Widlar's Early Treatise on Semiconductors

Oops, I missed "Lowry AFB"

Me? Like simulation? I only use it for things like series filters and a few other things. I can't stand the models board level designers are forced to use, so don't trust anything but "ideal" components. At least I know what I'm simulating.

The TAs in chemistry and physics weren't so bad but the classes, and in particular, the labs were horrible. That's on the full prof running the show, not on the poor droid carrying out the orders.

Who said anything about slacking off? The labs, particularly the chem labs, just didn't work and, even with all of the time they wasted (under penalty of the grade) weren't long enough to finish the project it *anything* went wrong.

With chem and physics? Not a chance. The courses were really bad (and got worse with each one. The third semester of physics was optics AND quantum. The curve was bimodal with >40% between 90 and

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 5:37:19 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: .

They blew you away IOW...

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 7:47:36 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: .

Fudging labs, steering clear of professors, and probably sharing prior mid-term and final examination questions= typical American diploma mill cesspool... .You're even more of a subhuman trash heap than I originally suspected.

I've downloaded a copy. Thanks Jim - a very public-spirited gesture.

That may have been how it worked, but chemistry and physics are well worth studying, even when the teachers are inadequate.

d-term and final examination questions= typical American diploma mill ces spool... .You're even more of a subhuman trash heap than I originally suspe cted.

Lots of people don't get as much out of their education as they should. Krw definitely hasn't learned as much as he should have, and does now seem to lack the capacity to absorb any new facts, but it's probably unfair to the American education system - unattractive as it can be - for krw's personali ty defects.

He is uniquely unsavoury, even amongst our collection of dim psychopaths.

That's just being pickey about working language. We say "zero" and "infinite" because it's handy, and some prigs want to debate the exactness of those terms.

The Widlar paper uses the term "current flow."

I respect physics and even use it once in a while. I recently showed one of my new engineers how conservation of energy made a complex issue - how much Vcc current a class D amp uses - simple.

As an engineer, I do whatever works fastest and best. If that's random selection of parts values, or using some physically incorrect model, and it works, I'll do it. Face it: a complex piece of electronics is beyond analysis by theoretical physics.

Most physicists (Phil excepted) are terrible circuit designers. Peruse RSI for examples.

Somehow I don't think that's too relevant to circuit design.

I think somebody was concerned about explaining how tubes work, or something.

Sometimes it matters.

crap they all were taught in school. They never had any undergrad physics courses to debunk all the misleading "lies to children" they had to memori ze.

es we took? Do we also need the oversimplified lies-to-children of techni cian textbooks, since we cannot possibly understand the adult-level physics which we supposedly had in 1st-year classes?

Some of us can understand some of it, and situations can come up where we n eed to understand more than is taught in first-year classes, and should be able to get into a library somewhere and learn a bit more.

technician-school based, and they apparently rejected many concepts from p hysics/engineering books. Usually we can tell the difference between the two: the technician-types seem to love vacuum tubes and hate hole-flow in s emiconductors. They insist that amperes go backwards, and try hard to igno re the fact that electrons do not flow in ground (dirt) or in human tissue, and they usually pretend that, in battery acid, electrons are flowing.

Not exactly true, but a theoretical physics style analysis would take way l onger than is usually practical, or is economically feasible.

Seconded. But most electronic engineers aren't all that good as circuit des igners either - Sturgeons Law says that 90% of everything is rubbish. Elect ronic engineers do have the advantage that most of what they do is looked a t by other electronic engineers who can usually spot the obvious drop-offs.

n-engineers should take care to never look up Grotthus Mechanism, it will o nly make them more confused and intellectually dishonest than they already are.

It can be, but not all that often. We usually don't carry how current trave ls inside our "black boxes".

Sorry, but that's the sort of argument I expect from the climate crooks at East Anglia. Fudging data is a big no-no.

Dunno about the course. That's the prof's responsibility. How we handle it is ours.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Chemistry was useless. Physics would have been well worth it if the courses were designed to teach rather than thin the herd.

You're an idiot.

...and a liar, but it's not the fault of the compulsive liar.

The choice was that or flunk the course. They didn't care either way. That's what they wanted, in fact. They had their target.

Survival.

I know you can't read, but you don't have to let everyone else in on your secret.

Fudging data is a big no-no, but there's absolutely no evidence that the climate guys at East Anglia - Climategate - did anything of the sort.

The denialist propaganda machine blew a lot of smoke about it, but Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"

clears them of any data-fudging. Fred Pearce didn't like the way they went after a crooked editor at some minor climate science journal, who published a denialist-planted paper despite it being rejected by four referees, but that's because he's a typical UK science journalist who knows very little about how science actually works.

Agreed.

Absolutely. You can learn stuff even if it is less well-presented than it might be. And semi-conductor physics wouldn't exist without a lot of high-powered chemistry.

You're just not very impressive. And your educational background explains a LOT about your pathetic posts and behavior on usenet.

And your educational background does not.

Bloggo never says anything about himself. No doubt he has good reasons.

I have no interest in impressing someone as stupid as you, Blobbs. I don't do pocket lint.

You're another unimpressive little key pecker- useless. In any other day and time, people like you and the krw troll would be rag colectors.