In article <1093921958.123633@ftpsrv1>, Tom <somebody@knowherex.netgx> wrote:
>"Tim Wescott" <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message
>news:10ilfr5qumcoj50@corp.supernews.com...
>> Horowitz and Hill, "Art of Electronics", 2nd. edition, Cambridge
>> University Press, ISBN 0521370957,
>> http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0521370957-0, etc., etc.
>
>Never like that book - was written by a Physics man rather than an engineer
>and they have a different approach.
Hm... that must be why I liked that book. It made electronics
comprehensible, for the most part, without spoon-feeding the reader.
-Alex
Reply by Tom●August 31, 20042004-08-31
"Tim Wescott" <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message
news:10ilfr5qumcoj50@corp.supernews.com...
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> > Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> >> I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense"
> >> and why some answers confuse me.
> >>
> >> While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer
> >> function of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection.
> >>
> >> Yesterday I looked at
> >>
> >> ---R1----*----R2----*
> >> | |
> >> *----L1----*
> >> | |
> >> *----C1----*
> >> | |
> >> *--| - | |
> >> | OA *-*----- Vout
> >> GND-----*--|+ |
> >>
> >> OA = opamp
> >>
> >> and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was.
> >>
> >> I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND
> >> COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2
> >> semesters of work?
> >>
> >> Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need?
> >>
> >> I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group
> >> answering my "dumb" questions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I've found the "Art of Electronics" book more helpful for jogging my
> > memory than my original text books. My copy isn't here so I apologize
> > for not including a more complete reference.
>
> Horowitz and Hill, "Art of Electronics", 2nd. edition, Cambridge
> University Press, ISBN 0521370957,
> http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0521370957-0, etc., etc.
>
> --
>
> Tim Wescott
> Wescott Design Services
> http://www.wescottdesign.com
Never like that book - was written by a Physics man rather than an engineer
and they have a different approach.
Tom
Reply by Richard Owlett●August 24, 20042004-08-24
Rune Allnor wrote:
> Richard Owlett <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message news:<10ikeohpk164l89@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>
>>I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group
>>answering my "dumb" questions.
>
>
> Which questions would that be?
The " around 'dumb' were very significant;}
My point was that I keep asking essentially the same rephrased
question and the group does not get tired rephrasing same answer until
it sinks thru.
[BTW I have medical evidence that my skull *IS* denser than average ;]
> I have answered your posts once or twice
> in the past, and haven't found any "dumb" questions. I think your
> questions are more or less as what would be expected from students of a
> beginner's course in DSP, with two important differences:
>
> - In your questions I can see progress. If not from post to post,
> so over time.
> - You are sincerely interested in DSP. The most sincere question
> I ever had from a student in a class of mine was "Is this subject
> likely to come up during examiantion?"
I have at least two advantages over typical student:
1. 3-4 decades in age
2. I'm an 'amateur' in the strictest derivational sense
[ my current profession is "Hospital Services Courier"
for the American Red Cross ]
{1-800-GIVE LIFE for nearest donor center}
>
> Nah, you're doing good.
>
> Rune
My point was to say "Thank you" to group.
Perhaps also buying gruel factory for Rick's kids ;]
Reply by Rune Allnor●August 24, 20042004-08-24
Richard Owlett <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message news:<10ikeohpk164l89@corp.supernews.com>...
> I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group
> answering my "dumb" questions.
Which questions would that be? I have answered your posts once or twice
in the past, and haven't found any "dumb" questions. I think your
questions are more or less as what would be expected from students of a
beginner's course in DSP, with two important differences:
- In your questions I can see progress. If not from post to post,
so over time.
- You are sincerely interested in DSP. The most sincere question
I ever had from a student in a class of mine was "Is this subject
likely to come up during examiantion?"
Nah, you're doing good.
Rune
Reply by Tim Wescott●August 24, 20042004-08-24
Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense"
>> and why some answers confuse me.
>>
>> While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer
>> function of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection.
>>
>> Yesterday I looked at
>>
>> ---R1----*----R2----*
>> | |
>> *----L1----*
>> | |
>> *----C1----*
>> | |
>> *--| - | |
>> | OA *-*----- Vout
>> GND-----*--|+ |
>>
>> OA = opamp
>>
>> and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was.
>>
>> I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND
>> COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2
>> semesters of work?
>>
>> Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need?
>>
>> I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group
>> answering my "dumb" questions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I've found the "Art of Electronics" book more helpful for jogging my
> memory than my original text books. My copy isn't here so I apologize
> for not including a more complete reference.
Reply by Stan Pawlukiewicz●August 23, 20042004-08-23
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense"
> and why some answers confuse me.
>
> While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer function
> of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection.
>
> Yesterday I looked at
>
> ---R1----*----R2----*
> | |
> *----L1----*
> | |
> *----C1----*
> | |
> *--| - | |
> | OA *-*----- Vout
> GND-----*--|+ |
>
> OA = opamp
>
> and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was.
>
> I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND
> COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2 semesters
> of work?
>
> Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need?
>
> I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group
> answering my "dumb" questions.
>
>
>
>
>
I've found the "Art of Electronics" book more helpful for jogging my
memory than my original text books. My copy isn't here so I apologize
for not including a more complete reference.
Reply by Richard Owlett●August 23, 20042004-08-23
I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense"
and why some answers confuse me.
While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer
function of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection.
Yesterday I looked at
---R1----*----R2----*
| |
*----L1----*
| |
*----C1----*
| |
*--| - | |
| OA *-*----- Vout
GND-----*--|+ |
OA = opamp
and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was.
I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND
COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2
semesters of work?
Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need?
I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group
answering my "dumb" questions.