Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 19:40 On Nov 30, 3:37 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: <snipped the usual pleasantries> > Hardly, since the experiment was done in order to show you (I even > emailed it to you, remember, since for some reason you can't access > abse?) that you were wrong about being able to extract energy from the > varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid > around it. The solenoid was entirely your idea. A clamp-on meter - which is what I was talking about - isn't a solenoid, but a toroidal transformer core which can be opened and closed. The output power - such as it is - is extracted from a second wiinding wrapped around part of that core. This creates a perfectly conventional transformer with a single-turn primary - one of the power companies active lines runs inside the toroid, and the rest run outside, forming a rather loosely wound single turn. You didn't understand this and got excited and ran your "experiment" with a solenoid and a bunch of wires - a configuration that has nothing to do with clamp-on meters If I thought that you had enough sense to realise this, I'd say that you were the fraud, but in fact you are merely a loud-mouthed and persistent fool. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen.
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 19:57 On Nov 30, 7:06 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 29, 1:58 pm, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields > > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin > > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >>>> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful > > >>>> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that > > >>>> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. > > > >>>That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working > > >>>on it. > > > >>But you used mosfets. > > > >--- > > >Priceless!!! > > > >JF > > > Sloman is clearly confused. I was of the impression that he was a > > sour, mean-spirited old git, but it's likely that he is actually > > delusional. As such, it's neither kind nor productive to argue with > > him. > > He's gotta be maxed out over his heart. That's no fun. Maybe we > should have mercy, lest he explode it. My cardiologist claims that my aortic valve isn't opening wide enough, which means that my heart has to develop a blood pressure of 220/60 to produce the 120/60 that one sees on the other side of the valve. High, and the cardiologist plans on having something done about it in the next few months, but a long way short of of any incipient risk of detonation. I even went to field-hockey practice earlier this evening, though I didn't do a lot of running around. As for being "maxed out", my wife complains that I'm being much too blasé about the whole business. My younger brother in Sydney recently had the kind of experience that gets you closer to maxing out - chest pains on Monday, cine- angiography on Thursday and a quadruple by-pass on the following Monday, but he's now well into recuperation. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 20:01 On Nov 30, 7:19 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:06:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Nov 29, 1:58 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields > > >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> >>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >> >><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >>>> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful > >> >>>> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that > >> >>>> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. > > >> >>>That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working > >> >>>on it. > > >> >>But you used mosfets. > > >> >--- > >> >Priceless!!! > > >> >JF > > >> Sloman is clearly confused. I was of the impression that he was a > >> sour, mean-spirited old git, but it's likely that he is actually > >> delusional. As such, it's neither kind nor productive to argue with > >> him. > > >He's gotta be maxed out over his heart. That's no fun. Maybe we > >should have mercy, lest he explode it. > > Agonizing and arguing over something you can't affect (ie, AGW and > Exxon) is a sure source of stress, and longterm stress is a > cardiovascular killer. Aortic valve disease has nothing to do with stress - and my blood pressure has been 120/60 for years now (give or take the usual noise on the measurments). > Designing and building electronics, on the > other hand, is both satisfying and relaxing. Designing the stuff is fun, but getting it built involves a lot of detail work, and people do tend to pester you while you are getting it to work. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 20:11 On Nov 30, 6:01 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:53:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 29, 5:44 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful > >> >> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that > >> >> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. > > >> >That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working > >> >on it. > > >> But you used mosfets. > > >The circuit that squegged in real life used bipolar transistors. > > Exactly. The RC base bias network was a key part of the squegging > loop. The classic bipolar Baxandall Class-D oscillator doesn't have any capacitance in the base-drive. The example that squegged (until I stripped a third of the turns from the inductor) had one film capacitor in the tank circuit and an electrolytic across the supply rail - there was no RC bias network. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 30 Nov 2009 20:25
Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> <much snipped, my apologies> >>> >>> In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work. >>> If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from >>> it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of >>> money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error, >>> then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't >>> really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that >>> made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that >>> shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really >>> doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So >>> again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that >>> someone else should have caught. >>> >>> An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal >>> correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by >>> Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this >>> inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results >>> that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all >>> over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go >>> back through their methodology to see if they could find an error. >>> Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally, >>> Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with >>> the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious >>> time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by >>> all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since >>> they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any >>> case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data >>> sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they >>> discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama >>> team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months >>> to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and >>> republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the >>> spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work >>> long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's >>> work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing >>> their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much >>> credit given for this. Just credit taken away. >>> >>> Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering >>> questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not >>> duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems. >>> That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is >>> important. >>> >>> _Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs >>> and interim data aren't that important. ... >> But raw input data is. That's what it was about. > > Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience. > Very much _unlike_ raw data in the clinical/medical field where > _everyone_ seems to consider it highly proprietary. > > Mind telling me what raw data you asked for? > Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed. >>> ... If you are going to attempt >>> replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to >>> do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a >>> chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of >>> course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of >>> course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all >>> anyone really needs. >>> >>> If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in >>> answering the questions, then you don't even need that. >>> >>> The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And >>> they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too >>> many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing >>> methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at >>> all. >>> >>> When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where >>> I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually >>> understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. ... >> Why is it that one would only give out data if using "their methods"? > > I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood > them, or tried to. In some cases, I frankly didn't fully apprehend > what they did and they simply helped me to understand them and then > still gave me access. In any case, I wasn't saying that was a "gate > keeper" as you seem to have imagined. If you read my writing with > understanding, you've have gleened that I was suggesting that they > want to know if I am semi-serious or just some random gadfly. > > I sure would NOT want to get jerked around by every nut and, if I > refused, to then get tarred and feathered by you because I decided I > didn't feel up to it. > But if the scientist took the time to write a few sentences, why not just send a link to a web site with the data? It doesn't have to be exhaustive, just some place from where one can probe further and, most of all, something from official sources (such as NOAA or other countries' agencies). > Basically, I treat them respectfully as I'd want to be treated by > someone else asking _me_ for a favor. Do that and you get a long > ways, my experience. > That's what I always do. In requests as in replies. >> That's exactly what I'd not want to do. In my case all I wanted to look >> at is where exactly sea levels were rising and by how much. After >> finding lots of data from places where it didn't happen I was brushed >> off with the remark "Well, the ocean is not a bathtub". Here, I would >> have expected a set of data that shows that I am wrong. But ... nada. Great. >> >> <snip of material I'll respond to later when I have time> > > Do you honestly feel they owe you an education, Joerg? It's a lot > better to show that you've at least made some effort on your own. > YMMV, of course. Act as you want to. I'm just suggesting... > I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data might be. I don't think that's asking too much. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |