Pareto principle/distribution? Methinks it may be that way with all life sciences. After having read over 200 PhD and master's papers in agriculture/agronomy/botany, have come to the conclusion that their ilk's intellectual toolbox are simply not equipped with adequate mathematical tools, nor educational rigor. Agree that there is too much fiscal and political motivation in medical research, but to make a corollary, do not ascribe to mal intent what is incompetence. Or human 'entropy'.
As for the different signals, would have to know more about the analog front end to the scope and whether multiple channels share ADCs (have not read that model's manual). Had somewhat similar affects in my box where the mux and ADC were triggered by external events, not the microcontroller. Would need to see a frequency-domain of both channels to know if this is an artifact of 'differential' sampling. Perhaps companding would do that, dunno. But probably just interference from space aliens. Brian From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 11:44 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Measurement dilema It's probably another case of the 80/20 rule. Even with peer-reviewed papers, the long-term opinion may be that 20% at most were of value. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-01-27 19:27, Douglas Smith wrote: Great quote! It pretty much describes much of medical research in my opinion. The great thing about engineering is the field is “grounded” (pun intended) in fundamentals. No so much in medicine where money and politics matter as much as science. My hobby when I am not doing engineering is medicine and I read tons of medical studies. Many are either junk (poorly done) or fraud! Some are great. Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 Office: 702-570-6108 Email: d...@dsmith.org Website: http://dsmith.org On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 17:34, Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org> wrote: Hi Doug: While I don’t yet have the answer (and may never have the answer), I ran across this quote from Luigi Galvani which I think applies here: “For it is easy in experimentation to be deceived, and to think one has seen and discovered what we desire to see and discover.” Best regards, Rich From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:50 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Measurement dilema Hi All, Can you explain the result in this video I just made? Scope plots of the same two nodes are completely different. Probes and scope are operating normally, no problem with the equipment itself. If you have been to my seminars you know the answer, please do not post the answer unless you have not seen this experiment until now. Hint 1: There are no EM fields radiating from the shielded box affecting the probes. Hint 2: There are no active components inside the box. https://youtu.be/qj-HBFMEJiY Doug - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
