From: jl@glen--canyon.com   
      
   On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:51:16 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 31/01/2026 3:04 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 02:18:25 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 31/01/2026 12:43 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 30/01/2026 9:15 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>> The only electronics I did as a kid was to build a completely passive   
   >>>>>>> crystal set   
   >>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I think we may quote that in replies to some of your future posts.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It didn't include any parts with gain, or any power source. What's your   
   >>>>> preferred description of the classic crystal set?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The part that caught my eye was: " The only electronics I did as a kid".   
   >>>> Many of us spent our childhood teaching ourselves electronics - so we   
   >>>> may remind you of this difference next time you start making disparaging   
   >>>> remarks about other engineers' knowledge and abilities.   
   >>>   
   >>> John Larkin seems to think it gives you some kind of advantage.   
   >>   
   >> Of course it does. As there is a huge advantage to learning chess or   
   >> math or languages or soccer when you are young. Actually doing stuff   
   >> involves practical feedbacks and acquired instincts.   
   >   
   >Instincts are what you were born with. What you get from doing stuff is   
   >habits.   
   >   
   >Learning stuff too early can instill bad habits, and they are hard to   
   >unlearn.   
   >   
   >Languages aren't learned any faster if you learn them young, and some   
   >aspects of language can't be learned at all by very young kids.   
   >   
   >> University education seldom installs much in the way of instincts   
   >> either. It's too rigid and formalized, and too late.   
   >   
   >Since instincts are what you get with your genome, universities can't   
   >install them at all.   
   >   
   >Formal instruction at university is formal. It's mostly accompanied by   
   >practical classes, which are a lot less rigid.   
   >   
   >The complicated stuff that most people learn at university mostly can't   
   >be instilled into adolescents - some rare kids can learn it early, but   
   >they tend to be exceptionally clever and need exceptional power of   
   >concentration. About 30% of the undergraduate intake doesn't ever get   
   >any kid of degree, and probably shouldn't have started at all.   
   >   
   >>> If you taught yourself when you were a kid, you didn't have a   
   >>> well-qualified teacher.   
   >>   
   >> A mentor with instincts is great if you are lucky enough to have one.   
   >   
   >Instincts come from the genome. What good mentors have is experience,   
   >and some understanding of what that experience has taught them.   
   >   
   >Electronics has advanced a lot over the past fifty years, and mentors   
   >are correspondingly less useful as teachers.   
   >>> At least when I got into it, I did have a   
   >>> university library and book-shop to draw on and did get some advice from   
   >>> people who really knew what they were doing.   
   >>   
   >> Obviously too late.   
   >   
   >What's obvious to you is what you want to see. Trump is even more deeply   
   >into wishful thinking than you are.   
   >   
   >>> I learned a lot when I started doing electronic engineering as my main   
   >>> job, and had some really skilled teachers and examplars, as a well as   
   >>> lot of colleagues who merely thought that they knew what they were   
   >>> doing, and earned a few disparaging remarks. A few disparaging remarks   
   >>> got published as comments in the Review of Scientific Instruments.   
   >>   
   >> I sometimes read RSI when it's available. The circuits are hilarious.   
   >   
   >They tend to be functional, rather than elegant, and not always all that   
   >up-to-date. I once got very rude about a paper lauding the use of 1Ok   
   >ECL which got published after ECLinPs had been around for a few years.   
   >   
   >10k ECL was about four times faster than TTL/CMOS, but ECinPS was four   
   >times faster again. The same paper described a ripple carry counter   
   >where the carry propagation wasn't fast enough to match the maximum   
   >count rate claimed. No mention at all of a synchronous counter.   
   >   
   >It was a particularly horrible example, quite the worst I've ever seen.   
      
   A true ripple counter is as fast as its first flop.   
      
      
   John Larkin   
   Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center   
   Lunatic Fringe Electronics   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)