Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Debouncing....at About 1Mhz

J

Jim Thompson

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:27:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
[snip]

Funny, your circuit doesn't produce waveforms exactly as you sketched
them.

Of course not. That's why they call it a "sketch." And since the
component values aren't specified, it couldn't do anything "exactly."


Put some numbers on a real circuit, post it, and then let the mob
evaluate its efficacy.


Or are you chicken ?:)


So you *don't* understand it! That's interesting.

John

Your recent responses have become of such a subterfuge level I have to
conclude you're a leftist weenie. Bye!

...Jim Thompson


Well, either you see it, or you don't. I guess you don't.

John

Oh, I see it. It's just part of your leftist weenie persona to duck
by claiming I don't understand.

Your circuit's Thompson Reliability/Repeatability Rating == 0

...Jim Thompson
 
J

John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:35:30 -0800, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:27:11 -0700, Jim Thompson

[snip]

Funny, your circuit doesn't produce waveforms exactly as you sketched
them.

Of course not. That's why they call it a "sketch." And since the
component values aren't specified, it couldn't do anything "exactly."


Put some numbers on a real circuit, post it, and then let the mob
evaluate its efficacy.


Or are you chicken ?:)


So you *don't* understand it! That's interesting.

John

Your recent responses have become of such a subterfuge level I have to
conclude you're a leftist weenie. Bye!

...Jim Thompson


Well, either you see it, or you don't. I guess you don't.

John

Oh, I see it. It's just part of your leftist weenie persona to duck
by claiming I don't understand.

Your circuit's Thompson Reliability/Repeatability Rating == 0

...Jim Thompson


If you do understand how it works, why are you challenging me to prove
that it works?

It does work. And, as I noted when I posted it, it was a way to get
the prop delay down to 1. And as I also noted, it has constraints that
would lead me to prefer my first circuit.

I suppose all that makes me a leftist weenie.

You know, in any given half-hour, me and one of my guys, with a
whiteboard, may come up with 50 interesting circuits. Most are flawed
in some way, many are plain goofy, but the process usually leads to
something that's both elegant and reliable. Some people just poison a
process like this. People like that should be airline mechanics or
something, where eveything must be exactly the same, by the book,
every time.

John
 
J

Jim Thompson

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:00:22 -0700, Jim Thompson

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:35:30 -0800, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:27:11 -0700, Jim Thompson

[snip]

Funny, your circuit doesn't produce waveforms exactly as you sketched
them.

Of course not. That's why they call it a "sketch." And since the
component values aren't specified, it couldn't do anything "exactly."


Put some numbers on a real circuit, post it, and then let the mob
evaluate its efficacy.


Or are you chicken ?:)


So you *don't* understand it! That's interesting.

John

Your recent responses have become of such a subterfuge level I have to
conclude you're a leftist weenie. Bye!

...Jim Thompson


Well, either you see it, or you don't. I guess you don't.

John

Oh, I see it. It's just part of your leftist weenie persona to duck
by claiming I don't understand.

Your circuit's Thompson Reliability/Repeatability Rating == 0

...Jim Thompson


If you do understand how it works, why are you challenging me to prove
that it works?

It does work. And, as I noted when I posted it, it was a way to get
the prop delay down to 1. And as I also noted, it has constraints that
would lead me to prefer my first circuit.

I suppose all that makes me a leftist weenie.

You know, in any given half-hour, me and one of my guys, with a
whiteboard, may come up with 50 interesting circuits. Most are flawed
in some way, many are plain goofy, but the process usually leads to
something that's both elegant and reliable. Some people just poison a
process like this. People like that should be airline mechanics or
something, where eveything must be exactly the same, by the book,
every time.

John

So? You want me to praise the "flawed" ones ?:)

I guarantee that I have generated far more "flawed" ideas than you. I
just toss them rather than running them up the flag pole to try to
impress some newbie.

...Jim Thompson
 
D

D from BC

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:04:17 -0800, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:00:22 -0700, Jim Thompson

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:35:30 -0800, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:27:11 -0700, Jim Thompson

[snip]

Funny, your circuit doesn't produce waveforms exactly as you sketched
them.

Of course not. That's why they call it a "sketch." And since the
component values aren't specified, it couldn't do anything "exactly."


Put some numbers on a real circuit, post it, and then let the mob
evaluate its efficacy.


Or are you chicken ?:)


So you *don't* understand it! That's interesting.

John

Your recent responses have become of such a subterfuge level I have to
conclude you're a leftist weenie. Bye!

...Jim Thompson


Well, either you see it, or you don't. I guess you don't.

John

Oh, I see it. It's just part of your leftist weenie persona to duck
by claiming I don't understand.

Your circuit's Thompson Reliability/Repeatability Rating == 0

...Jim Thompson


If you do understand how it works, why are you challenging me to prove
that it works?

It does work. And, as I noted when I posted it, it was a way to get
the prop delay down to 1. And as I also noted, it has constraints that
would lead me to prefer my first circuit.

I suppose all that makes me a leftist weenie.

You know, in any given half-hour, me and one of my guys, with a
whiteboard, may come up with 50 interesting circuits. Most are flawed
in some way, many are plain goofy, but the process usually leads to
something that's both elegant and reliable. Some people just poison a
process like this. People like that should be airline mechanics or
something, where eveything must be exactly the same, by the book,
every time.

John

So? You want me to praise the "flawed" ones ?:)

I guarantee that I have generated far more "flawed" ideas than you. I
just toss them rather than running them up the flag pole to try to
impress some newbie.

...Jim Thompson

I look at circuits like I look at women.
Pretty...
Nice...
Gorilla...
Plain Jane.
Wow she's hot!

I'm not expecting to always see 'hot' circuits on here.
I don't know yet how good the latest 'JF' release is but I give it a
'pretty' rating.. :)
She might be a bitch..buts she's pretty. :)


D from BC
 
J

John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:04:17 -0800, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:00:22 -0700, Jim Thompson

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:35:30 -0800, John Larkin

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:27:11 -0700, Jim Thompson

[snip]

Funny, your circuit doesn't produce waveforms exactly as you sketched
them.

Of course not. That's why they call it a "sketch." And since the
component values aren't specified, it couldn't do anything "exactly."


Put some numbers on a real circuit, post it, and then let the mob
evaluate its efficacy.


Or are you chicken ?:)


So you *don't* understand it! That's interesting.

John

Your recent responses have become of such a subterfuge level I have to
conclude you're a leftist weenie. Bye!

...Jim Thompson


Well, either you see it, or you don't. I guess you don't.

John

Oh, I see it. It's just part of your leftist weenie persona to duck
by claiming I don't understand.

Your circuit's Thompson Reliability/Repeatability Rating == 0

...Jim Thompson


If you do understand how it works, why are you challenging me to prove
that it works?

It does work. And, as I noted when I posted it, it was a way to get
the prop delay down to 1. And as I also noted, it has constraints that
would lead me to prefer my first circuit.

I suppose all that makes me a leftist weenie.

You know, in any given half-hour, me and one of my guys, with a
whiteboard, may come up with 50 interesting circuits. Most are flawed
in some way, many are plain goofy, but the process usually leads to
something that's both elegant and reliable. Some people just poison a
process like this. People like that should be airline mechanics or
something, where eveything must be exactly the same, by the book,
every time.

John

So? You want me to praise the "flawed" ones ?:)

I want nothing from you. Absolutely nothing.

John
 
J

John Larkin

Doesn't matter. But if you're wrong, I reserve the right to have fun
with it.


John
 
J

John Fields

Doesn't matter. But if you're wrong, I reserve the right to have fun
with it.

---
So, you think that ridiculing is fun? What does that say about you?

Of course it matters.

It's the whole point because you have an overriding obsession with
being infallible and when you're shown not to be by valid criticism,
(especially, OMIGOD, when that criticism emanates from, of all
places, a newsgroup, who's members you obviously view as being your
inferiors) you get nasty.

Yet you try to pretend that you're such a nice guy that you'll
brainstorm with your minions, peer-to-peer. However, since you're
paying their salaries and they're easy to shut up, that's not really
peer-to-peer and it doesn't really count.

What's peer-to-peer is _here_, and I've seen, time and time again
when someone disagrees with you that you leave polite discourse
behind and start to couch your dialogue in a rather more sinister
tone.

As if you were a corrupt D.A., for example, hinting to a critical
newspaper reporter that a rather painful investigation of his life
might ensue if the criticism isn't rescinded or, at least, dropped.

Stretched, perhaps, but I like to use "Reductio ad absurdum" to make
a point, if you got it.
 
J

John Fields

It has the compensating virtues of being fast, being hazard free,
being simple, and doing exactly what was requested.

---
Hazard free? There still remains the RFI issue from all that
chatter, which you haven't adequately addressed.
---
Measuring the ugliness of your designs is like evaluating 0/0.

---
Fred's designs aren't ugly, they're just panoramic, and they work.

And, evaluating 0/0 to the limit leads to:

0
--- = 1
0

which would seem to lend credence to his designs as being valid, '1'
being assumed to be true.
 
J

John Larkin

Some people need ridiculing. Some practically beg for it. I'm almost
always nice to polite, sincere people, even dumb ones. Fatheads, on
the other hand, are fair game.
Of course it matters.

It's the whole point because you have an overriding obsession with
being infallible and when you're shown not to be by valid criticism,
(especially, OMIGOD, when that criticism emanates from, of all
places, a newsgroup, who's members you obviously view as being your
inferiors) you get nasty.

I'm not infallible, but I'm usually right. That's because I'm careful,
and I check my facts before I make definitive statements. Anybody can
do that if they want to. Our electronics usually works because we
assume that we're not infallible, so we check our own and each others
work before we etch boards. Anybody else can do that, too.

What I have an overriding obsession with is designing great
electronics. That's absolutely incompatible with overconfidence.
Concepts require arrogance, but implementation requires paranoia.

Yet you try to pretend that you're such a nice guy that you'll
brainstorm with your minions, peer-to-peer. However, since you're
paying their salaries and they're easy to shut up, that's not really
peer-to-peer and it doesn't really count.

I wish they would shut up sometimes. I get very little deference
around this place. I get yelled at fairly regularly, and my decisions
prevail only if I can convince people they're a good idea. Geez,
there's no point in having employees if you still do all the thinking.
What's peer-to-peer is _here_, and I've seen, time and time again
when someone disagrees with you that you leave polite discourse
behind and start to couch your dialogue in a rather more sinister
tone.

What's that saying about heat and kitchens?
As if you were a corrupt D.A., for example, hinting to a critical
newspaper reporter that a rather painful investigation of his life
might ensue if the criticism isn't rescinded or, at least, dropped.

I'm not a DA. I can't arrest anybody. All I can do here is type, just
like anybody else.
Stretched, perhaps, but I like to use "Reductio ad absurdum" to make
a point, if you got it.

Grow up.

John
 
J

Jim Thompson

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:46:37 -0600, John Fields

[snip]
And, evaluating 0/0 to the limit leads to:

0
--- = 1
0

Not necessarily so. Isn't it L'Hopitals's rule...

lim f(x) f'(x)
x->0 ---- --> -----
g(x) g'(x)
which would seem to lend credence to his designs as being valid, '1'
being assumed to be true.

...Jim Thompson
 
J

John Larkin

I was referring to timing hazards, which all of the hairball circuits
have. And I can't understand your fears about running signals through
gates. How are you ever going to do logic if you're afraid to run
signals through gates? "All that chatter" is in fact the input signal.


Fred doesn't design things. He's said so. He sure didn't take a shot
at this problem. Mostly what Fred does is criticize designs for
emotional reasons, and look up a lot of old papers and cite them.

And, evaluating 0/0 to the limit leads to:

0
--- = 1
0

which would seem to lend credence to his designs as being valid, '1'
being assumed to be true.

He doesn't design.

John
 
J

John Fields

What difference would that make? The input is a logic level, and its
time behavior has been defined.

Yes, there is a simple fix that allows reliable operation with
real-world cmos schmitts. It's sort of obvious.
 
J

JosephKK

John Larkin [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:
What difference would that make? The input is a logic level, and its
time behavior has been defined.

Yes, there is a simple fix that allows reliable operation with
real-world cmos schmitts. It's sort of obvious.

John

If you think so build and test it, or SPICE it. Show us the results.
 
J

John Larkin

John Larkin [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:


If you think so build and test it, or SPICE it. Show us the results.

Hell, I've already done the only circuit that really works.

Playing with circuits is no fun when the other guys just play couch
potato.

John
 
J

Jim Thompson

John Larkin [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:
[snip]
Yes, there is a simple fix that allows reliable operation with
real-world cmos schmitts. It's sort of obvious.

John

If you think so build and test it, or SPICE it. Show us the results.

Hell, I've already done the only circuit that really works.

My circuit doesn't work? Sure it does. I captures the first
transition just as requested by the OP.
Playing with circuits is no fun when the other guys just play couch
potato.

John

Oh, Dear John, You've become a smug SOB on a level with Bloggs ;-)

...Jim Thompson
 
J

John Fields

Hell, I've already done the only circuit that really works.

---
Hmm...

I guess you haven't gone to the trouble of running the simulation
that I provided.
 
J

John Fields

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:46:37 -0600, John Fields

I was referring to timing hazards, which all of the hairball circuits
have. And I can't understand your fears about running signals through
gates. How are you ever going to do logic if you're afraid to run
signals through gates? "All that chatter" is in fact the input signal.
I'm surprised that you don't seem to know this, but if you have a
signal with sharp edges then, at each transition, a multiplicity of
harmonics will be generated and radiated into space.

Look at it like this:

.. _________________________
..FIN ___| |____________________
.. _ _
..NFIN____| |_______________________| |_________________


where FIN is the input signal and NFIN represents the spectral
products generated by FIN's transitions, i.e. noise, if you have no
use for the harmonics.

Now, if that signal is delayed by sending it through a gate:


| \
FIN>---| >--->DFIN
| /

we'll have:

.. _________________________
..FIN ___| |____________________
.. _ _
..NFIN ___| |_______________________| |_________________

on the input to the gate, and:

.. _________________________
..DFIN _______| |____________________
.. _ _
..NDFIN________| |_______________________| |_________________

on the output of the gate.

Notice that there are now twice as many noise pulses as there were
before, since there's one on each of the incident as well as the
delayed transitions.

The chain in your circuit: (View in Courier)


N1
/
+------------------------A
| N2 Y---CLK
FIN>--+-A / +--B
Y---A /N3 |
B Y---A |
| B B--+
| | Y \
| | | N4
GND>----+------+------+

(assuming equal gate delays) generates noise pulses that look,
roughly, something like this:

.. _________________________
..FIN ___| |____________________
.. _ _
..N1 ____| |_______________________| |_________________
.. _ _
..N2 ________| |_______________________| |_____________
.. _ _
..N3 _____________| |_______________________| |_________
.. _ _
..N4 _________________| |_______________________| |_____
.. _ _ _ _
..CLK ________| |_________| |___________| |_________| |_


with the result that your circuit (assuming edge rates equal to
those of the comparator) is generating five times as much noise as
the output of the comparator, FIN.
 
J

John Larkin

John Larkin [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:
[snip]

Yes, there is a simple fix that allows reliable operation with
real-world cmos schmitts. It's sort of obvious.

John

If you think so build and test it, or SPICE it. Show us the results.

Hell, I've already done the only circuit that really works.

My circuit doesn't work? Sure it does. I captures the first
transition just as requested by the OP.

And includes the unobtainium "Delay" box, whose output splits into two
timing-critical paths, always an alarm in async logic. Finish the
design and we'll see.
Oh, Dear John, You've become a smug SOB on a level with Bloggs ;-)

Blogs doesn't design electronics. Surprisingly few S.E.D posters
actually do.

John
 
J

Jim Thompson

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:06:41 GMT, JosephKK

John Larkin [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:
[snip]

Yes, there is a simple fix that allows reliable operation with
real-world cmos schmitts. It's sort of obvious.

John

If you think so build and test it, or SPICE it. Show us the results.

Hell, I've already done the only circuit that really works.

My circuit doesn't work? Sure it does. I captures the first
transition just as requested by the OP.

And includes the unobtainium "Delay" box,

Alzheimer's setting in, John? Posted many moons ago...

http://analog-innovations.com/SED/CrudeDelay.pdf
whose output splits into two
timing-critical paths, always an alarm in async logic. Finish the
design and we'll see.

Nope. Switches "sex" out in the middle of no activity. Talk about
not understanding... you have NO CLUE how my design works.
Blogs doesn't design electronics. Surprisingly few S.E.D posters
actually do.

John

I certainly do. I have the income and repeat customers to prove it.

I thought you did too ??

...Jim Thompson
 
Top