learning from experience

[William Sommerwerck]

Few people are born with a profound ability to understand things. I’m
certainly not one of them. I’ve learned a lot of things — especially about how
to use the intelligence I have.

One thing I’ve learned is that people — any people, anywhere, any time — have
great difficulty getting past what they believe to be true. “I know it, so it
must be true. Don’t disturb my complacency.�

Anyone with a disruptive point of view is usually rejected as a idiot (qv,
Swift’s observation about “a confederacy of dunces�). Unless, of course, the
person is a perceived expert. If anything I’ve said had been voiced by
“Doctor� Floyd Toole, it would have been accepted as gospel by most of this
group. The principle that “truth is truth�, regardless of who says it, is
something most people cannot understand. Nor is the principle that one should
understand //why// they believe or disbelieve something, and be willing to
periodically reconsider their beliefs.

The following is about how I solved a serious problem that stymied people who
knew more than I did.

My first real engineering job was with Bendix Field Engineering. Bendix was a
principal contractor for NASA’s Spaceflight Tracking and Data-acquisition
Network (STDN or STADAN).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_Tracking_and_Data_Acquisition_Network

STDN used klystron transmitters to communicate with satellites and space
probes. These put out several kilowatts at around 2GHz. A klystron is a
traveling-wave tube, with multiple high-Q resonant cavities. These have to be
correctly tuned to get full power over a useful bandwidth. A single band wasn’t
enough to cover all the frequencies NASA used. Retuning was often needed.

Retuning wasn’t horribly difficult. You inserted a tuning wrench to “rewind� a
cavity to its “start� position. * Then, consulting a list of settings, you
turned the wrench to a particular reading on a turns counter. The process was
repeated for each cavity.

* There was a lot of backlash when adjusting a cavity.

The major difficulty wasn’t the wrenching around, but the fact that most of
the transmitters were in the antennas’ wheelhouses. You had to climb a hundred
feet or more, sometimes in 60mph winds.

The solution was a motorized tuner. You pressed a button for the desired band
on a control panel in the station, and the tuner did the screwing and
unscrewing, while you enjoyed a cup o’ hot cocoa. (Actually, just a few sips,
because it worked quickly.)

The klystrons came from Varian, who’d already aligned them for the bands NASA
used. After the tube was installed, a step-motor system was attached, and we
dialed in the necessary turns values for each cavity, for each band. Simple, n’cest
pas?

No way. It didn’t work. The klystrons didn’t meet spec. They weren’t even
close. The bandwidth was usually too narrow, and the overall gain was too low
for reliable operation.

The klystrons were measured much as you’d measure a speaker’s response. A
swept-frequency signal was applied to the input, and the output went to a
oscilloscope sweeping in sync. An absorption wavemeter on the input produced
“dips� in the displayed response, so we knew where we were, frequency-wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_wavemeter

I and my co-worker — a buck-toothed dullard -- killed ourselves trying to get
flat response at Varian’s settings. We couldn’t. We once spent a whole day on
just one channel, and got it kinda/sorta/maybe flat. We called in
more-experienced engineers, and none of them could figure out what was wrong.

As the installation deadline approached, it was decided to install the
klystrons and see what happened in the field. We had no better luck. At Cape
Canaveral, we had to get NASA’s “dispensation� for some pretty wretched
alignments, which were barely usable.

Note that //many// more-experienced people quite failed to solve the problem —
which turned out to be ludicrously simple. I was the one who solved it,
because I asked good questions.

The first was — Why don’t we talk to Varian? * I called and spoke with Dr
Goldfinger. (Yes, really.) “Why aren’t we getting flat response? Are you
certain you’re measuring the tubes correctly?�

“Oh, we are.�

“How do you know?�

“We cheat.�

He was joking about the fact that Varian had been measuring klystrons for 30
years, and its test system had been calibrated to a gnat’s whisker. So the
problem must be with our test setup. The next question was -- What’s the
likely problem?

The test ’scope needed a DC signal representing the amplitude of the klystron’s
RF output. This was obtained by attaching an HP point-contact detector to an
RF coupler in the transmitter cabinet. It turned out these detectors were
utter crap. Not only did some of them not work at all, but their output wasn’t
“flat�, and varied from sample to sample. This caused faulty measurements that
led to our inability to align the klystons.

I suggested — against some objection — that we use the HP thermocouple power
meter installed in the transmitter cabinet. The thermocouple has a broad,
basically flat response. And — no surprise — when measured with the
thermocouple, the klystrons met spec right out of the box. (A few channels
benefited from minor touchups, which took less than a minute.)

The irony is that, had we installed the klystrons without measuring them,
there would have been no problem.

I remember an engineer yanking one of the HP detectors off the coupler, and
griping “It’s no good.� The answer was staring me — and him — right in the
face, but neither of us saw it, because we assumed (there’s that word!) there
were only two types of detectors — working perfectly, and not working at all.
The thought that there might be an intermediate state — grossly non-flat
response — didn’t cross our minds.

Need I say that I learned a great deal from this?

Case proven, and closed.

* I suspect no one else did, because they were afraid of looking stupid -- the
“A man doesn’t ask for directions� attitude.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>
> <snip extensive self-back-patting>
>
> Need I say that I learned a great deal from this?
>
> Case proven, and closed.

Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always right is a
severe learning disability. It's also both a character defect and a
personality defect.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"None" > wrote in message
m...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> <snip extensive self-back-patting>
>>
>> Need I say that I learned a great deal from this?
>>
>> Case proven, and closed.
>
> Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always right is a
> severe learning disability. It's also both a character defect and a
> personality defect.

Welcome to my world Wil. I have had a lot of those experiences in the Air
Force with new discoveries in navigation, correcting some text books,
writing others and straightening out some misconceptions. Also in film and
video work, taking Super 8 Sound to its extremes and getting published a few
times.

You know my audio theories about stereo, but that is not the point. The
point is that if you discover something that others have not, they will be
defensive about the whole thing - your sanity, your intelligence, your right
to be in the room. They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the
world was round, they all laughed when Edison recorded sound, they all
laughed at Ford and his Lizzie, Hershey and his chocolate bar....

You probably knew this would happen when you wrote the above. And there is
None, right on schedule. You probably also knew that I would jump in here.
So here I am, and that is pretty much all I have to say. You study a problem
for months, years, and when you finally come up with a solution the others
who have not been studying it think you're nuts because it isn't how they
thought it worked before.

The phenomenon was all summed up by a man named Arthur Schopenhauer:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Arthur Schopenhauer



Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...

> Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always
> right is a severe learning disability. It's also both a character
> defect and a personality defect.

I have often said that I am usually right. (Which I am.) I have never, ever
said I was always right. Why do you insist on repeating this lie?

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> The phenomenon was all summed up by a man named Arthur Schopenhauer:
>
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
> Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
> self-evident.

Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed
and violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And
when there is opposition, it's rarely violent.

It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular
with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way
you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow
evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

>... You study a problem for months, years, and when you finally
> come up with a solution the others who have not been studying
> it think you're nuts because it isn't how they thought it worked
> before.

> The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer:
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
> it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

It's interesting you mention Schopenhauer, as I'm reading about him. He was
not at all modest, claiming that "The World as Will and Representation" held
the correct answer to all philosophical questions. This book was ignored, and
when not ignored, vehemently criticized. But Schopenhauer lived to see his
work praised and valued.

I /do not/ expect my tombstone to read "He finally convinced humanity of its
failure to use its intelligence well."

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
>
>> Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always
>> right is a severe learning disability. It's also both a character
>> defect and a personality defect.
>
> I have often said that I am usually right. (Which I am.) I have
> never, ever said I was always right. Why do you insist on repeating
> this lie?


Hehe. You've said "always", although you've usually qualified it with
"(almost)" or "/almost/". The "almost" is generally (but not always)
parenthetical, as if it pains you to include it.

"Sorry, but I am always always right." -- William Sommerwerck,
2013-06-17, in this newsgroup. Never, ever??? "Why do you insist on
repeating this lie?" Hehe.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...

>> The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer:
>> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
>> is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

> Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed and
> violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And when there is
> opposition, it's rarely violent.

He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes the
truthful things I say.


> It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular
> with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way
> you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow
> evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks.

Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of (hopefully) making
people think about what they believe, and why? Oh, wait... You don't think.

It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what Schopenhauer
actually said:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/attribution-of-schopenhauers-three-stages-of-truth.897

"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long
periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as
trivial."

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> ...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer:
>>> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
>>> Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
>>> self-evident.
>
>> Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is
>> ridiculed and violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part
>> of it. And when there is opposition, it's rarely violent.
>
> He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes
> the truthful things I say.

If I opposed you violently, you'd know about it. But unlike you, I
have no intention of taking anything to real life with you. People who
try to go RL with Usenet disagreements (as you seem to want to do) are
frequently unhinged.

>> It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular
>> with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the
>> way
>> you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are
>> somehow
>> evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of
> (hopefully) making people think about what they believe, and why?
> Oh, wait... You don't think.
>
> It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what
> Schopenhauer actually said:
>
> https://www.metabunk.org/threads/attribution-of-schopenhauers-three-stages-of-truth.897
>
> "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the
> two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or
> disparaged as trivial."

Yeah, that's likely why cranks misquote him. They're probably just
parroting other cranks with cut-and-paste, anyway.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...

>> "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two
>> long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as
>> trivial."

> Yeah, that's likely why cranks misquote him. They're probably just parroting
> other cranks with cut-and-paste, anyway.

It's a misquote in the sense of not being the same words. But it says the same
thing.

I don't mind being called a crank. I'm a crank about things I find important
to be a crank about.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/15/2014 1:30 PM, None wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "None" wrote in message
>> ...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer:
>>>> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
>>>> Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
>>>> self-evident.
>>
>>> Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed
>>> and violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And
>>> when there is opposition, it's rarely violent.
>>
>> He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes
>> the truthful things I say.
>
> If I opposed you violently, you'd know about it. But unlike you, I have
> no intention of taking anything to real life with you. People who try to
> go RL with Usenet disagreements (as you seem to want to do) are
> frequently unhinged.
>
>>> It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular
>>> with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way
>>> you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow
>>> evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks.
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of (hopefully)
>> making people think about what they believe, and why? Oh, wait... You
>> don't think.
>>
>> It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what
>> Schopenhauer actually said:
>>
>> https://www.metabunk.org/threads/attribution-of-schopenhauers-three-stages-of-truth.897
>>
>>
>> "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the
>> two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or
>> disparaged as trivial."
>
> Yeah, that's likely why cranks misquote him. They're probably just
> parroting other cranks with cut-and-paste, anyway.
>
>
>
>
I'm surprised this cite hasn't shown up yet:

< https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/Papers/stages.pdf >

along with this quote from the paper:
~~
"This dubious Schopenhauer citation has been used
to support non-mainstream or controversial views on
such diverse topics as the feelings of fish [3],
megadose vitamin C therapy [32], drug legalization[25],
network marketing [12], acupuncture [33], supranational
government [24], repressed memory [28], libertarianism [35],
anti-vaccination [9], and human cloning [23]. It has even
been cited in a court case in Florida [18].

A common feature of all these citations is the lack of
any reference to where in Schopenhauer's work the quotation
can be found."
~~
==
Later...
Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

I'm surprised this cite hasn't shown up yet:
< https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/Papers/stages.pdf >

along with this quote from the paper:
~~
"This dubious Schopenhauer citation has been used
to support non-mainstream or controversial views on
such diverse topics as the feelings of fish [3],
megadose vitamin C therapy [32], drug legalization[25],
network marketing [12], acupuncture [33], supranational
government [24], repressed memory [28], libertarianism [35],
anti-vaccination [9], and human cloning [23]. It has even
been cited in a court case in Florida [18].

A common feature of all these citations is the lack of
any reference to where in Schopenhauer's work the quotation
can be found."


As the URL I referenced indicated, Schopenhauer //did// say this -- but in a
different way.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/attribution-of-schopenhauers-three-stages-of-truth.897

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> Yeah, that's likely why cranks misquote him. They're probably just
>> parroting other cranks with cut-and-paste, anyway.
>
> It's a misquote in the sense of not being the same words.

Yup. That’s what a misquoting is. The words are different. Very
different.

> But it says the same thing.

The sentiment is similar, but the meaning is very different. The
misquote is a combination of distortion, hyperbole, and
simplification. To paraphrase (not quote) a local crank, read what he
wrote.

An actual quote from the same crank is, "Sorry, but I am always always
right," and more recently, "I have never, ever said I was always
right."

[Gary Eickmeier]

William -

THAT was interesting! I printed out the whole thing to study and show my
wife, from whom the quote I wrote came. I studied him just a smidge on the
internet, to learn who he was and what sort of things he wrote. I think he
was a bit of a humorist in his writings, right?

Too bad we get just one go-around, and all that is left is our writings or
creations. If you are so fortunate to have left something!

And maybe our young-uns. Happy fathers day to all.

Gary

PS I don't think Floyd is a PhD in anything - but he sure left a body of
work!


"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> ...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer:
>>> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
>>> it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
>
>> Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed and
>> violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And when there
>> is opposition, it's rarely violent.
>
> He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes the
> truthful things I say.
>
>
>> It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular
>> with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way
>> you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow
>> evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of (hopefully)
> making people think about what they believe, and why? Oh, wait... You
> don't think.
>
> It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what
> Schopenhauer actually said:
>
> https://www.metabunk.org/threads/attribution-of-schopenhauers-three-stages-of-truth.897
>
> "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two
> long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as
> trivial."
>
>
>
>
>

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/15/2014 6:58 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> < ...snip... >
> Gary
>
> PS I don't think Floyd is a PhD in anything - but he sure left a body of
> work!

A quick search turned up this:
~~
Floyd E. Toole studied electrical engineering at the University
of New Brunswick, and at the Imperial College of Science and Technology,
University
of London where he received a PhD
~~
==
Later...
RC
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> But it says the same thing.

> The sentiment is similar, but the meaning is very different.
> The misquote is a combination of distortion, hyperbole, and simplification.
> To paraphrase (not quote) a local crank, read
> what he wrote.

Duh. You obviously don't how words fit together to form ideas. The only
meaningful difference between the two versions is tone. The original reflects
a somewhat arrogant view of how Schopenhauer feels the truth -- and the
truth-teller -- should be greeted by the public. You don't understand this,
because you have a poor ability to interpret what you read. Which is no
surprise. Most Americans are poor readers.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

PS: I don't think Floyd is a PhD in anything -- but he sure left a body of
work!

Count Floyd (as I call him) has a bone fide PhD -- but that doesn't mean he
actually understands anything. He's left of big pile of stuff in his trail.

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

<snipping an interesting story worth reading for those inclined >

Thanks for posting that - I enjoyed that.



For the detractors - here's something to consider. When your IQ is well into
the top 1% of the population, and you spend your life studying, researching
and, well, proving to yourself what is what you will end up in a position
where you ARE usually right, or find the answer first, or are closer than
anyone else around you. Even when you're not right it's usually because you
didn't entirely understand the question or problem, or you're working with
'accepted' data which turns out to be wrong (which is why you tend to
question everything).



I'm close to that level myself, close enough to make a nice living as the
go-to guy for all the really hard problems. I've had the privilege a working
with a few of those guys over the years - they can be difficult to
understand and can almost sound like an idiot or a lunatic until you can get
far enough in to understand what they're saying. And despite the personality
issues that most of them had I was very glad to have a chance to work with
them and learn from them.



Moral of the story is: don't worry about it :-)



Sean

[William Sommerwerck]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

<snipping an interesting story worth reading for those inclined >

> Thanks for posting that - I enjoyed that.
> I'm close to that level myself, close enough to make a nice living
> as the go-to guy for all the really hard problems.

That's great to hear!

In addition to "asking good questions", what other useful approaches to
problem-solving have you found?

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:15:19 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
[ a long story ]

Thanks for writing all of that. It reflects much of my own experiences as
well, both when interacting with other people, people in general, and
when doing things alone.

> One thing I’ve learned is that people — any people, anywhere, any time —
> have great difficulty getting past what they believe to be true. “I know
> it, so it must be true. Don’t disturb my complacency.�

People are hugely dogmatic. And by that, I mean "things that are commonly
held to be true without actual support in fact" (or something like that).

It's obvious that philosophies and religions depend on this, but dogma
can also be found in the sciences and engineering, unfortunately, even
though these areas need to be free of it.

Some years ago, I was reading the day's news of science, and there was a
story about how researchers in psychology found that about 2/3 of people
will follow along with other people around them, rather than do what they
think or feel is right. I think in a healthy culture, this is a good
default behavior, but in today's world (and by that, I mean at least the
last 2000 years ;) prevents many positive changes.

When I was young, I did well in school and thought I knew things. Later,
I was surprised at how many things I learned in school and accepted as
The Truth turned out to be wrong. Sometimes that was because new
scientific research updated human knowledge, but other times it was
because my teachers weren't as smart as everyone assumed, and sometimes
because they were required to pass on what the NY State Board of Regents
required them to.

It is commonly said that small children are like sponges for information,
but they don't have a mature ability to discern truth vs. fiction. And no
part of my formal education, including required science courses at
Caltech, covered that subject.

> Anyone with a disruptive point of view is usually rejected as a idiot

Again, in a healthy culture, that behavior is actually right. And unless
no one shows them otherwise, people assume their culture is correct.
"Everyone knows that ...." and "of course ..." have become red flags for
me because so often, I noticed that the words that follow are simply not
true.

> My first real engineering job was with Bendix Field Engineering. Bendix
> was a principal contractor for NASA’s Spaceflight Tracking and
> Data-acquisition Network (STDN or STADAN).

One of my first real jobs was working for NASA at JPL, and although it
was a very short job, I think it affected my attitude about what
constitutes "good engineering" in a very positive way.

One of the reasons I love engineering is that it keeps me watching
myself, checking my thinking, and asking myself, "Am I really sure I got
this right?"

Years ago, Richard Feynman did a special filmed interview in which he
passed on some of his ideas about what makes good science and good
scientists because he was very concerned about dogma and improper
thinking in science. He said that when he was young, some people taught
him about those things, and he wanted to pass on something to future
generations. Sadly, I can never find that on YouTube anymore when I look
for it. There are many other Feynman videos, but not that one. Maybe this
is another example of a dogmatic culture not wanting to consider it's own
weaknesses.

So maybe I can summarize just a little, along with my own ideas:

1. Good scientists never believe things just because other people do.
2. Good scientists are never sure of anything, and never reach
conclusions.
3. Good scientists are curious and open-minded.

He explained this as a basis for good scientific methods and thought.

The way I think of it is that a good scientific method involves both
curious open-mindedness and discernment (telling what is true and real).

All that may seem like a digression because the original topic was on
engineering, but in my mind, the same basic attitude is just what you
need to solve engineering problems, prevent yourself from getting into
trouble, and getting out of it.

> I and my co-worker — a buck-toothed dullard -- killed ourselves trying
> to get flat response at Varian’s settings. We couldn’t. We once spent a
> whole day on just one channel, and got it kinda/sorta/maybe flat. We
> called in more-experienced engineers, and none of them could figure out
> what was wrong.

If you have good engineers, it really helps to have more people look at
it. Some "stupid mistakes" can be revealed more easily from another
perspective.

> Note that //many// more-experienced people quite failed to solve the
> problem — which turned out to be ludicrously simple. I was the one who
> solved it, because I asked good questions.

That's it! You have to be like a small child and keep asking, "Why?" And
keeep asking, "What are my assumptions?"

> * I suspect no one else did, because they were afraid of looking stupid
> -- the “A man doesn’t ask for directions� attitude.

Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other
people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he
had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ",
in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something
in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question,
in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions,
I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that
happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.)

Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of
there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as
bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through.

I wrote a lot about this because in my opinion, this is an important
basic issue in the human experience, and in the American scientific and
engineering cultures.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> But it says the same thing.
>
>> The sentiment is similar, but the meaning is very different.
>> The misquote is a combination of distortion, hyperbole, and
>> simplification. To paraphrase (not quote) a local crank, read
>> what he wrote.
>
> Duh. You obviously don't how words fit together to form ideas. The
> only meaningful difference between the two versions is tone. The
> original reflects a somewhat arrogant view of how Schopenhauer feels
> the truth -- and the truth-teller -- should be greeted by the
> public. You don't understand this, because you have a poor ability
> to interpret what you read. Which is no surprise. Most Americans are
> poor readers.

If you can't see the simple and obvious difference between what he
wrote and the common misquote, you're easily as stupid as you seem.
Read what he wrote. Your comedy is getting hilarious lately, li'l
Willy. You're always whining about other people not reading what you
wrote, and now you can't even read. LOL!



>

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/15/2014 8:21 PM, Jay Ts wrote:
>
>
>>
> < ...gigantic snip... >
>
> Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other
> people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he
> had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ",
> in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something
> in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question,
> in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions,
> I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that
> happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.)
>
> Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of
> there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as
> bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through.
>
> I wrote a lot about this because in my opinion, this is an important
> basic issue in the human experience, and in the American scientific and
> engineering cultures.
>

One would hope that we've all had at least one such questioning moment
in our careers that worked out for the best.
I've been fortunate to have had a few. I've been retired for something like
a dozen years, so it's water under the bridge for me.

Anyway, one of the first for me was when an expert in the field told me
the quest for liquid epitaxial InGaAsP on InP was thermodynamically
imposable. I did it, though my PhD supervisors got most of the credit.
[{( Um, yes, you can Google that. )}]
Ah but it did wonders for my credibility as an experimentalist. <G>

[IMHO] The bottom line is to not talk yourself out of the experiment BUT
also know when to quit. However, that's not always an easy line to define.
[ Oh yes (reality check) ...I've pushed a few lines too far. ]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...
>
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snipping an interesting story worth reading for those inclined >
>
>> Thanks for posting that - I enjoyed that.
>> I'm close to that level myself, close enough to make a nice living
>> as the go-to guy for all the really hard problems.
>
> That's great to hear!
>
> In addition to "asking good questions", what other useful approaches to
> problem-solving have you found?

Number one skill: develop a pedantic to nigh on fanatical desire to separate
facts from speculation. Facts are rare precious gems because once proven
they can be relied on. Everything else is speculation with various weights
of probability. Something may be highly probable to the point that it's safe
to move forward on the assumption that it's true, but I still won't call it
a fact.

Having assessed what is known and what we suspect, look for something which
can be easily tested and can rule in or out a number of other
possibilities - basically to figure out what area does the problem live. You
can figure out what the positive and negative results might be, and end up
with something completely unexpected that's not consistent with any theory.
That's OK - a result is a result - it's more data to factor into the next
round of tests. Sometimes you get an 'impossible' result that makes no sense
at all - when you find yourself saying 'that can't be right', it means
you've built your understanding on some bad data somewhere, and you have to
find it (much like your detectors).

That works OK for systems. Given patience and thoroughness you can debug
anything from a car to a nuclear reactor. It's just a matter of
understanding the system well enough to figure out the right things to
check.

Systems involving people are much more difficult. When I've been sent to an
unhappy customer site where we were in real trouble, I have to take time to
assess all of the players and their feelings and opinions. Then I revert to
my military training: find the center of resistance and try to move it.
There's always one person who is sort of the focal point of negative
perception, and if you can swing that person the rest will fall in line, or
at least become a lot easier to deal with.

Sean

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...

> If you can't see the simple and obvious difference between what he
> wrote and the common misquote, you're easily as stupid as you seem.
> Read what he wrote. Your comedy is getting hilarious lately, li'l
> Willy. You're always whining about other people not reading what you
> wrote, and now you can't even read. LOL!

If you don't understand that two sentences can use altogether different and
say the same thing... Well.

You should find a college-level reading-comprehension test and take it. I took
one a few years ago, and it was harder than I expected.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2014 8:21 PM, Jay Ts wrote:

> < ...gigantic snip... >

> Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other
> people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he
> had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ",
> in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something
> in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question,
> in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions,
> I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that
> happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.)

I attended Caltech, but it was a few years after Feynman stopped teaching. You
were fortunate. (I was in Ricketts, by the way.)


> Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of
> there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as
> bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through.

Perhaps, but my EE came from the University of Maryland, and I had many fine
instructors. One of them was, by a narrow margin, the best instructor I've
ever had in anything.

Perhaps the biggest problem of learning anything is "grasping" it. (I can't
think of another word.) Having something explained to you is not the same as
thinking it through on your own. When you work through problems (particularly
in math), you start truly understanding the material.


> One of the first [questioning moments] for me was when an expert
> in the field told me the quest for liquid epitaxial InGaAsP on InP was
> thermodynamically imposable. I did it, though my PhD supervisors
> got most of the credit. Ah, but it did wonders for my credibility as an
> experimentalist. <G>

Am I correct in assuming that, instead of trying to figure out a priori what
would work, you performed "little" experiments to get a better grasp of what
might and might not be possible? (Dr Alan Hill took that approach in
developing the first wide-range plasma loudspeaker.)


> [IMHO] The bottom line is to not talk yourself out of the experiment BUT
> also know when to quit. However, that's not always an easy line to define.
> [ Oh yes (reality check) ...I've pushed a few lines too far. ]

Many years ago I asked a friend why it wouldn't be possible to grow
single-crystal diamond in the same way silicon is deposited on integrated
circuits. He asked a friend, who said the thermodynamics for carbon did not
work the way those for silicon did. Polycrystalline diamond is commonly
applied to many surfaces (such as speaker cones), of course.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/16/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Ron C" wrote in message
> ...
> On 6/15/2014 8:21 PM, Jay Ts wrote:
>
>> < ...gigantic snip... >
>
>> Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other
>> people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he
>> had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ",
>> in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something
>> in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question,
>> in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions,
>> I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that
>> happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.)
>
> I attended Caltech, but it was a few years after Feynman stopped
> teaching. You were fortunate. (I was in Ricketts, by the way.)
>
>
>> Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of
>> there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as
>> bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through.
>
> Perhaps, but my EE came from the University of Maryland, and I had many
> fine instructors. One of them was, by a narrow margin, the best
> instructor I've ever had in anything.
>
> Perhaps the biggest problem of learning anything is "grasping" it. (I
> can't think of another word.) Having something explained to you is not
> the same as thinking it through on your own. When you work through
> problems (particularly in math), you start truly understanding the
> material.
>
>
>> One of the first [questioning moments] for me was when an expert
>> in the field told me the quest for liquid epitaxial InGaAsP on InP was
>> thermodynamically imposable. I did it, though my PhD supervisors
>> got most of the credit. Ah, but it did wonders for my credibility as an
>> experimentalist. <G>
>
> Am I correct in assuming that, instead of trying to figure out a priori
> what would work, you performed "little" experiments to get a better
> grasp of what might and might not be possible? (Dr Alan Hill took that
> approach in developing the first wide-range plasma loudspeaker.)

It was a long time ago and I've forgotten details of the progression,
but I spent years working on the GaAs/AlGaAs system and in turn
moved to InP when substrates became available. I do recall working
out pseudoternary phase diagrams and doing X-ray measurements of
lattice constants, photoluminescence, etc.
>
>
>> [IMHO] The bottom line is to not talk yourself out of the experiment BUT
>> also know when to quit. However, that's not always an easy line to
>> define.
>> [ Oh yes (reality check) ...I've pushed a few lines too far. ]
>
> Many years ago I asked a friend why it wouldn't be possible to grow
> single-crystal diamond in the same way silicon is deposited on
> integrated circuits. He asked a friend, who said the thermodynamics for
> carbon did not work the way those for silicon did. Polycrystalline
> diamond is commonly applied to many surfaces (such as speaker cones), of
> course.

There was a segment about growing diamonds on NOVA
scienceNOW a few years ago.
< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/artificial-diamonds.html >
Seems the video of is no longer available, but the Q/A is
still there:
< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/butler-diamonds.html >

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jay Ts" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:15:19 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> [a long story]

It's called a "megillah".


> Thanks for writing all of that. It reflects much of my own experiences as
> well, both when interacting with other people, people in general, and
> when doing things alone.

I never believed I was alone in this, and am grateful for the confirmation.


> Some years ago, I was reading the day's news of science, and there was a
> story about how researchers in psychology found that about 2/3 of people
> will follow along with other people around them, rather than do what they
> think or feel is right. I think in a healthy culture, this is a good default
> behavior, but in today's world (and by that, I mean at least the last 2000
> years ;) prevents many positive changes.

Ever noticed how much our country is like the Roman Empire?

Given that humans are social animals, it's to be expected. Some of us are
fortunate enough to be sufficiently asocial not to be easily influenced.


> One of the reasons I love engineering is that it keeps me watching
> myself, checking my thinking, and asking myself, "Am I really sure
> I got this right?"

Heck, that applies to life!


> 1. Good scientists never believe things just because other people do.
> 2. Good scientists are never sure of anything, and never reach
> conclusions.
> 3. Good scientists are curious and open-minded.

I would add to that... There is a difference between being open-minded and
empty-headed.


> All that may seem like a digression because the original topic was on
> engineering, but in my mind, the same basic attitude is just what you
> need to solve engineering problems, prevent yourself from getting into
> trouble, and getting out of it.

I don't see a fundamental difference between science and engineering. In
science, you're trying to figure out how things work. In engineering, how to
get things to work.


>> Note that //many// more-experienced people quite failed to solve the
>> problem — which turned out to be ludicrously simple. I was the one who
>> solved it, because I asked good questions.

> That's it! You have to be like a small child and keep asking, "Why?"
> And keep asking, "What are my assumptions?"

It's so easy to get bitten in the assumptions.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm grateful for the intelligent contributions that have been made to this
discussion.

As I now have confirmation that I'm not a total idiot, and there are other
sensible people out there, I will permanently stop starting arguments about
controversial subjects. And if I show the least tendency to do so, kick me
hard.

The following might be of use...

Two Good Sources of Inspiration

1: The bathroom is one of the best sources of problem-solving inspiration. One
need only approach the throne, or step into the shower, for ideas to begin
flowing, sometimes as freely as the water.

Just this morning, I came up with an excellent solution to a plot problem with
a short story I'm working on.

2: Another source of inspiration is to stop working. This is the Alton Brown
approach -- "Just walk away." You can't force inspiration. When you halt
conscious thought, the unconscious sometimes takes over and presents you with
a valuable insight.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
>
>> If you can't see the simple and obvious difference between what he
>> wrote and the common misquote, you're easily as stupid as you seem.
>> Read what he wrote. Your comedy is getting hilarious lately, li'l
>> Willy. You're always whining about other people not reading what
>> you
>> wrote, and now you can't even read. LOL!
>
> If you don't understand that two sentences can use altogether
> different and say the same thing... Well.

There's the original text from Schopenhauer, in German. And then
there's the translation, which makes small changes to parts of speech
and other grammatical details, to make it normal idiomatic usage in
English. And then there's the popular misquotation, in which the
format is simplified, less common words are replaced with simplified
vocabulary, some things are just re-worded for no good reason at all,
sentences are shortened, and some hyperbole is added.

If you think the original is equivalent to the dumbed-down version,
emasculated for simpletons, it's no wonder that you can't get a job as
a writer, and you have such difficulty with an undergrad-level reading
comprehension test.

> You should find a college-level reading-comprehension test and take
> it.

You really like to tell people what you think they should do. Have you
noticed that nobody gives a **** what you think they should do?

> I took one a few years ago, and it was harder than I expected.

No surprise. You've already demonstrated that you can't always read
very well, and that you have an unreasonably high opinion of your
abilities. Here you are, providing even more evidence.



>

[William Sommerwerck]

Here's a simple test... What is the difference in the practical meaning of
these two statements?

>> "I would appreciate your not opening your mouth."

>> "Why don't you shut the **** up?"

I'm curious about the experiences of anyone out there who's taken
college-level reading comprehension tests.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a simple test... What is the difference in the practical
> meaning of these two statements?
>
>>> "I would appreciate your not opening your mouth."
>
>>> "Why don't you shut the **** up?"
>
> I'm curious about the experiences of anyone out there who's taken
> college-level reading comprehension tests.

You're grasping at straws, desperate to prove that an eloquent quote,
translated directly from Schopenhauer's actual words, is the same a
dumbed-down misquotation that expresses a similar idea in simplified
language. But you only want to hear from people who you hope will
agree with you. You're prescribing a "test", but only for people who
have already. And you've already decided what the correct answer is to
your pathetic little "simple test".

But if anyone were to misquote you to that degree, you'd go off on one
of your "Read what I wrote" tantrums. Hehe.

No wonder you have no friends ("asocial" as you call it). Here's a
simple test. Which one of your two statements don't you understand?

Read what you wrote!

[gregz]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> Few people are born with a profound ability to understand things. I’m
> certainly not one of them. I’ve learned a lot of things — especially
> about how to use the intelligence I have.
>
> One thing I’ve learned is that people — any people, anywhere, any time —
> have great difficulty getting past what they believe to be true. “I know
> it, so it must be true. Don’t disturb my complacency.�
>
> Anyone with a disruptive point of view is usually rejected as a idiot
> (qv, Swift’s observation about “a confederacy of dunces�). Unless, of
> course, the person is a perceived expert. If anything I’ve said had been
> voiced by “Doctor� Floyd Toole, it would have been accepted as gospel by
> most of this group. The principle that “truth is truth�, regardless of
> who says it, is something most people cannot understand. Nor is the
> principle that one should understand //why// they believe or disbelieve
> something, and be willing to periodically reconsider their beliefs.
>
> The following is about how I solved a serious problem that stymied people
> who knew more than I did.
>
> My first real engineering job was with Bendix Field Engineering. Bendix
> was a principal contractor for NASA’s Spaceflight Tracking and
> Data-acquisition Network (STDN or STADAN).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_Tracking_and_Data_Acquisition_Network
>
> STDN used klystron transmitters to communicate with satellites and space
> probes. These put out several kilowatts at around 2GHz. A klystron is a
> traveling-wave tube, with multiple high-Q resonant cavities. These have
> to be correctly tuned to get full power over a useful bandwidth. A single
> band wasn’t enough to cover all the frequencies NASA used. Retuning was often needed.
>
> Retuning wasn’t


Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975 . Wasn't my
job.

http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg

Greg

[William Sommerwerck]

"gregz" wrote in message
...

> Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975.
> Wasn't my job.
> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg

Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the
bottom? It's not visible in this shot.

Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I carried
an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a simple test... What is the difference in the practical
> meaning of these two statements?
>
>>> "I would appreciate your not opening your mouth."
>
>>> "Why don't you shut the **** up?"
>
> I'm curious about the experiences of anyone out there who's taken
> college-level reading comprehension tests.

Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?

"First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed."
"It is condemned as paradoxical"

Can you spot the difference? If you claim that you're always right,
you probably can’t spot the difference.

[None]

"None" > wrote in message
m...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here's a simple test... What is the difference in the practical
>> meaning of these two statements?
>>
>>>> "I would appreciate your not opening your mouth."
>>
>>>> "Why don't you shut the **** up?"
>>
>> I'm curious about the experiences of anyone out there who's taken
>> college-level reading comprehension tests.
>
> Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?
>
> "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed."
> "It is condemned as paradoxical"
>
> Can you spot the difference? If you claim that you're always right,
> you probably can’t spot the difference.

What, no answer, Willie? I'm waiting.


>

[Gary Eickmeier]

"None" > wrote in message
...
> "None" > wrote in message
> m...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Here's a simple test... What is the difference in the practical meaning
>>> of these two statements?
>>>
>>>>> "I would appreciate your not opening your mouth."
>>>
>>>>> "Why don't you shut the **** up?"
>>>
>>> I'm curious about the experiences of anyone out there who's taken
>>> college-level reading comprehension tests.
>>
>> Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?
>>
>> "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed."
>> "It is condemned as paradoxical"
>>
>> Can you spot the difference? If you claim that you're always right, you
>> probably can’t spot the difference.
>
> What, no answer, Willie? I'm waiting.

I'm wondering what someone with no name gets out of all this trolling. You
must be someone of no consequence or accomplishments to not want us to know
who you are.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
...

> Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?

> "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed."
> "It is condemned as paradoxical"

> Can you spot the difference?

Yes. Your underwear is washed in Blue Cheer, whereas I wear no underwear.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
...

> Very good points.
>
> I do my best to perfect my craft by working through solutions
> step-by-step,
> but sometimes this is what it takes.
>
> --
> ---Jeff

Have you noticed that your brain will keep working under cover on a problem
that you haven't solved yet if you just give it time? Better to take breaks,
do something else, seemingly forget about it for a while, then when you go
back the answer will be staring you in the face. Kind of like a computer
working in the background. Just takes time.

Gary

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "None" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> Here's a simple test... What is the difference in the practical
>>>> meaning of these two statements?
>>>>
>>>>>> "I would appreciate your not opening your mouth."
>>>>
>>>>>> "Why don't you shut the **** up?"
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious about the experiences of anyone out there who's taken
>>>> college-level reading comprehension tests.
>>>
>>> Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?
>>>
>>> "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed."
>>> "It is condemned as paradoxical"
>>>
>>> Can you spot the difference? If you claim that you're always
>>> right, you probably can’t spot the difference.
>>
>> What, no answer, Willie? I'm waiting.
>
> I'm wondering what someone with no name gets out of all this
> trolling. You must be someone of no consequence or accomplishments
> to not want us to know who you are.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Says the guy who imagines he has published papers, has spent his life
reinventing the b0se 901, but can't figure out how to plug in his
behringer equipment because he can't rtfm. Nicely played, li'l buddy.

You obviously can't spot the difference either. Why don't you and
little Willie go start arguing again, both pretending you're geniuses
and not bothering to read anything anyone else writes? Now that was
some sitcom material!


>
>

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?
>
>> "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed."
>> "It is condemned as paradoxical"
>
>> Can you spot the difference?
>
> Yes. Your underwear is washed in Blue Cheer, whereas I wear no
> underwear.

Semper ubi sub ubi, Willie. Especially when you're so fond of being
caught with your pants down. You must still be traumatized by all the
wedgies you got in school.

[gregz]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> "gregz" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975.
>> Wasn't my job.
>> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg
>
> Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the
> bottom? It's not visible in this shot.
>
> Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I
> carried an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens.

I don't remember panel. I do remember them talking about spending time
tuning up there.

The transfer scan could have been better. I took the shot with pentax fixed
focus fisheye.

Greg

[gregz]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> "gregz" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975.
>> Wasn't my job.
>> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg
>
> Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the
> bottom? It's not visible in this shot.
>
> Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I
> carried an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens.

Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but
reinstalled after some station updating.

http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg

Greg

[gregz]

gregz > wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>> "gregz" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975.
>>> Wasn't my job.
>>> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg
>>
>> Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the
>> bottom? It's not visible in this shot.
>>
>> Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I
>> carried an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens.
>
> Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but
> reinstalled after some station updating.
>
> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg
>
> Greg

One more.

http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/Console1969.jpg

Greg

[William Sommerwerck]

"gregz" wrote in message
...

> One more.
> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/Console1969.jpg

That looks contemporary -- not much newer than the step tuner.

Note that the panel has controls to monitor the tube's beam current and set
the anode voltage. There are also meters to show the filament current. If it
recall correctly, if the filament wasn't hot enough, the cathode would be
stripped.

[William Sommerwerck]

"gregz" wrote in message
...

> Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel,
> but reinstalled after some station updating.

> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg

Ar, matey, that be it. I will save a copy. Thanks!

I assume this is a recent photo. (Note the modern piece of test equipment at
the top.) The system is still in use after 40 years!

[Scott Dorsey]

gregz > wrote:
>
>Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but
>reinstalled after some station updating.
>
>http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg

That looks like a monitoring panel for a big TWT power amplifier.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> That looks like a monitoring panel for a big TWT power amplifier.

Because that's what it is. The six buttons across the bottom select a channel,
using a step-motor system to reset the klystron's cavities.

[Tobiah]

On 06/16/2014 09:28 PM, None wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "None" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?
>>
>>> "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed." "It is
>>> condemned as paradoxical"
>>
>>> Can you spot the difference?
>>
>> Yes. Your underwear is washed in Blue Cheer, whereas I wear no
>> underwear.
>
> Semper ubi sub ubi, Willie. Especially when you're so fond of being
> caught with your pants down. You must still be traumatized by all the
> wedgies you got in school.
>
>

Stop being a dick. No one here likes you.

[[email protected]]

>
>
>
> > http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg
>
>
>
> Ar, matey, that be it. I will save a copy. Thanks!
>
>
>
> I assume this is a recent photo. (Note the modern piece of test equipment at
>
> the top.) The system is still in use after 40 years!



that "modern piece of test equipment" looks like a TEK TAS 475.

so it depends on your definition of "modern"

Mark

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/18/2014 11:48 AM, Tobiah wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 09:28 PM, None wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "None" wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Here's a simpler test. Are the following two lines the same?
>>>
>>>> "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed." "It is
>>>> condemned as paradoxical"
>>>
>>>> Can you spot the difference?
>>>
>>> Yes. Your underwear is washed in Blue Cheer, whereas I wear no
>>> underwear.
>>
>> Semper ubi sub ubi, Willie. Especially when you're so fond of being
>> caught with your pants down. You must still be traumatized by all the
>> wedgies you got in school.
>>
>>
>
> Stop being a dick. No one here likes you.
>
Tobiah, [IMHO] a better retort would have been:
vescere bracis meis.

==
L...
RC
--

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

> That "modern piece of test equipment" looks like a TEK TAS 475.
> So it depends on your definition of "modern".

I wasn't sure of the make or model. But it's sure a lot more modern than what
we had in 1975!

Also, the photo "looks" digital, so I assumed it was recent. Does the OP know
the year it was taken?

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>that "modern piece of test equipment" looks like a TEK TAS 475.
>so it depends on your definition of "modern"

I have a Tek 545 on my bench at work. The cal guys hate me. I keep it
there partly to annoy them, but actually it's a great scope if you give
it enough time to warm up and settle down.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[gregz]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> "gregz" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel,
>> but reinstalled after some station updating.
>
>> http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg
>
> Ar, matey, that be it. I will save a copy. Thanks!
>
> I assume this is a recent photo. (Note the modern piece of test equipment
> at the top.) The system is still in use after 40 years!

The pic is a few years old. The station was set up for remote control. I
don't know what's current.

Greg

[gregz]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> wrote in message ...
>
>> That "modern piece of test equipment" looks like a TEK TAS 475.
>> So it depends on your definition of "modern".
>
> I wasn't sure of the make or model. But it's sure a lot more modern than
> what we had in 1975!
>
> Also, the photo "looks" digital, so I assumed it was recent. Does the OP
> know the year it was taken?

I'm going to say, at least 8 years old.

Greg

[Gray_Wolf]

On 18 Jun 2014 17:56:20 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>I have a Tek 545 on my bench at work. The cal guys hate me. I keep it
>there partly to annoy them, but actually it's a great scope if you give
>it enough time to warm up and settle down.
>--scott

I had a 545 Tek in the USAF in the early 60's. Worked real smooth.
I think it drew 500 watts from the power line

[gregz]

Gray_Wolf > wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2014 17:56:20 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> I have a Tek 545 on my bench at work. The cal guys hate me. I keep it
>> there partly to annoy them, but actually it's a great scope if you give
>> it enough time to warm up and settle down.
>> --scott
>
> I had a 545 Tek in the USAF in the early 60's. Worked real smooth.
> I think it drew 500 watts from the power line

I was actively servicing tube scopes up until early 2000. One of the last
things I remember doing, was replacing a display tube. As far as I know,
there is still a tek 565 scope at the heart of a medical school lab. The
in's and out's went to various gear, much of it hand built.

Greg

[Gray_Wolf]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:43:18 +0000 (UTC), gregz >
wrote:

>Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2014 17:56:20 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a Tek 545 on my bench at work. The cal guys hate me. I keep it
>>> there partly to annoy them, but actually it's a great scope if you give
>>> it enough time to warm up and settle down.
>>> --scott
>>
>> I had a 545 Tek in the USAF in the early 60's. Worked real smooth.
>> I think it drew 500 watts from the power line
>
>I was actively servicing tube scopes up until early 2000. One of the last
>things I remember doing, was replacing a display tube. As far as I know,
>there is still a tek 565 scope at the heart of a medical school lab. The
>in's and out's went to various gear, much of it hand built.
>
>Greg


I picked up a Tek 514D ( 50's era?) in the early 70's for my own small
audio shop. Single channel 15 MHz. It was great for audio. I got a
465M later on for digital stuff. It was still working when I got rid
of it 10 years ago when I needed the space. It always liked the
feeling I got when I turned it on and it powered up and the big fan
kicked in. The 465M wasn't nearly as dramatic.

[William Sommerwerck]

"gregz" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> wrote in message
> ...

>> Also, the photo "looks" digital, so I assumed it was recent.
>> Does the OP know the year it was taken?

> I'm going to say, at least 8 years old.

Okay, then... It was in use 32 years!

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:55:07 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> Have you noticed that your brain will keep working under cover on a
> problem that you haven't solved yet if you just give it time?

The first time I ever heard of this was when I was looking through some
old (1950s) issues of Scientific American. There was an article on just
this subject by a European mathematician. He told a story of how he was
stumped by a problem he was trying to solve, and the solution came to him
just as he was stepping onto a train.

I've noticed the same kind of thing in myself many times, and I assume
the brain is capable of running background processes subconsciously. It
seems to work for me unless my attention is taken away by something that
saturates my senses or thought processes, requiring me to look at the
problem again to "reload".

In the 1950s, this effect would have seemed very mysterious to anyone,
but today, scientists are studying brain activity in real time (or
thereabouts) with brain scanners. Now it is understood that our brains
are active all of the time, and we are consciously aware of only a tiny
bit of the total activity.

That old thing about, "We use only 3% of our brains" was never true,
although something like that is true of the amount of our brain activity
we are conscious of.