From: dk4xp@arcor.de   
      
   Am 31.01.26 um 16:41 schrieb john larkin:   
   > On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:25:29 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Consider a frequency divider.   
   >   
   > Your prime motivation is to contradict, not to think. That's very   
   > common.   
      
   Are you soliloquizing?   
      
   > A true ripple counter is as fast as its first flop.   
      
   You know the count of a ripple counter when everything has come   
   to a halt, including the carry chain. That is slower than the   
   first flipflop.   
   Even decoded outputs will feature transient wrong results.   
      
   Look ahead carry has been invented, just for this.   
   An LFSR is hard to beat but will very probably also need some   
   combinatorial delays.   
      
   Gerhard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)