Re: Ever heard of Potato Semiconductor?

On Jul 7, 3:37 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 21:12:29 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:01 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:34:54 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 7, 5:39 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:27:26 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:42:09 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:28:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- snip --

Pico-second speeds in CMOS are power hogs... my usual design
cross-over point is around 250-300MHz.

In a WiFi repeater chip I come from 5GHz down to 250MHz in CML, then
CMOS.

                                        ...Jim Thompson

Yes, but you went to school back when "circuit design" meant "circuit
design", not "simulating things you don't understand on software you
don't understand using a process you don't understand."

Yep.  I was educated 1958-1962 BC (before computers ;-)
                                                       |
Must have been a crap university - the University of Melbourne in
Australia had a computer on-site from 1956

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRAC

I suppose that, for some people, being offensive is more important
than being right.

http://www.cedmagic.com/history/whirlwind-computer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlwind_(computer)

IIRR Jim claims to have gone to MIT, and MIT would have had a computer
back then - maybe even more than one. If he managed to be unaware of
this, it would suggest that he has been out of touch with reality for
quite some time now.

Pointing this out may be offensive - but Jim seems to go out of his
way to be offensive about me, so I can't see why you are getting upset
about that.

You also claim that I've posted something that isn't true, which -
since I can't find any error of fact in my post - I do find offensive.
I'd be grateful if you would do me the courtesy of identifying this
error of fact. Or apologising if if you can't.

You, who make consistent, deliberate efforts to be pompous and
ill-mannered, want an apology? What a jerk.

And that's a pompous and ill-mannered response if I ever saw one. And
you haven't identified the error of fact, if it - in fact, exists.

And MIT is not, and was not, a "crap university." The MIT RadLab
invented modern electronics.

Jim didn't identify the university where he studied "before
computers". Nobody who still has their faculties intact would say that
about MIT in 1958-62 and in fact even Jim now admits he got it wrong.

And the MIT RadLab may have invented "modern electronics" of a
particular sort, but it was itself invented as a joint Anglo-American
project to exploit the radar techniques and - in particular - the
cavity magnetron that had already been invented in the U.K., some of
them by people I had the privilege of working with at EMI Central
Research, some decades later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Laboratory

I suppose that, for some people, being offensive is more important
than being right.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Loading