"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
:
: When you look
: at the IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
:
: Rubbish. Complete and utter crap. What drugs are you on? For
: starters, consider the FM distortion of speakers. i.e. consider a
: 1khz signal riding on a speaker going back and forth at 100 Hz. 0.05
: to 0.1% plus dopplar induced distortion is easily achievable.
:
: Well, you don't exactly show clarity of mind here yourself, do you ?
:
: You mean, you don't have the capability to work out the details for
: yourself?
:
: I was posting to John, he is well aware of how to calculate Doppler
: frequency shifts. For the most part, John is a very good engineer. He
: just makes some mistakes like we all do.
:
Well, if you must refrain to personal remarks (allways a sign of weakness,
lack of 'quality arguments') , John is a very good engineer at least sounds
a lot nicer than What drugs are you on ?..
:
: Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
: doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..
:
: And you have the cheek to criticize my ideas below, with this
: demonstration of your lack of knowledge here. ????
:
: velocity = f.x = 100 x 0.01 = 1 m/s
:
: Sound travels at 330 m/s
:
: df/f = v/330 = 1/330 = 0.3%
:
:
: (technically the velocity don't change, but the effect is the same via
: wavelength)
very technical...just a small question the how does the sine wave
driving the cone translate to a constant cone velocity, please tell us..
: Adding in the
: standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
: whatsoever that your claim is supported.
standard 1 to 10 % - what a wild, sweeping, unqualified and therefore
utterly
nonsensical statement. hope you're not responsible for 'upcoming'
spice speaker models at the company there...
: There is no way that one can audiable detect 0.01% THD/IMD levels
: from correctly designed amps. If it was frequncy shifts, maybe, but
: not distortion. Been there done, it, wrote the book.
The book title and ISBN # being ?
:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
: Says who ?
:
: Your serious dude? Its trvial. See below.
:
:
: Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: consciousness.
:
: Sorry, read up on cognitive science and logic and
: ...a whole lot more...
:
: Clearly, I know a lot more than you about this subject.
Wow, stating that clearly makes it so...
:
: If you think that you can experience an emotion without consciousness,
: please explain, in detail.
:
:
: this is just posing without any apparent insight, Kevin.
:
: Nonsense. The fact that you don't have the insight to understand this,
: is your problem, not mine. This is something I actually know quite a bit
: about, as will be clear from the following in this post.
:
: Please explain to me how you actually *perceive* an emotion *without*
: consciousness? Its a tautology. Its that simple. Consciousness is *how*
: feelings are recognised, i.e. how emotions are recognised. Emotions are
: feelings, i.e. we are consciously aware of them.
Hm, well, this is leading a bit astray, but if you want to discuss such
matters, let's start with definitions: so what is perception, Kevin ?
snipped some mo i'm clever, you don't understand "arguments"
: That transposing Goedels findings on mathematical
: theory on the domain of physics - your idea ?
:
: Goedel is a *general* existence proof. It does not allow one to actually
: show that a *specific* relation is non derivable, only that such
: relations exist. My argument proves an actual example. I have shown that
: an understanding of consciousness *cannot* be derived from inanimate
: processes. Its a new axiom. This is indeed already *accepted* by the
: likes of Roger Penrose as a basic new axiom. I have simple *proved* that
: this *is* the case.
Say it is so = formal prove of an argument ....boy, the 'new' science is
getting easy
these days..
(It think the subject of consciousness is just a bit to important to handle
in one-liners, but must confess it's interesting to see a 'numbers-man'
like yourself doubting a materialistic-mechanistic worldview)
::
: ****ed off by posers,
:
: You mean, ****ed off by people who understand much, much, more than you.
you don't seriously think that people are inclined to take up a discussion
if you *have* to refrain to these little smug remarks all the time, do u ?
: If you do have any *valid* objections to
:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html, let us here them.
:
: Kevin Aylward
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Have a spicy day, Kevin,
Rudy