Inside


Fig 1.


Fig 2.


Fig 3.


Fig 4.


Fig 5.


Fig 6.


Fig 7.


Fig 8.

  1. i n
  2. si de of t he
  3. th e o ld
  4. machine.
  5. There you will find the schematic neatly folded (and now faded).
  6. It is a thing of beauty, the craftsmanship and attention to detail. Where and when would you need the schematic? Inside.
  7. The numbers.
  8. The machine.

Internal ref. Not On The Wall III.

Sometimes It Snows In April


Fig 1.


Fig 2.


Fig 3.


Fig 4.


Fig 5.


Fig 6.


Fig 7.


Fig 8.

  1. It’s the title of a song.
  2. Same day (more or less).
  3. It rained hard and the wind was blowing earlier the same day or Angles+Or+Angels?
  4. Found treasures. Always set to I (On).
  5. One of them is salvaged from the trash bin. No, not the horse. It’s from Falun or Mora. Early.
  6. One of them is salvaged from the trash bin. No, not the horse. It’s from Falun or Mora. Musch later.
  7. Machine one (1) salvaged from the trash bin.
  8. Machine two (2) salvaged from the same trash bin. No, it’s a similar but entirely different machine. They just happen to look alike (that actually not the whole truth, but in any event they’re by no means the same…).

I’m so bored…

2 x 18″ x 2 kW / 2 +

That is the formula.

It is non-failable, trustworthy, from the other seas’ and it is ancient mu-mu, the jaguar and well beyond that.

It was knowledge passed down from the elders of HW-sound handling and my master of HW-sound mangement.

“- What now?”
“- We need: two 1200*s and a 500 mixer in a case, two double 18” and amps (incl. cables!). No, we don’t need an equalizer and we need some lights and cellophane to.
“- These?”
“- No, (every time come none pay and play day…). Are you out of your mind? We’re playing tonight and we need to setup in two hours! Come on! I mean, that case and those 1200’s are Frankenstein on a good day.”
“- They’re bojsänken, on a good day…”
“- Ok… How about these…?”

Hardware


Fig 1.


Fig 2.


Fig 3.


Fig 4.


Fig 5.


Fig 6.


Fig 7.

  1. Analogue stuff and absolute build quality.
  2. Analogue history (it used to be or has always been the preferred; brand.). They’re size 10.
  3. Size 5 and they’re not mine.
  4. Lights at the place where I dwell.
  5. The Little Black Bear – no, not the human!
  6. Looking to my left now… is it a large index finger or a small leg? Is it succulent?
  7. A none unfamiliar symbol.

La cité.

Old School



ANDRA TRYCKNINGEN


TRYCKT HOS P.PALMQUISTS AKTIEBOLAG, STOCKHOLM 1920
203311


It is my grandmother’s old school book; EUKLIDES’ FYRA FÖRSTA BÖCKER. I don’t know how she felt about geometry, but I suspect that is was not her favourite subject. Then again I could be completely wrong. We never had time to discuss it and I know for a fact that my little sister disapproves the concept/subject matter all together.

Book one to four stretches 128 pages, there’s a fifth and a sixth book to boot…

Old school? As far as I know (reading the signature) it would have been her first year in high school. Round about 1927 or possibly earlier; “Ring I”.

Then she had to learn Latin too (I have her dictionary and it was printed in 1924). ALEA IACTA EST as she would sometimes say; that’s proper old school education for you!

The Gitter

Note! Before reading this text you must accept and embrace the ideas of democracy, freedom of speech, the belief that rationality, science and the pursuit of truth are essential to the human endeavour.

And that you will under no circumstance use any part of this text in order to deny, question or defame the self-evident correctness of Charles Darwin’s theory. Never. If I hear, read or get in close contact with the wording: revisionist?

Physics lessons later… it’s called infraction (I think). The black lines including the “shadows” were not actually visible at the time when the picture was taken. It has to do with wavelength among other things.

The light source is LED and the capture is digital (my phone camera). The source is much more uniform than say a lit candle, match or glowing cigarette. The light spectrum is different, it is much narrower.

It is the “cold” light that most observe, the digital camera can capture that difference felt by most. The light feels “cold, that’s probably because there are some bits and pieces of our visible spectrum missing.

Most insects and sea living creatures have a completely different visible spectrum. For example Mantis shrimp can perceive wavelengths of light ranging from deep ultraviolet (UVB) to far-red (300 to 720 nm), that is, infrared and polarized light.

If you were a shrimp and peeked at the sky and ordinary day?

The shrimps perception of the World is radically different from any of us humans’ and bizarrely advanced. We have machines that can do that, but naturally, continuously and in parallel? I always and still until this day wonder how do we now for a fact what shrimps do and do not see?

The unanswered (according to me) questions existing in Charles Robert Darwin’s The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life theory published on 24 November 1859 are clearly visible here (sorry).

The extreme specializations, plain exaggerations versus [system] optimization? The shear number of species is in itself not/never explained.

It is unsystematic and thereby problematic, because there may lay a hidden long sought after indirect proof in the theory itself of something all together different.

There are temporal problems as well.

– Why would a crustacean, a shrimp develop the most advanced visual system that we know of?

– It is an evolutionary advantage.

– That is not an answer to my question.

Deep ultraviolet (UVB) to far-red (300 to 720 nm) and polarized light! The most advanced visual apparatus on the entire planet belongs to a species of crustacean, a shrimp?

We build highly specialised and complex equipment: telescopes, satellites and other stuff in order to study the universe and shrimp are born with the ability to do the exact same thing, simultaneously? That is just… insane.

– What about optimization? Deep ultraviolet to infrared and polarized light? A shrimp?

– It’s habitat and hey, they’re superfast and they can’t detect X-rays (yet)?

– There is something really, really fishy going on right here…

To a seeing entity the ones seeing other things must be the most extreme thing? Bats, dolphins and others “see” sound (echo-location) and the deep sea living creatures that never see the light of day ever… what about them and what about the concept of “reality”?

Sources: wikipedia.org/wiki + .. and counting.

Hopper With A Camera?

  
However, I can assure and reassure each and everyone that it most definitely not Edward Hopper (1882-1967) with a camera. I know that for a fact. However, there are matching dates though.