Photodiode amplifier noise

[James Arthur]

Not so much about presidents as political character, Lay and the Enron
perps are neocons. You might recheck your dates as well, it was at
least 2003 when the Enron bubble burst. Bush and FERC at the time
steadfastly refused to do anything relieve Grey Davis' deregulation
errors.

You may rest assured that I checked my dates _before_ posting.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[MooseFET]

Not so much about presidents as political character, Lay and the Enron
perps are neocons.  You might recheck your dates as well, it was at
least 2003 when the Enron bubble burst.  Bush and FERC at the time
steadfastly refused to do anything relieve Grey Davis' deregulation
errors.

The actual crash was late 2001. The full scam ran for something over
10 years before the wheels fell off. It was a classic case of only
finding out who is swimming in the nude when the tide went out. The
cooked books where well cooked and the auditing firm was helping to
hide the falsehoods.

The deregulation that let things go to the extreme happening in the
last few years of the Clinton admin. That was a case of the last
straw. Regulations that prevented such things had been gradually
removed over the previous decades.

 

[James Arthur]

And it was Gray Davis who allowed CA to introduce one of the most stupid
schemes ever: A centralized energy "market" while disallowing energy
companies to negotiate longterm contracts. My jaw dropped when that
happened. Sure enough, shortly thereafter we had rolling blackouts. Or
"Gray-outs" as the locals here used to say. Duh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Governor_Gray_Davis

Yeah, the bill entitled "Deregulation," laid out heaps and loads
of high-minded, dim-witted, open-loop, centralized control of the
market, uninhibited-by-the-thought-process . . . regulations.

I loved the 10% "rebate" to sweeten the deal for consumers (appearing
on the front of your bill), funded by the 11% charge for bond service
(appearing on the backside of your bill).

It's the same as our new tax cuts--borrow now, pay later.

"Gray-outs" -- that's precious.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bob Larter]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:32:54 -0700, Joerg

John Larkin wrote: [snip]
Could it be that there just aren't a lot of good discrete circuit
designers around? I would hate to think that.

That is most definitely the case :-(

OTOH, this puts bread on the table around here ...

Most people can be adequate carpenters or painters or cooks. Not many
people, even with engineering or physics degrees, can be decent
circuit designers.

That's sort of weird. I guess circuit design is really more art and
instinct than science.

John

Absolutely! I was a circuit designer _before_ I trotted off to MIT.
The education only honed my capabilities.

...Jim Thompson

Ditto. Except that I never took a circuits course.

The difference between an art and a science is that in science the
answer is out there waiting to be found, and we can all agree when we
find it (at least after all the people emotionally invested in incorrect
positions have decently died off).

In an art, there are different ways of doing things that are more or
less equally good, it's unclear whether there's really a single best
answer, and the results depend a lot on the personality of the artist.
Not all valid questions are scientific ones, by a long shot.

By these definitions, troubleshooting is a science and design is an art.

And vice versa, speaking from experience. ;^)

 

[Bob Larter]

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:51:34 -0700, John Larkin

On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:32:54 -0700, Joerg

John Larkin wrote:
[snip]
Could it be that there just aren't a lot of good discrete circuit
designers around? I would hate to think that.

That is most definitely the case :-(

OTOH, this puts bread on the table around here ...
Most people can be adequate carpenters or painters or cooks. Not many
people, even with engineering or physics degrees, can be decent
circuit designers.

That's sort of weird. I guess circuit design is really more art and
instinct than science.

John
Absolutely! I was a circuit designer _before_ I trotted off to MIT.
The education only honed my capabilities.

...Jim Thompson
Ditto. Except that I never took a circuits course.

The difference between an art and a science is that in science the
answer is out there waiting to be found, and we can all agree when we
find it (at least after all the people emotionally invested in incorrect
positions have decently died off).

In an art, there are different ways of doing things that are more or
less equally good, it's unclear whether there's really a single best
answer, and the results depend a lot on the personality of the artist.
Not all valid questions are scientific ones, by a long shot.

By these definitions, troubleshooting is a science and design is an art.

Them's fightin' words, Phil! I could argue the exact opposite, having
spent many years in the service side of the industry. You try teaching
people how to troubleshoot circuits some time, & you'll soon see how
much art is is required to do it well. ;^)

Its not easy to take away their shotguns, and teach logical
troubleshooting. BTDT, caught hell for it.

With troubleshooting, 'logical' is often a matter of opinion. Two people
can tackle a problem from totally the opposite angle, & still come up
with a valid result.

 

[Bob Larter]

No goood deed goes unpunished?

That too. ;^)

 

[Bob Larter]

Haha... nice.

I think it's unfortunately not all that uncommon to find places similar to
where Michael worked. At some point if someone said I was "too productive,"
I'd just cut back and spend the spare time trying to improve my own skills or
working on my resume to try to find someplace better! ;-)

Yeah, I worked for a place like that one time when I was young. I ended
up splitting my time between improving my crossword skills & job-hunting.

 

[Bob Larter]

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:51:34 -0700, John Larkin

On Mon, 04 May 2009 09:32:54 -0700, Joerg

John Larkin wrote:
[snip]
Could it be that there just aren't a lot of good discrete circuit
designers around? I would hate to think that.

That is most definitely the case :-(

OTOH, this puts bread on the table around here ...

Most people can be adequate carpenters or painters or cooks. Not many
people, even with engineering or physics degrees, can be decent
circuit designers.

That's sort of weird. I guess circuit design is really more art and
instinct than science.

John

Absolutely! I was a circuit designer _before_ I trotted off to MIT.
The education only honed my capabilities.

...Jim Thompson

Ditto. Except that I never took a circuits course.

The difference between an art and a science is that in science the
answer is out there waiting to be found, and we can all agree when we
find it (at least after all the people emotionally invested in
incorrect positions have decently died off).

In an art, there are different ways of doing things that are more or
less equally good, it's unclear whether there's really a single best
answer, and the results depend a lot on the personality of the
artist. Not all valid questions are scientific ones, by a long shot.

By these definitions, troubleshooting is a science and design is an art.

Them's fightin' words, Phil! I could argue the exact opposite, having
spent many years in the service side of the industry. You try teaching
people how to troubleshoot circuits some time, & you'll soon see how
much art is is required to do it well. ;^)

I don't mean that you don't have to be smart to be a good
troubleshooter, just that everyone can agree when it's found and fixed.
That's characteristic of a science rather than an art.

Okay, I can see your point. Please pardon my sensitivity on the issue,
because I've racked up a lot of years teaching people diagnostic techniques.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(who has held a lot of people's hands helping them troubleshoot
mixed-technology systems)

Ditto. ;^)

 

[Bob Larter]

Will it be science when someone finds and fixes dimbulb?

Vetinary science, perhaps. ;^)

 

[Bob Larter]

Never heard of an honest neocon either. Say Enron.

Shit, you can't go around confusing wingnuts with the facts!

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

No, 'logical' is making tests to determine the cause, not going down
a list of parts you've changed before.

If you ever worked in a mission critical job and were good at it, you
knew how the equipment worked and could break a system into blocks.
Logic then dictates locating the failed block, then the bad components
as quickly as possible. The average tech was a lazy bullshitter who
couldn't visualize the circuit & its functions so they kept sending it
to rework to change part after part, till it worked, or was scrapped.
What pissed them off was that I would grab boards they wanted to scrap,
and find the problems in a few minutes.

A good tech is worth their weight in circuit boards, if not gold.