In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:44:28 -0600, "Bob Myers"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
Digital is nothing more than an analog device with too much gain and
hysteresis, where the output is stuck at either high or low. Dig deep
enough into any digital contrivance, and you'll find analog devices
operating in this way. The real world is analog. (Just ask any
analog engineer).

We've been here before, too. The real world is the real world
- it is neither "digital" nor "analog," which are terms used (at
least when used correctly) to refer to two methods of encoding
information about (or describing) the real world or some specific
real-world parameter.

In college, the senior electrical engineering class was polarized into
two camps, analog and ditital, largely by their choice of senior
projects. I made the mistake of designing a project that straddled
both camps (Secode Selector using RTL and DCL). Life was hell. The
debate came to a grinding halt when someone noticed that DNA sequences
were digital. So, if you dig deep enough into an analog world, you
eventually hit a digital bottom. I'll call it a win for whichever
side pays better this week.

And in case it makes you feel better about the answer, yes, I am
(or at least have been) an "analog engineer." (Or rather, an
engineer involved in the design of "analog" circuits and systems.)

Ditto. I did RF design for various companies, which in the 70's and
80's was mostly analog (FM, AM, SSB). For obvious reasons, I tend to
favor the analog view of reality. Now daze, it's all conglomerations
of analog and digital techniques and infested by longer acronyms.

Until the graviton is proven, the world is analog, at which point
I will switch positions.

--
Jim Pennino, analog engineer until proven otherwise

Remove .spam.sux to reply.