Substandard Italian workmanship renders first 787s unsafe

[Mxsmanic]

Boeing has discovered that the Italian firm to which it subcontracted
construction of tail assemblies isn't doing the work correctly, putting the 23
aircraft it has already built at risk:

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/boeing-halts-787-test-flights-after-horizontal-tail-problems-found/97983/1

No surprise here. When you allow Third World companies to built vital parts to
your airplane, you should take for granted that there will be potentially
dangerous defects. That's the consequence of trying to be politically correct.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Boeing has discovered that the Italian firm to which it subcontracted
> construction of tail assemblies isn't doing the work correctly, putting the 23
> aircraft it has already built at risk:
>
> http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/boeing-halts-787-test-flights-after-horizontal-tail-problems-found/97983/1
>
> No surprise here. When you allow Third World companies to built vital parts to
> your airplane, you should take for granted that there will be potentially
> dangerous defects. That's the consequence of trying to be politically correct.

Italy isn't concidered a third world country by anyone but you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Boeing has discovered that the Italian firm to which it subcontracted
> construction of tail assemblies isn't doing the work correctly, putting
> the 23
> aircraft it has already built at risk:
>
> http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/boeing-halts-787-test-flights-after-horizontal-tail-problems-found/97983/1
>
> No surprise here. When you allow Third World companies to built vital
> parts to
> your airplane, you should take for granted that there will be potentially
> dangerous defects. That's the consequence of trying to be politically
> correct.

Lots of people would consider that Italian technology is at least as good as
anything emanating from Chicago.
--
JohnT

[Sancho Panza]

"JohnT" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Boeing has discovered that the Italian firm to which it subcontracted
>> construction of tail assemblies isn't doing the work correctly, putting
>> the 23
>> aircraft it has already built at risk:
>>
>> http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/boeing-halts-787-test-flights-after-horizontal-tail-problems-found/97983/1
>>
>> No surprise here. When you allow Third World companies to built vital
>> parts to
>> your airplane, you should take for granted that there will be potentially
>> dangerous defects. That's the consequence of trying to be politically
>> correct.
>
> Lots of people would consider that Italian technology is at least as good
> as anything emanating from Chicago.

And that is in which world?

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> Lots of people would consider that Italian technology is at least as good as
> anything emanating from Chicago.

Then Boeing must have picked the wrong Italian partner. And this appears to be
an issue with workmanship, not technology or design. The tails were simply not
put together correctly, implying unqualified, careless, or lazy workers.

If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time I've read about an Italian
company screwing things up.

There are a number of classic stereotypes concerning European cultures, and
unfortunately many of them have a strong basis in fact.

I wonder why Boeing put anything in Italy. It's not like the Italians have any
strong airlines that would be buying dozens of 787s, and if all Boeing cared
about was price, they could find cheaper suppliers in other countries.

[Flaps_50!]

On Jun 26, 9:10*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Boeing has discovered that the Italian firm to which it subcontracted
> construction of tail assemblies isn't doing the work correctly, putting the 23
> aircraft it has already built at risk:
>
> http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/boeing-halts-787-test...
>
> No surprise here. When you allow Third World companies to built vital parts to
> your airplane, you should take for granted that there will be potentially
> dangerous defects. That's the consequence of trying to be politically correct.

Where in the article does it say the Italian parts are substandard? As
I read it it's an assembly problem (shimming and bolt torque) which
takes place in the US...

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

Flaps_50! writes:

> Where in the article does it say the Italian parts are substandard? As
> I read it it's an assembly problem (shimming and bolt torque) which
> takes place in the US...

Yes. The defects are in the assembly, not the hardware itself (as I understood
the article). Thus, unqualified or careless workers, inadequate QC, etc.,
which, unfortunately, is exactly what I'd expect from an average Italian
supplier.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 25, 6:21*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Flaps_50! writes:
> > Where in the article does it say the Italian parts are substandard? As
> > I read it it's an assembly problem (shimming and bolt torque) which
> > takes place in the US...
>
> Yes. The defects are in the assembly, not the hardware itself (as I understood
> the article). Thus, unqualified or careless workers, inadequate QC, etc.,
> which, unfortunately, is exactly what I'd expect from an average Italian
> supplier.

The article says nothing about defects in the unit assembled in Italy.
It does say the issue is associated with how it had been attached,
torqued, and shimmed to the correct position when it had been attached
to the 'next assembly up'.

[george]

On Jun 26, 10:19*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> Where in the article does it say the Italian parts are substandard? As
> I read it it's an assembly problem (shimming and bolt torque) which
> takes place in the US...

When I saw the header I had to look and once again mixedup is scamming
the group with his hatred of aviation and those associated with it..

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> The article says nothing about defects in the unit assembled in Italy.
> It does say the issue is associated with how it had been attached,
> torqued, and shimmed to the correct position when it had been attached
> to the 'next assembly up'.

Incorrect assembly is a defect.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 25, 8:48*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > The article says nothing about defects in the unit assembled in Italy.
> > It does say the issue is associated with how it had been attached,
> > torqued, and shimmed to the correct position when it had been attached
> > to the 'next assembly up'.
>
> Incorrect assembly is a defect.

Now for your assumption and allegation to be correct you'll simply
have to provide some evidence the part in question was incorrectly
torqued and shimmed to the next assembly up by the Italian firm.

Based on the facts presented, that the part that had been incorrectly
mated to the fuselage was manufactured in Italy is what would be
called in a logic class incidental and gratuitous information. Such
information in academic settings is often used as a red herring, a
device to mislead. I'm surprised you made the unsupported assumptions
you did. .

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Flaps_50! writes:
>
>> Where in the article does it say the Italian parts are substandard? As
>> I read it it's an assembly problem (shimming and bolt torque) which
>> takes place in the US...
>
> Yes. The defects are in the assembly, not the hardware itself (as I
> understood
> the article). Thus, unqualified or careless workers, inadequate QC, etc.,
> which, unfortunately, is exactly what I'd expect from an average Italian
> supplier.

With what have Italian Companies supplied you over the past few years? In
what way were they defective?
--
JohnT

[Bob Myers]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time I've read about an
> Italian company screwing things up.
>

And you somehow think that sort of thing is unique to Italian
companies?

After ~30 years of working in various aspects of the engineering
profession, with a goodly load of supplier qualification work in
that time, I can tell you with some confidence that the country in
which a given company is located has precisely zero to do with
whether or not they're going to be an acceptable supplier.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Flaps_50! writes:
>
>> Where in the article does it say the Italian parts are substandard?
>> As I read it it's an assembly problem (shimming and bolt torque)
>> which takes place in the US...
>
> Yes. The defects are in the assembly, not the hardware itself (as I
> understood the article). Thus, unqualified or careless workers,
> inadequate QC, etc., which, unfortunately, is exactly what I'd expect
> from an average Italian supplier.

And is your experience with supplier selection and qualification
as extensive as, say, your experience in piloting?

Bob M.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...
>

>And you somehow think that sort of thing is unique to Italian
>companies?
>

I cannot help but notice that this aviation expert, always ready to
correct professionals' factual information, never cites a qualified
source. All his information comes from Newsweek, USA Today etc. It would
seem for all his zeal in contesting others' facts he is not very
enterprising in cementing his own understanding of issues.

I certainly hope this laziness does not extend to his piloting
activities, otherwise _bad things_ could happen!

[Tom P[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> JohnT writes:
>
>> Lots of people would consider that Italian technology is at least as good as
>> anything emanating from Chicago.
>
> Then Boeing must have picked the wrong Italian partner. And this appears to be
> an issue with workmanship, not technology or design. The tails were simply not
> put together correctly, implying unqualified, careless, or lazy workers.
>

Factory workers make mistakes all the time. It's normal.

If anything, it says something about the Italian quality control who let
the parts out in the first place, and Boeing quality control who let the
parts into the assembly line.

> If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time I've read about an Italian
> company screwing things up.
>
> There are a number of classic stereotypes concerning European cultures, and
> unfortunately many of them have a strong basis in fact.
>
> I wonder why Boeing put anything in Italy. It's not like the Italians have any
> strong airlines that would be buying dozens of 787s, and if all Boeing cared
> about was price, they could find cheaper suppliers in other countries.

[Bert Hyman]

In Mxsmanic
> wrote:

> JohnT writes:
>
>> Lots of people would consider that Italian technology is at least as
>> good as anything emanating from Chicago.
>
> Then Boeing must have picked the wrong Italian partner.

Must have been Fiat.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Myers writes:

> And you somehow think that sort of thing is unique to Italian
> companies?

No. It afflicts companies in Latin countries to some extent, depending on how
macho the country and culture are. Some other non-Latin countries have the
same problem. You can recognize a culture like this by its high levels of
poverty and corruption.

> After ~30 years of working in various aspects of the engineering
> profession, with a goodly load of supplier qualification work in
> that time, I can tell you with some confidence that the country in
> which a given company is located has precisely zero to do with
> whether or not they're going to be an acceptable supplier.

My experience and training have shown significant cultural differences that
cannot be ignored.

[Mxsmanic]

Tom P writes:

> Factory workers make mistakes all the time. It's normal.

The number and magnitude of mistakes they make depend a great deal on
corporate and social culture.

I recall Akio Morita describing such a problem. Sony was building Trinitrons
in both Japan and the USA. In both countries, the tubes had to meet the same
tolerances. Nevertheless, the company found that the Japanese tubes were
always far closer to perfection than the USA tubes.

Finally, management figure it out. The Japanese always tried to get things
perfect, no matter what the accepted tolerances were, whereas the Americans
didn't care whether it was perfect or not, as long as it fell within the
tolerances.

To fix this, Sony made the tolerances far tighter for the USA tubes. Their
quality then improved significantly.

It was all about culture.

> If anything, it says something about the Italian quality control who let
> the parts out in the first place, and Boeing quality control who let the
> parts into the assembly line.

The best way to ensure quality is to build it right the first time, not to
throw out half the inventory during quality inspections.

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> With what have Italian Companies supplied you over the past few years? In
> what way were they defective?

I recall a pair of Gucci shoes that fell apart about a month after I bought
them, and a wallet from the same company that had a similar lifespan.

I have a refrigerator and air conditioner built in Italy that have worked well
for years.

Nothing prevents an individual company from resisting cultural tendencies, but
it's difficult.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Myers writes:

> And is your experience with supplier selection and qualification
> as extensive as, say, your experience in piloting?

I was not responsible for selection and qualification, but I had to deal with
the results thereof for years.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 26, 9:47*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tom P writes:
> > Factory workers make mistakes all the time. It's normal.
>
> The number and magnitude of mistakes they make depend a great deal on
> corporate and social culture.
>
> I recall Akio Morita describing such a problem. Sony was building Trinitrons
> in both Japan and the USA. In both countries, the tubes had to meet the same
> tolerances. Nevertheless, the company found that the Japanese tubes were
> always far closer to perfection than the USA tubes.
>
> Finally, management figure it out. The Japanese always tried to get things
> perfect, no matter what the accepted tolerances were, whereas the Americans
> didn't care whether it was perfect or not, as long as it fell within the
> tolerances.
>
> To fix this, Sony made the tolerances far tighter for the USA tubes. Their
> quality then improved significantly.
>
> It was all about culture.
>
> > If anything, it says something about the Italian quality control who let
> > the parts out in the first place, and Boeing quality control who let the
> > parts into the assembly line.
>
> The best way to ensure quality is to build it right the first time, not to
> throw out half the inventory during quality inspections.
Don't allow yourselves be puppets controlled by the puppetmaster.
Responses feed his ego and allow him to attempt to display
superiority.

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Myers writes:
>
>> And is your experience with supplier selection and qualification
>> as extensive as, say, your experience in piloting?
>
> I was not responsible for selection and qualification, but I had to deal
> with
> the results thereof for years.

Woosh.
--
JohnT

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> JohnT writes:
>
>> Lots of people would consider that Italian technology is at least as good as
>> anything emanating from Chicago.
>
> Then Boeing must have picked the wrong Italian partner. And this appears to be
> an issue with workmanship, not technology or design. The tails were simply not
> put together correctly, implying unqualified, careless, or lazy workers.

And just how many manufacturing programs have you been involved with that
you are able to make such a determination?

Let me guess, you play Microsoft Manufacturing Simulator.

In my experience with real world production, if some of the subassemblies
are "wrong" it is usually a QA and inspection problem with the builder and
if they are almost or all "wrong" it is usually a problem with the
documentation package sent to the builder.

You can't say what the defect percentage is nor do you have any insight
what so ever in the manufacturing process.

Based on a total lack of information, your conclusion is Italian workers
are unqualified, careless, or lazy.

Yeah, right.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tom P writes:
>
>> Factory workers make mistakes all the time. It's normal.
>
> The number and magnitude of mistakes they make depend a great deal on
> corporate and social culture.
>
> I recall Akio Morita describing such a problem. Sony was building Trinitrons
> in both Japan and the USA. In both countries, the tubes had to meet the same
> tolerances. Nevertheless, the company found that the Japanese tubes were
> always far closer to perfection than the USA tubes.
>
> Finally, management figure it out. The Japanese always tried to get things
> perfect, no matter what the accepted tolerances were, whereas the Americans
> didn't care whether it was perfect or not, as long as it fell within the
> tolerances.
>
> To fix this, Sony made the tolerances far tighter for the USA tubes. Their
> quality then improved significantly.

All of which was stupidity on Sony's part.

All things have a tolerance and tighter tolerances increase costs.

If Sony needed tighter tolerance they should have originally specified
tighter tolerances instead of ****ing and moaning that stuff made to
their specified tolerance wasn't "good enough".

> It was all about culture.

Wrong, it is all about getting the specifications to be what is really
needed in the first place.

That is basic engineering.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> All of which was stupidity on Sony's part.

Sony's Trinitron tubes were the best in the world for many years. They
commanded a higher price than other tubes, and people paid it. Professionals
bought scarcely anything else, despite the higher costs. That doesn't sound
like stupidity.

> All things have a tolerance and tighter tolerances increase costs.

They also increase quality, and you get what you pay for. In Morita's day,
Sony had a worldwide reputation for quality, especially in the domain of
professional video equipment. Tight tolerances were a part of that.

> If Sony needed tighter tolerance they should have originally specified
> tighter tolerances instead of ****ing and moaning that stuff made to
> their specified tolerance wasn't "good enough".

They didn't expect Americans to be so careless. The Japanese were
conscientious and tried to do their best. The Americans just did the minimum
necessary.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> All of which was stupidity on Sony's part.
>
> Sony's Trinitron tubes were the best in the world for many years. They
> commanded a higher price than other tubes, and people paid it. Professionals
> bought scarcely anything else, despite the higher costs. That doesn't sound
> like stupidity.

Mostly all true but totally irrelevant to the discussion.

>> All things have a tolerance and tighter tolerances increase costs.
>
> They also increase quality, and you get what you pay for. In Morita's day,
> Sony had a worldwide reputation for quality, especially in the domain of
> professional video equipment. Tight tolerances were a part of that.

Also totally irrelevant to the discussion.

>> If Sony needed tighter tolerance they should have originally specified
>> tighter tolerances instead of ****ing and moaning that stuff made to
>> their specified tolerance wasn't "good enough".
>
> They didn't expect Americans to be so careless. The Japanese were
> conscientious and tried to do their best. The Americans just did the minimum
> necessary.

No, the Americans delivered exactly what Sony ordered to the tolerances
Sony set.

Sony ordered product to a specification and Sony got product to that
specification.

The Americans were smart enough to know you don't get paid for the extra
cost to deliver something that is "better" than what the PO says.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, the Americans delivered exactly what Sony ordered to the tolerances
> Sony set.

You inadvertently illustrate the exact problem that Morita had with the USA
factory. The Americans didn't care about striving for perfection; all they
cared about was staying inside whatever tolerances were defined.

> The Americans were smart enough to know you don't get paid for the extra
> cost to deliver something that is "better" than what the PO says.

The Americans lacked pride in workmanship and strong professional ethics.
Apparently all they cared about was money.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No, the Americans delivered exactly what Sony ordered to the tolerances
>> Sony set.
>
> You inadvertently illustrate the exact problem that Morita had with the USA
> factory. The Americans didn't care about striving for perfection; all they
> cared about was staying inside whatever tolerances were defined.

It is called a contract.

The contract defines what is to be delivered.

The Americans did that.

End of issue.

>> The Americans were smart enough to know you don't get paid for the extra
>> cost to deliver something that is "better" than what the PO says.
>
> The Americans lacked pride in workmanship and strong professional ethics.
> Apparently all they cared about was money.

Pride and strong professional ethics says deliver to the customer what the
customer ordered, which is exactly what they did.

As a business, those in charge would be out on the street if they advocated
spending extra money and reducing company profits to deliver something they
had NOT been asked to deliver.

If the customer wants tighter tolerances on something, it is up to the
customer to specify those tolerances and pay for any increase in cost resulting
from those tighter tolerances.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is called a contract.
>
> The contract defines what is to be delivered.
>
> The Americans did that.

In the United States, law takes the place of morals. If it's legal, it's
considered moral. If it's illegal, it's considered immoral. Morality itself
has been discarded.

> If the customer wants tighter tolerances on something, it is up to the
> customer to specify those tolerances and pay for any increase in cost resulting
> from those tighter tolerances.

The Japanese kept tighter tolerances at the same cost. They had stronger
ethics.

[Bob Myers]

VOR-DME wrote:
\> I certainly hope this laziness does not extend to his piloting
> activities, otherwise _bad things_ could happen!

No, nothing bad is ever going to happen there, simply because he
has no actual "piloting activities." Whenever he speaks of "piloting,"
he's actually talking about "flying" Microsoft Flight Simulator. So
nothing remotely like a real aircraft or passengers will ever be in any
danger.

Bob M.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It is called a contract.
>>
>> The contract defines what is to be delivered.
>>
>> The Americans did that.
>
> In the United States, law takes the place of morals. If it's legal, it's
> considered moral. If it's illegal, it's considered immoral. Morality itself
> has been discarded.

Babbling nonsense.

The same conditions apply the world over, i.e. a contractor is expected to
deliver according to the terms of the contract; nothing more, and nothing
less.

>> If the customer wants tighter tolerances on something, it is up to the
>> customer to specify those tolerances and pay for any increase in cost resulting
>> from those tighter tolerances.
>
> The Japanese kept tighter tolerances at the same cost.

And you know this to be a fact how?

In the real world tighter tolerances mean increased cost.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Myers]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Tom P writes:
>>
>>> Factory workers make mistakes all the time. It's normal.
>>
>> The number and magnitude of mistakes they make depend a great deal on
>> corporate and social culture.
>>
>> I recall Akio Morita describing such a problem. Sony was building
>> Trinitrons in both Japan and the USA. In both countries, the tubes
>> had to meet the same tolerances. Nevertheless, the company found
>> that the Japanese tubes were always far closer to perfection than
>> the USA tubes.
>>
>> Finally, management figure it out. The Japanese always tried to get
>> things perfect, no matter what the accepted tolerances were, whereas
>> the Americans didn't care whether it was perfect or not, as long as
>> it fell within the tolerances.
>>
>> To fix this, Sony made the tolerances far tighter for the USA tubes.
>> Their quality then improved significantly.
>
> All of which was stupidity on Sony's part.
>
> All things have a tolerance and tighter tolerances increase costs.
>
> If Sony needed tighter tolerance they should have originally specified
> tighter tolerances instead of ****ing and moaning that stuff made to
> their specified tolerance wasn't "good enough".
>
>> It was all about culture.
>
> Wrong, it is all about getting the specifications to be what is really
> needed in the first place.
>
> That is basic engineering.

100% correct. Mxs couldn't have picked a better example, since I
have direct professional experience with the Trinitron design, having
worked very closely with Sony as a monitor supplier a number of
years back. Tightening tolerances beyond what is required for the
design to function to customer expectations and its published
specification is nonsense, and Sony is far too good at engineering to
do that. The story is nonsense, and I seriously doubt that Morita-san
ever said anything of the sort. I have personally tested numerous
Trinitron products from both the Japan and U.S. factories, and found
no significant differences between them. (Actually, since the production
of the Trinitron CRT was essentially 100% automated, there was
absolutely no reason to expect any such differences. They used the
same production equipment, programmed the same, etc., etc..)

So once again, our friend here is speaking of something regarding which
he appears to have precisely zero actual knowledge or experience.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> My experience and training have shown significant cultural
> differences that cannot be ignored.

And again - that "experience and training," relevant to this topic,
would be - what, exactly? And is it as extensive as your experience
and training in piloting?

Bob M.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>You inadvertently illustrate the exact problem that Morita had with the USA
>factory. The Americans didn't care about striving for perfection; all they
>cared about was staying inside whatever tolerances were defined.

>The Americans lacked pride in workmanship and strong professional ethics.
>Apparently all they cared about was money.


Seems our in-house expert knows about as much of engineering as he does of
aviation. Quality conciousness IS striving to manufacture to the specified
tolerance. For a manufacturer to modify the tolerance, either more or less
stringent, would be an error and a detriment to quality.

All of the things we surround ourselves with in life, from the simplest to
the most complex are proof of the fact that engineers the world over
understand this principle. So, once again we have someone with no
experience, who doesn't imagine the amount of engineering that goes into a
simple can-opener, lecturing us on tolerances for Trinitron tubes. Perhaps
he should tell us, just to lend credibility to his tale, which tolerances
these were, and what values were changed for what reason and with what
result.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> Seems our in-house expert knows about as much of engineering as he does of
> aviation. Quality conciousness IS striving to manufacture to the specified
> tolerance.

Then the Americans lacked that, although when I said QC it meant quality
control, which is essentially damage control.

> For a manufacturer to modify the tolerance, either more or less
> stringent, would be an error and a detriment to quality.

Physical devices tend to drift out of nominal specifications over time. The
tighter the tolerances, the longer they will last without drifting
unacceptably. Thus, a tighter tolerance generally ensures less maintenance
and/or a longer working lifetime. There is no ideal tolerance, but as any
engineer knows, tight manufacturing tolerances improve the quality of the
product by increasing the margin between the original manufacturing tolerance
and the tightest tolerance that will ensure proper operation (which can't
always be determined precisely).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> Seems our in-house expert knows about as much of engineering as he does of
>> aviation. Quality conciousness IS striving to manufacture to the specified
>> tolerance.
>
> Then the Americans lacked that, although when I said QC it meant quality
> control, which is essentially damage control.

The purpose of quality control is to ensure product meets the stated
specifications, which is exactly what happened in your story.

>> For a manufacturer to modify the tolerance, either more or less
>> stringent, would be an error and a detriment to quality.
>
> Physical devices tend to drift out of nominal specifications over time. The
> tighter the tolerances, the longer they will last without drifting
> unacceptably.

Some do, some don't, it depends on the device and parameter in question.

However it is up to the original designer of the total system to specify
the tolerances for the individual parts and provide those tolerances to
the makers of piece parts.

The burden on the piece part maker is to make them to the specifications
provided by the designer and the part maker has no obligation nor right to
second guess the original designer.

<snip babbling nonsense>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The purpose of quality control is to ensure product meets the stated
> specifications, which is exactly what happened in your story.

Quality control often translates to inspection after the fact, which is late
and wasteful in the manufacturing cycle.

> Some do, some don't, it depends on the device and parameter in question.

Well, digital devices usually work perfectly up to a point, and then fail
catastrophically. Most other devices show signs of wear and tear.
Unfortunately, this is very true of CRTs, which is one of their serious
drawbacks.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The purpose of quality control is to ensure product meets the stated
>> specifications, which is exactly what happened in your story.
>
> Quality control often translates to inspection after the fact, which is late
> and wasteful in the manufacturing cycle.

Obviously you know nothing about manufacturing as your statement is
essentially babble.

>> Some do, some don't, it depends on the device and parameter in question.
>
> Well, digital devices usually work perfectly up to a point, and then fail
> catastrophically. Most other devices show signs of wear and tear.
> Unfortunately, this is very true of CRTs, which is one of their serious
> drawbacks.

All totally irrelevant to the discussion.

And FYI, digital devices also have tolerances for things like rise time
and slew rate to name just a couple.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 11:22*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>often translates to inspection after the fact,

WRONG

If not, please provide proof / studies that the readership can make
their own judgement.

Let me guess, YOU WON'T.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And FYI, digital devices also have tolerances for things like rise time
> and slew rate to name just a couple.

Those are analog devices used to implement digital systems. Digital systems do
not have such characteristics; they always exist in one of a finite number of
discrete states.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And FYI, digital devices also have tolerances for things like rise time
>> and slew rate to name just a couple.
>
> Those are analog devices used to implement digital systems. Digital systems do
> not have such characteristics; they always exist in one of a finite number of
> discrete states.

Totally and absolutely wrong.

Here is the Texax Instruments data sheet for the 7400 series quad nand gates,
one of the most basic of all digital devices:

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn74ls00.pdf

You will see lots of characteristics there with MIN/TYP/MAX values.

Here is the Intel data sheet for the Celeron processor:

http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/320389.pdf

You will see lots of characteristics there with MIN/TYP/MAX values.

So it seems we can add electronic components to the long list of things
that you think you know all about yet no in-depth knowledge what so ever.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Totally and absolutely wrong.
>
> Here is the Texax Instruments data sheet for the 7400 series quad nand gates,
> one of the most basic of all digital devices:
>
> http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn74ls00.pdf
>
> You will see lots of characteristics there with MIN/TYP/MAX values.
>
> Here is the Intel data sheet for the Celeron processor:
>
> http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/320389.pdf
>
> You will see lots of characteristics there with MIN/TYP/MAX values.

Those are all analog components, like all physical components.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Totally and absolutely wrong.
>>
>> Here is the Texax Instruments data sheet for the 7400 series quad nand gates,
>> one of the most basic of all digital devices:
>>
>> http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn74ls00.pdf
>>
>> You will see lots of characteristics there with MIN/TYP/MAX values.
>>
>> Here is the Intel data sheet for the Celeron processor:
>>
>> http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/320389.pdf
>>
>> You will see lots of characteristics there with MIN/TYP/MAX values.
>
> Those are all analog components, like all physical components.

A 7400 NAND gate and a Celeron processor are analog components?

You have gone over the edge and are now officially insane.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>A 7400 NAND gate and a Celeron processor are analog components?
>
>You have gone over the edge and are now officially insane.
>


Sorry, but MX is partially right on this.
Components like logic gates implement discrete logic conditions, but the
performance characteristics you mention are analog device performance, by
definition.

So why is he only "partially right"? Because he started by saying that digital
devices do not have measurable performance criteria for aadherence to
specifications and tolerances. This is a completely incorrect and grossly
uniformed assertion. Sampling errors, encoding noise, jitter, encoding
artifacts aliasing, time domain artifacts just to sart with the simplest
basics, and when we get to coding strength fidelity we could go on for pages
about measurable performance characteristics in the purely digital domain.
These are real-world performance criteria used every day by engineers
in application of performace tolerances. Totally out of MX's depth though.

[[email protected]]

VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>A 7400 NAND gate and a Celeron processor are analog components?
>>
>>You have gone over the edge and are now officially insane.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, but MX is partially right on this.
> Components like logic gates implement discrete logic conditions, but the
> performance characteristics you mention are analog device performance, by
> definition.
>
> So why is he only "partially right"? Because he started by saying that digital
> devices do not have measurable performance criteria for aadherence to
> specifications and tolerances. This is a completely incorrect and grossly
> uniformed assertion. Sampling errors, encoding noise, jitter, encoding
> artifacts aliasing, time domain artifacts just to sart with the simplest
> basics, and when we get to coding strength fidelity we could go on for pages
> about measurable performance characteristics in the purely digital domain.
> These are real-world performance criteria used every day by engineers
> in application of performace tolerances. Totally out of MX's depth though.

You can call the parameters I mentioned analog if you like, but real world
digital systems are characterized by more than on and off, have numerous
measurable performance characteristics, and the data sheets I refenced reflect
that.

MX never bothered to read the references as he is a self proclaimed expert
on every subject.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> VOR-DME > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>>A 7400 NAND gate and a Celeron processor are analog components?
>>>
>>>You have gone over the edge and are now officially insane.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but MX is partially right on this.
>> Components like logic gates implement discrete logic conditions, but the
>> performance characteristics you mention are analog device performance, by
>> definition.
>>
>> So why is he only "partially right"? Because he started by saying that
>> digital
>> devices do not have measurable performance criteria for aadherence to
>> specifications and tolerances. This is a completely incorrect and grossly
>> uniformed assertion. Sampling errors, encoding noise, jitter, encoding
>> artifacts aliasing, time domain artifacts just to sart with the simplest
>> basics, and when we get to coding strength fidelity we could go on for
>> pages
>> about measurable performance characteristics in the purely digital
>> domain.
>> These are real-world performance criteria used every day by engineers
>> in application of performace tolerances. Totally out of MX's depth
>> though.
>
> You can call the parameters I mentioned analog if you like, but real world
> digital systems are characterized by more than on and off, have numerous
> measurable performance characteristics, and the data sheets I refenced
> reflect
> that.

Your experience is the same as my own.
>
> MX never bothered to read the references as he is a self proclaimed expert
> on every subject.
>
Exasperating!
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Peter

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 27, 6:28*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > VOR-DME > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
>
> >>>A 7400 NAND gate and a Celeron processor are analog components?
>
> >>>You have gone over the edge and are now officially insane.
>
> >> Sorry, but MX is partially right on this.
> >> Components like logic gates implement discrete logic conditions, but the
> >> performance characteristics you mention are analog device performance, by
> >> definition.
>
> >> So why is he only "partially right"? Because he started by saying that
> >> digital
> >> devices do not have measurable performance criteria for aadherence to
> >> specifications and tolerances. This is a completely incorrect and grossly
> >> uniformed assertion. Sampling errors, encoding noise, jitter, encoding
> >> artifacts aliasing, time domain artifacts just to sart with the simplest
> >> basics, and when we get to coding strength fidelity we could go on for
> >> pages
> >> about measurable performance characteristics in the purely digital
> >> domain.
> >> These are real-world performance criteria used every day by engineers
> >> in application of performace tolerances. Totally out of MX's depth
> >> though.
>
> > You can call the parameters I mentioned analog if you like, but real world
> > digital systems are characterized by more than on and off, have numerous
> > measurable performance characteristics, and the data sheets I refenced
> > reflect
> > that.
>
> Your experience is the same as my own.
>
>
>
> > MX never bothered to read the references as he is a self proclaimed expert
> > on every subject.
>
> Exasperating!
>
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
>
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Peter

MX is especially expert at playing a tune to which many otherwise
intelligent (at least I think so) people are willing to dance.
Remember the puppet scene in the movie Chicago?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A 7400 NAND gate and a Celeron processor are analog components?

Yes. Just about everything physical is analog.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> So why is he only "partially right"? Because he started by saying that digital
> devices do not have measurable performance criteria for aadherence to
> specifications and tolerances.

Uh, no. It's just that tolerances aren't meaningful for digital systems, since
they are either perfect, or completely defective.

For example, when a digital calculator adds 2 and 2, it either gets 4--the
correct answer--or it doesn't. There is no such thing as an answer "between
3.8 and 4.2," so tolerances are not meaningful.

When a PC writes a byte onto a disk drive, the byte is either written, or it's
not. There's no such thing as a half-written byte.

The nature of digital systems is still poorly understood in most of the
aviation industry, and this has serious implications for aviation safety, with
the increasing use of computers. Digital systems are not being tested properly
or thoroughly, and eventually this will kill people (it probably already has).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You can call the parameters I mentioned analog if you like, but real world
> digital systems are characterized by more than on and off, have numerous
> measurable performance characteristics, and the data sheets I refenced reflect
> that.

No, those are analog hardware implementations of a digital system. Digital
information representations themselves consist only of discrete values.

In fact, it is arguable that digital systems exist mainly in the mind of their
users, since all the physical infrastructure of such systems is analog.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You can call the parameters I mentioned analog if you like, but real world
>> digital systems are characterized by more than on and off, have numerous
>> measurable performance characteristics, and the data sheets I refenced reflect
>> that.
>
> No, those are analog hardware implementations of a digital system. Digital
> information representations themselves consist only of discrete values.
>
> In fact, it is arguable that digital systems exist mainly in the mind of their
> users, since all the physical infrastructure of such systems is analog.

If that is so, then they can't be manufactured, don't have specifications,
and have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread.

Or, in other words, you injected yet another red herring to keep the thread
going in tangents and farther away from your original, unsupportable
statements.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> When a PC writes a byte onto a disk drive, the byte is either written, or it's
> not. There's no such thing as a half-written byte.

Never heard of a bit error, I guess.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Never heard of a bit error, I guess.

Read and write errors occur only in the analog domain.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Never heard of a bit error, I guess.
>
> Read and write errors occur only in the analog domain.

Babbling idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>VOR-DME writes:
>
>> So why is he only "partially right"? Because he started by saying that
digital
>> devices do not have measurable performance criteria for aadherence to
>> specifications and tolerances.
>
>Uh, no. It's just that tolerances aren't meaningful for digital systems,
since
>they are either perfect, or completely defective.
>
>For example, when a digital calculator adds 2 and 2, it either gets 4--the
>correct answer--or it doesn't. There is no such thing as an answer "between
>3.8 and 4.2," so tolerances are not meaningful.
>
>When a PC writes a byte onto a disk drive, the byte is either written, or
it's
>not. There's no such thing as a half-written byte.
>
>The nature of digital systems is still poorly understood in most of the
>aviation industry, and this has serious implications for aviation safety,
with
>the increasing use of computers. Digital systems are not being tested
properly
>or thoroughly, and eventually this will kill people (it probably already
has).


I said you were out of your depth, now you are sinking fast. I gave you that
something like a slew rate is an analog performance parameter, but to claim
there are no meaningful tolerances for digital systems is screaming nonsense.
No half-written byte? Of course there are. All the time. There are incorrect
words. Checksum errors. Bytes that arrive too late. A 30cm trace on a printed
circuit board translates to a nanosecond of transit time, and at GB speeds
this is meaningful. Some boards are designed better than others, and error
rates on the poorer boards exceed tolerances. It is not ‘perfect or complete
failure’. That is a fifth-grade textbook description of a digital system.
Errors of this nature happen on the order of thousands per second in most
systems. Some are correctly handled by error detection and correction
algorithms, others slip through, leading to degraded performance. There are
tolerances for this. There are more books and articles written on the subject
of jitter alone than the sum total of your understanding of all subjects
combined. There are tolerances for this.

Aircraft systems poorly maintained due to lack of understanding of digital
systems? Care to discuss the weaknesses of ARINC 629 implementation for line
testing of LRU’s in Boeing aircraft? Why don’t you write to those people and
tell them they have a _poor understanding_ of those systems and they are going
to kill people, if they haven’t already!! Howling, shrieking nonsense.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 28, 12:55*am, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >VOR-DME writes:
>
> >> So why is he only "partially right"? Because he started by saying that
> digital
> >> devices do not have measurable performance criteria for aadherence to
> >> specifications and tolerances.
>
> >Uh, no. It's just that tolerances aren't meaningful for digital systems,
> since
> >they are either perfect, or completely defective.
>
> >For example, when a digital calculator adds 2 and 2, it either gets 4--the
> >correct answer--or it doesn't. There is no such thing as an answer "between
> >3.8 and 4.2," so tolerances are not meaningful.
>
> >When a PC writes a byte onto a disk drive, the byte is either written, or
> it's
> >not. There's no such thing as a half-written byte.
>
> >The nature of digital systems is still poorly understood in most of the
> >aviation industry, and this has serious implications for aviation safety,
> with
> >the increasing use of computers. Digital systems are not being tested
> properly
> >or thoroughly, and eventually this will kill people (it probably already
>
> has).
>
> I said you were out of your depth, now you are sinking fast. I gave you that
> something like a slew rate is an analog performance parameter, but to claim
> there are no meaningful tolerances for digital systems is screaming nonsense.
> No half-written byte? Of course there are. All the time. There are incorrect
> words. Checksum errors. *Bytes that arrive too late. A 30cm trace on a printed
> circuit board translates to a nanosecond of transit time, and at GB speeds
> this is meaningful. Some boards are designed better than others, and error
> rates on the poorer boards exceed tolerances. It is not perfect or complete
> failure . That is a fifth-grade textbook description of a digital system.
> Errors of this nature happen on the order of thousands per second in most
> systems. Some are correctly handled by error detection and correction
> algorithms, others slip through, leading to degraded performance. There are
> tolerances for this. There are more books and articles written on the subject
> of jitter alone than the sum total of your understanding of all subjects
> combined. *There are tolerances for this.
>
> Aircraft systems poorly maintained due to lack of understanding of digital
> systems? *Care to discuss the weaknesses of ARINC 629 implementation for line
> testing of LRU s in Boeing aircraft? Why don t you write to those people and
> tell them they have a _poor understanding_ of those systems and they are going
> to kill people, if they haven t already!! *Howling, shrieking nonsense.

You are, unfortunately, providing him with a level of attention he
does not deserve. He is excellent at 'playing' many of us here.

[gernot almen[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> With what have Italian Companies supplied you over the past few years? In
>> what way were they defective?
>
> I recall a pair of Gucci shoes that fell apart about a month after I
> bought
> them, and a wallet from the same company that had a similar lifespan.

Oh, those "best deal" Gucci shoes you bought over the internet? Don't think
they ever saw Itlay. Probably from Vietnam or Cambodia.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> I said you were out of your depth, now you are sinking fast. I gave you that
> something like a slew rate is an analog performance parameter, but to claim
> there are no meaningful tolerances for digital systems is screaming nonsense.
> No half-written byte? Of course there are. All the time. There are incorrect
> words. Checksum errors. Bytes that arrive too late. A 30cm trace on a printed
> circuit board translates to a nanosecond of transit time, and at GB speeds
> this is meaningful.

Everything you are describing is analog. In digital systems that use binary
numbers (the majority of electronic systems), everything is either one or
zero. There is no half-one/half-zero. There are no intermediate values. That
is the nature of digital systems.

However, all real-world, physical systems that represent information digitally
do so using an analog infrastructure. In the analog realm, intermediate values
are possible; in the digital realm, they are not.

For example, the written word is a digital representation of information.
There are no "half W's" or "partial A's"; either a symbol is one letter, or
it's another. But the written word is typically actually stored on analog
physical devices, such as books or disk drives. These analog representations
must be resolved unambiguously to discrete values upon entering the digital
realm. The print on a page may be blurry, but in order to read it, each letter
on the page must be unambiguously identified--there are no partial or
intermediate letters.

> Aircraft systems poorly maintained due to lack of understanding of digital
> systems?

Not poorly maintained, just improperly designed and certified.

> Care to discuss the weaknesses of ARINC 629 implementation for line
> testing of LRU’s in Boeing aircraft?

There isn't any ARINC protocol that will prevent improper design. There isn't
any way to test software systems for correctness. At best (and it is very
difficult), software can be checked against a sufficiently formal and rigid
specification. But the big problems with software are errors in the
specification, not errors in coding, and there is no way to verify the
specification reliably.

It's also computationally infeasible to exhaustively test a software system of
non-trivial complexity, and this is true even before economic or other factors
are taken into consideration.

Aviation software standards (like many others used to evaluate software
systems) still depend too much on the steam-gauge standards.

> Why don’t you write to those people and
> tell them they have a _poor understanding_ of those systems and they are going
> to kill people, if they haven’t already!!

I've been studying the safety of aviation computer systems for several
decades. One observation I've extracted from this (and I'm not alone in
reaching this conclusion) is that many people simply will not learn until they
make a mistake themselves. They cannot be told. People in aviation are just as
vulnerable to this as anyone else. The rules of aviation were written in blood
before the digital age for this reason, and they'll continue to be written in
blood in the future, for exactly the same reason.

[Mxsmanic]

gernot almen writes:

> Oh, those "best deal" Gucci shoes you bought over the internet?

No, they were bought in person at a Gucci store.

> Don't think they ever saw Itlay. Probably from Vietnam or Cambodia.

I don't know. They carried the Gucci name, therefore Gucci was responsible for
them.

I seem to recall that they were actually labeled as made in Italy
(particularly the wallet) but it was long ago, and far away.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 25, 2:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Boeing has discovered that the Italian firm to which it subcontracted
> construction of tail assemblies isn't doing the work correctly, putting the 23
> aircraft it has already built at risk:
>
> http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/boeing-halts-787-test...
>
> No surprise here. When you allow Third World companies to built vital parts to
> your airplane, you should take for granted that there will be potentially
> dangerous defects. That's the consequence of trying to be politically correct.

Wops tell me, "never trust a wop", it's good advice, but can
it be trusted?
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 5:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There isn't any way to test software systems for correctness.

How is MSFS tested for correctness????????????????

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> How is MSFS tested for correctness????????????????

It isn't. Most desktop software is only very summarily tested, and then bugs
are fixed (or not) as they are uncovered by the user community.

Unfortunately, this philosophy has influenced some software developers in
other domains, such as those who write software for Garmin and Avidyne, and to
a lesser extent the developers of more sophisticated flight management systems
and even FBW.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>Everything you are describing is analog. In digital systems that use binary
>numbers (the majority of electronic systems), everything is either one or
>zero. There is no half-one/half-zero. There are no intermediate values. That
>is the nature of digital systems.
>
>However, all real-world, physical systems that represent information
digitally
>do so using an analog infrastructure. In the analog realm, intermediate
values
>are possible; in the digital realm, they are not.
>
>For example, the written word is a digital representation of information.
>There are no "half W's" or "partial A's"; either a symbol is one letter, or
>it's another. But the written word is typically actually stored on analog
>physical devices, such as books or disk drives. These analog representations
>must be resolved unambiguously to discrete values upon entering the digital
>realm. The print on a page may be blurry, but in order to read it, each
letter
>on the page must be unambiguously identified--there are no partial or
>intermediate letters.


You would do well to stop spewing elementary school nonsense and go back to
that textbook (or Newsweek article or whatever your course of study was) and
learn the difference between a bit and a byte. When you have grasped that, you
will understand why everything you have just said is pure nonsense.



>I've been studying the safety of aviation computer systems for several
>decades.

Some people are slow learners.

[Tom P[_3_]]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Tom P writes:
>>
>>> Factory workers make mistakes all the time. It's normal.
>> The number and magnitude of mistakes they make depend a great deal on
>> corporate and social culture.
>>
>> I recall Akio Morita describing such a problem. Sony was building Trinitrons
>> in both Japan and the USA. In both countries, the tubes had to meet the same
>> tolerances. Nevertheless, the company found that the Japanese tubes were
>> always far closer to perfection than the USA tubes.
>>
>> Finally, management figure it out. The Japanese always tried to get things
>> perfect, no matter what the accepted tolerances were, whereas the Americans
>> didn't care whether it was perfect or not, as long as it fell within the
>> tolerances.
>>
>> To fix this, Sony made the tolerances far tighter for the USA tubes. Their
>> quality then improved significantly.
>
> All of which was stupidity on Sony's part.
>
> All things have a tolerance and tighter tolerances increase costs.
>
> If Sony needed tighter tolerance they should have originally specified
> tighter tolerances instead of ****ing and moaning that stuff made to
> their specified tolerance wasn't "good enough".
>
>> It was all about culture.
>
> Wrong, it is all about getting the specifications to be what is really
> needed in the first place.
>
> That is basic engineering.
>
>
We have a realworld problem with a part right now. It's a tube with an
internal dimension of 58mm with a specified tolerance of +0.3mm - note
not -/+0.3mm.
Parts are being rejected on arrival at the customer as being under
58mm. The problem is that the manufacturer is passing parts measured
right down to 58mm, so with the minute difference between the mfgr's and
the customer's test pieces, the only solution is for the mfgr not to
ship anything under 58.1mm.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> I said you were out of your depth, now you are sinking fast. I gave you that
>> something like a slew rate is an analog performance parameter, but to claim
>> there are no meaningful tolerances for digital systems is screaming nonsense.
>> No half-written byte? Of course there are. All the time. There are incorrect
>> words. Checksum errors. Bytes that arrive too late. A 30cm trace on a printed
>> circuit board translates to a nanosecond of transit time, and at GB speeds
>> this is meaningful.
>
> Everything you are describing is analog. In digital systems that use binary
> numbers (the majority of electronic systems), everything is either one or
> zero. There is no half-one/half-zero. There are no intermediate values. That
> is the nature of digital systems.

It all went right over the top of you head, didn't it?

Your knowledge of things digital is just as superficial as everything else
you claim to know about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> VOR-DME writes:
>>
>>> I said you were out of your depth, now you are sinking fast. I gave you
>>> that
>>> something like a slew rate is an analog performance parameter, but to
>>> claim
>>> there are no meaningful tolerances for digital systems is screaming
>>> nonsense.
>>> No half-written byte? Of course there are. All the time. There are
>>> incorrect
>>> words. Checksum errors. Bytes that arrive too late. A 30cm trace on a
>>> printed
>>> circuit board translates to a nanosecond of transit time, and at GB
>>> speeds
>>> this is meaningful.
>>
>> Everything you are describing is analog. In digital systems that use
>> binary
>> numbers (the majority of electronic systems), everything is either one or
>> zero. There is no half-one/half-zero. There are no intermediate values.
>> That
>> is the nature of digital systems.
>
> It all went right over the top of you head, didn't it?
>
> Your knowledge of things digital is just as superficial as everything else
> you claim to know about.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

It really is hopeless, Jim,

If you were interviewing job applicants, too many like him could drive you
to drink.

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It all went right over the top of you head, didn't it?

It may be the other way around. Most people don't understand the fundamental
nature of digital vs. analog, even in industries where you'd expect them to
know.

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 1, 9:59*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> VOR-DME writes:
>
> >>> I said you were out of your depth, now you are sinking fast. I gave you
> >>> that
> >>> something like a slew rate is an analog performance parameter, but to
> >>> claim
> >>> there are no meaningful tolerances for digital systems is screaming
> >>> nonsense.
> >>> No half-written byte? Of course there are. All the time. There are
> >>> incorrect
> >>> words. Checksum errors. *Bytes that arrive too late. A 30cm trace on a
> >>> printed
> >>> circuit board translates to a nanosecond of transit time, and at GB
> >>> speeds
> >>> this is meaningful.
>
> >> Everything you are describing is analog. In digital systems that use
> >> binary
> >> numbers (the majority of electronic systems), everything is either one or
> >> zero. There is no half-one/half-zero. There are no intermediate values..
> >> That
> >> is the nature of digital systems.
>
> > It all went right over the top of you head, didn't it?
>
> > Your knowledge of things digital is just as superficial as everything else
> > you claim to know about.
>
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
>
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> It really is hopeless, Jim,
>
> If you were interviewing job applicants, too many like him could drive you
> to drink.
>
> Peter

Back in the last century when I did design, much of it digital, there
were many times the electrons refused to read my schematics. But
interviewing was not that difficult, many were VERY short because
there was no reason to talk further to someone who was as simplistic
as at least one of the posters here. My comment frequently was, "You
know, I don't think there's a good fit here. Why don't we finish our
coffee and talk about" -- insert here whatever we found as an area of
mutual interest.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It all went right over the top of you head, didn't it?
>
> It may be the other way around. Most people don't understand the fundamental
> nature of digital vs. analog, even in industries where you'd expect them to
> know.

Yeah, sure, it is always the rest of the world (including the people that
have spent decades in any given field) that are uninformed and never you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, sure, it is always the rest of the world (including the people that
> have spent decades in any given field) that are uninformed and never you.

Many people work in digital or analog domains without ever studying,
contemplating, or understanding the quintessential differences between the
two. I've heard a very wide variety of definitions of digital, most of them
wrong even when they come from "experts."

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yeah, sure, it is always the rest of the world (including the people that
>> have spent decades in any given field) that are uninformed and never you.
>
> Many people work in digital or analog domains without ever studying,
> contemplating, or understanding the quintessential differences between the
> two. I've heard a very wide variety of definitions of digital, most of them
> wrong even when they come from "experts."

Yeah, sure, it is always the rest of the world (including the people that
have spent decades in any given field) that are uninformed and never you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, sure, it is always the rest of the world (including the people that
> have spent decades in any given field) that are uninformed and never you.

Not always, but there are many things that many people don't really
understand, even those with formal education in a related field.

For example, if you drop a heavy object and a light object from the top of a
building, the heavy object will hit the ground first--but if you say this to
certain physicists, they will instantly argue about it, without thinking it
through (it's a true statement). The angry young male physicsts are the worst,
of course ... angry young males will argue about a sunny day.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yeah, sure, it is always the rest of the world (including the people that
>> have spent decades in any given field) that are uninformed and never you.
>
> Not always, but there are many things that many people don't really
> understand, even those with formal education in a related field.

Yeah, sure, it is always the rest of the world (including the people that
have spent decades in any given field) that are uninformed and never you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

The angry young male physicsts are the worst,
>of course ...

That's really, really funny!!

I know it's politically incorrect, but the mentally impaired really give us a
laugh sometimes!!

Let's all be on the lookout for those angry young male physicists, feeding us
false information to bloster their testosterone-driven egos!!

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >, says...
>
>
>In article >,
>says...

>>
>>For example, the written word is a digital representation of information.
>>There are no "half W's" or "partial A's"; either a symbol is one letter, or
>>it's another. But the written word is typically actually stored on analog
>>physical devices, such as books or disk drives. These analog representations
>>must be resolved unambiguously to discrete values upon entering the digital
>>realm.
>

Your understanding of everything digital is completely elementary and grossly
misinformed. The large majority of digital devices do not write to or read
from physical storage devices, but interface directly with other digital
devices.


The print on a page may be blurry, but in order to read it, each
>letter
>>on the page must be unambiguously identified--there are no partial or
>>intermediate letters.

Even this is a grotesque qnd obvious error. We all read print every day with
errors and ambiguities, and easily correct the missing or misformed text
through context. Digital systems do the same, through delta modulation,
checksums, and several thousand different error detection and correction
algorithims. You haven't read up much on digital in the past few decades have
you? You also have not come to terms with the difference between a bit and a
byte, at the origin of one of your most howling asininities yet published on
these pages!!