On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:34:13 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:51 am, Phil Hobbs
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:31 am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
On 2 Mar., 17:40, John Larkin
wrote:
I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp
circuit:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg
but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp....
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG
Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun
playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.
John
speaking of bizarre :http://tubetime.us/?p=85
I'm sure someone here will love it 
-Lasse
Pretty good stuff.
It will go way over Sloman's head.
Along with the hundred other things a boy can do with a 555.
So someone has used a 555 to make a less than impressive radio-
receiver. Why would anybody be interested, if they hadn't fixated on
the device early in their career and never moved on?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a
far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle..
And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to
cheat at solitaire.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So you'll know what to do when,
You're stuck on a desert island with three cocanut shells, some wire
and a 555 timer.....
Seriously I don't use the 555 anymore, but we have several old
circuits still using it. And I hope it and the 741 have only reached
middle age.
George H.
George H.
I don't either, at least not in real circuits, but I could imagine
situations where I might, e.g. in a missing pulse detector for a laser
interlock. It could look for a 'sanity' pulse from a micro, and turn
off a relay to open the interlock. I've used programmable unijunctions
for that in the past, but that was mostly for fun. Either way, that job
shouldn't be done by a PIC, because it's processor or firmware failures
it's designed to detect.
I just get tired of the chronological snobbery of 'legacy' this and
'obsolete' that. As one of my daughters' friends said, "I get really
sick of being told by aging baby boomers that I'm out of date because I
don't subscribe to their 1968 worldview."
Cheers
Phil "mine's more 1168" Hobbs
Folks used the i80186 in the motion control industry for years, and it
was never a consumer PC product.
They went straight to the already also "done" i80286 when they replaced
the XT (8088).
The '186' is still used, but there are more efficient microcontrollers
with more 'features' out there so it rarely gets used any more. It
actually IS all but obsolete.
The 555 doesn't exactly follow that track as being a simpler device, it
does still get used in many instances.