K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? Â*i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. Â*what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, so from skimming a dozen links and only finding one who's apparent
reference wasn't what you were looking for that makes 'most' of the
other 7M fit your definition also.

It is called statistical sampling and is most appropriate for Google as
the links returned are ordered by relevance.

I do note you have nothing to say about the other two statements; what, no
nits to pick there?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 14, 10:36*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:36Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? Â*i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. Â*what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, so from skimming a dozen links and only finding one who's apparent
reference wasn't what you were looking for that makes 'most' of the
other 7M fit your definition also.

It is called statistical sampling and is most appropriate for Google as
the links returned are ordered by relevance.

I do note you have nothing to say about the other two statements; what, no
nits to pick there?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

no, i'm having enough fun with this nit.

Well nit this, as I said Google links are ordered by relevance and starting
on the second page you begin to find links to information about the efficiency
of a specific antenna as opposed to efficiency in general.

If you limit the results to about 57,000 results by putting antenna efficiency
in quotes, it is pretty much all specific to an antenna by the third page.

Yet the first page doesn't change.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 14, 11:29*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:36*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:25*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? *i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ah, so you have performed a contextual statistical analysis on 7M
links in the last half hour... thats pretty good processing. *what you
got for a computer there?

No, I looked at the first four and all of them were referring to "antenna
radiation efficiency".

Then I scanned the summaries that Google gives for the first page of hits
and found that all but one referred to "antenna radiation efficiency".

The one exception was on a page about satellite calculations and they
were referring to "antenna aperature efficieny", as would be expected from
the context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, so from skimming a dozen links and only finding one who's apparent
reference wasn't what you were looking for that makes 'most' of the
other 7M fit your definition also.

It is called statistical sampling and is most appropriate for Google as
the links returned are ordered by relevance.

I do note you have nothing to say about the other two statements; what, no
nits to pick there?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

no, i'm having enough fun with this nit.

Well nit this, as I said Google links are ordered by relevance and starting
on the second page you begin to find links to information about the efficiency
of a specific antenna as opposed to efficiency in general.

If you limit the results to about 57,000 results by putting antenna efficiency
in quotes, it is pretty much all specific to an antenna by the third page..

Yet the first page doesn't change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

great, now why don't you try some negative searches for the other
specific terms that i quoted from the ieee book and see how many links
show up for them, then compare the relative numbers of links and their
order with the original search... that should keep you busy for a
while.

K1TTT wrote:


great, now why don't you try some negative searches for the other
specific terms that i quoted from the ieee book and see how many links
show up for them, then compare the relative numbers of links and their
order with the original search... that should keep you busy for a
while.

It took about 10 seconds to cut and paste.

11,000 results with 7 out of 10 of the top results identical.

It appears your efficiency in attempting to deride what I've said is deficient.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.