New (?) Theremin circuits

This is a truly generous thing you are doing Fred. I applaud you.

RS Theremin wrote "mind-numbing math".

I find it heavy going too, but I acknowledge its importance. If I were equipped with much more money and correspondingly less sense I would fund a research team to advance the science of the theremin.

The team would certainly include a creative genius from whom ideas pour like water, but it would also have to include a mathematics genius for three reasons; firstly to have the unenviable task of saying "that's an interesting idea but I've done the calculations and it's just not practical" and secondly because sometimes doing the maths can lead to a conclusion so counterintuitive that you would not think of it any other way, and thirdly to take the good ideas and refine them into something simpler and more efficient.

Parenthetically, my first experience of the counterintuivity of maths was a thing called (amongst various names) "Russian Peasant's Multiplication." As a child it completely blew my mind - "what is going on here? how can it possibly work? it makes no sense!" It was only several years later that the appropriate gap in my mathematical knowledge was filled and I thought "aha! now I get it. That's so clever..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrUCL7tGKaI

"If I were equipped with much more money and correspondingly less sense I would fund a research team to advance the science of the theremin. The team would certainly include a creative genius from whom ideas pour like water, but it would also have to include a mathematics genius..."

Not trying to put words in your mouth or otherwise be contentious, but there's a difference between math and theory.  When building something one can never have enough theory, but one only needs sufficient math to understand the basic theory and to model the critical aspects.  This is often best done in simulation where closed form solutions aren't necessary.  One can take on all kinds of complex problems with a little math and a spreadsheet.  Or a spice simulator.  Or some C code.

The "math on paper" approach to modeling reality was all we had for the longest time, and it only works up to a point in terms of fully understanding a problem.  The human brain, even one equipped with all the math in the world, is unfortunately a rather poor simulator.

Hi Gordon - good to see you are still here!

" but it would also have to include a mathematics genius .. "

Oh yes! But I am not sure a "genius" is required (a genius would get bored and pi**ed off quite quickly in my company, lol ) but someone who was able to do the sums thrown at them, work out the calculus etc, and, most important, be able to understand my non-mathematical communication, work out the required maths, and communicate back to me in English! - (perhaps all that does require a genius.. LOL)

I am not sure that one could actually develop theremins if one was primarily aproaching the task from a mathematical perspective (apart from the obvious that, understanding the maths, one would never bother as soon as one saw the economic returns!) - And one could not develop theremins without at least understanding arithmetic..

But, in reality, one does not absolutely need much more than a few simple (pre-calculus) formulae, to manage quite well and innovate without much restraint..

An Engineer with reasonable maths ability is, IMO, far better suited to theremin development:

>>"that's an interesting idea but I've done the calculations and it's just not practical"

Without GOOD understanding of the practical constraints (which othen requires an up-to-date knowledge of the state of the electronics, particularly semiconductor industry) a mathematician would have no idea about what was practical and what wasnt.

>>"because sometimes doing the maths can lead to a conclusion so counterintuitive that you would not think of it any other way"

I accept this possibility, but in many years in industry, I have never seen a mathematician produce something "counterintuitive".

>>" take the good ideas and refine them into something simpler and more efficient"

Again, perhaps in theory - but I have never seen this in practice.. I have seen workers on the shop-floor come up with many money saving and simplyfying ideas, and not get paid a penny for these - and I have seen mathematicians produce piles of useless irrelevant unreadable crap, which those engineers who were able and bothered to read laughed at and highlighted that most of what had been suggested was entirely impossible in reality.

So, well - not really convinced that a maths bod is really needed.. I have found most who percieve themselves at being maths "greats" to be stuck-up unhelpful individuals who allude to "solutions" but never actually give these, and who act like they have a slide-rule or two wedged firmly up their...

LOL! ;-)

Fred.

Fred, Kpax is a charming movie about a beautiful man who had to separate himself  from reality and would eventually discover element 3, not 14.

Christopher (-'

"...I have seen mathematicians produce piles of useless irrelevant unreadable crap..."

IMHO, the best papers are those that are oriented more towards implementation.  This tends to remove all the "magic" though.  I understand how those in academia need to justify their existence, I just wish they'd lay off all the empty jargon and pointless scary math (unless absolutely necessary).  Most concepts in any field can be understood by the motivated amateur if someone takes the time to plainly explain them.  It usually boils down to a tiny handful of axioms, which themselves are quite simple, but in combination can be somewhat complex.

"Fred, Kpax is a charming movie about a beautiful man who had to separate himself  from reality and would eventually discover element 3, not 14."

Yes, I love that movie (one of my all-time favorites)

Kpax 2 (the book) was also good, but, IMO, a bit too "real" and having less possibility of the magic being real.

Maybe "mathematical genius" was the wrong phrase. Someone who can crunch the appropriate numbers.