On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:08:45 PM UTC,
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:11:27 PM UTC-4,
palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> > by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> > Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
> > JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> > But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
> > It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
> > However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
> > But that does not work out too well either:
> > 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
> > 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
> > 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
> > FYI:
> > I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
> > I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
> >
> > Nobody here could.
> >
> > So how the hell did I know ?
> > Cos I has dealt with real ones and bench tested them.
> > Or else the flaws had become evident in the field.
> >
> > The flaws concerned were ones that caused serious misbehaviour in real use or instant self destruction.
> >
> > The upshot of these observations is that this NG is pretty useless.
> > Just like arguing over all the OT stuff is.
> Why should any of this interest anyone else??? Or are you just ranting for some unexplained reason? I guess there weren't enough posts the last few days for you to vent over?
y.
> The group is a sum total of all the contributions. I'm sure you think your contributions are a net positive. Perhaps it would illustratae to ask what you expect from this group, but I'm sure that will only result in a stream of profanity as is typically the case.
>
Hey, I sympathize with Phil. And I actually like the 'experiments' in technical
social exchange that Phil & others have tried.
I *also* realize a usenet group is a imperfect channel for doing
some things, such as those stated. We should expect less-
than-ideal "S/N ratio" :-) And to be fair, sometimes the
schematics don't always tell the 'whole story' - but then
it turns into real work just to post full-topic here?
If someone wants higher S/N, go to
electronics.stackexchange.com
or
www.eevblog.com/forum
But here, I wouldn't give up on these & any other experiments.
I see no "rules" that we have to stick to pure & new design issues.
We (collectively) certainly break that rule, > 50% of the time.
To get the 'generally-on-topic ' to 'way-off-topic' Ratio >> 0.5, let see...
Brainstorming here.. some on going series of topics...
* odd old parts from the drawers - You post a picture of an old or
odd looking part, challenge us to figure out what it is
* design from the past - post original design, and suggest
how it would best be done today.
* lesson learned - honesty required. Ad hominens would be
admonished! What design error 'someone' did, you see a
lesson to be learned & can share.
* baffled by the readings - equipment reading told you one
thing but your gut was telling you something else. What did
you do to resolve the conflict?
Any more?