The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Al Borowski)
Subject: Re: output impedance
Date: 10 Nov 2002 00:57:15 -0800
References: <email@example.com> <_FTy9.firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Nov 2002 08:57:16 GMT
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:...
> > Sixty years experience of what, exactly? Being the loud mouthed bin
> > at the back of the workshop? If you really do have experience (and I
> > you do) you've even been using the theorem quoted, probably without having
> > to think of it.
> Perfectly correct. You've made my point. Theorems are unnecessary. They
> need not exist.
I disagree. You do not need to know the theorum explictly to be able
to use it.
> I must have been using theorems and using them correctly without ever having
> heard of the people who apparently became famous by giving their names to
> them in the various 'bibles'.
> To mention just the name of a theorem (whatever it is) parrot-fashion, in
> support of a personal argument conveys no additional information.
Not true at all. I'd rather say "match the antenna to the souce as per
the maximum power transfer theorum" rather then "The antenna impedence
must be the complex conjuciate of the source impedience, becuase
". It lets the other party get the
idea quickly if they know the theorum, or look it up if they dont.
> anything it conveys only a lack of self confidence, a sense of insecurity in
> the person trying to prove or demonstrate something, or he feels under
right.... So my above example shows I'm insecure?
> 50% of people who refer to 'theorems' misunderstand them anyway and so
> inadvertently misquote them. Or mention them in the wrong context. They
> unconsciously attempt to bathe in the glory of predecessors. At least they
> have heard of the thing somewhere and demonstrate a reasonably good memory.
perhaps. Mind you 78.324% of statistics are made up on the spot :-)
> Theorem names are useful for lecturers to hand out to students as reminders
> of what to swat up just before examinations. They therefore restrict the
> region of study. All is reduced to automatic thought processes where one
> little error can lead to a catastrophy . In working life a thorough
> understanding of a subject has no need of them.
Can you claim to have a thorough understanding of all all aspects of
electrical engineering? Can anyone?
If so, then I commend them. There's a *heck* of a lot to learn. Know
all there is to know about PLC transmission lines? Great. Now design
an ASIC to simplify a car alarm. Done that? Now design a microwave
transmission system to send 500mbit/s from poland to england...
Personally, I'd rather employ an engineer who would use theory to get
it right within the first 3 attempts - not one who limits their
knowledge to their direct experience and will take 100 attempts to get
the thing right...
> 99.99% of people receiving a 'theorem' on a newsgroup, sensing the foregoing
> don't bother to look it up even if they possess a reference book where there
> might be a probability of finding its name in the index. They are fairly
> certain what they might learn is not worth the effort of getting out of the
If they're on the newsgroup, then they can google the theorum.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup