Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #742593

Re: fast divider?

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/01/2026 09:07 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 02:04:06 -0700, Ross Finlayson
>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/31/2026 10:05 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2026 4:57 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 10:41:17 -0700, Buzz McCool
>>>>> <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/31/2026 8:14 AM, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> It is an interesting question: does one understand then invent, or
>>>>>>> invent and then understand? Great scientific and practical ideas seem
>>>>>>> to be mostly invent or discover first, understand after.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been said the steam engine did far more for engineering than
>>>>>> engineering did for the steam engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ditto thermodynamics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's theories of relativity seem to be the rare case of
>>>>> predicting effects before they were observed, some decades before they
>>>>> could be demonstrated.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein general relativity paper was published in 1915. and immediately
>>>> explained the precession pf the orbit of Mercury, which had been
>>>> inexplicable for a century or two.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
>>>>
>>>> happened in 1919, and confirmed another of Einstein's predictions and
>>>> got written up in lots of newspapers, making Einstein an internationally
>>>> famous physicist from then on.
>>>>
>>>> Dirac's prediction of the existence of the positron preceded it's
>>>> discovery by a couple of years. The magnetic monopole has proved more
>>>> elusive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Generously, one way of looking at a "test particle" in the standard
>>> narrative, not that there are any or they're "virtual", is that:
>>> that's a magnetic monopole, and they're pretty much "everywhere".
>>>
>>> Then, the "skyrmions" and "spintronics" get involved, ....
>>>
>>>
>>> People hear so much about magnets, and never electrets, ....
>>>
>>
>> Go to Digikey and search for  "electret".
>
> Electrets are interesting. You can freeze a bunch of bound charge, so just
> inside the surface there’s a large E field.
>
> Outside, there are conductors and free charge (e.g. air ions), so the field
> gets shielded out with distance.  Eventually a layer of crud will collect,
> which will give ions a place to live.
>
> Initially though, a clean surface is likely to have too low a density of
> states to neutralize the field completely, so it can persist out to a
> considerable distance.
>
> I did an interesting front end for a semiconductor surface contamination
> sensor based on that—using a scanning capacitive probe, a small fraction of
> a monolayer of organic schmutz was easily visible from 200 microns away.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
>

It reminds of the similarities, and differences,
of the "capacitor" and the "condenser".

These are basically ideal components, making advantage
of that there are both the "electrodynamic" and "electrostatic",
in effect, and about that things like a radio wave have both
"very, very high" and "very, very low" frequency components,
vis-a-vis the usual account of band, and about things like
Faraday's law that makes that waves are always spirals and
spirals are always waves, in nature.


So, much like the mythical "divider", and about for example
ideas of constructing Fourier-style circuits including various
what are often considered "uniqueness" results in mathematics
that are actually "distinctness" results, many of these
sorts components are readily available off-the-shelf,
where they usually mostly gather dust.


It's kind of like the difference between "square wire"
and "round wire" for motor windings: square wire
gives better numbers.


So, any kind of application basically has an ideal
electrical component, or rather, any kind of circuit
is its own kind of ideal.

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-27 11:39 -0700
  Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 16:44 +1100
    Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-28 14:38 -0700
      Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-29 15:52 +1100
        Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-29 08:18 -0700
          Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 16:42 +1100
            Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-30 08:00 -0700
              Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 16:35 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 02:40 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 22:30 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 08:14 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-31 10:41 -0700
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 10:57 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-31 14:25 -0700
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 15:16 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 16:17 +1100
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 16:05 +1100
                Re: fast divider? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-01 02:04 -0700
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 07:25 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-01 16:07 +0000
                Re: fast divider? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-01 09:37 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 15:54 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 01:06 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:13 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 09:12 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 14:41 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 07:53 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 02:21 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 08:57 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 04:05 +1100
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-02 13:17 -0400
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 11:20 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-09 10:55 -0400
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-09 10:34 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-09 13:43 -0400
                Re: fast divider? John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> - 2026-04-09 19:07 +0100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-09 13:47 -0700

csiph-web