I have two editions of Ott, at least one of Johnson's books. What is the title of the Van Doren?
The book I have is part of his presentation literature. He gave it to about 50 engineers, scientists, and physicists. It's Grounding and Shielding.
As I recall, somebody had a link to roughly half of the book online, I'll try to find it. It is an extremely practical book, even with just the slides to look through.
son of a gun...googled tom van doren, this is what came up as second hit.
j
Last edited:
SY,
Too many presumptions! I did not mention lightning! Now you have to correlate lightning with injury etc. Personally if I ran into such an issue, I would just give the skeptic a kite flown from a conductor. (BTY be sure to get them to sign an insurance policy with a friendly beneficiary!)
ES
P.S. You know the drill, I believe what I want to believe and nothing will ever convince me.... Not the same as let's publish results that might actually be accepted by reasonable folks.
Then there was the guy who would turn his head away rather than look at the oscilloscope display clearly showing the problem. "Some guys have too much test equipment. It works fine for me."
Yes, you do, but that's pretty easy. And you're not invoking pataphysics- that's where the extraordinary proof part comes into play. Even hard-core skeptics accept that E&M is well-established science.
I took a three day course in Orange county on EMC, EMI grounding etc. It was well worth it and had lots of practical applications and once again showed me how much I forgot and never really knew. Toms course looks pretty good. If people like this can teach me
I know they are really good.
I know they are really good.
I believe not, if distortion profile is similar to low order "Newtonian" functions.
Scott
Thank you for the inside look.
If I would ask for your opinion as to why it is not performed on lower freq. Ics too? (Multiple choise question)
a. Negligible effects at these freq.
b. Effects are not that dramatic at these freq.
c. Effects are equally important but layout correction not feasible within IC size, due to large dimentions –length, height- required for lower freq.
d. None of the above. (Please elaborate in 20 words)
JC, KBK, jneutron, bcarso, simon, jcx, thanks for responding.
George
Usually an L/R/C extraction (with mutuals) from conventional methods is OK for normal IC's (100MHz or so).
Now about hard core skeptics and E & M, have you actually read some of the posts here?
Skeptics, not cranks. The latter I don't bother with too much once that diagnosis has been made.
That is the easy one, or the easy thing to understand. the problem with not being able to figure something out, IMO and IME goes something like this.
The more difficult the problem to solve, the more fundamental the mistake.
As for J (neutron), it goes something like this:
Belly up to the bar and put it on the table. Design and produce world class gear.
Otherwise, it borders on being deliberately derogatory prattle. (Actually, forget the otherwise part, -it is what it is- no otherwise required)
I will say though, that I listen to your input, and I like your input. The other part is... impressions by more than one, as an FYI.
It's the seeming tone, that's the issue.
To not bend and understand another one's terminology means you will likely miss the translation, the data..and come to an incorrect conclusion.
Not that I don't get accused of such, myself.
Perhaps, in person, we'd not be too far apart...
Scary thought.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's a dangerous area. Big cliffs abound after that. Tread carefully.
Didn't Steely Dan make a song about that?
Believe it or not, I don't. No insult intended. I'm talking with a bunch of 'guys' on line. The end.
If I was rude, I'll take it back in a heartbeat. If I was stupid, I'll take it in stride, nothing else to do, after that.
To me, if one makes a misstep in public, they fix it in the same place, in public.
(actually I might have a clue. I recall something about 'big science',and that's about it. Unless I want to get into half remembered things.)
Last edited:
edit: I just did an experiment yesterday in audio, that worked the way I expected it to, with regard to 'working' in a cross application in two areas of half known science.
I'd better be damn careful with my ideas on what it is and where it is going. even though the results where almost exactly what I hypothesized they would be.
And I do recall that Jneutron and I went round and round in the wire/cable (audio cables making a difference) thread, a long time back.
I don't think either one of us was having any fun in that one. Yuck.
exhibit A. slamming the 'free energy' experimenters. When they talk about things cooling down when theory says they should be heating up, or not functioning at all - according to theory, as they are theories, not laws:
Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in
Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in (Wired UK)
Same shown here, in this article.
Next step. Understanding that they Do indeed get incredibly high output compared to their input, in the thousands of watts range and higher, not these micro levels that they speak about here, in the linked article.
Their first claim was indeed, not a bunch of 'poppycock' that can be disregarded, as their first 'odd' claim can be seen now, as entirely....valid.
Thus.... look again.
Here, from the article:
MIT physicists have managed to build a light-emitting diode that has an electrical efficiency of more than 100 percent. You may ask, "Wouldn't that mean it breaks the first law of thermodynamics?" The answer, happily, is no.
The LED produces 69 picowatts of light using 30 picowatts of power, giving it an efficiency of 230 percent. That means it operates above "unity efficiency" -- putting it into a category normally occupied by perpetual motion machines.
However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.
~~~~~
This is EXACTLY what the free energy experimenters have claimed for nearly the past 100 years.
The leading/bleeding edge is not coming out of MIT, or other 'credible' sources. It comes from -nearly without exception- those fearless explorers who try to make a difference. Note how badly the mainstream slams them. For no good reason, except for human failure in the given aspects of personal capacity for psychoanalysis on the origins of position --of the given mind involved.
A common problem. Very sadly... a common problem.
The free energy crowd is about, oh..100 years ahead in some cases, as they've been pondering, extrapolating past these results... working with these results as being real, for a very long time.
Some of you folks have got some catching up to do.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i9/e097403
Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in
Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in (Wired UK)
Same shown here, in this article.
Next step. Understanding that they Do indeed get incredibly high output compared to their input, in the thousands of watts range and higher, not these micro levels that they speak about here, in the linked article.
Their first claim was indeed, not a bunch of 'poppycock' that can be disregarded, as their first 'odd' claim can be seen now, as entirely....valid.
Thus.... look again.
Here, from the article:
MIT physicists have managed to build a light-emitting diode that has an electrical efficiency of more than 100 percent. You may ask, "Wouldn't that mean it breaks the first law of thermodynamics?" The answer, happily, is no.
The LED produces 69 picowatts of light using 30 picowatts of power, giving it an efficiency of 230 percent. That means it operates above "unity efficiency" -- putting it into a category normally occupied by perpetual motion machines.
However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.
~~~~~
This is EXACTLY what the free energy experimenters have claimed for nearly the past 100 years.
The leading/bleeding edge is not coming out of MIT, or other 'credible' sources. It comes from -nearly without exception- those fearless explorers who try to make a difference. Note how badly the mainstream slams them. For no good reason, except for human failure in the given aspects of personal capacity for psychoanalysis on the origins of position --of the given mind involved.
A common problem. Very sadly... a common problem.
The free energy crowd is about, oh..100 years ahead in some cases, as they've been pondering, extrapolating past these results... working with these results as being real, for a very long time.
Some of you folks have got some catching up to do.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i9/e097403
Last edited:
And its just as likely that the odd result was just that- a mistake, like faster than light. At least the experimenters involved recognized that something may well be wrong and it was: OPERA: What Went Wrong | Of Particular Significance All the odd result means is that there needs to be more study.
And when someone approaches me with a room temperature superconductor if there is some element of validity I'll support it even if very unlikely (as I have done).
And when someone approaches me with a room temperature superconductor if there is some element of validity I'll support it even if very unlikely (as I have done).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.