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

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Adrian Shiner (adrian.shiner@virgin.net)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2000 - 11:12:59 PST


It is one thing to disclose the intellectual property of your ex employer.
it is another for lawyers to try & gag you on discussing textbook
engineering and general experience which supports your ability to put food
into your mouth and a roof over your head! Come and live in the UK, the
taxes might be high but we have a certain understanding of lawyers and their
ilk.

Adrian

----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley S Henson <bhenson@notes.west.raytheon.com>
To: <si-list@silab.eng.sun.com>
Sent: 10 January 2000 15:55
Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : What's your favorite Screwy SI Concept?

>
>
> Michael,
>
> For those who have not been through one of those exit interviews with the
> corporate lawyers, it may seem like a convenient excuse. However, I can
testify
> that those lawyers *don't* mince words about what can and cannot be
disclosed
> upon termination. When in doubt, keep silent on the subject. Inconvenience
is a
> small price to pay considering the havoc those folks could cause to your
> personal pocketbook.
>
> Brad Henson,Raytheon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Vrbanac <vrbanacm@swbell.net> on 01/08/2000 07:36:14 PM
>
> Please respond to si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
>
> cc: (bcc: Bradley S Henson/RWS/Raytheon/US)
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : What's your favorite Screwy SI
> Concept?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
****


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:39 PDT