Re: Visualizing

On 9/09/2024 3:06 pm, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:54:07 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 

On 9/09/2024 2:35 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 16:55:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 8/09/2024 2:15 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 01:46:45 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 8/09/2024 12:50 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 10:03:51 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

<snip>

Our second-generation modulators greatly improve the beam modulation
precision and s/n, which turns out to be valuable.

>
So the first generation was perfectly useless?

 Of course not; we got fusion. But the kind of Gbit DACs that are
available how were not available 25 years ago. At that time, there
weren't any decent fast DACs, so we had to, basically, multiplex 120
slow dacs at a 4 GHz rate.
 We knew that suitable DACs were just a few years away.

And you didn't have enough sense to find an approach that didn't need them.

I did learn about Gibbs Ears and Gaussian math and cool stuff.

If you mean Gibbs oscillations, I found about them around 1978 when a bat researcher I happened to know needed a high-frequency random noise generator to interfere with her bat's echo-location.
Like you, I copied a device from the Hewlett-Packard Journal. Sadly, they'd left out the bit about a applying a Hamming window to the tap weights on the shift-register-based low pass filter.
I had to knock up another set of 30-odd weighing resistors (which didn't take all that long).
I note that you have snipped most of my post without marking the snip.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney