https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the
life for them!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.
My fields instructor was a brilliant Japanese guy and we couldn't
understand anything that he said. He graded on the curve.

I haven't actually used calculus in about 20 years. I have to have a
feel for differential equations and initial conditions and such, but I
don't actually have to do it. I use Spice. Anything interesting is
nonlinear anyhow.

Being able to do higher math is a kind of mechanical skill. It doesn't necessarily create instincts for circuits or system dynamics.

Some people, like Phil H, can see through the math to the reality, but
I think most EE students can't.

Nowadays, computer programs can even do symbolic math and solve
equations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.

[...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the
main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent
RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly
very abstruse Maxwell originals?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <5jf6nidoovd0ki276ngnfdato3qsutmns4@4ax.com>:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

I almost never use maaz
Even counting change no longer is necessary with all those money cards.
But really, I almost never use maaz and all stuff works.
Filters and stuff - plenty programs or online calculators where you can just enter data.
But I am just a neural net.
Lost of experience designing and building thing and seeing and repairing designs from others.
Net is trained very well!
Last time I uses S parameters was in my school days.
Much much much more (enter more much-es, not math-es) is UNDERSTANDING what them electrons are doing.
Same for other stuff in fishsicks.

Same for programming.
Big problem is units perhaps, US wants to be different, so one of their Mars orbiters crashed because they used the wrong units...
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-climate-orbiter/
But then again if the tinkerers had a clue they would notice the different between pounds and Newtons.

Bit of algebra is usually all you need...
And logic reasoning, this is for the mamaticians here:
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/12/the-real-research-behind-the-wild-rumors-about-openais-q-project/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/12/2023 23:04, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.
My fields instructor was a brilliant Japanese guy and we couldn't
understand anything that he said. He graded on the curve.

We had the same problem with our High Energy Physics lecturer. He was
Italian and a bit vivacious - his English wasn't great to begin with and
when excited he slipped into fast Italian. His lectures were almost incomprehensible to us. HEP always looked like stamp collecting to me
and it still does. Or as another unsympathetic to HEP physicist put it
studying horology by smashing clocks together at ever greater speeds.

I haven't actually used calculus in about 20 years. I have to have a
feel for differential equations and initial conditions and such, but I
don't actually have to do it. I use Spice. Anything interesting is
nonlinear anyhow.

That doesn't mean that you can't model it mathematically and have a cute
cubic or gulp quartic equation to solve analytically and give you a feel
for what is actually going on (or a good starting guess to refine).

Being able to do higher math is a kind of mechanical skill. It doesn't necessarily create instincts for circuits or system dynamics.

Only at the enough to pass exams stage. Higher maths is all about
intuiting an answer and then doing the formal algebra to prove that your initial guess was right and communicate it to others unambiguously.

Some people, like Phil H, can see through the math to the reality, but
I think most EE students can't.

That statement I agree with. I've often wondered why so many EEs find Einstein's special relativity so completely impossible to understand.

Nowadays, computer programs can even do symbolic math and solve
equations.

Nowhere near as well as a human can yet. But they can do brute force
algebra manipulations that would take humans forever and then be full of
errors (and have been doing so in some specialities since the 1980's).

Human intuition and computer algebra (or other computer implementation)
to avoid silly mistakes is still the optimum for now. I'm not sure that
will hold for very much longer as general AI is getting frighteningly
good at more and more abstract and thought to be impossible problems.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 12:11:18 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/12/2023 23:04, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.
My fields instructor was a brilliant Japanese guy and we couldn't
understand anything that he said. He graded on the curve.

We had the same problem with our High Energy Physics lecturer. He was
Italian and a bit vivacious - his English wasn't great to begin with and
when excited he slipped into fast Italian. His lectures were almost >incomprehensible to us. HEP always looked like stamp collecting to me
and it still does. Or as another unsympathetic to HEP physicist put it >studying horology by smashing clocks together at ever greater speeds.

I haven't actually used calculus in about 20 years. I have to have a
feel for differential equations and initial conditions and such, but I
don't actually have to do it. I use Spice. Anything interesting is
nonlinear anyhow.

That doesn't mean that you can't model it mathematically and have a cute >cubic or gulp quartic equation to solve analytically and give you a feel
for what is actually going on (or a good starting guess to refine).

We do polynomials all the time, in code or an FPGA, to linearize
things, like digitizing a resistor-thrmistor voltage divider into
temperature. Or yesterday, padding a digital capacitor to tweak its
effect on an LC oscillator. But that doesn't involve solving
equations; we run simulations, apply instincts, and tune.

I used to apply fancy current sources to capacitors to make linear
timing ramps. Or bootstrap. Now we use an RC and math out the roughly exponential curve as part of instrument calibration. 4th order poly is
pretty good.

Once in a while I delegate actual symbolic equation solving to a
bright kid, but there is computer software to do that too.

Being able to do higher math is a kind of mechanical skill. It doesn't
necessarily create instincts for circuits or system dynamics.

Only at the enough to pass exams stage. Higher maths is all about
intuiting an answer and then doing the formal algebra to prove that your >initial guess was right and communicate it to others unambiguously.

Some people, like Phil H, can see through the math to the reality, but
I think most EE students can't.

That statement I agree with. I've often wondered why so many EEs find >Einstein's special relativity so completely impossible to understand.

Nowadays, computer programs can even do symbolic math and solve
equations.

Nowhere near as well as a human can yet. But they can do brute force
algebra manipulations that would take humans forever and then be full of >errors (and have been doing so in some specialities since the 1980's).

Human intuition and computer algebra (or other computer implementation)
to avoid silly mistakes is still the optimum for now. I'm not sure that
will hold for very much longer as general AI is getting frighteningly
good at more and more abstract and thought to be impossible problems.

The electronic design job is still inventing architectures and
circuits to solve problems. One needs ideas and then coarse instincts
for whether an idea could actually ever work, and then analysis tools
to see if it's practical. That can be solving differential equations,
or simulating, or breadboarding. Whatever works.

Having an EE degree, having all that theory pounded in to become
instinct, is almost mandatory, even if one uses the academic
techniques seldom or never.

The valuable part is design, having the ideas for circuits and
products. There are lots of ways to delegate the grunt work.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at

arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic.
Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 06:54:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800) it happened John Larkin ><jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <5jf6nidoovd0ki276ngnfdato3qsutmns4@4ax.com>:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

I almost never use maaz
Even counting change no longer is necessary with all those money cards.

I don't think I can subtract any more, and certainly can't do long
division. But I'm very good at guessing results to 5 or 10% accuracy,
standing up a whiteboard, sort of a human analog computer. That's good
enough to decide, say, if a pcb trace capacitance is worth worrying
about.

But really, I almost never use maaz and all stuff works.
Filters and stuff - plenty programs or online calculators where you can just enter data.
But I am just a neural net.
Lost of experience designing and building thing and seeing and repairing designs from others.
Net is trained very well!
Last time I uses S parameters was in my school days.
Much much much more (enter more much-es, not math-es) is UNDERSTANDING what them electrons are doing.
Same for other stuff in fishsicks.

Same for programming.
Big problem is units perhaps, US wants to be different, so one of their Mars orbiters crashed because they used the wrong units...
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-climate-orbiter/
But then again if the tinkerers had a clue they would notice the different between pounds and Newtons.

Bit of algebra is usually all you need...

Right. A*B = C*D needs to be untangled now and then.

And logic reasoning, this is for the mamaticians here:
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/12/the-real-research-behind-the-wild-rumors-about-openais-q-project/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become

products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at

arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic.
Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented.

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

"It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by
Szil�rd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom
have original ideas.

I'd think that staring at equations would suggest possibilities, but
it rarely does. The positron is an interesting case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 08:25:01 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs ><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at

arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic.
Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

Maybe not. But they *were* a coveted status symbol. If someone strode
into the office with a slide rule hooked to their belt, like a big,
swinging dick, you *knew* immediately he was an engineer. Lesser
minions were simply in awe. If you want to make an entrance - I mean a
*real* entrance - clutching a calculator simply won't cut it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/


(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks,
standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and
whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all.
Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be
ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and
organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let
them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic
arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

You guys are just calling sour grapes. ;)

Mathematical notation is a technology of thought. It enables even mildly skilled users to make correct inferences of a complexity far beyond the
reach of ordinary rhetorical thinking.

The problem is mostly how it’s taught at the lower levels. Specifically,
the junior-high notion of “simplification” taught us to collect all terms with the same x dependence, with no notion of their size, origin, or significance.

Applied to design problems, that leads to monolithic formulas with big complicated expressions for the polynomial coefficients, which naturally
give zero insight.

Keeping the various contributions separate makes it much easier to see
which ones are important and how to improve things.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Who has no wish to go back to engineering, pyramid style.)


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/12/2023 16:10, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

We do polynomials all the time, in code or an FPGA, to linearize
things, like digitizing a resistor-thrmistor voltage divider into temperature. Or yesterday, padding a digital capacitor to tweak its
effect on an LC oscillator. But that doesn't involve solving
equations; we run simulations, apply instincts, and tune.

Sure, you can fit things with polynomials if that's the only tool you
have, but IME there's often a better way. Labfit is a free program
which tries all sorts of weird and wonderful equations, usually things
you won't have thought of yourself.

https://www.labfit.net/

--
Cheers
Clive

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:43:09 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:19:54?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good

at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic
arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented.

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

"It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by
Szil�rd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom
have original ideas.

Whoever wrote that is a fool. Einstein was obviously providing high level guidance on the project, and Szilard was tasked with working the details. Einstein was busy with more important things than to waste himself on minutia.

Guidance is not invention.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:12:20 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become

products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at

arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic.
Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

Slide rule is a form of nomogram:

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

Now how does an applications engineer need to know anything to 9-places? Digital doesn't count.

We work in PPMs and nanovolts in analog stuff, PPBs or worse for
frequency.

And I'm a designer, not an applications engineer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:20:15 +0000) it happened Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote in <q289ni9drc3oheh73viiqgihn2slrohj83@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 08:25:01 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. >>

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become >>products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math (
transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at
arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably
still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author
of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

Maybe not. But they *were* a coveted status symbol. If someone strode
into the office with a slide rule hooked to their belt, like a big,
swinging dick, you *knew* immediately he was an engineer. Lesser
minions were simply in awe. If you want to make an entrance - I mean a
*real* entrance - clutching a calculator simply won't cut it.

Just wear a tin foil hat :-)
Propeller hat will do too!

Or these days: Jetpack

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:43:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in <8befbf42-2233-4ad3-9640-8443034b3caen@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wro=
te:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:=

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:=

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-ma= >ths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at = >math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, sta= >ndards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever=

else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers use=
d to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously path= >etic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, a= >nd probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. H= >eaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of articl= >e is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it=

was patented.

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

"It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by
Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldo=

m

have original ideas.

Whoever wrote that is a fool. Einstein was obviously providing high level g= >uidance on the project, and Szilard was tasked with working the details. Ei= >nstein was busy with more important things than to waste himself on minutia=

His fridge was a disaster
He failed to unite the forces of nature
Aspect's experiment proved his thinking wrong.
The E=M C^something was not his
Same for that other thing he put his name on.
He was made a hero because he suggested to the then US precedent eh precidend . . whatever to further devellop reactions leading to the nuculear bomb
Jew's hero.
Mass murderer (Hiroshima Nagasaki)
Endlessly repeating bis babble stops advancement in fishsicks

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/8/2023 7:20 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.

[...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the
main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent
RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly
very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Most everything you could say about Maxwell's equations in isolation
take up a couple pages, it's Maxwell's equations and _boundary
conditions_ that you can write a textbook about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/9/2023 11:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at

arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic.
Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Heinrich Hertz on his experiments with radio waves:

"It's of no use whatsoever ... this is just an experiment that proves
Maestro Maxwell was right—we just have these mysterious electromagnetic
waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there."

Asked about the applications of his discoveries, Hertz replied:

"Nothing, I guess"

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.

[...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the
main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent
RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly
very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math. See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides,
he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/9/2023 11:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

Or easily converted to impulse counters. :-)

Ed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/10/23 19:43, bitrex wrote:

On 12/9/2023 11:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at
math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks,
standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and
whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all.
Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to
be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical
and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't
even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is
mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a
complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Heinrich Hertz on his experiments with radio waves:

"It's of no use whatsoever ... this is just an experiment that proves
Maestro Maxwell was right—we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there."

Asked about the applications of his discoveries, Hertz replied:

"Nothing, I guess"

I often get asked that question about high-energy physics.

"What good is the Higgs boson?"

My answer is usually something along the lines of "Not much,
yet. But would we have had electricity if there hadn't been
idle gentlemen playing with glass rods and frog legs? We'll
have to wait and see."

There are currently some applications of accelerators for
cancer treatment. Lately everyone wants his own synchrotron
light source for things like materials research on very small
scales and time spans. They're still a bit too expensive for
extreme resolution lithography, but who knows?

Jeroen Belleman

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>> wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>> life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.

[...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the
main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent
RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly
very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides,
he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even
at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it
really wasn’t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Dec 2023 06:26:53 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in <f9fd7307-bad5-4555-83be-ec447bd965f1n@googlegroups.com>:

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 1:15:30 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wro=
te:

On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:43:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bl= >oggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote in
<8befbf42-2233-4ad3...@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-5, John Larkin =

wro=

te:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote= >:=

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrot= >e:=

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of= >-ma=

ths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good = >at =

math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become=

products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, = >sta=

ndards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whate= >ver=
else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers = >use=
d to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously p= >ath=
etic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills= >, a=
nd probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities= >. H=
eaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of art= >icl=
e is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.=

That's curious.

Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and=

it=

was patented.

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

"It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by
Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types se=

ldo=

m

have original ideas.

Whoever wrote that is a fool. Einstein was obviously providing high leve= >l g=
uidance on the project, and Szilard was tasked with working the details.=

Ei=

nstein was busy with more important things than to waste himself on minu= >tia=

His fridge was a disaster

It was a decent refrigerator, but it wasn't competitive, in cost or efficie= >ncy of heat source, with the development of mechanical refrigeration (motor=
driven compressor) using only recently discovered "freon".

Einstein's green refrigerator making a comeback

https://phys.org/news/2008-09-einstein-green-refrigerator-comeback.html

Yea, I will just use my

Sounds like the author of article is clueless of the technology. Then I che= >cked the name, and it's a 'Lisa"- which I assume is a female- confirms my s= >uspicion.

Popup asked for a donation for ad free viewing, did noit se eany ads,
using Ublock Origin.
So they just want money...

The same cooling technology has been used in portable applications, like tr= >ailers and similar, for 100 years. Most of them use ammonia, and the heat s= >ource is a liquid petroleum fueled flame.

NASA has developed a few cooling system using the same principle for space = >based applications, heat source is solar insolation.

He failed to unite the forces of nature
Aspect's experiment proved his thinking wrong.
The E=M C^something was not his
Same for that other thing he put his name on.
He was made a hero because he suggested to the then US precedent eh preci= >dend . . whatever to further devellop reactions leading to the nuculear bom= >b
Jew's hero.
Mass murderer (Hiroshima Nagasaki)
Endlessly repeating bis babble stops advancement in fishsicks

Einstein was well known as an uber anti-war pacifist, and mingled with a cr= >owd considered to be political radicals by the U.S. government. He was ther= >efore considered a security risk and denied access to classified material o= >f any kind, before, during, and after the war.

But they gave that huckster illiterate Tesla top billing for credibility.

It all depends, Einstein wife's was a mamatician I'v read.
his relatatitvitty theory was likely hers.
His "eeee is 'm see to some powder of too" was already postulated by some one else
https://physicsworld.com/a/did-einstein-discover-e-mc2/
Henri Poincaré had stated that electromagnetic radiation had a momentum and thus effectively a mass, according to E = mc2.


It got worse with Bose Einstein condensate, Bose send his idea to EInstein who then published it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Worse:
The vote-on is just the energy required to knock an electron lose from an atom in the detector,
it is like a ball on a wire connected to a pole in an ocean,
when the waves get big enough and the wire breaks fishsisicks cry 'vote-on detected'
It has NOTHING to do with the structure of light just like that ball detection has nothing to do
with the water molecules.
Different detector needed, even Max Planck objected ...

Einstein was a fraud, parrotting his crap has stopped advancement in fishsicks now for many years.
His theories have become a religion, with many fanatics following it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:32:06 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <f5892ba2-05d4-455a-a061-a2a6e4a0f634n@googlegroups.com>:

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:05:01 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wr=
ote:

The vote-on is just the energy required to knock an electron lose from an=

atom in the detector,

it is like a ball on a wire connected to a pole in an ocean,
when the waves get big enough and the wire breaks fishsisicks cry 'vote-o= >n detected'

No, it is not. Firstly, you can make photons with non-atoms (synchrotron = >radiation), and

That does not go against what I wrote, on the contrary,
something else moves.

second, the selection rules of atomic transitions argue against any photon = >without exactly

Rules re made to be broken.
Those are often a derivative from wrongly understood experiments .

spin = 1 (i.e. a single quantum of angular momentum). Photons are spinn= >ing massless
electric field energies. A quantity of 'the energy required" is NOT enoug= >h to define a photon.

See what I wrote, there is (must be) a much finer structure causing what we observe.
I personally like Le Sage theory of gravity:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Until somebody comes up with something better I can get along with that. Feynman got stuck in it (with his idea of such a particle), but then the question one SHOULD
ask is:
What SHOULD such particle look like to explain what we see?.

As it seem gravity moves at the speed of light it could well be
light and gravity is a property of the same particles.
That in Le Sage also explains the light speed the same in all directions
the internal heating of planets, spectral spreading,
and clocks slowing down etc etc..
Just away with Albert E.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:45:22 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides,
he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside�s dates are 1850�1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles.

More like 200 kW around 20 kHz at least for the big stations.

Even
at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.�s era it
really wasn�t possible.

There is still one usable transmitter in Grimeton, Sweden at 17.2 kHz.
It is operated once in June/July and often during Christmas for an
hour. Some pictures of the machinery, feeders and antennas at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimeton_Radio_Station

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Anthony William Sloman wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

I've often wondered why so many EEs find
Einstein's special relativity so completely impossible to understand.

It has to be bad teaching. George Gamow's "Mr Tompkins" books

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

are very straightforward explanations. I got to read them while I was still in secondary school.

Allow me to sing the praises of _Alice in Quantumland_ (Gilmore), a
worthy successor to _Mr Tompkins_. It takes "mod fizz-shtiks" down a
rabbit hole, so to speak. LOL.

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>>> wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>>> life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have.

[...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the
main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly
very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides,
he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even
at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it really wasn’t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/12/2023 4:20 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 08:25:01 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

<snip>

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

Maybe not. But they *were* a coveted status symbol.

Not any place I ever worked.

If someone strode into the office with a slide rule hooked to their belt, like a big,
swinging dick, you *knew* immediately he was an engineer. Lesser
minions were simply in awe.

Not in any place I ever worked.

If you want to make an entrance - I mean a
*real* entrance - clutching a calculator simply won't cut it.

Engineers don't go if for that kind of display. Marketing and management
both did, to some extent, mostly, when they needed to create an
impression, but engineers never bothered. They had better ways of
attracting attention.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/12/2023 11:08 am, John Smiht wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:36 PM UTC-6, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:19:54 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs

<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good

at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic
arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented.

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

"It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by
Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom
have original ideas.

John Larkin has his name on one patent taken out by a group he was collaborating with. probably because they felt the need to flatter him.

I've got three patents, and my father and two of my friends have got roughly 25 each. John Larkin doesn't know much about original ideas. And he doesn't know much about professors either - Einstein wasn't a "professor type", he was a card -carrying

genius.

I'd think that staring at equations would suggest possibilities, but it rarely does. The positron is an interesting case.

Paul Dirac stared at a lot equations - most of which he had formulated, in order to explain what seemed to be happening. The prediction of the positron was an incidental results of that whole process, not of just staring at equations.

Can't resist again, eh?

Why should I resist pointing out that John Larkin doesn't have a track
record when it comes to generating original ideas? His idea that he
knows enough to write off Einstein as a "professor type" makes it fairly
clear that he doesn't know much about them either.

May the fleas of a thousand camels invade your armpits.

They'd have to make a long trip to get to Sydney.

https://nt.gov.au/environment/animals/feral-animals/feral-camel

Camels are pretty much confined to the Northern Territory. There are
about a million of them. If you find a thousand camels somewhere a bit
closer Sydney, a few of their fleas might make it to the edge of the
city, but Australians are fond of insecticides.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>>>> life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>>> [...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides,
he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even >> at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it
really wasn’t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

Reference?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/17/23 10:08, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>>>>> life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>>>> [...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides, >>>> he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even >>> at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it >>> really wasn’t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

Reference?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J. C. Bose, "On the Determination of the Wavelength of Electric
Radiation by a Diffraction Grating," Proc. Roy. Soc., v. 60, 1897, pp.
167-78.


Jeroen Belleman

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/17/23 07:11, Chris Jones wrote:

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com>

wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom
<c...@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin
<j...@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not >>>>>>> the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>>> [...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers
and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping.
Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides,
he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles.
Even
at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it
really wasn’t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

That was pretty amazing work for the time. Remember, no vacuum
tubes or transistors. I was wondering how he generated and detected
his microwaves. The generator was a spherical resonator with spark
gaps on diametrically opposed sides, driven by an induction coil.
The contraption resonated at 60GHz or so.

The detector was a box with two metal sides and springs in between,
probably having some non-linear conductance because of oxidation of
its parts. With that, he was able to demonstrate wave guides, horn
antennas, polarization, refraction, diffraction and reflection of
his waves.

An amazing genius.

Jeroen Belleman

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/12/2023 8:08 pm, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>>>>> life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>>>> [...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides, >>>> he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even >>> at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it >>> really wasn’t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

Reference?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

There is an article including some references to his work on p.93 of this: https://worldradiohistory.com/UK/Wireless-World/70s/Wireless-World-1979-09.pdf

Also wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose

I expect you can find better articles, I'd just be googling it for you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/12/2023 8:08 pm, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00 PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>>>>> life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>>>> [...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides, >>>> he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside’s dates are 1850–1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even >>> at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.’s era it >>> really wasn’t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

Reference?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

There is an article including some references to his work on p.93 of this: https://worldradiohistory.com/UK/Wireless-World/70s/Wireless-World-1979-09.pdf

Also wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose

I expect you can find better articles, I'd just be googling it for you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 09:08:42 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00?PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>>>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not the >>>>>>>> life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>>>> [...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping. Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides, >>>> he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside�s dates are 1850�1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles. Even >>> at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.�s era it
really wasn�t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

Reference?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Around 1888 Hertz demonstrated reflection, refraction with a prism,
and standing waves using a spark-gap microwave source. He could have
made a waveguide but I guess it didn't occur to him.

Waveguides date to about 1893.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide#History

We could have built lasers around 1900 if anyone had thought of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:37:33 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 12/17/23 07:11, Chris Jones wrote:

On 11/12/2023 6:45 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 12/8/2023 8:20 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:21:00?PM UTC-6, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:04:22 -0800, john larkin <j...@650pot.com>

wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 22:01:11 +0000, Cursitor Doom
<c...@notformail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:05:09 -0800, John Larkin
<j...@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

Maxwell's equations. That's where a lot of people decide it's not >>>>>>>> the
life for them!

Of course, very few ee's ever use Maxwell's equations. I never have. >>>>>> [...]

Yes, well, when I said Maxwell's equations I was kind of meaning the >>>>>> main four that Oliver Heaviside was able to reduce them to. Any decent >>>>>> RF engineer must surely be familiar with those if not the admittedly >>>>>> very abstruse Maxwell originals?

Interestingly Oliver Heavyside had something to say about engineers
and math.
See page 7 section 8, 9...
Although page 5 section 5 is fun with all the name dropping.
Maxwell, Poynting, Hertz,
Faraday and others.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/14746/1/fulltext.pdf
Mikek

Heavyside didn't believe EM propagation was possible inside waveguides, >>>> he thought you absolutely needed a second conductor. So seems even he
sometimes didn't believe what the math was saying.

Heaviside�s dates are 1850�1925.

The Alexanderson alternator, the first CW transmitter, was invented in
1903. It ran at 200 kHz, iirc, using high speed and many many poles.
Even
at that, it would have needed a 1-km-wide waveguide, so in H.�s era it
really wasn�t possible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

J C Bose was experimenting with mm-waves in 1895 or so.

That was pretty amazing work for the time. Remember, no vacuum
tubes or transistors. I was wondering how he generated and detected
his microwaves. The generator was a spherical resonator with spark
gaps on diametrically opposed sides, driven by an induction coil.
The contraption resonated at 60GHz or so.

The detector was a box with two metal sides and springs in between,
probably having some non-linear conductance because of oxidation of
its parts. With that, he was able to demonstrate wave guides, horn
antennas, polarization, refraction, diffraction and reflection of
his waves.

An amazing genius.

Jeroen Belleman

Hertz used spark gaps as his receiver.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <cn49ni1rdqfcvchon710r9u65qt29hroi6@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs ><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/

(The aussies call it 'maths')

This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math.

I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become
products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow?

Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it

took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers
totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called
analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot.

Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't.
That's curious.

Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules
didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places.

The US deficit in cents run to 100,000,000,000,000.00
That is 17 digits.
Regular calculators are no good for the US deficit.
You can order an abacus from Ali express with 17 digits,
but most are 13 digits.

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)