Jump to content

A.D. Homan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About A.D. Homan

  • Rank
    Chatty concertinist

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Well, I've seen the same pics and description before. This is an easy one for me to remember because that concertina was born the same day and year as I was! (I'd like to play happy birthday with this one.) Mannings Musical bought it, then, if I recall, re-sold it months later. I suppose it's possible that the buyer might re-use the same pics and description, but then wouldn't s/he have some feedback from the previous purchase? So I'm with you, this is likely a scam. Plus, "sporting goods"? What do they think you do with it?
  2. He he. I also wondered what was up with the "View all comments (2)". Bizarre, since they clearly have three. Unless perhaps they don't count John's because it was submitted with the nomination?
  3. Yet, no more so than other attempts at defining something: Concertina
  4. Regarding "piffle," in the current Oxford listings, this is the definition I'm getting: "piffle n., foolish or formal nonsense; twaddle; trash; also used as a derisive retort" Is this incorrect?
  5. No you're probably right - I'd be expecting either a donut covered in icing or a lovely fruit scone with strawberry jam and clotted devonshire cream mmmmmmmm A "creemee" is a cone of soft-serve ice cream. Not a recommended snack while holding a concertina. So, "teakettle" is in the Oxford English Dictionary, as a vessel for boiling water to make tea, so I'm surprised that it seemed to be the wrong word...
  6. That's what we call it in these parts! You probably also wouldn't know what to expect if someone offered you a "creemee"?
  7. Alas, I'm not located in Australia, so I won't bother to bid. I would have been willing to go up to at least 15,000 Aus$. Seriously, the poor guy appears to have re-listed, after the first auction was spoiled by the questions/comments on the auction page. (Is that an option now on eBay, that your Q&A get posted on the page?). Based on the answers he gave the first time around, it looks like he is seriously hoping to get a buyer. With zero feedback combined with the ridiculous price and the buyer restricted to an Australian address, if the seller really does know what he has I don'
  8. Sorry that it was a lot of trouble, Ken.
  9. The first statement was my own statement, the second is a paraphrase of my friend's explanation. The first statement is just a transition, playing with Dave's statement. The second is an explanation of the observed effect, in opposition to the opinion that the Doppler effect is not involved. I feel that you are picking at secondary language rather than facing the topic at hand, which is an attempt to explain the effect. I appreciate your post on the other recent thread. Personally, I feel that we are observed multiple effects, and that we haven't parsed them enough to really get to the
  10. Don't keep us in suspense! Why did your physics teacher say that Jim was not right? Jim's statement certainly accords with my understanding of the Doppler effect. It seems your physics teacher knows better than NASA:- I don't know who wrote the excellent article in Wikipedia, but maybe your physics teacher would care to correct it since he/she clearly knows better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not at all -- he confirmed just that definition. He -- a physics _professor_ -- also stated that it was exactly what was happening with the ceiling fan -- it's just that we have to consid
  11. That's what I did. He said that you are not right.
  12. But it might make it many, rather than one. "Might" isn't the same as "does". It is not clear why you would pick at this language, Jim, other that to demonstrate the j*ck*$$ effect, which isn't the topic here. I chose to say "might" because I'm relating someone else's explanation as a possibility, rather than asserting it as a fact that I have concluded on my own. I do believe that it is the correct explanation, and I respect the source from which it came (a physicist whose research field is physics of sound). I look forward to your extended analysis since I find amateur science
  13. But it might make it many, rather than one. I've discussed this again with a friend who is a physicist. I brought up the argument against it being the Doppler effect. Here's a summary of his explanation: He said that it's true that the basic description of the phenomenon is that the pitch seems to drop as the source moves away from the listener. In the case of the musical instrument playing near a fan, we have to think about the fan blades as "sources" of _many_ reflections of the sound. The distance to the listener constantly oscillates. These pitches in turn interfere with the pitch
  14. Now I am thinking that the whole presentation -- website AND powerpoint presentation -- is perhaps not aimed at the potential players at all! (Not Hayden-players, not c.net readers, not potential pop-stars who dream of world domination and hordes of groupies.) Maybe the presentation is aimed at potential _investors_? (They are the ones who would want to hear superlative claims and confidence.)
  15. Well, that's an opinion that I trust. My reaction is to the presentation (or lack thereof) and marketing hype, not the product itself -- due to the fact that no substantial information about the product is offered by the website or in Jim's posts to c.net. Once this thing appears to be more real, and less about things like becoming the world's greatest instrumentalist, or acquiring wealth and fame as a pop musician, I imagine that I'll also be enthusiastic about it's potential. Perhaps we could all offer Jim P. some constructive feedback about the marketing, if he wants it. For me, it's got
  • Create New...