On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:42:45 +0000, ian field wrote:

snip
Some very old diagrams used Q for crystal and in the very early days a
transistor was often referred to as a "crystal triode".


Even weirder, the current IEC designator for all semiconductors is "V".

I once asked a TV repair bloke if he could provide me with a 4.33MHz
crystal. He looked at me blankly, then said "Oh! You mean an extal!".

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:42:45 +0000, ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:33:40 -0500, "gore"
wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work
for several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on
the schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an
A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label
IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

Thanks


U (IC) = IC

Q (TR) = transistor

D = diode (CR is archaic) (well at least we can agree on that. Why not
U and
Q too whilst at it ?)

T (or TR or TX ) = transformer

L = inductor

A = assembly

R = resistor (all kinds)

RN = resistor network.


C = capacitor (ditto)

P, J (CN, CON, CONN, sometime J) are connectors

I prefer J for user selectable 'jumpers/headers' that take shorting
links.


B = battery

F = fuse

K (RL, RLY) = relay

S (SW) = switch

V (V for valve) = tube

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and such are all
amateur inventions.

No they make vastly more sense. How can you justify the use of Q for a
transistor for example ? A quansistor ?


Some very old diagrams used Q for crystal and in the very early days a
transistor was often referred to as a "crystal triode".


So, U isn't a semiconductor; it's a variable speed drive. Should be fun
trying to PCB mount something like that in a DIL16. :-)

Commonly used in Europe and Australia - according to wikipedia:

* A: Assemblies
* B: Transducers (photo cells, inductive proximity, thermocouple,
flame detection)
* C: Capacitors
* D: Storage devices
* E: Miscellaneous
* F: Fuses
* G: Generator, battery pack
* H: Indicators, lamps (not for illumination), signalling devices
* K: Relays, contactors
* L: Inductors and filters
* M: Motors
* N: Analogue devices
* P: Measuring/test equipment
* Q: Circuit breakers, isolators, re-closers
* R: Resistors, brake resistors
* S: Switches, push buttons, emergency stops and limit switches
* T: Transformers
* U: Power converters, variable speed drives, soft starters, DC power
supplies
* V: Semiconductors
* W: Wires, conductors, power, neutral and earthing busses
* X: Terminal strips, terminations, joins
* Y: Solenoids, electrical actuators
* Z: Filters

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:36:29 GMT, mick wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:42:45 +0000, ian field wrote:

snip
Some very old diagrams used Q for crystal and in the very early days a
transistor was often referred to as a "crystal triode".


Even weirder, the current IEC designator for all semiconductors is "V".

---
No doubt because they're valves.

JF

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:32:31 -0800, ValleyGirl
wrote:

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:09:47 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:51:38 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:11:43 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled rectifier" (like
in
SCR)?


No. Cathode rectifier.


Wrong again! Crystal Rectifier.

John


His cathode (possibly catheter) needed rectifying.

You're a goddamned retard.

Hey, you're the one who's always wrong!

John

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:43:15 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m

Still, you weren't up to the task. Just like Penicillin.

So what? For production, size matters.

When did we have a better ally than Britain? They have less will to
commit
large forces than we do, but more than any other ally.


Their egos are larger than their grasp.


That remark would be true were it directed at Americans.


Children!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

Hey John,

What *don't* you like about LED1, RLY1, etc.? Just the extra typing/board
space used by the silkscreening? Since I can see people's natural inclination
and advantage of wanting to be more "descriptive" in reference designators...
and while I've never gone the LED/RLY myself, it occurs to me I've always just
followed convention, which alone is a weak reason for doing anything.

---Joel

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:24:44 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

Hey John,

What *don't* you like about LED1, RLY1, etc.? Just the extra typing/board
space used by the silkscreening?

That certainly matters. Long/variable designators would uglify our
BOMs, too. But what really matters is that most of our customers use
MIL/ANSI drawing standards, and we'd look like ignorant bozoes if we
didn't, too. Reference designators are just part of the bigger
picture.

A relay is "K". It's both a tradition and a standard. To make up new
symbols is to demonstrate that you are inexperienced in aerospace
design... a message we don't want to send.

We use D for led's, because it is a diode, and uses the diode
schematic symbol.

I did work on a GE automation system that just assigned an integer to
each part... no C, R, L, K...

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
But what really matters is that most of our customers use
MIL/ANSI drawing standards, and we'd look like ignorant bozoes if we
didn't, too.

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.

We use D for led's, because it is a diode, and uses the diode
schematic symbol.

No pair of little arrows next to it to indicate it's emitting? That seems
unusual!

---Joel

I once worked at an aerospace company who started making airplanes in the
1920s. The part number assigned to a component was a function of when it
was first put in stock. That is, a 6-32 screw might have part number 123456
and the part next to it on the shelf might be a hose with p/n 123457. The
4-40 screws were on aisle 2 and the nuts on aisle 17. The 8-32 screws were
two flights downstairs.

Nuts. Absolutely nuts.

Jim



I did work on a GE automation system that just assigned an integer to
each part... no C, R, L, K...

John

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:22:46 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
But what really matters is that most of our customers use
MIL/ANSI drawing standards, and we'd look like ignorant bozoes if we
didn't, too.

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.

We use D for led's, because it is a diode, and uses the diode
schematic symbol.

No pair of little arrows next to it to indicate it's emitting? That seems
unusual!


Certainly we have a pair of little squiggly arrows!

We put a small dot in the center of Schottky diodes. That's the hot
carrier.

And we have our own symbol for mosfets, sort of a bipolar transistor
with a mos gate. Nobody seems to mind.



|
|
|
|
|
_|
|
-----| | (n-fet)
|
|
|
|
|
|


John

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:58:14 -0800, "RST Engineering \(jw\)"
wrote:

I once worked at an aerospace company who started making airplanes in the
1920s. The part number assigned to a component was a function of when it
was first put in stock. That is, a 6-32 screw might have part number 123456
and the part next to it on the shelf might be a hose with p/n 123457. The
4-40 screws were on aisle 2 and the nuts on aisle 17. The 8-32 screws were
two flights downstairs.

Nuts. Absolutely nuts.

Jim




We are just now in the process of renumbering all 4800 parts we have
in stock. Our new number is xxx-yyyy, where xxx is a general category
(like 0805 resistors) and yyyy encodes something. All our resistors,
caps, and a lot of other things will now be sensibly clustered and in
order by value.

But I wish you didn't top-post. It's almost offensive. No, it *is*
offensive.

John




I did work on a GE automation system that just assigned an integer to
each part... no C, R, L, K...

John

John Larkin wrote:

We are just now in the process of renumbering all 4800 parts we have
in stock. Our new number is xxx-yyyy, where xxx is a general category
(like 0805 resistors) and yyyy encodes something. All our resistors,
caps, and a lot of other things will now be sensibly clustered and in
order by value.


Are you reserving numbers for everything within a series, so new
parts will stay in order?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:46:12 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:17 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
m...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
"John Larkin"
wrote

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and such
are
all
amateur inventions.

CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled
rectifier"
(like in
SCR)?

It was "crystal rectifier", and D was "dynamotor". You
don't
see
many
surface-mount dynamotors [1] any more, so lots of people
have
swiped D
for diodes.

These designators are the classic military ones.

In the USA !

Of course in the USA. America has built most of the
military
electronics that have been used, since the start of WW-II. We
can't
leave a task like that to amateurs, and idiots.

Actually, you simply copied many British designs.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so
lots
of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it
H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US
manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of
British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working
properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war years,
it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and build
under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other
countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark ages -
most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph
while European fighters were typically capable of speed between 300 &
400
mph and were a lot more manoeuvrable - even the Russians had a fighter
that
was a generation ahead of any US fighter, and the war was pretty much
over
by the time the US had anything quick enough to escape from a Jap Zero.

The most famous US fighter, the P51 Mustang was actually designed to
specifications laid out by the British air ministry. Originally the
ministry
asked NAA to license build a few P40s, after negotiations it was agreed
that
NAA would design a new aircraft from scratch but incorporating the
features
of the P40 that the ministry wanted. The US top brass showed no interest
in
the new aircraft until someone had the bright idea of upgrading it with
a
Rolls Royce Merlin engine and turning it into a real winner. As usual a
British engine went into licence build mass production in the US - by
several manufacturers such was the demand for the superior engine.


Oh horse manure. Even the P-40 did 360.


Exactly why the British aircraft ministry wanted license built P40s - most
of the others were dinosaurs.


YOU said nothing went over 250.


Try reading what I said..............

"they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph"


As I said, it would take a book to correct just half the fantasies up
there.

"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
m...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
om...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

California is to Arizona as masturbation is to getting laid

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
om...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)


Are you afraid of a little competition? ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:50:25 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
om...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)


Are you afraid of a little competition? ;-)

Top posting doesn't offend... just sometimes makes it hard to follow.
Hacking up quotations to suit leftist weenie purposes does offend.

But stories like this are my delight...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-ro...,3093259.story

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberals are so cute. Â*Dumb as a box of rocks, but cute.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews. com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell
of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)


We're just grateful that posting political claptrap hasn't spread as
virulently.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:12:50 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews .com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell
of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)


We're just grateful that posting political claptrap hasn't spread as
virulently.


It has. It's just that you subscribe to the leftist weenie side, so
you don't notice how widespread it is ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberals are so cute. Â*Dumb as a box of rocks, but cute.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:12:50 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernew s.com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one
hell
of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day
and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start
ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)


We're just grateful that posting political claptrap hasn't spread as
virulently.


It has. It's just that you subscribe to the leftist weenie side, so
you don't notice how widespread it is ;-)


I wasn't counting you as we all know you post more political claptrap than
everyone else put together!

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:50:25 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
om...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)


Are you afraid of a little competition? ;-)

Top posting doesn't offend... just sometimes makes it hard to follow.
Hacking up quotations to suit leftist weenie purposes does offend.

But stories like this are my delight...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-ro...,3093259.story


Al Capone would have been proud. After all, he IS the role model for
the politicians in "Ill-noise"


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

ian field wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:12:50 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernew s.com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one
hell
of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day
and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start
ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)


We're just grateful that posting political claptrap hasn't spread as
virulently.


It has. It's just that you subscribe to the leftist weenie side, so
you don't notice how widespread it is ;-)


I wasn't counting you as we all know you post more political claptrap than
everyone else put together!


What kind of trap do you use to catch clap?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:15:25 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

We are just now in the process of renumbering all 4800 parts we have
in stock. Our new number is xxx-yyyy, where xxx is a general category
(like 0805 resistors) and yyyy encodes something. All our resistors,
caps, and a lot of other things will now be sensibly clustered and in
order by value.


Are you reserving numbers for everything within a series, so new
parts will stay in order?

Essentially, yes. The last 4 digits are xxxy, where xxx encodes the
value in ohms, y=0 for 5%, y=1 for 1%, and the rest of the y's are
assigned sequentially for any other variants of that value, like
0.05%, microwave resistors, whatever.

I'm considering selling the software package and the associated
manual, as both a parts/BOM database program and a set of rules for
organizing and naming parts and drawings.

John

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:15:25 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

We are just now in the process of renumbering all 4800 parts we have
in stock. Our new number is xxx-yyyy, where xxx is a general category
(like 0805 resistors) and yyyy encodes something. All our resistors,
caps, and a lot of other things will now be sensibly clustered and in
order by value.


Are you reserving numbers for everything within a series, so new
parts will stay in order?

Essentially, yes. The last 4 digits are xxxy, where xxx encodes the
value in ohms, y=0 for 5%, y=1 for 1%, and the rest of the y's are
assigned sequentially for any other variants of that value, like
0.05%, microwave resistors, whatever.

I'm considering selling the software package and the associated
manual, as both a parts/BOM database program and a set of rules for
organizing and naming parts and drawings.


I was laughed at at Microdyne when I proposed it in 1999. I was being
interviewed for Component Engineer. I was told I wasn't qualified
because I didn't have a degree in EE. Then they hired a woman with a
Philosophy degree. The first thing she did was throw away all the data
books so she could have a bigger office. Then she had the nerve to ask
me to continue creating item masters for her. I told her I didn't have
the time, and to do what she was hired for. She lasted anbout a month,
before she was fired, along with the head of engineering who had hired
her. it took over six months for people to clean up the mess she left.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:41:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews. com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)

...Jim Thompson


If only growthe****upedness would come over all of you. (almost all)

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:27:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:15:25 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

We are just now in the process of renumbering all 4800 parts we have
in stock. Our new number is xxx-yyyy, where xxx is a general category
(like 0805 resistors) and yyyy encodes something. All our resistors,
caps, and a lot of other things will now be sensibly clustered and in
order by value.


Are you reserving numbers for everything within a series, so new
parts will stay in order?

Essentially, yes. The last 4 digits are xxxy, where xxx encodes the
value in ohms, y=0 for 5%, y=1 for 1%, and the rest of the y's are
assigned sequentially for any other variants of that value, like
0.05%, microwave resistors, whatever.

I'm considering selling the software package and the associated
manual, as both a parts/BOM database program and a set of rules for
organizing and naming parts and drawings.

John


The problem is that the product you need to sell a company is a way to
implement your numbering system into THEIR MRP systems, such as Oracle,
etc. Anything else is cost prohibitive, and requires employee
re-training.

Your "simple database" idea is cool, but the impact of implementation
any company would face is the real issue, and requires the real planning
and execution steps. The software is just another clever database front
end, at best.

Huge companies need bigger accounting and product/part management
systems, and decades old companies with entrenched part numbers that may
or may not be all over the map on nomenclature, if any at all, have huge
logistical obstacles to overcome in implementing the very thing they
SHOULD implement. The problem isn't desire, need or money. The problem
is lock step marching on with what you have until what you are replacing
it with is up and running, and that is not easy, since the SAME MRP
system MUST be used to keep employee familiarity from an interface POV.

So really, the only thing you can safely change and force on a group is
the part numbering system.

I would start with fasteners and then move on to wire, then coax, etc.,
THEN move on to other, harder to mange parts and groups of parts.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:22:24 -0800, Capt. Cave Man
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:41:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews .com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Sheeeesh! Childish behavior is spreading from John L to Ian F ;-)

...Jim Thompson


If only growthe****upedness would come over all of you. (almost all)

Sheeesh! Another nom de plume for the TURD queer :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

If I'm talking, you should be taking notes.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:41:35 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:27:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:15:25 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

We are just now in the process of renumbering all 4800 parts we have
in stock. Our new number is xxx-yyyy, where xxx is a general category
(like 0805 resistors) and yyyy encodes something. All our resistors,
caps, and a lot of other things will now be sensibly clustered and in
order by value.


Are you reserving numbers for everything within a series, so new
parts will stay in order?

Essentially, yes. The last 4 digits are xxxy, where xxx encodes the
value in ohms, y=0 for 5%, y=1 for 1%, and the rest of the y's are
assigned sequentially for any other variants of that value, like
0.05%, microwave resistors, whatever.

I'm considering selling the software package and the associated
manual, as both a parts/BOM database program and a set of rules for
organizing and naming parts and drawings.

John


The problem is that the product you need to sell a company is a way to
implement your numbering system into THEIR MRP systems, such as Oracle,
etc. Anything else is cost prohibitive, and requires employee
re-training.

I'd only expect to sell it to small companies who really need to get
organized.

I have seen several companies brought to their knees by installing the
Oracle crap. Remember when HP couldn't ship servers for about 6
months? That was Oracle in action.



Your "simple database" idea is cool, but the impact of implementation
any company would face is the real issue, and requires the real planning
and execution steps. The software is just another clever database front
end, at best.

Our thing is a single .EXE program, that does everything, all
self-contained, with no external db manager. The parts database is a
single file of fixed-length records. It's blindingly fast.

But yes, it's a chore to organize and renumber all the parts in stock,
and potentially reformat all the BOMs. But not being organized about
this stuff can really keep a small company from growing.

It's surprising how expensive process documents, like soldering
standards, quality procedures, reliability data are. We have a 25-page
or thereabouts soldering standard doc from McDonald Douglas that cost
over $1000. The Belcore reliability manual, about 5 pages of which
matter, costs something similar.


John

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:24:44 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:46:12 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:17 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
news:lnroj49l4g7a6d54o1gu3vp22pelhbc1gr@4ax. com...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
"John Larkin"

wrote

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and
such
are
all
amateur inventions.

CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled
rectifier"
(like in
SCR)?

It was "crystal rectifier", and D was "dynamotor". You
don't
see
many
surface-mount dynamotors [1] any more, so lots of people
have
swiped D
for diodes.

These designators are the classic military ones.

In the USA !

Of course in the USA. America has built most of the
military
electronics that have been used, since the start of WW-II.
We
can't
leave a task like that to amateurs, and idiots.

Actually, you simply copied many British designs.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so
lots
of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge
to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it
H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US
manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than
any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of
British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working
properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war
years,
it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and build
under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other
countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark ages -
most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up
and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph
while European fighters were typically capable of speed between 300 &
400
mph and were a lot more manoeuvrable - even the Russians had a fighter
that
was a generation ahead of any US fighter, and the war was pretty much
over
by the time the US had anything quick enough to escape from a Jap
Zero.

The most famous US fighter, the P51 Mustang was actually designed to
specifications laid out by the British air ministry. Originally the
ministry
asked NAA to license build a few P40s, after negotiations it was
agreed
that
NAA would design a new aircraft from scratch but incorporating the
features
of the P40 that the ministry wanted. The US top brass showed no
interest
in
the new aircraft until someone had the bright idea of upgrading it
with
a
Rolls Royce Merlin engine and turning it into a real winner. As usual
a
British engine went into licence build mass production in the US - by
several manufacturers such was the demand for the superior engine.


Oh horse manure. Even the P-40 did 360.


Exactly why the British aircraft ministry wanted license built P40s -
most
of the others were dinosaurs.


YOU said nothing went over 250.


Try reading what I said..............

"they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph"

Still wrong.


The main problem was the US obsession with radial engines, to compete with
streamlined water cooled engines the manufacturers were specifying
increasingly larger engines with the aerodynamics of a barn door, apparently
US ground crews weren't up to the task of maintaining water cooled engines
so reliability suffered.

The Jap Zero compensated for the aerodynamic disaster by using a new secret
lightweight alloy for the airframe and no armour for either the pilot or
engine and no self sealing fuel tanks, they were faster and more
manoeuvrable than most allied aircraft but very vulnerable if ambushed or
duped with a 2 onto 1 attack.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:25:01 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:24:44 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:46:12 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:17 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
news:lnroj49l4g7a6d54o1gu3vp22pelhbc1gr@4ax .com...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
"John Larkin"

wrote

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and
such
are
all
amateur inventions.

CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled
rectifier"
(like in
SCR)?

It was "crystal rectifier", and D was "dynamotor". You
don't
see
many
surface-mount dynamotors [1] any more, so lots of people
have
swiped D
for diodes.

These designators are the classic military ones.

In the USA !

Of course in the USA. America has built most of the
military
electronics that have been used, since the start of WW-II.
We
can't
leave a task like that to amateurs, and idiots.

Actually, you simply copied many British designs.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so
lots
of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge
to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it
H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US
manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than
any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of
British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working
properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war
years,
it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and build
under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other
countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark ages -
most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up
and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph
while European fighters were typically capable of speed between 300 &
400
mph and were a lot more manoeuvrable - even the Russians had a fighter
that
was a generation ahead of any US fighter, and the war was pretty much
over
by the time the US had anything quick enough to escape from a Jap
Zero.

The most famous US fighter, the P51 Mustang was actually designed to
specifications laid out by the British air ministry. Originally the
ministry
asked NAA to license build a few P40s, after negotiations it was
agreed
that
NAA would design a new aircraft from scratch but incorporating the
features
of the P40 that the ministry wanted. The US top brass showed no
interest
in
the new aircraft until someone had the bright idea of upgrading it
with
a
Rolls Royce Merlin engine and turning it into a real winner. As usual
a
British engine went into licence build mass production in the US - by
several manufacturers such was the demand for the superior engine.


Oh horse manure. Even the P-40 did 360.


Exactly why the British aircraft ministry wanted license built P40s -
most
of the others were dinosaurs.


YOU said nothing went over 250.


Try reading what I said..............

"they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph"

Still wrong.


The main problem was the US obsession with radial engines, to compete with
streamlined water cooled engines the manufacturers were specifying
increasingly larger engines with the aerodynamics of a barn door, apparently
US ground crews weren't up to the task of maintaining water cooled engines
so reliability suffered.

The Jap Zero compensated for the aerodynamic disaster by using a new secret
lightweight alloy for the airframe and no armour for either the pilot or
engine and no self sealing fuel tanks, they were faster and more
manoeuvrable than most allied aircraft but very vulnerable if ambushed or
duped with a 2 onto 1 attack.


Even US kids flying the monstrous radial P47 "Jugs" had impressive
kill rates over Zeroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt

This was the result of superior armor, huge firepower, excellent
pilots, and tactics that avoided dogfighting.

Radials were generally tough. They did fine in Wildcats, Hellcats,
Corsairs, bombers, all sorts of things.

While the Japanese had a complex set of moral standards that included
dying for the Emperor, USA policy was charmingly direct: "Kill Japs,
kill Japs, kill Japs."

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:25:01 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:24:44 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:46:12 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
news:egmqj49gatr9kbcbbdeh9ooq6qrh945fqq@4ax. com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:17 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
news:lnroj49l4g7a6d54o1gu3vp22pelhbc1gr@4a x.com...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message
m...

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
"John Larkin"

wrote

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and
such
are
all
amateur inventions.

CR is still common. Is that supposed to be
"controlled
rectifier"
(like in
SCR)?

It was "crystal rectifier", and D was "dynamotor". You
don't
see
many
surface-mount dynamotors [1] any more, so lots of
people
have
swiped D
for diodes.

These designators are the classic military ones.

In the USA !

Of course in the USA. America has built most of the
military
electronics that have been used, since the start of WW-II.
We
can't
leave a task like that to amateurs, and idiots.

Actually, you simply copied many British designs.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something
they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so
lots
of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge
to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it
H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US
manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was
done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of
various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than
any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using
PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness
of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of
British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working
properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not
reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war
years,
it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own
going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and
build
under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other
countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark
ages -
most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with
enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up
and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more
than
250mph
while European fighters were typically capable of speed between 300
&
400
mph and were a lot more manoeuvrable - even the Russians had a
fighter
that
was a generation ahead of any US fighter, and the war was pretty
much
over
by the time the US had anything quick enough to escape from a Jap
Zero.

The most famous US fighter, the P51 Mustang was actually designed to
specifications laid out by the British air ministry. Originally the
ministry
asked NAA to license build a few P40s, after negotiations it was
agreed
that
NAA would design a new aircraft from scratch but incorporating the
features
of the P40 that the ministry wanted. The US top brass showed no
interest
in
the new aircraft until someone had the bright idea of upgrading it
with
a
Rolls Royce Merlin engine and turning it into a real winner. As
usual
a
British engine went into licence build mass production in the US -
by
several manufacturers such was the demand for the superior engine.


Oh horse manure. Even the P-40 did 360.


Exactly why the British aircraft ministry wanted license built P40s -
most
of the others were dinosaurs.


YOU said nothing went over 250.


Try reading what I said..............

"they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph"

Still wrong.


The main problem was the US obsession with radial engines, to compete with
streamlined water cooled engines the manufacturers were specifying
increasingly larger engines with the aerodynamics of a barn door,
apparently
US ground crews weren't up to the task of maintaining water cooled engines
so reliability suffered.

The Jap Zero compensated for the aerodynamic disaster by using a new
secret
lightweight alloy for the airframe and no armour for either the pilot or
engine and no self sealing fuel tanks, they were faster and more
manoeuvrable than most allied aircraft but very vulnerable if ambushed or
duped with a 2 onto 1 attack.


Even US kids flying the monstrous radial P47 "Jugs" had impressive
kill rates over Zeroes.


The Thunderbolt was a typical example of the biggest engine they could lay
their hands on - and many pilots still regarded it as under powered.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
om...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Yup, let's ignore him.

John

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:18:56 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews. com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Yup, let's ignore him.

John

We'll get the bottom suckers next ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:18:56 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews. com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Yup, let's ignore him.

John

We'll get the bottom suckers next ;-)


Pervert!!!!!


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:18:56 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews. com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one
hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile
buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day
and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start
ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Yup, let's ignore him.

John

We'll get the bottom suckers next ;-)


Pervert!!!!!


Could he have meant bottom feeders?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:29:56 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:18:56 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:32:58 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote in message
news:RLydnSczg42V8KDUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@supernews. com...
Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one
hell of
a lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile
buffer
between you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day
and
night.


If you continue to top post, many on this group will simply start
ignoring
you - some may even killfile you!


Yup, let's ignore him.

John

We'll get the bottom suckers next ;-)


Pervert!!!!!


Could he have meant bottom feeders?


No. Bottom suckers == Bottom-only posters ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:17 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
"John Larkin"
wrote

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and such are
all
amateur inventions.

CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled
rectifier"
(like in
SCR)?

It was "crystal rectifier", and D was "dynamotor". You don't
see
many
surface-mount dynamotors [1] any more, so lots of people have
swiped D
for diodes.

These designators are the classic military ones.

In the USA !

Of course in the USA. America has built most of the military
electronics that have been used, since the start of WW-II. We
can't
leave a task like that to amateurs, and idiots.

Actually, you simply copied many British designs.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war years, it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and build under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark ages - most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more than 250mph
while European fighters were typically capable of speed between 300 & 400
mph and were a lot more manoeuvrable - even the Russians had a fighter that
was a generation ahead of any US fighter, and the war was pretty much over
by the time the US had anything quick enough to escape from a Jap Zero.

The most famous US fighter, the P51 Mustang was actually designed to
specifications laid out by the British air ministry. Originally the ministry
asked NAA to license build a few P40s, after negotiations it was agreed that
NAA would design a new aircraft from scratch but incorporating the features
of the P40 that the ministry wanted. The US top brass showed no interest in
the new aircraft until someone had the bright idea of upgrading it with a
Rolls Royce Merlin engine and turning it into a real winner. As usual a
British engine went into licence build mass production in the US - by
several manufacturers such was the demand for the superior engine.


Sure, after the carnage of WWI, the US went isolationist and
passivist. Europeans, knowing their own history, kept making weapons;
and people who make lots of weapons usually wind up using them.

The US went from zip in December of 1941 to having the best equipment
and the best armed forces in the world three years later. By the end,
we had F4Fs, F6s, P47s, P38s, P51s, Avengers, Catalinas, B17s, B29s,
carriers, UHF communications, ships and subs and planes with microwave
radar, RF navigation systems, prox fuzes, and atom bombs. The MIT
RadLab invented modern electronics and laid the groundwork for the
semiconductor revolution.

The US and the UK bombed Germany together. We got the day shift.

John

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:17 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
"John Larkin"
wrote

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and such are
all
amateur inventions.

CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled
rectifier"
(like in
SCR)?

It was "crystal rectifier", and D was "dynamotor". You don't
see
many
surface-mount dynamotors [1] any more, so lots of people have
swiped D
for diodes.

These designators are the classic military ones.

In the USA !

Of course in the USA. America has built most of the military
electronics that have been used, since the start of WW-II. We
can't
leave a task like that to amateurs, and idiots.

Actually, you simply copied many British designs.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war years, it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and build under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark ages - most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more than 250mph

The P38 topped out at 443 MPH. 3300 mile range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Li...ns_.28P-38L.29

John

On 2008-12-09, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It has. It's just that you subscribe to the leftist weenie side, so
you don't notice how widespread it is ;-)


I wasn't counting you as we all know you post more political claptrap than
everyone else put together!

What kind of trap do you use to catch clap?

apparently it is possible where trap=mouth and clap=gonhorrea:

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Service...ti/oralsex.htm

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-09, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It has. It's just that you subscribe to the leftist weenie side, so
you don't notice how widespread it is ;-)


I wasn't counting you as we all know you post more political claptrap than
everyone else put together!

What kind of trap do you use to catch clap?

apparently it is possible where trap=mouth and clap=gonhorrea:

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Service...ti/oralsex.htm


The point was WHY you would want a clap trap.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.