On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous
logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous
state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing
a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you
proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do >>>> you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface
with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30
centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as
engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and
can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement."
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works
quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can
understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking
about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an interesting concept.
I know people who are committed to single-point grounding too. We
could pick a common point and ground everything to that. I suggest 0/0 latitide and longitude, or maybe a copper rod in the courtyard of the
Royal Observatory in Greenwich.
Visit the Royal if you can. It's cool.
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous
logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous
state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing
a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up
next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you
proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do >>>>> you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface
with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30
centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as
engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and
can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement."
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works
quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can
understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking >>> about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand
what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an
interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab
made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a >common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight
jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility.
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly >isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved.
I know people who are committed to single-point grounding too. We
could pick a common point and ground everything to that. I suggest 0/0
latitide and longitude, or maybe a copper rod in the courtyard of the
Royal Observatory in Greenwich.
Again, a lunatic misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
Visit the Royal if you can. It's cool.
I lived in England for 22 years and resisted the temptation. I did visit
the Royal Society once when my wife was being inducted as a fellow - the >process spread over three days and was a lot of fun. The fact that my >post-doc supervisor got in in the same batch added a little.
Ray Dyson - the vacuum cleaner man - got an honorary fellowship in that
same batch - but we didn't know at the time that his brother had been a >friend of ours in Cambridge.
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous
logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous
state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up
next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
That said, I have a 13-gate divide-by-three design which I tried
to simulate in LTspice. Although it *does* divide by three, it also
contains a flaw which I haven't fixed yet. More later.
Jeroen Belleman
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you
proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do >>>>>> you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface
with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30
centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as
engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and >>>> can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement."
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works >>>> quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can
understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking >>>> about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand >>what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an
interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab
made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a >>common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight
jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility.
The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing
signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
speed of light prevents that.
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock
their local clocks by observing the data stream.
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly >>isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved.
Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and
designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You have a pathological need to insult, even when it makes no sense.
Curious.
I know people who are committed to single-point grounding too. We
could pick a common point and ground everything to that. I suggest 0/0
latitide and longitude, or maybe a copper rod in the courtyard of the
Royal Observatory in Greenwich.
Again, a lunatic misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
Visit the Royal if you can. It's cool.
I lived in England for 22 years and resisted the temptation. I did visit >>the Royal Society once when my wife was being inducted as a fellow - the >>process spread over three days and was a lot of fun. The fact that my >>post-doc supervisor got in in the same batch added a little.
Brave of you to resist temptation.
There's an RAF museum north of London that you are lucky to have
avoided too.
Ray Dyson - the vacuum cleaner man - got an honorary fellowship in that >>same batch - but we didn't know at the time that his brother had been a >>friend of ours in Cambridge.
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:[...]
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous
logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous
state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:37:34 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you
proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do
you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface >>>>> with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30
centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as
engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and >>>>> can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement." >>>>>
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works >>>>> quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can
understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking >>>>> about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand >>>what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an
interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab >>>made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a >>>common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight >>>jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility.
The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing >>signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
speed of light prevents that.
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock
their local clocks by observing the data stream.
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly >>>isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved.
Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and >>designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You have a pathological need to insult, even when it makes no sense.
Curious.
Why feed the troll? They live for attention.
Joe
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up
next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
Divide by 3 in 13 gates sounds like a challenge. I'd set up two
d-types with the relevant feedback and then look for simplifications
such as multi-level combinatorial methods.
That said, I have a 13-gate divide-by-three design which I tried
to simulate in LTspice. Although it *does* divide by three, it also
contains a flaw which I haven't fixed yet. More later.
Jeroen Belleman
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:47:29 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
Divide by 3 in 13 gates sounds like a challenge. I'd set up two
d-types with the relevant feedback and then look for simplifications
such as multi-level combinatorial methods.
That said, I have a 13-gate divide-by-three design which I tried
to simulate in LTspice. Although it *does* divide by three, it also
contains a flaw which I haven't fixed yet. More later.
Jeroen Belleman
ltspice digital parts are kinda terrible. If you don't add a prop
delay parameter, they can act non-causal.
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up
next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
On 7/17/26 19:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
This here seems to work just fine.
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113e400$32u9l$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/17/26 19:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
This here seems to work just fine.
Thanks for that.
It appears that the only difference between the circuit I posted and your circuit
is that adding the 1m ohm resistor to my circuit makes it work.
I wouldn't normally leave inputs open circuit but it doesn't seem to be essential
to connect them or the ground symbols. (Who makes a five-input gate anyway?)
Why is that resistor needed and how would I know where to add a resistor
in other simulations?
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:47:29 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
Divide by 3 in 13 gates sounds like a challenge. I'd set up two
d-types with the relevant feedback and then look for simplifications
such as multi-level combinatorial methods.
That said, I have a 13-gate divide-by-three design which I tried
to simulate in LTspice. Although it *does* divide by three, it also
contains a flaw which I haven't fixed yet. More later.
Jeroen Belleman
ltspice digital parts are kinda terrible. If you don't add a prop
delay parameter, they can act non-causal.
Here's my divide-by-three. There is something fishy though. Note that
I'm not actually using the delay line T1, yet, without it, simulation
fails. Oh well.
Jeroen Belleman
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113e400$32u9l$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/17/26 19:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
This here seems to work just fine.
Thanks for that.
It appears that the only difference between the circuit I posted and your circuit
is that adding the 1m ohm resistor to my circuit makes it work.
I wouldn't normally leave inputs open circuit but it doesn't seem to be essential
to connect them or the ground symbols. (Who makes a five-input gate anyway?)
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 00:00:45 +0200, Jeroen Belleman[Deleted...]
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Here's my divide-by-three. There is something fishy though. Note that
I'm not actually using the delay line T1, yet, without it, simulation
fails. Oh well.
Jeroen Belleman
You should really tie unused inputs (and outputs) to gate node 8, that removes them from the simulation.
Version 4.1
You should really tie unused inputs (and outputs) to gate node 8, that[Deleted...]
removes them from the simulation.
Version 4.1
I see. It's kind of counter-intuitive though, isn't it?
On 15/07/2026 3:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:48:26 +0200, Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk>
wrote:
On 7/14/26 02:47, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:..
Sometimes you do need to process externally generated triggers, but in >>>> lots of cases you can avoid it if you try hard enough. Marketing hates >>>> asking customers to even try.
you are joking right??
Why have oscilloscopes that use external triggers? That's some idiotic
marketing thing again.
And that is an idiotic observation.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 7/17/26 23:35, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113e400$32u9l$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/17/26 19:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race >>>>>>> condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
This here seems to work just fine.
Thanks for that.
It appears that the only difference between the circuit I posted and your circuit
is that adding the 1m ohm resistor to my circuit makes it work.
I wouldn't normally leave inputs open circuit but it doesn't seem to be essential
to connect them or the ground symbols. (Who makes a five-input gate anyway?) >>
Why is that resistor needed and how would I know where to add a resistor
in other simulations?
Oh, I added that resistor only because you can't give two different
names to the same node. D is effectively connected to nQ.
On 7/17/26 22:03, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:47:29 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race
condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
Divide by 3 in 13 gates sounds like a challenge. I'd set up two
d-types with the relevant feedback and then look for simplifications
such as multi-level combinatorial methods.
That said, I have a 13-gate divide-by-three design which I tried
to simulate in LTspice. Although it *does* divide by three, it also
contains a flaw which I haven't fixed yet. More later.
Jeroen Belleman
ltspice digital parts are kinda terrible. If you don't add a prop
delay parameter, they can act non-causal.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I never simulated logic in LTspice before.
Just adding a spiceline 'Trise=1n Tfall=1n' to elements A1, A2 and A3
fixes my divide-by-three. Delay line T1 can be removed and it still
simulates correctly.
Thanks for the hint!
Jeroen Belleman
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you
proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do >>>>>> you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface
with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30
centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as
engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and >>>> can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement."
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works >>>> quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can
understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking >>>> about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand
what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an
interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab
made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a
common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight
jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility.
The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing
signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
speed of light prevents that.
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock
their local clocks by observing the data stream.
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly
isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved.
Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and
designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You have a pathological need to insult, even when it makes no sense.
Curious.
I know people who are committed to single-point grounding too. We
could pick a common point and ground everything to that. I suggest 0/0
latitide and longitude, or maybe a copper rod in the courtyard of the
Royal Observatory in Greenwich.
Again, a lunatic misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
Visit the Royal if you can. It's cool.
I lived in England for 22 years and resisted the temptation. I did visit
the Royal Society once when my wife was being inducted as a fellow - the
process spread over three days and was a lot of fun. The fact that my
post-doc supervisor got in in the same batch added a little.
Brave of you to resist temptation.
There's an RAF museum north of London that you are lucky to have
avoided too.
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:39:20 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:37:34 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
You have a pathological need to insult, even when it makes no sense.
Curious.
Why feed the troll? They live for attention.
Oh, he is a lost cause, but it's a way to have discussions, sometimes
on topic.
SED and usenet in general are almost dead.
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113e92k$34idt$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/17/26 23:35, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113e400$32u9l$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/17/26 19:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing >>>>>>>>>> a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race >>>>>>>> condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>>>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask
for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge
was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
This here seems to work just fine.
Thanks for that.
It appears that the only difference between the circuit I posted and your circuit
is that adding the 1m ohm resistor to my circuit makes it work.
I wouldn't normally leave inputs open circuit but it doesn't seem to be essential
to connect them or the ground symbols. (Who makes a five-input gate anyway?)
Why is that resistor needed and how would I know where to add a resistor >>> in other simulations?
Oh, I added that resistor only because you can't give two different
names to the same node. D is effectively connected to nQ.
With the alternate solver the resistor has to be at least 1e-19 ohms.
Any lower than that and you get a 50MHz oscillator instead.
If anyone can explain that to me I'm all ears.
On 18/07/2026 3:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you
proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do
you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface >>>>> with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30
centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as
engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and >>>>> can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement." >>>>>
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works >>>>> quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can
understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking >>>>> about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand
what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an
interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab
made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a >>> common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight
jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility.
The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing
signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
speed of light prevents that.
For a certain - rather bizazrre - understanding of "aligning logic
clocks in time".
The speed of light makes that more difficult, but if you know the
distances between the devices you know long the signal will take to get >there, and you can correct for it. In fact people measure the
propagation delays involved and correct for them. They are pretty stable.
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock
their local clocks by observing the data stream.
A data stream can't be an explicit clock?
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly >>> isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved.
Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and
designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You clearly don't understand the NIF timing system - as what you have
posted above makes clear. Your VME modules hang off it, rather than >contribute to it.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:26:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/07/2026 3:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you >>>>>>>>> proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do
you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface >>>>>> with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30 >>>>>> centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as >>>>>> engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and >>>>>> can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement." >>>>>>
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works >>>>>> quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can >>>>>> understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking >>>>>> about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand >>>> what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an >>>>> interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab
made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a >>>> common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight
jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility. >>>
signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
speed of light prevents that.
For a certain - rather bizazrre - understanding of "aligning logic
clocks in time".
The speed of light makes that more difficult, but if you know the
distances between the devices you know long the signal will take to get
there, and you can correct for it. In fact people measure the
propagation delays involved and correct for them. They are pretty stable.
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock
their local clocks by observing the data stream.
A data stream can't be an explicit clock?
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly >>>> isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved. >>>Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and
designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You clearly don't understand the NIF timing system - as what you have
posted above makes clear. Your VME modules hang off it, rather than
contribute to it.
Well, I helped design the system. It's more interesting than a stirred
water bath.
The VME timing modules use an ECL flop as the clock recovery detector.
It's a bang-bang phase-locked loop with a roughly 1e12 volt/second
slope.
The incoming data stream is the clock of the phase detector flop and
the local XO is D. Sorta backwards. Metastability is the prize for
being right.
Bang-bang PDs are unpopular for some reason.
I confess that I don't understand the loop. I don't need to understand things, I just need to make them work.
I could post the circuit if there were popular demand.
On 18/07/2026 8:21 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:26:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/07/2026 3:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you >>>>>>>>>> proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do
you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface >>>>>>> with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30 >>>>>>> centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as >>>>>>> engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and >>>>>>> can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement." >>>>>>>
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works >>>>>>> quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can >>>>>>> understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking
about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock
edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand >>>>> what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an >>>>>> interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab >>>>> made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a >>>>> common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight
jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility. >>>>
signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
speed of light prevents that.
For a certain - rather bizazrre - understanding of "aligning logic
clocks in time".
The speed of light makes that more difficult, but if you know the
distances between the devices you know long the signal will take to get
there, and you can correct for it. In fact people measure the
propagation delays involved and correct for them. They are pretty stable. >>>
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock
their local clocks by observing the data stream.
A data stream can't be an explicit clock?
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly >>>>> isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved. >>>>Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and
designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You clearly don't understand the NIF timing system - as what you have
posted above makes clear. Your VME modules hang off it, rather than
contribute to it.
Well, I helped design the system. It's more interesting than a stirred
water bath.
I've never designed a thermostatted stirred water bath. My 1996 paper
was about Peltier-junction based thermostat. The first version did use >circulating water to take away the waste heat from the Peltier
junctions, but one of colleagues replaced that with a heat pipe.
There is a classic paper from the US NBS on a micro-degree stirred water >bath which I did cite, along with a more interesting (if less
well-informed) one that relied on the stirrer to provide the heat input
to the water bath.
The VME timing modules use an ECL flop as the clock recovery detector.
It's a bang-bang phase-locked loop with a roughly 1e12 volt/second
slope.
Sounds crude.
The incoming data stream is the clock of the phase detector flop and
the local XO is D. Sorta backwards. Metastability is the prize for
being right.
Even cruder.
Bang-bang PDs are unpopular for some reason.
Switching noise. If you can extract a signal that is smoothly
proportional to the phase difference, you can get a quieter output. You >still have to filter the phase signal you are extracting, and the filter >phase shift can make the control loop unstable if you don't know what
you are doing.
I confess that I don't understand the loop. I don't need to understand
things, I just need to make them work.
That's obvious. They'd probably work better if you did understand a bit
more about what you were doing.
I could post the circuit if there were popular demand.
Comic contributions are always welcome.
On 7/18/26 03:06, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113e92k$34idt$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/17/26 23:35, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113e400$32u9l$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/17/26 19:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:113doge$2v1co$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/16/26 20:27, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138k6a$1bsnp$3@dont-email.me...[Deleted...]
On 7/15/26 20:05, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in message news:1138hot$1bsnp$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/15/26 18:18, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:38:57 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:[...]
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Logic design in the 1960s was a mess, true enough, but aynchronous >>>>>>>>>>> logic need not be. Every flip-flop is in fact a little asynchronous >>>>>>>>>>> state machine. Every logic designer should try his hand at designing
a clocked flip-flop from elementary gates at least once.
An inverter and two SR latches I think.
That's the shoot-from-the-hip approach, which suffers from a race >>>>>>>>> condition. Try again.
Jeroen Belleman
Ok here's divide by 2 in CMOS.
Divide by 3 just needs to duplicate that and add some gating to set up >>>>>>>> next states of 01,10,00 from current states of 00,01,10
Line 451 will need to be unwrapped so that lines 451 and 452
begin with TEXT
Version 4.1
That's basically the standard D flip-flop, however, I didn't ask >>>>>>> for a transistor level implementation! The point of the challenge >>>>>>> was to show the use of asynchronous logic at the gate level.
I tried using the nand gates in LTSpice but couldn't get a circuit equivalent to
the one I posted to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
Do you have a working 6-gate edge triggered d-type in LTSpice
using the nand gates under Digital "and" (makes nand or and)?
This here seems to work just fine.
Thanks for that.
It appears that the only difference between the circuit I posted and your circuit
is that adding the 1m ohm resistor to my circuit makes it work.
I wouldn't normally leave inputs open circuit but it doesn't seem to be essential
to connect them or the ground symbols. (Who makes a five-input gate anyway?)
Why is that resistor needed and how would I know where to add a resistor >>>> in other simulations?
Oh, I added that resistor only because you can't give two different
names to the same node. D is effectively connected to nQ.
With the alternate solver the resistor has to be at least 1e-19 ohms.
Any lower than that and you get a 50MHz oscillator instead.
If anyone can explain that to me I'm all ears.
I'd think that for any circuit with sufficient gain and delayed
feedback, there will be some frequency at which it can oscillate.
Rather than specifying Td, try specifying Trise and Tfall, or Tau.
That will reduce the bandwidth and should quench it.
In your schematic, I got it to work with Tau=1n for A1 and A2,
Tau=2n for A4, A5 and A8, and Tau=3n for A3. Curiously, with
Tau=2n for all gates, it still misbehaves. I suppose this is
a good demo of why Spice is a poor logic simulator.
Then again, I wouldn't make a D-flop like that.
Jeroen Belleman
On 7/18/26 00:16, JM wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 00:00:45 +0200, Jeroen Belleman[Deleted...]
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Here's my divide-by-three. There is something fishy though. Note that
I'm not actually using the delay line T1, yet, without it, simulation
fails. Oh well.
Jeroen Belleman
You should really tie unused inputs (and outputs) to gate node 8, that
removes them from the simulation.
Version 4.1
I see. It's kind of counter-intuitive though, isn't it?
With the alternate solver the resistor has to be at least 1e-19 ohms.
Any lower than that and you get a 50MHz oscillator instead.
If anyone can explain that to me I'm all ears.
I see. It's kind of counter-intuitive though, isn't it?
Yes and no. What matters is what the system matrix generated by all
There is something odd with your file. I redrew your schematic in
the form I'm more familiar with (see below) and it runs no problem in
about 0.1s on my machine, but for some reason your file behaves
differently.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 17:57:31 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
I see. It's kind of counter-intuitive though, isn't it?
Yes and no. What matters is what the system matrix generated by all
No, it's bonkers. If anyone sees a nand gate with an input tied to
ground they would quite correctly think the output of the gate is a
logic one. But the authour of LTspice knows better than the rest of
the known universe and does his own thing.
In LTspice if you want a logic zero on an input you either have to
drive it, or tie it to ground with a resistor.
Or you can just attach an unconnected wire
to it, or leave it
unconnected,
but these two options are undocumented and so really
should not be relied upon.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 01:51:53 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
There is something odd with your file. I redrew your schematic in
the form I'm more familiar with (see below) and it runs no problem in
about 0.1s on my machine, but for some reason your file behaves >>differently.
Oh - I see in my circuit I have a liitle unconnected wire to node 8 of
A1. That is the difference.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 01:16:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/07/2026 8:21 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:26:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/07/2026 3:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing >>>>> signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you >>>>>>>>>>> proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do
you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface >>>>>>>> with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30 >>>>>>>> centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as >>>>>>>> engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and
can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement." >>>>>>>>
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works >>>>>>>> quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can >>>>>>>> understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking
about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock >>>>>>> edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand >>>>>> what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an >>>>>>> interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab >>>>>> made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a >>>>>> common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight >>>>>> jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility. >>>>>
speed of light prevents that.
For a certain - rather bizazrre - understanding of "aligning logic
clocks in time".
The speed of light makes that more difficult, but if you know the
distances between the devices you know long the signal will take to get >>>> there, and you can correct for it. In fact people measure the
propagation delays involved and correct for them. They are pretty stable. >>>>
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock
their local clocks by observing the data stream.
A data stream can't be an explicit clock?
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly >>>>>> isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved. >>>>>Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and >>>>> designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You clearly don't understand the NIF timing system - as what you have
posted above makes clear. Your VME modules hang off it, rather than
contribute to it.
Well, I helped design the system. It's more interesting than a stirred
water bath.
I've never designed a thermostatted stirred water bath. My 1996 paper
was about Peltier-junction based thermostat. The first version did use
circulating water to take away the waste heat from the Peltier
junctions, but one of colleagues replaced that with a heat pipe.
There is a classic paper from the US NBS on a micro-degree stirred water
bath which I did cite, along with a more interesting (if less
well-informed) one that relied on the stirrer to provide the heat input
to the water bath.
The VME timing modules use an ECL flop as the clock recovery detector.
It's a bang-bang phase-locked loop with a roughly 1e12 volt/second
slope.
Sounds crude.
The incoming data stream is the clock of the phase detector flop and
the local XO is D. Sorta backwards. Metastability is the prize for
being right.
Even cruder.
Bang-bang PDs are unpopular for some reason.
Switching noise. If you can extract a signal that is smoothly
proportional to the phase difference, you can get a quieter output. You
still have to filter the phase signal you are extracting, and the filter
phase shift can make the control loop unstable if you don't know what
you are doing.
I confess that I don't understand the loop. I don't need to understand
things, I just need to make them work.
That's obvious. They'd probably work better if you did understand a bit
more about what you were doing.
There's a long and important list of inventions done by people who
didn't understand how they work. Usually inventions happen and then
the the science takes some time to explain what happened.
Understanding sometimes helps, but demanding understanding severely
restricts possibilities.
Ultimately, we don't understand anything; we just explain some top
levels.
Instinct > experiment > science. Or, even better
Instinct > simulation > product and maybe then some science.
I could post the circuit if there were popular demand.
Comic contributions are always welcome.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:48:26 +0200, Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk>
wrote:
On 7/14/26 02:47, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:..
Sometimes you do need to process externally generated triggers, but in
lots of cases you can avoid it if you try hard enough. Marketing hates
asking customers to even try.
you are joking right??
Why have oscilloscopes that use external triggers? That's some idiotic marketing thing again.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:48:26 +0200, Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk>
wrote:
On 7/14/26 02:47, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:..
Sometimes you do need to process externally generated triggers, but in >>>> lots of cases you can avoid it if you try hard enough. Marketing hates >>>> asking customers to even try.
you are joking right??
Why have oscilloscopes that use external triggers? That's some idiotic
marketing thing again.
It's extremely useful if you are searching in noise for a waveform that
is related to an external frequency, monitoring the modulation of an
A.M. waveform or looking at a delayed signal.
On 19/07/2026 1:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 01:16:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/07/2026 8:21 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:26:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 18/07/2026 3:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you >>>>>>>>>>>> proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do
you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface >>>>>>>>> with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30 >>>>>>>>> centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as >>>>>>>>> engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and
can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement." >>>>>>>>>
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works
quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can >>>>>>>>> understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking
about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock >>>>>>>> edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand >>>>>>> what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an >>>>>>>> interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab >>>>>>> made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a
common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight >>>>>>> jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility.
The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing >>>>>> signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The
speed of light prevents that.
For a certain - rather bizazrre - understanding of "aligning logic
clocks in time".
The speed of light makes that more difficult, but if you know the
distances between the devices you know long the signal will take to get >>>>> there, and you can correct for it. In fact people measure the
propagation delays involved and correct for them. They are pretty stable. >>>>>
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock >>>>>> their local clocks by observing the data stream.
A data stream can't be an explicit clock?
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly
isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved.
Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and >>>>>> designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You clearly don't understand the NIF timing system - as what you have >>>>> posted above makes clear. Your VME modules hang off it, rather than
contribute to it.
Well, I helped design the system. It's more interesting than a stirred >>>> water bath.
I've never designed a thermostatted stirred water bath. My 1996 paper
was about Peltier-junction based thermostat. The first version did use
circulating water to take away the waste heat from the Peltier
junctions, but one of colleagues replaced that with a heat pipe.
There is a classic paper from the US NBS on a micro-degree stirred water >>> bath which I did cite, along with a more interesting (if less
well-informed) one that relied on the stirrer to provide the heat input
to the water bath.
The VME timing modules use an ECL flop as the clock recovery detector. >>>> It's a bang-bang phase-locked loop with a roughly 1e12 volt/second
slope.
Sounds crude.
The incoming data stream is the clock of the phase detector flop and
the local XO is D. Sorta backwards. Metastability is the prize for
being right.
Even cruder.
Bang-bang PDs are unpopular for some reason.
Switching noise. If you can extract a signal that is smoothly
proportional to the phase difference, you can get a quieter output. You
still have to filter the phase signal you are extracting, and the filter >>> phase shift can make the control loop unstable if you don't know what
you are doing.
I confess that I don't understand the loop. I don't need to understand >>>> things, I just need to make them work.
That's obvious. They'd probably work better if you did understand a bit
more about what you were doing.
There's a long and important list of inventions done by people who
didn't understand how they work. Usually inventions happen and then
the the science takes some time to explain what happened.
Not that you can list any examples. In reality, new inventions tend to
be patented by several different people at much the same time.
Somebody has published a new way of looking at a problem, and several
people see a way of applying the new insight.
Understanding sometimes helps, but demanding understanding severely
restricts possibilities.
Nobody demands "understanding" but being able to explain what you are
doing to yourself can be very helpful.
Ultimately, we don't understand anything; we just explain some top
levels.
That probably does describe your situation. Atoms and photons are
actually pretty fundamental.
Instinct > experiment > science. Or, even better
Instinct > simulation > product and maybe then some science.
If you can't be bothered to do the science, this can be an attractive >delusion.
I could post the circuit if there were popular demand.
Comic contributions are always welcome.
And you have just delivered a whole bunch.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 16:08:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/07/2026 1:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 01:16:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/07/2026 8:21 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:26:17 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 18/07/2026 3:37 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:54:10 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2026 3:25 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:58:44 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 2:38 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 02:02:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 15/07/2026 1:18 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:24:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 14/07/2026 9:12 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:47:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:57:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 2:23 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:53:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 01:58:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/07/2026 1:28 am, john larkin wrote:
<snip>
We work on facilities that are kilometers square. How are you >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing to align clock edges across them?
The Global Positioning System is rather more extensive than that. How do
you think that they do it?
They don't.
They use timing information to located positions on the earth surface
with an accuracy of better than a metre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
"GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy of 30 >>>>>>>>>> centimeters (12 in), while those for high-end applications such as >>>>>>>>>> engineering and land surveying are accurate to within 2 cm (3?4 in) and
can even provide sub-millimeter accuracy with long-term measurement."
You may not know how they do it, nor be able to do anything that works
quite as well, but while "They don't" may be kind of answer you can >>>>>>>>>> understand it's not one that suggests that you know what you are talking
about.
The discussion was about using a single clock and aligning clock >>>>>>>>> edges. GPS can't align clock edges, for many reasons.
None of which you can articulate, because you don't seem to understand >>>>>>>> what is going on.
Having a common zero-skew clock for all D-flops on Earth would be an >>>>>>>>> interesting concept.
And only ignorant lunatic would waste our time mentioning it.
The paper to which you posted a link, about the National Ignition Lab >>>>>>>> made it perfect clear that the author thought that their gear provided a
common clock for the entire foot-ball stadium sized lab, with tight >>>>>>>> jitter specs much shorter than the propagation time across the facility.
The hundreds of VME modules are frequency-locked to the master timing >>>>>>> signal, but certainly don't align their logic clocks in time. The >>>>>>> speed of light prevents that.
For a certain - rather bizazrre - understanding of "aligning logic >>>>>> clocks in time".
The speed of light makes that more difficult, but if you know the
distances between the devices you know long the signal will take to get >>>>>> there, and you can correct for it. In fact people measure the
propagation delays involved and correct for them. They are pretty stable.
There is actually no explicit clock sent out. The VME clients lock >>>>>>> their local clocks by observing the data stream.
A data stream can't be an explicit clock?
You don't seem to be able to understand what this involved. It certainly
isn't serving up the same clock to any of the D-type bistables involved.
Of course I understand the NIF timing system. I helped design it and >>>>>>> designed the VME modules.
https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/V880
You clearly don't understand the NIF timing system - as what you have >>>>>> posted above makes clear. Your VME modules hang off it, rather than >>>>>> contribute to it.
Well, I helped design the system. It's more interesting than a stirred >>>>> water bath.
I've never designed a thermostatted stirred water bath. My 1996 paper
was about Peltier-junction based thermostat. The first version did use >>>> circulating water to take away the waste heat from the Peltier
junctions, but one of colleagues replaced that with a heat pipe.
There is a classic paper from the US NBS on a micro-degree stirred water >>>> bath which I did cite, along with a more interesting (if less
well-informed) one that relied on the stirrer to provide the heat input >>>> to the water bath.
The VME timing modules use an ECL flop as the clock recovery detector. >>>>> It's a bang-bang phase-locked loop with a roughly 1e12 volt/second
slope.
Sounds crude.
The incoming data stream is the clock of the phase detector flop and >>>>> the local XO is D. Sorta backwards. Metastability is the prize for
being right.
Even cruder.
Bang-bang PDs are unpopular for some reason.
Switching noise. If you can extract a signal that is smoothly
proportional to the phase difference, you can get a quieter output. You >>>> still have to filter the phase signal you are extracting, and the filter >>>> phase shift can make the control loop unstable if you don't know what
you are doing.
I confess that I don't understand the loop. I don't need to understand >>>>> things, I just need to make them work.
That's obvious. They'd probably work better if you did understand a bit >>>> more about what you were doing.
There's a long and important list of inventions done by people who
didn't understand how they work. Usually inventions happen and then
the the science takes some time to explain what happened.
Not that you can list any examples. In reality, new inventions tend to
be patented by several different people at much the same time.
Fire came before chemistry.
The Romans built things by instinct and trial-and-error.
Steam engines came before thermodynamics.
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
Pasteur didn't know about viruses.
DeForest never understood how the triode worked.
Superconductivity was discovered by accident.
The bipolar transistor was an accident.
The only invention that I can think of that was inspired by theory is
the laser. And maybe the tunnel diode.
You should name some inventions that derived from science.
Somebody has published a new way of looking at a problem, and several
people see a way of applying the new insight.
Understanding sometimes helps, but demanding understanding severely
restricts possibilities.
Nobody demands "understanding" but being able to explain what you are
doing to yourself can be very helpful.
Ultimately, we don't understand anything; we just explain some top
levels.
That probably does describe your situation. Atoms and photons are
actually pretty fundamental.
But not yet explained. Quarks, strings, stuff.
Instinct > experiment > science. Or, even better
Instinct > simulation > product and maybe then some science.
If you can't be bothered to do the science, this can be an attractive
delusion.
I could post the circuit if there were popular demand.
Comic contributions are always welcome.
And you have just delivered a whole bunch.
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Am 20.07.26 um 12:09 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
If they did, they might have read about Gustav Weiákopf / Gustave
Whitehead and his powered flight on Aug-14-1901 near Boston.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Am 20.07.26 um 12:09 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
If they did, they might have read about Gustav Weiákopf / Gustave
Whitehead and his powered flight on Aug-14-1901 near Boston.
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 20.07.26 um 12:09 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
If they did, they might have read about Gustav Weiákopf / Gustave
Whitehead and his powered flight on Aug-14-1901 near Boston.
Orville knew:
(AI copy and paste)
"The Mythical Whitehead Flight" is an article written by
Orville Wright in 1945. In it, he refutes the claims that
Gustave Whitehead made a powered flight in 1901, which
are based on an article in the Bridgeport Herald of
August 18, 1901. Wright argues that the story was not
taken seriously until it was published in Reader's Digest.
He also notes that the article was written as an eyewitness
report, but there is no evidence that the author was present
at the event. The claims of Whitehead's flights are still
disputed by mainstream historians, who consider them to be
unsubstantiated.
Regardless, tinkering with bicycles is an obsession with me. My many fat
tire bicycle mods include custom fit, superb German fenders and a small
12 VDC battery to power a motorcycle lamp in front. Here's summertime
bliss in motion:
<https://crcomp.net/arts/spintale/>
During the Winter my bike's tricked out with motorcycle handlebar
heaters, handlebar mittens, and studded snow tires. Here's the whole winterized package:
<https://crcomp.net/bicycle/winterized.png>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Who was their PhD advisor?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 20.07.26 um 12:09 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
If they did, they might have read about Gustav Weiákopf / Gustave
Whitehead and his powered flight on Aug-14-1901 near Boston.
Orville knew:
(AI copy and paste)
"The Mythical Whitehead Flight" is an article written by
Orville Wright in 1945. In it, he refutes the claims that
Gustave Whitehead made a powered flight in 1901, which
are based on an article in the Bridgeport Herald of
August 18, 1901. Wright argues that the story was not
taken seriously until it was published in Reader's Digest.
He also notes that the article was written as an eyewitness
report, but there is no evidence that the author was present
at the event. The claims of Whitehead's flights are still
disputed by mainstream historians, who consider them to be
unsubstantiated.
Regardless, tinkering with bicycles is an obsession with me. My many fat
tire bicycle mods include custom fit, superb German fenders and a small
12 VDC battery to power a motorcycle lamp in front. Here's summertime
bliss in motion:
<https://crcomp.net/arts/spintale/>
During the Winter my bike's tricked out with motorcycle handlebar
heaters, handlebar mittens, and studded snow tires. Here's the whole winterized package:
<https://crcomp.net/bicycle/winterized.png>
My next project is to incorporate a voice-activated ham radio into the
bike. Last week a hang-glider pilot gave a presentation at my ham
radio club meeting. He showed off his Do It Yourself mountain bike
helmet with an embedded avionic headset.
Hang-gliding has come a long way in the past half century. This particular pilot typically glides at between 10,000' to 16,000' while
wearing a thermo suit to protect against the extreme cold temperatures.
It's now common for hang-glider pilots to travel from coast to coast.
--
73, Don, WD7Q veritas _|_
liberabit | https://www.qsl.net/wd7q vos |
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Who was their PhD advisor?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
They knew about Lilienthal and how he got himself killed. That?s why the >Wrights used a canard design.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Who was their PhD advisor?
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:30:06 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Who was their PhD advisor?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
They knew about Lilienthal and how he got himself killed. That?s why the
Wrights used a canard design.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think putting the tail in the front was dynamically unstable, so
they practiced a lot to learn how to fly it.
On 7/20/26 19:11, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:30:06 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on >>>>>> building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Who was their PhD advisor?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
They knew about Lilienthal and how he got himself killed. That?s why the >>> Wrights used a canard design.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think putting the tail in the front was dynamically unstable, so
they practiced a lot to learn how to fly it.
I don't know if the Wright flyer was dynamically unstable, but having
the tail in the front doesn't necessarily make it so.
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 20.07.26 um 12:09 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on
building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
If they did, they might have read about Gustav Weiákopf / Gustave
Whitehead and his powered flight on Aug-14-1901 near Boston.
Orville knew:
(AI copy and paste)
"The Mythical Whitehead Flight" is an article written by
Orville Wright in 1945. In it, he refutes the claims that
Gustave Whitehead made a powered flight in 1901, which
are based on an article in the Bridgeport Herald of
August 18, 1901. Wright argues that the story was not
taken seriously until it was published in Reader's Digest.
He also notes that the article was written as an eyewitness
report, but there is no evidence that the author was present
at the event. The claims of Whitehead's flights are still
disputed by mainstream historians, who consider them to be
unsubstantiated.
Hang-gliding has come a long way in the past half century. This particular pilot typically glides at between 10,000' to 16,000' while
wearing a thermo suit to protect against the extreme cold temperatures.
It's now common for hang-glider pilots to travel from coast to coast.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:30:06 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on >>>>> building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Who was their PhD advisor?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
They knew about Lilienthal and how he got himself killed. That?s why the
Wrights used a canard design.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think putting the tail in the front was dynamically unstable, so
they practiced a lot to learn how to fly it.
Am 20.07.26 um 18:16 schrieb Don:
Hang-gliding has come a long way in the past half century. This
particular pilot typically glides at between 10,000' to 16,000' while
wearing a thermo suit to protect against the extreme cold temperatures.
It's now common for hang-glider pilots to travel from coast to coast.
... for small values from coast to coast. The world record is 3009 Km,
and you need sth. like the Andes or the European Alps aligned to your
flight path, and enough wind from the right direction to produce waves.
Much more won't be possible. You are limited by the time from dusk till
dawn and flying more than 200 Km/h eats your height quickly.
Gerhard
who gave up on gliders at -7 dioptres and bought a motor bike instead.
But I could not resist the temptation of a paraglider flight in
Nepals in the Anapurna region: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/43283123114/in/album-72157662535945536/>
Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
My next project is to incorporate a voice-activated ham radio into the
bike. Last week a hang-glider pilot gave a presentation at my ham
radio club meeting. He showed off his Do It Yourself mountain bike
helmet with an embedded avionic headset.
Hang-gliding has come a long way in the past half century. This
particular pilot typically glides at between 10,000' to 16,000' while
wearing a thermo suit to protect against the extreme cold temperatures.
It's now common for hang-glider pilots to travel from coast to coast.
Voice activated ham radio is so passe, you should try voice powered ham
radio - Mike Rainey got a QSO by shouting into a microphone powering a flea power transmitter!
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:29:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 7/20/26 19:11, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:30:06 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics. >>>>>>>In an international situation where a lot of people were working on >>>>>>> building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects.
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international
technical reports?
Who was their PhD advisor?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
They knew about Lilienthal and how he got himself killed. That?s why the >>>> Wrights used a canard design.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think putting the tail in the front was dynamically unstable, so
they practiced a lot to learn how to fly it.
I don't know if the Wright flyer was dynamically unstable, but having
the tail in the front doesn't necessarily make it so.
True.
My father was an aeronautical engineer. As was his father. My
recollection is that the problem was that those planes stalled easily,
and that this is what caused those accidents. The canard in the front
made the airplane pretty much stall proof.
The Gwinn Aircar was designed to be stall-proof as well, so amateur
pilots could operate one in reasonable safety:
.<https://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Gwinn_Aircar-Hawks.htm>
Joe
There's a Whispering Gallery at the Griffin Museum of Science and
Industry in Chicago. The acoustically tuned dishes at opposite ends of
the room enable quiet whispers into one dish to be easily heard at the
other.
Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
[...]
There's a Whispering Gallery at the Griffin Museum of Science and
Industry in Chicago. The acoustically tuned dishes at opposite ends of
the room enable quiet whispers into one dish to be easily heard at the
other.
Aren't these just reflectors? One of them turns diverging waves from
its focus into parallel waves - the other dish then focusses the beam of parallel waves back onto its own focus.
If they are tuned, what frequency are they tuned to - and why?
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:08:11 -0400, joegwinn@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:29:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 7/20/26 19:11, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:30:06 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 12:00 am, john larkin wrote:
[...]
Are you saying the Wright brothers would have read international >>>>>>> technical reports?The first working airplane was built by a couple of bicycle mechanics.
In an international situation where a lot of people were working on >>>>>>>> building flying machines and reporting on each other's projects. >>>>>>>
Who was their PhD advisor?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
They knew about Lilienthal and how he got himself killed. That?s why the >>>>> Wrights used a canard design.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think putting the tail in the front was dynamically unstable, so
they practiced a lot to learn how to fly it.
I don't know if the Wright flyer was dynamically unstable, but having
the tail in the front doesn't necessarily make it so.
True.
My father was an aeronautical engineer. As was his father. My >>recollection is that the problem was that those planes stalled easily,
and that this is what caused those accidents. The canard in the front
made the airplane pretty much stall proof.
The Gwinn Aircar was designed to be stall-proof as well, so amateur
pilots could operate one in reasonable safety:
.<https://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Gwinn_Aircar-Hawks.htm>
Joe
Small planes are dangerous. I can't imagine the carnage if hundreds of
those Joby things were flying over downtown.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 496008:13:06 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 605 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (18,398K bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,090 |