Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #747774 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-15 14:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-09-26 21:01 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 63 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-15 14:51 +0000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-19 17:15 +0000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-09-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-20 17:12 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-21 00:11 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-21 21:00 +0000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-21 14:51 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-26 13:30 +0000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-29 19:09 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:20 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-19 17:19 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-20 17:21 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-20 12:59 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-21 00:25 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Trevor <shut.up@once.invalid> - 2026-09-20 23:48 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-22 13:52 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-23 16:23 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-23 16:36 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 04:44 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-24 16:46 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:13 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:28 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 06:52 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 15:58 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-25 12:10 -0700
mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-25 20:11 +0000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 04:40 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-23 22:24 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-24 16:53 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:31 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:49 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 16:14 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-25 13:19 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 10:24 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 12:25 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 20:27 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 16:26 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 22:29 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 16:34 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-28 12:14 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-29 17:06 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-29 11:11 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@htigct.com> - 2026-09-29 14:35 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:11 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-09-30 07:46 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-10-01 15:49 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-10-01 07:33 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-10-02 17:08 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-10-02 08:18 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-10-03 02:21 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@htigct.com> - 2026-10-02 09:48 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-10-03 15:56 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:16 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-30 10:05 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-10-01 15:25 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-10-01 00:32 -0700
mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-24 16:37 +0000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-09-25 07:43 -0700
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 03:09 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-25 20:47 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 15:36 +1000
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-26 10:10 +0200
Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 21:01 +1000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 17:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119fo17$31pu8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748309 |
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: > On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>> >>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>> of a proton. >>> >>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >> >> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of a >> small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any kind >> of visible pattern. > > But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 > seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between > the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <119gv0k$3hb69$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748320 |
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>> >>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>> of a proton. >>>> >>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>> >>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>> kind of visible pattern. >> >> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. > > So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@htigct.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tnbobl5v6n3i43sd15eu21s6tpi5t49d9c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #748331 |
On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> wrote: >On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>> of a proton. >>>>> >>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>> >>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>> kind of visible pattern. >>> >>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >> >> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? > >Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. Don't annoy Sloman by being right. Or by having ideas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 17:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119icne$ae1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748337 |
On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> > wrote: > >> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>> >>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>> >>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>> >>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >> >> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. > > Don't annoy Sloman by being right. You won't. > Or by having ideas. John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort only a mother could love. -- Bill Sloman. Sydhey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ku7qbl11r922i92f852nknq94v5rmv5ra5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #748339 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >> wrote: >> >>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>> >>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>> >>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>> >>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >> >> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. > >You won't. > >> Or by having ideas. > >John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >only a mother could love. Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for further development. We have a process for that. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 15:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119ks9r$s8de$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748347 |
On 1/10/2026 12:46 am, john larkin wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>>> >>>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>>> >>>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >>> >>> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. >> >> You won't. >> >>> Or by having ideas. >> >> John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >> He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >> only a mother could love. > > Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. But not all that well. You don't serve any kind of mass market. > We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 > sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb > ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for > further development. We have a process for that. It's called "cold calling". There's no idea so dumb that some customer won't fall for it. The art is in finding ideas that look good to lots of people. Hewlett and Packard looked as if they had mastered it for while, but they don't seem to have been able to pass it on to their successors. Tom Peters wrote a book called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence which looked at a number of companies which were doing well at the time the booked was written - it was published in 1982 - and supports the idea that while everybody knows what a lucky company looks like, nobody can pick out a well-managed company that is still going to look well-managed a few years later. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30rsblpm8h3fh329ncmufndqbtuesdk3oe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #748369 |
On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:49:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >On 1/10/2026 12:46 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>>>> >>>>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >>>> >>>> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. >>> >>> You won't. >>> >>>> Or by having ideas. >>> >>> John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >>> He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >>> only a mother could love. >> >> Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. > >But not all that well. You don't serve any kind of mass market. A small company that designs and manufactures in San Francisco can't serve a high-volume low-margin market. I don't want to. > >> We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 >> sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb >> ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for >> further development. We have a process for that. > >It's called "cold calling". There's no idea so dumb that some customer >won't fall for it. The art is in finding ideas that look good to lots of >people. Hewlett and Packard looked as if they had mastered it for >while, but they don't seem to have been able to pass it on to their >successors. Most of our business has come from people cold-calling US. > >Tom Peters wrote a book called > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence > >which looked at a number of companies which were doing well at the time >the booked was written - it was published in 1982 - and supports the >idea that while everybody knows what a lucky company looks like, nobody >can pick out a well-managed company that is still going to look >well-managed a few years later. HP did great as long as it was a technology-driven company that had ideas. What wrecked it was a pants-suited business type who didn't understand that. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 17:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119nl9j$1s5n8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748372 |
On 2/10/2026 12:33 am, john larkin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:49:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 1/10/2026 12:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >>>>> >>>>> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. >>>> >>>> You won't. >>>> >>>>> Or by having ideas. >>>> >>>> John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >>>> He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >>>> only a mother could love. >>> >>> Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. >> >> But not all that well. You don't serve any kind of mass market. > > A small company that designs and manufactures in San Francisco can't > serve a high-volume low-margin market. I don't want to. > >> >>> We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 >>> sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb >>> ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for >>> further development. We have a process for that. >> >> It's called "cold calling". There's no idea so dumb that some customer >> won't fall for it. The art is in finding ideas that look good to lots of >> people. Hewlett and Packard looked as if they had mastered it for >> while, but they don't seem to have been able to pass it on to their >> successors. > > Most of our business has come from people cold-calling US. I'm sure you like to think that. >> Tom Peters wrote a book called >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence >> >> which looked at a number of companies which were doing well at the time >> the booked was written - it was published in 1982 - and supports the >> idea that while everybody knows what a lucky company looks like, nobody >> can pick out a well-managed company that is still going to look >> well-managed a few years later. > > HP did great as long as it was a technology-driven company that had > ideas. What wrecked it was a pants-suited business type who didn't > understand that. You understand what a lucky company looks like, and think you know what makes them lucky. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <leivbllk1ai3ksp9nuvp8of1lnsn407g2u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #748382 |
On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 17:08:23 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >On 2/10/2026 12:33 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:49:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/10/2026 12:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>>>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. >>>>> >>>>> You won't. >>>>> >>>>>> Or by having ideas. >>>>> >>>>> John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >>>>> He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >>>>> only a mother could love. >>>> >>>> Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. >>> >>> But not all that well. You don't serve any kind of mass market. >> >> A small company that designs and manufactures in San Francisco can't >> serve a high-volume low-margin market. I don't want to. >> >>> >>>> We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 >>>> sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb >>>> ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for >>>> further development. We have a process for that. >>> >>> It's called "cold calling". There's no idea so dumb that some customer >>> won't fall for it. The art is in finding ideas that look good to lots of >>> people. Hewlett and Packard looked as if they had mastered it for >>> while, but they don't seem to have been able to pass it on to their >>> successors. >> >> Most of our business has come from people cold-calling US. > >I'm sure you like to think that. I didn't hallunicate the calls or the products. Well, we did once get a lot of business from a guy walking into my office totally unexpected. He threw a LeCroy module on my desk and said "If you can do this, I'll buy it." We could and he did. > >>> Tom Peters wrote a book called >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence >>> >>> which looked at a number of companies which were doing well at the time >>> the booked was written - it was published in 1982 - and supports the >>> idea that while everybody knows what a lucky company looks like, nobody >>> can pick out a well-managed company that is still going to look >>> well-managed a few years later. >> >> HP did great as long as it was a technology-driven company that had >> ideas. What wrecked it was a pants-suited business type who didn't >> understand that. > >You understand what a lucky company looks like, and think you know what >makes them lucky. "Luck favors the prepared mind." Louie Pasteur John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 02:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119oln7$29069$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748385 |
On 3/10/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 17:08:23 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 2/10/2026 12:33 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:49:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/10/2026 12:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>>>>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. >>>>>> >>>>>> You won't. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Or by having ideas. >>>>>> >>>>>> John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >>>>>> He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >>>>>> only a mother could love. >>>>> >>>>> Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. >>>> >>>> But not all that well. You don't serve any kind of mass market. >>> >>> A small company that designs and manufactures in San Francisco can't >>> serve a high-volume low-margin market. I don't want to. >>> >>>> >>>>> We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 >>>>> sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb >>>>> ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for >>>>> further development. We have a process for that. >>>> >>>> It's called "cold calling". There's no idea so dumb that some customer >>>> won't fall for it. The art is in finding ideas that look good to lots of >>>> people. Hewlett and Packard looked as if they had mastered it for >>>> while, but they don't seem to have been able to pass it on to their >>>> successors. >>> >>> Most of our business has come from people cold-calling US. >> >> I'm sure you like to think that. > > I didn't hallucinate the calls or the products. But you don't document the effort you put into telling people you exist. You've been the most prolific poster here for about thirty years now, and you mention other activities that make you visible. Advertising costs money, but there a cheaper ways of reminding people of your existence. > Well, we did once get a lot of business from a guy walking into my > office totally unexpected. > > He threw a LeCroy module on my desk and said "If you can do this, I'll > buy it." We could and he did. Presumably you could give him something that the LeCroy module offered more cheaply than LeCroy did and without some of the bell and whistles that LeCroy threw in to appeal to a wider market. A Tektronix module might have been harder to match. >>>> Tom Peters wrote a book called >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence >>>> >>>> which looked at a number of companies which were doing well at the time >>>> the booked was written - it was published in 1982 - and supports the >>>> idea that while everybody knows what a lucky company looks like, nobody >>>> can pick out a well-managed company that is still going to look >>>> well-managed a few years later. >>> >>> HP did great as long as it was a technology-driven company that had >>> ideas. What wrecked it was a pants-suited business type who didn't >>> understand that. >> >> You understand what a lucky company looks like, and think you know what >> makes them lucky. > > "Luck favors the prepared mind." > > Louie Pasteur Actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur and his mind was a lot better prepared than yours. What he actually said - if wikipedia is to be believed - was ""In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind". That isn't quite the same thing. The Australia equivalent is "you have to work bloody hard to get lucky". -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@htigct.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dpnvbldl06086q3bs8jinm463jc4p1a731@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #748388 |
On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 02:21:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >On 3/10/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 17:08:23 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2/10/2026 12:33 am, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:49:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/10/2026 12:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>>>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>>>>>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>>>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You won't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or by having ideas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >>>>>>> He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >>>>>>> only a mother could love. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. >>>>> >>>>> But not all that well. You don't serve any kind of mass market. >>>> >>>> A small company that designs and manufactures in San Francisco can't >>>> serve a high-volume low-margin market. I don't want to. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 >>>>>> sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb >>>>>> ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for >>>>>> further development. We have a process for that. >>>>> >>>>> It's called "cold calling". There's no idea so dumb that some customer >>>>> won't fall for it. The art is in finding ideas that look good to lots of >>>>> people. Hewlett and Packard looked as if they had mastered it for >>>>> while, but they don't seem to have been able to pass it on to their >>>>> successors. >>>> >>>> Most of our business has come from people cold-calling US. >>> >>> I'm sure you like to think that. >> >> I didn't hallucinate the calls or the products. > >But you don't document the effort you put into telling people you >exist. You've been the most prolific poster here for about thirty years >now, and you mention other activities that make you visible. Advertising >costs money, but there a cheaper ways of reminding people of your existence. > >> Well, we did once get a lot of business from a guy walking into my >> office totally unexpected. >> >> He threw a LeCroy module on my desk and said "If you can do this, I'll >> buy it." We could and he did. > >Presumably you could give him something that the LeCroy module offered >more cheaply than LeCroy did and without some of the bell and whistles >that LeCroy threw in to appeal to a wider market. What annoyed him was the poor quality and bad service of the LeCroy stuff. It would arrive broken and took months to get fixed. We bid the same as the old LeCroy modules, and next bid they cut their price in half to kill us. Harry disqualified them on some technical ground. > >A Tektronix module might have been harder to match. > >>>>> Tom Peters wrote a book called >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence >>>>> >>>>> which looked at a number of companies which were doing well at the time >>>>> the booked was written - it was published in 1982 - and supports the >>>>> idea that while everybody knows what a lucky company looks like, nobody >>>>> can pick out a well-managed company that is still going to look >>>>> well-managed a few years later. >>>> >>>> HP did great as long as it was a technology-driven company that had >>>> ideas. What wrecked it was a pants-suited business type who didn't >>>> understand that. >>> >>> You understand what a lucky company looks like, and think you know what >>> makes them lucky. >> >> "Luck favors the prepared mind." >> >> Louie Pasteur > >Actually > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur > >and his mind was a lot better prepared than yours. > >What he actually said - if wikipedia is to be believed - was ""In the >field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind". > Well, he said whatever it was in French. >That isn't quite the same thing. The Australia equivalent is "you have >to work bloody hard to get lucky". I think the opposite. You've got to be relaxed to be lucky.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 15:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119q5e0$2o88c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748390 |
On 3/10/2026 2:48 am, john larkin wrote: > On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 02:21:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 3/10/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 17:08:23 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2/10/2026 12:33 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:49:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/10/2026 12:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a proton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>>>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>>>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of visible pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>>>>>>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>>>>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't annoy Sloman by being right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You won't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or by having ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why. >>>>>>>> He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort >>>>>>>> only a mother could love. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell. >>>>>> >>>>>> But not all that well. You don't serve any kind of mass market. >>>>> >>>>> A small company that designs and manufactures in San Francisco can't >>>>> serve a high-volume low-margin market. I don't want to. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60 >>>>>>> sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb >>>>>>> ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for >>>>>>> further development. We have a process for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's called "cold calling". There's no idea so dumb that some customer >>>>>> won't fall for it. The art is in finding ideas that look good to lots of >>>>>> people. Hewlett and Packard looked as if they had mastered it for >>>>>> while, but they don't seem to have been able to pass it on to their >>>>>> successors. >>>>> >>>>> Most of our business has come from people cold-calling US. >>>> >>>> I'm sure you like to think that. >>> >>> I didn't hallucinate the calls or the products. >> >> But you don't document the effort you put into telling people you >> exist. You've been the most prolific poster here for about thirty years >> now, and you mention other activities that make you visible. Advertising >> costs money, but there a cheaper ways of reminding people of your existence. >> >>> Well, we did once get a lot of business from a guy walking into my >>> office totally unexpected. >>> >>> He threw a LeCroy module on my desk and said "If you can do this, I'll >>> buy it." We could and he did. >> >> Presumably you could give him something that the LeCroy module offered >> more cheaply than LeCroy did and without some of the bell and whistles >> that LeCroy threw in to appeal to a wider market. > > What annoyed him was the poor quality and bad service of the LeCroy > stuff. It would arrive broken and took months to get fixed. > > We bid the same as the old LeCroy modules, and next bid they cut their > price in half to kill us. Harry disqualified them on some technical > ground. > >> >> A Tektronix module might have been harder to match. >> >>>>>> Tom Peters wrote a book called >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence >>>>>> >>>>>> which looked at a number of companies which were doing well at the time >>>>>> the booked was written - it was published in 1982 - and supports the >>>>>> idea that while everybody knows what a lucky company looks like, nobody >>>>>> can pick out a well-managed company that is still going to look >>>>>> well-managed a few years later. >>>>> >>>>> HP did great as long as it was a technology-driven company that had >>>>> ideas. What wrecked it was a pants-suited business type who didn't >>>>> understand that. >>>> >>>> You understand what a lucky company looks like, and think you know what >>>> makes them lucky. >>> >>> "Luck favors the prepared mind." >>> >>> Louie Pasteur >> >> Actually >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur >> >> and his mind was a lot better prepared than yours. >> >> What he actually said - if wikipedia is to be believed - was ""In the >> field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind". >> > > Well, he said whatever it was in French. "dans les champs de l'observation, le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés" which precedes the English translation in the wikipedia article. It looks to me as if the English translation is perfectly correct. >> That isn't quite the same thing. The Australia equivalent is "you have >> to work bloody hard to get lucky". > > I think the opposite. You've got to be relaxed to be lucky. But not so relaxed that you miss the fortunate observation. Making a lot of observations makes it more likely that you will run into the fortunate one. -- Bill Sloman Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 17:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119id0u$ae1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748331 |
On 30/09/2026 4:11 am, Old McDonald wrote: > On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in >>>>>> the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes >>>>>> in the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the >>>>>> diameter of a proton. >>>>> >>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>> >>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>> kind of visible pattern. >>> >>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements >>> between the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. Except that they don't. >> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? > > Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. And what has LIGO got to do with a vernier caliper? Relying on false analogies may make you feel self-confident, but learning a bit about the stuff you are posting about would work better, if you had that capacity. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <119jfh9$dvkp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748340 |
On 9/30/26 00:16, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 30/09/2026 4:11 am, Old McDonald wrote: >> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in >>>>>>> the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny >>>>>>> changes in the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of >>>>>>> the diameter of a proton. >>>>>> >>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement >>>>> of a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce >>>>> any perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on >>>>> there that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as >>>>> any kind of visible pattern. >>>> >>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements >>>> between the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. > > Except that they don't. > >>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >> >> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. > > And what has LIGO got to do with a vernier caliper? Relying on false > analogies may make you feel self-confident, but learning a bit about the > stuff you are posting about would work better, if you had that capacity. A displament of 0.001" does produce a perceptible interference pattern. I don't have a LIGO, I have a Starrett. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 15:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119kqt7$s8de$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748354 |
On 1/10/2026 3:05 am, Old McDonald wrote: > On 9/30/26 00:16, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 30/09/2026 4:11 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>> On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>> On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote: >>>>>>> 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help: >>>>>>>> You can't observe gravity, only its effects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in >>>>>>>> the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny >>>>>>>> changes in the beam propagation distance - some small fraction >>>>>>>> of the diameter of a proton. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement >>>>>> of a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going >>>>>> produce any perceptible "interference pattern". There's something >>>>>> going on there that can be measured, but you won't be able to >>>>>> perceive it as any kind of visible pattern. >>>>> >>>>> But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100 >>>>> seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements >>>>> between the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up. >> >> Except that they don't. >> >>>> So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about? >>> >>> Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper. >> >> And what has LIGO got to do with a vernier caliper? Relying on false >> analogies may make you feel self-confident, but learning a bit about >> the stuff you are posting about would work better, if you had that >> capacity. > > A displament of 0.001" does produce a perceptible interference pattern. The diameter of a proton is rather smaller than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton > I don't have a LIGO, I have a Starrett. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._S._Starrett_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO The Starrett Company won't sell you a Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory may be a measuring tool, but it is a rather specialised one. -- Bill Sloman. Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <119l29t$u466$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748368 |
On 9/30/26 22:25, Bill Sloman wrote: >>> ... >>> And what has LIGO got to do with a vernier caliper? Relying on false >>> analogies ... They use interference patterns. >> A displament of 0.001" does produce a perceptible interference pattern. > > The diameter of a proton is rather smaller than that. My vernier caliper will struggle. > ... >> I don't have a LIGO, I have a Starrett. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._S._Starrett_Company > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO > > The Starrett Company won't sell you a Laser Interferometer > Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). The Laser Interferometer > Gravitational-Wave Observatory may be a measuring tool, but it is a > rather specialised one. Not as good as a Starrett.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 16:37 +0000 |
| Subject | mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) |
| Message-ID | <mass-20260924173130@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #748121 |
Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> wrote or quoted: > Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >existence. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be moved. (Therefore, gravitational waves always have only a quadru- pole moment, never a monopole moment.) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics.design,sci.astro Followup-To: sci.physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-25 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qv1dbl92ke749vcq4n05u6vbr1fltighfl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #748121 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> wrote: >On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists. > >> And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime >> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere. > >Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All >immediate and simultaneous. If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance, you'd get a spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light in all directions. Fun. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 03:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <11969tg$3p2eu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748189 |
On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> > wrote: > >> On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists. >> >>> And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime >>> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere. >> >> Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All >> immediate and simultaneous. > > If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a > spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light > in all directions. > > Fun. Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't. The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form of energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light. By the time is got to us it changed the path length traversed by the LIGO detector lasers by small faction of the diameter of a proton. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-25 20:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1196fjg$3qdqf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #748198 |
On 9/25/26 19:09, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> >> wrote: >> >>> On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around >>>>> exists. >>> >>>> And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime >>>> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere. >>> >>> Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All >>> immediate and simultaneous. >> >> If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a > >> spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light >> in all directions. >> >> Fun. > > Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the > uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't. > > The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar > masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form of > energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light. > > [...] One would suppose that it is affected by the local geometry of spacetime in the same way as electromagnetic radiation. Someone should explain to us how it gets away once the merger is in its ringdown phase, when all mass is presumably contained within a single event horizon. Jeroen Belleman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web