Prominent scientists have bad news for the White House about

[mpm]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:00:59 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

How do you get to be a Top Scientist? Is there a game show for that?

No, but there's a search engine for it.
Why, with ten minutes over coffee and a browser, I can become an expert in cubic Boron arsenide.

In 20 minutes, I could build and install a pacemaker.
"Oh shit, I've got to get some rosin-core solder and Radio Shack closes in half an hour."

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-17 22:07, mpm wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 9:03:36 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

They closed three years ago.


Did somebody not get the movie reference?
(I admit it's a borderline obscure movie.)

Apart from one documentary about a friend's family, I haven't watched a
movie since 1987. (The last two were The Last Emperor and A Passage to
India.)

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 5:49:04 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

The specificity, complement of false positive, is what's killing them. I also can't believe how weak the sensitivity is either.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html

You can see how many tests there are here:

https://www.finddx.org/covid-19/pipeline/

Antibody tests are "serology." Tons of Chinese manufacturers jumping on this bandwagon.

Today's paper reports that about 90 people in a SF homeless shelter
tested positive (presumably the active virus test) but have no
symptoms

In a Boston shelter,

"Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single
one had any symptoms."

So it is fairly contagious and not very dangerous.

We know it is contagious. We also know that you can test positive before you show any symptoms. Sometimes people's immune systems get on top of the virus so fast that there aren't any visible symptoms, while others go on to develop visible symptoms and about 20% of them develop serious or or critical symptoms, and some of them eventually die.

We don't know what proportion of infected people never show symptoms - if they don't get tested (and why would they) we don't know about them, except to the extent to which they infect other people, which can show up in contact tracing, when people show up with infections which can't be associated with a known case.

We can be fairly sure from that sort of information that less than half of the people infected never report symptoms.

John Larkin seems to want to think that if you test positive before you show symptoms you aren't going to go on to exhibit the full range of clinical symptoms, which does include death.

Pollyanna non-thinking strikes again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 9:03:36 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

They closed three years ago.

Did somebody not get the movie reference?
(I admit it's a borderline obscure movie.)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 5:56:29 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:48:54 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

The specificity, complement of false positive, is what's killing them. I also can't believe how weak the sensitivity is either.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html

You can see how many tests there are here:

https://www.finddx.org/covid-19/pipeline/

Antibody tests are "serology." Tons of Chinese manufacturers jumping on this bandwagon.

Today's paper reports that about 90 people in a SF homeless shelter
tested positive (presumably the active virus test) but have no
symptoms

In a Boston shelter,

"Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single
one had any symptoms."

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.


https://www.zerohedge.com/health/navy-reports-alarming-stealth-transmission-rate-60-infected-carrier-crew-symptom-free

A virus that infects people for a couple of weeks and doesn't even get
noticed sounds like good news to me, but some experts would I guess
prefer that it kill more people or something.

Zerohedge and John Larkin are silly enough to miss the point that you can test positive for the virus before you show symptoms.

The Roosevelt had 655 sailors testing positive. If the R value for the carrier was as low as three (it's probably higher - an aircraft carrier has a lot in common with a cruise ship)), 164 of those sailors would have been the infected people who infected the remaining 491 recently enough that they weren't showing symptoms.

John Larkin may know that viral infections spread exponentially, but he does seems reluctant to think about the implications of this. Or maybe he doesn't think at all.

ZeroHedge merely wants to say something dismissive about expert opinion, and is happy to ignore any inconvenient aspect of reality that might dilute the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 11:51:13 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 3:44:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:58:31 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:18:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:14:33 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 2:15:42 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 8:38:04 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

snip

SL0W MAN doesn't have any integrity - modifies others posts to change their meaning.

As if Flyguy knows what his posts mean. Their major information content is always the message that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and part of the problem is that they don't mean what he thinks they do - even ignoring the unavoidable message about his stupidity, which he's not in a position to detect.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

SL0W MAN is up to his usual nonsense - ignorance of the obvious and the pursuit of the obsurd.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 12:49:04 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a Boston shelter,

"Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single
one had any symptoms."

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

But the facts you've stated don't support that conclusion.
If the course of the disease is 10 days, there could be two (or ten)
that brought the disease in (and are in late stages, with few symptoms)
and 140-ish who just picked it up two days ago and before the
disease runs its course will develop symptoms in 40, and a few deaths.

That's the problem with reading your 'facts-then-conclusions' mashups;
you never CONNECT the two. Make a coherent mathematical model next time .

You'd also have the problem of 'no symptoms' being a stand-in for
being unaffected; organ damage doesn't always SHOW. Some organs
are internal. There's no support in your fact set for a danger assessment; did
some of the 'no symptoms' inhabitants get carted off to the emergency room?

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:56bdc3c5-767a-4387-8d10-dc09835b1cac@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 1:13:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 11:51:13 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 3:44:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:58:31 PM UTC-7, Bill
Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:18:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:14:33 AM UTC-7, Bill
Sloman wr
ote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 2:15:42 AM UTC+10,
Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 8:38:04 AM UTC-7,
bloggs.fre.
..@gmail.com wrote:

snip

SL0W MAN doesn't have any integrity - modifies others posts
to change
their meaning.

As if Flyguy knows what his posts mean. Their major information
content
is always the message that he doesn't know what he is talking
about, and part of the problem is that they don't mean what he
thinks they do - even ignoring the unavoidable message about his
stupidity, which he's not in a position to detect.

Sloman is up to his usual nonsense - ignorance of the obvious and
the pur
suit of the obsurd.

Flyguy probably meant "absurd" - an error which was obvious to me,
even if the fly-blown guy had managed to miss it.

Nope. Not even a fly would blow that guy.

He has habit of
missing the numerous absurdities in his own posts, and fails to
see them even after they have been pointed out to him.

Oh, you are part of the conspiracy to populate the world with
kangaroos. (that's how he thinks)

Or maybe you are just being abtuse about his obsurdities.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 1:13:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 11:51:13 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 3:44:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:58:31 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:18:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:14:33 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 2:15:42 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 8:38:04 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:

snip

SL0W MAN doesn't have any integrity - modifies others posts to change their meaning.

As if Flyguy knows what his posts mean. Their major information content is always the message that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and part of the problem is that they don't mean what he thinks they do - even ignoring the unavoidable message about his stupidity, which he's not in a position to detect.

Sloman is up to his usual nonsense - ignorance of the obvious and the pursuit of the obsurd.

Flyguy probably meant "absurd" - an error which was obvious to me, even if the fly-blown guy had managed to miss it. He has habit of missing the numerous absurdities in his own posts, and fails to see them even after they have been pointed out to him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 12:49:04 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a Boston shelter,

"Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single
one had any symptoms."

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

But the facts you've stated don't support that conclusion.
If the course of the disease is 10 days, there could be two (or ten)
that brought the disease in (and are in late stages, with few symptoms)
and 140-ish who just picked it up two days ago and before the
disease runs its course will develop symptoms in 40, and a few deaths.

That's the problem with reading your 'facts-then-conclusions' mashups;
you never CONNECT the two. Make a coherent mathematical model next time .

You'd also have the problem of 'no symptoms' being a stand-in for
being unaffected; organ damage doesn't always SHOW. Some organs
are internal. There's no support in your fact set for a danger assessment; did
some of the 'no symptoms' inhabitants get carted off to the emergency room?

You are afraid and hysterical. That's silly for an adult.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Ricky C]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:24:05 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 12:49:04 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a Boston shelter,

"Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single
one had any symptoms."

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

But the facts you've stated don't support that conclusion.
If the course of the disease is 10 days, there could be two (or ten)
that brought the disease in (and are in late stages, with few symptoms)
and 140-ish who just picked it up two days ago and before the
disease runs its course will develop symptoms in 40, and a few deaths.

That's the problem with reading your 'facts-then-conclusions' mashups;
you never CONNECT the two. Make a coherent mathematical model next time .

You'd also have the problem of 'no symptoms' being a stand-in for
being unaffected; organ damage doesn't always SHOW. Some organs
are internal. There's no support in your fact set for a danger assessment; did
some of the 'no symptoms' inhabitants get carted off to the emergency room?

You are afraid and hysterical. That's silly for an adult.

What a bizarre conclusion. Just more proof that Larkin is not of sound mind in the literal sense.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:27:35 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Apart from one documentary about a friend's family, I haven't watched a
movie since 1987. (The last two were The Last Emperor and A Passage to
India.)

The movie stars (a then very young 1980's) Kurt Russell, and was directed Robert Zemeckis. It got 7 out of 10 stars on IMdB.

Basic plot: When the owner of a struggling used car lot is killed, it's up to the lot's hot-shot salesman to save the property from falling into the hands of the owner's ruthless brother and used-car rival.

Along the way, they concoct a preposterous scheme to interrupt a US Presidential address on TV by bouncing a signal off a satellite so they can insert their own car commercial. That's where the need for solder arises.

40 Second link to clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeYpkz8fjfc

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 5:24:05 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 12:49:04 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

In a Boston shelter,

"Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive. Not a single
one had any symptoms."

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

But the facts you've stated don't support that conclusion.
If the course of the disease is 10 days, there could be two (or ten)
that brought the disease in (and are in late stages, with few symptoms)
and 140-ish who just picked it up two days ago and before the
disease runs its course will develop symptoms in 40, and a few deaths.

That's the problem with reading your 'facts-then-conclusions' mashups;
you never CONNECT the two. Make a coherent mathematical model next time .

You'd also have the problem of 'no symptoms' being a stand-in for

being unaffected; organ damage doesn't always SHOW. Some organs
are internal. There's no support in your fact set for a danger assessment; did
some of the 'no symptoms' inhabitants get carted off to the emergency room?

You are afraid and hysterical. That's silly for an adult.

There's nothing afraid or hysterical in whit3rd's comment.

John Larkin's post - to which whit3rd was responding - is depressingly ignorant about what the numbers he was reporting meant.

His conclusion

"A virus that infects people for a couple of weeks and doesn't even get noticed sounds like good news to me, but some experts would I guess
prefer that it kill more people or something."

assumes the reported fact that people who had been tested had been asymptomic when tested meant that they would remain that way.

There was nothing in either report to suggest that anybody involve had been infected for a couple of weeks before they were tested.

Some people with robust immune systems do seem to be able to get infected and get rid of the virus within a few days without experiencing symptoms, but they wouldn't test positive for the virus after they'd cleared it from their system.

It's John Larkin who is being silly here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 7:54:24 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On 17 Apr 2020 13:17:48 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote...

In a Boston shelter,

"Of the 397 people tested, 146 people tested positive.
Not a single one had any symptoms."

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

No, it's extremely highly contagious, and far more
dangerous than we like. We can try to ignore high
positive test counts, but they're infecting other
people and many are dying. A woman up the street,
who my wife walks her dog with, died two days ago.
She survived the ventilator, but after being taken
off, died from a brain injury. My wife was shaken,
having talked with her two weeks earlier. Then,
commiserating with the woman's neighbor, he revealed
that four of his co-workers died the previous week,
and he was worried for himself. They worked in the
produce distribution business, in Chelsea, which is
a new hot-spot. Then she talked with an old friend
of hers, who's in a nursing home, who revealed that
he had tested positive. Today's paper reveals that
30 residents have died there in the last few weeks.
Also a large fraction of the staff tested positive,
but not all have been able to be tested yet. We're
hoping her friend will be one who escapes with mild
symptoms. The number of people testing positive in
our town has doubled in the last week, despite that
we've been in near lock-down for about a month now.
Our hospital death rates are higher for older people,
but only by about 1.5x for middle aged, and about 2x
for the 20-35 group. So we're all in mortal danger.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu

"Normal" seasonal flu is much more deadly.

Only in the sense that it has killed more people so far.

> But we've never got so upset over that.

Not since the Spanish flu.

Look at the chart about halfway down, influenza
stats:

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

Did you mean "Major modern influenza pandemics"?

Spanish flu ended up infecting about 27% of the World population.

So far Covid-19 has infected 2,276,359 people - about 0.03% of the world population. It seems to have got under way on the 1st December 2019, almost five months ago, and has spent a lot of that time getting to new countries to infect.

The US now hosts about one third of the people who have been infected, and 37,175 of the people killed so far (out of a total of 156,118).

A typical seasonal flu kills between 290,000 – 650,000/year, and Covid-19 has another six months to go, with steadily increasing numbers of people getting infected, in places like the US were people can't seem to manage effective lock-down or effective contact tracing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:27:27 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-17 22:07, mpm wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 9:03:36 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

They closed three years ago.


Did somebody not get the movie reference?
(I admit it's a borderline obscure movie.)


Apart from one documentary about a friend's family, I haven't watched a
movie since 1987. (The last two were The Last Emperor and A Passage to
India.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I've known people who have never watched a single movie through. I
guess the data rate is too low. You can read as fast as you like.

I confess that there are a few movies that I've seen a dozen times or
more, and that I'll see a few more times.

Reminds me, I haven't seen A Room With A View in a long time.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-18 10:59, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:27:27 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-17 22:07, mpm wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 9:03:36 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

They closed three years ago.


Did somebody not get the movie reference?
(I admit it's a borderline obscure movie.)


Apart from one documentary about a friend's family, I haven't watched a
movie since 1987. (The last two were The Last Emperor and A Passage to
India.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I've known people who have never watched a single movie through. I
guess the data rate is too low. You can read as fast as you like.

When my eyesight was better, I used to be a very fast reader. For me it
isn't so much the data rate--it's that a movie demands your total
attention and doesn't repay enough. Since I don't watch them, I'm also
not accustomed to the level of physical and psychological violence.

A somewhat deeper issue is that (like fiction) films are works of
imagination and often manipulation. They don't lead to reliable
knowledge, especially not of human relationships. It's scary how many
people get their ideas from fiction.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

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

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:32:26 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-18 10:59, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:27:27 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-17 22:07, mpm wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 9:03:36 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

They closed three years ago.


Did somebody not get the movie reference?
(I admit it's a borderline obscure movie.)


Apart from one documentary about a friend's family, I haven't watched a
movie since 1987. (The last two were The Last Emperor and A Passage to
India.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I've known people who have never watched a single movie through. I
guess the data rate is too low. You can read as fast as you like.

When my eyesight was better, I used to be a very fast reader. For me it
isn't so much the data rate--it's that a movie demands your total
attention and doesn't repay enough. Since I don't watch them, I'm also
not accustomed to the level of physical and psychological violence.

Most popular movies are "action", a mix of stupid violence and stupid
emotions. And horrid alien creatures that are always humanoid. And
eyes that glow from inside.

A somewhat deeper issue is that (like fiction) films are works of
imagination and often manipulation. They don't lead to reliable
knowledge, especially not of human relationships. It's scary how many
people get their ideas from fiction.

Yes, but I do like a good romance. They mostly all follow the same
formula but some are nice anyhow.

The Pride&Prejudice with Kiera Knightly is beautiful.

Ditto the 2007 Persuasion, and 12th Night with Imogen Stubbs.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 12:24:05 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

But the facts you've stated don't support that conclusion.

You are afraid and hysterical. That's silly for an adult.

How would you recognize hysteria in a logically true critical statement?

Panic is short for 'panic fear', meaning fear of the god Pan, whose
attributes include... omnipresence. So, it means fear of everything,
every shadow, sound, object. You have a knee-jerk response to
see fear, hysteria, panic in every situation, which is a real oddity.

'Panic scaredy-cat projection' would be a suitable name, but that's
too long. For now, I'll call it Larkin syndrome.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:01:29 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 12:24:05 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

So it is fairly contageous and not very dangerous.

But the facts you've stated don't support that conclusion.

You are afraid and hysterical. That's silly for an adult.

How would you recognize hysteria in a logically true critical statement?

You might start by making such a statement, and we'll see.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-16 02:24, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com writes:

The specificity, complement of false positive, is what's killing them. I also can't believe how weak the sensitivity is either.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html

Yep. As an example, condider a situation with 96/94
specificity/sensitivity, population tested of 1e6 with 5% having
antibodies (which does not necessarily mean immunity or not contagious)

Roughly:
47000 get true positive result
3000 get false negative
955200 get true negative
39800 get false positive

So, 46% of positive results are false!

And those people may think they're safe for themselves and others, go
catch the virus and spread it during the asymptomatic phase.

--
mikko

Certainly a problem in the early stages of the outbreak. Later on
though, 5% false positives for antibodies in a population that's 80%
immune is much less worrisome.

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