Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?

[Bassman59]

There are many that have been in print that long, though I agree, I can't think of any that close to the component level that have survived.

Examples of long term survivors.

Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics by Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duzer.  First published in 1965.  Current price is almost 15 times what I paid in the early seventies.

That book was the text for a graduate course in Microwave Electronics I took in 1989. Van Duzer was not involved then!

On the theory side, once someone hits a home run it tends to last a long, long time.

Especially if the theory doesn't change!

[Bassman59]

I actually read that (Dianetics) once. Mein Kampf was less retarded.

Mighty low standard, this.

[T3sl4co1l]

Handbook of Mathematical Functions.  Abramowitz and Stegun.  First published in 1964.  A bit of cheat since it is now a Dover reprint.

Introduction to the Theory of Random Signals and Noise.  Davenport and Root.  First published in 1958.

I know of several others and suspect there are many more.  Things like Feynman's lectures (maybe not exactly electronics), and Donald Knuth's series.

Don't forget RAND's One Million Random Digits, truly a spellbinding epic.

Tim

[rhb]

 I have a lot of stuff that is almost a hundred years old and still in print.  My point was a general device level electronics book in print for that long is very rare.

The King James Bible is still in print 400 years later. So are Sir Isaac Newton's works.  And in the field of literature there are thousands of works which are still in print a two thousand years later.  Cicero, Virgil, Caesar's s "Gallic Wars"  was the standard 1st and 2nd year Latin text when I took Latin and then there are all the Greek works which are even older.

[CatalinaWOW]

Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics by Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duzer.  First published in 1965.  Current price is almost 15 times what I paid in the early seventies.

That book was the text for a graduate course in Microwave Electronics I took in 1989. Van Duzer was not involved then!

[/quote]

You must have purchased an old copy.  Mine was purchased in 1971-1972 and Van Duzer is printed right in the cover and fronts piece.  In the preface it notes that it is based on the earlier work "Fields and Waves in Modern Radio" by Ramo and Whinnery in 1944.  If you treat that string as one book it is a technical book that has been in print for 84 years. 

[vk3yedotcom]

Was just reading through the secret money machine book (downloadable from https://www.tinaja.com/ebksamp1.shtml ).

He reminded me of Talking Electronics. You'd be going through pages on FM bugs and there'd be a page about money or business or something.

I wonder if Don Lancaster was one of Colin Mitchell's influences?

[EEVblog]

I wonder if Don Lancaster was one of Colin Mitchell's influences?

I seem to recall him mentioning Don in my interviews with him, but not entirely sure.
He admitted to stealing good ideas, like Forest Mimm's grid based paper schematics.
I loved those little business tidbits in the TE magazines, and I think I mentioned that in the interview somewhere.

[EEVblog]

FYI, our AmpHour interview with Forrest Mimms

https://theamphour.com/171-an-interview-with-forrest-mims-snell-solisequious-scientist/

[soldar]

Don Lancaster was and is knowledgeable but he also distilled plain old common sense and practicality. He had articles against nonsense like pseudoscience, perpetual motion machines and similar idiocies.  Besides the technical stuff I learned a lot about how to follow a logical way of thinking, the scientific method, etc. That is something that I find lacking in many people.  We need to teach and stress that and he did a lot in that direction.

The Case Against Patents

 nearly any  involvement whatsoever with the patent system in any way, shape, or form, is virtually guaranteed to cause you a monumental long term loss of time, money, and sanity.

[EEVblog]

Don Lancaster was and is knowledgeable but he also distilled plain old common sense and practicality. He had articles against nonsense like pseudoscience, perpetual motion machines and similar idiocies.  Besides the technical stuff I learned a lot about how to follow a logical way of thinking, the scientific method, etc. That is something that I find lacking in many people.  We need to teach and stress that and he did a lot in that direction.

Unfortunately there are so very few people doing this. The number of Youtubers for example that do any sort technical debunking videos you could count on one hand, and there are so many people around that say it's a "waste of time".

[Simon]

Unfortunately telling someone that someone else is wrong will only be any use if they are intelligent enough to look at both sides or have enough education to understand your point of view and that maybe your right and they should look deeper into the other claims.

And even debunkers need to be careful to stay on the side of truth. As mad as thunderfoot can come across as (heavy dose of aspergers coupled with a high IQ I suspect) I respected his reasonings until the other day when I saw a video he did about how shit tesla batteries are when in fact it ws a comparison between battery technology and petrol/diesel energy density. Sorry thunderfoot, you have an axe to grind, so the next time i see one of his videos "debunking" pseudo science do i beleive him or do i suspect he simply has an axe to grind? fortunately i can tell the difference but why should i waste my time listening to a guy who it may turn out simply has an axe to grind.

[soldar]

Unfortunately telling someone that someone else is wrong will only be any use if they are intelligent enough to look at both sides or have enough education to understand your point of view and that maybe your right and they should look deeper into the other claims.

Critical thinking is sorely lacking in the general population but you would think people in science, engineering, math would be well equipped in this regard and while probably better than the general population I still find cases which are difficult to understand or justify.

I am always amused by the "sovereign citizen" types who live in an alternative reality and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make them question their beliefs. You can see plenty of videos and reports of these guys being dragged to jail, tasered, fined, etc. You cannot find any reports of their loony theories prevailing and yet they insist they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. I am amazed at how some people can be so immune to obvious facts, to evidence. They have made up their own reality in their minds and anything that does not match that is just ignored. It takes a special level of pigheadedness to insist like that even after the cops taser you and then the judge throws you in jail. To keep saying "they can't do that" because I know some magical words ("joinder", etc.)  that will stop them.

I have a friend here in Spain who has a daughter who is married in England and has lived and worked there for the better part of two decades. We get together for lunch every few months and we have exactly the same conversation over and over again. He says his daughter would like to take UK citizenship if it weren't because she would have to renounce her Spanish citizenship. Then I say that is not so and remind him I have sent him several times emails with links to UK government sites where they say you do not have to renounce another citizenship in order to acquire UK citizenship. In fact it is not easy to lose UK citizenship. He listens like it is the first time he hears it. Then, a few months later, we have the same conversation all over again.

Some people are just immune to facts and reason. They will assert X which makes no sense and when asked to provide evidence and support for their assertion they will disappear or just say "look it up".  They know there is no evidence in support of their position but they will not reconsider.

I read an article about how people, when their beliefs are challenged with evidence and facts and shown to be wrong, most people will not reconsider and will come away with stronger support for that position they held. People get invested in a certain position and any challenge is taken as a challenge to them personally.

Again, we need to learn and teach to think critically and search for facts and truth. The scientific method.

Don Lancaster has a lot of common sense, not only in matters of science and technology but also in matters of general getting around life. I cited his "Case Against Patents" as an example. Some people think you can just have a great idea, patent it and count the money as it rolls in. In practice it does not work like that.

[Simon]

Yes, my company directors are engineers and yet the most inflexible and stubborn at times. If it's easy they decide it's hard and won't take the risk when in fact they are the ones taking the risk, if it's a convoluted way of doing it it seems the most obvious to them.

[rhb]

I was a bit surprised to see this pop up again.

Take a look at "The Commanding Self" or "Knowing How to Know" by Idries Shah.

When Nobel laureates in Physics and other disciplines make solemn declarations about the need to combat  "climate change" it's quite clear that critical thinking is not being taught at all in the sciences and engineering.  Two semesters of basic geology is enough to make clear the climate *is* changing, always has and always will.  And humans have very little effect except around large concentrations.  The really big changes took place before we appeared. 

I'm sure all these Nobel laureates are aware of the last ice age when glaciers covered most of the polar regions down to mid latitudes.  They are also aware that those regions have not been covered with ice during recorded human history.  Yet the obvious conclusion that the earth has been getting warmer for thousands of years without any human intervention entirely escapes them.  It's a spectacular example of cognitive dissonance among people who are supposed to be some of the smartest people on the planet.

If one is generous and allows 6000 years for human history, that's 1 ppm the existence of the earth.  And the amount of "good" quality climate data is probably less than 100 years.  I put good in quotes because someone visited a series of weather recording stations and posted photos of recording stations is absurdly bad locations such as a few feet from a large building.

[Simon]

Erm this is not a climate change debate, end of!

[rhb]

It's also not about Don Lancaster either.  It morphed into a discussion of critical thinking. 

I'm a geoscientist.  I'm hardly about to bother debating pure BS.     Experience quickly proves it's not useful.  Besides which, the usual response is a torrent of verbal abuse or worse.

My point was that  people  learn about the last ice age in the 5th grade, win a Nobel prize and still lack the clarity of thought to  recognize  human beings are not the cause of climate change demonstrates that critical thinking is commonly absent among people who should know better.  I presented  a logical proof called a "syllogism".

Actually, critical thinking has  probably always been a rare skill and always will be. 

[T3sl4co1l]

Talking about "cognitive dissonance" isn't very convincing when you're suffering from it yourself...

Which works both ways, by the way.  You're not going to convince anyone, nor be convinced yourself, in the presence of it.

Tim

[Tomorokoshi]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

[Tomorokoshi]

Anyway, I finally got a copy of the Active Filter Cookbook directly from his ebay shop. A new, signed copy!

I never was too aware of him before this thread actually, although somehow I suspect there may be a book of his in my collection somewhere, and it's likely I borrowed some material years ago from others.

There are a lot of nice publications on his site. Much to work through.

[rhb]

Talking about "cognitive dissonance" isn't very convincing when you're suffering from it yourself...

Which works both ways, by the way.  You're not going to convince anyone, nor be convinced yourself, in the presence of it.

Tim

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain my "cognitive dissonance"?  Which of my statements contradicts my other statements?

A mile thick sheet of ice doesn't melt in a few years, especially if the average temperature is only slightly above freezing for a few months each year. Have you ever taken a course in geology??  It would take several tractor trailer loads to collect all the literature just on the topic of the last ice age 15,000 years ago.  Never mind the rest of them.

Just because "journalists" claim that there is a "scientific consensus" that "anthropogenic climate change" is a serious threat means nothing.  All you have to do is make sure you only consult scientists who don't know geology.  I do not know a *single* geoscientist that believes any of this.  And most of the geoscientists I know (which is probably most of the people I know)  have PhDs from Stanford, Mines, Austin, Delft and other top rank schools.  So the scientific consensus among people who actually study geoscience is *exactly* the opposite of Michael Mann et al.

Go read AAPG Memoir 26, "Seismic Stratigraphy- applications to hydrocarbon exploration".  The publication of that memoir was a *major* embarrassment for Exxon's upper management when the significance of the work by Pete Vail et al sank in.  Prior to that no one outside of Vail's group realized that sea level has risen and fallen by hundreds of feet in the past and that this was evident and synchronous  worldwide.  Upper management wasn't interested in Pete's work, so they gave him permission to publish what proved to be some of the most important work in geology of the 70's.

Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?  Maybe you should go to your auto mechanic for a diagnosis.

As for convincing ignorant people of the truth, as I remarked at the start, it's a complete waste of time.

As Adolf Hitler noted, if you repeat the same lies often enough and loudly enough, most people will believe it.

[tomato]

Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?

Of course not.  Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant.  It isn't their field.

[rhb]

Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?

Of course not.  Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant.  It isn't their field.

Excuse me, but geology deals with the earth in its totality.  A major portion of that is 4.2 billion years of history.    Climatology is just a small fraction of that.  And there is also the issue that all of the climatology data constitute less than 1 ppm of the earth's climate history.  "Climatology" is just a scam invented by a bunch of failed meteorologists who got their PhD because their supervisor wanted to get rid of them.  I don't think the field even existed when I got my geology MS in 1982.

I have an acquaintance of many years who got his PhD in meteorology.  He went to work for the British weather service.  He found a major bug in their weather prediction software.  He fixed it and went home thinking that the weather forecasts would dramatically improve.  It had *no* effect.

The last time we chatted about the subject (there are many more interesting topics, so I'm not sure how this drudgery came up) he made the observation that the thermal dynamics of the oceans are largely unknown.  The thermal capacity of water is *much* larger than air. And until recently, the climate models assumed a constant ocean temperature.

Recently there was a paper by some oceanographers  who had detected the cooling effect of the little ice age in the ocean bottom currents, some of which have circulation times of a million years.  I think we can reasonably expect that other workers will follow their methods and develop better models of the earth's temperature over time.

There are over 30 major changes in sea level on the order of 1000 ft.  Where do you think all that water went?  It's pretty simple.  It turned into immense glaciers which then melted.  Except for the last one or two humans did not even exist.  Much less alter the CO2 and CH4 content of the atmosphere,

So would you state the voltage of a reference from a single microsecond of data?    If so, I certainly don't want you doing my metrology or anything else.

I don't comment on  subjects of which I am ignorant.  Perhaps you should consider doing the same.

[Simon]

There is no denying that the climate is warming and there is no denying that the energy sources we use can contribute end of!

[Simon]

The last time we chatted about the subject (there are many more interesting topics, so I'm not sure how this drudgery came up) he made the observation that the thermal dynamics of the oceans are largely unknown.  The thermal capacity of water is *much* larger than air. And until recently, the climate models assumed a constant ocean temperature.

So you have just contradicted yourself by admitting that global warming may be worse than we think because the oceans are soaking the energy up, yea you bet water holds more heat than air: 1'000 Kg/m^3 versus 1Kg/m^3 (at sea level) fancy making a mistake of 3 orders of magnitude.....

[tomato]

Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?

Of course not.  Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant.  It isn't their field.

Excuse me, but geology deals with the earth in its totality.  A major portion of that is 4.2 billion years of history.    Climatology is just a small fraction of that.  And there is also the issue that all of the climatology data constitute less than 1 ppm of the earth's climate history.

By that muddled reasoning, cosmology is better suited to deal with climate change since it deals with the universe as a whole, and the universe is nearly 14 billion years old.

  "Climatology" is just a scam invented by a bunch of failed meteorologists who got their PhD because their supervisor wanted to get rid of them.  I don't think the field even existed when I got my geology MS in 1982.

Preposterous.  Climatology dates back to the late 19th century. 

I have an acquaintance of many years who got his PhD in meteorology.  He went to work for the British weather service.  He found a major bug in their weather prediction software.  He fixed it and went home thinking that the weather forecasts would dramatically improve.  It had *no* effect.

Meteorology is not not the same as climatology.

I don't comment on  subjects of which I am ignorant.  Perhaps you should consider doing the same.

You often resort to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't strengthen your argument.