Ahhh yes, actually there's several pairs of them. Hmmm.
Did you guys really disregard those? No questions from the audience at the presentation? SOMEONE must have noticed that at the time and have an explanation. No?
jd
Do we blame anything?
We are speaking of design of something that at least has "the measured distortion/intermodulation spectra is clean, without sidebands, harmonics, etc"
Mitch Cotter saw them, and pointed them out to Matti, but not during the presentation. Everyone else was running for cover. I was there, in NY, when the paper was presented. I went out to dinner with Matti, Michael Gerzon, Walt Jung, and several others, afterward. No negative comments, then.
Thanks Jan, you have to be kidding? Hopefully the scale is linear enough to get close but those will all be related to the input (remember two intermods can beat and gererate even more). With this much distortion you can go up to many orders.
Hi John,
No, you don't have to prove anything, but then you shouldn't expect to be believed then either. You can't have it both ways. Were you an only child by chance?
Note that I didn't suggest you write anything. I simply stated that you should provide your references (which you do). However, those references should be made easily available to people you are making your argument to (that would be .... us). That means the references are either in print or pdf file. Besides, if you claim something to be true and write a paper on this same thing, it's useless as a reference. It's just your word - twice. Duh! So is repeating something that you heard or were told.
John, basic scientific process here. State your claim, prove your claim citing references made available to your audience. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a change. You hear a claim being made without any supporting evidence. The claim is questionable simply because you are not aware whether it's true or not. Requests for anything to substantiate the claim are not really answered, then you get insulted and put down by someone who doesn't know you. John, I know you'd be hounding that person to back up their story. In fact, you would not allow the subject to drop until the proof was delivered, or you had humiliated or defamed their reputation in public. You are the person making the claims. It is you that must back up your claims.
Otherwise, you are not helping anyone here.
As for who is, and who isn't an engineer, who cares? I have a business card somewhere that identifies me as an engineer. So what? I am not an engineer, you are not an engineer and it matters not. I just don't like to see you using a title to elevate your own status over your peers. That's the same thing as Conrad Black, he just had to have the title "Sir". He bought that title, he didn't earn it. I wonder if he was stripped of that title since he was jailed (I think he was anyway). If you can't stand on your own merit John, I pity you. 'Tis a small thing you chase, not rightfully yours to claim.
So, John. Stand on your own two feet, not the shoulders of others. Make your claim and be man enough to provide evidence to back up what you say. It's also okay to make mistakes, everyone does. Open debate and discussion is what teaches us all.
-Chris
No, you don't have to prove anything, but then you shouldn't expect to be believed then either. You can't have it both ways. Were you an only child by chance?
Note that I didn't suggest you write anything. I simply stated that you should provide your references (which you do). However, those references should be made easily available to people you are making your argument to (that would be .... us). That means the references are either in print or pdf file. Besides, if you claim something to be true and write a paper on this same thing, it's useless as a reference. It's just your word - twice. Duh! So is repeating something that you heard or were told.
John, basic scientific process here. State your claim, prove your claim citing references made available to your audience. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a change. You hear a claim being made without any supporting evidence. The claim is questionable simply because you are not aware whether it's true or not. Requests for anything to substantiate the claim are not really answered, then you get insulted and put down by someone who doesn't know you. John, I know you'd be hounding that person to back up their story. In fact, you would not allow the subject to drop until the proof was delivered, or you had humiliated or defamed their reputation in public. You are the person making the claims. It is you that must back up your claims.
Otherwise, you are not helping anyone here.
As for who is, and who isn't an engineer, who cares? I have a business card somewhere that identifies me as an engineer. So what? I am not an engineer, you are not an engineer and it matters not. I just don't like to see you using a title to elevate your own status over your peers. That's the same thing as Conrad Black, he just had to have the title "Sir". He bought that title, he didn't earn it. I wonder if he was stripped of that title since he was jailed (I think he was anyway). If you can't stand on your own merit John, I pity you. 'Tis a small thing you chase, not rightfully yours to claim.
So, John. Stand on your own two feet, not the shoulders of others. Make your claim and be man enough to provide evidence to back up what you say. It's also okay to make mistakes, everyone does. Open debate and discussion is what teaches us all.
-Chris
Jan,
Sorry if I offended you, I was just trying to bring some levity into the situation.......leave for a few hours and see what happens. You might find that Mr.Curl is not so bad after all....then again maybe not.
Regards,
Jam
I hate nobody in particular, but I'm getting quickly frustrated if people .. ohh forget it.
I guess SE will be again at BAF09. You coming? Trio at the bar
?jd
John, if you plot the following components:
2F2-4F1;
2F2-5F1;
2F2-6F1;
2F2-7F1;
etc.
where do these components fall on the graph?
jd
I guess SE will be again at BAF09. You coming? Trio at the bar
I'm afraid I won't be able to make it.
Perhaps I'll go over to Kinko's and have a life size cardboard cutout of myself made and ask Nelson to swing by my place on his way down and pick it up and take it to the Fest.
se
I'm afraid I won't be able to make it.
Perhaps I'll go over to Kinko's and have a life size cardboard cutout of myself made and ask Nelson to swing by my place on his way down and pick it up and take it to the Fest.
se
Great! Then we can have a real Burning Man!
jd
Jan, apparently they DON'T, that is why they are NOT labeled! That is what makes this a 'breakthrough'. However they ARE symmetrical around each major test tone. Doesn't that look like FM sidebands? It is up to SCOTT to prove otherwise. Scott, talked to Sequerra yet? He has been hinting this stuff to me for YEARS, and now we can run with it. Why not?
Last edited:
Come on John, you said earlier they were not labeled because they were 'overseen'. Now all of a sudden you have some hazy reason why they are not labeled. It does not look like FM sidebands, it looks exactly as labeled. Maybe they are FM sidebands, but YOU make the claim, YOU prove it. Don't try to dump it on Scott. Stand up for what you say man!
jd
Sorry to say they do, I don't want to be meany and prove it. I ran through a few off the cuff this afternoon. Dick designs tuners, can he make the IF a non-harmonic of the input/LO? I want him to tell me that.
Great! Then we can have a real Burning Man!
PERFECT!
You can give John the honor of setting me ablaze.
se
PERFECT!
You can give John the honor of setting me ablaze.
You won't believe. In person he is very nice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.