Error correction in short packet.

That's *cranky*. I have little patience for distractions (of any kind) when I'm over tired (and focused on getting things in order so I can

*rest*) or "overloaded" -- and need to get things off my plate so I can concentrate on something "new".

People aren't hostile to ideas (JL sees *everything* as some aspect of hostility; an entirely passive-aggressive outlook on life).

But, people can be resistant to the *consequences* of ideas. Direct or otherwise.

NIH figures big in engineering. Folks always want to think their PAST accomplishment is somehow the epitome of thinking on that subject. This is likely some reflection on their own ego as well as a manifestation of "laziness" -- they aren't really interested in solving a problem again, even if *better*!

And, engineering is a field where one is quickly obsolete. Especially if too narrow a focus in your endeavors.

I had a stick-in-the-mud fight tooth-and-nail against replacing HIS decade-old analog control system with a digital one. Despite the fact that customers weren't buying it anymore AND sales of the "controlled equipment" (7 figures) were being lost because of this "antiquated offering".

Another old-timer fought to preserve a part numbering system that, ages ago (when fewer parts were in inventory) would allow him to fabricate a "close approximation" to a desired part number using a paper cheat sheet he kept in his wallet. ("And what do we do when you're on vacation? Or, RETIRE??!")

Another *principal* argued that developers should use octal notation to specify *opcodes* (!) using a similar "pocket assembler". ("Um, you know, there are tools that eliminate the need for doing this sort of thing. Just like there are tools that allow us to travel great distances without wearing out our SHOES!")

Or, clinging to old ideas because they were patent worthy -- ten years ago! <rolls eyes> Despite the fact that your competitors have all found BETTER ways to do the same thing!

All examples of the "that's how we USED to do it" mindset. ("I *built* this company using that technique!" "Yeah, and it hasn't *grown* in years!")

All examples of people keeping their companies tied to the past and closing off opportunities to advance.

I find email to be the single most effective tool in the design process:

- It is self-documenting.

- It supports participants at widely different locations/timezones

- It allows the recipients time to digest the material presented.

- It allows them time to formulate and revise their response. I know many folks who are lousy "thinking on their feet". But, given time, have tremendously valuable insights.

- It is non-confrontational. Face to face *meetings* (not a one-on-one by the water cooler) have undercurrents, especially in small companies where folks may have agendas or jockey to get in the boss's good favor or risk "bucking the system".

- It inherently dampens any "unbridled enthusiasm" that may be based in emotion and not reason.

- No "voice" can overpower a conversation.

- There's no "audience"; come as you are!

- There's no implied (polite society) need to respond to every utterance. You can just let an idea die, "gracefully".

- There's no issue of "face"

- The Cc: list can change from one message to the next. To bring someone into the conversation, you just have to add their name to the Cc/Bcc line.

- Participants can drop out of the conversation at will (imagine getting up and excusing yourself from a meeting and NOT being noticed for doing so!)

- You can adjust your recipients to subsets of the group without offending those not involved *or* distracting from their ongoing conversations.

- You can cut-and-paste bits of the conversation into your design specification/requirements document/manual using words that others have already chosen

The biggest downside to email is a consequence of all of these features: the elapsed time involved. But, if you think you can "create on demand" or "within a specific timeframe", you are likely going to get only incremental changes to ideas. It takes time to stew on issues before you can formulate GOOD solutions.

[I find the shower to be the best "facilitator"; no visual or audible distractions, comfortable warmth, etc. I'm free to "just imagine" solutions without having to deal with other people, pen&paper, etc.]

But, if you're just working on small/simple problems, you can likely hammer out *a* solution in short order.

Reply to
Don Y
Loading thread data ...

Not at all. I'm cheerful and helpful. But there are a lot of nasty people here who don't design electronics.

Reply to
jlarkin

You sure got that right !

boB

Reply to
boB

Playing with circuits is fun. Endless ritual squabbling is boring and bad for you. So why do they do it here?

Reply to
jlarkin

Not sure ?

This may be a place where they can "identify" somehow. Kind of like flat earthers and those who follow an alternative existence.

They feel that they "belong" somehow.

If I were a psychologist, I might be able to find a name for SED.

boB

Reply to
boB

The subject here is electronics. The old hens don't belong.

If people want to discuss their feelings, they should go to Facebook or Grindr.

Reply to
jlarkin

Quadratics are non-linear and taught as high school algebra. Cubics and their closed form solutions are seldom taught even at degree level.

A few other non-linear closed form solutions are known up to quartics. After that it is what Pade approximations are designed for.

They cause pure mathematicians to cross themselves and run out of the room. That aside on a good day you can get a workable and insightful approximations for real problems that are good enough for engineering.

Their first serious use was in taming highly divergent and hard won series expansions for high Mach number turbulent flow in aerospace.

The crucial point is that they are neither provably right nor exact but over some moderate range of your choosing can be made good enough for all practical purposes (or used as a guess for NR/Halley refinement).

Reply to
Martin Brown

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.