In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 15/06/2021 17:52, Peter Able wrote:
On 15/06/2021 18:25, Fredxx wrote:

I'm struggling to see this phrase. A word search finds 3 'year's as
part of 2 'many years" and one "over the years". A search of '50'
finds 4, none of which pertain to time.

That is because it is not a quote. When I quote I follow the convention
of quotation marks - so I might have quoted such technical expressions
as "rubbish", "more rubbish", "unmitigated drivel", "frauds and
charlatans".

And you?


I just don't get your point, "An article originated 2000, referring to a
50+ year old Op Amp design (great advance though it was) is the first hint".

The uA741 is still in production, and the 741 is the ubiquitous op-amp.
https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ua741.pdf
"SLOS094G— NOVEMBER 1970 —REVISED JANUARY 2018"

A bit like a 2N3055 is to a power bipolar npn transistor.

Referring to circuits that have survived the test of time should give
credibility to an article, not one that should be taken with a "pinch of
salt".

Please explain why this article should be taken "with a little pinch of
salt"?

Elliot's stuff may be a bit self opinionated, but generally sound advice
for those they are written for.

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.