Originally Posted by arnyk
If it is your claim that a graph can't prove anything, then what about this graph:
It is offered as proof of the existance of nuclei in atoms.
I guess that means that according to you JN, atoms don't have nuclei since the proof of them involves graphs.
You are obviously way off the deep end, so I have no further responses to you since you don't seem be able to follow reason and science.
The error in this thinking is quite significant, so it needs to be addressed.
This depiction (not a graph, not a picture) is a hypothetical model of the interaction between a charged particle and a nucleus. It details the trajectory a particle is predicted to take if the depicted model is correct. At the testable level, it is still (in modern times)rather impossible to maintain the nucleus position such that the impact parameter "b" can be controlled to any degree sufficient to guarantee a specific deflection angle. Diffraction analysis can of course, provide data consistent with the lattice arrangement of a crystalline structure and the angle of incidence to the lattice, but individual nucleus positional control and charged particle path accuracy are not yet possible.
As such, these statements are entierly incorrect.
1. ""It is offered as proof of the existance of nuclei in atoms"".
NO, it is not. It is a depiction of a hypothetical relationship. It details a model which can be used to generate testable hypothesis'.
2. "" that means that according to you JN, atoms don't have nuclei since the proof of them involves graphs.""
NO. First, it's a drawing. It's not a graph. And it is not data presented, but rather, a model.
You have not presented data. You have not presented proof. You have presented an analysis output which is sufficiently strong for proof that your audio file clipped may not provide sufficient energy to cause dissipative failure of a tweeter voice coil. It does not however, provide any proof whatsoever that the resonance mechanism of an unsupported current carrying conductor within a 1.2 Tesla field cannot happen.
As I have stated, I have autopsied multiple tweeter failures which presented NO evidence of over dissipation, but did indeed have necking, slip plane dislocation surface texture evidence, and breakage of the vc wire CENTER SPAN of the unsupported wire. As discussed within the Raytheon verbage, this is consistent with the second mode resonance frequency of the wire. I have also autopsied failures with first mode failures as well. (perhaps hip-hop vs techno/house/dubstep).
Selenium, when approached, found the evidence, the analysis, and the corrective action I presented sufficiently strong that they modified both in process product as well as changed their manufacturing procedures to encompass my recommended fix.
3. ""since you don't seem be able to follow reason and science"".
It is quite clear that you have not presented
an understanding of the the scientific method, nor have you been able to apply it to actual hardware in the field.
That's not a fault, btw. Most cannot.
The only problem I see here is an attempt to discredit the actual field experience I have in running mobile rigs to their extreme, forcing failures, finding failures, fully analyzing the failures and the underlying mechanism, being able to actually fix the failures via expertise in soldering and epoxies (sans coffee of course), then subsequently running the repairs at the limit to verify the robustness of the fix.
I can only guess as to what your motivations are in this respect..
jnEdited by jneutron - 6/21/12 at 6:25am