From: Michael Vrbanac (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 07 2000 - 15:32:11 PST
That is my point exactly. The "screwy rule" was driven by some need
at some time and place and more than likely be viewed negatively in
an industry segment where the need to use it is much less. The funny
"human thing" to do is to therefore deny the existence of anything we've
never seen or attempted to simulate.
As I have, over time, attempted to "thoroughly explain" what I believe
the 20H rule is "doing and what it is meant to do", I never seem to get
folks to accept that explanation for whatever reason even though there
have been designs which have benefitted from it. So I don't offer
explanations anymore. Now I just let folks figure it out for themselves. Its
a whole like trying to argue about "grounding methodologies" with someone
who is intently opposed to your position. You can't possibly create any
scenario to convince them otherwise. So the discussion is useless especially
in a public forum. Perhaps you might understand what I mean if I
asked you to defend exactly why it wouldn't work and let the process
go from there.
I was serious about the point about being careful of what one claims as
"non-applicable" or "nonsense" from a global sense (i.e. all disciplines and
sub-disciplines) unless it clearly violates Maxwell Equations. By doing
so, it amounts to a claim of infallibility both in reasoning and test vehicle
methodology and measurement. That's a pretty arrogant position and
I try to stay away from that. The best anyone can say is that, based on
their testing and particular methodology and measurement, the principle
will or will not be applicable for that particular situation.
Again, the creation of some of the "screwy rules" came from a need to
address a certain type of problem and it was apparently successful
enough to gain a widespread audience in its application. Was it all
hoopla or was it a practical solution for a particular problem that many
of us still don't understand? Either one is possible.... you must decide.
Michael E. Vrbanac
"Chan, Michael" wrote:
> My 2 cents is to find out how a "screwy rule" being drawn out. A
> rule ( no matter it is good or bad ) has to come out from some initatives
> and/or motivatives. I don't think a rule can come out from nowhere. I
> a rule based on solid fundamental concepts cannot be wrong by that much and
> any derivative from real world observations can be corrected and/or
> I believe building some test structures in order to see whether a rule will
> break or not cannot help to try to understand how a rule being drawn up and
> whether a rule make sense or not.
> For example, take the famous " 20H RULE " as a case. Can anyone, especially
> the originator(s) ( if there is some ) of the 20H Rule explains the physical
> concepts behind how this rule is being drawn up?
> Michael Chan
**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:29 PDT