On 2018-12-22 20:21, Chris wrote:
> On 11/25/18 19:20, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/18 03:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I got started as a hobbyist when I was 10. My older brother was
>>>> interested in electronics, and I thought that was interesting. Building
>>>> circuits out of books was fun, but the parts were way too expensive--it
>>>> took my whole week's allowance to buy a JW Miller loopstick for a
>>>> crystal radio. (No, I didn't have a paper route. They had gone away by
>>>> then and anyway I was way too lazy.) ;)
>>>>
>>>> It took several years before I could actually design things that
>>>> worked,
>>>> which made me _nuts_. With a hobby background and a bachelor's in
>>>> physics and astronomy, I was well enough equipped as an EE to do
>>>> reasonably advanced design of satcom equipment when I graduated.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm biased, but IME folks with early hobby backgrounds make the
>>>> best designers.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>
>>>
>>> Built my first 1 valve radio at 11, but my dad was a an ee and built our
>>> first tv from ww2 scope parts. 5" green screen and oil filled magnifier
>>> on the front. I guess that sort of thing was the inspiration, but
>>> haven't lost that up to the present time. The thing about tech is that
>>> it never sleeps, always new developments, but unless you have a real
>>> passion for it and insatiable curiosity, how does that work ? etc,
>>> you will never be anything more than average...
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> Design isn't analysis. Original design requires instincts for
>> electronics, which is best learned young, certainly before college.
>> It's like learning languages, much easier for kids.

That is something I contest. Learning a language takes a young kid
three years or more. As an adult, it took me less than a year to
learn French. No learning is ever complete though and the sort of
errors I make are different from those of a French native.

Jeroen Belleman

On 11/25/18 19:20, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/18 03:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I got started as a hobbyist when I was 10. My older brother was
>>> interested in electronics, and I thought that was interesting. Building
>>> circuits out of books was fun, but the parts were way too expensive--it
>>> took my whole week's allowance to buy a JW Miller loopstick for a
>>> crystal radio. (No, I didn't have a paper route. They had gone away by
>>> then and anyway I was way too lazy.) ;)
>>>
>>> It took several years before I could actually design things that worked,
>>> which made me _nuts_. With a hobby background and a bachelor's in
>>> physics and astronomy, I was well enough equipped as an EE to do
>>> reasonably advanced design of satcom equipment when I graduated.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm biased, but IME folks with early hobby backgrounds make the
>>> best designers.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>
>> Built my first 1 valve radio at 11, but my dad was a an ee and built our
>> first tv from ww2 scope parts. 5" green screen and oil filled magnifier
>> on the front. I guess that sort of thing was the inspiration, but
>> haven't lost that up to the present time. The thing about tech is that
>> it never sleeps, always new developments, but unless you have a real
>> passion for it and insatiable curiosity, how does that work ? etc,
>> you will never be anything more than average...
>>
>> Chris
>
> Design isn't analysis. Original design requires instincts for
> electronics, which is best learned young, certainly before college.
> It's like learning languages, much easier for kids.
 >

It's that old saying about get ideas and attitude into kids at a
young age and you have the man. Neither of my lads showed much
interest at all in electronics, or computing, where I ended up,
but you don't own kids, only have them on loan and they will
make their own minds up. One is currently working in admin. while
the other is doing a business degree, which may in fact be more
use to him.

 >
 > My uncle Sheldon had a TV repair shop and a shed full of stolen
 > military electronics. He liked me and we built crystal sets, power
 > supplies, neon oscillators, all sorts of stuff. Parts were basically
 > free. When I got to EE school, I already *felt* things and the math
 > was a revelation. The other guys in the class just kept their heads
 > down, took notes, and forgot the stuff after finals.
 >
 > There is certainly genetic predisposition for electronic design, as
 > there is for languages and sports and most other things.

May be some genetics, but imho, much more about example and inspiration
from the family and other possible role models.

 >
 > There is a private high school around here, tuition around $60K or
 > something crazy like that, where electronics and machining and welding
 > are mandatory courses. Everybody should have some familiarity with
 > that stuff.
 >

Never had the luxury of hole cutters back in the day, so we scribed a
circle, drilled small holes around the circumference with a hand
brace, knock out the center and file round to size. When you have done
that for half a dozen or so B7G, B9A and the odd octal valve base, you
help build practical skills that last a lifetime.

Starting with valve tech, right up to date with arm cpus has made it an
interesting journey and still love the work...

Chris

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:33:29 PM UTC+11, John S wrote:
> On 12/8/2018 6:54 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 7:42:05 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
> >> On 11/25/2018 9:13 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 6:20:57 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 11/24/18 03:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I got started as a hobbyist when I was 10. My older brother was
> >>>>>> interested in electronics, and I thought that was interesting. Building
> >>>>>> circuits out of books was fun, but the parts were way too expensive--it
> >>>>>> took my whole week's allowance to buy a JW Miller loopstick for a
> >>>>>> crystal radio. (No, I didn't have a paper route. They had gone away by
> >>>>>> then and anyway I was way too lazy.) ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It took several years before I could actually design things that worked,
> >>>>>> which made me _nuts_. With a hobby background and a bachelor's in
> >>>>>> physics and astronomy, I was well enough equipped as an EE to do
> >>>>>> reasonably advanced design of satcom equipment when I graduated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps I'm biased, but IME folks with early hobby backgrounds make the
> >>>>>> best designers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Built my first 1 valve radio at 11, but my dad was a an ee and built our
> >>>>> first tv from ww2 scope parts. 5" green screen and oil filled magnifier
> >>>>> on the front. I guess that sort of thing was the inspiration, but
> >>>>> haven't lost that up to the present time. The thing about tech is that
> >>>>> it never sleeps, always new developments, but unless you have a real
> >>>>> passion for it and insatiable curiosity, how does that work ? etc,
> >>>>> you will never be anything more than average...
> >>>>
> >>>> Design isn't analysis. Original design requires instincts for
> >>>> electronics, which is best learned young, certainly before college.
> >>>> It's like learning languages, much easier for kids.
> >>>
> >>> John Larkin talking about design is like a blind man talking about colour.
> >>
> >> And Bill Sloman is a spherical prick.
> > 
> > I'm definitely unkind to John Larkin, but he does deserve it. That may make me a prick, but "spherical" seems to be irrational.
> > 
> 
> Spherical means you are a prick from any viewpoint.

But not a prick from any of them. Make up what passes for your mind.

A prick is asymmetrical.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 12/8/2018 6:54 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 7:42:05 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
>> On 11/25/2018 9:13 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 6:20:57 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/24/18 03:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got started as a hobbyist when I was 10. My older brother was
>>>>>> interested in electronics, and I thought that was interesting. Building
>>>>>> circuits out of books was fun, but the parts were way too expensive--it
>>>>>> took my whole week's allowance to buy a JW Miller loopstick for a
>>>>>> crystal radio. (No, I didn't have a paper route. They had gone away by
>>>>>> then and anyway I was way too lazy.) ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It took several years before I could actually design things that worked,
>>>>>> which made me _nuts_. With a hobby background and a bachelor's in
>>>>>> physics and astronomy, I was well enough equipped as an EE to do
>>>>>> reasonably advanced design of satcom equipment when I graduated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps I'm biased, but IME folks with early hobby backgrounds make the
>>>>>> best designers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Built my first 1 valve radio at 11, but my dad was a an ee and built our
>>>>> first tv from ww2 scope parts. 5" green screen and oil filled magnifier
>>>>> on the front. I guess that sort of thing was the inspiration, but
>>>>> haven't lost that up to the present time. The thing about tech is that
>>>>> it never sleeps, always new developments, but unless you have a real
>>>>> passion for it and insatiable curiosity, how does that work ? etc,
>>>>> you will never be anything more than average...
>>>>
>>>> Design isn't analysis. Original design requires instincts for
>>>> electronics, which is best learned young, certainly before college.
>>>> It's like learning languages, much easier for kids.
>>>
>>> John Larkin talking about design is like a blind man talking about colour.
>>
>> And Bill Sloman is a spherical prick.
> 
> I'm definitely unkind to John Larkin, but he does deserve it. That may make me a prick, but "spherical" seems to be irrational.
> 

Spherical means you are a prick from any viewpoint.

On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 7:42:05 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
> On 11/25/2018 9:13 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 6:20:57 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/24/18 03:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I got started as a hobbyist when I was 10. My older brother was
> >>>> interested in electronics, and I thought that was interesting. Building
> >>>> circuits out of books was fun, but the parts were way too expensive--it
> >>>> took my whole week's allowance to buy a JW Miller loopstick for a
> >>>> crystal radio. (No, I didn't have a paper route. They had gone away by
> >>>> then and anyway I was way too lazy.) ;)
> >>>>
> >>>> It took several years before I could actually design things that worked,
> >>>> which made me _nuts_. With a hobby background and a bachelor's in
> >>>> physics and astronomy, I was well enough equipped as an EE to do
> >>>> reasonably advanced design of satcom equipment when I graduated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps I'm biased, but IME folks with early hobby backgrounds make the
> >>>> best designers.
> >>>
> >>> Built my first 1 valve radio at 11, but my dad was a an ee and built our
> >>> first tv from ww2 scope parts. 5" green screen and oil filled magnifier
> >>> on the front. I guess that sort of thing was the inspiration, but
> >>> haven't lost that up to the present time. The thing about tech is that
> >>> it never sleeps, always new developments, but unless you have a real
> >>> passion for it and insatiable curiosity, how does that work ? etc,
> >>> you will never be anything more than average...
> >>
> >> Design isn't analysis. Original design requires instincts for
> >> electronics, which is best learned young, certainly before college.
> >> It's like learning languages, much easier for kids.
> > 
> > John Larkin talking about design is like a blind man talking about colour.
> 
> And Bill Sloman is a spherical prick.

I'm definitely unkind to John Larkin, but he does deserve it. That may make me a prick, but "spherical" seems to be irrational.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 11/25/2018 9:13 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 6:20:57 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/18 03:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I got started as a hobbyist when I was 10. My older brother was
>>>> interested in electronics, and I thought that was interesting. Building
>>>> circuits out of books was fun, but the parts were way too expensive--it
>>>> took my whole week's allowance to buy a JW Miller loopstick for a
>>>> crystal radio. (No, I didn't have a paper route. They had gone away by
>>>> then and anyway I was way too lazy.) ;)
>>>>
>>>> It took several years before I could actually design things that worked,
>>>> which made me _nuts_. With a hobby background and a bachelor's in
>>>> physics and astronomy, I was well enough equipped as an EE to do
>>>> reasonably advanced design of satcom equipment when I graduated.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm biased, but IME folks with early hobby backgrounds make the
>>>> best designers.
>>>
>>> Built my first 1 valve radio at 11, but my dad was a an ee and built our
>>> first tv from ww2 scope parts. 5" green screen and oil filled magnifier
>>> on the front. I guess that sort of thing was the inspiration, but
>>> haven't lost that up to the present time. The thing about tech is that
>>> it never sleeps, always new developments, but unless you have a real
>>> passion for it and insatiable curiosity, how does that work ? etc,
>>> you will never be anything more than average...
>>
>> Design isn't analysis. Original design requires instincts for
>> electronics, which is best learned young, certainly before college.
>> It's like learning languages, much easier for kids.
> 
> John Larkin talking about design is like a blind man talking about colour.

And bill slowman is a spherical prick.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:24:37 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, 26 November 2018 13:51:54 UTC, Phil Hobbs  wrote:
>> On 11/26/18 3:22 AM, tabbypurr wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 25 November 2018 19:50:01 UTC, John Larkin  wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 06:17:56 GMT, <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> > 
>> >>> Simulations are often daydreams.
>> >>
>> >> LT Spice is wonderful. I've designed radical things by fiddling with
>> >> hunches, simulating first and understanding later. We make some great
>> >> products that I still don't understand.
>> > 
>> > I look forward to the day Spice can access enough compute power to sim things much better. More often than not it fails for me. Last time I used it just recently it thought transistor V_be didn't drop at low current, making it not useful. A lot of stuff I don't Spice at all, I understand it better than Spice does. I'm sure there's lots Spice knows I don't, I just tend to operate in a space where it doesn't & isn't helping.
>> > 
>> > Having said that my LTspice is probably out of date.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > NT
>> > 
>> 
>> Compute power is almost meaningless when the models are crappy, as 
>> almost all board-level SPICE models are.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Phil Hobbs
>
>They're simplified in order to run in sensible times on our limited computing power.

Nonsense.  Our "computing power" certainly isn't limited.  The chip
guys did far better simulations with the hardware they had available
forty years ago than you can do with the board level models today.
It's all about the models.  

>
>I can't wait for the day we have not a few GHz of CPU but a few hundred. But by then I might wish to be younger instead.
>
>
>NT

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:05:07 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:03:14 GMT, <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org>
>wrote:
>
>>krw wrote
>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:44:37 GMT, <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>krw wrote
>>>>>Today, sure.  I paid $400 1973-dollars for a calculator (IIRC, you did
>>>>>the same).  A decent oscilloscope cost 20x more at the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>?
>>>>1968 0r 1969 build my first scope, DG7-32 CRT, 1 MHz or a bit more, tubes, 10$ parts?
>>>>Most parts from scrap TV chassis etc..
>>>
>>>Calibrated amplifiers and a useful trigger?  Delay line?
>>>>
>>>>1969 build my second scope, DG7-32 all transistor, RTL logic, 5 MHz or more...
>>>>trigger delay, what not.
>>>>Also had some TV scope long before that with a TV CRT and HV with a car ignition coil,
>>>>magnetic deflection, audio range... parts maybe 5 $ (CRT was free).
>>>>In my last year at high school I donated it to the physics teacher, but he was scared of it,
>>>>the CRT then went to the local TV repair shop...
>>>>LOL
>>>>Was a great teacher BTW, we would stay after classes to calculate electron orbits in a magnetic field.
>>>
>>>Your labor cost?
>>
>>Consider it study cost.
>>Was just fun, you learn a lot, and use that in your job and it pays back there.
>>
>>Designing and building things like your own test equipment and whatever is of enormous value.
>>Any idiot can buy a 1 GHz sampling scope and then if you have no clue how it works how in the world
>>are you going to use it? Draw conclusion from what it shows? For WHAT?
>>Same for anything else.
>>
>>The advantage of an electronics hobby is sometimes that you have everything.
>>Others spend it on booze or women or cars or boats.
>>Well OK I tried that too.
>>
>> 
>
>Don't underestimate the virtues of women, or cars, or women in cars.

You can have a bigger party on a boat.

On 11/27/18 9:22 PM, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
> Am 27.11.18 um 15:57 schrieb Phil Hobbs:
>> On 11/27/18 3:24 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, 26 November 2018 13:51:54 UTC, Phil Hobbs  wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/18 3:22 AM, tabbypurr wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 25 November 2018 19:50:01 UTC, John Larkin  wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 06:17:56 GMT, <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulations are often daydreams.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LT Spice is wonderful. I've designed radical things by fiddling with
>>>>>> hunches, simulating first and understanding later. We make some great
>>>>>> products that I still don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to the day Spice can access enough compute power to 
>>>>> sim things much better. More often than not it fails for me. Last 
>>>>> time I used it just recently it thought transistor V_be didn't drop 
>>>>> at low current, making it not useful. A lot of stuff I don't Spice 
>>>>> at all, I understand it better than Spice does. I'm sure there's 
>>>>> lots Spice knows I don't, I just tend to operate in a space where 
>>>>> it doesn't & isn't helping.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that my LTspice is probably out of date.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NT
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Compute power is almost meaningless when the models are crappy, as
>>>> almost all board-level SPICE models are.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>> They're simplified in order to run in sensible times on our limited 
>>> computing power.
>>>
>>> I can't wait for the day we have not a few GHz of CPU but a few 
>>> hundred. But by then I might wish to be younger instead.
>>>
>>
>> The models aren't crap for simplicity, they're crap because nobody 
>> cares about making them good.&nbsp; The OPA140 model won't converge unless 
>> the supplies are exactly symmetrical, for instance.&nbsp; Lots of other 
>> models don't show realistic supply current, or don't limit their 
>> outputs at the supply rail, or don't have noise, or do linear 
>> interpolation from tables so that they're nondifferentiable in many 
>> places.
> 
> I owe you a beer or two!
> 
> I was already in doubt today that I could make a current source from
> an OPA134 and a FZT851. It converged, but delivered simply impossible
> results running on +10/-5V :-(
> 
> Yesterday, an AD8065 model delivered -85 mV running from GND and +10V.
> 
> The ADA4898 model (the new one) does not like to converge. It seems
> that happens even easier when there are more than one of them in a
> circuit. I have no idea what must go wrong for that to happen.
> 
> The old ADA4898 model had ridiculous noise. But V-noise is it's only
> reason for existence. The ADA4898 is not yet in the LTspice
> distribution. Probably they have found more problems.
> 
> cheers,
> Gerhard
> 
> 
> 
Based on some years of interaction, I expect that we could have quite a 
good time together one of these days, beer or no beer. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

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

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

Am 27.11.18 um 15:57 schrieb Phil Hobbs:
> On 11/27/18 3:24 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, 26 November 2018 13:51:54 UTC, Phil Hobbs  wrote:
>>> On 11/26/18 3:22 AM, tabbypurr wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 25 November 2018 19:50:01 UTC, John Larkin  wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 06:17:56 GMT, <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Simulations are often daydreams.
>>>>>
>>>>> LT Spice is wonderful. I've designed radical things by fiddling with
>>>>> hunches, simulating first and understanding later. We make some great
>>>>> products that I still don't understand.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to the day Spice can access enough compute power to 
>>>> sim things much better. More often than not it fails for me. Last 
>>>> time I used it just recently it thought transistor V_be didn't drop 
>>>> at low current, making it not useful. A lot of stuff I don't Spice 
>>>> at all, I understand it better than Spice does. I'm sure there's 
>>>> lots Spice knows I don't, I just tend to operate in a space where it 
>>>> doesn't & isn't helping.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that my LTspice is probably out of date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NT
>>>>
>>>
>>> Compute power is almost meaningless when the models are crappy, as
>>> almost all board-level SPICE models are.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> They're simplified in order to run in sensible times on our limited 
>> computing power.
>>
>> I can't wait for the day we have not a few GHz of CPU but a few 
>> hundred. But by then I might wish to be younger instead.
>>
> 
> The models aren't crap for simplicity, they're crap because nobody cares 
> about making them good.&nbsp; The OPA140 model won't converge unless the 
> supplies are exactly symmetrical, for instance.&nbsp; Lots of other models 
> don't show realistic supply current, or don't limit their outputs at the 
> supply rail, or don't have noise, or do linear interpolation from tables 
> so that they're nondifferentiable in many places.

I owe you a beer or two!

I was already in doubt today that I could make a current source from
an OPA134 and a FZT851. It converged, but delivered simply impossible
results running on +10/-5V :-(

Yesterday, an AD8065 model delivered -85 mV running from GND and +10V.

The ADA4898 model (the new one) does not like to converge. It seems
that happens even easier when there are more than one of them in a
circuit. I have no idea what must go wrong for that to happen.

The old ADA4898 model had ridiculous noise. But V-noise is it's only
reason for existence. The ADA4898 is not yet in the LTspice
distribution. Probably they have found more problems.

cheers,
Gerhard