Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Jim Thompson on 28 Jan 2010 12:44 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:36:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: [snip] > >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. Typical Slowman double-talk. If it's "more profitable", it's LESS COST to stay with "legacy" parts. Check out http://www.lansdale.com/ They continue to make some of my chip designs that were done in the early '60's! Wonder why? It's PROFITABLE you dummy. In the past year I've been approached to create modern versions of those of my old designs that are now unobtainium. As for the 555 it's one of the cleverest designs ever... CMOS versions exist in the most modern of processes. Even my original MC4024 voltage-controlled multivibrator has been resurrected in modern CMOS. You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! You're so ignorant that you don't realize how stupid you are. Why don't you do us all a favor and put a gun to your head and blow that puss-filled pimple away? I promise to come to your funeral and LAUGH ;-) ...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 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: Robert Elson on 28 Jan 2010 15:03 "CD4001 will drive a damn LED" Take a scope and check the damn CD4001 output loaded with LED. I never use the same pin for load and feedback.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 28 Jan 2010 17:51 Jim Thompson wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:36:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > [snip] > > > >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. > > Typical Slowman double-talk. If it's "more profitable", it's LESS > COST to stay with "legacy" parts. > > Check out http://www.lansdale.com/ > > They continue to make some of my chip designs that were done in the > early '60's! > > Wonder why? It's PROFITABLE you dummy. > > In the past year I've been approached to create modern versions of > those of my old designs that are now unobtainium. > > As for the 555 it's one of the cleverest designs ever... CMOS versions > exist in the most modern of processes. Even my original MC4024 > voltage-controlled multivibrator has been resurrected in modern CMOS. > > You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! You dummy! > > You're so ignorant that you don't realize how stupid you are. Why > don't you do us all a favor and put a gun to your head and blow that > puss-filled pimple away? I promise to come to your funeral and LAUGH > ;-) And hose down the dirt after a couple bottle of cheap French swill? :) -- Greed is the root of all eBay.
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Jan 2010 19:23 On Jan 27, 12:19 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:06:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >You had the brilliant idea of painting a unique signal on the inside > >of each conductor. The telephone companies had earlier had the equally > >brilliant idea of painting an unique colour code on the insulation > >around the connector. > > --- > Well, not quite equally as brilliant since it took a lot less time to > buzz out a mile-long cable using my widget than it did with two guys > buzzing out the cable using two walkie-talkies, a continuity tester, and > a short. > > And much, much, less time if one of the guys was color blind. > --- But not much less time than getting the guys to either end of the mile- long cable in the first case. And colour-blindness isn't so common that it would be an issue. > >A slightly more brilliant idea would have been to send different > >binary sequences down each conductor, which would have allowed you to > >identify the individual conductors a little faster, given the same > >bandwidth. > > --- > Not knowing the bandwidth, a priori, cut that brilliant idea off at the > knees, as did the extra cost of the generator and receiver. > --- > > >It is - in fact - an equally obvious idea, and should have been > >explicity covered in your claims, which are narrow enough to make the > >patent very easy to get around. > > --- > Gee, too bad you weren't around 20 years ago; you would have cost us > some _real_ money. > --- It there had been any real money to be made, the competition wouldn't have had any trouble finding a half-way competent engineer to get around the patent - it wouldn't have cost more than a cup of coffee. <snipped the rest> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Jan 2010 19:30
On Jan 27, 1:40 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:06:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >A slightly more brilliant idea would have been to send different > >binary sequences down each conductor, which would have allowed you to > >identify the individual conductors a little faster, given the same > >bandwidth. > > Unless you are aware of the implications presented to the remainder of > the system, you cannot state what outcome any given methodology would > incur. > > Different methods pose differing issues with the continued use of the > conductor for its originally prescribed utility. > > It isn't about bandwidth. Encoding by pulse width makes its own demands on the bandwith of the system, of pretty much the same kind as picking a clock rate for sending binary sequences. Since encoding by pulse widht is the least efficient way of using that bandwidth, your comment displays a level of ignorance which is positively managerial. John Fields did as badly, but he also shares your delusion that the 555 isn't obsolete. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |