Survey: FPGA PCB layout

[krw]

In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...

Joel Koltner wrote:
"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling...

Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public
employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that
public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a
pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get
comparable quality out of their workers.


Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those
days are long gone.

I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is
pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined
contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been
lost and are portable.

One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their
employees to be agile over time. See this article:
http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up
with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build
them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in
the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on
average, would only be middle-aged today!?


A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least
that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-)

Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-)

Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work
year.

I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move?

It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the
government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so.


Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ...

Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of
service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way.

The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined
benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into
account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans
do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double
one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer
should pay that forever.

--
Keith

 

[Joerg]

krw wrote:

In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...
Joel Koltner wrote:
"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling...
Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public
employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that
public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a
pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get
comparable quality out of their workers.

Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those
days are long gone.

I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is
pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined
contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been
lost and are portable.

Sure, but 401(k) is generally funded by the employee. Occasionally the
company throws in a little extra but that is mostly a mere drop in the
bucket in contrast to the lavish pension plans that cover many state
workers.

One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their
employees to be agile over time. See this article:
http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up
with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build
them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in
the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on
average, would only be middle-aged today!?

A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least
that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-)

Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-)

Yes, definitely. OTOH completely quitting a career has brought many fine
engineers into the grave within less than a year. My father who worked
as a data processing engineer continued as a consultant and gradually
tapered it off. He said that there was a rash of unexpected deaths of
otherwise quite healthy colleagues right after retirement, and it was
among the group of engineers who shut their careers down more or less
overnight after the first retirement check arrived.

Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work
year.
I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move?

It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the
government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so.

Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ...

Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of
service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way.

The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined
benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into
account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans
do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double
one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer
should pay that forever.

But it's happening. And we are all paying for that.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[krw]

In article <ovwOj.2084$pS4.1733@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...

krw wrote:
In article <PLsOj.7522$GE1.332@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...
Joel Koltner wrote:
"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:tq7Oj.1556$FF6.588@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
All I know from here (CA) is that their benefits are mind-boggling...
Well, it's entirely reasonable to have retirement benefits for public
employees be comparable to what private companies offer... I just hope that
public employee salaries will then become comparable as well (which implies a
pay raise), since otherwise I don't see how the gov't. expects they'll get
comparable quality out of their workers.

Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those
days are long gone.

I don't know about "gone". The age of the "defined benefit" is
pretty much gone in private industry but several still have "defined
contribution" plans. Now, 401Ks make up for a lot of what's been
lost and are portable.


Sure, but 401(k) is generally funded by the employee. Occasionally the
company throws in a little extra but that is mostly a mere drop in the
bucket in contrast to the lavish pension plans that cover many state
workers.

It's quite normal for a company to add significantly to the 401K,
sometimes with strings attached, sometimes without. My PPOE had a
fairly decent 401K (in addition to pension plans for everyone
joining before '06, or so). They matched 1:1 up to 6% of salary
(plus bonusus) and had no management fees for the normal funds. I
understand it's gotten better since they've dropped the pension
plans for the newbs.

One problem with the government seems to be that they don't expect their
employees to be agile over time. See this article:
http://www.gcn.com/print/24_30/37174-1.html -- Someone the government ends up
with a bunch of 70 year old programmers and therefore has to hire IBM to build
them the modernized e-filing systems? Surely there must be some new hires in
the past, say, 40 years who could have been working on this and hence, on
average, would only be middle-aged today!?

A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old. At least
that's my impression when I see all the "modern" bloatware ;-)

Maybe. There are better things to do at 70, though. ;-)


Yes, definitely. OTOH completely quitting a career has brought many fine
engineers into the grave within less than a year. My father who worked
as a data processing engineer continued as a consultant and gradually
tapered it off. He said that there was a rash of unexpected deaths of
otherwise quite healthy colleagues right after retirement, and it was
among the group of engineers who shut their careers down more or less
overnight after the first retirement check arrived.

I got quite bored, once I wasn't allowed to make messes at home
anymore. Good thing that only lasted a week or two. ;-)

Oh, and then lots of jobs have the retirement benefit tied to the last work
year.
I expect that was implemented to help people who were *forced* to move?

It seems like it needs reworking to differentiate between cases where the
government wants to move you vs. you just voluntarily wanting to do so.

Or you just have to have the right connections to make that happen ...

Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of
service? IMHO that's wrong. For everyone else it sure doesn't work that way.

The last years' is indicative of the final salary. Most "defined
benefit" plans do take the last year, or last couple of years into
account. What most private pensions *don't* do, that public plans
do is include overtime in the formula. It's not hard to double
one's income for a couple of years. There is no way the tax payer
should pay that forever.


But it's happening. And we are all paying for that.

Precisely. It's not going to get better. The government requires
others to have fully funded retirement plans, but would have none of
it for themselves.

--
Keith

 

[Joerg]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well?

No. Those (and simple logic) have very few pins.

Ok, then you'd have to modify your statement "always"

Am I the nitpicker or what?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.

I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).


For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

John

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And
I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

That will only happen if Bloggs designs it.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:21 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And
I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...

The biggest ones we use are Sparten 3's with 456 balls on 1 mm
centers. We haven't had any routing problems so far, doing pretty
complex stuff at 128 MHz clock rates. Our in-house BGA soldering
yield, to date, is exactly 100%. BGAs seem to be a lot easier to
solder reliably than fine-pitch leaded parts. Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


That will only happen if Bloggs designs it.

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


That will only happen if Bloggs designs it.

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.

He stated that he does absolutely nothing. It might be the only time
he has ever told the truth.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[krw]

In article <TlOOj.2407$I55.1437@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And

I had a *lot* of routing problems with the SpartanXL series. I had
lotsa logic left but if it would route it would take days. I didn't
have any problems, at the time, with Virtex or Vertex-E. Now the
Virtex-2s and 4s route in a small number of minutes with no errors.

I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...

I don't deal with them either. That's the layouter's job. ;-)
Actually, right now I just work on what goes into them (though I had
to completely redesign a badly screwed up board in December, which
we *still* don't have back).

--
Keith

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:21 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]
A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And
I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...

The biggest ones we use are Sparten 3's with 456 balls on 1 mm
centers. We haven't had any routing problems so far, doing pretty
complex stuff at 128 MHz clock rates. Our in-house BGA soldering
yield, to date, is exactly 100%. BGAs seem to be a lot easier to
solder reliably than fine-pitch leaded parts. Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.

The latter is a concern in my field (medical). We need to be able to
inspect. The other concern is involuntary board flexing. Most of my
designs have to sustain under tortures such as freighter pilots
ploughing through a storm in the Carribean in airplanes as old as a DC-3
or a trucker in Africa who is lead-footing it over a few hundred miles
of washboard road.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[krw]

In article <6PQOj.21063$%41.8783@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:21 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]
A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And
I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...

The biggest ones we use are Sparten 3's with 456 balls on 1 mm
centers. We haven't had any routing problems so far, doing pretty
complex stuff at 128 MHz clock rates. Our in-house BGA soldering
yield, to date, is exactly 100%. BGAs seem to be a lot easier to
solder reliably than fine-pitch leaded parts. Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.


The latter is a concern in my field (medical). We need to be able to
inspect. The other concern is involuntary board flexing. Most of my
designs have to sustain under tortures such as freighter pilots
ploughing through a storm in the Carribean in airplanes as old as a DC-3
or a trucker in Africa who is lead-footing it over a few hundred miles
of washboard road.

X-Rays?

--
Keith

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:10:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


That will only happen if Bloggs designs it.

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.

He stated that he does absolutely nothing. It might be the only time
he has ever told the truth.

Sounds boring. No wonder he's usually bummed.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:10:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


That will only happen if Bloggs designs it.

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.



He stated that he does absolutely nothing. It might be the only time
he has ever told the truth.

Sounds boring. No wonder he's usually bummed.

No reason to live if you have nothing to do.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[Joerg]

krw wrote:

In article <6PQOj.21063$%41.8783@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:21 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]
A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And
I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...
The biggest ones we use are Sparten 3's with 456 balls on 1 mm
centers. We haven't had any routing problems so far, doing pretty
complex stuff at 128 MHz clock rates. Our in-house BGA soldering
yield, to date, is exactly 100%. BGAs seem to be a lot easier to
solder reliably than fine-pitch leaded parts. Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.

The latter is a concern in my field (medical). We need to be able to
inspect. The other concern is involuntary board flexing. Most of my
designs have to sustain under tortures such as freighter pilots
ploughing through a storm in the Carribean in airplanes as old as a DC-3
or a trucker in Africa who is lead-footing it over a few hundred miles
of washboard road.

X-Rays?

They tend not to penetrate through metal so well and are frowned upon at
the work place.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Chuck Harris]

rickman wrote:

your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

I used to use a newsreader with the servers at RCN. But I can't get
the reader to find the servers anymore. Actually, it seems to be an
account validation thing and dealing with RCN support is such a pain
that I am willing to put up with the SPAM until it becomes
unbearable. When that happens I will do without newsgroups. A lot of
the important stuff is handled in highly targeted forums anyway. I
mainly come here to see what others are doing and having problems with
and to ask an occasional question. I seem to recall that a question I
asked a month or so ago resulted in a lot of crap being thrown
around. That is almost as bad as the SPAM and no ISP can filter it!

If you have an account with RCN, the news servers name is

news.rcn.com

It is connected to port 119 (as are all news servers).

The authentication information is:

your email account name (eg. blahdeblah@rcn.com),
and your password is the same as the password for your email program.

It really is quite simple. RCN does have a few news outages from time
to time, but generally they are very reliable.

-Chuck

 

[rickman]

On Apr 21, 3:24 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:10:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

That will only happen if Bloggs designs it.

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.

He stated that he does absolutely nothing. It might be the only time
he has ever told the truth.

Sounds boring. No wonder he's usually bummed.

No reason to live if you have nothing to do.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

I used to use a newsreader with the servers at RCN. But I can't get
the reader to find the servers anymore. Actually, it seems to be an
account validation thing and dealing with RCN support is such a pain
that I am willing to put up with the SPAM until it becomes
unbearable. When that happens I will do without newsgroups. A lot of
the important stuff is handled in highly targeted forums anyway. I
mainly come here to see what others are doing and having problems with
and to ask an occasional question. I seem to recall that a question I
asked a month or so ago resulted in a lot of crap being thrown
around. That is almost as bad as the SPAM and no ISP can filter it!

 

[rickman]

On Apr 21, 3:24 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

No reason to live if you have nothing to do.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

What is the point of including a link to the "improve usenet" page? I
don't see any useful information there. The page complains about a
few things and offers no advice on what to do about any of it...
counter to its stated purpose of being "an attempt to make Usenet
participation a better experience for those who are clued as to what
the Usenet medium is and how to use it". Instead of offering anything
constructive, they even insult people that they should be trying to
reach and convince... "most of the people who post to Usenet via the
clunky Google Groups web interface are lusers or lamers".

Do you think that this page has had any sort of positive influence on
usenet? Does your posting the link help in any way?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

rickman wrote:

On Apr 21, 3:24 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

No reason to live if you have nothing to do.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

What is the point of including a link to the "improve usenet" page? I
don't see any useful information there. The page complains about a
few things and offers no advice on what to do about any of it...
counter to its stated purpose of being "an attempt to make Usenet
participation a better experience for those who are clued as to what
the Usenet medium is and how to use it". Instead of offering anything
constructive, they even insult people that they should be trying to
reach and convince... "most of the people who post to Usenet via the
clunky Google Groups web interface are lusers or lamers".

Do you think that this page has had any sort of positive influence on
usenet? Does your posting the link help in any way?

Yes. It has a link to the current version of News Proxy, and a lot
of people have installed it because of that link. More and more are
completely filtering out Google Groups in protest of the spam they dump
on Usenet. I will probably stop tagging Google Groups messages and drop
them, starting on May first.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm