John said:
I thing the word used was "stupid."
Originally I simply stated it as a question, and don't care one way or the other
about reflex amps. Then Woodgate got uptight and said how "It's not stupid just
because it's an old technique." I never wrote a _general_ statement that
something would be "stupid" just because it was old. Flatly misrepresenting
what I wrote put me in a foul mood at the outset. (I wouldn't bother having
Radiotron and other old books if I thought there might not be "something
somewhere" in them that might be applied even today.) Rather than contentious
countering with my "poor technique" statement, I probably should have simply
called him on the misrepresentation. That is my fault. Then he "appealed to
his age as authority" without actually arguing against the cited authority or my
interpretation of it. He countered with no meaningful information.
From what I can tell, the reflex really isn't/wasn't too hot of an idea. One
would need to explain its conspicuous absence in the large US and GB markets,
not just in this time, but in its own time. One would need to explain its
conspicuous absence in much of the pertinant literature at the time -- why was
it apparently disregarded by many of the authorities at that time. I too think
it was neat to try something different, but as best I can see, the idea was just
not viable in a distinguishing manner, and no one has really given really good
technical or marketing reasons why that is not so.
It was "good enough," all things considered, to have some popularity in
Australia apparently. If that satisfies everyone that is was not "poor
technique," then fine. As best I can tell so far, it was not a widespread or
long-lived technique. So yes, I make certain assumptions based on that.
Langford-Smith was Australian and was an authority -- that is why the citation
was made. A citation is exactly an appeal to authority. The citation is made
so the skeptic can expressly know what they are arguing against, or to point out
how the source has been misinterpreted. The only source I happen to have that
even mentions it is Radiotron, but I have other popular radio engineering texts
of the era, for example Terman, Seely, Rider, and Ref Data for Radio Eng (ITT).
So again, I don't really care one way or another about reflex amp. If it is
useful to someone, then fine. You ideas about its potential for modern use are
worth about what other ideas are worth: about as much as individual grains of
sand on a beach. It means nothing until the hard work of using the idea in a
viable commercial product is done. That is the reflex acid test.
Absolutely! I know how to do that.
Well good then. For my lesson, next time I'll call the misrepresentation
immediately instead of going down the contention path.
If you want to tell tales about your glory days, better hurry up and
do something glorious.
It isn't in my book of goals to do something unforgettable in electronics, but
there is always myth and lore when the flat truth is not enough.
100 years from now, you and I will be equally dead.
True enough, and don't forget equally forgotten.
Too much acid reflux,
Pup
