Don Lancaster: RIP...

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:49:12 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:24:48 PM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 6:59:53 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
O
What a bizarre idea. My father had some 25 patents to his name - and so do two of my friends. I\'ve got three. I\'m not in an position to claim that I\'m in any way more important than any of them. Mike Terrell imagines that I\'d stretch out way beyond that ...

Did he patent the defective sperm that produced you?

Everybody\'s genome has defects, and so far we can\'t change them.Human genomes aren\'t patentable and back in 1942 we knew ever less about them.
You confuse yourself. Some of my work in Microwave went to the ISS.
The International Space Station isn\'t exactly a hot-bed of microwave innovation.
I didn\'t care about patents, since it was a very niche field.
If t was novel enough to be patentable they would never have risked putting it into orbit in a very expensive manned satellite.

You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

Yawn.
snipped Michael being complacent about what he did

I\'m sure that you are impressed by your own achievements. You don\'t know enough about anybody else\'s to be impressed by them, and I\'m not going to bother to try to educate you, any more than I\'d bother to try to educate John Larkin. You are much to satisfied with what you think you know to go to the trouble of ripping out the bits that happen to be wrong.

Yawn...
I tested out of a three year, US Army Engineering school in September, 1972.. I was the only soldier to ever ttest out of it. I was promote to SP4 at 18 months. You weren\'t considered to be eligible with less than 27 months active duty. At the same time I was given a Letter of Commendation from a two star General for \'Work and above the call of duty\'. Both my pins and the letter were presented by the General, who traveled hundreds of miles to do it in person. He had his photographer with him, to take multiple photos.

Typical of your stupidity, many companies in the United states are the ones to apply for patents for things do at work. Not that anyone expects you to know anything about the real world. It\'s no wonder why no one would hire an idiot, like you.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:52:49 AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:49:12 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:24:48 PM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 6:59:53 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
O
What a bizarre idea. My father had some 25 patents to his name - and so do two of my friends. I\'ve got three. I\'m not in an position to claim that I\'m in any way more important than any of them. Mike Terrell imagines that I\'d stretch out way beyond that ...

<snip>

You confuse yourself. Some of my work in Microwave went to the ISS.
The International Space Station isn\'t exactly a hot-bed of microwave innovation.
I didn\'t care about patents, since it was a very niche field.
If t was novel enough to be patentable they would never have risked putting it into orbit in a very expensive manned satellite.

You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

Yawn.
snipped Michael being complacent about what he did

I\'m sure that you are impressed by your own achievements. You don\'t know enough about anybody else\'s to be impressed by them, and I\'m not going to bother to try to educate you, any more than I\'d bother to try to educate John Larkin. You are much to satisfied with what you think you know to go to the trouble of ripping out the bits that happen to be wrong.

Yawn...
I tested out of a three year, US Army Engineering school in September, 1972. I was the only soldier to ever test out of it.

What does that mean? Did you graduate early? If you were smart enough to complete a three year course in 18 months you ought to be smart enough to be able to say so explicitly.

> I was promote to SP4 at 18 months. You weren\'t considered to be eligible with less than 27 months active duty. At the same time I was given a Letter of Commendation from a two star General for \'Work and above the call of duty\'. Both my pins and the letter were presented by the General, who traveled hundreds of miles to do it in person. He had his photographer with him, to take multiple photos.

So they sent you on an undemanding training course, and were nice enough to apologise when you aced it in half the regular time.

> Typical of your stupidity, many companies in the United states are the ones to apply for patents for things that do work.

IBM and EMI Central Research did apply for patent on things that might work.. Most employers are more sensible. I got my third patent at Cambridge Instruments which was less interested in building up a stock of dubious patents for patent swaps.

One of my lots-of-patents friends made his money out of a patent on a idea which Tektronix had provisionly patented three weeks earlier. Happily they didn\'t carry it through and my friend eventually made about $A12 million out of it (that\'s roughly $US 8 million).

> Not that anyone expects you to know anything about the real world. It\'s no wonder why no one would hire an idiot, like you.

Several companies did, when I was younger, and I do seem to know more about real world patents than you do, not that you\'ve got enough sense to notice..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[ehsjr]

On 7/13/2023 2:21 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:52:49 AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:49:12 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:24:48 PM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 6:59:53 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
O
What a bizarre idea. My father had some 25 patents to his name - and so do two of my friends. I\'ve got three. I\'m not in an position to claim that I\'m in any way more important than any of them. Mike Terrell imagines that I\'d stretch out way beyond that ...

snip

You confuse yourself. Some of my work in Microwave went to the ISS.
The International Space Station isn\'t exactly a hot-bed of microwave innovation.
I didn\'t care about patents, since it was a very niche field.
If t was novel enough to be patentable they would never have risked putting it into orbit in a very expensive manned satellite.

You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

Yawn.
snipped Michael being complacent about what he did

I\'m sure that you are impressed by your own achievements. You don\'t know enough about anybody else\'s to be impressed by them, and I\'m not going to bother to try to educate you, any more than I\'d bother to try to educate John Larkin. You are much to satisfied with what you think you know to go to the trouble of ripping out the bits that happen to be wrong.

Yawn...
I tested out of a three year, US Army Engineering school in September, 1972. I was the only soldier to ever test out of it.

What does that mean? Did you graduate early? If you were smart enough to complete a three year course in 18 months you ought to be smart enough to be able to say so explicitly.

He did not say he graduated early. He did not say he completed a
three year course in 18 months. It appears your negativity gets
in the way of your understanding. You have something to
contribute. I wish you would, instead of your continual negative
posts.

Ed

I was promote to SP4 at 18 months. You weren\'t considered to be eligible with less than 27 months active duty. At the same time I was given a Letter of Commendation from a two star General for \'Work and above the call of duty\'. Both my pins and the letter were presented by the General, who traveled hundreds of miles to do it in person. He had his photographer with him, to take multiple photos.

So they sent you on an undemanding training course, and were nice enough to apologise when you aced it in half the regular time.

Typical of your stupidity, many companies in the United states are the ones to apply for patents for things that do work.

IBM and EMI Central Research did apply for patent on things that might work. Most employers are more sensible. I got my third patent at Cambridge Instruments which was less interested in building up a stock of dubious patents for patent swaps.

One of my lots-of-patents friends made his money out of a patent on a idea which Tektronix had provisionly patented three weeks earlier. Happily they didn\'t carry it through and my friend eventually made about $A12 million out of it (that\'s roughly $US 8 million).

Not that anyone expects you to know anything about the real world. It\'s no wonder why no one would hire an idiot, like you.

Several companies did, when I was younger, and I do seem to know more about real world patents than you do, not that you\'ve got enough sense to notice.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:56:29 AM UTC+10, ehsjr wrote:

On 7/13/2023 2:21 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:52:49 AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:49:12 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:24:48 PM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 6:59:53 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
O
What a bizarre idea. My father had some 25 patents to his name - and so do two of my friends. I\'ve got three. I\'m not in an position to claim that I\'m in any way more important than any of them. Mike Terrell imagines that I\'d stretch out way beyond that ...

snip

You confuse yourself. Some of my work in Microwave went to the ISS..
The International Space Station isn\'t exactly a hot-bed of microwave innovation.
I didn\'t care about patents, since it was a very niche field.
If t was novel enough to be patentable they would never have risked putting it into orbit in a very expensive manned satellite.

You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

Yawn.
snipped Michael being complacent about what he did

I\'m sure that you are impressed by your own achievements. You don\'t know enough about anybody else\'s to be impressed by them, and I\'m not going to bother to try to educate you, any more than I\'d bother to try to educate John Larkin. You are much to satisfied with what you think you know to go to the trouble of ripping out the bits that happen to be wrong.

Yawn...
I tested out of a three year, US Army Engineering school in September, 1972. I was the only soldier to ever test out of it.

What does that mean? Did you graduate early? If you were smart enough to complete a three year course in 18 months you ought to be smart enough to be able to say so explicitly.

He did not say he graduated early.

He said that he got promoted early. I didn\'t say that he graduated early. In fact I asked him what his claim meant, with early graduation as a tentative hypothesis.

>He did not say he completed a three year course in 18 months.

He did say that he \"tested out\" and promptly got promoted unusually early. That strikes me as a claim that he\'d learned all that they needed to teach him unusually fast.

> It appears your negativity gets in the way of your understanding.

The last line of the post to which I was replying was \"Typical of your stupidity, many companies in the United states are the ones to apply for patents for things do at work. Not that anyone expects you to know anything about the real world. It\'s no wonder why no one would hire an idiot, like you.\"

It\'s not positive. It\'s Mike Terrell\'s negativity that\'s primary problem here. I\'m just reacting appropriately,

> You have something to contribute. I wish you would, instead of your continual negative posts.

I do make what strike me as positive contributions from time to time. I even get some occasional credit for it. Quite a lot of the people who post here don\'t. Your name isn\'t one that springs to mind as an example - but \"ehsir\" doesn\'t look much like a real name. But then again I don\'t have any trouble remembering \"whit3rd\" as a frequently positive contributor.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tabby]

On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 23:53:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:23:41 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 12:52:21 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:08:11 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 03:29:01 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 8:23:05 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 07:28:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

Don Lancaster spent a lot of effort advertising himself as an electronics guru to people who didn\'t know much about electronics,

All experts were young once, and a lot used to read that kind of thing. It\'s all part of the learning process. If you have a problem with that it\'s no-one else\'s problem.

Bad text books create lots of problems. You have to be exposed to good ones. and junior engineers who haven\'t, to appreciate how bad the problems can be.

Reading bad ones can be educational too.
Only if you have read several different text-books. Bad text books are mostly bad in what they leave out, though they can be bad in using misleading concepts, like \"leakage inductance\".
Don knew how to interest youngsters in electronics. If you don\'t appreciate the value of that, really who cares.
There are better and worse ways of doing that. Don did tout himself as a guru, and he wasn\'t quite thorough enough to have earned that status.
You doesn\'t seem to have been.

Obviously you don\'t know what electronics books I\'ve read. You\'re just determined to look silly again. Cue more excessive insecurity.

The reference was to people who had been messed up by bad textbooks. You don\'t know enough to know what that means, so you may qualify as an example.
I do know that you haven\'t understood enough good electronics texts, even if I don\'t know the route that got you into your current lamentable state of ignorance.

not even worth responding to is it.
Is Tabby going to come out of such and exchange looking good? He \'s wise to evade the challenge.

Life is short. You\'re a deeply troubled troll.

 

[Tabby]

On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 00:58:24 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 12:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 15:43:55 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 16:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 03:29:01 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 8:23:05?AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 07:28:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

Don Lancaster spent a lot of effort advertising himself as an electronics guru to people who didn\'t know much about electronics,

All experts were young once, and a lot used to read that kind of thing. It\'s all part of the learning process. If you have a problem with that it\'s no-one else\'s problem.

Bad text books create lots of problems. You have to be exposed to good ones. and junior engineers who haven\'t, to appreciate how bad the problems can be.

Reading bad ones can be educational too.
Don knew how to interest youngsters in electronics. If you don\'t appreciate the value of that, really who cares.


His books and articles, and Popular Electronics mag, got zillions of
kids interested in electronics, far better than any textbooks would
have done. His style, whether it was instinctive or deliberate, was
accessable and fun for beginners

One could get Popular Electronics at a supermarket. I\'d toss one in
our cart, or just read it while my parents shopped.

What a concept, \"Popular Electronics\"

He and his ilk creates a hugely sucessful phenomenon.
Slow man\'s failure to appreciate that says a thing or 2.
He thinks electronic design is some scientific academic theoretical
thing, which is why he\'s so bad at it.

I can think of other things causing him problems too

It\'s actually a crearive art. H&H didn\'t title their book \"The Science
of Electronic Design.\"

One of my circuits is in AoE3, and my parts blaster (and resulting
debris) is in the X-chapters.

 

[Tabby]

On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 01:24:28 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:58:24 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 12:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 15:43:55 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 16:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 03:29:01 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 8:23:05?AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 07:28:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
snip

He and his ilk created a hugely sucessful phenomenon.

They didn\'t. Integrated circuits revolutionised electronics. Lots of people rode that revolution to success. Don Lancaster was one of them, but he didn\'t create the revolution, even if he made money out of publicising it to some of the people affected by it.

whoosh

Sloman\'s failure to appreciate that says a thing or 2.

Tabby seems to think that the kids that got off on Don Lancaster\'s over-simplifications were the only players that mattered.

I don\'t. Another whoosh.

I got exposed to the people who pubished in the Review of Scientific Instruments and Meaurement Science and Technology who were just as marginal.

To have an effect peop,e had to buy lots of integrated circuits - enough to justify making about 100,000 of them in a batch.
He thinks electronic design is some scientific academic theoretical thing, which is why he\'s so bad at it.
John Larkin has some strange ideas, He doesn\'t known much about science and he knows even less about the circuits I have designed.

It\'s actually a creative art. H&H didn\'t title their book \"The Science of Electronic Design.\"

I\'m well aware of that. You can patent good designs, which means that they aren\'t obvious to those skilled in the art.

There was one that I sat on for nearly twenty years - until programmable logic parts got big enough to make it practical. It wasn\'t worth patenting, but it did get into my 1996 paper.
One of my circuits is in AoE3, and my parts blaster (and resulting debris) is in the X-chapters.
I\'m sure that you find that flattering.

why is sloman so insecure?

 

[Tabby]

On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 06:47:26 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 08:43:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 12:47:08?AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:13:53?PM UTC-4, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Just because someone has a patent or many of them does not mean they are necessarily being innovative... I see patents all the time, that are just mixes of existing technology (prior art) applied to a different field, maybe.
Wrong. The patent system is all about rewarding innovation and persuading people to publish and share their innovations.

Innovations always look obvious after the event.

some do some don\'t

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:21:26 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:52:49 AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

Yawn...
I tested out of a three year, US Army Engineering school in September, 1972. I was the only soldier to ever test out of it.

What does that mean? Did you graduate early? If you were smart enough to complete a three year course in 18 months you ought to be smart enough to be able to say so explicitly.

Read it again. I tested out of the course. I never went to the school, at all. My score on the test was higher than most students that did attend for three years. It was rhe hardest Elecronics school in the US Army, with a very high dropout/failure rate. I was the only one to ever test out of that course.

I was promoted to SP4 at 18 months. You weren\'t considered to be eligible with less than 27 months active duty. At the same time I was given a Letter of Commendation from a two star General for \'Work and above the call of duty\'. Both my pins and the letter were presented by the General, who traveled hundreds of miles to do it in person. He had his photographer with him, to take multiple photos.
So they sent you on an undemanding training course, and were nice enough to apologise when you aced it in half the regular time.

Typical of your stupidity, many companies in the United states are the ones to apply for patents for things that do work.

IBM and EMI Central Research did apply for patent on things that might work. Most employers are more sensible. I got my third patent at Cambridge Instruments which was less interested in building up a stock of dubious patents for patent swaps.

One of my lots-of-patents friends made his money out of a patent on a idea which Tektronix had provisionly patented three weeks earlier. Happily they didn\'t carry it through and my friend eventually made about $A12 million out of it (that\'s roughly $US 8 million).
Not that anyone expects you to know anything about the real world. It\'s no wonder why no one would hire an idiot, like you.
Several companies did, when I was younger, and I do seem to know more about real world patents than you do, not that you\'ve got enough sense to notice.

Sure you do. Keep lying to yourself. I\'ve had the fun of dealing with patent disputes. We had to sue Scientific Atlanta for infringement. (Now known as Cisco) They took one of our designs, ignored our patents and went into production.
We won in court, but part of the settlement was to build their knockoff to finish a government contract. I had the fun of maintaining the poorly designed SATE system, and selecting better components, since their version was built with cheaper, or then obsolete parts.

OI also wrote test procedures, I designed and built test fixtures.
I certified new components/vendors.
I removed some vendors from our AVL, due to unresolved quality issues.
I dealt with every part of the company, except accounting.
Work that only an Engineer did.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:56:29 PM UTC-4, ehsjr wrote

He did not say he graduated early. He did not say he completed a
three year course in 18 months. It appears your negativity gets
in the way of your understanding. You have something to
contribute. I wish you would, instead of your continual negative
posts.

He only sees what he wants to, even if it doesn\'t exist.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:43:16 PM UTC-4, Tabby wrote:

why is sloman so insecure?

I look at him as a poorly written AI.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:36:28 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:

On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 23:53:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:23:41 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 12:52:21 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:08:11 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 03:29:01 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 8:23:05 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 07:28:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip>

The reference was to people who had been messed up by bad textbooks.. You don\'t know enough to know what that means, so you may qualify as an example.
I do know that you haven\'t understood enough good electronics texts, even if I don\'t know the route that got you into your current lamentable state of ignorance.

not even worth responding to is it.

Is Tabby going to come out of such and exchange looking good? He \'s wise to evade the challenge.

Life is short. You\'re a deeply troubled troll.

Tabby is an anonymous troll. I post under my real name. I do spend a certain amount of time being rude to trolls like him, but I have my constructive moments too, not that Tabby knows enough to recognise them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:43:16 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:

On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 01:24:28 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:58:24 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 12:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 15:43:55 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 16:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 03:29:01 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 8:23:05?AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 07:28:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip>

They didn\'t. Integrated circuits revolutionised electronics. Lots of people rode that revolution to success. Don Lancaster was one of them, but he didn\'t create the revolution, even if he made money out of publicising it to some of the people affected by it.

whoosh

That statement went right over Tabby\'s head.

Sloman\'s failure to appreciate that says a thing or 2.

Tabby seems to think that the kids that got off on Don Lancaster\'s over-simplifications were the only players that mattered.

I don\'t. Another whoosh.

Tabby - about Don Lancaster - \"He and his ilk created a hugely successful phenomenon.\"

He\'s now denying that he made that fatuous claim.

I got exposed to the people who pubished in the Review of Scientific Instruments and Meaurement Science and Technology who were just as marginal.

To have an effect people had to buy lots of integrated circuits - enough to justify making about 100,000 of them in a batch.

He thinks electronic design is some scientific academic theoretical thing, which is why he\'s so bad at it.

John Larkin has some strange ideas, He doesn\'t known much about science and he knows even less about the circuits I have designed.

It\'s actually a creative art. H&H didn\'t title their book \"The Science of Electronic Design.\"

I\'m well aware of that. You can patent good designs, which means that they aren\'t obvious to those skilled in the art.

There was one that I sat on for nearly twenty years - until programmable logic parts got big enough to make it practical. It wasn\'t worth patenting, but it did get into my 1996 paper.

One of my circuits is in AoE3, and my parts blaster (and resulting debris) is in the X-chapters.
I\'m sure that you find that flattering.

Why is Sloman so insecure?

Silly question. If Tabby had a bit more sense, he\'d realise that I go after twits like him because I.m confident that I do know what I\'m talking about and equally confident that he doesn\'t. As it is, he think he can get away with a pop psychology put down which merely emphasises that he doesn\'t realise what an obvious twit he is.

--
Bill Sloman. Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 8:30:14 AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:43:16 PM UTC-4, Tabby wrote:

why is Sloman so insecure?

I look at him as a poorly written AI.

So Mike Terrell doesn\'t know much about AI either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 8:27:48 AM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:56:29 PM UTC-4, ehsjr wrote

He did not say he graduated early. He did not say he completed a
three year course in 18 months. It appears your negativity gets
in the way of your understanding. You have something to
contribute. I wish you would, instead of your continual negative
posts.
He only sees what he wants to, even if it doesn\'t exist.

Mike Terrell must be thinking of Tabby. or John Larkin. That sort of claim could only work if Mike could point to an unsubstantiated claim that I\'d made. and that\'s quite beyond him.

He\'s seeing something that doesn\'t exist, because that\'s what he wants to see.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:04:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

So Mike Terrell doesn\'t know much about AI either.

You know nothing about sarcasm.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:11:29 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

He\'s seeing something that doesn\'t exist, because that\'s what he wants to see.

I see you as a clone of \'Always Wrong\'. A pathetic troll, with nothing but hatred in his life. A loser who can never answer a direct question. Tell us, how much test equipment you have, and that you actually know how to use. I currently have over 150, and I have multiple workbenches in my 1200 square foot shop. You have no imagination. For instance, I see al kinds of \'projects\' for electronic locks using microprocessors, or a fist full of logic IC\'s. 30 years ago I used a non matrix keypad, (16 button with a single common) along with a 4017 IC, a few capacitors, resistors and a pass transistor.. You could have up to a 10 digit code. It had a five second delay, if you entered the wrong code. Pressing any key after it was unlocked, locked it.

Trivia: Skolnik was the surname of one of the characters in the movie, \'Revenge of the Nerds\'.

Around 1990, I was buying and repairing 4 GHz LNAs. I built a modulated signal generator to tes them, and to repair C band satellite receivers. A little imagination provided a noise source to test the LNAs on the bench. A standard 4 foot Florescent lamp generates noise well past 4GHz, so waving an LNA/LNB past one would show as an increase in the video level on a receiver.

Have you ever seen Merrill Skolnik\'s \'RADAR Handbook\'? It is the reference for microwave design. Of course, you would never pay $200 for a book, like that. That\'s just as well, becaue you wouldn\'t understand it.

I received a letter from the FCC on a Friday. It wanted to know how we were monitoring the tower lights at an unmanned site. If we didn\'t have a system in place, they listed a couple approved units that were in the thousands of dollars. When I got home that day, I went t my shop and built a system. I used a 1.024 MHz crystal oscillator, followed by a divide by 1000 circuit.. This gave a stable, 1024 Hz square wave. That twas fed through a low pass filter. Then I used a current transformer to monitor the current fr the lights. This was rectified and used too gate the audio signal, which was fed into a spare audio channel on the STL. At the new site, the audio was detected, and used to drive a LED at Master Control.
It was inverted, so that the LED was lit when the tower lights were off. This did two things. It verified the system was working, as well as display when the beacons started flashing. Iff even one tower light failed, it stayed lit.

I drew the schematics, and listed the components. I described the operation, and sent it with the letter back to the FCC. My design was grandfathered, since it was in operation when I mailed the letter the following Monday.

You couldn\'t begin to build a TV station from scratch. You couldn\'t deal with all the rules and regulations with the FCC,the FAA, zoning, building inspectors, and everything else.

I was the \'Engineer of Record\' for the original Ch 58 TV station in Destin, Florida.

In the mid \'80s, I was given the specs to connect two incompatible Cable TV Community loops to proved a private channel to a large school system.. It was a textbook design that someone with no imagination would dream up. It was also over $30,000 It required two receivers, two modulators It then fed audio and video between the pairs. It would have required a secure building at the interconnect site.

I tossed it in the trash. I used a single Hetrodyne Signal processor, and a weather tight NEMA box I got permission from the Electric utility to pole mount the box. It was about six cubic feet. It had power and two coaxial cables entering it. Inside, I used two splitters. One system was sub split, the other was standard mid split for the return channels. Ours was standard. CATV systems used two pilot carriers to set the system AGC. Typically, they use two video carriers for this. We used Ch 2 and 12. They used Ch 2 as a return channel, so it went trough one splitter, and into their system. We used Ch T10, for our return, so I used the HSP to down convert their Ch 12 signal to T10. and the other splitter to feed it to our Head End. I pre-built the package, and our two channel Community Loop headend. Once it was installed, it was less than 1/4 dB from the specified signal level, on initial power up. The pole mounted interface was under $3,000 and it didn\'t need any further attention.

I didn\'t have a C-band Spectrum Analyzer, but the receivers used a 70 MHz IF, I just fed that to the test TV in our shop, to verify if the front end was working. I was repairing Rockwell/Collins SVR-4F receivers that no one in the country would touch, outside the factory. They had a six month turnaround time. The only thing that I couldn\'t repair was the 4 GHz LO module, because they no longer had the custom, stud mounted custom transistors. Te would make a batch of 25, but the price was exorbitant since they were used in a military version of that receiver.I could by a new Microdyne 1100LPR for about the same price as one transistor, and the Microdyne had a much cleaner output.

These SVR-4F were listed as incompatible with the Videochiper descramblers, so I modifed them rther than spend $10,000 for new equipment. It cost us about 25 cents, if it was in for other work.

I had some of our other systems ship me all their dead receivers for repair.. The manager was bragging that they were unrepeatable, so he could buy new equipment. They at arrived on a Friday. 13 of them. I shipped out six on Monday and he was pissed! The other seven had dead LO Modules, so I used them for parts mules. I still have some of the aluminum, rack mount chassis, for project boxes..

My supervisor at Microdyne asked me to keep an eye out for a 10MHz distribution Amplifier for our in house Reference. I told him I had something in my truck, that I\'d picked up over the weekend. It was a A/B switch for RGB monitors for two mainframe computers. It used relays to select the computer the user wanted. I srtipped out the relays, and turned it into a 0ne in, 32 output DA in under a half hour. I then traded it for some Tektronix video test equipment that I was going to give to a local Vocational Electronics teacher. I was on his advisory board, so I spent some afternoons in the classroom. I let the students come to my shop on the weekends to use my collection of data and reference books for their projects. I also gave away some parts I would guide them to relevant information, but I wouldn\'t do their designs. I would point out mistakes, but not explain what was wrong.

I also taught Electronics at my high school, during my Senior year.

I also find it amusing that you are a chemist who couldn\'t find a job.

Now, you\'ll reply with another lame and repetitive troll, ignoring everything while trying to look relevant. Of course,,you\'ll fail because you have no imagination.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:39:28 PM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:04:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

So Mike Terrell doesn\'t know much about AI either.

You know nothing about sarcasm.

Enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 8:16:31 PM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:11:29 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

He\'s seeing something that doesn\'t exist, because that\'s what he wants to see.

I see you as a clone of \'Always Wrong\'. A pathetic troll, with nothing but hatred in his life.

Decadent Linux User Numero Uno didn\'t fit that description, and neither do I. Krw - who labelled him \"always wrong\" is a much closer fit.

> A loser who can never answer a direct question. Tell us, how much test equipment you have, and that you actually know how to use.

Nothing much. There\'s a small digital voltmeter, and an equally small LCR bridge.
There\'s some software on my home computer that lets me use the audio port as a slow oscilliscope. I do know how to use all of them, and quite a lot more beside.

> I currently have over 150, and I have multiple workbenches in my 1200 square foot shop.

You live in the boondocks and can afford that kind of space. I live in the centre of Sydney where space is more expensive.

> You have no imagination.

There are couple of patents that say otherwise.

> For instance, I see al kinds of \'projects\' for electronic locks using microprocessors, or a fist full of logic IC\'s. 30 years ago I used a non matrix keypad, (16 button with a single common) along with a 4017 IC, a few capacitors, resistors and a pass transistor. You could have up to a 10 digit code. It had a five second delay, if you entered the wrong code. Pressing any key after it was unlocked, locked it.

If I needed that I could buy it.

Trivia: Skolnik was the surname of one of the characters in the movie, \'Revenge of the Nerds\'.

Around 1990, I was buying and repairing 4 GHz LNAs. I built a modulated signal generator to tes them, and to repair C band satellite receivers. A little imagination provided a noise source to test the LNAs on the bench. A standard 4 foot Florescent lamp generates noise well past 4GHz, so waving an LNA/LNB past one would show as an increase in the video level on a receiver.

So what?

> Have you ever seen Merrill Skolnik\'s \'RADAR Handbook\'?

Why would I want to?

> It is the reference for microwave design. Of course, you would never pay $200 for a book, like that. That\'s just as well, because you wouldn\'t understand it.

I\'ve got two texts on Microwave design ISBN 0-471-91277-8 and 0-412-34160-3, which I bought i the UK about 35 years ago for about 20 pounds each
I got them for project that used 500psec wide pulses and we were looking at getting that down to 100psec, but it wasn\'t radar.

> I received a letter from the FCC on a Friday. It wanted to know how we were monitoring the tower lights at an unmanned site. If we didn\'t have a system in place, they listed a couple approved units that were in the thousands of dollars. When I got home that day, I went t my shop and built a system.. I used a 1.024 MHz crystal oscillator, followed by a divide by 1000 circuit. This gave a stable, 1024 Hz square wave. That twas fed through a low pass filter. Then I used a current transformer to monitor the current for the lights. This was rectified and used to gate the audio signal, which was fed into a spare audio channel on the STL. At the new site, the audio was detected, and used to drive a LED at Master Control.

Seems a bit indirect. Pointing a photodector at the lights would be more direct. Use a micro to look at the photodector output and to tell site local area network what the photodetector is seeing.

Dividing down from 1.024 MHz to get a 1024 Hz square wave is extravagant. Dividing a 32768 Hz watch crystal oscillator by 32 would have got you exactly the same result more cheaply and consumed less current.

<snipped the rest of the boasting>

> I also find it amusing that you are a chemist who couldn\'t find a job.

I was never unemployed from the day I graduated as Ph.D. chemist in 1970 until I got made redundant by Cambridge Instrument in 1991 - and I was back in work within ten days of that. I was working as fairly high powered electronic engineer for most of that time, supervising technicians who were quite a bolshy as you are. Because I had the capacity to fix stuff that they couldn\'t, I did earn some respect.

The worst example of that was when I\'d designed in an analog multiplier with X and Y offsets that had to be trimmed out with two trimpots. I could do it in ten minutes, following the procedure I\'d written. They couldn\'t, after trying for hours. I promptly wrote a mod replacing the cheap analog multipier with it\'s more expensive laser trimmed version - the difference in price was more than ten minutes work, even at my hourly rate, but I wasn\'t always available when the shop floor needed me.

> Now, you\'ll reply with another lame and repetitive troll, ignoring everything while trying to look relevant. Of course,,you\'ll fail because you have no imagination.

Why on earth would I bother to try and look \"relevant\" to you? If you had any imagination you\'d realise how silly that prediction is.

--
Bill Sloman. Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 8:10:25 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 8:16:31 PM UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:11:29 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

He\'s seeing something that doesn\'t exist, because that\'s what he wants to see.

I see you as a clone of \'Always Wrong\'. A pathetic troll, with nothing but hatred in his life.

Decadent Linux User Numero Uno didn\'t fit that description, and neither do I. Krw - who labelled him \"always wrong\" is a much closer fit.

No, you are closer in that you love to piss everyone off.

A loser who can never answer a direct question. Tell us, how much test equipment you have, and that you actually know how to use.

Nothing much. There\'s a small digital voltmeter, and an equally small LCR bridge.
There\'s some software on my home computer that lets me use the audio port as a slow oscilliscope. I do know how to use all of them, and quite a lot more beside.

I currently have over 150, and I have multiple workbenches in my 1200 square foot shop.

You live in the boondocks and can afford that kind of space. I live in the centre of Sydney where space is more expensive.

You have no imagination.

There are couple of patents that say otherwise.

For instance, I see al kinds of \'projects\' for electronic locks using microprocessors, or a fist full of logic IC\'s. 30 years ago I used a non matrix keypad, (16 button with a single common) along with a 4017 IC, a few capacitors, resistors and a pass transistor. You could have up to a 10 digit code. It had a five second delay, if you entered the wrong code. Pressing any key after it was unlocked, locked it.

If I needed that I could buy it.

That doesn\'t surprise my, because you wouldn\'t take 10 minutes to protype abd test an idea.

Trivia: Skolnik was the surname of one of the characters in the movie, \'Revenge of the Nerds\'.

Around 1990, I was buying and repairing 4 GHz LNAs. I built a modulated signal generator to tes them, and to repair C band satellite receivers. A little imagination provided a noise source to test the LNAs on the bench. A standard 4 foot Florescent lamp generates noise well past 4GHz, so waving an LNA/LNB past one would show as an increase in the video level on a receiver.

So what?

Have you ever seen Merrill Skolnik\'s \'RADAR Handbook\'?

Why would I want to?

It is the reference for microwave design. Of course, you would never pay $200 for a book, like that. That\'s just as well, because you wouldn\'t understand it.

I\'ve got two texts on Microwave design ISBN 0-471-91277-8 and 0-412-34160-3, which I bought i the UK about 35 years ago for about 20 pounds each
I got them for project that used 500psec wide pulses and we were looking at getting that down to 100psec, but it wasn\'t radar.

Skolnik\'s work inspired many of the early Satellite TV designs. They were a far cry from the IEEE\'s predicted 100 foot dishes that used a diode mixer at the feedhorn.

I received a letter from the FCC on a Friday. It wanted to know how we were monitoring the tower lights at an unmanned site. If we didn\'t have a system in place, they listed a couple approved units that were in the thousands of dollars. When I got home that day, I went t my shop and built a system. I used a 1.024 MHz crystal oscillator, followed by a divide by 1000 circuit. This gave a stable, 1024 Hz square wave. That twas fed through a low pass filter. Then I used a current transformer to monitor the current for the lights. This was rectified and used to gate the audio signal, which was fed into a spare audio channel on the STL. At the new site, the audio was detected, and used to drive a LED at Master Control.

Seems a bit indirect. Pointing a photodector at the lights would be more direct. Use a micro to look at the photodector output and to tell site local area network what the photodetector is seeing.

No, I had 25 of the modules on hand. I would have had to order a crystal, and waited at least a week. That would have put me past the deadline, an a single crystal plus shipping was much higher than a 50 cent surplus oscillator module.

You have no concept of tower lighting A 300 foot tower ha about 20 steady and strobe lights mounted on all four sides, and many were not visible from the tower base.Your method is total crap, because you woud need a detector at every lamp. The FAA must be notified as soon as possible when any of the lighs fail, because most towers are in at least one flight path.

Typical of your lack of thought. There weren\'t Local Area Networks in 1987. There wasn\'t even a phone line sat the site so you couldn\'t use a computer to call long distance. The 7 GNz link was already in place, ad the third audio channel was for the studio to talk to Master Control at the tower site..

The new tower was 1700 feet, and the top was often hidden by clouds. At times, the top of the 300 foot tower was hidden, as well.

Dividing down from 1.024 MHz to get a 1024 Hz square wave is extravagant. Dividing a 32768 Hz watch crystal oscillator by 32 would have got you exactly the same result more cheaply and consumed less current.

snipped the rest of the boasting

I also find it amusing that you are a chemist who couldn\'t find a job.

I was never unemployed from the day I graduated as Ph.D. chemist in 1970 until I got made redundant by Cambridge Instrument in 1991 - and I was back in work within ten days of that. I was working as fairly high powered electronic engineer for most of that time, supervising technicians who were quite a bolshy as you are. Because I had the capacity to fix stuff that they couldn\'t, I did earn some respect.

I had the EEs come to me to ask questions about some older products, and the newest test equipment. They could walk 600 fet to my area, or spend hours digging through old records, and equipment manuals.

The worst example of that was when I\'d designed in an analog multiplier with X and Y offsets that had to be trimmed out with two trimpots. I could do it in ten minutes, following the procedure I\'d written. They couldn\'t, after trying for hours. I promptly wrote a mod replacing the cheap analog multipier with it\'s more expensive laser trimmed version - the difference in price was more than ten minutes work, even at my hourly rate, but I wasn\'t always available when the shop floor needed me.

Now, you\'ll reply with another lame and repetitive troll, ignoring everything while trying to look relevant. Of course,,you\'ll fail because you have no imagination.

Why on earth would I bother to try and look \"relevant\" to you? If you had any imagination you\'d realise how silly that prediction is. The receivers used a linear AGC system with 14 op amps to make the process seamless. For test at the board level, it used +/- 12 volt supplies, at 12.000V each. A 0..400+ Dc bias was used, as well. A good board would have under 1.5 mV non linearity from zero to full output.

Oh, sure. One board that combined the video from two Telemetry receivers would maintain a constant video level as weak signals faded between to antennas.

I designed a new test fixture for a video processing board. It had 16 Salen-Key LP filter, that were selected by software. The original fixture took 7,5 hours per board. My new design reduced the average test time to 17 minutes.
Another fixture was computer controlled, I took the unfinished software from an ET who had walked away from the project, and not only finished it, but I turned it into an expert system that gave pointers for each possible failure. It took longer to plug the board into three fixture than to test a good board.

I was given the jobs that other couldn\'t finish, or just didn\'t want to do. I wrote ECOs to eliminate the common problems. I also consulted with our Metrology lab to troubleshoot the digital sections of a lot of HP equipment.