You don't have to. And personally, I do not care what you think.
That said, I've seen many produce shabby, ill conceived so called "tests" such as your rca distortion stuff a while back. I detailed what your testing problems was, how to spot it, how to control for it, what techniques best apply to reducing or eliminating it.
The fact that you ignored my expertise back then says a lot about your character. In addition, you now, years later, at least have a rudimentary understanding of ground loop/emc concerns and how they bit you back then, yet never will admit that I was correct.
But that I expect from you. And again, I do not care. I will provide my expertise. You don't have to admit that I am good at what I know, I do not care.
Nope. Just the BS ones that are sloppy, ill conceived, unscientific. The fact that your earlier testing fell into that characterization is your problem, not mine. Same with Hawksford's poorly planned and executed skin effect shambles of a test...no control, ill conceived, badly executed with no consideration of confounders.
Well planned, designed, executed tests I do not find fault with. So don't think for a moment I'm out to "get you".. It's just that you do not know how to scientifically design a test at the edge of your domain.
As a high end "guru", that is the only thing I expect you to say. You cannot admit to the expertise of others who do not give you bentley rides.
Over the last decade, I've offered you testing assistance both publicly and privately. Your ego prevents you from saying otherwise. And again, that is my expectation of your behaviour.
Many of your associates have also put together chapters in the journal of irreproduceable results. Are you sure that is the crowd you wish your name to be associated with??
My associates on the other hand, publish, produce, and advance the state of the art in multiple disciplines, with nobody on this planet better. I can walk to the next table during lunch and ask them anything I am curious about. In addition, some of my closer associates end up going to equipment vendors such and assisting them in fixing problems with their equipment. This just happened with some laser vibe measurement equipment, some active damping stages, and many times motion control stuff.
As I've said for over 10 years now, I am willing to assist you privately or publicly. I've done so for several cable vendors, a few speaker vendors, and an inductor manu.. they all asked privately, and it was kept in confidence.
All you needed to do is ask..
jn
Last edited:
Folks, my 'fashion choice' this last week was distortion in Tantalum and Ceramic caps. Now, I knew that it was there, but did every one of you? It was just a simple test that I can count on, while I learn to use and trust the test equipment. I am also finding the distortion baseline under various conditions, such as different frequencies, etc. It is important to learn your equipment, before getting more 'exotic'.
No, you invested it to make superficially impressive charts and graphs to move boxes to your niche fashion market.
Yes John, anyone qualified in circuit design and experimental work knows this. Believe me, anyone. And for decades, as you like to say.
Whom are you trying to amaze, to astonish? The crowds who know nothing about EC design? The crowd of 'supporters'? What is the value of such adoration? Like adoration of the shepherd?
I like when you share ideas, but contempt for sbd or addoration of the crowds not.
Last edited:
Anybody can by a Maserati.. but not everybody opens the garage door before trying to leave the garage.
Impress me with scientific, well organized, well considered, well designed test regimens that eliminate confounders and can be REPRODUCED by others.
That's the key. Showing us a graph and saying "trust me" or we're "40 years behind you" doesn't float my boat.
Or even "8000 dollars of equipment". Not impressed.
Show me results that stand up to scientific questioning. No more, no less.
It truly is.
jn
I am trying to teach the amateurs, PMA. I published this cap distortion back in 1978. What were you and your associates doing then? Also, Groner thinks that he was the first to develop the paralleled, polarized cap distortion 'improvement'. You should send him my 1978 paper, which precedes him by about 30 years that shows the same thing. Do you have his contact info?
But John's never really demonstrated that he's capable of engaging in any sort of intelligent, two-way discussion. And on top of that, he takes any sort of questioning or criticism as a personal attack. He's hopeless. Simple as that. And expecting to see any change in this behavior is verging on insanity.
se
Compare what? Weight of paper, or comprehension of contents.
One of my friends, I asked him to borrow a book on e/m theory, he said he didn't have any.
When asked why? The answer:
I start with Maxwell's equations, and derive what I need.
When I asked why he did that? The answer:
Because that way I know it's right.
And ya know, he was both sincere and humble..and correct.
Books and test equipment are not the primary tools JC.
Understanding is. And when you don't understand, just ask. Not asking is failure.
You have a responsibility here JC, to teach the young'uns. You do NOT do that by being condescending to experts in their fields. That will only get you ignored.
jn
- Status
- Not open for further replies.