On 12/27/2024 6:00 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Dec 24 12:48:52 2024 zen cycle wrote:
On 12/24/2024 12:17 PM, cyclintom wrote:
>
You just witnessed Flunky and Liebermann making a big deal out of spelling Techtronix correctly while saying nothing about the fact that the wire fault detector they were touting worked exactly the same way my home made instrument worked and and they claimed wouldn't work.3
>
Blatant lies.
- We've repeatedly stated the piece of test equipment in fact does _not_
work like your mickey-mouse version.
- We've repeatedly stated your version doesn't work.
>
Liebermann, Flunky and Krygowski are life's losers, though at least Flunky and Krygowski managed to earn a living.
>
>
Right here in my closet I have one of the best Techtronix oscilloscopes made
>
no, you don't. You might have a 20-year old production technician model.
The current high-end Tektronix scopes base in the $10K range, the best
ones base in the $40-50K range.
>
https://www.tek.com/en/products/oscilloscopes
>
Of course, you could settle it by posting a picture of you holding this
magnificent piece of equipment with the model number clearly showing.
>
My guess, if you have one at all, is one of these
https://www.ebay.com/itm/296591324228
>
and a dozen to one, neither Flunky nor Liebermann could even turn it on or use it properly.
>
Considering I hired and trained test technicians to work on 622 MB SONET
systems when I was a test department supervisor, I'm willing to bet I
know more of it's capabilities than you do.
>
But they can spell the name correctly and that is important, right?
>
I got a few resumes with spelling as bad as yours. I rejected them
outright. If the candidate couldn't take the time to get the resume
proof read it told me they didn't have the diligence to be a good
technician.
If you rejected any technician because of their spelling it shows what you're made of.
yes, integrity. If the candidate couldn't be bothered to proof read their resume, it was an indication that they couldn't be bothered to validate the test requirements. It's an indication of a lazy and apathetic individual.
Nothing of value could be done in electronics without technicians and all they need to do is be able to explain to the engineer what is wrong and NOT write a treatise on it because you yourself are incapable of understanding them.
Ah, so in tommy world an engineer can't figure out what's wrong with a design, it takes a technician to explain it to them...got it.
The new world order is to give technician work to engineers rather than technicians. That is why they have board layout software. But board layout software is so rife with bugs that you make little more than junk using it. The last board that was laid out by software had an INTERUPT line running to the interupt pin on the microprocessor
There is not a microprocessor that has ever been designed with an "interupt" signal.
via the entire outer edge of the board where RF signals would force false interrupts.
Easily mitigated with proper shielding, though I'm not surprised you don't know that.
It also used an interrupt pin on the CPU as a data line and one of the data lines as an interupt input.
There's your problem, sparky, If you tried to tie an interrupt pin to something called "interupt" the program would not have interpreted it as an interrupt and would have assumed you had a data signal called "interupt".
Computer Science 101 - consistency in terms. But according you you, spelling shouldn't matter.
And this was the latest and greatest board layout programs in 2008.
Let me guess, it was you running the program, correct? IOW, That's a sign of an engineer that didn't know what they were doing, aka GIGO. Gee, maybe if when you entered all the parameters into the program you used the word "interrupt" instead of "interupt" you might have yielded better results. Bad things happen in designs when you don't follow the design rules.
Besides that, are you under some delusion that CAD software hasn't progressed in the last 15 years? Let me be the first to inform you, it has, rather dramatically.
You are so full of shit about the Techtronix wire fault detector
Then prove it. Show me a link anywhere that shows how to use PWM to test cables.
it is nothing more than your stupid claim that you don't program because it is so boring.
Sure tommy, programming is the most exciting aspect of electronic development! <YAWN>
The photographs PLAINLY showed that it was using variable wavelength signals to detect wire faults.
lol...no it didn't.
1) it varies the pulse period, not the wavelength. These are two very different things, though I'm not surprised you don't know the difference.
b) The pulse period will vary as a function of the delay time of the returned pulse. This is _not_ PWM.
It SET the signal to reflect off of the end of the wire and intermediate reflections or total wirelength shown on the signal and on the actual length of wire is childishly simple.
lol...The grammatical massacre of that sentence aside, no, it didn't. It sends out a pulse, it measures how long it takes for a reflection to come back. The tester doesn't set any parameter of the pulse unless it doesn't see a reflection. Can you tell us what the reflection is supposed to represent? Sure you can....lol
Too bad you're having so much trouble with these things.
No tommy, you have no understanding of the fundamentals of either PWM or TDR. Your method won't work, and your misinterpretation of the Tektronix webpage is proof enough of that.
You TAUGHT technicians how to use a fully automated HP test instrument?
nope.
Or perhaps you taught an even MORE impressive Techtronix Sonet fully automated tester neither of which you have the slighest knowledge of the workings of.
1) it's SONET, not Sonet. It's an acronym. I know what it means without having to look it up.
b) Neither Techtronix or Tektronix was making a SONET test set at the time, and no one (including HP) was making an automated version.
3rd, Given that I was on the development team for the 2nd generation version of the SONET Maintenance Test Set, I'm quite sure I have a more than the slightest bit of knowledge of their "workings". Or perhaps you'd like to enter a discussion on transport layer protocols? lol... that should be fun for a guy who thinks 226/312 is a 25/75 split.
But you CAN spell Techtronix. I am really impressed with such a level of ignorance from you.
I see, in tommy world, correct spelling is a sign of ignorance...got it.
All it took was to LOOK at the SIGNALS and you ould have seen how it works if you had the least competency.
You're right, it's obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of competence. The fact that you so glaringly misunderstood it is proof of you lack of competence.
But you were so excited that somehoe Liebermann proved me wrong that you just HAD to jump in with yet another ignorant claim.
It wasn't 'somehow'. It was childs play for anyone with any real experience and/or education in the field.
By the way dumbshit, this is Usenet, not a spelling bee.
Words and spelling matter, especially if you insist on coding a microprocessor with an "interupt" line.
If the most you can say for yourself is that you can spell, you're nothing more than a teacher's pet.
It's a good thing I can say a lot more for myself that that, and I will continue to criticize your spelling. A few typos now and then are no big deal, but continued (and sometime intentional) misspellings are the sign of a lazy and apathetic mind. _That_ is why you were never able to keep a job for more than a year.
Frank loves you.
Aw, does he? Hey Frank, I love you too!!!
Re: Tom's demons are strong today! Re: RE: Re: Higher Education Is Overrated
Re: Tom's demons are strong today! Re: RE: Re: Higher Education Is Overrated