Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #742849

Re: fast divider?

Show all headers | View raw

On 2026-04-02 14:20, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 13:17:33 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-04-02 10:53, john larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:41:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/04/2026 3:12 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 02:13:38 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2026 7:06 pm, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:54:44 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/04/2026 2:14 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 22:30:44 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2026 8:40 pm, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:35:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2026 2:00 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:42:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2026 2:18 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 15:52:53 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/03/2026 8:38 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 16:44:40 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/03/2026 5:39 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 03:00:16 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/03/2026 1:52 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 16:36:43 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/03/2026 4:05 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 22:30:01 +0000, someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cffbf4deb9142bce48974efc0e64dede@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Invention is precisely running into - running toward - the unexpected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a bizarre way of looking at it. It's doing something in a way
>>>>>> that hasn't been done before, but it is goal directed, and you wouldn't
>>>>>> start the process if you didn't have a pretty clear idea of what you
>>>>>> wanted to do, if not exactly how you were going to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I strongly disagree; that is backwards. Sometimes we imagine products
>>>>> or circuits that nobody ever wanted or expected. It just happens
>>>>> sometimes at 2AM.
>>>>
>>>> And very few of them look sensible after the sun has come up.
>>>
>>> Most are obviously goofy. Many have already been invented and are on
>>> the market. There are still lots that might become products.
>>>
>>> So the next step is to research what's out there. Lately we hire a
>>> bright college student to research the science, technology,
>>> competitors, market. They deliver a report for $1000.
>>>
>>> One unstated benefit is that we get to evaluate the kids, even if the
>>> technology idea was silly.  And it's fun.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a folder full of ideas, most speculative and unexpected and
>>>>> probably dumb.
>>>>
>>>> If you knew a bit more, it would be a much thinner folder.
>>>
>>> It would be thicker.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We hire smart kids, college students, to explore them
>>>>> and write up a report on the possible uses, competitors specs and
>>>>> pricing, any interesting offshoots that occur to them. They get a
>>>>> fixed fee when they turn in the report.
>>>>
>>>> An expensive self-indulgence.
>>>
>>> Super cheap, compared to the alternates, like hiring a
>>> usually-fatheaded marketing manager.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes that's accidental, but can be deliberately provoked.
>>>>>>> Inventing needs the right skills and personality but improves with
>>>>>>> practice in the right environment. Books have been written about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of them useful enough to have been touted at places that encouraged
>>>>>> inventions and applying for patents. EMI Central Research was just such
>>>>>> a place, and I worked there for three years without ever running into
>>>>>> such a book. The histories of Bell Labs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_Factory
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have that one; good book.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone said that all the great inventions at Bell in those days were
>>>>> done by people who ate lunch with Harry Nyquist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> didn't mention any such book either. People will write books with the
>>>>>> flimsiest of justifications if they think the product will sell.
>>>>>> Teaching people how to make genuine inventions would be a very good
>>>>>> thing if you could do it, and a lot of confidence tricksters claim that
>>>>>> they can. The evidence supporting such claims doesn't seem to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real evidence is purchase orders.
>>>>
>>>> People don't give you purchase orders for patents. They buy products.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Patents are "An expensive self-indulgence."
>>>
>>>> A good and patentable idea can be central to a product, but inept
>>>> development can wreck the best of ideas. The Lintech electron beam
>>>> tester was based on a patented idea of their boss, whose name was on the
>>>> patent (which he'd got to own). He cheap-skated on the development to
>>>> such an extent that one of his ex-engineers was able to build a pretty
>>>> much identical machine which destroyed his business - nobody ordered a
>>>> Lintech machine after the Schlumberger competitor hit the market, and
>>>> after Lintech had delivered the last of the machine it had sold they
>>>> went bankrupt. Mike Engelhart  - of LTSpice fame - worked on that project.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Some people invent things. Some intelligent and (over)educated people
>>>>>>> actively resent invention, because they can't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't say that I've met any of them. My father and two of my friends
>>>>>> have each got their names onto about 25 patents and none of them ever
>>>>>> talked about people resenting that work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given an enormous space of undiscovered ideas, one profits from a
>>>>>>>>> method of exploring them in parallel with minimal filtering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At EMI Central Research we were encourage to submit patent queries. One
>>>>>> of my colleagues put in a record number of patent queries - about fifty
>>>>>> in one year - and was seen as having rather poor judgement. None of them
>>>>>> turned into a patent. He would have benefited from better filtering.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real evidence is purchase orders.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to be the only evidence you can understand. You seem to have
>>>> got your name on exactly one patent, taken out by a group you were
>>>> working with, so your grasp of what constitutes a patentable idea and
>>>> what you can do with it does seem to be second hand.
>>>
>>> Why the obsession with patents?
>>>
>>> Only a small fraction of patents become commercial successes. Most are
>>> abandoned in the expensive process before they are issued, and then
>>> most issued patents are abandoned because of the maintenance fees.
>>>
>>> Expensive vanity, mostly. OK if you are a big drug company maybe.
>>
>> We filed a provisional for the thermal Faraday shield, but that's our
>> only one in the 17 years we've been in business.  We're hoping to
>> interest folk like 3M--they could sell Scotch Isothermal Tape. :)
>>
>> In periods when there's venture money around (i.e. not the present
>> time), patent protection is important for startups, because it's hard to
>> get money without it.
>>
>> Plus, of course, we do a lot of patent litigation work.

> 
> The only patent that I'm named on is for a kinda silly delay-line
> imaging anode, to locate charge hits behind a microchannel plate. It
> was just a suggestion on my part. But VCs had taken control of the
> company, as they are wont to do, and they like to have a giant patent
> portfolio for when they go public and cash out.

Well, in your average startup you have two basic assets: your people and 
your IP.  The IP is easier to control.
> 
> This was during the nanotech fad, which peaked and crashed before the
> thing could go public.
> 
> I have one of the anodes around here somewhere. It does look cool.

Post a picture!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-27 11:39 -0700
  Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 16:44 +1100
    Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-28 14:38 -0700
      Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-29 15:52 +1100
        Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-29 08:18 -0700
          Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 16:42 +1100
            Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-30 08:00 -0700
              Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 16:35 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 02:40 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 22:30 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 08:14 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-31 10:41 -0700
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 10:57 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-31 14:25 -0700
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 15:16 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 16:17 +1100
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 16:05 +1100
                Re: fast divider? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-01 02:04 -0700
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 07:25 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-01 16:07 +0000
                Re: fast divider? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-01 09:37 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 15:54 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 01:06 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:13 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 09:12 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 14:41 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 07:53 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 02:21 +1100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 08:57 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 04:05 +1100
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-02 13:17 -0400
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 11:20 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-09 10:55 -0400
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-09 10:34 -0700
                Re: fast divider? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-09 13:43 -0400
                Re: fast divider? John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> - 2026-04-09 19:07 +0100
                Re: fast divider? john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-09 13:47 -0700

csiph-web