I thought this looked familiar. Halliday and Resnick freshman physics.
To bad I didn’t remember the answer. That’s what Scott is for.
Applied science vs theoretical...… LLNL never hired theoretical scientists. If they could not figure out something to make it work, then they would go to the universities and see what the theorist might dream up... Some of which might actually work. Usually not. They would often come up with ideas which were not buildable but they didnt know that.
"Much of any physicist's time is spent trying to find out why something didn't work. The tolerance to deal with frustration, and the patience needed for solving "impossible" problems belong to the basic skill that are needed …." -W. Lerche.
Sometimes, it seems that some government science programs exist as welfare work for PHD's.
Oh. I'm just in one of those moods. Need more sleep, maybe.
THx-RNMarsh
"Much of any physicist's time is spent trying to find out why something didn't work. The tolerance to deal with frustration, and the patience needed for solving "impossible" problems belong to the basic skill that are needed …." -W. Lerche.
Sometimes, it seems that some government science programs exist as welfare work for PHD's.
Oh. I'm just in one of those moods. Need more sleep, maybe.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Man you are basically going off like a kid in a temper tantrum. Sheesh, maybe time to cool it down a bit.
Similarly, I think the entire computational center at LLNL that came about (maybe after you left) speaks loud and clear to the interplay between theoretical and applied physics. Similarly the amount of modeling and simulation that went into NIF was insane.
Freeman Dyson (you know, one of those crazy theorists) has this perspective that talks about how the early 20th century was dominated by theory and the latter half by "tools" (applied, experimental physics): Is Science Mostly Driven by Ideas or by Tools? | Science
I thought it was publicly available but sadly looks like it's behind a paywall.
Should you be at all confused, I'm one of those subsidized (hahahahahah) Ph.D's, who struggles with theory and sits two feet firmly in the applied end of the world. But with a great respect for theorists/mathematicians.
Last edited:
I don't understand. The two capacitor/bucket/spring problem is hardly theoretical science. The basic concepts are taught at high school, albeit that first law of thermodynamics is generally not covered in calculus form until uni.
A top student should be able to get close to the solution before getting to uni. Noting that R cancels out I wouldn't expect them to find.
It would be a dishonesty if I would not admit close ties with masturbation
close to
Concept-Driven Revolutions and... (PDF Download Available)
The two capacitors part of the second paper is particularly mind provoking for me. The two water buckets part fits nicely in my head.
It’s like Ed wrote
(I think it’s time for some good body recharging )
George
I'm surprised that so many had not seen this. Wayne remembered but I don't know where it was first posed. If you try SPICE with any resistance in the circuit all the lost energy is heat but that obviously is wrong in detail. At least it got folks thinking.
I wish someone would answer how a commercial product is made robust against inputs with DC like single supply or phantom power circuits with 10V or more on them.
When there is no other choice (or better one) than to use a capacitance in the signal path, the only good solution is to use the best one we can find for the goal.
Because they can all measure and sound differently, depending of the way they are manufactured (DA, serial inductances, serial resistance, mechanical inertia etc.) nothing surprising that some people can hear some differences in sound between them.
Don't you agree ?
In most cases no. This is tired old ground no point in revisiting it. You also did not answer my question, how do I block 12V DC on my input?
@Bill SY is considered hostile to this crowd, the metadata consisting of years of casual sighted sometimes highly biased "listening" tests has equal weight with anything else so why bother?
Last edited:
Tryphon, I remind you I had a reviewer from a major magazine tell me that it does not matter if a cable makes an amplifier oscillate because it is to high in frequency to be audible. So where do we draw a line of agreement?
That is a good question. Blind testing is the only way, except we need to fix blind testing first before we can use it. That means we can't know with certainty for now.
As an approximation in the meantime you may find some sources seem more credible than others, and some claims may seem more credible than others, but either way we are talking about probabilities, not certainty. Maybe we can agree on what seems credible, maybe not.
Q: Why don't we work on fixing blind testing? A: Nobody cares to.
Last edited:
That can be tricky you never know what may be connected to your equipment.
A coupling cap can solve many potential issues although our current amps are DC with only caps in the supply and no servo we see very few issues. Then you find the occasional tube product with 200 volt turn on spikes despite the lambswool, teflon, cryogenic caps.
But, Mr the Professor, I thought i had ?
This said, i can imagine at least two other ways for a phantom powered mike, passive or active that will not use capacitances. Worth the try ? i don't think so.
But if you had, like me, recaped several mixing desk, full of electrolitics (used between 0V stages for protection and commutation silence), by film ones, you could not say anymore it makes no difference.
I remember specially one year where we had done this recap to one of our desks during summer. We did not tell anything about, but most of the sound engineer and mixer used to work in our studio noticed the sound improvement, asking-us what-we had changed in the studio.
I had just read the SYclotron article. Amusing. He supperpose the distortion graphes and the only color we can see is the one of the electrolitic's.
And, anyway, I don't believe the distortion measurement of a sinusoidal signal is enough to characterize the way a component will react with a musical signal, highly made of transients.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.