EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - **New Video: Parametric Oscillations**

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:10 am

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:10 am

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

This does lead to the curious fact that you can make a swing that is too high

to pump up. (I accidentally made such a swing in my back yard.)

Did you ever try standing on a swing and flexing your legs up and

down to pump it? (Careful, I almost broke my ass that way. It

was the only way I could get my "too tall" swing to work, without dad

pushing you.)

Finally someone needs to make a PO using the voltage coefficient

of a crappy ceramic cap. (There again there will be some threshold

level to get it started.)

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:10 am

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:20:36 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

This does lead to the curious fact that you can make a swing that is too high

to pump up. (I accidentally made such a swing in my back yard.)

Did you ever try standing on a swing and flexing your legs up and

down to pump it? (Careful, I almost broke my ass that way. It

was the only way I could get my "too tall" swing to work, without dad

pushing you.)

Finally someone needs to make a PO using the voltage coefficient

of a crappy ceramic cap. (There again there will be some threshold

level to get it started.)

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

This does lead to the curious fact that you can make a swing that is too high

to pump up. (I accidentally made such a swing in my back yard.)

Did you ever try standing on a swing and flexing your legs up and

down to pump it? (Careful, I almost broke my ass that way. It

was the only way I could get my "too tall" swing to work, without dad

pushing you.)

Finally someone needs to make a PO using the voltage coefficient

of a crappy ceramic cap. (There again there will be some threshold

level to get it started.)

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Oh as far as uses of parametric oscillators, There are optical PO's

using non-linear xtals to make different colors of laser light.

(Extremely complicated beasts, I used one as a post doc, but was

not allowed to tweak it.)

George H.

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:10 am

George, I was (and am) allowed to tweek laser OPOs and OPAs. You missed early grey hairs, that's it.

Steve

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:07 am

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

Not experimentally, but it did fall out of the math. I didn't manage to

beat the math into the ground (it, OTOH, did a number on me), but I did

get as far as proving to my own satisfaction that bouncing the pivot up

and down subtracts from the damping factor of the system in a way that's

related in some complicated way with the pendulum's effective length,

resonant frequency, period of the bouncing. The damping factor does go

down in a way that's proportional to the absolute value of the bouncing,

or the absolute value squared.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

Not experimentally, but it did fall out of the math. I didn't manage to

beat the math into the ground (it, OTOH, did a number on me), but I did

get as far as proving to my own satisfaction that bouncing the pivot up

and down subtracts from the damping factor of the system in a way that's

related in some complicated way with the pendulum's effective length,

resonant frequency, period of the bouncing. The damping factor does go

down in a way that's proportional to the absolute value of the bouncing,

or the absolute value squared.

My copy of Pippard is at home.

I wanted to quote a bit out of parametric excitation. It's

got my pencil scribble of "excellent!!" at the end, so I obviously

have read it before, but forgot.

(top of page 287, I'll scan and post the whole thing,

tomorrow at work... He works out in a page that,

a_c = 2/3 *l/Q

where a_c is critcial amplitude modulation,

l is the total length, and Q the Q.)

"There is a certain critical excitation which allow the

oscillation to persist at constant amplitude. It is virtually

impossible to exhibit this in practice, but the reader is

encouraged to try, since more can be learned about the

physical processes by being frustrated than by accepting

defeat at the bidding of the printed page."

George H.

This does lead to the curious fact that you can make a swing that is too

high to pump up. (I accidentally made such a swing in my back yard.)

Makes sense.

Did you ever try standing on a swing and flexing your legs up and down

to pump it? (Careful, I almost broke my ass that way. It was the only

way I could get my "too tall" swing to work, without dad pushing you.)

Nope. But I could see it.

Finally someone needs to make a PO using the voltage coefficient of a

crappy ceramic cap. (There again there will be some threshold level to

get it started.)

Get to it!!

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:53 am

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-5, srober...@gmail.com wrote:

George, I was (and am) allowed to tweek laser OPOs and OPAs. You missed early grey hairs, that's it.

Steve

Steve

This was in the late 90's when I was at Vanderbilt.

expensive stuff. (maybe $1M in 1999.)

I was walked through the optics chain.

(most is now a blur..)

What sticks out in my mind where these big

tilted curved gratings, where they expanded (in time)

a pretty fast pulse, compressed it,

(with something I've forgotten)

and then put it back together with the

other grating but much shorter.

non-linear optics is close to magic,

from my point of view. :^)

George H.

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:54 am

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

Not experimentally, but it did fall out of the math. I didn't manage to

beat the math into the ground (it, OTOH, did a number on me), but I did

get as far as proving to my own satisfaction that bouncing the pivot up

and down subtracts from the damping factor of the system in a way that's

related in some complicated way with the pendulum's effective length,

resonant frequency, period of the bouncing. The damping factor does go

down in a way that's proportional to the absolute value of the bouncing,

or the absolute value squared.

This does lead to the curious fact that you can make a swing that is too

high to pump up. (I accidentally made such a swing in my back yard.)

high to pump up. (I accidentally made such a swing in my back yard.)

Makes sense.

Did you ever try standing on a swing and flexing your legs up and down

to pump it? (Careful, I almost broke my ass that way. It was the only

way I could get my "too tall" swing to work, without dad pushing you.)

to pump it? (Careful, I almost broke my ass that way. It was the only

way I could get my "too tall" swing to work, without dad pushing you.)

Nope. But I could see it.

Finally someone needs to make a PO using the voltage coefficient of a

crappy ceramic cap. (There again there will be some threshold level to

get it started.)

crappy ceramic cap. (There again there will be some threshold level to

get it started.)

Get to it!!

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:30 am

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:07:12 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?

an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

Not experimentally, but it did fall out of the math. I didn't manage

to beat the math into the ground (it, OTOH, did a number on me), but I

did get as far as proving to my own satisfaction that bouncing the

pivot up and down subtracts from the damping factor of the system in a

way that's related in some complicated way with the pendulum's

effective length, resonant frequency, period of the bouncing. The

damping factor does go down in a way that's proportional to the

absolute value of the bouncing,

or the absolute value squared.

My copy of Pippard is at home.

I wanted to quote a bit out of parametric excitation. It's got my pencil

scribble of "excellent!!" at the end, so I obviously have read it

before, but forgot.

(top of page 287, I'll scan and post the whole thing,

tomorrow at work... He works out in a page that,

a_c = 2/3 *l/Q where a_c is critcial amplitude modulation,

l is the total length, and Q the Q.)

"There is a certain critical excitation which allow the oscillation to

persist at constant amplitude. It is virtually impossible to exhibit

this in practice, but the reader is encouraged to try, since more can be

learned about the physical processes by being frustrated than by

accepting defeat at the bidding of the printed page."

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?

an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

Not experimentally, but it did fall out of the math. I didn't manage

to beat the math into the ground (it, OTOH, did a number on me), but I

did get as far as proving to my own satisfaction that bouncing the

pivot up and down subtracts from the damping factor of the system in a

way that's related in some complicated way with the pendulum's

effective length, resonant frequency, period of the bouncing. The

damping factor does go down in a way that's proportional to the

absolute value of the bouncing,

or the absolute value squared.

My copy of Pippard is at home.

I wanted to quote a bit out of parametric excitation. It's got my pencil

scribble of "excellent!!" at the end, so I obviously have read it

before, but forgot.

(top of page 287, I'll scan and post the whole thing,

tomorrow at work... He works out in a page that,

a_c = 2/3 *l/Q where a_c is critcial amplitude modulation,

l is the total length, and Q the Q.)

"There is a certain critical excitation which allow the oscillation to

persist at constant amplitude. It is virtually impossible to exhibit

this in practice, but the reader is encouraged to try, since more can be

learned about the physical processes by being frustrated than by

accepting defeat at the bidding of the printed page."

Actually I found it pretty easy to get an excitation value which allows

the oscillation to persist at constant amplitude -- but the greatest

source of damping in my system is wind resistance, which goes by the

square of velocity, so the system as I implement it essentially has a

varying damping ratio.

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:17 pm

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 9:58:51 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:07:12 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?

an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

Not experimentally, but it did fall out of the math. I didn't manage

to beat the math into the ground (it, OTOH, did a number on me), but I

did get as far as proving to my own satisfaction that bouncing the

pivot up and down subtracts from the damping factor of the system in a

way that's related in some complicated way with the pendulum's

effective length, resonant frequency, period of the bouncing. The

damping factor does go down in a way that's proportional to the

absolute value of the bouncing,

or the absolute value squared.

My copy of Pippard is at home.

I wanted to quote a bit out of parametric excitation. It's got my pencil

scribble of "excellent!!" at the end, so I obviously have read it

before, but forgot.

(top of page 287, I'll scan and post the whole thing,

tomorrow at work... He works out in a page that,

a_c = 2/3 *l/Q where a_c is critcial amplitude modulation,

l is the total length, and Q the Q.)

"There is a certain critical excitation which allow the oscillation to

persist at constant amplitude. It is virtually impossible to exhibit

this in practice, but the reader is encouraged to try, since more can be

learned about the physical processes by being frustrated than by

accepting defeat at the bidding of the printed page."

Actually I found it pretty easy to get an excitation value which allows

the oscillation to persist at constant amplitude -- but the greatest

source of damping in my system is wind resistance, which goes by the

square of velocity, so the system as I implement it essentially has a

varying damping ratio.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0800, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Fun!

You might like Pippard's "the physics of vibration" vol I.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?

an=Pippard&cm_sp=SearchF-

_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=The+physics+of+vibration

He talks about parametric oscillators (PO).

One thing I'd like to see is that there is a minimum level of

oscillation amplitude that you need before the PO can grow.

Did you see that with your pendulum?

Not experimentally, but it did fall out of the math. I didn't manage

to beat the math into the ground (it, OTOH, did a number on me), but I

did get as far as proving to my own satisfaction that bouncing the

pivot up and down subtracts from the damping factor of the system in a

way that's related in some complicated way with the pendulum's

effective length, resonant frequency, period of the bouncing. The

damping factor does go down in a way that's proportional to the

absolute value of the bouncing,

or the absolute value squared.

My copy of Pippard is at home.

I wanted to quote a bit out of parametric excitation. It's got my pencil

scribble of "excellent!!" at the end, so I obviously have read it

before, but forgot.

(top of page 287, I'll scan and post the whole thing,

tomorrow at work... He works out in a page that,

a_c = 2/3 *l/Q where a_c is critcial amplitude modulation,

l is the total length, and Q the Q.)

"There is a certain critical excitation which allow the oscillation to

persist at constant amplitude. It is virtually impossible to exhibit

this in practice, but the reader is encouraged to try, since more can be

learned about the physical processes by being frustrated than by

accepting defeat at the bidding of the printed page."

Actually I found it pretty easy to get an excitation value which allows

the oscillation to persist at constant amplitude -- but the greatest

source of damping in my system is wind resistance, which goes by the

square of velocity, so the system as I implement it essentially has a

varying damping ratio.

I think what he meant was to find the excitation amplitude that just makes it

grow. Here's a scan of the first 4 pages of chapter 10.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wg7xje3gcemwkie/AAAkvovzOHmERgPNughVgZHja?dl=0

(Sorry I don't know how to flip the pdf's over.)

George H.

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:10 pm

This was in the late 90's when I was at Vanderbilt.

expensive stuff. (maybe $1M in 1999.)

I was walked through the optics chain.

(most is now a blur..)

expensive stuff. (maybe $1M in 1999.)

I was walked through the optics chain.

(most is now a blur..)

What sticks out in my mind where these big

tilted curved gratings,

where they expanded (in time) a pretty fast pulse, compressed it,

(with something I've forgotten)

and then put it back

together with the other grating but much shorter.

non-linear optics is close to magic,

from my point of view. :^)

tilted curved gratings,

where they expanded (in time) a pretty fast pulse, compressed it,

(with something I've forgotten)

and then put it back

together with the other grating but much shorter.

non-linear optics is close to magic,

from my point of view. :^)

A fibre-grating pulse compressor. The self-phase modulation in a holey fibre broadens the spectrum and dispersion applies a linear chirp to the output pulse, with longer wavelengths arriving first. A zigzag path between two parallelled gratings fixes the relative delays, because longer wavelengths get diffracted through larger angles, resulting in longer path delays. If you get it right, you can make transform-limited pulses.

Steve used to work for the outfit where I got my fancy tunable OPG system (Altos Photonics). Continuously tunable from 420 nm to 10 microns with a small gap near 710 nm where the OPG became degenerate. (It was pumped with a tripled YAG laser at 355 nm.)

The pump laser was much harder to keep working than the OPG! It was pretty cool, but I don't miss it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Guest

Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:53 am

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 11:10:07 AM UTC-5, pcdh...@gmail.com wrote:

This was in the late 90's when I was at Vanderbilt.

expensive stuff. (maybe $1M in 1999.)

I was walked through the optics chain.

(most is now a blur..)

What sticks out in my mind where these big

tilted curved gratings,

where they expanded (in time) a pretty fast pulse, compressed it,

(with something I've forgotten)

and then put it back

together with the other grating but much shorter.

non-linear optics is close to magic,

from my point of view. :^)

A fibre-grating pulse compressor. The self-phase modulation in a holey fibre broadens the spectrum and dispersion applies a linear chirp to the output pulse, with longer wavelengths arriving first. A zigzag path between two parallelled gratings fixes the relative delays, because longer wavelengths get diffracted through larger angles, resulting in longer path delays. If you get it right, you can make transform-limited pulses.

Right, I don't remember any fiber.

Steve used to work for the outfit where I got my fancy tunable OPG system (Altos Photonics). Continuously tunable from 420 nm to 10 microns with a small gap near 710 nm where the OPG became degenerate. (It was pumped with a tripled YAG laser at 355 nm.)

expensive stuff. (maybe $1M in 1999.)

I was walked through the optics chain.

(most is now a blur..)

What sticks out in my mind where these big

tilted curved gratings,

where they expanded (in time) a pretty fast pulse, compressed it,

(with something I've forgotten)

and then put it back

together with the other grating but much shorter.

non-linear optics is close to magic,

from my point of view. :^)

A fibre-grating pulse compressor. The self-phase modulation in a holey fibre broadens the spectrum and dispersion applies a linear chirp to the output pulse, with longer wavelengths arriving first. A zigzag path between two parallelled gratings fixes the relative delays, because longer wavelengths get diffracted through larger angles, resulting in longer path delays. If you get it right, you can make transform-limited pulses.

Right, I don't remember any fiber.

Steve used to work for the outfit where I got my fancy tunable OPG system (Altos Photonics). Continuously tunable from 420 nm to 10 microns with a small gap near 710 nm where the OPG became degenerate. (It was pumped with a tripled YAG laser at 355 nm.)

Ahh, a fine skill, it's not a field I've at all kept up with.

I assume they are doing more and more with fiber these days.

The pump laser was much harder to keep working than the OPG! It was pretty cool, but I don't miss it.

Grin, It was another staff guy at the FEL who was tasked with the

OPA/OPO.. We would hang out after work/ weekends some,

so I did hear some tales of woe. (I wasn't much of an

optics guy then... not that I'm much of an optics guy now. :^)

George H.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Guest

Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:30 am

On 1/4/2017 3:10 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Wonderful!

Ed

Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:38 am

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:22:28 -0500, ehsjr wrote:

On 1/4/2017 3:10 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Wonderful!

Ed

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Wonderful!

Ed

Thanks! I thought it was shitty.

That's not a comment on your opinion -- I often finish a talk or a book

or whatever thinking "gawd, why am I not covered in rotten vegetables?",

only to be accosted by people wanting to _thank_ me for my work.

OTOH, I can finish something up, think "hey, this is pretty good!",

inflict it on an unsuspecting world, and find out that no, in fact, it

was a steaming pile of crap (very powerful! Makes things grow!).

I've decided that I'm not a very good critic of my own work.

--

Tim Wescott

Wescott Design Services

http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:14 pm

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:22:28 -0500, ehsjr wrote:

On 1/4/2017 3:10 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Wonderful!

Ed

Thanks! I thought it was shitty.

That's not a comment on your opinion -- I often finish a talk or a book

or whatever thinking "gawd, why am I not covered in rotten vegetables?",

only to be accosted by people wanting to _thank_ me for my work.

OTOH, I can finish something up, think "hey, this is pretty good!",

inflict it on an unsuspecting world, and find out that no, in fact, it

was a steaming pile of crap (very powerful! Makes things grow!).

I've decided that I'm not a very good critic of my own work.

On 1/4/2017 3:10 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Wonderful!

Ed

Thanks! I thought it was shitty.

That's not a comment on your opinion -- I often finish a talk or a book

or whatever thinking "gawd, why am I not covered in rotten vegetables?",

only to be accosted by people wanting to _thank_ me for my work.

OTOH, I can finish something up, think "hey, this is pretty good!",

inflict it on an unsuspecting world, and find out that no, in fact, it

was a steaming pile of crap (very powerful! Makes things grow!).

I've decided that I'm not a very good critic of my own work.

Well, i thought that the editing done was implemented very nicely.

The resulting "jumps" or "gas" were rather smooth and only a very

professional system could improve it, along with multiple time-consuming

re-enactments for more accurate body placement and hand-motion merging.

In a word, this ain't Hollywood and we are not seasoned or

professional actors.

WELL DONE!

Guest

Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:39 am

On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 00:14:42 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:22:28 -0500, ehsjr wrote:

On 1/4/2017 3:10 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Wonderful!

Ed

Thanks! I thought it was shitty.

That's not a comment on your opinion -- I often finish a talk or a book

or whatever thinking "gawd, why am I not covered in rotten

vegetables?",

only to be accosted by people wanting to _thank_ me for my work.

OTOH, I can finish something up, think "hey, this is pretty good!",

inflict it on an unsuspecting world, and find out that no, in fact, it

was a steaming pile of crap (very powerful! Makes things grow!).

I've decided that I'm not a very good critic of my own work.

Well, i thought that the editing done was implemented very nicely.

The resulting "jumps" or "gas" were rather smooth and only a very

professional system could improve it, along with multiple time-consuming

re-enactments for more accurate body placement and hand-motion merging.

In a word, this ain't Hollywood and we are not seasoned or

professional actors.

WELL DONE!

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:22:28 -0500, ehsjr wrote:

On 1/4/2017 3:10 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

It's a bit off-topic from the channel, but hopefully fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3ymZC6t9M

Wonderful!

Ed

Thanks! I thought it was shitty.

That's not a comment on your opinion -- I often finish a talk or a book

or whatever thinking "gawd, why am I not covered in rotten

vegetables?",

only to be accosted by people wanting to _thank_ me for my work.

OTOH, I can finish something up, think "hey, this is pretty good!",

inflict it on an unsuspecting world, and find out that no, in fact, it

was a steaming pile of crap (very powerful! Makes things grow!).

I've decided that I'm not a very good critic of my own work.

Well, i thought that the editing done was implemented very nicely.

The resulting "jumps" or "gas" were rather smooth and only a very

professional system could improve it, along with multiple time-consuming

re-enactments for more accurate body placement and hand-motion merging.

In a word, this ain't Hollywood and we are not seasoned or

professional actors.

WELL DONE!

I read somewhere, on the blog of some YouTube biggie, that if you're

doing a "talking head" video then the quality of the sound is far more

important than getting the video perfect. I also noticed that quite a

few of the "talking head" video channels that I watch will have even more

sudden visual jumps than I use, and I just don't notice them unless I

concentrate.

Everything is recorded on a Samsung Galaxy S5 cell phone, and edited

using kdenlive open-source video software. I'm pretty amazing that I can

do so well on stuff that I could get for free, or had lying around.

--

Tim Wescott

Control systems, embedded software and circuit design

I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested

http://www.wescottdesign.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - **New Video: Parametric Oscillations**