Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #518255 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-03 15:03 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-05 10:44 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 15:03 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-03 15:23 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Andy Bennet <andyb@andy.com> - 2018-10-04 08:20 +0100
Re: really fast buffers Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-04 08:45 -0700
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 15:52 -0700
Re: really fast buffers George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2018-10-03 18:08 -0700
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 20:02 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 21:54 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <9fe142ac@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 20:10 -0700
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 20:40 -0700
Re: really fast buffers pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 05:00 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <9fe142ac@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 08:39 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-04 12:38 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <9fe142ac@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:35 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-04 18:27 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-05 03:21 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-05 10:38 -0400
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 11:50 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-05 09:26 +1000
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 17:09 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-05 03:12 +0000
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:18 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-05 23:42 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-06 14:41 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-05 03:09 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-05 10:40 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-05 11:06 -0400
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 19:16 -0700
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:26 -0700
Re: really fast buffers George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2018-10-05 18:36 -0700
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 19:22 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-06 02:28 +0000
Re: really fast buffers <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 06:03 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <9fe142ac@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 23:41 -0700
Re: really fast buffers <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 08:12 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-06 14:46 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-06 19:03 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-06 15:32 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-06 20:08 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-06 22:19 +0200
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-06 21:02 +0000
Re: really fast buffers tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 16:57 -0700
Re: really fast buffers krw@notreal.com - 2018-10-06 22:30 -0400
Re: really fast buffers Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-07 04:30 +0200
Re: really fast buffers <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-07 07:15 +0000
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-07 08:24 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-07 18:51 -0700
Re: really fast buffers tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 08:16 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2018-10-07 07:19 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2018-10-10 00:38 -0700
Re: really fast buffers tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 03:02 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-10 04:07 -0700
Re: really fast buffers DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-10 11:28 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2018-10-11 22:06 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-12 00:08 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2018-10-13 22:29 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-14 00:30 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2018-10-15 19:38 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-15 20:55 -0700
Re: really fast buffers tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 04:31 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-14 07:29 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2018-10-15 19:42 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-15 20:57 -0700
Re: really fast buffers tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 08:41 -0700
Re: really fast buffers krw@notreal.com - 2018-10-16 17:38 -0400
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-16 19:37 -0700
Re: really fast buffers bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-16 19:40 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2018-10-15 19:40 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2018-10-11 22:04 -0700
Re: really fast buffers tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 08:02 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-10 14:06 +0200
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-10 08:31 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-11 01:49 +0200
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-10 17:41 -0700
Re: really fast buffers "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:53 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-10-11 05:47 +0000
Re: really fast buffers Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-11 12:35 +0200
Re: really fast buffers George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2018-10-06 12:39 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-06 20:11 +0000
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-08 20:26 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-06 14:45 -0400
Re: really fast buffers George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2018-10-06 12:46 -0700
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-08 21:00 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-09 07:11 +0200
Re: really fast buffers Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-09 23:20 +1100
Re: really fast buffers Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2018-10-09 15:17 +0200
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 09:18 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-04 12:39 -0400
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 11:51 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2018-10-08 13:19 +0200
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-08 08:52 -0700
Re: really fast buffers whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:57 -0700
Re: really fast buffers David Nadlinger <david@klickverbot.at> - 2018-10-04 23:05 +0100
Re: really fast buffers John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: really fast buffers Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-05 11:26 +0200
Re: really fast buffers Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-05 10:44 -0400
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecbcdfb9-bf3a-4069-8dbf-97e5c9d2446d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519246 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > > >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > >>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. > > >>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast > > >>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond > > >>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. > > >>>> > > >>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) > > >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline > > >>> > > >>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. > > >>> > > >> Yes, I remember the book. > > > > > > You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" > > * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact > > > > > >> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. > > >> I am talking about science FACT. > > > > > > That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. > > > > > >> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". > > > > > > He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. > > * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. > > Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. > > Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent > > negative time delay. > > Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lecxD.64922$UI2.42085@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #519250 |
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. >>>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast >>>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond >>>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >>>>>> >>>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, I remember the book. >>>> >>>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" >>> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. >>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact >>>> >>>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. >>>>> I am talking about science FACT. >>>> >>>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. >>>> >>>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". >>>> >>>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. >>> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. >>> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. >>> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent >>> negative time delay. >> >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > Are you not dee LIGHTful?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 20:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6d85092-998f-48b7-b410-7c3da523b9b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519435 |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 1:42:29 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > >>>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. > >>>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast > >>>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond > >>>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I remember the book. > >>>> > >>>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" > >>> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact > >>>> > >>>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. > >>>>> I am talking about science FACT. > >>>> > >>>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. > >>>> > >>>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". > >>>> > >>>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. > >>> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. > >>> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. > >>> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent > >>> negative time delay. > >> > >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > > > Are you not dee LIGHTful? The illumination I provide does seem to be of a nature that you can't perceive. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 08:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <461c3706-353d-40ad-9c44-7b80ddf4ce59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519435 |
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > > > Are you not dee LIGHTful? Google narcissist if necessary. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 17:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cgmcsdl9a9iolb7c33rlnd4oricmnn3ok4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #519491 |
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > >> >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. >> > >> > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. >> > >> Are you not dee LIGHTful? > >Google narcissist if necessary. > Why does _anyone_ read Slowman's bullshit anymore?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb43623b-fb3d-461f-adef-846eb2e03023@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519518 |
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 8:38:17 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > > >On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > > >> >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > >> > > >> > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > >> > > >> Are you not dee LIGHTful? > > > >Google narcissist if necessary. > > > Why does _anyone_ read Slowman's bullshit anymore? Why does anybody read krw's delusions anymore? My opinions have been known to change, so there's the potential for an interesting difference. Krw's opinions never change, no matter how wrong they are, so there really is no point in keeping up with them. I only read his postings because they are so easy to jeer at. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7593e17-ae13-4f1d-be24-c68fe8c670af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519491 |
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 2:42:03 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > > >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > > > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > > > > > Are you not dee LIGHTful? > > Google narcissist if necessary. John Larkin is our resident example of the breed, but NT seems to be making a bid to outdo him. He certainly has the same unreasonable confidence in the accuracy of his misconceptions. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <BccxD.64921$UI2.64395@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #519246 |
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: >>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. >>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast >>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond >>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. >>>>>> >>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >>>>> >>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. >>>>> >>>> Yes, I remember the book. >>> >>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" >> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. >> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact >>> >>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. >>>> I am talking about science FACT. >>> >>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. >>> >>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". >>> >>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. >> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. >> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. >> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent >> negative time delay. > > Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > NT > Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 22:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <xXVvD.102547$9O2.41876@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #518866 |
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. >> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast >> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond >> logic threshold BEFORE input. > > What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) > > > NT > Did i not say "what LOOKS like negative time delay"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <890398a6-ca7b-4283-a2ee-13eac1f8a425@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #519026 |
On Friday, 12 October 2018 06:04:34 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > tabbypurr wrote: > > On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > > > >> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. > >> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast > >> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond > >> logic threshold BEFORE input. > > > > What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) > > > > > > NT > > > Did i not say "what LOOKS like negative time delay"? Oi, stop getting all facty. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 14:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g268amFednuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #518631 |
Am 07.10.2018 um 16:19 schrieb Winfield Hill:
> Gerhard Hoffmann wrote...
>>
>> BTW, I have built a variation of Winfield's 70 pV/rtHz amplifier
>> from AoE3. The non-differential version, since my source is
>> never centered around 0 Vdc. Works as promised. :-)
>>
>> Yes, it could use even more 'lytics, but that was a test balloon for
>> a chopper amplifier. At 500 kHz the caps are no more that critical.
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/45141749941/in/album-72157662535945536/
>
> Nice! Please post your complete schematic. We only show a
> common-emitter amplifying stage, with millions of paralleled
> transistors, and our measurements, pages 506-509.
>
>
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/31348447748/in/album-72157662535945536/
>
and the pictures to the left & right.
The noise simulation tends to be optimistic.
There is now a negative version of LT3042 / 3045 : LT3094 :-)
negative voltage regulator, 2.2 nV/rt Hz
regards,
Gerhard
Version 4
SHEET 1 2048 1328
WIRE -240 -1136 -320 -1136
WIRE -240 -1120 -240 -1136
WIRE -48 -1104 -192 -1104
WIRE 176 -1104 -48 -1104
WIRE 224 -1104 176 -1104
WIRE 336 -1104 224 -1104
WIRE -192 -1072 -192 -1104
WIRE -240 -1056 -240 -1120
WIRE -368 -1024 -384 -1024
WIRE -320 -1024 -320 -1056
WIRE -320 -1024 -368 -1024
WIRE 176 -1024 176 -1104
WIRE -320 -1008 -320 -1024
WIRE -192 -944 -192 -992
WIRE -288 -928 -320 -928
WIRE -240 -928 -240 -1008
WIRE -240 -928 -288 -928
WIRE -192 -928 -192 -944
WIRE -48 -928 -48 -1104
WIRE -288 -912 -288 -928
WIRE 48 -880 16 -880
WIRE 96 -880 48 -880
WIRE 176 -880 176 -944
WIRE 48 -848 48 -880
WIRE -48 -752 -48 -832
WIRE 176 -656 176 -880
WIRE 256 -656 176 -656
WIRE 320 -656 256 -656
WIRE 176 -624 176 -656
WIRE 352 -576 240 -576
WIRE 352 -560 352 -576
WIRE 176 -496 176 -528
WIRE 176 -464 176 -496
WIRE -224 -416 -288 -416
WIRE -208 -416 -224 -416
WIRE -48 -416 -48 -672
WIRE -48 -416 -144 -416
WIRE 112 -416 -48 -416
WIRE -288 -352 -288 -416
WIRE -48 -352 -48 -416
WIRE 176 -272 176 -368
WIRE -288 -208 -288 -272
WIRE -288 -176 -288 -208
WIRE -288 -64 -288 -96
FLAG -192 -848 0
FLAG -288 -64 0
FLAG 224 -1104 vcc
FLAG -288 -208 vgen
FLAG -288 -912 0
FLAG -368 -1024 v3p
FLAG -240 -1120 v3r
FLAG -192 -944 v1p
FLAG -48 -272 0
FLAG 48 -784 0
FLAG 256 -656 raus
FLAG 352 -480 0
FLAG 176 -496 c1
FLAG 176 -272 0
FLAG -288 -576 0
FLAG -224 -416 rein
SYMBOL voltage -192 -944 R0
WINDOW 0 -32 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 -52 151 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 7
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.001
SYMBOL voltage -288 -192 R0
WINDOW 123 24 160 Left 2
WINDOW 39 24 132 Left 2
WINDOW 3 -155 185 Left 2
SYMATTR Value2 AC 1
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0
SYMATTR Value SINE(0.0 0.001 2000000 0 0 0)
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMBOL cap -144 -432 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 10000µ
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=1m
SYMBOL e -192 -1088 R0
SYMATTR InstName E1
SYMATTR Value 2
SYMBOL res -336 -1152 R0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 60
SYMBOL voltage -320 -1024 R0
WINDOW 0 -32 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 -57 138 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName V3
SYMATTR Value 0.1µ
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.1
SYMBOL res -64 -368 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 2k2
SYMBOL res -64 -768 R0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 2k2
SYMBOL res 192 -896 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 22k
SYMBOL cap 32 -848 R0
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 100µ
SYMBOL npn 16 -928 M0
WINDOW 0 -8 -39 Left 2
WINDOW 3 -55 -11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName Q3
SYMATTR Value ZTX851
SYMBOL res 160 -1040 R0
WINDOW 123 37 107 Left 2
SYMATTR Value2 m=3
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value 51
SYMBOL npn 112 -464 R0
WINDOW 0 91 30 Left 2
WINDOW 3 89 86 Left 2
WINDOW 123 91 58 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName Q4
SYMATTR Value ZTX851
SYMATTR Value2 m=16
SYMBOL npn 240 -624 M0
WINDOW 0 91 30 Left 2
WINDOW 3 89 86 Left 2
WINDOW 123 91 58 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value ZTX851
SYMATTR Value2 m=16
SYMBOL voltage 352 -576 R0
WINDOW 0 -32 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 -52 151 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName V4
SYMATTR Value 2.9
SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.001
SYMBOL res -304 -592 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 0.05
SYMBOL res -304 -368 R0
SYMATTR InstName R7
SYMATTR Value 1m
TEXT 272 -840 Left 2 !;tran 0 2m 1.97m
TEXT -104 -1128 Left 2 ;Vcc + E1 * 1n VRtHz noise
TEXT 272 -864 Left 2 !.op
TEXT 272 -808 Left 2 !.noise v(raus) V2 dec 1000 1 1e6
TEXT 272 -784 Left 2 !;ac dec 1000 10 10Meg
TEXT 264 -728 Left 2 !.temp 20 40 60
TEXT -344 -208 VLeft 2 ;50/0.005 Ohm = - 60 dB attenuator
TEXT 432 -256 VLeft 2 ;BZX84C2v7 + cap + Res to Vcc
TEXT -128 -216 Left 2 ;Q1 is really one 2SC3420 because avail. but model
missing.
TEXT -104 -168 Left 2 !*ZETEX ZTX851 Spice model Last revision
21/1/93 (C) 1993 ZETEX PLC\n\n* 200 pV/rtHz lt AOE3\n\n*\n\n.MODEL
ZTX851 NPN IS =1.0085E-12 NF =1.0001 BF =240 IKF=5.1 VAF=158\n\n+
ISE=2E-13 NE =1.38 NR =0.9988 BR =110 IKR=5.5 VAR=46 \n\n+
ISC=4.6515E-13 NC =1.334 RB =0.025 RE =0.018 RC =0.015 \n\n+
CJC=155E-12 MJC=0.4348 VJC=0.6477 CJE=1.05E-9 \n\n+ TF
=0.79E-9 TR =24E-9
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7o6srd1s2dv585fdidm5jq4a9hlbn9mb96@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518869 |
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:06:46 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >Am 07.10.2018 um 16:19 schrieb Winfield Hill: >> Gerhard Hoffmann wrote... >>> >>> BTW, I have built a variation of Winfield's 70 pV/rtHz amplifier >>> from AoE3. The non-differential version, since my source is >>> never centered around 0 Vdc. Works as promised. :-) >>> >>> Yes, it could use even more 'lytics, but that was a test balloon for >>> a chopper amplifier. At 500 kHz the caps are no more that critical. >>> >>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/45141749941/in/album-72157662535945536/ >> >> Nice! Please post your complete schematic. We only show a >> common-emitter amplifying stage, with millions of paralleled >> transistors, and our measurements, pages 506-509. >> >> > >< >https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/31348447748/in/album-72157662535945536/ > > > >and the pictures to the left & right. > >The noise simulation tends to be optimistic. How about using a step-up transformer and some jfets? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 01:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g27hg8FmimsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #518879 |
Am 10.10.2018 um 17:31 schrieb John Larkin: >> < >> https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/31348447748/in/album-72157662535945536/ >> > >> >> and the pictures to the left & right. >> >> The noise simulation tends to be optimistic. > > How about using a step-up transformer and some jfets? A step up transformer would preclude measuring small AC signals riding on a DC; a DC block would have to be really large and would probably resonate with the transformer stray inductance. Transformer + BJT would require a smaller step up ratio, which eases things, and BJTs usually have the better 1/f corner. I have also tried FET amplifiers with a heroic numbers of FETs, and also tried multiple IF3602. That leads to a huge input capacitance and also questionable stability. A BF862, RIP, or its new successors from ON semi are somewhere at 900 pV/rtHz and the ZTX851 at 200 pV/rtHz; that is quite a head start for the BJT, given that halving the voltage noise requires quadrupling the number of transistors. I have also tried transformers in the chopper amplifier after the chopper switch; that resulted in very bad ringing. It first seemed attractive to step up the voltage after the switch so I could use an ADA4898 after the transformer. Snubbering away the glitches probably converts precious input signal energy to heat, not only the charge injection of the switches. Noise-optimizing a chopper with Spice is close to impossible. With the (large-signal) switching going on, there is no such thing as an operating point where one could sum up the noise contributions. That would work probably with a harmonic balance simulator, but I don't want to spend a fortune on ADS. BFP640 is also at 300 pV/rtHz, even less at cryo temp, but it has a 50 KHz 1/f corner, being a microwave transistor. cheers, Gerhard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5i6trd1sog7trjnfk7vgk60gkfr1qn3pag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518908 |
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:49:28 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote: >Am 10.10.2018 um 17:31 schrieb John Larkin: > >>> < >>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/31348447748/in/album-72157662535945536/ >>> > >>> >>> and the pictures to the left & right. >>> >>> The noise simulation tends to be optimistic. >> >> How about using a step-up transformer and some jfets? > >A step up transformer would preclude measuring small AC signals >riding on a DC; a DC block would have to be really large and would >probably resonate with the transformer stray inductance. > Split the paths: a chopper amp for the low frequency part, a transformer and some jfets for the faster stuff. Someone used to make a permalloy shielded step-up transformer for just such applications. I think it worked down to 1 Hz or something like that. Obviously, don't design it wrong. >Transformer + BJT would require a smaller step up ratio, which >eases things, and BJTs usually have the better 1/f corner. > >I have also tried FET amplifiers with a heroic numbers of FETs, >and also tried multiple IF3602. That leads to a huge input >capacitance and also questionable stability. > >A BF862, RIP, or its new successors from ON semi are somewhere >at 900 pV/rtHz and the ZTX851 at 200 pV/rtHz; that is quite >a head start for the BJT, given that halving the voltage noise >requires quadrupling the number of transistors. Bipolars will make a lot of base current noise. It ocurred to me that a distributed amplifier will be very low noise, but that's not practical at low frequencies. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9aa41046-4a9e-4726-912b-cab5f60b9a8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518869 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 5:06:54 AM UTC-7, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: > Version 4 >... Is there any trick to getting this into LTSpice? Cutting and pasting as straight ASCII text yields various cryptic errors. I cleaned it up to this point: http://www.ke5fx.com/gh.asc.txt ... but it still doesn't like the .MODEL statement, apparently. -- john, KE5FX
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 05:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppmo5i$4ia$3@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #518929 |
On 2018-10-11, John Miles, KE5FX <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 5:06:54 AM UTC-7, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >> Version 4 >>... > > Is there any trick to getting this into LTSpice? Cutting and pasting > as straight ASCII text yields various cryptic errors. save is as a text file. rename it to something.asc, open it with ltspice. -- Notsodium is mined on the banks of denial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 12:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g28nbpFtqhtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #518929 |
Am 11.10.2018 um 05:53 schrieb John Miles, KE5FX: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 5:06:54 AM UTC-7, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >> Version 4 >> ... > > Is there any trick to getting this into LTSpice? Cutting and pasting > as straight ASCII text yields various cryptic errors. > > I cleaned it up to this point: > http://www.ke5fx.com/gh.asc.txt > > ... but it still doesn't like the .MODEL statement, apparently. > > -- john, KE5FX > Weird. I just opened the .asc file in gedit on the Linux side of the virtual Win7 machine and copy-pasted it into the thunderbird message. Let's see if they let me post attachments. No. It does not work for .asc and not for .asc.txt Watch your mail. regards, Gerhard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab9ffaae-fe04-4653-bbed-9272b7acd91c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518497 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 10:28:43 PM UTC-4, Steve Wilson wrote: > George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > It oscillates because of a slow edge and no hysteresis? > > It oscillates because of inductance in the base lead. Along with the base- > emitter capacitance and capacitance from the emitter to ground, this forms > a Colpitts oscillator, which is one of the most vigorous oscillators known. > It can accept an extremely wide range of parameters and still oscillate. > > The purpose of the resistor in the base lead is to dampen the Q of the tank > so oscillations are no longer possible. > > > Is it similar to cap. multiplier oscillations? > > Could be. Any place where you have some inductance in the base and > capacitance from the emitter to ground could form a Colpitts, especially > where you have some inductance in the emitter lead. My first (or second) cap multiplier oscillated and I added a F-bead and 100 ohm resistor on the base lead, through hole hair-pin. No problems since then. George H. > > Other configurations where fast transistors are connected together could > become an oscillator. Some examples are: > > Cascode > Darlington > Sziklai pair > etc > > > (do all single transistor circuits map onto each other?) > > The various configurations of the Colpitts are basically the same. It's > just where you put the ground that makes them look different. > > The difficulty with the Colpitts is it loves to oscillate. The conditions > are layout-dependent and dependent on the gain and bandwidth of the > transistor. The oscillations can completely destroy the desired performance > of the circuit. > > My approach is to assume the circuit will oscillate under the right > conditions, and to include a resistor in the base in all critical circuits > that could be susceptible to parasitics. After a while, you get to know > what value would be appropriate, usually from 5 to 50 ohms. But check > carefully. > > This creates a problem. Often the oscillation frequency is far above the > frequency range of the best equipment available in your lab. To compensate, > you need some way to perturb the circuit and look for any change in the > operating parameters. One method is to use a dental pick which is available > at most pharmacies. This is a small stainless hook imbedded in plastic, > with a cover to fit over the top. You can touch various points in the > circuit an see if you can detect any change in the operataion. > > The best by far is a wideband spectrum analyzer. You can make a small loop > feeding a coax cable to the analyzer. Bring the loop near the circuit. any > oscillation should become visible in the display. > > Of course, with modern transistors, especially SiGe, you need a very high > frequecy specctrum analyzer. These are not cheap. > > > George H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA973A4CA9B36idtokenpost@69.16.179.22> |
| In reply to | #518577 |
George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > My first (or second) cap multiplier oscillated and I added a F-bead and > 100 ohm resistor on the base lead, through hole hair-pin. > No problems since then. Beads are bad. They can crack or break. The 100 ohm resistor is all that is needed. > George H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pp7ordtsmf8g127flg9i6s5e8dkkk84die@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518581 |
On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 20:11:58 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote: >George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > >> My first (or second) cap multiplier oscillated and I added a F-bead and >> 100 ohm resistor on the base lead, through hole hair-pin. >> No problems since then. > >Beads are bad. They can crack or break. The 100 ohm resistor is all that is >needed. > >> George H. > We use lots of surface-mount beads, no problems. A bead can kill RF oscillation but not contribute low-frequency noise like a resistor would. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web