Re: How inaccurate is a 555 or 7555 REALLY?


John Fields wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 14:38:51 -0800, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On 5 Dec 2006 16:48:12 -0800, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On 4 Dec 2006 17:19:45 -0800, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Fields wrote:
On 3 Dec 2006 15:10:27 -0800, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:

My own idea of my
attitude on this news group is "polite until provoked"

---
Which generally manifests itself as provocation = disagreement.
---

but John Larkin
does keep on finding insults in my posts that I could have sworn
weren't there when I composed them (and don't look much like insults to
me when I reread them).

---
Which is about the double standard you exact. If, in fact, your
posts are made without rancor, which is ridiculous on its face, you
insist that what must then be "carelessness" on your part be not
interpreted as insult, but that infinite care be taken with
correspondence directed to you in order that you not interpret it as
insult.
---

Of course, if you could find an example where I was unreasonably easily
provoked, or "accidentally" produced a grievous insult, you'd quote it,
thus converting a pointless troll into something worth reading.

---
Just because I can't be bothered to slog through the morass of your
posting history in order to find an example of your nasty attitude
certainly doesn't mean there aren't thousands of examples out there.
---

Your search skills aren't exactly impressive, but the intelligent
reader will still conclude that there are many fewer than thousands of
examples out there, with the likeliest number being zero. Since I seem
only to have cranked out 6520 postings over the past ten years, there
is an upper limit to the examples that you could find.

---
With a total of 6520 posts under your belt, I'd be willing to bet
that at least one third of them contain slurs of one kind or
another, consciously or unconsciously made since you just can't seem
to help yourself.
---

So quote a few. With 2173 to chose from, even you should be able to
come up with a few examples.

---
Nope. I'm the one willing to bet, so you're the one that has to
prove me wrong.

Don't be silly. First you libel me, then you claim it is up to me to
prove that your unsupported libel is false.

<snip>

Quite a lot. Try doing the system design for an electron beam
microfabricator sometime,

---
I'll see your electron beam microfabricator and raise you the system
_and_ circuit design for an interferometer driven laser
photolithographic pattern generator.
---

You haven't raised the stakes at all - the electron beam
microfabricator included a laser driven inteferometric stage
positioning system, and hardware to map arbitrarily scaled data
defining the inegrated circuit masks to be written onto the
interoferometer measurements. We did fall short of full generality by
assuming that the wafer/mask to be written was within two degrees of
being square to the interferometer designed grid, but our customers
assured us that that was all the tolerance we needed.

Our electron beam provided better resolution than your
photolithographuc system ever could, and was doing write on the fly. I
think you have just een comprehensively trumped.

or a stroboscopic electron microscope.

---
That doesn't sound like such a big deal. What? a couple of
detectors instead of just one, maybe two beams?
Steering magnetics? Duck soup!
---

Not if you want 0.5nsec wide stroboscopic pulses (which required an
electrostatic beam-blanking system - albeit the boss would not spring
for the wide-voltage range version on which I'm named as the inventor.
Magnetic beam blanking is nice - we used it on the old EBMF 10.5
electron microfabricator - but it won't go sub-nanosecond nor anywhere
near it.

In fact the interesting part of that system, which I first proposed in
1983 (too late to have qualified for a patent) was the "multiple flash
per cycle" feature. We could keep track of up to 1024 phase points, and
build up our waveform/image at the 25MHz sampling rate of the system
(it should have been faster, but we started off with an unrealistic
completion date which created a lot of problems) rather than the repeat
cycle of the process we were following.

And we didn't need two detectors - a sing;e relatively fast
Everhart-Thornley detector above the final lens did everything we
needed. The fast-focussed photo-multiplier tube did need a fast output
amplifier, which incorporated an analog finite-impulse response filter
built around a lumped constant delay line - a trick I've recycled a few
times since then.

Great fun, but I don't know anybody who would describe it as "duck
soup" once they understood what was going on.

Not a place for a 555-addict.

---
You sure do seem to harp a lot on that anti-555 crap.

Too bad you were never successful in using it in any of your
designs, (even though it's very easy to use) since if you had been
you might actually appreciate Camendzind's genius.

It never did what I wanted done.

If nothing else,
I think the use of the ratiometric voltage divider in order to
largely eliminate variations in output timing WRT supply voltage and
temperature variations was brilliant, as was the window detector
placed at the 1/3Vcc and 2/3Vcc taps of the divider.

That isn't exactly genius. Anyone whio can do enough calculus to find
minimum sensitivity conditions can demonstrate the same genius on a
wide variety of circuits. I spent a lot design time doing this on
various resistor networks when I was younger and doing serious analog
design.

Camenzind did come up with a great circuit for its time, but the
combination of crummy timer and crummy saturating switch didn't have
much to offer by 1974, when I might have used it, and has had even less
appeal since (except to people who are bit slow to learn new tricks -
when are you going to get into PLDs?).

YMMV, but I think you kind of begrudge him his success because you
think you're ever so much smarter than he is and yet...

I don't begrudge Hans Camenzind his success. Try to find some evidence
to support that daft allegation.

I''ve also got no reason to suppose that I'm smarter than Hans
Camenzind, nor have I ever made any such ridiculous claim.

You don't seem to have a particulary secure grasp of reality, do you.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How inaccurate is a 555 or 7555 REALLY?
    ... John Fields wrote: ... posts are made without rancor, which is ridiculous on its face, you ... interpreted as insult, but that infinite care be taken with ... I'll see your electron beam microfabricator and raise you the system ...
    (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 ... posting history in order to find an example of your nasty attitude ... what would _you_ know about serious electronics? ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Flag desecration?
    ... John Fields wrote: ... design, which is to keep the design simple and comprehensible. ... Parts cost and board space constraints are always important, ... work for low-volume production as an admission that I'd never designed ...
    (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 ... posting history in order to find an example of your nasty attitude ... job in serious electronics these days. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)