>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.........
>
The term "stonewalling" came about during President Nixon's Watergate
scandal. In the heat the scandal, Nixon and his lap-dogs defended
against certain questions as if the questions had been directed at a
stone wall.
cheers, 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734, AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
|