On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.
---

I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.
---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

--
JF

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?


---

I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type. I set CAPS LOCK to do
all the rest.


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts, transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.






--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

snip

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator
program? It should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and
backwards, common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts,
transistor/diode equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature
conversions, simple filters, RF s/n stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff
like that. I've considered writing a modular, expandable EE calc
utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a heap of "point tools"
to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice and just
fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

Here is something. It's an online resource rather than something that
runs on your machine. It doesn't do all the things you list but it does
do a lot of useful things including ones you didn't list: http://
www.calculatoredge.com/.

Here is another: http://www.csgnetwork.com/converters.html. I haven't
used this one but it appears to offer some very specific calculators,
including one to calculate the capacitance of a Leyden Jar!

This is a site map of a web site that includes a lot of calculators:
http://www.daycounter.com/SiteMap.phtml.

With such a plethora of calculators already available, it doesn't make
much sense to write your own unless you can't find one that fits your
needs.

Enjoy,

--
Jim Mueller

To get my real email address, replace wrongname with dadoheadman.
Then replace nospam with fastmail. Lastly, replace com with us.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

I set CAPS LOCK to do all the rest.

---
To each his own...
---


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts, transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

---
This from the man who, a while back, decried the practice of "fiddling
around" with a sim instead of doing the math.

--
JF

On 22 Dec 2012 18:57:50 GMT, Jim Mueller wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

snip

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator
program? It should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and
backwards, common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts,
transistor/diode equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature
conversions, simple filters, RF s/n stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff
like that. I've considered writing a modular, expandable EE calc
utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a heap of "point tools"
to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice and just
fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

Here is something. It's an online resource rather than something that
runs on your machine. It doesn't do all the things you list but it does
do a lot of useful things including ones you didn't list: http://
www.calculatoredge.com/.

Here is another: http://www.csgnetwork.com/converters.html. I haven't
used this one but it appears to offer some very specific calculators,
including one to calculate the capacitance of a Leyden Jar!

This is a site map of a web site that includes a lot of calculators:
http://www.daycounter.com/SiteMap.phtml.

With such a plethora of calculators already available, it doesn't make
much sense to write your own unless you can't find one that fits your
needs.

Enjoy,

---
Here's another good one:

http://www.onlineconversion.com/

--
JF

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:00:32 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

---
Correction; CCPB keywords can be set to appear in either upper case or
lower case.

I chose lower case.
--
JF

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:00:32 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

I set CAPS LOCK to do all the rest.

---
To each his own...
---


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts, transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

---
This from the man who, a while back, decried the practice of "fiddling
around" with a sim instead of doing the math.

Voltage dividers aren't likely to have a lot of corner cases.

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:00:32 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

I set CAPS LOCK to do all the rest.

---
To each his own...
---


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts, transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

---
This from the man who, a while back, decried the practice of "fiddling
around" with a sim instead of doing the math.

Voltage dividers aren't likely to have a lot of corner cases.

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."

--
JF

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:00:32 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

I set CAPS LOCK to do all the rest.

---
To each his own...
---


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts, transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

---
This from the man who, a while back, decried the practice of "fiddling
around" with a sim instead of doing the math.

Voltage dividers aren't likely to have a lot of corner cases.

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:00:32 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields

wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields

wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

I set CAPS LOCK to do all the rest.

---
To each his own...
---


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor
ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me
many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator
program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and
backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts,
transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple
filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing
a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still
run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using
LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like
dividers and
RC circuits.

---
This from the man who, a while back, decried the practice of "fiddling
around" with a sim instead of doing the math.

Voltage dividers aren't likely to have a lot of corner cases.

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

Hey guys, it's Christmas. Can we put a lid on it for at least one day?
Merry Christmas to all out there on Usenet!!!

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:00:32 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

I set CAPS LOCK to do all the rest.

---
To each his own...
---


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts, transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

---
This from the man who, a while back, decried the practice of "fiddling
around" with a sim instead of doing the math.

Voltage dividers aren't likely to have a lot of corner cases.

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

--
JF

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
[snip]

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

I know, with 100% certainty, that a simulator balking is a sure
indication of a BARELY working circuit... but then, Larkin only deals
in his closet world dominated by trim pots :-}

Also, I can demonstrate on circuit after circuit, LTspice will
demonstrate "working" what other Spice's reject. Convergence
conveniences often hide quirks.

...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 |

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

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:00:32 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:31:17 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:01 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:15:14 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

All the compiled binary opcodes are lowercase?

---
Don't know, don't care.

The point was that the _source_ code doesn't require any
capitalization.

What source code?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
---


I did this in PowerBasic, all uppercase.

---
Because you _chose_ to, not because you _had_ to.

The PB ide capitalizes all language keywords as you type.

---
QB does, but as far as I know PB doesn't. That is, my copy of CC4
doesn't.
---

I set CAPS LOCK to do all the rest.

---
To each his own...
---


---

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Rugrat.jpg

It selects resistors that we have in stock, to hit a target resistor ratio
within a tolerance and a range of Thevenin impedances. It's saved me many hours
of calculator punching.

Does anyone know of a really comprehensive electronics calculator program? It
should do, well, everything.

---
"Everything" is very vague. Do you have a list?

RLC circuits, common voltage regulators, time constants forwards and backwards,
common trimpot circuits, voltage dividers of various sorts, transistor/diode
equations, RTDs, thermocouples, temperature conversions, simple filters, RF s/n
stuff, Johnson and shot noise, stuff like that. I've considered writing a
modular, expandable EE calc utility, but haven't had the time. I still run a
heap of "point tools" to handle various cases. I find myself also using LT Spice
and just fiddling for values that work, even for simple stuff like dividers and
RC circuits.

---
This from the man who, a while back, decried the practice of "fiddling
around" with a sim instead of doing the math.

Voltage dividers aren't likely to have a lot of corner cases.

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:17:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
[snip]

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

Some circuits simply won't start up in simulation. Or some device
model may leave out something important. LT Spice lets you put 100 KV
across a 1N914, or the b-e junction of a 2N2222.

Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE -224 -32 -288 -32
WIRE -224 16 -224 -32
WIRE -96 64 -160 64
WIRE 64 64 -16 64
WIRE 112 64 64 64
WIRE 224 64 192 64
WIRE 64 112 64 64
WIRE 224 128 224 64
WIRE -224 160 -224 112
WIRE 64 240 64 192
WIRE 224 240 224 192
FLAG 64 240 0
FLAG 224 240 0
FLAG -224 160 0
SYMBOL diode 208 128 R0
SYMATTR InstName D1
SYMATTR Value 1N914
SYMBOL voltage 64 96 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value -100000
SYMBOL res 208 48 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL npn -160 16 M0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N2222
SYMBOL res 0 48 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res -272 -48 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 1K
TEXT 280 80 Left 2 !.tran 0 1 0



I know, with 100% certainty, that a simulator balking is a sure
indication of a BARELY working circuit...

100% certainty? How idiotic. Sometimes Spice has problems with
perfectly good circuits. Sometimes Spice says that a circuit works,
when the real thing doesn't.


but then, Larkin only deals
in his closet world dominated by trim pots :-}

The subject was programming. I tried to taech you how to write simple
programs in Basic, but you couldn't do that.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

--
JF

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 20:04:34 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:17:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
[snip]

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

Some circuits simply won't start up in simulation. Or some device
model may leave out something important. LT Spice lets you put 100 KV
across a 1N914, or the b-e junction of a 2N2222.

---
A bad workman blames his tools...

--
JF

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Isn't a degree from Tulane, ranked 112th in engineering schools...

http://tinyurl.com/d8aupcy

sort of like a degree from a diploma mill... worthless ?:-}

...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 |

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

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:30:25 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 20:04:34 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:17:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
m wrote:
[snip]

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

Some circuits simply won't start up in simulation. Or some device
model may leave out something important. LT Spice lets you put 100 KV
across a 1N914, or the b-e junction of a 2N2222.

---
A bad workman blames his tools...

A cliche is a poor substitute for thinking.

But I don't blame Spice for being what it is. I use it seldom, and
sanity-check everything that it does. I never Spice whole designs, and
many of my designs don't involve Spice at all.

And I'm not a workman; I'm an engineer.

You're just whining, as usual.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

Didn't I turn you on to PowerBasic? I tried that with Jim, but he
bailed.

I've written over a thousand programs, including hundreds of embedded
apps, two compilers, and three RTOSs. Of course I know what source
code is.



But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Get professional and design some non-hairball, hazard-free, non-RC,
properly synchronous logic.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:15:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Isn't a degree from Tulane, ranked 112th in engineering schools...

http://tinyurl.com/d8aupcy

sort of like a degree from a diploma mill... worthless ?:-}

...Jim Thompson

I learned what any EE needs: physics, circuit theory, Signals and
Systems, communications theory (that was a grad-level course),
enginering graphics (much hated, very valuable), electrical machinery
(also turned out to be valuable), EDA, thermo, materials, stuff like
that. I was designing serious stuff at the time (supervisory control,
marine automation, military, NASA, modems, computer interfaces) so the
stuff really meant a lot to me. I had to cut classes to go on sea
trials to tune up my throttle and boiler control systems. I was
getting insights that the other guys weren't.

I think Tulane was better for me than MIT would have been.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:38:45 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:30:25 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 20:04:34 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:17:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
[snip]

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

Some circuits simply won't start up in simulation. Or some device
model may leave out something important. LT Spice lets you put 100 KV
across a 1N914, or the b-e junction of a 2N2222.

---
A bad workman blames his tools...

A cliche is a poor substitute for thinking.

---
Indeed, but I think it's a no-brainer in this case since your thinking
that LTspice's not flagging your error was a deficiency on its part
when it was you who was calling the shots and you who should have
known better.
---

But I don't blame Spice for being what it is. I use it seldom, and
sanity-check everything that it does. I never Spice whole designs, and
many of my designs don't involve Spice at all.

And I'm not a workman; I'm an engineer.

---
Engineers aren't workmen?

Utter nonsense, since even if you consider yourself bourgeoisie and
try to distance yourself from the hoi-polloi, you still do work and,
as a consequence, are a workman.
---

You're just whining, as usual.

---
In what way?

--
JF

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:42:23 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:38:45 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:30:25 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 20:04:34 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:17:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
m wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
m wrote:
[snip]

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

Some circuits simply won't start up in simulation. Or some device
model may leave out something important. LT Spice lets you put 100 KV
across a 1N914, or the b-e junction of a 2N2222.

---
A bad workman blames his tools...

A cliche is a poor substitute for thinking.

---
Indeed, but I think it's a no-brainer in this case since your thinking
that LTspice's not flagging your error was a deficiency on its part
when it was you who was calling the shots and you who should have
known better.

LT Spice does what it does. It's not a perfect model of reality, and I
never expected it to be one. I can pretty much always note when its
results don't match my instincts, and adjust for that.

---

But I don't blame Spice for being what it is. I use it seldom, and
sanity-check everything that it does. I never Spice whole designs, and
many of my designs don't involve Spice at all.

And I'm not a workman; I'm an engineer.

---
Engineers aren't workmen?

That's another argument over definitions, but I think not. Workmen
follow rules and strive for consistancy. Engineers, at least
electronic design engineers, often do best when they break rules.



Utter nonsense, since even if you consider yourself bourgeoisie and
try to distance yourself from the hoi-polloi, you still do work and,
as a consequence, are a workman.

You love to argue definitions and design hairballs. Go for it.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:43:48 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

Didn't I turn you on to PowerBasic?

---
Yes, thanks.

I'll be indebted to you forever.
---

I tried that with Jim, but he bailed.

---
Why is that germane?
---

I've written over a thousand programs, including hundreds of embedded
apps, two compilers, and three RTOSs. Of course I know what source
code is.

---
Strange then, that you didn't recognize mine as that.
---

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Get professional and design some non-hairball, hazard-free, non-RC,
properly synchronous logic.

---
"Properly synchronous logic", according to you, means subjugating
everything to the edge of a clock, even when it's not warranted.

Kinda sad, but expected.

--
JF

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:50:58 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:15:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Isn't a degree from Tulane, ranked 112th in engineering schools...

http://tinyurl.com/d8aupcy

sort of like a degree from a diploma mill... worthless ?:-}

...Jim Thompson

I learned what any EE needs: physics, circuit theory, Signals and
Systems, communications theory (that was a grad-level course),
enginering graphics (much hated, very valuable), electrical machinery
(also turned out to be valuable), EDA, thermo, materials, stuff like
that. I was designing serious stuff at the time (supervisory control,
marine automation, military, NASA, modems, computer interfaces) so the
stuff really meant a lot to me. I had to cut classes to go on sea
trials to tune up my throttle and boiler control systems. I was
getting insights that the other guys weren't.

I think Tulane was better for me than MIT would have been.

---
Would MIT have accepted you?

--
JF

John Fields wrote:

Would MIT have accepted you?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107977/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 ;-)

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:07:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Fields wrote:

Would MIT have accepted you?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107977/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 ;-)

Shouldn't that be, "Tulane men in tights" ?:-}

BTW, I attended MIT on an MIT Alumni Fund National Scholarship, back
when scholarships were awarded on merit, not on need. Remember those
days?

Now-a-days, a mediocre student, who is poor, can get a scholarship,
while the middle-class A+ student, like I was, gets nothing.

(In 1958 my father netted $15,000 per year, equivalent now to
$120,706.)

...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 |

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

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:07:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Fields wrote:

Would MIT have accepted you?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107977/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 ;-)

Shouldn't that be, "Tulane men in tights" ?:-}

BTW, I attended MIT on an MIT Alumni Fund National Scholarship, back
when scholarships were awarded on merit, not on need. Remember those
days?

Now-a-days, a mediocre student, who is poor, can get a scholarship,
while the middle-class A+ student, like I was, gets nothing.

(In 1958 my father netted $15,000 per year, equivalent now to
$120,706.)


By 1970, only minorites need apply.

On 12/25/2012 6:17 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:37:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:29:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:36:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
[snip]

LT Spice *does* the math. It's just a different kind of calculator.
There are times to trust it, and times to not trust it, and more times
to not use it at all. Lots of amateurs fiddle with circuits until they
seem to work, but don't account for tolerances or don't really
understand the parts or run something a few times and miss
low-probability hazards.

And LT Spice will sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it
actually does. It's a kind of dangerous tool, but it does voltage
dividers just fine. For a question like "how can I make this multi-tap
voltage divider out of resistors that I have in stock", using a
calculator or LT Spice are both fiddling, but Spice is a huge lot
faster.

---
As you are wont to say, "Word salad."


You're an amateur. In so many ways.

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

There are lots of examples of that. Pease quoted the example of the
LM331 V-F converter, but most of the SPICE users on this group will have
encountered the frustrating situation of a circuit suddenly taking a
zillion iterations to arrive at a DC operating point, or failing, when
nothing whatsoever has changed in its actual DC behaviour in real life.
There are a lot of LTspice decks with .savebias/.loadbias statements
to help with that problem.


I know, with 100% certainty, that a simulator balking is a sure
indication of a BARELY working circuit... but then, Larkin only deals
in his closet world dominated by trim pots :-}

SPICE is a pretty good, general purpose solver for sparse systems of
nonlinear ODEs, with a bunch of convenience features and eye candy for
circuits, plus some stuff like transmission lines that you can't model
with ODEs without a lot of pain and inaccuracy. (The two-port properties
of a transmission line are given by integral equations, since they're
nonlocal.)

AFAICT most SPICE versions have two or three algorithms for their main
iteration: explicit trapezoidal and implicit [i.e. iterative] Gear, plus
various modifications of these. As ODE solvers go, they work OK, but
are nowhere near the state of the art. No Richardson extrapolation, no
Krylov methods, nothing like ODEPACK, for instance. Seemingly it's
pretty much all 1970s and early 1980s algorithms.

Also, I can demonstrate on circuit after circuit, LTspice will
demonstrate "working" what other Spice's reject. Convergence
conveniences often hide quirks.

I have no doubt that, within a suitably restricted domain, one can build
up excellent intuition of that sort. I've done it myself in other
areas, e.g. computational electromagnetics, but I wouldn't say I'm at
that point with SPICE just yet.

Simulations live and die by whether what's being simulated corresponds
to reality in the domain of interest, and by whether the simulator does
it right. No simulator is infallible--there are always cases that will
break it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:58:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 12/25/2012 6:17 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]

I really got a kick out of that statement, "And LT Spice will
sometimes suggest that a circuit won't work, when it actually does."

There are lots of examples of that. Pease quoted the example of the
LM331 V-F converter, but most of the SPICE users on this group will have
encountered the frustrating situation of a circuit suddenly taking a
zillion iterations to arrive at a DC operating point, or failing, when
nothing whatsoever has changed in its actual DC behaviour in real life.

Pease bloviated a lot about a subject that he had only limited
experience with. And a lot of the problem is too idealized models.

If you can't get a circuit to converge it VERY likely has issues.

(I also have a symbol I made for my own use, "NOF" (no float), which
cures most sins :-)

There are a lot of LTspice decks with .savebias/.loadbias statements
to help with that problem.

Copied from PSpice, I use them all the time. That still requires one
solution, obtained all by its lonesome, then the following attempts,
usually tests of process corners converge more quickly.



I know, with 100% certainty, that a simulator balking is a sure
indication of a BARELY working circuit... but then, Larkin only deals
in his closet world dominated by trim pots :-}

SPICE is a pretty good, general purpose solver for sparse systems of
nonlinear ODEs, with a bunch of convenience features and eye candy for
circuits, plus some stuff like transmission lines that you can't model
with ODEs without a lot of pain and inaccuracy. (The two-port properties
of a transmission line are given by integral equations, since they're
nonlocal.)

AFAICT most SPICE versions have two or three algorithms for their main
iteration: explicit trapezoidal and implicit [i.e. iterative] Gear, plus
various modifications of these. As ODE solvers go, they work OK, but
are nowhere near the state of the art. No Richardson extrapolation, no
Krylov methods, nothing like ODEPACK, for instance. Seemingly it's
pretty much all 1970s and early 1980s algorithms.

Yep, I had a couple of semesters in grad school covering non-linear
systems... Lyapunov and all his buddies ;-)


Also, I can demonstrate on circuit after circuit, LTspice will
demonstrate "working" what other Spice's reject. Convergence
conveniences often hide quirks.

I have no doubt that, within a suitably restricted domain, one can build
up excellent intuition of that sort. I've done it myself in other
areas, e.g. computational electromagnetics, but I wouldn't say I'm at
that point with SPICE just yet.

Yep, my general rule of thumb for slow-converging circuits is to
examine them for "lock-ups" by sweeping up the supply(s) from zero.
(All circuits "converge" at zero supply potential :-)


Simulations live and die by whether what's being simulated corresponds
to reality in the domain of interest, and by whether the simulator does
it right. No simulator is infallible--there are always cases that will
break it.

I'm pretty sure that any time I failed to get convergence it was due
to a blunder of mine.


Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Though "certain people" imply otherwise, I design with pencil
(actually pen) and paper, then test with PSpice. Anyone who thinks
you can _design_ with a simulator is a bit of a fool.

...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 |

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

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:23:58 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:50:58 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:15:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Isn't a degree from Tulane, ranked 112th in engineering schools...

http://tinyurl.com/d8aupcy

sort of like a degree from a diploma mill... worthless ?:-}

...Jim Thompson

I learned what any EE needs: physics, circuit theory, Signals and
Systems, communications theory (that was a grad-level course),
enginering graphics (much hated, very valuable), electrical machinery
(also turned out to be valuable), EDA, thermo, materials, stuff like
that. I was designing serious stuff at the time (supervisory control,
marine automation, military, NASA, modems, computer interfaces) so the
stuff really meant a lot to me. I had to cut classes to go on sea
trials to tune up my throttle and boiler control systems. I was
getting insights that the other guys weren't.

I think Tulane was better for me than MIT would have been.

---
Would MIT have accepted you?

Probably. My SAT's were 800 in math, 720 English. That was *before*
they dumbed down the tests. But I couldn't afford MIT; my dad was a
milkman. TU gave me a full scholarship and I lived at home at first,
until I got the second job. Everything was close enough that I could
get some work in between classes. And New Orleans was fun.

Things have worked out OK.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:07:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Fields wrote:

Would MIT have accepted you?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107977/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 ;-)


Great flic, with lots of digs at Kevin Costner's dreadful Robin Hood
movie, aka MudWorld.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:12:06 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:43:48 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

Didn't I turn you on to PowerBasic?

---
Yes, thanks.

I'll be indebted to you forever.

Then you might appreciate that I know what "source code" means.




---

I tried that with Jim, but he bailed.

---
Why is that germane?
---

I've written over a thousand programs, including hundreds of embedded
apps, two compilers, and three RTOSs. Of course I know what source
code is.

---
Strange then, that you didn't recognize mine as that.

I asked where it was, not what it was. You posted a binary and said it
was in uppercase.

Who cares whether you can program Basic in lowercase? It's just
cosmetics.

---

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Get professional and design some non-hairball, hazard-free, non-RC,
properly synchronous logic.

---
"Properly synchronous logic", according to you, means subjugating
everything to the edge of a clock, even when it's not warranted.

Kinda sad, but expected.

What's wrong with making stuff that works?

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:55:26 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:12:06 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:43:48 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

Didn't I turn you on to PowerBasic?

---
Yes, thanks.

I'll be indebted to you forever.

Then you might appreciate that I know what "source code" means.

---
You do now, anyway
---


I tried that with Jim, but he bailed.

---
Why is that germane?
---

I've written over a thousand programs, including hundreds of embedded
apps, two compilers, and three RTOSs. Of course I know what source
code is.

---
Strange then, that you didn't recognize mine as that.
---

I asked where it was, not what it was. You posted a binary and said it
was in uppercase.

---
What twaddle!

I posted the source code in lower case, and posted the executable as a
binary file which, upon examination with an editor, will of course
contain upper case characters.
---

Who cares whether you can program Basic in lowercase? It's just
cosmetics.

---
The same can be said for your penchant of trying to make BASIC source
code look like old FORTRAN, so PKB.
---

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Get professional and design some non-hairball, hazard-free, non-RC,
properly synchronous logic.

---
"Properly synchronous logic", according to you, means subjugating
everything to the edge of a clock, even when it's not warranted.

Kinda sad, but expected.

What's wrong with making stuff that works?

Red herring, but addressing it anyway:

AFAIK, nothing, but the way you go on about yourself being the
unconventional rebel EE rulebreaker, one would think your hard and
fast stance about not breaking rules about which you pontificate as
being inviolable smacks of hypocrisy.

In other words,: "Do as I say, not as I say I do."

--
JF

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:55:26 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:


What's wrong with making stuff that works?

---
Try this:

PROBABLY THE BEST
CHEESE ENCHILADAS WITH SALSA VERDE
YOU EVER ATE


Salsa Verde Ingredients:

1 pound tomatillos, husked and stemmed
juice of 1 lime
1 small white or yellow onion, chopped (1/2 cup)
4 garlic cloves
1 whole serrano pepper, stemmed
2 tablespoons chopped cilantro
1/2 teaspoon ground cumin
3/4 teaspoon salt, or to taste
1 cup chicken stock

Salsa Verde Directions:

Blend all the ingredients to yield a thick, soupy mixture, then
transfer the mixture into a medium saucepan and, stirring
occasionally, bring to a boil, uncovered, over high heat.

Then, lower the heat and simmer for about 20 minutes, stirring
occasionally.


Cheese enchilada ingredients:

10 Corn tortillas (8 inch)
1/2 cup cilantro, finely chopped
4 cups shredded Mexican cheese (Kraft Mexican style 4 cheese)
1/2 cup scallions, chopped
6 oz can diced green chilies

Cheese enchilada directions:

Preheat oven to 350 degrees

Set aside about 2/3 cup of the cheese and place the rest in a large
bowl.

Prepare a large 9 x 13 baking dish with cooking spray.

Spread an even layer of the salsa verde on the bottom of the baking
dish.

Warm each tortilla on a hot skillet until flexible, remove and spoon
about 1/3 cup of the cheese mixture into the tortilla, roll it up, and
place it seam down in the baking dish.

Top with the salsa verde, the reserved cheese, the diced chilies, the
cilantro, and the scallions.

Cover the dish with aluminum foil coated with cooking spray and bake
for 20 to 25 minutes.

Serve immediately.
--
JF

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 02:44:36 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:55:26 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:12:06 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:43:48 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:54:15 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:32:38 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
Just an ad hominem attack, and I'd say it was PKB, what with your not
knowing what source code was, and all.

What I didn't know was where the source code was.

---
If that were true, then you would have asked for the location of the
source code instead of questioning its existence.

Besides, I posted both the source code and the executable, so anyone
who knew what source code was should certainly have been able to
identify it as such.

Didn't I turn you on to PowerBasic?

---
Yes, thanks.

I'll be indebted to you forever.

Then you might appreciate that I know what "source code" means.

---
You do now, anyway
---


I tried that with Jim, but he bailed.

---
Why is that germane?
---

I've written over a thousand programs, including hundreds of embedded
apps, two compilers, and three RTOSs. Of course I know what source
code is.

---
Strange then, that you didn't recognize mine as that.
---

I asked where it was, not what it was. You posted a binary and said it
was in uppercase.

---
What twaddle!

I posted the source code in lower case, and posted the executable as a
binary file which, upon examination with an editor, will of course
contain upper case characters.
---

Who cares whether you can program Basic in lowercase? It's just
cosmetics.

---
The same can be said for your penchant of trying to make BASIC source
code look like old FORTRAN, so PKB.
---

But that's just the way you are, you make mistakes and then try to
cover them up later by moving the goalposts or trying to place the
onus for your errors on someone else.
---

As far as the PKB thing goes, I'm an EE and you're not. You are an
amateur.

---
Not being an EE or any other kind of E has nothing to do with being a
professional but, of course, in your effort to belittle your
detractors you choose the ad hominem attack because if you were to
argue logically you'd lose face and, Lord knows, we can't have that.

Get professional and design some non-hairball, hazard-free, non-RC,
properly synchronous logic.

---
"Properly synchronous logic", according to you, means subjugating
everything to the edge of a clock, even when it's not warranted.

Kinda sad, but expected.

What's wrong with making stuff that works?

Red herring, but addressing it anyway:

AFAIK, nothing, but the way you go on about yourself being the
unconventional rebel EE rulebreaker, one would think your hard and
fast stance about not breaking rules about which you pontificate as
being inviolable smacks of hypocrisy.

In other words,: "Do as I say, not as I say I do."

Synchronous programming isn't a religion or a rule. It's just a fact
that even trivial async designs are wont to have bugs, and serious
async designs are so bug-prone that they are rarely done. You have
posted several async designs that had low-probability (ie, long-period
intermittent) bugs. You either do that to prove that async design is
safe (which you have proved the opposite) or because you don't
understand how to do reliable synchronous logic design. Safe
synchronous logic design can be taught in about 15 minutes on a
whiteboard. I got straightened out on this when I was still a
teenager.

When logic was expensive and problems were simple, like up to around
1970, some people still tended to do async design. DEC's PDP-8,
PDP-8/I, and PDP-11/20 were async computers, and they were ugly and
buggy, full of one-shots, RCs, and delay lines. Later versions were
fully synchronous, simpler, and much more reliable (except for the
legacy async Unibus part.)

A synchronous state machine can be documented and analyzed. Every
state and every state transition can be known and controlled, and
there are conventions for doing so. Async systems really don't have
distinct states, and transitions happen all over space and time,
creating endless hazards.

No serious enterprise would hire someone if they knew that they
preferred ad-hoc hairballs to serious state-machine design.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:46:10 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:


Synchronous programming isn't a religion or a rule.

---
Synchronous programming???

What is that?
---

It's just a fact that even trivial async designs are wont to have bugs,
and serious async designs are so bug-prone that they are rarely done.

You have posted several async designs that had low-probability (ie, long-period
intermittent) bugs. You either do that to prove that async design is
safe (which you have proved the opposite) or because you don't
understand how to do reliable synchronous logic design.

---
On the contrary, I've posted innumerable times, in response to your
never-ending hostile challenges, that those designs were used to
illustrate concepts, and weren't intended to represent fully
fleshed-out circuits.

Errors?

We all make them, and most of us own up to them, yet you persist in
your dogged determination to ignore facts and to manufacture fantasies
which make your errors seem trivial - even humorous - and easily
glossed over, and everyone else's, Mortal Sins.
---

Safe synchronous logic design can be taught in about 15 minutes on a
whiteboard. I got straightened out on this when I was still a
teenager.

---
And, as a consequence, your champion vanquished your asynchronous
skills to the point where they've atrophied and are now useless.
---

When logic was expensive and problems were simple, like up to around
1970, some people still tended to do async design. DEC's PDP-8,
PDP-8/I, and PDP-11/20 were async computers, and they were ugly and
buggy, full of one-shots, RCs, and delay lines.

---
"Ugly" is unkind, since, at the time, they were miracles of ingenuity.

Being a Monday morning quarterback, you, of course, declare how it
should have been done then with what you know now.
---

A synchronous state machine can be documented and analyzed. Every
state and every state transition can be known and controlled, and
there are conventions for doing so.

---
Rather rigid from someone who claims to shoot from the hip, and then
there's metastability...
---

|Async systems really don't have
distinct states, and transitions happen all over space and time,
creating endless hazards.

---
Utter nonsense, and whoever gave you that 15 minute crash course on
"Synchronous Good, Asynchronous Bad" during your tender years seems to
have really done a number on your head.
---

No serious enterprise would hire someone if they knew that they
preferred ad-hoc hairballs to serious state-machine design.

---
Well, neither of us is employable, so it's not a question of bias.

Instead, it's a question of who's not afraid to use what's most
efficacious for the task at hand.

Since you - apparently - refuse to even consider asynchronous logic
acceptable for at least some tasks, I think that leaves you in the
lurch.

--
JF

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:46:10 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:


Synchronous programming isn't a religion or a rule.

---
Synchronous programming???

What is that?

I meant logic, but the same concepts apply to programming. The safest
software is also a synchronous state machine. Lots, actually most,
programmers don't understand state machines at all.



---

It's just a fact that even trivial async designs are wont to have bugs,
and serious async designs are so bug-prone that they are rarely done.

You have posted several async designs that had low-probability (ie, long-period
intermittent) bugs. You either do that to prove that async design is
safe (which you have proved the opposite) or because you don't
understand how to do reliable synchronous logic design.

---
On the contrary, I've posted innumerable times, in response to your
never-ending hostile challenges, that those designs were used to
illustrate concepts, and weren't intended to represent fully
fleshed-out circuits.

Bull. They were conceptually, fundamentally, buggy ideas. WITH all
parts values.



Errors?

We all make them, and most of us own up to them, yet you persist in
your dogged determination to ignore facts and to manufacture fantasies
which make your errors seem trivial - even humorous - and easily
glossed over, and everyone else's, Mortal Sins.
---

Safe synchronous logic design can be taught in about 15 minutes on a
whiteboard. I got straightened out on this when I was still a
teenager.

---
And, as a consequence, your champion vanquished your asynchronous
skills to the point where they've atrophied and are now useless.
---

When logic was expensive and problems were simple, like up to around
1970, some people still tended to do async design. DEC's PDP-8,
PDP-8/I, and PDP-11/20 were async computers, and they were ugly and
buggy, full of one-shots, RCs, and delay lines.

---
"Ugly" is unkind, since, at the time, they were miracles of ingenuity.

Not so. They could have been synchronous, simpler, and more reliable.
Probably cheaper, too: tapped delay lines are expensive.

There was a 10-instruction program that you could toggle into the
PDP-11/20 that used the paper tape reader to hang up the CPU logic.
Only a power cycle would fix it.


Being a Monday morning quarterback, you, of course, declare how it
should have been done then with what you know now.
---

A synchronous state machine can be documented and analyzed. Every
state and every state transition can be known and controlled, and
there are conventions for doing so.

---
Rather rigid from someone who claims to shoot from the hip, and then
there's metastability...

Metastability is one problem that synchronous designs avoid. All
flipflop D inputs are settled and stable before the next clock.

A sync design also avoids glitches, races, and engineer confusion.

---

|Async systems really don't have
distinct states, and transitions happen all over space and time,
creating endless hazards.

---
Utter nonsense, and whoever gave you that 15 minute crash course on
"Synchronous Good, Asynchronous Bad" during your tender years seems to
have really done a number on your head.

It was a guy who had worked in the TI Advanced Scientific Computer
project. They weren't allowed to use the set or clear inputs of
flipflops, even for powerup reset.




---

No serious enterprise would hire someone if they knew that they
preferred ad-hoc hairballs to serious state-machine design.

---
Well, neither of us is employable, so it's not a question of bias.

I sure am. I could get fulltime or consulting jobs in days if I wanted
them.


Instead, it's a question of who's not afraid to use what's most
efficacious for the task at hand.

Or who's not afraid of intermittent bugs.


Since you - apparently - refuse to even consider asynchronous logic
acceptable for at least some tasks, I think that leaves you in the
lurch.

I do occasional async stuff, especially picosecond things with Eclips
type logic parts. But the logic isn't often very complex. And it has
to be checked very carefully.

There's no point in taking risks unless there's a substantial payoff.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:27:12 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:46:10 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:


Synchronous programming isn't a religion or a rule.

---
Synchronous programming???

What is that?
---

It's just a fact that even trivial async designs are wont to have bugs,
and serious async designs are so bug-prone that they are rarely done.

You have posted several async designs that had low-probability (ie, long-period
intermittent) bugs. You either do that to prove that async design is
safe (which you have proved the opposite) or because you don't
understand how to do reliable synchronous logic design.

---
On the contrary, I've posted innumerable times, in response to your
never-ending hostile challenges, that those designs were used to
illustrate concepts, and weren't intended to represent fully
fleshed-out circuits.

Errors?

We all make them, and most of us own up to them, yet you persist in
your dogged determination to ignore facts and to manufacture fantasies
which make your errors seem trivial - even humorous - and easily
glossed over, and everyone else's, Mortal Sins.
---

Safe synchronous logic design can be taught in about 15 minutes on a
whiteboard. I got straightened out on this when I was still a
teenager.

---
And, as a consequence, your champion vanquished your asynchronous
skills to the point where they've atrophied and are now useless.
---

When logic was expensive and problems were simple, like up to around
1970, some people still tended to do async design. DEC's PDP-8,
PDP-8/I, and PDP-11/20 were async computers, and they were ugly and
buggy, full of one-shots, RCs, and delay lines.

---
"Ugly" is unkind, since, at the time, they were miracles of ingenuity.

Being a Monday morning quarterback, you, of course, declare how it
should have been done then with what you know now.
---

A synchronous state machine can be documented and analyzed. Every
state and every state transition can be known and controlled, and
there are conventions for doing so.

---
Rather rigid from someone who claims to shoot from the hip, and then
there's metastability...
---

|Async systems really don't have
distinct states, and transitions happen all over space and time,
creating endless hazards.

---
Utter nonsense, and whoever gave you that 15 minute crash course on
"Synchronous Good, Asynchronous Bad" during your tender years seems to
have really done a number on your head.
---

No serious enterprise would hire someone if they knew that they
preferred ad-hoc hairballs to serious state-machine design.

---
Well, neither of us is employable, so it's not a question of bias.

Instead, it's a question of who's not afraid to use what's most
efficacious for the task at hand.

Since you - apparently - refuse to even consider asynchronous logic
acceptable for at least some tasks, I think that leaves you in the
lurch.

Quoting that great sage, Ron White (and appropriately applicable to
Larkin), "You can't cure STUPID... STUPID is FOREVER!" :-}

...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 |

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