Welcome Notice

Register Log in

RF Circuit Design - Chris Bowick...

P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 11/24/20 5:59 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2020 3:39 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/24/20 4:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2020 11:00 AM, Brent Locher wrote:

[attrs elided]

One might argue that this fundamental theory is what
makes an RF engineer. I do see your point in a sense.  for instance
,it is
probably a bad idea to read about FORTH and Perl if you are just
starting
out in computer science.  But the RF stuff is still comprised of the
same
basic set of fundamentals today as it is 30 years ago.

That really only makes sense if you are a theoretician.  If you are
charged with actually BUILDING something -- reifying concept -- you
find that a \"dated\" education leaves you essentially ignorant.

As Kipling said, \"Not so, but far otherwise.\"  It\'s the folks who were
trained on the fad of the month with no theoretical underpinnings who
get obsolete.

Those are the EASIEST to go obsolete -- but, not ALL headed for that fate.
The folks who respond to industries\' current need will likely find the
need has evaporated by the time they are \"expert\" in their field.  So,
they\'re forever a grunt.

But, I know many engineers who have been sidelined because they\'ve stuck
with
old skillsets and didn\'t adapt to what\'s new.  Or, let their employers\'
timelines effectively box them into rehashing old designs while the
\"youngsters\" worked on the really interesting things!
Well, you can\'t fix stupid. ;) Folks who don\'t actually take much of an
interest in their field aren\'t that much good even when they\'re young.

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
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 11/24/2020 4:09 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

[attrs elided]

As Kipling said, \"Not so, but far otherwise.\" It\'s the folks who were
trained on the fad of the month with no theoretical underpinnings who get
obsolete.

Those are the EASIEST to go obsolete -- but, not ALL headed for that fate.
The folks who respond to industries\' current need will likely find the
need has evaporated by the time they are \"expert\" in their field. So,
they\'re forever a grunt.

But, I know many engineers who have been sidelined because they\'ve stuck with
old skillsets and didn\'t adapt to what\'s new. Or, let their employers\'
timelines effectively box them into rehashing old designs while the
\"youngsters\" worked on the really interesting things!

Well, you can\'t fix stupid. ;) Folks who don\'t actually take much of an
interest in their field aren\'t that much good even when they\'re young.
I don\'t think it\'s \"lack of interest\". Rather, I think many folks get \"scared\"
of new technologies -- esp if their basic education didn\'t prepare them
for \"what\'s likely to come\".

Or, they get caught up in solving today\'s problems with today\'s
tools/techniques and lose sight of the fact that change WILL come.
So, instead of \"dreaming\" about what they COULD do, \"if only\", they
spend their time just trying to make *this* (whatever) work.

Until no one is interested in doing things that way!

What\'s worse is \"they\" may be the \"time honored experts\" at their
organization. Management (likely not very tech savvy) often looks
to their opinions when deciding how to tackle a new product/project.
Their stuck-in-the-mud ideas/attitudes can poison an enterprise -- until
they are \"dismissed\" as behind-the-times.

A group of colleagues get together 2-4 times, annually. It is
interesting to see how quickly folks \"lose\" their engineering
skillsets as they drift away from \"hands-on\" engineering (e.g.,
middle/upper management... even something as \"lowly\" as *project*
management). You really have to work at DO-ing engineering to
remain \"current\" with what\'s possible and practical.

It\'s also depressing to see the sense of loss in their eyes as
they see the excited \"exchanges\" between those of us who resist
being tempted away from that work. (not many \"engineers\" are
interested in hearing about capitalization efforts or staffing
estimates for the next 5 years, etc.)
 
C

Cursitor Doom

Guest
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:03:14 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
The problem I see here, is all the aforementioned people were
comfortable in both the old and new technologies, and could function
equally well in both. You seem to be stuck in the past and not moving
forward. I see this as the wrong approach. Learning your basic RF
theory from a 23 year old book will teach you nothing of today\'s (and
possibly future) technology. Doing so from a more current book, will
give you both the old and the new technology.
I\'m blessed to have no interest in new technology (in the electronics
sphere at any rate). You suggested in an earlier post I should get
acquainted with GANfets and such like. How would I even begin? I have
absolutely no test equipment suitable for experimenting with such
devices. My fastest scope is only 350Mhz; my fastest VNA is only 3Ghz
and whilst my fastest spectrum analyser goes to 22Ghz on its upper
range, that range isn\'t working and repairing it is not on my to-do
list because I get along just fine with the lower range. I\'m thankful
I have no interest in the faster stuff as it costs big $$$$$$$$$$ I
don\'t want to spend. Plus the parts for those kind of frequencies are
typically tiny SMDs and I don\'t have the eyesight or steady hands for
assembling them. I\'m very happy the stuff I like to goof around with
usually has through-hole components visible to the naked eye. I very
much like that. The last thing I need is some grain of sand-sized chip
that flies away into the universe next door if I so much as breath on
it! I\'m entirely comfortable in my obsolescence. I\'ll cheerfully leave
all the super-fast sub-min stuff to the Larkins of this world.

It\'s difficult to see where you\'re going when you walk facing
backwards.
Sorry, Jeff, that\'s just not how I see it.
 
C

Cursitor Doom

Guest
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:00:08 -0800 (PST), Brent Locher
<blocher@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

Also, as we expand our technology there are too many things. I sense that 70 years ago most EEs were good at EM theory. Heck they seemed to understand waveguide theory and all the various modes. I think they generally understood differential equations better. Today I think you will find few engineers who can really explain differential equations , transient, SS convolution , time vs frequency notions. Too many more things to chase....more shiny objects.
Absolutely. The sight of Maxwell\'s equations would give \'em a seizure.
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 11/24/2020 5:13 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:00:08 -0800 (PST), Brent Locher
blocher@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

Also, as we expand our technology there are too many things. I sense that 70 years ago most EEs were good at EM theory. Heck they seemed to understand waveguide theory and all the various modes. I think they generally understood differential equations better. Today I think you will find few engineers who can really explain differential equations , transient, SS convolution , time vs frequency notions. Too many more things to chase....more shiny objects.


Absolutely. The sight of Maxwell\'s equations would give \'em a seizure.
Doesn\'t everyone have a T-shirt to that effect?

<https://museumstore.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/Maxwells-Equation-Tshirt-Front.jpg>
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 11:10:37 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:03:14 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com
wrote:

I\'ll cheerfully leave all the super-fast sub-min stuff to the Larkins of this world.
He got into it late, and doesn\'t seem to have got all that far into it.

It\'s difficult to see where you\'re going when you walk facing backwards.

Sorry, Jeff, that\'s just not how I see it.
When your head is a far up your own behind as Cursitor Doom\'s is, you don\'t see much of anything.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 11:13:22 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:00:08 -0800 (PST), Brent Locher
blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

Also, as we expand our technology there are too many things. I sense that 70 years ago most EEs were good at EM theory. Heck they seemed to understand waveguide theory and all the various modes. I think they generally understood differential equations better. Today I think you will find few engineers who can really explain differential equations , transient, SS convolution , time vs frequency notions. Too many more things to chase....more shiny objects.

Absolutely. The sight of Maxwell\'s equations would give \'em a seizure.
Not something I\'ve seen happen. These days Maxwell\'s equations tend to show up embedded in fancy field-plotting software, so the chance that anybody would recognise them if they saw them is remote.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 11/24/20 7:10 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2020 4:09 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

[attrs elided]

As Kipling said, \"Not so, but far otherwise.\"  It\'s the folks who
were trained on the fad of the month with no theoretical
underpinnings who get obsolete.

Those are the EASIEST to go obsolete -- but, not ALL headed for that
fate.
The folks who respond to industries\' current need will likely find the
need has evaporated by the time they are \"expert\" in their field.  So,
they\'re forever a grunt.

But, I know many engineers who have been sidelined because they\'ve
stuck with
old skillsets and didn\'t adapt to what\'s new.  Or, let their employers\'
timelines effectively box them into rehashing old designs while the
\"youngsters\" worked on the really interesting things!

Well, you can\'t fix stupid. ;)  Folks who don\'t actually take much of
an interest in their field aren\'t that much good even when they\'re young.

I don\'t think it\'s \"lack of interest\".  Rather, I think many folks get
\"scared\"
of new technologies -- esp if their basic education didn\'t prepare them
for \"what\'s likely to come\".
Well, that\'s the flavour of the month problem.

Or, they get caught up in solving today\'s problems with today\'s
tools/techniques and lose sight of the fact that change WILL come.
So, instead of \"dreaming\" about what they COULD do, \"if only\", they
spend their time just trying to make *this* (whatever) work.
Taking an interest in your field means (in part) finding out about
current and expected future developments.

Until no one is interested in doing things that way!

What\'s worse is \"they\" may be the \"time honored experts\" at their
organization.  Management (likely not very tech savvy) often looks
to their opinions when deciding how to tackle a new product/project.
Their stuck-in-the-mud ideas/attitudes can poison an enterprise -- until
they are \"dismissed\" as behind-the-times.
Sure. But folks like that are interested in being big shots, rather
than in engineering/science/whatever. \"They have their reward.\"

A group of colleagues get together 2-4 times, annually.  It is
interesting to see how quickly folks \"lose\" their engineering
skillsets as they drift away from \"hands-on\" engineering (e.g.,
middle/upper management... even something as \"lowly\" as *project*
management).  You really have to work at DO-ing engineering to
remain \"current\" with what\'s possible and practical.
Yup. I had various opportunities to go into management, both junior snd
senior, but have never been interested. My father finished his
corporate career as a senior manager in a mining company. He did a lot
of good for a lot of people, but by age 60 he was fed up and retired.

I\'m 61 and still enjoying my work with great gusto. I won\'t retire till
my health gives out (or other misfortune overtakes me) because I\'m
having too much fun. Hopefully another 15 years or more.

It\'s also depressing to see the sense of loss in their eyes as
they see the excited \"exchanges\" between those of us who resist
being tempted away from that work.  (not many \"engineers\" are
interested in hearing about capitalization efforts or staffing
estimates for the next 5 years, etc.)
\"Come over to the dark side....we have cookies.\" ;)

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
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 11/24/2020 5:52 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/24/20 7:10 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2020 4:09 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

[attrs elided]

As Kipling said, \"Not so, but far otherwise.\" It\'s the folks who were
trained on the fad of the month with no theoretical underpinnings who get
obsolete.

Those are the EASIEST to go obsolete -- but, not ALL headed for that fate.
The folks who respond to industries\' current need will likely find the
need has evaporated by the time they are \"expert\" in their field. So,
they\'re forever a grunt.

But, I know many engineers who have been sidelined because they\'ve stuck with
old skillsets and didn\'t adapt to what\'s new. Or, let their employers\'
timelines effectively box them into rehashing old designs while the
\"youngsters\" worked on the really interesting things!

Well, you can\'t fix stupid. ;) Folks who don\'t actually take much of an
interest in their field aren\'t that much good even when they\'re young.

I don\'t think it\'s \"lack of interest\". Rather, I think many folks get \"scared\"
of new technologies -- esp if their basic education didn\'t prepare them
for \"what\'s likely to come\".

Well, that\'s the flavour of the month problem.
It can also be generational; I\'ve met several \"older\" engineers
(when *I* was young) that simply couldn\'t conceive of using a computer
to do something that they\'d relied on discretes to perform. Even
folks who had experience with analog computers often didn\'t make
the \"leap\" to understanding how a digital version could be so
inexpensive/versatile (no plug boards to rewire!)

Or, they get caught up in solving today\'s problems with today\'s
tools/techniques and lose sight of the fact that change WILL come.
So, instead of \"dreaming\" about what they COULD do, \"if only\", they
spend their time just trying to make *this* (whatever) work.

Taking an interest in your field means (in part) finding out about current and
expected future developments.
I have to remind myself not to be \"elitist\"; there are folks for
whom work is \"just WORK\"! Were it not for a set of mouths to
feed, they\'d gladly be doing something else.

Until no one is interested in doing things that way!

What\'s worse is \"they\" may be the \"time honored experts\" at their
organization. Management (likely not very tech savvy) often looks
to their opinions when deciding how to tackle a new product/project.
Their stuck-in-the-mud ideas/attitudes can poison an enterprise -- until
they are \"dismissed\" as behind-the-times.

Sure. But folks like that are interested in being big shots, rather than in
engineering/science/whatever. \"They have their reward.\"
I think many of them just \"gravitate\" (circumstances) into those
positions and don\'t necessarily seek them out deliberately. \"Bob
is the most senior/expert... why don\'t we let HIM run the department?!\"

I suspect I\'m jaded but my impression of management is that they
just want problems off their desks; they aren\'t particularly
interested in how GOOD the solution (to that problem) happens to be.

\"New department manager? check!\"

A group of colleagues get together 2-4 times, annually. It is
interesting to see how quickly folks \"lose\" their engineering
skillsets as they drift away from \"hands-on\" engineering (e.g.,
middle/upper management... even something as \"lowly\" as *project*
management). You really have to work at DO-ing engineering to
remain \"current\" with what\'s possible and practical.

Yup. I had various opportunities to go into management, both junior snd
senior, but have never been interested. My father finished his corporate
career as a senior manager in a mining company. He did a lot of good for a lot
of people, but by age 60 he was fed up and retired.
I\'ve quit jobs when pressured to take on more \"responsibility\".
I know how components work; I have no interest in learning how
EMPLOYEES work!

When I\'ve had project management responsibilities, I took a very simple
approach: tell me what you need and I\'ll get it for you; tell me where
you are (progress) and I\'ll report that for you; otherwise, don\'t bother
me (and I expect YOU to be professional about your responsibilities).

I\'m 61 and still enjoying my work with great gusto. I won\'t retire till my
health gives out (or other misfortune overtakes me) because I\'m having too much
fun. Hopefully another 15 years or more.
I took the opposite approach and effectively \"retired\" years ago! I got
tired of solving problems that OTHER people found interesting (or profitable)
and, instead, want to work on things that *I* find interesting. E.g., I\'m
using a RDBMS as the sole persistent store in my current design. No \"file
system\" exposed to applications (store data IN a structure instead of
parsing that structure from a binary/text file!). And, taking that a step
further and storing all \"const\" objects/data in those relations instead
of as part of the executable\'s TEXT.

What will the impact of this design decision be? <shrug> We\'ll see!

Contractually, I\'m on the hook to fix any *bugs* in my designs (for as long
as they are in production -- I don\'t make many mistakes! :> ). But, I am
not obligated to revise/enhance/modify a design. Nor to tackle any NEW
projects.

Thankfully, have enough $ta$hed away that I can afford to explore things
that pique my interest. NOT having kids makes a huge difference in
how flexible you can be with your life. And, modest *material* needs acts
as an asset magnifier!

It\'s also depressing to see the sense of loss in their eyes as
they see the excited \"exchanges\" between those of us who resist
being tempted away from that work. (not many \"engineers\" are
interested in hearing about capitalization efforts or staffing
estimates for the next 5 years, etc.)

\"Come over to the dark side....we have cookies.\" ;)
I think they all *remember* what that \"rush\" of inspiration was
like. But, they can\'t recapture it because they\'ve \"slipped out
of the timestream\". As we\'re all friends, we make an effort not to
exclude -- implicitly or explicitly. But, when ideas start flying,
it\'s hard to remember to \"slow down and explain them to Bob\"...

<frown>

[actually reminds me of a golf joke...]
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 11/24/20 10:39 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2020 5:52 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 11/24/20 7:10 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2020 4:09 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

[attrs elided]

As Kipling said, \"Not so, but far otherwise.\"  It\'s the folks who
were trained on the fad of the month with no theoretical
underpinnings who get obsolete.

Those are the EASIEST to go obsolete -- but, not ALL headed for
that fate.
The folks who respond to industries\' current need will likely find the
need has evaporated by the time they are \"expert\" in their field.  So,
they\'re forever a grunt.

But, I know many engineers who have been sidelined because they\'ve
stuck with
old skillsets and didn\'t adapt to what\'s new.  Or, let their
employers\'
timelines effectively box them into rehashing old designs while the
\"youngsters\" worked on the really interesting things!

Well, you can\'t fix stupid. ;)  Folks who don\'t actually take much
of an interest in their field aren\'t that much good even when
they\'re young.

I don\'t think it\'s \"lack of interest\".  Rather, I think many folks
get \"scared\"
of new technologies -- esp if their basic education didn\'t prepare them
for \"what\'s likely to come\".

Well, that\'s the flavour of the month problem.

It can also be generational; I\'ve met several \"older\" engineers
(when *I* was young) that simply couldn\'t conceive of using a computer
to do something that they\'d relied on discretes to perform.  Even
folks who had experience with analog computers often didn\'t make
the \"leap\" to understanding how a digital version could be so
inexpensive/versatile (no plug boards to rewire!)

Or, they get caught up in solving today\'s problems with today\'s
tools/techniques and lose sight of the fact that change WILL come.
So, instead of \"dreaming\" about what they COULD do, \"if only\", they
spend their time just trying to make *this* (whatever) work.

Taking an interest in your field means (in part) finding out about
current and expected future developments.

I have to remind myself not to be \"elitist\"; there are folks for
whom work is \"just WORK\"!  Were it not for a set of mouths to
feed, they\'d gladly be doing something else.
It isn\'t elitist to say that that somebody who doesn\'t really give a
crap about his job apart from the pay cheque isn\'t worth that much as an
engineer. He might be a great dad, coach baseball, spend all his free
time saying rosaries for the souls in purgatory, and generally be a much
better man than I am, but he\'s not too valuable as an engineer.

Until no one is interested in doing things that way!

What\'s worse is \"they\" may be the \"time honored experts\" at their
organization.  Management (likely not very tech savvy) often looks
to their opinions when deciding how to tackle a new product/project.
Their stuck-in-the-mud ideas/attitudes can poison an enterprise -- until
they are \"dismissed\" as behind-the-times.

Sure.  But folks like that are interested in being big shots, rather
than in engineering/science/whatever.  \"They have their reward.\"

I think many of them just \"gravitate\" (circumstances) into those
positions and don\'t necessarily seek them out deliberately.  \"Bob
is the most senior/expert... why don\'t we let HIM run the department?!\"
Folks who are actually good at management and have a vision for what
they could accomplish given the extra scope that more seniority brings
are super valuable. The ones that just drift into management like that,
with no talent and no vision, not so much. I\'m not cut out to be a
manager, so I\'ve assiduously avoided management roles for my whole life.
Both I and my putative subordinates are happier that way, I\'m pretty sure.

I suspect I\'m jaded but my impression of management is that they
just want problems off their desks; they aren\'t particularly
interested in how GOOD the solution (to that problem) happens to be.
So they\'re mostly lousy at it. I knew that, though I\'ve been blessed to
have probably 80 percent good ones.

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
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 11/23/20 10:08 PM, boB wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 12:42:21 -0800, boB <boB@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. ;)

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
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Guest
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 00:10:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@noreply.com>
wrote:

You suggested in an earlier post I should get
acquainted with GANfets and such like. How would I even begin?
Reading about how they work and what they can do. Dig through the
spec sheets and look at the applications notes. Skim the online
catalogs to see what\'s available. Search Google of articles and
photos of what others have done. Reverse engineer competitors
products if available. Beg vendors for free samples. Somewhere along
the line of such an investigation, some product ideas might pop into
your head.

I have
absolutely no test equipment suitable for experimenting with such
devices.
I do, but it\'s 1970\'s and 1980\'s vintage equipment.
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/home/#test-equip-mess.jpg>
You can do quite a bit with old test equipment. Same with the easily
affordable \"toy\" test equipment that is appearing for sale online.

>My fastest scope is only 350Mhz;

I don\'t use an oscilloscope for RF over about 75 MHz. I do have a
sampling plugin (that needs some repair) but a scope only gets you so
far. My major test equipment for RF are:
1. Spectrum analyzer with tracking generator and lots of plugins.
2. Sweep generator, with lots of plugins.
3. RF signal generator.
4. Broadband noise source.
5. Frequency counter with lots of plugins.
6. Return loss bridge, single port VNA, or antenna analyzer.
7. Dummy loads, attenuators, power dividers, directional couplers,
tunable notch filters, coax adapters, patch cables, crimping tools,
TDR for testing cables, calibrated loads, etc.
8. RLC bridge.
9. Laptop computah with as much design and calculation software I can
steal err... find.
10. Communications service monitor (optional) for NBFM work.

In the not so distant past, the shopping list for such equipment would
be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Today, you can probably buy
everything you need for working up to 2.5GHz for under $2,000 USD.

>my fastest VNA is only 3Ghz

My $50 TinyVNA works to 1.5GHz, but is only accurate to about 100MHz.
The Smith Chart display is useful for antennas.

and whilst my fastest spectrum analyser goes to 22Ghz on its upper
range, that range isn\'t working and repairing it is not on my to-do
list because I get along just fine with the lower range.
Do you really need to fix it if the lower ranges are working? What
are you planning to do above 10GHz? Talk to satellites?

I\'m thankful
I have no interest in the faster stuff as it costs big $$$$$$$$$$
If you can\'t handle the GHz stuff, buy modules for the mm wave
frequencies that downconvert to something you can handle.

>I don\'t want to spend.

Learn to scrounge. Much of my test equipment came from thrift shops,
who didn\'t know what they had, and eBay (which can be overpriced). All
of it required repairs (usually electrolytics and tantalums). I also
inherited some equipment from several aging ham radio operators.

Plus the parts for those kind of frequencies are
typically tiny SMDs and I don\'t have the eyesight or steady hands for
assembling them.
I\'m 72. The hand is still steady but the eyesight is rapidly
deteriorating. So, I bought some microscopes:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/microscopes/>
My guess(tm) is have about $350 invested in *ALL* the microscopes
pictured. The most expensive items were replacement and additional
objective lenses and eyepieces. Something like this would be ideal:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/microscopes/Olympus%20SZ30/index.html#SZ30-01.jpg>
You can also get a microscope camera that fits in place of one of the
eyepieces. I bought a cheap one and regret it. Buy one that has a
0.5x lens.

I\'m very happy the stuff I like to goof around with
usually has through-hole components visible to the naked eye. I very
much like that. The last thing I need is some grain of sand-sized chip
that flies away into the universe next door if I so much as breath on
it! I\'m entirely comfortable in my obsolescence. I\'ll cheerfully leave
all the super-fast sub-min stuff to the Larkins of this world.
Well, I tried and methinks that you\'re hopeless.

I tend to judge people by their willingness and ability to learn. What
you\'ve done is essentially announce that you don\'t want to try
anything new and prefer to dabble in what you find comfortable. I
realize that you probably don\'t care, but you just failed my litmus
test.

It\'s difficult to see where you\'re going when you walk facing
backwards.

Sorry, Jeff, that\'s just not how I see it.
It\'s also difficult to know that you\'ve arrived if you don\'t know
where you\'re going. Good luck doing what you enjoy so much.



--
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
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 11/24/2020 9:21 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Taking an interest in your field means (in part) finding out about current
and expected future developments.

I have to remind myself not to be \"elitist\"; there are folks for
whom work is \"just WORK\"! Were it not for a set of mouths to
feed, they\'d gladly be doing something else.

It isn\'t elitist to say that that somebody who doesn\'t really give a crap about
his job apart from the pay cheque isn\'t worth that much as an engineer. He
might be a great dad, coach baseball, spend all his free time saying rosaries
for the souls in purgatory, and generally be a much better man than I am, but
he\'s not too valuable as an engineer.
Do you expect a physician to \"give a crap\" about HIS job -- apart from
the paycheck? Else he\'s not worth that much as a physician?

What about a dentist? Accountant? Librarian?

Plumber? Carpenter?

Ditch-digger?

Would you ascribe to a rule that \"a ____ that doesn\'t really give a crap
about his job apart from the paycheck isn\'t worth much as a _____\"?
For all values of ______?

If only for SOME values of _____, then you are differentiating based
on some non-obvious criteria... considering some jobs special/elite
from others.

I think it is a mistake to assume that folks\' interest in their jobs
extends beyond their workplace -- or that it *should* (for them to be
worth much as a _____).

Sure. But folks like that are interested in being big shots, rather than in
engineering/science/whatever. \"They have their reward.\"

I think many of them just \"gravitate\" (circumstances) into those
positions and don\'t necessarily seek them out deliberately. \"Bob
is the most senior/expert... why don\'t we let HIM run the department?!\"

Folks who are actually good at management and have a vision for what they could
accomplish given the extra scope that more seniority brings are super
valuable. The ones that just drift into management like that, with no talent
and no vision, not so much.
Exactly. \"Seniority\" rarely equates with knowledge, wisdom, etc. It may,
in fact, be indicative of lack of drive/ambition (do the minimum amount to
ensure you don\'t get fired -- while others have moved on to bigger and
better things!)

I\'m not cut out to be a manager, so I\'ve
assiduously avoided management roles for my whole life. Both I and my putative
subordinates are happier that way, I\'m pretty sure.

I suspect I\'m jaded but my impression of management is that they
just want problems off their desks; they aren\'t particularly
interested in how GOOD the solution (to that problem) happens to be.

So they\'re mostly lousy at it. I knew that, though I\'ve been blessed to have
probably 80 percent good ones.
I\'ve had two \"bosses\" that I\'d consider \"good ones\" -- in terms of how
they managed their resources and how they approached the problems for
which they\'d be held accountable.

I had one early client that was abysmal in his desire to micromanage the
project -- despite the fact that he was acknowledged (by his staff)
as inept (he\'d already FAILED at a previous attempt at the project).
That taught me to keep clients out of whatever portion of the project
they\'re delegating to me (\"Tell me what you want done, when you want it
and we\'ll settle on a price. Then, go away.\") This has worked
remarkably well for the past several decades -- they get the products
they\'ve asked for and I get the freedom to go about doing that work
however *I* deem best.

If YOU can do the job better than me, then why are you HIRING me?
Would you mind if, once hired, I subcontract the job back out to YOU??! :>
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 11/25/2020 12:04 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

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\'ve a colleague who discovered a packrat (or some other sort of rodent)
had managed to chew a portion of the texts that he\'d stored in a shed
(no basements, here). He only realized this after a leak in that shed\'s
roof managed to soak several boxes of those texts! :-/

Of course, had they all been stored in digital form, he could have had
limitless copies of the entire archive (cloud, safe deposit box,
bookshelf in the living room, kitchen drawer, etc.).

And, he\'d be far less likely to have to decide which titles to discard
(for lack of dry, rodent-free storage space! :> )

[one thing you DON\'T want to do is adopt a \"closed\" document format for
electronic media lest you find yourself looking for a 30 year old
MagiReader 2000 when YOURS shits the bed!]
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Guest
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:04:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

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. ;)
That has already happened to me. When I dug out my Kindle DX
Graphite:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Amazon%20Kindle%20DX>
I tried to check if there were any pending messages or file transfers.
It wouldn\'t connect via 3G wireless. At some time in the past, AT&T
ended 3G service for Amazon Whispernet, leaving my Kindle DX
unconnected. Since there\'s no SD card, ethernet or Wi-Fi in the
Kindle DX, it\'s now useless. I checked an all my other Kindles still
work via Wi-Fi.

Well, not totally useless. I noticed that I had downloaded the Kindle
version of \"Much Ado about Almost Nothing\" by Hans Camenzind:
<https://www.amazon.com/Much-ADO-about-Almost-Nothing/dp/0615139957?refinements=p_27%3AHans+Camenzind>
So, I consumed the afternoon reading about half of the book. If
you\'re interested in how the great men of electronics came to be, some
funny, some tragic, and some rather oddly, this is the book to read.


--
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
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 11/25/2020 1:00 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:04:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

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. ;)

That has already happened to me. When I dug out my Kindle DX
Graphite:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Amazon%20Kindle%20DX
I tried to check if there were any pending messages or file transfers.
It wouldn\'t connect via 3G wireless. At some time in the past, AT&T
ended 3G service for Amazon Whispernet, leaving my Kindle DX
unconnected. Since there\'s no SD card, ethernet or Wi-Fi in the
Kindle DX, it\'s now useless. I checked an all my other Kindles still
work via Wi-Fi.
Can\'t you transfer to/from the kindle and a PC via USB?

[I prefer phones, tablets and other appliances that use removable
media -- even if I have to dissect the device to get AT that media -- for
storage. And, non-proprietary file formats.]
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 11/25/20 2:47 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2020 9:21 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Taking an interest in your field means (in part) finding out about
current and expected future developments.

I have to remind myself not to be \"elitist\"; there are folks for
whom work is \"just WORK\"!  Were it not for a set of mouths to
feed, they\'d gladly be doing something else.

It isn\'t elitist to say that that somebody who doesn\'t really give a
crap about his job apart from the pay cheque isn\'t worth that much as
an engineer.  He might be a great dad, coach baseball, spend all his
free time saying rosaries for the souls in purgatory, and generally be
a much better man than I am, but he\'s not too valuable as an engineer.

Do you expect a physician to \"give a crap\" about HIS job -- apart from
the paycheck?  Else he\'s not worth that much as a physician?

What about a dentist?  Accountant?  Librarian?
What a ridiculous line of questioning. \"Goll-ee, Lou Ann, I don\'t mind
if that doctor fella that\'s taking out my appendix doesn\'t care about
his job! He\'s got those diplomas an\' all!\"

Plumber?  Carpenter?

Ditch-digger?
Now your elitism is really showing. Craftsmen that I know do take an
interest in their own crafts. I imagine that if you suggested to your
doctor, dentist, accountant, or carpenter that they didn\'t need to care
about their work, you might get quite a tart response.

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
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Guest
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 01:12:14 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 11/25/2020 1:00 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:04:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

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. ;)

That has already happened to me. When I dug out my Kindle DX
Graphite:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Amazon%20Kindle%20DX
I tried to check if there were any pending messages or file transfers.
It wouldn\'t connect via 3G wireless. At some time in the past, AT&T
ended 3G service for Amazon Whispernet, leaving my Kindle DX
unconnected. Since there\'s no SD card, ethernet or Wi-Fi in the
Kindle DX, it\'s now useless. I checked an all my other Kindles still
work via Wi-Fi.

Can\'t you transfer to/from the kindle and a PC via USB?
Oops. I forgot about the obvious. I\'m addicted to just emailing the
files to the Kindle, and let it do all the formatting and file
conversion.

I just checked and yes, it does work via USB (without a USB-OTG
cable). The Kindle DX Graphite can hold 3.3GB. Looks like I have
about 1.2GB free. I\'m sure I can find something to fill the empty
space. USB 2.0 isn\'t the fastest, but good enough.

Looks like I\'ll need to do some document conversion with Calibre:
<https://calibre-ebook.com>

Thanks much.

[I prefer phones, tablets and other appliances that use removable
media -- even if I have to dissect the device to get AT that media -- for
storage. And, non-proprietary file formats.]
Yes, that\'s the theory. My reality is that I\'ve misplaced several
micro-SD cards juggling them between devices (phone, camera, adapter,
viewer, PC, laptop, chromebook, Raspberry Pi\'s, etc). Hmmm... I just
found on my desk a SIM card that probably belongs to someone\'s phone.

--
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
 
S

Steve Wilson

Guest
boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

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.
MIT Radiation Lab Series

https://schems.com/MIT_Radiation_Lab_Series/

Terman Radio Engineer\'s Handbook

https://tinyurl.com/y6auqv6b

(https://electrooptical.net/static/oldsite/OldBooks/Terman-
RadioEngineersHandbook_1943.pdf)

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.
Radiotron Designer\'s Handbook

http://www.tubebooks.org/books/rdh4.pdf



--
Science teaches us to trust. - sw
 
S

Steve Wilson

Guest
Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

MIT Radiation Lab Series

https://schems.com/MIT_Radiation_Lab_Series/

Terman Radio Engineer\'s Handbook

https://tinyurl.com/y6auqv6b

(https://electrooptical.net/static/oldsite/OldBooks/Terman-
RadioEngineersHandbook_1943.pdf)

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.

Radiotron Designer\'s Handbook

http://www.tubebooks.org/books/rdh4.pdf
The Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ)

https://tinyurl.com/y66offk2

(https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=belltechj)

https://www.bell-labs.com/our-research/technical-journal/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs_Technical_Journal

The Online Books Page

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/




--
Science teaches us to trust. - sw
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top