On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:08:09 -0700, art wrote:

watch the debate on Eham that is held in gentlemany fashion
and with a proponent of knoweledge to which you aspire to
and have failed miserably7

Hi Arthur,

Who cluod be oeffnded when they can't ustnanderd you for all the
mipellssings7

Tom is only one of many

Yes he is.

Please excuse my absence from this thread
for a short while while I am away enjoying a debate regarding
ham radio with an expert in a areana of experts.

Odd you leave that sandbox and keep coming back here, isn't it? ;-)

When you do, enjoy my new thread "20 Questions - Redux." (That is WHY
you keep returning n'est pas?)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

art hath wroth:

You might want to learn to use a text editor to remove most of the
quoted text. I can't stand to read my own writings more than once.

I believe that the standard example of radiation referred to above
is in error.

That's fine. Kindly supply a replacement for Maxwell's Equations and
I'll entertain the possibility of error. I'm sure there's a Nobel
Price awaiting you for the effort.

I do not believe that radiation consists of fields of any sort
but consists of ejected static particles in form of a swarm.

I believe the corpuscle theory of light and radiation went down in
flames about 180 years ago. Incidentally, "static" means not moving,
which precludes anything that is ejected or swarms. Try dynamic
instead.

I have asked the Eham forum to wade in on that one since it
appears they have more scientifically molecular inclined members.

My molecules are just as scientific as any ham radio operator. Are
you suggesting that my molecules are in any way inferior?

The only cycle that repeates in radiation is the tank circuit of a
diagmagnetic material which is resonant i.e. equal capacitance and
inductance.

A resonant circuit is characterized by equal capacitive reactance and
inductive reactance, not equal capacitance and inductance.

Diamagnetic material is great for demonstrating magnetic levitation,
but rather useless for anything in a cheap WWVB receiver.
Incidentally, all materials have diamagnetic properties to some
degree.

Seems like the posts are relying on propagating fields
which to me is an error.

Well, the WWVB transmitters are in Colorado. I'm in California. The
signals did not arrive via bus, truck, airplane, train, or carrier
pigeon. Lacking any other obvious transportation methods, I suspect
they arrived by electromagnetic propagation.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:08:09 -0700, art wrote:

watch the debate on Eham that is held in gentlemany fashion

What a howler!

Thanx Arthur, I did just that and it seems to conform to that old
observation that a gentlemany is one who stands up in his bathtub to
take a pee:

by KB9CRY on July 7, 2007
... when you make up the logic one must understand that it may have no real basis in the real world.

by KB9MZ on July 7, 2007
Sir, I do not know who you are not having read any of your writings,
now there's a friendly, inclusive response.
I meant no respect to you by not asking for your participation
aside from the obvious logic fault (or is it a deliberate spit in the
face?) - isn't this like telling someone to f**k off?

No doubt from his response (with all the characteristic flair of our
own correspondence here):
y KB9CRY on July 7, 2007
And back to you sir, then take your personal debate with Tom offline and out of the public forum.

Being coy is for nancy-boys, not gentleman.

However, the gauntlet seems to slung around with abandon, also typical
he
May I also remind you that in the past week or so I offered a theses to all
that I drew up which you have acknoweledged and read and thus
could have participated in a civil discussion. You chose not to do so.

So, by your own estimate, an uncivil discussion found in the land of
honey and myrrh - heaven forfend! Seems you have found a friend to
your theories. And then suddenly lost! How can this be?

Also characteristically saccharine and vituperative by turns, we find
you complaining to the same lyrics we are so familiar with he
by KB9MZ on July 4, 2007
I have presented a thesis on the process of radiatian
progression from a static particle to a final receiving antenna.
The progression starts from Gaussian law of static which is rejected by this group

Of course, the gentlemany serve up their comments in much the same
manner as the vipers offer he
by GM4AHW on June 27, 2007
Guys, this gentleman is pulling our collective legs.
I have read interminable postings of his in various places,
and it all comes to the same thing. Diddly-squat.

by KG6WOU on June 30, 2007
Yet, you seem to have an endless amount of time talking about it. ...
Why does Monty Python comes to mind here?

I hear the same hymn so often sung here with:
by KB9MZ on July 1, 2007
Because hams resist change there are endless statements,
words, denials and out of context repeats.

and the usual volume of micturition:
by KB9MZ on July 1, 2007
Yes, your play on words is exceptually good and exposes me
for what I am, a troll and a liar and a fraud.
The very idea that somebody could propose anything new
when all have delicate noses such as you is absolutely rediculous.

and the follow-ons are as poetic as those found he
by GM4AHW on July 1, 2007
Enough already! As you guys say.
30 posts - more than any other current post in any of eHam's forums.
Why is it that nuts always attract monkeys?

When 30 posts constitute a lengthy contribution, it would seem they
prefer their comic strips shorter, and not already colored in....

by KB9MZ on July 1, 2007
OK, OK, I get the message
In America they say "You are with us or against us, ....
Hopefully any reference to Gaussian antennas will be removed
from the face of the earth so that hams will not get angry with me any more.

by N3OX on July 1, 2007
a feeling of persecution is not sufficient evidence of a scientific breakthrough.

********************* WHEW! *********************

Hi Arthur,

I can well see the improvement in decorum, the gentility of
discussion, and the high arcing flow of elevated concepts. Your
followers embrace your every word and wait breathless in anticipation
of your continued comments. The fawning admiration runs for 1 to 2
posts in a thread (presuming you write the first 2 posts).

The devotion of your acolytes brings tears to their eyes. Or is it
the spit they endure with their upturned faces?

Maybe you could get your thesis published in the Republican National
Committee's next platform under emigration reform.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Well, the WWVB transmitters are in Colorado. I'm in California. The
signals did not arrive via bus, truck, airplane, train, or carrier
pigeon. Lacking any other obvious transportation methods, I suspect
they arrived by electromagnetic propagation.

Someone should put together a digest of some of your more pithy sayings.
I'm still chuckling over the one about "time is nature's way of making
sure things don't all happen at once" (that's from memory, I'm way too
lazy to actually look it up).

This swarm thing, is this connected to some modern (or maybe not)
theories about "nothing is really analogue, everything is digital in its
own way"?
--
W. Oates

Warren Oates hath wroth:

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Well, the WWVB transmitters are in Colorado. I'm in California. The
signals did not arrive via bus, truck, airplane, train, or carrier
pigeon. Lacking any other obvious transportation methods, I suspect
they arrived by electromagnetic propagation.

Someone should put together a digest of some of your more pithy sayings.

It's been done. One of my surviving former friends assembled such a
collection under the title of "Quotations of Chairman Jeff". It was
presented to me in manuscript form at a ceremonial roast (long story,
don't ask).

I assembled some of my early computah support horror stories and tech
poetry at:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/nooze/support.txt
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/poetry/poetry.htm
I've stopped collecting such stories and writing poetry for fear that
I might stop, think, wake up, and immediately abandon the business for
something more sane.

I'm still chuckling over the one about "time is nature's way of making
sure things don't all happen at once" (that's from memory, I'm way too
lazy to actually look it up).

It's not original. "Time is natures way of keeping everything from
happening at once." I stole that from an engineer friend that worked
on Cesium clocks for HP. It was hanging on the wall in his cubicle.
Someone had scribbled under it "Take your time, but leave mine alone".
I believe the original quote was from Woody Allen, but there may have
been earlier versions.

This swarm thing, is this connected to some modern (or maybe not)
theories about "nothing is really analogue, everything is digital in its
own way"?

Digital is nothing more than an analog device with too much gain and
hysteresis, where the output is stuck at either high or low. Dig deep
enough into any digital contrivance, and you'll find analog devices
operating in this way. The real world is analog. (Just ask any
analog engineer).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
Digital is nothing more than an analog device with too much gain and
hysteresis, where the output is stuck at either high or low. Dig deep
enough into any digital contrivance, and you'll find analog devices
operating in this way. The real world is analog. (Just ask any
analog engineer).

We've been here before, too. The real world is the real world
- it is neither "digital" nor "analog," which are terms used (at
least when used correctly) to refer to two methods of encoding
information about (or describing) the real world or some specific
real-world parameter.

And in case it makes you feel better about the answer, yes, I am
(or at least have been) an "analog engineer." (Or rather, an
engineer involved in the design of "analog" circuits and systems.)

Bob M.

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:44:28 -0600, "Bob Myers"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
Digital is nothing more than an analog device with too much gain and
hysteresis, where the output is stuck at either high or low. Dig deep
enough into any digital contrivance, and you'll find analog devices
operating in this way. The real world is analog. (Just ask any
analog engineer).

We've been here before, too. The real world is the real world
- it is neither "digital" nor "analog," which are terms used (at
least when used correctly) to refer to two methods of encoding
information about (or describing) the real world or some specific
real-world parameter.

In college, the senior electrical engineering class was polarized into
two camps, analog and ditital, largely by their choice of senior
projects. I made the mistake of designing a project that straddled
both camps (Secode Selector using RTL and DCL). Life was hell. The
debate came to a grinding halt when someone noticed that DNA sequences
were digital. So, if you dig deep enough into an analog world, you
eventually hit a digital bottom. I'll call it a win for whichever
side pays better this week.

And in case it makes you feel better about the answer, yes, I am
(or at least have been) an "analog engineer." (Or rather, an
engineer involved in the design of "analog" circuits and systems.)

Ditto. I did RF design for various companies, which in the 70's and
80's was mostly analog (FM, AM, SSB). For obvious reasons, I tend to
favor the analog view of reality. Now daze, it's all conglomerations
of analog and digital techniques and infested by longer acronyms.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
In college, the senior electrical engineering class was polarized into
two camps, analog and ditital, largely by their choice of senior
projects. I made the mistake of designing a project that straddled
both camps (Secode Selector using RTL and DCL). Life was hell. The
debate came to a grinding halt when someone noticed that DNA sequences
were digital. So, if you dig deep enough into an analog world, you
eventually hit a digital bottom. I'll call it a win for whichever
side pays better this week.

I've tended to take a slightly different approach, which I hinted
at in my earlier response. It generally gets me some odd looks and
a "no, that can't be right" sort of reply, but I find it IS a helpful way
to look at things - at the very least, a different perspective that can
give you some new insights into how all this stuff "really" works.

As I'd said, I tend to think of the "real world" as just that - it is
neither
"analog" nor "digital." From this perspective, those two terms simply
point to different means of encoding information for communication or
storage. I find that, all too often (again, at least from this
perspective),
we tend to use the words "analog" and "digital" when what we really
mean to say are things like "linear," "continuous," "discrete," "quantized,"
and so forth. Fundamentally, I tend to see "analog" as simply meaning
" a system whereby information about a given parameter is encoded
by causing some other parameter (voltage, for instance) to vary in an
analogous manner." It doesn't necessarily mean "linear" or even
"continuous." Similarly, "digital" winds up with an even simpler
definition - "information encoded in the form of digits (numerical
values." I've never found a situation where I couldn't use these words
with those interpretations. And like I said, it IS often helpful - for one
thing, you wind up with a much better feeling for the real advantages
and disadvantages of "digital" and "analog" systems. (And you also
wind up not worrying about certain sillinesses, like whether power
systems are "analog" or "digital" - since the world no longer has to
be divided up exclusively as one or the other.)

Some people can't seem to wrap their minds around such things, but
then, I'm not really going to worry about that.

Bob M.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:48:21 -0600, "Bob Myers"
wrote:


"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
In college, the senior electrical engineering class was polarized into
two camps, analog and ditital, largely by their choice of senior
projects. I made the mistake of designing a project that straddled
both camps (Secode Selector using RTL and DCL). Life was hell. The
debate came to a grinding halt when someone noticed that DNA sequences
were digital. So, if you dig deep enough into an analog world, you
eventually hit a digital bottom. I'll call it a win for whichever
side pays better this week.

I've tended to take a slightly different approach, which I hinted
at in my earlier response. It generally gets me some odd looks and
a "no, that can't be right" sort of reply, but I find it IS a helpful way
to look at things - at the very least, a different perspective that can
give you some new insights into how all this stuff "really" works.

That would be nice, but that's not the way engineering works these
days. At some point, most designers end up being either analog or
digital. Except in systems design, it's a rare engineer that can
function well in both camps. The result is usually microprocessor
acting as a marginal replacement for an op amp, or an analog circuit
that can't work in the real world because the tolerances and error
accumulation far exceed what could be done with digital. If you only
have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

As I'd said, I tend to think of the "real world" as just that - it is
neither
"analog" nor "digital." From this perspective, those two terms simply
point to different means of encoding information for communication or
storage. I find that, all too often (again, at least from this
perspective),
we tend to use the words "analog" and "digital" when what we really
mean to say are things like "linear," "continuous," "discrete," "quantized,"
and so forth.

I just hate to agree with anyone, but you're correct. Analog/Digital
have become so vague that more specific terminology is required.
Still, the terms will not go away and must be dealt with as they
appear. Try searching Google for "analog engineering" and "digital
engineering" with the quotes. It's going to take a while for all
those hits to go away and be replaced by something more specific.

Fundamentally, I tend to see "analog" as simply meaning
" a system whereby information about a given parameter is encoded
by causing some other parameter (voltage, for instance) to vary in an
analogous manner." It doesn't necessarily mean "linear" or even
"continuous." Similarly, "digital" winds up with an even simpler
definition - "information encoded in the form of digits (numerical
values."

Agreed.

I've never found a situation where I couldn't use these words
with those interpretations.

Now you've done it. I'll be spending most of the day dreaming up
situations where the type of information encoding is ambiguous.
Offhand, quantum mechanics doesn't it either world, but then it
doesn't really fit any sane world, so that's not a good example.

And like I said, it IS often helpful - for one
thing, you wind up with a much better feeling for the real advantages
and disadvantages of "digital" and "analog" systems. (And you also
wind up not worrying about certain sillinesses, like whether power
systems are "analog" or "digital" - since the world no longer has to
be divided up exclusively as one or the other.)

Agreed.

Some people can't seem to wrap their minds around such things, but
then, I'm not really going to worry about that.

There's always a way to misinterpret something, no matter how clearly
it is stated. Besides, I like my illusions, even if they're wrong.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

[stuff]

So, I should start investing in all the analog am/fm/tv/etc. stations
which appear doomed ...

Then wait for analog to make a big comeback? Like the horse and buggy,
err, well, that never did quite make the comeback, did it?

Naaa, someone else can use "risk investment money!"

JS