EE rant...

[Phil Hobbs]

whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 1:41:38 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
whit3rd wrote:

[about FFT/divide/inverseFFT deconvolution]

...the FFT algorithm has no mechanism to
accept data with non-constant signficance, which is what, obviously,
happens with a divide-by-almost-zero step in the data processing.
It\'s gonna give you what the \'signal\' says, not what the \'signal\' and known
signal/noise ratio, tell you. That means using an FFT for the inverse is
excessively noise-sensitive. There\'s OTHER ways to do a Fourier inversion
that do allow the noise estimate its due influence.

The problem has nothing to do with the FFT, and everything to do with
what you\'re trying to do with it. Dividing transforms is a perfectly
rational way to deconvolve, provided you take into account the
finite-length effects and prepare the denominator correctly.

Think again; an FFT algorithm implements least-squares fitting, essentially;

Bollocks. An FFT is an information-preserving operation, unlike
least-squares fits.

> there\'s zero difference between the transform\'s inversion and the original data,

Right, i.e. it\'s not a least-squares fit, it\'s exact.

> which (zero) is obviously the minimum of sum-of-squares-of-differences.

You\'re maybe thinking of a continuous-time orthonormal-function
expansion, e.g. a Fourier or Bessel or Chebyshev series. In that case,
_truncating_ the series leads to the least-squares optimum for that
order. Least squares optima tend not to be that useful--the infamous
\"Gibbs phenomenon\" being a typical example.

But there are a lot, a lot of ways of producing a finite expansion that
don\'t have that problem, just as there are all sorts of ways of
controlling noise gain in deconvolution.

Dividing by an inverse function is precisely a weighting operation.

But, it\'s not correct if the standard deviations of the elements are not identical,
because it IS minimizing sum-of-squares of differences, rather than the
(correct) sum of (squares-of-differences/sigma-squared-of-this-element).

What makes that the One True Algorithm? Why assume that all frequencies
have to have the same SNR? That\'s not at all common in real life, and
it\'s often a win to sacrifice a significant amount of SNR for improved
resolution, data rate, or what have you. It\'s horses for courses.

And none of that has anything to do with how you perform the actual
deconvolution.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 1:41:38 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
whit3rd wrote:

[about FFT/divide/inverseFFT deconvolution]

...the FFT algorithm has no mechanism to
accept data with non-constant signficance, which is what, obviously,
happens with a divide-by-almost-zero step in the data processing.
It\'s gonna give you what the \'signal\' says, not what the \'signal\' and known
signal/noise ratio, tell you. That means using an FFT for the inverse is
excessively noise-sensitive. There\'s OTHER ways to do a Fourier inversion
that do allow the noise estimate its due influence.

The problem has nothing to do with the FFT, and everything to do with
what you\'re trying to do with it. Dividing transforms is a perfectly
rational way to deconvolve, provided you take into account the
finite-length effects and prepare the denominator correctly.

Think again; an FFT algorithm implements least-squares fitting, essentially;

Bollocks. An FFT is an information-preserving operation, unlike
least-squares fits.

> there\'s zero difference between the transform\'s inversion and the original data,

Right, i.e. it\'s not a least-squares fit, it\'s exact.

> which (zero) is obviously the minimum of sum-of-squares-of-differences.

You\'re maybe thinking of a continuous-time orthonormal-function
expansion, e.g. a Fourier or Bessel or Chebyshev series. In that case,
_truncating_ the series leads to the least-squares optimum for that
order. Least squares optima tend not to be that useful--the infamous
\"Gibbs phenomenon\" being a typical example.

But there are a lot, a lot of ways of producing a finite expansion that
don\'t have that problem, just as there are all sorts of ways of
controlling noise gain in deconvolution.

Dividing by an inverse function is precisely a weighting operation.

But, it\'s not correct if the standard deviations of the elements are not identical,
because it IS minimizing sum-of-squares of differences, rather than the
(correct) sum of (squares-of-differences/sigma-squared-of-this-element).

What makes that the One True Algorithm? Why assume that all frequencies
have to have the same SNR? That\'s not at all common in real life, and
it\'s often a win to sacrifice a significant amount of SNR for improved
resolution, data rate, or what have you. It\'s horses for courses.

And none of that has anything to do with how you perform the actual
deconvolution.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Don Y]

On 1/5/2023 10:29 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

Yep. And at the end of the day, when I memorized my 1-12 times tables in
grade school \"because you won\'t always have a calculator in your
pocket!\" ...

That\'s a different sort of skillset -- one that is more universal.
(we didn\'t have calculators when I was a kid. And, we also had to
memorize the squares up to 20! As well as the preamble to the
constitution, etc. -- never know when THAT might come in handy :< )

Yeah, math was a bad example. It\'s more akin to when I had to write
half a dozen sorting algorithms in programming classes. They were a
pain in the butt, and had almost zero practical application outside of
\"homework exercise\".

Don\'t be dismissive of them. Each algorithm has different characteristics
and cost-benefits, depending on what you are trying to sort. E.g., adding
one item to a sorted list is different than sorting a \"random\" list.

Knuth wrote a series of tomes covering most of the \"basic\" algorithms.
Surprisingly, much software is just a rearranging of these core
algorithms in different combinations.

So that\'s what this power-supply is. A \"homework exercise\".

Again, this is more of a \"homework project(tm)\". Yeah, it\'s been done a
million times; yeah, I could just buy a linear regulator IC ...

If you scale down your current requirement, you can make a crude
regulator with a *stiff* input filter, a biased zener and a pass
transistor. The zener is chosen to be a diode drop (the base-emitter
junction of the pass transistor) above the desired voltage. It
drives the base of the (NPN) pass transistor -- which gives you
current gain. The diode drop from base to emitter \"subtracts\"
that from the zener voltage to give you the desired output
voltage.

I don\'t even really have a \"current requirement\" yet. But I have a ton
of transistors in the 200 mA range, so I was figuring 100-125 mA max for
the initial learning and poking around with the analyzer and hopefully
_FINALLY_ pinning down transistors-as-voltage-sources, make something a
little more permanent and still cheap.

You\'ll be limited in applications, at that current level.

Also, for a linear, you will have to be wary of the total
power that the package can dissipate. E.g., if you are
pulling 100mA *through* the transistor and dropping
(on average) 10V *across* it, then you\'re dissipating
1W in the device (100mA * 10V).

This is how you come to realize the downside of linear
regulators! :>

Who cares if I pop a transistor or twenty in a home-made bench supply
that I have the full schematics and notes for, as opposed to something
that\'s un-fixable because it came from Amazon, and is super-complex
inside?

Well, if you \"pop\" them so often that the PS proves to be un-useful...

Ages ago, there was a \"teaching toy\" (LECTOR or something like that)
that consisted of discretes packaged in little plastic \"sugar
cubes\" with contacts on the sides and schematic symbol on top.
A magnet held each to a metallic base. So, you could \"wire\"
a circuit SCHEMATICALLY just by abutting these little sugar
cubes and see it work.

Sounds a bit like that \"200-in-one Electronics Experiments\" that I had
as a kid.

IIRC, those were the things with \"lots of springs\" that you used to
*wire* components together. So, ALL of the components were visible
in your design (not just the ones you were using). And, a tangle of
wires atop them for interconnects.

This was considerably slicker. As you positioned the \"sugar cubes\"
together, the schematic of the circuit you were building was visible.
I.e., a \"diode sugarcube\" had a symbol of a diode on top of the
sugarcube with leads heading off to the two opposing sides that
had the metallic contacts on them. Ditto for a resistor. So,
\"wiring\" a resistor in series with a diode involved positioning
the two sugarcubes adjacent to each other, their \"side contacts\"
abutting, and you would then see a schematic with those two
elements visible on their top surfaces. You never had to trace
PHYSICAL wires to figure out what the circuit was doing.

And, you could pluck a sugarcube from the circuit and drop
another in its place to see how the circuit\'s performance
changed.

[I have no idea how to search for the \"toy\" but will post a link
if I manage to stumble on it]

If you have a \'scope, it can be a good exercise -- if only to let you
see how the \"signal\" changes as it moves through the circuit. And,
how it reacts to differing loads (e.g., see the ripple on the input
filter increase when the filter is having to supply a larger load
reflected through the regulator. What happens if you change the value
of the filter? Or, use a half-wave rectifier?)

That\'s more like where my thought process was going with this \"homework
project\". Fiddle with it, see what happens \"inside\" an LM338 (etc),
and, well, hopefully learn a thing or two. While it\'s not a scope, I
have one of those USB logic-analyzers that \"can\" do analog readings as
well, so we\'ll see how it works out.

Just be sure you don\'t exceed the voltage range of the analyzer.
You\'d hate to lose something of value because it \"accidentally\"
saw a voltage that it couldn\'t handle.

As I recall, the analog will do +/- 15 volts. As I recall, it\'s absolute
maximum rating is slightly higher (25 volts or so).

Worst case after I double-check the datasheet, I have to get something
like from Rigol.

Picking up an old Tek 465 might be a more economical option.

Programming micros is fun enough too; but I\'m finding I\'m pulling away
from C, and into Assembly, just for the chance at those same \"aha
moments\".

A language is a language. The differences are the level of abstraction
supported and the design methodologies targeted. With ASM, you can
essentially do *anything* (after all, every compiler eventually causes
\"machine instructions\" to be executed). But, you HAVE TO do everything!

By contrast, higher level languages (its debatable just how \"high\"
C is on that scale) relieve you of varying degrees of details.

E.g., in some languages, there is a \"runtime\" that will do things like
garbage collect automatically so you don\'t have to track dynamic
memory usage. The goal being to keep you focused on the problem
you are solving, not the mechanism that is solving it.

Quite so. But C doesn\'t really have much more in the \'aha\' space for

C can be interesting if you start trying to adopt different
programming practices. E.g., most of my current project is coded
in C but is entirely object-based. And, objects are referenced by
something akin to file handles.

So, I would invoke a method on a particular object using a
(custom) syntax like:

Door frontDoor;
...
frontDoor=>close();

The odd syntax mimics the door->close syntax that you\'d use for
referencing a struct member through a pointer. But, in my world,
the object is located anywhere in the (distributed) system...
so, there\'s nothing for the pointer to DIRECTLY reference.

There are also countless idioms that are learning experiences
in themselves.

And, of course, a shitload of delightful *algorithms* that
many folks never stumble upon.

As well as, stylistic issues that time teaches you improve your
code\'s maintainability and correctness. (e.g., comments can be
A Bad Thing!)

me ... Assembly (tedious as it is), does. And it\'s kinda fun going
\"oh, I did X in 42 Bytes\". In turn, when I go back to C to do something
quick; I am more conscious of \"what\'s really going on here\".

The last is important. But, modern compilers can often find exploits
that you wouldn\'t think of, on your own. Looking at the object
files created, you scratch your head trying to figure out what
your original source was!

The biggest win with ASM is control of resources -- esp RAM.
You can micromanage how they are used instead of having
to accept the assumptions inherent in the language.

E.g., I have a monitor that I wrote to bring up bare iron.
When it starts, the interface that it presents to the user
uses *no* RAM. Because you don\'t know if RAM works, yet!
Likewise, the first thing the code does is verify the
integrity of the \"ROM\" image. And, faults can\'t rely on
the serial port for reporting -- nor timers to flash
lights, etc.

Only after the user has indicated that he has faith in the
ROM/RAM will the (more advanced -- and more reliant on
hardware resources!) portion of the monitor written in C
be accessible.

 

[Don Y]

On 1/5/2023 10:29 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

Yep. And at the end of the day, when I memorized my 1-12 times tables in
grade school \"because you won\'t always have a calculator in your
pocket!\" ...

That\'s a different sort of skillset -- one that is more universal.
(we didn\'t have calculators when I was a kid. And, we also had to
memorize the squares up to 20! As well as the preamble to the
constitution, etc. -- never know when THAT might come in handy :< )

Yeah, math was a bad example. It\'s more akin to when I had to write
half a dozen sorting algorithms in programming classes. They were a
pain in the butt, and had almost zero practical application outside of
\"homework exercise\".

Don\'t be dismissive of them. Each algorithm has different characteristics
and cost-benefits, depending on what you are trying to sort. E.g., adding
one item to a sorted list is different than sorting a \"random\" list.

Knuth wrote a series of tomes covering most of the \"basic\" algorithms.
Surprisingly, much software is just a rearranging of these core
algorithms in different combinations.

So that\'s what this power-supply is. A \"homework exercise\".

Again, this is more of a \"homework project(tm)\". Yeah, it\'s been done a
million times; yeah, I could just buy a linear regulator IC ...

If you scale down your current requirement, you can make a crude
regulator with a *stiff* input filter, a biased zener and a pass
transistor. The zener is chosen to be a diode drop (the base-emitter
junction of the pass transistor) above the desired voltage. It
drives the base of the (NPN) pass transistor -- which gives you
current gain. The diode drop from base to emitter \"subtracts\"
that from the zener voltage to give you the desired output
voltage.

I don\'t even really have a \"current requirement\" yet. But I have a ton
of transistors in the 200 mA range, so I was figuring 100-125 mA max for
the initial learning and poking around with the analyzer and hopefully
_FINALLY_ pinning down transistors-as-voltage-sources, make something a
little more permanent and still cheap.

You\'ll be limited in applications, at that current level.

Also, for a linear, you will have to be wary of the total
power that the package can dissipate. E.g., if you are
pulling 100mA *through* the transistor and dropping
(on average) 10V *across* it, then you\'re dissipating
1W in the device (100mA * 10V).

This is how you come to realize the downside of linear
regulators! :>

Who cares if I pop a transistor or twenty in a home-made bench supply
that I have the full schematics and notes for, as opposed to something
that\'s un-fixable because it came from Amazon, and is super-complex
inside?

Well, if you \"pop\" them so often that the PS proves to be un-useful...

Ages ago, there was a \"teaching toy\" (LECTOR or something like that)
that consisted of discretes packaged in little plastic \"sugar
cubes\" with contacts on the sides and schematic symbol on top.
A magnet held each to a metallic base. So, you could \"wire\"
a circuit SCHEMATICALLY just by abutting these little sugar
cubes and see it work.

Sounds a bit like that \"200-in-one Electronics Experiments\" that I had
as a kid.

IIRC, those were the things with \"lots of springs\" that you used to
*wire* components together. So, ALL of the components were visible
in your design (not just the ones you were using). And, a tangle of
wires atop them for interconnects.

This was considerably slicker. As you positioned the \"sugar cubes\"
together, the schematic of the circuit you were building was visible.
I.e., a \"diode sugarcube\" had a symbol of a diode on top of the
sugarcube with leads heading off to the two opposing sides that
had the metallic contacts on them. Ditto for a resistor. So,
\"wiring\" a resistor in series with a diode involved positioning
the two sugarcubes adjacent to each other, their \"side contacts\"
abutting, and you would then see a schematic with those two
elements visible on their top surfaces. You never had to trace
PHYSICAL wires to figure out what the circuit was doing.

And, you could pluck a sugarcube from the circuit and drop
another in its place to see how the circuit\'s performance
changed.

[I have no idea how to search for the \"toy\" but will post a link
if I manage to stumble on it]

If you have a \'scope, it can be a good exercise -- if only to let you
see how the \"signal\" changes as it moves through the circuit. And,
how it reacts to differing loads (e.g., see the ripple on the input
filter increase when the filter is having to supply a larger load
reflected through the regulator. What happens if you change the value
of the filter? Or, use a half-wave rectifier?)

That\'s more like where my thought process was going with this \"homework
project\". Fiddle with it, see what happens \"inside\" an LM338 (etc),
and, well, hopefully learn a thing or two. While it\'s not a scope, I
have one of those USB logic-analyzers that \"can\" do analog readings as
well, so we\'ll see how it works out.

Just be sure you don\'t exceed the voltage range of the analyzer.
You\'d hate to lose something of value because it \"accidentally\"
saw a voltage that it couldn\'t handle.

As I recall, the analog will do +/- 15 volts. As I recall, it\'s absolute
maximum rating is slightly higher (25 volts or so).

Worst case after I double-check the datasheet, I have to get something
like from Rigol.

Picking up an old Tek 465 might be a more economical option.

Programming micros is fun enough too; but I\'m finding I\'m pulling away
from C, and into Assembly, just for the chance at those same \"aha
moments\".

A language is a language. The differences are the level of abstraction
supported and the design methodologies targeted. With ASM, you can
essentially do *anything* (after all, every compiler eventually causes
\"machine instructions\" to be executed). But, you HAVE TO do everything!

By contrast, higher level languages (its debatable just how \"high\"
C is on that scale) relieve you of varying degrees of details.

E.g., in some languages, there is a \"runtime\" that will do things like
garbage collect automatically so you don\'t have to track dynamic
memory usage. The goal being to keep you focused on the problem
you are solving, not the mechanism that is solving it.

Quite so. But C doesn\'t really have much more in the \'aha\' space for

C can be interesting if you start trying to adopt different
programming practices. E.g., most of my current project is coded
in C but is entirely object-based. And, objects are referenced by
something akin to file handles.

So, I would invoke a method on a particular object using a
(custom) syntax like:

Door frontDoor;
...
frontDoor=>close();

The odd syntax mimics the door->close syntax that you\'d use for
referencing a struct member through a pointer. But, in my world,
the object is located anywhere in the (distributed) system...
so, there\'s nothing for the pointer to DIRECTLY reference.

There are also countless idioms that are learning experiences
in themselves.

And, of course, a shitload of delightful *algorithms* that
many folks never stumble upon.

As well as, stylistic issues that time teaches you improve your
code\'s maintainability and correctness. (e.g., comments can be
A Bad Thing!)

me ... Assembly (tedious as it is), does. And it\'s kinda fun going
\"oh, I did X in 42 Bytes\". In turn, when I go back to C to do something
quick; I am more conscious of \"what\'s really going on here\".

The last is important. But, modern compilers can often find exploits
that you wouldn\'t think of, on your own. Looking at the object
files created, you scratch your head trying to figure out what
your original source was!

The biggest win with ASM is control of resources -- esp RAM.
You can micromanage how they are used instead of having
to accept the assumptions inherent in the language.

E.g., I have a monitor that I wrote to bring up bare iron.
When it starts, the interface that it presents to the user
uses *no* RAM. Because you don\'t know if RAM works, yet!
Likewise, the first thing the code does is verify the
integrity of the \"ROM\" image. And, faults can\'t rely on
the serial port for reporting -- nor timers to flash
lights, etc.

Only after the user has indicated that he has faith in the
ROM/RAM will the (more advanced -- and more reliant on
hardware resources!) portion of the monitor written in C
be accessible.

 

[Don Y]

On 1/5/2023 10:29 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

Yep. And at the end of the day, when I memorized my 1-12 times tables in
grade school \"because you won\'t always have a calculator in your
pocket!\" ...

That\'s a different sort of skillset -- one that is more universal.
(we didn\'t have calculators when I was a kid. And, we also had to
memorize the squares up to 20! As well as the preamble to the
constitution, etc. -- never know when THAT might come in handy :< )

Yeah, math was a bad example. It\'s more akin to when I had to write
half a dozen sorting algorithms in programming classes. They were a
pain in the butt, and had almost zero practical application outside of
\"homework exercise\".

Don\'t be dismissive of them. Each algorithm has different characteristics
and cost-benefits, depending on what you are trying to sort. E.g., adding
one item to a sorted list is different than sorting a \"random\" list.

Knuth wrote a series of tomes covering most of the \"basic\" algorithms.
Surprisingly, much software is just a rearranging of these core
algorithms in different combinations.

So that\'s what this power-supply is. A \"homework exercise\".

Again, this is more of a \"homework project(tm)\". Yeah, it\'s been done a
million times; yeah, I could just buy a linear regulator IC ...

If you scale down your current requirement, you can make a crude
regulator with a *stiff* input filter, a biased zener and a pass
transistor. The zener is chosen to be a diode drop (the base-emitter
junction of the pass transistor) above the desired voltage. It
drives the base of the (NPN) pass transistor -- which gives you
current gain. The diode drop from base to emitter \"subtracts\"
that from the zener voltage to give you the desired output
voltage.

I don\'t even really have a \"current requirement\" yet. But I have a ton
of transistors in the 200 mA range, so I was figuring 100-125 mA max for
the initial learning and poking around with the analyzer and hopefully
_FINALLY_ pinning down transistors-as-voltage-sources, make something a
little more permanent and still cheap.

You\'ll be limited in applications, at that current level.

Also, for a linear, you will have to be wary of the total
power that the package can dissipate. E.g., if you are
pulling 100mA *through* the transistor and dropping
(on average) 10V *across* it, then you\'re dissipating
1W in the device (100mA * 10V).

This is how you come to realize the downside of linear
regulators! :>

Who cares if I pop a transistor or twenty in a home-made bench supply
that I have the full schematics and notes for, as opposed to something
that\'s un-fixable because it came from Amazon, and is super-complex
inside?

Well, if you \"pop\" them so often that the PS proves to be un-useful...

Ages ago, there was a \"teaching toy\" (LECTOR or something like that)
that consisted of discretes packaged in little plastic \"sugar
cubes\" with contacts on the sides and schematic symbol on top.
A magnet held each to a metallic base. So, you could \"wire\"
a circuit SCHEMATICALLY just by abutting these little sugar
cubes and see it work.

Sounds a bit like that \"200-in-one Electronics Experiments\" that I had
as a kid.

IIRC, those were the things with \"lots of springs\" that you used to
*wire* components together. So, ALL of the components were visible
in your design (not just the ones you were using). And, a tangle of
wires atop them for interconnects.

This was considerably slicker. As you positioned the \"sugar cubes\"
together, the schematic of the circuit you were building was visible.
I.e., a \"diode sugarcube\" had a symbol of a diode on top of the
sugarcube with leads heading off to the two opposing sides that
had the metallic contacts on them. Ditto for a resistor. So,
\"wiring\" a resistor in series with a diode involved positioning
the two sugarcubes adjacent to each other, their \"side contacts\"
abutting, and you would then see a schematic with those two
elements visible on their top surfaces. You never had to trace
PHYSICAL wires to figure out what the circuit was doing.

And, you could pluck a sugarcube from the circuit and drop
another in its place to see how the circuit\'s performance
changed.

[I have no idea how to search for the \"toy\" but will post a link
if I manage to stumble on it]

If you have a \'scope, it can be a good exercise -- if only to let you
see how the \"signal\" changes as it moves through the circuit. And,
how it reacts to differing loads (e.g., see the ripple on the input
filter increase when the filter is having to supply a larger load
reflected through the regulator. What happens if you change the value
of the filter? Or, use a half-wave rectifier?)

That\'s more like where my thought process was going with this \"homework
project\". Fiddle with it, see what happens \"inside\" an LM338 (etc),
and, well, hopefully learn a thing or two. While it\'s not a scope, I
have one of those USB logic-analyzers that \"can\" do analog readings as
well, so we\'ll see how it works out.

Just be sure you don\'t exceed the voltage range of the analyzer.
You\'d hate to lose something of value because it \"accidentally\"
saw a voltage that it couldn\'t handle.

As I recall, the analog will do +/- 15 volts. As I recall, it\'s absolute
maximum rating is slightly higher (25 volts or so).

Worst case after I double-check the datasheet, I have to get something
like from Rigol.

Picking up an old Tek 465 might be a more economical option.

Programming micros is fun enough too; but I\'m finding I\'m pulling away
from C, and into Assembly, just for the chance at those same \"aha
moments\".

A language is a language. The differences are the level of abstraction
supported and the design methodologies targeted. With ASM, you can
essentially do *anything* (after all, every compiler eventually causes
\"machine instructions\" to be executed). But, you HAVE TO do everything!

By contrast, higher level languages (its debatable just how \"high\"
C is on that scale) relieve you of varying degrees of details.

E.g., in some languages, there is a \"runtime\" that will do things like
garbage collect automatically so you don\'t have to track dynamic
memory usage. The goal being to keep you focused on the problem
you are solving, not the mechanism that is solving it.

Quite so. But C doesn\'t really have much more in the \'aha\' space for

C can be interesting if you start trying to adopt different
programming practices. E.g., most of my current project is coded
in C but is entirely object-based. And, objects are referenced by
something akin to file handles.

So, I would invoke a method on a particular object using a
(custom) syntax like:

Door frontDoor;
...
frontDoor=>close();

The odd syntax mimics the door->close syntax that you\'d use for
referencing a struct member through a pointer. But, in my world,
the object is located anywhere in the (distributed) system...
so, there\'s nothing for the pointer to DIRECTLY reference.

There are also countless idioms that are learning experiences
in themselves.

And, of course, a shitload of delightful *algorithms* that
many folks never stumble upon.

As well as, stylistic issues that time teaches you improve your
code\'s maintainability and correctness. (e.g., comments can be
A Bad Thing!)

me ... Assembly (tedious as it is), does. And it\'s kinda fun going
\"oh, I did X in 42 Bytes\". In turn, when I go back to C to do something
quick; I am more conscious of \"what\'s really going on here\".

The last is important. But, modern compilers can often find exploits
that you wouldn\'t think of, on your own. Looking at the object
files created, you scratch your head trying to figure out what
your original source was!

The biggest win with ASM is control of resources -- esp RAM.
You can micromanage how they are used instead of having
to accept the assumptions inherent in the language.

E.g., I have a monitor that I wrote to bring up bare iron.
When it starts, the interface that it presents to the user
uses *no* RAM. Because you don\'t know if RAM works, yet!
Likewise, the first thing the code does is verify the
integrity of the \"ROM\" image. And, faults can\'t rely on
the serial port for reporting -- nor timers to flash
lights, etc.

Only after the user has indicated that he has faith in the
ROM/RAM will the (more advanced -- and more reliant on
hardware resources!) portion of the monitor written in C
be accessible.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Jan 2023 08:44:30 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<st7jrh92oiv154ill1ve98mop0qpk4n8u1@4ax.com>:

Is any Chinese stuff really good? Rigol is. Extech is good but isn\'t
all Chinese.

I have several of those Chinese 3$40 multimeters in use every day, and an analog one too.
Most \'Chinese\' stuff is OK, and much has US or Taiwan made chips in it.

My Chinese AC / DC clamp on meter died, but more because it mechanically sort of fell apart,
got a Voltcraft, not sure where that is made,,, works great.
Have a Voltcraft soldering station too, now in use for 10 years or more.
Lots of small modules from China from ebay..
My drone is super! China too.
My Tecsun SW LW AM FM SSB radio, my Baofeng 2 way radio, my satellite receivers, my terrestrial TV receiver.. etc etc
But from the US? Microchip PIC micros are OK...
Oh and LCD modules, OLED modules... all from ebay
Wow my Huawei 4 G USB modem sticks (have 2) SUPER SUPER

US better get their trip together, just sanctioning the competition does not do it
you guys need to produce cheaper faster better,,
Like you hinted, why buy a Tek if a Rigol is cheaper and maybe better.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Jan 2023 08:44:30 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<st7jrh92oiv154ill1ve98mop0qpk4n8u1@4ax.com>:

Is any Chinese stuff really good? Rigol is. Extech is good but isn\'t
all Chinese.

I have several of those Chinese 3$40 multimeters in use every day, and an analog one too.
Most \'Chinese\' stuff is OK, and much has US or Taiwan made chips in it.

My Chinese AC / DC clamp on meter died, but more because it mechanically sort of fell apart,
got a Voltcraft, not sure where that is made,,, works great.
Have a Voltcraft soldering station too, now in use for 10 years or more.
Lots of small modules from China from ebay..
My drone is super! China too.
My Tecsun SW LW AM FM SSB radio, my Baofeng 2 way radio, my satellite receivers, my terrestrial TV receiver.. etc etc
But from the US? Microchip PIC micros are OK...
Oh and LCD modules, OLED modules... all from ebay
Wow my Huawei 4 G USB modem sticks (have 2) SUPER SUPER

US better get their trip together, just sanctioning the competition does not do it
you guys need to produce cheaper faster better,,
Like you hinted, why buy a Tek if a Rigol is cheaper and maybe better.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Jan 2023 08:44:30 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<st7jrh92oiv154ill1ve98mop0qpk4n8u1@4ax.com>:

Is any Chinese stuff really good? Rigol is. Extech is good but isn\'t
all Chinese.

I have several of those Chinese 3$40 multimeters in use every day, and an analog one too.
Most \'Chinese\' stuff is OK, and much has US or Taiwan made chips in it.

My Chinese AC / DC clamp on meter died, but more because it mechanically sort of fell apart,
got a Voltcraft, not sure where that is made,,, works great.
Have a Voltcraft soldering station too, now in use for 10 years or more.
Lots of small modules from China from ebay..
My drone is super! China too.
My Tecsun SW LW AM FM SSB radio, my Baofeng 2 way radio, my satellite receivers, my terrestrial TV receiver.. etc etc
But from the US? Microchip PIC micros are OK...
Oh and LCD modules, OLED modules... all from ebay
Wow my Huawei 4 G USB modem sticks (have 2) SUPER SUPER

US better get their trip together, just sanctioning the competition does not do it
you guys need to produce cheaper faster better,,
Like you hinted, why buy a Tek if a Rigol is cheaper and maybe better.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:26:55 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:23:48 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 6:02:39 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:42:17 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:59:11 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:47:28 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:04:37 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:23:27 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:34:21 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
snip

To you? You know what you want to hear and mere facts won\'t distract you from that.

Again, produce REAL FACTS or shut the fuck up.

Sewage Sweeper is like John Larkin, He wants flattery, not facts.
The bottom line is that the Feds have NOTHING to do with funding and building of actual transmission lines - they can only rely on indirect incentives.

Note that a \"couple of zeroes\" would make it $2,500 billion, or $2.5 TRILLION.

Which is more of Sewage Sweeper carrying on about numbers he doesn\'t understand.

I do, but you DON\'T!

You do like to think that.

I KNOW that! You are an electrical engineer WANNA BE - and you come up WOEFULLY SHORT!!

You are an anonymous troll who doesn\'t post in electronics related threads. I doubt if you know what an 1N829 is.
If there was an electrical engineer wanna be posting here, you\'d be the obvious candidate.

You wish - you ARE the WANNA BE EE.

We all know that this is one of your comforting delusions. Sadly. it is even more obviously false than most of them and does make you look even more like a complete idiot.
If you think putting in high-voltage transmission lines is cheap, read this:

https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20190212%20PSC%20Item%2005a%20Transmission%20Cost%20Estimation%20Guide%20for%20MTEP%202019_for%20review317692.pdf

Which tells you how much they\'d cost per mile, but doesn\'t seem to make any kind of estimate of the of the miles of new line that might be required. Up-grading existing lines to carry more power is cheaper, but too complicated for Sewage Sweeper to get his head around.

Take 160,000 and multiply it by 0.6; that is the number of miles Joe Biden is talking about.

What 160,000? You do love your invented numbers.

So, Bill, HOW many miles of transmission lines do YOU think there are?????

What\'s that got to do with how many more there need to be? Bearing in mind that in many cases you will just have to up-grade existing transmission lines.

Again, you question the facts, but don\'t produce ANY of your own. Start at EIA.ORG.

Why would I bother?

and
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/pge-to-bury-transmission-lines-at-cost-of-2-million-per-mile/

Which tells you how expensive it is bury transmission lines, but doesn\'t tell you how many mile of line ought to be buried.

See above,

Sewage Sweeper expect us to take him seriously, while working tirelessly to remind us that this would be a very silly idea.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own damn country!

Another of Sewage Sweeper favourite delusions. I didn\'t, but Sewage Sweeper thinks that the claim is plausible, and can\'t be persuaded that it isn\'t.

No, they are both YOURS - just look up your absurd posts.

Since I don\'t suffer from your obvious cognitive defects, I can \'t see my posts as saying anything of the sort. No sane person could.

No, I don\'t expect a TOTAL IDIOT to take me seriously, Bil!

When in reality only a total idiot would. Sewage Sweeper does have some very silly ideas.

DITTO!

Yet another silly idea,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:26:55 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:23:48 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 6:02:39 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:42:17 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:59:11 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:47:28 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:04:37 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:23:27 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:34:21 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
snip

To you? You know what you want to hear and mere facts won\'t distract you from that.

Again, produce REAL FACTS or shut the fuck up.

Sewage Sweeper is like John Larkin, He wants flattery, not facts.
The bottom line is that the Feds have NOTHING to do with funding and building of actual transmission lines - they can only rely on indirect incentives.

Note that a \"couple of zeroes\" would make it $2,500 billion, or $2.5 TRILLION.

Which is more of Sewage Sweeper carrying on about numbers he doesn\'t understand.

I do, but you DON\'T!

You do like to think that.

I KNOW that! You are an electrical engineer WANNA BE - and you come up WOEFULLY SHORT!!

You are an anonymous troll who doesn\'t post in electronics related threads. I doubt if you know what an 1N829 is.
If there was an electrical engineer wanna be posting here, you\'d be the obvious candidate.

You wish - you ARE the WANNA BE EE.

We all know that this is one of your comforting delusions. Sadly. it is even more obviously false than most of them and does make you look even more like a complete idiot.
If you think putting in high-voltage transmission lines is cheap, read this:

https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20190212%20PSC%20Item%2005a%20Transmission%20Cost%20Estimation%20Guide%20for%20MTEP%202019_for%20review317692.pdf

Which tells you how much they\'d cost per mile, but doesn\'t seem to make any kind of estimate of the of the miles of new line that might be required. Up-grading existing lines to carry more power is cheaper, but too complicated for Sewage Sweeper to get his head around.

Take 160,000 and multiply it by 0.6; that is the number of miles Joe Biden is talking about.

What 160,000? You do love your invented numbers.

So, Bill, HOW many miles of transmission lines do YOU think there are?????

What\'s that got to do with how many more there need to be? Bearing in mind that in many cases you will just have to up-grade existing transmission lines.

Again, you question the facts, but don\'t produce ANY of your own. Start at EIA.ORG.

Why would I bother?

and
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/pge-to-bury-transmission-lines-at-cost-of-2-million-per-mile/

Which tells you how expensive it is bury transmission lines, but doesn\'t tell you how many mile of line ought to be buried.

See above,

Sewage Sweeper expect us to take him seriously, while working tirelessly to remind us that this would be a very silly idea.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own damn country!

Another of Sewage Sweeper favourite delusions. I didn\'t, but Sewage Sweeper thinks that the claim is plausible, and can\'t be persuaded that it isn\'t.

No, they are both YOURS - just look up your absurd posts.

Since I don\'t suffer from your obvious cognitive defects, I can \'t see my posts as saying anything of the sort. No sane person could.

No, I don\'t expect a TOTAL IDIOT to take me seriously, Bil!

When in reality only a total idiot would. Sewage Sweeper does have some very silly ideas.

DITTO!

Yet another silly idea,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:26:55 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:23:48 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 6:02:39 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:42:17 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:59:11 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:47:28 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:04:37 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:23:27 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:34:21 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
snip

To you? You know what you want to hear and mere facts won\'t distract you from that.

Again, produce REAL FACTS or shut the fuck up.

Sewage Sweeper is like John Larkin, He wants flattery, not facts.
The bottom line is that the Feds have NOTHING to do with funding and building of actual transmission lines - they can only rely on indirect incentives.

Note that a \"couple of zeroes\" would make it $2,500 billion, or $2.5 TRILLION.

Which is more of Sewage Sweeper carrying on about numbers he doesn\'t understand.

I do, but you DON\'T!

You do like to think that.

I KNOW that! You are an electrical engineer WANNA BE - and you come up WOEFULLY SHORT!!

You are an anonymous troll who doesn\'t post in electronics related threads. I doubt if you know what an 1N829 is.
If there was an electrical engineer wanna be posting here, you\'d be the obvious candidate.

You wish - you ARE the WANNA BE EE.

We all know that this is one of your comforting delusions. Sadly. it is even more obviously false than most of them and does make you look even more like a complete idiot.
If you think putting in high-voltage transmission lines is cheap, read this:

https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20190212%20PSC%20Item%2005a%20Transmission%20Cost%20Estimation%20Guide%20for%20MTEP%202019_for%20review317692.pdf

Which tells you how much they\'d cost per mile, but doesn\'t seem to make any kind of estimate of the of the miles of new line that might be required. Up-grading existing lines to carry more power is cheaper, but too complicated for Sewage Sweeper to get his head around.

Take 160,000 and multiply it by 0.6; that is the number of miles Joe Biden is talking about.

What 160,000? You do love your invented numbers.

So, Bill, HOW many miles of transmission lines do YOU think there are?????

What\'s that got to do with how many more there need to be? Bearing in mind that in many cases you will just have to up-grade existing transmission lines.

Again, you question the facts, but don\'t produce ANY of your own. Start at EIA.ORG.

Why would I bother?

and
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/pge-to-bury-transmission-lines-at-cost-of-2-million-per-mile/

Which tells you how expensive it is bury transmission lines, but doesn\'t tell you how many mile of line ought to be buried.

See above,

Sewage Sweeper expect us to take him seriously, while working tirelessly to remind us that this would be a very silly idea.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own damn country!

Another of Sewage Sweeper favourite delusions. I didn\'t, but Sewage Sweeper thinks that the claim is plausible, and can\'t be persuaded that it isn\'t.

No, they are both YOURS - just look up your absurd posts.

Since I don\'t suffer from your obvious cognitive defects, I can \'t see my posts as saying anything of the sort. No sane person could.

No, I don\'t expect a TOTAL IDIOT to take me seriously, Bil!

When in reality only a total idiot would. Sewage Sweeper does have some very silly ideas.

DITTO!

Yet another silly idea,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:20:16 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 1/1/2023 11:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/18/electrical_engineers_extinction/?td=rt-9cp

I\'ve been thinking for some time now that EE schools don\'t turn out
people who like electricity, but maker culture might.

\"And to make it your life, there has to be a lot of high-status,
high-wage, high-interest jobs to do at the end.\"

Software-startup culture is glamorous in its way, the young kids can
very quickly feel like they\'re working on something novel.

The EE jobs available tend to be at established companies, like Northrop
Grumman or Nexteer Automotive or Fisher Scientific or BAE systems etc,
you can go down the list on job sites and see what they are.

Biggest complaints you hear from EEs about working places like that is
that the jobs aren\'t particularly high status. They don\'t pay
particularly great. The \"company culture\" sucks. And worst of all the
job responsibilities tend to be rigid and the work not particularly
interesting.

The people I\'ve talked to who worked in those cesspools in the 50s and 60s absolutely H-A-T-E-D every imaginable aspect of their job- the work, the environment, the people, the management- no end to their disgust with the place. SED gives you just a small idea of the detestable sociopaths who work in engineering.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:20:16 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 1/1/2023 11:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/18/electrical_engineers_extinction/?td=rt-9cp

I\'ve been thinking for some time now that EE schools don\'t turn out
people who like electricity, but maker culture might.

\"And to make it your life, there has to be a lot of high-status,
high-wage, high-interest jobs to do at the end.\"

Software-startup culture is glamorous in its way, the young kids can
very quickly feel like they\'re working on something novel.

The EE jobs available tend to be at established companies, like Northrop
Grumman or Nexteer Automotive or Fisher Scientific or BAE systems etc,
you can go down the list on job sites and see what they are.

Biggest complaints you hear from EEs about working places like that is
that the jobs aren\'t particularly high status. They don\'t pay
particularly great. The \"company culture\" sucks. And worst of all the
job responsibilities tend to be rigid and the work not particularly
interesting.

The people I\'ve talked to who worked in those cesspools in the 50s and 60s absolutely H-A-T-E-D every imaginable aspect of their job- the work, the environment, the people, the management- no end to their disgust with the place. SED gives you just a small idea of the detestable sociopaths who work in engineering.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:20:16 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 1/1/2023 11:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/18/electrical_engineers_extinction/?td=rt-9cp

I\'ve been thinking for some time now that EE schools don\'t turn out
people who like electricity, but maker culture might.

\"And to make it your life, there has to be a lot of high-status,
high-wage, high-interest jobs to do at the end.\"

Software-startup culture is glamorous in its way, the young kids can
very quickly feel like they\'re working on something novel.

The EE jobs available tend to be at established companies, like Northrop
Grumman or Nexteer Automotive or Fisher Scientific or BAE systems etc,
you can go down the list on job sites and see what they are.

Biggest complaints you hear from EEs about working places like that is
that the jobs aren\'t particularly high status. They don\'t pay
particularly great. The \"company culture\" sucks. And worst of all the
job responsibilities tend to be rigid and the work not particularly
interesting.

The people I\'ve talked to who worked in those cesspools in the 50s and 60s absolutely H-A-T-E-D every imaginable aspect of their job- the work, the environment, the people, the management- no end to their disgust with the place. SED gives you just a small idea of the detestable sociopaths who work in engineering.

 

[Joerg]

On 1/11/23 2:14 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Joerg wrote:
On 1/10/23 8:22 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 1/2/23 5:57 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:00:52 -0800, Joerg
news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 1/1/23 11:08 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

In the EE school I was in it was known that only \'hobbyists\'
would pass the final exams. The dropout in the first year was
very very very high.


At my university the drop-out rate (start to degree) was at
times 83%.

Too many kids selected an EE degree based on some high school
counselor\'s advice, or dreams of a tidy income. Too late.

I dunno.  Washing out of a hard program isn\'t the worst thing that
can
happen to a young person.  It\'s not nearly as bad as hanging on by
the
skin of your teeth and then failing over a decade or so in the
industry.

The old saying, \"C\'s get degrees\" has caused a lot of misery of
that sort.


I had pretty bad grades because I worked a lot on the side, did
\"pre-degree consulting\" and stuff like that. Bad grades are ok.

In an honest system, bad grades mean that the student either didn\'t
do the work, or was unable or unwilling to do it well.  There can be
lots of reasons for that, such as being unavoidably too busy, but
that\'s not the usual case.

The result is wasted time and money, and usually a skill set that\'s
full of holes and harder to build on later.  It sounds like you were
sort of making up your own enrichment curriculum as you went on,
which is a bit different, of course.


I really lost interest in attending university lectures after a few
things were taught by professors that were profoundly wrong. The first
one was that RF transmitters must have an output impedance equal to
the impedance of the connected load or cable. The week after I brought
in the schematic of a then-modern transistorized ham radio transceiver
and pointed out the final amplifier. The professor didn\'t really know
what to say.

Number two: The same guy said that grounded gate circuits in RF stages
make no sense at all. Huh? I did one of those during my very first job
assignment when the ink on my degree was barely dry. And lots before
as a hobbyist.

Number three: Another professor said that we only need to learn all
this transistor-level stuff for the exam. Once we graduated this would
all be obsoleted by integrated circuits. That one took the cake.
Still, it seemed I was the only one who didn\'t believe such nonsense.
However, it provided me with the epiphany \"Ha! This is my niche!\". And
that\'s what it became. Never looked back.

This was at a European ivy league place which made it even more
disappointing.

Well, I\'ve never taken a circuits class, so I may have dodged a bullet
or two of that sort.   (*)

I don\'t recall ever being told what would or would not be important in
my future career, but maybe I just didn\'t listen.

I knew some very smart folks whose grades were poor, but they were
mostly unmotivated or undisciplined.  One guy (a math genius) was in
my grad school study group for awhile, but was way too handsome for
his own good--he spent his time playing soccer and chasing women,
and tried to skate by on talent as he\'d always done.  Eventually it
stopped working. If you go far enough, it always does.


My dad hinted that I was a bread scholar who\'d only learn something if
it can be put to profitable use, and prontissimo. For the most part he
was right.



That\'s the real benefit of weed-out courses--not that many people
flunk, but that the ones who succeed have to learn to learn mental
discipline in the process.  That\'ll stand you in good stead for a
lifetime. (Flunking isn\'t the worst thing that can happen to you. I
got fired from my first job, which was very beneficial overall.)



Agree, it makes the students tough. Just like military service does.
When I was at boot camp I really resented being in the Army, life was
hard, sergeants screaming in our faces, and so on. Later in life I
realized that it had taught me a lot that I use to this day.


Students sometimes ask me for advice, and I always tell them three
things: first, in every field, make sure you have the fundamentals
down cold; second, concentrate your course work on things that are
hard to pick up on your own, especially math; and third, join a
research group where you can do a lot of stuff on your own.  (The
ideal is to have an interesting smallish project, where you have to
do everything, and a bunch of smart and supportive colleagues.)

That\'s the most direct path to wizardhood that I know about.


I think a job is very educational. In Germany we had to do a minimum
of six months of \"relevant industrial practice\" for a masters degree.
Sort of internships, during our studies. Three of those months had to
be completed by the 4th semester. It could not be all at one place but
AFAIR at four companies. The jobs had to be meticulously documented.
These documents had to be turned in and the university had to approve
them or it wouldn\'t count. Not always easy. Two of mine were in a
foreign language (to them) and they gave me some grief about that.

They did away with that requirement which I think was a major mistake.

Sounds super cumbersome.  I can\'t imagine getting the sort of industry
buy-in that that would require. ...

That\'s part of the aspect. Industry buy-in wasn\'t great, especially not
in small business which is what I always perferred. This is one of the
teachable situations, to find such a temporary assignment even while the
odds are against you. University isn\'t just to teach science, they are
also there to teach perseverance and toughness. IMNSHO, and I personally
know ivory-tower academians who absolutely don\'t believe that.

... I knew a fair number of EE co-op
students at grad school, both from business and from the military, and
the DSP course had a live video feed to some companies\' sites, which was
fairly novel in 1985.  (They were mostly defence contractors IIRC.)

I did some other bigger jobs also and at some point was a taxpayer in
three different countries. That alone is a teachable situation.

Yikes.

Another upside of this is that you don\'t finish university with a
chunk of student debt but with savings in the bank.

Because I started university youngish, I had time to do a gap year and
then worked  for a couple of years at a local telecoms place (Microtel)
where they really chucked me in the deep end.  Very educational indeed.

Excellent! Every engineering candidate should do that.

One of my jobs came with paperwork that contained a passage \"In case of
your death or permanent disability an insurance policy has been ...\"
Unfortunately my mom saw that when I was visiting my folks and had the
stuff with me. She just about freaked out and asked me to reconsider. I
didn\'t and during one storm several semi-submersible oil rigs got into
major trouble. Ours almost did. Since that made the evening news my mom
became really worried but because the antennas were down nobody could
message their relatives that we were ok. No satellite stuff back then.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

On 1/11/23 2:14 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Joerg wrote:
On 1/10/23 8:22 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 1/2/23 5:57 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:00:52 -0800, Joerg
news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 1/1/23 11:08 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

In the EE school I was in it was known that only \'hobbyists\'
would pass the final exams. The dropout in the first year was
very very very high.


At my university the drop-out rate (start to degree) was at
times 83%.

Too many kids selected an EE degree based on some high school
counselor\'s advice, or dreams of a tidy income. Too late.

I dunno.  Washing out of a hard program isn\'t the worst thing that
can
happen to a young person.  It\'s not nearly as bad as hanging on by
the
skin of your teeth and then failing over a decade or so in the
industry.

The old saying, \"C\'s get degrees\" has caused a lot of misery of
that sort.


I had pretty bad grades because I worked a lot on the side, did
\"pre-degree consulting\" and stuff like that. Bad grades are ok.

In an honest system, bad grades mean that the student either didn\'t
do the work, or was unable or unwilling to do it well.  There can be
lots of reasons for that, such as being unavoidably too busy, but
that\'s not the usual case.

The result is wasted time and money, and usually a skill set that\'s
full of holes and harder to build on later.  It sounds like you were
sort of making up your own enrichment curriculum as you went on,
which is a bit different, of course.


I really lost interest in attending university lectures after a few
things were taught by professors that were profoundly wrong. The first
one was that RF transmitters must have an output impedance equal to
the impedance of the connected load or cable. The week after I brought
in the schematic of a then-modern transistorized ham radio transceiver
and pointed out the final amplifier. The professor didn\'t really know
what to say.

Number two: The same guy said that grounded gate circuits in RF stages
make no sense at all. Huh? I did one of those during my very first job
assignment when the ink on my degree was barely dry. And lots before
as a hobbyist.

Number three: Another professor said that we only need to learn all
this transistor-level stuff for the exam. Once we graduated this would
all be obsoleted by integrated circuits. That one took the cake.
Still, it seemed I was the only one who didn\'t believe such nonsense.
However, it provided me with the epiphany \"Ha! This is my niche!\". And
that\'s what it became. Never looked back.

This was at a European ivy league place which made it even more
disappointing.

Well, I\'ve never taken a circuits class, so I may have dodged a bullet
or two of that sort.   (*)

I don\'t recall ever being told what would or would not be important in
my future career, but maybe I just didn\'t listen.

I knew some very smart folks whose grades were poor, but they were
mostly unmotivated or undisciplined.  One guy (a math genius) was in
my grad school study group for awhile, but was way too handsome for
his own good--he spent his time playing soccer and chasing women,
and tried to skate by on talent as he\'d always done.  Eventually it
stopped working. If you go far enough, it always does.


My dad hinted that I was a bread scholar who\'d only learn something if
it can be put to profitable use, and prontissimo. For the most part he
was right.



That\'s the real benefit of weed-out courses--not that many people
flunk, but that the ones who succeed have to learn to learn mental
discipline in the process.  That\'ll stand you in good stead for a
lifetime. (Flunking isn\'t the worst thing that can happen to you. I
got fired from my first job, which was very beneficial overall.)



Agree, it makes the students tough. Just like military service does.
When I was at boot camp I really resented being in the Army, life was
hard, sergeants screaming in our faces, and so on. Later in life I
realized that it had taught me a lot that I use to this day.


Students sometimes ask me for advice, and I always tell them three
things: first, in every field, make sure you have the fundamentals
down cold; second, concentrate your course work on things that are
hard to pick up on your own, especially math; and third, join a
research group where you can do a lot of stuff on your own.  (The
ideal is to have an interesting smallish project, where you have to
do everything, and a bunch of smart and supportive colleagues.)

That\'s the most direct path to wizardhood that I know about.


I think a job is very educational. In Germany we had to do a minimum
of six months of \"relevant industrial practice\" for a masters degree.
Sort of internships, during our studies. Three of those months had to
be completed by the 4th semester. It could not be all at one place but
AFAIR at four companies. The jobs had to be meticulously documented.
These documents had to be turned in and the university had to approve
them or it wouldn\'t count. Not always easy. Two of mine were in a
foreign language (to them) and they gave me some grief about that.

They did away with that requirement which I think was a major mistake.

Sounds super cumbersome.  I can\'t imagine getting the sort of industry
buy-in that that would require. ...

That\'s part of the aspect. Industry buy-in wasn\'t great, especially not
in small business which is what I always perferred. This is one of the
teachable situations, to find such a temporary assignment even while the
odds are against you. University isn\'t just to teach science, they are
also there to teach perseverance and toughness. IMNSHO, and I personally
know ivory-tower academians who absolutely don\'t believe that.

... I knew a fair number of EE co-op
students at grad school, both from business and from the military, and
the DSP course had a live video feed to some companies\' sites, which was
fairly novel in 1985.  (They were mostly defence contractors IIRC.)

I did some other bigger jobs also and at some point was a taxpayer in
three different countries. That alone is a teachable situation.

Yikes.

Another upside of this is that you don\'t finish university with a
chunk of student debt but with savings in the bank.

Because I started university youngish, I had time to do a gap year and
then worked  for a couple of years at a local telecoms place (Microtel)
where they really chucked me in the deep end.  Very educational indeed.

Excellent! Every engineering candidate should do that.

One of my jobs came with paperwork that contained a passage \"In case of
your death or permanent disability an insurance policy has been ...\"
Unfortunately my mom saw that when I was visiting my folks and had the
stuff with me. She just about freaked out and asked me to reconsider. I
didn\'t and during one storm several semi-submersible oil rigs got into
major trouble. Ours almost did. Since that made the evening news my mom
became really worried but because the antennas were down nobody could
message their relatives that we were ok. No satellite stuff back then.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

On 1/11/23 2:14 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Joerg wrote:
On 1/10/23 8:22 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 1/2/23 5:57 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:00:52 -0800, Joerg
news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 1/1/23 11:08 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

In the EE school I was in it was known that only \'hobbyists\'
would pass the final exams. The dropout in the first year was
very very very high.


At my university the drop-out rate (start to degree) was at
times 83%.

Too many kids selected an EE degree based on some high school
counselor\'s advice, or dreams of a tidy income. Too late.

I dunno.  Washing out of a hard program isn\'t the worst thing that
can
happen to a young person.  It\'s not nearly as bad as hanging on by
the
skin of your teeth and then failing over a decade or so in the
industry.

The old saying, \"C\'s get degrees\" has caused a lot of misery of
that sort.


I had pretty bad grades because I worked a lot on the side, did
\"pre-degree consulting\" and stuff like that. Bad grades are ok.

In an honest system, bad grades mean that the student either didn\'t
do the work, or was unable or unwilling to do it well.  There can be
lots of reasons for that, such as being unavoidably too busy, but
that\'s not the usual case.

The result is wasted time and money, and usually a skill set that\'s
full of holes and harder to build on later.  It sounds like you were
sort of making up your own enrichment curriculum as you went on,
which is a bit different, of course.


I really lost interest in attending university lectures after a few
things were taught by professors that were profoundly wrong. The first
one was that RF transmitters must have an output impedance equal to
the impedance of the connected load or cable. The week after I brought
in the schematic of a then-modern transistorized ham radio transceiver
and pointed out the final amplifier. The professor didn\'t really know
what to say.

Number two: The same guy said that grounded gate circuits in RF stages
make no sense at all. Huh? I did one of those during my very first job
assignment when the ink on my degree was barely dry. And lots before
as a hobbyist.

Number three: Another professor said that we only need to learn all
this transistor-level stuff for the exam. Once we graduated this would
all be obsoleted by integrated circuits. That one took the cake.
Still, it seemed I was the only one who didn\'t believe such nonsense.
However, it provided me with the epiphany \"Ha! This is my niche!\". And
that\'s what it became. Never looked back.

This was at a European ivy league place which made it even more
disappointing.

Well, I\'ve never taken a circuits class, so I may have dodged a bullet
or two of that sort.   (*)

I don\'t recall ever being told what would or would not be important in
my future career, but maybe I just didn\'t listen.

I knew some very smart folks whose grades were poor, but they were
mostly unmotivated or undisciplined.  One guy (a math genius) was in
my grad school study group for awhile, but was way too handsome for
his own good--he spent his time playing soccer and chasing women,
and tried to skate by on talent as he\'d always done.  Eventually it
stopped working. If you go far enough, it always does.


My dad hinted that I was a bread scholar who\'d only learn something if
it can be put to profitable use, and prontissimo. For the most part he
was right.



That\'s the real benefit of weed-out courses--not that many people
flunk, but that the ones who succeed have to learn to learn mental
discipline in the process.  That\'ll stand you in good stead for a
lifetime. (Flunking isn\'t the worst thing that can happen to you. I
got fired from my first job, which was very beneficial overall.)



Agree, it makes the students tough. Just like military service does.
When I was at boot camp I really resented being in the Army, life was
hard, sergeants screaming in our faces, and so on. Later in life I
realized that it had taught me a lot that I use to this day.


Students sometimes ask me for advice, and I always tell them three
things: first, in every field, make sure you have the fundamentals
down cold; second, concentrate your course work on things that are
hard to pick up on your own, especially math; and third, join a
research group where you can do a lot of stuff on your own.  (The
ideal is to have an interesting smallish project, where you have to
do everything, and a bunch of smart and supportive colleagues.)

That\'s the most direct path to wizardhood that I know about.


I think a job is very educational. In Germany we had to do a minimum
of six months of \"relevant industrial practice\" for a masters degree.
Sort of internships, during our studies. Three of those months had to
be completed by the 4th semester. It could not be all at one place but
AFAIR at four companies. The jobs had to be meticulously documented.
These documents had to be turned in and the university had to approve
them or it wouldn\'t count. Not always easy. Two of mine were in a
foreign language (to them) and they gave me some grief about that.

They did away with that requirement which I think was a major mistake.

Sounds super cumbersome.  I can\'t imagine getting the sort of industry
buy-in that that would require. ...

That\'s part of the aspect. Industry buy-in wasn\'t great, especially not
in small business which is what I always perferred. This is one of the
teachable situations, to find such a temporary assignment even while the
odds are against you. University isn\'t just to teach science, they are
also there to teach perseverance and toughness. IMNSHO, and I personally
know ivory-tower academians who absolutely don\'t believe that.

... I knew a fair number of EE co-op
students at grad school, both from business and from the military, and
the DSP course had a live video feed to some companies\' sites, which was
fairly novel in 1985.  (They were mostly defence contractors IIRC.)

I did some other bigger jobs also and at some point was a taxpayer in
three different countries. That alone is a teachable situation.

Yikes.

Another upside of this is that you don\'t finish university with a
chunk of student debt but with savings in the bank.

Because I started university youngish, I had time to do a gap year and
then worked  for a couple of years at a local telecoms place (Microtel)
where they really chucked me in the deep end.  Very educational indeed.

Excellent! Every engineering candidate should do that.

One of my jobs came with paperwork that contained a passage \"In case of
your death or permanent disability an insurance policy has been ...\"
Unfortunately my mom saw that when I was visiting my folks and had the
stuff with me. She just about freaked out and asked me to reconsider. I
didn\'t and during one storm several semi-submersible oil rigs got into
major trouble. Ours almost did. Since that made the evening news my mom
became really worried but because the antennas were down nobody could
message their relatives that we were ok. No satellite stuff back then.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 9:47:31 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:27:47 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:08:38 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 3:02:46 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:56:00 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:16:00 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:33:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:42:50 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:49:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:02:37 PM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
snip
I was talking about them when you opined that said chargers could be put into residences IF you could \"negotiate\" their energy requirements with the utilities.

What I actually said was that the batteries could be recharged at home if you were prepared to go to enough trouble and spend enough money.

DUH! WTF is new about that - it was obviously in the context of superchargers.
A \"super charger \" is actually and an air-compressor that delivers compressed air to an air-craft engine.

LOL! Have you LOST YOUR MIND, Bozo? I started to think that you just Googled \"super charger\" and that was the first hit, but, NO, the first hit is https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/supercharger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning

The twin tail booms of the P-38 accommodated two long axial super-charger compressors;
A home charger has to recharge one truck, not a stream of them. It isn\'t going to be a \"Level 3 Supercharger\" from a public charging station.

Sure as hell will have to, Bozo, to reach 341 KW. You are even dumber than I thought.
\"Level 3\" is a performance claim from a specification to which you have never provided a link\'

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/advice/ev-charging-levels/

So says the idiot who NEVER provides requested facts. This link just CONFIRMS what I said: you can\'t put a Level 3 (supercharger) into a residence. If you think you can, provide me just ONE example.

I didn\'t specify any particular kind of charger and I did mention that one of the options was to have fixed battery at home which could be recharged - relatively slowly - while you driving around in your truck and then use to recharge the truck battery rapidly when you got home.

Not even a remote option.

Not that you can spell why.

Why. Go find me such a charger, Bozo. Hint: this IS NOT a DIY project.
It wouldn\'t be for you. This is a forum for people who design electronics - or think they do. It would be a fun project, but expensive.

Sorry, but I stand by my claim, otherwise, show me just ONE person who has done this.

You seem to want to simplify this into a product you could go out and buy off the shelf. It may even exist in the US market, but you wouldn\'t know about it if it did.

I would and it DOESN\'T.

You are confident that you would know. This looks a lot more like ignorant bluster than anything even vaguely convincing.

Again, produce the goods, Bozo.
For a windbag like you?

AGAIN, you FAIL to produce the facts because you DON\'T HAVE THEM!

You are more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong (although you will correct me EVEN if I am right!).

If you were ever right - which hasn\'t actually happened - it would be by coincidence.

Well, you certainly wouldn\'t know because you are wrong most of the time.
One more of those delusions that you seem to find gratifying.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own country!

--
Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bozo\'s Sewage Sweeper

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 9:47:31 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:27:47 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:08:38 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 3:02:46 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:56:00 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:16:00 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:33:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:42:50 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:49:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:02:37 PM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
snip
I was talking about them when you opined that said chargers could be put into residences IF you could \"negotiate\" their energy requirements with the utilities.

What I actually said was that the batteries could be recharged at home if you were prepared to go to enough trouble and spend enough money.

DUH! WTF is new about that - it was obviously in the context of superchargers.
A \"super charger \" is actually and an air-compressor that delivers compressed air to an air-craft engine.

LOL! Have you LOST YOUR MIND, Bozo? I started to think that you just Googled \"super charger\" and that was the first hit, but, NO, the first hit is https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/supercharger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning

The twin tail booms of the P-38 accommodated two long axial super-charger compressors;
A home charger has to recharge one truck, not a stream of them. It isn\'t going to be a \"Level 3 Supercharger\" from a public charging station.

Sure as hell will have to, Bozo, to reach 341 KW. You are even dumber than I thought.
\"Level 3\" is a performance claim from a specification to which you have never provided a link\'

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/advice/ev-charging-levels/

So says the idiot who NEVER provides requested facts. This link just CONFIRMS what I said: you can\'t put a Level 3 (supercharger) into a residence. If you think you can, provide me just ONE example.

I didn\'t specify any particular kind of charger and I did mention that one of the options was to have fixed battery at home which could be recharged - relatively slowly - while you driving around in your truck and then use to recharge the truck battery rapidly when you got home.

Not even a remote option.

Not that you can spell why.

Why. Go find me such a charger, Bozo. Hint: this IS NOT a DIY project.
It wouldn\'t be for you. This is a forum for people who design electronics - or think they do. It would be a fun project, but expensive.

Sorry, but I stand by my claim, otherwise, show me just ONE person who has done this.

You seem to want to simplify this into a product you could go out and buy off the shelf. It may even exist in the US market, but you wouldn\'t know about it if it did.

I would and it DOESN\'T.

You are confident that you would know. This looks a lot more like ignorant bluster than anything even vaguely convincing.

Again, produce the goods, Bozo.
For a windbag like you?

AGAIN, you FAIL to produce the facts because you DON\'T HAVE THEM!

You are more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong (although you will correct me EVEN if I am right!).

If you were ever right - which hasn\'t actually happened - it would be by coincidence.

Well, you certainly wouldn\'t know because you are wrong most of the time.
One more of those delusions that you seem to find gratifying.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own country!

--
Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bozo\'s Sewage Sweeper

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 9:47:31 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:27:47 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:08:38 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 3:02:46 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:56:00 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:16:00 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:33:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:42:50 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:49:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:02:37 PM UTC-8, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
snip
I was talking about them when you opined that said chargers could be put into residences IF you could \"negotiate\" their energy requirements with the utilities.

What I actually said was that the batteries could be recharged at home if you were prepared to go to enough trouble and spend enough money.

DUH! WTF is new about that - it was obviously in the context of superchargers.
A \"super charger \" is actually and an air-compressor that delivers compressed air to an air-craft engine.

LOL! Have you LOST YOUR MIND, Bozo? I started to think that you just Googled \"super charger\" and that was the first hit, but, NO, the first hit is https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/supercharger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning

The twin tail booms of the P-38 accommodated two long axial super-charger compressors;
A home charger has to recharge one truck, not a stream of them. It isn\'t going to be a \"Level 3 Supercharger\" from a public charging station.

Sure as hell will have to, Bozo, to reach 341 KW. You are even dumber than I thought.
\"Level 3\" is a performance claim from a specification to which you have never provided a link\'

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/advice/ev-charging-levels/

So says the idiot who NEVER provides requested facts. This link just CONFIRMS what I said: you can\'t put a Level 3 (supercharger) into a residence. If you think you can, provide me just ONE example.

I didn\'t specify any particular kind of charger and I did mention that one of the options was to have fixed battery at home which could be recharged - relatively slowly - while you driving around in your truck and then use to recharge the truck battery rapidly when you got home.

Not even a remote option.

Not that you can spell why.

Why. Go find me such a charger, Bozo. Hint: this IS NOT a DIY project.
It wouldn\'t be for you. This is a forum for people who design electronics - or think they do. It would be a fun project, but expensive.

Sorry, but I stand by my claim, otherwise, show me just ONE person who has done this.

You seem to want to simplify this into a product you could go out and buy off the shelf. It may even exist in the US market, but you wouldn\'t know about it if it did.

I would and it DOESN\'T.

You are confident that you would know. This looks a lot more like ignorant bluster than anything even vaguely convincing.

Again, produce the goods, Bozo.
For a windbag like you?

AGAIN, you FAIL to produce the facts because you DON\'T HAVE THEM!

You are more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong (although you will correct me EVEN if I am right!).

If you were ever right - which hasn\'t actually happened - it would be by coincidence.

Well, you certainly wouldn\'t know because you are wrong most of the time.
One more of those delusions that you seem to find gratifying.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own country!

--
Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bozo\'s Sewage Sweeper