John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 3705 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st March 2013, 06:50 PM   #37041
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
The message that I am getting is that I expose myself to criticism by bringing up taboo topics or individuals, even if I have experience and acquaintance with them, as if this was some sort of 'politically correct' thread.
The message being sent to you is different.

And that message is....we are not stupid. Incredible claims require incredible proof.

Not name dropping in lieu of.

jn
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 06:59 PM   #37042
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
The message that I am getting is that I expose myself to criticism by bringing up taboo topics or individuals, even if I have experience and acquaintance with them, as if this was some sort of 'politically correct' thread.
If I am allowed, I would like to bring up another 'story' that happened back in 1978, or 35 years ago, at an IEEE conference on Audio and Electroacoustics.
I was talking with Walt Jung, who was also giving a paper there, when we happened on the professor who had rejected Walt's original SID paper for submission into the JAES.
I was standing next to Walt when he asked the professor (AES referee) what was wrong with the paper that was coauthored by two other engineers as well as Walt. The professor said that he 'didn't like the math' pointing to a section where one of the other engineers had added something on the Volterra Series, and this professor didn't like it, BUT he could not tell us why.
Now, it just happens that I took a class at UCB with the same engineer who put the Volterra Series section in the paper and I learned it from the same professor at the same time as he did. Now, maybe, of course, the other engineer 'might' have gotten the math wrong, how would I know for sure? Well, just this week I got a paper on the Volterra Series coauthored by both RG Meyer and this other engineer, perhaps as his masters thesis. I now know that this other engineer knew what he was doing, far more than I could ever do, because he had worked with Dr. Meyer to a much greater extent with the Volterra Series than we ever learned in class. Therefore the 'professor' who rejected the paper, was full of it, and if he had any real evidence against the 'math' he should have PROVEN IT in writing, and not just by fiat, before rejecting the SID paper.
What happened then? Both of the other engineers contributing to the SID paper, DROPPED OUT, scared of being tarnished by being associated with SID.
Walt had to publish it in 'The Audio Amateur' or TAA alone, and the other two ran like scared chickens! I guess that is what I am supposed to do with 'advanced or controversial' material. Well, I won't be deterred from giving information as I see it.
This sort of academic behavior happens a lot. And it is shameful. What I find is that reputations count the most, and they are most frequently based on a chain of evaluations, with the particular person under consideration at at least a few degrees of separation from the person making the judgments.

And the old equivalencies hold: one mistaken thing negates a thousand correct. Since innovation is always harder to assess (it's necessarily new to some extent) it carries a higher risk of error. And referees are often lazy. However the better journals give the author(s) a chance to respond, unless the material is just so wacky or obviously flawed that it's not even considered.

Also an advanced degree is to some extent a prerequisite for being taken seriously, even though a PhD, besides indication of expertise in a relatively narrow subfield, is merely evidence of having some broad knowledge of the field sufficient to get through a final oral exam and preceding comprehensives. It cannot really be much more than that given the incredible amount of material in any discipline today. And yet the possessors are frequently viewed as omniscient and infallible, and some fall prey to this delusion --- note how often a PhD let alone a professor is willing to simply state "I don't know".

It has been conjectured that Einstein's papers beginning in 1905 would probably be rejected if submitted in the same review climate as today, so revolutionary were they at the time.

However, against this one must be aware of the numbers of totally off-the-wall speculative things that are riddled with internal contradictions and sloppy-to-nonexistent maths, and often accompanied by an underlying resentment of The System and an accompanying sense of martyrdom. That some review process is needed is indisputable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:05 PM   #37043
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Walt had to publish it in 'The Audio Amateur' or TAA alone, and the other two ran like scared chickens! I guess that is what I am supposed to do with 'advanced or controversial' material. Well, I won't be deterred from giving information as I see it.
The AD797 was rejected as a full JAES paper, probably threatened the hegemony.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:08 PM   #37044
diyAudio Member
 
jacco vermeulen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: At the sea front, Rotterdam or Curaçao
Send a message via Yahoo to jacco vermeulen
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
Well, Toes
A solid core copper wire with insulation that's pinched or shock-pulled can go discontinuous.
Still looks OK on the outside, but as useful as a fully cut wire.

Nerves are also insulation sleeved, and show simular behavior.
Difference is that a nerve is self-repairing, sort of an ivy branch in an elastic tube.
If discontinuous, but with sleeving still intact, the nerve grows back in till it hits the connection nodes, growth rate is ~0.04-0.08"/day.
Temperature sensitivity is an indication of the repair job score.
With the sleeving also disrupted, the ivy goes everywhere, but no making whoopie.

(not merely book-keeper reading, practical experience as well. Happened to my leg, from full paralysis on crutches and electric-wheelchair racing in the supermarket, till wiggling all my toes took about a year)

50 bucks, 87.50 for a 2nd opinion consultation fee.
__________________
The buck stops Here

Last edited by jacco vermeulen; 21st March 2013 at 07:14 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:22 PM   #37045
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Brad, you also assume that the story is being recounted accurately. It may be, but without details, it's difficult to tell.

Quote:
And yet the possessors are frequently viewed as omniscient and infallible
Not around my house, no.

Quote:
It has been conjectured that Einstein's papers beginning in 1905 would probably be rejected if submitted in the same review climate as today, so revolutionary were they at the time.
See Jeremy Bernstein's superb essay on this very topic.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:24 PM   #37046
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
And that message is....we are not stupid. Incredible claims require incredible proof.
John does not want the respect of his peers (because he is so far above), he wants a court of believers.
He regularly descends from his cloud to test our faith.
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein

Last edited by Esperado; 21st March 2013 at 07:27 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:38 PM   #37047
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacco vermeulen View Post
A solid core copper wire with insulation that's pinched or shock-pulled can go discontinuous.
Still looks OK on the outside, but as useful as a fully cut wire.

Nerves are also insulation sleeved, and show simular behavior.
Difference is that a nerve is self-repairing, sort of an ivy branch in an elastic tube.
If discontinuous, but with sleeving still intact, the nerve grows back in till it hits the connection nodes, growth rate is ~0.04-0.08"/day.
Temperature sensitivity is an indication of the repair job score.
With the sleeving also disrupted, the ivy goes everywhere, but no making whoopie.

(not merely book-keeper reading, practical experience as well. Happened to my leg, from full paralysis on crutches and electric-wheelchair racing in the supermarket, till wiggling all my toes took about a year)

50 bucks, 87.50 for a 2nd opinion consultation fee.
DA#M...I thought you were joking.

I didn't notice any temperature sensitivity. Just more of a stiffness. I guess I just have a low threshold for pain..well, that's what my wife tells me...

$50? worth it.. wanna barter?

need any clock gears or low impedance cables?? or maybe a 100 millliohm current viewing resistor with about 200 picohenries of inductance??

edit: 87.50 for second opinion..ya gonna tell me I'm ugly too??

jn
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DSCN1997.jpg (715.8 KB, 118 views)
File Type: jpg DSCN1964.jpg (715.2 KB, 120 views)

Last edited by jneutron; 21st March 2013 at 07:46 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:45 PM   #37048
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post

See Jeremy Bernstein's superb essay on this very topic.
I'll hunt that down. Maybe I even saw it, if it was a good deal of time ago.

I'm reminded as well of the physics folks, was it Nernst in particular, who told an already-reluctant Max Planck that he could achieve the same fix for the "ultraviolet catastrophe" with arrangements of connecting pipes and such.

Einstein had a great deal of contempt for his fellow physicists. The image portrayed until relatively recently of the quietly timid and diffident patent examiner was apparently far off the mark.

Considering how poorly he played at politics, it's all the more remarkable that he got published, even in those times.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:51 PM   #37049
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
http://www.capatcolumbia.com/reading...in%20Crank.pdf

I'll save you a few clicks.

These days, there's always ArXiv.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2013, 07:52 PM   #37050
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Politics is the ability to tell two opposing views to two groups and appear to be telling the truth to both while believing neither.

Science is being able to tell all groups the same information while believing all of it even in the face of 100% disbelief by everyone. But in science we have information to back up our claims and can sway the disbelievers with a convincing argument and facts.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2