EL7900

It might not even be a "mirror" in the usual sense. ...Jim Thompson

If you say so. Blind leading the blind.. lots of that going on around here. Along with the overly rated class of engineers. It kind of makes me smurk..

Jamie

excrement

You know Bill, you do a lot of gestures on how others think, when in fact, it's your own personal weakness you are broadcasting.

It must be hard to find some one to disgrace so you can look better. There isn't too many here that can be much worst than you, trying to sell that pony ride you keep advertising.

Jamie

Ok, so your Vdd is 3.3 but you're getting 4.008V ? How can that be?

Something tells me there is an error in your implementation of the circuit?

It appears that you have gone above the Vdd rail and have caused a PN junction latch which happens in CMOS if you over drive the inputs and they are not designed to allow this..

I suppose the same could happen if you introduced more voltage than what is at the Vdd at other parts of this component. That I don't know but this sure sounds strange.

Jamie

I meant every word of it. People living in glass houses eventually get exposed for who they are.

It's simple really, SLow_Man has done so much that he must be over 300 hundred years old. His intellect being so vast he must of design some sort of gravity assist using quantum mechanics and maybe even a 555 timer in there with selenium rectifiers to hold that fat head of his on his shoulders. I was going to suggest a 5U3 but, he likes stinky things.

He's a man that has done it all and knows it all. Can find fault in everything any one does, even if it is right. Frankly, I don't think he knows any better half the time any way. After all, the internet can't be wrong, can it?

Jamie

Ideas? Show me some.. I didn't see ideas, I saw bluntness facts posted, at least they were presented that way with not much proof otherwise.

There are some here I have absolute respect for and the reason for that is, they know what they're talking about. You don't see them in there trying to stomp on people so they can get to the top of the manure pile, they don't need to.

Jamie

Do pay attention. He's describing two slightly different experiments. In the second he'd raised the supply voltage to 5.0V. A couple of people had asked what happened when he did that, and he's obligingly told us.

You really do go out of your way to confirm my image of you as a stumble-bum with delusions of competence.

Something tells the rest of us that there is a lot wrong with your reading comprehension.

PN

Having made a ass of himself, Jamie proceeds to confirm that he has long grey ears.

Someone with a little more sense than Jamie might have realised that he'd missed a trick at this point, but not our group's very own lame- brained dunce.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oid

ind

an do the same thing, whining without contributing.

John Larkin has a short and selective memory. I seem to have posted the first reaction to Marco Trapanese's original post, which contributed a fairly specific explanation of what was going on. John Larkin followed about four hours later, adding a contentless single line of non-comment to my fifteen lines of contribution. When John Fields and I jeered at him in consequence, he didn't defend what he'd posted, but went over to personal abuse.

What he wants us all to contribute are tributes to his - largely non- existent - brilliance. When he doesn't get them, he throws his rattle out of the cot.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

would

saying

Will you two get a room and take this pissing match offline?

do the same thing, whining without contributing.

My response to your post was positive and affirmative. I agreed with you. Apparently, any post with any content is enough to fling you into insult mode.

No surprise that nobody hires you, or keeps you if they make that mistake.

Your cluck/content ratio is well into the double digits.

would

saying

Design anything interesting lately?

would

to saying

In my field, yes. In this field, no. However, to compensate, I rarely engage in futile flame wars.

voltage

=20

=20

Thank you for demonstrating your reading deficit so clearly.

Reading it correctly;=20 with a 3.3 volt supply it tops out at 3.175 volts,=20 with a 5.0 volt supply it tops out at 4.008 volts.

Just read Marco's post, still included.

?-)

avoid

, find

omando the same thing, whining without contributing.

Your response didn't say anything. It may have said nothing in a positive and affirmative way, but as far as I as concerned it had been tagged onto my response and yet ignored my input. I'd have been no more irritated if it had said nothing in a negative and contradictory way (if that's possible).

No - you completely ignored what I'd posted. That's not disagreement either, which would have been less offensive.

mode.

Since your post had zero content, that's not a claim you can make.

Nobody has hired me recently. Before that I'd worked for pretty much everybody I worked for for at least two years, and left involuntarily just twice, after nine years of service, and two years and eleven months respectively for reasons that had nothing to do with my social skills.

Since John Fields and I went after you for posting pure cluck, you are in no position to complain.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

may

l not

some

alue

ng

excrement

r.

This from the guy that was rude to Marco Trapanese when he posted two observations on the EL7900 operated at two different supply voltages, and reported an output voltage for 5V operation that was higher than the supply voltage for 3V operation.

Since you didn't manage to notice that second set of observations described the circuit's operation at 5V, you carried on for several paragraphs about how odd this was.

You've just disgraced yourself, trying to sell the - obviously false - idea that you can process what you read in a useful way. Not so much a pony ride as an ass parade.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

As you - very kindly - have contrived to do to yourself further down this thread. Josephkk - who claims not to be one of my fans - shares my opinion.

Compared with Jamie, I do seem to have done a lot and know a lot. However I do conform to the basic definition of an expert - someone who knows how restricted their expertise actually is.

Interesting accusation. He won't have the evidence to support it, because it isn't true, but he may be dim enough to think that he has.

But who cares what Jamie thinks? A random number generator would be more useful - at least it is unbiased.

Sturgeons Law says that 90% of everything is rubbish

but that may over-estimate the reliability of the data posted on the internet, much of which comes from people like Jamie, who don't realise quite how incompetent they are, and people like John Larkin who post stuff that they like even when they've been repeatedly told that it's wrong (and why).

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen