Is Electronics Addictive?

...

Neat -- thanks for the information, Rich.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

It's kinda harder to do with, e.g., only a 3.3V Vcc, isn't it? -- When I can burn some power, for a common emitter I do the usual voltage divider output to base with about 5-10x the expected base current through it, and park the emitter at some "reasonable" voltage. But since the amount of negative feedback (stability improvement) you get effectively is the ratio of Ve to Vbe, in a 3.3V system you sacrifice a significant amount of output swing unless you significantly reduce the common ~2-3V Ve typically found in 12/15V systems.

For ICs, I seem to recall you're a fan of current-mode designs having once pointed people to this book:

---Joel

wrote in

grade,

upped the

the blue

:-)

No. My design was only for me. (I was only 18 at the time ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Tom Frederiksen appended that moniker to me... because I could see a way to stabilize almost anything.

You think only inside the discrete circuit configuration box :-)

I'm not a fan, just have a copy of that book. Thought it might be useful for the student ;-) ...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

True. I've never had an opportunity to do proper IC design, and back in school it was all CMOS and typically you weren't allowed resistors anyway except for one to set your current reference somewhere (off of an assumed-regulated VDD).

But I fully expect you do almost as well at discrete circuit designs as you do with ICs... :-)

Probably better. I have no compunction preventing me from direct-coupling as much as possible. ...Jim Thompson

Ahem: "played."

Sorry for the typo, the way I whine and snivel about them I should be more careful!

Thanks! Rich

Ah! Apparently then, the answer to the original question "Is Electronics Addictive?" is no.

Thanks, Rich

I'm not sure who the end-product company is - I'm selling to the laser manufacturer - and I have NDAs besides. But imagine the market if, say, you had to do this every few years to keep your depth of focus. Hundreds of millions of treatments per year. Hundreds of billions of dollars?

John

Even stupid people are right once in a while, by accident. Being AlwaysWrong is different.

John

It could be "yes" for some people. One could neglect one's health, family, and hygiene by being too compulsive about anything.

Apparently gamers are dying from multi-day online binges. Same idea.

John

The number of LASIK procedures in the US and Europe has been flat or worse for the past few years.. world total of refractive correction procedures amounts to less than $6bn for ~3E6 procedures.. so maybe that's a bit optimistic for the mid term, but it could be pretty lucrative, especially with repeat business, aging populations, long lifespans and lots of disposable income.

Here's an interesting article:-

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Naaaah! It's all lens replacement now. ...Jim Thompson

"Different" isn't even close to AlwaysWrong.

Which, if Obamacare isn't stopped, will be rationed for ordinary people and free for the inner party minions.

Vote Ron Paul 2012!

Cheers! Rich

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;-)

But there's really no excuse for what amounts to willful stupidity.

Cheers! Rich

I'd be surprised if anyone other than "inner party minions" at present have health insurance that pays for LASIK...

Why? I can get LASIK for $500/eye. That's just a couple pairs of moderately-priced eyeglasses.

The new VA clinic at 'The Villages' will start doing Lasik later this year.