conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: krw on 21 May 2010 19:49 On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:34:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >> ><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >> > >> > >> >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato >> >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the >> >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as >> >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they >> >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? >> >>> >> >> >> >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... >> >> >> > >> >You are partially right. >> > >> >John >> >> Small chips ?:-) > > > Maxim rejects! ;-) Not possible. Gotta make chips before they can be rejected. OTOH, I reject all Maxim chips.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 21 May 2010 19:59 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >"keithw86(a)gmail.com" wrote: > >> > >> On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On- > >> My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > >> > ><speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >> > > >> > >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato > >> > >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the > >> > >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as > >> > >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they > >> > >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? > >> > > >> > >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... > >> > > >> > >You are partially right. > >> > > >> > >John > >> > > >> > Small chips ?:-) > >> > >> Salt > > > > > > Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the > >recommended amount to prevent pressure sores. > > There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost > everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels. Some people think all salt is bad, but it's called 'The salt of life' for good reason. I can post pictures of the scars all over my lower legs, if you don't beleive me. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 21 May 2010 20:01 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:34:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >Jim Thompson wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin > >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > >> ><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato > >> >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the > >> >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as > >> >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they > >> >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... > >> >> > >> > > >> >You are partially right. > >> > > >> >John > >> > >> Small chips ?:-) > > > > > > Maxim rejects! ;-) > > Not possible. Gotta make chips before they can be rejected. OTOH, I reject > all Maxim chips. Then you know what to do with them. ;-) -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 20:04 On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 21, 5:06�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete >> >systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and >> >engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can >> >develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several >> >customers. >> >> Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell >> copies of engineering for decades. >> >> >> >> >Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key >> >development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes >> >skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely. >> >Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took >> >them on. >> >> I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own >> company I never want to do it again. >> > >Me too. But we're wrong John. Bill says we should do systems, and >Bill *knows* business. Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one >times is better and less risky than modest investment that pays 100x. > >James Another problem with the systems business is that you have a big staff of expensive people that need to be kept fed. So you bid on jobs. You have to overbid just like airlines overbook seats, only a lot more, because the no-show rate is 2:1 or worse. If all the propos-ees say no, you're dead. And if all of them say yes, you're almost as dead. Poisson is a cruel distribution. If you don't manage to come up with a smooth stream of projects, you wind up with a lot of people with nothing to do. Bill is the real expert at nothing-to-do. We're always developing products. We just work our way down an infinite list of ideas. Meanwhile, downstairs, manufacturing is churning out copies of all the stuff we've designed over the last 15 years or so, and bringing in the real revenue. If we get too many orders, we don't have to interview and hire a bunch of yokels off Craigslist, we just send a few big kits out to contract assemblers. John
From: Charlie E. on 21 May 2010 20:33
On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:04:54 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On May 21, 5:06�pm, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >>> >>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>> >The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete >>> >systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and >>> >engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can >>> >develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several >>> >customers. >>> >>> Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell >>> copies of engineering for decades. >>> >>> >>> >>> >Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key >>> >development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes >>> >skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely. >>> >Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took >>> >them on. >>> >>> I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own >>> company I never want to do it again. >>> >> >>Me too. But we're wrong John. Bill says we should do systems, and >>Bill *knows* business. Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one >>times is better and less risky than modest investment that pays 100x. >> >>James > >Another problem with the systems business is that you have a big staff >of expensive people that need to be kept fed. So you bid on jobs. You >have to overbid just like airlines overbook seats, only a lot more, >because the no-show rate is 2:1 or worse. If all the propos-ees say >no, you're dead. And if all of them say yes, you're almost as dead. >Poisson is a cruel distribution. > >If you don't manage to come up with a smooth stream of projects, you >wind up with a lot of people with nothing to do. Bill is the real >expert at nothing-to-do. > >We're always developing products. We just work our way down an >infinite list of ideas. Meanwhile, downstairs, manufacturing is >churning out copies of all the stuff we've designed over the last 15 >years or so, and bringing in the real revenue. If we get too many >orders, we don't have to interview and hire a bunch of yokels off >Craigslist, we just send a few big kits out to contract assemblers. > >John You CAN do systems if you are small, but it requires the right mind set. It also involves finding a lot of otherwise independent contractors that you can bring in on a moments notice when the proposal gets accepted. Last year, our city decided to do a video surveillance system. I had heard about it, and had put in my proposal. It was based on the budget that I was told about - $80K. A few months later, I heard that they were finally going ahead with the project, but it was now only $40K, and that LockMart was doing it? I asked, and found out that they had been sold on getting a full engineering study and system design, but the up shot was that now it was a $1.2M project! I looked at the final system, WiMAX, high class cameras with cooling (needed here!) and all. If I had known that was what they wanted, could have done the same project for something more like $800K, but they were sold the bill of goods... :-( Charlie |