If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me) 
a favor.

Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.

It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that 
the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand 
his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic 
unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering 
education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both 
accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that 
anyone else could, either.

It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book 
called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to 
make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching 
decorated china dishes.

His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up 
as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.

I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if 
you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you 
can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now 
by getting on there and giving it a review.

Thanks in advance.

-- 
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On 7/4/2012 1:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me)
> a favor.
>
> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>
> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand
> his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic
> unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
> education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both
> accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
> anyone else could, either.
>
> It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book
> called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to
> make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching
> decorated china dishes.
>
> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up
> as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.
>
> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if
> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you
> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now
> by getting on there and giving it a review.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
Back in the day, we called this "stuffing the ballot box".

On Jul 5, 8:23=A0am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me)
> a favor.
>
> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>
> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory. =A0While I understan=
d
> his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic
> unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
> education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both
> accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
> anyone else could, either.
>
> It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book
> called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to
> make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching
> decorated china dishes.
>
> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up
> as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.
>
> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if
> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you
> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now
> by getting on there and giving it a review.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?
>
> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Softwarehttp://www.wesco=
ttdesign.com

Well there's no shortage of control books and most of them are much
the same.


Hardy

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:46:23 -0700, mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/4/2012 1:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me)
>> a favor.
>>
>> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>>
>> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
>> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand
>> his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic
>> unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
>> education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both
>> accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
>> anyone else could, either.
>>
>> It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book
>> called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to
>> make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching
>> decorated china dishes.
>>
>> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up
>> as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.
>>
>> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if
>> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you
>> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now
>> by getting on there and giving it a review.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>Back in the day, we called this "stuffing the ballot box".

"Getting out the vote". 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:46:23 -0700, mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/4/2012 1:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me)
>> a favor.
>>
>> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>>
>> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
>> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand
>> his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic
>> unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
>> education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both
>> accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
>> anyone else could, either.
>>
>> It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book
>> called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to
>> make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching
>> decorated china dishes.
>>
>> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up
>> as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.
>>
>> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if
>> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you
>> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now
>> by getting on there and giving it a review.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>Back in the day, we called this "stuffing the ballot box".

Nah, that would be if he built a few dozen sockpuppets and had them all
"review" the book.

I actually thought it was a pretty good treatment. A credible review
needs to say more than just that, though, so I'll have to find what pile
of books it ended up in/under and take another look at it.

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:47:51 -0700, HardySpicer wrote:

> On Jul 5, 8:23 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and
>> me) a favor.
>>
>> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>>
>> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
>> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I
>> understand his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach
>> that topic unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive
>> engineering education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I
>> could make both accessible and useful to a general audience, and I
>> don't think that anyone else could, either.
>>
>> It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book
>> called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to
>> make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching
>> decorated china dishes.
>>
>> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed
>> up as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on
>> Amazon.
>>
>> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if
>> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you
>> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have
>> now by getting on there and giving it a review.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> --
>> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative
>> friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have
>> found common ground?
>>
>> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits &
>> Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com
> 
> Well there's no shortage of control books and most of them are much the
> same.

Y'know, putting that up next to the review that's there would still, in 
my humble opinion, make things more accurate.

I don't know if you have the book, but I try throughout to not just 
present the math, but to show how it would be used in practice.

I didn't always do as well as I'd like to, but I do have a couple of 
copies of the book with red ink all over them, waiting for a 2nd edition 
to roll around.

-- 
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

>If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me) 
>a favor.
>
>Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.

How much does that pay? 

>It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that 
>the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand 
>his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic 
>unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering 
>education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both 
>accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that 
>anyone else could, either.

Seriously, can't you change the description of the book on Amazon so
it gets bought by the intended audience?

-- 
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 4, 1:23=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me)
> a favor.
>
> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>
> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.

Do people here review lots of tech books? Reviews won't do much good
if they come from single item reviewers.

Can you get a review from a creditable journal or other source? That
should carry more weight than from one cranky guy's opinion.

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 5:54:17 PM UTC-7, Nico Coesel wrote:
....
> 
> Seriously, can't you change the description of the book on Amazon so
> it gets bought by the intended audience?
> 

Have you read the description of the book and the review?

The original reviewer complained about the lack of detail that the description clearly said were not included in the book.

The real question is whether those unintended for the audience are smart enough to read and comprehend an accurate book description on Amazon. Apparently not.

Dale B. Dalrymple

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:54:17 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:

> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> 
>>If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and
>>me) a favor.
>>
>>Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
> 
> How much does that pay?

It gives you the satisfaction of helping others, and not just me.

>>It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
>>the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand
>>his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic
>>unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
>>education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both
>>accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
>>anyone else could, either.
> 
> Seriously, can't you change the description of the book on Amazon so it
> gets bought by the intended audience?

Right.  I'll go buy Amazon and get that fixed today.

Not.

Jeese.

-- 
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
[...]
> 
> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up 
> as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.

I'm pretty sure you know how to measure *something* and how to estimate
the error on that measurement.

In this case you have one (1) measurement of *satisfaction*, therefore
the error of that measurement is one (1 = sqrt(square(1)/1)).
His opinion is certainly one and the only one so far, but a buyer on
Amazon wouldn't believe straight away a review done by one person only.

If people do like your book will certainly end up with "advertising" it
in many ways. If they don't, this thread will not certainly help
changing the verdict.

> 
> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if 
> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you 
> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now 
> by getting on there and giving it a review.

If you know those people, try to contact them directly and ask for a
review. I think a person who really liked the book wouldn't feel
offended if you ask for a feedback.

I personally have had hard time to not define your post 'off-topic', but
I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of view to
this problem may help you ease the pressure.

Al

p.s.: for advertizing on usenet there's here an interesting article:
http://shopsite.com/help/usenet.html

On 05/07/2012 17:39, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> Seriously, can't you change the description of the book on Amazon so i=
t
>> gets bought by the intended audience?
>=20
> Right.  I'll go buy Amazon and get that fixed today.
>=20
> Not.
>=20

I have a lot of respect for Amazon, a great and useful website.

I have, however, been surprised at how difficult it is to use as a
seller as soon as you move outside of being a purely domestic seller.
Amazing, for a company specialising in delivery through a mechanism
which is, whichever way you look at it, not restricted by borders in any
way shape or form.

My main two gripes are the fact that I cannot list my books as being
"new" on any website other than the amazon.co.uk site (despite owning
the rights, having the ISBN's, etc.) and the fixed delivery charge
resulting in me receiving =A36 (GBP, or about $9.30 USD) less per sale fo=
r
shipping than it actually costs me.

=2E..there are other issues too, but I've strayed waaay to far off topic
already.

Regards,
Richard.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
Designed for microcontrollers.  More than 7000 downloads per month.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org/trace
15 interconnected trace views. An indispensable productivity tool.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:00 +0200, alb wrote:

> On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: [...]

<snipped>

> I personally have had hard time to not define your post 'off-topic', but
> I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of view to
> this problem may help you ease the pressure.

Oops.  You are correct, and I should have labeled it as such when I 
posted it.  What makes it appropriate to these groups (if not on topic), 
is that I happen to know that I'll reach some of my readership this way.

-- 
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On 7/5/2012 12:47 PM, FreeRTOS info wrote:
> not restricted by borders

Hmmmm Amazon is not restricted by Borders.

Fred

Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:54:17 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:
>
>> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and
>>>me) a favor.
>>>
>>>Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>> 

>>>It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
>>>the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand
>>>his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic
>>>unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
>>>education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both
>>>accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
>>>anyone else could, either.
>> 
>> Seriously, can't you change the description of the book on Amazon so it
>> gets bought by the intended audience?
>
>Right.  I'll go buy Amazon and get that fixed today.

Well, someone has to write the description of a book. If the
description is wrong it should be fixed. I know this will take finding
the right channels.

Anyway: do people here recommend your book? 
I actually can use a good hands-on book on control loops. The books I
had to buy for school are missing the link between theory and actual
applications.

-- 
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT
nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

> 
> Anyway: do people here recommend your book? 
> I actually can use a good hands-on book on control loops. The books I
> had to buy for school are missing the link between theory and actual
> applications.
> 

I do.  I thought it was quite good, so long as you weren't having to
get into anything seriously complex.  Very practice focused, not so
much theory.

Then again, I'm having to go off of recollection.  A previous programmer
borrowed it from me and then never gave it back, and I haven't gotten
around to re-buying it yet.

-- 
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com
Email address domain is currently out of order.  See above to fix.

On Jul 4, 4:23=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me)
> a favor.
>
> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>
> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that
> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory. =A0While I understan=
d
> his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic
> unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
> education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both
> accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
> anyone else could, either.
>
> It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book
> called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to
> make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching
> decorated china dishes.
>
> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up
> as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.
>
> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if
> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you
> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now
> by getting on there and giving it a review.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?
>
> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Softwarehttp://www.wesco=
ttdesign.com

It looks like there are three more reviews, all of them positive, so I
guess the crisis is over.  Everyone take a deep breath and let it
out...

Rick

Rob Gaddi wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT
> nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> 
> >
> > Anyway: do people here recommend your book?
> > I actually can use a good hands-on book on control loops. The books I
> > had to buy for school are missing the link between theory and actual
> > applications.
> >
> 
> I do.  I thought it was quite good, so long as you weren't having to
> get into anything seriously complex.  Very practice focused, not so
> much theory.
> 
> Then again, I'm having to go off of recollection.  A previous programmer
> borrowed it from me and then never gave it back, and I haven't gotten
> around to re-buying it yet.
> 

I like it too.  That and Phelan, who despite an overgrown ego that got
his work ignored by everyone else, did some really good stuff.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:50:11 -0700, Rob Gaddi wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT
> nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> 
> 
>> Anyway: do people here recommend your book? I actually can use a good
>> hands-on book on control loops. The books I had to buy for school are
>> missing the link between theory and actual applications.
>> 
>> 
> I do.  I thought it was quite good, 

__so long as you weren't having to get into anything seriously complex__.

> Very practice focused, not so much theory.

Oh, that's a good point if I ever go to a 2nd edition -- it needs a more 
extensive bibliography, and perhaps footnotes along the lines of "and if 
you need to go farther in this direction than I take you here, you want 
to find a book on XYZ".

> Then again, I'm having to go off of recollection.  A previous programmer
> borrowed it from me and then never gave it back, and I haven't gotten
> around to re-buying it yet.

Well, your summation is exactly what I was aiming for, so I guess I did 
well with you as an audience.  I figured that the seriously complex would 
either need a much weightier tome, or just a trip through some college 
texts looking for applicable theory.

-- 
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message 
news:k8WdnfcvcIj2a2jSnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@web-ster.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:00 +0200, alb wrote:
>
>> On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: [...]
>
> <snipped>
>
>> I personally have had hard time to not define your post 'off-topic', but
>> I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of view to
>> this problem may help you ease the pressure.
>
> Oops.  You are correct, and I should have labeled it as such when I
> posted it.  What makes it appropriate to these groups (if not on topic),
> is that I happen to know that I'll reach some of my readership this way.
>
> -- 
> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?
>
> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
> http://www.wescottdesign.com


I don't see any problem with your post being OT Tim. Any regular reader here 
knows you actively participate & provide practical help very frequently.


Twats that go posting comments & links relating to usenet etiquette are just 
that, twats.

 

On Jul 6, 2:17=A0am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:50:11 -0700, Rob Gaddi wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT
> > n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>
> >> Anyway: do people here recommend your book? I actually can use a good
> >> hands-on book on control loops. The books I had to buy for school are
> >> missing the link between theory and actual applications.
>
> > I do. =A0I thought it was quite good,
>
> __so long as you weren't having to get into anything seriously complex__.
>
> > Very practice focused, not so much theory.
>
> Oh, that's a good point if I ever go to a 2nd edition -- it needs a more
> extensive bibliography, and perhaps footnotes along the lines of "and if
> you need to go farther in this direction than I take you here, you want
> to find a book on XYZ".
>
> > Then again, I'm having to go off of recollection. =A0A previous program=
mer
> > borrowed it from me and then never gave it back, and I haven't gotten
> > around to re-buying it yet.
>
> Well, your summation is exactly what I was aiming for, so I guess I did
> well with you as an audience. =A0I figured that the seriously complex wou=
ld
> either need a much weightier tome, or just a trip through some college
> texts looking for applicable theory.
>
I have read your book too, and although I am far from being a
specialist, I have
found it interesting and useful, with a good balance between theory
and practice.

I think it gives a good introduction to the matter of control
applications but I think
that before applying it to the real world, you should have a more
thorough
understanding of the maths involved and advice from experts in the
domain.
IMO, that is not a field where you can improvise yourself as a
professional
after having read a book however good it is. That said, I don't regret
my
purchase.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 02:08:00 -0700, Lanarcam wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2:17 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:50:11 -0700, Rob Gaddi wrote:
>> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT
>> > n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>>
>> >> Anyway: do people here recommend your book? I actually can use a
>> >> good hands-on book on control loops. The books I had to buy for
>> >> school are missing the link between theory and actual applications.
>>
>> > I do.  I thought it was quite good,
>>
>> __so long as you weren't having to get into anything seriously
>> complex__.
>>
>> > Very practice focused, not so much theory.
>>
>> Oh, that's a good point if I ever go to a 2nd edition -- it needs a
>> more extensive bibliography, and perhaps footnotes along the lines of
>> "and if you need to go farther in this direction than I take you here,
>> you want to find a book on XYZ".
>>
>> > Then again, I'm having to go off of recollection.  A previous
>> > programmer borrowed it from me and then never gave it back, and I
>> > haven't gotten around to re-buying it yet.
>>
>> Well, your summation is exactly what I was aiming for, so I guess I did
>> well with you as an audience.  I figured that the seriously complex
>> would either need a much weightier tome, or just a trip through some
>> college texts looking for applicable theory.
>>
> I have read your book too, and although I am far from being a
> specialist, I have
> found it interesting and useful, with a good balance between theory and
> practice.
> 
> I think it gives a good introduction to the matter of control
> applications but I think
> that before applying it to the real world, you should have a more
> thorough
> understanding of the maths involved and advice from experts in the
> domain.
> IMO, that is not a field where you can improvise yourself as a
> professional
> after having read a book however good it is. That said, I don't regret
> my
> purchase.

Actually, I've seen a lot of less-demanding applications get filled by 
folks who were far from being expert at either the mathematics or the 
practical application of control theory.

That was, in fact, one of the inspirations for the book.

-- 
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Hey Tim, 

I'm glad you got a few more reviews now. 

By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on 
optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think
those are the right terms...)

Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
engineering_! Seems very strange to me.

--Randy


Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> writes:

> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and me) 
> a favor.
>
> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>
> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled that 
> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I understand 
> his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that topic 
> unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering 
> education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make both 
> accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that 
> anyone else could, either.
>
> It would be like me getting bent out of shape because I bought a book 
> called "Practical Pottery from Clay to Cup" that didn't show me how to 
> make an accurate reproduction of a Ming vase or a set of matching 
> decorated china dishes.
>
> His is the only feedback I've gotten on the book that could be summed up 
> as "it totally sucks" -- yet it's the only feedback _at all_ on Amazon.
>
> I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if 
> you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you 
> can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now 
> by getting on there and giving it a review.
>
> Thanks in advance.

-- 
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:08:47 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:

> Hey Tim,
> 
> I'm glad you got a few more reviews now.
> 
> By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on
> optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think those
> are the right terms...)

I don't have a good book on optimal control, and I should get one.  I 
have a good book on robust control which I suspect comes at the subject 
from a very different direction from normal, it is "Robust Control, The 
Parametric Approach" by Bhattacharyya, Chapellat & Keel.  

It's heavy on theory, but they spend a lot of time extending frequency-
domain approaches to formal robust control theory, and I've spent a lot 
of time using frequency-domain approaches in my work. I've done projects 
with it propped up next to my computer screen and had good success.

Beware of "optimal control" that doesn't mention robustness, though -- 
you'll get "optimal control" of a nonexistant plant, and lousy control of 
what you actually have (which is the whole point of robust control 
theory, by the by).

All in all, though, if you take a big pot, brown the traditional control 
methods on all sides and simmer well with a couple of quarts of 
experience, you'll make a better soup than you can get by heating up a 
can of optimal robust control fresh from the supermarket.

> Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
> guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
> engineering_! Seems very strange to me.

When I was about to start my master's degree program I inquired about 
getting a PhD in control theory (this was at WPI, which is good but 
small).  I was sent to the mathematics department.  While I was a grad 
student there I was a teaching assistant (twice!) for a 3rd-year control 
systems class that was taught by a biomechanical engineer and a 
mechanical engineer, through the ME department.

Most recently, as part of a contract I helped to hire a woman who got her 
bachelor's degree in economics, during which she took her first course in 
control theory through _that_ department, then emigrated to the United 
States and finished up with a PhD in mathematics -- specializing in 
control theory -- here in the states.

So control theory is a discipline that finds a lot of homes.  If 
endocrinologists can't take a control theory class as part of medical 
school they should be able to, and if I found out that there was a school 
of archeology out there that required controls to graduate I would be 
amused, but not amazed.

-- 
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:08:47 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Hey Tim,
>> 
>> I'm glad you got a few more reviews now.
>> 
>> By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on
>> optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think those
>> are the right terms...)
>
>Most recently, as part of a contract I helped to hire a woman who got her 
>bachelor's degree in economics, during which she took her first course in 
>control theory through _that_ department, then emigrated to the United 
>States and finished up with a PhD in mathematics -- specializing in 
>control theory -- here in the states.
>
>So control theory is a discipline that finds a lot of homes.  If 
>endocrinologists can't take a control theory class as part of medical 
>school they should be able to, and if I found out that there was a school 
>of archeology out there that required controls to graduate I would be 
>amused, but not amazed.

Its interesting what kind of classes you can take. In the last year of
my bachelor EE study I wasn't happy with the packages of classes they
put together so I went to the head of the faculty and asked if I could
put my own package together. Much to my surprise his answer was 'yes,
ofcourse' and he pulled up a book with all the classes I could take
for graduation. I was tempted by 'playing the piano' but I choose
'compression algorithms' which was actually part of the IT department.

-- 
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:08:47 -0400, Randy Yates
<yates@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote:

>Hey Tim, 
>
>I'm glad you got a few more reviews now. 
>
>By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on 
>optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think
>those are the right terms...)
>
>Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
>guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
>engineering_! Seems very strange to me.
>
>--Randy

If their ME is closer to Aerospace engineering it would make a lot of
sense- there's a lot of related math involved in that. If it's regular
<hperbole>knuckle-dragging</hyperbole> ME, then maybe not so much. 

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:47:41 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:08:47 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Hey Tim,
>> 
>> I'm glad you got a few more reviews now.
>> 
>> By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on
>> optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think those
>> are the right terms...)
>
>I don't have a good book on optimal control, and I should get one.  I 
>have a good book on robust control which I suspect comes at the subject 
>from a very different direction from normal, it is "Robust Control, The 
>Parametric Approach" by Bhattacharyya, Chapellat & Keel.  
>
>It's heavy on theory, but they spend a lot of time extending frequency-
>domain approaches to formal robust control theory, and I've spent a lot 
>of time using frequency-domain approaches in my work. I've done projects 
>with it propped up next to my computer screen and had good success.
>
>Beware of "optimal control" that doesn't mention robustness, though -- 
>you'll get "optimal control" of a nonexistant plant, and lousy control of 
>what you actually have (which is the whole point of robust control 
>theory, by the by).
>
>All in all, though, if you take a big pot, brown the traditional control 
>methods on all sides and simmer well with a couple of quarts of 
>experience, you'll make a better soup than you can get by heating up a 
>can of optimal robust control fresh from the supermarket.
>
>> Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
>> guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
>> engineering_! Seems very strange to me.
>
>When I was about to start my master's degree program I inquired about 
>getting a PhD in control theory (this was at WPI, which is good but 
>small).  I was sent to the mathematics department.  While I was a grad 
>student there I was a teaching assistant (twice!) for a 3rd-year control 
>systems class that was taught by a biomechanical engineer and a 
>mechanical engineer, through the ME department.
>
>Most recently, as part of a contract I helped to hire a woman who got her 
>bachelor's degree in economics, during which she took her first course in 
>control theory through _that_ department, then emigrated to the United 
>States and finished up with a PhD in mathematics -- specializing in 
>control theory -- here in the states.
>
>So control theory is a discipline that finds a lot of homes.  If 
>endocrinologists can't take a control theory class as part of medical 
>school they should be able to, and if I found out that there was a school 
>of archeology out there that required controls to graduate I would be 
>amused, but not amazed.

I've always thought that's because negative feedback is natural and
pretty universal, so sorting out how to model and manage it applies
pretty broadly.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

>Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:54:17 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and
>>>>me) a favor.
>>>>
>>>>Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>>>=20
>
>>>>It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled =
that
>>>>the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.  While I =
understand
>>>>his disappointment to some extent, you can't really approach that =
topic
>>>>unless you've got at least four years of a math-intensive engineering
>>>>education behind you; it's certainly not a topic that I could make =
both
>>>>accessible and useful to a general audience, and I don't think that
>>>>anyone else could, either.
>>>=20
>>> Seriously, can't you change the description of the book on Amazon so =
it
>>> gets bought by the intended audience?
>>
>>Right.  I'll go buy Amazon and get that fixed today.
>
>Well, someone has to write the description of a book. If the
>description is wrong it should be fixed. I know this will take finding
>the right channels.
>
>Anyway: do people here recommend your book?=20
>I actually can use a good hands-on book on control loops. The books I
>had to buy for school are missing the link between theory and actual
>applications.

I have it.  I wish it had a bit more theory.  Better coverage of the
z-transform in particular would help; but there are whole textbooks on
that larger then Tim's book.

I guess i should get into it again and what i have to say.

?-)

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:41:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 4, 1:23=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and =
me)
>> a favor.
>>
>> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>>
>> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled =
that
>> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.
>
>Do people here review lots of tech books? Reviews won't do much good
>if they come from single item reviewers.
>
>Can you get a review from a creditable journal or other source? That
>should carry more weight than from one cranky guy's opinion.

All too often, reviews in serious technical publications are by one =
cranky
old person. =20

?-)

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:20:22 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:

>
>"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message=20
>news:k8WdnfcvcIj2a2jSnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@web-ster.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:00 +0200, alb wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: [...]
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> I personally have had hard time to not define your post 'off-topic', =
but
>>> I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of view =
to
>>> this problem may help you ease the pressure.
>>
>> Oops.  You are correct, and I should have labeled it as such when I
>> posted it.  What makes it appropriate to these groups (if not on =
topic),
>> is that I happen to know that I'll reach some of my readership this =
way.
>>
>> --=20
>> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
>> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
>> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?
>>
>> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
>> http://www.wescottdesign.com
>
>
>I don't see any problem with your post being OT Tim. Any regular reader =
here=20
>knows you actively participate & provide practical help very frequently.
>
>
>Twats that go posting comments & links relating to usenet etiquette are =
just=20
>that, twats.
>
Perzactly.  There is no Usenet etiquette any more, it died 20 years ago.

?-)

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:44:38 -0700, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:41:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
><spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 4, 1:23=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>>> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world (and =
>me)
>>> a favor.
>>>
>>> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>>>
>>> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled =
>that
>>> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.
>>
>>Do people here review lots of tech books? Reviews won't do much good
>>if they come from single item reviewers.
>>
>>Can you get a review from a creditable journal or other source? That
>>should carry more weight than from one cranky guy's opinion.
>
>All too often, reviews in serious technical publications are by one =
>cranky
>old person. =20

You got something against cranky old people?!?!?!


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 7/6/12 7:21 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:44:38 -0700, josephkk
> <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:41:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>> <spamtrap1888@gmail.com>  wrote:
....
>>>
>>> Can you get a review from a creditable journal or other source? That
>>> should carry more weight than from one cranky guy's opinion.
>>
>> All too often, reviews in serious technical publications are by one
>> cranky old person.
>
> You got something against cranky old people?!?!?!
>

these kids nowadays.  they've never seen a 1/2 watt resistor.  have they 
ever smelled the solder resin?

i have, in my life, soldered 2-watt resistors, vacuum tube sockets (both 
PC-board and chassis mounted), buss and wire harnesses, point-to-point 
wiring, etc.  i've even gotten a taste (or a touch) of tube B+ voltage 
(300 and once 700 volts).  but i haven't done that for maybe over 4 decades.

maybe 3 decades ago was using a brake to bend sheet aluminum into a 
chassis/box and riveting it together.  drilling holes and mounting 
brackets (that one also makes with the brake) and standoffs and 
thru-hole PC boards.  painting and lettering (i used ruboff decals you 
could buy then and then acrylic lamenated over it).

what do *they* know about cranky old people?

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> 
> maybe 3 decades ago was using a brake to bend sheet aluminum into a
> chassis/box and riveting it together.  


   Rivets?  You had rivets?  Talk about being privileged!  We had to use
old sheet metal screws, that we salvaged from junk car radios!

On 7/7/12 1:30 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>> maybe 3 decades ago was using a brake to bend sheet aluminum into a
>> chassis/box and riveting it together.
>
>
>     Rivets?  You had rivets?  Talk about being privileged!

yah.  they were those cheapo blind-rivets where you vice-grip the pieces 
together, drill the hole, stick un-expanded rivet in with some fancy 
tool, pull lever and it pulls a nail-like thing back (expanding the 
rivet behind the hole) and severs the rest of the nail shaft flush with 
the outside of the rivet.  like this tool:

   http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00137S790/

this technology existed in the late 70s.  perhaps earlier, i dunno.

i also didn't have to walk to school 5 miles in the snow barefoot.

but the truth is that my eldest brother and sister one year younger (4 
years older than me) *did* go to a one-room school house in the country 
for their first 2 and 1 years, respectively.  (in 1959, they started 
going to a new "modern" school in town, where i began elementary in 1961.)

> We had to use
> old sheet metal screws, that we salvaged from junk car radios!

eewww!  i wanted to make a solid box that i could paint over the 
fasteners except those holding on the bottom plate.

if i could've, i would have wanted to spot-weld the chassis together. 
can't do it real easy with aluminum.  building Heathkits, i saw some 
steel chassis that were bent and spot-welded and then galvanized or 
dipped in something.  built like a brick shit-house.

i think the bottom plate went on with simple self-tapping sheet metal 
screws.  had to be careful not to strip the aluminum chassis.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 7/5/12 9:20 PM, Dennis wrote:
> "Tim Wescott"<tim@seemywebsite.com>  wrote in message
> news:k8WdnfcvcIj2a2jSnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@web-ster.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:00 +0200, alb wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: [...]
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> I personally have had hard time to not define your post 'off-topic', but
>>> I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of view to
>>> this problem may help you ease the pressure.
>>
>> Oops.  You are correct, and I should have labeled it as such when I
>> posted it.  What makes it appropriate to these groups (if not on topic),
>> is that I happen to know that I'll reach some of my readership this way.
>>
....
>
>
> I don't see any problem with your post being OT Tim. Any regular reader here
> knows you actively participate&  provide practical help very frequently.
>
>
> Twats that go posting comments&  links relating to usenet etiquette are just
> that, twats.
>

do you mean "Twits", Dennis?

some of these tw[*]ts might be pricks.


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message 
news:jt8jvn$nqh$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/5/12 9:20 PM, Dennis wrote:
>> "Tim Wescott"<tim@seemywebsite.com>  wrote in message
>> news:k8WdnfcvcIj2a2jSnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@web-ster.com...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:00 +0200, alb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: [...]
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>>> I personally have had hard time to not define your post 'off-topic', 
>>>> but
>>>> I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of view to
>>>> this problem may help you ease the pressure.
>>>
>>> Oops.  You are correct, and I should have labeled it as such when I
>>> posted it.  What makes it appropriate to these groups (if not on topic),
>>> is that I happen to know that I'll reach some of my readership this way.
>>>
> ...
>>
>>
>> I don't see any problem with your post being OT Tim. Any regular reader 
>> here
>> knows you actively participate&  provide practical help very frequently.
>>
>>
>> Twats that go posting comments&  links relating to usenet etiquette are 
>> just
>> that, twats.
>>
>
> do you mean "Twits", Dennis?
>
> some of these tw[*]ts might be pricks.
>


That could be true!

Maybe I should have used "pricks". I'm not sure "twats" is used as widely 
around the world as it is in my vocabulary.



>
> -- 
>
> r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
> 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:23:03 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

   [Snipped by Lyons]
>
>I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if 
>you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you 
>can give people more complete and accurate information than they have now 
>by getting on there and giving it a review.
>
>Thanks in advance.

Hi Tim,
   I completely understand the frustration you 
had with only one review, and a negative review 
at that, for your book on Amazon.com.

It looks like you now have some good reviews on 
Amazon.  I'm happy to see that.

I've learned to be suspicious of book reviews on 
Amazon.  Here's why.  Years ago I wanted to learn 
about the digital modulation technique of OFDM.
I found an OFDM book on Amazon that had very 
good reviews, "OFDM Wireless LANs: A Theoretical 
and Practical Guide."

That book was the worst example of technical 
writing I have *EVER* seen!  I cannot tell you 
how many technical errors I found in that book.
There were, I estimate, two typos for every three 
pages in the book.  I went to the Sams Publishing 
website to download an errata for the book. 
Get this,... the first three entries in the 
errata contained two typographical errors! 
How discouraging. They should 
have published an errata to the errata. (I also 
downloaded the MATLAB code which, woefully, crashed 
on line 19 of the very first routine.)

Being ticked off because I wasted $35, I went back 
and looked more closely at the "glowing" reviews 
of that book on Amazon.  I soon became convinced that 
most of those reviews are fraudulent.  I very carefully, 
and in great detail, chronicled my powerful evidence 
for suspecting reviewer fraud.

Tim, I monitor Amazon's signal processing book reviews 
pretty carefully.  I'd estimate that a technical book 
takes 9 -to- 12 months to receive a half dozen reviews. 
(You can see this by looking at the dates of the 
reviews of various books.)
That OFDM book received seven reviews within a two week 
period!  Now what in the heck is the chance of that 
happening in a valid way?  I'll tell ya', it's zero.  
In addition, five of those seven reviews contained the 
word "excellent."  What are the chances of that 
happening legitimately? 

It's my opinion that someone who'll profit from 
increased book sales wrote those misleading reviews. 

Anyway, I posted my opinion in the form of a review of 
that book on Amazon.  My scathing review lasted one 
week on Amazon, and then suspiciously disappeared forever.
So that's why I'm much more careful now in believing 
book reviews on Amazon.
 
By the way Tim, I thought you were very brave in 
submitting your original post requesting reviews 
of your book.

[-Rick-]
PS. I don't have a copy of your book, so I'm 
not able to post a review of it on Amazon.com.

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:56:21 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:

   [Snipped by Lyons]
>
>Maybe I should have used "pricks". I'm not sure "twats" is used as widely 
>around the world as it is in my vocabulary.

Hello Dennis,
    I wonder if perhaps you live in the 
United Kingdom, and that the word "twat" 
had some specific meaning in the UK.

I haven't heard it for some years, but when 
I was a kid the word "twat" had a *VERY* 
specific meaning in American English.

[-Rick-]

robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> these kids nowadays.  they've never seen a 1/2 watt resistor.  have they
> ever smelled the solder resin?

Actually, they make it. <http://dangerousprototypes.com/2012/06/14/workshop-
update-for-june-14th-2012/> .  Crazy things going on out there.
Not to disagree with your general point, though.

	Mel.

On 7/6/2012 2:08 AM, Lanarcam wrote:
> IMO, that is not a field where you can improvise yourself as a
> professional
> after having read a book however good it is.

It seems to me that we are "improvising ourselves" at various tasks all 
the time.  Otherwise Jerry would not have learned so much!

Read a little, simulate or model a little ......

I can but think of the embedded programmers who have worked for me.  Not 
control systems guys.  Now what if they had a situation that fit a 
"control system" context?  Would I give them Tim's book or hire a new 
engineer?  Obviously, "it depends" but I'd first be wanting to give them 
the book.

Fred

"Rick Lyons" <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:u60gv7hu8kf0hsis5voek5ithel7k16ac1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:56:21 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:
>
>   [Snipped by Lyons]
>>
>>Maybe I should have used "pricks". I'm not sure "twats" is used as widely
>>around the world as it is in my vocabulary.
>
> Hello Dennis,
>    I wonder if perhaps you live in the
> United Kingdom, and that the word "twat"
> had some specific meaning in the UK.
>
> I haven't heard it for some years, but when
> I was a kid the word "twat" had a *VERY*
> specific meaning in American English.
>
> [-Rick-]
>


Yeah Rick, I'm in Australia - the word still has that same specific meaning 
and I guess it's been in use here since settlement.

It still has that quite specific meaning but is not really seen as a 
particularly "bad" word and could *almost* be used in polite company! We 
pronounce it "twot" where-as more recent english migrants (to Australia) 
seem to pronounce it "tw-at". 

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:08:23 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> this technology existed in the late 70s.  perhaps earlier, i dunno.

"Pop" rivets were used at least as far back as WWII to stop metal
airplanes falling apart.

Can be set from just one side, useful for fitting, say, wing panels.

Original patent was held by a company (British?), called Tucker.

"Nail" down the center designed to force itself up inside the hollow
rivet, expanding it, then break off, leaving just the head inside the
rivet. Made in aluminum, steel, monel, copper.

"Genuine" (aerospace qualified) pop rivets ain't exactly cheapo.

There were a few lookalikes, designed to get round the Tucker patent by
wrinkling, rather than expanding the rivet. They were crap.

-- 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 06:46:47 -0700, Fred Marshall wrote:

> On 7/6/2012 2:08 AM, Lanarcam wrote:
>> IMO, that is not a field where you can improvise yourself as a
>> professional after having read a book however good it is.
> 
> It seems to me that we are "improvising ourselves" at various tasks all
> the time.  Otherwise Jerry would not have learned so much!
> 
> Read a little, simulate or model a little ......
> 
> I can but think of the embedded programmers who have worked for me.  Not
> control systems guys.  Now what if they had a situation that fit a
> "control system" context?  Would I give them Tim's book or hire a new
> engineer?  Obviously, "it depends" but I'd first be wanting to give them
> the book.

Of course the ideal solution is to give them my book, then if that fails 
bring me on board.

:)

-- 
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:01:41 -0700, Rick Lyons wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:23:03 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
> 
>    [Snipped by Lyons]
>>
>>I know that there's people out there who like the book far more -- if
>>you're one of them, or even if you're only mildly thrilled with it, you
>>can give people more complete and accurate information than they have
>>now by getting on there and giving it a review.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
 <snip> 
> Tim, I monitor Amazon's signal processing book reviews pretty carefully.
>  I'd estimate that a technical book takes 9 -to- 12 months to receive a
> half dozen reviews.
> (You can see this by looking at the dates of the reviews of various
> books.)
> That OFDM book received seven reviews within a two week period!  Now
> what in the heck is the chance of that happening in a valid way?  I'll
> tell ya', it's zero.
> In addition, five of those seven reviews contained the word "excellent."
>  What are the chances of that happening legitimately?

I was urged, by a good friend who is impeccably honest when marketing 
isn't involved, to get on and write my own review for the book.  I'm 
actually surprised that more publishers don't hire shills to do just that.
> 
<snip>

> By the way Tim, I thought you were very brave in submitting your
> original post requesting reviews of your book.

I dunno.  It's kind of hard to mail someone a pipe bomb over USENET.


-- 
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

Randy Yates wrote:
> Hey Tim, 
> 
> I'm glad you got a few more reviews now. 
> 
> By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on 
> optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think
> those are the right terms...)
> 
> Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
> guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
> engineering_! Seems very strange to me.
> 
> --Randy


That's weird, because nearly all of the Ph.D. MEs I work with are almost
completely ignorant of controls.

To make matters worse, their primary software developer only knows PID
loops.



-- 
_____________________
Mr.CRC
crobcBOGUS@REMOVETHISsbcglobal.net
SuSE 10.3 Linux 2.6.22.17

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:51:00 -0700, Mr.CRC wrote:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>> Hey Tim,
>> 
>> I'm glad you got a few more reviews now.
>> 
>> By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on
>> optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think those
>> are the right terms...)
>> 
>> Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
>> guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
>> engineering_! Seems very strange to me.
>> 
>> --Randy
> 
> 
> That's weird, because nearly all of the Ph.D. MEs I work with are almost
> completely ignorant of controls.
> 
> To make matters worse, their primary software developer only knows PID
> loops.

Control systems is very much an optional course for ME.

And you can go a long way with loops that -- in the end -- can be 
described as "just" PID.  But if all you know is one flavor, and how to 
tune them up by the seat of your pants -- yup, that can get pretty 
limiting.

-- 
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 21:53:12 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:

>
   [Snipped by Lyons]
>
>Yeah Rick, I'm in Australia - the word still has that same specific meaning 
>and I guess it's been in use here since settlement.
>
>It still has that quite specific meaning but is not really seen as a 
>particularly "bad" word and could *almost* be used in polite company! We 
>pronounce it "twot" where-as more recent english migrants (to Australia) 
>seem to pronounce it "tw-at". 

Hi Dennis,
   Ha ha.  That's another reason why I like you Aussies!

[-Rick-]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:15:57 -0500, Tim Wescott
<tim@seemywebsite.please> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:01:41 -0700, Rick Lyons wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:23:03 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>    [Snipped by Lyons]
>>>

          [Snipped by Lyons]      

> <snip> 
>> Tim, I monitor Amazon's signal processing book reviews pretty carefully.
>>  I'd estimate that a technical book takes 9 -to- 12 months to receive a
>> half dozen reviews.
>> (You can see this by looking at the dates of the reviews of various
>> books.)
>> That OFDM book received seven reviews within a two week period!  Now
>> what in the heck is the chance of that happening in a valid way?  I'll
>> tell ya', it's zero.
>> In addition, five of those seven reviews contained the word "excellent."
>>  What are the chances of that happening legitimately?
>
>I was urged, by a good friend who is impeccably honest when marketing 
>isn't involved, to get on and write my own review for the book.  I'm 
>actually surprised that more publishers don't hire shills to do just that.

Shame shame shame on that guy!!!
Tim, ...I suggest you do NOT turn your back on that 
dishonest bastard.  

><snip>

[-Rick-]

Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> writes:

> I was urged, by a good friend who is impeccably honest when marketing 
> isn't involved, to get on and write my own review for the book.  I'm 
> actually surprised that more publishers don't hire shills to do just that.

As long as you disclose that you are the author reviewing your own book
is entirely respectable.  I've seen a few such reviews on Amazon and
think it would be good to see more.

-- Bob

-- 
Robert L. Knighten
RLK@knighten.org

On 7/7/12 6:01 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:51:00 -0700, Mr.CRC wrote:
>
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm glad you got a few more reviews now.
>>>
>>> By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on
>>> optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think those
>>> are the right terms...)
>>>
>>> Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
>>> guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
>>> engineering_! Seems very strange to me.
>>
>> That's weird, because nearly all of the Ph.D. MEs I work with are almost
>> completely ignorant of controls.
>>
>> To make matters worse, their primary software developer only knows PID
>> loops.
>
> Control systems is very much an optional course for ME.
>

i had noticed that the Chem E's in my alma mater (U North Dakota) had 
their *own* controls course and, once in a while, there was some ChemE 
student that took the EE one as a substitute.  dunno exactly what 
differences there were, but i sorta imagine the ChemE controls course 
was less about servo-control mechanism and more about fluid flow and 
mixing controls.  maybe more about non-linear plants.

> And you can go a long way with loops that -- in the end -- can be
> described as "just" PID.  But if all you know is one flavor, and how to
> tune them up by the seat of your pants -- yup, that can get pretty
> limiting.

all i remember is that you needed some "I" to get the error of position 
from set-point to eventually go to zero (ASRC has a natural "I" in the 
NCO).  the "D" was used to anticipate some movement and react a little 
sooner.  i s'pose "P" was something in between the two.


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 20:22:39 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> On 7/7/12 6:01 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:51:00 -0700, Mr.CRC wrote:
>>
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you got a few more reviews now.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, what DO you recommend for a "heavy" tome? Something on
>>>> optimal control, H-infinity controllers, etc.? (At least I think
>>>> those are the right terms...)
>>>>
>>>> Here's an interesting thing: Guess which college and dept. a controls
>>>> guru guy here is getting his masters in controls through? _mechanical
>>>> engineering_! Seems very strange to me.
>>>
>>> That's weird, because nearly all of the Ph.D. MEs I work with are
>>> almost completely ignorant of controls.
>>>
>>> To make matters worse, their primary software developer only knows PID
>>> loops.
>>
>> Control systems is very much an optional course for ME.
>>
>>
> i had noticed that the Chem E's in my alma mater (U North Dakota) had
> their *own* controls course and, once in a while, there was some ChemE
> student that took the EE one as a substitute.  dunno exactly what
> differences there were, but i sorta imagine the ChemE controls course
> was less about servo-control mechanism and more about fluid flow and
> mixing controls.  maybe more about non-linear plants.
> 
>> And you can go a long way with loops that -- in the end -- can be
>> described as "just" PID.  But if all you know is one flavor, and how to
>> tune them up by the seat of your pants -- yup, that can get pretty
>> limiting.
> 
> all i remember is that you needed some "I" to get the error of position
> from set-point to eventually go to zero (ASRC has a natural "I" in the
> NCO).  the "D" was used to anticipate some movement and react a little
> sooner.  i s'pose "P" was something in between the two.

Integral action is about where you _were_, derivative action is about 
where you're _going_, and proportional action is about where you _are_.

And yes, many plants have integral action, or some slow low-pass process 
that looks an awful lot like it.

-- 
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

On 7/7/12 10:47 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 20:22:39 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
....
>>
>> all i remember is that you needed some "I" to get the error of position
>> from set-point to eventually go to zero (ASRC has a natural "I" in the
>> NCO).  the "D" was used to anticipate some movement and react a little
>> sooner.  i s'pose "P" was something in between the two.
>
> Integral action is about where you _were_,

i sorta see that, but i dunno what advantage there is to it.  the 
*design* imperative i remember from my control theory class 35 years ago 
was that having an integrator in a negative-feedback loop would 
(assuming it's all stable) integrate the error (between plant and 
set-point) and keeps on integrating it until the error gets to zero. 
not so with only proportional.

> derivative action is about where you're _going_,

and that is congruent to what i remember was the design imperative 
around the "D" in PID.

> and proportional action is about where you _are_.
>
> And yes, many plants have integral action, or some slow low-pass process
> that looks an awful lot like it.

for an Asynchronous Sample Rate Converter there is a circular buffer 
where the samples go in and interpolated samples come out.  every sample 
going in increments the buffer input pointer by 1.  every sample coming 
out increments the buffer output pointer by "step_size" which has both 
integer and fractional parts and, when things settle down, is the 
reciprocal of the sample rate ratio (which is not a given, you have to 
compute it with a sorta servo-control).

normally the "set point" of the output pointer is on the opposite side 
of the circular buffer from the input pointer (so it follows the input 
pointer with a delay of 1/2 the buffer length).  the error signal is the 
difference from the actual output pointer and that set point.  but the 
pointer position is the integral of the step_size variable (like in an 
NCO) and that is the reason for the existence of an integrator in the 
"plant" for an ASRC.

BTW, Tim, this ASRC i did on a SHArC (version 0.6 silicon) back around 
1995 was the only time i have ever put anything i learned about control 
theory to a job that paid me.  but i'm still glad i learned what i did 
about control theory when i was in skool.


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 7/5/2012 8:00 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Rob Gaddi wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT
>> nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway: do people here recommend your book?
>>> I actually can use a good hands-on book on control loops. The books I
>>> had to buy for school are missing the link between theory and actual
>>> applications.
>>>
>>
>> I do.  I thought it was quite good, so long as you weren't having to
>> get into anything seriously complex.  Very practice focused, not so
>> much theory.
>>
>> Then again, I'm having to go off of recollection.  A previous programmer
>> borrowed it from me and then never gave it back, and I haven't gotten
>> around to re-buying it yet.
>>
>
> I like it too.  That and Phelan, who despite an overgrown ego that got
> his work ignored by everyone else, did some really good stuff.

Havinf long since retired, I didn't buy the book, but knowing Tim and 
what he intended it for. I'd bet on its being helpful. I revirwed 
Phelan's original book and designed several "couldn't-be-done" systems 
based on his ideas. They work even better with digital systems with 
enough oversampling to make te differentiators work well. Digital 
integrators don't drift. See http://users.rcn.com/jyavins/servo.html

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Jul 9, 12:55=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 8:00 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rob Gaddi wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:38:13 GMT
> >> n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>
> >>> Anyway: do people here recommend your book?
> >>> I actually can use a good hands-on book on control loops. The books I
> >>> had to buy for school are missing the link between theory and actual
> >>> applications.
>
> >> I do. =A0I thought it was quite good, so long as you weren't having to
> >> get into anything seriously complex. =A0Very practice focused, not so
> >> much theory.
>
> >> Then again, I'm having to go off of recollection. =A0A previous progra=
mmer
> >> borrowed it from me and then never gave it back, and I haven't gotten
> >> around to re-buying it yet.
>
> > I like it too. =A0That and Phelan, who despite an overgrown ego that go=
t
> > his work ignored by everyone else, did some really good stuff.
>
> Havinf long since retired, I didn't buy the book, but knowing Tim and
> what he intended it for. I'd bet on its being helpful. I revirwed
> Phelan's original book and designed several "couldn't-be-done" systems
> based on his ideas. They work even better with digital systems with
> enough oversampling to make te differentiators work well. Digital
> integrators don't drift. Seehttp://users.rcn.com/jyavins/servo.html

Interesting, Thanks Jerry.  (Just ordered a copy of Phelans book.)
I'm stuck in the PID mind set.

George H.

>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 23:21:16 GMT, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen)
wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:44:38 -0700, josephkk
><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:41:20 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>><spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 4, 1:23=3DA0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>>>> If you have a copy of my book, you have a chance to do the world =
(and =3D
>>me)
>>>> a favor.
>>>>
>>>> Go onto Amazon, and review it -- please.
>>>>
>>>> It has exactly one review, and that's from a guy who's disgruntled =3D
>>that
>>>> the book doesn't cover formal robust control theory.
>>>
>>>Do people here review lots of tech books? Reviews won't do much good
>>>if they come from single item reviewers.
>>>
>>>Can you get a review from a creditable journal or other source? That
>>>should carry more weight than from one cranky guy's opinion.
>>
>>All too often, reviews in serious technical publications are by one =3D
>>cranky
>>old person. =3D20
>
>You got something against cranky old people?!?!?!
>
>
>Eric Jacobsen

How could i, i am one.

?-)

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:56:21 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:

>
>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message=20
>news:jt8jvn$nqh$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/5/12 9:20 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>> "Tim Wescott"<tim@seemywebsite.com>  wrote in message
>>> news:k8WdnfcvcIj2a2jSnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@web-ster.com...
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:00 +0200, alb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: [...]
>>>>
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>>>> I personally have had hard time to not define your post =
'off-topic',=20
>>>>> but
>>>>> I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of =
view to
>>>>> this problem may help you ease the pressure.
>>>>
>>>> Oops.  You are correct, and I should have labeled it as such when I
>>>> posted it.  What makes it appropriate to these groups (if not on =
topic),
>>>> is that I happen to know that I'll reach some of my readership this =
way.
>>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see any problem with your post being OT Tim. Any regular =
reader=20
>>> here
>>> knows you actively participate&  provide practical help very =
frequently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Twats that go posting comments&  links relating to usenet etiquette =
are=20
>>> just
>>> that, twats.
>>>
>>
>> do you mean "Twits", Dennis?
>>
>> some of these tw[*]ts might be pricks.
>>
>
>
>That could be true!
>
>Maybe I should have used "pricks". I'm not sure "twats" is used as =
widely=20
>around the world as it is in my vocabulary.
>
I would use "prunt" myself.  It combines the worst properties of pricks,
assholes, and cunts.

?-)

"josephkk" <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:6k3nv79m7ehu2c385t9om3cdvp5rhhd9ce@4ax.com...
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:56:21 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:

>
>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message
>news:jt8jvn$nqh$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/5/12 9:20 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>> "Tim Wescott"<tim@seemywebsite.com>  wrote in message
>>> news:k8WdnfcvcIj2a2jSnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@web-ster.com...
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:00 +0200, alb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/4/2012 10:23 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: [...]
>>>>
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>>>> I personally have had hard time to not define your post 'off-topic',
>>>>> but
>>>>> I do understand your strong feeling. I hope a rational point of view 
>>>>> to
>>>>> this problem may help you ease the pressure.
>>>>
>>>> Oops.  You are correct, and I should have labeled it as such when I
>>>> posted it.  What makes it appropriate to these groups (if not on 
>>>> topic),
>>>> is that I happen to know that I'll reach some of my readership this 
>>>> way.
>>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see any problem with your post being OT Tim. Any regular reader
>>> here
>>> knows you actively participate&  provide practical help very frequently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Twats that go posting comments&  links relating to usenet etiquette are
>>> just
>>> that, twats.
>>>
>>
>> do you mean "Twits", Dennis?
>>
>> some of these tw[*]ts might be pricks.
>>
>
>
>That could be true!
>
>Maybe I should have used "pricks". I'm not sure "twats" is used as widely
>around the world as it is in my vocabulary.
>
I would use "prunt" myself.  It combines the worst properties of pricks,
assholes, and cunts.

?-)


-------------------------------------------

Yeah, "prunt" works too, mmmm a new word, I like that. 

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:33 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:

>
>"josephkk" <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message=20
>news:6k3nv79m7ehu2c385t9om3cdvp5rhhd9ce@4ax.com...
>On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:56:21 +0800, "Dennis" <123@abc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message
>>news:jt8jvn$nqh$1@dont-email.me...
>>That could be true!
>>
>>Maybe I should have used "pricks". I'm not sure "twats" is used as =
widely
>>around the world as it is in my vocabulary.
>>
>I would use "prunt" myself.  It combines the worst properties of pricks,
>assholes, and cunts.
>
>?-)
>
>
>-------------------------------------------
>
>Yeah, "prunt" works too, mmmm a new word, I like that.=20
>
I borrowed it from something i read.  "A life in the day of" IIRC.

?-)