Please use OT in subject lines of your posts...

I might be mistaken in thinking that this is a serious question, but here's how I do it...

I don't see Sloman's messages unless someone replies to them.

It's not that he doesn't sometimes have useful things to say, but they're so deeply buried in his unmitigated crap - which never garners useful responses - that it's really a much better place without him.

No-one else here has earned that treatment. Half a dozen others are automatically marked "read", because they sometimes get serious and useful responses. I want to see those.

s.e.d is much better that way anyhow.

Bill Sloman MASSIVE Troll wrote: =====================

** Completely delusional crap. ** The inventer is YOU - f*****ad.

Trolls come in many guises, you are but one.

** That is blatant trolling and very malicious. ** Irrelevant.

** Naturally. You use your real identity and so are highly vulnerable.

...... Phil

Design engineers design a solution to a problem as economically as possible.

They do the "research" (in the Tom Lehrer sense) to enable them to create their solution.

Most solutions use things that they would not be competent to design.

Where, through ignorance, they recreate something they are not competent to design, they create elliptical wheels. That should be prevented, by simply buying component parts developed elsewhere.

** LOL !!

"' Plagiarise, plagiarise, let no one else's work evade your eyes .... "

IME Good designers combine the best ideas from existing or previous products.

Bad ones copy the worst.

..... Phil

Really? Show me that patent application.

Phil seems to think that most of them are autistic as well. Once he has latched onto a concept, he uses everywhere.

If they are posting nonsense - one of your specialities - it is entirely public-spirited and totally virtuous.

So why aren't you using them? Presumably you have tried them, and they clearly haven't worked.

To what? Your identity is equally real, which does severely limit what you can hope to get away with.

Not exactly. Bad designers don't understand what they copying so they replicate irrelevant details and screw up the fundamentals.

John Larkin wrote: <snip>

I do a fair amount of business cleaning up after folks who only know how to do that. There are apparently many people who choose parts based on the keywords in the datasheet--"lidar", "transimpedance", "IoT", and so on.

The BOM cost savings can be pretty startling, especially considering the improved performance.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I just designed a circuit that costs literally 1% of the cost of the standard way people do it.

I'm pretty sure I can clean up those little wiggles on the next iteration, and make it faster. The zero volt level doesn't matter much, because that's the extinction point of an e/o modulator, the bottom of the sine-squared curve. The pulse flatness does matter.

I actually have to thank you for making this possible, so you're welcome to the circuit any time.

Dunno who would copy a textbook circuit, the idea of it should make all but the most inexperienced skeptical. Today the manufacturers publish "reference designs." Some of them are very LARGE involving quite a few areas of expertise, especially the programmable stuff- parts with 500 page data-/tech- sheets, obviously the result of a group effort.

I knew a guy who copied eval board circuits onto his own little boards with barrier strips and sold them into the industrial process control market. He never designed anything.

He was doing great until he started day trading with the profits; lost everything, house and wife and all.

That's hilarious. Are you building one?

Hiding under your bed is a more economical way to avoid viruses.

SAV-581+ to the rescue!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

No, but close guess.

It's my definition. It's what I do.

I suppose anyone can buy some parts from Digikey and slap them together. Like anyone can play a guitar or slap some paint on canvass.

Circuit designers are a couple of levels up the abstraction stack from the physics of resistors and such. Coders are about 5 levels further removed.

The number of possible circuits that can be assembled from even 100 popular parts is basically infinite. Exploring the solution space is not trivial and few people are really good at it.

But ignorance and luck should be allowed in the design process. Historically, lots of great inventors didn't understand how their discoveries worked.

And a few invent stuff they haven't seen before.

Somebody said "All I have to do is copy app notes" and didn't think about where those app notes came from.

It's what he thinks he does.

They can. Most of them can't put anything together that is good enough to sell, but some markets are less demanding that others.