Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Archimedes' Lever on 29 Jan 2010 21:31 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:57:08 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >You are the idiot. John Fields' scheme depended on being able to >distinguish a shorter from a longer pulse at the far end of the cable. >If the higher frequency Fourier components of the pulses are >attentuated by the cable, both pulses end up generating the same >smeared out bump on the scope trace seen at the far end of the cable. That depends on the characteristics of the pulses sent. If the difference is great enough, the cables effect will not cause the scoped traces to appear equal. Again, you show us your idiocy.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 30 Jan 2010 14:01 On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:17:53 +0000, warm'n'flat <warm'n'flat(a)dsl.pipex.com> wrote: >Your refusal to attempt a mathematical puzzle set for you a while back >by Mr. Cranium adds weight the view of most on this group that you are >a deluded know-nothing tosser. >> Your stupidity, as well as that of the Cranium retard means that ignoring you both is the best thing I could ever do. Have a nice remainder of your pathetic, sub-human life, little boy.
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Jan 2010 20:02 On Jan 30, 1:51 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:25:43 -0700, Jim Thompson > > > > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:07:26 -0600, John Fields > ><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:57:08 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>>On Jan 29, 4:10 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >>>wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:30:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>> >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: <snip> > >Slowman was "certified" by "consensus"... the same kind of > >publish-or-perish "consensus" that created the AGW FRAUD. > --- > Yup. > > Brings to mind design by committee: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee There was no committee and no fraud; they were individually asked if they knew that I was okay (not by me), they put it in writing for the IEEE, and that was it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Jan 2010 20:15 On Jan 30, 3:31 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:57:08 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >You are the idiot. John Fields' scheme depended on being able to > >distinguish a shorter from a longer pulse at the far end of the cable. > >If the higher frequency Fourier components of the pulses are > >attentuated by the cable, both pulses end up generating the same > >smeared out bump on the scope trace seen at the far end of the cable. > > That depends on the characteristics of the pulses sent. Would you like to spell out the characteristics? I've already mentioned their Fourier transformations, which tells you most of what you'd need to know. > If the difference is great enough, the cables effect will not cause the > scoped traces to appear equal. Naturally not. Since the argument is that the sort of artbitary sequence of one and zeros required to represent a a six or seve digit number isn't all that different from the progressively longer series of one's that John Fields claims to have used to transmit the same information rather less economically, the hand-waving comments about the "characteristics of the pulses sent" is a pathetically inadequate substitute for an argument. None to surprising, since it comes from a pathetically inadequate substitute for an engineer. > Again, you show us your idiocy. A singularly implausible claim. Dimbulb not only doesn't know what he is talking about, but he's also unaware of the transparent incompetence of his attempts to pose as an engineer. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 31 Jan 2010 08:17
On Jan 29, 8:13 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:08:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(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% At 67, I'm now entitled to describe myself as retired. I'd prefer not to be, but the local personnel departments don't seem to be willing to see it any other way. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |