High Quality White Noise Gen
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 7 Jun 2010 14:59 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:37:55 -0700 (PDT), George Herold <gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >On Jun 6, 9:41�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jun 6, 10:36�pm, George Herold <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 5, 6:52�pm, John Larkin >> >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > >On Jun 5, 8:18�pm, John Larkin >> >> > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >On Jun 5, 1:24�am, John Larkin >> >> > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >On Jun 4, 10:40�pm, Phil Hobbs >> >> > >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 6/4/2010 12:01 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Jun 4, 4:41 pm, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 10:07 am, Phil Hobbs >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/3/2010 11:12 PM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>> langw...(a)fonz.dk wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> On 3 Jun., 23:11, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>> On 6/3/2010 9:49 AM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 4:36 pm, John Larkin >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> � � �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> � � �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, whit3rd<whit...(a)gmail.com> � � �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 10:37 am, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> � � �wrote: >> >> >> > ><snip> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You might want to search on single photon avalanche photo-detection. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-16-3-2232 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I haven't looked at the full paper but the list of references includes >> >> > >> >> >> > some useful stuff. >> >> >> > >> >> >> Geiger-mode APDs are mostly a crock unless you need timing accuracy >> >> > >> >> >> better than, say, 10 ns. �Their dark count rate is a good six orders of >> >> > >> >> >> magnitude worse than a PMT of the same area, and their dead time is 10 >> >> > >> >> >> times longer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> On the other hand, they don't die if you put them in a helium >> >> > >> >> >> atmosphere, and they last longer than 5 years. >> >> >And they can offer single photon detection of longer wavelength >> >photons than any photomultiplier tube can pick up. For some >> >apllication this is vital. >> >> >> > >> >> >Horses for courses. They can be a lot more compact and robust than >> >> > >> >> >PMTs - on which I'm rather more expert. >> >> >> > >> >> Vain fathead. >> >> >> > >> >I've worked with PMT's - which is more than I can claim about SPAD's - >> >> > >> >and I've persuaded the IEEE that I do know a little about PMTs - see >> >> > >> >the IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices volume 38 pages 679-680, >> >> > >> >published in March 1991. >> >> >> > >> >You do need to base your abuse on something more than your right-wing >> >> > >> >intuition. Going off half-cocked like this does rather expose your >> >> > >> >enthusiasm for believeing what you want to believe despite the absence >> >> > >> >of any evidence to support your point of view. >> >> >> > >> All you do here is claim how "expert" you are, or maybe were, without >> >> > >> ever making actual contributions. >> >> >> > >Nothing that you'd be willing to acknowledge, particularly since most >> >> > >of my contributions are references to the publshed literature, a >> >> > >source that you seem ill-equipped to exploit >> >> >> > >> You never *do* anything. >> >> >> > >Not at the moment, and I find it frustrating. >> >> >> > >> And when I don't have convincing evidence, I experiment and collect >> >> > >> some. A mouse isn't a soldering iron. >> >> >> > >You burble about 140dB of ripple rejection >> >> >> > Burble? >> >> >> Maybe he say you coming through the turgey(sp) wood. >> >> Tulgey. >> >> >> >> >Charles Lutwidge Dodgson worked as an academic mathematician in the >> >areas of geometry, matrix algebra and mathematical logic, none of >> >which would appeal to John Larkin. >> >> I can recite "Jabberwocky" by heart, and do sometimes if the beer or >> wine are of sufficient quality. > > >My daughter (age 10) recited it at the last company/ holiday poetry >reading. >She may make a mistake or two, but she�ll kill ya with charm. > Children are cute as a defense against their parents strangling them. Then they become teenagers, and are strong enough that you can't easily strangle them. John
From: Spehro Pefhany on 7 Jun 2010 15:07 On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:59:00 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:37:55 -0700 (PDT), George Herold ><gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >>On Jun 6, 9:41�pm, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >On Jun 6, 10:36�pm, George Herold <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>> >> On Jun 5, 6:52�pm, John Larkin >>> >>> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> > >On Jun 5, 8:18�pm, John Larkin >>> >> > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> > >> >On Jun 5, 1:24�am, John Larkin >>> >> > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >On Jun 4, 10:40�pm, Phil Hobbs >>> >> > >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> On 6/4/2010 12:01 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> > On Jun 4, 4:41 pm, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> �wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 10:07 am, Phil Hobbs >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> �wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/3/2010 11:12 PM, George Herold wrote: >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>> langw...(a)fonz.dk wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> On 3 Jun., 23:11, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>> On 6/3/2010 9:49 AM, George Herold wrote: >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 4:36 pm, John Larkin >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> � � �wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> � � �wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, whit3rd<whit...(a)gmail.com> � � �wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 10:37 am, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> � � �wrote: >>> >>> >> > ><snip> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> > You might want to search on single photon avalanche photo-detection. >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> >http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-16-3-2232 >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> > I haven't looked at the full paper but the list of references includes >>> >> > >> >> >> > some useful stuff. >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> Geiger-mode APDs are mostly a crock unless you need timing accuracy >>> >> > >> >> >> better than, say, 10 ns. �Their dark count rate is a good six orders of >>> >> > >> >> >> magnitude worse than a PMT of the same area, and their dead time is 10 >>> >> > >> >> >> times longer. >>> >>> >> > >> >> >> On the other hand, they don't die if you put them in a helium >>> >> > >> >> >> atmosphere, and they last longer than 5 years. >>> >>> >And they can offer single photon detection of longer wavelength >>> >photons than any photomultiplier tube can pick up. For some >>> >apllication this is vital. >>> >>> >> > >> >> >Horses for courses. They can be a lot more compact and robust than >>> >> > >> >> >PMTs - on which I'm rather more expert. >>> >>> >> > >> >> Vain fathead. >>> >>> >> > >> >I've worked with PMT's - which is more than I can claim about SPAD's - >>> >> > >> >and I've persuaded the IEEE that I do know a little about PMTs - see >>> >> > >> >the IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices volume 38 pages 679-680, >>> >> > >> >published in March 1991. >>> >>> >> > >> >You do need to base your abuse on something more than your right-wing >>> >> > >> >intuition. Going off half-cocked like this does rather expose your >>> >> > >> >enthusiasm for believeing what you want to believe despite the absence >>> >> > >> >of any evidence to support your point of view. >>> >>> >> > >> All you do here is claim how "expert" you are, or maybe were, without >>> >> > >> ever making actual contributions. >>> >>> >> > >Nothing that you'd be willing to acknowledge, particularly since most >>> >> > >of my contributions are references to the publshed literature, a >>> >> > >source that you seem ill-equipped to exploit >>> >>> >> > >> You never *do* anything. >>> >>> >> > >Not at the moment, and I find it frustrating. >>> >>> >> > >> And when I don't have convincing evidence, I experiment and collect >>> >> > >> some. A mouse isn't a soldering iron. >>> >>> >> > >You burble about 140dB of ripple rejection >>> >>> >> > Burble? >>> >>> >> Maybe he say you coming through the turgey(sp) wood. >>> >>> Tulgey. >>> >>> >>> >>> >Charles Lutwidge Dodgson worked as an academic mathematician in the >>> >areas of geometry, matrix algebra and mathematical logic, none of >>> >which would appeal to John Larkin. >>> >>> I can recite "Jabberwocky" by heart, and do sometimes if the beer or >>> wine are of sufficient quality. >> >> >>My daughter (age 10) recited it at the last company/ holiday poetry >>reading. >>She may make a mistake or two, but she�ll kill ya with charm. >> > > >Children are cute as a defense against their parents strangling them. >Then they become teenagers, and are strong enough that you can't >easily strangle them. > >John "Cute" is a programmed emotional response, triggered in order to cause you protect, or at least not to harm relatively harmless creatures you share DNA with. Baby snakes are perceived as less cute than puppies, which are in turn perceived as less cute than human babies. Dogs may have a different perspective on the matter.
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jun 2010 07:47 On Jun 7, 6:06 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:41:20 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 7, 3:55 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 02:16:57 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >Modern wines are often made to be instantly drinkable. This doesn't > >> >mean that they can't get better with age, but many don't. If the wine- > >> >maker has a gas-chromatograph - ideally with a tandem mass- > >> >spectrometer as a detector - they can have a very clear idea of what > >> >their wine tastes and smells like, and the good ones know how to > >> >create an attractive mixture of sensations, and have a pretty good > >> >idea of how that mixture will change and develop with time, > > >> Can a GC tell that the vines grew in water that had been filtered > >> through glacial gravel, slate and shale? > > >Beats me. Why not ask a wine-maker? In theory, the mineral content of > >the water could influence the volatile organic compounds that give > >wine its odour and flavour, but I'd be surprsied if the comment was > >much more than decorative verbiage. > > In other words, delusional fat-headedness. There's a lot of that going > around. He should be careful about chewing on rocks... it's bad for > your teeth. It's not all delusional fat-headedness, though publicists do latch onto to some of the more impressionistic terms as a basis for the inevitable chunks of decorative verbiage. There are wine-tasting terms that most people understand - "slatey" and "grassy" comes to mind - even though the connection between the word and the flavour is somewhat arbitrary. My wife describes particular wines as "pink" by which she seems to mean having a high concentration of a particular floral ester. If we had a GC we could probably tell you which floral ester. People - like you - who don't pay much attention to what they are drinking, and don't develop a vocabulary of terms that allow them to talk about the differences between particular wines, defensively devalue the comments of those who have tasted a wide variety of wines and can articulate the differences between them. > >The GC can detect what you can smell, with somewhat more > >discrimination, allowing a more rational approach to wine-making than > >was possible in previous centuries, not that the more subjective > >approach couldn't produce great wines. > > So the GC knows more about what wines I like than I do? The GC doesn't know anything. The wine-makers who look at the results of gas chromatic analysis of their wines (and those of others) know a great deal more about wines than you do, and - given a short list of wines that you do like - and could probably predict what other wines you would like a great deal more reliably than you could. > No, thanks. The Bandit tastes great. If enough people share your opinion, it will get to be expensive and hard to find, and you would want to find something that tastes similar and is less widely known. If you could describe what it tastes like in terms that a wine critic or a a good wine merchant could understand, the process of finding an alternative would be easier. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 8 Jun 2010 10:01 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 04:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 7, 6:06�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:41:20 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jun 7, 3:55�pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 02:16:57 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >Modern wines are often made to be instantly drinkable. This doesn't >> >> >mean that they can't get better with age, but many don't. If the wine- >> >> >maker has a gas-chromatograph - ideally with a tandem mass- >> >> >spectrometer as a detector - they can have a very clear idea of what >> >> >their wine tastes and smells like, and the good ones know how to >> >> >create an attractive mixture of sensations, and have a pretty good >> >> >idea of how that mixture will change and develop with time, >> >> >> Can a GC tell that the vines grew in water that had been filtered >> >> through glacial gravel, slate and shale? >> >> >Beats me. Why not ask a wine-maker? In theory, the mineral content of >> >the water could influence the volatile organic compounds that give >> >wine its odour and flavour, but I'd be surprsied if the comment was >> >much more than decorative verbiage. >> >> In other words, delusional fat-headedness. There's a lot of that going >> around. He should be careful about chewing on rocks... it's bad for >> your teeth. > >It's not all delusional fat-headedness, though publicists do latch >onto to some of the more impressionistic terms as a basis for the >inevitable chunks of decorative verbiage. > >There are wine-tasting terms that most people understand - "slatey" >and "grassy" comes to mind - even though the connection between the >word and the flavour is somewhat arbitrary. My wife describes >particular wines as "pink" by which she seems to mean having a high >concentration of a particular floral ester. If we had a GC we could >probably tell you which floral ester. > >People - like you - who don't pay much attention to what they are >drinking, and don't develop a vocabulary of terms that allow them to >talk about the differences between particular wines, defensively >devalue the comments of those who have tasted a wide variety of wines >and can articulate the differences between them. Right. Fatheads. Hilarious failures in double-blind tests. > >> >The GC can detect what you can smell, with somewhat more >> >discrimination, allowing a more rational approach to wine-making than >> >was possible in previous centuries, not that the more subjective >> >approach couldn't produce great wines. >> >> So the GC knows more about what wines I like than I do? > >The GC doesn't know anything. The wine-makers who look at the results >of gas chromatic analysis of their wines (and those of others) know a >great deal more about wines than you do, and - given a short list of >wines that you do like - and could probably predict what other wines >you would like a great deal more reliably than you could. > >> No, thanks. The Bandit tastes great. > >If enough people share your opinion, it will get to be expensive and >hard to find, and you would want to find something that tastes similar >and is less widely known. If you could describe what it tastes like in >terms that a wine critic or a a good wine merchant could understand, >the process of finding an alternative would be easier. No, There are lots of inexpensive, great-tasting wines. Cynthia, the wine buyer down at Canyon Market, puts out stacks of good, cheap stuff. John
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jun 2010 14:20
On Jun 8, 4:01 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 04:47:14 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 7, 6:06 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:41:20 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Jun 7, 3:55 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 02:16:57 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >Modern wines are often made to be instantly drinkable. This doesn't > >> >> >mean that they can't get better with age, but many don't. If the wine- > >> >> >maker has a gas-chromatograph - ideally with a tandem mass- > >> >> >spectrometer as a detector - they can have a very clear idea of what > >> >> >their wine tastes and smells like, and the good ones know how to > >> >> >create an attractive mixture of sensations, and have a pretty good > >> >> >idea of how that mixture will change and develop with time, > > >> >> Can a GC tell that the vines grew in water that had been filtered > >> >> through glacial gravel, slate and shale? > > >> >Beats me. Why not ask a wine-maker? In theory, the mineral content of > >> >the water could influence the volatile organic compounds that give > >> >wine its odour and flavour, but I'd be surprsied if the comment was > >> >much more than decorative verbiage. > > >> In other words, delusional fat-headedness. There's a lot of that going > >> around. He should be careful about chewing on rocks... it's bad for > >> your teeth. > > >It's not all delusional fat-headedness, though publicists do latch > >onto to some of the more impressionistic terms as a basis for the > >inevitable chunks of decorative verbiage. > > >There are wine-tasting terms that most people understand - "slatey" > >and "grassy" comes to mind - even though the connection between the > >word and the flavour is somewhat arbitrary. My wife describes > >particular wines as "pink" by which she seems to mean having a high > >concentration of a particular floral ester. If we had a GC we could > >probably tell you which floral ester. > > >People - like you - who don't pay much attention to what they are > >drinking, and don't develop a vocabulary of terms that allow them to > >talk about the differences between particular wines, defensively > >devalue the comments of those who have tasted a wide variety of wines > >and can articulate the differences between them. > > Right. Fatheads. Hilarious failures in double-blind tests. Fatheads do fail ludicrously on double-blind tests, but blind tasting is popular amongst wine buffs, and some people do remarkably well. Some of their success has nothing to do with the taste and smell of the wine - one of my wife's colleagues paid particular attention to the shapes of the bottles, which provide useful extra information and someone who knows what the wine merchants have been pushing in the week or so before a wine tasting can have a pretty fair idea of what might being offered at a blind tasting - but people who know wine can get a lot from the aroma and taste. > >> >The GC can detect what you can smell, with somewhat more > >> >discrimination, allowing a more rational approach to wine-making than > >> >was possible in previous centuries, not that the more subjective > >> >approach couldn't produce great wines. > > >> So the GC knows more about what wines I like than I do? > > >The GC doesn't know anything. The wine-makers who look at the results > >of gas chromatic analysis of their wines (and those of others) know a > >great deal more about wines than you do, and - given a short list of > >wines that you do like - and could probably predict what other wines > >you would like a great deal more reliably than you could. > > >> No, thanks. The Bandit tastes great. > > >If enough people share your opinion, it will get to be expensive and > >hard to find, and you would want to find something that tastes similar > >and is less widely known. If you could describe what it tastes like in > >terms that a wine critic or a a good wine merchant could understand, > >the process of finding an alternative would be easier. > > No, There are lots of inexpensive, great-tasting wines. Cynthia, the > wine buyer down at Canyon Market, puts out stacks of good, cheap > stuff. There are lots of inexpensive good-tasting wines. "Great" implies something more, and great wines don't stay cheap and available for very long. The invisible hand of the market guarantees that. Cynthia will tell you all about it if you ask her nicely. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |