Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Jan 2010 09:36 On Jan 27, 2:20 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:26:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 27, 1:44 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:15:00 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Jan 26, 7:29 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >> >wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:27:53 -0800, John Larkin > > >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >You are all hat and no horse. *DO* something. > > >> >> All our boys rely on MY gear. > > >> >The ADE651 bomb detector? > > >> snipped retarded link. > > >> >The story has been picked up by more respectable news sources, so I > >> >guess we can believe that basic facts, incredible as they may seem. > >> >I've heard of audiofools, but securityfools is a new (if not > >> >unexpected) catagory. > > >> You're an idiot. That item has nothing to do with what I make. > > >> Every bird, boat, ship, and ground station relies on my hardware, and > >> will for the next 30 years. If the world shifts by then, so will the > >> hardware, but for now, that is what every allied force in the world uses. > > >Any fool can make such a claim. > > Of course. When that is what happens. Some idiot the other day > claimed one of the most commonly used chips in the world to be obsolete. > That guy is foolish. Oh... that's right... YOU are that foolish idiot. Dimbulb thinks that "widely used" is incompatible with "obsolete". He's too dim to understand the idea of legacy parts and legacy design, which keep crappy old chips in production despite the fact that they could - and should - be replaced in every application by something newer, cheaper and better. Unfortunately, redesigning a device and creating a new printed circut layout and production documents all cost money, so it ends up being more profitable to keep on churning out the same old rubbish. If Dimbulb were an engineer he'd know about this, so he has to be a pointy-headed manager. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Archimedes' Lever on 28 Jan 2010 10:05 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:25:26 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >It came out at around 140 when last tested, quite some time ago, which >means that it is high enough that regular tests don't say anything >more that that it is appreciably higher than average. Except that you content here that a perfectly viable chip is obsolete, and your refusal to admit that you are wrong, shears a good 120 points off that number, guaranteed. Also, we can tell that you are stupid. The chip argument just cements it in stone.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 28 Jan 2010 10:08 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:25:26 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> We perform mission critical services. >> It is not surprising that you would be beneath understanding such >> industrial safety mechanisms as simple as hiring competent personnel. > >Since I'm well aware how the problem is dealt with, and you - equally >clearly - are not, the lack of understanding is entirely yours, clown. Since I am working right along side these people, and you are not, never have, and likely never will, I think your argument severely lacks mettle.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 28 Jan 2010 10:14 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:36:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 27, 2:20�pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:26:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jan 27, 1:44�am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >> >wrote: >> >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:15:00 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Jan 26, 7:29�am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:27:53 -0800, John Larkin >> >> >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> >You are all hat and no horse. *DO* something. >> >> >> >> � All our boys rely on MY gear. >> >> >> >The ADE651 bomb detector? >> >> >> snipped retarded link. >> >> >> >The story has been picked up by more respectable news sources, so I >> >> >guess we can believe that basic facts, incredible as they may seem. >> >> >I've heard of audiofools, but securityfools is a new (if not >> >> >unexpected) catagory. >> >> >> � You're an idiot. �That item has nothing to do with what I make. >> >> >> � Every bird, boat, ship, and ground station relies on my hardware, and >> >> will for the next 30 years. �If the world shifts by then, so will the >> >> hardware, but for now, that is what every allied force in the world uses. >> >> >Any fool can make such a claim. >> >> � Of course. �When that is what happens. �Some idiot the other day >> claimed one of the most commonly used chips in the world to be obsolete. >> That guy is foolish. �Oh... �that's right... �YOU are that foolish idiot. > >Dimbulb thinks that "widely used" is incompatible with "obsolete". >He's too dim to understand the idea of legacy parts and legacy design, >which keep crappy old chips in production despite the fact that they >could - and should - be replaced in every application by something >newer, cheaper and better. > >Unfortunately, redesigning a device and creating a new printed circut >layout and production documents all cost money, so it ends up being >more profitable to keep on churning out the same old rubbish. > >If Dimbulb were an engineer he'd know about this, so he has to be a >pointy-headed manager. Great, yet sad indictment of your problem. You know nothing about the industry at all. Your "could be replaced in every application by something newer, cheaper and better" proves that fact. Not that there is anything wrong with the original, but do you really think that all those chip fab and design boys are using the same art for these dies and chip designs that they were when the fab features were 50 times larger? You really are an idiot if that is the case. You shot yourself in the head with the "all that costs money though..." remark. In more ways than one. You prove that it is you that really does not understand the micro-electronic industry at all, much less the engineering behind analog and digital circuits. Your remarks here prove it beyond doubt.
From: Joel Koltner on 28 Jan 2010 12:21
So Bill, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in message news:00c9eb74-a0bc-4d43-9ac8-b0b3c96aa462(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > Dimbulb thinks that "widely used" is incompatible with "obsolete". > He's too dim to understand the idea of legacy parts and legacy design, > which keep crappy old chips in production despite the fact that they > could - and should - be replaced in every application by something > newer, cheaper and better. How about if you head on over to the site mentioned -- http://www.electronics-lab.com/blog/?tag=555 -- and suggest what parts you would use to make comparable designs? Note that on that web site he's essentially targeting a hobbyist market, so the designs have to be aimed at low volume production using easy-to-obtain components that aren't particularly spendy (but also don't have to have every penny turned around). This could likely help a lot of people, being exposed to some "better than a 555" solutions... ---Joel |