history of the DDG

I looked through RadLab vol. 20 a bit more.

The closest I see to a DDG is a pulsed oscillator followed by a "pulse selector", which picks off the n-th subsequent pulse from the (continuous) reference oscillator.

It seems they do this either by gating with a selection from various other (marker) frequencies, or in some instances, using mostly analog frequency dividers, e.g. Pulse-recurrence-frequency division (Vol. 19 Chapt. 16).

So, they're delaying by quantized time units--digital-- but using regenerative, multivibrator, and blocking oscillator counters / dividers to do it (e.g. v19 pg.

Maybe not exactly a DDG per se, but a precursor? Or at least a time-data-point for DDG evolution as of WWII.

Cheers, James Arthur

Their first frequency counters used tubes!

ftp://66.117.156.8/Counters.zip

(7 meg file!)

Can anybody lay hands on the RSI article?

Oliver [and] John M. Cage.

Looks like a good book. I'll try to find one.

John

As usual, they want 23 bucks for the privilege:

Absolutely--if the information they have is valuable I'm more than happy to see them sell it, as long as it's theirs to sell.

Even if it's not theirs to sell, they deserve recompense for making the info widely available. What they don't deserve, in that instance, is their current monopoly.

James Arthur James Arthur

I see more and more people self-publish. That may very well be the future. Of course then it's up to the reader to discern and check validity. More risk. But not infinitely more because I have also seen quite some baloney in peer-reviewed publications. Not just when it comes to global warming papers ;-)

Well, I'm not going to fight you on that score. I'd rather it's all immediately in the public domain. Perhaps, with universities taking action and with scientists also taking individual action, there will eventually be a sea change. There is already some impact.

But I'll also repeat again that I've never had to pay for a single paper; and I've asked for papers that were only announced and hadn't even "hit the stands" yet. So while I agree with the idea of "free flow of information" as did every scientist I've talked with about this, I'm not sure about the "impede progress" part of your comment. The fact is, it seems from my experience anyway, that one does not have to pay for ANY published article. Just write the authors.

Jon

It's not just the money it's the awkward access. It becomes impossible to quickly collect, peruse, and compare papers.

For example, it's usually faster to fetch one of my books than to find something on the web.

Once the thing is found, the 5 seconds it takes to paint a web page makes thumbing through an online book impractical; in person with a real book it's easy and natural.

So, it's the delay, cost, and all such impediments that limit the free flow of information.

A test: It's great you can get articles free by asking, but how many articles have you skipped because of the hassle?

And, in theory, it's illegal to disseminate them--they're copyrighted by the journals.

Cheers, James Arthur

This works fine for recent articles, but for older articles where the author has moved, retired, or died, often the only option today is to visit a big university library.

I agree it's a pain. No argument from me.

Not sure how to address myself to this. In cases where I seriously care about the details, though, I generally agree.

Well, as I said I would like it all freely available the moment it is reviewed and ready for publication.

Not sure what all the "book stuff" is, though. We are talking about publication (at least, I think I am) occurring _before_ they are able to be further digested, independently confirmed (or disconfirmed), assumptions researched by further study, etc. So your bringing up the convenience of books leaves me unable to track your point well.

I get ALL that I want, actually. This is a hobby, for gosh sake! When I find one of them referring to others, and if they catch my interest or seem to bear on a point (or if someone else tells me they do) then I go ask. Since time is NOT of the essence for me in this regard, having a life of my own to live, I can't recall a single case where I felt 'hassled' by having to take a moment to write a short, respectful request by email. I just am not on that kind of schedule.

Indeed. Your point?

Jon

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:10:04 -0700, "Joel Koltner" wrote:

That's a good point.

But there is a growing number which are made public in short time and a great many authors who reserve the right to place a pre-print copy on their web sites or otherwise simply do so and then insist that the publisher has no right to have it removed, once they publish. Lots of the older articles are easily found on the web, too, though I've no idea about the legality in all cases I've seen.

To offer a tiny bit of light to your comment about older articles, I just recently wrote to a retired biochemist in Sweden who was able to not only send me older articles, but also to put me in touch with two other scientists in Japan who were also quite helpful in sending me their somewhat older papers, as well. As a final resort, I suppose, although I'm 40 miles away from a university library, I would gladly drive to the nearest transit center, take the rail car to the city, walk to the university from there, and get the copies I desire. I haven't yet had to do that, but I admit I might be pressed to do that if there was something I really felt a strong need to get.

-----------

What follows is to others who may seem to be over-worried.

Something some may not realize is that I also have two autistic children, one who is profoundly so and has grand mal seizures, but both of whom are sufficiently disabled that they receive SSI. My daughter has smashed her teeth on the bathtub, broken her forearm clean through both radius and ulna, etc. She has to be watched 24/7, despite taking drugs for this, and takes far more than one person to monitor and take anything close to proper care of. My wife and I do this work, besides holding down a successful consulting business I've been at since 1985. I am also, literally each day right now, working outside on building a guest house (foundation work is a dead pain, right now, but very necessary around here with lots of rain to deal with.. I do _all_ the work and do NOT hire others for this), trenching a drainage system, and maintain our small 7-acre farm, as well. I also volunteer about 300-500 hours a year, on top of all that, and just did a week long stint a couple of weeks back. Yet I find the time to also write other scientists and to not only study the peer-reviewed papers I want to read, but also to purchase and study books (such as my most recent purchase of "Atmospheric and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics" by Geoffrey K. Vallis.) Then to also have to study the necessary other subareas I need to understand them (in the case of the aforementioned book, this means I need to refresh and invigorate my rather poor capacity in operator calculus -- yet another thing.)

I wrote the above paragraph for a distinct reason. I feel funny defending even the six month problem or the difficulty sometimes about sourcing older articles. I generally agree and I feel the pain of most on this point, probably multiplied by some factor. The words of some could almost have been written by me. So I tend to agree with the tenor. I just cope. And considering what I deal with each day I am finding excuses about 'difficulties' a bit pale and worn.

What strikes me, regarding a few comments from this group on this point is that although most of the folks writing actively in this group are died-in-the-wool capitalists and, if I may be permitted to say so, even perhaps more than a little laissez-faire about it... (some have even moved to the US from the EU for some reasoning like that) and would be hog-tied and keel-hauled before they would wish anyone to interfere in their pursuit of personal profits... I am finding it puzzling to see just how strongly some seem to feel that scientists shouldn't be paid (or else, if they are, they are accused of feathering their own nests when that is far from the usual truth of the matter for those in basic research.) Although I don't like it and would very much like to see all science work products in the public domain, including all software programs used, I can also still have some sympathy for publications who are an important part of a science system that helps provide a tiny part of the checks and balances albeit flawed in its own ways. I can see why they need to pay for a qualified staff and operating costs, as well. And I am very grateful as well when a scientist generously and quickly takes some of their time to offer me the chance to read some of their work without a nickel's consideration in return.

But mainly, I don't mean to do more than encourage folks to just write and ask. I've had good luck with it and, if my experience is a guide, it will get the desired papers pretty quickly most of the time. Exceptions can always be found and will be another story, of course, but so far I haven't felt short-changed and I've asked for and received many hundreds of papers.

It saddens me a little to see people complain and perhaps even limit themselves by not even asking, simply because of some perceived difficulty that may or may not even happen. And even in the worst of cases I can imagine, although there may be some minor inconvenience involved, even then it certainly isn't a barrier than cannot be addressed. I do what's needed, it works out, and I don't think ANYONE here handles _more_ than I do.

The situation isn't perfect, but it's not complex either. I'm surprised to see a few engineers, probably most of whom reading this group regularly solve difficult and very real problems, complaining dearly. Writing the authors isn't that hard. Even in the case of Arrhenius, now long dead, his translated papers from 1896 and on are routine to get. (I don't have his 1884 doctoral paper, though.)

It might happen someday that I get very angry over some situation yet to occur, but so far I'm fine and have had zero problems. If anyone is sincerely having trouble getting a paper related to global climate and honestly feels the difficulty is inordinately excessive, just send me an email with what you've already tried and what you are looking for and I'll either try to get a legal source for you sent by email so that your convenience isn't strained too much more or else suggest how you might approach the problem reasonably and on your own.

Jon

I should add that his paper came to me... as paper. He copied his and took the trouble to mail it to me halfway across the world. Not an uncommon experience.

Jon

You don't have to buy it online. Use one of the library search systems to find your nearest paper copy and pay the appropriate university library a visit. I have never been turned down on a serious request.

If you write intelligently to the lead author they usually have some preprints available for free. However, the big scientific publishers these days are in it entirely for the money. There is a rebellion of sorts with free online publication of some modern material.

My guess would be that LeCroy and/or some of the HEP groups were the first to have DDG kit either home brew or commercial. The oldest reference that sort of matches in ADS abstracts is in 1957 by Racal.

Regards, Martin Brown

Looks interesting, but the links seem broken.

John

I don't want to clutter up John's thread with this, I was just pointing out several ways in which access delayed = access effectively denied. One example was the difference in bandwidth between flipping through a book, and accessing the info on the web.

If papers are a hassle to get, people are a lot less likely to bother.

Cheers, James Arthur

Oh, be my guest.

A few big companies have locked up the journal business. They get the papers peer-reviewed for free, charge the authors "page fees" (like, kilobucks per page), copyright the material, make sure the abstracts are vague, and charge users to see it.

And the scientists play along, for unscientific reasons.

John

Even worse... at the big conference put on by the, e.g., IEEE, the presenters who teach the "short courses" that typically run each atendee a thousand bucks or more often get no payment/stipend/whatever-you-want-to-call-it for their services. Apparently the "prestige" of having been an instructor and the free donuts are supposed to be enough...

Granted, often times that sort of gig leads to, e.g., consulting jobs for the oresenter, but presumably the same things happens with folks like Les Besser or Howard Johnson or Robert Dixon who have their own courses as well.

They are in business to make money for their shareholders. They are most definitely not charities. Prestigious paper journals are still important for disseminating new research (although many have online versions too).

So what do you propose to do - nationalise them?

Don't you have libraries in the USA?

I usually try the web first. Keyword indexing is a marvellous thing.

I just put them on a list for next time I am at a suitable library. You can get quite good at guessing which journals will be free access.

I don't think it makes all that much difference. A lot of stuff is online in some form or other if you know where to look. Tetchy journals are not public access or are available only at arm & leg PPV rates unless you have a subscription or a tame librarian.

Many institutions have web pages with simplified versions of the current research topics and often the same images as are in the journals.

I think that is a bit unfair. Unless things have changed mightily the cost for academic journal publication is nominal unless you want to sponsor the front cover, have full colour plates or something exotic like that. See for example the Nature author guidelines:

Section 5.9 Costs - £700 per for the first colour plate, £250 thereafter, but if the editor thinks the colour image is essential non-payment will not prevent publication.

Scientists publish in the most prestigious widely circulated journal for the work they are doing. There is little point in sending major new work to some obscure journal in Outer Mongolia that noone ever reads.

Regards, Martin Brown

Sir Denys Wilkinson once showed me his first pulse-height analyzer.

It was a tilted table with approx 20 bins.

The pulse coming in from the detector triggered a solenoid that fired off a ball bearing with a velocity depending on pulse height to land in the appropriate bin.

Dead time was exactly how long it took for a new ball to roll into the firing mechanism.

Amazing stuff. He then went on to explain how he then invented the ADC to deal with higher counting rates :-).

Tim.

Yes, that pulls up a list of abstracts of mostly worthless articles plus "Please pay to see the entire worthless thing."

Books are MUCH better and faster, if you have the right book. If not, off to the web you go.

Exactly my point. Would you still be doing that if you could've downloaded them from the web? No, of course not.

The free flow of public information, therefore, has been impeded.

Meanwhile you could've already had, analyzed, and acted on that information, followed new leads and found further writings, ramifications, and developments.

But that didn't happen. Limiting information limits (the rate of) progress.

Which is insulting when the information is from public funding, of public research, for the public good, being limited by interlopers who add no value to the product.

To see global warming research by researchers paid by public money, supposedly describing a critical planetary emergency, costs the public $30 per paper to access.

You'd go broke trying to pay for them all, and most of them aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.

Alternatively, you can triple your time invested ingratiating yourself with the authors, wasting your time and theirs trying to get free copies, to no good effect.

Obviously that system deters inquiry, scrutiny, circulation, review, etc., and makes the public's research investment less valuable.

James Arthur