On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:04:32 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>=20
> > jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:=20
> >=20
> >> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate=20
> >> since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because...=20
>=20
> > Oh, he's published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his=
=20
> > peers disagree about 'the best' attitude.
>
> Anything is possible, but people change.

But not usually in the ways that John Doe likes to claim.

> > His peers know their business.
>
> Are "his peers" dicks, too?

Some of them probably are.

> > Larkin, for one, makes reference to=20
> > things he's seen in that journal, it does have good content (though,=20
> > like datasheets, quality varies).
>
> The *real world* excludes (alleged) patents, education, and most writing.=
=20

Really? John Doe's grasp of what might be "real" isn't impressive. He seems=
 to think that Donald Trump is "real" ..=20

> Those things have negative value unless they are sold or used.

Some patents have quite a lot of "real world" effect. Education isn't exclu=
ded from any real world - everybody gets educated to some extent, though Jo=
hn Doe seems to have less of it than he needs. Writing is generally held to=
  be a useful skill, though the quality of what gets written does vary - Jo=
hn Doe's output is pretty much the pits.

> Lots of educations going to waste nowadays. The issuance of a patent is d=
efinitely  not based on usefulness.

How could it be? The basis of patent is that it offers protection for an or=
iginal idea, and you can't reveal enough of that idea to get any strong evi=
dence that it is useful until you have got the protection of a patent. John=
 Doe posts a lot of nonsense but that proposition is remarkably silly, even=
 for him.

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: 

> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> 
>> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate 
>> since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because... 

> Oh, he's published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his 
> peers disagree about 'the best' attitude.   

Anything is possible, but people change.

> His peers know their business. 

Are "his peers" dicks, too?

> Larkin, for one, makes reference to 
> things he's seen in that journal, it does have good content (though, 
> like datasheets, quality varies). 

The *real world* excludes (alleged) patents, education, and most writing. 
Those things have negative value unless they are sold or used. Lots of 
educations going to waste nowadays. The issuance of a patent is definitely
not based on usefulness. 

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:22:52 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate 
> since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because...

Oh, he's published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his
peers disagree about 'the best' attitude.   His peers know their business.
Larkin, for one, makes reference to things he's seen in that
journal, it does have good content (though, like datasheets, quality varies).

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:23:13 -0800 (PST), Michael Terrell 
>
> >Probably? You are an insufferable moron who thinks that you matter.
> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate 
> since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because he craves 
> attention and, I suppose, nobody wants to be around him in person. In 
> general, ignore the foul jerks. 
> 
> Mo used to work in Berkeley High School with some serious thugs. Her 
> wisdom was that the most powerful way to influence them was to ignore 
> them... they couldn't stand that. 

I do that in person, as long as they don't touch me. The last one the tried was 18. Within seconds, I had him pinned to the ground, begging me to let him up. He was the self proclaimed 'biggest bad ass in town' but a fully disabled, retired Veteran took him down and made a fool of him in front of his minions. fer that, he was proclaimed to be just another bragging idiot who wasn't believed no matter how much that he bragged. He ran for his life when I informed him that I was required to inform him that the US Army had trained me to kill.

> Ever played with pHEMTs? They are way cool. 
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhsvhg4ps45dq1d/T502_Fiducial_Ramp.jpg?raw=1

No, I do know some about them, but I tended to work with microwaves or broadband video. I am converting some HD broadband video amps to 10 Hz Distribution Amplifiers with their -3dB point at around 350 MHz. They have up to 32 outputs. I am still doing repairs to my home after the electrical problems, so I don't have room to fully set up my workbench. I've had Wound are appointments almost weekly for over a year, which requires a ot of time with y legs propped high enoug to reduce the swelling. That only gives me an hour or two per day to do much.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 5:05:31 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:30:16 -0800 (PST), Rich S 
> <richsuli...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> >> Another graph opportunity! RF people can't seem to imagine their parts 
> >> being used for anything but small-signal high-freq amplifiers. 
> >> 
> >> The data sheet says the usual "adjust the gate voltage until you get 
> >> the drain xx mA that we tested it at." We have to test these parts 
> >> ourselves and trust they are repeatable. In the case of some 
> >> MiniCircuits mmics, they weren't. 
> >> 
> >> I suppose if you want to keep changing fabs, it's better to not commit 
> >> much. "min" and "max" are so confining. 
> > 
> >IOW: why 'loosely documented' parts cost lower than one 
> >might otherwise expect. They pass the qualification testing 
> >onto the customer. Oh, of course, the select class of major 
> >customers, they care most about - those who buy 1M+ units. 
> >For them MC will hold it to a tight spec, do the selection, etc. 
> >regards, RS 
>
> We're using an HMC659, at $330 each, and the data sheet is terrible. 
> 
> Even expensive parts have dreadful data sheets. 

John Larkin's data sheet reading skills aren't impressive.
 
> I agree that high volume users usually get better support and no doubt 
> have access to data that we peons don't. They probably get design 
> assistance and free reviews too. 

To the extent that the manufacturers are willing to commit expert engineers to do hand-holding for the kind of customer who can't be bothered to read the data sheet carefully.
 
> It looks to me like when the high volume uses go away, lots of parts  get dropped, regardless of how much it hurts most users.

If the minimum batch size is 100,000 packaged parts, and it's going to take decades to sell the whole batch, manufacturers tend to avoid tying up capital in slow-moving stock.

> TI is  unusually good about keeping stuff available. 

They always did have an enthusiasm for making cheap parts for the high volume end of the market.

> Rochester has an interesting function here.

Buying up that slow moving stock?

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:23:17 AM UTC+11, terrell....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:14:39 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: 
> > 
> > I've probably got fewer example of working hardware that I designed out in the field than John Larkin has - he has claimed that his products typically take a fortnight to design and document. Mine were a little more timing consuming - like the milli-degree thermostat described in the paper above - and some of them (like the improvements to the Cambridge Instruments electron-beam microfabricator, or the Metals Research GaAs crystal puller) have been rather more consequential. All three each represented closer to a year's work (not that I worked full time on any of them at the time, though they did tend to take up a lot of my time while they were being developed).
> Probably? You are an insufferable moron who thinks that you matter. 
>
> If you were worth 1/10 of what you think, you would have never been out of a job one day in your sorry life. You are a carbuncle on the ass of humanity. 

My skills are fairly specialised. Finding an employer who needs them can take a while.

> Three whole patents? You must have almost made the filing fees on that impressive body of paperwork. 

I didn't pay the filing fees - EMI Central Research paid for two of them, and Cambridge Instruments paid for the third one. I'd be surprised if any of them ever earned any royalties at all.

> All that receiving a patent proves is that you can create enough paperwork to get it processed.

In practice, it tends to mean that your employer craves patents (mostly as bargaining tools to get cheap access to other peoples patented technology when they find that they need it). Getting a patent is an expensive process - my father ended up with 25 of them and was full bottle on the subject.
 
> Decades ago, I helped someone to get a patent on an automatic closer for the toilet seat. I told him that he was wasting his money, but he had delusions, like yours. After all that, he started fabricating the hardware for car canopies, that were often used to cover flea market spaces. He never made a cent form his patent.

That's pretty typical. I've got a friend who invented an improved version of the confocal microscope. He did it when out drinking with a friend and they both filed patent applications. After a few years of spending money on lawyers they merged their applications and my friend ended up collecting some twelve million Australian dollars.

This isn't typical, but it can happen.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 5:22:52 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechn=
ology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:23:13 -0800 (PST), Michael Terrell=20
> <terrell....@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>=20
> >On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:14:39 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wro=
te:=20
> >>=20
> >> I've probably got fewer example of working hardware that I designed ou=
t in the field than John Larkin has - he has claimed that his products typi=
cally take a fortnight to design and document. Mine were a little more timi=
ng consuming - like the milli-degree thermostat described in the paper abov=
e - and some of them (like the improvements to the Cambridge Instruments el=
ectron-beam microfabricator, or the Metals Research GaAs crystal puller) ha=
ve been rather more consequential. All three each represented closer to a y=
ear's work (not that I worked full time on any of them at the time, though =
they did tend to take up a lot of my time while they were being developed).=
=20
> >=20
> >Probably? You are an insufferable moron who thinks that you matter.

Michael Terrell would like to be taken more seriously than he deserves, and=
 is just as peevish as John Larkin when he isn't.

> The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate  sinc=
e, as you say, he doesn't matter.

Anybody who doesn't spend time flattering John Larkin doesn't matter. Ego-m=
aniacs do have this problem - they are addicted to flattery and the withdra=
wal symptoms aren't pretty,

>  He's only here because he craves attention and, I suppose, nobody wants =
to be around him in person.

The NSW IEEE executive committee has put up with me for years. What I do cr=
ave are interesting discussions and John Larkin is a dead loss there.

https://site.ieee.org/nsw/committe/

> In  general, ignore the foul jerks.=20

Who don't give you the flattery you feel you deserve.

> Mo used to work in Berkeley High School with some serious thugs. Her wisd=
om was that the most powerful way to influence them was to ignore  them... =
they couldn't stand that.

Not providing  lavish servings of flattery isn't actually thuggish behaviou=
r.

> Ever played with pHEMTs? They are way cool.=20
>=20
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhsvhg4ps45dq1d/T502_Fiducial_Ramp.jpg?raw=3D1

Circuit diagrams can be "cool". Actual oscilloscope traces tend to have det=
ails that John doesn't feel like discussing.

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:37:12 PM UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Rich S wrote: 
> >> Another graph opportunity! RF people can't seem to imagine their parts 
> >> being used for anything but small-signal high-freq amplifiers. 
> >> 
> >> The data sheet says the usual "adjust the gate voltage until you get 
> >> the drain xx mA that we tested it at." We have to test these parts 
> >> ourselves and trust they are repeatable. In the case of some 
> >> MiniCircuits mmics, they weren't. 
> >> 
> >> I suppose if you want to keep changing fabs, it's better to not commit 
> >> much. "min" and "max" are so confining. 
> >>> 
> > 
> > Hi John, 
> > IOW: why 'loosely documented' parts cost lower than one 
> > might otherwise expect. They pass the qualification testing 
> > onto the customer. Oh, of course, the select class of major 
> > customers, they care most about - those who buy 1M+ units. 
> > For them MC will hold it to a tight spec, do the selection, etc. 
> > regards, RS 
> > 
> >
> You're making that up. The MCL parts cost 2x-3x more than the parts 
> they're replacing.
> Cheers 
> Phil Hobbs 

Hi Phil, I wasn't addressing you original topic, just the general state
 of spec sheets and MC. 
Indeed, the first 2 sentences were suppositions. The remainder was 
based on my 'emotional long-term commitment' (what we call a job)
at that converted bowling alley.
Re HK's pricing philosophy, and creation of part variants,  etc.  
True, this could have changed since RK took over-- I haven't tried
sourcing new parts from them for many years.
cheers. RS

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:23:13 -0800 (PST), Michael Terrell
<terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:14:39 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> 
>> I've probably got fewer example of working hardware that I designed out in the field than John Larkin has - he has claimed that his products typically take a fortnight to design and document. Mine were a little more timing consuming - like the milli-degree thermostat described in the paper above - and some of them (like the improvements to the Cambridge Instruments electron-beam microfabricator, or the Metals Research GaAs crystal puller) have been rather more consequential. All three each represented closer to a year's work (not that I worked full time on any of them at the time, though they did tend to take up a lot of my time while they were being developed). 
>
>Probably? You are an insufferable moron who thinks that you matter. 

The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate
since, as you say, he doesn't matter. He's only here because he craves
attention and, I suppose, nobody wants to be around him in person. In
general, ignore the foul jerks.

Mo used to work in Berkeley High School with some serious thugs. Her
wisdom was that the most powerful way to influence them was to ignore
them... they couldn't stand that.

Ever played with pHEMTs? They are way cool.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhsvhg4ps45dq1d/T502_Fiducial_Ramp.jpg?raw=1



-- 

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still; 
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.



  

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:30:16 -0800 (PST), Rich S
<richsulinengineer@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Another graph opportunity! RF people can't seem to imagine their parts 
>> being used for anything but small-signal high-freq amplifiers. 
>> 
>> The data sheet says the usual "adjust the gate voltage until you get 
>> the drain xx mA that we tested it at." We have to test these parts 
>> ourselves and trust they are repeatable. In the case of some 
>> MiniCircuits mmics, they weren't. 
>> 
>> I suppose if you want to keep changing fabs, it's better to not commit 
>> much. "min" and "max" are so confining.
>> > 
>
>Hi John, 
>IOW: why 'loosely documented' parts cost lower than one
>might otherwise expect. They pass the qualification testing
>onto the customer. Oh, of course, the select class of major
>customers, they care most about - those who buy 1M+ units.
>For them MC will hold it to a tight spec, do the selection, etc.
>regards, RS
>

We're using an HMC659, at $330 each, and the data sheet is terrible. 

Even expensive parts have dreadful data sheets.

I agree that high volume users usually get better support and no doubt
have access to data that we peons don't. They probably get design
assistance and free reviews too.

It looks to me like when the high volume uses go away, lots of parts
get dropped, regardless of how much it hurts most users. TI is
unusually good about keeping stuff available. Rochester has an
interesting function here.





-- 

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still; 
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.