Op amps problem Gain Calculation

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:29:34 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:18:15 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:59:34 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:37:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:28:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:06:23 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


OK, let's go: when was the first junction transistor made? By whom?

---
Morgan Sparks, of course, but why are you getting in my face when my
post was to Mr. Eastburn, not to you?

JF

Because I hadn't had coffee yet, and because I've got used to you
harassing me.

---
???

I don't harass you, John, I simply _correct_ you.

JF

Which is why you remind me so much of Miss Denton, my matronly 6th
grade teacher.

---
So you've had this problem for a long time, eh?

Instead of turning into an intensely combative and arrogant sonofabitch
when you've made a mistake and it's pointed out to you, you might want
to be a little more like this guy:

news:Gf-dnbiwMbay9BPXnZ2dnUVZ8jydnZ2d@bt.com

---
Oops...

news:6got85plkgp8o1umaeh5qo682967pk7jqo@4ax.com

JF

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

How tall are you, John?

JF

From past posts, I'm guessing he's shorter than both of us ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:29:34 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:18:15 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:59:34 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:37:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:28:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:06:23 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


OK, let's go: when was the first junction transistor made? By whom?

---
Morgan Sparks, of course, but why are you getting in my face when my
post was to Mr. Eastburn, not to you?

JF

Because I hadn't had coffee yet, and because I've got used to you
harassing me.

---
???

I don't harass you, John, I simply _correct_ you.

JF

Which is why you remind me so much of Miss Denton, my matronly 6th
grade teacher.

---
So you've had this problem for a long time, eh?

Instead of turning into an intensely combative and arrogant sonofabitch
when you've made a mistake and it's pointed out to you, you might want
to be a little more like this guy:

news:Gf-dnbiwMbay9BPXnZ2dnUVZ8jydnZ2d@bt.com

---
Oops...

news:6got85plkgp8o1umaeh5qo682967pk7jqo@4ax.com

JF

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

John

 

[Martin H. Eastburn]

They were whisker types - not PN junctions.
Ge had most - as it was high frequency and Si wasn't.

Yes there were PN diodes but mostly whisker - in the late 50's.
Limited use and not for high rel at all.

Consider the 3 transistor radio - bound to have something in it.
Martin

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:07:46 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
lionslair@consolidated.net> wrote:

First, Si diodes were not used in WW II. The PN SI diode wasn't invented yet.

Nearly all the radar first mixer diodes were silicon point-contact
types, essentially silicon schottky diodes.

See the MIT Rad Lab book, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers" for a bunch
of WWII (and pre-war) stuff about diode development. This is from that
book:

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/RadDiode2.JPG

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/RadLabDiodes.JPG


Selenium wafers and sticks were the power types
and point or whisker diodes for RF. [ I have some of these in lead cans ]

In the 60's it was still that way.

Funny, I recall using lots of silicon PN diodes (and SCRs, and
transistors, and tunnel diodes) in the early 1960's. Tek was using
GaAs diodes in their sampling scopes ca 1964.

Silicon diodes were developed by bell labs for internal telephone use
but semiconductor had to be invented first.

No. See the RadLab book.

Look at the date of the transistor. Silicon diode and Germanium diode.

I know Radar in B52's were using Selenium and Germanium for RF.

Selenium was never used in RF or radar, except maybe power supplies.
Far too slow.

John

 

[Martin H. Eastburn]

Every one forgets the Cold war. B-36's and B-52's and such
were all vacuum tubes. EMP and radiation didn't wipe them out
as semiconductor was. Transistors were in the 40's post war at
Bell Labs. Nobel time.

I looked over my MIL books and didn't find a semi in power supplies
or in radios or detectors...

I think MIT and Bell Labs were experimenting with the new stuff
as a sight into the future.

Diodes - point and semi were in use but radios were miniature
vacuum tubes and turned transistor in 57.

TV sets used selenium rectifiers stacks for years before Semiconductor
were able to make ends meet. I think the big break for them - the
electronic terminal and smart printer in the 70's and 80's.

Martin

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:07:46 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
lionslair@consolidated.net> wrote:

First, Si diodes were not used in WW II. The PN SI diode wasn't invented yet.

Nearly all the radar first mixer diodes were silicon point-contact
types, essentially silicon schottky diodes.

See the MIT Rad Lab book, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers" for a bunch
of WWII (and pre-war) stuff about diode development. This is from that
book:

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/RadDiode2.JPG

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/RadLabDiodes.JPG


Selenium wafers and sticks were the power types
and point or whisker diodes for RF. [ I have some of these in lead cans ]

In the 60's it was still that way.

Funny, I recall using lots of silicon PN diodes (and SCRs, and
transistors, and tunnel diodes) in the early 1960's. Tek was using
GaAs diodes in their sampling scopes ca 1964.

Silicon diodes were developed by bell labs for internal telephone use
but semiconductor had to be invented first.

No. See the RadLab book.

Look at the date of the transistor. Silicon diode and Germanium diode.

I know Radar in B52's were using Selenium and Germanium for RF.

Selenium was never used in RF or radar, except maybe power supplies.
Far too slow.

John

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:06:08 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
<lionslair@consolidated.net> wrote:

Every one forgets the Cold war. B-36's and B-52's and such
were all vacuum tubes. EMP and radiation didn't wipe them out
as semiconductor was. Transistors were in the 40's post war at
Bell Labs. Nobel time.

The EMP became an issue in the 1960's after the nuclear test above the
Pacific, so it could not have influenced the much earlier B36/47/52
designs.

Apparently the semiconductor diode reliability was not very good since
some early computers had a lot of problems with semiconductor diode
reliability. For instance ENIAC had nearly 18000 tubes but only 7000
semiconductor diodes. If I had to design a computer with tubes and
diodes today, the amount of diodes would be at least ten times the
amount of tubes.

For microwave receiver applications, if you do not have a good low
noise RF amplifier, a point contact diode mixer is a reasonable
alternative (often driven by a LO frequency multiplying chain) to get
a reasonable system noise figure/temperature.

Paul

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

---
That's kind of ambiguous, but since I've proved you wrong before, I
guess you're talking about the killing thing, in which case why should I
worry???

BTW, how tall are you?

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

---
That's kind of ambiguous, but since I've proved you wrong before, I
guess you're talking about the killing thing, in which case why should I
worry???

BTW, how tall are you?

JF

Not tall, not short... close to 1.0 SPunits, or roughly 0.9 PHs. Just
about right for the business I'm in and the women I like.

But, given the choice, I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old
hens.

Done any interesting electronics lately?

John

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:10:02 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

---
That's kind of ambiguous, but since I've proved you wrong before, I
guess you're talking about the killing thing, in which case why should I
worry???

BTW, how tall are you?

JF

Not tall, not short... close to 1.0 SPunits, or roughly 0.9 PHs. Just
about right for the business I'm in and the women I like.

But, given the choice, I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old
hens.

---
Hmm...

"Which is why you remind me so much of Miss Denton, my matronly 6th
grade teacher."

"I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old hens."

Interesting how you try to belittle your opponents by feminizing them,
and it sure speaks volumes about how you think of women...

Anyway, 6' 160 pounds is hardly a "big old hen".
---

Done any interesting electronics lately?

---
Yup, broadband PWM.

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:56:03 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:10:02 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

---
That's kind of ambiguous, but since I've proved you wrong before, I
guess you're talking about the killing thing, in which case why should I
worry???

BTW, how tall are you?

JF

Not tall, not short... close to 1.0 SPunits, or roughly 0.9 PHs. Just
about right for the business I'm in and the women I like.

But, given the choice, I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old
hens.

---
Hmm...

"Which is why you remind me so much of Miss Denton, my matronly 6th
grade teacher."

"I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old hens."

Interesting how you try to belittle your opponents by feminizing them,
and it sure speaks volumes about how you think of women...

I love women, in all sorts of ways. All my best friends and all of my
business partners have been women. All of my wives, daughters, and
sisters, come to think of it.

But if critters peck like hens and cluck like hens, they're probably
hens.

Anyway, 6' 160 pounds is hardly a "big old hen".

Stewer.

John

 

[Martin H. Eastburn]

I know for a fact the B36 and 52 were tube models.

Later when the 52 got cruse missiles - anything goes. It had to.
I trained the designers of the F-111 and prior to it, they
made B52's. I took them from R/C/Tubes to Solid state and digital.
Op amp as well.

Bikini wasn't the first bomb and Electronics was in tubes then.
Computers were tube as well.

Martin

Paul Keinanen wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:06:08 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
lionslair@consolidated.net> wrote:

Every one forgets the Cold war. B-36's and B-52's and such
were all vacuum tubes. EMP and radiation didn't wipe them out
as semiconductor was. Transistors were in the 40's post war at
Bell Labs. Nobel time.

The EMP became an issue in the 1960's after the nuclear test above the
Pacific, so it could not have influenced the much earlier B36/47/52
designs.

Apparently the semiconductor diode reliability was not very good since
some early computers had a lot of problems with semiconductor diode
reliability. For instance ENIAC had nearly 18000 tubes but only 7000
semiconductor diodes. If I had to design a computer with tubes and
diodes today, the amount of diodes would be at least ten times the
amount of tubes.

For microwave receiver applications, if you do not have a good low
noise RF amplifier, a point contact diode mixer is a reasonable
alternative (often driven by a LO frequency multiplying chain) to get
a reasonable system noise figure/temperature.

Paul

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:01:30 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:56:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:10:02 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

---
That's kind of ambiguous, but since I've proved you wrong before, I
guess you're talking about the killing thing, in which case why should I
worry???

BTW, how tall are you?

JF

Not tall, not short... close to 1.0 SPunits, or roughly 0.9 PHs. Just
about right for the business I'm in and the women I like.

But, given the choice, I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old
hens.

---
Hmm...

"Which is why you remind me so much of Miss Denton, my matronly 6th
grade teacher."

"I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old hens."

Interesting how you try to belittle your opponents by feminizing them,
and it sure speaks volumes about how you think of women...

I love women, in all sorts of ways.

---
So say tou, and yet you try to use the image of them as being inferior
to further your own ends?
---

All my best friends and all of my
business partners have been women. All of my wives, daughters, and
sisters, come to think of it.

---
Your father and mother too, no doubt.
Well, I guess then, you're just one of the girls.

San Francisco, is it?

What a surprise...
---

But if critters peck like hens and cluck like hens, they're probably
hens.

---
Or a farmer with a big knife.
---

Anyway, 6' 160 pounds is hardly a "big old hen".

Stewer.

---
Thinking of something to eat, are you???

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:43:28 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:01:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:56:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:10:02 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

---
That's kind of ambiguous, but since I've proved you wrong before, I
guess you're talking about the killing thing, in which case why should I
worry???

BTW, how tall are you?

JF

Not tall, not short... close to 1.0 SPunits, or roughly 0.9 PHs. Just
about right for the business I'm in and the women I like.

But, given the choice, I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old
hens.

---
Hmm...

"Which is why you remind me so much of Miss Denton, my matronly 6th
grade teacher."

"I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old hens."

Interesting how you try to belittle your opponents by feminizing them,
and it sure speaks volumes about how you think of women...

I love women, in all sorts of ways.

---
So say tou, and yet you try to use the image of them as being inferior
to further your own ends?

You're babbling again. I made no negative comments about women, and I
have no ends other than to share knowledge and amuse myself.

I do think that barnyard roosters and hens are both silly animals, but
that you and JT act more like hens.

---

All my best friends and all of my
business partners have been women. All of my wives, daughters, and
sisters, come to think of it.

---
Your father and mother too, no doubt.
Well, I guess then, you're just one of the girls.

Now who is debasing women?

San Francisco, is it?

What a surprise...
---

But if critters peck like hens and cluck like hens, they're probably
hens.

---
Or a farmer with a big knife.
---

Anyway, 6' 160 pounds is hardly a "big old hen".

Stewer.

---
Thinking of something to eat, are you???

No, I just had breakfast with my beautiful, smart, skinny wife. Now
I'm thinking about electronics [1]. You should try it some time, and
take your mind off gossiping and clucking and various fantasies about
other peoples' personal lives.

John

[1] I'm trying to design a 16-bit, 500 KHz ADC with a really good PGA
front-end, 15 volts of 120 dB CMRR, ranges from 20 mV to 12 volts, low
noise and drift. Nobody makes 16-bit SAR ADCs with PGAs, and no
commercial PGAs can do what I need. So it will have to be made from
parts... not too many parts, since I need 16 channels on a VME board.

Or maybe I'll just pick blackberries and make a batch of bread
pudding.

 

[ingvald44]

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

I know for a fact the B36 and 52 were tube models.

Later when the 52 got cruse missiles - anything goes. It had to.
I trained the designers of the F-111 and prior to it, they
made B52's. I took them from R/C/Tubes to Solid state and digital.
Op amp as well.

Bikini wasn't the first bomb and Electronics was in tubes then.
Computers were tube as well.

Until Starfish Prime July 62 EMP was not appreciated as being as
destructive as it is. It was at 248 miles up. Ground burst and
other atmospheric detonations do not create EMP.

Eric

 

[Martin H. Eastburn]

Paul -

I know what was on the B-36 and B-52 - Radar and radio.

Tube tube and tube. I trained the F-111 designers for the
first solid state plane. It had a lot of firsts - swing wing...
Fast and slow.

I used to have tens of thousands of tubes. Mil spec.
They would use them for 100 hours and replace them.

Bikini - used to live hundreds of miles from it -
wasn't the first at all - nor was those in Japan.

The bomb was tested in the states long before anywhere
else. Knowledge was gained on a number of fronts.

Martin

Paul Keinanen wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:06:08 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
lionslair@consolidated.net> wrote:

Every one forgets the Cold war. B-36's and B-52's and such
were all vacuum tubes. EMP and radiation didn't wipe them out
as semiconductor was. Transistors were in the 40's post war at
Bell Labs. Nobel time.

The EMP became an issue in the 1960's after the nuclear test above the
Pacific, so it could not have influenced the much earlier B36/47/52
designs.

Apparently the semiconductor diode reliability was not very good since
some early computers had a lot of problems with semiconductor diode
reliability. For instance ENIAC had nearly 18000 tubes but only 7000
semiconductor diodes. If I had to design a computer with tubes and
diodes today, the amount of diodes would be at least ten times the
amount of tubes.

For microwave receiver applications, if you do not have a good low
noise RF amplifier, a point contact diode mixer is a reasonable
alternative (often driven by a LO frequency multiplying chain) to get
a reasonable system noise figure/temperature.

Paul

 

[Martin H. Eastburn]

But theory and Science knows more than you. Much more
was known long before as the bomb was known before they
figured how to make one.

Martin

ingvald44 wrote:

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
I know for a fact the B36 and 52 were tube models.

Later when the 52 got cruse missiles - anything goes. It had to.
I trained the designers of the F-111 and prior to it, they
made B52's. I took them from R/C/Tubes to Solid state and digital.
Op amp as well.

Bikini wasn't the first bomb and Electronics was in tubes then.
Computers were tube as well.

Until Starfish Prime July 62 EMP was not appreciated as being as
destructive as it is. It was at 248 miles up. Ground burst and
other atmospheric detonations do not create EMP.

Eric

 

[ingvald44]

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

But theory and Science knows more than you. Much more
was known long before as the bomb was known before they
figured how to make one.

Martin

ingvald44 wrote:
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
I know for a fact the B36 and 52 were tube models.

Later when the 52 got cruse missiles - anything goes. It had to.
I trained the designers of the F-111 and prior to it, they
made B52's. I took them from R/C/Tubes to Solid state and digital.
Op amp as well.

Bikini wasn't the first bomb and Electronics was in tubes then.
Computers were tube as well.

Until Starfish Prime July 62 EMP was not appreciated as being as
destructive as it is. It was at 248 miles up. Ground burst and
other atmospheric detonations do not create EMP.

Eric
What?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields

BTW, how tall are you?

About 5'6". I met John at one of those trade shows in LA, and got about

a half-dozen of his refrigerator magnet logo thingies. Apparently I voided
the warranty when I stuck them to my file cabinet. ;-)

He's adorable, like a friendly leprechaun.

His face wouldn't frighten children the way yours and mine do. ;-D

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:29:43 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:43:28 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:01:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:56:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:10:02 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

What are you doing, working towards a degree in social work?

---
No, but I think it's kinda like Jim said in that we all have an
obligation to make tomorrow better than today, and you seem to think
that making that happen would involve killing off everyone who disagrees
with you and can post proof positive that you're wrong.

Relax: you're quite safe.

---
That's kind of ambiguous, but since I've proved you wrong before, I
guess you're talking about the killing thing, in which case why should I
worry???

BTW, how tall are you?

JF

Not tall, not short... close to 1.0 SPunits, or roughly 0.9 PHs. Just
about right for the business I'm in and the women I like.

But, given the choice, I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old
hens.

---
Hmm...

"Which is why you remind me so much of Miss Denton, my matronly 6th
grade teacher."

"I'd rather be a bantam rooster than two big old hens."

Interesting how you try to belittle your opponents by feminizing them,
and it sure speaks volumes about how you think of women...

I love women, in all sorts of ways.

---
So say tou, and yet you try to use the image of them as being inferior
to further your own ends?

You're babbling again. I made no negative comments about women, and I
have no ends other than to share knowledge and amuse myself.

I do think that barnyard roosters and hens are both silly animals, but
that you and JT act more like hens.


---

All my best friends and all of my
business partners have been women. All of my wives, daughters, and
sisters, come to think of it.

---
Your father and mother too, no doubt.
Well, I guess then, you're just one of the girls.

Now who is debasing women?


San Francisco, is it?

What a surprise...
---

But if critters peck like hens and cluck like hens, they're probably
hens.

---
Or a farmer with a big knife.
---

Anyway, 6' 160 pounds is hardly a "big old hen".

Stewer.

---
Thinking of something to eat, are you???

No, I just had breakfast with my beautiful, smart, skinny wife. Now
I'm thinking about electronics [1]. You should try it some time, and
take your mind off gossiping and clucking and various fantasies about
other peoples' personal lives.

---
PKB, methinks.

What you should try sometime is growing up and owning up to a mistake
like a man instead of always starting a childish row to divert attention
away from the fact that you made a mistake.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:26:25 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields

BTW, how tall are you?

About 5'6". I met John at one of those trade shows in LA, and got about
a half-dozen of his refrigerator magnet logo thingies. Apparently I voided
the warranty when I stuck them to my file cabinet. ;-)

He's adorable, like a friendly leprechaun.

His face wouldn't frighten children the way yours and mine do. ;-D

Hope This Helps!
Rich

---
Yeah, it does.

Thanks!

JF

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:13:32 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:26:25 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0500, John Fields

BTW, how tall are you?

About 5'6". I met John at one of those trade shows in LA, and got about
a half-dozen of his refrigerator magnet logo thingies. Apparently I voided
the warranty when I stuck them to my file cabinet. ;-)

He's adorable, like a friendly leprechaun.

His face wouldn't frighten children the way yours and mine do. ;-D

Hope This Helps!
Rich

---
Yeah, it does.

Thanks!

JF

Around Christmas time, in the grocery store, little kids point at me
and say, "Ho! Ho! Ho!" ;-)

And I've never seen a kid yet that I couldn't get to smile.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.