On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:59:52 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:> steveu wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:07 +0000, invalid wrote: >>> >>>> "brent" <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message >>>> news:0fd6f825-e7ad-4642- >>> a5fe-83de8ff8f7f6@x18g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >>>>> I have created a tutorial on the convolution integral. It uses an >>>>> interactive flash program with embedded audio files. It is located >>>>> here: >>>>> http://www.fourier-series.com/Convolution/index.html >>>> You start off by saying that convolution is a mathematical operation, >> at >>>> which point I switched off. >>>> >>>> Convolution is the way that real systems in the real world (such as >>>> pianoforte strings) >>>> respond to stimuli that are continuous (such as a sine wave from a >>>> loudspeaker in close proximity) >>> Convolution is _not_ the way that real systems in the real world >>> respond >> >>> to stimuli of any sort. Convolution is just a _mathematical >>> operation_ that _approximates_ what real systems do. Sometimes it >>> even does it >> well. >> >> Convolution *is* the way many real systems behave. Its not some arcane >> mathematical trick. Its the direct mathematical representation of the >> underlying physical process. How well it fits reality is generally a >> matter of how much the system is affected by second order effects. This >> is pretty much like any other area of science and engineering. >> >>> All real systems are nonlinear. The convolution operation is one way >>> to >> >>> implement a linear model of a system. Thus, the convolution operation >>> does not model any real system with 100% accuracy. As a model, the >>> convolution operation is only as good as the fit between its bedrock >>> assumption of linearity and the system's actual conformity to linear >>> behavior. >> >> You must absolutely loath the entire scientific education system. >> Almost everything is taught as if it obeys relatively simple >> relationships, and that's pretty much always a first order >> approximation. Often the higher order elements are so small you can >> largely ignore them. If you want accuracy, you'd better scrap Newton's >> laws of motion. >> >> If you really want to complain about people being taught about stuff >> like its an real accurate model, look at the real villans, like how >> capacitors are taught. The number of engineers who treat them like they >> are linear devices is truly sad. They demand that the latest silicon >> can do A/D conversion at high speed with >16 bits precision, and then >> surround them with tiny surface mount capacitors who's characteristics >> are bizarrely funky. > > I had one guy with a Ph.D. in some electrical branch of physics tell me > that the curved line on the schematic representation of a 'lytic was a > "mere visual embellishment". To prove that a polar capacitor was a > contradiction in terms, he wrote out the defining equation.You mean the defining equation of a cap? Leaving out all the nasty non- ideal features that real people have to deal with every day? An electrolytic capacitor is just a really poor diode with deceptive packaging. Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Convolution Tutorial
Started by ●December 26, 2009
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:59:52 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:> steveu wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:07 +0000, invalid wrote: >>> >>>> "brent" <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message >>>> news:0fd6f825-e7ad-4642- >>> a5fe-83de8ff8f7f6@x18g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >>>>> I have created a tutorial on the convolution integral. It uses an >>>>> interactive flash program with embedded audio files. It is located >>>>> here: >>>>> http://www.fourier-series.com/Convolution/index.html >>>> You start off by saying that convolution is a mathematical operation, >> at >>>> which point I switched off. >>>> >>>> Convolution is the way that real systems in the real world (such as >>>> pianoforte strings) >>>> respond to stimuli that are continuous (such as a sine wave from a >>>> loudspeaker in close proximity) >>> Convolution is _not_ the way that real systems in the real world >>> respond >> >>> to stimuli of any sort. Convolution is just a _mathematical >>> operation_ that _approximates_ what real systems do. Sometimes it >>> even does it >> well. >> >> Convolution *is* the way many real systems behave. Its not some arcane >> mathematical trick. Its the direct mathematical representation of the >> underlying physical process. How well it fits reality is generally a >> matter of how much the system is affected by second order effects. This >> is pretty much like any other area of science and engineering. >> >>> All real systems are nonlinear. The convolution operation is one way >>> to >> >>> implement a linear model of a system. Thus, the convolution operation >>> does not model any real system with 100% accuracy. As a model, the >>> convolution operation is only as good as the fit between its bedrock >>> assumption of linearity and the system's actual conformity to linear >>> behavior. >> >> You must absolutely loath the entire scientific education system. >> Almost everything is taught as if it obeys relatively simple >> relationships, and that's pretty much always a first order >> approximation. Often the higher order elements are so small you can >> largely ignore them. If you want accuracy, you'd better scrap Newton's >> laws of motion. >> >> If you really want to complain about people being taught about stuff >> like its an real accurate model, look at the real villans, like how >> capacitors are taught. The number of engineers who treat them like they >> are linear devices is truly sad. They demand that the latest silicon >> can do A/D conversion at high speed with >16 bits precision, and then >> surround them with tiny surface mount capacitors who's characteristics >> are bizarrely funky. > > I had one guy with a Ph.D. in some electrical branch of physics tell me > that the curved line on the schematic representation of a 'lytic was a > "mere visual embellishment". To prove that a polar capacitor was a > contradiction in terms, he wrote out the defining equation.You mean the defining equation of a cap? Leaving out all the nasty non- ideal features that real people have to deal with every day? An electrolytic capacitor is just a really poor diode with deceptive packaging. Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:59:52 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:> steveu wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:07 +0000, invalid wrote: >>> >>>> "brent" <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message >>>> news:0fd6f825-e7ad-4642- >>> a5fe-83de8ff8f7f6@x18g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >>>>> I have created a tutorial on the convolution integral. It uses an >>>>> interactive flash program with embedded audio files. It is located >>>>> here: >>>>> http://www.fourier-series.com/Convolution/index.html >>>> You start off by saying that convolution is a mathematical operation, >> at >>>> which point I switched off. >>>> >>>> Convolution is the way that real systems in the real world (such as >>>> pianoforte strings) >>>> respond to stimuli that are continuous (such as a sine wave from a >>>> loudspeaker in close proximity) >>> Convolution is _not_ the way that real systems in the real world >>> respond >> >>> to stimuli of any sort. Convolution is just a _mathematical >>> operation_ that _approximates_ what real systems do. Sometimes it >>> even does it >> well. >> >> Convolution *is* the way many real systems behave. Its not some arcane >> mathematical trick. Its the direct mathematical representation of the >> underlying physical process. How well it fits reality is generally a >> matter of how much the system is affected by second order effects. This >> is pretty much like any other area of science and engineering. >> >>> All real systems are nonlinear. The convolution operation is one way >>> to >> >>> implement a linear model of a system. Thus, the convolution operation >>> does not model any real system with 100% accuracy. As a model, the >>> convolution operation is only as good as the fit between its bedrock >>> assumption of linearity and the system's actual conformity to linear >>> behavior. >> >> You must absolutely loath the entire scientific education system. >> Almost everything is taught as if it obeys relatively simple >> relationships, and that's pretty much always a first order >> approximation. Often the higher order elements are so small you can >> largely ignore them. If you want accuracy, you'd better scrap Newton's >> laws of motion. >> >> If you really want to complain about people being taught about stuff >> like its an real accurate model, look at the real villans, like how >> capacitors are taught. The number of engineers who treat them like they >> are linear devices is truly sad. They demand that the latest silicon >> can do A/D conversion at high speed with >16 bits precision, and then >> surround them with tiny surface mount capacitors who's characteristics >> are bizarrely funky. > > I had one guy with a Ph.D. in some electrical branch of physics tell me > that the curved line on the schematic representation of a 'lytic was a > "mere visual embellishment". To prove that a polar capacitor was a > contradiction in terms, he wrote out the defining equation.You mean the defining equation of a cap? Leaving out all the nasty non- ideal features that real people have to deal with every day? An electrolytic capacitor is just a really poor diode with deceptive packaging. Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
On 12/28/2009 10:50 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:59:52 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote: > >> steveu wrote: >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:07 +0000, invalid wrote: >>>> >>>>> "brent"<bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:0fd6f825-e7ad-4642- >>>> a5fe-83de8ff8f7f6@x18g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> I have created a tutorial on the convolution integral. It uses an >>>>>> interactive flash program with embedded audio files. It is located >>>>>> here: >>>>>> http://www.fourier-series.com/Convolution/index.html >>>>> You start off by saying that convolution is a mathematical operation, >>> at >>>>> which point I switched off. >>>>> >>>>> Convolution is the way that real systems in the real world (such as >>>>> pianoforte strings) >>>>> respond to stimuli that are continuous (such as a sine wave from a >>>>> loudspeaker in close proximity) >>>> Convolution is _not_ the way that real systems in the real world >>>> respond >>>> to stimuli of any sort. Convolution is just a _mathematical >>>> operation_ that _approximates_ what real systems do. Sometimes it >>>> even does it >>> well. >>> >>> Convolution *is* the way many real systems behave. Its not some arcane >>> mathematical trick. Its the direct mathematical representation of the >>> underlying physical process. How well it fits reality is generally a >>> matter of how much the system is affected by second order effects. This >>> is pretty much like any other area of science and engineering. >>> >>>> All real systems are nonlinear. The convolution operation is one way >>>> to >>>> implement a linear model of a system. Thus, the convolution operation >>>> does not model any real system with 100% accuracy. As a model, the >>>> convolution operation is only as good as the fit between its bedrock >>>> assumption of linearity and the system's actual conformity to linear >>>> behavior. >>> You must absolutely loath the entire scientific education system. >>> Almost everything is taught as if it obeys relatively simple >>> relationships, and that's pretty much always a first order >>> approximation. Often the higher order elements are so small you can >>> largely ignore them. If you want accuracy, you'd better scrap Newton's >>> laws of motion. >>> >>> If you really want to complain about people being taught about stuff >>> like its an real accurate model, look at the real villans, like how >>> capacitors are taught. The number of engineers who treat them like they >>> are linear devices is truly sad. They demand that the latest silicon >>> can do A/D conversion at high speed with>16 bits precision, and then >>> surround them with tiny surface mount capacitors who's characteristics >>> are bizarrely funky. >> I had one guy with a Ph.D. in some electrical branch of physics tell me >> that the curved line on the schematic representation of a 'lytic was a >> "mere visual embellishment". To prove that a polar capacitor was a >> contradiction in terms, he wrote out the defining equation. > > You mean the defining equation of a cap? Leaving out all the nasty non- > ideal features that real people have to deal with every day? > > An electrolytic capacitor is just a really poor diode with deceptive > packaging.But, still, exceedingly useful for entertainment via overvoltage "experiments". ;)> Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD > sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent.Practical guys with PhDs are very rare in my experience. I think in my entire career I've met a handful that I would say "get it" from both a practical and theoretical perspective. It takes a lot of one's formative years to get a PhD, and it takes a lot of one's formative years to get good, practical experience. People with PhDs are seldom put in the same positions where people get really useful practical experience, so the sorts of circumstances where somebody would wind up with both good practical formative experience and a PhD are pretty rare. But I have met a lot of people with PhDs who -think- they understand practical stuff but don't (like Jerry's guy with the electrolytic cap). Often no amount of evidence or cajoling will convince them otherwise. Sometimes these are the guys you want to keep far, far away from your project. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
On Dec 29, 4:33�am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:> On Dec 27, 12:42�pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote: > > > > > Did you pay tuition fees to anyone for teaching you DSP > > before that? If so, you might have a law case for them not > > delivering what you paid them for. > > �( Insert EE instead of DSP above) > > I have been thinking about your comment here. �I disagree. �As I think > about it, the people who actually taught me EE were not my professors > but the people that wrote the books (and on the job mentors). �I would > say I pretty much self taught myself everything through the books or > learned on the job, even though I have a degree. > > Now as you got me thinking about it, what EE school did was to let me > know what I did not know. �I remember Donald Rumsfeld said that the > greates dangers are not knowing what you do not know. �I certainly > became aware of many things that I did not know through EE school. �I > pretty much left EE school still not knowing much of anything, but at > least now I knew what I did not know and have been able to spend the > last 25 years with good books, on the job mentors, and more time to > learn the things I did not know. > > So In hindsight, I wonder if the value of the EE degree is that it > gives you the credentials that you might have enough brains to > actually learn something later and might actually be creative as you > tool at your job.I think you are foolong yourself if you think that a professional engineer can somehow spring into life via on the job training. He/she would be good at the specific job of course but would have little general EE knowledge to solve problems outwith the work experience. There was a time when maybe tha twas true - by exceptional people who solved original problems etc Brunell, Watt and maybe even Heaviside? I do agree however that an engineer in industry is going to know far more about a problem he/she is working on than an academic. The academic will (should) know more in general however. probably the ultimate is an industrial research lab like Bell Labs where they have the best of both worlds. Hardy
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
On Dec 28, 10:59�am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> averred:> > I had one guy with a Ph.D. in some electrical branch of physics tell me > that the curved line on the schematic representation of a 'lytic was a > "mere visual embellishment". To prove that a polar capacitor was a > contradiction in terms, he wrote out the defining equation.Oh, shoot! You mean V = IR is all wrong and if I apply a gazillion volts to a 1-ohm resistor, I won't get a gazillion amps flowing through it? --Dilip Burntfingers
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
Tim Wescott wrote:> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:59:52 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote: > >> steveu wrote: >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:07 +0000, invalid wrote: >>>> >>>>> "brent" <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:0fd6f825-e7ad-4642- >>>> a5fe-83de8ff8f7f6@x18g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> I have created a tutorial on the convolution integral. It uses an >>>>>> interactive flash program with embedded audio files. It is located >>>>>> here: >>>>>> http://www.fourier-series.com/Convolution/index.html >>>>> You start off by saying that convolution is a mathematical operation, >>> at >>>>> which point I switched off. >>>>> >>>>> Convolution is the way that real systems in the real world (such as >>>>> pianoforte strings) >>>>> respond to stimuli that are continuous (such as a sine wave from a >>>>> loudspeaker in close proximity) >>>> Convolution is _not_ the way that real systems in the real world >>>> respond >>>> to stimuli of any sort. Convolution is just a _mathematical >>>> operation_ that _approximates_ what real systems do. Sometimes it >>>> even does it >>> well. >>> >>> Convolution *is* the way many real systems behave. Its not some arcane >>> mathematical trick. Its the direct mathematical representation of the >>> underlying physical process. How well it fits reality is generally a >>> matter of how much the system is affected by second order effects. This >>> is pretty much like any other area of science and engineering. >>> >>>> All real systems are nonlinear. The convolution operation is one way >>>> to >>>> implement a linear model of a system. Thus, the convolution operation >>>> does not model any real system with 100% accuracy. As a model, the >>>> convolution operation is only as good as the fit between its bedrock >>>> assumption of linearity and the system's actual conformity to linear >>>> behavior. >>> You must absolutely loath the entire scientific education system. >>> Almost everything is taught as if it obeys relatively simple >>> relationships, and that's pretty much always a first order >>> approximation. Often the higher order elements are so small you can >>> largely ignore them. If you want accuracy, you'd better scrap Newton's >>> laws of motion. >>> >>> If you really want to complain about people being taught about stuff >>> like its an real accurate model, look at the real villans, like how >>> capacitors are taught. The number of engineers who treat them like they >>> are linear devices is truly sad. They demand that the latest silicon >>> can do A/D conversion at high speed with >16 bits precision, and then >>> surround them with tiny surface mount capacitors who's characteristics >>> are bizarrely funky. >> I had one guy with a Ph.D. in some electrical branch of physics tell me >> that the curved line on the schematic representation of a 'lytic was a >> "mere visual embellishment". To prove that a polar capacitor was a >> contradiction in terms, he wrote out the defining equation. > > You mean the defining equation of a cap? Leaving out all the nasty non- > ideal features that real people have to deal with every day?Yes.> An electrolytic capacitor is just a really poor diode with deceptive > packaging.I know. I once made a bank of small electrolytic rectifiers* to get DC out of the poweer line.> Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD > sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent.He was a good learner when he learner that there was something to learn. Being stuck with him, I assigned a technician to be his tutor. He became quite capable in a short time. Jerry _____________________________ A lead and an aluminum strip suspended by a cork in a test tube of sodium carbonate solution. 20 in series gave enough margin for 120 VRMS. -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
I'd be happy to say, as has been already said, that a mathematical treatment is a "model" and that "models" as such aren't *necessarily* complete representations of the real world. After that, it's all a matter of degree, perception, requirements, etc. isn't it? To argue that a models in general are indeed representations of the real world without qualification seems odd to me. And, to be sure, some have given qualifications. It's the unqualified assertions that aren't well justified IMHO. Now, if one can pose physical situations where it is asserted that there need be no qualifications then we can always discuss those specific cases on their own merits. Fred
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
> If arguments about capacitor nonlinearities are too subtle, try doing > this with a 1000 ohm resistor, a 1 microfarad, 50V cap, then plug the > assembly into a 120V, 60Hz wall socket. > > As a thought experiment, of course.I've done that one, inadvertently. It's a real...blast! Rick
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
On 28 Des, 19:22, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:> On 12/28/2009 10:50 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:> > Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD > > sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. > > Practical guys with PhDs are very rare in my experience. � I think in my > entire career I've met a handful that I would say "get it" from both a > practical and theoretical perspective. > > It takes a lot of one's formative years to get a PhD, and it takes a lot > of one's formative years to get good, practical experience.Agreed.>� People > with PhDs are seldom put in the same positions where people get really > useful practical experience, so the sorts of circumstances where > somebody would wind up with both good practical formative experience and > a PhD are pretty rare.There is the middle way: A PhD who doesn't understand the practical aspects, but who knows that he doesn't understand.> But I have met a lot of people with PhDs who -think- they understand > practical stuff but don't (like Jerry's guy with the electrolytic cap). > � Often no amount of evidence or cajoling will convince them otherwise. > � Sometimes these are the guys you want to keep far, far away from your > project.The main problem with these guys is not that they lack practical skills, but that they don't realize the fact. Somebody who knows they are in deep waters might take the necessary steps to get help or assistance. There is a saying in Norwegian, "Den som tror han er ferdig utl�rt er ikke utl�rt. Han er ferdig." In my translation: "He who thinks his education has finished is not educated. He is finished." Rune
