On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:06:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Copying eval boards or textbook circuits is no fun anyhow.
>
>I do a fair amount of business cleaning up after folks who only know how
>to do that. There are apparently many people who choose parts based on
>the keywords in the datasheet--"lidar", "transimpedance", "IoT", and so on.
>
>The BOM cost savings can be pretty startling, especially considering
>the improved performance.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

I just designed a circuit that costs literally 1% of the cost of the
standard way people do it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/03t8m1woa0bgora/Z498A6_Pulse.jpg?raw=1

I'm pretty sure I can clean up those little wiggles on the next
iteration, and make it faster. The zero volt level doesn't matter
much, because that's the extinction point of an e/o modulator, the
bottom of the sine-squared curve. The pulse flatness does matter.

I actually have to thank you for making this possible, so you're
welcome to the circuit any time.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 5:31:47 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 3:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:15:47 -0700, Don Y
> >> <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 6/23/2021 10:25 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:43:49 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 2021/06/23 8:52 a.m., jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:43:59 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Some folks here should remember that the convention of Usenet is to put
> >> >>>>> OT at the front of their Off-Topic posts.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Otherwise you risk being thought of as simply trolls and joining the
> >> >>>>> kill files.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> John :-#(#
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Please tell us your badge number.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Finally someone got it!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Usenet groups run on courtesy and unenforceable 'rules'. Once those are
> >> >>> no longer respected then the group dies off...
> >> >>
> >> >> SED is not doing well. It's mostly OT posts from foul snarky old farts
> >> >> who don't design electronics; if they do design, they are unwilling to
> >> >> expose it in useful detail.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe they don't NEED help with their designs - and are confident in their
> >> >own abilities to not CRAVE having their egos stroked?
> >> Unlikely in both respects.
> >>
> >> The few people who do design in public, like Phil and Win, seem to be
> >> very good at it.
> >
> >What's to discuss if the "design" is standard subcircuits. If you have to make everything an invention, you're not going to get anywhere.
> Design engineers invent new concepts, new circuits. That's the
> definition.
>
> Copying eval boards or textbook circuits is no fun anyhow.

Dunno who would copy a textbook circuit, the idea of it should make all but the most inexperienced skeptical.
Today the manufacturers publish "reference designs." Some of them are very LARGE involving quite a few areas of expertise, especially the programmable stuff- parts with 500 page data-/tech- sheets, obviously the result of a group effort.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 07:49:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 5:31:47 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 3:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:15:47 -0700, Don Y
>> >> <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 6/23/2021 10:25 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:43:49 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 2021/06/23 8:52 a.m., jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:43:59 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Some folks here should remember that the convention of Usenet is to put
>> >> >>>>> OT at the front of their Off-Topic posts.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Otherwise you risk being thought of as simply trolls and joining the
>> >> >>>>> kill files.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> John :-#(#
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Please tell us your badge number.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Finally someone got it!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Usenet groups run on courtesy and unenforceable 'rules'. Once those are
>> >> >>> no longer respected then the group dies off...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> SED is not doing well. It's mostly OT posts from foul snarky old farts
>> >> >> who don't design electronics; if they do design, they are unwilling to
>> >> >> expose it in useful detail.
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe they don't NEED help with their designs - and are confident in their
>> >> >own abilities to not CRAVE having their egos stroked?
>> >> Unlikely in both respects.
>> >>
>> >> The few people who do design in public, like Phil and Win, seem to be
>> >> very good at it.
>> >
>> >What's to discuss if the "design" is standard subcircuits. If you have to make everything an invention, you're not going to get anywhere.
>> Design engineers invent new concepts, new circuits. That's the
>> definition.
>>
>> Copying eval boards or textbook circuits is no fun anyhow.
>
>Dunno who would copy a textbook circuit, the idea of it should make all but the most inexperienced skeptical.
>Today the manufacturers publish "reference designs." Some of them are very LARGE involving quite a few areas of expertise, especially the programmable stuff- parts with 500 page data-/tech- sheets, obviously the result of a group effort.

I knew a guy who copied eval board circuits onto his own little boards
with barrier strips and sold them into the industrial process control
market. He never designed anything.

He was doing great until he started day trading with the profits; lost
everything, house and wife and all.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 07:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 4:44:10 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
>> Some folks here should remember that the convention of Usenet is to put
>> OT at the front of their Off-Topic posts.
>>
>> Otherwise you risk being thought of as simply trolls and joining the
>> kill files.
>>
>> John :-#(#
>
>https://www.bigrentz.com/blog/how-to-build-underground-bunker

That's hilarious. Are you building one?

Hiding under your bed is a more economical way to avoid viruses.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:06:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Copying eval boards or textbook circuits is no fun anyhow.
>>
>> I do a fair amount of business cleaning up after folks who only know how
>> to do that. There are apparently many people who choose parts based on
>> the keywords in the datasheet--"lidar", "transimpedance", "IoT", and so on.
>>
>> The BOM cost savings can be pretty startling, especially considering
>> the improved performance.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> I just designed a circuit that costs literally 1% of the cost of the
> standard way people do it.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/03t8m1woa0bgora/Z498A6_Pulse.jpg?raw=1
>
> I'm pretty sure I can clean up those little wiggles on the next
> iteration, and make it faster. The zero volt level doesn't matter
> much, because that's the extinction point of an e/o modulator, the
> bottom of the sine-squared curve. The pulse flatness does matter.
>
> I actually have to thank you for making this possible, so you're
> welcome to the circuit any time.
>
>
>
SAV-581+ to the rescue!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:56:06 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:06:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Copying eval boards or textbook circuits is no fun anyhow.
>>>
>>> I do a fair amount of business cleaning up after folks who only know how
>>> to do that. There are apparently many people who choose parts based on
>>> the keywords in the datasheet--"lidar", "transimpedance", "IoT", and so on.
>>>
>>> The BOM cost savings can be pretty startling, especially considering
>>> the improved performance.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> I just designed a circuit that costs literally 1% of the cost of the
>> standard way people do it.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/03t8m1woa0bgora/Z498A6_Pulse.jpg?raw=1
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I can clean up those little wiggles on the next
>> iteration, and make it faster. The zero volt level doesn't matter
>> much, because that's the extinction point of an e/o modulator, the
>> bottom of the sine-squared curve. The pulse flatness does matter.
>>
>> I actually have to thank you for making this possible, so you're
>> welcome to the circuit any time.
>>
>>
>>
>SAV-581+ to the rescue!
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:56:06 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:06:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Copying eval boards or textbook circuits is no fun anyhow.
>>>
>>> I do a fair amount of business cleaning up after folks who only know how
>>> to do that. There are apparently many people who choose parts based on
>>> the keywords in the datasheet--"lidar", "transimpedance", "IoT", and so on.
>>>
>>> The BOM cost savings can be pretty startling, especially considering
>>> the improved performance.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> I just designed a circuit that costs literally 1% of the cost of the
>> standard way people do it.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/03t8m1woa0bgora/Z498A6_Pulse.jpg?raw=1
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I can clean up those little wiggles on the next
>> iteration, and make it faster. The zero volt level doesn't matter
>> much, because that's the extinction point of an e/o modulator, the
>> bottom of the sine-squared curve. The pulse flatness does matter.
>>
>> I actually have to thank you for making this possible, so you're
>> welcome to the circuit any time.
>>
>>
>>
>SAV-581+ to the rescue!
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

No, but close guess.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:23:18 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>===============
>>
>> Design engineers invent new concepts, new circuits. That's the
>> definition.
>>
>
>** No, that is NOT the "definition" - just your absurd notion.
>

It's my definition. It's what I do.

I suppose anyone can buy some parts from Digikey and slap them
together. Like anyone can play a guitar or slap some paint on canvass.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:19:14 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 23/06/21 22:31, John Larkin wrote:
>> Design engineers invent new concepts, new circuits. That's the
>> definition.
>
>Design engineers design a solution to a problem
>as economically as possible.
>
>They do the "research" (in the Tom Lehrer sense) to
>enable them to create their solution.
>
>Most solutions use things that they would not
>be competent to design.
>
>Where, through ignorance, they recreate something
>they are not competent to design, they create elliptical
>wheels. That should be prevented, by simply buying
>component parts developed elsewhere.

Circuit designers are a couple of levels up the abstraction stack from
the physics of resistors and such. Coders are about 5 levels further
removed.

The number of possible circuits that can be assembled from even 100
popular parts is basically infinite. Exploring the solution space is
not trivial and few people are really good at it.

But ignorance and luck should be allowed in the design process.
Historically, lots of great inventors didn't understand how their
discoveries worked.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tom Gardner wrote:
>================
>> John Larkin wrote:
>> > Design engineers invent new concepts, new circuits. That's the
>> > definition.
>>
>> Design engineers design a solution to a problem
>> as economically as possible.
>>
>> They do the "research" (in the Tom Lehrer sense) to
>> enable them to create their solution.
>>
> ** LOL !!
>
>"' Plagiarise, plagiarise, let no one else's work evade your eyes .... "
>
>
>IME Good designers combine the best ideas from existing or previous products.
>
>Bad ones copy the worst.
>
>
>..... Phil

And a few invent stuff they haven't seen before.

Somebody said "All I have to do is copy app notes" and didn't think
about where those app notes came from.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 5:35:53 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:23:18 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >===============
> >>
> >> Design engineers invent new concepts, new circuits. That's the
> >> definition.
> >>
> >
> >** No, that is NOT the "definition" - just your absurd notion.
> >
> It's my definition. It's what I do.

It's what he thinks he does.
> I suppose anyone can buy some parts from Digikey and slap them together. Like anyone can play a guitar or slap some paint on canvass.

They can. Most of them can't put anything together that is good enough to sell, but some markets are less demanding that others.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 5:44:29 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:19:14 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 23/06/21 22:31, John Larkin wrote:
> >> Design engineers invent new concepts, new circuits. That's the
> >> definition.
> >
> >Design engineers design a solution to a problem
> >as economically as possible.
> >
> >They do the "research" (in the Tom Lehrer sense) to
> >enable them to create their solution.
> >
> >Most solutions use things that they would not
> >be competent to design.
> >
> >Where, through ignorance, they recreate something
> >they are not competent to design, they create elliptical
> >wheels. That should be prevented, by simply buying
> >component parts developed elsewhere.
>
> Circuit designers are a couple of levels up the abstraction stack from
> the physics of resistors and such. Coders are about 5 levels further
> removed.

That doesn't absolve them from understanding the lower level stuff.
> The number of possible circuits that can be assembled from even 100 popular parts is basically infinite.

Not actually infinite, and most of the combinations won't do anything at all.

> Exploring the solution space is not trivial and few people are really good at it.

Rather more think that they are good at it.

> But ignorance and luck should be allowed in the design process.

Doing stuff where you don't understand what you are doing is risky, and usually a waste of time.

> Historically, lots of great inventors didn't understand how their discoveries worked.

Name one. People frequently come across circuits that don't do what they expect them to do, but most them work out what is actually going on before they risk trying to exploit them.
What's required is a deeper understanding of what's actually going on - not always one that would satisfy a physicist, but still a better approximation to reality than you started off with.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 5:46:16 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Tom Gardner wrote:
> >================
> >> John Larkin wrote:
>
> And a few invent stuff they haven't seen before.
>
> Somebody said "All I have to do is copy app notes" and didn't think about where those app notes came from.

I once copied an Analog Devices app note - I didn't much like what they'd done, but assumed that they'd actually built the circuit. It was easy to change it enough to get it to work as intended, but it did damage my faith in Analog Devices.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 2:51:33 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 24/6/21 1:17 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> > Bill Slowman Troll wrote:
> > =====================
> >>
> >>
> >>> Fred Bloggs won't because it's a troll.
> >>
> >> Fred Bloggs isn't a troll.
> >
> > ** Course he is.
> >
> >> He's not malicious,
> >
> > ** No all trollsa are.
> >
> >> and he doesn't go after people merely because he doesn't like them.
> >
> > ** So he's not like you.
> >
> >>
> >> John Doe is a troll - but doesn't seem to have enough sense to realise what he is.
> >
> > ** So exactly like you.
> >
> >
> >> This is an unmoderated group.
> >
> > ** Sso it is self policing.
> >
> >>
> >> The only way to deal with people whose opinions aren't worth attending to is to ignore them,
> >
> > ** The are other and better ways.
> >
> > Now how do we get rid of demented fools like you ?
> I might be mistaken in thinking that this is a serious question, but
> here's how I do it...
>
> I don't see Sloman's messages unless someone replies to them.
>
> It's not that he doesn't sometimes have useful things to say, but they're so deeply buried in his unmitigated crap - which never garners useful responses - that it's really a much better place without him.

Clifford Heath prefers his own unmitigated crap, and resents being called on it when he posts it. He does also have useful things to say - if not that often.
> No-one else here has earned that treatment. Half a dozen others are automatically marked "read", because they sometimes get serious and
> useful responses. I want to see those.

I have been known to get serious and useful responses. These are rare, no matter who is responding to what. Clifford Heath's opinion on the subject is as subjective as anybody else's.
Some posters have a very low signal to noise ratio - John Doe, Flyguy and Cursitor Doom do come to mind, and some people who occasionally post useful stuff - like John Larkin - aren't all that much better.
> s.e.d is much better that way anyhow.

You find that you like using s.ed. the way that suits you. No surprise there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in
news:saumq8$23v$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org:

> On 2021-06-22, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some folks here should remember that the convention of Usenet is
>> to put OT at the front of their Off-Topic posts.
>>
>> Otherwise you risk being thought of as simply trolls and joining
>> the kill files.
>>
>> John :-#(#
>
> People forget, like you did.
>

People forget... to filter the abusers.

It is like the fucking cities that claim to be cash poor, yet cops
are everywhere watching assholes run red lights and speeding and
driving cars with fucking over tinted windows and a goddamned mask over
their license plate.

Cops should be writing tickets in all 50 states for the dumb sports
bar mentality motherfuckers who think a tag cover "is cool".

Even the clear ones are illegal.

Essentially most humans are complacent idiots, no matter what they
claim to have learned in school.

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote in
news:8_idnTcINJxb-U79nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com:

>
> On 2021/06/23 8:52 a.m., jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:43:59 -0700, John Robertson
>> <spam@flippers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Some folks here should remember that the convention of Usenet is
>>> to put OT at the front of their Off-Topic posts.
>>>
>>> Otherwise you risk being thought of as simply trolls and joining
>>> the kill files.
>>>
>>> John :-#(#
>>
>> Please tell us your badge number.
>>
>
> Finally someone got it!
>
> Usenet groups run on courtesy and unenforceable 'rules'. Once
> those are no longer respected then the group dies off...
>
> John ;-#)#
>

Yeah... we saw that on January 6 too.

GITMO needs to be expanded and filled up with these assholes who
think the Trump method is honorable. Including Trump and his three
eldest scumspawn. And each and every one of the asswipes who invaded
the Capitol. They can be prison inmate patriots while they
contemplate the stupidity they participated in.

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:92b6ff7f-a3b5-4d4d-3ecc-750dcb49c68d@electrooptical.net:

> Joerg, Win, JT, and the two Tim W's (among others) added a lot of
> variety. I even miss Miso. (If I start missing Grise and DLUNU and
> Eeyore and Guy Macon, put me out of my misery.)
>
> But we soldier on.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs

WTF did I ever do or say to you?

And if you are miserable, do yourself. Put us out of your misery.
It is not like you, a scientist, to spout bar room mentality horeshit.
So, humans, regardless of education, seem to enjoy jumping on
bandwagons.

But the truly intelligent among us "walk on". Life is one step at a
time, not a fucking war theater.

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in
news:sb0kq7$emr$1@dont-email.me:

> On 6/23/2021 5:28 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
>>>>> I ask about technologies and experiences/recommendations for
>>>>> components (or technologies). I'm smart enough to figure out
>>>>> how to solve "engineering problems" -- but, can benefit from
>>>>> other folks' first hand experiences with specific products or
>>>>> technologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's an "open design problem":
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> That's a laundry list, not a design in progress, and anyway
>>>> it's not electronics design.
>>>
>>> It's the design criteria that *I* was faced with. Do your
>>> clients give you a half-completed design and ask you to "just
>>> fill in the blanks"? Must be luxurious not to have to THINK
>>> about what you'll be designing!
>>>
>>>> But thanks for playing.
>>>
>>> Ah, you can't come up with a means of designing it with
>>> electronic components? Do you expect to use sticks and rope?
>>
>> I thought you said you didn't want anybody to do your work for
>> you? Nah, must be my earwax.
>
> *YOU* ASKED FOR A DESIGN PROBLEM. GET THE WAX OUT OF YOUR EYES!
>
> I've already solved the problem. I'll wait until you've shown
> sufficient interest in it to invest some time THINKING about it.
> Then, I'll point out why your proposed solution won't work...
>
>> Your laundry list is super boring, for one thing, and shows zero
>> design insight from you.
>
> Really? Should I have omitted the disabilities that are intended
> to be addressed? What should I have *added* --- to make it "more
> interesting"?
>
> How would YOU have defined the problem space? Tell us your
> "EXCITING" version of the laundry list...
>
> Tie your arms behind your back and try using ANYTHING that YOU
> have designed -- ever! Then, try closing your eyes and repeating
> the exercise. Have you even THOUGHT about those cases? ("No, my
> users don't have those problems -- or, someone else has to address
> them!")
>
>> As I said, I can't remember your posting any actual electronic
>> designs. Modem stuff, display stuff, computer stuff, IoT stuff,
>> repairs, sure. Nearly all OT here.
>
> So, Phil Hobbs has issued an edict that only CERTAIN electronic
> devices are considered as "electronic" in the eyes of SED? So,
> most of the electronic devices that are in use and in stores today
> are not electronic! Sure sounds elitist, to me!
>
> "All bow down in humble respect..."
>
>> Can you give an example of an actual circuit that you've
>> presented or improved on SED? I'm not claiming that none exists,
>> just that I can't recall any such thing. I'd be very glad to be
>> proved wrong--but a bald assertion doesn't qualify.
>
> I don't bother with "pure discrete" designs; they have low value
> per dollar and unit space. Even my power supplies have processors
> in them! I use discretes typically for signal conditioning or
> protection. It is far easier to "add value" in other ways than to
> try to save a few discretes in some banal design.
>
> C'mon, Phil, why don't you show us a design for a PoE PD
> controller... built entirely from discretes (otherwise it's not
> "electronics"). And, tell us why it's superior to something we can
> all buy off-the-shelf? (Do you like reinventing the wheel?)
>
> Why bother using anything "integrated" -- isn't that CHEATING?
> Build your own discrete comparators, amplifiers, etc. "Real
> men don't use ICs!"
>

This is actually one of the most interesting "discussions" in this
group... sci.electronics.design I think the group name actually
infers "electronic circuits", not simply or merely the nitty gritty
molecular level stuff. So I do not see what some folks seem to want
to segrgate themselves from others as if to be at a different level
or the only ones actually making on topic posts here.

"Electronics" is anything where electrons are manipulated or
observed. period. Whether the end purpose is the control and
switching of a 10 HP motor or a picoamp sensing PMT for detecting a
missile launch photon event.

This group has discussed anything but electronics design for
decades. And it includes a sprinkling of actual electronic
discussion. But this is what it is throughout Usenet. And the dorks
know that fact. And they want to start pissing and moaning now?
They, whom so many times participate in said OT discussions?

Oh, but that's right... I'm a troll and could not instruct or
discuss or anyhting here because the LarkinTards of the group decide
how you get tagged by the 'regulars'.

I miss folks like John Fields. And the larkintards' monikers even
skewed his responses to me at times.

Some here are even worse than the politicians with their lack of
grasp or retention of their human psychology educational elements.
It really is dishonorable as fuck to act like goddamned sports bar /
jailhouse mentality dumb criminal leaning jock fucks.

But as we all already know... most of you can't handle the sooth.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:mjp7dgh814idnncmavukag7grfre5p00bu@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:22:37 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 6/23/2021 5:39 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe they simply have no desire to discuss those things. You
>>>> can always go in search of information that is of interest to
>>>> you... why do you need others to dangle topics in front of you?
>>>> No imagination? Curiosity?
>>>
>>> Right. Why does anyone want to look at a newsgroup when there's
>>> Google?
>>
>>Google doesn't have all the answers.
>>
>>Nor do libraries (public OR technical!)
>>
>>Most of us have REAL FRIENDS and COLLEAGUES that we share the
>>intimacies of our designs with. If you've been "at it" ("it"
>>being ANYTHING!) for ANY period of time and haven't managed to
>>accumulate a list of "go-to" people to address the issues that
>>you're not competent in, comfortable with (or INTERESTED in), then
>>you've missed out on a lot!
>>
>>You know, people who actually CARE about your success, not just
>>the time it takes to post a poorly considered comment to a
>>faceless name on a public forum (or newsgroup)...
>
> Then why are you here?
>
>
>

It is not to listen to you telling him that his design or
submission is or is not electronics design.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:85169375-d46a-4272-
a4ad-e5d4f90ffb9fn@googlegroups.com:

> Now how do we get rid of demented fools like you ?
>

Go out on your back porch and put a loaded handgun to your head and
fire the motherfucker into your skull, twerp.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:0h59dght5nfn64ecf51r6dhkkcs7in460p@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:06:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>><snip>
>>>
>>> Copying eval boards or textbook circuits is no fun anyhow.
>>
>>I do a fair amount of business cleaning up after folks who only
>>know how to do that. There are apparently many people who choose
>>parts based on the keywords in the datasheet--"lidar",
>>"transimpedance", "IoT", and so on.
>>
>>The BOM cost savings can be pretty startling, especially
>>considering the improved performance.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Phil Hobbs
>
> I just designed a circuit that costs literally 1% of the cost of
> the standard way people do it.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/03t8m1woa0bgora/Z498A6_Pulse.jpg?raw=1
>
> I'm pretty sure I can clean up those little wiggles on the next
> iteration, and make it faster. The zero volt level doesn't matter
> much, because that's the extinction point of an e/o modulator, the
> bottom of the sine-squared curve. The pulse flatness does matter.
>
> I actually have to thank you for making this possible, so you're
> welcome to the circuit any time.
>
>
>

Give us a nice, stereo, low distorion headphone amp that runs on
two 18650s.

Throw in a BlueTooth interface for extra points.

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
> news:92b6ff7f-a3b5-4d4d-3ecc-750dcb49c68d@electrooptical.net:
>
>> Joerg, Win, JT, and the two Tim W's (among others) added a lot of
>> variety. I even miss Miso. (If I start missing Grise and DLUNU and
>> Eeyore and Guy Macon, put me out of my misery.)
>>
>> But we soldier on.

>
> WTF did I ever do or say to you?

On a personal level, you and I have coexisted peacefully for many years,
and hopefully will continue to do so. As far as I recall, I've never
had a personal feud with any of the others I listed either.

It's a SNR issue. I was complaining about the decline in the percentage
of posters who actually talk about designs in any detail, vs. vague
generalities, pontifications, or schoolyard politics.

Personalities and factional fights aren't super interesting. I'd way
rather talk about designing electronics. Not everyone here is an active
designer, but the group is called sci.electronics.design, after all.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com