Re: The mechanism behind bouncing...

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:16:42 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1vdas29f4io4odpptfbg3fkup2mpdpopso@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 21:58:27 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

Anyways...

Why are you being so angrily defensive?

Contact bounce is nothing more than a spring-loaded screen door
bouncing back from the jamb when it's let go early.


Because you guys always seem to think that your way is the right way. I know
you guys are not stupid but it seems that you take a simple view of the
world and if someone else wants more info then you act like they are stupid.
You think, say, that if you measure the V-I curve on a resistor and see that
it looks like a perfectly straight line then it must be.

---
To a first approximation, it is, and for the purposes of this
newsgroup that's good enough most of the time.
---

You neglect all the other factors involved. This is fine if you don't care
about them but if someone else does then you tell them what you have
observed and that is what they should believe.

---
Yes. And rightfully so. In the absence of a specific request for
the microscopic, the macroscopic explanation will generally suffice.
If it doesn't, then the onus is on the querant to ask for more
detail. You seem to think that everyone wants to know the minutiae
of "why", and that's just not the case. In this instance the OP
asked for an explanation of why a noisy switch causes a counter to
count falsely, and the answer is: "Because the switch contacts make
and break many times before they settle down, causing multiple
transitions at the counter's clock input."

This can be shown to be true by using a mercury-wetted reed relay or
switch in place of a conventional switch. Doing that will result in
precisely one count made for each make-break cycle of the switch.

That suggests, to me, that the reasons you cited for the miscounts
(the electric field attracting or repelling the contacts, for one)
are flawed, since the very mobility of the mercury film would
certainly cause it to be more affected by that field than a big mass
on the end of a spring would be.
---

To me, its like your trying to tell someone the world is flat.

---
It is, in places, so why shouldn't I tell them that if the micro
view is necessary?

You seem to be saying that when it's convenient for you to use the
macro view you will, but that no one else is allowed to.
---

Now because it you believe it you don't doubt that it is.
It must be. It sounds as if you think you know everything.
And while you guys may not be wrong in most cases in some
way or another, usually you have an idealized or even a narrow
minded view of things. If you never experienced it then
it must not be possible.

---
Don't you think that lumping us all together as "you guys" is taking
a narrow-minded view of things? That is, you're doing exactly what
you say it's wrong for us to do.
---

Usually when someone asks something one doens't get a response like "In my
experiences I have no had this happen" but instead "It can't happen". Now
the problem with the second is that history should have taught you that
nothing is impossible

---
Can you uncook an egg?
---

but if you really believe it then you should have good reasons.
So just state them. "It can't happen and heres why...". Better
yet, "I don't think it can happen and heres my reasoning...". The first
sounds like an arrogant fool while the second one sounds like a rational
human being. Ofcourse maybe you can convince most people with the
"authority" loic but its wrong and should specially not be used in a
scientific place.

---
Sounds to me like you're getting a little authoritarian there.

In the first place, If I want to make an all-encompassing statement
and not back it up with proof, that's my business. I'm certainly
not bound by _your_ rules, and if you have a problem with the
statement, then the burden of proving it false is on you.
---

If you disagree with something then just explain why.

---
Exactly.
---

Don't act like you know everything about everything because
you could be wrong(not saying you/they do this all the time
but it happens to much in this NG).

---
Well, the very act of disagreeing with someone is saying: "I think
you're wrong" or just plain old: "You're wrong", which means that
you think you know more about it than they do, so if you disagree
with the way people post in this newsgroup that means that you know
better than they do about how they should post. Don't you agree?
---

I could be wrong on many things I say. I'm not perfect and I do not know
everthing. But I try to rationalize everything with proof. Sometimes my
logic is faulty and sometimes I use bad evidence. I will admit when I'm
wrong if there is good counter logic involved(and not the authoritative
logic).

---
"If there is good counterlogic involved" means that you get to be
the judge of what is and what isn't good counterlogic, so you get to
be in the favorable position of deciding whether you're right or
wrong by deciding whether your opponent's logic is good or not
regardless of whether your opinion is right or wrong. Handy, no? ;)
---

Maybe you guys were kings in another life and are used to having
everyone do what you say no questions asked?

---
Maybe.
---

Actually any reasonable person who has a desire for knowledge would love for
everything they say to be questioned because it gives them a chance to
understand explain to others and reinforce there own understanding(or change
them if necessary) there view.

---
Not true. I wouldn't love being questioned in a hostile manner by a
person who is frustrated by his inability to understand the answer
to the question and is trying to prove me wrong because of his
inability to admit to being wrong.
---


Many times when I have "argued" with others
I have come up with a better understanding of my own point of view.
Sometimes I have also realized that my original logic was quite shakey or
even wrong. This has happened to help me be self-analyzing on much a
greater scale than most. Although in the last couple of years I've lost
almost all that ability as I do not hang around with any intelligent people
any more.

---
What're we, chopped liver? ;)
---

Maybe thats why I get defensive, I don't know. I guess I just see
this arrogance everywhere and I feel that it does no good for humanity. (Its
getting so bad that eventually everyone will not care what others think and
believe they are kings)

---
We _are_ all kings. Some of us just have bigger kingdoms.


--
JF
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: XP Question about Metaphor
    ... >> So I think there is a real difference in what agile methods are saying ... Most agile methods say that you switch between design and coding ... compare it to travelling up a waterfall (although, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: KH 2007 Products- details & info are here
    ... *any idiot knows* that they will switch soon enough - they ... They will switch to true ISIS in 2008 (and I'm not spouting randomly ... well my basis for saying that is the fact that they didn't just start ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)
  • Digital switch clarify please
    ... They are running commercials in my area southern wi. ... I have an argument with someone saying this isn't ... Will you need a digital box to receive basic cable once the switch over ... or is the cable company going to convert signals to analog so you willn't ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Sensing switch closure with & without power applied?
    ... Fred Bloggs writes: ... but what I was trying to say is that all those suggestions saying ... "replace the switch with such and such" might not be viable. ... contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Parsing regexps and getting the fu**ing error message "parentheses () not balanced"
    ... The first "switch" saying that I want to parse any regexp with no '[' ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)