www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Okay, I found "bowl." <**>If you have a bowl and you put a ball in it and then give the ball a little shove, it will travel up one side, gravity will bring it down and it will rock back and forth until it settles back to the middle. That's how engineers use negative feedback to bring back things which have been pushed out of normal operation back to normal.<**> -------------------- Which is a demonstration of the concept of "stable" equilibrium. Turmel has failed to direct our attention to the source of "negative feedback" in this demonstration, however. There is merely momentum countervailed by gravity. No feedback. Turmel continues to claim that he is an "engineer." In response to an earlier question he said he was a graduate of Carleton, I think. Will he give me permission to access his Carleton transcript and student records so I might confirm his claim? -- <**>If you turn the bowl upside down and put the ball at the top, one small push and the gravity will make the ball fall faster and faster. That's unstable. If you put the ball on a platform and give it a push, without friction, it will just continue in rolling steady state.<**> -------------------- Which merely demonstrates the concept of "unstable" equilibrium. There is also no feedback in this demonstration, merely the effects of gravity. -- <**>Both zero and negative feedback are acceptable while positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable.<**> -------------------- Which does not follow from the two examples because neither contains feedback. Turmel arbitrarily asserts, "both zero and negative are acceptable" and "positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable." Both assertions are complete nonsense. -- Drag on a falling object is *negative* feedback that increases to the square of the object's velocity, so is therefore "exponential." It will increase to the point where the force from drag and the force from gravity equal. From that point downward the object is falling at its "terminal" velocity which is constant. So the change to that point is "exponential" but from that point downward there is nothing "exponential" about it whatsoever. But this is negative feedback that this eminent "engineer" says is "acceptable." I wonder if he will admit that it also demonstrates that negative feedback can be "exponential." What is it about the clock escapement that feeds energy into the pendulum that keeps it going with each tick of the clock that makes it "always unacceptably unstable"? Will this eminent "engineer" please supply an answer? It is definitely an example of positive feedback that for the first time made navigation across open oceans possible. What is it about the triode tube that makes it "always unacceptably unstable"? There is positive feedback from plate to grid which revolutionized communications, making possible the ultimate development of the very computers we use to scribble and view these messages. "Edwin Howard Armstrong enrolled in electrical engineering at Columbia, and in 1913, while still an undergrad, made his first great discovery, regeneration...Armstrong discovered that the gain of a triode amplifier could be enormously increased by feeding some of the amplifier output back into the input, i.e. by using positive feedback. Given enough feedback, the amplifier became a stable and powerful oscillator, perfect for driving radio transmitters. Given a little less feedback, the amplifier became a more sensitive radio receiver than anything else at the time." -- <**>His latest assertion is that I'm wrong when I say positive feedback generates an exponential output. Like I said, Ryan's certifiably irrational. I have a gift for explaining super-sophisticated engineering really simply. -------------------- The gifts are the gifts of the glib and successful con man. Turmel 1) falsely claims to be an "engineer," which gives him the aura of someone who knows what he is talking about to whom we must defer even though we don't understand what this "genius" is talking about; and 2) he lies with a straight face. He is indeed good at what he does. -- More to the point is the assertion that interest is feedback. It is feedback in the informational sense only and derives from the conventions of accounting. Interest is merely the name that we give to profit going to the financier, which includes most of us through pension, insurance and mutual funds. Profit is "positive feedback" and loss is "negative feedback" because it informs us whether or not what we are doing is satisfying the demands of consumers. It is the very basis of the system of free enterprise. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Turmel) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:52 -0500 > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Morin) > >Subject: Money, Interest and Prosperity > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > JCT: Dan, this post based on your questions has really > stirred up a lot of debate on the USENET groups. > can.politics and alt.fan.john-turmel get it all and you can > even use Google search Groups for turmel sorted on date and > you'll find almost 30 articles. > > Most are from Dan Parker beating up on Bill Ryan. Bill's a > wonderful shill to beat up on. He uses big words that are > gibberish and some people take him seriously so using him as > a foil is a lot of fun. Dan Parker's enjoying showing Ryan > wrong as much as I did. > > I had 18 posts debating with Bill Ryan that I can refer you > to which I've published and can be found online with a > search for turmel and ryan and social credit or at the > Turmel's Latest Posts page from my home page: > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan1.htm > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan4.htm > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan6.htm > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan8.htm > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan10.htm > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan14.htm > > By the end, he was so badly beaten up that he became > demented and has been unable to stop bad-mouthing me all > these years after his drubbing. > > So go check the Google Groups. Step in if you'd like to make > a fool of Ryan too. It's not too often you get an opponent > who doesn't realize he's beaten and keeps getting up so you > can keep smashing him down. > > His latest assertion is that I'm wrong when I say positive > feedback generates an exponential output. Like I said, > Ryan's certifiably irrational. I have a gift for explaining > super-sophisticated engineering really simply. He's arguing > I'm wrong when I can explain positive, negative and zero > feedback with a ball and a bowl. See: > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm and search for > bowl. Once you get it, then you'll really enjoy seeing Crazy > Bill baying at the moon. > > Again, he's fun to beat up on but only for educational > purposes. Check it out.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
