11–20 of 42 posts
It must be a real high as an author when you see your site is getting a flood of traffic from hacker news - then a hell of a crash when you check it out and all the comments are torching your work.
Any explanation of resonance should deal first and foremost with a physical system, not a signal. Having two signals 'resonate with each other' does not make a lot of sense.
Not sure what is meant with multiplying because the author then goes to mention integration which in essence, is adding, not multiplying.
A physical system is able to store energy at specific frequency -- a pendulum will swing for a long time, energy slowly decaying. But if the system is excited (imagine a kid on a swing), with each push, we will add some more energy, which will accumulate each time adding to a large response (resonance). The key part is, we need to add energy at the right frequency, push at the right interval, sing with the proper pitch.
He introduces you to a vast network of ideas, most of which, if you're like me, you only start to appreciate after you've seen a bit of Bret's work. He makes those ideas accessible, beside furthering them on his own.
From Engelbart's idea of "aligning human systems and tool systems, with workers spending time improving their tools for improving their tools, leading to accelerating rate of progress," to Papert's brilliant work on the nature of learning and play, ideas that focus my direction and give me joy, I can't help but always remind myself that I may have never learned of these ideas had it not been because of Bret's work. Thank you Bret.
I think you can put together a list, hopefully a long list, of people whose careers would've been very different had they not been exposed to Bret's work. He introduces you to a vast network of ideas, most of which, if you're like me, you only start to appreciate after you've seen a bit of Bret's work. He makes those ideas accessible, beside furthering them on his own. From Engelbart's idea of "aligning human systems…
"Resonance occurs when two sources of excitation fall completely in sync, and reinforce one another endlessly." This is incorrect, even according to the wikipedia article it links to. Resonance occurs when the excitation frequency matches a natural frequency of the system being excited, causing it to vibrate at larger amplitudes, even perhaps uncontrollably. It seems that the author misunderstands mixing also - the g…
I think you can put together a list, hopefully a long list, of people whose careers would've been very different had they not been exposed to Bret's work. He introduces you to a vast network of ideas, most of which, if you're like me, you only start to appreciate after you've seen a bit of Bret's work. He makes those ideas accessible, beside furthering them on his own. From Engelbart's idea of "aligning human systems…
Do you have recommended reading for Papert's work on constructionism / learning theory?
This is, at best, a misleading presentation on resonance, and my first reaction is that it’s completely and horribly wrong. > The coupling between the two sources is represented by the product of these signals. (Bringing signals into a context for multiplying is called “mixing”.) The parenthetical is technically correct, but when two systems are coupled they only "mix" if there are strong nonlinearities. Normally whe…
> The parenthetical is technically correct
Not really. In common parlance (e.g. [1]), mixing means adding. If you mixed signals by multiplying, music would sound like noise.
This is, at best, a misleading presentation on resonance, and my first reaction is that it’s completely and horribly wrong. > The coupling between the two sources is represented by the product of these signals. (Bringing signals into a context for multiplying is called “mixing”.) The parenthetical is technically correct, but when two systems are coupled they only "mix" if there are strong nonlinearities. Normally whe…
>> (Bringing signals into a context for multiplying is called “mixing”.) > The parenthetical is technically correct Not really. In common parlance (e.g. [1]), mixing means adding. If you mixed signals by multiplying, music would sound like noise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixing_console
However in many other signal processing applications, "mix" means "multiply". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_mixer
While I do like the aesthetics of this, as others have mentioned it is plain wrong. Any explanation of resonance should deal first and foremost with a physical system, not a signal. Having two signals 'resonate with each other' does not make a lot of sense. Not sure what is meant with multiplying because the author then goes to mention integration which in essence, is adding, not multiplying. A physical system is abl…
>Not sure what is meant
Which is it? :-)
As I interpret it, this article is not a scientific description of a particular physical system, but a metaphor.
That said, it does make sense in the signal domain. Consider electrical and optical resonance. It gets more interesting when the components are complex-valued.
Hah, when I skimmed this all I thought was "neat visualization." Then I came to the comments... It must be a real high as an author when you see your site is getting a flood of traffic from hacker news - then a hell of a crash when you check it out and all the comments are torching your work.