• Re: yes!

    From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 14 20:07:56 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 14 16:55:01 2024
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 14 17:24:29 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 14 21:26:12 2024
    "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/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Aug 14 19:40:35 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Aug 15 13:32:30 2024
    On 15/08/2024 12:40 pm, john larkin wrote:
    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.

    And pigs might fly.
    It's hilarious that one big argument against our brains being
    quantum mechanical is that QM only happens at liquid helium
    temperatures.

    Quantum mechanics happens at all temperatures. The argument actually is
    that entanglement does too, but it doesn't last long at temperatures
    higher than the boiling point of liquid helium.

    It pays to understand what going on before you declare it to be
    "hilarious".
    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 14 23:56:31 2024
    "john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:5dqqbjhjhaj104mse48gvou5gp9he96fil@4ax.com...
    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.

    You can find as many great mysteries as you want here: https://www.google.com/search?q=great+mysteries
    Maybe they are all 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.

    I think you'll find that quantum mechanics happens at any temperature.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 15 06:54:14 2024
    On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:55:01 -0700) it happened john larkin <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <2ugqbjhvlh9vrlmqhciaubcf64dbooph0o@4ax.com>:


    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

    My experience is that everything in this universe is connected
    Future is already known

    'There is nothing you can know that is not known' is a text from a Beatles song
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=beatles+nothing+you+can+know+tha+tis+not+known
    Using google does help with that of course... ;-)

    But my own experience in life did make me see some important things decennia before those happened.
    I had this with dates...

    Nature is far ahead and using things we have not even discovered in studying life.
    It has always been that way, since we learned as species how to make fire and earlier.

    I remember Leonardo (I had a book about him as a small kid) made a drawing of a basic helicopter
    https://theconversation.com/leonardo-da-vincis-helicopter-15th-century-flight-of-fancy-led-to-modern-aeronautics-116241

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Aug 15 10:21:37 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Thu Aug 15 10:11:04 2024
    On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:21:37 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v9kdl7$sueb$1@dont-email.me>:

    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

    In medieval times if you stated that looking in a box would show your face at the other end of the world
    all because of electromagnetic waves,
    would get you accused of being a witch.
    Chances were you would be burned.

    It is true that to get published these days using the 'quantum' word may help as it has been useful to use 'CO2 and glowballworming' nice the Al Gore sales hysteria.
    'Prove Albert Onestone was right' also helped.

    Everything in the Universe (as we know it) is connected.

    Do events propagate FTL?
    Even the speed of light is not the same
    If an electron moves here, a bit later its effect is felt everywhere.
    Away with A. onestone :-)
    mamaticians are the big hurdle and fake truth.
    Incomplete equations describing things the output of which are taken for absolute truth
    and brainwashed into the poor humming-beans that fall for it.

    Bit like Ohms law without electrons,
    Fleming tube: 'a current in vacuum' did away that and showed electrons that and gave us amplification and radio,
    now singularities are sold,..
    In a Le Sage theory of gravity there are no singularities as at some point all particles are intercepted.
    There are no singularities in nature, something will always give way.
    Would be interesting, if humming-beans still exist, to see what a few million years from now the science is
    and what can be done and is done on a daily basis.
    CERN on the desktop.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 15 12:16:11 2024
    On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:21:37 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v9kdl7$sueb$1@dont-email.me>:
    PS you may want to read this:
    https://www.space.com/higgs-particle-could-break-physics-throughout-universe-but-has-not#main

    I said this before, black holes came first, were parts of the bing-bang

    https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FGxeVxwmxhWZz9csezXhpJ-1200-80.jpg

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Aug 15 21:42:12 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Thu Aug 15 14:53:38 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Thu Aug 15 18:24:22 2024
    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.

    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.

    Well, they do cite a reputable rag: "The study, published this month
    in the journal Physics Review E, suggests...".


    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.

    We'd already know if this were true for sure - direct sunlight (a
    kilowatt per square meter) would knock us out, and critters whose
    brain worked some other way would have had us for lunch while we were
    out cold, well warm.


    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.

    Isn't this circular?


    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.

    Not just _any_ really complex network, but OK.


    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.

    My favorite story is when it was discovered that an enterprising
    octopus was clambering out of its own tank, crawling across the floor
    to another tank, catching and eating some fish there, and then
    returning to its home tank. The mystery of the vanishing fish was
    eventually solved by a hidden camera.

    It turned out to have been known far earlier, like Lee 1873:

    .<https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27379/did-an-octopus-visit-another-tank-to-hunt>


    A bit like parrots except they can't mimic talk
    (or bite through mains cables, windscreen wipers and paint tin lids).

    Parrots. Bird brains are yet another model.

    All three kinds of critter seem to be conscious, but their brains are
    built rather differently, so there is likely some common mathematical
    and/or algorithmic structure from which consciousness arises.

    On the matter of defining consciousness, while no widely accepted
    definition has arisen, people seem to know it when they see it, and
    everybody comes to more or less the same ranking of critters. So
    there is a unifying principle, even if we don't know what it is.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 16 15:53:55 2024
    "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??



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Aug 16 21:01:06 2024
    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:

    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?

    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.
    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Fri Aug 16 16:01:33 2024
    "Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in message news:v9lp74$13417$1@dont-email.me...
    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.

    I can remember when this guy told us why we couldn't do it back then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE4QZ1PYiGk
    Jump to 49:12
    But that was then.


    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


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Fri Aug 16 15:03:01 2024
    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:

    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Fri Aug 16 15:07:52 2024
    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:

    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?

    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.

    But that's no reason to outright dismiss interesting conjectures. Most
    science started with wild, unpopular ideas, so small but important
    fraction of which turned out to work.








    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.

    Those giant computer networks don't run code?

    Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

    Your lack of imagination ditto.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Fri Aug 16 15:16:51 2024
    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:

    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?

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 16 21:48:16 2024
    "john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:6rivbjdvddv1ij3qt51r0mj4vluf60akp2@4ax.com...
    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:

    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.

    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.

    But you are talking to me over a digital communication channel which requires a pattern of bits.
    How do you know I'm conscious and not just a state machine with n bits and an n bit memory?



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 06:26:27 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Aug 17 18:44:49 2024
    On 17/08/2024 8:07 am, john larkin wrote:
    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:

    <snip>

    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.

    Those giant computer networks don't run code?

    Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

    Your lack of imagination ditto.

    John Larkin's imagination is given free reign by his restricted
    knowledge base. It's not constrained by much real world knowledge - not
    than he realises this - which lets him imagine that he is rather more
    creative than he appears to be be to other, better-informed, people.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Aug 17 19:56:58 2024
    On 17/08/2024 8:16 am, john larkin wrote:
    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:

    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?

    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."

    It's called speculation.

    "Science" is the business of relating speculation to experimental
    evidence that can support some speculations and reject others.

    Philopsophers have been speculating for a few thousand years. Science
    developed a few hundred years ago to weed out the less useful speculations.

    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.

    It might be a hypothesis. Dignifying it by calling it a "theory" is a considerable stretch.
    In this case it's a more a pretentious assertion.

    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.

    Science necessarily rejects a lot of speculations. That is what it was
    set up to do. You may feel hurt because your speculation has been
    treated as half-baked, but asserting that this means that every
    speculation would be rejected is an unrealistic over-reaction.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Aug 17 14:02:09 2024
    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?

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sat Aug 17 13:37:33 2024
    On 17/08/2024 13:02, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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?

    It has become rather tricky now with generative AI. There are enough
    humans around that could not pass the Turing test to save their lives.

    So far the most powerful AI's have restricted domains of applicability
    but the one which effectively solved Go is truly scary in its potential.

    I find some of the captcha challenges just about impossible now. As AI
    image recognition gets better they keep making them tougher and with
    multiple layers which makes them rather annoying for a genuine human.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 07:00:48 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 14:54:13 2024
    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?
    ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 11:51:48 2024
    On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:16:51 -0700, john larkin
    <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:

    On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    [snip]
    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.

    There is a simpler issue. Un-myelinated nerve fibers (axons) are
    relatively slow, which isn't a problem for small critters and/or
    brains.

    But if a signal has to travel six feet, myelin helps a lot, because
    the jump from node to node is at electrical speed.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Aug 18 01:56:32 2024
    On 18/08/2024 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
    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?

    Nobody does, but it is being worked on.

    Where are images stored, and how can one recognize and name one of
    maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

    Functional magnetic resonance imaging does give some insight into where
    the processing happens as various - short - times after the human brain
    has been exposed to a stimulus. Not a hell of lot so far, but it is
    being worked on.

    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.

    They seem to work in speech recognition

    https://theaisummer.com/speech-recognition/

    I knew a couple of people that worked on that, and lots of neural nets
    didn't work, but there seems to have been progress on finding variations
    that can be made to work progressively better.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 12:14:51 2024
    "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.

    and how can one recognize and name one of
    maybe a million storted images in a fraction of a second?

    Have you not used Google Images?


    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.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Sat Aug 17 09:31:41 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 09:18:38 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Aug 17 17:54:38 2024
    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?

    Direct sensor input of neuron pulses to the brain using a mesh of micro electrodes to stimulate the visual cortex has already been used to
    interface limited resolution sight and sound to humans creating in
    effect cyborgs. Problem is that even with the best biocompatible
    materials is gets covered in scar tissue and stops working.

    https://www.wired.com/story/the-next-frontier-for-brain-implants-is-artificial-vision-neuralink-elon-musk/

    They must understand the brain's basic signalling system to be able to
    make the link work. The brains plasticity allows it to learn to decode
    the signals sent and so get a crude image of the external world.

    Likewise with the latest generation of bionic limbs that the user can
    control by thought much like they would a real flesh and blood arm.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Sat Aug 17 18:16:54 2024
    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 tappens 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Aug 18 14:57:38 2024
    On 18/08/2024 2:18 am, john larkin wrote:
    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.

    Of course they do. You don't understand either concept, so you use them
    as terms of abuse.

    Good way to kill people on the streets.

    Not as good as the woefully ill-drafted second amendment to the US constitution.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Aug 18 15:39:46 2024
    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.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Aug 18 15:33:38 2024
    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.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 08:14:13 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 13:46:58 2024
    "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 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


    https://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/james.alcock--the.belief.engine.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 18 10:26:36 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Sun Aug 18 14:39:45 2024
    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 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


    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Aug 19 15:42:04 2024
    On 19/08/2024 7:39 am, john larkin wrote:
    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 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


    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?

    These are objective tests for the quality of the circuit that has been produced. They don't say anything about the process that lead to the
    selection of that particular circuit.

    If you can't say why you did something in a particular way - and you
    never do - you can't claim to have designed it.

    Inspired designers may sometimes get things right first time. Most
    designers rip up any number of first tries at a design before coming up
    with an approach that can be made to work reasonably well. You don't
    tell us about your false starts.

    Sometimes those those false starts can become practical when the
    technology moves on - I thought up one scheme in 1976 which didn't
    become practical until 1993 (when I got my hands on a big-enough cheap programmable logic device) and it shows up in my 1996 milli-degree
    thermostat paper (section 2.6).

    Meas. Sci. Technol. 7 (1996) 1653–1664.
    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Aug 19 15:21:55 2024
    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.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Aug 19 15:27:38 2024
    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.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to bill.sloman@ieee.org on Mon Aug 19 07:19:40 2024
    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..
    Maybe logic says we cannot create a random code as we are not random? Wild idea...
    But randomness is an interesting thing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 07:16:54 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 14:44:39 2024
    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.

    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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 07:53:33 2024
    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>:

    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Aug 19 22:50:50 2024
    On 15-Aug-24 7:55 am, john larkin wrote:

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/


    Some intuition might make us rebel against the idea that a suitably
    programmed classical deterministic computer could be conscious. But we
    don't know what consciousness is, which makes it rather difficult to
    formulate a reasoned argument against its existence in such a computer.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical. on Mon Aug 19 08:41:39 2024
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    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.

    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

    Active filters are easier, where the sections don't interact.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 16:17:46 2024
    john larkin <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    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:
    <snip off-topic maunderings>
    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.


    Yeah, you just pick the poles and zeros. Of course the GBW has to be
    several times f_0*Q.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs



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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 12:16:20 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Aug 20 02:26:08 2024
    On 20/08/2024 12:53 am, john larkin wrote:
    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>:

    <snip>

    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.

    Your stuff sells under your name. Mine sells too, but not under my name.

    What difference does the design process make, if the result works?

    Thought-out designs work better and cost less.

    I've always annoyed PhD academic types who resent people who are
    creative and have instincts.

    Academics don't resent people who are creative. They aren't fond of
    people who don't talk about how they get to their results, because
    academics are in the teaching business - academies are where people
    learn stuff - and if they can get hold of approaches that work, they can
    pass them on to their students.

    Instincts aren't teachable and you can't pass them on - sometimes your
    kids inherit them. There are quite a few people who don't like passing
    on their skills, and consequently claim that they operate by instinct,
    so that they won't have to educate potential competitors.

    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.

    There are academics who study all kinds of creative arts - painting,
    sculpture and music all have their academies.

    Knowing what you are doing, and how it fits in with what other people
    have done, doesn't seem to stifle creativity.

    Getting a Ph.D. isn't any kind of training in being creative, and most
    of the ones I've known haven't been all that creative. I got together
    with my wife before she did her Ph.D. training, and it didn't beat any creativity out of her - she was an original thinker before she started
    (despite having aready got a Master's degree) and she stayed creative thereafter (and wrote lots of highly cited papers along the way).

    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.

    Language probably is that better way. We can now talk about individual
    defects in particular genomes, and use CRISPR to correct some of them.

    It's taken more than three billion years to get this far, which would be
    crazy inefficient if we'd known where we were going.

    Efficiency in this context, would the ratio of the time a perfect system
    would take to the time our actual system has taken. Since we don't know
    what a perfect system would be it's an imaginary number.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 10:04:29 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 15:03:12 2024
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 10:04:29 -0700, john larkin
    <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:

    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.

    Nuhertz is a product of Ozen Engineering, who ain't talking directly
    about this. But it seems to be that the speedups come from better
    choice of what exactly to optimize, and especially the equivalent of
    better mesh generation (for finite-element design).

    I'll mull it over.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 20:48:36 2024
    "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?

    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.





    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Mon Aug 19 18:55:59 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Mon Aug 19 19:57:48 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 23:08:55 2024
    "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.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 22:31:53 2024
    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 19 23:52:49 2024
    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Mon Aug 19 20:33:01 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Aug 21 00:58:29 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Wed Aug 21 00:45:56 2024
    On 20/08/2024 12:31 pm, Edward Rawde 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.

    Winfield Hill used to post here a lot, and is probably aware of John
    Larkin's appetite for flattery."To which we've added a few decorations"
    dilutes the endorsement.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Tue Aug 20 07:35:24 2024
    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 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.



    I preferred Popular Electronics myself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 11:24:53 2024
    "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.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Tue Aug 20 17:13:39 2024
    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.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Tue Aug 20 15:30:22 2024
    Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    "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.






    Back when I was 21 and trying to come up to speed in RF, I learned a lot
    from RF Design and Wireless World.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Tue Aug 20 09:25:27 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Tue Aug 20 12:38:30 2024
    "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?

    So I wonder what will happen when an AI with similar or better capability than AlphaGo is trained using AoE and the contents of a
    site like this one:
    https://www.worldradiohistory.com/index.htm

    JL may think it won't produce anything useful but time will tell.

    Such a system would theoretically be reducible to an algorithm but that doesn't mean it's necessary to understand the specific
    algorithm any more than it's necessary to understand where images are stored in our brains.


    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





    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 12:55:26 2024
    "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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 15:56:18 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Tue Aug 20 16:08:50 2024
    On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:38:30 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "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.

    Yes. Invention is a complex and mysterious process.

    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?

    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.

    I think a lab (with a Dremel!) is a fundamental requirement. Parts
    aren't always characterized well enough that one can design just with
    math, or with simulation. Abs max ratings are for wusses.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/v1yow0euq40xxyc7dy3cd/ALhGPhnhPEyV32GS2M5LChk?rlkey=cicg0l3ccdgdxbav856silaag&dl=0

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 20 16:17:14 2024
    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>:

    ...


    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.

    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>

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Aug 21 14:15:46 2024
    On 21/08/2024 2:25 am, john larkin wrote:
    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

    <snip>

    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.

    It is an insultingly simple circuit, and many of them may decide at that
    point that they don't fancy working for a guy who would be that rude
    when interviewing potential hires.

    There are two aspects to job interviews - the people doing the hiring
    learn about the people being interviewed, and the people applying for
    job learn about the people doing the hiring.

    I had a campus interview - as a graduate student - with the personnel
    guy from the organisation that I actually joined after I graduated. He
    started reading out the leaflet that I'd been given (and had read) and
    ended the interview when I asked him to stop doing that and answer some questions about the work being offered.

    The actual job interview with the engineers that I ended up working with
    went rather better, though they did start off by asking me to explain
    how a Xerox machine worked, which is an odd question to ask a physical
    chemist, though it made a lot of sense when I found out what the job
    actually involved (and I did know quite a lot of the details about how
    Xerox machines worked).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Aug 21 14:36:17 2024
    On 21/08/2024 9:17 am, john larkin wrote:
    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>:

    <snip>

    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.

    Ideas come from the sub-conscious (if you use Freudian terminology) or
    our back-ground processing. It pops up into our conscious mind when we
    aren't distracted by more immediate concerns. For my father that was
    when he was shaving. You have to devote a lot of conscious though to
    solving the problem before it can percolate down into your sub-conscious.

    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.

    Too true.

    Right. Ultimately, we really don't know how anything works.

    But mostly we have pretty good idea, quite good enough for all practical purposes. Most people can explain that idea in terms that other people
    can understand, if they want to. John Lark may not want to or may not be
    able to.

    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>

    I suspect that the intense thinking is essential, but it probably
    doesn't have to happen just before you get the idea. If you've left a
    question unresolved for years, your sub-conscious can pick up the extra information it needs when it does become available, and serve up the
    solution when you aren't distracted by more immediate problems.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Aug 21 05:44:22 2024
    On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:55:26 -0400) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <va2hq0$2hm7$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:

    "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

    I have build some of the Philips kits as a kid.
    This was a good read back then in the fifties:
    https://frank.pocnet.net/other/sos/JongensRadio_Deel2_1950.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 05:27:25 2024
    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...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Aug 21 09:57:37 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Thu Aug 22 00:18:45 2024
    On 21/08/2024 5:57 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.

    Then you haven't worked in industry in the UK.

    There were engineering managers who had been engineers - or at least
    knew enough about the underlying science to have some clue what was
    going on - but most of them had been through engineering management
    courses where they were taught that engineers were hopeless
    perfectionists who had to be chivied into releasing stuff to production
    as soon as it looked like something that production could put together.

    I think managers don't need offices, because they spend their
    days in meeting rooms. ;-)

    They can't shout loudly enough to bully their subordinates effectively
    in open plan offices.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 07:43:55 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 15:09:21 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Wed Aug 21 11:38:04 2024
    "Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:va46g2$3poe8$1@dont-email.me...
    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.

    The best managers for those who design electronics are generally those have been electronic circuit designers themselves.
    Like most things it does also depend on human psychology.
    I can think of one exception to the above but he thought he was god's gift to management.


    I think managers don't need offices, because they spend their
    days in meeting rooms. ;-)

    Jeroen Belleman


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 21 08:36:57 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Wed Aug 21 12:12:23 2024
    "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.




    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.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Aug 21 09:25:40 2024
    On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:12:23 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "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.

    The tinkerers are to be found in maker spaces.

    They are exposed to a lot of hardware/software/mechanical things,
    classes and other peoples' projects, and some will trend to
    electronics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Aug 21 22:03:23 2024
    On 8/21/24 17:36, john larkin wrote:
    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.


    Yes, but if the newcomer is on a short-term contract and doesn't
    get a indefinite appointment after, the effort is largely wasted.
    I've seen that happen often.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gerhard Hoffmann@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 22 01:31:17 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to dk4xp@arcor.de on Thu Aug 22 05:44:44 2024
    On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:31:17 +0200) it happened Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote in <va5tc5$1g4lk$1@solani.org>:

    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.

    Yes, used to read several German magazines,
    just did find an old MC from 1988 in a drawer 5DM :-)...
    That was all about micro-computers.
    Used to buy those at the train station kiosk whenever I did see one.
    We get German in highschool here, so no reading problems.
    I was reading C't too
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%27t
    and a few more...

    Some US stuff, Wireless World for example
    Scientific American sometimes...


    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

    Elektuur had some nice project, tried some.
    Learned a lot from it.
    They at one time had 'teletor', scope TV set!
    https://www.elektormagazine.nl/magazine/elektor-196511
    modified it for a real CRT

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Thu Aug 22 06:27:27 2024
    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.

    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.

    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




    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.

    Real ones do
    I got the job at the national TV network here
    in the interview I pointed out I just designed and build a portable TV camera. Not many existed...
    1968 that was
    Knew the answer to all the questions...


    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".

    I have done many sorts of jobs all around the world.
    The requirement always is that you deliver.

    For a while I had my own TV repair shop in Amsterdam.
    People expect the stuff you repair to work.
    Went to US for some weeks, needed somebody to fix any quarantee cases for a few weeks,
    guy came in, I gave him a defective set, can you fix this?
    He did, hired him.

    In broadcasting I have seen higher educated people than me break down and actually quit.
    Guy I replaced left after he had a work stress related breakdown.
    My boss later ended up in the mad house, last we heard from him was a postcard from that place.
    Always thought it was my declarations that made him flip ;-)
    When I was hired we got six month payed in the schoolbenches learning everything from managment to cameras to TV to satellite to audio to security to fire
    all top level, you had to be able to repair stuff on the spot.
    Studios (we had 6 to look after) were extremely complex with millions of dollars
    stuff and the show must go on...
    And there was film too in those days.

    In depth knowledge, thousands of circuits, speed, human interaction (always stress, producers, artist waiting..
    you cannot sell a black screen), much more to it, glowbal networking
    Dreaming on a table with a pen and a peace of paper was not an option.
    And shifts, early morning to late night...
    I have seen people drop out...
    When those moon landings happened I was sometimes in the head control room here relaying it..
    Lots of tube equipment there back then.

    Done many other things, technical translator, writing docs from lab reports, programming, art, airport electronics,
    security, what not.
    Started with designing power electronics for the army and navy and telcos, dangerous work on those navy ships,
    Broadcasting was at least safe :-)


    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.

    Well, add a disclamer ;-)

    Too many lawyers anyways..

    Most I learned about software and microprocessors I learned designing things at home,
    Some good books... 'Micro processor interfacing techniques' in the seventies...
    https://www.amazon.com/Microprocessor-Interfacing-Techniques-Rodnay-Zaks/dp/0895880296
    started with a Sinclair ZX80

    There is now a right to repair movement going on, at least in the EU

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Aug 22 11:24:45 2024
    "Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:va6log$1hs0d$1@solani.org...
    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.

    I run what gets the job done here.
    That means Windows workstations, Linux (usually Debian) servers and Linux in Hyper-V as needed.

    Some asm stuff:
    https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html https://panteltje.nl/index1.html




    ...


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