| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Turner the Turd wrote while getting drunk :
Transistor amps typically have an open loop response curve that looks like an arch, with a peak at 500 Hz, and rolling off at 6 dB/octave either side. ** And some folk here think this ****wit is an amp guru ??? Why ???????? BTW The main drawback of being an arselicker is that you have to swallow so much ****. ............ Phil |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : sorry John, snppin' for BW sav'n purposes the : Here is one problem of the concept of feedback itself: : it is all very well to model perceived physical phenomena : in a suitable mathematical form, convenient to 'get rid of' : time by using complex numbers, but : : a cause-effect-feedback chain of events does not occur in zero time, : whatever your modeling might lead you to believe. : : Ho hummm. The model includes time. Explicity. Its a non issue. Kevin! I've decided i won't let you off easily here, either. Sorry, chap. Understanding...simple...evident. Can thee understand this: Here i have this train, it's a short one, 1 ps nice triangular spikies, 1 Volt to the top hm, arrivin' - ever sooo slowly, them 'lectrons - at the opamp's front door : entrance, for a millionfold gain, over here please cue Now, this is a place of good'breedin', The noble house of ye Lords BB, model OPA sumthin. Hear they have a nice, 50 bold Volts of powering the place there. Can you finish the story ? Rudy : The transfer function of: : : Vo(jw) = A(jw)/(1 + A(jw).B(jw)) : : Includes time via the phase of A(jw) and B(jw)) : : In the laplace domain : : Vo(s) = A(s)/(1 + A(s).B(s)) : : Incluses time in its inverse. : : So here is one, just for Kevin: : what are you actually correcting there with a feedback signal ? : : : Its all in the wash. The math accounts for any and all time delays. One : just crunches the numbers. : : : 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. : : |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Ruud Broens wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Just a final bit of spice then: physicists do *not* hold a realist's view of reality, that is, a physicist will tell you physics deals with correlations of perceived sensory data, a phenomenological approach. This is not really true of all or even most physicists. Many hold the view that there is an objective reality, that may be describable by many different models. Some hold the view that there is no objective reality. I am in the same camp as Einstein, that there is an objective reality. Because I know Goedal, I can accept that this may be true, even without proof. The evidence suggests that there is a real reality, despite some claims to the contrary my writers of popular physics Bantam paperbacks. A main issue with popular expressed physics is that many metaphysical ideas are presented as being a consequence of the physics known to work, when in fact, the physics don't care about someone's particular interpretation. For example, collapse of the wave function, particles in two places at once, or many universes, are all waffle ideas that are not required in the slightest in quantum Mechanics. They are redundant add-ons. QM works pefectly well without these daft ideas. Funny that you should mention Quantum Physics - it's precisely the findings in this field that tell us, Idealism is the 'best fit'. Maybe add some Feymann books to the list there.. No it doesn't. That's why I mentioned it. You must have missed my bit about "popular descriptions of physics". There is *nothing* in physics whosoever that indicates Idealism. However, I agree that many Phd's do waffle on with their misunderstandings and *claim* that such metaphysical nonsense is part of real physics. I think you should be aware that, although an EE, I do know a litle bit about these subjects, e.g. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? 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. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in : message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in : message ... : : : The evidence suggests that there is a : real reality, despite some claims to the contrary my writers of : popular physics Bantam paperbacks. : : A main issue with popular expressed physics is that many metaphysical : ideas are presented as being a consequence of the physics known to : work, when in fact, the physics don't care about someone's particular : interpretation. For example, collapse of the wave function, : particles in two places at once, or many universes, are all waffle : ideas that are not required in the slightest in quantum Mechanics. : They are redundant add-ons. QM works pefectly well without these : daft ideas. : : Funny that you should mention Quantum Physics - it's precisely the : findings in this field that tell us, Idealism is the 'best fit'. : Maybe add some Feymann books to the list there.. : : No it doesn't. That's why I mentioned it. You must have missed my bit : about "popular descriptions of physics". There is *nothing* in physics : whosoever that indicates Idealism. However, I agree that many Phd's do : waffle on with their misunderstandings and *claim* that such : metaphysical nonsense is part of real physics. I think you should be : aware that, although an EE, I do know a litle bit about these subjects, : e.g. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html : : What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? Ai, Kev', good your in depth understanding of Quantum Theory along the same cut&paste-from-da-web 'method' there ? Good to see you're siding with Einstein there, he, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, eh ? That said, have to say he 'lost it a bit' when proclaiming "God doesn't through Dice" when confronted with da quanta. books, colleges, the accumulated findings of generations of people, many of whom no doubt a lot smarter than either you or me, hey, problem, what problem ?, the 'web-gen." will lookit up for ya, man. I rest 'my' thread... Hope i've wobbled your firm beliefs a bit, but anyhow, twaz nice, C U Rudy : : 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. : : |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Ruud Broens wrote: sorry John, snppin' for BW sav'n purposes the Here is one problem of the concept of feedback itself: it is all very well to model perceived physical phenomena in a suitable mathematical form, convenient to 'get rid of' time by using complex numbers, but a cause-effect-feedback chain of events does not occur in zero time, whatever your modeling might lead you to believe. Ho hummm. The model includes time. Explicity. Its a non issue. Kevin! I've decided i won't let you off easily here, either. Sorry, chap. Understanding...simple...evident. Can thee understand this: Here i have this train, it's a short one, 1 ps nice triangular spikies, 1 Volt to the top hm, arrivin' - ever sooo slowly, them 'lectrons - at the opamp's front door : entrance, for a millionfold gain, over here please cue Now, this is a place of good'breedin', The noble house of ye Lords BB, model OPA sumthin. Hear they have a nice, 50 bold Volts of powering the place there. Can you finish the story ? Rudy What story? It is too convoluted to understand. I suspect that you are making an argument along the lines that feedback takes time, with the claim that it arrives too late. If so, this is a complete non issue, as I already explained. *Correct* feedback theory and application accounts for this all in the wash. Of course, if the input signal step is faster than the slew rate that the loop can handle there is an issue, however, this is *already* accounted for in the assumption of large loop gain. If it slews there is *no* loop gain, i.e. the condition will violate the initial assumption. If I declare that there *is* loop gain, than I *really* *mean* that there *is* loop gain, all the time. End of story. Conditions where there is *no* loop gain are *excluded*, by construction. So, we make an amp and make sure that its input signal slew rate is less than which the amp can handle, thereby preventing any issues. So long as there *is* sufficient loop gain, as soon as the input signal starts to move, the large gain will force a continuous correction signal to the feedback input. 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. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Ruud Broens wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Ruud Broens wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... The evidence suggests that there is a real reality, despite some claims to the contrary my writers of popular physics Bantam paperbacks. A main issue with popular expressed physics is that many metaphysical ideas are presented as being a consequence of the physics known to work, when in fact, the physics don't care about someone's particular interpretation. For example, collapse of the wave function, particles in two places at once, or many universes, are all waffle ideas that are not required in the slightest in quantum Mechanics. They are redundant add-ons. QM works pefectly well without these daft ideas. Funny that you should mention Quantum Physics - it's precisely the findings in this field that tell us, Idealism is the 'best fit'. Maybe add some Feymann books to the list there.. No it doesn't. That's why I mentioned it. You must have missed my bit about "popular descriptions of physics". There is *nothing* in physics whosoever that indicates Idealism. However, I agree that many Phd's do waffle on with their misunderstandings and *claim* that such metaphysical nonsense is part of real physics. I think you should be aware that, although an EE, I do know a litle bit about these subjects, e.g. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? Ai, Kev', good your in depth understanding of Quantum Theory Its not in depth, but it is accurate in what is known. along the same cut&paste-from-da-web 'method' there ? Good to see you're siding with Einstein there, he, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, eh ? That said, have to say he 'lost it a bit' when proclaiming "God doesn't through Dice" when confronted with da quanta. He was the first to explain the photo electric effect with quanta. books, colleges, the accumulated findings of generations of people, many of whom no doubt a lot smarter than either you or me, The truth, most are not. hey, problem, what problem ?, the 'web-gen." Such as? I don't think you know where I'm coming from. I am not alone in my view of physics. There are many well respected physicists that reject the daft add-on interpretations of QM. e.g Leslie Ballentine's text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development", of Simon Frazer Univesity, with the Quantum Ensemble Interpretation. will lookit up for ya, man. I rest 'my' thread... Hope I've wobbled your firm beliefs a bit, but anyhow, twaz nice, Not at all. You haven't actually presented any actual views other than suggesting I go an look at other peoples views. 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. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : sorry John, snppin' for BW sav'n purposes the : Here is one problem of the concept of feedback itself: : it is all very well to model perceived physical phenomena : in a suitable mathematical form, convenient to 'get rid of' : time by using complex numbers, but : : a cause-effect-feedback chain of events does not occur in zero time, : whatever your modeling might lead you to believe. : : Ho hummm. The model includes time. Explicity. Its a non issue. Kevin! I've decided i won't let you off easily here, either. Sorry, chap. Understanding...simple...evident. Can thee understand this: Here i have this train, it's a short one, 1 ps nice triangular spikies, 1 Volt to the top hm, arrivin' - ever sooo slowly, them 'lectrons - at the opamp's front door : entrance, for a millionfold gain, over here please cue Now, this is a place of good'breedin', The noble house of ye Lords BB, model OPA sumthin. Hear they have a nice, 50 bold Volts of powering the place there. Can you finish the story ? Rudy Could he finish it? Could he ever follow what your'e sayin man? Patrick Turner. : The transfer function of: : : Vo(jw) = A(jw)/(1 + A(jw).B(jw)) : : Includes time via the phase of A(jw) and B(jw)) : : In the laplace domain : : Vo(s) = A(s)/(1 + A(s).B(s)) : : Incluses time in its inverse. : : So here is one, just for Kevin: : what are you actually correcting there with a feedback signal ? : : : Its all in the wash. The math accounts for any and all time delays. One : just crunches the numbers. : : : 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. : : |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: Ruud Broens wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Ruud Broens wrote: sorry John, snppin' for BW sav'n purposes the Here is one problem of the concept of feedback itself: it is all very well to model perceived physical phenomena in a suitable mathematical form, convenient to 'get rid of' time by using complex numbers, but a cause-effect-feedback chain of events does not occur in zero time, whatever your modeling might lead you to believe. Ho hummm. The model includes time. Explicity. Its a non issue. Kevin! I've decided i won't let you off easily here, either. Sorry, chap. Understanding...simple...evident. Can thee understand this: Here i have this train, it's a short one, 1 ps nice triangular spikies, 1 Volt to the top hm, arrivin' - ever sooo slowly, them 'lectrons - at the opamp's front door : entrance, for a millionfold gain, over here please cue Now, this is a place of good'breedin', The noble house of ye Lords BB, model OPA sumthin. Hear they have a nice, 50 bold Volts of powering the place there. Can you finish the story ? Rudy What story? It is too convoluted to understand. I suspect that you are making an argument along the lines that feedback takes time, with the claim that it arrives too late. If so, this is a complete non issue, as I already explained. *Correct* feedback theory and application accounts for this all in the wash. Of course, if the input signal step is faster than the slew rate that the loop can handle there is an issue, however, this is *already* accounted for in the assumption of large loop gain. If it slews there is *no* loop gain, i.e. the condition will violate the initial assumption. If I declare that there *is* loop gain, than I *really* *mean* that there *is* loop gain, all the time. End of story. Conditions where there is *no* loop gain are *excluded*, by construction. So, we make an amp and make sure that its input signal slew rate is less than which the amp can handle, thereby preventing any issues. So long as there *is* sufficient loop gain, as soon as the input signal starts to move, the large gain will force a continuous correction signal to the feedback input. I tend to agree with you. Some say that no matter how fast the FB gets back to the input, there is a delay, and the signal isn't in "real time", and the signal is somehow spoiled. But the way I see it is that the input signal is being compared with a fed back signal simultaneously, and the delays are minimal, and only have a duration which is a small part of any cycle or wave form entering the amp. Where the delays add up to a -180 degree phase lag should occur where the open loop gain has been reduced sufficiently to prevent the NFB from becoming PFB, and oscilation occuring. ppl talk of transient behaviour analomies, and this depends on the HF performance, so the bandwidth of the amp shoulod reach well above 20 kHz, for the phase shift to be low, and correction to phase lags able to be fully applied even at 20 kHz. If ppl want to complain about delays with FB, then they ought to start with the addressing the worse delays with no FB. FB when well applied, seems to do the transients no harm. But if an amp saturates a stage when a crash of cymbals occurs, then the amp just hasn't got a good enough HF response. I like tube amps with wide open loop response before FB is applied, say 70 kHz, and then after 16 dB of FB, the sound is still tubey, but very accurate, with warmth etc preserved, ie, hi-fi. Patrick Turner. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who is R.Z. of Hibbing, MN, Al, please?
Oh, and who's yellow shsrk were you listening to? cheers, Ian. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
While pondering glazed doughnuts Ian Iveson mistakenly typed
: : Who is R.Z. of Hibbing, MN, Al, please? : : Oh, and who's yellow shsrk were you listening to? : : cheers, Ian. I suspect he's referrring to Robert Zimmerman a.k.a. Bob Dylan Go Al! -dave |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:39:27 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: I couldn't care less where 'you're coming from' It's your feeble quality of arguments, the sheer lack of knowledge, the obnoxious condescendending style, that tells us enough about you. Hmmm. I do believe I've heard these criticisms before, Kev. That Nobel prize ain't comin' any time soon. ;- -- "I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John Popelish wrote: [...] I think the important fact to keep in mind is that negative feedback does not have much chance of increasing the high harmonics when it is used to suppress the low harmonics, This is not completely true. If the amplifier's phase margin is less than 45 degrees, there is peaking near the gain cross over frequency. If a harmonic is within this band, it tends to get boosted by the peaking. -- -- forging knowledge |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... : : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message : ... : : : : : What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? Actually, this one  Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the sabbatical year that Dick had spent as a 'graduate student' in biology. He had an opportunity to renew the acquaintance when he visited Chicago early in 1967, and when they met Watson gave Feynman a copy of the typescript of what was to become his famous book The Double Helix, about his discovery, together with Francis Crick, of the structure of DNA. Feynman read the book straight through, the same day. He had been accompanied on that trip by David Goodstein, then a young physicist just completing his PhD at Caltech, and late that night Feynman collared Goodstein and told him that he had to read Watson's book -- immediately. Goodstein did as he was told, reading through the night while Feynman paced up and down, or sat doodling on a pad of paper. Some time towards dawn, Goodstein looked up and commented to Feynman that the surprising thing was that Watson had been involved in making such a fundamental advance in science, and yet he had been completely out of touch with what everybody else in his field was doing. Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle, surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals: DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little progress. The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186] What had gone wrong for Feynman was that he had begun taking too seriously the idea that modern knowledge is a collective enterprise. Just trying to keep up with his field had suppressed his own sources of inspiration, which were in his own solitary questions and examinations. This, indeed, is the fate of most research in most disciplines, to make the smallest, least threatening, possible addition to "current knowledge." Anything more would be presumptuous, anything more might elicit the fatal "Don't you know what so-and-so is doing" from a Peer Reviewer, anything more might invite dismissal as some off-the-wall speculation -- not serious work. So Feynman "stopped trying to keep up with the scientific literature or compete with other theorists at their own game, and went back to his roots, comparing experiment with theory, making guesses that were all his own..." [p. 186]. Thus he became productive again, as he had been when he had just been working things out for himself, before becoming a famous physicist. While this is an important lesson for science, it is a supreme lesson for philosophy, where "current knowledge" can be dominated by theories, like Logical Positivism or deconstruction, that are simply incoherent. Trying to keep up with literature like that is a complete waste of time, even if contributions to it earn the praise of reviewers and are snapped up by presitigious journals. To participate in this may prudently recommend itself to the careerist, but it holds little hope of making any real contributions to the progress of philosophy. To philosophy they are assigned with their wives and children, and in spite of Petrarch's povera e nude vai filosofia ["you go poor and nude, philosophy"], they have taken a chance on it. [Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, E.F.J. Payne translation, Dover, 1858, p.xxvi] New ideas do not come from committees, and although this dynamic is so well understood as to be part of folk wisdom, researchers in many areas of science or scholarship are so blinded by their own herd mentality, or collectivist ideology, or rent-seeking behavior, that they commonly act, both for themselves and in judgment of others, in denial of it. Of all the "curious" lessons of Richard Feynman's life, this is one of the best. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ken Smith wrote:
In article , John Popelish wrote: [...] I think the important fact to keep in mind is that negative feedback does not have much chance of increasing the high harmonics when it is used to suppress the low harmonics, This is not completely true. If the amplifier's phase margin is less than 45 degrees, there is peaking near the gain cross over frequency. If a harmonic is within this band, it tends to get boosted by the peaking. Agreed. I also failed to mention the production of new harmonics by intermodulation. -- John Popelish |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Popelish
wrote (in ) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Thu, 20 Nov 2003: I think the important fact to keep in mind is that negative feedback does not have much chance of increasing the high harmonics when it is used to suppress the low harmonics, Kevin has already explained how feedback does indeed create high-order harmonics which were not present in the open-loop condition, by intermodulation (in the non-linearity in the forward path through the amplifier) between fed-back harmonics and the fundamental or other fed- back harmonics. The difference between KA and me on this point is basically that KA says that the high-order harmonic amplitudes monotonically decrease as the feedback factor is increased, where as I don't agree that it's monotonic. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? Actually, this one Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the {snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever} Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle, surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals: DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little progress. The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186] However, I agree with this point. It is why I have came up with: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html "Understanding" itself requires consciousness, therefore consciousness cannot be "understood" without referring to itself for the explanation, therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral. I admit, I have been pretty much ignorant of what people were doing in this field. They missed this trivial fact, and have spent years ****ing about on an unsolvable problem. {snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever} 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. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... hey, problem, what problem ?, the 'web-gen." Such as? I don't think you know where I'm coming from. I am not alone in my view of physics. There are many well respected physicists that reject the daft add-on interpretations of QM. e.g Leslie Ballentine's text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development", of Simon Frazer Univesity, with the Quantum Ensemble Interpretation. I couldn't care less where 'you're coming from' It's your feeble quality of arguments, the sheer lack of Since you have *not* refuted *any* of my arguments, it is clear just who is lacking in has feeble arguments, knowledge and ability. Making such vacuous, unsupported claims, does not make them valid. knowledge, the obnoxious condescendending style, that tells us enough about you. You mean you don't like being proven wrong. Confronted with the simplest of simple, no freshman in physics would have any problem with, like the doppler question i put to you, you couldn't get it right, simple. What the $#@% are you going on about. This is damn lie. What *exactly* did I say that was incorrect? I made a comment on Doppler. Clearly you did not have sufficient knowledge to do the calculations yourself, so I had to do them for you. Then your ignorance showed that you didn't even understand such a basic calculation. You make a &*%$ing claim here that I did not understand anything, yet you made no argument *whatsoever* to refute my calculations. Your claim is baseless. Explain exactly what I got wrong, or retract your lie. Never mind you conveniently neglected to inform us what bearing this effect, with any musical signal only having such magnitude at oh, say, 1 % of the time, actually has on the perceived sound. Because I assumed that you had some knowledge of the Bessel series expansion of an FM wave. Sadly I was mistaken. You comment here of "only 1% of the time", shows you have not got the *slightest* idea of the mathematics involved here. Your a rank amateur. Let me put you in the picture. V = Vp.sin(Wc.t + m.sin(Wm.t)) This generates a whole series of *continuously* present frequencies, the magnitude of each harmonics weighted by m. The peak value of the frequency shift is the value that one uses to calculate what the spectrum spread is, essentially by Jn(mf). You don't just go, oh well, its only that for a bit of the time, so the frequencies are only on for a bit of the time. You obviously have done no graduate maths whatsoever, so stop making daft claims on things that you can't possible understand. It is well known that frequency modulation is far more audibly detectable that harmonic distortion. I will leave it you as an exercise to look up what the amplitudes of the harmonics of an FM wave when it has a *peak* modulation index of 0.3%. And then the whole raft of unoutspoken beliefs you hold, And just art thous unoutspoketh beliefs spoketh? most of them blatantly wrong, eg. that perception of distortion is simply a linear additional effect, so how can 0.1 % of X be noticiable when there is 1 % of Y.... I said no such thing. Your just making this up as you go along. What I did say was that if distortion was below 0.01%, it is inaudible. I made no claim whatsoever that there was a linear relation between distortion and perceived audio detriment. *Show* me such a quote, or retract your lies. The deal here, is that you have failed to refute anything I have said, therefore you simple lie about what I have said. The record is clear on this for all to see. All your doing here is embarrassing yourself. In fact, you remind me a lot of the athropologists of the old days, who did nothing but reasoning about their findings from their 'superiour white man' position, ascribing any find to stupidity, primitivity, etc. For instance, there was this tribe who had this ritual, where if someone got seriously ill, it ended with hanging a particular produce from a tree, near a river, for seven days, then brew some medicine from that. Stupid, placebo effect, etc. Until some biochemist tracked this story and found out that precisely these circumstances promoted the growth of a mold that had very penicilline-like effects... My comments are made by my years of experiance in said subject matters. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/founder.html http://www.anasoft.co.uk/studiomaster/Studiomaster.htm http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html The fact that you are lacking in any such qualifications is evidence of your inability to understand my knowledge, not that mine is lacking. 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" itself requires consciousness, therefore consciousness cannot be "understood" without referring to itself for the explanation, therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral. Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no understanding of the parts of a system can explain all aspects of the whole of such system. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... : : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message : ... : : : : : What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? Actually, this one Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the sabbatical year that Dick had spent as a 'graduate student' in biology.etc snip,.. Wonderful stuff !!!!!! ....................................was it Cicero who said "He has the dust of a thousand libraries in his mind" Ayn Marx |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : ... : : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in : message ... : What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? : : : Actually, this one : Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the : : {snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever} : : Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle, : surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals: : DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was : what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little progress. : The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a : breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and : plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186] : : : However, I agree with this point. It is why I have came up with: : 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. : Now why is it, that I have a little piece of paper here in front of me scribbled in the middle : "Kevin will quote the disregard bit" and around that : ..but will he get the point that 'true' scientists take a look across the borders of their own discipline..? Kevin, have to admit, you've got the balls, but..have you got the moves ? Rudy |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MDHJWH" wrote in message : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : ... : : : : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message : : ... : : : : : : : : What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? : : : Actually, this one : Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the sabbatical : year that Dick had spent as a 'graduate student' in biology.etc snip,.. : : Wonderful stuff !!!!!! : ...................................was it Cicero who said "He has the : dust of a thousand libraries in his mind" : : Ayn Marx Hi there, MDHJWH, yes, it was, thanks Kevin, for having me check out if something was readily available on the web. I have been known to run up ye 'old IQ barometer quite a bit, but that don't mean nothin' to me, in most matters that *matter* i consider females to be simply streets ahead of us testosteron-drivein' machines Tiz why i like their company.. What do you think, MDHJWH, is there hope yet for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward if he hires a female co-writer to make it pallatable ? :-) Rudy |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Ruud Broens wrote: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind? Actually, this one Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the {snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever} Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle, surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals: DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little progress. The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186] However, I agree with this point. It is why I have came up with: Now why is it, that I have a little piece of paper here in front of me scribbled in the middle : "Kevin will quote the disregard bit" and around that : ..but will he get the point that 'true' scientists take a look across the borders of their own discipline..? Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design, i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years. I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy. I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass. I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass. I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass. I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain human behaviour. I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on occasions. I write and record all my own backing midi tracks. I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs. You appear to be claiming that I am stuck in one box. I trust the above will clarify how sadly misguided and worthless your views are. Its certainly clear just who has "A little knowledge that is worse than none at all" in this NG. And do let us all know when you actually find any errors in: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html 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. "Understanding" itself requires consciousness, therefore consciousness cannot be "understood" without referring to itself for the explanation, therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral. Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no understanding of the parts of a system can explain all aspects of the whole of such system. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Ryan" wrote
I suspect he's referrring to Robert Zimmerman a.k.a. Bob Dylan I see. He was a folk singer I dimly recall. Thanks. I still wonder which yellow shark...can't even remember where it was mentioned...just stuck in my head. cheers, Ian |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in : message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : ... : : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in : message ... : Now why is it, that I have a little piece of paper here in front of me : scribbled in the middle : "Kevin will quote the disregard bit" : and around that : ..but will he get the point that 'true' scientists : take a look across the borders of their own discipline..? : : Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design, : i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years. : : I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy. : I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass. : I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass. : I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass. : I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain : human behaviour. : I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on : occasions. : I write and record all my own backing midi tracks. : I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs. : : You appear to be claiming that I am stuck in one box. I trust the above : will clarify how sadly misguided and worthless your views are. Its : certainly clear just who has "A little knowledge that is worse than none : at all" in this NG. Temper, temper. He you know about the high blood-pressure statistics, too ? Nah, won't enter that typical male thing there, curriculum peeing contest. Just a final recap then: ))"Kevin Aylward" ... ))[snip] )) Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get )) sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of )) its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is. )) It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable. ))How many boards do you need to pull out of HAL9000 before it ))looses it's consciousness  ))-- ))Thanks, Frank. (---- here Frank puts to you a humorous but also very to the point (---- question. At what point *do* you consider a machine running (---- algorithms, adaptive neural nets, etc. to be conscious / self - (----aware / capable of multiple decisions under the same 'input' (----condition (no random gen., puleasz), etc, etc. no simpel mapping there, eh, 'all in the wash' won't help us very much there, now, will it ? Ahh, but it 'just happens' all there is to it, some 'critical mass'. have an estimate there, at your choosing, say of MB of memory use, # lines of code, # of nodal net points, whatever, where you can definitely say: he, we've got consciousness right here, it's happening ! ,then see how that computes with say the brainsize of a worm,, or where, in fact, would *you* say in the animal kingdom 'starts' conscious behaviour ? Now, any genius if read about (many) or have had the pleasure to meet in the flesh (3) would be only too happy, to debate such a question..Kevin--? Technical : Adding in the : standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance : whatsoever that your claim is supported. You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. They *are* having this reputation for thorougness, gruendlichheit, justly so. Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so PA drivers, couple of months old. (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....) hm, bit of trouble there rendering to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs.. you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid: at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics just appearing. snippet end Now your kind of thinking would not easily lead you onto an original thought, such as this guy's, don't wanna bother lookin it up, surely out there, who added some 2H distortion to an amp, theorising that tube amplifiers sounding so good could be because the generated distortion cancels (some of) the drivers' distortion. Simple, clear, elegant followed by measurement -science- look it up, will ya ? Oh dear, the doppler thing. keeps bothering you, eh ? false assumpion one the drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels. He, done some measurements there, lately ? brand name, type, protocol & results please.....soory kevin, cone break-up will make the math somewhat more complicated there, no ? And you still haven't told us, where that sin was in your li'lle form.. Next... Know what, I think, for your sake, better to really end it, this time here. Bye Rudy |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ...
Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the sabbatical year that Dick had spent as a 'graduate student' in biology. He had an opportunity to renew the acquaintance when he visited Chicago early in 1967, and when they met Watson gave Feynman a copy of the typescript of what was to become his famous book The Double Helix, about his discovery, together with Francis Crick, of the structure of DNA. Feynman read the book straight through, the same day. He had been accompanied on that trip by David Goodstein, then a young physicist just completing his PhD at Caltech, and late that night Feynman collared Goodstein and told him that he had to read Watson's book -- immediately. Goodstein did as he was told, reading through the night while Feynman paced up and down, or sat doodling on a pad of paper. Some time towards dawn, Goodstein looked up and commented to Feynman that the surprising thing was that Watson had been involved in making such a fundamental advance in science, and yet he had been completely out of touch with what everybody else in his field was doing. Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle, surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals: DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little progress. The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186] What had gone wrong for Feynman was that he had begun taking too seriously the idea that modern knowledge is a collective enterprise. Just trying to keep up with his field had suppressed his own sources of inspiration, which were in his own solitary questions and examinations. This, indeed, is the fate of most research in most disciplines, to make the smallest, least threatening, possible addition to "current knowledge." Anything more would be presumptuous, anything more might elicit the fatal "Don't you know what so-and-so is doing" from a Peer Reviewer, anything more might invite dismissal as some off-the-wall speculation -- not serious work. So Feynman "stopped trying to keep up with the scientific literature or compete with other theorists at their own game, and went back to his roots, comparing experiment with theory, making guesses that were all his own..." [p. 186]. Thus he became productive again, as he had been when he had just been working things out for himself, before becoming a famous physicist. While this is an important lesson for science, it is a supreme lesson for philosophy, where "current knowledge" can be dominated by theories, like Logical Positivism or deconstruction, that are simply incoherent. Trying to keep up with literature like that is a complete waste of time, even if contributions to it earn the praise of reviewers and are snapped up by presitigious journals. To participate in this may prudently recommend itself to the careerist, but it holds little hope of making any real contributions to the progress of philosophy. To philosophy they are assigned with their wives and children, and in spite of Petrarch's povera e nude vai filosofia ["you go poor and nude, philosophy"], they have taken a chance on it. [Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, E.F.J. Payne translation, Dover, 1858, p.xxvi] New ideas do not come from committees, and although this dynamic is so well understood as to be part of folk wisdom, researchers in many areas of science or scholarship are so blinded by their own herd mentality, or collectivist ideology, or rent-seeking behavior, that they commonly act, both for themselves and in judgment of others, in denial of it. Of all the "curious" lessons of Richard Feynman's life, this is one of the best. Hi Ruud. A nice account. New ideas do not come from committees, I cant help but offer an elementary point, and that is that it is both methods that produce results, not just one or the other. The sum of the progress we have today has come from using both approaches. Each has significant pros and cons, and tends to produce a different style of result. But clearly both have produced plenty of progress. The reason most people produce only minor progress is thats all theyre able to do. This is the same thing as you said, put differently, that they dismiss anything threatening, thus blocking their own path. And that is an entire mindset no less. It is not a minor block to sidestep, it is what makes people limited, what differentiates the movers from the mediocre. One can not get free from the mindset that limits people easily, it is a mindset not a thought. Its late and I'm probably as clear as mud... to break out of the mindset one is taught is something few manage. And that, to me, isnt just about electronics, but the many seemingly unrelated ideas that impact on how I approach tronics. Ie to grasp a subject one has to grasp other subjects: in the case of electronics one has to grasp concepts of business and the people. Bed. Regards, NT This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical matters. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N. Thornton" wrote in message om... : Hi Ruud. : : : A nice account. : : New ideas do not come from committees, : : I cant help but offer an elementary point, and that is that it is both : methods that produce results, not just one or the other. The sum of : the progress we have today has come from using both approaches. Each : has significant pros and cons, and tends to produce a different style : of result. But clearly both have produced plenty of progress. Of course. But it was particulary humourous in light of : No it doesn't. That's why I mentioned it. You must have missed my bit : about "popular descriptions of physics". --One would hardly call Feynman a bantam popular paperback writer-- and books, colleges, the accumulated findings of generations of people, many of whom no doubt a lot smarter than either you or me, The truth, most are not. --Must be a publication on self-inflating ego coming forth from KA...brrrr. : The reason most people produce only minor progress is thats all theyre : able to do. This is the same thing as you said, put differently, that : they dismiss anything threatening, thus blocking their own path. And : that is an entire mindset no less. It is not a minor block to : sidestep, it is what makes people limited, what differentiates the : movers from the mediocre. One can not get free from the mindset that : limits people easily, it is a mindset not a thought. : : Its late and I'm probably as clear as mud... to break out of the : mindset one is taught is something few manage. And that, to me, isnt : just about electronics, but the many seemingly unrelated ideas that : impact on how I approach tronics. Ie to grasp a subject one has to : grasp other subjects: in the case of electronics one has to grasp : concepts of business and the people. : : Bed. : : : Regards, NT : : This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical : matters. Don't let me keep you from it Rudy |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message : Adding in the : standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance : whatsoever that your claim is supported. You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. ** Ruud should see a psychiatrist, a nice German one !!! They *are* having this reputation for thoroughness, ** Ruthlessness and and insanity are their real fortes. Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so PA drivers, couple of months old. (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....) hm, bit of trouble there rendering to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs.. you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid: at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics just appearing. snippet end ** How the HECK does some PA driver (size , identity ??) operating at a few watts input, restricted to an 80 Hz low frequency limit have the *slightest thing* to do with hi-fi speakers at higher input levels and all audio frequencies ???????????? Ever heard of comparing apples with apples - Ruud ????? Oh dear, the Doppler thing. keeps bothering you, eh ? false assumption one the drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels. He, done some measurements there, lately ? brand name, type, protocol & results please.....sorry kevin, cone break-up will make the math somewhat more complicated there, no ? ** Cone break up ( so called) does not cause FM of the input signal. The Doppler effect does. It also causes harmonic distortion of a single frequency. see: http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/Doppler1.html ........... Phil |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... : : "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message : : : : : Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design, : : i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years. ///doing lot's of things, wee bit over 20, but not over the hill : : : : I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy. ///i like to cook. spice islands brand spices are magical : : I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass. ///not been playing bridge much, lately : : I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass. : : I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass. ///what was this renormalization thing again ? ...the mind drifteth, so many other things.. : : I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain : : human behaviour. ///djeez, for the life of me, can't explain what i'm doing here, myself : : I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on : : occasions. : : I write and record all my own backing midi tracks. : : I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs. Bonus points, extra for the music things. mean it. Now for a challenge, could make you a nice revenue (well, at least GBP 20). Along with all my postings in this thread there are typo's. Or are they ? Now, write me a program, that parses a text (say, whati'm about to post or e-mail) and can generate some subtle changes in words, order, letters in such a way, that it relates to the subject of the text, yet may convey an altogether unexpected second (..third) layer of 'meaning' relates to the 'style' of the included original post to create some humorous tone has the option of subsequently loadable sets of rules/ neural net weighing factors?/anything if it works to work in many languages, making possible things like cross language jokes A link to the program, I 'll be a good sport and buy it -on your word - 'on the spot' (well, not if it's GBP 17.500, obviously Is there snooker on today ? Rudy |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
N. Thornton wrote:
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... Hi Ruud. A nice account. New ideas do not come from committees, I cant help but offer an elementary point, and that is that it is both methods that produce results, not just one or the other. The sum of the progress we have today has come from using both approaches. Each has significant pros and cons, and tends to produce a different style of result. But clearly both have produced plenty of progress. The reason most people produce only minor progress is thats all theyre able to do. This is the same thing as you said, put differently, that they dismiss anything threatening, thus blocking their own path. And that is an entire mindset no less. It is not a minor block to sidestep, it is what makes people limited, what differentiates the movers from the mediocre. One can not get free from the mindset that limits people easily, it is a mindset not a thought. The reason for this, is of course, because our brains are Darwinian Machines, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html. That is, they operate by variation, selection and replication. Natural selection of memes is a slow process. The Darwinian process results in us preferentially coping popular memes, and rejecting unpopular memes, because those selections, by assumption, are the memes that are replicating the fastest. "What we observe mostly, is that which replicates the most". So, our brain cant operate in any other way. Snippet from above link. ******** Electronic Engineer as a Darwinian Machine An Electronic Engineer copies existing circuits into his brain. He than varies those circuits to obtain new ones. He than analyses them to select the good ones. It is held that no other fundamental process are required. An Electronic Engineer is thus a Darwinian Machine, as are all of us. ********** Its late and I'm probably as clear as mud... to break out of the mindset one is taught is something few manage. And that, to me, isnt just about electronics, but the many seemingly unrelated ideas that impact on how I approach tronics. Ie to grasp a subject one has to grasp other subjects: in the case of electronics one has to grasp concepts of business and the people. Thats correct. Bed. Regards, NT This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical matters. I don't recall that one. 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" itself requires consciousness, therefore consciousness cannot be "understood" without referring to itself for the explanation, therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral. Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no understanding of the parts of a system can explain all aspects of the whole of such system. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Nah, won't enter that typical male thing there, curriculum peeing contest. Just a final recap then: ))"Kevin Aylward" ... ))[snip] )) Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get )) sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of )) its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is. )) It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable. ))How many boards do you need to pull out of HAL9000 before it ))looses it's consciousness ))-- ))Thanks, Frank. (---- here Frank puts to you a humorous but also very to the point (---- question. At what point *do* you consider a machine running (---- algorithms, adaptive neural nets, etc. to be conscious / self - (----aware / capable of multiple decisions under the same 'input' (----condition (no random gen., puleasz), etc, etc. no simpel mapping there, eh, 'all in the wash' won't help us very much there, now, will it ? Ahh, but it 'just happens' all there is to it, some 'critical mass'. have an estimate there, at your choosing, say of MB of memory use, # lines of code, # of nodal net points, whatever, where you can definitely say: he, we've got consciousness right here, it's happening ! ,then see how that computes with say the brainsize of a worm,, or where, in fact, would *you* say in the animal kingdom 'starts' conscious behaviour ? What part of "I have proven that consciousness can not be derived" do you have trouble with? http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html ""Understanding" itself requires consciousness, therefore consciousness cannot be "understood" without referring to itself for the explanation, therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral" Your question is intrinsically unsolvable. Now, any genius if read about (many) or have had the pleasure to meet in the flesh (3) would be only too happy, to debate such a question..Kevin--? Technical Adding in the standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance whatsoever that your claim is supported. You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. They *are* having this reputation for thorougness, gruendlichheit, justly so. Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so PA drivers, couple of months old. (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....) hm, bit of trouble there rendering to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs.. you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid: at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics just appearing. snippet end Phil trashed your argument here, so no point on me commenting. Now your kind of thinking would not easily lead you onto an original thought, such as this guy's, don't wanna bother lookin it up, surely out there, who added some 2H distortion to an amp, theorising that tube amplifiers sounding so good could be because the generated distortion cancels (some of) the drivers' distortion. Nonsense. No realistic chance of cancellations at all. Cancellations require high accuracy, i.e. A-B. Tube amps sound good, imo, because it just happens that some types of distortion can sound cleaner, inaddition to othe fcators such as good transient dynamic range. This is well known. There are products on the market that add HF distortion to clean up old recordings. Simple, clear, elegant followed by measurement -science- look it up, will ya ? Oh dear, the doppler thing. keeps bothering you, eh ? false assumpion one the Oh? drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels. He, done some measurements there, lately ? brand name, type, protocol & results please.....soory kevin, cone break-up will make the math somewhat more complicated there, no ? And you still haven't told us, where that sin was in your li'lle form.. Again, Phil trashed your argument here, so no point on me commenting. Next... Know what, I think, for your sake, better to really end it, this time here. Bye Yeah right on. *Nothing* you have said so far has been correct or useful. 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 Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no understanding of the parts of a system can explain all aspects of the whole of such system. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... "Kevin Aylward" wrote: : Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design, : i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years. : : I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy. : I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass. : I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass. : I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass. : I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain : human behaviour. : I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on : occasions. : I write and record all my own backing midi tracks. : I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs. : : You appear to be claiming that I am stuck in one box. I trust the above : will clarify how sadly misguided and worthless your views are. The above only tells us about Kevin, not Ruud. Just a final recap then: ))[snip] )) Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get )) sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of )) its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is. )) It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable. ))How many boards do you need to pull out of HAL9000 before it ))looses it's consciousness ))-- ))Thanks, Frank. (---- here Frank puts to you a humorous but also very to the point (---- question. At what point *do* you consider a machine running (---- algorithms, adaptive neural nets, etc. to be conscious / self - (----aware / capable of multiple decisions under the same 'input' (----condition (no random gen., puleasz), etc, etc. no simpel mapping there, eh, 'all in the wash' won't help us very much there, now, will it ? Ahh, but it 'just happens' all there is to it, some 'critical mass'. have an estimate there, at your choosing, say of MB of memory use, # lines of code, # of nodal net points, whatever, where you can definitely say: he, we've got consciousness right here, it's happening ! ,then see how that computes with say the brainsize of a worm,, or where, in fact, would *you* say in the animal kingdom 'starts' conscious behaviour ? Consider even the brain of a moth, brain smaller than a pinhead. Yet capable of quite a bit, consciousness, and much more. Consider the complexity of the entire internet, with all the computers that are online at any one moment, each with its own added complexity. Any sign of consciousness there? : Adding in the : standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance : whatsoever that your claim is supported. You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. They *are* having this reputation for thorougness, gruendlichheit, justly so. Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so PA drivers, couple of months old. (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....) hm, bit of trouble there rendering to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs.. you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid: at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics just appearing. snippet end Without any further information these 2 views are perfectly compatible. It is interesting that such a result should be limited to just 1kHz, a mere 1/20th of the audio band. To my mind that brings up too many questions to make the figure of good use. false assumpion one the drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels. Many types of drivers are never piston like. Regards, NT |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ...
What do you think, MDHJWH, is there hope yet for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward if he hires a female co-writer to make it pallatable ? And what kind of publication is it you refer too young man ? These days 'decent' covers a multitude of sins ! W e hope it's nothing with phalic overtones such as :- "Trans Inductance in Single Ended Triodes' Ayn Marx |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that N. Thornton
wrote (in ) about 'A little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003: Any sign of consciousness there? Haven't seen any, have you? The structure of the Internet might be compared with that of a bee hive, but there isn't a strong central control paralleling the queen's pheromones. I think it's more likely that machine self-awareness will emerge, if at all, from a single computer which has many sensors sampling its environment. Once it can 'make sense' of its environment (whatever that means in detail[1]), it can then recognize 'self' and 'not self', and the rest should follow. [1] We know it's some form of high-level cognitive function, because sufferers from autism can't do it. More research in this area could advance our understanding of what the conditions for machine self- awareness to emerge actually are. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:41:43 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote: [...] I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs. I'm sure you have, Kev. ;- -- "I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that MDHJWH
wrote (in ) about 'A little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003: Chomsky was much impressed by the fact that we can understand a potential infinity of sentences, yet in only a few years as children, when we learn our first language, we are exposed to only a finite number of them. Whence this capacity to deal with novelty? I don't see it as a big deal at all. Language is a way of coding thought for transmission to others. One might as well wonder how it comes about that if you learn 26 characters in Morse code, you can send and receive messages of unlimited length and complexity. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
MDHJWH wrote: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... What do you think, MDHJWH, is there hope yet for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward if he hires a female co-writer to make it pallatable ? And what kind of publication is it you refer too young man ? These days 'decent' covers a multitude of sins ! W e hope it's nothing with phalic overtones such as :- "Trans Inductance in Single Ended Triodes' Ayn Marx An SET amp using a 211 tube can be a subconscious threat to any female wandering into a male listening dominion. The 211 is hot, large, and glows and pulses with life, and upstanding, ( and delightful!) But the best things in life, including sex, are unnerving, and judging by the sheer mountains of books, paintings, and music about love, then sex is a threat, but one which few will ignore for long. Now we have the symbol of the male phallus hitting us in the eye every time we see a tube, but what is the audio equivalent of the female equipments? Patrick Turner. |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that N. Thornton wrote (in ) about 'A little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003: Any sign of consciousness there? Haven't seen any, have you? The structure of the Internet might be compared with that of a bee hive, but there isn't a strong central control paralleling the queen's pheromones. I think it's more likely that machine self-awareness will emerge, if at all, from a single computer which has many sensors sampling its environment. Once it can 'make sense' of its environment (whatever that means in detail[1]), it can then recognize 'self' and 'not self', and the rest should follow. [1] We know it's some form of high-level cognitive function, because sufferers from autism can't do it. More research in this area could advance our understanding of what the conditions for machine self- awareness to emerge actually are. Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it must use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut the mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little Darwinian computers all interconnected in a very complicated manner. Sensors by themselves are not key. We can have someone becoming deaf dumb and blind, but still being conscious. However, with no inputs whatsoever, in the long run, I think consciousness would probably collapse by running amuck. 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 |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N. Thornton" wrote in message om... : Hi : : : : : Adding in the : : standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance : : whatsoever that your claim is supported. : : You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. They *are* having : this reputation for thorougness, gruendlichheit, justly so. : Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so : PA drivers, couple of months old. : (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....) : hm, bit of trouble there rendering : to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs.. : you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid: : at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less : in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics : just appearing. snippet end : : Without any further information these 2 views are perfectly : compatible. It is interesting that such a result should be limited to : just 1kHz, a mere 1/20th of the audio band. To my mind that brings up : too many questions to make the figure of good use. Exactly my point 'standard 1-10%...', not only silly, but easy to comeup with a zillion examples of it being otherwise, for some driver, at some range, etc.. Using PA drivers here as example, because at these levels, apart from having cone excursion that's barely visible, thus nothing much "dopplering" going on there, there *is* piston movement. Rudy : : false assumpion one the : drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels. : : Many types of drivers are never piston like. : : : Regards, NT |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Recommendations for 5 channel power amp | High End Audio | |||
| Need Advise on Feedback / Feedback Eliminators | Pro Audio | |||
| Speaker feedback w/PC connection | Tech | |||
| Passive RIAA VS feedback RIAA preamp | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Followers and feedback | Tech | |||
Linear Mode
