Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message ...
John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTR wrote (in
.net) about 'A little
feedback worse than none at all?', on Tue, 18 Nov 2003:
As I explained, none of this matters with *large* amounts of
feedback. Large feedback will clobber all distortion. You wont here
it if is all below 0.01%, and this is easy to do. End of story.
This is simply not true,
Yes it is.
as has been found time after time by people
who thought that 60 dB of feedback would cure all ills.
It most certainly does, if it is applied correctly. That means that
there is 60 db, i.e. if it is slew limiting than the feedback aint
60db, it goes to zero, hence violates the assumption of 60db of
feedback.
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.
Please rephrase and explain what this has to do with the sentence
above.. And since you seem to be a numbers-believer, please tell us
how you arrived at them
And this is really
nasty stuff. Its a spread right across the spectrum.
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)
Adding in the
standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
whatsoever that your claim is supported.
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.
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.
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.
What do you think "understanding" *really* is dude. Jump out of the bath
in excitement and say "Eureka, I've got it!!!" Then you will understand
that "understanding" is an emotion, i.e. a *feeling* that you
*experiance*. "Ahh haaa, now... I *understand*". Say this in you mind to
make it sink in.
The fact that you have never understood this before, don't make it any
less so. A feeling is what consciousness is all about. How you can not
understand the most basic of these concepts, and spout off gibberish
like this, is simply amazing.
What the issue here is, is that many may well have missed the obvious.
Go back and really *think* on what "feelings" "awareness" "emotions"
"consciousness" really are. They are all self referral. You cannot
explain any, without invoking the other. For some reason, many have
missed this fundamental point, and have spent much effort in trying to
derive consciousness.
"Understanding" consciousness can
therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
intrinsically unsolvable.
Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
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.
This has been missed because many like you, did not appreciate what
"Eureka!!!! I understand" really meant. That is, understanding is indeed
an emotion, as it is something one feels, despite the fact that many
have not recognised this before. Secondly, in my proof, the term
"emotion" can be dispensed with anyway. It is not important to the
proof. It was only included to clarify the issue. All that matters is
that "understanding" is something that we are consciously *aware* of. If
we are *not* consciously aware of something, than how can we have an
understanding of something? So, since being aware that we understand
something necessarily requires consciousness, therefore, its self
referral. Therefore, we cannot derive an understanding of consciousness
without invoking consciousness in the explanation.
****ed off by posers,
You mean, ****ed off by people who understand much, much, more than you.
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.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
intrinsically unsolvable.
Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.