1995.04.01 / Henry LaMuth /  Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
     
Originally-From: hlamuth@infinet.com (Henry LaMuth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 1995 22:04:36 -0500 (EST)
Organization: InfiNet

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:

>Henry LaMuth (hlamuth@infinet.com) wrote:

>: Geez, guys, my pentium pulls in some graphics from the net pretty
>: fast. It displays it as fast as my modem pulls the data in. 

>Should I be impressed?

>: Data
>: acquisition is not the same as data crunching and processing. Who
>: cares if the processing is in real time as long as the data is
>: collected. 

>Righto.

>: The inherent data streaming capability of most pcs is about
>: 115Kb/sec. 

>Wonderful.  On a workstation, it can get up to 50-Mb/sec or so.  
>So what?

>: I think you need to go back to go and take a look at what
>: is being collected, sampled, acquired, processed, and displayed...and
>: how. Don't just complain that windows is slow...it isn't slow. 

>Surely, you joke!  Hell, windows is so slow that even game designers 
>avoid it like the plague. It's a layered software implementation that is 
>so inefficient that you require a relatively fast PC processor (486 
>or Pentium) to provide even minimally acceptable levels of performance.  
>Sure, you can use Windows for real-time, that is if your application can 
>live with only about 10% of CPU processing potential.  However, the fact is 
>simply: for the satisfaction of serious (performance oriented) real-time 
>requirements, few do.    

>: The: sampling software may be slow, but windows is as fast as it needs to
>: be. The fact that you guys are arguing over these types of issues
>: indicates you are a bunch of amateurs.

>Thank you for that sage advice, even if it has little to to with the 
>Keithley application software being discussed.  However, it does say 
>something about the class of applications you work with.   

>Now, go back to 
>your homework.   :-)


<<<<Well, you are definitely hung up on the graphics rendering
potential of applications under windows. That's why  accelerator
boards are being used to avoid loading the cpu with graphics
processing. That's why windows APPEARS to be slow. As for the
relevance of uploading graphics programs, it was merely to indicate
that it isn't the data acquisition that limits things. What it really
sounds like is that the inherent time constant of the transducers used
to collect the data are slow. Calorimeters and thermocouples are
pretty slow and that might be why the whole system is a dog...accuracy
aside.




cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenhlamuth cudfnHenry cudlnLaMuth cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 / A Rivero /  About new thories...
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: About new thories...
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 18:13:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Open letter to all that "new theories" guys, personified in one.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Ciao,

Im writing you because I read your posting on internet about
a "new theory" you presented with no reaction form "official" physics
comunnity.

Before any feeling, please ask yourself:

-Is your finding consistent with current experimental data in
the involved areas? 
-Does it reduce calculations, number of parameters, or something
which it is feeled in needs simplifications?
-Does your theory get the right numbers starting from few parameters?

If you dont get a "yes" to any question, then fou are simply
offering a different phisosophy. Such issue is not accepted in science.

Specifically, I see you speak about some removal of electric field. If so,
you would show that with your scheme you can get the correct
fine structure constant, the correnct lamb displacement for 
hidrogen athom etc.

In adition, if you enter subnuclear physics, you must get the known
hadron spectre of masses, and you must get the correct interaction
and decay rates which are observed in high energy collisions.

Of course, you can always "justify" qualitatively data. But that
is not the full history, you mast whow how to "get" the correct result.

Next time you make a lecture, show how to calculate the 
electromagnetism fine structure constant, and estimate some
breemstralung effect. That would be science work, not simply
"cold fusion pausabilities". Of course, you must to read how all the people
involved made such calculations in a range of forty years of work.
(you must to show ou can made it simpler)

Anyway, physics is a nice discipline if you get the patiente needed for
the study. Based in my own -young- experience, an *absolute* minumum of
eight years is needed to begin to get the real grasp. And only
usual academic method is able to give the training, as you must
first be brain-cleaned in the three first years, and some
monitorization is needed to avoid you to go to "the other side"
definitely. Of course, you can
always write down your thoughts to get them back ten years later... you
will surely laught then.


Yours,
			Alejandro Rivero

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Jack Campin /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jack@purr.demon.co.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.
bjectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,s
i.energy,sci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 01:55:02 GMT
Organization: The Fluffiest Flat in Edinburgh


In article <3l9bfq$b05@dawn.mmm.com> kdpauly@mmm.com (KD_Pauly) writes:

[who cares]

Like all the other morons contributing to this thread, you crossposted that
to sci.logic.

Get lost.  If you can't read newsgroup headers you shouldn't be using this
medium.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin                                             jack@purr.demon.co.uk  
T/L, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland       (+44) 131 556 5272 
 -------------------  FERMAN PADiSAHIN, DAGLAR BiZiMDiR  --------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnCampin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 /  ChrisAct /  Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
     
Originally-From: chrisact@aol.com (ChrisAct)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: 2 Apr 1995 12:23:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

There is one fault in your logic -- and in most of the traditional
controlled fusion world -- is that you have to have a large number of
fusions per mole.  Suppose only 0.1% of Palladium atoms produced a fusion.
 this would produce a significant amount of heat energy.  Then suppose you
put this Palladium in a combination hydrogen-combustion/steam turbine. 
The resulting higher steam temperatures would greatly increase the
effiencies of the turbine.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchrisact cudlnChrisAct cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 / Jay Lewis /  Re: I give up
     
Originally-From: jlewis@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Jay A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I give up
Date: 2 Apr 1995 16:37:07 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering and Mines, University of Arizona


I didn't contribute any of the money but would like to make a suggestion
for those that did to consider.  It seems to me there will be a need for
a follow up visit to Griggs in a year or so to see if they have adopted
Tom's suggestions and what the results were.  Just put the money in the
bank and pull it out next year for the next visit.
--
   ____  _____/       /          _____/    |             /      /    _____/   
        /            /          /          |            /      /    /         
       /            /          ___/        |   _ \     /      /   ____  /
  /   /            /          /            |  /   \   /      /         / 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlewis cudfnJay cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Request for clarification [prev. was "stupid calculator tricks"]
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Request for clarification [prev. was "stupid calculator tricks"]
Date: 2 Apr 1995 17:12:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I said I wasn't going to discuss the matter further until you answered
at least some of my questions.  What part of that did you fail to 
understand?
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Apr  3 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
