<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>
Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply >unneeded.
Joe Gwinn
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:07:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>
Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply >>unneeded.
Joe Gwinn
Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:7hiqbjh28hchoc94jgf0p0vj4uafbgeemc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:07:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>
Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply >>>unneeded.
Joe Gwinn
Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.
Perhaps you should attend this: >https://www.newscientist.com/science-events/conscious-mind/
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:26:12 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:7hiqbjh28hchoc94jgf0p0vj4uafbgeemc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:07:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>
Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole
story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply
unneeded.
Joe Gwinn
Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.
Perhaps you should attend this:
https://www.newscientist.com/science-events/conscious-mind/
Two great mysteries are quantum mechanics and consciousness. Maybe
they are the same thing.
It's hilarious that one big argument against our brains being
quantum mechanical is that QM only happens at liquid helium
temperatures.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:26:12 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:7hiqbjh28hchoc94jgf0p0vj4uafbgeemc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:07:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
<https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/>
Back when Penrose made this proposal, nobody had the slightest idea
how brains worked. We now know a far bit more, and while the whole >>>>story is not yet known, entanglement may be happening, but is simply >>>>unneeded.
Joe Gwinn
Consciousness needs a lot of explaining.
Perhaps you should attend this: >>https://www.newscientist.com/science-events/conscious-mind/
Two great mysteries are quantum mechanics and consciousness. Maybe
they are the same thing.
It's hilarorious that one big argument against our brains being
quantum mechanical is that QM only happens at liquid helium
temperatures.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
On 8/15/24 01:55, john larkin wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Anything for which we do not have an adequate explanation
needs to be quantum entangled these days. It's mostly nonsense.
Jeroen Belleman
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I >can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just >another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any >sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I >can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just >another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any >sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
Human brains and octopus distributed leg processing are wired entirely >differently but both show high intelligence and self awareness.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html
Some octopuses in research captivity also have a wicked sense of humour >throwing slightly dodgy fish back at their keepers and/or escaping with >monotonous regularity.
A bit like parrots except they can't mimic talk
(or bite through mains cables, windscreen wipers and paint tin lids).
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by >>flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I >>can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just >>another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that >>will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any >>sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
It's just code.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
It's just code.
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible. If they are right then you should be able to alter
consciousness by flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just another variant of the "action at a distance" in
Newtonian gravity that will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any sufficiently complex computational network. The big super
computer networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
Human brains and octopus distributed leg processing are wired entirely differently but both show high intelligence and self awareness.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html
Some octopuses in research captivity also have a wicked sense of humour throwing slightly dodgy fish back at their keepers and/or
escaping with monotonous regularity. A bit like parrots except they can't mimic talk (or bite through mains cables, windscreen
wipers and paint tin lids).
--
Martin Brown
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:p1usbj1jtg5st9ahr544q5pajc98o9vqsn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.
It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note. >>>They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible. >>>If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by >>>flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I >>>can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just >>>another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that >>>will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any >>>sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer >>>networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
It's just code.
What are you going to say when a conversation you can have with a computer is indistinguishable from a human?
That it's just code and therefore behaves like a conscious entity but isn't really??
On 15/08/2024 22:53, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory. >>
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
In a word *YES*. I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing >accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.
The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self >correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.
QM certainly plays a big role in making rhodopsin and chlorophyll work.
The former being way more archaic and is still present in our eyes.
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I >>> can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just >>> another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
On 15/08/2024 22:53, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory. >>
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
In a word *YES*.
I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing
accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.
The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self >correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:53:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:p1usbj1jtg5st9ahr544q5pajc98o9vqsn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory. >>>
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note. >>>>They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed. >>>>
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible. >>>>If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by >>>>flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I >>>>can't see that working at all.
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just >>>>another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that >>>>will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics. >>>>
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any >>>>sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer >>>>networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.
There must be over 10 billion smartphones and computers all networked
now. Be very afraid.
It's just code.
What are you going to say when a conversation you can have with a computer is indistinguishable from a human?
That it's just code and therefore behaves like a conscious entity but isn't really??
If it's a state machine, a cpu running code, it can only pretend to be conscious.
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 22:53, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of anyIt's just code.
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen. >>>
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 22:53, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory. >>>
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
In a word *YES*.
Cool. I can set up a trashy lunatic web site and link to a scientific journal, or to wikipedia or to the BBC, and ruin them.
I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing
accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.
That's called "science."
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.
The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self
correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.
OK, simplify science by immediately rejecting all speculation. That simplifies electronic design too. We don't need no stinkin' ideas.
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:53:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
If it's a state machine, a cpu running code, it can only pretend to be conscious.
On 8/17/24 00:03, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:53:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"[Snip! ...]
If it's a state machine, a cpu running code, it can only pretend to be
conscious.
If it pretends really well, then how would you tell the difference?
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin ><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net. >Or at least look up how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net. >>Or at least look up how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.
I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >>higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net. >> Or at least look up how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature already had millions of years ago.
I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored,
and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net. >>Or at least look up how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.
I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >>><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.
Where are images stored,
Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:00:48 -0700) it happened john larkin ><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >>><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net. >>>Or at least look up how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago.
I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.
Long ago, many years ago, I found an article in a German magazine by a prof >who had some model cars controlled by a simpe 2 or was it 3? neuron net, coded.
There was a choice of how to connect those,
One way the cars were endlessly circling each other, forming a 'swarm' if you want
and the other way those were constantly avoiding each other.
Just a few neurons in software.
I decided to code that, do his experiment
Behavior control, so simple.
Almost human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
Same as to 'conciousnes'
If you have a sunscreen with a light sensor you can make a system (analog or digital) that closes it as the sun bemones too intense.
Now add a voce that says:"
It is to hot here, I am closing
or
it is so dark here, I am opening
So much for Descartes 'I think so I am'
remove the speech part and is it then uncounciuos?
Doctor will test for an eye or knee reflex...
You can sedate a person an cut him, no reaction.. Unconcious?
There is some Linux open source software so you can build your own neural net, tried it long ago.
https://slashdot.org/software/neural-network/linux/
even for your Raspberry...
Neural nets can learn, the 'learning' is in the value of the weights between the neurons.
Without training it to set the weights it will not do what you want it to do. >Those 'weights' can be analog or digital. Or quantum states?
I think much of Elon's cars use neural nets to navigate traffic, it works! >Now end-to-end is being tested:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-teslas-end-to-end-neural-network-diana-wolf-torres-0yf4c
There is so much more than I can type here.
Just a while before we have an AI US president?
;-)
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested >>> in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >perhaps?
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:54:13 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:00:48 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>> <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?
You know about analog computing
So big neural networks are basically imitations of the analog brain.
But you can do a lot in hardware such as storing the 'weights' and vector multiplication. communication.
My suggestion is for you, just as a free time project, code some neural net.
Or at least look up how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
No need for digital at all.
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
OTOH my opinion is that our brain stores memory in RNA and DNA, strong hint is that
newborn species of many types know how the move, find food, interpret what they see and feel, etc.
Recent research found that in those neurons some data is stored in such a basic form as RNA,
Nature .. we still invent thing nature alread had millions of years ago. >>>>
I've been in several situations where people wanted to use NN's. It
never actually worked. It doesn't make sense.
Long ago, many years ago, I found an article in a German magazine by a prof >> who had some model cars controlled by a simpe 2 or was it 3? neuron net, coded.
There was a choice of how to connect those,
One way the cars were endlessly circling each other, forming a 'swarm' if you want
and the other way those were constantly avoiding each other.
Just a few neurons in software.
I decided to code that, do his experiment
Behavior control, so simple.
Almost human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
Same as to 'conciousnes'
If you have a sunscreen with a light sensor you can make a system (analog or digital) that closes it as the sun bemones too intense.
Now add a voce that says:"
It is to hot here, I am closing
or
it is so dark here, I am opening
So much for Descartes 'I think so I am'
remove the speech part and is it then uncounciuos?
Doctor will test for an eye or knee reflex...
You can sedate a person an cut him, no reaction.. Unconcious?
There is some Linux open source software so you can build your own neural net, tried it long ago.
https://slashdot.org/software/neural-network/linux/
even for your Raspberry...
Neural nets can learn, the 'learning' is in the value of the weights between the neurons.
Without training it to set the weights it will not do what you want it to do.
Those 'weights' can be analog or digital. Or quantum states?
I think much of Elon's cars use neural nets to navigate traffic, it works! >> Now end-to-end is being tested:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-teslas-end-to-end-neural-network-diana-wolf-torres-0yf4c
There is so much more than I can type here.
Just a while before we have an AI US president?
;-)
NNs remind me of the fuzzy logic fad. A magical way to avoid thinking
about hard stuff like control theory.
Good way to kill people on the streets.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested >>>> in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >>>> higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>> <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.
Where are images stored,
Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.
Ignorance is appealing.
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested >>>>> in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >>>>> higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested >>>>>> in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >>>>>> higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the >>result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a >>tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>>> <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.
Where are images stored,
Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.
Ignorance is appealing.
As you persistently remind us.
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.
Not that you've got much of either.
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.
It would be more helpful if you realised how badly your brain works.
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.
You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually >designed them.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:rr34cj99uhg9cqank3amgqnrlhqok9f0m2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >>>>>>> higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the >>>result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous >>>system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a >>>tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
https://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/james.alcock--the.belief.engine.pdf
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:46:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:rr34cj99uhg9cqank3amgqnrlhqok9f0m2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>>
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex >>>>> your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
https://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/james.alcock--the.belief.engine.pdf
There are objective tests for electronic design.
Does it work?
Does it sell?
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>>>> <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.
Where are images stored,
Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.
Ignorance is appealing.
As you persistently remind us.
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.
Not that you've got much of either.
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.
It would be more helpful if you realised how badly your brain works.
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.
You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested >>>>>> in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >>>>>> higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated >>>>>>> higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v9ul4a$2ogi5$2@dont-email.me>:
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>>
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex >>>>> your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.
John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever. >Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:19:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v9ul4a$2ogi5$2@dont-email.me>:
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>>>
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>>>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information >>>>>> from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex >>>>>> your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the >>>>> result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.
John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine
in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles
are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then
all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary
particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes
(like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming
beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part
of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..
Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.
How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
It's just code.
Not any more it isn't.
Those giant computer networks don't run code?
Your lack of understanding is a handicap.
Your lack of imagination ditto.
Well, there is a bit of your lack of understanding
So you understand how brains work?
Why is it necessary to understand how brains work?
I don't know much about AlphaGo.
I doubt it can explain how it works.
But it obviously does work.
Where are images stored,
Who cares?
Likely they are distributed throughout a brain in ways that it is not necessary for anyone or anything to understand.
Ignorance is appealing.
As you persistently remind us.
But electronic design - our topic here - benefits from both
imagination and understanding.
Not that you've got much of either.
I find it helpful, when designing things, to have a working model of
how my brain works.
It would be more helpful if you realised how badly your brain works.
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.
You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945
That's Horowitz and Hill's text-book, and while that may contain their >discussion of the design of one of your circuits, it's not your
discussion - more an after-the-fact rationalisation of what you ended up >doing.
Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/
john larkin <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:19:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v9ul4a$2ogi5$2@dont-email.me>:
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>>>>
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information >>>>>>> from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex >>>>>>> your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>>>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the >>>>>> result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous >>>>>> system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a >>>>>> tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up
there, and you fell for it.
John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine
in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles
are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then >>> all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary
particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes
(like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming
beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part
of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..
Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.
How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.
If you parameterize using the LC values, I believe that. It’s very
difficult to tune a high-order filter unless you start out pretty close.
Parameterizing f_0 and Q for each section works much much better.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:<snip off-topic maunderings>
john larkin <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:19:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v9ul4a$2ogi5$2@dont-email.me>:
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.
If you parameterize using the LC values, I believe that. ItÂ’s very
difficult to tune a high-order filter unless you start out pretty close.
Parameterizing f_0 and Q for each section works much much better.
Active filters are easier, where the sections don't interact.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:19:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v9ul4a$2ogi5$2@dont-email.me>:
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just >>>>>>>> chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>>>
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea >>>>>>> perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information >>>>>> from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex >>>>>> your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the >>>>> result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up >>>there, and you fell for it.
John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever. >>Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..
Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.
How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting
versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.
You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't >>>> tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945
That's Horowitz and Hill's text-book, and while that may contain their
discussion of the design of one of your circuits, it's not your
discussion - more an after-the-fact rationalisation of what you ended up
doing.
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3, but I did better in the
X-chapters. I made the preface (with Phil Hobbs) and am in the index
at the end, and I think I'm named about 22 times between. I don't
recall seeing your name.
What difference does the design process make, if the result works?
I've always annoyed PhD academic types who resent people who are
creative and have instincts.
The H+H books are deliberately call The ART of Electronics. I think
higher education, especially the PhD process, beats the creativity out
of people. I recently had to fire a PhD; she thought that being a PhD
made her right, which it didn't.
Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.
Neo-Darwinian evolution is crazy inefficient. Why wouldn't we evolve a
better way for evolution to work? The critters that did ate the
critters that didn't.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:16:54 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:19:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v9ul4a$2ogi5$2@dont-email.me>:
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interestedMy theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin >>>>>>>>>> sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible. >>>>>>>>>
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be >>>>>>>> called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information >>>>>>> from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex >>>>>>> your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>>>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the >>>>>> result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous >>>>>> system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a >>>>>> tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up >>>>there, and you fell for it.
John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..
Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.
How about programming a computer to generate random character
substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting >>versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful
new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.
Sounds about right. Convergence depends on the existence of even a
tiny average gradient.
But if one keeps at it, eventually a lucky jump will occur. It may
take a million years to get anywhere useful.
Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:16:20 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:16:54 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:19:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:27:38 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>>><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v9ul4a$2ogi5$2@dont-email.me>:
On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information >>>>>>>> from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses. >>>>>>>>
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex >>>>>>>> your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when >>>>>>>> your heart beats.
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the >>>>>>> result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous >>>>>>> system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a >>>>>>> tolerably functional system survived natural selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up >>>>>there, and you fell for it.
John's idea of 'random' in 'only those random mutations which lead to a tolerably functional system'
shows he misses out on something essential.
Look at the Periodic System, how neutrons, protons, electrons, combine in always the SAME configuration
forming our elements...
Nothing 'random' about it.
We know very little what electrons and the other elementary particles are made of and how those work, are formed, interact.
But starting from the Periodic System that is not random at all and then all the way to life as we know it
is a pre-determined process that does not need a 'God' / Creator or whatever.
Of course some tinkerer alien could have created the elementary particles in its lab, but that is circular reasoning.
There is lot of circular things, one can wonder if sort of processes (like us) exist on the surface of neutrons for example
Not such a wild idea if you see the scale of things, us (as humming beans) on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy in this part of the universe we can observe..
Scales are fantastic.
As to 'random' creating a random code is hard, people are trying very hard in cryptology..
Johnson and zener noise are random. Scramble several to be really
sure.
Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
But randomness is an interesting thing.
How about programming a computer to generate random character >>>substitutions in, say, a Python program, and test various resulting >>>versions to see if they improve, or better yet, perform some wonderful >>>new unexpected function.
That would be neo-darwinian programming, random mutation and
selection.
Actually, that scheme has been tried for circuit design. It didn't
work well.
Random mutation and selection does work to design LC filters, up to
3rd order or so. At higher orders, it diverges to nonsense.
Sounds about right. Convergence depends on the existence of even a
tiny average gradient.
But if one keeps at it, eventually a lucky jump will occur. It may
take a million years to get anywhere useful.
Joe Gwinn
The Nuhertz software designs amazing LC filters using standard-value
Ls and Cs. Fast. I don't understand how that is even possible.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
but I did better in the
X-chapters. I made the preface (with Phil Hobbs) and am in the index
at the end, and I think I'm named about 22 times between. I don't
recall seeing your name.
What difference does the design process make, if the result works?
I've always annoyed PhD academic types who resent people who are
creative and have instincts.
The H+H books are deliberately call The ART of Eletronics. I think
higher education, especially the PhD process, beats the creativity out
of people. I recently had to fire a PhD; she thought that being a PhD
made her right, which it didn't.
Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.
Neo-Darwinian evolution is crazy inefficient. Why wouldn't we evolve a
better way for evolution to work? The critters that did ate the
critters that didn't.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:ta18cjhuee9ck91fl5qoqmjlf0bkquq1lf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Not sure I agree but I don't speak for him.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
I think that's a bit like saying that a program which implements the quadratic formula solves all quadratics all at once.
One of the things I have learned is to stay confused for a while,
stagger around in the solution space for a few days at least.
Too many engineers dislike uncertainty, so they lock down a design, preferably a textbook-sanctioned design, asap so they can implement.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:ta18cjhuee9ck91fl5qoqmjlf0bkquq1lf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Not sure I agree but I don't speak for him.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
I think that's a bit like saying that a program which implements the quadratic formula solves all quadratics all at once.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:lc38cj9muvd5tgdd0drskj8r7f6uh8v2a8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:ta18cjhuee9ck91fl5qoqmjlf0bkquq1lf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Not sure I agree but I don't speak for him.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
I think that's a bit like saying that a program which implements the quadratic formula solves all quadratics all at once.
One of the things I have learned is to stay confused for a while,
stagger around in the solution space for a few days at least.
Sounds reasonable to me. And it applies to any form of art.
Here's a silly example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3yN7YjJWVI
Too many engineers dislike uncertainty, so they lock down a design,
preferably a textbook-sanctioned design, asap so they can implement.
Back when I used to read magazines like this one >https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Practical_Electronics.htm
I particularly liked "Ingenuity Unlimited" because it gave lots of examples of how to do things.
Much like AoE does.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:52:49 -0400, "Edward Rawde"...
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:lc38cj9muvd5tgdd0drskj8r7f6uh8v2a8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:ta18cjhuee9ck91fl5qoqmjlf0bkquq1lf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:saa9cjhn8nnver5mqtuktotmkvhrjd7hb8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:52:49 -0400, "Edward Rawde"...
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
news:lc38cj9muvd5tgdd0drskj8r7f6uh8v2a8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:08:55 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
news:ta18cjhuee9ck91fl5qoqmjlf0bkquq1lf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in
<06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly
typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They
had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
On 20/08/2024 12:57 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
"Whining"? That isn't what I'm complaining about - John Larkin doesn't explain what his circuits are intended to do or what
problems their - presumably unique - features are intended to deal with,
Design is all about using what you can get to do what you need to do, and a useful conversation about circuit design has to be
specific about both the problems being dealt with and the way the approach adopted solves them.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
So he just stumbles across his solutions, and doesn't know why they actually work. That isn't design.
I have put circuits together that worked better than I expected, but I then put a lot of effort into finding out what was actually
going on, so it didn't stop working in the middle of demonstration.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot >>> from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:va2aup$3dra1$2@dont-email.me...
On 20/08/2024 12:57 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
"Whining"? That isn't what I'm complaining about - John Larkin doesn't explain what his circuits are intended to do or what
problems their - presumably unique - features are intended to deal with,
Design is all about using what you can get to do what you need to do, and a useful conversation about circuit design has to be
specific about both the problems being dealt with and the way the approach adopted solves them.
Yes I agree.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
So he just stumbles across his solutions, and doesn't know why they actually work. That isn't design.
I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with stumbling across a solution.
But I agree that in electronics it should then be possible to explain how it works.
Other forms of art have similarities and differences.
Elgar likely couldn't explain where he got this from >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUgoBb8m1eE
But he clearly would have had two things.
Training in music theory, and knowledge of plenty of music written by others.
When I started work I was very concerned with finding the best circuit to meet the requirements.
But sometimes I wasn't allowed to use the circuit I came up with because although I could explain how it worked, I couldn't explain
where I got it from and I didn't immediately have any mathematical model for it. My mind had likely pieced it together from ideas
gathered from many sources including magazines a decade before.
Also I wasn't always allowed to try things out to see if they worked well for a specific requirement because as a qualified
electronics engineer you should be able to produce the required design straight from the relevant circuit theory and mathematics,
shouldn't you?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:57:48 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde" >><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
...
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,
Which pages?
Around 360.
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.
Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.
Well, I do much the same - I wake up with a new idea. And cannot say
how it happened - I slept through it.
To patent something, it is _not_ required that one know how it works,
or even that one's theory be correct. Many are not. Only the ability
to make it work on request is required.
Fifty years ago, Jacques Hadamard queried his colleagues (like
Einstein, etc) on where their insights came from - they woke up with
the idea, or it just came to them after intense thinking.
.<https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029313/the-mathematicians-mind?srsltid=AfmBOorGBqfWjsV-ccnfGdcrSWWK0XKWZw43dFPWsgape-G7rfI4xCTy>
Joe Gwinn
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 15:56:18 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:57:48 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:
Well, I do much the same - I wake up with a new idea. And cannot say
how it happened - I slept through it.
Some people, like us, invent in our sleep. Some famous people invented
while walking.
I used to think that overnight ideas were delivered in my morning
shower, and they are, but now I believe that ideas happen in a nice
hot shower too, any time of day.
To patent something, it is _not_ required that one know how it works,
or even that one's theory be correct. Many are not. Only the ability
to make it work on request is required.
Right. Ultimately, we really don't know how anything works.
Fifty years ago, Jacques Hadamard queried his colleagues (like
Einstein, etc) on where their insights came from - they woke up with
the idea, or it just came to them after intense thinking.
<https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029313/the-mathematicians-mind?srsltid=AfmBOorGBqfWjsV-ccnfGdcrSWWK0XKWZw43dFPWsgape-G7rfI4xCTy>
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot >>>> from RF Design and Wireless World.
Yes I had to have WW every month too.
I think WW was a bit more globally distributed.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
That's one of the first things I learned from this >https://www.google.com/search?q=philips+guide+to+junior+electronics
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot >>> from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering[...]
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.
On 8/21/24 01:08, john larkin wrote:
[...]
I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering[...]
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.
Amazing. I wouldn't have believed that there could be such a
disconnect between a management and the things they pretend to
manage.
I think managers don't need offices, because they spend their
days in meeting rooms. ;-)
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin ><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown >><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot >>>> from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts... >Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:27:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin >><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown >>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot >>>>> from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my >>>2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands, >>we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts... >>Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...
The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled >avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.
On 8/21/24 01:08, john larkin wrote:
[...]
I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering[...]
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.
Amazing. I wouldn't have believed that there could be such a
disconnect between a management and the things they pretend to
manage.
I think managers don't need offices, because they spend their
days in meeting rooms. ;-)
Jeroen Belleman
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin ><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <6oubcj5r9fduockf0j1ind3r1lpe5p61pa@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:27:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin >>><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown >>>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot >>>>>> from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>>>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>>>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>>>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my >>>>2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands, >>>we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts... >>>Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...
The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter >>follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He >>mumbled and said 9.
Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.
Sounds promising, for interfacing a Pico some knowledge about voltage dividers and other components is essential.
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled >>avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.
In the US is the legal situation not so that when a plane crashes because of some transistor and you used that component out of spec you pay?
As to engineering: hard to believe, but Boeing just stopped testing their 700X, it started showing cracks..
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/08/19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount/
When the old generation dies all their real experience and ideas go with them to 'effen'.
Maybe <here we go again, brain starts> we could someday grab that with a brain scan and re-insert it in the new ones?
Or at least stuff that into some AI system.
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <6oubcj5r9fduockf0j1ind3r1lpe5p61pa@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:27:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin >>><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown >>>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot >>>>>> from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>>>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>>>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>>>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics?
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my >>>>2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it.
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands, >>>we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts... >>>Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...
The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter >>follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He >>mumbled and said 9.
Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.
Sounds promising, for interfacing a Pico some knowledge about voltage dividers and other components is essential.
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled >>avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.
In the US is the legal situation not so that when a plane crashes because of some transistor and you used that component out of
spec you pay?
As to engineering: hard to believe, but Boeing just stopped testing their 700X, it started showing cracks..
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/08/19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount/
When the old generation dies all their real experience and ideas go with them to 'effen'.
Maybe <here we go again, brain starts> we could someday grab that with a brain scan and re-insert it in the new ones?
Or at least stuff that into some AI system.
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:va4vv2$1h1un$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <6oubcj5r9fduockf0j1ind3r1lpe5p61pa@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:27:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown >>>>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>>>>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>>>>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>>>>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics? >>>>>
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my >>>>>2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it. >>>>>
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands, >>>>we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts... >>>>Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...
The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter >>>follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He >>>mumbled and said 9.
Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'
Why should he have? No-one does that any more.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:09:21 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <6oubcj5r9fduockf0j1ind3r1lpe5p61pa@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:27:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>> <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>>>> typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>>>> had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>>>> resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics? >>>>>
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my
2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it. >>>>>
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands, >>>> we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts... >>>> Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...
The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter
follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He
mumbled and said 9.
Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'
He seems bright and enthusiastic and already knows a lot about
Raspberry Pi Pico (ie the RP2040 chip). So he can do software while I
teach him some electronics.
Sounds promising, for interfacing a Pico some knowledge about voltage dividers and other components is essential.
I don't use flyback diodes much any more. Most mosfets are controlled
avalanche, whether the data sheet says so or not. I tested an FDV301
for a billion shots just to be sure.
In the US is the legal situation not so that when a plane crashes because of some transistor and you used that component out of spec you pay?
We do a lot of aerospace instrumentation, but nothing that's
life-safety critical. Our only stuff that flies is used on engine test flights and wouldn't kill anyone if it failed.
I have done flight stuff, planes and rockets, and the testing and
paperwork hassles dominate the design. That's boring.
As to engineering: hard to believe, but Boeing just stopped testing their 700X, it started showing cracks..
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/08/19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount/
Boeing is a mess. So is Intel. When the bean counters and stock-market manipulators take over from the engineers, things go bad.
Of course, the craze for fuel savings make everything as light and
flimsy as possible. People sweat every ounce. I wonder if they weigh
the flight attendants' underwear.
When the old generation dies all their real experience and ideas go with them to 'effen'.
Maybe <here we go again, brain starts> we could someday grab that with a brain scan and re-insert it in the new ones?
Or at least stuff that into some AI system.
Highly paid old-timers are force-retired to save money. They should
spend their later years training the next generation.
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
Am 21.08.24 um 07:27 schrieb Jan Panteltje:
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands,
we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts...
In .de, we had Funkschau for the radio-oriented and ELEKTRONIK at the >industrial engineering level, above mine when I was in school.
On a visit in .cz, I found Amatérské Radio, interesting but unobtainium
on this side of the iron curtain.
Elektor was not taken too serious, could not be cited, but occasional fun.
I remember, under the heading "Elektortur":
Man: 100K, 1/4 W
No more sure about the exact numbers.
cheers, Gerhard
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:va4vv2$1h1un$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <6oubcj5r9fduockf0j1ind3r1lpe5p61pa@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:27:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown >>>>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
Just as elsewhere at the time you might only have had access to Rossiyskaya Elektronika.
The world was smaller then.
Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
from RF Design and Wireless World.
WW was good on content but circuit diagrams in it were somewhat badly >>>>>>typeset at times - just enough to make it tricky to get working.
Elektor was the other European mag back then and it is still going. They >>>>>>had a summer special with loads of circuit ideas much like IU. Quirky >>>>>>resistors as rectangular boxes was one of their trademarks.
Do kids these days have similar guides to designing real electronics? >>>>>
When I interview an engineer, recent grad or not, I give them my >>>>>2-resistor voltage divider test. Most start mumbling and can't do it. >>>>>
Apart from 'Elektor', that was called 'Electuur' here in the Netherlands, >>>>we had 'Radio ELectronica' that last one was my faforite,
Way before that we had 'Radio Blan':
https://archive.org/details/radio-blan/Radio_Blan_01_juli_1960/
Used to read that and build those projects.. If I could get the parts... >>>>Componets from 'Amroh'
https://became.nl/amroh/Geschiedenis%20AMROH/historie1.htm
their '402 coil' (medium wave coil) was seen in many projects.
Amroh goes back to 1932...
As to 2 resistors that sounds bad...
I remember asking to draw a transistor relais driver to see if they forgot the flyback protection diode...
The really advanced question is to state the voltages in an emitter >>>follower.
I recently hired a kid who flubed the voltage divider question. 10
volt supply, 9K and 1K divider, what's the voltage across the 1K? He >>>mumbled and said 9.
Oops!
Maybe we should ask 'did you ever design something or build something yourself at home?'
Why should he have? No-one does that any more.
If your time is taken up by other things such as your latest text message and if everything electronic that you need (such as
your
Mobile Phone, TV, Microwave Oven, Toaster etc) is readily available by magic then why would you want to learn how to design
anything
yourself?
In any case no-one wants you to know anything about their latest designs because you might become a competitor and eat into
their
profits.
I wonder whether anyone patented the two-resistor voltage divider when it was first invented.
Most companies don't care what you do or did at home.
If they want electronic design they'll tell HR to find an individual with suitable qualifications.
If that process doesn't go well (perhaps because the interviewer couldn't tell whether a candidate was suitable or not) then a
lot
of time and money will be needed to fix whatever was designed. This is seen as normal in many places. I had one manager tell me
"It's not a requirement for it to work" In an assertive non-joking tone. I didn't reply but my mind said "well in that case I
think
you should find someone else to do it".
It's also true that home electronics is now so much more reliable than it was 60 years ago that no-one at home needs to care how
anything works.
My father could repair a toaster no trouble. But these days when toasters die they go to the dump not the repair shop. The
repair
shop no-longer exists for that reason. Repair shops were often associated with the home of the owner and the same test equipment
used for repair could be used for design.
There are also many reasons why you can't sell anything you design at home because you don't have the money to make sure it
complies
with safety and other standards.
And you don't have money for the lawsuit when someone claims your product injured them.
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:12:23 -0400) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <va53l8$1edn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:...
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:va4vv2$1h1un$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:43:55 -0700) it happened john larkin >>> <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <6oubcj5r9fduockf0j1ind3r1lpe5p61pa@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:27:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:25:27 -0700) it happened john larkin >>>>><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <3kg9cj1fp2jifl9vre6ad7tkd0cj4fp1ac@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:13:39 +0100, Martin Brown >>>>>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2024 16:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message
I preferred Popular Electronics myself.
In any case no-one wants you to know anything about their latest designs because you might become a competitor and eat into
their
profits.
Oh, I once signed a non-dislosure contract for a company I did work for,
But I am an open-source guy.
That goes for hardware I designed and software I designed https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
All puters run Linux here.
Some asm stuff:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html https://panteltje.nl/index1.html
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 92:23:19 |
Calls: | 8,690 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 13,250 |
Messages: | 5,947,018 |