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 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:31:12 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
Otology, otorhinolaryngology, otolaryngology, ENT, etc. Please
explain how I can add a word that's in my vocabulary to my
vocabulary, I can't find that command. I'm running Life 1.0.
I don't think it's my place to teach you how to learn, but the general
procedure is quite simple. Open book, insert face, learn a few new
words, use them as much a possible, and hopefully some of them might
stick. Writing or typing these new additions to your vocabulary also
enhances retention and improves spelling.
Anyone that's been underwater can tell you they hear less.
It's obvious enough, since water has way more density than air.
NT
I believe that I mentioned that underwater hearing attenuates the high
frequency sounds, while still passing most of the low frequency
sounds. Moving the eardrum against a mass of water on one side
requires more energy. Moving the eardrum slower, at lower
frequencies, requires less energy, so some of that is preserved.
Either way, spraying Deoxit in your ear isn't going to do anything
useful, except maybe loosen some ear wax.
you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
something I already know. How?
No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
reduce noise. And it does a bit.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
something I already know. How?
Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
doctor.
No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
reduce noise. And it does a bit.
I believer you may have misread the data sheet:
http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f
"Shields Against Noise and RFI"
By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details,
methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 16:53:26 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
something I already know. How?
Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
doctor.
you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly
pissing contest. No matter.
No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
reduce noise. And it does a bit.
I believer you may have misread the data sheet:
http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f
"Shields Against Noise and RFI"
no, I didn't misread it
By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details,
methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.
Of course that is not implied, it is inferred by you.
I would think it evident that the only possible credible claim re
noise reduction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised
contacts. That it might reduce other forms of noise in real world
electronic circuits seems wholly unrealistic.
I would therefore think it somewhat obvious that I was being
facetious when discussing it's sonic noise reduction properties,
which technically it does have, even if they bear no connection
to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all
that obvious.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:18:54 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 16:53:26 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
something I already know. How?
Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
doctor.
you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly
pissing contest. No matter.
Guilty as charged. If needed, I can supply a signed confession for a
nominal charge. However, simply because I'm not providing the reply
which you are expecting does not make this a pissing contest.
No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
reduce noise. And it does a bit.
I believer you may have misread the data sheet:
http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f
"Shields Against Noise and RFI"
no, I didn't misread it
If you insist. Perhaps you misinterpreted it?
By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details,
methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.
Of course that is not implied, it is inferred by you.
Correct. The author of the data sheet implied it and I inferred it.
Using "noise" and "RFI" in the same sentence suggests that they might
be connected in some way. Since audio was not specifically mentioned
while interference was mentioned, perhaps they both involve RF? Either
way, you cannot assume that the particular form of noise mentioned in
the data sheet is audible or that Dexoit can be expected to function
under water or in the ear.
I would think it evident that the only possible credible claim re
noise reduction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised
contacts. That it might reduce other forms of noise in real world
electronic circuits seems wholly unrealistic.
Nothing is evident until demonstrated, proven, and tested. A simple
test for this are numbers, the lack of which suggest that such
performance claims are far from evident or obvious. In this case, the
noise reduction should be specified and measured in dB decrease in
accordance to a repeatable testing procedure. What Deoxit might do in
a real world or under non-specific conditions is of no concern. It
might be possible to contrive such a test and associated measurement
at audio levels, but the mention of RFI in the same sentence suggests
that it is an RF noise level, which would be more difficult to
demonstrate and measure. Unfortunately, the picture in the data sheet
is that of the rear of an audio amplifier, which suggests an audio
test. Therefore, unless additional clarification arrives from Caig
Labs, such a test cannot be performed. I'll leave it an open question
while awaiting clarification and possibly test results.
I would therefore think it somewhat obvious that I was being
facetious when discussing it's sonic noise reduction properties,
which technically it does have, even if they bear no connection
to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all
that obvious.
The only thing that is obvious here is that you are frustrated by my
unwillingness to accept your observations, deductions, and conclusions
at face value.
You have failed to see the value in refreshing your
vocabulary.
You have failed to distinguish between acoustic and RF
noise.
You have failed to recognize that miraculous performance
claims by overpriced solvents must be tested, measured, and proven.
You have failed to recognize that all things that are obvious, beyond
any need of verification, are invariably wrong.
You have also failed
to agree with anything I have offered, which is prima facie evidence
that you are most likely in error.
You even failed by thinking that
all things are obvious.
With such a dismal success rate, there is
little hope of recovery. I'll accept your apology for trying to think
the obvious and leave it at that.