On Sunday, 16 August 2015 03:14:28 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrot e:
Not strictly accurate. Get on a board a boat and try to get in as an illega l immigrant and the current government gets very up-tight. There are a rang e of other options.
formatting link
I certainly wasn't arguing that the current Australian constitution is perf ect - in the way that some Americans claim that the US constitution is - an d I'm not all that fond of the way Australian politics works. I'm not sure that a better constitution would improve that, since the current Australian education system has very obvious defects which saddle the country with cr ummier politicians than is entirely desirable.
mprehensive optimisation may involve longer design time, but it isn't gildi ng any lilies.
This requires that the 555 be "perfect" for the application in the first pl ace - which it hardly ever is.
The alien concept is of the 555 being perfect for any purpose. I'm sure tha t if you slice and dice your applications sufficiently finely you will find one or two where the defects of the 555 don't matter much, but the reality is that it's mostly used where better solutions exist and the designer is too lazy impliment them or too ignorant to realise that they exist.
Sure. It was a useful device at the time, largely because he managed to squ eeze the function down to eight pins - a point he makes in his book. That t ime was 1971, a while ago now.
For a very wimpy value of "decent load".
Obviously not.
and
buggy
e
ch
, but still fondly maintained by people who should long ago have moved on t o better solutions.
who idolises the founding tax evaders, and claim that the US constitution is the peak of constitutional design, never subsequently equalled - when my secondary school history lessons on the Australian Constitution discussed in some detail the defects of the US constitution and how the Australian co nstitution had avoided some of them. Sadly, it didn't go for proportional r epresentation with the enthusiasm it should have, and the 1948 German const itution leaves it for dead.
My position on the obsolescence of the 555 is up there with motherhood and apple pie. If it's a failure it's only because - as a cliche - it's a failu re of originality.
Really? How interesting. The same sort of in-depth analysis that got you th ere would seem to be of the same kind that supports your use of the 555.
Do spell out how the Queen of England would revoke the Australian constitut ion, bearing in mind that her political power is limited to endorsing her - elected - government's choices, and - when that government loses the confi dence of Parliament, inviting some MP to try and form a new government that could win a vote of confidence. It doesn't leave a lot of room for revokin g the constitutions of other countries.
--
Since you're not in a position to know all of the applications for
which a 555 is perfect, nor the situations determining what makes it
perfect for that application, you're really not in a position to make
that judgement call with any authority.
That's a hoot. The 555 is a mediocre timer and an a pathetic NPN power switch on one package. It was good enough for a lot of applications back in 1971, but the competition got better rapidly.
The sophistry is in the claim that the 555 is "perfect" for any purpose. You've got to be deludedly infatuated with the part to have made the claim in the first place.
You would. It's the right part for vanishing few jobs, but some people have an exaggerated idea of virtues.
The device is still being bought - which is sort of amazing when you realise how crummy it is - but less amazing when you see how many 741's are still being sold, which are at least as crummy.
The 555 output can sink 10mA at 0.1V typ. 0.25V worst case. It can sink more current (and get hotter)if you can live with higher saturation voltages. There's a wide gap between that and any kind of "tank".
In almost all application, it's the current sinking capacity that matters. The discharge transistor is only slightly more pathetic than NPN part of the output stage, but it is adequate for it's (more restricted) purpose. Not that you will have let that inhibit your misplaced ingenuity..
I don't know the details, I just install them using the package manaager, and they run. (I Think I did something one to enable "i386" in somethig called "multiarch" which i beleive is debian specific.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman Gave us:
Parts houses sell in "M" numbers.
The fact that these garner "B" level sales results per annum clearly shows that you are clueless and are simply trying to make yourself appear otherwise.
DecadentLoser is lower pond-scum than Slowman >:-} ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
For a baseline, the claim I made was that the 555 is perfect for _some_ applications, not for all.
Your allegation that: "The alien concept is of the 555 being perfect for any purpose." can be interpreted in at least two ways.
The first is that my claim was fallacious because I claimed that the
555 can be can be used in any application at all, which is manifestly false.
The second is that my claim that a 555 is a perfect fit for some applications was fallacious because it's perfect for none.
Again manifestly false as evidenced by your inability/reticence to provide proof instead of: "because I say so"
But... perhaps I was wrong in giving you credit for the rather seemingly clever attempt at subterfuge and should, rather, chalk it up to serendipity. John Fields
--
A "tank" is generally considered to be a resonant circuit due to its
abilty to store energy for a time.
You take unwarrented liberties by trying to bend physics to your will.
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 23:49:01 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrot e:
Parts houses also sell millions of 741 op amps. The argument that this impl ies that the 741 is a good op amp or that the 555 is a useful device rests on the assumption that these parts were designed in recently.
In fact both are "legacy" parts, and their continuing consumption reflects history, not their current competitive status.
This is a more complicated idea than you can get your head around, and your failure to understand the implications just reminds us that you are the on e who is clueless, and completely incapable of demonstrating the sort of co mprehension that might let you claim any higher intellectual standing.
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 23:50:57 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrot e:
formatting link
I'm not altogether surprised that you think what I've posted is bunkum - it 's all been a bit above your intellectual level. The origin of the word - s peaking for Buncombe - reflects an unfortunate political speech which wasn' t well received. Applying it to rather different content that you don't und erstand reveals exactly how pathetic your own ill-informed opinions are.
The word "tank" does have a number of meanings, most of which can be disambiguated by context. From the context above it is clear that both you and I had been referring to a large armoured military vehicle.
Your attempt to disregard this context and assert that the word could only mean a resonant circuit is a feeble and unwarranted joke.
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.