Top 3 DSP/SP books
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Reg:Design of Butterworth approximated filter using FIR filter design technique
Next: Independent Component Analysis
From: Rune Allnor on 14 Sep 2009 04:55 On 14 Sep, 01:45, "steveu" <ste...(a)coppice.org> wrote: > >...which invalidated the implicit/hidden/forgotten > >assumption that 'moon returns are irrelevant.' It was not > >a 'computer error.' It was a design flaw in the system. > > >Rune > > Almost everything described as a "computer error" is a design problem in > the system. Well, yes. Let me rephrase and say that the computer did exactly what it was designed to de - no malfunctions or breakdowns or anything like that. It was the designers who had overlooked / ignored / underestimated an ambiguity in the system. Rune
From: Jerry Avins on 14 Sep 2009 10:41 Rune Allnor wrote: > On 14 Sep, 01:45, "steveu" <ste...(a)coppice.org> wrote: >>> ...which invalidated the implicit/hidden/forgotten >>> assumption that 'moon returns are irrelevant.' It was not >>> a 'computer error.' It was a design flaw in the system. >>> Rune >> Almost everything described as a "computer error" is a design problem in >> the system. > > Well, yes. Let me rephrase and say that the computer did > exactly what it was designed to de - no malfunctions or > breakdowns or anything like that. It was the designers who > had overlooked /ignored/ underestimated an ambiguity in > the system. You are too firmly rooted in the present. There _was_ no computer. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Rune Allnor on 14 Sep 2009 10:45 On 14 Sep, 16:41, Jerry Avins <j...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > Rune Allnor wrote: > > On 14 Sep, 01:45, "steveu" <ste...(a)coppice.org> wrote: > >>> ...which invalidated the implicit/hidden/forgotten > >>> assumption that 'moon returns are irrelevant.' It was not > >>> a 'computer error.' It was a design flaw in the system. > >>> Rune > >> Almost everything described as a "computer error" is a design problem in > >> the system. > > > Well, yes. Let me rephrase and say that the computer did > > exactly what it was designed to de - no malfunctions or > > breakdowns or anything like that. It was the designers who > > had overlooked /ignored/ underestimated an ambiguity in > > the system. > > You are too firmly rooted in the present. There _was_ no computer. OK, more rephrasing: The *system* worked as it was designed to do. The *design* was flawed. Rune
From: Jerry Avins on 14 Sep 2009 11:28 Rune Allnor wrote: > On 14 Sep, 16:41, Jerry Avins <j...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> Rune Allnor wrote: >>> On 14 Sep, 01:45, "steveu" <ste...(a)coppice.org> wrote: >>>>> ...which invalidated the implicit/hidden/forgotten >>>>> assumption that 'moon returns are irrelevant.' It was not >>>>> a 'computer error.' It was a design flaw in the system. >>>>> Rune >>>> Almost everything described as a "computer error" is a design problem in >>>> the system. >>> Well, yes. Let me rephrase and say that the computer did >>> exactly what it was designed to de - no malfunctions or >>> breakdowns or anything like that. It was the designers who >>> had overlooked /ignored/ underestimated an ambiguity in >>> the system. >> You are too firmly rooted in the present. There _was_ no computer. > > OK, more rephrasing: The *system* worked as it was designed > to do. The *design* was flawed. Agreed. They allowed for a range of about 8,000 miles. They needed 250,000 or so. Five more flip-flops. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Rune Allnor on 14 Sep 2009 12:05
On 14 Sep, 17:28, Jerry Avins <j...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > Rune Allnor wrote: > > On 14 Sep, 16:41, Jerry Avins <j...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> Rune Allnor wrote: > >>> On 14 Sep, 01:45, "steveu" <ste...(a)coppice.org> wrote: > >>>>> ...which invalidated the implicit/hidden/forgotten > >>>>> assumption that 'moon returns are irrelevant.' It was not > >>>>> a 'computer error.' It was a design flaw in the system. > >>>>> Rune > >>>> Almost everything described as a "computer error" is a design problem in > >>>> the system. > >>> Well, yes. Let me rephrase and say that the computer did > >>> exactly what it was designed to de - no malfunctions or > >>> breakdowns or anything like that. It was the designers who > >>> had overlooked /ignored/ underestimated an ambiguity in > >>> the system. > >> You are too firmly rooted in the present. There _was_ no computer. > > > OK, more rephrasing: The *system* worked as it was designed > > to do. The *design* was flawed. > > Agreed. They allowed for a range of about 8,000 miles. They needed > 250,000 or so. Five more flip-flops. ....or some sort of pulse resolution - something that identifies each pulse as separate from the others. This kind of problem is common in sonar applications, where one in deep waters might have several pulses in the water at the same time. In such cases one needs to adjust the reciever to the correct range window, or one gets absurd results. I remember one time when I used my seismic kit to tell the multibeam sonar (MBS) operator at what depth the bottom was. The continetal sloe was steep, and we went from 300m depth to 1200 depth ove a couple of km. The MBS people lost track of the bottom in the slope, and had several possible depths. The seismic kit only had one pulse in the water at any one time, which was why I could find the bottom. Anyway, I never let them forget that I used seismics to calibrate their MDS. It's like using a sledgehammer to fine-tune a pocket watch... Rune |