Re: Who is your favourite electronics guru?

On 14 Aug 2006 03:12:45 -0700, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 08:15:44 -0700, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 01:45:06 -0700, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:

<snip>

He did more than outline, he _did_ redesign both the bipolar and the
CMOS 555 and showed the circuits.
---

Yes, he does show the circuits, but he doesn't show the aspect ratios
of the reistors and all the other fine detail that makes a complete
design.

---
You're an ass. I suppose every time you post a design here you
always include the PCB layout? Oh wait...
---

You are the ass.

---
IKYABWAI?
---

You are infering the existence of a complete design
from the circuit diagram presented in the book - nothing in the book
suggests that the redesign has ever been taken to the point where it
might go through a fab.

---
And nothing I said indicated that's what I believed. Perhaps you
misinterpreted: "showed the circuits" as something other than
"showing the circuit electrical schematic diagrams."
---

In that sense we never post complete designs here - we just post
circuit diagrams illustrating the central idea or ideas, which is what
Hans Camazind did in his book.

---
Really?
---

Mostly a reasonably skiled designer can get from there to a practicable
design without having to rethink anything or retrace their steps, but
that process uses up an appreciable number of hours of skilled labour.

---
Damn, Bill, I never realized before what an incredible grasp of the
obvious you possess!
---

Morever, your hate for the 555 and your willingness to reject it for
any purpose to which it might be eminently suited speaks volumes
about your ignorance.
---

I don't hate it - I despise it, which isn't quite the same thing. And
my experience has been that for any task for which the 555 has been
"eminently suited" there has been a better way of tackling the problem
- usually based on looking at the system as whole.

---
"System as a whole", you pathetic blockhead? Perhaps 90% of the
applications requested here for which a 555 is suited are "systems"
where the _only_ active device is the 555.

Because the dumb newbies who put up the applications have
over-simplified their system requirements to the point where the 555
looks like a solution - almost alwasy to the wrong problem.

---
Not dumb newbies, ignorant newbies who know what they want but don't
know exactly how to get it. As the dialogue progresses, we'll zero
in on and finally get them what they need and, in many cases, a 555
will be the _perfect_ solution.

If you happen to be the other partner in the dialogue.

---
No. You may have noticed that there are other people here who
aren't afraid to voice their opinions, and if a 555 weren't an
acceptable choice I'd be willing to bet that they'd have no qualms
at all about posting that and suggesting a _better_ alternative.

You, on the other hand, seem to be one of the few posters (perhaps
the only one) who despises 555s to the point where rationality
eludes you and you suggest, in pique, that a 4047 (or any other
cumbersome device or circuit) is an acceptable substitute for a 555.
---

If it isn't, we'll find out what is and give them that solution.

A typical newbie request goes something like this:

"I need something to flash an LED for half a second or so every ten
seconds or so, forever."

I'm pretty sure you'd come up with some harebrained scheme designed
for the single purpose of excluding a 555. Probably a 12AX7 astable
multivibrator instead of one 7555, one capacitor, and two resistors.
---

Further, ISTR that your favorite substitute for the 555 is some 14
pin monstrosity with twice the footprint area and a higher price tag
than the 555, so you're certainly not choosing parts with any
engineering in mind, you're trying to use something... anything...
instead of a 555, just because...

We wasted a lomng time argueing about this, and you seem to have
forgotten all the arguements.

---
It wasn't time wasted at all. You got your ass nailed and have
chosen to relegate that fact to the dim recesses of your mind so you
can pretend it didn't happen.
---


Nitwit. I've never used a CD4047 in a real design,

---
Funny, I thought that you were suggesting it be used instead of a
555 in a design the OP was going to make real. Or do you offer
"advice" on the basis that you think it'll never be used? I think
that's probably something recipients of your "help" need to keep in
mind in the future.
---

Try and remeber the context.

---
It's not on me to do _anything_.

If you think I'm wrong, _prove_ it.
---

and it certainly
isn't one of my favourite parts. You are setting up a straw man with
even less than your usual subtlety.

---
I'm not setting up a straw man at all. You were the one who
pooh-pooh ed the 555 and offered up the 4047 as a "better" choice,
even in spite of its much larger footprint and higher price, so you
must have thought it had something going for it which the 555
didn't.

Complementary inputs and outputs.

---
Which weren't needed.
---

Also, since you say you've kept up with all the changes in
chips since the stony ages, I would have assumed (since you didn't
suggest a different chip) that the 4047 would be your favorite for
the application, ergo one of your favorite parts.
---

It was the first astable that came to mind ...

---
Other than the 555 in the circuit, you mean.
---

I don't have to work at not using the 555 - it simply isn't a part that
professional engineers use very often.

How would _you_ know?

I worked as an electronic engineer from 1973 to 2003 for some eight
different organisations. In two of the organisations I was the only
electronic engineer, and most of the detailed design was handled by
sub-contractors whom I had to supervise - 1992-93 and 2000-2003. I've
got to meet and work with a great many professional engineers.

---
So, since most of your work was solo and you despise 555s, what a
surprise that your underlings, if they ever detailed a 555 into one
of your "designs" were made to understand, in no uncertain terms,
"NO 555s ALLOWED"
---

I've never had a design review
where anybody - even the idiot manager - has asked me why I didn't use
a 555.

---
The reason, then, is because you didn't attend many design reviews
or because they _were_ idiots.
---

There have been quite a few design reviews. Some of the managers were
idiots when it came to electronics, but most of the engineers were at
least good, and some were superb.

---
The good ones, as well as the superb, would then have been capable
of deciding objectively whether a 555 was an acceptable/desirable
choice, as opposed to your knee-jerk 555phobic reaction.
---

You, however, have a _big_ problem with not being able to choose the
most suitable part for a job because of your attitude. Oh, well,
you're the one on the dole, not me.
---

I'm on the dole because I'm too old - the only chances of work that
I've seen have arisen from my demonstrable competence, so you've got my
situation exactly 180 degrees wrong.

---
Yeah, demonstrable competence like choosing a big, fat, expensive
chip you've never used on the basis that it's "better" than a
smaller, less expensive, ubiquitously available one?

Demonstrable competence in designing for low volume production, where
the cost of the design is the biggest single itme in the total costs
for the item over its entire life-cycle.

---
Hey, I've got news for ya, Bill, design time here is a non-issue
because it's _free_, which lets me and anyone else who wants to,
spend as much time as needed to come up with a _good_ design, not
some top heavy, cockamamie piece of *** like you're forced into
doing because you've painted yourself into a corner where 555s
aren't allowed.
---

You, on the other hadn, are a Johnny one-note, who automatically
optimises for relatively high volume production, and gets excited over
a proce difference that represents a few seconds of design time.

---
Nope. I've done both and my goal in either case is smaller, faster,
better, cheaper. Since design time, here, isn't a constraint, (at
least for me) it makes coming up with the _right_ solution for the
application much less onerous and allows me the luxury of being able
to seek out _many_ solutions and choose the best for the
application. You, on the other hand, have hog-tied yourself by
refusing to use the 555 for _any_ application, so there ya go, just
another restriction you've set up for yourself.
---

LOL, Bill, you're on the dole because you're comfortable in your
situation and you're happy with the status quo.

I should be so lucky.

---
You must be, otherwise you'd change it.

Or do you consider yourself to be one of the men Thoreau saw living
lives of quiet desperation?
---

No, it was a silly question to ask, period. I'm well aware of
what's out there; I have to be, since I work.

It isn't evident in the comments you post.

---
Why should it be? This is a newsgroup and most of the requests are
for circuits which are mundane and for which expensive new whiz-bang
toys aren't needed. The stuff I post is generally pertinent to
applications which aren't very demanding in terms of anything new
but, if you watch carefully, every now and then when someone asks
for something interesting you'll see something new in there, if its
use is warranted.
---

You, on the other hand, merely kibitz.

At a level you don't aspire to.

---
LOL, the dog-catcher hardly aspires to the level of his canid
targets.
---

The 555 (like the 741) is a hold-over from the
Stone Age of modern electronics.

---
So are you, so I don't see why you don't feel comfortable with both
of them.

As it happens, I have survived since then, but - unlike you - I did
keep an eye on the new components as they became available and adapted
my design style to accommodate them - which is more than you seem to
have managed.

---
Hey, I work with new stuff all the time!

But this isn't evident in the stuff you post.

---
It doesn't have to be. On this newsgroup I mostly post simple
solutions (albeit often ingenious (waves own flag)) for simple
problems.
---

Last job was building an instrument around a beautiful Freescale
MC68HC908JL8, next one's going to be... well, when it hits the
street I'll let you know. BTW, there won't be any 4047s (or 555s)
in it, so even crusty old _you_ might like it.

On second thought, Nahhh... ;)

Well, the MC68HC908JL8 looks as if it is the world's nicest 8-bit
processor with a built-in 8-bit wide multipler and 16-bit wide divider
- but (hardware multipy and divide apart) it is pretty much what I was
working with in 1979,

---
Which would be???
---

before British task division pretty much shut me
out of the jobs they reserved for programmers. I've worked with
instruments built around more capable computing hardware., and I can't
say that I'm all that impressed

---
Of course you can't. You're only impressed with what you and a few
others whom you consider to be in or above your "league" have done.
---

- but I am deeply envious ...

---
I'm sorry about that.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
.