From: Lee Ritchey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 08 2000 - 16:53:06 PST
If you cannot explain the 20h rule, do you have any laborator evidence to support it?
Michael Vrbanac wrote:
> Hi, Michael,
> 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
> > believe
> > 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
> > improved.
> > 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 email@example.com. 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
**** 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