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 19:41 On Jan 28, 4:14 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:36:35 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(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. The output transistor on the 555 has to handle a defined maximum current, which makes it hard to shrink, and the transistor that discharges the capacitor is similarly restricted by the current it has to carry. The capacity to define smaller features doesn't help very much. Hans Camenzind has spelled out how a modernised 555 would look, and feature shrinkage doesn't come into it. This makes you the idiot - as usual. > You shot yourself in the head with the "all that costs money though...." > remark. In more ways than one. On the contrary, I made it perfectly clear that I knew that being able to use a cheaper component isn't - of itself - enough to justify the non-recurring cost of redesigning and retooling an existing circuit. This doesn't make the 555 any less obsolete. <snipped the rest of the nitwit comment> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Jan 2010 20:08 On Jan 28, 6:44 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:36:35 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(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. It's not double-talk. If you have to keep a slow-selling device in production, it is cheaper to buy the limited number of crappy components you need on the legacy market than it is to redesign the device - it isn't as if the device keeps on selling because it's got state of the art performance, and you are unlikely to sell any more if you improve the specification. That's one of the reasons why the 555 is still in production. Legacy engineers like John Fields are another. > Check outhttp://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. Not very, but niche markets can be nice stable earners, until something genuinely and markedly better comes along. > 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. Of which the TS555 would be an example? Of course it does suck. Hans Camenzind's book does mention that there are several flaws in the design, "indicative of the early period of IC design (and the inexperience of a rookie designer)" to quote his exact words. For the cleverest designs every, one would go to Bob Widlar. > Even my original MC4024 > voltage-controlled multivibrator has been resurrected in modern CMOS. I thought that was the CD4046. I've used both. The MC4024 is a bit faster - guaranteed maximum frequency of 25MHz - but in every other respect it was a total pain to use. It would probably be less of a pain in CMOS, but anybody resurrecting it must have had to be coping with strange constraints. Jim sees to be as far out of touch with reality as ever. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Jan 2010 20:40 On Jan 28, 4:03 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:13:57 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:51:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: <snip> > >It didn't have anything to do with taking your unnecessary advice. If > >I'd had any doubt about the spelling, I would indeed have checked it > >with google, but since it was a plausible typo, I didn't actually > >notice it until you pointed it out. > > Except that it was not a typo. And why do you think that? > It was yet another example of you having ignored yet another detail in life. Or so you would like to think. <snipped DimBulb coming to one more unjustifed conclusion> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Jan 2010 20:56 On Jan 28, 4:08 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:25:26 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(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. It is quite while since I had to sit through software reviews, and seminars on generating provably correct software from specifications constructed as propositions in the Z language, but I do seem to retain more of what I learned then than you seem to have acquired from sitting next to people with whom you obviously don't interact. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Archimedes' Lever on 28 Jan 2010 22:01
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:21:41 -0800, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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 The term for today is: Bated breath. |