>" 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
|