Reply by Bill Sloman November 8, 20122012-11-08
On Nov 7, 12:42=A0pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 02:30:01 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >John Larkin a crit : > >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:29:35 -0800 (PST),BillSloman > >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > > >>> On Nov 7, 8:23 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote=
:
> >>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:49:14 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: > > >>>>> John Larkin a crit : > >>>>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:57:27 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: > >>>>>>> Fred Abse a crit : > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:50:54 -0500, Tim Williams wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The important thing about transmission line transformers is to =
forget
> >>>>>>>>> about using them as transformers. =A0Use them as transmission l=
ines!
> >>>>>>>> Anybody know how to accurately model a transmission line transfo=
rmer in
> >>>>>>>> Spice, taking into account core properties? > >>>>>>> For a simple one, just as it is: > >>>>>>> use a TLine/RLC tline and between the 2 ""shield/ref plane" conne=
ctions
> >>>>>>> you just tie the magnetizing inductance, with maybe your core mod=
el
> >>>>>>> (losses, non linearities, hysteresis,...) > >>>>>> What's interesting about the LT Spice transmission lines is that t=
hey
> >>>>>> have no common-mode DC continuity between ends. They act as if the=
re
> >>>>>> is an ideal 1:1 isolation transformer in the circuit. > >>>>>> That sort of makes sense, since, say, the outer conductor of a coa=
x
> >>>>>> has its own complex impedance against the universe, and Spice elec=
ts
> >>>>>> to not model that. Still, it can throw you if you don't know about=
it,
> >>>>>> and make baluns seem to work much better than they will in real li=
fe.
> >>>>> If you want to accurately model a coax cable you need two TLines. O=
ne
> >>>>> modeling the center/shield transmission line, and a second one to m=
odel
> >>>>> the shield WRT to "space". > >>>>>> So a txline can make a handy 1:1 ideal transformer. Unlike a 1:1 V=
CVS,
> >>>>>> it's bidirectional and the output loads the input. > >>>>> The "standard" perfect transformer is composed of a vcvs to transpo=
rt
> >>>>> voltage to the secondary and a CCCS to reflect the secondary curren=
t
> >>>>> back to the primary, and a 0 voltage source to probe it. > >>>>> It is much less computationally demanding than the Tline which has =
to
> >>>>> maintain history. > >>>> I guess there's nothing stopping one from making a couple of gigahen=
ry
> >>>> inductors coupled with K=3D1. > >>> That's the joy of simulation. You can test ideas that would cost a > >>> mint in superconducting wire and liquid helium if you wanted to try > >>> them out on the bench. > > >>> The are applications where that kind of expenditure on real parts > >>> might be justifiable. > > >> It's cool to stick a micro-ohm resistor somewhere in a circuit to > >> sample current, and follow that with a 1e6 gain amp with infinite > >> CMRR. > > >> I like to build analog error computers into my circuits too, so I can > >> graph error or goodness on the same plot as actual signals. > > >> I do tend to worry about power dissipation and real-world stuff in > >> sims, where it just doesn't matter. A couple of 1 ohm resistors make a > >> good divider, but I worry about the current, so I use 1Ks. > > >On complex designs (well simulations) it's better to worry about matrix > >conditioning and in this regards a 0V voltage source and a CCVS in lieu > >of your 1 ohm and 1E6 gain VCVS is much better. > >I have some applications where convergence is sometimes hard to obtain > >and I sure wouldn't want to make the situation worse than it needs to be=
.
> > Spice is all double floats, no? 1e6 isn't a very big number. A current > sampler is open-loop so won't have convergence problems. > > LT Spice sometimes does weird things with time steps, especially if a > circuit has radically different time constants here and there, or > mysterious stuff inside a part model. Real transistors seem to stress > it, too. Somebody should write a book or article about all that.
It's been done. I think I referenced a text on the subject in my Ph.D. thesis back in 1969. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Bill Sloman November 8, 20122012-11-08
On Nov 7, 11:14=A0am, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote: > > On Nov 7, 8:23 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > >>On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:49:14 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: > > >>>John Larkin a crit : > > >>>>On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:57:27 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: > > >>>>>Fred Abse a crit : > > >>>>>>On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:50:54 -0500, Tim Williams wrote: > > >>>>>>>The important thing about transmission line transformers is to for=
get
> >>>>>>>about using them as transformers. =A0Use them as transmission line=
s!
> > >>>>>>Anybody know how to accurately model a transmission line transforme=
r in
> >>>>>>Spice, taking into account core properties? > > >>>>>For a simple one, just as it is: > >>>>>use a TLine/RLC tline and between the 2 ""shield/ref plane" connecti=
ons
> >>>>>you just tie the magnetizing inductance, with maybe your core model > >>>>>(losses, non linearities, hysteresis,...) > > >>>>What's interesting about the LT Spice transmission lines is that they > >>>>have no common-mode DC continuity between ends. They act as if there > >>>>is an ideal 1:1 isolation transformer in the circuit. > > >>>>That sort of makes sense, since, say, the outer conductor of a coax > >>>>has its own complex impedance against the universe, and Spice elects > >>>>to not model that. Still, it can throw you if you don't know about it=
,
> >>>>and make baluns seem to work much better than they will in real life. > > >>>If you want to accurately model a coax cable you need two TLines. One > >>>modeling the center/shield transmission line, and a second one to mode=
l
> >>>the shield WRT to "space". > > >>>>So a txline can make a handy 1:1 ideal transformer. Unlike a 1:1 VCVS=
,
> >>>>it's bidirectional and the output loads the input. > > >>>The "standard" perfect transformer is composed of a vcvs to transport > >>>voltage to the secondary and a CCCS to reflect the secondary current > >>>back to the primary, and a 0 voltage source to probe it. > >>>It is much less computationally demanding than the Tline which has to > >>>maintain history. > > >>I guess there's nothing stopping one from making a couple of gigahenry > >>inductors coupled with K=3D1. > > > That's the joy of simulation. You can test ideas that would cost a > > mint in superconducting wire and liquid helium if you wanted to try > > them out on the bench. > > > The are applications where that kind of expenditure on real parts > > might be justifiable. > > I get the idea that a simulator is the only source for any inclinations > you come up with..
Congratulations on coming up with an idea. You don't do it often. For extra credit come up with an idea that makes some kind of sense - you haven't yet, but while there's life there's hope. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by John Larkin November 7, 20122012-11-07
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:24:28 -0600, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

>"John Larkin" <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message >news:6tej98pr9faetrfr04ju36v3n8jpirtgj7@4ax.com... >> Spice is all double floats, no? 1e6 isn't a very big number. A current >> sampler is open-loop so won't have convergence problems. > >What the numbers are doesn't matter, the solver uses iterative algorithms >that save inverting the whole N x N matrix. Matrix operations are O(N^3), >so a modest circuit with 100 nodes takes about 10^6 more operations than a >basic battery and lightbulb circuit. And that's if it guessed the correct >timestep the first time, which very rarely occurs. SPICE throws away a >*lot* of computation. > >Obviously, you've never simulated anything of significance,
Only a couple of hundred million dollars worth. My first simulation, when I was about 20, was of a 32,000 horsepower steamship propulsion system, all the way from the my control system to the hull moving through the water. I didn't use Spice. It worked just fine. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Reply by Tim Williams November 6, 20122012-11-06
"John Larkin" <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message 
news:6tej98pr9faetrfr04ju36v3n8jpirtgj7@4ax.com...
> Spice is all double floats, no? 1e6 isn't a very big number. A current > sampler is open-loop so won't have convergence problems.
What the numbers are doesn't matter, the solver uses iterative algorithms that save inverting the whole N x N matrix. Matrix operations are O(N^3), so a modest circuit with 100 nodes takes about 10^6 more operations than a basic battery and lightbulb circuit. And that's if it guessed the correct timestep the first time, which very rarely occurs. SPICE throws away a *lot* of computation. Obviously, you've never simulated anything of significance, or you'd know this. The degree of these approximations is controlled by the simulation parameters, which experienced users understand must be optimized for a given model to avoid slowing to a crawl (with default settings, LTSpice likes to wander off into the picoseconds, eating glue) or generating errors (most often "timestep too small"). Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Reply by John Larkin November 6, 20122012-11-06
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:31:14 -0500, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:29:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >> >>>>I guess there's nothing stopping one from making a couple of gigahenry >>>>inductors coupled with K=1. >>> >>>That's the joy of simulation. You can test ideas that would cost a >>>mint in superconducting wire and liquid helium if you wanted to try >>>them out on the bench. >>> >>>The are applications where that kind of expenditure on real parts >>>might be justifiable. >> >> >> It's cool to stick a micro-ohm resistor somewhere in a circuit to >> sample current, and follow that with a 1e6 gain amp with infinite >> CMRR. >> > Micro ohms?, we use micro ohms for measuring current but they are kind >of large in mass. Or are we not talking about copper? > >Jamie
Spice makes great micro-ohm resistors somehow! We do make our own current shunts, punched or photoetched from rolled manganin, but generally in the milli-ohms. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
Reply by John Larkin November 6, 20122012-11-06
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 02:30:01 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:

>John Larkin a &#2013265929;crit : >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:29:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >> >>> On Nov 7, 8:23 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:49:14 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> John Larkin a crit : >>>>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:57:27 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: >>>>>>> Fred Abse a crit : >>>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:50:54 -0500, Tim Williams wrote: >>>>>>>>> The important thing about transmission line transformers is to forget >>>>>>>>> about using them as transformers. Use them as transmission lines! >>>>>>>> Anybody know how to accurately model a transmission line transformer in >>>>>>>> Spice, taking into account core properties? >>>>>>> For a simple one, just as it is: >>>>>>> use a TLine/RLC tline and between the 2 ""shield/ref plane" connections >>>>>>> you just tie the magnetizing inductance, with maybe your core model >>>>>>> (losses, non linearities, hysteresis,...) >>>>>> What's interesting about the LT Spice transmission lines is that they >>>>>> have no common-mode DC continuity between ends. They act as if there >>>>>> is an ideal 1:1 isolation transformer in the circuit. >>>>>> That sort of makes sense, since, say, the outer conductor of a coax >>>>>> has its own complex impedance against the universe, and Spice elects >>>>>> to not model that. Still, it can throw you if you don't know about it, >>>>>> and make baluns seem to work much better than they will in real life. >>>>> If you want to accurately model a coax cable you need two TLines. One >>>>> modeling the center/shield transmission line, and a second one to model >>>>> the shield WRT to "space". >>>>>> So a txline can make a handy 1:1 ideal transformer. Unlike a 1:1 VCVS, >>>>>> it's bidirectional and the output loads the input. >>>>> The "standard" perfect transformer is composed of a vcvs to transport >>>>> voltage to the secondary and a CCCS to reflect the secondary current >>>>> back to the primary, and a 0 voltage source to probe it. >>>>> It is much less computationally demanding than the Tline which has to >>>>> maintain history. >>>> I guess there's nothing stopping one from making a couple of gigahenry >>>> inductors coupled with K=1. >>> That's the joy of simulation. You can test ideas that would cost a >>> mint in superconducting wire and liquid helium if you wanted to try >>> them out on the bench. >>> >>> The are applications where that kind of expenditure on real parts >>> might be justifiable. >> >> It's cool to stick a micro-ohm resistor somewhere in a circuit to >> sample current, and follow that with a 1e6 gain amp with infinite >> CMRR. >> >> I like to build analog error computers into my circuits too, so I can >> graph error or goodness on the same plot as actual signals. >> >> I do tend to worry about power dissipation and real-world stuff in >> sims, where it just doesn't matter. A couple of 1 ohm resistors make a >> good divider, but I worry about the current, so I use 1Ks. >> >> > >On complex designs (well simulations) it's better to worry about matrix >conditioning and in this regards a 0V voltage source and a CCVS in lieu >of your 1&#2013266101;ohm and 1E6 gain VCVS is much better. >I have some applications where convergence is sometimes hard to obtain >and I sure wouldn't want to make the situation worse than it needs to be.
Spice is all double floats, no? 1e6 isn't a very big number. A current sampler is open-loop so won't have convergence problems. LT Spice sometimes does weird things with time steps, especially if a circuit has radically different time constants here and there, or mysterious stuff inside a part model. Real transistors seem to stress it, too. Somebody should write a book or article about all that. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
Reply by Jamie November 6, 20122012-11-06
John Larkin wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:29:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > >>>I guess there's nothing stopping one from making a couple of gigahenry >>>inductors coupled with K=1. >> >>That's the joy of simulation. You can test ideas that would cost a >>mint in superconducting wire and liquid helium if you wanted to try >>them out on the bench. >> >>The are applications where that kind of expenditure on real parts >>might be justifiable. > > > It's cool to stick a micro-ohm resistor somewhere in a circuit to > sample current, and follow that with a 1e6 gain amp with infinite > CMRR. >
Micro ohms?, we use micro ohms for measuring current but they are kind of large in mass. Or are we not talking about copper? Jamie
Reply by Fred Bartoli November 6, 20122012-11-06
John Larkin a &#2013265929;crit :
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:29:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 8:23 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:49:14 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> John Larkin a crit : >>>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:57:27 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: >>>>>> Fred Abse a crit : >>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:50:54 -0500, Tim Williams wrote: >>>>>>>> The important thing about transmission line transformers is to forget >>>>>>>> about using them as transformers. Use them as transmission lines! >>>>>>> Anybody know how to accurately model a transmission line transformer in >>>>>>> Spice, taking into account core properties? >>>>>> For a simple one, just as it is: >>>>>> use a TLine/RLC tline and between the 2 ""shield/ref plane" connections >>>>>> you just tie the magnetizing inductance, with maybe your core model >>>>>> (losses, non linearities, hysteresis,...) >>>>> What's interesting about the LT Spice transmission lines is that they >>>>> have no common-mode DC continuity between ends. They act as if there >>>>> is an ideal 1:1 isolation transformer in the circuit. >>>>> That sort of makes sense, since, say, the outer conductor of a coax >>>>> has its own complex impedance against the universe, and Spice elects >>>>> to not model that. Still, it can throw you if you don't know about it, >>>>> and make baluns seem to work much better than they will in real life. >>>> If you want to accurately model a coax cable you need two TLines. One >>>> modeling the center/shield transmission line, and a second one to model >>>> the shield WRT to "space". >>>>> So a txline can make a handy 1:1 ideal transformer. Unlike a 1:1 VCVS, >>>>> it's bidirectional and the output loads the input. >>>> The "standard" perfect transformer is composed of a vcvs to transport >>>> voltage to the secondary and a CCCS to reflect the secondary current >>>> back to the primary, and a 0 voltage source to probe it. >>>> It is much less computationally demanding than the Tline which has to >>>> maintain history. >>> I guess there's nothing stopping one from making a couple of gigahenry >>> inductors coupled with K=1. >> That's the joy of simulation. You can test ideas that would cost a >> mint in superconducting wire and liquid helium if you wanted to try >> them out on the bench. >> >> The are applications where that kind of expenditure on real parts >> might be justifiable. > > It's cool to stick a micro-ohm resistor somewhere in a circuit to > sample current, and follow that with a 1e6 gain amp with infinite > CMRR. > > I like to build analog error computers into my circuits too, so I can > graph error or goodness on the same plot as actual signals. > > I do tend to worry about power dissipation and real-world stuff in > sims, where it just doesn't matter. A couple of 1 ohm resistors make a > good divider, but I worry about the current, so I use 1Ks. > >
On complex designs (well simulations) it's better to worry about matrix conditioning and in this regards a 0V voltage source and a CCVS in lieu of your 1&#2013266101;ohm and 1E6 gain VCVS is much better. I have some applications where convergence is sometimes hard to obtain and I sure wouldn't want to make the situation worse than it needs to be. -- Thanks, Fred.
Reply by John Larkin November 6, 20122012-11-06
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:29:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 8:23&#2013266080;am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:49:14 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >John Larkin a crit : >> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:57:27 +0100, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote: >> >> >>> Fred Abse a crit : >> >>>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:50:54 -0500, Tim Williams wrote: >> >> >>>>> The important thing about transmission line transformers is to forget >> >>>>> about using them as transformers. &#2013266080;Use them as transmission lines! >> >>>> Anybody know how to accurately model a transmission line transformer in >> >>>> Spice, taking into account core properties? >> >> >>> For a simple one, just as it is: >> >>> use a TLine/RLC tline and between the 2 ""shield/ref plane" connections >> >>> you just tie the magnetizing inductance, with maybe your core model >> >>> (losses, non linearities, hysteresis,...) >> >> >> What's interesting about the LT Spice transmission lines is that they >> >> have no common-mode DC continuity between ends. They act as if there >> >> is an ideal 1:1 isolation transformer in the circuit. >> >> >> That sort of makes sense, since, say, the outer conductor of a coax >> >> has its own complex impedance against the universe, and Spice elects >> >> to not model that. Still, it can throw you if you don't know about it, >> >> and make baluns seem to work much better than they will in real life. >> >> >If you want to accurately model a coax cable you need two TLines. One >> >modeling the center/shield transmission line, and a second one to model >> >the shield WRT to "space". >> >> >> So a txline can make a handy 1:1 ideal transformer. Unlike a 1:1 VCVS, >> >> it's bidirectional and the output loads the input. >> >> >The "standard" perfect transformer is composed of a vcvs to transport >> >voltage to the secondary and a CCCS to reflect the secondary current >> >back to the primary, and a 0 voltage source to probe it. >> >It is much less computationally demanding than the Tline which has to >> >maintain history. >> >> I guess there's nothing stopping one from making a couple of gigahenry >> inductors coupled with K=1. > >That's the joy of simulation. You can test ideas that would cost a >mint in superconducting wire and liquid helium if you wanted to try >them out on the bench. > >The are applications where that kind of expenditure on real parts >might be justifiable.
It's cool to stick a micro-ohm resistor somewhere in a circuit to sample current, and follow that with a 1e6 gain amp with infinite CMRR. I like to build analog error computers into my circuits too, so I can graph error or goodness on the same plot as actual signals. I do tend to worry about power dissipation and real-world stuff in sims, where it just doesn't matter. A couple of 1 ohm resistors make a good divider, but I worry about the current, so I use 1Ks. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
Reply by John Larkin November 6, 20122012-11-06
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:26:09 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 2:06&#2013266080;am, John Larkin ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:36:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 6, 2:25 pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:11:07 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 6, 12:17 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:40:55 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >On Nov 5, 1:53 pm, John Larkin >> >> >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:43:52 -0600, "Tim Williams" >> >> >> >> <tmoran...@charter.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >messagenews:u2rd98l8ie7ucnfqk2em03grjthvdmoo1q@4ax.com... > ><snip> > >> >> My clients do their jobs right, and so do I. >> >> >So you tell us. &#2013266080;You presumably convinced them of your competence, or >> >maybe you were just the low bidder. >> >> >>You don't have a job. >> >> >What's that got to do with their competence? Or yours for that matter? >> >> >> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0111/0111046.pdf >> >> >> >> (one of my very few published papers) >> >> >> >155.52-MHz seems surprisingly low. I would have thought that there >> >> >were faster standard frequencies that they might have adopted, with >> >> >correspondingly lower edge jitter. And it's not "your" paper - you >> >> >aren't first author, and clearly didn't write it. >> >> >> >It may be one of the few published papers that list you as an author, >> >> >which is no small thing, but it's not "your" paper. >> >> >> My timing modules work; you don't. >> >> >You claim ownership of a paper of which you were a minor author. >> >Should we trust your claims about your timing modules? >> >> Why would I care what you trust? Do you think the NIF paper was faked? > >It seems most unlikely, but - accepting that the paper is honest - >which I'm more than happy to do - all it says is that you were the >supplier, and your gear worked well enough to be satisfactory in the >application.
What more can one expect in life, but to do good work, to build things, and, with luck, be appreciated for it?
> >As you have mentioned here, when physicists publish about electronics, >they usually have exaggerated ideas about how good their electronics >is and how close it is to the state of the art. I've got a couple of >comments in Review of Scientific Instruments that criticise >particularly flagrant examples of this kind of defect. > >> We did two systems for NIF, got some awards, made some money, learned >> an awful lot. That's what sometimes happens whan you DO stuff. > >I've noticed. That's one of the reasons why I'd like to do some more >stuff, and why I'm frustrated by being confined to doing stuff I can >afford which solves the kinds of problems that I can dream up without >much help from the outside world. I learned a great deal when I was >working on the Cambridge Instruments Electron Beam Tester, and I >enjoyed the process.
I think you could find companies that need someone who can understand their science and help them with the electronics. There's a lot of scientific gear out there that, as Phil says, needlessly throws away 30 dB of performance. (Remember the insane FTMS preamp I posted about here? Down 30 dB, but still better than Brand B, who tossed 40 dB.) It wouldn't be very hard to explore that possibility. It would be fun. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation