Re: CO2 Funny

Liste des GroupesRevenir à e design 
Sujet : Re: CO2 Funny
De : jeroen (at) *nospam* nospam.please (Jeroen Belleman)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 27. May 2024, 00:07:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v30bo1$3knf2$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
On 5/26/24 23:31, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2024 14:22:28 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
 
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:v2uhs7$39s6m$1@dont-email.me...
On 26/05/2024 4:38 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:v2na16$1nvei$1@dont-email.me...
On 23/05/2024 3:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2024 18:10:58 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
<pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>
...
>
John Larkin doesn't seem to 'design" anything. He throws together the stuff he sells like every other tinkerer.
>
>
Why does that matter to you so much?
>
I have two books in front of me.
One is "Introduction to Solid State Physics, C. Kittel"
The other is "FET Circuits. Rufus P Turner"
>
If I open the physics book at a random page I find a contour integral.
I wasn't bad at math and can handle contour integrals but it is also true that I grew up in a very practical electronics
environment
where getting things working was way more important than understanding every little detail of the theory of how they worked.
>
I got into electronics while a I was doing a Ph.D. physical chemistry. Win Hill started a Ph.D. in chemical physics, but had better
advisors.
>
Getting things working is always important, but understanding the detail of what's going on can be vital to getting them to work
well.
>
So both of these are needed if you want the best design.
 Not really. Understanding at some level can help a lot, but it's not
necessary. Besides, we don't actually understand what we're doing, all
the way down to the quantum mechanics.
 
You have to choose the abstraction level appropriate for the task
at hand. I you choose wrong, it will only bog you down. For most
discrete designs, you don't need a very detailed understanding of
semiconductor physics, but you have to know the device
characteristics. For opamp or logic designs, you don't need the
characteristics of the devices that compose an opamp or a logic
gate. For FPGA logic design, you hardly need to understand logic
gates anymore. To program a computer, you don't need to understand
CPU architecture. And on it goes.
Jeroen Belleman
(Give a researcher the task of banging in a nail. First he'll study
hammers. Before you know it, he'll be studying advanced metallurgy.)

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 May 24 * CO2 Funny68john larkin
21 May 24 +* Re: CO2 Funny2Bill Sloman
21 May 24 i`- Re: CO2 Funny1John R Walliker
21 May 24 `* Re: CO2 Funny65chrisq
21 May 24  `* Re: CO2 Funny64john larkin
21 May 24   +* Re: CO2 Funny62john larkin
21 May 24   i+* Re: CO2 Funny60john larkin
22 May 24   ii+- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
22 May 24   ii+* Re: CO2 Funny48jim whitby
22 May 24   iii+* Re: CO2 Funny2jim whitby
23 May 24   iiii`- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
22 May 24   iii+* Re: CO2 Funny42john larkin
22 May 24   iiii+* Re: CO2 Funny40john larkin
23 May 24   iiiii+* Re: CO2 Funny17Bill Sloman
25 May 24   iiiiii`* Re: CO2 Funny16Edward Rawde
26 May 24   iiiiii +* Re: CO2 Funny14Bill Sloman
26 May 24   iiiiii i`* Re: CO2 Funny13Edward Rawde
26 May 24   iiiiii i +* Re: CO2 Funny2john larkin
27 May 24   iiiiii i i`- Re: CO2 Funny1Jeroen Belleman
27 May 24   iiiiii i +* Re: CO2 Funny7Bill Sloman
27 May 24   iiiiii i i`* Re: CO2 Funny6john larkin
27 May 24   iiiiii i i `* Re: CO2 Funny5Bill Sloman
27 May 24   iiiiii i i  `* Re: CO2 Funny4john larkin
28 May 24   iiiiii i i   `* Re: CO2 Funny3Bill Sloman
28 May 24   iiiiii i i    `* Re: CO2 Funny2john larkin
28 May 24   iiiiii i i     `- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
27 May 24   iiiiii i `* Re: CO2 Funny3Cursitor Doom
28 May 24   iiiiii i  `* Re: CO2 Funny2Bill Sloman
30 May 24   iiiiii i   `- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
26 May 24   iiiiii `- Re: CO2 Funny1john larkin
23 May 24   iiiii+* Re: CO2 Funny16john larkin
24 May 24   iiiiii+- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
24 May 24   iiiiii`* Re: CO2 Funny14john larkin
24 May 24   iiiiii +* Re: CO2 Funny10Joe Gwinn
24 May 24   iiiiii i`* Re: CO2 Funny9john larkin
24 May 24   iiiiii i +* Re: CO2 Funny2john larkin
25 May 24   iiiiii i i`- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
25 May 24   iiiiii i `* Re: CO2 Funny6Phil Hobbs
25 May 24   iiiiii i  `* Re: CO2 Funny5john larkin
25 May 24   iiiiii i   `* Re: CO2 Funny4Phil Hobbs
25 May 24   iiiiii i    `* Re: CO2 Funny3Mike Monett VE3BTI
25 May 24   iiiiii i     +- Re: CO2 Funny1Phil Hobbs
25 May 24   iiiiii i     `- Re: CO2 Funny1Jeroen Belleman
24 May 24   iiiiii +- Re: CO2 Funny1john larkin
25 May 24   iiiiii +- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
25 May 24   iiiiii `- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
23 May 24   iiiii+- Re: CO2 Funny1john larkin
26 May 24   iiiii`* Re: CO2 Funny5Cursitor Doom
26 May 24   iiiii +* Re: CO2 Funny3john larkin
27 May 24   iiiii i+- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
27 May 24   iiiii i`- Re: CO2 Funny1john larkin
27 May 24   iiiii `- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
23 May 24   iiii`- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
22 May 24   iii+* Re: CO2 Funny2john larkin
23 May 24   iiii`- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
23 May 24   iii`- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
22 May 24   ii`* Re: CO2 Funny10Jeroen Belleman
22 May 24   ii `* Re: CO2 Funny9john larkin
22 May 24   ii  +* Re: CO2 Funny6john larkin
22 May 24   ii  i+- Re: CO2 Funny1john larkin
23 May 24   ii  i+* Re: CO2 Funny3chrisq
23 May 24   ii  ii`* Re: CO2 Funny2john larkin
23 May 24   ii  ii `- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
23 May 24   ii  i`- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
23 May 24   ii  +- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
25 May 24   ii  `- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
22 May 24   i`- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman
22 May 24   `- Re: CO2 Funny1Bill Sloman

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal