Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On 18/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 13:25:04 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/22 03:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
What\'s cool is that after 238 hen-clucky off-topic posts in this
thread, a single mention of real electronics silences the coop.
That\'s rich! Around 67 of those 238 posts were yours.
That\'s 50% more than Bill, and more than double David or mine.
If you don\'t write rubbish, people won\'t have anything to correct.
Given a physics and electronics topic, you keep clucking.
You cluck twice as often. Or is that gabble?
On 15/02/2022 15:07, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:38:13 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 06:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner
It /looks/ as David describes it.
It wouldn\'t if you listened to and understood the reasons
other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
resort to irrelevant points (e.g. \"design something\").
Of course people who don\'t design things have different attitudes
towards new ideas. They instinctively don\'t like them.
You like to bandy that about as an insult to anyone who tells you when
you are saying something stupid or ignorant.
Precisely. Especially in response to people who are neither designers
nor biologists; people unqualified (and rude enough) to call
reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant.
I don\'t see people calling reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant in
this thread. I see people calling stupid and ignorant suggestions
stupid and ignorant.
(Perhaps that\'s because I have filtered out some of the most unpleasant
characters in this group, or perhaps they are not interested in threads
like this one.)
I don\'t believe that anyone here is a trained biologist. That does not
mean there isn\'t a range of levels of knowledge, with many here being
interested amateurs with a fair grasp of a lot of the points in
question. (And much of the contention is about basic scientific
principles, rather than the specifics of the topic being discussed.)
Face it: most people let their emotions whiplash their thinking.
I don\'t think that is true. But some people certainly post without
letting rational thought get much involved, especially in subjects they
know little about.
However, it merely
re-enforces the impression you give of narcissism combined with a total
lack of interest in anyone else or anything else around you.
I\'m enormously interested in all sorts of things. Curiousity is a
basic component of invention. I have to donate boxes of books to make
room for more.
Curiosity is a good thing, and I think many here read or learn about a
wide range of subjects. You are not outstanding in that regard by any
means. But for a guy who claims to read a lot about evolution, you have
failed to grasp the critical foundations.
Right now I\'m reading Wilson\'s classic On Human Nature. That guy could
sure think.
You might be better finding something that covers basic scientific
principles - something that will help you understand the need for
evidence, consistency, rational justification, predictions, testability,
falsification, etc., in science. Maybe then you\'ll see why people laugh
at you when you make stuff up out of thin air.
Spotting when an idea or claim is hopeless does not correlate with being
bad at designing - on the contrary, it is a /useful/ trait for a
designer. Posting claims about how much you design stuff does not
correlate with /actually/ designing stuff more than someone who does not
make such boasts - on the contrary, people doing real work are more
likely to keep quiet in a group like this.
Basically, this is just another of your self-soothing platitudes that
you spout without any thought or justification, because it makes you
feel good about yourself and lets you insult people rather than actually
learning something or admitting to yourself that you are not as perfect
as you believe.
I sometimes make suggestions about physical reality, with no personal
content, and get in response not serious criticism or alternate ideas,
but barrages of insults from admitted amateurs. I try to be friendly
and helpful to anyone who asks questions where I can help.
You have had /countless/ explanations and help, with advice,
corrections, references, and facts. But you respond to these by whining
that we don\'t like \"ideas\", or are not \"designers\". You could take the
biology threads in this group over the years and edit it into a book
about evolution - and pretty much all of it has been written to try to
help /you/ understand.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:35:26 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 18/02/2022 16:39, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 13:25:04 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/22 03:56, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
As it stands, you are doing nothing but mucking up a biology discussion
even more, and ensuring that anyone who is interested in motor control
but uninterested in biology will miss out on the motor discussion.
One might think your motivation has nothing to do with an interest in
motors, and your post is just your silly holier-than-thou attempt at
\"proving\" you are a fabulous designer full of wonderful ideas, and other
people are not.
Well, that applies between you and me.
On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com>:
Yeah, THAT\'s why we know science isn\'t social; the social pressure
to conform effectively doesn\'t exist in the sciences.
That is - and has been - probably not always the case.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:22:14 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:39:21 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <f9fv0htkdpogj38q6...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:10:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:58:55 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in <vf9t0hlme1baqj9vr...@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
We got an insane, all-time-record, snowpack in December, and then it
stopped. But there\'s still a lot on the ground up there.
https://www.sugarbowl.com/webcams
The weather is extremely erratic on the US West coast.
You might be interested in our patent prototype. http://lightswitchracing.com/Receipt%20of%20Patent.pdfOn Sunday, 29 November 2015 20:48:46 UTC, Rich S wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 4:17:34 PM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 18:30:33 UTC, Tom Miller wrote:
ri...@engineer.com> wrote in message
news:590a8c4a-7f21-47b2...@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:56:24 PM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
I\'m looking for ideas for things to make in the 3rd world from electronic
junk. What simple circuits have you found useful? Whether as tools or end
products. Have already done minimal versions of audio amp, sig gen, alarm,
voltmeters. I\'ve a list of ideas but I\'ll bet you have some interesting
ones I\'ve not thought of.
Here\'s a purely electronic device... simple, life-saving -- a fire alarm:
http://inhabitat.com/low-tech-alarm-protects-south-african-slums-from-devastating-fires/
Developing world uses a lot of open flames, so risk of fires is very high.
A CO detector might serve well also.
Cooking fire fumes are a big cause of death. But is there a technology to detect CO that can be made for 10 cents a piece?
NT
There\'s a plastic film that darkens (turns orange) when exposed to CO. It\'s not the most sensitive technique, but may be good enough, especially if it is near the potential source. A simple electronic circuit to detect the photo-optic change would be cheap.
A low-battery warning would have to be included too (though, if the battery is the most expensive part, then just discard the whole thing with a fresh unit).
Another issue is that the film could get dusty, dirty, aged (after some amount of CO exposures, the film will not return to fully clear) leading to false alarms. So it has to be designed to keep the dust out. The aging may not be a problem if its replaced after a time and/or after any alarm event.
I do not know if anyone has designed this into a product yet!
-RS
Google so far shows lots of experiments on films, but nothing buyable.
NT
On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com>:
Yeah, THAT\'s why we know science isn\'t social; the social pressure
to conform effectively doesn\'t exist in the sciences.
That is - and has been - probably not always the case.
Scientists are always looking for an experiment that demonstrates a
weakness in the prevailing theory of the day, or a better more complete
theory that works in more extreme conditions or makes new testable
predictions. That is pretty much how Nobel prizes are won.
We are living through a golden age of observational astronomy where more
and more wavebands are coming on stream at very high resolution. The
latest will be the Webb telescope once its mirrors are all aligned.
Depends what you call \'science\'
The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create \'epicycles\'
to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I\'d think]
Epicycles were the Fourier transform of their day and did allow
astronomers to make useful predictions even if they were wrong in
principle they did work well enough in practice to get results.
Even when they put the sun at the centre which neatly sorted out
retrograde motion they still *needed* epicycles to handle the
eccentricity of orbits until Kepler formulated his famous equations for
elliptical motion.
Even then solving for the true eccentric anomaly accurately and quickly
for a given mean anomaly remains an active research problem even today!
E = M + e*sin E
Looks deceptively simple and going from E to M it is.
Going the other way gets very interesting when M is small and e -> 1.
Mercury is quite a handful with e = 0.25 if you are doing it by hand.
The real time series for planetary positions today are actually a set of
Fourier terms to perturb the basic planetary position form Kepler\'s laws
to take account of all the other planets. It isn\'t really so different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets)
Engineering solutions do not need to be completely correct they just
have to be good enough for the task in hand.
No-one applies relativistic corrections to automotive speedometers!
until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
being accused of witchcraft etc..]
It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.
Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
the authorities. US YEC\'s still haven\'t got out of those Dark Ages.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning-harry-potter-twilight-us-pastor-tennessee
There can be some big egos involved in science. Leibnitz and Newton is
one we can look back on from far enough to see that. Poor old Hooke was
practically written out of history by Newton\'s fans after his death.
Hoyle\'s steady state theory was another more recent example. Shot down
in flames when the microwave background and also way too many very
remote active radio galaxies were discovered by the observers. Insanely
bright and very compact engines driving the jets make them hard to
explain without dropping matter down the gravitational plug hole.
I can very well understand J Larkin\'s arguments,
but he lacks knowledge on some of the RNA and DNA science (as do I of course).
He chooses to remain wilfully ignorant.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
..........
Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
the authorities. US YEC\'s still haven\'t got out of those Dark Ages.
But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists
The real point is that, as the Enlightenment and modern science
advanced, the church stepped aside.
...........
Le Sage doesn\'t really work, but there is no point in arguing with you
about this since you don\'t actually understand relativity at all. That
seems to be a big failing in many electrical engineering courses.
I think that all EEs take a couple of physics courses. I took two, but
they didn\'t get to QM and relativity. That\'s not a \"failing\", as
relativity is not used much in electronic design.
The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.
On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.
I\'m not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn\'t necessary
if you are going to design things that will work well. I think much more
important is knowing when and how to make approximations that will be good
enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection of very cute ones
that make otherwise intractable problems into something you can solve
approximately with at most a cubic equation.
On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
The big failing in modern EE courses is too much
easily-forgotten mathematical rigor and too little development
of electrical instincts.
I\'m not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour
isn\'t necessary if you are going to design things that will work
well. I think much more important is knowing when and how to make
approximations that will be good enough for engineering purposes.
I have a small collection of very cute ones that make otherwise
intractable problems into something you can solve approximately
with at most a cubic equation.
You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
result of mathematics is that you don\'t need to use it.
As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.
That\'s another version of the old quip:
- when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12\" slide rule
- when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
- when I was a professor I used a 6\" slide rule
Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:suirv5$oe9$2...@dont-email.me:
On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/02/2022 16:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
The big failing in modern EE courses is too much
easily-forgotten mathematical rigor and too little development
of electrical instincts.
I\'m not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour
isn\'t necessary if you are going to design things that will work
well. I think much more important is knowing when and how to make
approximations that will be good enough for engineering purposes.
I have a small collection of very cute ones that make otherwise
intractable problems into something you can solve approximately
with at most a cubic equation.
You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
result of mathematics is that you don\'t need to use it.
As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.
That\'s another version of the old quip:
- when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12\" slide rule
- when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
- when I was a professor I used a 6\" slide rule
And now as an old man, I use a Hadron collider ring...
On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
On 16/02/2022 17:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?
Yes. It didn\'t go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus
No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.
Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell\'s DNA, and thus use DNA as
an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly
using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by
the DNA-based host, but that doesn\'t matter. The virus doesn\'t care if
they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot.
We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA
viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
\"living organisms\", but most do not - it\'s a matter of your choice of
definition.)
It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the
past.
I don\'t call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?
If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my
claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
have been stupid.
So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
you\'re always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.
What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you
bother paying any attention at all to things people write? You
apparently don\'t read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the
web (even the ones you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts
looking for trigger words or phrases so that you can tell people how
wonderful you are and how bad others are.
I used to think Bill\'s (automated?) comments were OTT and unjust.
Having seen John\'s responses recently, the \"skim looking for
trigger phrases\" concept does appear to be accurate.
Shame.
I\'ve been thinking about torque motors, which are beautiful and
interesting gadgets, and specifically about simulating them to a
FADEC. Being lazy, I do my hard thinking while I\'m asleep. Coffee and
a shower provoke delivery.
I can\'t build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
acceleration and return it during deceleration,
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
I can\'t build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
acceleration and return it during deceleration,
Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don\'t
find that feature appealing.