Thanks a lot, and glad I was'nt that far from the truth. ( not gods
truth.... or we'll start over the whole thread ).
Quite a pitty, I guess these are a couple of exeptional fellows anyhow.
...........
Regarding stonewalling, possible..... but with my narrow knowledge of the
language, I am not sure, or maybe naive.........
Jos.
---- Original Message -----
From: "2" <2@vc.net>
To: "on4kj" <on4kj@skynet.be>; " AMPS" <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Spam Alert: Re: [Amps] The Philosophy of Science
>
>
> >" Stuck in the muck "
> >Is this a correct expression to describe this ambiance?
>
> ** that pretty much describes it, Jos. However, "ambiance" [French,
> from ambiant, surrounding,] is used mainly to describe decor in
> restaurants and theatres, not human hair pulls. As to the discussion on
> AMPS regarding bent filaments in 3-500Zs, Eric The Magnificent's
> stonewalling of questions about possibly being a friend of another Ham
> who favors the term "voodoo", suggests that Eric ... has an agenda
> behind his stone wall.
>
> cheers.
>
>
> >I am Dutch and French speaking.
> >Feel, but not sure I understand the sphere, I am afraid.
> >
> >Jos on4kj
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <MorgusMagnificen@aol.com>
> >To: <conrad@g0ruz.net>
> >Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 5:05 PM
> >Subject: Re: Spam Alert: Re: [Amps] The Philosophy of Science
> >
> >
> >> Okay, I sincerely apologize for the aggressive broadside. I am just
sick
> >and
> >> tired of hearing all of the distortions of theoretical science and
> >> engineering that I hear EVERYWHERE . I hoped this group would have a
> >little
> >> more understanding of it. If your world ends at the 4th significant
> >figure,
> >> fine for you. For many others, the action doesn't even begin until the
> >6th -
> >> or 10th.
> >>
> >> One statement by you and others ( in some of those OTHER armchairs)
> >regards
> >> the term 'computer modelling'. There is somewhat of a semantic problem
> >here,
> >> as follows. The computer models which we use are EXACT, precise
physical
> >> devices whose electronic equations we can write precisely. We can then
> >apply
> >> them in circuits and solve the circuit equations to any desired degree
of
> >> accuracy. In the limit (this is a profound mathematical statement,
which
> >> forms the basis of all numerical computation algorithms) these
solutions
> >> converge to the exact answer (if the algorithm designer has not screwed
> >up!).
> >>
> >> The approximation comes in when we attempt to apply this exact model to
a
> >> practical circuit. Again, the degree of agreement between the two is
> >limited
> >> by our ability to measure the real-world components, which we all know
has
> >> practical as well as theoretical limits. So it is not the modelling
> >process
> >> which is 'inexact'. The error comes from our measurment limits, which
we
> >> know, control, and can accurately predict.
> >>
> >> The laws of physics themselves are models. I posed the very relavent
> >question
> >> "is the formula R=E/I an exact model" and no one wants to take a stand
on
> >> that, the most basic of all of our electrical 'laws'. That we can
approach
> >> exactness only in the limit sense does not make it any less useful to
us.
> >>
> >> I want to close this (although I am sure you would like to conrtinue to
> >hear
> >> me rant) by going back to where it began, and show how all of those who
> >have
> >> argued against me have badly distorted the issue. It started when Jeff
> >posted
> >> a very simple solution to a somewhat complex problem - the calculation
of
> >> filter capacitance in a PS. I was, like others, initially suspicious of
> >his
> >> results but I wanted to check it out as accurately as possible before
> >> attacking his work. To do so, I made the most accurate calculation I
could
> >of
> >> the same problem, so that if I were to raise a complaint, no one could
> >accuse
> >> me of basing it on an inexact calculation (i.e. an approximation, with
> >which
> >> the older power supply literature is filled .) So by comparison, my
> >> calculations were so precise (let's say they produced results accurate
to
> >> .01%) that they were effectively exact in comparison to older data. To
> >most
> >> engineers I know, that constitutes an exact calculation. (What you may
not
> >> realize is that this 'old' data which I always refer to was based on
> >highly
> >> approximated models - with our modern computers we do not have to
severely
> >> approximate our models.)
> >>
> >> Does it really change anything if I change the wording to read 'highly
> >> precise' calculations instead of 'exact'? Would it convey any more or
> >less
> >> useful information to you? Would it make any difference when you
finally
> >get
> >> back to your workshop to build your amp, for which you will be doing
well
> >to
> >> get a filter cap that is within 10% of the predicted EXACT value?
> >>
> >> I would like to ask for a polling by everyone reading this (if you are
> >still
> >> awake) on the following: Does the fact that my calculations were
> >terminated
> >> at an accuracy of .01%, as opposed to the known errors of 10% or
greater
> >in
> >> old data, mean that my calculations are not exact? And if not, how
precise
> >> would I have to make them in order to qualify as a standard against
which
> >to
> >> measure simple approximated calculations, such as Jeff's? Does it
bother
> >you
> >> that I use the word 'exact' in the context of "high-accuracy, so high
that
> >> its estimated error is too low to be of any concern" ?.
> >>
> >> Eric K8LV
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Amps mailing list
> >> Amps@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Amps mailing list
> >Amps@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >
>
>
> - R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734, AG6K,
> www.vcnet.com/measures.
> end
>
>
>
|