From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 1/02/2026 2:41 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   A frequency divider isn't a counter. It may use the same components, but   
   they aren't doing the same job.   
      
   > Your prime motivation is to contradict, not to think. That's very   
   > common.   
      
   And you've just produced a classic example.   
      
   > A true ripple counter is as fast as its first flop.   
      
   Not when being used as a counter, as you'd have realised if you'd   
   thought about what you were saying.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)