Re: how the laser happened

On 26/06/2024 8:41 am, john larkin wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:43:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
 

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:19:03 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:50:05 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>

On 21/06/2024 14:05, john larkin wrote:

<snip>

I see the same thing in electronic design. People favor accepted
practice, validated in textbooks, and apply all their intelligence to
showing how new ideas won't work.

I can't say I've seen that. I've seen quite a few bad ideas put up by people who should have known better, but since some of my occasional good ideas have (even more occasionally) lead to patents, it doesn't reflect my experience.

A recent case is deciding that the LC's at the output of a switching
power supply are "a filter" so must follow  classical filter theory,
pole-zeros and Butterworths and such. I tell them "It's just a power
supply."

In other words you don't know much about filter theory, and couldn't justify the damping factor you had chosen. Heavily damped filters tend to be much more phase linear than the more lightly damped faster-rolling off variants.
"It's just a power supply" is a pretty obvious cop-out.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com