Re: yes!

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:38:30 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:va2aup$3dra1$2@dont-email.me...

On 20/08/2024 12:57 pm, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:31:53 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:4mt7cjdnqt4i601lvdsrtivbg4iucgfuj4@4ax.com...

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:48:36 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:r7m6cjtpei82u2kg6a7g40r07okju99v5n@4ax.com...

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:

>
...
>

>
I only got a couple of pages in AoE3,

>
Which pages?

>
Around 360.
>

>
Ok since posting the question I discovered that you're mentioned on pages xxx, 294, 360, 524
>
Bill Sloman should probably not read page 360.
>

>
His whining centers on my inability to explain how I design
electronics, or where ideas come from.

>
"Whining"? That isn't what I'm complaining about - John Larkin doesn't explain what his circuits are intended to do or what
problems their - presumably unique - features are intended to deal with,
>
Design is all about using what you can get to do what you need to do, and a useful conversation about circuit design has to be
specific about both the problems being dealt with and the way the approach adopted solves them.

>
Yes I agree.
>

>

Sorry, I don't know. It just happens. If invention happened from
definable algorithms, everything would be invented all at once.

>
So he just stumbles across his solutions, and doesn't know why they actually work. That isn't design.

>
I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with stumbling across a solution.
But I agree that in electronics it should then be possible to explain how it works.
Other forms of art have similarities and differences.
Elgar likely couldn't explain where he got this from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUgoBb8m1eE
But he clearly would have had two things.
Training in music theory, and knowledge of plenty of music written by others.
>
When I started work I was very concerned with finding the best circuit to meet the requirements.
But sometimes I wasn't allowed to use the circuit I came up with because although I could explain how it worked, I couldn't explain
where I got it from and I didn't immediately have any mathematical model for it. My mind had likely pieced it together from ideas
gathered from many sources including magazines a decade before.

Yes. Invention is a complex and mysterious process.

Also I wasn't always allowed to try things out to see if they worked well for a specific requirement because as a qualified
electronics engineer you should be able to produce the required design straight from the relevant circuit theory and mathematics,
shouldn't you?

I had a friend who worked for an aerospace company. The engineering
building had no lab space, because management assumed that engineers
just did paperwork.

I think a lab (with a Dremel!) is a fundamental requirement. Parts
aren't always characterized well enough that one can design just with
math, or with simulation. Abs max ratings are for wusses.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/v1yow0euq40xxyc7dy3cd/ALhGPhnhPEyV32GS2M5LChk?rlkey=cicg0l3ccdgdxbav856silaag&dl=0