Re: Flag desecration?

On 7 Jul 2006 15:49:53 -0700, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 07:27:02 -0700, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 15:19:50 -0700, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:03:29 GMT, "Rich, but drunk" <a@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>

Well, since I _am_ a professional and you don't seem to be, at the
moment, I can only reiterate that there are many instances where a
555 is the _perfect_ solution, whether your bullheadedness keeps you
from recognizing it or not.
---

If by "professional" you mean "being paid", who is paying for your
services at the moment? Nothing personal, but if they are gullible
enough to pay you, they might just be gullible enough to pay me too ...

---
They might be, but there _are_ limits. That is, you'd have to at
least be able to produce something besides opinions, and I don't see
that happening any time soon.
---

As for the 555 being the_perfect_solution, please produce an example
... just one. My misanthropicly sceptical attitude would just love an
example to play with.

---
Well, Bill, that application which you were trying to foist that
4047 on was pretty close. Wanna backtrack and find out why?
---


Scepticism isn't misanthrophic - and being sceptical about you
certainly isn't necessarily misanthropic, since there is some question
whether Texans qualify as human any more. It is difficult to explain
Dubbya without invoking some measure of devolution back to some barely
anthropoid common ancestor

---
And this little foray into Bush and Texas-bashing has _what_ to do
with the discussion?

As usual, when you find yourself at a disadvantage in an argument,
you try to weasel your way out of discomfort by changing the subject
and doing a little inflammatory bashing. Ho-hum, totally
predictable slomanesque behavior.
---

and moreover, you assign the blame for
your inability to understand the posted material on the poster
instead of on yourself, where it rightfully belongs.

Nice try, but where is your evidence?

---
Remember the last little go-round we had on 555's where I proved
that a couple of 555's were better suited for the application at
hand than the pair of 4047's you suggested?

And you want to carry on about my inablitiy to understand posted
material!

---
Of course. I thought I made that abundantly clear...
---

You should. You fought tooth and nail to the bitter end claiming
that the 4047 was better suited for the task at hand even though it
was explained to you over and over again that it was physically much
larger, more expensive, and more complex than needed for the job.

Most of which was of no importance for a one-off job. How having
complementary inputs and outputs makes the 4047 more complex than the
555 isn't entirely obvious to me, though I can understand that you
might having trouble choosiing between two minimally different pins.

---
Another attempt at subterfuge, huh?

On any given day, for a one-off, a 555 is going to be cheaper and
easier to get than a 4047, plus with the lack of all the other
unneeded functions available in a 4047 it's a BETTER choice for the
application than the 4047 and you know it, so you're just being
perverse in denying it.
---

Had you understood that, and been honest about it, you would have
admitted that you were wrong in your choice of part, so your refusal
to do that indicated that you either didn't understand the posted
material or you were loath to admit your mistake and tried to make
it seem that it was I who made the error instead of you.
---

Whereas what I was saying was that you were trying to pose as a
"professional" by worrying about parts cost and board space constraints
that might have been relevant to somebody wanting to make ten thousand
copies of the same part, while ignoring the real constraint for one-off
design, which is to keep the design simple and comprehensible.

---
Parts cost and board space constraints are always important, whether
it's a one-off or a design for production, and any professional
would know that. "KISS" is an apt acronym which covers both cases
and with which we all agree, no?

A 555 is simpler than a 4047, has a much smaller footprint, and its
architecture is much more readily comprehensible, so your apparent
claim that a 4047 beats a 555 on those counts is rubbish. Designed,
apparently, just to prolong an argument you _can't_ win.
---

Typically, you misunderstood my comment that I'd done most of my design
work for low-volume production as an admission that I'd never designed
for high volume production, which isn't true

---
The key word is "misunderstood", which is easy to do when reading
your posts.
---

- for your sake I hope
you'd drunk both of your bottles of chardonnay before you posted that
little gem.

---
Either way, it was your confusing post which resulted in my reply,
so the onus for the inaccuracy lies on you.



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Adding delay to the pulse
    ... John Fields wrote: ... the cost of the design work is a substantial fraction of the total ... production costs over the life-cycle of the unit. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: How inaccurate is a 555 or 7555 REALLY?
    ... John Fields wrote: ... you design to keep from confusing folks? ... service engineers who are prepared to ... If the design wasn't transparent to the final test technicians, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: How inaccurate is a 555 or 7555 REALLY?
    ... John Fields wrote: ... interpreted as insult, but that infinite care be taken with ... I'll see your electron beam microfabricator and raise you the system ... I spent a lot design time doing this on ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Adding delay to the pulse
    ... John Fields wrote: ... resistors - the worst case 0.25uA threshold current is only specified ... the cost of the design work is a substantial fraction of the total ... production costs over the life-cycle of the unit. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Who is your favourite electronics guru?
    ... John Fields wrote: ... The absence of any modern competitior for the 555's slot ... the original design. ... usurping Camenzind's genius and fitting into the same socket ...
    (sci.electronics.design)