[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Models and real world --oops

To: <>
Subject: [Towertalk] Models and real world --oops
From: (Michael Keane, K1MK)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:22:21 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 11 July 2002, "Jim White" wrote:
> sounds like I am back on the South (Non MIT side) of the Charles
> River....

Does it now 'NNC, I wonder why? Maybe because we were prowling opposite
banks away back when. Love that muddy water? ;-)

> KNOWING that doing iterations over and over again on a model and
> seeing the results tell you that this what you want without knowing
> that the answer is a reasonable one is suicidal!
Yes.  And just as suicidal as unquestioningly believing everything that
we hear told. We must look equally askance at both the computer and the
person when either tries to tell us "Everything You Know is Wrong!"  

We have a very substantial basis for knowing what are reasonable answers
and which answers have the ring of truth and which don't. 

> If you get an output from some software that tells you a 20 meter
> dipole is to be cut 49 foot long and you do not have the experimental
> experience to know this just ain't right you are one of those that
> has become too dependent on your machine as do all know all

Read what I wrote again, I wasn't talking about models or software.

One doesn't need to have any specific prior experience or experimental
evidence to suspect such an answer is totally bogus, Maxwell is there to
tell us to be very, very skeptical of such a result.

Just like we should know to be skeptical of any claim that somebody got
a really great match on twnety meters direct to a 49 foot dipole.
> - and you are not as valuable as the guy who knows that he cuts a
> twenty meter dipole 65 or some odd feet long since he done it at
> Field Day for years!

And a guy who knows how long to cut a dipole for sixty meters without
having done so before is even more valuable... Call it an analytical
approximation or an intuituve sense.

> ....if it ain't close to being right it is (here is the key word)
> obviously wrong!

That skepticism just needs to be applied equally to the results of the
modeler and claims of the observer. Lest one chase wild geese or other
flights of fantasy.

Professional or amateur it doesn't matter, in the end nature will not be

> you can truly KNOW what you got
> in a CADD program!

I've come across more than a few program that were so rude that they
acted like utter cads :-)

Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
PeoplePC:  It's for people. And it's just smart. 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>