Velocity vs Pressure modulation loses just about everyone outside of the folks who actually understand acoustics.
Now when using a standard pistonphone to check a microphone the test chamber is a bit too small for the 250 Hz. wavelength. ( By about 50 times or more.) For some strange reason it comes with a barometer to show how much the calibrated level changes with air pressure.
Now from my perspective nothing really beats a large room. By large I mean dimensions of at least 50M x 70M x 20M H. Of course the woofers are a bit bigger to go with the room. Interestingly enough one of the design issues is to size the woofer box so that it will still fit through doors. This usually limits it to 28" wide, 78" deep and under 96" tall. You put wheels on the back and flip it down to go through a standard 30" doorway.
However in my office the woofers have output down to about 16 Hz. The office is nowhere near a large room, although a bit bigger than most residential spaces.
Have not yet measured the response in my house, but I did knock out a wall to improve the acoustics.
Why don't you get him onto acoustic suspension loudspeakers will fail if there is a small leak in the cabinet's seal? That used to be one of the misunderstood issues also.
Last edited:
The intent of a doctoral program (at least a good one) is not so much teaching the student content, but rather teaching the student how to design a research program- how to formulate testable hypotheses and experimental verification. That's why so many (including me) have ended up working in areas quite a bit removed from our original specialty; what we are good at is designing and interpreting research rather than solely a knowledge base of some very narrow specialty.
Yours sounds particularly nice because of the fields it encompasses.
Goto your link: Challenging the Fructose Hypothesis: New Perspectives on Fructose Consumption and Metabolism
Open the drop down called "Author affiliations".
See the name; White Technical Research, Argenta, IL
Google name
First hit will be; https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-s-white-2a224219
Read Summary.
Hummm; Dr. White worked in food industry research and management for 13 years, developing a specialization in nutritive (caloric) sweeteners. He is one of the foremost experts in fructose and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the result of 32 years of research on the production, functionality, applications, consumption and metabolism of these sweeteners.
Hummm; Corn Refiners Association (Washington, DC)
Work exp, HUMMMM! Research Biochemist, Corn Wet Milling Industry
1981 – 1994 (13 years)
This guy is a barking seal for the corn industry
Ok, published.
SY, No Hencho en Mexico Coke a Cola for you
NEXT!
Last edited:
Well the requirement of garnering enough breadth to withstand the final oral exam is fairly demanding.
But I have one friend who got his Phuddy in the somewhat-arcane realm of "Systematic Musicology", and he put his committee together most cleverly, with research into which members were almost certain to ask his or her "trick" questions. These questions would allow, when the given person sensed which way the winds were blowing, to side with the majority, as it was almost certain that the candidate would have gotten a given questioner's answer wrong. Mike knew he did not possess a comprehensive knowledge of musicology. The strategy worked beautifully, and he even went on to an academic job for a while, until his wife threatened to leave him unless they moved back to California.
Once in a great while he will see his dissertation mentioned and flare up with enthusiasm or anger, sometimes even being moved to comment. It was a clever piece of work, and was facilitated by his graveyard shift job at the computing center. He did an elaborate factor analysis of characteristics of musical instruments, and the program developed allowed one to, among other things, determine the age of manufacture of a given physical sample to an accuracy of +/-50 years---out of 5000 years.
Of course like so many, he wound up working as an IT professional until a recent retirement.
I'm hoping not to turn the thread into a long debate. And I know much less about acoustics than many, and would have to learn more to cite my own references. However a bit of search engine activity does provide some material about bass gain in small rooms and vehicles.
It would probably sound too partisan* if I suggested he read Toole's book, which covers the characteristics of loudspeakers in everyday-dimensioned rooms quite effectively. In his upcoming third edition of Sound Reproduction (really the second owing to a publisher sort-of labeling blunder) he takes on cinema audio and larger-dimensioned rooms as well. It will not be received well by some who have a vested interest in supporting the status quo, nor for that matter was his lengthy article in JAES.
*despite having done zero work for Harman since December 2004.
Thank you for some substance. BTW a fuller range of cellular action, largely to do with cancer, you may want to read up on is autophagy. It includes (albeit less talked about) cleaning mechanisms.
Interesting tid-bit, trehalose is being looked at because it induces autophagy. Diabetes/blood sugar, old age, and everything you can think of tends to inhibit autophagy, so the need to induce it may be a powerful tool for people to retain health, or for treatments.
Comically, yes, most of the jobs I'm looking at will be modelling heavy, or end up more on the data analysis side. We'll see how it all shakes out.
My roommate was on track to get his Ph.D in ethnomusicology, but wisely aborted at the master's level. He learned a lot about tracking artists and their fans interactions on the internet. Guess what he does now? Yep, software designing for mobile apps.
Morinix--so can you refute him? You know, the content? He might be a shill, then again, he might have good content. Pulling the shill card before the content card means you don't really have an argument.
My roommate was on track to get his Ph.D in ethnomusicology, but wisely aborted at the master's level. He learned a lot about tracking artists and their fans interactions on the internet. Guess what he does now? Yep, software designing for mobile apps.
Morinix--so can you refute him? You know, the content? He might be a shill, then again, he might have good content. Pulling the shill card before the content card means you don't really have an argument.
factoid --- cancer tumor placed in animals were given 2 diets. One with protein supplied only by plants and the other group had their protein portion of the diet supplied by animal (meat). At a certain level of concentration percentage of meat protein, the meat group's tumor started to grow. There was no amount of plant protein group's diet that ever caused the cancer tumor to grow. The amount of protein needed to be healthy? About equal to 1/4 pound of meat/day. The meat level that causes tumor growth was equivalent to a little more than 1/4 pound of meat for humans.
-RNM
-RNM
Last edited:
Dan,
Your discussion of what you are doing takes me back to the early days of ectrophoresis as we did in the lab, that was over 40 years ago. I also did some nuclear testing back then for PBI's, T3 &T4 and such with very low level reactive materials. I just hated the bacteriology section, the smell of those Petri dishes was something else some times. Takes me way back.
Your discussion of what you are doing takes me back to the early days of ectrophoresis as we did in the lab, that was over 40 years ago. I also did some nuclear testing back then for PBI's, T3 &T4 and such with very low level reactive materials. I just hated the bacteriology section, the smell of those Petri dishes was something else some times. Takes me way back.
Full Definition of factoid
1
: an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print
(source: Merriam-Webster.com)
Yep... it was a published phd research work. Just cant believe everything you read according to SY.
Its those poorly trained phd people. Cant trust anything they report. Not even protein sources and cancer links.
-RNM
Its those poorly trained phd people. Cant trust anything they report. Not even protein sources and cancer links.
-RNM
Last edited:
I'm sure your interpretation is accurate and that the source was first hand and reputable. 😀😀😀😀😀
Without even digging, my BS filter is raised since I have first hand research experience in the effects of phytoestrogens on cancer cell proliferation.
Without even digging, my BS filter is raised since I have first hand research experience in the effects of phytoestrogens on cancer cell proliferation.
RNM,
I'll assume for now you are sighting some testing done with Rats, not always relevant but the best we can do without using human subjects. So many of those types of tests are so flawed in their premise or in the actual quantities of substance that are needed to get a specific result which have so little to do with an actual normal condition. Not saying the study you are using as an example is incorrect but I do question many of those rat tests at the concentrations so often used for testing. Give a human enough water in a short enough time and they will die, doesn't mean water is bad for you, just excess volume/time.
I'll assume for now you are sighting some testing done with Rats, not always relevant but the best we can do without using human subjects. So many of those types of tests are so flawed in their premise or in the actual quantities of substance that are needed to get a specific result which have so little to do with an actual normal condition. Not saying the study you are using as an example is incorrect but I do question many of those rat tests at the concentrations so often used for testing. Give a human enough water in a short enough time and they will die, doesn't mean water is bad for you, just excess volume/time.
Steve, you're assuming that the actual research was read, rather than a popular rehash, and that even in that case, it's being interpreted properly. I am... dubious.
Sy,
Actually I have read that statement many times before about meat being the cause of tumor growth. That could be a totally false premise based on anecdotal evidence as is often the case. What would be more interesting would be an actual controlled study of those who eat no meat vs those who consume a controlled amount of animal protein and the instances of certain cancers. Now when the subject just so happens to smoke on the sly or actually consumes far more of something that the test participant acknowledges then we get these false results. You know how well people are about telling the truth to researchers, such saints are these people!
Actually I have read that statement many times before about meat being the cause of tumor growth. That could be a totally false premise based on anecdotal evidence as is often the case. What would be more interesting would be an actual controlled study of those who eat no meat vs those who consume a controlled amount of animal protein and the instances of certain cancers. Now when the subject just so happens to smoke on the sly or actually consumes far more of something that the test participant acknowledges then we get these false results. You know how well people are about telling the truth to researchers, such saints are these people!
Actually red meat consumption does correlate with an increased possibility of colon cancer.
1. This does not mean red meat causes cancer, at least not in everyone.
2. As you can see it has a small speculation that different genotypes may be at different risk levels. *In other studies they don't associate it, and then some do, so clearly it isn't the sole signifier in development of cancer but may play a role.
3. Other studies have been done on communities where they have very low cancer, and as an example one was found to consume only purely grassfed meat products and dairy products. This goes to show that the association probably isn't causality... Much like the countless heavy red meat consumers we've all known that have never had cancer.
is RNMarsh's statement correct? Obviously not precisely. That's the trouble here is what a scientist says and how the public reads it... It's one of the most heated topics there is! That's why there's very popular interpretors that have blogs etc.
Consider that there's many factors here. What if eating say a piece of meat in one person encouraged some cancer growth momentarily (due to carcinogens/AGE's), but then the benefits to their bone marrow where ten fold the response to increase the immune systems efficiency. Obviously the value to that consumption would displace the encouraged growth; to the point the cancer may be eliminated. Now for the next person it may decrease good gut flora due to very different digestion... recipe for a problem since the intestines are the beginning of stimulation of the immune system.
Again, the difference between what was studied, and hard facts of "humans" is very different. It's actually sad because it's hard to use the nearly endless sea of studies on humans, to their benefit.
Last edited:
I love the stories we read in the paper about these 100+ year old ladies when asked about how they lived so long they say they ate bacon every day and did whatever they wanted to. Perhaps it was the bacon, we should all eat BLT's every day! Must be the nitrates, preserves the insides....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.