Our assessment of users who have different but acceptable enough linguistic skills cause us to treat some of them as if they were naive. (I'll use the naive question / naive user concepts interchangeably as seems appropriate).
An examination of the material available to date for the "LASER interferometer" case shows that this is what has happened in this instanceAn 'asker' with non-trivial technical knowledge and access to some fairly high technology equipment that they wish to utilise. They now say:
- I have the XY stage on a microscope with piezo-motors. Interferometer should be the best linear encoder to be used as a feedback loop for proper driving of piezos. There are commercial linear encoders based on Michelson interferometer, but they are too expensive. Old CD/DVD drives appeared to be extremely cheap source of: lasers, laser drivers, 50/50 mirrors, detectors, detector drivers, maybe anything else
While it was already obvious from the complex terminology used by the OP in their second sentence that this was not a naive question in the "how do I build a ladder" sense, this may have been inobvious to casual observers, but this places it beyond doubt.
While the OP was obviously able to provide this level of detail if asked, they were first discouraged and then prevented from doing so for some while by the SE system. If those who wished to had been able to work with the OP for a few days we would have probably arrived at where we are now or been further ahead.
@nivag has answered the question with some brief but useful & practical technical commentary which is not especially easy to find elsewhere.
Despite the now obvious degree of understanding shown by the OP, they have been adjudged naive and unable to formulate a good question.
What they needed was some assistance in "dialling in" their interaction with the group.
What they got was rejection
Their initial question was substandard by almost any measure - due, almost certainly, to language factors. (They are in Ukraine).
A one sentence addition to the question showed the OP's likely technical capabilities. Their latest addition has put us on the path to a very useful addition to the SE information base.
Sometimes the language people use is beyond what is reasonable in an English language based group. But, in other cases the problem lies as much with the inability of otherwise very capable members to deal with language that is outside their experience set. Some people with extremely high technical competence purport to not be able to understand material that is "well within the range of normal". In such cases it is the "linguistic naivety" of technical experts causing them to dismiss input from newcomers.
There is a well worn "joke"which some may object to, but which makes a point.
Q: "What do you call a person who speaks one Language"?
A: "An American".
FWIW - I resemble that - I only speak one language fluently - I'm from NZ.
Not only is it often just "one language" but "English as we speak it" that seems to be required. Quite often I have seen questions that I find entirely understandable rejected and put on hold by others - notionally at least on the grounds that they are unable to be understood.
I wish now to indulge in what may to some extent be seen as an "ad hominem" address of related issues. While "ad hominem" approaches are almost always inappropriate in technical dealings, this is not the case here. What people say and do and think is what this is all about. Olin as "poster boy" for the 'do not tolerate their rubbish for a moment" camp is the main subject of my comments - and he has provided useful points to address. I also speak of him and I as if we are of some competence and reputation. In this group he and I have similar scores (1900, 1500ish) and in SE EE we are 'major contributors'. We are both "capable enough" engineers but with widely varying views on how to treat people to get the best from them. [I note that I have very considerable respect for Olin, his capabilities, his helpfulness (much of the time :-) ) and his contribution of valuable engineering resources to the community at no charge. We differ substantially on the areas covered here and I think (and hope) he has a 'thick enough skin' to separate my disagreement here from my more positive impressions of him in other areas.]
While as it stands the question could do with some tidying and further clarification it is on the way to becoming a useful question and answer by SE standards. This largely gives the lie to the several statements that Olin makes on this subject in a comment.
He talks about "what we want here" as if he is qualified and authorised to speak for SE.
He talks about "crappy askers" (not questions) which is an ad hominem attack and risks being the start of an excremental escalation of derisory language.
He says that "we don't want to welcome everyone" - and while that is true if taken at face value, it is a straw man in this context as what he really means is he does not want the list to welcome people that HE thinks should be excluded.
He dangerously talks about "Those that can't or won't think about a question logically", but he is naively (and presumably not disingenuously) turning a language difficulty into a judgement re logical thinking.
He then reasonably adds the requirement to " ... then present it clearly, ..."- which I have not seen anyone ever argue against being needed. BUT ...
His " for whatever reason - it doesn't matter" is his consistent policy in such matters over many years - it doesn't matter, he doesn't care, he accepts no excuses - you meet his standards and give him the respect he deserves or you are not a suitable new member.
He again purports to speak for SE as a whole and says " ... are more trouble than they are worth." He is perfectly at liberty to assist who he wishes, or not and to spend his time on those who he deems are worth his acknowledgement. And others may do the same. But he can no more speak for me than I can speak for him. If I see in the few short sentences for a man in the Ukraine an indication that he is technically competent and that a few exchanges may allow a good quality and "high technology" question to result (as is proving to be the case) then I am at liberty to spend my efforts that way as long as the list allows me to. It may be that in due course the list adopts Olins exclusivist policies of rejecting people who are not understood immediately, but until then he cannot speak for how people should use their resources. Nor then either, fwiw.
Olin's arguments for "question quality" is less meaningful than may at first be obvious. MANY of the questions that Olin provides excellent good quality answers for (and the same applies to me) are really very low value technically. He could answer them with, metaphorically, one arm tied behind his back. He (and I) may be educating people but we are less often adding to anything like the leading edge of knowledge. (Both of us do so sometimes). Many of the questions on SE repeat over and over variations on basic themes of electronics and the "rep" scores that Olin and I accrue are not necessarily indicators of the technical value of our answers as a whole. That comment may not make me popular but Olin and others of good technical competence know that it is essentially true.
Whereas, a questions with good answers on LASER interferometry is relatively rare here, not very well covered in the general internet material and needs some digging on web to get the sort of information that @nivag has provided in his short answer. More could be said on this subject and, if people who were interested, had been left to work with avi9526 for a few exchanges then even more than we have now may have been provided. As it was, I provided some links in a comment, as I was barred from providing an answer. If I had been able to provide an answer I MIGHT have got into one of my mini sagas and produced a mini reference on the subject. And others here could have done the same. As it is this is now less likely.
Olin says " ... They do the site more harm than good and degrade the experience that most came here for. Being able to articulate a good question is, while imperfect, a decent enough filter to block those we don't want here...."
NONE of us want low quality rubbish questions, lazy users who will not do their work and help themselves, people who will not think, and similar".
Over time Olin has insisted that quality can only be obtained by mercilessly driving off those who don't present well enough instantly. Others are arguing NOT for lack of quality, but for quality obtained with a different introductory process, Olin says "it just doesn't work that way". In fact reality does not side with any one hard and fast blinkered viewpoint. Reality is that people differ and more than one "method" may be appropriate depending on circumstance.
Some of us want to take the easy path and just drive off any who seem like they MAY be too much trouble.
Others of us would like to give new users a short but reasonable period to interact with us and sort out difficulties that may be overcomeable, to learn how the system works and to understand what is expected of them as a minimum standard. Those that cannot or will not do this after a reasonable period (probably a few weeks will be enough in most cases) can be handed over to Olin or punishment, beating and consignment to hell-fire, or whatever.
NOBODY (including me) correctly spelt LASER as LASER.
"laser" is never correct. Does this matter? Maybe.
Olin has a "thing" about unit abbreviations being correct - Write "MW" when you mean "mW" and he'll go out of his way to deal with you. This has its place. But laser show that 'we all' do it.
Olin says: " Crappy askers generally don't become good askers. I just doesn't work that way." Such typos and some consistent mis-spellings are not unknown in his copy. Mine is (much) worse. Does it matter? Probably yes, to some extent, but it should help people realise that they are human.
A relevant "case study:
About a year ago a new user came to SE EE and asked a technical question. It was somewhat obvious that English was not their primary language (although they are conversant in 5 languages). They were female. My observations have lead me to conclude that for whatever reasons, that being a non English primary speaker and a female is usually a prime target for less sympathetic than usual treatment (but, I may be wrong), and their treatment was consistent with this observation. They asked three questions. One at least was a very good one and well worth the group's time. All questions were treated with due derision and the good one was put on hold and because they had 3 low rep questions they were barred from asking more and did not understand the process and did not know how to proceed or how to ask.
In time with due eternal action things got fixed.
The system was not going to fix them by itself.
The information asked for in the first question related to the production of circuitry that the OP was developing for a man-made 'satellite'. It involved a specialised area of electronics which few would have had experience in. I was not involved in how the questions involved got answered, but they did get answered (presumably elsewhere). In due course the design produced by this person was accepted for use in a satellite with a duly lucrative contract awarded. [The people who accept such things know what they are doing and have achieved better success at achieving major targets than most other players* so presumably the design was deemed competent by suitably rigorous standards.]
I do not know if the question that related to the satellite project was deemed naive, low quality, too short or whatever. But the OP got closer to 'flinging stars into space' than almost any of us (including me) ever will.
We never know with certainty what a newcomer knows or can do. Not everyone is going to be brilliant or a great contributor. Some may be. Giving all people no more than a reasonable chance to sort out early issues and get accustomed to what is required seems, to me, logical. We seem to flee from such a pragmatic approach with a vengeance.
*. That may give some clue as to which country is involved.
**. I'm sure that will be challenged. Has anyone else actually looked to see if it's true? Or how much language capability affects perception by some?