🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 7, 2:23 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:33:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 7:43 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> ---
>
> >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.

I don't seem to do jealousy.

> >> >> 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>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen