So I found these articles by some guy that apparently was quite popular years ago in the electronics world: Don Lancaster.
However I have found most of his columns in magazines to be content-free, typo-filled, hyperbolic, self-aggrandizing prattle. A self-appointed "guru"? Really? ::)
Everything was either utterly simple or completely change the world forever, yet I can't find anything he's actually done. A few publications for circuits in the 1970s and a book or two of basically republished data books and he's been coasting on that for decades?
And what's his obsession with PostScript?
Haha, maybe, but not seriously - just pointing out the value he's brought to many.
Everything was either utterly simple or completely change the world forever, yet I can't find anything he's actually done. A few publications for circuits in the 1970s and a book or two of basically republished data books and he's been coasting on that for decades?
And what's his obsession with PostScript?
Postscript is MUCH more than most people think it is, that's why Don was so into it for a certain period. I used to work with his examples and dump things to printers to try them out - instead of filling out page after page of a word processor document and then sending it to the printer, a dozen lines of PostScript code could create the same output. It's MUCH more than simply a page layout formatting language.
Postscript is MUCH more than most people think it is, that's why Don was so into it for a certain period. I used to work with his examples and dump things to printers to try them out - instead of filling out page after page of a word processor document and then sending it to the printer, a dozen lines of PostScript code could create the same output. It's MUCH more than simply a page layout formatting language.Yes! I actually corresponded with him many years ago about some obscure PostScript issue, and he was quite helpful. I was trying to generate grey-tone graphical output on a full page of a printer with limited memory, and he suggested what to do to make it work. (At least, I think that was what the issue was.) I think I later corresponded with him again on an issue much closer to some eevblog topics of surplus test gear.
I suggest reading his PostScript articles, I would expect they are available online these days. You might learn something neat. I kind of forgot a lot of that stuff when I moved on and didn;t have ready access to a PostScript printer to actually execute things on.
Postscript is MUCH more than most people think it is, that's why Don was so into it for a certain period. I used to work with his examples and dump things to printers to try them out - instead of filling out page after page of a word processor document and then sending it to the printer, a dozen lines of PostScript code could create the same output. It's MUCH more than simply a page layout formatting language.Yes! I actually corresponded with him many years ago about some obscure PostScript issue, and he was quite helpful. I was trying to generate grey-tone graphical output on a full page of a printer with limited memory, and he suggested what to do to make it work. (At least, I think that was what the issue was.) I think I later corresponded with him again on an issue much closer to some eevblog topics of surplus test gear.
I suggest reading his PostScript articles, I would expect they are available online these days. You might learn something neat. I kind of forgot a lot of that stuff when I moved on and didn;t have ready access to a PostScript printer to actually execute things on.
He seemed to be a really nice guy, eager to help out.
His web site is still there, too, at https://tinaja.com/
Jon
he was very good at being able to explain topics in an understandable fashion.
As for calling himself a "guru" (if he ever did)
As for calling himself a "guru" (if he ever did)
His website is called the Guru's Lair
And he claims 1800 articles and 36 books, wow that's a lot of work.
https://www.tinaja.com/glair01.shtml (https://www.tinaja.com/glair01.shtml)
His books helped a good number of us get started back in the '70s. If you've only just heard of him, you're clearly not one of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Lancaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Lancaster)
To help us understand that perspective, please give links to your last half dozen or so publications.
He wrote half a dozen books or so, designed the pioneering TV typewriter project and helped countless people become entrepreneurs and interested in engineering, and I'm not sure how many magazine tutorial articles, but it's a lot. That's a lot more than most people.
His website is full or article, here is just the tutorial page on PIC's:
https://www.tinaja.com/picup01.shtml (https://www.tinaja.com/picup01.shtml)
How about 87 Hardware Articles:
https://www.tinaja.com/hhsamp1.shtml (https://www.tinaja.com/hhsamp1.shtml)
Do you know how much work goes into writing just one good tutorial article, let alone 87 of them?
Was he some leading edge design "guru", no, but does that matter?
The other day I went to a restaurant. The food was not good so the chef asked me how many meals I cooked.
He sure showed me.
Hint: your "argument" is nonsense
The other day I went to a restaurant. The food was not good so the chef asked me how many meals I cooked.
He sure showed me.
Hint: your "argument" is nonsense
Wow, speaking of nonsense......
The other day I went to a restaurant. The food was not good so the chef asked me how many meals I cooked.
He sure showed me.
Hint: your "argument" is nonsense
Wow, speaking of nonsense......
Having a hard time following my reply? Asking someone else how well they can cook has noting to do with the meal in front of them.
Just like asking how many articles I wrote has nothing to do with what I think of someone else's articles.
If I used your logic, I could never criticize a car unless I built one (or even more), etc.
Is that so hard to grasp?
So I found these articles by some guy that apparently was quite popular years ago in the electronics world: Don Lancaster.
However I have found most of his columns in magazines to be content-free, typo-filled, hyperbolic, self-aggrandizing prattle. A self-appointed "guru"? Really? ::)
Everything was either utterly simple or completely change the world forever, yet I can't find anything he's actually done. A few publications for circuits in the 1970s and a book or two of basically republished data books and he's been coasting on that for decades?
And what's his obsession with PostScript?
One has to remember the time when these books and articles were published........late 70s throughout the 80s.Well, there were Techical School night classes!
Back in those days, the only way a young person would be able to gain technical knowledge was....was........gasp.....get ready for this......... reading books.
Technical books were either math heavy and intended for College EE courses. Or the simpler, hands-on type, with emphasis on learning thru building novel and fun projects. They were called "cookbooks" for a reason.
People like Don Lancaster, Forrest Mims, Doug Self and many others wrote the latter books.
To me in particular, Mr Mims was the best of the bunch. His notebook style, hand drawn, but very legible schematics were a joy to experiment with. Simple prose, good technical tips and advice, minimal details intended only to whet your appetite.
The OP obviously has no grasp of what electronics was like in 1974 when the TTL Cookbook came out. That was 2 years before Ed Roberts introduced the Altair 8800. The microprocessor did not even exist. I sat in on an Electronics 101 course as a break from looking through a microscope all day. The instructor was a semiconductor physicist who designed and built a computer from scratch using TTL logic. By the time he finished it, the 8080 had come out and it was hopelessly obsolete.
I doubt that there was anyone of significance to hobbyists technically that did not have several of Don's books. Jobs wouldn't, but Wozniak would. The TV Typewriter book was published in 1976, the year the Altair was introduced. If you had an Altair you had Don's book.
Byte Magazine and Dr. Dobb's Journal were about the only sources of information on a periodic basis and Don Lancaster's books were much more detailed. As discussed above, they were wildly popular.And here lies the problem, for some "Byte" and Don Lancaster are sort off contemporary things.
Unless we talk about actual sect gurus, calling oneself a "guru" is kind of tongue-in-cheek anyway, as "guru" often bears a slightly negative image. I don't think that someone really full of themselves would really call themselves a guru.
At least throughout most of my life, "guru" has been a common term to describe anyone who knows enough to be one of those experts who everyone goes to for information. It doesn't have to be the original definition of a far east mystic or whatever.
One has to remember the time when these books and articles were published........late 70s throughout the 80s.Well, there were Techical School night classes!
Back in those days, the only way a young person would be able to gain technical knowledge was....was........gasp.....get ready for this......... reading books.
QuoteByte Magazine and Dr. Dobb's Journal were about the only sources of information on a periodic basis and Don Lancaster's books were much more detailed. As discussed above, they were wildly popular.And here lies the problem, for some "Byte" and Don Lancaster are sort off contemporary things.
It's really hard to grasp for the younger folks, how much world changed in the last 20 years.
Don started to write good 10 years before "Byte", to the common belief, yes, there was electronics before 1980's. ;D ;D ;D
One has to remember the time when these books and articles were published........late 70s throughout the 80s.Well, there were Techical School night classes!
Back in those days, the only way a young person would be able to gain technical knowledge was....was........gasp.....get ready for this......... reading books.
Actually, there weren't. I graduated college in '73 and we were still using slide rules. The HP 35 calculator came out in '72 - the first scientific calculator but not programmable. I couldn't afford it at the time so I kept on using the 'slip stick'. The HP 65 (3rd in series) introduced programmability.
The Intel 4004 uP came out in '72 but it wasn't widely adopted by the hobby community. The 8008 came out in '72 as well and it became somewhat popular among those who built their own machines. There were several memorable articles about these machines. The 8080 came out in '74 and the Altair 8800B came out in early '75 and we were finally off to the races. The Altair cost around $400 and so did qty 1 8080 chips. Buy the chip or buy the machine - either way.
I started grad school in '75 and we had an 'Engineering Seminar' class the first semester. For a topic, we chose microprocessors and we scrounged up every bit of data we could on the newly emerging processors. A lot of paper writing that semester!
Electronics, at the uP level, was pretty much unheard of in the hobby community in those years. Small computers, priced where an individual could afford them, just didn't happen until the Altair 8800B came out.
And then the hobby exploded! Bill Gates offered up several incantations of Altair Basic but you had to buy MITS memory boards to qualify to buy Basic. It was widely copied! I have Bill Gates' column in the MITS newsletter complaining about people stealing his software. Well, he got even for that!
I remember using paper tape and audio tapes. I built a floppy controller board using the Western Digital 1771 chip and installed CP/M some time in '76.
Then in '80 along came UCSD Pascal - those were the days!
It's good to look back at where we came from.
Despite the negative OP, this thread is fun! A lot of us share a common history and it has been an amazing ride!
Imagine, a time before C ('72), a time when FORTRAN ('57) ruled the scientific community and COBOL ('60) was the language of choice for business. Or maybe when Algol ('58) showed us the right way to program.
Imagine! I was writing FORTRAN before C was invented! How cool is that?
The last 50 years have been outrageous! I wonder what comes next?
// JOB
// DUP
*DELETE PLOTA
// FOR
**PLOT AREA
*NAME PLOTA
*LIST ALL
*ONE WORD INTEGERS
*IOCS(PLOTTER)
NPLOT = 7
1 FORMAT(I2)
2 FORMAT('SIDE X IN FEET')
3 FORMAT('AREA IN SQUARE FEET')
4 FORMAT('AREA')
5 FORMAT('X')
6 FORMAT('16 - X')
7 FORMAT('PERIMETER P = 32')
8 FORMAT('AREA A = 16X - X**2')
9 FORMAT('FENCING A RECTANGULAR AREA WITH 32 FEET OF FABRIC')
10 FORMAT('SLOPE S = ')
11 FORMAT('DA')
12 FORMAT('DX')
13 FORMAT(' = 16 - 2X')
14 FORMAT('SLOPE')
15 FORMAT(I3)
C
C PEN COMMANDS
C INC - No Change
C IDB - PEN DOWN BEFORE MOTION
C IDA - PEN DOWN AFTER MOTION
C IUB - PEN UP BEFORE MOTION
C IUA - PRN UP AFTER MOTION
C
INC = 0
IDB = 2
IDA = -2
IUB = 1
IUA = -1
C
C CHSZX - CHARACTER SIZE X IN INCHES
C CHSZY - CHARACTER SIZE Y IN INCHES
C
CHSZX = 0.1
CHSZY = 0.1
C
C SX IS X-AXIS SCALE FACTOR : 5.5 INCHES OF PAPER FOR 17 UNITS
C SY IS Y-AXIS SCALE FACTOR : 6.0 INCHES OF PAPER FOR 64 UNITS
C
SX = 5.5 / 17.0
SY = 6.0 / 64.0
C
C XORG - PHYSICAL LOCATION OF GRAPH X ORIGIN ON PAPER
C YORG - PHYSICAL LOCATION OF GRAPH Y ORIGIN ON PAPER
C
XORG = 4.4
YORG = 1.8
C
C INITIAL PEN POSITION
C
PX = -XORG / SX
PY = -YORG / SY
C
C SET SCALE, DRAW BOTH AXIS AND PLACE PEN DOWN AT 0.0, 0.0
C
CALL SCALF(SX, SY, PX, PY)
CALL FGRID(0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 16)
CALL FGRID(1, 0.0, 0.0, 4.0, 16)
CALL FPLOT(IDA, 0.0, 0.0)
C
C DRAW THE CURVE AND RAISE PEN AFTER COMPLETION
C
CALL PEN(8)
DO 20 I = 1, 17
X = FLOAT(I) - 1.0
Y = X * (16 - X)
CALL FPLOT(INC, X, Y)
CALL POINT(1)
20 CONTINUE
CALL PEN(0)
CALL FPLOT(IUB, X, Y)
C
C LABEL Y GRID WITH 0.1 x 0.1 CHARACTERS
C
DO 30 I = 1, 17
J = 4 * (I - 1)
X = -(3.0 * CHSZX) / SX
Y = FLOAT(J) - ((CHSZY / 2.0) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,1) J
30 CONTINUE
C
C LABEL X GRID 0.1 x 0.1 CHARACTERS
C
DO 70 I = 1, 17
J = I - 1
IF (J - 10) 40, 50, 50
40 X = FLOAT(J) - ((1.5 * CHSZX) / SX)
GOTO 60
50 X = FLOAT(J) - (CHSZX / SX)
60 Y = -(2.0 * CHSZY) / SY
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,1) J
70 CONTINUE
C
C LABEL Y AXIS 0.2 X 0.2 CHARACTERS ROTATED 90 DEGREES
C
CHSZX = 0.2
CHSZY = 0.2
X = -0.5 / SX
Y = 32.0 - ((9.5 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 1.5708)
WRITE(NPLOT, 3)
C
C LABEL X AXIS 0.2 x 0.2 CHARACTERS
C
X = 8.0 - ((7.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = -(3.0 * CHSZY) / SY
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,2)
C
C DRAW THE BOX
C
CALL FPLOT(IDA, 5.0, 16.0)
CALL FPLOT(INC, 11.0, 16.0)
CALL FPLOT(INC, 11.0, 24.0)
CALL FPLOT(INC, 5.0, 24.0)
CALL FPLOT(IUA, 5.0, 16.0)
C
C LABEL THE BOX AND EQUATION FOR AREA
C
CHSZX = 0.1
CHSZY = 0.1
X = 8.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 20.0 - ((CHSZY / 2.0) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,4)
X = 8.0 - ((3.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 16.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,6)
X = 5.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 20.0 - ((CHSZY / 2.0) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,5)
X = 8.0 - ((8.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 12.0 - ((2.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,7)
X = 8.0 - ((9.5 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 12.0 - ((4.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,8)
C
C DRAW EQUATION FOR SLOPE
C
X = 8.0 - ((11.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 12.0 - ((7.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,10)
X = 8.0 - ((1.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 12.0 - ((6.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,11)
Y = 12.0 - ((8.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,12)
X = 8.0 + (5.5 * CHSZX)
Y = 12.0 - ((7.0 * CHSZY) / SY)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,13)
X = 8.0 - ((1.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
Y = 12.0 - ((6.5 * CHSZY) / SY)
X1 = X + ((2.0 * CHSZX) / SX)
CALL FPLOT(IDA, X, Y)
CALL FPLOT(IUA, X1, Y)
C
C RESET ORIGIN AND SCALE
C
CALL FPLOT(INC, 0.0, 0.0)
CALL SCALF(1.0, 1.0, XORG, YORG)
C
C DRAW THE TABLE OF VALUES BOX
C
BXORG = 0.75
BYORG = 3.5
CALL FPLOT(IDA, BXORG, BYORG)
CALL SCALF( 1.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0)
HT = 2.75
WD = 1.7
COL1 = 0.375
COL2 = 1.0
CALL FPLOT(INC, WD, 0.0)
CALL FPLOT(INC, WD, HT)
CALL FPLOT(INC, 0.0, HT)
CALL FPLOT(IUA, 0.0, 0.0)
CALL FPLOT(IDA, 0.0, HT - 0.15)
CALL FPLOT(IUA, WD, HT - 0.15)
CALL FPLOT(IDA, COL1, HT)
CALL FPLOT(IUA, COL1, 0.0)
CALL FPLOT(IDA, COL2, HT)
CALL FPLOT(IUA, COL2, 0.0)
C
C LABEL THE COLUMNS
C
X = (COL1 / 2.0) - (CHSZX / 2.0)
Y = HT - 0.075 - (CHSZY / 2.0)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,5)
X = COL1 + 0.15
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,4)
X = COL2 + 0.1
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,14)
C
C FILL IN THE TABLE
C
DO 80 I = 1, 17
J = I - 1
Y = (HT - 0.3) - (FLOAT(J) * (1.5 * CHSZY))
X = 0.075
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,1) J
X = COL1 + 0.2
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
IAREA = J * (16 - J)
WRITE(NPLOT,1) IAREA
X = COL2 + 0.15
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
ISLOP = 16 - (2 * J)
WRITE(NPLOT,15) ISLOP
80 CONTINUE
C
C TITLE THE PAGE
C
CHSZX = 0.2
CHSZY = 0.2
CALL FPLOT(INC, 0.0, 0.0)
CALL SCALF(1.0, 1.0, BXORG, BYORG)
Y = 0.50
X = 5.0 - (24.5 * CHSZX)
CALL FCHAR(X, Y, CHSZX, CHSZY, 0.0)
WRITE(NPLOT,9)
C
C EJECT PAGE AND EXIT
C
CALL PLTEJ
CALL EXIT
END
// DUP
*STORE WS UA PLOTA
// XEQ PLOTA
When I read Don's books back in high school*, I was blown away and definitely thought he was the ultimate electronics guru.
Recently I reread some of them, and wasn't so impressed. The CMOS and TTL Cookbooks are full of tricks that you might use once in a lifetime to save a package, but very light on practical design techniques that you would use routinely. The Cheap Video series takes you about 80% of the way to a working design, then says "Your Turn" to resolve the design problems that Don didn't want to deal with, or didn't discuss in order to preserve his kit sales.
I've never met Don in person, but I've talked to him on the phone a few times, and found the experience about as surreal and entertaining as you would imagine. I'd love to hang out with him, but I sure wouldn't want to have to do business with him!
*I vividly remember being teased for carrying a "Cookbook" to class. Wow, I went to school with some idiots.
When you are a child you need things explained in that manner. I take you jump straight to IEEE publications and PhD dissertations when you learned how to read?
I am enjoying the sparse bits of this thread
why is it your threads are always controversial? you are a right pain in the ass on this forum. One day you will push me to get my hammer out!
why is it your threads are always controversial? you are a right pain in the ass on this forum. One day you will push me to get my hammer out!
I don’t know. I’ve found this thread quite useful. As a relative newcomer to electronics, it’s nice to learn a bit of history and lore on the topic from a hobbiest POV
However, the larger issue is that we have a generation or so that thinks that all they need is "just in time" knowledge. "if I need to know that I'll look it up on the internet." They fail to grasp that knowledge is cumulative. And it is the framework provided by accumulated knowledge that makes further learning possible. You are *not* going to be able to program an FPGA if you don't understand logic design which Don presented in a low cost, hands on manner using the chips of that day. Just as you are not going to understand digital signal processing unless you have first learned calculus and the rudiments of integral transforms and linear systems.
November 8, 2018 deeplink top bot respond
A newsgroup denizen apparently had the audacity to
challenge my Guru status.
I'm getting confused, here.
Is Don Lancaster, referring/complaining about this thread, in his latest notes ?
Or am I imagining it ?
https://www.tinaja.com/whtnu18.shtml (https://www.tinaja.com/whtnu18.shtml)QuoteNovember 8, 2018 deeplink top bot respond
A newsgroup denizen apparently had the audacity to
challenge my Guru status.
We need to copy some of this to the audiophool thread. Don discusses the relative merits of barbed wire for speakers, pointing out that some listeners recommend 2 point for Barry Manilow and 4 point for Metallica. But the points are a little sharp so you have to flatten them.
It will be fun to see if the OP posts again or just slinks away.
It's really hard to grasp for the younger folks, how much world changed in the last 20 years.
Good stuff. The OP actually created something fun in the world--he is probably thinking hard how to undo it, right now.
Don Lancaster's website, is well worth a visit, if you are interested in that type of thing. Since this thread started, I've probably spent too long, going through the website and some of the resources on it.Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all! :-DD
I grew up in italy so understand how it was because although i am only 35 things in italy are 10-25 years behind. I was over the moon when a friendly TV repairer gave me old RS catalogues and transistor databooks.
The RS catalogue went with me on every car journey and i would pour over each page in a quest to find out what parts could be found in the wild.
Don Lancaster's website, is well worth a visit, if you are interested in that type of thing. Since this thread started, I've probably spent too long, going through the website and some of the resources on it.Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all! :-DD
Due to the language barrier as a kid, I did not get to experience firsthand Don Lancaster's writings but we certainly had our share of local writers that, in retrospect, seem a bit exaggerated and puerile (may have even been disciples of Don Lancaster's style). However, as others have mentioned, they were certainly catering to the audience and the style that grasped our attention as kids/teenagers and kept us going despite the usual hardships and troubles that are part of this electronics journey. After all, what they presented was the absolute source of information from the unreachable manufacturers.
I'm glad that the OP's thread, has apparently/probably gone spectacularly wrong for them! :-DD
I still don't think he's a guru.
I still don't think he's a guru. A shameless self-promoter, sure. All I'm saying is no one ever said "Do it like Lancaster did it".
How do you figure? I still have seen no evidence of "guru" status, just that he wrote a lot of stuff. Even one person agreed with me on my main point.
So great, he wrote a lot of stuff that people read... because there was nothing else to read!
I still don't think he's a guru.The Guru's and Swami's Union Hulapai County local #357 begs to differ... :-DD
You're no doubt now embarrassed to find out he's one of the industries pioneers in education, oops.
I don't remember if you ever told from which part of italy you came but i can assure you the north east was and still is on par with the rest of the world :)
I still don't think he's a guru.The Guru's and Swami's Union Hulapai County local #357 begs to differ... :-DD
According to Merriam Webster, guru is a teacher and especially intellectual guide in matters of fundamental concern, which in the distant 1970's he fulfilled this definition in respect to digital designs according to your fellow eevbloggers. Therefore it is not a matter of opinion.
If he still is a guru, that may be up for debate - I really don't know if you can revoke these titles.
I have two copies of the TTL Cookbook. The one I bought back in the day and a scavenged copy. I've also got a scavenged copy of the RTL Cookbook. Talk about primitive logic implementations. I hope I never have to fix any of that stuff.
Many of Don Lancaster's books are available at Alibris:
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=don+lancaster (https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=don+lancaster)
I was in the south puglia, Alberobello to be exact
As far as i know I could not order from RS unless i was a businessas were most distributors until the 2010s AFAIR
internet was something i got very late on and to this day the village probably still does not have it when it was a decent sized place not far from a town that had it. [...]yeah, i remember we had a 14.4k line and i have a very clear memory of my dad taking the modem out and smashing it on the ground when the connection was too slow :-DD
Getting information was very hard,we had pretty good libraries (public libraries, school libraries)
Without the internet and until i got a prepaid debit card i could not buy anything online and did not know where to get books
there were magazines but the italian practical electronics was a joke and i was a mug paying money for a magazine that was of no better standard than those so called indutry standard magazines we get at work full of waffle. Oventually practical electronics changed it's name twice becoming a computer magazine with an electrical bent. Circuits in it were often wrong and how i would of etched a board I don't knowi've read magazines from other countries and they were just as terrible and full of mistakes. :(
and the school lab technician was most unhelpful (an ignorant idiot that did not even know how to etch boards properly).oh yes, we also had one of those, but most of my teachers were what i would consider gurus (one a guy with two degrees that got the first one a year or two ahead, the typical nerd from the movies, another a guy that worked with military and designed electronics for elicopters, another one -my favourite teacher- one that came from lower schools, but with a great mind and very skilled, he learned everything he needed as he needed it and he was who taught me the most)
oh yes, we also had one of those, but most of my teachers were what i would consider gurus (one a guy with two degrees that got the first one a year or two ahead, the typical nerd from the movies, another a guy that worked with military and designed electronics for elicopters, another one -my favourite teacher- one that came from lower schools, but with a great mind and very skilled, he learned everything he needed as he needed it and he was who taught me the most)
why i insist on this? I understand that you had an awful experience, but i can assure that italy is not just that. It can be so much more
I have insisted my grandson buy "new" copies of all textbooks and that he retain them indefinitely. Since I pay for the books, it's no big deal to him. The idea, of course, is that he build a library of books he has actually used.
I still have most of my college texts and I actually use them from time to time.
What is more interesting is the changes in presentation over the last 4 decades. Math books used to be pretty dry with few illustrations. Today they are filled with diagrams - most in color. A picture is worth a lot...
One bright note: His copy of Stewart's "Calculus - Early Transcendentals" appears to be the standard in the industry and will be used for Calc I, Calc II, Linear Algebra and Differential Equations. It saves a bit of money if the colleges can get together and standardize on a book. Especially one that can be used for 4 semesters.
I'd like to suggest another conditional requirement; that your grandson start a card catalog of some type on electronic media. I'd love to have an index, but now it would require working full time for a month *if* you could do a book every two minutes continuously for 8 hours every day.
While she was looking for work after joining me in Dallas, my girlfriend spent a full day working on a catalog for me. Then she turned off the computer without saving the file. I never had the heart to ask her to do it over.
I'd like to suggest another conditional requirement; that your grandson start a card catalog of some type on electronic media. I'd love to have an index, but now it would require working full time for a month *if* you could do a book every two minutes continuously for 8 hours every day.
I have insisted my grandson buy "new" copies of all textbooks and that he retain them indefinitely. Since I pay for the books, it's no big deal to him. The idea, of course, is that he build a library of books he has actually used.
I still have most of my college texts and I actually use them from time to time.
There's few people that published large circuit collections, back in the day when paper books and magazines were the media.The one I remember we had was Markus' Guidebook of Electronics Circuits - a massive 1000 page compendium of transistor and op amp based circuits.
The thing that is *really* amazing is that Don's major classics are still in print after over 40 years! I cannot think of any electronics book that has been in print that long. Wow!!!!The other one that I had in the 1980's and it was already in print for a very long time (30 years) was Valkenburg, Nooger and Neville's Basic Electricity and Basic Electronics books.
Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics by Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duzer. First published in 1965. Current price is almost 15 times what I paid in the early seventies.I used this one in my Electromag classes at the university - I paid about 10 times less in the 1990s than what it costs today.
The thing that is *really* amazing is that Don's major classics are still in print after over 40 years!
There are many that have been in print that long, though I agree, I can't think of any that close to the component level that have survived.
Examples of long term survivors.
Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics by Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duzer. First published in 1965. Current price is almost 15 times what I paid in the early seventies.
On the theory side, once someone hits a home run it tends to last a long, long time.
:-DD I actually read that (Dianetics) once. Mein Kampf was less retarded.
Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Abramowitz and Stegun. First published in 1964. A bit of cheat since it is now a Dover reprint.
Introduction to the Theory of Random Signals and Noise. Davenport and Root. First published in 1958.
I know of several others and suspect there are many more. Things like Feynman's lectures (maybe not exactly electronics), and Donald Knuth's series.
Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics by Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duzer. First published in 1965. Current price is almost 15 times what I paid in the early seventies.
I wonder if Don Lancaster was one of Colin Mitchell's influences?
The Case Against Patents
nearly any involvement whatsoever with the patent system in any way, shape, or form, is virtually guaranteed to cause you a monumental long term loss of time, money, and sanity.
Don Lancaster was and is knowledgeable but he also distilled plain old common sense and practicality. He had articles against nonsense like pseudoscience, perpetual motion machines and similar idiocies. Besides the technical stuff I learned a lot about how to follow a logical way of thinking, the scientific method, etc. That is something that I find lacking in many people. We need to teach and stress that and he did a lot in that direction.
Unfortunately telling someone that someone else is wrong will only be any use if they are intelligent enough to look at both sides or have enough education to understand your point of view and that maybe your right and they should look deeper into the other claims.
Talking about "cognitive dissonance" isn't very convincing when you're suffering from it yourself...
Which works both ways, by the way. You're not going to convince anyone, nor be convinced yourself, in the presence of it.
Tim
Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?
Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?
Of course not. Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant. It isn't their field.
The last time we chatted about the subject (there are many more interesting topics, so I'm not sure how this drudgery came up) he made the observation that the thermal dynamics of the oceans are largely unknown. The thermal capacity of water is *much* larger than air. And until recently, the climate models assumed a constant ocean temperature.
Excuse me, but geology deals with the earth in its totality. A major portion of that is 4.2 billion years of history. Climatology is just a small fraction of that. And there is also the issue that all of the climatology data constitute less than 1 ppm of the earth's climate history.
Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?
Of course not. Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant. It isn't their field.
"Climatology" is just a scam invented by a bunch of failed meteorologists who got their PhD because their supervisor wanted to get rid of them. I don't think the field even existed when I got my geology MS in 1982.
I have an acquaintance of many years who got his PhD in meteorology. He went to work for the British weather service. He found a major bug in their weather prediction software. He fixed it and went home thinking that the weather forecasts would dramatically improve. It had *no* effect.
I don't comment on subjects of which I am ignorant. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.
There is no denying that the climate is warming and there is no denying that the energy sources we use can contribute end of!There is no denying by Simon that....<rest of quote goes here>
Mmmmmm, yeah, um, your entire post above pretty much proves otherwise.
Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?
Of course not. Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant. It isn't their field.
Excuse me, but geology deals with the earth in its totality. A major portion of that is 4.2 billion years of history. Climatology is just a small fraction of that. And there is also the issue that all of the climatology data constitute less than 1 ppm of the earth's climate history. "Climatology" is just a scam invented by a bunch of failed meteorologists who got their PhD because their supervisor wanted to get rid of them. I don't think the field even existed when I got my geology MS in 1982.
I have an acquaintance of many years who got his PhD in meteorology. He went to work for the British weather service. He found a major bug in their weather prediction software. He fixed it and went home thinking that the weather forecasts would dramatically improve. It had *no* effect.
The last time we chatted about the subject (there are many more interesting topics, so I'm not sure how this drudgery came up) he made the observation that the thermal dynamics of the oceans are largely unknown. The thermal capacity of water is *much* larger than air. And until recently, the climate models assumed a constant ocean temperature.
Recently there was a paper by some oceanographers who had detected the cooling effect of the little ice age in the ocean bottom currents, some of which have circulation times of a million years. I think we can reasonably expect that other workers will follow their methods and develop better models of the earth's temperature over time.
There are over 30 major changes in sea level on the order of 1000 ft. Where do you think all that water went? It's pretty simple. It turned into immense glaciers which then melted. Except for the last one or two humans did not even exist. Much less alter the CO2 and CH4 content of the atmosphere,
So would you state the voltage of a reference from a single microsecond of data? If so, I certainly don't want you doing my metrology or anything else.
I don't comment on subjects of which I am ignorant. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.
And even debunkers need to be careful to stay on the side of truth. As mad as thunderfoot can come across as (heavy dose of aspergers coupled with a high IQ I suspect) I respected his reasonings until the other day when I saw a video he did about how shit tesla batteries are when in fact it ws a comparison between battery technology and petrol/diesel energy density. Sorry thunderfoot, you have an axe to grind, so the next time i see one of his videos "debunking" pseudo science do i beleive him or do i suspect he simply has an axe to grind? fortunately i can tell the difference but why should i waste my time listening to a guy who it may turn out simply has an axe to grind.
And even debunkers need to be careful to stay on the side of truth. As mad as thunderfoot can come across as (heavy dose of aspergers coupled with a high IQ I suspect) I respected his reasonings until the other day when I saw a video he did about how shit tesla batteries are when in fact it ws a comparison between battery technology and petrol/diesel energy density. Sorry thunderfoot, you have an axe to grind, so the next time i see one of his videos "debunking" pseudo science do i beleive him or do i suspect he simply has an axe to grind? fortunately i can tell the difference but why should i waste my time listening to a guy who it may turn out simply has an axe to grind.
I didn't even need to watch that video to know it really had nothing to do with Tesla (Panasonic) batteries as such, and knew that he was just using the Tesla angle to troll the people who hate his Tesla videos. I think he enjoys baiting them immensely ;D
Yea, yea, conspiracy theory bullshit.
We know for a fact that:I think there are two drivers for that. The most obvious one is people with vested interests in the way things are done now. The other is people kinda realise in a vague way what Without The Hot Air spells out in detail, and its just too awful to face. You can see this in the abuse thrown at David MacKay in the comments below YouTiube videos of his talks. Few of the people making those comments can really be dumb enough to believe what they are saying. They just don't like reality.
1) fossil fuel is bad, it produces poisonous gasses and those gasses are green house gasses. You may debate how much they contribute to global warming.
2) fossil fuel is not limitless and we need a new solution anyway.
And yet the dinosaurs of our society will argue forever that we should just carry on.
We know for a fact that:I think there are two drivers for that. The most obvious one is people with vested interests in the way things are done now. The other is people kinda realise in a vague way what Without The Hot Air spells out in detail, and its just too awful to face. You can see this in the abuse thrown at David MacKay in the comments below YouTiube videos of his talks. Few of the people making those comments can really be dumb enough to believe what they are saying. They just don't like reality.
1) fossil fuel is bad, it produces poisonous gasses and those gasses are green house gasses. You may debate how much they contribute to global warming.
2) fossil fuel is not limitless and we need a new solution anyway.
And yet the dinosaurs of our society will argue forever that we should just carry on.
Except for carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide, none of the gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels is toxic. The hydrogen sulfide is only a consequence of the presence of an impurity which is iron sulfide in the case of coal and readily removed by using appropriate technology. The resulting byproduct is calcium sulfate, otherwise known as plaster of paris. The walls of most houses in the Western world are made of it.
Carbon monoxide is just a combustion process failure. Neither carbon dioxide nor water is intrinsically toxic. Coal is obviously more complex, but petroleum products are just various combinations of carbon and hydrogen. Without fossil fuels we would still be living in a neolithic culture and this conversation would not even be taking place.
Agreed, CO2 and H2O are not toxic -- you'll gladly sit in a chamber consisting of a pure atmosphere of both, right? ;)
The dose makes the poison; so it is with biology, so too the atmosphere.
Tim
It's really hard to grasp for the younger folks, how much world changed in the last 20 years.
more like 10 years. When i started thinkering in high school here was NOTHING compared to what hobbyist can get today. 5 years if we want to remember the dark times before cheap-ass pcbs from china became mainstream
I'm amused by the fact that i studied power electronics in a book from the seventies and a couple years later i would have studied from a book from 2010s :)
And what's his obsession with PostScript?Not sure what his obsession with postscript is, but postscript is a great language.
This is nonsensical. I'd have expected a more intelligent statement from you. Without CO2 & H20 plants die. Without water people die. Since we produce CO2 we are able to tolerate it to some degree, but our bodies are very sensitive to excessive levels.CO2 is toxic. Not hugely so, but it is true that if a human is placed in a sealed chamber, they would die from CO2 poisoning, before oxygen levels drop dangerously low. High serum CO2 levels cause the pH of the blood to fall to dangerously low levels.
The Gulf stream brought a great deal of heat energy to Europe and making it especially hospitable.No it doesn't. The main reason why Europe has milder winters, for its latitude is because it's downwind of a large expanse of ocean. The Atlantic absorbs heat during the summer, which is released in the winter as the wind blows over it. A similar pattern is seen in North America, with the Pacific Northwest having similar mild winter temperatures to Europe. On the eastern side of large landmasses, winters are much colder, as the wind has travelled over the freezing continent.
did you post that in the right thread?Yes, I replied to the this post (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/was-don-lancaster-really-a-guru/msg2208372/#msg2208372) in the current thread. I admit it's off-topic, but if you don't want people replying, then why not remove it?
Yes he was. Back then the 7400 series of ICs had come out and they seemed a bear to use. What Don did in his TTL cookbook was to distill out the essential design prindiples that were needed to successfully use TTL ICs.
Back then getting datasheets was not easy. No internet back then.
It was pretty easy to call the local TI sales office and get a TTL Databook (or a whole box of databooks), even if you were a student. That was free, unlike Don's books and electronics magazines.As well as the databooks full of data sheets, there were lots of applications books available from the silicon vendors. These ranged from basic information about using TTL ICs, to things like the AMD books on how to use their 2500 and 2900 family parts to efficiently build ALU and DSP architectures (the great works of Mick and Brick :) ). Whatever you were looking for, for serious engineering, the silicon vendors had a better alternative to people like Don Lancaster. His forte was explaining things in simple terms to beginners.
Anyway, as far as the orignal topic is concerned. Who is Don Lancaster? I've never heard of him. Going from what I've Googled, he isn't some kind of electronics genius, but someone who's very good at explaining things, from a non-technical point of view. The title is also wrong, by using the word was, which implies he's dead, when as far as I'm aware, he's still alive and well.
The original post is controversial. Someone posting their strong opinion about an author's articles being "content-free, typo-filled, hyperbolic, self-aggrandizing prattle" will result in an arguement, as many people will disagree with it. I'm not surprised the orignial poster was banned.
... Yes, professional engineers and engineering students had access to datasheets and whatnot but that was never Don's audience. His target was hobbyists, the people who today would typically be called "makers" or whatever....
Well something else to remember is that CMOS ICs were brand new, so there were a lot of engineers who got their education in the 1950s and were accustomed to working with vacuum tubes and later discrete transistors. I could see there being quite a few seasoned engineers who'd had no exposure to this entirely new class of components.
Either way his largest audience was hobbyists of one level or another.
Also, his fascination with magic sinewaves. I don't know that he ever had a concrete application in mind. I don't recall any circuits to generate timing. Presumably just counters and gates -- or an MCU and timer -- which, quantization completely wrecks the timing required to null all those harmonics.
[snip]
Tim
I'd like to suggest you read the paper Joseph Fourier presented in 1810-1812. It led Gauss to remark, "If that's true you can synthesize any arbitrary function."It also allowed Gauss to work out an FFT algorithm and then promptly bury the information so it only came to light well after Cooley and Tukey had published their paper on a similar form of FFT algorithm.
I'd like to suggest you read the paper Joseph Fourier presented in 1810-1812. It led Gauss to remark, "If that's true you can synthesize any arbitrary function."It also allowed Gauss to work out an FFT algorithm and then promptly bury the information so it only came to light well after Cooley and Tukey had published their paper on a similar form of FFT algorithm.