On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:41:32 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


BTW In the 50s or maybe 60s IIRC Ferranti invented 'virtual memory'.
They sold the idea/patent to IBM. They were simply 40 or so years ahead
of their time for mass usage.

---
Since you're not the one turning the wheel of time, your saying that
had they not come up with it when they did would have forced its
development to be delayed by 40 years is just more of your ludicrous
poppycock errrm... bull****.

---
JF

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?

---
Actually, the Americans did, but for security reasons all of the
records relating to that work were destroyed and all of the workers
sworn to silence on pain of death.

---
JF

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:41:32 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

BTW In the 50s or maybe 60s IIRC Ferranti invented 'virtual memory'.
They sold the idea/patent to IBM. They were simply 40 or so years ahead
of their time for mass usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory#History

"Also, Burroughs independently released in 1961 the first commercial
computer with virtual memory, the B5000,[5][6] which used segmentation
rather than paging."

The Wiki article doesn't mention Ferranti.

Horrible idea anyhow. Virtual memory is the main contributor to poor
data structure design and code bloat, not to mention things running
about 20x slower than they should.

Hour incredible nationalism is silly and largely wrong.

John

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:46:49 +1000, Grant wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:08:01 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:57:03 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.

No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.


I've actually seen schematics that used CHO for inductor, RLY for
relay, LED for LED, POT or RV for a variable resistor, BR for a
rectifier, CON for a connector. Audio, of course. Schematics that use
such designators are invariably amateur crap circuits in their own
right. They generally use the dreadful "4K7" thing too.

Hey John, I get resistors marked 4k7 or 6R8. What's so bad about
that? Not that I'd try to convince you otherwise, I got used to it
about the same time a workplace talked me out of zigzag resistors
and into box ones like the industry mags or something did. I just
went with the flow, no point arguing.

Though Farnell (your Newark too?) don't know the difference between
upper and lower case multipliers, and MH might actually be uH or mH.

Grant.

We buy very little from Newark. They are a qualified supplier for just
a few percent of the parts we buy, and mostly as a backup. The other
distributors call on us often, with factory apps engineers in tow,
flinging samples and dev boards all over the place, but Newark
doesn't.

John

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:20:33 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.

No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.

What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and

We use B for Battery.

We use M for generic mechanical part.

John

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:59:05 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

( some claim the war was shortened by between 2 and 4 years ) and it was
us BRITISH who did it !

---
Did what?

Claim the war was shortened by 2 to 4 years by Brits?

Of course, what else did you expect, since you take credit for all the
good stuff and blame the bad stuff on everybody else.

---
JF

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:45:53 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

---
Since you don't have a clue about how much longer it would have taken
to break the code had he not done what he did, when he did, you
clearly have no business pretending to know what was relevant and what
wasn't.

---
JF

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:43:53 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote: ANSI reference designators.pdf

Only for antiquated Americans of course.

---
Us???

Sure. ANSI = American National Standards Institute. For the USA only.

---
Nope, lots of folks use ANSI.
Especially if they want to sell us something that we want to have meet
a particular specification.

As for the list, someone asked for a list of schematic reference
designators, and I provided it.

If you don't like it, tough ****; post your own list.
---
Note AMERICAN. ANSI has no international validity.

The rest of the world uses INTERNATIONAL standards like IEC. Why do you
want to drag your feet against the tide ?

---
Why would you think we do and, since we're members of the IEC, what
makes you think that a lot of ANSI doesn't live in IEC standards?
---

Answer ? You can't ! No-one cares about a small population of 300m
people who insist on being irrelevant and backward.

---
Fine talk coming from the mouth of a citizen of a pipsqueak
third-world nanny state with a population of a paltry 61 million or so
sheep trying to call the shots for the rest of the world by hiding
behind the skirts of the Unites States of Europe.
---

As for UL Electrical Standards, they have no alternative but to adopt
IEC standards lest be locked out of the International market with silly
amendments such as adopting your AWG wire sizes instead of mm2.

---
You really don't know anything about UL, do you?
---

You really should have 'metricated' ( as you said you would years ago )
to save such nonsence.

---
Nonsense.

---
JF

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:46:58 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyorwrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.

---
With pleasure. :-)

The reference designator assigned to a transistor: "Q", refers to
(Q)uantum.

From:

http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html


"Unlike water flowing along in one direction through a hose, electrons
traveling along as electrical current can sometimes follow weird
paths, especially if they're moving near the surface of a material.
Moreover, electrons acting like a wave can sometimes burrow right
through a barrier. Understanding this odd behavior of electrons was
necessary as scientists tried to control how current flowed through
the first transistors."

Is this really any different from bizarre current flow in certain of
your 'vacuum tubes' ?

---
Well, yes, since a vacuum isn't quite the same thing as a single
crystal.

Which tubes are you talking about, BTW?

---
JF

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:53:49 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

(b) they most certainly went somewhere in
due course. We were just way ahead of what the technology and materials
technology of the time could offer.

---
Well, then, I'm sure you'll have no trouble paying tribute to Alfred
Gross and Chester Gould, American, for his vision of the cell phone ca
1946.

---
JF

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:27:18 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:53:49 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

(b) they most certainly went somewhere in
due course. We were just way ahead of what the technology and materials
technology of the time could offer.

---
Well, then, I'm sure you'll have no trouble paying tribute to Alfred
Gross and Chester Gould, American, for his vision of the cell phone ca
1946.

---
JF

Crikey! Stop feeding the Eeyore troll. Then he'd have no forum.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | 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 |

Democrats are best served up prepared as a hash
Otherwise the dogs will refuse to eat them

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:59:05 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

How much did he contribute to this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

It's been rebuilt AIUI btw !

Futher info ......

Construction of a fully-functional replica[11] of a Colossus Mark 2 was
undertaken by a team led by Tony Sale. In spite of the blueprints and
hardware being destroyed, a surprising amount of material survived,
mainly in engineers' notebooks, but a considerable amount of it in the
U.S. The optical tape reader might have posed the biggest problem, but
Dr. Arnold Lynch, its original designer, was able to redesign it to his
own original specification. The reconstruction is on display, in the
historically correct place for Colossus No. 9, at The National Museum of
Computing, in H Block Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire.

In November 2007, to celebrate the project completion and to mark the
start of a fundraising initiative for The National Museum of Computing,
a Cipher Challenge[12] pitted the rebuilt Colossus against radio
amateurs worldwide in being first to receive and decode three messages
enciphered using the Lorenz SZ42 and transmitted from radio station
DL0HNF in the Heinz Nixdorf MuseumsForum computer museum. The challenge
was easily won by radio amateur Joachim Schüth, who had carefully
prepared[13] for the event and developed his own signal processing and
decrypt code using Ada.[14] The Colossus team were hampered by their
wish to use World War II radio equipment,[15] delaying them by a day
because of poor reception conditions. Nevertheless the victor's 1.4 GHz
laptop, running his own code, took less than a minute to find the
settings for all 12 wheels. The German codebreaker said: "My laptop
digested ciphertext at a speed of 1.2 million characters per second—240
times faster than Colossus. If you scale the CPU frequency by that
factor, you get an equivalent clock of 5.8 MHz for Colossus. That is a
remarkable speed for a computer built in 1944."[16]

The Cipher Challenge verified the successful completion of the rebuild
project. "On the strength of today's performance Colossus is as good as
it was six decades ago", commented Tony Sale. "We are delighted to have
produced a fitting tribute to the people who worked at Bletchley Park
and whose brainpower devised these fantastic machines which broke these
ciphers and shortened the war by many months."

( some claim the war was shortened by between 2 and 4 years ) and it was
us BRITISH who did it !


If the British had behaved sensibly, there would have been no war.

John

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:00:39 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:45:53 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

How much did he contribute to this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


Colossus had nothing whatsoever to do with Enigma decryption. It was
developed to assist decryption of the Lorenz cipher machine, a 5-bit
teletype machine incorporating the modulo-2 addition of a pseudo-random
stream. Used for high-level communications. To quote Tony Sale;
"Fortunately, it was more pseudo than random".

The machines used for finding the Enigma wheel settings were purely
electromechanical. They were called Bombes. One of those has been
replicated, too.

Eeyore is so rah-rah British he has to make up accomplishments.
Serious inferiority complex. Poor fact checking.

John

Eeyore wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

How much did he contribute to this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

It's been rebuilt AIUI btw !

Futher info ......

Construction of a fully-functional replica[11] of a Colossus Mark 2 was
undertaken by a team led by Tony Sale. In spite of the blueprints and
hardware being destroyed, a surprising amount of material survived,
mainly in engineers' notebooks, but a considerable amount of it in the
U.S. The optical tape reader might have posed the biggest problem, but
Dr. Arnold Lynch, its original designer, was able to redesign it to his
own original specification. The reconstruction is on display, in the
historically correct place for Colossus No. 9, at The National Museum of
Computing, in H Block Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire.


Who cares? Or is that the highest level computer design has reached
in 'Blighty'?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote: ANSI reference designators.pdf

Only for antiquated Americans of course.

---
Us???

Sure. ANSI = American National Standards Institute. For the USA only.


Of course. We don't want dumb asses like you polluting a real
standard.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:59:05 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

How much did he contribute to this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

It's been rebuilt AIUI btw !

Futher info ......

Construction of a fully-functional replica[11] of a Colossus Mark 2 was
undertaken by a team led by Tony Sale. In spite of the blueprints and
hardware being destroyed, a surprising amount of material survived,
mainly in engineers' notebooks, but a considerable amount of it in the
U.S. The optical tape reader might have posed the biggest problem, but
Dr. Arnold Lynch, its original designer, was able to redesign it to his
own original specification. The reconstruction is on display, in the
historically correct place for Colossus No. 9, at The National Museum of
Computing, in H Block Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire.

In November 2007, to celebrate the project completion and to mark the
start of a fundraising initiative for The National Museum of Computing,
a Cipher Challenge[12] pitted the rebuilt Colossus against radio
amateurs worldwide in being first to receive and decode three messages
enciphered using the Lorenz SZ42 and transmitted from radio station
DL0HNF in the Heinz Nixdorf MuseumsForum computer museum. The challenge
was easily won by radio amateur Joachim Schüth, who had carefully
prepared[13] for the event and developed his own signal processing and
decrypt code using Ada.[14] The Colossus team were hampered by their
wish to use World War II radio equipment,[15] delaying them by a day
because of poor reception conditions. Nevertheless the victor's 1.4 GHz
laptop, running his own code, took less than a minute to find the
settings for all 12 wheels. The German codebreaker said: "My laptop
digested ciphertext at a speed of 1.2 million characters per second—240
times faster than Colossus. If you scale the CPU frequency by that
factor, you get an equivalent clock of 5.8 MHz for Colossus. That is a
remarkable speed for a computer built in 1944."[16]

The Cipher Challenge verified the successful completion of the rebuild
project. "On the strength of today's performance Colossus is as good as
it was six decades ago", commented Tony Sale. "We are delighted to have
produced a fitting tribute to the people who worked at Bletchley Park
and whose brainpower devised these fantastic machines which broke these
ciphers and shortened the war by many months."

( some claim the war was shortened by between 2 and 4 years ) and it was
us BRITISH who did it !


If the British had behaved sensibly, there would have been no war.


Including Iraq.



--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:00:39 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:45:53 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

How much did he contribute to this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


Colossus had nothing whatsoever to do with Enigma decryption. It was
developed to assist decryption of the Lorenz cipher machine, a 5-bit
teletype machine incorporating the modulo-2 addition of a pseudo-random
stream. Used for high-level communications. To quote Tony Sale;
"Fortunately, it was more pseudo than random".

The machines used for finding the Enigma wheel settings were purely
electromechanical. They were called Bombes. One of those has been
replicated, too.

Eeyore is so rah-rah British he has to make up accomplishments.
Serious inferiority complex. Poor fact checking.


We should call him Mr. Checkov.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:01:00 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:43:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote: ANSI reference designators.pdf

Only for antiquated Americans of course.

---
Us???

Sure. ANSI = American National Standards Institute. For the USA only.

---
Nope, lots of folks use ANSI.
Especially if they want to sell us something that we want to have meet
a particular specification.

As for the list, someone asked for a list of schematic reference
designators, and I provided it.

If you don't like it, tough ****; post your own list.

I'd imagine it would go something like


UDC unidirectional RCA cable

TWK Tweak, the felt-covered brick you put on top of transformers
to improve soundstaging

CSL capacitor, silver foil

X $1500 secret quantum mechanical electron organizer

PCB Power cable, burned in

VR Vishay resistor

CB Black Beauty capacitor

V$$ $450 original Western Electric 300B vacuum tube



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300B

John

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:28:56 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Americans invented electronics

WRONG !

Never mind the early work of Faraday, Fleming et al, The first
'electronic' device, the diode, was invented by a Briton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Guthrie


I don't consider Fleming's diode to quite be "electronics" because it
didn't have gain.

That is the most stupid comment I've heard in the last 60 years.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:31:39 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:28:56 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Americans invented electronics

WRONG !

Never mind the early work of Faraday, Fleming et al, The first
'electronic' device, the diode, was invented by a Briton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Guthrie


I don't consider Fleming's diode to quite be "electronics" because it
didn't have gain.

That is the most stupid comment I've heard in the last 60 years.

"Electricity" is about moving power around. "Electronics" is about
using electricity to process information. You can't do much of that
without a fast gain element.

Wiki agrees with me that electronics really began with the invention
of the triode:

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

One can argue definitions, but I don't think you can do "electronics"
with just Fleming diodes, which are really Edison diodes. Electronics
exploded into existence with DeForest's invention of the triode.

John

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:31:39 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:28:56 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Americans invented electronics

WRONG !

Never mind the early work of Faraday, Fleming et al, The first
'electronic' device, the diode, was invented by a Briton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Guthrie


I don't consider Fleming's diode to quite be "electronics" because it
didn't have gain.

That is the most stupid comment I've heard in the last 60 years.

Consider the source.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | 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 |

Democrats are best served up prepared as a hash
Otherwise the dogs will refuse to eat them

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:20:33 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.

No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.

What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and
"G" is the reference designator for, among other things, a generator.

Saw G1 for a overvoltage phone line protector (Gas discharge?) recently.

Grant.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:12:55 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:46:49 +1000, Grant wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:08:01 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:57:03 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.

No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.


I've actually seen schematics that used CHO for inductor, RLY for
relay, LED for LED, POT or RV for a variable resistor, BR for a
rectifier, CON for a connector. Audio, of course. Schematics that use
such designators are invariably amateur crap circuits in their own
right. They generally use the dreadful "4K7" thing too.

Hey John, I get resistors marked 4k7 or 6R8. What's so bad about
that? Not that I'd try to convince you otherwise, I got used to it
about the same time a workplace talked me out of zigzag resistors
and into box ones like the industry mags or something did. I just
went with the flow, no point arguing.

Though Farnell (your Newark too?) don't know the difference between
upper and lower case multipliers, and MH might actually be uH or mH.

Grant.

We buy very little from Newark. They are a qualified supplier for just
a few percent of the parts we buy, and mostly as a backup. The other
distributors call on us often, with factory apps engineers in tow,
flinging samples and dev boards all over the place, but Newark
doesn't.

Fair enough, I'm not production buying, so it's a long time since I had
sales people call, and in the '80s the latest databooks were about all
they offered for free Though National Semi had a great Applications
Engineer for a while, used to run some hairy analog problems by him at
times.

Over here we got two companies selling without minimum order and with
free delivery, Farnell and RS Comp., both UK based. Your (US) popular
DigiKey has flat rate US$30 delivery fee to AU and a free call line,
but it's difficult for me to justify using that for prototype quantities.

Grant.

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:47:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote: ANSI reference designators.pdf

Only for antiquated Americans of course.

---
Us???

Sure. ANSI = American National Standards Institute. For the USA only.


Given a choice between ignoring ANSI standards and ignoring IEC
standards, the US ones are much better.

Ever tried to read the CE stuff? Nightmare.


That's why Eeyore likes it. It reminds him of Lucas.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:56:50 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Grant wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 07:11:20 +0100, Eeyore m wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote: ANSI reference designators.pdf

Only for antiquated Americans of course.

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate
a transistor or U for an IC.

Graham
Chronological snobbery. I thought it was Brits who liked to keep old
names for things, such as your treasury department, which is still named
after the gingham tablecloth that they used to count the money on,
around a thousand years ago. (*)
The name Treasury ( which one could critice itself for being
'old-fashioned' despite common US usage ) has no connection with
tablecloths. You ought to do your research before posting.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/about_history.htm

" The origin of the name “exchequer” derives from the chequered table
(based on the abacus) which was used from about 1110 for calculating
expenditure and receipts. "

British English btw is renowned for accepting many forms of linguistic
influence inluding taking entire foreign phrases into common use. In
this respect it is probably the most dynamic language in the world.

Now explain why U = integrated circuit and Q = transistor. It defies any
form of common sense.

Sensible usage is 'IC' and 'TR'.

So the transformer is?

Typically TX is my experience.


I and C already taken for other uses, so remaining
letters get a showing too. Too hard? Hardly matters.

Where on a schematic do you come across an 'I' ?

Not terribly common, but indicator and not always lamps.

IC is a combination of 2 leters so clearly distinguishable.

Graham

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:48:56 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:57:03 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.
No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.


I've actually seen schematics that used CHO for inductor, RLY for
relay, LED for LED, POT or RV for a variable resistor, BR for a
rectifier, CON for a connector. Audio, of course. Schematics that use
such designators are invariably amateur crap circuits in their own
right. They generally use the dreadful "4K7" thing too.

John

Not happy with posting it once ?

Internet service is weird up here in the mountains.

John

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:08:05 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:31:39 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:28:56 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Americans invented electronics

WRONG !

Never mind the early work of Faraday, Fleming et al, The first
'electronic' device, the diode, was invented by a Briton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Guthrie


I don't consider Fleming's diode to quite be "electronics"
because it didn't have gain.

That is the most stupid comment I've heard in the last 60 years.

"Electricity" is about moving power around. "Electronics" is about
using electricity to process information. You can't do much of
that without a fast gain element.

Not much but some. Take for example the Detection and demodulation of
an audio signal using only a diode and a high impedance voltage to
sound transducer.


Wiki agrees with me that electronics really began with the
invention of the triode:

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

That article also says "Some common electronic components are
capacitors, resistors, diodes, transistors, etc."
.......................^^^^^^

The argument is philosophical.

Both the Edison effect and the Fleming tube were novelties. The Audion
changed the world.

John

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:41:32 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Americans invented electronics, invented modern electronics, invented
the vacuum triode, the opamp, the transistor, the IC, semiconductor
RAM, uPs, LEDs, lasers, programmable logic, all sorts of stuff. We
picked the reference designators, because we needed them first.
Just checking, you're wrong about the LED too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-e..._early_devices

Electroluminescence was discovered in 1907 by the British experimenter
H. J. Round of Marconi Labs, using a crystal of silicon carbide and a
cat's-whisker detector.[4][5] Russian Oleg Vladimirovich Losev
independently reported on the creation of an LED in 1927.

Neither want anywhere.

I assume you meant 'went' rather than 'want' ? At the time there was no
practical use. Doesn't change the date of discovery though. SiC too !
That took a while to enter general LED usage.

Accidental discoveries that result in no practical application are not
just useless, they suggest a lack of insight. LEDs were, like
transistors, developed in the USA deliberately, by people who
understood solid-state physics and knew, or at least suspected, that
the devices were possible. The team at Bell Labs was specifically
looking for an amplification mechanism in germanium, and just happened
to find the wrong one (they had theorized the jfet) which changed the
world. The RadLab scientists had suggested that a semiconductor triode
was possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led#History

The most notable recent British contribution to electronics may be the
ARM processor architecture, which has a good shot at killing x86.

John

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:38:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:28:56 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Americans invented electronics

WRONG !

Never mind the early work of Faraday, Fleming et al, The first
'electronic' device, the diode, was invented by a Briton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Guthrie


I don't consider Fleming's diode to quite be "electronics" because it
didn't have gain.

BTW do you also dismiss the work of Marconi ?

It wasn't electronics either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#History

John

You picked this fight JL.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:38:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:00:39 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:45:53 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

How much did he contribute to this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


Colossus had nothing whatsoever to do with Enigma decryption. It was
developed to assist decryption of the Lorenz cipher machine, a 5-bit
teletype machine incorporating the modulo-2 addition of a pseudo-random
stream. Used for high-level communications. To quote Tony Sale;
"Fortunately, it was more pseudo than random".

The machines used for finding the Enigma wheel settings were purely
electromechanical. They were called Bombes. One of those has been
replicated, too.

Eeyore is so rah-rah British he has to make up accomplishments.
Serious inferiority complex. Poor fact checking.

John

Very much like you.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:53:22 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote: ANSI reference designators.pdf

Only for antiquated Americans of course.

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.

We invented them, we named them. You can have credit for "V".

Actually the first transistor ( a FET ) was theorised by a German in the
30s IIRC. I believe he even tried to make one but materials weren't pure
enough back then.

Nope. 1920s by Japanese. I went looking for references but many
search engines don't have anything over 50 years old.

Similarly a Briton forsaw ICs in the 50s calling them 'solid circuits'
at the time.

Graham

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:57:18 -0700,
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:38:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:28:56 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Americans invented electronics

WRONG !

Never mind the early work of Faraday, Fleming et al, The first
'electronic' device, the diode, was invented by a Briton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Guthrie


I don't consider Fleming's diode to quite be "electronics" because it
didn't have gain.

BTW do you also dismiss the work of Marconi ?

It wasn't electronics either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#History

John

You picked this fight JL.

Fight? I stated what I "don't consider" to quite be electronics. Feel
free to consider whatever you want. Is a flashlight electronics? A
kerosene lantern? A spark gap/coherer link?

Believe what you will.

John

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:15:51 -0700,
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:38:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:00:39 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:45:53 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:00:38 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


And who broke the 'unbreakable' German Enigma code ?
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w

"Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in
Warsaw, the Polish Cipher Bureau revealed its Enigma-decryption
techniques and equipment to representatives of French and British
military intelligence, which had been unable to make any headway
against Enigma. This Polish intelligence-and-technology transfer would
give the Allies an unprecedented advantage (Ultra) in their ultimately
victorious prosecution of World War II."

Clearly not immediately relevant since it was much later that the German
Enigma code was broken.

How much did he contribute to this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


Colossus had nothing whatsoever to do with Enigma decryption. It was
developed to assist decryption of the Lorenz cipher machine, a 5-bit
teletype machine incorporating the modulo-2 addition of a pseudo-random
stream. Used for high-level communications. To quote Tony Sale;
"Fortunately, it was more pseudo than random".

The machines used for finding the Enigma wheel settings were purely
electromechanical. They were called Bombes. One of those has been
replicated, too.

Eeyore is so rah-rah British he has to make up accomplishments.
Serious inferiority complex. Poor fact checking.

John

Very much like you.

Be a jerk. Or post some electronics. Take your pick.

John

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:25:05 -0700 Fred Abse
wrote in Message id:
:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:48:41 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

We should call him Mr. Checkov.

More likely Mr. Dzherkov.

Okay, now *that* was funny!

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:25:02 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:25:57 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Schematics that use
such designators are invariably amateur crap circuits in their own
right. They generally use the dreadful "4K7" thing too.

The "4k7" thing is not entirely without merit. Have you never encountered
a badly reproduced, or hand drawn schematic, where decimal points are
either missing, or produced by artifacts of the repro process?

I took engineering drawing in college, and they forced us to learn to
draw good digits and decimal points. Physicists and architects and
rocket scientists seem to manage to use decimal points properly.

"4k7" screams amateur audio. SI unit designations don't look like
that. "IC1" and "TR9" look amateur, too.


I recall wasting a lot of time on a problem where a resistor, apparently
51 ohm, should have been 5.1 ohm. Faxed (thermal) schematic, not obvious
from context.

Thermal fax? When?

5 1 should give you a hint that it's not 51.

I've recently seen a hand-drawn 4k7 that looked like 457.

John

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.
No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.
What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and
"G" is the reference designator for, among other things, a generator.

In the USA only.

Graham

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:19:22 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.
No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.
What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and
"G" is the reference designator for, among other things, a generator.

In the USA only.

---
Got a list of IEC reference designations?

---
JF

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:19:22 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:47:41 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Do please especially explain the relevance of the letter Q to indicate a
transistor or U for an IC.
No sillier than "L" for inductance, or "Z" for impedance, or "Y" for
admittance, or "B" for susceptance, or "G" for conductance.
What kind of equations do you use for calculating impedances ?

For example Z = 2.pi.f.L is a common one.

---
That's only true because:

Z = sqrt (R² + (Xl - Xc)²)

and it's the only circuit element being considered.

More correctly, 2pi f L is considered to be the "inductive reactance"
of an inductor, and the equation is written:

Xl = 2pi f L
---

L is clearly a well-understood 'shorthand' for inductance along with R
and C for resistance and capacitance.

I don't know of any components requiring designation on a schematic or
PCB that require defining by Y, B or G,

---
"Y" is the reference for any sort of resonator, but more particularly
for the ubiquitous quartz crystal resonator.

"B" is the reference designator for a blwer, motor, or synchro, and
"G" is the reference designator for, among other things, a generator.

In the USA only.

Graham

Post a real schematic of something you've designed.

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
I took engineering drawing in college, and they forced us to learn to
draw good digits and decimal points. Physicists and architects and
rocket scientists seem to manage to use decimal points properly.

My understanding was that, regardless of how good your decimal points were, by
virtue or being physically small, in the process of Xeroxing and just regular
old wear and tear on the paper, sooner or later the decimal points would tend
to be lost, and *that* was the main impetus for "4k7" -- along with the fact
that even the the lowest-scording graduate in your class still went out and
got to put on an "engineer" cap.

Now that schematics are seldom Xeroxed and likely viewed as or more often on a
screen than on paper, I don't think the motivation really remains.

When I went to school EEs didn't take engineering drawing anymore, although
MEs still did. By now I expect their classes are all using SolidWorks or
AutoCAD or similar.

"4k7" screams amateur audio.

To me they just scream, "designed in Europe." :-)

SI unit designations don't look like
that. "IC1" and "TR9" look amateur, too.

I'm looking at a circuit board made by JVC here that uses "IC1" for big ICs
(like microcontrollers) -- although still "U1" for, e.g., regulators --,
"CON1" (connectors), "ESDA1" (little ESD-handling diode arrays), "JP1"
(jumpers) and "CN1" (also a connector -- not sure how it's different from the
"CON1" connectors).

You can add them to your list of places you'd prefer not to work at. :-)

---Joel

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:06:37 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
I took engineering drawing in college, and they forced us to learn to
draw good digits and decimal points. Physicists and architects and
rocket scientists seem to manage to use decimal points properly.

My understanding was that, regardless of how good your decimal points were, by
virtue or being physically small, in the process of Xeroxing and just regular
old wear and tear on the paper, sooner or later the decimal points would tend
to be lost, and *that* was the main impetus for "4k7" -- along with the fact
that even the the lowest-scording graduate in your class still went out and
got to put on an "engineer" cap.

Now that schematics are seldom Xeroxed and likely viewed as or more often on a
screen than on paper, I don't think the motivation really remains.

When I went to school EEs didn't take engineering drawing anymore, although
MEs still did. By now I expect their classes are all using SolidWorks or
AutoCAD or similar.

"4k7" screams amateur audio.

To me they just scream, "designed in Europe." :-)

SI unit designations don't look like
that. "IC1" and "TR9" look amateur, too.

I'm looking at a circuit board made by JVC here that uses "IC1" for big ICs
(like microcontrollers) -- although still "U1" for, e.g., regulators --,
"CON1" (connectors), "ESDA1" (little ESD-handling diode arrays), "JP1"
(jumpers) and "CN1" (also a connector -- not sure how it's different from the
"CON1" connectors).

One division of GE just used a number. A resistor might be 12, a
transistor 43. That's the opposite extreme.


You can add them to your list of places you'd prefer not to work at. :-)

---Joel

Yup. The audio people tend to be like that, way out of the mainstream
of rational electronic design. They tend to fiddle with bizarre
circuits until some big-shot's hearing-damaged subjective response is
satisfied. There's a lot of superstitious learning involved. And a lot
of plain BS.

The other problem with audio is that the engineers tend to be
flunkies, with the business types and "the artists" being the
superstars. There are places where the engineers are the stars, which
are more fun to work at.

John