Are you suggesting that may be authentic frontier gibberish?
Sometimes (at least at first) nobody really knows. Maybe even the author, who no doubt sincerely believes.
Even the frontiers of theoretical physics are getting pretty crazy. But you gotta publish and get funded.
And then there's the fake, nonsense papers that have been accepted and published in journals.
But this is not really seen in the hard sciences.
Even the frontiers of theoretical physics are getting pretty crazy. But you gotta publish and get funded.
And then there's the fake, nonsense papers that have been accepted and published in journals.
But this is not really seen in the hard sciences.
The wacko physicists call themselves model makers. This means that they do not seriously claim
their work is reality, just self consistent.
their work is reality, just self consistent.
We physicists hope that reality is a little more than that.
That's why we got into all this in the first place.
That's why we got into all this in the first place.
Last edited:
To complicate things, Chinese websites refer to transistors as 'triodes',
and it is not just the Ali Babel translation service;
the funny website that translates as follows:
and it is not just the Ali Babel translation service;
the funny website that translates as follows:
"If you are quiet, move like a rabbit, then the noise is clean."
"Don't have a charm. If you listen, you will know."
LOL Not here we usually call them torches. I've no idea why the USA decided to call them flashlights. Mind you some irritating ones do flash these days.
More on the origin of the name "valve":
In 1904 Fleming applied for a patent for what he originally named an oscillation valve, and what later became known as the Fleming valve.
Fleming used his valve to rectify high frequency oscillations and thus detect wireless signals.
In 1904 Fleming applied for a patent for what he originally named an oscillation valve, and what later became known as the Fleming valve.
Fleming used his valve to rectify high frequency oscillations and thus detect wireless signals.
Last edited:
A valve it is. The triode that is:
The voltage on the grid reference cathode gives a sort of repellant field, through which electrons can be held back or repelled to emit from the cathode; or saying it differently, stimulated to emit with a relatively high voltage, or repelled (lower voltage).
So all this regulation of the flow is just based on the voltage differential with the cathode, and changing its ' virtual thickness' will increase or decrease the current just like a valve is opened or closed to let watr pass.
The Static Induction Transistor works in exactly the same way (and has curves like a triode).
And a BJT transitor works differently, they work like cheese with holes in the substrate and hoppping electrons while even the holes seem to move around. OMG I won't ever understand the transistor.
I'll stick to triodes.
The Valves that reference/signify rectifiers are sort of triodes with a non-existant grid, so no extra field volatge, and an when the anode voltage is lower than the cathode it will automatically not conduct at all. By the way, often triode were used as valves (sic) - that is as rectifiers. There are designs of a 211 triode amplifier for power that has a 211 too as rectifier.
Smart concept.
The voltage on the grid reference cathode gives a sort of repellant field, through which electrons can be held back or repelled to emit from the cathode; or saying it differently, stimulated to emit with a relatively high voltage, or repelled (lower voltage).
So all this regulation of the flow is just based on the voltage differential with the cathode, and changing its ' virtual thickness' will increase or decrease the current just like a valve is opened or closed to let watr pass.
The Static Induction Transistor works in exactly the same way (and has curves like a triode).
And a BJT transitor works differently, they work like cheese with holes in the substrate and hoppping electrons while even the holes seem to move around. OMG I won't ever understand the transistor.
I'll stick to triodes.
The Valves that reference/signify rectifiers are sort of triodes with a non-existant grid, so no extra field volatge, and an when the anode voltage is lower than the cathode it will automatically not conduct at all. By the way, often triode were used as valves (sic) - that is as rectifiers. There are designs of a 211 triode amplifier for power that has a 211 too as rectifier.
Smart concept.
And as non native English speaker, you just crawl in the corner crying out of confusion. Lol
Especially when you bump into those moments that you think you finally got the hang of it. Use a certain English word on the wrong side of the pond and people stare at you like you speak some weird language. Booohoooo...
Now now good fellow, a little respect if you please. We did get our language from them, after all.
"torch" abbr. "Electric Torch" , following the flaming oiled rag on a stick portable device. A bona fide technical description at the time, I should think.
If anything "flash-light" ought be thought the colloquial one I'd say. . . . . .
Yanks, wiggling the thing 'round every old which way, enjoying the novelty. "Pretty flashy!" you could hear them say.
Sorry Rayma. I didn't mean to offend you. 'Was just a friendly gibe.
Back to the thread subject.
Back to the thread subject.
Where I am from, or used to anyway, there were no tubes or valves but "radio/TV/electron lamps" in electronic literature and collquial use lol
I imagine if transistor came first and in same cultural space as the original valve, it would be a valve of some sort too...
I imagine if transistor came first and in same cultural space as the original valve, it would be a valve of some sort too...
Until someone decided that they could make money being a "physicist" (*), it used to be called "natural philosophy".. which makes sense.
It's not wacko... it's actually reality. It is what it is.
() Not really, you just sell your services as an engineer (*) because "fysiks don't pay them bills".
(**) Ever notice how engineers always have a "yes" or "no" answer.. while physicists... well, not really, it could be that way, or this way... Drives the managers and MBA types nuts. We must sound to them like lawyers ( who never give you a "yes/no" answer either... ).
Last edited:
"It's not wacko... it's actually reality. It is what it is."
Yes, it is wacko. It is not, and cannot be, reality.
None, repeat none, of the current major scientific theories can possibly be correct.
But we use them as effective theories, because that's all we have at present.
Quantum mechanics does not include gravity.
General relativity does not include quantum mechanics.
The "standard model" does not include 95% of the universe, and has around 20 arbitrary parameters.
These theories are all wrong, and are certainly incomplete, in their current incarnations.
No one knows whether any of them can be extended in the future to be more complete.
Yes, it is wacko. It is not, and cannot be, reality.
None, repeat none, of the current major scientific theories can possibly be correct.
But we use them as effective theories, because that's all we have at present.
Quantum mechanics does not include gravity.
General relativity does not include quantum mechanics.
The "standard model" does not include 95% of the universe, and has around 20 arbitrary parameters.
These theories are all wrong, and are certainly incomplete, in their current incarnations.
No one knows whether any of them can be extended in the future to be more complete.
Last edited:
Hmm... what I meant but not being wacko...
...the process by which theories are postulated.
...NOT the theories themselves.
And true, we have no Grand Unified Theory.
But that's how real science works. Are we to stop thinking just because we are not there? That would be defeatist. We know our models will change, it's OK.
In the meantime, we do generate enough stuff for the engineers to do something useful with it.
I mean, did Buddhism ever come up with numerical solutions to build semiconductors? Calculate the boiling point of water? Build a rocket to Mars? Sure, they came up with nice theories, but did they bother to understand the physics of boiling rice?
What we must not do is fall for the political "science" idea that "science is settled". But then, that's not "science".
As my advisor once told me:
"Tony, someone could come up with a model where little green men from Mars are behind everything... this theory could explain what we see and could correctly predict things that we could measure. In such a case, we would have to accept it"
That's Western Empirical Physics.
...the process by which theories are postulated.
...NOT the theories themselves.
And true, we have no Grand Unified Theory.
But that's how real science works. Are we to stop thinking just because we are not there? That would be defeatist. We know our models will change, it's OK.
In the meantime, we do generate enough stuff for the engineers to do something useful with it.
I mean, did Buddhism ever come up with numerical solutions to build semiconductors? Calculate the boiling point of water? Build a rocket to Mars? Sure, they came up with nice theories, but did they bother to understand the physics of boiling rice?
What we must not do is fall for the political "science" idea that "science is settled". But then, that's not "science".
As my advisor once told me:
"Tony, someone could come up with a model where little green men from Mars are behind everything... this theory could explain what we see and could correctly predict things that we could measure. In such a case, we would have to accept it"
That's Western Empirical Physics.
Last edited: