On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:36 PM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:19:54 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs > > >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > >> >> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ > > >> >> > > >> >> (The aussies call it 'maths') > > >> > > > >> >This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. > > >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become > > >> products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow? > > >> >Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot. > > >> Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't. > > >> That's curious. > > > > > >Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented. > > > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator > > > > > "It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by > > Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom > > have original ideas. > John Larkin has his name on one patent taken out by a group he was collaborating with. probably because they felt the need to flatter him. > > I've got three patents, and my father and two of my friends have got roughly 25 each. John Larkin doesn't know much about original ideas. And he doesn't know much about professors either - Einstein wasn't a "professor type", he was a card -carrying genius. > > I'd think that staring at equations would suggest possibilities, but it rarely does. The positron is an interesting case. > Paul Dirac stared at a lot equations - most of which he had formulated, in order to explain what seemed to be happening. The prediction of the positron was an incidental results of that whole process, not of just staring at equations. > > -- > Bill Sloman, SydneyCan't resist again, eh? May the fleas of a thousand camels invade your armpits.
ee's without math
Started by ●December 8, 2023
Reply by ●December 10, 20232023-12-10
Reply by ●December 11, 20232023-12-11
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:08:18 AM UTC+11, John Smiht wrote:> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:36 PM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote: > > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:19:54 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:<snip>> > > >> Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't. > > > >> That's curious. > > > > > > > >Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented. > > > > > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator > > > > > > > "It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by > > > Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom > > > have original ideas. > > > > John Larkin has his name on one patent taken out by a group he was collaborating with. probably because they felt the need to flatter him. > > > > I've got three patents, and my father and two of my friends have got roughly 25 each. John Larkin doesn't know much about original ideas. And he doesn't know much about professors either - Einstein wasn't a "professor type", he was a card -carrying genius. > > > > > I'd think that staring at equations would suggest possibilities, but it rarely does. The positron is an interesting case. > > > > Paul Dirac stared at a lot equations - most of which he had formulated, in order to explain what seemed to be happening. The prediction of the positron was an incidental results of that whole process, not of just staring at equations. > > Can't resist again, eh?You do seem to think that sci.electronics.design should be re-titled "The John Larkin admiration society". He does post quite a lot of silly comments and I do feel free to point out how silly they are, and why.> May the fleas of a thousand camels invade your armpits.Not exactly a reasoned refutation of the hypothetical defects in my argument - merely an "a a" level suggestion that you don't like them. You are going for contemptible partisanship. and on the wrong side. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 11, 20232023-12-11
On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Dec 2023 06:26:53 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in <f9fd7307-bad5-4555-83be-ec447bd965f1n@googlegroups.com>:>On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 1:15:30 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wro= >te: >> On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:43:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bl= >oggs >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote in >> <8befbf42-2233-4ad3...@googlegroups.com>: >> >> >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-5, John Larkin = >wro= >> >te: >> >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote= >:= >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >> >> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrot= >e:= >> > >> >> >> >> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of= >-ma= >> >ths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (The aussies call it 'maths') >> >> >> > >> >> >> >This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good = >at = >> >math. >> >> >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become= > >> >> >> products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow? >> >> >> >Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, = >sta= >> >ndards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whate= >ver= >> > else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers = >use= >> >d to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously p= >ath= >> >etic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills= >, a= >> >nd probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities= >. H= >> >eaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of art= >icl= >> >e is a case point, a complete idiot. >> >> >> Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.= > >> >> >> That's curious. >> >> > >> >> >Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and= > it= >> > was patented. >> >> > >> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator >> >> > >> >> "It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by >> >> Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types se= >ldo= >> >m >> >> have original ideas. >> > >> >Whoever wrote that is a fool. Einstein was obviously providing high leve= >l g= >> >uidance on the project, and Szilard was tasked with working the details.= > Ei= >> >nstein was busy with more important things than to waste himself on minu= >tia= >> >> His fridge was a disaster > >It was a decent refrigerator, but it wasn't competitive, in cost or efficie= >ncy of heat source, with the development of mechanical refrigeration (motor= > driven compressor) using only recently discovered "freon". > >Einstein's green refrigerator making a comeback > >https://phys.org/news/2008-09-einstein-green-refrigerator-comeback.htmlYea, I will just use my>Sounds like the author of article is clueless of the technology. Then I che= >cked the name, and it's a 'Lisa"- which I assume is a female- confirms my s= >uspicion.Popup asked for a donation for ad free viewing, did noit se eany ads, using Ublock Origin. So they just want money...>The same cooling technology has been used in portable applications, like tr= >ailers and similar, for 100 years. Most of them use ammonia, and the heat s= >ource is a liquid petroleum fueled flame. > >NASA has developed a few cooling system using the same principle for space = >based applications, heat source is solar insolation. > > > >> He failed to unite the forces of nature >> Aspect's experiment proved his thinking wrong. >> The E=M C^something was not his >> Same for that other thing he put his name on. >> He was made a hero because he suggested to the then US precedent eh preci= >dend . . whatever to further devellop reactions leading to the nuculear bom= >b >> Jew's hero. >> Mass murderer (Hiroshima Nagasaki) >> Endlessly repeating bis babble stops advancement in fishsicks > >Einstein was well known as an uber anti-war pacifist, and mingled with a cr= >owd considered to be political radicals by the U.S. government. He was ther= >efore considered a security risk and denied access to classified material o= >f any kind, before, during, and after the war. > >But they gave that huckster illiterate Tesla top billing for credibility.It all depends, Einstein wife's was a mamatician I'v read. his relatatitvitty theory was likely hers. His "eeee is 'm see to some powder of too" was already postulated by some one else https://physicsworld.com/a/did-einstein-discover-e-mc2/ Henri Poincaré had stated that electromagnetic radiation had a momentum and thus effectively a mass, according to E = mc2. It got worse with Bose Einstein condensate, Bose send his idea to EInstein who then published it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate Worse: The vote-on is just the energy required to knock an electron lose from an atom in the detector, it is like a ball on a wire connected to a pole in an ocean, when the waves get big enough and the wire breaks fishsisicks cry 'vote-on detected' It has NOTHING to do with the structure of light just like that ball detection has nothing to do with the water molecules. Different detector needed, even Max Planck objected ... Einstein was a fraud, parrotting his crap has stopped advancement in fishsicks now for many years. His theories have become a religion, with many fanatics following it.
Reply by ●December 11, 20232023-12-11
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:05:01 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:> The vote-on is just the energy required to knock an electron lose from an atom in the detector, > it is like a ball on a wire connected to a pole in an ocean, > when the waves get big enough and the wire breaks fishsisicks cry 'vote-on detected'No, it is not. Firstly, you can make photons with non-atoms (synchrotron radiation), and second, the selection rules of atomic transitions argue against any photon without exactly spin = 1 (i.e. a single quantum of angular momentum). Photons are spinning massless electric field energies. A quantity of 'the energy required" is NOT enough to define a photon.
Reply by ●December 11, 20232023-12-11
On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:32:06 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <f5892ba2-05d4-455a-a061-a2a6e4a0f634n@googlegroups.com>:>On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:05:01 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wr= >ote: > >> The vote-on is just the energy required to knock an electron lose from an= > atom in the detector, >> it is like a ball on a wire connected to a pole in an ocean, >> when the waves get big enough and the wire breaks fishsisicks cry 'vote-o= >n detected' > >No, it is not. Firstly, you can make photons with non-atoms (synchrotron = >radiation), andThat does not go against what I wrote, on the contrary, something else moves.>second, the selection rules of atomic transitions argue against any photon = >without exactlyRules re made to be broken. Those are often a derivative from wrongly understood experiments .>spin = 1 (i.e. a single quantum of angular momentum). Photons are spinn= >ing massless >electric field energies. A quantity of 'the energy required" is NOT enoug= >h to define a photon.See what I wrote, there is (must be) a much finer structure causing what we observe. I personally like Le Sage theory of gravity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation Until somebody comes up with something better I can get along with that. Feynman got stuck in it (with his idea of such a particle), but then the question one SHOULD ask is: What SHOULD such particle look like to explain what we see?. As it seem gravity moves at the speed of light it could well be light and gravity is a property of the same particles. That in Le Sage also explains the light speed the same in all directions the internal heating of planets, spectral spreading, and clocks slowing down etc etc.. Just away with Albert E.
Reply by ●December 11, 20232023-12-11
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 6:08:48 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:> On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:32:06 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <f5892ba2-05d4-455a...@googlegroups.com>: > >On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:05:01 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:<snip>> That does not go against what I wrote, on the contrary, something else moves.So you didn't express yourself clearly.> >second, the selection rules of atomic transitions argue against any photon without exactly > > Rules are made to be broken.Not those kinds of rules. > Those are often a derivative from wrongly understood experiments . But here it is Jan who providing the defective understanding.> >spin = 1 (i.e. a single quantum of angular momentum). Photons are spinning massless electric field energies. A quantity of 'the energy required" is NOT enoughh to define a photon. > > See what I wrote, there is (must be) a much finer structure causing what we observe.There is but you don't understand it, and keep on trying to invent other schemes that you don't understand either. so you don't realise their defects.> I personally like Le Sage theory of gravity: > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitationOf course you do. You are too dim to understand that his "corpuscles" needed self-contradictory properties.> Until somebody comes up with something better I can get along with that.Einstein did but you can't understand his approach.> Feynman got stuck in it (with his idea of such a particle), but then the question one SHOULD ask is: > What SHOULD such particle look like to explain what we see?.And the people who knew enough to ask the question properly didn't like the answers.> As it seem gravity moves at the speed of light it could well be light and gravity is a property of the same particles.Not a rigorous arguement.> That in Le Sage also explains the light speed the same in all directions the internal heating of planets, spectral spreading, and clocks slowing down etc etc..But Le Sage didn't.> Just away with Albert E.It makes more sense to do away with Le Sage, but Jan doesn't have any sense at all. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 11, 20232023-12-11
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:45:22 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:>> Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides, >> he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he >> sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying. >> > >Heaviside�s dates are 1850�1925. > >The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in >1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles.More like 200 kW around 20 kHz at least for the big stations.>Even >at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.�s era it >really wasn�t possible.There is still one usable transmitter in Grimeton, Sweden at 17.2 kHz. It is operated once in June/July and often during Christmas for an hour. Some pictures of the machinery, feeders and antennas at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimeton_Radio_Station
Reply by ●December 11, 20232023-12-11
Anthony William Sloman wrote:> Martin Brown wrote:<snip>>> I've often wondered why so many EEs find >> Einstein's special relativity so completely impossible to understand. > > It has to be bad teaching. George Gamow's "Mr Tompkins" books > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Tompkins > > are very straightforward explanations. I got to read them while I was still > in secondary school.Allow me to sing the praises of _Alice in Quantumland_ (Gilmore), a worthy successor to _Mr Tompkins_. It takes "mod fizz-shtiks" down a rabbit hole, so to speak. LOL. Danke, -- Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light; She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.
Reply by ●December 17, 20232023-12-17
On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:> bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >> On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote: >>> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (The aussies call it 'maths') >>>>>> >>>>>> Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>>> life for them! >>>>> >>>>> Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals? >>> >>> >>> Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math. >>> See page 7 section 8, 9... >>> Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz, >>> Faraday and others. >>> https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf >>> Mikek >> >> Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides, >> he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he >> sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying. >> > > Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925. > > The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in > 1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even > at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it > really wasn’t possible. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs >J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.
Reply by ●December 17, 20232023-12-17
On 10/12/2023 4:20 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 08:25:01 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> > wrote: >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/<snip>>> Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules >> didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places. > > Maybe not. But they *were* a coveted status symbol.Not any place I ever worked.> If someone strode into the office with a slide rule hooked to their belt, like a big, > swinging dick, you *knew* immediately he was an engineer. Lesser > minions were simply in awe.Not in any place I ever worked.> If you want to make an entrance - I mean a > *real* entrance - clutching a calculator simply won't cut it.Engineers don't go if for that kind of display. Marketing and management both did, to some extent, mostly, when they needed to create an impression, but engineers never bothered. They had better ways of attracting attention. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
