Re: [SI-LIST] : What's your favorite Screwy SI Concept?

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Lee Ritchey (leeritchey@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Jan 10 2000 - 08:53:57 PST


Jay,

Great reply! I., too, fail to see thte value in cat and mouse answers.

Lee

Jay Chesavage wrote:

> I'm kind of new to this alias. Is this how things are normally
> explained in this forum?
>
> 1) exactly what is the 20H rule.
> 2) would a subscriber to this rule kindly say something specific
> about its validity (theoretical or measured)
> 3) would a naysayer to this rule kindly offer a counterindication
> of its validity (theoretical or measured).
>
> In this manner, the bandwidth of the thousands of people following this
> alias could be better used. Maybe some different people can contribute.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> -Jay
>
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Michael Vrbanac wrote:
>
> > Lee,
> >
> > I can explain it and have but I won't as I explained before. I have had laboratory
> > evidence but could not retain it as it was left at a previous place of employment.
> > Sorry! That was in accordance with my work agreement. And, of course, as
> > many have said to me before... "that's such a convenient excuse!" Again, sorry!
> >
> > As a consolation for those disappointed, I will give only one final hint. For those
> > who love simplicity, it indeed is. For those who love the complex, an important
> > piece of it can be seen in a section in a highly revered tome written by a well-
> > respected author but it is not in a form that you would normally expect.
> > After seeing that, and considering its implications, compelling supporting evidence
> > can be seen in many texts. ( Those of you who already know, don't give
> > it away! You'll spoil the learning experience for everyone else.) Ok, one more
> > hint and its the very last... and this I will credit to Michael Chan.... think of WHY
> > someone might have needed to do something like this, what they needed to
> > accomplish, and where it just might make some sense.
> >
> > Have fun! <grin> Hopefully, the search might prove fruitful for many looking for it
> > even beyond learning about the 20H rule and where it really applies. And maybe...
> > just maybe, we can "unscrew" one "screwy rule" AND we might just all be
> > in agreement about it!!!
> >
> > Once you figure it out, you will probably agree with me when I say that the 20H rule
> > may not provide significant benefit for every application in every design but it
> > does have its uses.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > Lee Ritchey wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > If you cannot explain the 20h rule, do you have any laborator evidence to support it?
> > >
> > > Lee
> > >
> > > 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 majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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 majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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 majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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 majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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 majordomo@silab.eng.sun.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
****


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:30 PDT