Breaking the epoxy bond under SMD ?

[N_Cook]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:gq8qu7l54d6ksudgeb6s399h4dkc3hnjds@4ax.com...

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:29:12 +0100, "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk
wrote:

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
(...)

I guess it's too much trouble to supply a usable clue as to what the
device looks like. If it has a plastic or metal back makes a big
difference here. Also, please make an effort to write in complete
sentences that do not require cryptographic decoding.

Nobody uses epoxy to mount SOT transistors in a production
environment. That's because it takes too long for it to set, and
because it crumbles nicely when hot and softens exposed to alcohols
and solvents. Single part epoxy has to be refridgerated in storage,
making use on the production line somewhat awkward. Two part mixes
hard quicker, but have a finite work time. Epoxies (and silicon
rubber compounds) are used to attach physically large components, but
not tiny SOT parts.

More common is cynoacrylate adhesives (aka super-glue) or attaching
components before soldering. If the back of the xsistor is metal, it
gets smeared with solder paste, which acts as a temporary glue, and
then gets reflowed when run through the hot air soldering machinery.
That solders the metal back of the SOT to the PCB.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

The device was FZT949 (yes, revised, 5 or 6 amp rating/size) , the glue
cleared away with soldering iron tip , in the manner of epoxy , with no
smell of cyanoacrylate

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:58 +0100, "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk>
wrote:

The device was FZT949 (yes, revised, 5 or 6 amp rating/size) ,
http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/FZT9489.pdf

SOT223 package.
<http://www.diodes.com/_files/product_packages/sot223-3l.gif>
Full spec dissipation requires 4 square inches of copper under the
device. Lower dissipation specs with less of a heat sink. The back
is the device is plastic. Most of the heat comes out the large solder
tab. There is a 1.6mm air gap under the plastic case to deal with
glues and to insure that the tab mechanically hits the copper head
sink area. There is almost no value in obtaining a thermal connection
to the epoxy case, so there would be no benefit to using a thermally
conductive epoxy glue.

the glue
cleared away with soldering iron tip , in the manner of epoxy , with no
smell of cyanoacrylate

Epoxy does not "clear away" when hit with a soldering iron. What it
does is crumble and burn leaving a charred mess. The heat conductive
variety will conduct enough heat to the PCB to also char the PCB. I
agree that if it didn't reek when you hit it with the soldering iron,
it's probably not cyanoacrylate adhesive. That leaves hot melt
adhesives and various acrylic glues. If it seemed to melt away at a
very low temperature, it's probably hot melt. If it took some effort,
and it simultaneously melted and charred slightly, it's acrylic.

Please specify what you mean by the "manner of epoxy"? Melt, char,
crumble, volatize, explode, etc?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jsj7gn$umi$1@dont-email.me...

Why are you having to guess at anything, William?

You were apply my final remark to the whole post, rather than to the text
that immediately preceded it. If you look at my rewrite, it's obvious that
I
understood /exactly/ what I was trying to do.

As ever, you've lost me there. Whether you were referring to the whole
post - which is what it read like from where I was sitting - or just the
preceding bit of text as you claim, I still don't get what you're trying to
guess about. If you're having to guess at anything, presumably, you don't
understand, and then cryptically, you say that you understood exactly. It
all seemed perfectly clear to me, and apparently, everyone else ??

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

As ever, you've lost me there.

Yeah, everyone else got it. I understand why you misunderstood -- you
misread the context of the last statement.

I might say to all the professionals in this group -- how can you work and
respond to postings at the same time?

 

[N_Cook]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:32iru7di20bv54lnm22rfl5bae9ru70mj7@4ax.com...

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:58 +0100, "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk
wrote:

The device was FZT949 (yes, revised, 5 or 6 amp rating/size) ,
http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/FZT9489.pdf
SOT223 package.
http://www.diodes.com/_files/product_packages/sot223-3l.gif
Full spec dissipation requires 4 square inches of copper under the
device. Lower dissipation specs with less of a heat sink. The back
is the device is plastic. Most of the heat comes out the large solder
tab. There is a 1.6mm air gap under the plastic case to deal with
glues and to insure that the tab mechanically hits the copper head
sink area. There is almost no value in obtaining a thermal connection
to the epoxy case, so there would be no benefit to using a thermally
conductive epoxy glue.

the glue
cleared away with soldering iron tip , in the manner of epoxy , with no
smell of cyanoacrylate

Epoxy does not "clear away" when hit with a soldering iron. What it
does is crumble and burn leaving a charred mess. The heat conductive
variety will conduct enough heat to the PCB to also char the PCB. I
agree that if it didn't reek when you hit it with the soldering iron,
it's probably not cyanoacrylate adhesive. That leaves hot melt
adhesives and various acrylic glues. If it seemed to melt away at a
very low temperature, it's probably hot melt. If it took some effort,
and it simultaneously melted and charred slightly, it's acrylic.

Please specify what you mean by the "manner of epoxy"? Melt, char,
crumble, volatize, explode, etc?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Crumble without clumping or sticking and without a change of colour and no
observed smell given off.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jslo0g$qmo$1@dont-email.me...

As ever, you've lost me there.

Yeah, everyone else got it. I understand why you misunderstood -- you
misread the context of the last statement.

I might say to all the professionals in this group -- how can you work and
respond to postings at the same time?

Well William, I expect that's for us to know, and you to "guess" at ...


Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I might say to all the professionals in this group --
how can you work and respond to postings at the
same time?

Well, William, I expect that's for us to know, and you
to "guess" at ...

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design". The writing quality
varies from barely acceptable to horrible. I have to guess at a lot of
things -- such as what the writer /thought/ he was writing about, or what a
particular sentence Really Means. I often refer to Wikipedia or search the
Web, but sometimes it's a guessing game.

Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't find the answer
anywhere.

 

[Ron Johnson]

On 30/06/2012 05:14, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I might say to all the professionals in this group --
how can you work and respond to postings at the
same time?

Well, William, I expect that's for us to know, and you
to "guess" at ...

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design". The writing quality
varies from barely acceptable to horrible. I have to guess at a lot of
things -- such as what the writer /thought/ he was writing about, or what a
particular sentence Really Means. I often refer to Wikipedia or search the
Web, but sometimes it's a guessing game.

Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't find the answer
anywhere.


Intercontinental buttered crumpet

Ron

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:14:59 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find the articles to
generally quite acceptable.

The writing quality
varies from barely acceptable to horrible. I have to guess at a lot of
things -- such as what the writer /thought/ he was writing about, or what a
particular sentence Really Means. I often refer to Wikipedia or search the
Web, but sometimes it's a guessing game.

It's about the same everywhere, including usenet. The problem seems
to be lack of time, not lack of writing abilities. Most articles are
written to a deadline and look rushed. Often, the author doesn't seem
to care, as in product releases and promotional literature. Other
times, the author is so familiar with his subject, that he assumes
that the reader is also similarly familiar and leaves things out, such
as internal company acronyms. English as 2nd language authors tend to
directly transplant foreign language constructs into the article,
making reading difficult. Some people write exactly like they talk,
which creates a difficult to read article. The various publications
care more about advertising space than content, so articles get
butchered in order to make space. I've scribbled a few articles in
the distant past. I could almost recognize my original article buried
in the published version. However, those are minor compared to what
the magazines do to themselves. Authors are told to "not worry about
style" and just supply the facts and details. The magazine editors
will take care of making the article presentable. Permit me to offer
some praise and sympathy.

If only they would pay my time,
to write the docs in verse and rhyme.

Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't find the answer
anywhere.

Insulated Bridge Clip. They're used on Type 66 telephone blocks.
They're usually bright red and indicate either a "protected" circuit
or one that can't be detected with a common butt-in.

Like this, but covered with red vinyl insulation:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/390400364255>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find
the articles to generally quite acceptable.

Thank you. Did you like "Did you buffer the buffered buffer?". That was one
of my edits.

I'm not the only editor, of course. They have full-time writers and editors
who do a very good job.

<snipped mostly accurate observations about bad writing>

I've scribbled a few articles in the distant past. I could almost
recognize my original article buried in the published version.

That suggests the original had significant problems. (I don't /know/, of
course.) I have carte blanche to completely rewrite articles if I think it
necessary. Many go through an extremely heavy edit -- and sometimes major
rearrangement -- which the authors generally tolerate. (I would /like/ to
think they look at the edited piece and accept it as a significant
improvement. The late Bob Pease didn't. He told me my edits didn't
contribute anything. That's about what Beethoven said about Haydn.)

In some cases I'm asked not to disturb the original style too much. I just
finished editing a piece about the advantages of custom analog ASICs, for
the purpose of not only cutting costs, but avoiding counterfeit devices. The
author had a fun, engaging style, which I didn't have to alter in the
process of cleaning up his writing (mostly correcting grammar errors and
tersifying here and there). Indeed, my edits actually pushed the piece
/closer/ to the original style.

However, those are minor compared to what the magazines do
to themselves. Authors are told to "not worry about style" and
just supply the facts and details. The magazine editors will take
care of making the article presentable. Permit me to offer some
praise and sympathy.

There are articles so bad I feel my skull is about to explode. (In one case,
the article was so awful and required so much time that I asked for a bit
extra, which I got.) But I keep telling myself that, if engineers could
write, I wouldn't have this job.

Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't
find the answer anywhere.

Insulated Bridge Clip. They're used on Type 66 telephone blocks.
They're usually bright red and indicate either a "protected" circuit
or one that can't be detected with a common butt-in.
Like this, but covered with red vinyl insulation:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/390400364255

That's not it. Not anything like it. Though it /is/ used in telecom systems,
on the block diagram an IBC is some type of regulator/isolator.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:09:39 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find
the articles to generally quite acceptable.

Thank you. Did you like "Did you buffer the buffered buffer?". That was one
of my edits.

I haven't read it yet. I get my paper magazines 2nd hand, usually
after a 3-6 month delay. I'll get to it eventually.

I'm not the only editor, of course. They have full-time writers and editors
who do a very good job.

Does Penton seperate the technical editing from the
grammar/spelling/style/fit editing? I had quite a problem with that
when doing several book edits.

I've scribbled a few articles in the distant past. I could almost
recognize my original article buried in the published version.

That suggests the original had significant problems.

Maybe, although you'll never get me to admit that my work was lousy. I
think (not sure) that my problem was my article trampled on the
illusions of some of the magazine advertisers. While the advert and
copy groups are not even suppose to talk to each other, I noted that
most of the outright deletions were in this class. Also, there were
at least three different editors involved, each with their own agenda
and preferences, which may have contributed. Oddly, I left a red
herring (intentional error) in the copy, which made its way through to
the print version.

(I don't /know/, of
course.) I have carte blanche to completely rewrite articles if I think it
necessary. Many go through an extremely heavy edit -- and sometimes major
rearrangement -- which the authors generally tolerate. (I would /like/ to
think they look at the edited piece and accept it as a significant
improvement. The late Bob Pease didn't. He told me my edits didn't
contribute anything. That's about what Beethoven said about Haydn.)

Do the original authors even see the results of all this editing? I
didn't see anything until the final print version. However, times may
have changed.

If Bob Pease's column in EDN were any indication of his writing
skills, I would ignore his comments. It's a great collection of
disconnected anecdotes and trivia, but would not pass for much beyond
a grade skool paper. What editors do is make the content more
accessible to a wider range of audience. It's very difficult to write
something that is acceptable to both the experts and beginners in a
field. I like to read magazines about things I know little. Little
is over my head, but much is sufficiently esoteric to suggest that the
author is only addressing those with equal expertise. What the
magazine suggests is for authors to write to a reader that is an
expert in his particular field, but not necessarily an expert in the
article's topic. That works well.

In some cases I'm asked not to disturb the original style too much. I just
finished editing a piece about the advantages of custom analog ASICs, for
the purpose of not only cutting costs, but avoiding counterfeit devices. The
author had a fun, engaging style, which I didn't have to alter in the
process of cleaning up his writing (mostly correcting grammar errors and
tersifying here and there). Indeed, my edits actually pushed the piece
/closer/ to the original style.

Nice. However, I suspect that was written by someone involved in the
marketing or sales of ASIC's and not an engineer involved in design or
production.

There are articles so bad I feel my skull is about to explode. (In one case,
the article was so awful and required so much time that I asked for a bit
extra, which I got.) But I keep telling myself that, if engineers could
write, I wouldn't have this job.

True. Now, if you want to see really awful tech writing, I suggest
you look at original (un-edited) patent applications and original
business plans. I used to review these prior to application to the
USPTO and vulture capitalists. One would think that something this
important would deserve some careful editing, but that wasn't what I
saw. I've been told that first drafts of legislation has the same
problem, but I've never seen any.

That's not it. Not anything like it. Though it /is/ used in telecom systems,
on the block diagram an IBC is some type of regulator/isolator.

A little context is always helpful.
Next guess is "Intermediate Bus Converter".
<http://electronicdesign.com/article/power/select-the-optimal-intermediate-bus-converter>
Please send my consulting fee to the address below.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Does Penton seperate the technical editing from
the grammar/spelling/style/fit editing? I had quite
a problem with that when doing several book edits.

Not as far as I know. But my boss was surprised at how heavily I edited one
piece, as it had been past another editor previously.

Do the original authors even see the results of all
this editing? I didn't see anything until the final print
version. However, times may have changed.

Apparently they do. One didn't understand why I had so heavily edited his
work, and I had to justify it. The article was published as I had edited it.

If Bob Pease's column in EDN were any indication of
his writing skills, I would ignore his comments. It's a
great collection of disconnected anecdotes and trivia,
but would not pass for much beyond a grade skool paper.

Bob's writing was readable and understandable, but it certainly isn't what I
would consider first-rate technical writing.

What editors do is make the content more accessible
to a wider range of audience. It's very difficult to write
something that is acceptable to both the experts and
beginners in a field.

Bingo! I was just saying that to my boss. You want to write so that people
who are simply /curious/ about the material can read and understand it.
That's exactly what I do. Poorly written jargon discourages readership --
and thus subscribership.

I just finished a piece about the advantages of custom
analog ASICs, for the purpose of not only cutting costs.
but avoiding counterfeit devices.

Nice. However, I suspect that was written by someone
involved in the marketing or sales of ASIC's and not an
engineer involved in design or production.

No, he's a major engineer of such. His name is Frosthold, and I wanted to
add this to his bio: "He has two brothers, Fasoldt and Fafner Frosthold, who
design and build custom homes."

A little context is always helpful.
Next guess is "Intermediate Bus Converter".

http://electronicdesign.com/article/power/select-the-optimal-intermediate-b

us-converter>

That's it! Thanks! (I'll get my boss to add a cross-reference.)

By the way, it's rather wordy. It could stand another editing pass.

PS: I'm typing this on a Unicomp buckling-spring keyboard. It's the only way
to type.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:28:52 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

By the way, it's rather wordy. It could stand another editing pass.

One of the exercises that I survived in college was to reduce a
technical article down to its basics by either removing words or
rewriting them with a shorter equivalent. I became rather adept at
this exercise and later introduced various prospective tech writers to
the concept. It's often amazing how much verbage can be surgically
extracted from an article without affecting the meaning.

PS: I'm typing this on a Unicomp buckling-spring keyboard. It's the only way
to type.

<http://www.pckeyboard.com>
Bah... I constantly switch computah keyboards when I work on multiple
machines in my office, and when I use various machines at customers
locations. As long as the general layout is similar, it only takes me
a few seconds to adapt to a new keyboard. These vary from glass touch
screens (Android, iPad, etc), elastometric flat (industrial
controller), rubberized (restaurant kitchen), almost flat with minimal
travel (laptop), dome keys (cheap keyboard), X shaped wire (better
laptop keyboards), and antique teletype machines (brute force finger
exerciser). Keyboards that give me problems are laptops where the
keyboard layout is rearranged to provide room for the add keys which
are never used, and Apple "chiclet" keyboards, which jam on the sides
of the keys when dirty. If you're stuck on one keyboard style, I
suggest you try some others. You might learn to like them better.
<http://www.ergocanada.com/ergo/keyboards/mechanical_vs_membrane_keyswitches.html>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[William Sommerwerck]

PS: I'm typing this on a Unicomp buckling-spring keyboard. It's the only
way to type.

http://www.pckeyboard.com
Bah... I constantly switch computah keyboards when I work on multiple
machines in my office, and when I use various machines at customers
locations. As long as the general layout is similar, it only takes me
a few seconds to adapt to a new keyboard. These vary from glass touch
screens (Android, iPad, etc), elastometric flat (industrial
controller), rubberized (restaurant kitchen), almost flat with minimal
travel (laptop), dome keys (cheap keyboard), X shaped wire (better
laptop keyboards), and antique teletype machines (brute force finger
exerciser). Keyboards that give me problems are laptops where the
keyboard layout is rearranged to provide room for the add keys which
are never used, and Apple "chiclet" keyboards, which jam on the sides
of the keys when dirty. If you're stuck on one keyboard style, I
suggest you try some others. You might learn to like them better.
http://www.ergocanada.com/ergo/keyboards/mechanical_vs_membrane_keyswitches

..html>

I learned to type in high school on an Olympia manual. I typed at home on a
Smith-Corona electric. Both have excellent, though quite different,
keyboards.

In 1980, I was introduced to the pleasures of an IBM buckling-spring
keyboard. That was it. In the intervening 30+ years, nothing has ever come
remotely close. Tens of thousands of male typists will agree. It is in a
class by itself.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:55:23 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

I learned to type in high school on an Olympia manual. I typed at home on a
Smith-Corona electric. Both have excellent, though quite different,
keyboards.

About the same. I learned typing in Jr High Skool. I had a
Smith-Corona electric portable, and used various others, including an
IBM something with it's bucking spring and clattering keys:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling_spring>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_Keyboard>
<http://www.clickykeyboards.com>
I'll admit that I rather liked the way these keyboards worked.
However, I can go faster and type longer with current generations of
low-travel keyboards. I also didn't like the noise from the buckling
spring keyboards.

Don't forget the various mechanical teletype machines. A Model 33 was
standard issue for early time share and minicomputah i/o.

In 1980, I was introduced to the pleasures of an IBM buckling-spring
keyboard. That was it. In the intervening 30+ years, nothing has ever come
remotely close. Tens of thousands of male typists will agree. It is in a
class by itself.

Yeah, there nothing like 70 grams of force and 6 mm of travel for the
Model M, as opposed to about 20 grams and 2 mm of travel for todays
keyboard. Try a glass keyboard (iPad) with about 3 grams of force and
zero travel. Real men don't use wimpy keyboards.

Drivel: I play piano and synthesizer. It's much the same as computah
keyboards. The piano/organ/synthesizer keyboards all look similar,
but it doesn't take much in the way of tiny differences in key size
and key action to foul me up. It takes me a few minutes of fumbling
to get used to a new keyboard.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I'll admit that I rather liked the way these keyboards
worked. However, I can go faster and type longer with
current generations of low-travel keyboards.

As Captain Redbeard Rum (Tom Baker) says in the "Potato" episode of "The
Black Adder" -- "You have a woman's hands!"

Real men don't use wimpy keyboards.

Absolutely. For most men, a short-stroke keyboad -- the IBM's Selectric
being the notorious example -- is anathema. (It took 20 years of random
exposure to the Selectric for me to gain some degree of comfort with it.)

The Smith-Corona electric portables had a similarly long stroke that
appealed to make typists. When Consumer Reports tested typewriters 50 years
ago (I'm old, I'm old!), the panel strongly preferred the Olympia manual and
the Smith-Corona electric portable -- my preferences, exactly.

For those out there wondering what this is all about... The preference for
the IBM Model M and its ilk among male typists is /almost/ universal. It is
"Das Klavier". I used to work with Charles Frankston (Bob's brother) who was
also an M freak. He had a drawer full of them, and would sometimes wave one
in my face: "Look what I have, and you don't!"

Yeah, there's nothing like 70 grams force and 6 mm travel
for the Model M, as opposed to about 20 grams and 2 mm
today's keyboard. Try a glass keyboard (iPad) with about
3 grams of force and zero travel.

<shivers>

A short, easy throw does not a good keyboard make. The Model M's long stroke
and non-linear relationship between force and displacement provide
mechanical feedback that makes it posible to type faster and with fewer
errors. Most users notice this immediately.

Drivel: I play piano and synthesizer. It's much the same
as computah keyboards. The piano/organ/synthesizer
keyboards all look similar, but it doesn't take much in the
way of tiny differences in key size and key action to foul
me up. It takes me a few minutes of fumbling to get used
to a new keyboard.

I don't play a musical instrument. But I once compared a Steinway with the
Baldwin SD-10. The keyboard action was completely different. This might have
been what ultimately drove Baldwin out of business.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 05:30:55 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Yeah, there's nothing like 70 grams force and 6 mm travel
for the Model M, as opposed to about 20 grams and 2 mm
today's keyboard. Try a glass keyboard (iPad) with about
3 grams of force and zero travel.

shivers

Look at the trend in input devices. Pad computahs and cell phones are
driving the glass keyboard market. Meanwhile, Apple is pushing style
over function, producing unrepairable keyboards that look good, but
are difficult to use. There are even laptops with glass keyboards.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57332249-1/this-glass-keyboard-and-mouse-combo-is-cool-but-dont-drop-it-on-the-floor/>
<http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/iconia>

A short, easy throw does not a good keyboard make.

I beg to differ. My definition is a bit different. I prefer anything
that has tactile feedback, which means that the pressure required is
lowered after passing a threshold. I also want a self centering key
top and a non-jamming key travel. I don't care how far my fingers
need to move in order to achieve this. Less travel is fine.

The Model M's long stroke
and non-linear relationship between force and displacement provide
mechanical feedback that makes it posible to type faster and with fewer
errors. Most users notice this immediately.

I haven't noticed. Back in the stone age of PC's, I purchased a
Northgate keyboard for about $150 in about 1990. It was hailed as the
ultimate typists keyboard by the magazines. Some of my customers also
bought them.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northgate_Computers>
The mechanism is basically the same as the Model M. I hated it. I'm
not a speedy typist (about 40 mistakes per minute) but this keyboard
made my typing worse. I finally gave up, sold the keyboard, and
switched to the cheap plastic clones, some of which worked just fine.

Drivel: I play piano and synthesizer. It's much the same
as computah keyboards. The piano/organ/synthesizer
keyboards all look similar, but it doesn't take much in the
way of tiny differences in key size and key action to foul
me up. It takes me a few minutes of fumbling to get used
to a new keyboard.

I don't play a musical instrument. But I once compared a Steinway with the
Baldwin SD-10. The keyboard action was completely different. This might have
been what ultimately drove Baldwin out of business.

There was considerable conglomeration in the piano biz. Samick is one
of the biggies, which has bought many of the smaller brands (including
about 1/3 of Steinway). A clue might be the cost of a good concert
piano is about the same as a new SUV. Sales are also declining for
mechanical pianos:
<http://www.bluebookofpianos.com/uspiano.htm>
<http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/08/09/piano-sales-decline-over-time/>
<http://elissamilne.wordpress.com/tag/the-decline-of-piano-study-in-the-us/>

I learned to play on a Knabe (now part of Samick) baby grand. The
action was very slow and required considerable force. It was great
for practice because if I could play on the Knabe, I could play on
anything. One of my customers has a fairly new Steinway. It has a
rather heavy action, which I find difficult to play. However, it also
is the best sounding piano I've ever heard, which more than
compensates for the heavy action.
<http://www.pianofinders.com/educational/touchweight.htm>
My standard price for a computah service call usually includes 30
minutes of me banging on the Steinway.

Eventually, I discovered keyboard synthesizers. The actions varied
radically, ranging from extremely light, to heavy simulated piano
actions. I bought a Korg DSS-1, which was one of the lighter actions.
I can play about 1/3 faster (timed chromatic scale over 4 octaves) and
play better on the Korg as I can on a regular piano.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/Korg_DSS-1/>
Heavy piano keyboard actions have their place, but they're not
superior or required. Same with computah keyboards.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jsn8ao$ne1$1@dont-email.me...

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find
the articles to generally quite acceptable.

Thank you. Did you like "Did you buffer the buffered buffer?". That was
one
of my edits.

I'm not the only editor, of course. They have full-time writers and
editors
who do a very good job.

snipped mostly accurate observations about bad writing

I've scribbled a few articles in the distant past. I could almost
recognize my original article buried in the published version.

That suggests the original had significant problems. (I don't /know/, of
course.) I have carte blanche to completely rewrite articles if I think it
necessary. Many go through an extremely heavy edit -- and sometimes major
rearrangement -- which the authors generally tolerate. (I would /like/ to
think they look at the edited piece and accept it as a significant
improvement. The late Bob Pease didn't. He told me my edits didn't
contribute anything. That's about what Beethoven said about Haydn.)

In some cases I'm asked not to disturb the original style too much. I just
finished editing a piece about the advantages of custom analog ASICs, for
the purpose of not only cutting costs, but avoiding counterfeit devices.
The
author had a fun, engaging style, which I didn't have to alter in the
process of cleaning up his writing (mostly correcting grammar errors and
tersifying here and there). Indeed, my edits actually pushed the piece
/closer/ to the original style.

However, those are minor compared to what the magazines do
to themselves. Authors are told to "not worry about style" and
just supply the facts and details. The magazine editors will take
care of making the article presentable. Permit me to offer some
praise and sympathy.

There are articles so bad I feel my skull is about to explode. (In one
case,
the article was so awful and required so much time that I asked for a bit
extra, which I got.) But I keep telling myself that, if engineers could
write, I wouldn't have this job.

Unfortunately, I think that the skill levels of many editors, don't match
those which you seem to possess. I think that many believe that just because
an article has been passed to them for 'editing', it must then be altered
and generally 'messed about' in order to justify the fact that it *has* been
passed to them, and that they have earned their fee. I have had articles
that I've written, totally mauled by an insensitive hand. Words and phrases
that I've chosen very carefully have been changed or removed, resulting in
(sometimes) a complete reversal of the intention of a whole paragraph, let
alone a sentence, indicating that the editor had no understanding of the
subject material, nor the people who were its targeted readers.

I have also had grammatically correct structures changed into ones that are
not, and correct spellings changed for wrong ones. By the same token, I
became very close to the editor of one magazine that I wrote for, and he
told me that my copy was a pleasure for him to work with, because the only
'editing' that he ever had to do to it, was an occasional slight precis-ing
of a paragraph to make the article fit the space available. This was always
done very carefully and sensitively so as to impact on the content as little
as possible.

I think that one of the main problems with the publishing industry in this
regard, is that these days editors tend to be self-employed contractors who
find themselves editing a great deal of very varied subject material, so
have to employ the same basic 'one size fits all' techniques to those works,
and that's where it can go wrong. In days gone by, an editor was an employee
of the magazine, and usually had a deep understanding of both the subject
matter and the people who would be reading it.

As a slight aside, you mention that some people write as they speak. Some of
the best technical publications that I have read, have been written in this
style. One that springs to mind was a booklet on repairing Bally pinball
tables, written by one of Bally's in house service team. It was written
exactly as one engineer would talk to another, and was both amusing and
practical. A perfect joy to read.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

Eventually, I discovered keyboard synthesizers. The actions varied
radically, ranging from extremely light, to heavy simulated piano
actions. I bought a Korg DSS-1, which was one of the lighter actions.
I can play about 1/3 faster (timed chromatic scale over 4 octaves) and
play better on the Korg as I can on a regular piano.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/Korg_DSS-1/
Heavy piano keyboard actions have their place, but they're not
superior or required. Same with computah keyboards.

Awww. And there was me thinking that link was gonna lead to somewhere we
could see you playing some bouncy ragtime numbah ...

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I appreciate the compliments, Arfa.

I'm an aggressive editor, and really "lay into" a piece if I think it needs
it. (Most do.) My experience has been that most editors are "wussy", and
don't begin to do what's needed to improve.

When Jacqueline Kennedy was alive, "Esquire" (a porno-free men's magazine
that predates "Playboy" by 20 years) poked merciless fun at Ms Bouvier's
stint as an editor at a major publisher. "Mr Pynchon, I found a period in
the wrong place on page 275, and there's a semicolon on page 681 that I'm
not sure of, but otherwise, I don't see anything wrong." (Thomas Pynchon
writes immense novels, such as "Gravity's Rainbow".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon

I do not, however, change anything for the sake of changing it. I can defend
every change I make, though the author might not always agree. My goals are
simplicity and clarity -- especially for readers not familiar with the
material at hand.

Most writers (myself included) overwrite, using too many words and
pointlessly repeating ideas (while omitting important material). One of the
effects of "paring down" the writing is that the piece becomes easier to
read and understand. I also change words for a more-exact or vivid ones. I
try to make the piece engaging, something that a reader will want to read,
and enjoy reading.

I was not generally happy with the editing my work received at "Stereophile"
and "The Audio Amateur". Ed Dell, publisher of the latter, apologized,
saying that he couldn't find really good people. Not surprisingly, the
magazine couldn't afford to hire good editors.

I'm a degreed EE, so I'm not working from a position of total ignorance. If
I don't know something, I check Wikipedia (which has lots of technical
articles, of widely varying usefulness) and the Web. I high whatever points
of confusion remain, so my boss can fix them (if he chooses).

One of /the/ great pieces of technical writing is Philbrick's book on op
amps. It's nearly 50 years old, but still has all sorts of useful
information, with the most-amazing indexing and cross-referencing you will
ever see in a book. Your jaw will drop. It's also a "good read". I cut my
op-amp teeth on it 40 years ago, and several years back an engineer in a
UseNet group (perhaps this one) sent me a copy. I treasure it.


"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news1%Hr.676385$Qh7.337046@fx14.am4...

Unfortunately, I think that the skill levels of many editors, don't match
those which you seem to possess. I think that many believe that just
because
an article has been passed to them for 'editing', it must then be altered
and generally 'messed about' in order to justify the fact that it *has*
been
passed to them, and that they have earned their fee. I have had articles
that I've written, totally mauled by an insensitive hand. Words and
phrases
that I've chosen very carefully have been changed or removed, resulting in
(sometimes) a complete reversal of the intention of a whole paragraph, let
alone a sentence, indicating that the editor had no understanding of the
subject material, nor the people who were its targeted readers.

I have also had grammatically correct structures changed into ones that
are
not, and correct spellings changed for wrong ones. By the same token, I
became very close to the editor of one magazine that I wrote for, and he
told me that my copy was a pleasure for him to work with, because the only
'editing' that he ever had to do to it, was an occasional slight
precis-ing
of a paragraph to make the article fit the space available. This was
always
done very carefully and sensitively so as to impact on the content as
little
as possible.

I think that one of the main problems with the publishing industry in this
regard, is that these days editors tend to be self-employed contractors
who
find themselves editing a great deal of very varied subject material, so
have to employ the same basic 'one size fits all' techniques to those
works,
and that's where it can go wrong. In days gone by, an editor was an
employee
of the magazine, and usually had a deep understanding of both the subject
matter and the people who would be reading it.

As a slight aside, you mention that some people write as they speak. Some
of
the best technical publications that I have read, have been written in
this
style. One that springs to mind was a booklet on repairing Bally pinball
tables, written by one of Bally's in house service team. It was written
exactly as one engineer would talk to another, and was both amusing and
practical. A perfect joy to read.