When I was teen, in the middle of 80', I got excited about electronics and I began to assemble audio devices (amplifiers, mixers, guitar effects, synthesizers…) achieving quite satisfactory results. During my life I have been forced to drop out of it, but now I would like to get back to the old fascination. But I feel that the the audio field is by now a bit obsolete and I'm looking for a new land. My dream is the radioastronomy ( Sun, Jupiter, Milky Way, … ) but it's too hard and expensive. Can you, please, give some hints about an inspiring and innovative sector ? Thanks !!

 

Radioastronomy is cheaper than ever with new RF dongles.
https://www.amazon.com/RTL-SDR-Blog...f71fbd35a53742e&ref_=as_li_ss_tl&tag=rsv0f-20

http://www.rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-for-budget-radio-astronomy/

http://www.rtl-sdr.com/radio-astronomy-with-rtl-sdr-raspberrypi-and-amazon-aws-iot/

 

When I was teen, in the middle of 80', I got excited about electronics and I began to assemble audio devices (amplifiers, mixers, guitar effects, synthesizers…) achieving quite satisfactory results. During my life I have been forced to drop out of it, but now I would like to get back to the old fascination. But I feel that the the audio field is by now a bit obsolete and I'm looking for a new land. My dream is the radioastronomy ( Sun, Jupiter, Milky Way, … ) but it's too hard and expensive. Can you, please, give some hints about an inspiring and innovative sector ? Thanks !!

Learn any microcontroller's architecture and instruction set, teach it - in assembler - how to output "Hello world", and from that moment on your life will never be the same.

 

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a hot topic these days and there's still plenty to do.

Plenty of work has been done in robotics, but the dream is still largely unrealized. I still have to mow my grass, clean my house and prepare my meals the old-fashioned way.

Both of these fields fall into the category of interfacing computers to the real-world. Here's another one - biomedical computing. Again there has been quite a start in making artificial eyes, smart prosthetics, embedded computers and so on, but there is so much more to do. I envision the day when we have internal storage and computing, so I can pull up every phone number in the country, or find any address, do real-time facial recognition and so on. Why not? It's hard, but that's no excuse.

 

Extracting Information from Signals Below the Noise Floor.

 

Thanks for your replies !! They are all intriguing and I'm carefully pondering them all. Is there anyone here knowledgeable about practical radio astronomy ?

 

Some other (random) ideas of things to play with:

• VLF/ELF radio, including "natural radio".
• Seismometers, geophones and gravimeters-- plenty of design challenges here.
• Infrasound-- detecting and analyzing acoustic signals below the range of human hearing.
• Ultrasound-- same, but above the human hearing range.
• Design of home-made test equipment such as a DMM, or a signal generator using DDS.
• Precision temperature measurement and control.
• Force measurement using home-made load cells and strain gages.
• Direct dewpoint measurement using the chilled-mirror method.
• Capacitive and inductive proximity sensors.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Each of these things presents significant electronic design challenges and plenty of opportunity for learning.

 

If you want to stick to astronomy, I've always wondered if you couldn't use DSP to network detectors in such a way that thousands of cheap "telescopes" can be summed into one good one. I think this is done to some degree already but I sense that much more could be done. Maybe that's because I don't understand the problem very well.

 

Study and research charge. This is what science is most ignorant of.

All experiments should be set up to dis-prove something, not prove something.

Dis-prove the excepted rectilinear force of attraction and repulsion. A false vector.

The force expressed between charged particles is NOT incident or rectilinear, it is angular.

If you can dis-prove that incident vector, you will re-store some real science.

 

All experiments should be set up to dis-prove something, not prove something.

It sounds weird to me. You would end revising everything but not actually moving forward, methinks.

 

I believed we stopped moving forward when physics decreed that trying to determine (measure) or assigning the size or area of a charged particle, "is IL-conceived and IL-defined." As taught today. That is so, they can play with their equations. This also means that educated men do not consider charge to be a physical entity. And thus there is no structure to mass or matter on the particle scale. It's all just probable energy distribution.

And to think that we pay such men to tell us what a bowling ball really is.

They will tell you that they can not detect the electron size down to 10E-25~-30 meters. In other words, if the electron has a size, it will have to be smaller than that measurement.
What they fail to tell you is, they can only detect asymmetry at that scale. If the charge is a true sphere, and symmetrical, they would not detect it. It also means that the size can be much larger than that measurement. There has been a math (physics) debate for years on whether charge is symmetrical or not. If the charge turned out to be a sphere, many equations will be disproven. They don't like spheres.

Note: A circular helix of charge is also perfectly symmetrical in 3D space. And it explains all the properties of charge.

If I repeated all the charge experiments, I would come the the same conclusions. I would have too. The reason for this is, when we do our experiments, we limit the action of the result. We fail to realize this. Or we think that we can ignore that particular limit. Over time the realization of the limit itself, gets lost.

For instance, a cue ball. When we hit a cue ball, does the ball go into the direction of the applied force?
OR is the movement of the cue ball, a negotiation, between the applied force and the limiting flat surface?
What caused that straight vector movement? Was it the force? Was is the surface? Or was it both? How much did gravity play in that resultant path?
Does the force have to be dead on incident to cause a straight path?

A cue ball is neutral. Imagine the limits and influence on a charge particle. And also how fast the charge moves and at the same time, spins very, very quickly.

Yes, much, much research needs be be done and redone.

Of course this is just an observation and an opinion.

 

A circular helix of charge is also perfectly symmetrical in 3D space. And it explains all the properties of charge.

I didn't know that "perfectly symmetrical" was a point group. Could you please explain?

 

"I didn't know that "perfectly symmetrical" was a point group. Could you please explain?"

If you would qualify and clarify your question, I will try.

 

I didn't know that "perfectly symmetrical" was a point group. Could you please explain?

If you would qualify and clarify your question, I will try.

My question was exquisitely clear. There is no need for you to answer, you've said enough.

 

Yeah, that's what I expected.

 

Yeah, that's what I expected.

If I have to explain point groups to you, and you are throwing around claims about symmetry, you obviously don't have the background needed to substantiate any of the claims you are making about the lack of mankind's scientific knowledge of charge. Now, go look up point groups and then come back and ask, "what does that have to do with electron movement and charge?"

 

How and when do we get pi? It's when mathematicians try to describe symmetry.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Probably not.

I guess I'm just incapable of matching your twit. I mean wit.

 

How and when do we get pi? It's when mathematicians try to describe symmetry.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Probably not.

I guess I'm just incapable of matching your twit. I mean wit.

I know. Already discussed in Post #14.