I do agree, suggested same orientation on the My_Ref Fremen Edition build guide for whom cares about it.
I am going to guess that you have never done any science i.e. never had a peer-reviewed article describing original research published in an international journal?svilens said:
Science starts with lots of reading of books. You have to know what is already known before you can extend it. Then, in some cases, pure thinking can be used. It is quacks, not scientists, who start by not learning what is already known.
Tesla is a poor example: he was clever, but also slightly bonkers.
A particular numeral system is made by humans and the decimal one for example is the most common, because it has the most worldwide practical use. So, if I have to work with a device based on this system, it will suit me best. Then 1 will be one and 2 will be two.
But what if, I have my own personal device that works only through my unique numeral system, where 1=2 and 2=1? And when I know it works, why should I care about the worldwide accepted standard?
The same way I can have a geographic system where I call Australia a big Ocean in the Fierce Island. And if it gives me excellent practical results, why should I bother turning to your way of thinking?
From my point of view, you will be the one having an error and if I would be too arrogant, I'd think you should be the one to be corrected.
Reality is based on subjective perception. Data is also based on perception, no matter if it's 1 or 2. How are you aware of 1 if you didn't see/feel/hear it?
Science is, of course, based on both of those practices. The books are what keep us from reinventing the wheel, over and over and over again. But you need to actually read them in order for that to work correctly.
Don't use AC coupling, not all 1:100 probes have a GND resistor built in and then the scope's coupling cap will see the full DC component. True HV-probes do have this resistor (like the LeCroy probe I'm lucky to own).
Wow that's just rude. This is what you need to resort too? What about rational argument? Oh ya you don't have any so you have to be rude.
You are confusing numbers with their representation. In any sensible number system, the number represented as 1 and the number represented as 2 are two different numbers. They would remain as two different numbers in any sensible number representation system too. In binary 1 and 10 are different, as are 1 and 2 in decimal. We invent number representations; we do not invent numbers.50AE said:
You can't have your own personal device using your own personal version of mathematics. You can, of course, have your own private number representation system but if it is sensible then 1 (however you represent it) and 2 (however you represent it) will not be equal - in fact '2' will continue to be twice '1' because that is a property of the numbers and not just the representation system.
No. That would be a new semantic system, not a new geographic system. You have changed the meanings of words, not the position and size of islands.
Nonsense. Reality is. Our perception of it may be partly subjective, but our perception does not change or limit reality.
Children start learning mathematics using concrete thinking, such as counting apples. The intention of the teacher is that eventually they make the leap to abstract thinking, and recognise that the number we represent as 2 exists as an abstract entity however we represent it and whether or not it is attached to some countable object. Sadly some people never make this leap, so negative numbers confuse them. Some cope with negative numbers but then are floored by complex numbers.
Why not?
I might've been taught otherwise. By a book or by a teacher for example. If I trust him and it works for me, why should I trust you?
Reality is what? Is there any other way to see it without our human perception? If your perceptive mechanisms deviate from those of another human being, why should your definition of reality be unique?
And your point is?
The point is, you can babble on for ever but the earth is still round, no matter what you think , say or do.
I'm pitching in here because (mostly) I am a rational realist, not dissimilar to DF96. You seem mostly like you're arguing from a “desire to be contrary” position.
The concepts of 1 and 2 are different. Even to dogs, having 2 items is different from 1 item. You can do whatever you like or want to say or declare that 2 = 1, but in the end, you've either destroyed what "=" means, or you've declare that there is no numeracy in your number system. Which then becomes no number system.
More to the point, DF96 was trying to counter your point that somehow resistors can be directional, with both direct and analogous logic. There is a definitional guarantee that normal resistors are either purely resistive (offering no change in resistance depending on frequency, on working current, on temperature and on environmental things like humidity), or when not purely resistive that the non-linear aspects of the devices are well characterized an published.
FOR INSTANCE, higher power resistors are very often wire wound; wires, wound around cores unidirectionally are also strong inductors. So, nearly all wire-wound resistors are 'counter-wound' where for every left-winding there is a right-wound one. Inductance almost but not completely cancels. Because there's the phrase "not completely", the manufacturers publish the nominal residual inductance of the things. This is taken into account when designing.
To whit, since the 1980 or thereabouts, we also now have plenty of resistors that are made from films. Very often, on the ceramic core onto which they're deposited, the films are further etched into 'coil like' traces, to increase resistance without increasing dimension of the device. This introduces inductance again. So, counter-rotating traces are cut. And the numbers for residual bulk inductance published. So designers can incorporate the effect into their designs.
HOWEVER, you need to acknowledge that directionality of resistance is a concept foreign to all "resistors" that are designed to closely approximate “the ideal resistor”. This isn't just because they're designed to be bidirectionally symmetric, but because the resistance-materials themselves are almost trivial to make in a symmetric-behavior composition, but very difficult to make in a directionally anisotropic form… without introducing all nature of nonlinearities in their actual performance.
That, and because (essentially "luckily") no designer has a use for a directionally asymmetric resistor. None that I've ever heard of.
So, sure: go ahead and posit that you can make up your own number system, your own geometric system, your own electric and electronic device performance and structure system. But in turn expect some pretty serious questioning of what motivates your enterprise. THE REST OF US will abide by characterizing devices by the degree to which they approximate ideal devices free from aberrations. And the aberrations will be carefully characterized and incorporated into any real world numeric and synthetic modeling software that we use. So that without constructing a single circuit, the predicted performance can be synthesized to such a refined degree as to become measurable in the future when said circuits are actually built and physically excited-and-measured.
It is the universal human language for electronics that the 'rest of us' share, because it is pretty futile without being able to cite a significant proposed improvement that inventing new number systems, anisotropic resistor performance and nonlinear component aberrations (or 2 = 1 math propositions) would deliver.
Try it out: can your invented number system deliver a significant gain in understanding, or productive logic over the existing one, where 1 ≠ 2? I doubt it.
GoatGuy
Correct, first read and then experiment. Our colleague here said he just read them, yet he's so strived to convince us that's the holy Truth. 😉
Maybe reading books + experimenting is best option, no? 🙄
That is sooo true! Remember once it was written in the book that earth was not round. 😉 Yet it turned out that books were wrong. 😀
Ahhh but here you are wrong, totally! Tesla based their design on many years of experiments and design in electric motors, batteries, control systems, mechanical engineering, reliability engineering, project and program management, software development and program management and reliability engineering, etc etc. All of that stored in large libraries of technical publications and journals.
I hope you do not think that they invented all of that on their own in just a few years! That would really scare me!
Jan
That in itself is correct. But humanity has invented 'the scientific method' to try to make it as objective as possible, trying to exclude as much subjectivity as possible. And we did quite a good job there. Example: sending a spacecraft to a meteor and having it land a probe there could not be done just based on 'subjective reality'.
Another example: some aircraft crashes are caused by the pilot flying his craft into the ground or a mountain, because he 'subjectively felt' he was going the right direction and level, even with his instruments telling him he was flying upside down! There are documented cases where the pilot survived and stated 'I thought the instrument was broken because it felt wrong'! This subjective reality can be so strong that it overrides all logical indications and actually kill you! And don't ask me how I know - I do!
Jan
Jan
Last edited:
Jan, in the quote a couple of posts above I've got an impression that svilens talks about Nikola Tesla.
I've read the marketing piece you linked to. Can you point me to the discussion of conductor directionality?
OK, I may have misread that. But even then, Tesla (the Nicolai) build on existing rudimentary designs for electric motors and generators. He greatly improved and extended their designs, but he did not - and this is the point - start from scratch!
Another example is Tesla's work on radio that didn't really get anywhere, until Marconi picked it up later and made it a commercial viability. And so it goes, all standing on the shoulders of giants that came before.
The idea that is floated before that people who read and learn from previous work are somehow stupid and cannot come up with new things only shows complete ignorance of technical developments.
Jan
Last edited:
There is no mentioning of it there, but they talk about demagnetizing copper wire and cryogenic treatment😉
You missed the point, but again. The earth is round no matter what anyone says said or wrote down. Same goes for no resistor directionality. Your belief otherwise doesn't make it true anymore than if you believed in the Easter bunny. Show proof. Your claims are as outrageous as claiming the Easter bunny is real, your the one that needs proof.