Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Dec 2009 04:19 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:35:15 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:50:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:25:27 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> That isn't raw data, Joerg. It's digested and developed from several >>>> methods applied to a range of data sets taken in a variety of ways >>>> from sites all over the world, each of which have their unique >>>> characteristics that need to be understood and applied to develop a >>>> sense of 'global sea level'.... all of which goes through refinements >>>> and changes, from time to time. Assuming, of course, that you meant >>>> to have "global sea level data" when you wrote "sea level data." >>>> >>>> It would have helped you a lot had you known what you were looking >>>> for. >>> I did. I asked for the local water level _readings_. Before that request >>> I had already found quite a few data sets on my own. When that data did >>> not corroborate what they had published I asked for more of that data. >>> To be able to understand where their conclusions came from. >> >> By 'local water level' were you talking about a specific area? Or >> everywhere in the world? There are many instrumentation differences, >> methodology of measurement differences, and so on, if you are talking >> global. On the other hand, if you were talking about the SF bay area >> and some specific team and time frame, I think you'd probably get the >> data. >> > >Don't remember exactly. IIRC I asked for Asian stations where I couldn't >get at the data. > > >> Here in Portland, we have a NOAA weather office, for example. They do >> things like read temperatures, monitor rain precipitation, snow >> precipitation, wind speed and direction, and the usual lot of your >> basic measurements. Some of the data is intermittent -- snow fall has >> ceased to be measured, about 10 years ago, and monitoring wasn't begun >> until perhaps the 1950's. Some of it is continuous, like temperature, >> going back a ways. However, the locations of the measurement, the >> type of measuring instrument, the frequency and timing of those >> measurements, and the calibration methods used have changed over the >> years. Even though there is some digesting of the data before it >> makes it into their SF6 preliminary product, it's still not reliable >> and certainly not usable as a continuous dataset without a lot of >> specific information to help. >> >> Much of that information isn't even available on the web. Even the >> more recent data only goes back 5 years -- by policy, after this late >> Bush took office and had key staff in Washington DC _order_ (I've read >> the order, personally) the datasets curtailed on the web. They do >> have data going back further and, upon request, sent me much of it. >> However, to make use of that data as well as other data that still >> remained only in paper records, I has to personally visit the office >> and take days of time going through stacks of old papers and copy out >> calibration standards and references and methodology. >> >> And that is just one process variable for one site. >> >> So what exactly were you asking for? >> > >Jon, it doesn't matter anymore :-) > > >>>> Have you ever sat down and actually _read_ a report on these kinds of >>>> subjects? I mean, really just one of them? Or the IPCC AR4 >>>> discussion, even? If you had, you'd know that "sea level data" isn't >>>> "raw data" without my saying so. >>>> >>>> Here, take a look at this one from this year: >>>> >>>> http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a043.pdf >>> 1.12mm/year, or 0.77mm per the other guys. Whew, we won't drown then :-)) >> >> Mostly, I wanted to point out the effort required to fuse even just a >> couple of data sets. My above comments give you even more about it. >> >> By the way, 1.12mm/year represents perhaps (in my opinion) the single >> largest source of rise, right now, except perhaps thermal expansion. >> In other words, mountain glacier loss is pronounced and not to be set >> aside or laughed at. Broadly speaking, it's important and widespread. >> > >I know it is. But is also has been a few thousand years ago. Back then >many people were smarter than today. For example, I read about a French >architect who loudly said that building at the place where New Orleans >now is was a bad idea. And he gave the reasons. Nobody listened ... > > >>>> Since you were discussing mountain glaciers earlier, you have given me >>>> a segue. It's really a very simple paper that illustrates the issues >>>> involved when trying to see if there is a way to develop an improved >>>> understanding by joining datasets from different sources and means. >>>> >>>> Now, I think you can understand the reaction if you were writing to >>>> some scientist about glaciers and asking for "glacier levels." They >>>> wouldn't really know what you meant if you were asking for the raw >>>> data. Which raw data? >>> I often deal with this when writing module specs. Since I can never >>> assume how well versed the readers will be there is a lot of underlying >>> data and explanations. A regular engineer like you and I won't read >>> those but they are still provided. >>> >>> If the AGW folks want to make a case they better do the same, be open. >>> Especially now since the trust of the public has been thoroughly shaken. >> >> Well, the report I cited provides all you need to know. From there, >> you can realize the assumptions and know at least some of what else >> may need to be examined further. You know the data sets, broadly >> speaking, and can track those down (or ask for more details.) You >> know the results and methods and probably could get very close to >> replication, if you put in the work he did. What else should have >> been included? >> > >The report you cited is fine. However, since you said glacier melt is >the single largest contributor then why are some other estimates so way >off? Like this: > >http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ > > >>>> Suppose I asked you about the getting access to "capacitor values?" >>>> You might wonder, "Um... which types of capacitors? What values, >>>> exactly? Do they need to know about temperature or voltage effects? >>>> What application is this for?" Etc. And then you'd begin to wonder >>>> if the questioner had any clue, at all, asking like that. >>> But I would not brush them off. >> >> Depends. If the subject were far, far more complex and the question >> illustrating much, much further to go in terms of education... you >> might. I think I definitely would brush them off, because I frankly >> care about my time, unless they somehow showed me the were serious >> enough to work hard for their own opinion. If someone is serious and >> can show it, I usually agree with you. I love it when people want to >> know things and are willing to put in the sweat to get there. But >> there are so many people out there who aren't. >> >> And in climate science, it's is _so_ politicized and there is _so_ >> much money there for those willing to do little other than confuse and >> waste others' time, that you really _do_ need to be a little careful. >> Even the late Bush administration actively worked hard to "make this >> political." I only wish the world were different. But it isn't. >> Still, many scientists are generous people and a lot of them will give >> away their time even when the questioners msy only be asking to be >> annoying and will never do anything with the effort granted them. >> >> Best foot forward is to show you have put in some time, first, and >> know just a little bit about what they've done and are currently >> interested in. Just as that would be a best foot forward with you. >> For example, I know that you look for other than boutique parts and >> often have a cost/space issue and sometimes deal with controlling RF >> power levels fewer have to. If I were writing to you for information, >> it might go just a little further perhaps that I was at least aware of >> some of your own concerns and could couch my request in a way that >> presents well. >> >> It's just good practice. >> >>>> I would. >>>> >>>> This is why I said it helps if you inform yourself by actually doing >>>> some serious, sit-down reading of the material. Get familiar with the >>>> issues of the day. Learn a little, first. By then, you can refine >>>> your questions to something they can make good sense of and place it >>>> into a context they understand. >>>> >>>> I mean, how many times have you seem people writing in about >>>> electronics and asking some bizarrely phrased question that makes it >>>> patently obvious they have no clue, at all? And you know, before even >>>> thinking about answering, that anything you say will only make it >>>> worse? "There is too much current for my radio to work right. How >>>> can I lower the current?" Stuff like that where you not only know >>>> they have no clue, you know there is NO CHANCE that you can give a >>>> short, directed answer that helps, either. >>> Then I ask questions. Like "What is it that you don't like with the >>> sound of your radio?" >> >> I think you know what I mean, though. They might be asking also for a >> lot of work on your part in the request. (Presumed here, because when >> you ask a scientist for 'sea level data' you probably are asking for >> an hour or two of their time, if for no other reason than to explain >> to you the caveats of it.) >> > >No, I was just asking for pointers. Not hours of his time. A pointer, in >the sense of your example above, would be suggesting a certain web link >or book for further studies. I have done that numerous times when I had >the impression the requester was really not of to snuff yet. There have >been cases where I thought I'd never hear anything back until half a >year later someone thanked me and that he'd now understood how forward >power converters really work (using my pointer). > > >> And yes, taking your point it would be nice if scientists would ask >> you for more about what you plan to do or what problem you are trying >> to solve, so they can better advise you even if they don't plan >> themselves to provide everything. Often, they can refer you to >> someone else, or a good book on the subject. >> > >Exactly. > > >>>> It really does help a lot to do some reading on your own before going >>>> around asking questions. >>>> >>>> I don't mean to be flip or abrupt, Joerg. Your question is the kind >>>> of question that non-specialists really might have to help them think >>>> about things. But you also have to understand this from the side of >>>> someone who is deep into the details (like you are, here.) Consider >>>> how you might have to respond in similar circumstances. >>>> >>>> The data you asked for isn't 'raw data.' >>> It may not be called that and I only used that expression here for >>> brevity. What I asked for was sea level data from stations. Can't be >>> that hard. >> >> Yes, it can. Which stations? How long of a period? Did the >> instrumentation change? If so, when and when and when? Did the >> locations change, too? If so, what are the calibration differences? >> How were they determined and with what precision and variances, based >> on methods used? What methods were used? Have there also been >> changes in the land mass, itself, based upon satellite observation or >> other geologic information that confounds the measurements in the >> interim? Etc. I'm only just getting started. >> > >Again, all I wanted was a pointer. Like "If you want to know more about >the stations in Taiwan start with this link". That's all. > > >[...] > >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least, if so. I've had to replicate results >>>> by following procedures. In fact, it's good for you to have to work >>>> for it, like that. Helps you understand things better when you have >>>> to do it, yourself, too. >>>> >>>>> 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). >>>> May not be there. However, the raw data (like tree ring counts from >>>> some Scottish researcher looking at a certain set of preserved trees >>>> at a particular museum) is often available. Now, if you want that >>>> tree ring data from yet another researcher looking at fossilized trees >>>> from Tibet, 10 years earlier, then you might need to contact someone >>>> else. And if you want that fused together in some kind of new data >>>> set, you might need to contact someone else... if that fused data is >>>> the explicit OUTPUT of a paper. >>>> >>>> Just like in electronics. You get to know the signal inputs, >>>> conditions, and drive requirements... up to a point. And you get to >>>> know the outputs... up to a point. As far as the internals go? Maybe. >>>> Maybe not. If you are informed, you can probably "work it out" on >>>> your own. You don't need them to disclose everything. It's not >>>> entirely different, except that scientists disclose a LOT more I think >>>> and take a less-proprietary approach. So even better, in my opinion. >>>> But you really don't _need_ the internal work product. You can access >>>> the raw data inputs because they are usually the explicit outputs of >>>> someone else's work. You can use the outputs, too. But you don't >>>> have a right to dig into the internal stuff.... if you want it, you >>>> really need to ask VERY NICELY and you need to let them know a lot >>>> more about you and what you intend to do with it. >>> All I wanted was the input and it's got to be there. Measurements, >>> averages, from the stations. >> >> Read my above comments. It's not 'that easy,' except to someone who >> hasn't ever done this. But of course, to those ignorant of the >> details everything seems 'easy.' Boy did I learn that digging my own >> foundations and perimeter wall cement forms! Just the very idea of >> 'digging a level base' seems easy enough to conceive. Until you go >> there and dig it out. Not the work, but what you find. I found >> biotic material here going twice as deep as I wanted to dig, in one >> corner of the area. And NONE of the books told me how to deal with it >> -- except to say that the foundation needs to based upon inert ground. >> So I knew I had a problem. It took me days to work out the answers >> and remove all of the 'bad' material leaving cavities, develop >> engineered fill on my own, learn how to tamp it down properly and >> bring the cavities back up, and move earth around the area to bring a >> more uniform appearance. Damn! I just wanted a level foundation. >> >> Reality impinges. >> >> Nothing is easy. Especially this stuff. >> > >My comeuppance was when my wife asked for some irrigation "over yonder". >I looked, ah, 10 feet tops, I'll do that Saturday. Big deal. Then I hit >one rock after the other, big ones where you think the other end of it >comes out in China. > > >>>> I'd want the same thing. Otherwise, I might spend the next 10 years >>>> of my life having to either teach that person step by step or else >>>> have them paste my name all over the internet, saying that they have >>>> all this data directly from me all the while completely and totally >>>> misinterpreting it to everyone else... but looking like they know >>>> stuff because __I__ gave them the data and I cannot deny that fact. >>> Nope, I would not refuse. One can give out the data plus a link to >>> teaching material. I often point email requesters that are more in the >>> league of your example "my radio uses too much of the wrong current" to >>> web sites thta teach the basics. In this day and age there is an >>> abundance, and learning is essentially free. When I began answering >>> requests in the late 80's and early 90's that was not the case at all, >>> lots more work. Yet I always answered them (they had my address from >>> publications). >> >> I think I have every right to control _my_ time. Sometimes, I think >> the effort is worth it and, since I generally agree with your >> approach, I often try. But in the end, _I_ decide when and where I am >> willing. Sometimes, I've got other things going on (like my daughter) >> that require my time and it's just a bad time that the request comes >> in. So I brush them off. I usually try and send them somewhere >> slightly useful and spend _some_ time, even then. But if the number >> of requests were high, perhaps, and my personal circumstances very >> demanding at the time... I might not respond at all. If the >> questioner is serious, they will either write in a few months or else >> they will find someone else. I don't owe anyone my time, though. >> > >No, neither do I. I don't owe but can volunteer it. With a group of >scientists working for and paid by our tax Dollars that can be >different. There are some where I wouldn't want my tax Dollars to go to >but they do anyhow. What can ya do? > > >>>>>> 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. >>>> It's good practice. I wish I followed it as well as you do. >>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>> Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. But "sea level data" doesn't cut it >>>> unless you are more specific. >>> Well, I got some of it on my own and told them, so they knew exactly >>> what I was after. I just wanted some more (that I couldn't find), from >>> areas which corroborate their claims. But anyhow, it's history, I am not >>> interested in that particular data anymore. >> >> Show me what you know about getting 'sea level data.' What >> instrumentation is used, Joerg? Where and over what periods of time? >> What areas are markedly different in their methods? How have methods >> changed over time? How are they calibrated? How do you calibrate the >> differences in means and methods against each other (how do you match >> up measurements from one method with another, even in the same area?) >> How have positions of instrumentation changed and why? How does land >> level changes affect results? Which satellites and instruments aboard >> are also used in all this? How are they used? What processing is >> required merely to get a measurement out of satellite based equipment >> that can be used, in the first place? How long have they been in >> space? Etc. >> >> What work have you really done, here? Seriously. What puts you in >> the position of being able to come to your own opinion on any of it? >> >> Where are your callouses? Show me. > >All I did was ask a simple question. True, my only work was reading >publications which sort of didn't jibe with their numbers. And I wanted >to know or find out why. But let's leave it at that now. It doesn't >matter anymore. We understand each other, then. Jon
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 04:22 On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= > >> >, > >> >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). > >> >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= > >> >re would be no civilisation > >> >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= > >> >ufacturers have their own power plants. > > >> >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these > >> >nice things will go away again. > > >> >> Been there. > >> >> Now wake up from your green dreams. > > >> >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know > >> >what he is talking about. > > >> mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? > > >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who > >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite > >often post total nonsense. > > --- > Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field > surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? A subject on which you have posted a lot of nonsense. You did take that joke seriously, as if there was some doubt that it was a joke, and since then you have been wasting bandwidth trying to to claim that my treating it as a joke meant that I didn't understand that it was joke. One expects puppies to chase their own tails, but it is unusual to see an adult so wound up in his own misconceptions. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 04:35 On Dec 2, 1:20 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 30, 7:57 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > 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: > > > > 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. > > You'd best take good care of yourself then--otherwise we shills might > just pull out all the stops and plaster the internet with Exxon- > Mobil / Royal-Dutch propaganda in your absence. > > So there, that's something to live for! ;-) I haven't noticed that the the usual suspects have shown any signs of recognising when they are peddling Exxon-Mobil subsidised propaganda. Odd, since it is pretty recognisable. I can't say that I've noticed any signs of Royal Dutch Shell subsidised denialist propaganda - that oil company publicly claims to believe in anthropogenic global warming, and in fact is behind the prospective Dutch trial of CO2 sequestration under Barendrecht that is so upsetting Jan Pateltje. Of course, your exquisite research skills and deep connections with the climate community may give you access to secrets that lesser mortals can only dream about, but since you would not - of course - be in position to identify your source it is simpler to assume that - once again - you don't know what you are talking about. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 05:02 On Dec 2, 4:30 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman <snip> > Your off-topic ratio must be literally around 99%. "Literally"? Either you can find 99 off-topic posts for every on-topic post - in which case you could have posted the actual statistics, or you can't, and you are dignifying biased guesswork with the term "literally". And you do have this tendency to post recipes, which aren't really on- topic for this group. >Your offensive-to-friendly ratio is similar. > > Why? You are easy to offend? You certainly seem to have been vicariously offended by my characterising some of James Arthur's output as santimonious bombast. He may be a friend of yours, but he still poses as an expert while making mistakes that make it obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 05:28
On Dec 1, 4:37 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:11:47 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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. > > Got a schematic? This is the .asc file from the LTSpice 4 simulation of a similar circuit. It isn't quite the same as the circuit that squegged back in 1968 - the circuit diagram for that (or at least for the circuit with the inductance of L7 reduced enough to stop it oscillating) is in my Ph.D. thesis, but the differences are minor. Version 4 SHEET 1 3272 1144 WIRE -160 -160 -464 -160 WIRE 80 -160 -160 -160 WIRE 368 -160 80 -160 WIRE 80 -128 80 -160 WIRE -160 -64 -160 -160 WIRE 368 -64 368 -160 WIRE -64 -16 -96 -16 WIRE 80 -16 80 -48 WIRE 80 -16 16 -16 WIRE 112 -16 80 -16 WIRE 176 -16 112 -16 WIRE 304 -16 256 -16 WIRE -160 96 -160 32 WIRE -80 96 -160 96 WIRE 0 96 -80 96 WIRE 288 96 64 96 WIRE 368 96 368 32 WIRE 368 96 288 96 WIRE -160 192 -160 96 WIRE -112 192 -160 192 WIRE 80 192 -32 192 WIRE 208 192 80 192 WIRE 368 192 368 96 WIRE 368 192 288 192 WIRE -224 272 -288 272 WIRE 16 272 -144 272 WIRE 80 272 80 192 WIRE 80 272 16 272 WIRE -464 336 -464 -160 WIRE -128 416 -160 416 WIRE -32 416 -128 416 WIRE 192 416 48 416 WIRE 224 416 192 416 WIRE 384 416 304 416 WIRE 400 416 384 416 WIRE 112 464 112 -16 WIRE -160 560 -160 416 WIRE -48 560 -160 560 WIRE 400 560 400 416 WIRE 400 560 32 560 WIRE -464 624 -464 416 WIRE -288 624 -288 272 WIRE -288 624 -464 624 WIRE 112 624 112 544 WIRE 112 624 -288 624 WIRE 192 624 192 416 WIRE 192 624 112 624 WIRE -464 656 -464 624 FLAG -464 656 0 FLAG 16 272 Vct FLAG 384 416 Vout+ FLAG -128 416 Vout- FLAG -80 96 tank- FLAG 288 96 tank+ SYMBOL ind2 -128 208 R270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 4 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L1 SYMATTR Value 250µ SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.022 Cpar=1p SYMBOL ind2 192 208 R270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 4 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L2 SYMATTR Value 250µ SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.022 Cpar=1p SYMBOL cap 64 80 R90 WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 46 32 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 100n SYMBOL ind2 -240 288 R270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L7 SYMATTR Value 33m SYMATTR SpiceLine Ipk=0.03 Rser=80 Cpar=8.5p SYMATTR Type ind SYMBOL voltage -464 320 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 24 132 Left 0 SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.001 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value 5 SYMBOL ind2 32 0 M270 WINDOW 0 44 45 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L3 SYMATTR Value 22.5µ SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.004 Cpar=1pF SYMBOL ind2 272 0 M270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L4 SYMATTR Value 0.0000278 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.004 Cpar=1p SYMBOL res 96 448 R0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 3k9 SYMBOL pnp -96 32 R180 SYMATTR InstName Q3 SYMATTR Value 2N3906A SYMBOL pnp 304 32 M180 SYMATTR InstName Q4 SYMATTR Value 2N3906A SYMBOL ind2 -48 432 R270 WINDOW 0 44 45 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L5 SYMATTR Value 22.5µ SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.004 Cpar=1pF SYMBOL ind2 208 432 R270 WINDOW 0 44 45 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L6 SYMATTR Value 22.5µ SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.004 Cpar=1pF SYMBOL res 48 544 R90 WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 1k SYMBOL res 64 -144 R0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 1k TEXT -488 720 Left 0 !.tran 0 10m 0m 10n TEXT -488 760 Left 0 !.ic V(tank-)=5 V(Vct)=4.995 V(tank+)=4.99 V(Vout +)=0.0 V(Vout-)=-0.0 I(L3)=0.00 I(L1)=0 I(L2)=0 I(L4)=-0.0 I(L5) =-0.0 I(L7)=-0.0033 TEXT -480 800 Left 0 !K1 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 0.99 TEXT -488 840 Left 0 !.model 2N3906A PNP(Is=455.9E-18 Xti=3 Eg=1.11 Vaf=33.6 Bf=204.7 \n+ Ise=7.558f Ne=1.536 Ikf=.3287 Xtb=1.5 Var=100 Br=3.72 Isc=529.3E-18 \n+ Nc=15.51 Ikr=11.1 Rc=.8508 Cjc=10.13p Mjc=. 6993 Vjc=1.006 Fc=.5 \n+ Cje=10.39p Mje=.6931 Vje=.9937 Tr=10n Tf=181.2p Itf=4.881m \n+ Xtf=.7939 Vtf=10 Rb=10) -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |