And both of you so firmly believe that you are more flexible and open minded than others, so are ready to protect this belief by any means.
And both of you so firmly believe that you are more flexible and open minded than others, so are ready to protect this belief by any means.
I see your beliefs about us.
May be you do. But may be it is yor hallutination. I can't see what is inside of your mind. Or, may be I see, but don't realiize that.
Never saw that one but it looks promising. In general some of the Primo capsules are a perfect compromise between size and performance. I wish Jan and SY had picked a cut with harmonica, I have never heard such a nice separation of the reeds.
I'll see Southpaw tonight; if I can get permission to post "The Last Remaining Beatle," that had a nice harmonica bit.
If you look at the spectra, it's interesting how much it looks like a multi-tone test signal at a fairly high frequency. The guys from Lexicon told me the reed sound on sax was excellent for judging A/D 's or DAC's.
BTW this is a nice recorder comparison, the Tascam that Wavebourn mentioned is OK but I am reluctant to part with the Fostex. A comparable Tascam model is $$$. http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm
Last edited:
Mr. Curl
To be fair, that posting of the link was a bit of a provocative move.
The equations are “heavy stuff” (not for my shoulders).
As I see it, addressing the issue of Heavyside’s “modifications” of original Maxwell equations, may be justifiable, may be not:
Heavyside - seems to me - did what an outstanding Engineer would ever be hoped to be able to achieve. He made things easier for the theory to be applied in practice.
What I think is of importance is, that Heavyside can not be accused of burning Maxwell’s papers. He did not cut them in pieces and swallowed them, furnishing his own work as the only existing treatise on the subject.
He just produced his own work.
True,every simplification leaves out something.
If there is something important left out in his work, which “something” was part of Maxwell reasoning, it is here – now and then - to be exploited.
All the original Maxwell work is online now (and it was always on the bookselves of the libraries).
The usefulness of reading these, comes from the point of understanding that, these equations were derived out of a fluid analogy. Out of first principles and with a marvelous reasoning.
Do I understand all these equations? No.
Can I handle them? No (I feel OK that I can work with the “telegrapher’s equation”)
But that’s irrelevant and totally unimportant. Me not understanding something does not equate in my mind as this ”something” being paradoxical or false.
If there is anything that can be explained to me, I am all ears and eyes.
George
Last edited:
Thanks a second time, George. This is essentially what I was looking for. I, too, am a bit rusty, but it is a challenge to see how 20 equations fit into 4, and what was 'compromised' in the process. I have heard about this for years.
I have 'The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell' (3'' thick) next to me, as well as 'Electromagnetic Theory' Vol.1 and 2 by Heaviside on my bookshelf. They have been there for years, in order to attempt to delve deeper into this stuff.
About 25 years ago, I had an earlier book, published by the IEEE on Heaviside that I found fascinating, especially his quest for better telegraph transmission and his debates with Lord Kelvin (kind of reminds me of around here), and the difficulties he had being believed, when he came up with an answer (nobody seemed to believe him for years, as I remember). Of course, NOW he 'walks on water', yet does he have 'feet of clay'? Did he, in fact, modify the original intent of Maxwell's work, losing something subtle, but important? I hope to learn more than just be 'assured' that all is well, etc. etc..
I have 'The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell' (3'' thick) next to me, as well as 'Electromagnetic Theory' Vol.1 and 2 by Heaviside on my bookshelf. They have been there for years, in order to attempt to delve deeper into this stuff.
About 25 years ago, I had an earlier book, published by the IEEE on Heaviside that I found fascinating, especially his quest for better telegraph transmission and his debates with Lord Kelvin (kind of reminds me of around here), and the difficulties he had being believed, when he came up with an answer (nobody seemed to believe him for years, as I remember). Of course, NOW he 'walks on water', yet does he have 'feet of clay'? Did he, in fact, modify the original intent of Maxwell's work, losing something subtle, but important? I hope to learn more than just be 'assured' that all is well, etc. etc..
The folks who made Astatic and CAD microphones seem to have cleaned out their warehouse and sold it to this surplus house.
The prices on many of the small capsules are higher than new, but some seem to be a good deal.
The particular capsule was used in their high end microphone. I seem to recall it used a pair to be variable pattern.
The downside to their version was that it required so much current in use that it had built in rechargeable 9V batteries. So if you didn't leave the phantom power always on they could discharge. Although the mic would still fire up on phantom only it wasn't quite the same.
I did use some for stadium announcer's microphones and they worked well for the professional announcers who could actually remember to talk into the microphone!
George,
When you get a paper like the one you posted, it is a summary of lifetimes of work. Keep in mind it took more than hours and more likely weeks or months to write. That is from someone who is an expert in the field.
So it is reasonable to expect to spend a month really reading and examining the material.
Although with a good engineering math background you might be able to do it faster, I suspect doing so will miss a lot of the subtle stuff.
ES
When you get a paper like the one you posted, it is a summary of lifetimes of work. Keep in mind it took more than hours and more likely weeks or months to write. That is from someone who is an expert in the field.
So it is reasonable to expect to spend a month really reading and examining the material.
Although with a good engineering math background you might be able to do it faster, I suspect doing so will miss a lot of the subtle stuff.
ES
Mr Simon,
that is somewhat amusing.
It took me less than a hour to read this paper : http://staff.polito.it/domenic.dambrosio/index_file/DAmbrosioGiordanoBruno_AIAA-2009-3910.pdf
(Jacobian included for Joshua
His Brother Mo was also quite a character)Takes 7,5-8 years average to get an MSc here ( Engineer's degree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), 12 math exams in the first two years.
Aero, mechanical, and naval folks also have classes on stuff like fluid mechanics, with Navier-Stokes equations, Reynolds numbers, the works.
Frankly, how someone without "a good engineering math background" does that paper in a month, with the "subtle stuff" , is beyond my feeble skull.
Indeed, and also on the geometry !
Mr Simon,
that is somewhat amusing.
It took me less than a hour to read this paper : http://staff.polito.it/domenic.dambrosio/index_file/DAmbrosioGiordanoBruno_AIAA-2009-3910.pdf
(Jacobian included for Joshua
Takes 7,5-8 years average to get an MSc here ( Engineer's degree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), 12 math exams in the first two years.
Aero, mechanical, and naval folks also have classes on stuff like fluid mechanics, with Navier-Stokes equations, Reynolds numbers, the works.
Frankly, how someone without "a good engineering math background" does that paper in a month, with the "subtle stuff" , is beyond my feeble skull.
Indeed, and also on the geometry !
I did note two errors in the paper you cited. I meant http://www.rexresearch.com/maxwell1/20equations.pdf !
I have a bit of bother with the notations I have never used before and all the implications.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.