From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 16/11/2025 4:29 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message news:10f
447$3htrq$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 15/11/2025 8:23 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/11/2025 4:46 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
> ...
>>>
>>> When you get down to signals as low as -150 dBm there will be Johnson
>>> noise and intermodulation products contributed by the components within
>>> the oscillator. Selecting individual harmonics with a narrow-band
>>> filter will give an unrealistic number that doesn't represent the total
>>> unwanted output.
>>>
>>>> You are comparing apples and pears as your "5 Kc.s bandwidth" makes
>>>> clear. if you have been cribbing from a more modern source it would have
>>>> been a 5kHz bandwidth.
>>>
>>> You have no idea what I did, so stop posting offensive nonsense.
>>
>> I'm pretty confident that you don't have much of an idea what you did
either. That's probably offensive, but sadly it isn't
>> nonsense.
>>
>
> I can remember one of the presenters on
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_World
> deliberately saying cycles per second instead of Hz because that expressed
> what he wanted to say.
> Naming units after people is not very sensible in my view because it just
adds
> confusion. cycles/s or cycles*s^-1 is fine with me.
Having a single set of fundamental units is a scientific orthodoxy. I've
had enough trouble making sense of legacy units to think that it is a
sound idea.
> Then it becomes trivial to see how it can be turned into seconds per cycle,
> should there be a need to do that.
> Why doesn't 1 mile per hour have a unit named after it?
> Perhaps we should call it 1 Sloman.
It's a derived unit. The unit of distance is the metre, the unit of tine
is the second. The fundamental unit of velocity is the speed of light in
a vacuum, and it is usually labelled "c" from Einstein's famous
mass-energy equation.
> There is clearly more than one person here who thinks that this would
> be a better group if you could leave completely Bill.
People who get stuff wrong on a regular basis sometimes delude
themselves that the world would be a better place if nobody pointed out
their mistakes. Bridges breaking and buildings falling down don't make
the world a better world.
> I've worked in many places where you wouldn't get a job.
If your performance is anything to go by, I wouldn't have liked working
at any of them.
> Even if you could do the work.
There are three patents and a few published papers that suggest that I can.
> And if you did get the job you'd probably end up
> leaving due to you thinking you'd been badly treated, when in fact it
> was you who had treated others badly.
I have had occasional bad bosses, and I got made redundant from one job
because a superior messed up one project badly enough to wreck it. If
I'd been prepared to shift to a job as a staff engineer I could have
stayed on, but went in solidarity with the rest of the team who didn't
get that option. I've written it up here - with three years of my weekly
reports plus some explanatory content. I'd hoped to do a Tracy Kidder
job on it, but I don't have the necessary skills.
http://sophia-elektronica.com/At_Cambridge.html
The main reason that I moved around as much as I did was my wife's
career, which was brilliant - she ended up as a FRS and a foreign member
of the US academy of science - and I'd move when she got a better job.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
