<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 8, 4:47 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> 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.
--- Which you don't get, either. ---
>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.
--- Wishful thinking, perhaps? ---
>> 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?
--- Read the next sentence. ---
>> With the advent of CMOS 555s, however, (Maxim's ICM7555 for instance) >> the problem has been eliminated.
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 8, 4:15 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> 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.
--- Take it up with the government. ---
>> >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.
--- Yeah, sure... ---
>> 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.
--- None of which is what I was referring to, as you very well know, or else you're just thick.
Either way, I've just about had my fill of you, so goodbye.
On Nov 8, 8:12 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:15:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 8, 4:47 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> 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:
<snip>
> >Your attempts at sarcasm are noted, but they are on a par with your > >attempts at logic. > Which you don't get, either.
I understand what you think you are demonstrating but since your logic isn't actually valid, there's no real content to get.
> >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.
> >> 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?
> --- > Read the next sentence. > ---
> >> With the advent of CMOS 555s, however, (Maxim's ICM7555 for instance) > >> the problem has been eliminated.
> >Idiot.
> --- > The problem _hasn't_ been eliminated, then???
Right. If you aren't switching any load current - and the Maxim output switch is remarkably pathetic for something that is touted as a substitute for a 555, the monostable/bistable part of the circuit is less likely to be messed up by switching spikes. This isn't eliminating the problem, merely just avoiding the more flagrant examples of it.
> >> >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.
> --- > And you made easier to use versions of his chips?
No, I found other peoples' easier-to-use versions of his chips. It helped that they also saved board space.
> 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?
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:46:47 -0800, Greegor wrote: >> 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?
Don't forget drain fields. I have a dream of a house out in the booines with a drain field with crops planted over it.
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 8, 8:12 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:15:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 8, 4:47 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> 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:
><snip>
>> >Your attempts at sarcasm are noted, but they are on a par with your >> >attempts at logic.
>> Which you don't get, either.
>I understand what you think you are demonstrating but since your logic >isn't actually valid, there's no real content to get.
>> >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.
>> Wishful thinking, perhaps?
>Experience.
>> >> 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?
>> --- >> Read the next sentence. >> ---
>> >> With the advent of CMOS 555s, however, (Maxim's ICM7555 for instance) >> >> the problem has been eliminated.
>> >Idiot.
>> --- >> The problem _hasn't_ been eliminated, then???
>Right. If you aren't switching any load current - and the Maxim output >switch is remarkably pathetic for something that is touted as a >substitute for a 555, the monostable/bistable part of the circuit is >less likely to be messed up by switching spikes. This isn't >eliminating the problem, merely just avoiding the more flagrant >examples of it.
--- Total nonsense.
Even with no load on the output, the supply current spike exhibited by the original 555 was due to the time it spent with the totem pole shorted during either transition.
With the advent of the very much faster and cleaner CMOS 555s, that dwell time was reduced and the role of the high current switch was delegated to an external transistor or MOSFET.
If you have a production bipolar 555 in your posession and, say, a 7555, I'd be interested in seeing the data you can get about the differences in their unloaded and loaded transition currents.
If you don't, I do and, if you like, I'll send you one of each so you can make some real-life measurements and report back on what you find.
You'll decline, of course , with an excuse like "I have no test equipment" and then you'll continue to spew opinion instead of fact while proclaiming your opinions to be fact, yes?
|
