Re: Instead scopes

On 31/08/2024 3:18 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 01:39:37 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 

On 31/08/2024 12:13 am, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 06:47:54 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:47:42 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jl@650pot.com> wrote in <pcg1djt6otqheh6vgi9len892jd21g1sn0@4ax.com>:
>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:21:21 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:43:39 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vaq1f2$jdj$1@dont-email.me>:
>

It's lot easier and quicker to bread-board a circuit in LTSpice than it
is to wire up a test circuit, but what that means is that you need to
make fewer real circuits and they are a lot more likely to work when tested.
>
That, on it's own, is enough to explain why labs look different today
than they did in the dark ages.

>
All it explains is boeings falling apart and astronuts ending up stuck at the ISS
and no moonlanding from the US, not even a probe.

>
The ISS and moon landings are super-expensive theatre. Neither
accomplishes anything.
>
Boeing and Microsoft have the same problem, bean counter money-mongers
have taken over from engineers.
>

Slimulations are _not_ realty and never will be.

>
Spice can be very handy. As Mike says, LT Spice's real function is to
train your instincts.

>
I dunno, much I learned from working with tubes and transistors was by building small circuits and measuring what happened.
Sure spice is great for math intensive stuff such as filters.. but you still need to know the basics.
These days with chips doing much of the work and limited knowledge what is actually _in_ those chips
it is hard to tell if a real circuit will behave like spice tells you
You will still need real testing.

>
Sure, but if I wake up at 3AM in Truckee, I can Spice an idea and go
back to bed.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU&list=PLlD2eDv5CIe9u7jbKUkZ5xrLLSCrn0z_e
>
Actually, I have designed useful circuits by randomly fiddling with
Spice, stupid topologies that turn out to work.

>
What a creationist would call intelligent design. The rest of us call it
evolving your circuits, rather than designing them, and you have
described that as insanely inefficient.

 It's not inefficient if it's done insanely fast, in parallel,
preferably asleep.

Efficiency is the ratio of how long something actually takes compared with the time taken by some sort of ideal process. We don't know what the ideal process might look like, and have no idea how long it would take, so talking about the "efficiency" of the process is mere illiterate bullshit.
You brain isn't wildly different from any other human brain and isn't going to do anything insanely fast, even when you are asleep.

It doesn't matter how you describe the process. It works better if you
don't.

What makes you think that? I suspect the claim reflects the fact that you aren't good at explaining things and want an  excuse to avoid trying to do so.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney