Transformer insulateing tape?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Capacitor discharge probes
Next: makes no sense to me
From: Pieyed Piper on 25 Jun 2010 12:49 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:25:24 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >No particular shame in that, but for someone like you, who professes >to know everything about everything, a devastating chink in your armor >which you must, somehow, get everyone to believe wasn't there in the >first place. Probably because a "chink" is easy to spot, but his "gaping hole" means that the eye must back away from the macro view and examine the bigger picture to see the extent of the devastation.. He's a 'holey' man.
From: John Fields on 25 Jun 2010 14:08 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 23, 7:58�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> > The 555 may still be used >> >- by people who haven't yet learned that there are now better ways of >> >tackling the kind of job that it was developed to look after - but it >> >is still totally obsolete. >> >> --- >> With millions of pieces in stock, in all imaginable packages, all >> around the world, and with no manufacturer offering "lifetime buys" or >> notices of discontinuance, it seems your claims of obsolescence >> haven't been heard at high enough levels to matter. > >The part is still manufactured and dsitributed, but as a legacy part > >There are lots of old designs that use it which don't - individually - >sell in bigh enough volumes to justify the cost of redesign, though >they may justify the smaller cost of a relayout for smaller packages. > >Legacy parts are obsolete, even if the leacy market keeps them >commercially viable. > >There are a few lazy and stupid engineers still designing it into new >products, because they've never bothered to find out the more modern >solutions, and there are also quite a few hobbyists who just copy >elements out of old designs without trying to understand the >technology involved. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete --- >> As far as "better ways" goes, how would you know? > >Granting your self-serving delusions, there's no way you'd believe the >explanation. --- Translation: "let me side-step this tyrap with a straw man." --- >> The last time you put anything on paper, here, for a 555 substitute >> was an expensive analog monstrosity which, If I recall correctly, was >> truly obsolete at the time and, as far as replacing the device with a >> microcontroller goes, you don't have any first-hand experience with >> modern microcontrollers and are just parrotting the currently popular >> party line. > >Your memory is as bad as your grasp of reality. I did suggest the old >RCA CD4047 as a viable alternative. It is a digital part (in so far as >any monostable/astable is digital) and still in stock at Farnell as >dip parts from Fairchild, TI and NXP, and as an soic part from NXP. > >You don't need a modern microcontroller to put together a clock-based >timer - programmable logic parts are rather more useful if you want to >control a couple of operations at the same time, but that might be a >little too complicated for you. --- Try me; let's see what you can come up with that can beat a 555 one-shot performance-wise and dollar-wise. --- >And could you point to an exposition of the currently popular party >line that I'm supposed to be parrotting? I'm not aware of any such >document, but I'd quite like to see one if such a document actually >exists. --- "Use a PIC."
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Jun 2010 19:35 On Jun 25, 6:25 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:51:54 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 25, 6:21 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:41:29 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Jun 24, 7:07 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:02:27 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> >So you can't point to any goal post that I've actually moved. > > >> >> --- > >> >> He may not be able to, but I certainly can, case in point being the > >> >> thread where you didn't realize that a solenoid wrapped around a > >> >> conductor carrying AC current won't act as a transformer, remember? > > >> >That is what you remember. It is pity that you never did understand > >> >what I actually said. > > >> --- > >> OK, I'll bite... > > >> What did you actually say? > >> --- > > >You were never able to get the point back then. > > --- > That's because there was no point, only some doddering old nitwit > trying to talk himself out of a situation he'd gotten himself into > because of his ignorance. > --- That would characterise your contribution to the debate. > >Why should I waste my > >time making a second attempt at getting the same idea past your > >congitive defects? > > --- > JF 1, BS 0. > --- The Texas sharp shooter. Paints the bulls-eyes around the bullet holes after he has fired the gun. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Jun 2010 19:40 On Jun 21, 4:40 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:02:25 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >The mil is still a standard unit of measurement in the US, whose > >engineers failed to keep up with the rest of the world when it went > >metric. Your scientists weren't as backward. > > We work in BOTH, idiot, and do so well. Give or take the occasional space probe that doesn't get where it should have gone because the fuel load was calculated as specific number of gallons and loaded as that number of litres. > There is no need to jump into > microns where mils or even mm works just fine. Provided that no-one gets confused as to which set of units they ought to be working with at any given time. <snip> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Jun 2010 19:45
On Jun 25, 6:49 pm, Pieyed Piper <pieyedPi...(a)thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:25:24 -0500, John Fields > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >No particular shame in that, but for someone like you, who professes > >to know everything about everything, a devastating chink in your armor > >which you must, somehow, get everyone to believe wasn't there in the > >first place. > > Probably because a "chink" is easy to spot, but his "gaping hole" means > that the eye must back away from the macro view and examine the bigger > picture to see the extent of the devastation.. > > He's a 'holey' man. John Fields does seem to have had a revelation to that effect. As with other peddlers of irrational delusions, you'd be wise to look for rational evidence supporting his point of view before joining his little cult. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |