<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 5, 3:58 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> >> >wrote: >> >> John Fields wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >> >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >> >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >> >> > >want of my contribution.
>> >> > --- >> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >> >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating >> >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would >> >seem to fall into that catagory.
>> --- >> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd >> much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. >It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
--- Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to think in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe the way you do. In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon train and heading for the same destination; one example of which would be to never use a 555.
That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously doubt whether you do.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:35:10 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 5, 3:58 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> > >> >wrote: > >> >> John Fields wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >> >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >> >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >> >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >> >> > >want of my contribution.
> >> >> > --- > >> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > >> >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating > >> >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
> >> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would > >> >seem to fall into that catagory.
> >> --- > >> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd > >> much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
> >Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. > >It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
> --- > Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to think > in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe the way > you do.
Not necessarily. There are a variety of ways of thinking for yourself in a useful way. You don't seem to have mastered any of them.
>In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon train and > heading for the same destination; one example of which would be to never > use a 555.
I've never said that one should never use a 555 - I've merely pointed out that in almost all situations there are now better alternatives.
> That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously > doubt whether you do.
You were claiming that my view of "education" would involve your hitching your wagon (which I seriously doubt you have) to my "star" whatever that might be. I adjusted the analogy by substituting an equally figurative wagon train for your "star", but since I was engaged in rejecting the idea that education involves leaders and followers, I wouldn't be offering to let you hook your wagon to my wagon train even in the remote event that I came to possess a wagon train in Texas.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:00:35 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 5, 4:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:54:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Nov 5, 1:26 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> >> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >> >> >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >> >> >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >> >> >want of my contribution.
> >> >> --- > >> >> Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > >> >> the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >> >Since my contribution would probably not have included any 555's, I > >> >can understand why you might think that.
> >> --- > >> You make my point in that had you chosen to use 555's where and when it > >> was appropriate, the abominations you created and foisted on society in > >> order to avoid the hated 555 have, no doubt, had a deleterious effect. > >> ---
> >And the "obominations" that I created and foisted on society were?
> --- > Not "obominations", Bill, "abominations".
> Perhaps you were thinking of our president??? > ---
> >If you can't identify them, your claim that they would have been less > >abominable if they'd included a 555 or two does seem to be slightly > >arbitrary.
> --- > If I were to keep records of your cock-ups I'd have to go buy an extra > file cabinet or two, and I'm not really that interested in chronicling > your failures. YMMV.
First find your cock-up, then tell us what was wrong with it. Stupid comments about imagined cock-ups don't ctu any ice.
> I do remember one in particular, though, where I had suggested a single > 555 and you countered with some expensive, obsolete, dual something or > other, 16 pin monstrosity with performance specs no better than a 555's. > ---
No better than the 555's data sheet specifications. Unfortunately, to get the circuit to do what was required you had to add a diode to your 555, which would have degraded its performace below data sheet specifications. Since you don't seem to understand specifications and tolerances, this point has never registered with you.
> >> >Since we now get along fine > >> >without stone axes, despite their importance in the early days of > >> >civilisation, you point of view probably shouldn't be taken all that > >> >seriously.
> >> --- > >> I never thought about it that way,
> >There's not much evidnece that you've ever thought about anything.
> --- > "evidnece"??? Tsk,tsk,tsk. > ---
Getting excited about typos again?
> >> but since you brought it up it seems > >> like you have quite a bit in common with stone axes.
> >Oh, really? There's presumably some cute analogy out there waiting to > >be invented by someone who has the capacity to invent some way in > >which I have something in common with a stone axe.
> --- > No invention required, just read between the lines.
> However, since you seem to have trouble with even that degree of > subtlety, I'll spell it out for you: Stone axes and you may have been > important once upon a time, but in the present you're both largely > useless. > ---
Nice try, but stone axes have been made obsolete by the invention of iron axes, while I'm not obsolete, merely unfashionable.
> >Obviously you don't > >have that capacity - it's the kind of defect we'd expect in someone > >who is still enthusiastic about a component that was designed back in > >1971.
> --- > Hey, it wasn't me with the defect which kept you from figuring out the > analogy, and why shouldn't I be enthusiastic about an almost forty year > old component if it's the perfect thing for the job at hand? > ---
To someone who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> >Since then people have invented new and interesting components, but > >none of them has distracted you from your single-minded commitment to > >the 555 - you don't seem to have any spare capacity left to master > >another component.
> --- > Well, since you don't have access to abse you _would_ be in the dark > about what components I use and in which ways I use them.
I don't need access to abse to know that you don't use many components, and that you don't use any of them well. You once posted a circuit including a 0.5H inductor with zero series resistance and zero parallel capacitance - I then posted a version of the circuit with a real inductor (available off the shelf from Farnell/Newark) which would actually work, but you still claim to be a practical designer of real circuits for real customers, not all that convincingly.
> Same thing goes for stuff that never gets to USENET.
/irony
Right. You are a design genius who is flooded with work and still finds time to post his brilliant insights on the usenet.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:35:10 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>On Nov 5, 3:58 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >>> >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" >>> ><mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >> John Fields wrote:
>>> >> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. >>> >> > >I'd prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough >>> >> > >good electronic engineers around that society isn't going to >>> >> > >founder for want of my contribution.
>>> >> > --- >>> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder >>> >> > because of the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>>> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's >>> >> educating people on the sci.electronics groups.
>>> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields >>> >would seem to fall into that catagory.
>>> --- >>> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then >>> I'd much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>>Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way.
not anymore. Not since the Fabian Society decided to infiltrate education to indoctrinate children to be socialists. you can see it's worked,as most school teachers and college profs are "progressives",and vote mostly DemocRAT.(Plus they elected Obama,a Marxist.) all the "politically correct" campus speech codes are another indicator.
>>It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
> --- > Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to > think in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe > the way you do. In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon > train and heading for the same destination; one example of which would > be to never use a 555.
> That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously > doubt whether you do.
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 6, 4:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:35:10 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 5, 3:58 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> John Fields wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >> >> >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >> >> >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >> >> >> > >want of my contribution.
>> >> >> > --- >> >> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >> >> >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>> >> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating >> >> >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>> >> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would >> >> >seem to fall into that catagory.
>> >> --- >> >> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd >> >> much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>> >Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. >> >It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
>> --- >> Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to think >> in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe the way >> you do.
>Not necessarily. There are a variety of ways of thinking for yourself >in a useful way. You don't seem to have mastered any of them.
--- Perhaps, from your point of view, but then you can't even decipher a simple metaphor so I'd say you were pretty myopic. ---
>>In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon train and >> heading for the same destination; one example of which would be to never >> use a 555.
>I've never said that one should never use a 555 - I've merely pointed >out that in almost all situations there are now better alternatives.
--- Oh, please...
You stated, once, that you'd tried to use one, that it was a crappy part which didn't meet your expectations and, because of that, you'd never use one. ---
>> That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously >> doubt whether you do.
>You were claiming that my view of "education" would involve your >hitching your wagon (which I seriously doubt you have) to my "star" >whatever that might be.
--- You're not very good at this, are you?
It's a simple metaphor, Bill.
The star is your dream, what drives you, what you follow, and the wagon is what I use to carry me through my life.
So hitching _my_ wagon to _your_ star would be tantamount to my unhitching it from mine and living my life as you saw fit for me to live it.
Certainly nothing I'd even consider. ---
>I adjusted the analogy by substituting an >equally figurative wagon train for your "star",
--- Because you didn't understand the analogy? ---
>but since I was >engaged in rejecting the idea that education involves leaders and >followers, I wouldn't be offering to let you hook your wagon to my >wagon train even in the remote event that I came to possess a wagon >train in Texas.
--- If it's _your_ wagon train and you get to determine who "gets" to hook up to it or not, then your statement carries the implicit meaning that you're the boss; i.e., the leader, and those who are allowed to hook up are the followers.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:34:43 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>On Nov 6, 4:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:35:10 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >>> >On Nov 5, 3:58 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> >>> >> >wrote: >>> >> >> John Fields wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >> >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. >>> >> >> > >I'd >>> >> >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >>> >> >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder >>> >> >> > >for >>> >> >> > >want of my contribution.
>>> >> >> > --- >>> >> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder >>> >> >> > because of >>> >> >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>>> >> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's >>> >> >> educating >>> >> >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>>> >> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields >>> >> >would >>> >> >seem to fall into that catagory.
>>> >> --- >>> >> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd >>> >> much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>>> >Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. >>> >It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
>>> --- >>> Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to think >>> in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe the way >>> you do.
>>Not necessarily. There are a variety of ways of thinking for yourself >>in a useful way. You don't seem to have mastered any of them.
> --- > Perhaps, from your point of view, but then you can't even decipher a > simple metaphor so I'd say you were pretty myopic. > ---
>>>In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon train and >>> heading for the same destination; one example of which would be to never >>> use a 555.
>>I've never said that one should never use a 555 - I've merely pointed >>out that in almost all situations there are now better alternatives.
> --- > Oh, please...
> You stated, once, that you'd tried to use one, that it was a crappy part > which didn't meet your expectations and, because of that, you'd never > use one. > ---
>>> That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously >>> doubt whether you do.
>>You were claiming that my view of "education" would involve your >>hitching your wagon (which I seriously doubt you have) to my "star" >>whatever that might be.
> --- > You're not very good at this, are you?
> It's a simple metaphor, Bill.
> The star is your dream, what drives you, what you follow, and the wagon > is what I use to carry me through my life.
> So hitching _my_ wagon to _your_ star would be tantamount to my > unhitching it from mine and living my life as you saw fit for me to live > it.
> Certainly nothing I'd even consider. > ---
>>I adjusted the analogy by substituting an >>equally figurative wagon train for your "star",
> --- > Because you didn't understand the analogy? > ---
>>but since I was >>engaged in rejecting the idea that education involves leaders and >>followers, I wouldn't be offering to let you hook your wagon to my >>wagon train even in the remote event that I came to possess a wagon >>train in Texas.
> --- > If it's _your_ wagon train and you get to determine who "gets" to hook > up to it or not, then your statement carries the implicit meaning that > you're the boss; i.e., the leader, and those who are allowed to hook up > are the followers.
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 6, 4:03 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:00:35 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 5, 4:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:54:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 5, 1:26 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> >> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >> >> >> >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >> >> >> >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >> >> >> >want of my contribution.
>> >> >> --- >> >> >> Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >> >> >> the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>> >> >Since my contribution would probably not have included any 555's, I >> >> >can understand why you might think that.
>> >> --- >> >> You make my point in that had you chosen to use 555's where and when it >> >> was appropriate, the abominations you created and foisted on society in >> >> order to avoid the hated 555 have, no doubt, had a deleterious effect. >> >> ---
>> >And the "obominations" that I created and foisted on society were?
>> --- >> Not "obominations", Bill, "abominations".
>> Perhaps you were thinking of our president??? >> ---
>> >If you can't identify them, your claim that they would have been less >> >abominable if they'd included a 555 or two does seem to be slightly >> >arbitrary.
>> --- >> If I were to keep records of your cock-ups I'd have to go buy an extra >> file cabinet or two, and I'm not really that interested in chronicling >> your failures. YMMV.
>First find your cock-up, then tell us what was wrong with it. Stupid >comments about imagined cock-ups don't ctu any ice.
--- "ctu" ???
There's the latest one, LOL ---
>> I do remember one in particular, though, where I had suggested a single >> 555 and you countered with some expensive, obsolete, dual something or >> other, 16 pin monstrosity with performance specs no better than a 555's. >> ---
>No better than the 555's data sheet specifications. Unfortunately, to >get the circuit to do what was required you had to add a diode to your >555, which would have degraded its performace below data sheet >specifications.
--- Yet the application wouldn't have suffered, so what's your point? ---
>Since you don't seem to understand specifications and >tolerances, this point has never registered with you.
--- Nonsense. ---
>> >> >Since we now get along fine >> >> >without stone axes, despite their importance in the early days of >> >> >civilisation, you point of view probably shouldn't be taken all that >> >> >seriously.
>> >> --- >> >> I never thought about it that way,
>> >There's not much evidnece that you've ever thought about anything.
>> --- >> "evidnece"??? Tsk,tsk,tsk. >> ---
>Getting excited about typos again?
--- Not at all, just pointing out that insulting someone and then committing the same offence you accuse them of, in the same breath, is quite telling. In a humorous "PKB" kind of way. ---
>> >> but since you brought it up it seems >> >> like you have quite a bit in common with stone axes.
>> >Oh, really? There's presumably some cute analogy out there waiting to >> >be invented by someone who has the capacity to invent some way in >> >which I have something in common with a stone axe.
>> --- >> No invention required, just read between the lines.
>> However, since you seem to have trouble with even that degree of >> subtlety, I'll spell it out for you: Stone axes and you may have been >> important once upon a time, but in the present you're both largely >> useless. >> ---
>Nice try, but stone axes have been made obsolete by the invention of >iron axes, while I'm not obsolete, merely unfashionable.
--- You think there aren't iron axes around who have made you obsolete as well as unfashionable? ---
>> >Obviously you don't >> >have that capacity - it's the kind of defect we'd expect in someone >> >who is still enthusiastic about a component that was designed back in >> >1971.
>> --- >> Hey, it wasn't me with the defect which kept you from figuring out the >> analogy, and why shouldn't I be enthusiastic about an almost forty year >> old component if it's the perfect thing for the job at hand? >> ---
>To someone who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>> >Since then people have invented new and interesting components, but >> >none of them has distracted you from your single-minded commitment to >> >the 555 - you don't seem to have any spare capacity left to master >> >another component.
>> --- >> Well, since you don't have access to abse you _would_ be in the dark >> about what components I use and in which ways I use them.
>I don't need access to abse to know that you don't use many >components, and that you don't use any of them well. You once posted a >circuit including a 0.5H inductor with zero series resistance and zero >parallel capacitance - I then posted a version of the circuit with a >real inductor (available off the shelf from Farnell/Newark) which >would actually work, but you still claim to be a practical designer of >real circuits for real customers, not all that convincingly.
--- I'm sure the circuit I posted was just to illustrate a concept.
Had it not been, I'd have posted the circuit with real-world components, as I normally do.
But, since you say you did, and that it would actually work just goes to show that my concept was right.
Thanks! ---
>> Same thing goes for stuff that never gets to USENET.
>/irony
>Right. You are a design genius who is flooded with work and still >finds time to post his brilliant insights on the usenet.
>/end irony
--- Actually, things are pretty slow right now and I'm allowing myself to slip into retirement, so I'll have lots more time to bust your balls!
> >> >> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >> >> >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >> >> >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >> >> >> > >want of my contribution.
> >> >> >> > --- > >> >> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > >> >> >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >> >> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating > >> >> >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
> >> >> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would > >> >> >seem to fall into that catagory.
> >> >> --- > >> >> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd > >> >> much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
> >> >Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. > >> >It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
> >> --- > >> Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to think > >> in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe the way > >> you do.
> >Not necessarily. There are a variety of ways of thinking for yourself > >in a useful way. You don't seem to have mastered any of them.
> --- > Perhaps, from your point of view, but then you can't even decipher a > simple metaphor so I'd say you were pretty myopic. > ---
Deciphering a simple metaphor does depend on the simple metaphor having some remote relationship with reality. Yours didn't make the cut.
> >>In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon train and > >> heading for the same destination; one example of which would be to never > >> use a 555.
> >I've never said that one should never use a 555 - I've merely pointed > >out that in almost all situations there are now better alternatives.
> --- > Oh, please...
> You stated, once, that you'd tried to use one, that it was a crappy part > which didn't meet your expectations and, because of that, you'd never > use one. > ---
What I actually said was that the one time that it looked like a serious contender, it didn't meet the - unusually stringent - quality requirements, but then neither did the rather better LM322. I checked it out from time to over the next few years for various other jobs, but it never turned out to be useful in the sort of work that I was doing.
> >> That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously > >> doubt whether you do.
> >You were claiming that my view of "education" would involve your > >hitching your wagon (which I seriously doubt you have) to my "star" > >whatever that might be.
> --- > You're not very good at this, are you?
> It's a simple metaphor, Bill.
> The star is your dream, what drives you, what you follow, and the wagon > is what I use to carry me through my life.
The "star" may be your dream, and Disney seems to have made this a popular image for kiddy programs. Knowing that real stars are enormous masses of very hot gas a very long way away rather kills that image for educated adults.
> So hitching _my_ wagon to _your_ star would be tantamount to my > unhitching it from mine and living my life as you saw fit for me to live > it.
> Certainly nothing I'd even consider.
Nor anything I'd suggest. You could do with more education than you have got - a broader appreciation of what semiconductor components other than the 555 have to offer would be a good start. You don't seem to be equipped to come to grips with more difficult subjects - Laplace transforms and elementary statistics come to mind - of the kind I've run into in my career, so that aspect of my experience isn't an area that I'd even try to inform you about.
> >I adjusted the analogy by substituting an > >equally figurative wagon train for your "star",
> --- > Because you didn't understand the analogy? > ---
Because is seemed bizarrely pretentious.
> >but since I was > >engaged in rejecting the idea that education involves leaders and > >followers, I wouldn't be offering to let you hook your wagon to my > >wagon train even in the remote event that I came to possess a wagon > >train in Texas.
> --- > If it's _your_ wagon train and you get to determine who "gets" to hook > up to it or not, then your statement carries the implicit meaning that > you're the boss; i.e., the leader, and those who are allowed to hook up > are the followers.
That was your image of education. Not mine. You keep on struggling to set up this pathetic strawman image of me as some kind of wannabe leader trying to educate you into some kind of obedient follower.
In this you are being a little over-ambitious.
Any sensible leader stuck with a follower like you would repudiate him as fast as possible out of pure self-preservation.
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:35:10 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>On Nov 5, 3:58 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> >>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >>> >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" > >>> ><mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> >> John Fields wrote:
> >>> >> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >>> >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. > >>> >> > >I'd prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough > >>> >> > >good electronic engineers around that society isn't going to > >>> >> > >founder for want of my contribution.
> >>> >> > --- > >>> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder > >>> >> > because of the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >>> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's > >>> >> educating people on the sci.electronics groups.
> >>> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields > >>> >would seem to fall into that catagory.
> >>> --- > >>> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then > >>> I'd much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
> >>Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way.
> not anymore. Not since the Fabian Society decided to infiltrate education > to indoctrinate children to be socialists.
The Fabian Society "rejected Karl Marx’s notion of revolutionary class struggle and favoured a peaceful and evolutionary change to socialism. They chose education and gradual acceptance of socialist thought, instead of forced, violent indoctrination."
Their preferred method of working was to collect statistical evidence about the way society actuallly worked and put it in the hands of sympathetic politicians.
This way of working is attractive to academics - the data the Fabians collected was checkable - unlike the sort of rubbish right-wingers like Jim post here. It has consequently informed the academic training of a number of generations of teachers.
Jim Yanik and other like-minded right-wingers dissapprove of this, in exactly the same way that creationists dissapprove of the way that Darwinism dominates the training of biology teachers.
The Fabians and the Darwinians have the fact on their side, which is terribly unfair, but decisive.
> you can see it's worked,as most school teachers and college profs are > "progressives",and vote mostly DemocRAT.(Plus they elected Obama,a > Marxist.)
Jim Yanik doesn't know enough to be aware that the Fabians rejected Marxism, and he's stupid enough to believe that he can credibly claim that Barak Obama is a Marxist - which is roughly on a par with claiming that the Earth is flat and was created 6000 years ago.
> >> I do remember one in particular, though, where I had suggested a single > >> 555 and you countered with some expensive, obsolete, dual something or > >> other, 16 pin monstrosity with performance specs no better than a 555's. > >> ---
> >No better than the 555's data sheet specifications. Unfortunately, to > >get the circuit to do what was required you had to add a diode to your > >555, which would have degraded its performace below data sheet > >specifications.
> --- > Yet the application wouldn't have suffered, so what's your point? > ---
> >Since you don't seem to understand specifications and > >tolerances, this point has never registered with you.
> --- > Nonsense.
"Yet the application wouldn't have suffered". If the specification mattered at all, the application would have suffered. Like I said, you don't understand specifications or tolerances.
> >Nice try, but stone axes have been made obsolete by the invention of > >iron axes, while I'm not obsolete, merely unfashionable.
> --- > You think there aren't iron axes around who have made you obsolete as > well as unfashionable? > ---
A new breed of engineer made of a completely different material? Presuably this wouldn't be a DNA-based material. Have you been kidnapped by - rather undiscriminating - aliens recently? I can understand why they would have thrown you back.
<snip>
> >I don't need access to abse to know that you don't use many > >components, and that you don't use any of them well. You once posted a > >circuit including a 0.5H inductor with zero series resistance and zero > >parallel capacitance - I then posted a version of the circuit with a > >real inductor (available off the shelf from Farnell/Newark) which > >would actually work, but you still claim to be a practical designer of > >real circuits for real customers, not all that convincingly.
> --- > I'm sure the circuit I posted was just to illustrate a concept.
The OP wanted a 100kHz oscillator that drew very little current. Producing a circuit designed around an unrealistic inductor illustrated that you didn't have much grasp of what is involved in designing real circuits with real components.
BS > My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd BS > prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good BS > electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for BS > want of my contribution.
JF > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to JF > founder because of the lack of your "contribution". ;)
MAT > So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that MAT > he's educating people on the sci.electronics groups.
BS > Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and BS > John Fields would seem to fall into that catagory.
JF > If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, JF > then I'd much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
BS > Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way.
Useful to WHO? Some idealistic political crusade? You?
Your idea of "educating people" ranks right up there with Pol Pot and the sarcasm of "Arbeit macht frei" !
BS > It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
So much so you preach your kookery to people in OTHER COUNTRIES!
>BS > My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >BS > prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >BS > electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder >for >BS > want of my contribution.
>JF > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to >JF > founder because of the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>MAT > So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that >MAT > he's educating people on the sci.electronics groups.
>BS > Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and >BS > John Fields would seem to fall into that catagory.
>JF > If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, >JF > then I'd much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>BS > Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful >way.
>Useful to WHO? Some idealistic political crusade? You?
>Your idea of "educating people" ranks right up there with >Pol Pot and the sarcasm of "Arbeit macht frei" !
>BS > It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon >train.
>So much so you preach your kookery to people in OTHER COUNTRIES!
Your unusual quoting style threw my troll/feeder killer for a momentary loop, then I realized an easy solution... Bye ;-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama says, "I AM NOT a cry baby, Fox REALLY IS out to get me!"
> For people who happen to live in areas without a proper sewage system, > a "honey-wagon" is truck that goes around and collects human excreta.
> The US doesn't like spending money on services that improve the health > of the community as a whole, so many communities persist with this > rather primitive form of sewage collection, which has long been > superseded in other advanced industrialised countries.
> Advanced industrial communites do still have honey waggons, but they > service temporary and mobile toilets, and there are not enough of them > to make the word part of the active vocabulary of the bulk of the > population.
Sloman, septic tanks are commonly used for homes that are some distance outside of metro or city services.
Are you pretending that every home between Nijmegen and Amsterdam is plumbed into a city sewer system?
Even in Australia there must be rural homes outside of the range of city sewer systems.
What kind of high tech civilized poop chute do they use in rural parts of Netherlands or Australia?
>> >> >> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >> >> >> >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >> >> >> >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >> >> >> >> > >want of my contribution.
>> >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >> >> >> >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>> >> >> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating >> >> >> >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>> >> >> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would >> >> >> >seem to fall into that catagory.
>> >> >> --- >> >> >> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd >> >> >> much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>> >> >Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. >> >> >It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
>> >> --- >> >> Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to think >> >> in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe the way >> >> you do.
>> >Not necessarily. There are a variety of ways of thinking for yourself >> >in a useful way. You don't seem to have mastered any of them.
>> --- >> Perhaps, from your point of view, but then you can't even decipher a >> simple metaphor so I'd say you were pretty myopic. >> ---
>Deciphering a simple metaphor does depend on the simple metaphor >having some remote relationship with reality. >Yours didn't make the >cut.
--- Your inability to grok the relationship is no more my fault than is your incessant prattle about that you'd like to be working but that no one will have you and you don't want to set up a consultancy because... well, insert any excuse which will keep you from having to do, in the real world, what you must if you want what you want to happen and, when it doesn't, to blame someone else for your failure, poor baby. ---
>> >>In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon train and >> >> heading for the same destination; one example of which would be to never >> >> use a 555.
>> >I've never said that one should never use a 555 - I've merely pointed >> >out that in almost all situations there are now better alternatives.
>> --- >> Oh, please...
>> You stated, once, that you'd tried to use one, that it was a crappy part >> which didn't meet your expectations and, because of that, you'd never >> use one. >> ---
>What I actually said was that the one time that it looked like a >serious contender, it didn't meet the - unusually stringent - quality >requirements, but then neither did the rather better LM322. I checked >it out from time to over the next few years for various other jobs, >but it never turned out to be useful in the sort of work that I was >doing.
--- While you pretend to cast an objective engineering eye on the device, and then subjectively damn it for what you call its failings, it's apparent from your posting history that you hate it and, perhaps its inventor, Hanz Kamenzind (sp?) as well.
Matter of fact, you seem to hate all circuit designers.
Even Jim, who gave us OTS RS-232 with variable edge rates and for whom you've repeatedly indicated you have nothing but scorn.
Seems the green-eyed monster has crawled under your skin, with your permission, and now envy is eating you up. ---
>> >> That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously >> >> doubt whether you do.
>> >You were claiming that my view of "education" would involve your >> >hitching your wagon (which I seriously doubt you have) to my "star" >> >whatever that might be.
>> --- >> You're not very good at this, are you?
>> It's a simple metaphor, Bill.
>> The star is your dream, what drives you, what you follow, and the wagon >> is what I use to carry me through my life.
>The "star" may be your dream, and Disney seems to have made this a >popular image for kiddy programs. Knowing that real stars are enormous >masses of very hot gas a very long way away rather kills that image >for educated adults.
--- Educated adults can, if they "get it", enjoy the multiple meanings and glean wisdom from Disney's presentations.
Your hatred of all things non-Sloman turns your light down even further. ---
>> So hitching _my_ wagon to _your_ star would be tantamount to my >> unhitching it from mine and living my life as you saw fit for me to live >> it.
>> Certainly nothing I'd even consider.
>Nor anything I'd suggest.
--- You lie.
You take every opportunity to advertise whatever talents you may have as divine and denigrate everyone else's as inconsequential. ---
>You could do with more education than you have got -
--- Couldn't we all? ---
>a broader appreciation of what semiconductor components >other than the 555 have to offer would be a good start. You don't seem >to be equipped to come to grips with more difficult subjects - Laplace >transforms and elementary statistics come to mind - of the kind I've >run into in my career, so that aspect of my experience isn't an area >that I'd even try to inform you about.
--- Suits me. ---
>> >I adjusted the analogy by substituting an >> >equally figurative wagon train for your "star",
>> --- >> Because you didn't understand the analogy? >> ---
>Because is seemed bizarrely pretentious.
--- In what way? ---
>> >but since I was >> >engaged in rejecting the idea that education involves leaders and >> >followers, I wouldn't be offering to let you hook your wagon to my >> >wagon train even in the remote event that I came to possess a wagon >> >train in Texas.
>> --- >> If it's _your_ wagon train and you get to determine who "gets" to hook >> up to it or not, then your statement carries the implicit meaning that >> you're the boss; i.e., the leader, and those who are allowed to hook up >> are the followers.
>That was your image of education. Not mine. You keep on struggling to >set up this pathetic strawman image of me as some kind of wannabe >leader trying to educate you into some kind of obedient follower.
--- It's not a straw man, it's not a struggle, its as obvious as the difference between night and day, and it's not just me.
That is, you're forever harping on what's right and what's wrong and whoever disagrees with you is either misguided, or stupid, or both. Believing that, of course, makes you right in all things, which places you in a position of authority and makes you a leader.
Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence which proves that your point of view is untenable you still carry on with the game, doing whatever little song and dance you have to in order to change the subject or dodge the issue. ---
>In this you are being a little over-ambitious.
--- So I'm wrong, and I should believe that you're right, huh?
What else is new? ---
>Any sensible leader stuck with a follower like you would repudiate him >as fast as possible out of pure self-preservation.
>> >> I do remember one in particular, though, where I had suggested a single >> >> 555 and you countered with some expensive, obsolete, dual something or >> >> other, 16 pin monstrosity with performance specs no better than a 555's. >> >> ---
>> >No better than the 555's data sheet specifications. Unfortunately, to >> >get the circuit to do what was required you had to add a diode to your >> >555, which would have degraded its performace below data sheet >> >specifications.
>> --- >> Yet the application wouldn't have suffered, so what's your point? >> ---
>> >Since you don't seem to understand specifications and >> >tolerances, this point has never registered with you.
>> --- >> Nonsense.
>"Yet the application wouldn't have suffered". If the specification >mattered at all, the application would have suffered. Like I said, you >don't understand specifications or tolerances.
--- So if you have to drive to the store in the most practical way and you have a choice between a Ford and a Ferrari, you'd choose the Ferrari? ---
>> >Nice try, but stone axes have been made obsolete by the invention of >> >iron axes, while I'm not obsolete, merely unfashionable.
>> --- >> You think there aren't iron axes around who have made you obsolete as >> well as unfashionable? >> ---
>A new breed of engineer made of a completely different material?
--- Sure. New attitudes, new components, new methods, better giants on whose shoulders to stand, etc. --- What have you got against a spelling checker? /
>Presuably this wouldn't be a DNA-based material. Have you been >kidnapped by - rather undiscriminating - aliens recently? I can >understand why they would have thrown you back.
--- Not thrown me back, thanked me and placed me back, gently, on terra firma.
>> >I don't need access to abse to know that you don't use many >> >components, and that you don't use any of them well. You once posted a >> >circuit including a 0.5H inductor with zero series resistance and zero >> >parallel capacitance - I then posted a version of the circuit with a >> >real inductor (available off the shelf from Farnell/Newark) which >> >would actually work, but you still claim to be a practical designer of >> >real circuits for real customers, not all that convincingly.
>> --- >> I'm sure the circuit I posted was just to illustrate a concept.
>The OP wanted a 100kHz oscillator that drew very little current. >Producing a circuit designed around an unrealistic inductor >illustrated that you didn't have much grasp of what is involved in >designing real circuits with real components.
> >> >> >> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >> >> >> >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >> >> >> >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >> >> >> >> > >want of my contribution.
> >> >> >> >> > --- > >> >> >> >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > >> >> >> >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >> >> >> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating > >> >> >> >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
> >> >> >> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would > >> >> >> >seem to fall into that catagory.
> >> >> >> --- > >> >> >> If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd > >> >> >> much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
> >> >> >Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. > >> >> >It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
> >> >> --- > >> >> Only trouble with that definition is that for people to be able to think > >> >> in a useful way requires them to follow your lead and believe the way > >> >> you do.
> >> >Not necessarily. There are a variety of ways of thinking for yourself > >> >in a useful way. You don't seem to have mastered any of them.
> >> --- > >> Perhaps, from your point of view, but then you can't even decipher a > >> simple metaphor so I'd say you were pretty myopic. > >> ---
> >Deciphering a simple metaphor does depend on the simple metaphor > >having some remote relationship with reality. > >Yours didn't make the cut.
> --- > Your inability to grok the relationship is no more my fault than is your > incessant prattle about that you'd like to be working but that no one > will have you and you don't want to set up a consultancy because...
I can't find any potential customers.
> well, insert any excuse which will keep you from having to do, in the > real world, what you must if you want what you want to happen and, when > it doesn't, to blame someone else for your failure, poor baby.
My situation may not be ideal, but it's much too comforatable for me to need sympathy.
> >> >>In other words, by hitching their wagon to your wagon train and > >> >> heading for the same destination; one example of which would be to never > >> >> use a 555.
> >> >I've never said that one should never use a 555 - I've merely pointed > >> >out that in almost all situations there are now better alternatives.
> >> --- > >> Oh, please...
> >> You stated, once, that you'd tried to use one, that it was a crappy part > >> which didn't meet your expectations and, because of that, you'd never > >> use one. > >> ---
> >What I actually said was that the one time that it looked like a > >serious contender, it didn't meet the - unusually stringent - quality > >requirements, but then neither did the rather better LM322. I checked > >it out from time to over the next few years for various other jobs, > >but it never turned out to be useful in the sort of work that I was > >doing.
> --- > While you pretend to cast an objective engineering eye on the device, > and then subjectively damn it for what you call its failings, it's > apparent from your posting history that you hate it and, perhaps its > inventor, Hanz Kamenzind (sp?) as well.
Hans Camenzind, in his book "Designing Analog Chips" points out a couple of ways in which the 555 could have been improved. The real problem with the part is that it combines a monostable/bistable that is decidedly sensitive to voltage noise with a power switch, which injects tolerably large and rapidly changing currents into the Vee connection that it shares with the monostable/bistable circuitry. There are application where this isn't a real problem, but many fewer (as a proportion of all applications) than there were in 1971. You don't have to hate the circuit to be aware of this, though one does need to know a little bit more about circuit design than you seem to do.
> Matter of fact, you seem to hate all circuit designers.
Not Barrie Gilbert and Bob Widlar, and Hans Camenzind's book is admirably clear and easy to follow.
> Even Jim, who gave us OTS RS-232 with variable edge rates and for whom > you've repeatedly indicated you have nothing but scorn.
He's no Barrie Gilbert or Bob Widlar. A journeyman rather than a master of his craft. This isn't scorn, merely a practical assessment. I'd recommend him to anybody who couldn't afford anything better. Those of his circuits that I worked with were not easy to use but they did work.
> Seems the green-eyed monster has crawled under your skin, with your > permission, and now envy is eating you up.
If I envied anybody in that area, I'd envy Barry Gilbert and Bob Widlar. I've met Barrie Gilbert and quite liked him - his interest in Cambridge Instruments was limited to workig out whether we were potential customers for the RF processing chips he was developing at the time, which we weren't, but he was civil enough to conceal his dissappointment.
> >> >> That, of course, presumes you do have a wagon train, and I seriously > >> >> doubt whether you do.
> >> >You were claiming that my view of "education" would involve your > >> >hitching your wagon (which I seriously doubt you have) to my "star" > >> >whatever that might be.
> >> --- > >> You're not very good at this, are you?
> >> It's a simple metaphor, Bill.
> >> The star is your dream, what drives you, what you follow, and the wagon > >> is what I use to carry me through my life.
> >The "star" may be your dream, and Disney seems to have made this a > >popular image for kiddy programs. Knowing that real stars are enormous > >masses of very hot gas a very long way away rather kills that image > >for educated adults.
> --- > Educated adults can, if they "get it", enjoy the multiple meanings and > glean wisdom from Disney's presentations.
Multiple meanings and wisdom in Disney's presentations? Who do you think you are kidding?
> Your hatred of all things non-Sloman turns your light down even further.
"Hatred"? I dislike pretentious nonsense and satirise it when I can. It's a hobby, like doing cross word puzzles. Hatred requires emotional involvement.
<snipped stuff with which I can't be bothered to get emotionally involved>
> > For people who happen to live in areas without a proper sewage system, > > a "honey-wagon" is truck that goes around and collects human excreta.
> > The US doesn't like spending money on services that improve the health > > of the community as a whole, so many communities persist with this > > rather primitive form of sewage collection, which has long been > > superseded in other advanced industrialised countries.
> > Advanced industrial communites do still have honey waggons, but they > > service temporary and mobile toilets, and there are not enough of them > > to make the word part of the active vocabulary of the bulk of the > > population.
> Sloman, septic tanks are commonly used for homes that are > some distance outside of metro or city services.
> Are you pretending that every home between Nijmegen > and Amsterdam is plumbed into a city sewer system?
> Even in Australia there must be rural homes > outside of the range of city sewer systems.
> What kind of high tech civilized poop chute > do they use in rural parts of Netherlands or > Australia?
> Don't they use septic tanks?
Sure they use septic tanks. The house we live in now depended on septic tanks when we bought it - the previous owner had been too cheap to hook the house up to the sewer on the street outside - but the tanks weren't emptied by a honey-wagon, but by a local pig farmer who added the contents to the waste produced by his pigs.
The point is that the proportion of house that rely on septic tanks and honey wagons is so low in both Australia and the Netherlands that word "honey wagon" fall outside the regular vocabulary.
> >> >> I do remember one in particular, though, where I had suggested a single > >> >> 555 and you countered with some expensive, obsolete, dual something or > >> >> other, 16 pin monstrosity with performance specs no better than a 555's. > >> >> ---
> >> >No better than the 555's data sheet specifications. Unfortunately, to > >> >get the circuit to do what was required you had to add a diode to your > >> >555, which would have degraded its performace below data sheet > >> >specifications.
> >> --- > >> Yet the application wouldn't have suffered, so what's your point? > >> ---
> >> >Since you don't seem to understand specifications and > >> >tolerances, this point has never registered with you.
> >> --- > >> Nonsense.
> >"Yet the application wouldn't have suffered". If the specification > >mattered at all, the application would have suffered. Like I said, you > >don't understand specifications or tolerances.
> --- > So if you have to drive to the store in the most practical way and you > have a choice between a Ford and a Ferrari, you'd choose the Ferrari? > ---
> >> >Nice try, but stone axes have been made obsolete by the invention of > >> >iron axes, while I'm not obsolete, merely unfashionable.
> >> --- > >> You think there aren't iron axes around who have made you obsolete as > >> well as unfashionable? > >> ---
> >A new breed of engineer made of a completely different material?
> --- > Sure. New attitudes, new components, new methods, better giants on whose > shoulders to stand, etc. > ---
Since I've been using the latest circuits as they became availalble for the past thirty-odd years, and you are still fixated on the 555, you might like to consider who looks more like the stone axe.
> >Presuably this wouldn't be a DNA-based material. Have you been > >kidnapped by - rather undiscriminating - aliens recently? I can > >understand why they would have thrown you back.
> --- > Not thrown me back, thanked me and placed me back, gently, on terra > firma.
> You they would have thrown to the dogs. > ---
Assuming that is were true - which seems unlikely - such a gesture might well have poisoned whatever symbionts fulfil the role of dogs in their community.
> >> >I don't need access to abse to know that you don't use many > >> >components, and that you don't use any of them well. You once posted a > >> >circuit including a 0.5H inductor with zero series resistance and zero > >> >parallel capacitance - I then posted a version of the circuit with a > >> >real inductor (available off the shelf from Farnell/Newark) which > >> >would actually work, but you still claim to be a practical designer of > >> >real circuits for real customers, not all that convincingly.
> >> --- > >> I'm sure the circuit I posted was just to illustrate a concept.
> >The OP wanted a 100kHz oscillator that drew very little current. > >Producing a circuit designed around an unrealistic inductor > >illustrated that you didn't have much grasp of what is involved in > >designing real circuits with real components.
> --- > US Patent # 4937519
"An apparatus for identifying conductors form an elongated group of (n) conductors, comprising:"
"Form"?
And it does look as if it might have been obvious to those skilled in the art from sometime around 1900.
>Since I've been using the latest circuits as they became availalble >for the past thirty-odd years, and you are still fixated on the 555, >you might like to consider who looks more like the stone axe.
You really don't get it.
The "latest circuits" are many times, the very same circuits in modern form factors using modern fab processes. There are several tens of iterations of the 555, so it would appear that it is not merely John that it carries favor with.
Also, if you have been out of work for more than a few years, you are hardly familiar with "the latest and greatest" on a first hand basis.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:23:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 7, 2:43 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> You they would have thrown to the dogs. >> ---
>Assuming that is were true - which seems unlikely - such a gesture >might well have poisoned whatever symbionts fulfil the role of dogs in >their community.
--- Fecal poisoning, no doubt. ---
>>Producing a circuit designed around an unrealistic inductor >> >illustrated that you didn't have much grasp of what is involved in >> >designing real circuits with real components.
>> --- >> US Patent # 4937519
>"An apparatus for identifying conductors form an elongated group of >(n) conductors, comprising:"
>"Form"?
--- Still, a real circuit with real components.
And you, criticizing typos???
That's certainly PKB, in spades. ---
>And it does look as if it might have been obvious to those skilled in >the art from sometime around 1900.
--- It's only obvious once you've been shown the trick.
It's like you criticize the 555's flaws as if your experience with the chip caused you to find them when, in fact, it was Kamenzind's disclosure that clued you in.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:06:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 7, 2:23 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> --- >> Your inability to grok the relationship is no more my fault than is your >> incessant prattle about that you'd like to be working but that no one >> will have you and you don't want to set up a consultancy because...
>I can't find any potential customers.
>> well, insert any excuse which will keep you from having to do, in the >> real world, what you must if you want what you want to happen and, when >> it doesn't, to blame someone else for your failure, poor baby.
--- "I can't find any potential customers." Is a dandy excuse. ---
>My situation may not be ideal, but it's much too comforatable for me >to need sympathy.
--- It's not sympathy, it's sarcasm, and if its "comforatable" enough for you to not need to look for work then, in reality, you probably don't want to work. ---
>> While you pretend to cast an objective engineering eye on the device, >> and then subjectively damn it for what you call its failings, it's >> apparent from your posting history that you hate it and, perhaps its >> inventor, Hanz Kamenzind (sp?) as well.
>Hans Camenzind, in his book "Designing Analog Chips" points out a >couple of ways in which the 555 could have been improved. The real >problem with the part is that it combines a monostable/bistable that >is decidedly sensitive to voltage noise with a power switch, which >injects tolerably large and rapidly changing currents into the Vee >connection that it shares with the monostable/bistable circuitry. >There are application where this isn't a real problem, but many fewer >(as a proportion of all applications) than there were in 1971. You >don't have to hate the circuit to be aware of this, though one does >need to know a little bit more about circuit design than you seem to >do.
--- Since your unfamiliarity with the device itself from a hands-on point of view suggests that you only learned about the problem from Kamenzind's book, I suggest you're the one suffering from a lack of circuit design experience since the rest of us generally solved the problem by connecting an adequate reservoir capacitor across the chip's supply terminals.
With the advent of CMOS 555s, however, (Maxim's ICM7555 for instance) the problem has been eliminated. ---
>> Matter of fact, you seem to hate all circuit designers.
>Not Barrie Gilbert and Bob Widlar, and Hans Camenzind's book is >admirably clear and easy to follow.
--- Everybody else though, huh? ---
>> Even Jim, who gave us OTS RS-232 with variable edge rates and for whom >> you've repeatedly indicated you have nothing but scorn.
>He's no Barrie Gilbert or Bob Widlar. A journeyman rather than a >master of his craft. This isn't scorn, merely a practical assessment. >I'd recommend him to anybody who couldn't afford anything better. >Those of his circuits that I worked with were not easy to use but they >did work.
--- A poor workman blames his tools. ---
>> Seems the green-eyed monster has crawled under your skin, with your >> permission, and now envy is eating you up.
>If I envied anybody in that area, I'd envy Barry Gilbert and Bob >Widlar. I've met Barrie Gilbert and quite liked him - his interest in >Cambridge Instruments was limited to workig out whether we were >potential customers for the RF processing chips he was developing at >the time, which we weren't, but he was civil enough to conceal his >dissappointment.
>> >> The star is your dream, what drives you, what you follow, and the wagon >> >> is what I use to carry me through my life.
>> >The "star" may be your dream, and Disney seems to have made this a >> >popular image for kiddy programs. Knowing that real stars are enormous >> >masses of very hot gas a very long way away rather kills that image >> >for educated adults.
>> --- >> Educated adults can, if they "get it", enjoy the multiple meanings and >> glean wisdom from Disney's presentations.
>Multiple meanings and wisdom in Disney's presentations? Who do you >think you are kidding?
--- Well, if you don't get it you can't see it ---
>> Your hatred of all things non-Sloman turns your light down even further.
>"Hatred"? I dislike pretentious nonsense and satirise it when I can.
--- And yet I see no self-referential satire in anything you write. ---
>It's a hobby, like doing cross word puzzles. Hatred requires emotional >involvement.
><snipped stuff with which I can't be bothered to get emotionally >involved>
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:06:58 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 2:23 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> --- > >> Your inability to grok the relationship is no more my fault than is your > >> incessant prattle about that you'd like to be working but that no one > >> will have you and you don't want to set up a consultancy because...
> >I can't find any potential customers.
> >> well, insert any excuse which will keep you from having to do, in the > >> real world, what you must if you want what you want to happen and, when > >> it doesn't, to blame someone else for your failure, poor baby.
> "I can't find any potential customers." Is a dandy excuse.
And a compelling reason not to invest more time and money in what turned out to be an unrealitic idea. Some excuses do happen to be valid.
> >My situation may not be ideal, but it's much too comfortable for me > >to need sympathy.
> --- > It's not sympathy, it's sarcasm, and if its "comfortable" enough for > you to not need to look for work then, in reality, you probably don't > want to work.
Your attempts at sarcasm are noted, but they are on a par with your attempts at logic.
The fact that I don't need to work doesn't mean that I don't want to work, but it does mean that I can reject boring work, like stacking shelves at the local supermarket. The local employment situation has perked up enough that I fianlly found a local job I could apply for earlier this week, not that I think that I've got much chance of getting it.
> >> While you pretend to cast an objective engineering eye on the device, > >> and then subjectively damn it for what you call its failings, it's > >> apparent from your posting history that you hate it and, perhaps its > >> inventor, Hanz Kamenzind (sp?) as well.
> >Hans Camenzind, in his book "Designing Analog Chips" points out a > >couple of ways in which the 555 could have been improved. The real > >problem with the part is that it combines a monostable/bistable that > >is decidedly sensitive to voltage noise with a power switch, which > >injects tolerably large and rapidly changing currents into the Vee > >connection that it shares with the monostable/bistable circuitry. > >There are application where this isn't a real problem, but many fewer > >(as a proportion of all applications) than there were in 1971. You > >don't have to hate the circuit to be aware of this, though one does > >need to know a little bit more about circuit design than you seem to > >do.
> --- > Since your unfamiliarity with the device itself from a hands-on point of > view suggests that you only learned about the problem from Kamenzind's > book, I suggest you're the one suffering from a lack of circuit design > experience since the rest of us generally solved the problem by > connecting an adequate reservoir capacitor across the chip's supply > terminals.
How very clever of you. What do you do when that isn't enough? Bearing in mind that every wet-behind-the-ears junior engineer will have tried this before coming to you for help.
> With the advent of CMOS 555s, however, (Maxim's ICM7555 for instance) > the problem has been eliminated.
Idiot.
> >> Matter of fact, you seem to hate all circuit designers.
> >Not Barrie Gilbert and Bob Widlar, and Hans Camenzind's book is > >admirably clear and easy to follow.
> Everybody else though, huh?
I don't even hate Jim Thompson, though I do find him fun to pillory.
> >> Even Jim, who gave us OTS RS-232 with variable edge rates and for whom > >> you've repeatedly indicated you have nothing but scorn.
> >He's no Barrie Gilbert or Bob Widlar. A journeyman rather than a > >master of his craft. This isn't scorn, merely a practical assessment. > >I'd recommend him to anybody who couldn't afford anything better. > >Those of his circuits that I worked with were not easy to use but they > >did work.
> A poor workman blames his tools.
Because a good workman finds or makes good tools.
> >> Seems the green-eyed monster has crawled under your skin, with your > >> permission, and now envy is eating you up.
> >If I envied anybody in that area, I'd envy Barry Gilbert and Bob > >Widlar. I've met Barrie Gilbert and quite liked him - his interest in > >Cambridge Instruments was limited to workig out whether we were > >potential customers for the RF processing chips he was developing at > >the time, which we weren't, but he was civil enough to conceal his > >dissappointment.
> >> >> The star is your dream, what drives you, what you follow, and the wagon > >> >> is what I use to carry me through my life.
> >> >The "star" may be your dream, and Disney seems to have made this a > >> >popular image for kiddy programs. Knowing that real stars are enormous > >> >masses of very hot gas a very long way away rather kills that image > >> >for educated adults.
> >> --- > >> Educated adults can, if they "get it", enjoy the multiple meanings and > >> glean wisdom from Disney's presentations.
> >Multiple meanings and wisdom in Disney's presentations? Who do you > >think you are kidding?
> Well, if you don't get it you can't see it.
If it isn't there, you can't see it.
> >> Your hatred of all things non-Sloman turns your light down even further.
> >"Hatred"? I dislike pretentious nonsense and satirise it when I can.
> And yet I see no self-referential satire in anything you write.
You don't see much, do you.
> >It's a hobby, like doing cross word puzzles. Hatred requires emotional > >involvement.
> ><snipped stuff with which I can't be bothered to get emotionally > >involved>
> >Since I've been using the latest circuits as they became availalble > >for the past thirty-odd years, and you are still fixated on the 555, > >you might like to consider who looks more like the stone axe.
> You really don't get it.
> The "latest circuits" are many times, the very same circuits in modern > form factors using modern fab processes. There are several tens of > iterations of the 555, so it would appear that it is not merely John that > it carries favor with.
You mean the CMOS 7555. And that is mainly used by people who are recycling old circuits without thinking to much about what they are doing.
> Also, if you have been out of work for more than a few years, you are > hardly familiar with "the latest and greatest" on a first hand basis.
Very few people are. It is rare for a new circuit or a new technology to show up at the precise moment that you could use it; the usual state of things is that you get a new project and poke around to see if anything new has come up since you were last busy in that area.
Meanwhile I read the trade journals and go off to the occasional seminar - the latest Renesas M16C/6C microcontroller offer a USB port, which may be handy if I ever find a prject that needs a microcontroller.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:06:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >If I envied anybody in that area, I'd envy Barry Gilbert and Bob >Widlar. I've met Barrie Gilbert and quite liked him - his interest in >Cambridge Instruments was limited to workig out whether we were >potential customers for the RF processing chips he was developing at >the time, which we weren't, but he was civil enough to conceal his >dissappointment.
I met Widlar's (last) girlfriend at the bar at the Washington Square Bar and Grille. They were living in Puerto Villarta and she was back in SF visiting relatives. We started talking, I mentioned that I was an EE, and we got around to discovering who she lived with. She was surprised that I'd heard of him and had no idea that he was famous. He apparently did IC layouts on the kitchen table and wouldn't let her ever see them. He sounded paranoid, and, as she noted with concern, was drinking himself to death.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:23:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 2:43 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> You they would have thrown to the dogs. > >> ---
> >Assuming that is were true - which seems unlikely - such a gesture > >might well have poisoned whatever symbionts fulfil the role of dogs in > >their community.
> --- > Fecal poisoning, no doubt. > ---
> >>Producing a circuit designed around an unrealistic inductor > >> >illustrated that you didn't have much grasp of what is involved in > >> >designing real circuits with real components.
> >> --- > >> US Patent # 4937519
> >"An apparatus for identifying conductors form an elongated group of > >(n) conductors, comprising:"
> >"Form"?
> --- > Still, a real circuit with real components.
> And you, criticizing typos???
> That's certainly PKB, in spades. > ---
Typos in an informal forum - like this one - reflect the casual error checking appropriate to a recreational venue.
An obvious typo in the first line of a patent tells a rather different story.
> >And it does look as if it might have been obvious to those skilled in > >the art from sometime around 1900.
> --- > It's only obvious once you've been shown the trick.
Really? I invented something very like it when I was thinking about rope-winding a ratio transformer back in the early 1980's, not that I thought of it as an invention, but rather something that would make it easier to put the transformer together, and I figured - at the time - that I'd probably be able to find a specialised sub-contractor who had already invented and built such a tool.
> It's like you criticize the 555's flaws as if your experience with the > chip caused you to find them when, in fact, it was Camenzind's > disclosure that clued you in.
Why would I care about Camenzind's proposed improvements to the 555? I'm not planning on using 100,000 of them, which is the minimum number that would let me fool around with the lithography, nor would they open up a range of new applications for the part - they would let it work with a 3V supply rail, improve the accuracy and speed specs a little, and drop the quiescent current, but the isn't the stuff that revolutions ae made of.
|
