Spam Alert: Re: [Amps] The Philosophy of Science

[on4kj]

Just found it back as follows Bill:

They found themselves stuck in the muck.
( Especially American expression ) and defined as, being unable to move out
of a difficult situation, of frustration and blame.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Fuqua" <wlfuqu00 at uky.edu>
To: "on4kj" <on4kj at skynet.be>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Spam Alert: Re: [Amps] The Philosophy of Science


> At 02:45 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> >" Stuck in the muck "
>
> "spinning their wheels"
> "stuck in the mud"
> "going no where fast"
>
> Is that what you mean?
>
> 73
> Bill wa4lav
>
>
> >Is this a correct expression to describe this ambiance?
> >I am Dutch and  French speaking.
> >Feel, but not sure I understand the sphere, I am affraid.
> >
> >Jos on4kj
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <MorgusMagnificen at aol.com>
> >To: <conrad at g0ruz.net>
> >Cc: <amps at 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 at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> > >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Amps mailing list
> >Amps at contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
>