I provide clear and concise details for specifically incorrect aspects of the paper.
You have always confused disagreement with another's statements as an attack on the individual. This time is no different.
Stating that a person either made an error or neglected something is not being critical of the individual, it is being critical of the errors..
edit: While others have considered his article as sufficient evidence to lambast the man, I have never done so.
Cheers, jn
Last edited:
If it's wrong, it's wrong. That actually does happen sometimes. Are you suggesting that once someone floats a hypothesis, it should be immune to criticism?
edit: sorry, xposted with my Pearl Harbor cohort jn.
Whaddya expect...it was all written by a scatterbrain..
Way back in the day, I expressed my disdain at writing a honkin paper solely to discredit another individual's work..I prefer the individual revisit it, and expressed to malcolm my willingness to assist in that wherever I could.
But Hawksford's never going to revisit it. The man is a coward. And the article keeps being cited. And when it does, and someone says Hawksford got it wrong, they have to go searching for the bazillion little crumbs you've left strewn all over the place. Would be nice to have a single, comprehensive piece that people could easily be directed to.
At least with Ben Duncan's current-dependent phase shift article, where he neglected to account for the change in load impedance, one can easily point to Jim LeSurf's article on the matter. Would be nice to be able to do the same for Hawksford's article.
But it doesn't appear that that will ever be the case.
Ah well.
se
This is because DA is modeled using linear properties. Even if the cap itself is very linear device with DA, a coupling cap between non-linear resistances would cause different effects depending on it's DA.
Hawksford: "The man is a coward" This is NOT an attack, but a forthright opinion by a learned individual.
I personally contacted Dr. Hawksford at an AES some years ago, about the difference of opinion between him and JN, and he sent me the correspondence between JN and himself.
'Much ado over nothing' is my humble opinion. Apparently, Hawksford has decided to stand on his paper (in general, as minor mistakes were found) and ignore JN's criticism. So be it.
I personally contacted Dr. Hawksford at an AES some years ago, about the difference of opinion between him and JN, and he sent me the correspondence between JN and himself.
'Much ado over nothing' is my humble opinion. Apparently, Hawksford has decided to stand on his paper (in general, as minor mistakes were found) and ignore JN's criticism. So be it.
Good. Defend the idea. What is incorrect in jn's analysis or the analysis of the professor quoted in Audio Critic? No-one will be afraid if you use equations.
The one thing is the measurement result, the other thing is its (physical) interpretation. Should be the hypotheses of Mr. Hawksford verified properly, then the EM field equations (which are partial differential equations) would need to be completely solved under appropriate boundary conditions, which is virtually impossible. These hypotheses are thus explicitly speculative in nature and based on very simplified (and clearly wrong in certain cases) assumptions.
To whom are you talking to or about?? Who do you believe made that statement? And who is the learned individual?
Please re-phrase that so that I may understand what you meant..
I believe I actually copied you on all correspondence between Malcolm and myself.
Chief among the criticism being that the calculations, test setup, test results, and conclusions were entirely incorrect.
Aside from the fact that the patient died, the operation went well..
To wit...when the flaws in concept and execution are of sufficient magnitude to destroy the veracity of the conclusions, they can not be called "minor mistakes" and swept under the rug.
A "minor mistake would be like what he stated on page 57, that the energy of a travelling wave ""oscillates between the magnetic and the electric fields akin to kinetic and potential energy in a mechanical system"". It is not, both are max amplitude at the same instant in the plane normal to propagation...a mechanical system such as a pendulum, transfers the energy between kinetic and potential energy 90 degrees out of phase. edit: in point of fact, the depiction he copied and attributed to Dudley H Towne, two pages prior, is in direct conflict with Malcolm's text as I've quoted..
A minor mistake is how he drew the internal e fields of the conductor on page 59.
Minor mistakes are ones which do not bring the conclusions into question.
Errors which completely destroy the credibility of the conclusion....they are not "minor mistakes".
Cheers, jn
Last edited:
Most likely sonic result is a minor change in frequency response at the LF end. DA is not some sort of built-in reverb chamber; it doesn't delay the signal then send it back in again. It simply stores the time integration of the signal and sends back an attenuated copy of it.john curl said:
A quite separate issue is if DA is a useful proxy marker for some form of dielectric non-linearity. That is what people should be investigating, not DA itself.
Regarding Hawksford, my thanks to jn for confirming my impression that this was just internal impedance and its trivial effects, all blown up to look like something new and important. Non-academics on here should not assume that a published paper by a university professor is necessarily correct. Professors get things wrong, and referees and editors pass papers for publication in learned journals on the basis that they might be right (not that they are definitely right). Popular magazines are much less fussy!
Well, if I subract my mortgage from what my house is worth I end up with a negative amount of money I own.
It's great to realize it is only abstract! I'll call the bank tomorrow to give them the news
jan didden
You are always welcome.
I must state now, that I just spotted within his paper his mention of a steel wire on page 63. I incorrectly stated that there was no mention of it, I apologize for that. He nonetheless, neglected the wire permeability and it's affect on internal inductance.
I also must correct my date. The pages I am looking at now were from '95, not '85.
It is very clear from the text, he neglected the internal field of the conductors. Had he used the equation Terman published in 1947, he would have seen that a wire pair inductance is the sum of three things... external fields, internal fields, and an enhancement term for low aspect ratio wire loops.
Cheers, jn
Well, if I subract my mortgage from what my house is worth I end up with a negative amount of money I own.
It's great to realize it is only abstract! I'll call the bank tomorrow to give them the news
No news for them: they know that they did not have money they loaned you.
I suspect you have missed my point, which seems odd since it is one which echoes the point you had made about how the math can be correct yet the conclusion incorrect due to a faulty or misapplied conceptual basis. My anecdote isn't about apples, it is a simple example of how the math can be correct yet the resulting conclusion, false.
Yes, sometimes the math can have real meaning, as you put it. When that happens it wasn't because the abstract math involved in revealing such meaning had dictated some realty. There is danger in such thinking. Abstract math is a creation of human beings applied in service to our human description of reality, but reality is not in service of the math which we may apply to describe it.
Last edited:
Ah, I have never seen you use the initials SE and learned individual in the same sentence. That threw me off.
I have always considered Steve as a learned individual, given his ability to detect errors on my part, and the unwavering logic I've seen from him...
I can neither confirm nor deny the use of coward as an accurate word to describe Malcolm Hawksford, I have no experience with him on which to base such an opinion.
There are several possible descriptors which could be used to explain the reason Malcolm will never revisit his test methodology...cowardice is indeed one such, but I refuse to assign a descriptor. I prefer to discuss the technical aspects.
I did note on forum (AA)that he was scholarly and a gentleman with respect to correspondence I had with him, but you already knew that...
Cheers, jn
5" diamond wafers for LHC, these folks know how to spend money. I wonder if there is a compatible power FET.
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.