RF Circuit Design - Chris Bowick...

Simon S Aysdie <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 3:49:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Wilson wrote:
Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
PDF-Xchange viewer does OCR and allows you to add comments to the
PDF fil e.
It is free. I\'m running V2.5 which is very old, but it still has a
wide

range of options for commenting. It runs on XP and later.

https://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer

The later version is called PDF-XChange Editor. I don\'t know much
about i t, but the manual and download links are at

https://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-editor

Okay--good to know. Thanks!

I have Acro Pro 9.5... it has been serving me well, but I\'ll guess
that somehow the SW people will eventually make it obsolete and
non-functional. The Acro Pro 9.5 OCR engine is okay--nothing to brag
about. It is about as good as the built in OCR of Paperport.

When I bought Paperport many years ago (v14, from Nuance at the time;
now it is Kofax,... I think). The Nuance program \"PDF Viewer Plus 7.1\"
came bundled with it. If PDF scans are poor quality, or what is being
scanned is poor to begin with, I\'ve noticed PDF Viewer Plus 7 does a
better detection job than Acro Pro 9.5, or the built in Paperport OCR.
Now you\'ve given me another to try!

Try the free version and let us know your impressions.




--
Science teaches us to trust. - sw
 
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:35:28 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

All good. I have a bunch of old NBS Circulars that I ought to do the
same with. But for longevity, there\'s no substitute for
carefully-stored paper/parchment/papyrus.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

We recently had a rather large brush fire in the area.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZU_Lightning_Complex_fires>
<https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/8/16/czu-lightning-complex-including-warnella-fire/>
1,490 structures were destroyed. Among them was the home of a friend
that had spent the last 10 years since his retirement scanning his
books, notes, and personal papers. Thanks to my insistence, his
financial documents, password lists, digital photos, digital movies,
and difficult to find ancient software were all copied and deposited
at various relatives homes. However, the paper library, all the
computers, and all the magnetic and solid state media, were destroyed.

Lessons learned by the fire:
1. No single method of backup or archival preservation is going to
provide 100% protection. The best so far is to save multiple copies
in multiple locations (spatial redundancy) such as saving encrypted
copies in the \"cloud\".
2. One cannot plan for every possible disaster. Nobody expected the
numerous and extensive brush fire and nobody is going to expect
whatever arrives next.

As for careful storage, one local resident lost all his papers stored
in a fire safe when he forgot to close and lock the safe door before
evacuating. He had no idea that the fire safe only functioned with
the door closed. I also had to explain that opening the door while
the safe is still warm is a really bad idea for anything flammable
inside. My paper book collection is much too large for any fireproof
safe that I can afford but my computer backups and digital archives
fit nicely incide.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

All good. I have a bunch of old NBS Circulars that I ought to do the
same with. But for longevity, there\'s no substitute for
carefully-stored paper/parchment/papyrus.

I doubt you are going to find Ohm\'s Law written on papyrus.

Paper is not searchable. PDF-Xchange does OCR, annotation, and is text
searchable.

You can zoom in for more detail. With paper, you need a magnifying glass.

You can easily send a copy to someone in PDF. You have to mail paper.

All the files on your site are in PDF. Nobody would want paper versions.

Google Patents are in PDF. Nobody is going to convert them to another
format, such as DJV, so PDF is going to be around for a long time.

I have 510,016 files in PDF on my hard drive, mostly datasheets and
technical articles. I could not possibly find enough room to store paper
versions.

I can easily copy my hard drive to another drive for backup. I can make
multiple copies and save them in different places for security.

PDF copies are identical to the original. Paper copies can have defects.

Paper versions would present a severe fire risk. Copying to another
backup set would cost a fortune and take forever.

Skip paper. Keep your files in PDF.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Science teaches us to trust. - sw
 
On 11/30/2020 10:42 PM, Steve Wilson wrote:
Paper versions would present a severe fire risk. Copying to another
backup set would cost a fortune and take forever.

Ever seen a house full of hoarded paper burn? (neighbor\'s did -- to the
ground)

> Skip paper. Keep your files in PDF.

The biggest advantage to electronic forms is you can embed things other
than text/images in the document.

For example, I\'ve documents describing each of my speech synthesizers.
Even if the reader is fluent in IPA, it\'s considerably easier to play
sound clips of particular synthesis rules than to rely on the reader
to be able to discern the differences based on IPA. (and folks that
are ignorant of IPA would be completely in the dark!) This is particularly
important in understanding the tradeoffs of different implementations.

[how do you pronounce \"mash\"? \"almond\"? \"of\"?]

Similarly, I can create interactive \"demos\" in the document to
illustrate how something (an algorithm?) works. This lets the
reader play with parameters that affect the process and observe
it in action. Wanna know how a 3rd order Bezier curve behaves
when you move the control points in various ways?

[Yeah, you need a computer to \"view\" the document but you need
something electronic to view *any* PDF!]
 
On 11/28/2020 5:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 10:57:30 AM UTC-8, John S wrote:

Bill, you are sick mentally. Leave this group and get help.

That\'s arrogant, and dismissive, but also ridiculous.
John S doesn\'t have the expertise, to make a real criticism, apparently;
he certainly lacks authority to eject from this newsgroup.

Critical thinking is not a sickness.
Sharing one\'s thoughts, is why we have elaborate communication skills and tools.
Arrogance, in a human social situation, perhaps is a sickness. It infects the
communication channel with verbal crap-flinging and infantile
accusation.

PKB
 
On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 12:31:49 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
On 11/28/2020 5:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 10:57:30 AM UTC-8, John S wrote:

Bill, you are sick mentally. Leave this group and get help.

That\'s arrogant, and dismissive, but also ridiculous.
John S doesn\'t have the expertise, to make a real criticism, apparently;
he certainly lacks authority to eject from this newsgroup.

Critical thinking is not a sickness.
Sharing one\'s thoughts, is why we have elaborate communication skills and tools.
Arrogance, in a human social situation, perhaps is a sickness. It infects the
communication channel with verbal crap-flinging and infantile
accusation.

John S is the blackest kind of kettle. Whit3rd isn\'t. John S ought to have the sense to know this, but he\'s an idiot troll.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 08:57:30 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/11/20 02:16, Bill Sloman wrote:


He posts stuff from ZeroHedge as a tiny url so the reader has to look at it
to realise that it is right-wing rubbish. That\'s deceptive behavior. I don\'t
enjoy interacting with persistent liars. It\'s too much like hard work.

Is a valid criticism of CD\'s behaviour here.

No it isn\'t. It\'s simply good netiquette. The original URLs are
usually too long to fit on one line so they end up \'broken\' on the
reader\'s news client software if not curtailed.

>CD also thinks Putin\'s \"Russia Today\" is trustworthy.

I could equally well disparage CNN and the Washington Post if you want
to talk about untrustworthy news media.
 
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 06:25:38 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 12:31:49 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
On 11/28/2020 5:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 10:57:30 AM UTC-8, John S wrote:

Bill, you are sick mentally. Leave this group and get help.

That\'s arrogant, and dismissive, but also ridiculous.
John S doesn\'t have the expertise, to make a real criticism, apparently;
he certainly lacks authority to eject from this newsgroup.

Critical thinking is not a sickness.
Sharing one\'s thoughts, is why we have elaborate communication skills and tools.
Arrogance, in a human social situation, perhaps is a sickness. It infects the
communication channel with verbal crap-flinging and infantile
accusation.

John S is the blackest kind of kettle. Whit3rd isn\'t. John S ought to have the sense to know this, but he\'s an idiot troll.

Yeah, that\'s right, Bill. Only you, Gardner, 3rd-wit and Bitrex post
anything useful here. Everyone else, especially anyone who disagrees
with you, is a right-wing idiot/troll. Glad we\'ve got that sorted out.
 
On 29/11/20 18:08, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 08:57:30 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/11/20 02:16, Bill Sloman wrote:


He posts stuff from ZeroHedge as a tiny url so the reader has to look at it
to realise that it is right-wing rubbish. That\'s deceptive behavior. I don\'t
enjoy interacting with persistent liars. It\'s too much like hard work.

Is a valid criticism of CD\'s behaviour here.

No it isn\'t. It\'s simply good netiquette. The original URLs are
usually too long to fit on one line so they end up \'broken\' on the
reader\'s news client software if not curtailed.

That\'s not plausible. If it was the case then you could
simply post both URLs.

Everybody could then see the source, and those few with
broken/inadequate newsreaders could use the shortened version.

Simpler explanation for your choice: you know that
people will automatically discount zerohedge, but you
want to trick them into reading that rubbish.


CD also thinks Putin\'s \"Russia Today\" is trustworthy.

I could equally well disparage CNN and the Washington Post if you want
to talk about untrustworthy news media.

This is the rubbish you wrote:


On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:22:14 -0700, lonmkusch wrote:

While you\'re deciding, I think I\'m going to stroll over to RT for some
good unbiased news.

If you can\'t see that RT is a zillion times more reputable as a news
source than CNN/NBC/BBC et al, you must be totally blind. Sure they
aren\'t 100% impartial; no news organisation is. But they are my most
trusted news source even if not yours - until such time as I ever
discover otherwise, of course.
 
On Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 8:54:22 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

Has anyone got both the first *and* second editions of this book? Were
all the errors in the first edition fixed in the second? Is there any
new content in the second which would make it worth the bother to
order?

I don\'t know what has been corrected, or to the extent all of the prior existing chapters have specifically been changed. Ch4 as a new section \"Software Design Tools.\" One part is about a free tool that does little, and the other part is if you have Keysight Genesys. I don\'t see a huge value in the section.

There are two new chapters
8. RF FRONT-END Design
9. RF DESIGN Tools

Chapter 8 is okay, I suppose. Not too deep or too special. Ch9 is worthless, IMO.
There are two new co-authors. I am guess the new edition is mainly their doing, not Bowick\'s. In the Preface, the new authors didn\'t explain what changes they actually made. I don\'t think a lot of value was added to the book.. It was always an introductory book anyway, and still is. Good stuff in it.... it is just that there is so much more. I don\'t think I\'d but the second after already having the first, knowing what I know now.

Other books that I think are practically useful for RF circuit design are:

\"Introduction to Radio Frequency Design\", Wes Hayward, (c) 1995
^ Lots of basic useful stuff w/ good explanations (Tektronix & Triquint guy)

\"RF Design Guide Systems, Circuits and Equations\", Peter Vizmuller, (c) 1995
^ again, a lot of straight up basic but very useful stuff (Former Motorola guy; expert on helical filters)
The excel spreadsheets on the book disk (in really old Excel format) actually have useful stuff in them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some other good stuff is

Gilmore & Besser, \"Practical RF Circuit Design for Modern Wireless Systems\"
^ both volumes, but especially the first.

Maas\'s \"The Rf And Microwave Circuit Design Cookbook\" is nice. Also, his mixer book is a classic.

William Egan\'s \"PRACTICAL RF SYSTEM DESIGN\" is great if you\'re doing hard core RX\'er design, but it is not for the hobbyist.

Rohde & Rudolph \"RF/MICROWAVE CIRCUIT DESIGN FOR WIRELESS APPLICATIONS\" great and not for the hobbyist.

There are many more excellent books.
 
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 11:05:07 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/23/20 10:08 PM, boB wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 12:42:21 -0800, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:

Not bad ! My problem is space... space... space......

I do buy books online sometimes too in PDF form as well as printed
sometimes though.

Trying to downsize. I can\'t throw away or recycle good material that I
\"might\" need to look at some day :)

Try this exercise. Pick an \"important\" book at random from your shelf
and search the interknot for a free scanned or PDF version of the
book. If you can\'t find those, search for an eBook version in one of
the more common formats. My guess(tm) is that I can find about 75% of
what is on my bookshelf. The nice thing about the electronic versions
is that I can usually search the text for buzzwords. For printed
books, I have to use an index or table of contents. The problem with
scanned books is that the pictures and graphs all look like garbage.

Like everyone else who has spent a lifetime collecting reference
books, recycling them is painful. I\'ve tried to donate them to worthy
organizations, give them away on Freecycle.org, sell them for the cost
of shipping on eBay and Craigs List, and donate them to the local
charities. Nobody want old technical books. So far, I\'ve had the
best luck leaving them in a \"free\" box in front of my office door to
be grabbed by the homeless and possibly university students.

I\'m also trying to downsize. I look online for the book to buy or
downloads. After I determine that the downloaded book is adequate,
the original book disappears from my shelves.

Incidentally, I used to collect technical books from between the start
of WWI and the end of WWII. It\'s not a huge collection, but it does
make interesting reading. Many of the de facto standards used in
today\'s electronics were established during this time. These will be
the last books to be purged from my shelves.


One of my old books that still have and the PDF version is the
Radiotron Designers Book... That is one of the hardback books I just
have to keep.

Good idea to take one at random and look though. I just might try
that !
Of course, paper books last a great deal longer than electronic devices.
Most SED denizens may not be expecting to outlast their latest
e-reader gizmo, but it\'s worth mentioning. ;)

I think the PDF, or DJVU, EPUB, or ______, will pretty much last forever.

Maybe Jeff can send some of his old books to https://worldradiohistory.com/.. They\'ll scan them, and they do a *great job* of it. (See https://worldradiohistory.com/Scanning-for-American-Radio-History.htm to see their setup for scanning. It is primo.) While the scans some people do suck, they don\'t need to. I clean my scans up with Paperport.

And I agree with Jeff that the text search of the PDF, after OCR, is a very useful feature, and easier than the manual use of the Index. Plus, with e-search you can find stuff that isn\'t even in the index. I searched my scan of Motchenbacher and Fitchen for \"roller coaster effect\" -- it wasn\'t in the index, but I immediately got it with search and stepped through the different \"finds\" with ease.

I really like my paper books. I make notes in them, and I don\'t like reading books on the computer. But I like the PDFs too. I can take the PDF with me on travel. I can\'t do much of that with paper.
 
On 11/29/20 5:44 PM, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 11:05:07 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/23/20 10:08 PM, boB wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 12:42:21 -0800, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:

Not bad ! My problem is space... space... space......

I do buy books online sometimes too in PDF form as well as printed
sometimes though.

Trying to downsize. I can\'t throw away or recycle good material that I
\"might\" need to look at some day :)

Try this exercise. Pick an \"important\" book at random from your shelf
and search the interknot for a free scanned or PDF version of the
book. If you can\'t find those, search for an eBook version in one of
the more common formats. My guess(tm) is that I can find about 75% of
what is on my bookshelf. The nice thing about the electronic versions
is that I can usually search the text for buzzwords. For printed
books, I have to use an index or table of contents. The problem with
scanned books is that the pictures and graphs all look like garbage.

Like everyone else who has spent a lifetime collecting reference
books, recycling them is painful. I\'ve tried to donate them to worthy
organizations, give them away on Freecycle.org, sell them for the cost
of shipping on eBay and Craigs List, and donate them to the local
charities. Nobody want old technical books. So far, I\'ve had the
best luck leaving them in a \"free\" box in front of my office door to
be grabbed by the homeless and possibly university students.

I\'m also trying to downsize. I look online for the book to buy or
downloads. After I determine that the downloaded book is adequate,
the original book disappears from my shelves.

Incidentally, I used to collect technical books from between the start
of WWI and the end of WWII. It\'s not a huge collection, but it does
make interesting reading. Many of the de facto standards used in
today\'s electronics were established during this time. These will be
the last books to be purged from my shelves.


One of my old books that still have and the PDF version is the
Radiotron Designers Book... That is one of the hardback books I just
have to keep.

Good idea to take one at random and look though. I just might try
that !
Of course, paper books last a great deal longer than electronic devices.
Most SED denizens may not be expecting to outlast their latest
e-reader gizmo, but it\'s worth mentioning. ;)

I think the PDF, or DJVU, EPUB, or ______, will pretty much last forever.

In the sense of from now till the first large EMP event or other
disaster. See e.g. Alexandria, Constantinople, etc.
Maybe Jeff can send some of his old books to https://worldradiohistory.com/.. They\'ll scan them, and they do a *great job* of it. (See https://worldradiohistory.com/Scanning-for-American-Radio-History.htm to see their setup for scanning. It is primo.) While the scans some people do suck, they don\'t need to. I clean my scans up with Paperport.

And I agree with Jeff that the text search of the PDF, after OCR, is a very useful feature, and easier than the manual use of the Index. Plus, with e-search you can find stuff that isn\'t even in the index. I searched my scan of Motchenbacher and Fitchen for \"roller coaster effect\" -- it wasn\'t in the index, but I immediately got it with search and stepped through the different \"finds\" with ease.

I really like my paper books. I make notes in them, and I don\'t like reading books on the computer. But I like the PDFs too. I can take the PDF with me on travel. I can\'t do much of that with paper.

OCRed PDFs as a backup for paper are excellent, I agree. As a
replacement, not so much.

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
 
Simon S Aysdie <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

[...]

And I agree with Jeff that the text search of the PDF, after OCR, is a
very useful feature, and easier than the manual use of the Index.
Plus, with e-search you can find stuff that isn\'t even in the index. I
searched my scan of Motchenbacher and Fitchen for \"roller coaster
effect\" -- it wasn\'t in the index, but I immediately got it with
search and stepped through the different \"finds\" with ease.

I really like my paper books. I make notes in them, and I don\'t like
reading books on the computer. But I like the PDFs too. I can take the
PDF with me on travel. I can\'t do much of that with paper.

PDF-Xchange viewer does OCR and allows you to add comments to the PDF file.
It is free. I\'m running V2.5 which is very old, but it still has a wide
range of options for commenting. It runs on XP and later.

https://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer

The later version is called PDF-XChange Editor. I don\'t know much about it,
but the manual and download links are at

https://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-editor
--
Science teaches us to trust. - sw
 
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:32:40 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/11/20 18:08, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 08:57:30 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/11/20 02:16, Bill Sloman wrote:


He posts stuff from ZeroHedge as a tiny url so the reader has to look at it
to realise that it is right-wing rubbish. That\'s deceptive behavior. I don\'t
enjoy interacting with persistent liars. It\'s too much like hard work.

Is a valid criticism of CD\'s behaviour here.

No it isn\'t. It\'s simply good netiquette. The original URLs are
usually too long to fit on one line so they end up \'broken\' on the
reader\'s news client software if not curtailed.

That\'s not plausible. If it was the case then you could
simply post both URLs.

Everybody could then see the source, and those few with
broken/inadequate newsreaders could use the shortened version.

Simpler explanation for your choice: you know that
people will automatically discount zerohedge, but you
want to trick them into reading that rubbish.


CD also thinks Putin\'s \"Russia Today\" is trustworthy.

I could equally well disparage CNN and the Washington Post if you want
to talk about untrustworthy news media.

This is the rubbish you wrote:


On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:22:14 -0700, lonmkusch wrote:

While you\'re deciding, I think I\'m going to stroll over to RT for some
good unbiased news.

If you can\'t see that RT is a zillion times more reputable as a news
source than CNN/NBC/BBC et al, you must be totally blind. Sure they
aren\'t 100% impartial; no news organisation is. But they are my most
trusted news source even if not yours - until such time as I ever
discover otherwise, of course.

It\'s not rubbish and I stand by every word of it. You want rubbish?
Just pick up the NYT, the WaPo or switch on CNN/MSNBC etc.
 
On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 11:51:09 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:32:40 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/11/20 18:08, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 08:57:30 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 29/11/20 02:16, Bill Sloman wrote:


He posts stuff from ZeroHedge as a tiny url so the reader has to look at it
to realise that it is right-wing rubbish. That\'s deceptive behavior. I don\'t
enjoy interacting with persistent liars. It\'s too much like hard work.

Is a valid criticism of CD\'s behaviour here.

No it isn\'t. It\'s simply good netiquette. The original URLs are
usually too long to fit on one line so they end up \'broken\' on the
reader\'s news client software if not curtailed.

That\'s not plausible. If it was the case then you could
simply post both URLs.

Everybody could then see the source, and those few with
broken/inadequate newsreaders could use the shortened version.

Simpler explanation for your choice: you know that
people will automatically discount zerohedge, but you
want to trick them into reading that rubbish.


CD also thinks Putin\'s \"Russia Today\" is trustworthy.

I could equally well disparage CNN and the Washington Post if you want
to talk about untrustworthy news media.

This is the rubbish you wrote:


On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:22:14 -0700, lonmkusch wrote:

While you\'re deciding, I think I\'m going to stroll over to RT for some
good unbiased news.

If you can\'t see that RT is a zillion times more reputable as a news
source than CNN/NBC/BBC et al, you must be totally blind. Sure they
aren\'t 100% impartial; no news organisation is. But they are my most
trusted news source even if not yours - until such time as I ever
discover otherwise, of course.

It\'s not rubbish and I stand by every word of it.

Of course you do. You are a far-right-thinking idiot, and he\'s being rude about your favourite comforting delusions.

You want rubbish?
Just pick up the NYT, the WaPo or switch on CNN/MSNBC etc.

You won\'t find it, but you will find stuff that contradicts Cursitor Doom\'s favourite delusions. It isn\'t rubbish, but he really doesn\'t like it. The chill wind of reality ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 3:19:11 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/29/20 5:44 PM, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 11:05:07 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/23/20 10:08 PM, boB wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 12:42:21 -0800, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:

Not bad ! My problem is space... space... space......

I do buy books online sometimes too in PDF form as well as printed
sometimes though.

Trying to downsize. I can\'t throw away or recycle good material that I
\"might\" need to look at some day :)

Try this exercise. Pick an \"important\" book at random from your shelf
and search the interknot for a free scanned or PDF version of the
book. If you can\'t find those, search for an eBook version in one of
the more common formats. My guess(tm) is that I can find about 75% of
what is on my bookshelf. The nice thing about the electronic versions
is that I can usually search the text for buzzwords. For printed
books, I have to use an index or table of contents. The problem with
scanned books is that the pictures and graphs all look like garbage.

Like everyone else who has spent a lifetime collecting reference
books, recycling them is painful. I\'ve tried to donate them to worthy
organizations, give them away on Freecycle.org, sell them for the cost
of shipping on eBay and Craigs List, and donate them to the local
charities. Nobody want old technical books. So far, I\'ve had the
best luck leaving them in a \"free\" box in front of my office door to
be grabbed by the homeless and possibly university students.

I\'m also trying to downsize. I look online for the book to buy or
downloads. After I determine that the downloaded book is adequate,
the original book disappears from my shelves.

Incidentally, I used to collect technical books from between the start
of WWI and the end of WWII. It\'s not a huge collection, but it does
make interesting reading. Many of the de facto standards used in
today\'s electronics were established during this time. These will be
the last books to be purged from my shelves.


One of my old books that still have and the PDF version is the
Radiotron Designers Book... That is one of the hardback books I just
have to keep.

Good idea to take one at random and look though. I just might try
that !
Of course, paper books last a great deal longer than electronic devices.
Most SED denizens may not be expecting to outlast their latest
e-reader gizmo, but it\'s worth mentioning. ;)

I think the PDF, or DJVU, EPUB, or ______, will pretty much last forever.
In the sense of from now till the first large EMP event or other
disaster. See e.g. Alexandria, Constantinople, etc.

Maybe Jeff can send some of his old books to https://worldradiohistory.com/.. They\'ll scan them, and they do a *great job* of it. (See https://worldradiohistory.com/Scanning-for-American-Radio-History.htm to see their setup for scanning. It is primo.) While the scans some people do suck, they don\'t need to. I clean my scans up with Paperport.

And I agree with Jeff that the text search of the PDF, after OCR, is a very useful feature, and easier than the manual use of the Index. Plus, with e-search you can find stuff that isn\'t even in the index. I searched my scan of Motchenbacher and Fitchen for \"roller coaster effect\" -- it wasn\'t in the index, but I immediately got it with search and stepped through the different \"finds\" with ease.

I really like my paper books. I make notes in them, and I don\'t like reading books on the computer. But I like the PDFs too. I can take the PDF with me on travel. I can\'t do much of that with paper.

OCRed PDFs as a backup for paper are excellent, I agree. As a
replacement, not so much.

I\'ll give an example. I recently found, after 15-20 years of looking, Darlington\'s 1939 paper \"Synthesis of Reactance 4-poles.\" This little Bell pamphlet is on acid paper, very yellowed, and is very fragile. It also seems to be rare in any form. So I scanned-in the whole thing at either 300 or 400 dpi BW. I then cleaned up my scan work further with Paperport, and also copied the 6x9 pages onto 8.5x11 pages (also with Paperport). (I need to re-do the centering--I have a better method now, but it is good enough as-is.) Then I printed it double-sided with a laser printer, comb-bound it, and it came out pretty nice. I mean, the laser printer smoothed out most all of the pixelation that can be seen on screen, but even that is not bad. It is as good as a decent \"print on demand.\"

With the 6x9 pages now on 8.5x11 pages, I can make easily make notes in the margins, as the margins are now nice and wide... kind of like legal court decisions. (I have speculated that the reason for wide margins in court decisions was exactly for the purpose of those who come later to make their own notes. But what do I know? It is just my guess.) If I mess a page up, I can reprint it and then re-insert it into the comb. The PDF is searchable, of course.
 
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 3:49:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Wilson wrote:
Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:

[...]
And I agree with Jeff that the text search of the PDF, after OCR, is a
very useful feature, and easier than the manual use of the Index.
Plus, with e-search you can find stuff that isn\'t even in the index. I
searched my scan of Motchenbacher and Fitchen for \"roller coaster
effect\" -- it wasn\'t in the index, but I immediately got it with
search and stepped through the different \"finds\" with ease.

I really like my paper books. I make notes in them, and I don\'t like
reading books on the computer. But I like the PDFs too. I can take the
PDF with me on travel. I can\'t do much of that with paper.
PDF-Xchange viewer does OCR and allows you to add comments to the PDF file.
It is free. I\'m running V2.5 which is very old, but it still has a wide
range of options for commenting. It runs on XP and later.

https://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer

The later version is called PDF-XChange Editor. I don\'t know much about it,
but the manual and download links are at

https://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-editor

Okay--good to know. Thanks!

I have Acro Pro 9.5... it has been serving me well, but I\'ll guess that somehow the SW people will eventually make it obsolete and non-functional. The Acro Pro 9.5 OCR engine is okay--nothing to brag about. It is about as good as the built in OCR of Paperport.

When I bought Paperport many years ago (v14, from Nuance at the time; now it is Kofax,... I think). The Nuance program \"PDF Viewer Plus 7.1\" came bundled with it. If PDF scans are poor quality, or what is being scanned is poor to begin with, I\'ve noticed PDF Viewer Plus 7 does a better detection job than Acro Pro 9.5, or the built in Paperport OCR. Now you\'ve given me another to try!
 
On 11/30/20 10:21 PM, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 3:19:11 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/29/20 5:44 PM, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 11:05:07 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/23/20 10:08 PM, boB wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 12:42:21 -0800, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:

Not bad ! My problem is space... space... space......

I do buy books online sometimes too in PDF form as well as printed
sometimes though.

Trying to downsize. I can\'t throw away or recycle good material that I
\"might\" need to look at some day :)

Try this exercise. Pick an \"important\" book at random from your shelf
and search the interknot for a free scanned or PDF version of the
book. If you can\'t find those, search for an eBook version in one of
the more common formats. My guess(tm) is that I can find about 75% of
what is on my bookshelf. The nice thing about the electronic versions
is that I can usually search the text for buzzwords. For printed
books, I have to use an index or table of contents. The problem with
scanned books is that the pictures and graphs all look like garbage.

Like everyone else who has spent a lifetime collecting reference
books, recycling them is painful. I\'ve tried to donate them to worthy
organizations, give them away on Freecycle.org, sell them for the cost
of shipping on eBay and Craigs List, and donate them to the local
charities. Nobody want old technical books. So far, I\'ve had the
best luck leaving them in a \"free\" box in front of my office door to
be grabbed by the homeless and possibly university students.

I\'m also trying to downsize. I look online for the book to buy or
downloads. After I determine that the downloaded book is adequate,
the original book disappears from my shelves.

Incidentally, I used to collect technical books from between the start
of WWI and the end of WWII. It\'s not a huge collection, but it does
make interesting reading. Many of the de facto standards used in
today\'s electronics were established during this time. These will be
the last books to be purged from my shelves.


One of my old books that still have and the PDF version is the
Radiotron Designers Book... That is one of the hardback books I just
have to keep.

Good idea to take one at random and look though. I just might try
that !
Of course, paper books last a great deal longer than electronic devices.
Most SED denizens may not be expecting to outlast their latest
e-reader gizmo, but it\'s worth mentioning. ;)

I think the PDF, or DJVU, EPUB, or ______, will pretty much last forever.
In the sense of from now till the first large EMP event or other
disaster. See e.g. Alexandria, Constantinople, etc.

Maybe Jeff can send some of his old books to https://worldradiohistory.com/.. They\'ll scan them, and they do a *great job* of it. (See https://worldradiohistory.com/Scanning-for-American-Radio-History.htm to see their setup for scanning. It is primo.) While the scans some people do suck, they don\'t need to. I clean my scans up with Paperport.

And I agree with Jeff that the text search of the PDF, after OCR, is a very useful feature, and easier than the manual use of the Index. Plus, with e-search you can find stuff that isn\'t even in the index. I searched my scan of Motchenbacher and Fitchen for \"roller coaster effect\" -- it wasn\'t in the index, but I immediately got it with search and stepped through the different \"finds\" with ease.

I really like my paper books. I make notes in them, and I don\'t like reading books on the computer. But I like the PDFs too. I can take the PDF with me on travel. I can\'t do much of that with paper.

OCRed PDFs as a backup for paper are excellent, I agree. As a
replacement, not so much.

I\'ll give an example. I recently found, after 15-20 years of looking, Darlington\'s 1939 paper \"Synthesis of Reactance 4-poles.\" This little Bell pamphlet is on acid paper, very yellowed, and is very fragile. It also seems to be rare in any form. So I scanned-in the whole thing at either 300 or 400 dpi BW. I then cleaned up my scan work further with Paperport, and also copied the 6x9 pages onto 8.5x11 pages (also with Paperport). (I need to re-do the centering--I have a better method now, but it is good enough as-is.) Then I printed it double-sided with a laser printer, comb-bound it, and it came out pretty nice. I mean, the laser printer smoothed out most all of the pixelation that can be seen on screen, but even that is not bad. It is as good as a decent \"print on demand.\"

With the 6x9 pages now on 8.5x11 pages, I can make easily make notes in the margins, as the margins are now nice and wide... kind of like legal court decisions. (I have speculated that the reason for wide margins in court decisions was exactly for the purpose of those who come later to make their own notes. But what do I know? It is just my guess.) If I mess a page up, I can reprint it and then re-insert it into the comb. The PDF is searchable, of course.

All good. I have a bunch of old NBS Circulars that I ought to do the
same with. But for longevity, there\'s no substitute for
carefully-stored paper/parchment/papyrus.

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
 
On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 7:21:15 PM UTC-8, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 3:19:11 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/29/20 5:44 PM, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 11:05:07 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/23/20 10:08 PM, boB wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 12:42:21 -0800, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:

Not bad ! My problem is space... space... space......

I do buy books online sometimes too in PDF form as well as printed
sometimes though.

Trying to downsize. I can\'t throw away or recycle good material that I
\"might\" need to look at some day :)

Try this exercise. Pick an \"important\" book at random from your shelf
and search the interknot for a free scanned or PDF version of the
book. If you can\'t find those, search for an eBook version in one of
the more common formats. My guess(tm) is that I can find about 75% of
what is on my bookshelf. The nice thing about the electronic versions
is that I can usually search the text for buzzwords. For printed
books, I have to use an index or table of contents. The problem with
scanned books is that the pictures and graphs all look like garbage.

Like everyone else who has spent a lifetime collecting reference
books, recycling them is painful. I\'ve tried to donate them to worthy
organizations, give them away on Freecycle.org, sell them for the cost
of shipping on eBay and Craigs List, and donate them to the local
charities. Nobody want old technical books. So far, I\'ve had the
best luck leaving them in a \"free\" box in front of my office door to
be grabbed by the homeless and possibly university students.

I\'m also trying to downsize. I look online for the book to buy or
downloads. After I determine that the downloaded book is adequate,
the original book disappears from my shelves.

Incidentally, I used to collect technical books from between the start
of WWI and the end of WWII. It\'s not a huge collection, but it does
make interesting reading. Many of the de facto standards used in
today\'s electronics were established during this time. These will be
the last books to be purged from my shelves.


One of my old books that still have and the PDF version is the
Radiotron Designers Book... That is one of the hardback books I just
have to keep.

Good idea to take one at random and look though. I just might try
that !
Of course, paper books last a great deal longer than electronic devices.
Most SED denizens may not be expecting to outlast their latest
e-reader gizmo, but it\'s worth mentioning. ;)

I think the PDF, or DJVU, EPUB, or ______, will pretty much last forever.
In the sense of from now till the first large EMP event or other
disaster. See e.g. Alexandria, Constantinople, etc.

Maybe Jeff can send some of his old books to https://worldradiohistory.com/.. They\'ll scan them, and they do a *great job* of it. (See https://worldradiohistory.com/Scanning-for-American-Radio-History.htm to see their setup for scanning. It is primo.) While the scans some people do suck, they don\'t need to. I clean my scans up with Paperport.

And I agree with Jeff that the text search of the PDF, after OCR, is a very useful feature, and easier than the manual use of the Index. Plus, with e-search you can find stuff that isn\'t even in the index. I searched my scan of Motchenbacher and Fitchen for \"roller coaster effect\" -- it wasn\'t in the index, but I immediately got it with search and stepped through the different \"finds\" with ease.

I really like my paper books. I make notes in them, and I don\'t like reading books on the computer. But I like the PDFs too. I can take the PDF with me on travel. I can\'t do much of that with paper.

OCRed PDFs as a backup for paper are excellent, I agree. As a
replacement, not so much.
I\'ll give an example. I recently found, after 15-20 years of looking, Darlington\'s 1939 paper \"Synthesis of Reactance 4-poles.\" This little Bell pamphlet is on acid paper, very yellowed, and is very fragile. It also seems to be rare in any form. So I scanned-in the whole thing at either 300 or 400 dpi BW. I then cleaned up my scan work further with Paperport, and also copied the 6x9 pages onto 8.5x11 pages (also with Paperport). (I need to re-do the centering--I have a better method now, but it is good enough as-is.) Then I printed it double-sided with a laser printer, comb-bound it, and it came out pretty nice. I mean, the laser printer smoothed out most all of the pixelation that can be seen on screen, but even that is not bad. It is as good as a decent \"print on demand.\"

With the 6x9 pages now on 8.5x11 pages, I can make easily make notes in the margins, as the margins are now nice and wide... kind of like legal court decisions. (I have speculated that the reason for wide margins in court decisions was exactly for the purpose of those who come later to make their own notes. But what do I know? It is just my guess.) If I mess a page up, I can reprint it and then re-insert it into the comb. The PDF is searchable, of course.

I had forwarded the Darlington paper I scanned to David Gleason some time ago. He has posted it:

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Bell-System-Technical-Journal/Publications/Bell-System-Darlington-Synthesis-of-Reactance-4-Poles.pdf

Y\'all can look and judge. I think I did a decent job.

It\'s funny Darlington is remembered for the transistor. This synthesis work was way more important, and really amazing.

There is an interview with David Gleason here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkiuCSEI2bM&feature=youtu.be
 
On 11/28/2020 9:27 AM, Brent Locher wrote:

I try not to judge people based on their internet postings. I suspect I would enjoy interacting with most of the posters here on a personal level even if I disagree with their politics.

As an aside I have watched many Linus Torvalds interviews....he took two years off to get \"counseling\" because too many people on the Linux team( the lesser contributors) said he was a creep. 5 or so years ago he stated that getting your point across on the internet required him to essentially be a creep and he did not apologize for it.....But now he finally agreed that he needed counseling and stepped down for the moment. Of course, even Linus Torvalds had to submit to the dictators on the left because he knows that (even though his mind and work was the essential foundation for all of Linux) he will be tossed aside (he is too inter tangled with business now) if he does not say \"Im sorry\". The quality of his product is now trumped by political correctness.....

Linus Torvalds just behaved like an everyday coward and he would have
still been a coward if he was an intersectional feminist.

\"The same way I’m not going to start wearing ties, I’m also not going to
buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and
backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because
THAT is what ‘acting professionally’ results in: people resort to all
kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their
normal urges in unnatural ways.\"

I expect he was always sweet as pie to anyone who looked like they could
cave his face in with one punch IRL, office politics or not.

\"The e-mails of the celebrated programmer Linus Torvalds land like
thunderbolts from on high onto public lists, full of invective, insults,
and demeaning language. “Please just kill yourself now. The world will
be a better place,” he wrote in one. “Guys, this is not a dick-sucking
contest,” he observed in another. “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” he began in a third.\"

A true Internet-gangsta. He was e-Hard.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top