AN: GuruGram #72 is newly ready for free download
Don Lancaster
It is on deterministic solution of magic sinewave zero calculations.
Magic Sinewaves are a newly discovered approach to energy efficiency and
power quality.
Sourcecode available at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/detmssol.psl
Other GuruGrams at http://www.tinaja.com/gurgrm01.asp
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Joel Kolstad
news:4tobshF...@mid.individual.net...
> Magic Sinewaves are a newly discovered approach to energy efficiency and
> power quality.
Don, even you've been pushing "magic sinewaves" for something like a decade
now, no? And the math behind it is at least two hundred years old, with
commercial applications probably dating back to about the '70s?
bill....@ieee.org
Probably earlier. One of my colleagues at Plessey Pacific in 1969-70
had previously worked on using PWM to synthesisie three phase sine
waves from a (big) DC source, basically a long distance link between
power grids.
This was before TTL was cheap, to the point that
transistor-transistor-logic was cheaper when made with discrete
transistors, but when you are talking generating station power levels,
this doesn't matter much.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but n Sydney at the moment)
Henry Kiefer
<bill....@ieee.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1165453336.5...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Probably earlier. One of my colleagues at Plessey Pacific in 1969-70
> had previously worked on using PWM to synthesisie three phase sine
> waves from a (big) DC source, basically a long distance link between
> power grids.
Hi Bill -
Where can I read uproad of Don about Magic Sinewaves?
regards -
Henry
Don Lancaster
The underlying math is a VERY RECENT discovery that utterly and
completely blows away conventional PWM.
More at http:/www.tinaja.com/magsn01.asp
Joel Kolstad
> The underlying math is a VERY RECENT discovery that utterly and completely
> blows away conventional PWM.
If you really think this is the case you should submit a paper to your
favorite IEEE journal about it, Don. We know you're good at writing! ;-)
Heck, these days they'd probably accept it regardless of whether or not
there's plenty of prior art. :-)
Don Lancaster
You are thus suggesting that I pay a lot of money to be published in a
journal of miniscule circulation whose subscription costs are so high
that my own library cannot afford it?
After 35+ books and 1900+ articles in print, I think not.
bill....@ieee.org
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Joel Kolstad wrote:
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > news:4tpbfjF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> >>The underlying math is a VERY RECENT discovery that utterly and completely
> >>blows away conventional PWM.
> >
> >
> > If you really think this is the case you should submit a paper to your
> > favorite IEEE journal about it, Don. We know you're good at writing! ;-)
> >
> > Heck, these days they'd probably accept it regardless of whether or not
> > there's plenty of prior art. :-)
> >
>
> You are thus suggesting that I pay a lot of money to be published in a
> journal of miniscule circulation whose subscription costs are so high
> that my own library cannot afford it?
>
> After 35+ books and 1900+ articles in print, I think not.
It is probably still the cheapest way of finding out about the prior
art. Referees for academic journals don't get paid, and most of them do
a pretty good job.
Your "underlying math" is presumably a better way of calculating where
the edges should go in the PWM waveform - people have been doing this
with sufficient accuracy (if cruder math) for quite some time now.
Some of these computational tricks get discovered several times before
the field pays any attentiion. The much-hyped Fast Fourier Transform
turned out to have been invented several times before Cooley and Tukey
got their little band-waggon rolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooley-Tukey_FFT_algorithm
Danielson-Lanczos invented their version in the days of mechanical
calculators, and IIRR someone else invented a version of the algorithm
about ten years before Coley and Tukey for sorting out multi-element
antennas.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but inSydney at the moment)
bill....@ieee.org
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Joel Kolstad wrote:
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > news:4tpbfjF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> >>The underlying math is a VERY RECENT discovery that utterly and completely
> >>blows away conventional PWM.
> >
> >
> > If you really think this is the case you should submit a paper to your
> > favorite IEEE journal about it, Don. We know you're good at writing! ;-)
> >
> > Heck, these days they'd probably accept it regardless of whether or not
> > there's plenty of prior art. :-)
> >
>
> You are thus suggesting that I pay a lot of money to be published in a
> journal of miniscule circulation whose subscription costs are so high
> that my own library cannot afford it?
>
> After 35+ books and 1900+ articles in print, I think not.
It is probably still the cheapest way of finding out about the prior
art. Referees for academic journals don't get paid, and most of them do
a pretty good job.
Your "underlying math" is presumably a better way of calculating where
the edges should go in the PWM waveform - people have been doing this
with sufficient accuracy (if cruder math) for quite some time now.
Some of these computational tricks get discovered several times before
the field pays any attentiion. The much-hyped Fast Fourier Transform
turned out to have been invented several times before Cooley and Tukey
got their little band-waggon rolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooley-Tukey_FFT_algorithm
Danielson-Lanczos invented their version in the days of mechanical
calculators, and IIRR someone else invented a version of the algorithm
about ten years before Coley and Tukey for sorting out multi-element
antennas.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but inSydney at the moment)
Henry Kiefer
news:4tpbfjF...@mid.individual.net...
> Henry Kiefer wrote:
> > <bill....@ieee.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:1165453336.5...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Probably earlier. One of my colleagues at Plessey Pacific in 1969-70
> >>had previously worked on using PWM to synthesisie three phase sine
> >>waves from a (big) DC source, basically a long distance link between
> >>power grids.
> >
> >
> > Hi Bill -
> >
> > Where can I read uproad of Don about Magic Sinewaves?
> >
> > regards -
> > Henry
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.ehydra.dyndns.info
> >
> >
> >
>
> The underlying math is a VERY RECENT discovery that utterly and
> completely blows away conventional PWM.
>
> More at http:/www.tinaja.com/magsn01.asp
Don -
I already noticed your site (back one year or so). But I found it difficult
to read and there was no reference to others. Something without reference is
suspictious or really new or sophisticated.
(OK, I already know your answer at least in part).
- Henry
Don Lancaster
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>
>>Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>
>>>"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4tpbfjF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The underlying math is a VERY RECENT discovery that utterly and completely
>>>>blows away conventional PWM.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you really think this is the case you should submit a paper to your
>>>favorite IEEE journal about it, Don. We know you're good at writing! ;-)
>>>
>>>Heck, these days they'd probably accept it regardless of whether or not
>>>there's plenty of prior art. :-)
>>>
>>
>>You are thus suggesting that I pay a lot of money to be published in a
>>journal of miniscule circulation whose subscription costs are so high
>>that my own library cannot afford it?
>>
>>After 35+ books and 1900+ articles in print, I think not.
>
>
> It is probably still the cheapest way of finding out about the prior
> art. Referees for academic journals don't get paid, and most of them do
> a pretty good job.
>
>
Scholarly journals no longer serve a useful purpose and their very
survival is extremely unlikely unless they dramatically change their
services and policies.
The IEEE, of course, is by far the worst offender and the most in risk.
An individual has a choice: They can instantly publish on the web to a
worldwide audience. Or they can pay lots of money and waste lots of time
having a scholarly journal publish for them. With a miniscule and fast
diminishing aucience and a subscription price so high that even their
own library cannot afford a subscription.
If the journals are to survive at all, they MUST provide instant and
free no hassle downloads of all papers older than three years, and MUST
have a ridiculously faster method of getting into print.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/techinov.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Joel Kolstad
> You are thus suggesting that I pay a lot of money to be published in a
> journal of miniscule circulation whose subscription costs are so high that
> my own library cannot afford it?
Even with the Internet, there's probably still somewhat better long-term
"persistance" with IEEE journals (or similar) than most other publications.
Besides, academics love keeping names around, so 100 years from now people
would be talking about "Lancaster Sine Waves" -- maybe I can appeal to your
vainity? :-)
If you did up a local college professor you can probably get them to foot the
fees if they get to stick their name somewhere on your paper. Normally this
might also get a bit of "name recognition," but in your case I would hope that
even most academics would be familiar with you.
I am playing devil's advocate a little here; there are plenty of pros and cons
of the IEEE and the publishing empire they head up.
---Joel
Don Lancaster
And I am a college professor, sort of.
Zak
> Scholarly journals no longer serve a useful purpose and their very
> survival is extremely unlikely unless they dramatically change their
> services and policies.
In a previous job I went to a seminar on publishing journals, with
speakers from a few famous publishing houses. The basic idea is to keep
raising the price to make money and hope subscribers don't cancel. When
too many cancel start a new journal, but keep the old one alive. Now you
are selling 2 subscriptions. And so on.
The contents of the journals was not really a subject in the seminar.
Thomas
bill....@ieee.org
Don Lancaster wrote:
> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > Don Lancaster wrote:
> >
> >>Joel Kolstad wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4tpbfjF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The underlying math is a VERY RECENT discovery that utterly and completely
> >>>>blows away conventional PWM.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If you really think this is the case you should submit a paper to your
> >>>favorite IEEE journal about it, Don. We know you're good at writing! ;-)
> >>>
> >>>Heck, these days they'd probably accept it regardless of whether or not
> >>>there's plenty of prior art. :-)
> >>>
> >>
> >>You are thus suggesting that I pay a lot of money to be published in a
> >>journal of miniscule circulation whose subscription costs are so high
> >>that my own library cannot afford it?
> >>
> >>After 35+ books and 1900+ articles in print, I think not.
> >
> >
> > It is probably still the cheapest way of finding out about the prior
> > art. Referees for academic journals don't get paid, and most of them do
> > a pretty good job.
> >
> >
>
> Scholarly journals no longer serve a useful purpose and their very
> survival is extremely unlikely unless they dramatically change their
> services and policies.
>
> The IEEE, of course, is by far the worst offender and the most in risk.
The IEEE isn't committed to making a profit. In Europe, Elsevier is
seen as far worse.
> An individual has a choice: They can instantly publish on the web to a
> worldwide audience.
Without the benefit of the refereeing system, which protects the world
from a great many misleading publications - believe me, I've done
enough referring to know that Sturgeons Law (90% of everything is
rubbish) is pretty accurate.
> Or they can pay lots of money and waste lots of time
> having a scholarly journal publish for them.
I've never paid a cent to publish in any scholarly journal. Sometimes
I've been invited to pay page fees, but since I've never published
grant-supported work, I've always declined. If you want to identify the
journals involved search for "A.W.Sloman" on Google Scholar.
> With a miniscule and fast diminishing audience and a subscription price so high that even
> their own library cannot afford a subscription.
>
> If the journals are to survive at all, they MUST provide instant and
> free no hassle downloads of all papers older than three years, and MUST
> have a ridiculously faster method of getting into print.
Have a look a the Public Library of Science for an example of how sucfh
a system might work
http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.html
They still publish refereed articles, so one can't publish half-baked
thoughts before the sub-concious has done a bit of error-checking, but
it does get the greedy publishers out of the loop.
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/techinov.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Not exactly detailed - and your comments about music on page 2 miss the
very real problem with the "decoupled" electriconic piano, where the
"two switch" piano key does an absolutely dire job of capturing the
timing and amplitude information provided by the pianists fingers, to
the point where I can play better on my piano teacher's acoustic German
Steinway - whch I get to play once a week - than I can on my electronic
Roland 330, which I play every day.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but in Sydney at the moment).