🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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.
>
> >I don't seem to do jealousy.
>
> You don't seem to see it.

Because it doesn't exist.

> >> >> 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?
>
> 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>
>
> Stuff you hate?

Stuff that bores me and would bore any lurker.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen