M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
(continued)
Really. Poles in the wrong angles in general (I prefer somewhere around maybe +/- 2/3*pi, giving a sufficient negative real component given the magnitude of the imaginary component but it’s been a while because I don’t keep up so that may not really be the best angle and certainly is something you need an engineer to determine.)
I mean, having the wrong gain in the forward and/or feedback loops, can give you such a right half plane root, and that has been known to cause everything from deafening feedback from the sound system, to exploding satellites.
A classic example of when somebody “follows the formula” but it turns out that whoops! In certain wind conditions, we get poles (roots to the denominator) in the Right Half Plane… The Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
Somebody needed to use a little more “expert” insight and a little less reliance on fatally simplistic applications of mathematical models. Turns out, in just the right wind conditions, the formulas broke down because of the location of the zero, on the complex plane, of the stability system of the bridge.
Here’s what we don’t want to do to sinners, because we missed the angle of one of the system poles:
Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse “Gallopin’ Gertie”
Oh wait. You said “computer engineer,” not an “electrical engineer” or “physicist.” Yeah, you sound like a digital guy. I bet you hide under a table if somebody asks you about “VSWR.”
Then yes, for you, just follow the procedures and select the right options, maybe write a little code, and you will have the answer: is this sin mortal? Just apply the sticker “Not Calibrated – For Indication Only” and I’ll be fine.
Computer engineers can digitize, store, recall, and signal process any shade of gray, but the problem is getting a reliable connection to the information source. Tell me whether a person feels guilty 7 v 6 on the scale of 1 to 10, does that fulfill the requirement for being contrite? Can we calibrate the sensor within 0.02% of the measurement value?
I suggest you expand your knowledge with a whole lot of physics and maybe some math, and you will enjoy your computer engineering even more than you do now. I can tell you really like your profession because you try to frame the things other people say into various models of thought. I like your process, just not your result. Why not? I think the result is limited. If you are Adam Smith, then I’m claiming to John Nash, and as he said at the beginning of a Beautiful Mind, “there has to be an equation for how bad your tie is.”
Hee hee just funning sort of, but honestly trying to give you some suggestions to help open “wineskins” of computer and digital-ish (dualistic) knowledge, and map it into some more touchy-feely zones like morals and guilt. You may end up like me, going back to school to learn psychology to see how others map from the lab world to the human world.
Peace,
MS
Really. Poles in the wrong angles in general (I prefer somewhere around maybe +/- 2/3*pi, giving a sufficient negative real component given the magnitude of the imaginary component but it’s been a while because I don’t keep up so that may not really be the best angle and certainly is something you need an engineer to determine.)
I mean, having the wrong gain in the forward and/or feedback loops, can give you such a right half plane root, and that has been known to cause everything from deafening feedback from the sound system, to exploding satellites.
A classic example of when somebody “follows the formula” but it turns out that whoops! In certain wind conditions, we get poles (roots to the denominator) in the Right Half Plane… The Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
Somebody needed to use a little more “expert” insight and a little less reliance on fatally simplistic applications of mathematical models. Turns out, in just the right wind conditions, the formulas broke down because of the location of the zero, on the complex plane, of the stability system of the bridge.
Here’s what we don’t want to do to sinners, because we missed the angle of one of the system poles:
Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse “Gallopin’ Gertie”
Oh wait. You said “computer engineer,” not an “electrical engineer” or “physicist.” Yeah, you sound like a digital guy. I bet you hide under a table if somebody asks you about “VSWR.”
Then yes, for you, just follow the procedures and select the right options, maybe write a little code, and you will have the answer: is this sin mortal? Just apply the sticker “Not Calibrated – For Indication Only” and I’ll be fine.
Computer engineers can digitize, store, recall, and signal process any shade of gray, but the problem is getting a reliable connection to the information source. Tell me whether a person feels guilty 7 v 6 on the scale of 1 to 10, does that fulfill the requirement for being contrite? Can we calibrate the sensor within 0.02% of the measurement value?
I suggest you expand your knowledge with a whole lot of physics and maybe some math, and you will enjoy your computer engineering even more than you do now. I can tell you really like your profession because you try to frame the things other people say into various models of thought. I like your process, just not your result. Why not? I think the result is limited. If you are Adam Smith, then I’m claiming to John Nash, and as he said at the beginning of a Beautiful Mind, “there has to be an equation for how bad your tie is.”
Hee hee just funning sort of, but honestly trying to give you some suggestions to help open “wineskins” of computer and digital-ish (dualistic) knowledge, and map it into some more touchy-feely zones like morals and guilt. You may end up like me, going back to school to learn psychology to see how others map from the lab world to the human world.
Peace,
MS