| ??? 04/05/09 13:58 Read: times |
#164352 - My words .. Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Per Westermark said:
Ap said:
That’s all there is to it . Richard correctly says not to waste time on this. Richard has correctly noted that you have a problem reading text and understand it. So obviously a waste of time to explain something when you have decided what the text mean even before you read it... That must be the reason why your posted quotes that do not match your comment about the quotes. My take is you say I don’t under stand conversation ? right . Richard did mean that : Richard Erlacher said:
Arguing over, or, in fact, expending any bandwidth at all on something the O/P doesn't feel worthy of a detailed description is a waste of time and effort. RE I left that , it’s a valid argument , I didn’t open any debate with him over that did I . Now you go on explaining on Richard behalf “Richard has correctly noted that you have a problem reading text and understand it.” Does he means this ? . I never made a propaganda out of bandwidth only my first thread . I thought might be , one who tries to but such a COSTLY display would ask for a speedy link. You say , It takes days to upload data to displays . Where did I say you are wrong? . It could in plenty of applications .But take for example a Huge Score board which requires a good refresh rate , which a cheap un reliable module couldn’t provide. It will depend on application to application . You again say: “That must be the reason why your posted quotes that do not match your comment about the quotes” Might be something wrong went with the quotes is it easy to post that BIG ? Why mock on that.I will check that out , and comment on it. Was Richard commenting on my poor understanding ? . Is it that I understand poor if I don’t agree to you over some issue Per? . I still didn’t reply you the way I did to Andy as I feel you don’t think cunning! At least and are emotional personality . What I said was “I feel your English is translation of your native language” no hurting remark I say you posting some Idioms which after search I couldn’t find what it means ! .No debate over your English . Per Westermark said:
Don't bring in my english in this debate.
- You do bring up the problem with bandwith for 433MHz module. - I give an example where a similar application can work fine at almost zero bandwidth. - You note that my example is invalid, since it need not be applicable to the poster (which was my original point, and totally missed) - I confirm that bandwidth is something for the poster to think about - we do not know what is "enough". - You return with two incomprehensible sentences: "You hear what you want to hear : I quoted this [big quote repeated again]" and "Do read your comments again ! . And don’t imagine solutions for OP , let him stay within his limits" I can't see that as a problem on my side. The meaning of my posts should have been quite easy to pick up. And imagine solutions for the OP - isn't that what we do if we try to help by making suggestions? If I do give a suggestion, I must have somehow imagined that the suggestion may be useful or applicable to the OP. Giving a suggestion I imagine is not useful would be kind of strange, don't you think :) ... I say above regarding the B/W . Imagining solution means , when you came up with Panel PC , WiFi stuff where on road will you find a WiFi network? (you actuall try to point that could be required , I get you). This is of no use to him as both his Pockets looks empty :) . Per Westermark said:
I give two examples why advanced isn't always better. One is two different single-seat airplanes designed for high-g turns. The much less advanced stunt planes would still beat a jet fighter trying to do stunts. But lets take it the other way - yes, strip the jet fighter of the long-distance robots and have them do dog-fights. The jet would get into troubles. That was one reason US did originally start the "Top Gun" school. Too many lost jet fighters when they got up against smaller, more agile planes. The other example was a passenger plane that has huge amounts of automatic systems to be simple to use - at least instrumental landing systems (ILS) but often fully automatic landing systems. A single push-button automatically handling "go-around" in case an approach doesn't feel good. But a way less advanced Piper Cub or similar would still be an easier plane to learn flying with, since the advanced solutions on the passenger plane gets hidden among all the other high-tech stuff. You start to talk about 100+ passengers, totally missing the point. The number of passengers is irrelevant for a student trying to initially learn how to fly. Yes, you can learn directly on passenger planes, thanks to the flight simulators available - needed because the modern passenger plane is more advanced. You somehow didn't spend time thinking about the possible meaning of the example, since you had already rejected it: "Then you try to teach me like a child ‘that military stuff’ according to your own philosopy which fits you well ". "Military stuff" did not really had an active part in the example - it was just a simple comparison where a $1M solution/plane is better than a $100M solution/plane even in a situation the more expensive/advanced solution/plane was intended to be good at. I was trying to show you the other face of the coin , I know what you mean . I hought you will get me , you were saying (A place for everything and everything in place , with that example right? ) But leaving anyone equipped with a terrible solution is like throwing someone into the well , where in the first place he cannot afford it . Out of OPs suggested two solutions show him which among the too is more reasonable. Am I wrong here ? Per Westermark said:
Ap said:
Now you state it "The nRF is clearly a more advanced product " isnt ADVANCED product a BETTER . You must not spend too much time thinking that advanced is always the winning concept. The majority of products you and I will ever buy will be designed with components that have been carefully selected for their cost, and not how advanced they are. The best solution is actually quite seldom the most advanced alternative unless you do target space, military or similar where component cost is normally the smallest factor in the equation. Again you take it for something else , see my recent reply . When compared between nRF and summitek.com parts nRF is a better . This doesn’t implies nRF is the only solution ? . It is when compared between the two Ops stated solutions. Per Westermark said:
Ap said:
"What does this means , a Philosophy applies all way round mould it as per your requirements" Sorry, but you will have to explain that sentence, because I don't understand it. But let me guess an answer: "Do you have any of your words I wonder?" "But doesnt have valid arguments ? but thier own hi-tech solutions." Two different comments clubbed together? . The first “Philosophy applies all way round mould it as per your requirements"” Means when you gave example for passenger plane and a stunt plane . It can be taken that you don’t use a stunt plane in war? Synonymous to what an nRF can do a plain summitek.com part couldn’t do that AND that too only between these two stated parts ONLY. Per Westermark said:
My arguments in this thread (the words you are somehow missing) is that every project has its own requirements. So we can suggest solutions, and we can give arguments why we like them and think that they may be suitable for the OP too. But we can't write the check, giving promises that a solution is the best. Often, the problem debated isn't even relevant, because the OP started the thread from a misconception. To learn radio technology, the Nordic chip may be very nice. To get a good and reliable solution for a single sign, or maybe 20 signs, a commercial box with an antenna connector and a RS232 connector will probably be a way better solution. We can suggest this. And we can ask questions to see if we can narrow down the solutions. A big problem with this thread is that the OP on one hand is very worried about the costs (discussing individual dollars for a device and the cost of shipping) while at the same time indicating that the device should be used in a product costing huge amounts of money and that you will normally not manage to sell more than a few of unless you already have very good contacts. And we do not know bandwidth requirements, or communication range, or national requirements, ... This is the point which made me comment that way , just check all my post and compare it with your >this< viewpoint right now and show me if I deviate anywhere .Don’t you think I could have made analysis with Satellite downlink , GSM etc ,etc I have states earlier but didn’t provide those solutions . Why because OP has no money for that. He look a student or a starter so any such discussion will come on too heavy enough on him. Why did you miss this part? Here again who is talking about the Global view point when in the first place it wasn’t asked for? Or I didn’t presented that to the the OP but a simple educated guess what looks more applicable and trouble free . Per now how many times were you honest enough to point Erik making blatant remarks . He has done this a whole lot of timed. Did you find the time to tell him not to do that and write sanely. He keeps calling people to get their eyesight checked , Off rockers , get out of design etc etc are few to name . Did you read his violent Why-O-Why , Male cow manure ??? , or you simply doesn’t have courage to tell him? . If you didn’t have the courage to point him simply don’t point that to me either . PS: Erik no personal remarks but a reference to the context , sorry if you find this not Good . -Ap |
