I'm just playing around with a bunch of odds and ends, killing time.

I have a resistor blue-grey-brown and silver. I expect to measure around 680 ohms, but the DVM says 7.2 ohms even in 4-wire mode.

WTF?

 

OK I am a dummy, it was an inductor, I recall using this a while back for some simple experiment and left it on bench, it looks like a power resistor to me at first sight, like a 1 W or something !

 

Most of us have been there also.

 

OK I am a dummy, it was an inductor, I recall using this a while back for some simple experiment and left it on bench, it looks like a power resistor to me at first sight, like a 1 W or something !

Don't be too hard on yourself. I certainly have no reason to throw stones.

 

Gee ... knowing about your level of expertise, AK, if you're calling yourself a dummy where does that leave me???

 

Gee ... knowing about your level of expertise, AK, if you're calling yourself a dummy where does that leave me???

Let me guess. You're just another guy who is sometimes too hard on himself.

 

Let me guess. You're just another guy who is sometimes too hard on himself.

Well ... yes and no .. I do demand a lot of myself sometimes, but I'm also being realistic. Compared with the four star generals in this place I'm just a low rank Sergeant.

 

Well ... yes and no .. I do demand a lot of myself sometimes, but I'm also being realistic. Compared with the four star generals in this place I'm just a low rank Sergeant.

I used to think like this then I realized I should be comparing myself to my previous self.

The only thing these 'generals' have on us is more knowledge in specific subjects which doesn't translate into you or I being less than.

Unfortunately most people associate knowledge with success and status so herein lies one of the deadly sins.

The generals who understand this are mentors and the ones who don't are poison. Don't let someone else's achievements hold you down..

 

I used to think like this then I realized I should be comparing myself to my previous self.

Oh yeah ... that's what I try to constantly do. And truth being told, I'm exponentially better at electronics compared to my younger self. And all thanks to this website and it's extremely generous members. I just try to stay humble, that's all. My ego's already the size I want it to be, thank you.

 

Oh yeah ... that's what I try to constantly do. And truth being told, I'm exponentially better at electronics compared to my younger self. And all thanks to this website and it's extremely generous members. I just try to stay humble, that's all. My ego's already the size I want it to be, thank you.

I agree this website is a valuable resource but your statement made me think about how people generalize no pun intended. The title of this topic is another example.

The bottom line is I don't know who is lying about their knowledge. Maybe not lie so much as overextend. I've certainly been guilty of overextending so I make a point to provide multiple proofs with almost every problem I attempt to solve here.

I look at it like bidding on a contract. You don't have to take my idea but here it is. At least I made my thought process reasonably clear and I'm willing to follow up on questions.

If you come to me with this kind of attitude, I'm willing to look at what you gave me because this is the information which is actually relevant. In the real world it is different.. if I was on trial for murder, I think I would want to hire the most well known law firm in town for obvious reasons but that comparative mindset doesn't really work here.

 

Am I a dummy?

No.

—
what follows is an inexcusably long and unjustifiably discursive—if topical—response which I’ve placed in the footnotes (so to speak) to emphasize its entirely optional nature; the response above the line can stand alone as a perfectly adequate answer to the question—that said, if you want to read the rest, here it is…

Back when part of my living was writing computer books, I had a best seller (in its category) which was doing very well. In those days it was possible make a decent return on writing a book because the royalties were substantial and there was no “reserve against returns” where part of an author’s payments were withheld to pay for returned books not sold—a very problematic practice I won’t rant about.

A big part of a book‘s success was in the hands of the sales staff who decided when, how, and with how much effort to pitch and place the book on the shelves of the major retailers. Their calculations—unsurprisingly—were heavily influenced by what they perceived as a return on effort, that is, how likely would they be to get shelf space for any given book in the catalog if they tried to sell it to the chain buyers.

My book was not just good (it really was both competent and an innovative design) it was also the only serious title covering the subject matter which was an oncoming technology which we predicted (correctly) would be huge. So, it was pretty much dead easy for them to place it. The sales (and checks) looked good.

Then, suddenly, the checks stopped looking so healthy, and after the second month of decline I called my editor—

Hey, I have noticed that my sales are fading, why technology sales are taking off, what’s the deal?
To tell you the truth, sales has just stopped trying to get more placement…
What? Why would they do that?! It’s prime time for the subject matter!
Yes, I know—I told them the same thing. But the Dummies book was released and they say they can’t compete…

And there is was… The X for Dummies books had been a per peeve of mine for a long time. I really felt strongly that is was a dysfunctional approach. It had grown out of a sense people had about being “dumb” about technology. But these weren’t dumb people at all, and the nerdy types who might be “natively competent” about the topics that made them feel dumb weren’t necessarily any smarter than any one of them.

The problem wasn’t being a dummy, it was simple ignorance—but importantly not ignorance of the particular facts of some piece of software or hardware—it was ignorance that meant they didn‘t have a way to think about the perplexing world of computers and software they suddenly had so much dependency on.

I would often say, “if I went to visit my brain surgeon to consult about a problem and saw ‘Windows for Dummies’ on his desk, I would certainly get a second opinion on my issues!” These people buying into the idea of being dummies because of ignorance, a state we all share, just about different things at different times, really rankled me.

(There is so much more I could write about this, but I am going to wrap it up now...)

Ignorance is not the same as, nor specially coupled to, stupidity. Ignorance is easily “cured” by learning, stupidity is an attribute, and it’s not even something to condemn–it‘s just the fate of some folks. So long as people aren’t harming others by refusing to acknowledge genuine stupidity and trying to overreach, then I don’t have any bad feelings towards people in the category. in fact, I don‘t even like the term, and wouldn’t use it save to make these points clearly and not muddle them with a secondary debate.

But the truth is, I have never read a post here I felt was from a “stupid” person, and of those who are long term, respected members (including our esteemed TS) there isn’t a speck of stupidity mixed in with whatever ignorance each of us share. The “stupidity“ born of illness, sleep deprivation, and the like is ephemeral and not an attribute of the person even if it can cause us to act as if we were “stupid”. Time, or a good night’s sleep, doesn’t erase the sort of stupidity that would interfere with being part of the group here—but it does take care of the “boneheaded“ mistakes we all sometimes make.

 

No.

—
what follows is an inexcusably long and unjustifiably discursive—if topical—response which I’ve placed in the footnotes (so to speak) to emphasize its entirely optional nature; the response above the line can stand alone as a perfectly adequate answer to the question—that said, if you want to read the rest, here it is…

Back when part of my living was writing computer books, I had a best seller (in its category) which was doing very well. In those days it was possible make a decent return on writing a book because the royalties were substantial and there was no “reserve against returns” where part of an author’s payments were withheld to pay for returned books not sold—a very problematic practice I won’t rant about.

A big part of a book‘s success was in the hands of the sales staff who decided when, how, and with how much effort to pitch and place the book on the shelves of the major retailers. Their calculations—unsurprisingly—were heavily influenced by what they perceived as a return on effort, that is, how likely would they be to get shelf space for any given book in the catalog if they tried to sell it to the chain buyers.

My book was not just good (it really was both competent and an innovative design) it was also the only serious title covering the subject matter which was an oncoming technology which we predicted (correctly) would be huge. So, it was pretty much dead easy for them to place it. The sales (and checks) looked good.

Then, suddenly, the checks stopped looking so healthy, and after the second month of decline I called my editor—

Hey, I have noticed that my sales are fading, why technology sales are taking off, what’s the deal?
To tell you the truth, sales has just stopped trying to get more placement…
What? Why would they do that?! It’s prime time for the subject matter!
Yes, I know—I told them the same thing. But the Dummies book was released and they say they can’t compete…

And there is was… The X for Dummies books had been a per peeve of mine for a long time. I really felt strongly that is was a dysfunctional approach. It had grown out of a sense people had about being “dumb” about technology. But these weren’t dumb people at all, and the nerdy types who might be “natively competent” about the topics that made them feel dumb weren’t necessarily any smarter than any one of them.

The problem wasn’t being a dummy, it was simple ignorance—but importantly not ignorance of the particular facts of some piece of software or hardware—it was ignorance that meant they didn‘t have a way to think about the perplexing world of computers and software they suddenly had so much dependency on.

I would often say, “if I went to visit my brain surgeon to consult about a problem and saw ‘Windows for Dummies’ on his desk, I would certainly get a second opinion on my issues!” These people buying into the idea of being dummies because of ignorance, a state we all share, just about different things at different times, really rankled me.

(There is so much more I could write about this, but I am going to wrap it up now...)

Ignorance is not the same as, nor specially coupled to, stupidity. Ignorance is easily “cured” by learning, stupidity is an attribute, and it’s not even something to condemn–it‘s just the fate of some folks. So long as people aren’t harming others by refusing to acknowledge genuine stupidity and trying to overreach, then I don’t have any bad feelings towards people in the category. in fact, I don‘t even like the term, and wouldn’t use it save to make these points clearly and not muddle them with a secondary debate.

But the truth is, I have never read a post here I felt was from a “stupid” person, and of those who are long term, respected members (including our esteemed TS) there isn’t a speck of stupidity mixed in with whatever ignorance each of us share. The “stupidity“ born of illness, sleep deprivation, and the like is ephemeral and not an attribute of the person even if it can cause us to act as if we were “stupid”. Time, or a good night’s sleep, doesn’t erase the sort of stupidity that would interfere with being part of the group here—but it does take care of the “boneheaded“ mistakes we all sometimes make.

Good dissertation ... maybe the TS should change the thread's title to "Am I a bonehead?" ...

 

No.

—
what follows is an inexcusably long and unjustifiably discursive—if topical—response which I’ve placed in the footnotes (so to speak) to emphasize its entirely optional nature; the response above the line can stand alone as a perfectly adequate answer to the question—that said, if you want to read the rest, here it is…

Back when part of my living was writing computer books, I had a best seller (in its category) which was doing very well. In those days it was possible make a decent return on writing a book because the royalties were substantial and there was no “reserve against returns” where part of an author’s payments were withheld to pay for returned books not sold—a very problematic practice I won’t rant about.

A big part of a book‘s success was in the hands of the sales staff who decided when, how, and with how much effort to pitch and place the book on the shelves of the major retailers. Their calculations—unsurprisingly—were heavily influenced by what they perceived as a return on effort, that is, how likely would they be to get shelf space for any given book in the catalog if they tried to sell it to the chain buyers.

My book was not just good (it really was both competent and an innovative design) it was also the only serious title covering the subject matter which was an oncoming technology which we predicted (correctly) would be huge. So, it was pretty much dead easy for them to place it. The sales (and checks) looked good.

Then, suddenly, the checks stopped looking so healthy, and after the second month of decline I called my editor—

Hey, I have noticed that my sales are fading, why technology sales are taking off, what’s the deal?
To tell you the truth, sales has just stopped trying to get more placement…
What? Why would they do that?! It’s prime time for the subject matter!
Yes, I know—I told them the same thing. But the Dummies book was released and they say they can’t compete…

And there is was… The X for Dummies books had been a per peeve of mine for a long time. I really felt strongly that is was a dysfunctional approach. It had grown out of a sense people had about being “dumb” about technology. But these weren’t dumb people at all, and the nerdy types who might be “natively competent” about the topics that made them feel dumb weren’t necessarily any smarter than any one of them.

The problem wasn’t being a dummy, it was simple ignorance—but importantly not ignorance of the particular facts of some piece of software or hardware—it was ignorance that meant they didn‘t have a way to think about the perplexing world of computers and software they suddenly had so much dependency on.

I would often say, “if I went to visit my brain surgeon to consult about a problem and saw ‘Windows for Dummies’ on his desk, I would certainly get a second opinion on my issues!” These people buying into the idea of being dummies because of ignorance, a state we all share, just about different things at different times, really rankled me.

(There is so much more I could write about this, but I am going to wrap it up now...)

Ignorance is not the same as, nor specially coupled to, stupidity. Ignorance is easily “cured” by learning, stupidity is an attribute, and it’s not even something to condemn–it‘s just the fate of some folks. So long as people aren’t harming others by refusing to acknowledge genuine stupidity and trying to overreach, then I don’t have any bad feelings towards people in the category. in fact, I don‘t even like the term, and wouldn’t use it save to make these points clearly and not muddle them with a secondary debate.

But the truth is, I have never read a post here I felt was from a “stupid” person, and of those who are long term, respected members (including our esteemed TS) there isn’t a speck of stupidity mixed in with whatever ignorance each of us share. The “stupidity“ born of illness, sleep deprivation, and the like is ephemeral and not an attribute of the person even if it can cause us to act as if we were “stupid”. Time, or a good night’s sleep, doesn’t erase the sort of stupidity that would interfere with being part of the group here—but it does take care of the “boneheaded“ mistakes we all sometimes make.

That was an interesting post, I never wrote a book but have thought about it, I suspect that it is much as you say, not likely to generate much. I agree too with your remarks about "stupidity" that is an inherent state of mind, not like ignorance or deception.

 

Odd how DVM's don't include inductance measurement...

 

Odd how DVM's don't include inductance measurement...

Not really. A DMM is a very passive device. It doesn't have to do any work to read voltage or current, and measuring resistance requires a simple DC output. OTOH, measuring an inductor requires an AC exciting signal. Yes, you could do a transient response test as some capacitance meters do, but most inductors (such as yours) have very low resistance, requiring a relatively large power source to get decent resolution. And unlike resistors and most capacitors, inductors have a significant (compared to capacitors) ESR that further complicates the measurement process.

the other ak

 

Not really. A DMM is a very passive device. It doesn't have to do any work to read voltage or current, and measuring resistance requires a simple DC output. OTOH, measuring an inductor requires an AC exciting signal. Yes, you could do a transient response test as some capacitance meters do, but most inductors (such as yours) have very low resistance, requiring a relatively large power source to get decent resolution. And unlike resistors and most capacitors, inductors have a significant (compared to capacitors) ESR that further complicates the measurement process.

the other ak

OK I see what you mean. It's also rarely needed too I suppose. It strikes me then that it could be a good idea to include an inductance measurement feature inside a signal generator, doing something automatically along these lines:

https://tiij.org/issues/issues/fall96/electronics/induct/induct.html

 

I never read a "for Dummies" book...but I do have a copy of "Television Simplified".

 

Odd how DVM's don't include inductance measurement...

No, but the el cheapo chinesium component testers do! I keep mine handy on the bench for quick checks. Don't expect it to be absolutely accurate in value but it can tell the difference between a resistor and inductor as well as what type of transistor and it's pin out. It even gave me a heads up on some mismarked JFETs that turned out to actually be NPNs. No wonder they weren't working as expected...