Art of Electronics, 3rd edition ?
in [Design]
|
From: invalid on 10 Jan 2010 10:10 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:01:42 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:49:47 -0800, Archimedes' Lever ><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:25:47 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:06:18 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >>><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:25:06 -0500, Stephan Goldstein >>>>> <sgoldHAM(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:04:02 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >> >>>>> >>xray, Legris, and Riddle have been on my no-retrieve-list for years, >>>>> >>so I'm just now seeing this diatribe. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>WHEN have these birds EVER posted a circuit or solution? >>>>> >> >>>>> >>I'm disappointed in you, Steve :-( >>>>> >> >>>>> >>Being politically correct, following the messiah blindly, DOES NOT >>>>> >>MAKE YOU A GOOD CIRCUIT DESIGNER. >>>>> > >>>>> >True, but I have yet to find a circumstance when politicial posts >>>>> >have improved my design skills. >>>>> > >>>>> >I will say no more on this topic. >>>>> >>>>> You would restrict my freedom of speech? >>>>> >>>>> Aren't my circuit responses dead-on accurate? (Except for an >>>>> occasional typo ?:-) >>>>> >>>>> I'll stick strictly to circuits IF EVERYONE ELSE WILL ALSO DO SO. Of >>>>> course SED will then die, because there's rarely anything electronic >>>>> actually ever posted, and at that, they're so juvenile they should >>>>> have been posted in sci.electronics.basics >>>> >>>> >>>> Sometimes I think we need a news:sci.electroincs.idiot newsgroup to >>>>point some people to. >>>> >>>> I notice these whiners never mention Dimbulb, Sloman or EEyore. >>> >>>Of course not. The dweebs need their messiahs to look up to... the >>>super dweebs need Win Hill ;-) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> >> Why don't you and Terrell get a room? >> >> We don't need to see you licking each others' balls in the technical >>groups. > >Yeah, Jim. Archimedes' Liar is getting jealous. -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
From: krw on 10 Jan 2010 10:55 On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:53:41 -0800, TheJoker <LeonardooftheLarcenousLaugh(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:01:42 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:49:47 -0800, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:25:47 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:06:18 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:25:06 -0500, Stephan Goldstein >>>>>> <sgoldHAM(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:04:02 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>xray, Legris, and Riddle have been on my no-retrieve-list for years, >>>>>> >>so I'm just now seeing this diatribe. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>WHEN have these birds EVER posted a circuit or solution? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>I'm disappointed in you, Steve :-( >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Being politically correct, following the messiah blindly, DOES NOT >>>>>> >>MAKE YOU A GOOD CIRCUIT DESIGNER. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >True, but I have yet to find a circumstance when politicial posts >>>>>> >have improved my design skills. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >I will say no more on this topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> You would restrict my freedom of speech? >>>>>> >>>>>> Aren't my circuit responses dead-on accurate? (Except for an >>>>>> occasional typo ?:-) >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll stick strictly to circuits IF EVERYONE ELSE WILL ALSO DO SO. Of >>>>>> course SED will then die, because there's rarely anything electronic >>>>>> actually ever posted, and at that, they're so juvenile they should >>>>>> have been posted in sci.electronics.basics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes I think we need a news:sci.electroincs.idiot newsgroup to >>>>>point some people to. >>>>> >>>>> I notice these whiners never mention Dimbulb, Sloman or EEyore. >>>> >>>>Of course not. The dweebs need their messiahs to look up to... the >>>>super dweebs need Win Hill ;-) >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>> >>> Why don't you and Terrell get a room? >>> >>> We don't need to see you licking each others' balls in the technical >>>groups. >> >>Yeah, Jim. Archimedes' Liar is getting jealous. > > Thanks for the repost, idiot. You're welcome, Archimedes' Liar.
From: krw on 10 Jan 2010 10:56 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:10:01 -0700, invalid(a)invalid.invalid wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:01:42 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:49:47 -0800, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:25:47 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:06:18 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:25:06 -0500, Stephan Goldstein >>>>>> <sgoldHAM(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:04:02 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>xray, Legris, and Riddle have been on my no-retrieve-list for years, >>>>>> >>so I'm just now seeing this diatribe. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>WHEN have these birds EVER posted a circuit or solution? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>I'm disappointed in you, Steve :-( >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Being politically correct, following the messiah blindly, DOES NOT >>>>>> >>MAKE YOU A GOOD CIRCUIT DESIGNER. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >True, but I have yet to find a circumstance when politicial posts >>>>>> >have improved my design skills. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >I will say no more on this topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> You would restrict my freedom of speech? >>>>>> >>>>>> Aren't my circuit responses dead-on accurate? (Except for an >>>>>> occasional typo ?:-) >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll stick strictly to circuits IF EVERYONE ELSE WILL ALSO DO SO. Of >>>>>> course SED will then die, because there's rarely anything electronic >>>>>> actually ever posted, and at that, they're so juvenile they should >>>>>> have been posted in sci.electronics.basics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes I think we need a news:sci.electroincs.idiot newsgroup to >>>>>point some people to. >>>>> >>>>> I notice these whiners never mention Dimbulb, Sloman or EEyore. >>>> >>>>Of course not. The dweebs need their messiahs to look up to... the >>>>super dweebs need Win Hill ;-) >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>> >>> Why don't you and Terrell get a room? >>> >>> We don't need to see you licking each others' balls in the technical >>>groups. >> >>Yeah, Jim. Archimedes' Liar is getting jealous. > >-- > >THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS >WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? Just like a fairy Demonicrat, wishing for the thought police.
From: Ralph Barone on 10 Jan 2010 13:39 .... and yet another thread degenerates into 3rd graders sticking their tongues out at each other. I have killfiled everybody who seems to be incapable of carrying on an adult conversation but the SNR on s.e.d still seems lower than in many other newsgroups. A shame...
From: Phil Hobbs on 10 Jan 2010 14:39
On 1/10/2010 1:39 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: > .... and yet another thread degenerates into 3rd graders sticking their > tongues out at each other. I have killfiled everybody who seems to be > incapable of carrying on an adult conversation but the SNR on s.e.d > still seems lower than in many other newsgroups. A shame... Well, we could talk about what an ideal electronics textbook would look like. Some of the canonical ones are Horowitz & Hill Grey & Meyer Ott Morrison The Radar Handbook Zverev Gardner's PLL book Van der Ziel's book on noise But they're all getting a bit long in the tooth. So if you could commission the ideal one-volume electronics text, what would it look like? I'd like a good strong section on transistors, showing how the device physics interacts with the circuit design details. Old tube books, e.g. Terman's, did a much better job at this than the modern ones seem to. It could start from simple rule-of-thumb CB, CE, and CC designs and then start going into progressively more detail, on things like saturation, beta linearity, noise sources, and so forth. (That puzzle of Jim's from last month about the sawtooth oscillator, for instance.) That was a major weak point in H&H, which iirc Win said they'd done something about for the third edition. I think it's possible to do a really good job of this without a whole lot of math--the interaction of diffusion and drift isn'd hard to visualize. FETs could fit in there too, though apart from a fair number of BF862s and the odd power MOS, I don't use a lot of discrete FETs. What would everyone else like to see in there? Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |