Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Archimedes' Lever on 28 Jan 2010 22:05 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:08:18 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >Europe suffers from high unemloyment? Admittedly China has finally >displaced Germany as the country making the most money out of exports, Finally? China has been the biggest in the world for half a decade now. Ever heard of the China Construction Bank? It is the world's biggest bank. and the world's previous biggest banks are investing in it. Where do you get your stats, Al-Jazeera? Bwuahahahah!
From: warm'n'flat on 29 Jan 2010 03:46 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. You're wrong there, Bill. He's a pointy-headed janitor. The pointy head results from the over-use of his ridiculous KKK hood.
From: John Fields on 29 Jan 2010 11:02 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:23:24 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. --- As usual,blowhard, you don't know what you're talking about since using my widget reduces the installation team to 1 person and my widget, instead of 2 people and the equipment needed to do continuity testing and communications. --- >And colour-blindness isn't so common that it would be an issue. --- Since my widget was designed to be used with non color-coded cables, it isn't an issue in that situation. However, I'd be willing to bet you've never been in a dimly-lit crowded cable closet trying to figure out which wire is which by color code. --- >> >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. --- That may have been your rate back then, (and deservedly so) but I'm sure half-way competent engineers were charging a lot more than that. JF
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Jan 2010 13:48 On Jan 29, 5:02 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:23:24 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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. > > --- > As usual,blowhard, you don't know what you're talking about since using > my widget reduces the installation team to 1 person and my widget, > instead of 2 people and the equipment needed to do continuity testing > and communications. > --- Your single tester still has to set up the singal generator at one end of the cable and set it running before moving on to the other end of the cable to exploit the information being sent. Your feeble grasp of what would have had to be going on suggests that you didn't have much to do with actually testing the cable; the unfortunate test engineer might not have your rosy picture of the advantages of your invention, such as it was. > >And colour-blindness isn't so common that it would be an issue. > > --- > Since my widget was designed to be used with non color-coded cables, it > isn't an issue in that situation. But since colour-coded multiwire cables are ubiquitous, it's a well- known issue in the area. > However, I'd be willing to bet you've never been in a dimly-lit crowded > cable closet trying to figure out which wire is which by color code. Not recently. It never was my favourite occupation, and I got paid too much - when I did have a job - for my employers to want me to spend much time on jobs that could be handled by a technician who was paid a good deal less. > >> >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. > >> --- The bandwith required to allow you to distinguish a shorter from a longer pulse at the other end of the cable is of the same order as the bandwidth required to let you distinguish different binary sequences with an interval between transistions comparable with your minimum pulse width. In otherer words, your solution also requires precisely the same prior knowledge of the bandwidth the length of cable that you want to sort out. > >> >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. > > --- > That may have been your rate back then, (and deservedly so) but I'm sure > half-way competent engineers were charging a lot more than that. It's more that a few minute conversation over a cup of coffee would have thrown up several ways of getting around your patent. It's the kind of problem that gets sorted out without anybody having to go to the trouble of creating a project pan and a budget - putting the black box together would have been charged to "miscellaneous" anywhere where I've worked. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 29 Jan 2010 14:13
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:08:18 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> All hilarious. If everyone thought as you do, everyone would be >> similarly unemployed. > >Europe suffers from high unemloyment? Your unemployment rate is 100% John |