M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Sloman couldn\'t hold his own, in a debate with Joe Biden.
Sloman couldn\'t hold his own, in a debate with Joe Biden.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 11:27:11 AM UTC+10, terrell....@gmail.com wrote:
Probably not. He\'s been a politician for most of his life. My talents are in other areas.
One of them does happen to be in electronic design, and I\'ve got my name on patents that demonstrate the point. Michael Terrell doesn\'t appreciate this kind of evidence and it doesn\'t even register with Flyguy. I\'ve also published papers in peer-reviewed journals and they have been cited from time to time. This doesn\'t make me particularly clever, but puts me ahead of quite a few of the people who post here. You have to understand what scientific papers are about to see the significance, which means that Flyguy doesn\'t see the point, and Michel Terrell couldn\'t care less.
When I have pointed Flyguy at a recent - and pretty trivial - piece of electronic work embodied as the text of a .asc file, he declared that the tread involved was a \"joke question\". Nothing he has posted suggests that he has turned the text posted back into an .asc file and looked at it with LTSpice.
He\'s a troll.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
I assume you regard yourself as \"clever\" - what are YOU doing that is electronically related (you and Larkin sure were implying that I wasn\'t)? And be specific.
Sloman couldn\'t hold his own, in a debate with Joe Biden.
Probably not. He\'s been a politician for most of his life. My talents are in other areas.
One of them does happen to be in electronic design, and I\'ve got my name on patents that demonstrate the point. Michael Terrell doesn\'t appreciate this kind of evidence and it doesn\'t even register with Flyguy. I\'ve also published papers in peer-reviewed journals and they have been cited from time to time. This doesn\'t make me particularly clever, but puts me ahead of quite a few of the people who post here. You have to understand what scientific papers are about to see the significance, which means that Flyguy doesn\'t see the point, and Michel Terrell couldn\'t care less.
When I have pointed Flyguy at a recent - and pretty trivial - piece of electronic work embodied as the text of a .asc file, he declared that the tread involved was a \"joke question\". Nothing he has posted suggests that he has turned the text posted back into an .asc file and looked at it with LTSpice.
He\'s a troll.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 3:45:53 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
Which comment would that be?
> You are just a TROLL that criticizes everybody else here.
I certainly don\'t criticise everybody. Quite a few people post very sensible comments- whit3rd comes to mind - and I don\'t feel any need to criticise them.
Other\'s - like you - post total nonsense, and don\'t get so much criticised as castigated. \"Criticism\" does imply that person being criticised is expected to understand the critical remarks and can be expected to react sensibly to them.
You clearly don\'t understand that you could ever have got anything wrong. John Larkin does seem to admit the theoretical possibility, but is much too sensitive to damage to his self-image to read though anything that might suggest it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 8:23:15 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:49:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 8:51:43 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 1:00:15 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:50:54 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:40:45 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 8:03:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 8:16:02 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:40:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 3:56:47 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
California has been shutting down fossil fuel and nuclear power plants for years, making up for the difference by purchasing power from neighboring states. But the current heatwave in the West has dried up (pardon the pun) this Band-Aid solution, and the people are suffering, literally:
https://news.trust.org/item/20200906022155-95z56
And, WAIT, there\'s MORE! California has decreed that they will be SIXTY PERCENT renewable in TEN YEARS!! So, it isn\'t going to get better, it\'s going to get WORSE!!!
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-08-17/public-utilities-commission-to-blame-for-blackouts-caiso-says
California is becoming uninhabitable,
It would be fine if 75% of the people would leave.
And John Larkin would improve the place a lot if he were one of them.
It\'s nice now. Most people are staying home.
there\'s nothing that can be done about it, people are in denial:
https://youtu.be/64Yw9OBsV7U?t=198
Strong winds expected in California as record heat fuels wildfires. \"Not available in your country\".
Insurance? What\'s that? Their phony insurance industry is hopelessly over extended, no way in hell can they indemnify the massive losses they\'re seeing. And the state is broke so no coming to the rescue from them. The state has been mismanaged by idiots for the past 100 years so what do you expect. They not only allow but encourage unbridled growth without a whit of planning about things being anything less than prosperity. They\'re complete jackasses.
Unprecedented events do bankrupt insurance companies. If the probability of loss suddenly gets a lot higher, they don\'t have the money to pay off their obligations. Climate change has been going on for a while, but the fossil fuel extraction industry has been spending a lot of money persuading gullible people - like John Larkin, and apparently insurance companies - they they don\'t need to worry about it.
Our idiot politicians encourage high-density businesses and do all
they can to attract millions of \"undocumented workers\" and \"homeless
substance abusers\" and even \"artists\".
Freakonomics pointed out - years ago - that knowledge-intensive business do well in areas of high population density because informal contacts transfer a lot of useful information that people didn\'t expect that they were going to need. Route 128 was the first example, bu there have been plenty since then.
Then they need more tax money for affordable housing and bike lanes
and shelters and hotels and artist lofts.
If you want lots of clever people, you need to keep them amused when they aren\'t being clever. You may not be clever enough to have noticed.
I assume you regard yourself as \"clever\" - what are YOU doing that is electronically related (you and Larkin sure were implying that I wasn\'t)? And be specific.
I\'m certainly cleverer than you are - but who isn\'t?
For electronics - check out the thread \"Very high speed oneshot\". I posted an LTspice .asc file there on Sep 8, 2020, which is essentially a rework of my 1979 paper that I\'d mentioned earlier in the thread, but using BFR92 transistors (which you can buy today, unlike the parts I used in 1979) configured as an emitter coupled one-shot, which is probably the arrangement that I should have used in 1979. Nobody has reacted to it, which isn\'t all that surprising - it\'s a specific solution to a problem that only seems to come up when you are looking at fast fluorescence signals, which is a minority interest.
Do tell us what you think of it - if you\'ve got LTSpice running on any computer you have access to (which seems unlikely).
NEWS FLASH: that ISN\'T a project!
What isn\'t a \"project\"? Martin Gira - who started the thread - clearly has a project. I\'ve just posted a potentially helpful schematic, which you clearly can\'t read because you haven\'t got access to LTSpice - which you can download free.
https://www.analog.com/en/design-center/design-tools-and-calculators/ltspice-simulator.html
Even John Larkin knows about LTSpice - though he does seem to have given up posting the text content of .asc files, which has been known to exposes some of his sloppy habits.
A post to a simple question IS NOT a \"project,\" which you TRIED to ridicule me over.
There\'s nothing particularly simple about the question. When it was posed to me in 1978 I had to ask somebody else - a guy called Ian Kimber - for the advice which lead me to put together a simple (but rather quick) circuit. I didn\'t think that there was enough in it to make it publishable but the guy whose problem it solved thought otherwise, and we did end up publishing it.
If the question was all that simple, Martin Gira wouldn\'t have needed to post a query here to get an answer.
I still haven\'t worked out why you are obsessing about some kind of project. Presumably you haven\'t been able to work out how to turn the text from the .asc file into a circuit diagram, and are doing the best you can with what you have got - which isn\'t much.
You AREN\'T working on ANY projects, just posting random BULLSHIT on SED. Go back to the drawing board and come up with a REAL project.
One that you could understand? Why would I waste my time on anything that trivial?
I have got project - which I haven\'t done anything about for a couple of years - to make a very stable low distortion sine wave source that can be tweaked to the exact frequency and amplitude desired (within a fairly narrow range of amplitude and frequencies, though you can choose where they are over a rather wider range). I\'ve got simulations that seem for work for a 17kHz oscillator, but since I don\'t know anybody who needs one, I can\'t be bothered spending the time to turn the circuit diagram into a printed circuit layout and then spending the money to get the board made and populated. I\'ve actually got most of the more expensive parts I\'d need to populate a board or two.
John Larkin is rude about this from time to time. None of his customers has asked him for anything like it - probably because they can\'t imagine that it could be done - so he can\'t see the point.
A \"project\" is YOUR independent work, not some comment on SOMEBODY ELSE\'S work.
Which comment would that be?
> You are just a TROLL that criticizes everybody else here.
I certainly don\'t criticise everybody. Quite a few people post very sensible comments- whit3rd comes to mind - and I don\'t feel any need to criticise them.
Other\'s - like you - post total nonsense, and don\'t get so much criticised as castigated. \"Criticism\" does imply that person being criticised is expected to understand the critical remarks and can be expected to react sensibly to them.
You clearly don\'t understand that you could ever have got anything wrong. John Larkin does seem to admit the theoretical possibility, but is much too sensitive to damage to his self-image to read though anything that might suggest it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney