Better microelectronics from coal?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
Perfect for 2D electronics?

On 1/4/2024 12:25 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Better microelectronics from coal?
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
> Perfect for 2D electronics?

Coal consumption in the US peaked in 2007 but there is still a shit load
of it shipped about.

On weekday overnights on this rail cam in Kearney, Nebraska you can
watch 200 car unit coal trains run by maybe about every 45 minutes on
average, all night long.

<https://www.youtube.com/live/p1U8W8uCdok?si=dg46Cls6b39WgJ52>

On 1/4/24 06:25, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Better microelectronics from coal?
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
> Perfect for 2D electronics?

Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is
going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using
coal as fuel? That's hilarious.

Jeroen Belleman

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:51:40 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 1/4/24 06:25, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Better microelectronics from coal?
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
>> Perfect for 2D electronics?
>
>Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is
>going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using
>coal as fuel? That's hilarious.
>
>Jeroen Belleman

https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/

"Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
for God’s sake!"

On 1/4/24 18:23, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:51:40 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/24 06:25, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Better microelectronics from coal?
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
>>> Perfect for 2D electronics?
>>
>> Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is
>> going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using
>> coal as fuel? That's hilarious.
>>
>> Jeroen Belleman
>
> https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
>
> "Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
> for God’s sake!"
>

A lump of coal in Biden's stocking next Christmas!

Jeroen Belleman

On a sunny day (Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:23:28 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <s7qdpi9boaom6sbm2uq1ntq7l86g70nje4@4ax.com>:

>https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
>
>"Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
>for God�s sake!"
>

With the right teacher sure, anybody can learn to code
it is no different from making a route in a map:
go left, turn right etc..
It could actually be a big improvement over current bloat makers...
Just start with 'hello I am a coal miner" in binary on some micro.
Even simpler: Ask AI to write it.
Difference between cooking your own food and going to a Mc Donuts.

But the fun with coding is that you also need to learn about what you are coding for,
so a never ending adventure,
BASIC may also be a good starting point, for example
haw to calculate how much more a coder makes than a coal miner.
that may well motivate the students.

On 4/01/2024 8:51 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 1/4/24 06:25, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Better microelectronics from coal?
>>   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
>> Perfect for 2D electronics?
>
> Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is
> going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using
> coal as fuel? That's hilarious

Using a a grapheme layer a couple of carbon atoms thick in your
electronics isn't going to use much coal.

It's certainly true that burning coal wastes a very useful chemical
resource, but using coal as a chemical feed stock isn't likely to make
enough money to keep more than one mine open. The fine chemical business
can be lucrative but it isn't all that big.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/6/2024 9:40 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 12:25 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Better microelectronics from coal?
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
>>> Perfect for 2D electronics?
>> Coal consumption in the US peaked in 2007 but there is still a shit load
>> of it shipped about.
>>
>> On weekday overnights on this rail cam in Kearney, Nebraska you can
>> watch 200 car unit coal trains run by maybe about every 45 minutes on
>> average, all night long.
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/live/p1U8W8uCdok?si=dg46Cls6b39WgJ52>
>
> You wouldn't dream of taking a train that size through mountainous terrain.

The mountains of Nebraska?

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 06:43:54 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:24:43?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:51:40 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/4/24 06:25, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> >> Better microelectronics from coal?
>> >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
>> >> Perfect for 2D electronics?
>> >
>> >Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is
>> >going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using
>> >coal as fuel? That's hilarious.
>> >
>> >Jeroen Belleman
>> https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
>>
>> "Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
>> for God’s sake!"
>
>In the 1920s, or thenabouts, the science of eugenics established that even a complete certifiable imbecile can be trained to perform complex tasks.

Would you want everyone to be smart and beautiful like us?

On 9/01/2024 7:51 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 06:43:54 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:24:43?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:51:40 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/4/24 06:25, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>>> Better microelectronics from coal?
>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
>>>>> Perfect for 2D electronics?
>>>>
>>>> Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is
>>>> going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using
>>>> coal as fuel? That's hilarious.
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>> https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
>>>
>>> "Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
>>> for God’s sake!"
>>
>> In the 1920s, or thenabouts, the science of eugenics established that even a complete certifiable imbecile can be trained to perform complex tasks.
>
> Would you want everyone to be smart and beautiful like us?

John Larkin doesn't seem to be either smart or beautiful, except perhaps
in his own estimation.

"Haploid human genomes, which are contained in germ cells (the egg and
sperm gamete cells created in the meiosis phase of sexual reproduction
before fertilization) consist of 3,054,815,472 DNA base pairs (if X
chromosome is used).

While there are significant differences among the genomes of human
individuals (on the order of 0.1% due to single-nucleotide variants and
0.6% when considering indels), these are considerably smaller than the
differences between humans and their closest living relatives, the
bonobos and chimpanzees (~1.1% fixed single-nucleotide variants[6] and
4% when including indels)."

This still leave room for lot of variation between human beings. Only
identical twins (and triplets and quads etc) start off with identical
genenomes and development builds in variations in methylaltion.

You are very unlikely to see two identical genomes anywhere except in
identical twins. Eight billions individual falls way short of exhausting
all the possible permutations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:19:10 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 9:52:44 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On 9/01/2024 7:51 am, john larkin wrote:
> > > On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 06:43:54 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:24:43?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:51:40 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
> > >>> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 1/4/24 06:25, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > >>>>> Better microelectronics from coal?
> > >>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240103130835.htm
> > >>>>> Perfect for 2D electronics?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is
> > >>>> going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using
> > >>>> coal as fuel? That's hilarious.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jeroen Belleman
> > >>> https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
> > >>>
> > >>> "Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
> > >>> for God’s sake!"
> > >>
> > >> In the 1920s, or thenabouts, the science of eugenics established that even a complete certifiable imbecile can be trained to perform complex tasks.
> > >
> > > Would you want everyone to be smart and beautiful like us?
> > John Larkin doesn't seem to be either smart or beautiful, except perhaps
> > in his own estimation.
> >
> > "Haploid human genomes, which are contained in germ cells (the egg and
> > sperm gamete cells created in the meiosis phase of sexual reproduction
> > before fertilization) consist of 3,054,815,472 DNA base pairs (if X
> > chromosome is used).
> >
> > While there are significant differences among the genomes of human
> > individuals (on the order of 0.1% due to single-nucleotide variants and
> > 0.6% when considering indels), these are considerably smaller than the
> > differences between humans and their closest living relatives, the
> > bonobos and chimpanzees (~1.1% fixed single-nucleotide variants[6] and
> > 4% when including indels)."
> >
> > This still leave room for lot of variation between human beings. Only
> > identical twins (and triplets and quads etc) start off with identical
> > genenomes and development builds in variations in methylaltion.
> >
> > You are very unlikely to see two identical genomes anywhere except in
> > identical twins. Eight billions individual falls way short of exhausting
> > all the possible permutations.
>
> There was the story of the woman who possessed two distinct genomes. She was alerted to the problem when genomic testing revealed her children were not hers. Since it was for several children, the investigators ruled out the chance of multiple successive maternity ward mix-ups. Upon further explanation, it was found the mother had two genomes in circulation.

So she was a genetic mosaic, It happens, if not all that often, and isn't relevant to the argument I was making.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(genetics)

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:34:06 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:23:28 -0800) it happened John Larkin
> <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote in <s7qdpi9boaom6sbm2...@4ax.com>:
> >https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
> >
> >"Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
> >for God’s sake!"
> >
> With the right teacher sure, anybody can learn to code

if it were true the world would be a better place.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 22:44:44 -0800 (PST), Tabby <tabbypurr@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:34:06 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:23:28 -0800) it happened John Larkin
>> <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote in <s7qdpi9boaom6sbm2...@4ax.com>:
>> >https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
>> >
>> >"Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
>> >for God’s sake!"
>> >
>> With the right teacher sure, anybody can learn to code
>
>if it were true the world would be a better place.

Some people just don't get the first concept: I type words and then
later a machine executes those words to process data.

And a lot of people don't understand data. That's fine, those people
can have other talents.

This reminds me of electricians. There are some great electricians,
artists with wire and conduit, who don't understand electricity.

On 19/01/2024 2:47 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 22:44:44 -0800 (PST), Tabby <tabbypurr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:34:06 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:23:28 -0800) it happened John Larkin
>>> <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote in <s7qdpi9boaom6sbm2...@4ax.com>:
>>>> https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
>>>>
>>>> "Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
>>>> for God’s sake!"
>>>>
>>> With the right teacher sure, anybody can learn to code
>>
>> if it were true the world would be a better place.
>
> Some people just don't get the first concept: I type words and then
> later a machine executes those words to process data.

The machine executes the operation selected by that word. If you program
in assembler there's pretty much a one-to-correspondence between words
and operations. In higher level languages this is rare.

> And a lot of people don't understand data. That's fine, those people
> can have other talents.

Touting poorly designed electronic as "insanely good" does seem to be
one of them.

> This reminds me of electricians. There are some great electricians,
> artists with wire and conduit, who don't understand electricity.

Closer to home, John Larkin imagines that he designs his electronics,
when he merely cobbles stuff together. He never talks about discarding
an inadequate design and starting over.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:18:44 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 19/01/2024 2:47 am, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 22:44:44 -0800 (PST), Tabby <tabbypurr@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:34:06 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:23:28 -0800) it happened John Larkin
>>>> <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote in <s7qdpi9boaom6sbm2...@4ax.com>:
>>>>> https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/476391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code/
>>>>>
>>>>> "Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program,
>>>>> for God’s sake!"
>>>>>
>>>> With the right teacher sure, anybody can learn to code
>>>
>>> if it were true the world would be a better place.
>>
>> Some people just don't get the first concept: I type words and then
>> later a machine executes those words to process data.
>
>The machine executes the operation selected by that word. If you program
>in assembler there's pretty much a one-to-correspondence between words
>and operations. In higher level languages this is rare.
>
>> And a lot of people don't understand data. That's fine, those people
>> can have other talents.
>
>Touting poorly designed electronic as "insanely good" does seem to be
>one of them.
>
>> This reminds me of electricians. There are some great electricians,
>> artists with wire and conduit, who don't understand electricity.
>
>Closer to home, John Larkin imagines that he designs his electronics,
>when he merely cobbles stuff together. He never talks about discarding
>an inadequate design and starting over.

You post nonstop insults, not to just me but to almost everyone. You
must be a miserable person to be doing this constantly. A slave to
your baser passions without rational control. OK, that's pretty
normal.

But you accidentally bring up an important subject: what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? (You don't seem to do it, so
this is a question for the people in the group who do.)

Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or
sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.

All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts.
Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.

Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.

Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 2:14:07 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:18:44 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On 19/01/2024 2:47 am, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 22:44:44 -0800 (PST), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday 5 January 2024 at 03:34:06 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:23:28 -0800) it happened John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote in <s7qdpi9boaom6sbm2...@4ax.com>:

<snip>

> >> Some people just don't get the first concept: I type words and then
> >> later a machine executes those words to process data.
> >
> >The machine executes the operation selected by that word. If you program
> >in assembler there's pretty much a one-to-correspondence between words
> >and operations. In higher level languages this is rare.
> >
> >> And a lot of people don't understand data. That's fine, those people
> >> can have other talents.
> >
> >Touting poorly designed electronic as "insanely good" does seem to be
> >one of them.
> >
> >> This reminds me of electricians. There are some great electricians,
> >> artists with wire and conduit, who don't understand electricity.
> >
> >Closer to home, John Larkin imagines that he designs his electronics,
> >when he merely cobbles stuff together. He never talks about discarding
> >an inadequate design and starting over.
>
> You post nonstop insults, not to just me but to almost everyone.

Actually I don't. Your approach to electronic design is well documented, and happens to differ from mine and Phil Hobbs as documented in today's thread "electronic design". You may experience being subject to accurate description as being insulted, but that's not the intention.

I certainly don't spend my time insulting everybody, no matter how much you want to believe this.

>You must be a miserable person to be doing this constantly.

The "constantly" is in your perception. You may choose to believe this to support you unrealisitic self-image. but it doesn't happen to objectively true.

> A slave to your baser passions without rational control. OK, that's pretty normal.

You do like your comforting delusions. They make you look a bit silly, but that doesn't seem to worry you.
> But you accidentally bring up an important subject: what IS electronic design, and what's the best way to do it? (You don't seem to do it, so
> this is a question for the people in the group who do.)

You don't seem to be able to recognise electronic design when other people do it, which may be another way of protecting your comforting delusions.

<snipped more of the same>

http://sophia-elektronica.com/BillsBaxandall.html

is an exercise in electronic design.

"The circuit was originally developed as a retrofit to excite a linear variable differential transformer used to measure the progressively increasing mass of a single crystal of gallium arsenide (GaAs) being grown in the Metals Research GaAs Liquid-Encapsulated Czochralski (LEC) crystal puller. The circuit it replaced had been developed a decade earlier and used components that had become obsolete in 1986. The new circuit replaced it in new machines and was retrofitted to some older machines. The operators liked it, mainly because I'd gotten rid of an op amp that had injected pop-corn noise.

It’s quite a bit more complicated than the Baxandall Class-D oscillator, and less efficient – only about 50% of the power fed into the oscillator ends up in the load, rather than the better than 90% transfer you can get with a classic Class-D oscillator – but it’s quite a lot more efficient than any of the low distortion oscillators I know about, and it lends itself to very precise control of the output amplitude. I’ve generated quite a few Spice models of various implementations of the idea, but I’ve yet to get around to building a current version of the real circuit – the 1986 version worked fine, but at that time I wasn’t aware how good the circuit could be and didn’t have any reason to check out its performance in detail."

The example doesn't have particularly precise control of output amplitude (which the original did have). I've put that into LTSpice but it makes the schematic even more complicated.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydhey