From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 17/11/2025 4:45 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 10:41:02 -0500, "Edward Rawde"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10   
   bqgc$3v7eg$3@dont-email.me...   
   >>> On 16/11/2025 4:29 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:   
   0fa447$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.   
   >>   
   >> You know nothing about my "performance".   
   >> But you reply as though you do.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Even if you could do the work.   
   >>>   
   >>> There are three patents and a few published papers that suggest that I can.   
   >>   
   >> That suggests only that you have three patents and a few published papers.   
   >> It says noting about whether you can tie your shoe laces.   
   >   
   > Some people think being named on a patent is a great thing. It usually   
   > isn't.   
      
   Perfectly true. But it has cost somebody upwards of $10,000 to get it   
   there. It's not negligible.   
      
   > A lot of patents are part of a startup pump-and-dump plan, something   
   > to brag about in a pitch.   
      
   It happens. Two of my patents came from my time at EMI Central Research,   
   and they did try and maintain a stock of patents for patent swaps.   
   I got the third one at Cambridge Instruments and it was more defensive -   
   if we hadn't patented the trick somebody else might have and gone after   
   us for royalties.   
      
   > Now that the US patent office is a profit   
   > center, and patents require annual payment, the patent office has no   
   > incentive to research prior art or ensure sensibility... let the   
   > lawyers fight it out.   
      
   They didn't do much of a job on my "moving plate" patent.   
      
   > A patent is just an invitation to waste a lot of time and money on   
   > lawyers. And on ego.   
      
   Not always. That what my father (25 patents) and I (three patents) told   
   a friend of mine when he was contemplating applying for one. He applied   
   anyway, and after spending a lot of money on lawyers got $A12 million   
   out of it. If Tektronix had persisted with their provisional patent he   
   wouldn't have got anything.,   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)