get your facts right dude. That is not my claim. Continually lying on
this only shows you for what a twat you are.

Free will is "proven" to not exist *if* my axiom is correct. To wit:

"all physical phenomena is explainable by mass-energy physics".

If the axiom is true, free will is a matter of physics, not philosophy.
The resulting physics then says that true free will is impossible. If my
axiom is false, than so is the proof.

Do you wish to deny this axiom?

Look, dude, I can't be blamed if many experts are not acquainted with my
axiom that splits physics from philosophy.

Experts don't know it all. I am not an expert, but I have added to the
expertise on this subject matter. You seem to believe that because I am
not a recognised expert, that I cant make additions like this.

If you have an actual argument that says my derivation of no free will
*based* on my *assumed* axiom, is false, lets here it. Seriously.
Present your case.

But of course you cant. In this amazing length thread, not once have you
ever what any technical arguments against my claims, not that you can
ever correctly quote what my claims actually are. Its all rhetoric.

If you had a real argument, you would have presented it. Your letting
you dislike of me get in the way of the facts.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Guy Macon wrote:

The truth that you *aren't* smarter than the vast array of experts
who reject your theories.

Be fair. No 'vast array of experts' has even looked at his papers.

The fact that most experts do *not* consider free will to be proven
not to exist is easily verified.

Neither did I make that claim. Free will is "proven" to not exist *if*
my axiom is correct. to wit:

"all physical phenomena is explainable by mass-energy physics"

Again, do you wish to deny this axiom?

Why wont what I am *actually* saying sink into to your dense brain?
Scrub that I know, your memes are vigorously attempting to prevent any
competing memes get a look in.

Unfortunately, many have indeed missed my very simply point on physics.
Free will is only allowed if there is a super-physical phenomena. Its
truly that simple. To show this only needs simply logic on how the brain
*must* operate, if my axiom is correct.

The truth that you substitute namecalling and personal attacks for
logic and reason.

Well, people have jumped all over him.

That does not change the fact that he substitures namecalling and
personal attacks for logic and reason.

Not at all. I used personal attacks and logic and reason.

You can look at his posting
history and find example after example of him being the first one to
start slinging insults, and even more examples of him responding to
a logical argument with abuse.

Liar. You have already been corrected on this. My history in this group
is well known. Your the newbie here.

OTOH, one of our chums has written about mystical matters. I find
those far more difficult to comprehend and I am far from accepting
any of it (mysticism, I mean).

Did that chum claim that anyone who fails to agree with his mysticism
is an idiot?

You are being called daft because you are daft, not because you disagree
with what I am saying. Many many, have disagreed with me and they have
not been similar treated. Your the problem dude.

Its all lies with you. No matter how many times you have been proven in
error, you still prattle on with the same old stuff. Its all rhetoric
with you.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:57:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

There are no experts that reject my thories. No expert has seen them.

No expert could understand them!

You have no standing with with to make such a claim.

Secondly, I am smarter than most experts. Sure, you don't like my
arrogance about it, but that don't change the facts. You are letting
your personal feelings get in the way of an objective analysis.

What you are doing is no different from my school days. I was a dark
skinned paki getting 1sts in maths, lets go and beat him up then, and
they did.


The truth that you substiture namecalling and personal attacks for
logic and reason.

You have been provided with much logic and reason. You obviously
don't understand this logic, so I am resorting to name calling as a
last ditch attempt to make you see how silly your are.

My logic in my papers is flawless. You need to get over this issue
you have in thinking no one can be more knowledgeable than you.

Hmmm. Could be manic depression or er, "bipolar mood disorder" as
we're supposed to call it nowadays. Certainly something not quite
right upstairs. An excess of hubris is a prime symptom of BMD.

And your qualifications in medicine would be?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> says...

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

There are no experts that reject my thories. No expert has seen
them.

No expert could understand them!

Secondly, I am smarter than most experts. Sure, you don't like my
arrogance about it, but that don't change the facts. You are letting
your personal feelings get in the way of an objective analysis.

What you are doing is no different from my school days. I was a dark
skinned paki getting 1sts in maths, lets go and beat him up then,
and they did.

The truth that you substiture namecalling and personal attacks for
logic and reason.

You have been provided with much logic and reason. You obviously
don't understand this logic, so I am resorting to name calling as a
last ditch attempt to make you see how silly your are.

My logic in my papers is flawless. You need to get over this issue
you have in thinking no one can be more knowledgeable than you.

Hmmm. Could be manic depression or er, "bipolar mood disorder" as
we're supposed to call it nowadays. Certainly something not quite
right upstairs. An excess of hubris is a prime symptom of BMD.

Kevin:
Here are some web pages describing social blindness. If multiple
participants in a newsgroup tell you that you exhibit the behaviors
described below, please consider the high probability that you have
one of the disorders listed and that your disorder is blinding you
to its existence.

There are fundamentally 4 participants in this discussion. Clarence,
Guy, Burridge, Rich Grise. This sad group of individuals contains none
that are technically qualified or technically competent, based on the
content of their actuall posts, so their views are completely
meaningless.

For example, it is a matter of record that Burridge has no relevant
formal qualifications in science. Rich believes in souls and other
mystical gibberish, so that leaves us two potentials. Ok, I left out
Don, but he don't even know what an axiom is, so he's a complete
non-starter. So, we are left with two contenders.

Please present some evidence that such individuals are qualified to
discuss physics.

What are the degrees of theses people, where and when were they
obtained?

Where is some evidence, e.g web papers that can be used to evaluate said
individuals abilities to make valid criticism. Certainly the evidence
presented in this thread shows that said individuals are clueless about
basic science.

Failure to answer this question is def facto proof that said individuals
have no standing to make claims on matters that require such expertise.

You have this pathetic idea that your view has any merit. It is
worthless. You have demonstrated this consistently. There has been
nothing but claim this, claim that with no content to back it up. It
doesn't matter how many time you make claims of "...papers contract
known science...", "..all the experts are wrong.." etc it don't change
nothing. Present some actual evidence, or just go away. This is getting
to be way too tiresome.

It is you that are deluded, dude.

Best Regards,

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> says...

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Many, many accredited experts conclude that there is no free will.
Go and look up "consciousness explained" and other such matters.

And many, many *more* accredited experts (by far the vast majority
of them) conclude that the question of whether there is no free
will is unanswered. *You* are ill informed on this. *You* need to
go and do some actual research.

Indeed. I think Kev's choice of "expert" in this context is a curious
one. This is a philosophical question, for philosophers, not
physicists and it is certainly *not* a settled question, except in
the minds of such greats as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (one of whom
was nuts, and the other who may have simply been wrong).

I have a simple algorithm for dealing with such questions. I tend to
go with the consensus of experts,

Indeed, and this is exactly what Darwinian theory predicts. One copies
those traits that are maximised.

It also shows that you are intellectually bankrupt if you do this
unquestionably, despite evidence against such experts. In addition, how
do you validate who the experts are?

and to ignore the one crackpot who
says that all the experts are wrong.

A good general procedure. However, if the implication is that *I* have
claimed all the experts are wrong, this is not true. Many, many,
experts, indeed conclude free will is illusionary, and so I am not in
contradiction to those. I have already posted a link that leads to much
information on this. http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

Yes, you might miss something
like continental drift until the consensus of experts catches up, but
you will also miss homeopathy, N-Rays, Cold Fusion, Astrology, and
yes, even some fellow who thinks that he and he alone can prove
whether we have free will.

As I have explained many times, absolute proof is never possible.
However, one can make a "proof" *relative* to assumed axioms. This is
what I have done. If we accept the notion that all physical phenomena is
explainable by mass-energy physics, then true free will is simply
impossible. This is because consciousness can then only be a function of
classical and quantum mass-energy physics. This physics dictates all
outcomes, predestined or random, none of which allows for a little man
in ones head acting as the free will driver. e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html).

Of course, you are completely free to deny my axiom, and believe in some
supernatural, outhwith physics effects to allow for a reintroduction of
a controlling soul. Do you wish to do this?

You just don't seem to get it. You don't understand that there is no
physical mechanism that "awareness" has that can actually fire the
neurons and such like to instigate physical actions. Consciousness isn't
a physical thing.

You just cant accept that a nobody has come up with the correct rational
to determine whether or not there can possible be free will. There is a
reason for this. This is mixing one than one discipline, so many have
not made the connection.

Free will is prohibited by my axiom. Its that simple. Free will is only
allowed if my axiom is false. Do you which to show that my axiom is
false? Do you wish to technically refute my argument derived from said
axiom?

Dude, you've lost.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

An axiom is an axiom is an axiom. It is a statement that is ASSUMED
to be true.

What is the difference beyween an axiom and an assumption?

In reality, none.

I think that an axiom is widely accepted on its intrinsic
merit

You obviously haven't read much abstract math, or even say, string
theory

and that an assumption is something that we are asked
to accept for the sake of argument without considering its
intrinsic merit.

Its nice to have some rational for an assumption, but its entirely
irrelevant.

There is also a word for someone who builds a theory on an assumption
and then calls people idiots for not accepting the conclusions.

If there are no logical errors from between the assumptions and the
results, and the derivations are very, very simple, then the competence
of the reader is to be questioned if said reader denies said results.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Robert Baer]

Asa Cannell wrote:

Would anybody like to share their most sensitive photodiode stories? I
am curious just how far photodioes have been pushed as far as
sensitivity, especially at room temperature and with off the shelf
components.

Asa

Not too sure about photodiodes, but in the good old daze, Fairchild
made the FPT100 and FPT101 photo transistor.
They were more than an order of magnitude more sensitive (maybe even
over 2 orders) than the standard phototransistors sold at the time.
The reason was, the standard devices were nohting more than an
ordinary transistor with the metal top cut off and a lens glued in
place, and the Fairchild parts were *designed* (and optimized) as
phototransistors.
Almost the whole die area was the base, and this was the major reason
for the greater sensitivity.
The emitter was very small, and in one corner of the die; making its
photon masking very small.

 

[Robert Baer]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 22 Sep 2004 15:29:56 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

davez wrote...

Not exactly a photodiode story but: I remember 15 or 20 years
ago working with a friend using an FET in a white ceramic package
that made a great 60 HZ/120 HZ detector when placed on a bench
under a florescent lamp! We spent a few minutes trying to discover
why a circuit with a clean DC supply would have power supply ripple!
Duh! We got a good chuckle out of that.

Had left the gate floating, did we?

I don't have much experience with JFETs, but bipolars will detect IR
straight thru the plastic package, even when properly biased.

TI used to have a line of IR photo diodes that were just like the "D"
plastic BJT package... no windows ;-)

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

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

Yes; the CK722 (germanium) transistors had that problem....

 

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:19:38 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:45:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"


Dictionary.com has

7 entries found for axiom.
axˇiˇom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an
economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be
paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
An established rule, principle, or law.

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without
proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and
physics.




Interesting then that the dictionary definitions you so kindly
provided conform more or less exactly to my own, while they are a
million miles from your chosen "they are axioms because I say they
are".

What part of this did you misunderstand?

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without
proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and
physics.

Note the "or" after "self-evident principle". This means that *one* of
the dictionary definitions is:

"that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a
postulate."

You do not understand. The party qualified to accept without proof is

most decidedly NOT the party making the proposition. That would be a
circular argument, and hence invalid. It is all the rest of us that
must accept without proof, and guess what - we don't.

I thought it was me that was supposed to lack English comprehension
skills.

Its clear you have gained your understanding of axioms by reading
dictionaries, poorly, not by reading mathematics and physics text books.
As I noted, its essentially impossible to be competent in these subjects
without understanding this well, accepted and universal meaning of
axiom.

This obvious lack of the basic of science, means you are not qualified
to question those that are on the technical matters of science.

Kevin Aylward

Kevin, sonny, it was YOU that quoted dictionary definitions, not me.
It is a shame that you didn't read what you quoted, and now feel the
need to back-pedal and accuse me of relying on dictionary definitions
simply because YOUR quote failed to support your position.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Well, having just now finished the first paragraph of your infamous
"paper,"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
I think I'd better advise you, that if you want your credibility as
a scientific researcher, or even as a writer, you'd better learn
to proofread, or hire somebody.

Hey! I'll proofread your website for $100.00/page. Sound like a
deal?

So dude GUY MACON, as the cheek to question Sir Kevin Aylward, Warden of
the Kings Ale, yes of General Relativity For Teletubbies fame
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html), on physics, yet his
background is addressed by:

Well, well now for some very selective clipping

http://www.guymacon.com/

PROJECT ENGINEER/MANAGER: Mattel - 02-2000 to 07-2001; Project engineer
and project manager for girls' toy development,

ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN: MSI Data - 11-1981 to 11-1982; Helped to develop
hand-held field service terminal, dial-up data buffer, acoustic modem.

EDUCATION: I am self taught; I started as an assembler and worked my way
up to technician, then engineer. I do not have a degree,

"I am a high school dropout ..."
**********

Although not having a degree by itself, is not a measure of worth, I
would suggest than those here with degrees, fully understand that such a
background as this, makes the candidate have no realistic chance of
making any worthwhile contribution or comments on technical physics
matters. They simply don't have the math and basic background to
understand what they don't know, and why things are the way they are
today. Its not surprising that such individuals are unable to understand
my papers.

So I hope these few that have aligned themselves to this dude, know why.

For reference, for those that have not yet felt the wrath of my usual
bragging, hard to avoid I know. Sure I am not an expert in physics, I
never finished my Physics Masters degree due to personal commitments,
but I did gain an A in General Relativity, an A in Quantum Statistical
Mechanics, B's in Quantum Mechanics, Advanced Math, and Advanced
Dynamics, with no grades that failed. So, I know enough to know what I
dont know.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:19:38 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:45:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"


Dictionary.com has

7 entries found for axiom.
axˇiˇom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an
economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be
paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
An established rule, principle, or law.

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without
proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and
physics.




Interesting then that the dictionary definitions you so kindly
provided conform more or less exactly to my own, while they are a
million miles from your chosen "they are axioms because I say they
are".

What part of this did you misunderstand?

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without
proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and
physics.

Note the "or" after "self-evident principle". This means that *one*
of the dictionary definitions is:

"that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a
postulate."

You do not understand.

Ho humm...

The party qualified to accept without proof is
most decidedly NOT the party making the proposition.

Of course it is. Look, go and read a bloody text book on math.

Whats your degree in?
Do you actually have a degree?

That would be a
circular argument,

No it isnt.

and hence invalid. It is all the rest of us that
must accept without proof, and guess what - we don't.

Look for the last time, this *is* how it is.

1) Define some arbitary axioms.
2) Derive results from them.

If the results derived contradict known results, then the axioms are
thrown away.

I thought it was me that was supposed to lack English comprehension
skills.

Its clear you have gained your understanding of axioms by reading
dictionaries, poorly, not by reading mathematics and physics text
books. As I noted, its essentially impossible to be competent in
these subjects without understanding this well, accepted and
universal meaning of axiom.

This obvious lack of the basic of science, means you are not
qualified to question those that are on the technical matters of
science.

Kevin Aylward

Kevin, sonny, it was YOU that quoted dictionary definitions, not me.
It is a shame that you didn't read what you quoted, and now feel the
need to back-pedal and accuse me of relying on dictionary definitions
simply because YOUR quote failed to support your position.

There is no back peddling. The dictionary agrees with me, and all math
and physics texts.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Tony Williams]

In article <knv0l0plqfovic8m7sg8q5ko7jq9uk2605@4ax.com>,
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

Yes, I'd expected someone to point out that the "negligible
current" point was the likely problem area. I can't honestly say
that I have, because my DVM drops out at 0.01mA! However, in the
context of the wide spread of parameters one encounters with
FETs., I'm pretty confident my 'drop-out' zone for current
measurement is not too far off the mark. But you've answered my
question and as ever I'm grateful to you for that. I actually
found it more difficult measuring Id as Vgs approached zero.
[snip]

Paul, you might try the belt 'n braces method.

--+--+15v
|
|--+
+--->|
| |--+
| |
| +------->To DVM
| |
| \
| /R
| \
| |
0v--+-------+------->

Self-bias the jfet with resistor R, and measure the
voltage across it. This gives you the Vgs and Id.

Use two values of R, say 1k and 5k, and plug the
results into the Id = Idss(etc) equation. Solve the
two equations for Idss and Vgs(off).

You've been wandering around this problem for days now.
It might help if you could get hold of an old Siliconix
Technical Article, TA70-2, first published in Electronics
Design in May 1970, then included in the App Notes at the
rear of most Siliconix FET data books for the next 15 or
20 years thereafter.

TA70-2 shows you how to plot Id/Vgs and gfs/Vgs curves
and use them to determine the best bias point for minimum
Id and gfs variations.

--
Tony Williams.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:03:46 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:19:38 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:45:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"


Dictionary.com has

7 entries found for axiom.
axˇiˇom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an
economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be
paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
An established rule, principle, or law.

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without
proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and
physics.




Interesting then that the dictionary definitions you so kindly
provided conform more or less exactly to my own, while they are a
million miles from your chosen "they are axioms because I say they
are".

What part of this did you misunderstand?

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without
proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and
physics.

Note the "or" after "self-evident principle". This means that *one*
of the dictionary definitions is:

"that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a
postulate."

You do not understand.

Ho humm...

The party qualified to accept without proof is
most decidedly NOT the party making the proposition.

Of course it is. Look, go and read a bloody text book on math.

Whats your degree in?
Do you actually have a degree?

That would be a
circular argument,

No it isnt.

and hence invalid. It is all the rest of us that
must accept without proof, and guess what - we don't.

Look for the last time, this *is* how it is.

1) Define some arbitary axioms.
2) Derive results from them.

If the results derived contradict known results, then the axioms are
thrown away.


I thought it was me that was supposed to lack English comprehension
skills.

Its clear you have gained your understanding of axioms by reading
dictionaries, poorly, not by reading mathematics and physics text
books. As I noted, its essentially impossible to be competent in
these subjects without understanding this well, accepted and
universal meaning of axiom.

This obvious lack of the basic of science, means you are not
qualified to question those that are on the technical matters of
science.

Kevin Aylward

Kevin, sonny, it was YOU that quoted dictionary definitions, not me.
It is a shame that you didn't read what you quoted, and now feel the
need to back-pedal and accuse me of relying on dictionary definitions
simply because YOUR quote failed to support your position.


There is no back peddling. The dictionary agrees with me, and all math
and physics texts.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Too bored now. Seek help.

Plonk

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[xray]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:29:29 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote (in <oqo4l01n0f279bf5901lc9dsu6j21ahk89@4ax.com&gt about '[OT]:
Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:38:17 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

If god appears and produces a sun before me, I might reconsider my
decision,

If that happens you will either be vaporized out of any further
consciousness, or you will enter a new dimension that you don't seem to
believe in.

Or did you mean son?

San, sen, sin, son or sun; it doesn't matter. Appearing and producing
ANYTHING is both necessary and sufficient. (;-)

But the sun option is akin to, "I'll tell you but then I have to kill
you", isn't it? The sin option sounds ok, but it wouldn't be god
producing that, would it?