From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 31/01/2026 8:53 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Rubbish. The state of the outputs of a  multistage ripple counter isn't   
   useful until the increment has rippled through every stage.   
      
   I once set up a system that prevented the system from latching the   
   outputs until a 4usec retriggerable monostable triggered by an incoming   
   count had timed out. It was useful in the application, but I didn't like it.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)