audio recording on IC -help wanted

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in
news:4694982c$0$18304$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

Fine, that's why we all get a personal preference. However the spectrum
spread has as much to do with it as the stated color temperature IMO.

Yes. We are better at sensing discontinuities too, than we might think. We
can fool vision with RGB but when presented with purple and monochrome
violet we can see the difference without difficulty. Same goes for the
orange of laser or LED or low pressure sodium, or that made by mixing red
and green. We usually know when we're seeing a pure form of colour, and
it's only conditioning that allows us to easily accept things like TV
screens. (Which chop out all red below about 635 nm, as it happens, as
well as most of the rest of the spectrum).

As far as natural light goes, we are best satisfied by a true continuum
because we adapted to that before we evolved eyes, as such. Take a look at
a Cree or Luxeon LED carefully reflected in a CD. Now do the same with a
CFL. The LED's might be a tad skewed in their distribution but so is
daylight, usually, and LED's make a much better continuum than CFL's do. If
CFL's could do better they probably would, but I haven't seen one that
does.

 

[Martin Riddle]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message news:Q4STi.351$%Y6.219@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

donald wrote:
Joerg wrote:

Hello Folks,

After some Google searching and perusing the sites of the usual contenders I only found one uC family that has serious
on-chip RF transceiver capabilities, the Cypress CYWUSB6953 and its brethren. rfPICs and others usually only have a
transmitter.

Anyhow, the Cypress will only serve 2.45GHz but I need the lower UHF bands for range reasons. Is anything coming down the
pike soon or will that have to remain a two-chip solution?

How about CC1110F32 from TI.


Thanks, Don! How could I have missed that? I was looking at lots of CC11xx datasheets today. Five bucks is a bit highish
but would work in this case. I guess the programmers will throw tomatoes when I suggest that. It's a 8051 core (I love the
8051...)

For some reason TI's server was choking a lot today.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

That's a neat part. 2 wire programming too.

Cheers

 

[Pasquale]

Hi,
I'm trying to find a good flowmeter to buy. The specs are like :

- P max = 100 bar
- Flow max = 6 L/min
- T max = 150°C

Do you know any brand for a good flow meter ? I'm surfing on internet but
I really don't know if there are someones that have a good quality/price.


Thank you,
Pasquale.

 

[Peter A Forbes]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:17:52 -0700, David L. Foreman <davelf11@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:09:18 +0000, Prepair Ltd <prepair@easynet.co.uk> wrote:

We are popping across the pond for a few days, are there any decent surplus
electronics places in the Phoenix area ??

Peter


Here are some possible places, Peter.

2.2) Phoenix
2.3) Scottsdale
2.4) Tempe

But since they are not links any more, I will email them to your address above.


If you have time when you are in Phoenix, come on down to Tucson and see the
Titan Missile and Pima Air Museums, and take the tour of the USAF aircraft
reclamation center.

Dave Foreman

The Apache Reclamation place you gave details of was well worth the visit. It is
a small fronted place with a shop reception, but if you go left through the the
next room there's lot of old testgear, then if you go left again, there's a room
full of valves (tubes) and semi's.

Then, we were asked if we had been out back...

There is about 2500sq ft of racked single-storey warehouse, shelves full of
almost everything, including fasteners up to 3/4", pipe fitting, contactors,
bearings, components and so on.

We picked up 400+ pces of a 5-way connector that we use on our work stuff, plus
a 1953-made 1lb copper soldering iton, brand new, plus other stuff.

Highly recommended!

We also did Pima/Amarc Tour on Monday, temperatures got to 93F on the car
outside temp display, so the aircon on the tour coach at 12midday was much
appreciated. Didn't do the Titan museum, my wife wanted to go to the Sonora
Desert Museum and Saguaro National Park after we left Pima.

Peter
--
Peter & Rita Forbes
Email: diesel@easynet.co.uk
Web: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel

 

[robb]

"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns99D99B0E4D4E9zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130...

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:47271F9B.673DD522@hotmail.com:


Lostgallifreyan wrote:

"robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote

they described using a
*MOSFET buffer* to view the signals on o-scope

I was thinking of that before I saw it. Look at the thread
above this
one called "Search OpAmp chip as a voltage follower" for a
description of using a FET to buffer a high impedance
source. That
same idea will let you get a look at that waveform without
disturbing
it much. The FET and a single resistor to a stable DC rail
should be
all you need, then scope the FET output signal.

A FET input probe is NOT required to look at the
8051oscillator for
routine purposes. A 10x probe is fine.

Graham



Didn't say it was necessary. So long as the wave crosses the
zero point
regularly enough to make the timer work who cares what shape it
is? Nothing
much routine about this anyway, the guy's new to it and wants
to be sure of
what he sees.

you have pegged it exactly with just wanting peace of mind and
some learning experience

i could be reading forever.... sometimes you just have to get in
and do it to learn which id what i am doing.

I was just pointing out a useful similarity with another post.
If someone
wants to learn, there's no doubt that adding a FET and a
resistor and a DC
cource is a neat way of making sure a signal involving small
capacitances
might be less disturbed than by loading it directly with a
cable
connection. It's not a question of whether it's necessary, but
whether or
not it's useful. Robb wants to learn, so that's a good cheap
way to do it.
It would confirm that the waveform really is as he sees it, and
that it's
not being changed by his connection to it.

and that is exactly what i plan to do (build a mosfet buffer that
is) because it sounds interesting, useful and fun and good way to
learn

as long as i do not blow up my project in the process.

right now i am at the point of just check everything big and
question anything unexpected.

thanks for all the help,

robb

 

[larwe]

Will trade for something interesting of similar value.

I've got an unwanted Freescale MPC8315E-RDB here on my desk. It has
been unpacked and repacked once, but is otherwise absolutely new -
nothing has even been changed on the hard disk. Specs for the kit are
<http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/fact_sheet/
MPC8315ERDBFS.pdf> and in more detail at <http://www.micetek.com/
englishweb/product/new/PQIIproDevelopmentProducts/MPC8315E-RDB.htm>.

It's a pretty high-end board - 2 SATA channels, dual gigabit Ethernet,
400MHz CPU, one PCI Express, one miniPCI Express, USB 2.0, etc.

What this sheet doesn't make clear is that the kit is in fact a
complete boxed "retail ready" NAS box with a 160GB SATA hard disk; a
black slimline micro-ATX case with an internal 12V inverter so you can
power the whole thing off a car battery (or the included 12V AC
adapter). If you tinker with the preloaded Linux distro you can use it
as-is. All the cables and dev software are included.

I thought I was going to use this $499 development kit, but
realistically I'll never have time.

I'd entertain any trades of fun lab hardware. I'm interested in any
low-end DSO with computer connectivity so I can capture low-speed
traces for publication purposes. Or a spectrum analyzer in the 500MHz
range. Or a handheld scopemeter.

I'd also trade for a Sinclair ZX80, in fact that would be my first
choice

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:21:36 -0800, DaveC <me@bogusdomain.net> wrote:

Have simple detector circuit that specifies 1N21B diode. That diode is
20-plus years old and obsolete. Looking for current equivalent, possibly (but
not necessarily) smt.

Are these useable in place of a 1N21B for 2.4 GHz detection?:

http://tinyurl.com/6g62bu

http://tinyurl.com/62fqnv

Suggestions welcome.

Thanks,

Those look good. Skyworks has some really nice low-barrier Schottky
diodes. And they have a fabulous sample kit of schottkies and
varactors, lots of parts.

Go for "low barrier" parts for unbiased low-level detection.

The best detectors are probably germanium back diodes, but expensive.

Several semi companies now make active detectors... LTC, ADI.

John

 

[James M. Knox]

We are looking to use a Varitronix MLDS16166 display on a device. Looking
at what passes for a datasheet, the contrast adjust Vlcd (aka V0) shows
what appears to be a requirement that it be delayed 50 ms after Vdd for the
controller logic. However, I can't find that requirement in the controller
documentation, nor do any of the application notes (even from Varitronix)
show such a delay - they just drive Vlcd from a voltage divider (variable)
off of Vdd.

Now I can put in the power supply sequence if I have to... just some extra
components and board space that I would rather use for something more
important. So does anyone know if this delay is really required? [Why
spec it if it isn't, but then why never show the delay in any of the
application notes if it is?]

tnx, jmk

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1300 Koenig Lane West fax 512-371-5716
Suite 200
Austin, Tx 78756 jknox@trisoft.com
-----------------------------------------------

 

[Jerry Avins]

mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:31 am, Paul Black <nos...@nospam.oxsemi.com> wrote:
mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
In particular, <Windows Logo Key> + D: Show the Desktop. "Boss
Key". One of my favorites ;-)
Don't forget to make the desktop wallpaper a snapshot of your working
desktop ....

--
Paul


er... why?

So there are plenty of decoys for the unwary. Why else?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻ

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:33:19 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Feb 2, 2:53 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:33:14 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:02:33 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:10 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:39:23 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 30, 12:49 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:53:33 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:
You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American" than
the correct spellings.

---
Hmm...

It seems you have trouble comprehending American English since,
according to your cite, the changes weren't errors, they were
deliberate efforts made (by a brilliant man, BTW) to clean up the
baroque language we brought with us from England.
---

They would say that, wouldn't they. English spelling is a mess - it
embodies six sets of different rules for representing sounds with
alphabetic characters - and Noah Webster's heart could have been in
the right place when he started tidying up English spelling, but he
ended up changing the spelling of very few words, so American spelling
is just as much of mess as English spelling, albeit a slightly
different mess.

---
Slightly less of a mess, I'd say, since we're not saddled with
those 'ou's and 're's which are really pronounced the way we spell
them.
---

According to one of the six sets of character to phoneme transciption
rules ...
Slightly less of a mess is still a mess.

---
Of course, but slightly less of a mess is still better than slightly
more of a mess.
---

Not really. It is now two essentially identical messes, serviced by
two sets of dictionaries, when one set would have worked just as well.

---
Stop being disingenuous.

On the one hand you admit that our dictionaries tend to clear up
messes which existed earlier, while in the same breath you seem to
wish that we'd not have done that, and that we should have adhered
to, presumably, the old rules with which you feel comfortable.

The "mess" is the fact that English spelling reflects six indepedents
sets of rules relating the phonemes we hear and produce and the
alphabetic characters that we use to represent them. Noah Webster
switched the spelling of a few words from one set of rules to another,
further complicating an already complicated situation, by
institionalising two different sets of spellings for what is - in fact
- a single language.

---
Really?

http://www.krysstal.com/ukandusa.html

Actually, he made it simpler for us by more closely paralleling the
spelling we read with the phonemes we "hear" when we read.

Whether he made it simpler for you is of little concern since you
have your precious traditions and habits and, good or bad, you're
certainly not going to break them for any American "yokel" who shows
you a better way.
---

I'm not aware that Noah Webster coined any new words, and I wouldn't
care if he did - all languages coin new words all the time, and lose
old ones. Dictionaries try to keep up, but not even the complete
Oxford expects to incorporate every new word as it is coined. Many of
the new words don't last and there is little point in incorporating
them in a dictionary.

---
Yes, but that's all rather well known and banal, so why bother with
an unnecessary "exposition"?
---

On top of that, I'm sure there are words in Australian English which
are peculiar to that language and aren't part of the OED.

Should they not have been coined as well?
---

Dictionaries reflect the language - and should include those new words
that end up being used by appreciable numbers of people. This has
nothing to do with Noah Webster's half-baked ventures into spelling
reform, which had the incidental - but surely not unwelcome - effect
of protecting his market from U.K.-based competition.

---
Well, the way I read it was not spelling reform for the sake of
quelling competition, but spelling corrected to be concomitant with
pronouncication.

You, of course, always see evil in everyone's intentions but your
own, so the little tale you dreamed up in order to cast Webster in
the light of a charlatan is hardly unexpected.
---

My Webster's lists ten different meanings for 'hood', one of which
is: "3. the hinged movable part of an automobile body covering the
engine."

Which seems to nicely allay any confusion, and it seems strange to
me that that meaning, being in popular use for quite some time,
wouldn't be attributed to the word with all the others.

Is the OED frozen?
---

Far from it. There's now a BBC program - "Balderdash and Piffle"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/wordhunt/

where the BBC invites its viewers to help up-date the Oxford
Dictionary of the English Language. Victoria Coren, who presents the
program, managed to include her father - Allan Coren, one-time editor
of Punch - in one of the earlier programs.

It's great fun if you like that sort of thing.

Incidentally, does the Webster's definition work for the Volkswagen
and other rear-engined cars?

---
Of course.

It doesn't work for me.

---
Well, of course it doesn't. Webster _was_ American, wasn't he?
---

From an earlier post you must have missed:

" My Webster's lists ten different meanings for 'hood', one of which
is: "3. the hinged movable part of an automobile body covering the
engine.""

Notice that no distinction is made as to the hood's location on the
car.
---

Which means that it doesn't reflect popular usage - at least in the
places I've been.

---
Probably not, if the people in the places you frequent are as
stilted as you are.
---

As far as I'm concerned, they keep their
engine/motor in the trunk/boot and you put your luggage under the hood/
bonnet.

---
Be that as it may, we go with Webster and say that the hood's in
back and the trunk's in front
---

Can you cite an example of somebody using the word "hood" to describe
the engine-cover of a Volkswagen?

---
Of course. Me:

"The engine of a 1964 Volkswagen Beetle I once owned was under the
hood."

How's that?
---

I've done a little Googling, and the nearest I've got to something
unambiguous was somebody advertisng a VW "hood emblem" that went on
the front of the Beetle, not the engine cover.

---
Google "Volkswagen hood" for ads and pictures of VW hoods.
---

The OED is scrupulous about that sort of thing.

---
That's curious, since you earlier admitted they don't have a
non-ambiguous definition for the part of a car you call the hood.

They just give - as one particular meaning of the word - a phrase
covering any kind of external protective cowl for any mechanism.

It is non-ambiguous, but not specific.

---
Then you're saying that the OED doesn't exclude a 'bonnet' from
being called a 'hood'?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns99B91C8F7C3F2zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130:

It will only stop if the inconvenience to other
providers and their customers starts to itch badly, and only for those
who migrate from Google Groups to other providers, so Google will try
to keep it happening if that's what it takes to prevent that
migration.

To clear up what looks like self-contradiction:
If Google allow other providers an easy way to filter the crap, there is a
refuge that people can go to, and will even PAY to get there. That hurts
Google's control, so Google will try to make it difficult to get any
respite from it, so that their free access will draw the majority of users,
giving them the huge flow of information they need to do what they do best.
It's good as well as bad, I guess, but either way it can't happen for them
if they start doing things to stem the flow of what they depend on most.

Supernews filters all Google Groups spam cross posted to too many
newsgroups. I won't give the exact number, but its is fairly low.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Independence]

I came across a large box of unused assorted transistors in a box of junk
from a TV and video repair business that had closed down and left them all
at our rubbish tip trash and treasure exchange. Most are new although some
are rather superficially corroded on the metal cases.

I have searched at http://www.alldatasheet.com/ to identify the components
and have had some success, but many of them do not show an exact match.
Although I am a telecom engineer, and know a bit about them, I haven't had
much to do with such components for quite a while.
I want to make use of some in a couple of projects, but lacking the data
sheets I'm not sure what is what, although many are obviously power
transistors of some kind.

Is there a good source of data sheets for older components other than
http://www.alldatasheet.com/

Sometimes the above website comes up with similar numbered components but
they are obviously different components, just from the physical appearence.
Here are just a few I can't exactly match. Figures after the comma are
secondary numbers listed on the components under the main mumbers.

Sanyo C1050E, 5k
Sanyo B407 tv, 4g
Sanyo SD68C, 5A
Sanyo D416, 6B
SonKen 25D201
D621M, 8E
NEC 2SD388, R57
Sanyo 2SD68C, 4J
Sanyo C1050D, 5G
Sanyo C1050E, 5H
Sanyo C1050E, 5K
Sanyo C1050D, 5K
BU326A, T8947
NEC 2SD388, K3YA
Matsushita 2SD198

These are just som examples which may show the age of the components, there
are literally hundreds of others, transistors big and small.
Can anyone suggest where I might get datersheets on these "antique"
components please?

 

[prbraju16@gmail.com]

<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.jdoqocy.com/
click-2701385-10484777">
<img src="http://www.lduhtrp.net/image-2701385-10484777" width="160"
height="600" alt="Wanted! Professionals Seeking $80,000 to $500,000+"
border="0"/></a>



<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.jdoqocy.com/
click-2701385-10497778">
<img src="http://www.tqlkg.com/image-2701385-10497778" width="336"
height="280" alt="" border="0"/></a>



<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.anrdoezrs.net/
click-2701385-10380785">
<img src="http://www.lduhtrp.net/image-2701385-10380785" width="88"
height="31" alt="" border="0"/></a>



<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.jdoqocy.com/
click-2701385-10373913">
<img src="http://www.awltovhc.com/image-2701385-10373913" width="120"
height="600" alt="Shirts selbst gestalten und bestellen" border="0"/>&lt;/
a&gt;

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

On Sep 30, 10:42 am, dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tech.digital-tv/msg/82ff55b36ba97dbf :

In article &lt;46ff32e0$0$32538$4c368...@roadrunner.com&gt;,
Green Xenon [Radium] &lt;gluceg...@excite.com&gt; wrote:

Within physical-possibility, what is the largest amount of
bits-per-symbol [assuming a baud-rate of only 1-bit-per-symbol]

You just made a meaningless statement. Baud rate is measured in
symbols per second, not bits per symbol. I assume that you meant to
say "assuming a baud-rate of one symbol per second."

Yes. I meant "assuming a baud-rate of one symbol per second."

Sorry.

F-------king typos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that can
be reached without the highest-voltage causing any clipping, generating
any temperatures above 70 Fahrenheit, resulting in any harm to
anyone/anything [including the equipment itself], or shortening the life
of the equipment and without the lowest-voltage being lost in the noise?
What is the maximum-possible amount of discrete levels between the
highest and lowest voltage in such a signal?

And, another important constraint for actual usability is this: you
have to make sure that the minimum-detectable difference between two
different symbol levels can be detected reliably and accurately at
_all_ levels. In the language of analog-to-digital converts this is
referred to as "linearity" and "no missing codes".

[As a counterexample: the human hearing system can hear down to 0 dBa
or so... a sound level which is just barely above the noise created by
the random collision of air molecules with the eardrum. And, we can
hear sounds up to around 120 decibels above that, before damage starts
to result. That's a pretty wide dynamic range. However, it's not
linear... if we're listening to a loud sound (say, at 110 dB or so),
small sounds are completely lost... you can't hear somebody whispering
10 feet away when you're listening to a rock concert.]

An 8-bit signal can have a maximum of 256 different voltage levels
between the highest and lowest voltage. Right? Go too high and the
signal clips, go too low and the signal will not be recognized.

Right.

At audio-quality sampling rates (say, 50,000 baud) you can buy
converters that are linear down to around 22 bits, I think...
marketers call them "24-bit" converters but they aren't actually
linear down to those levels. At instrumentation rates like 1 baud (1
sample per second), with filtering and averaging being applied to
eliminate the noise, you can do rather better.

I don't know quite what the state-of-the-art is for measuring signals
at such low baud rates as you are referring to. I'd guess that it's
somewhere in the range of 28-30 bits.

30 bits is roughly a billion-to-one ratio between the smallest signal
and the largest. Crudely put, it would mean that you might have a
circuit which has to handle voltages of up to 1000 volts, and has to
be able to generate, and then measure voltage differences of a
*millionth* of a volt, at all of these levels. That's going to be
technologically difficult, to say the least.

The *theoretical* limit is somewhat higher than this, but not enough
to help you achieve what you wish. It'll be limited at the low end by
the thermal noise level (a 50-ohm resistance at room temperature
generates -174 dBm of noise over a 1 Hz bandwidth) and at the high end
by whatever voltage you think your equipment can handle without
damage.

Even being extremely generous, and saying 32 bits of linear resolution
(and thus reliable data) per symbol, you aren't going to get video
across it. 32 bits per second is somewhere between "fast Morse code"
and "old Teletype teleprinter or ticker-tape" bandwidth.

Note that this is the generation and measurement limit and assumes an
interference-free communication link (e.g. a well-shielded cable), and
is *not* what you can get away with in a real-world radio
transmission! The background noise level on LF radio frequencies is
higher than this, due to both manmade and atmospheric electrical
noise.

As another poster has pointed out, there's a damned good reason why
nobody uses very-low-baud-rate modulations to send large amounts of
high-speed data over a narrow-bandwidth channel, despite a century or
more of research and study and competition in the fields of radio and
electronic communication. It just doesn't work, and the reasons why
it doesn't are well understood by those who practice in the field.

If 400-nanometer-wavelength coherent light was used in place of electric
signals, would QM in this system be able to pack in more
bits-per-symbol. AFAIK, optical signals can have a greater dynamic range
than electric signals. That is one reason that optic fibers are
replacing coaxial cables. Less noise.

 

one search. all jobs. Find millions of jobs from thousands of job
boards, newspapers, classifieds and company websites on


http://online-homebasedjob.blogspot.com

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:02:33 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:10 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:39:23 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:





On Jan 30, 12:49 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:53:33 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:
You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American" than
the correct spellings.

---
Hmm...

It seems you have trouble comprehending American English since,
according to your cite, the changes weren't errors, they were
deliberate efforts made (by a brilliant man, BTW) to clean up the
baroque language we brought with us from England.
---

They would say that, wouldn't they. English spelling is a mess - it
embodies six sets of different rules for representing sounds with
alphabetic characters - and Noah Webster's heart could have been in
the right place when he started tidying up English spelling, but he
ended up changing the spelling of very few words, so American spelling
is just as much of mess as English spelling, albeit a slightly
different mess.

---
Slightly less of a mess, I'd say,  since we're not saddled with
those 'ou's and 're's which are really pronounced the way we spell
them.
---

According to one of the six sets of character to phoneme transciption
rules ...
Slightly less of a mess is still a mess.

---
Of course, but slightly less of a mess is still better than slightly
more of a mess.
---

If he'd managed to impose a single consistent set of
rules he would have qualified as brilliant - as it is all he did - and
all he probably intended to do - was to make it difficult for U.K.
publishers to sell their dictionaries in the U.S.A.

---
Well, according to your cite, his dictionary included words which
originated here and weren't included in any English English
dictionary.  There are also words which we use differently from you,
like 'bonnet', 'hood', and 'trunk', so using one of your
dictionaries would just have been confusing and rather limiting as
our version of English evolved.
---

The words weren't different when Noah Webster wrote his dictionary -

---
Nor did I say they were. I didn't think it would be necessary to
list them, but your cite refers to words like 'skunk' and 'squash'
which weren't in your dictionaries at the time.
---

the U.S. and the U.K. chose to use different words (all from the same
common vocabulary) when they developed cars (automobiles) and started
talking about them. The Complete Oxford lists ten slternative meanings
for "bonnet"and eight for "hood", none of which directly refer to the
part of the car you get your head under when you are working on the
engine/motor though both include definitions which would include this
usage.

---
Precisely.

My Webster's lists ten different meanings for 'hood', one of which
is: "3. the hinged movable part of an automobile body covering the
engine."

Which seems to nicely allay any confusion, and it seems strange to
me that that meaning, being in popular use for quite some time,
wouldn't be attributed to the word with all the others.

Is the OED frozen?
---

Your ancestors bought the story and you have
been spelling like yokels ever since.

---
_You_ would say that, wouldn't you?
---

Sure, but it's still true ...

---
Well, Bill, according to you, America is nothing _but_ yokels, so
I'm sure you'll understand that I take everything you say with more
than just a grain of salt.

I've never said that, though it is true that the yokel element of the
American population does seem to be over-represented on this user-
group, but even here there are decidedly non-yokel Americans - Fred
Blogs is nobody's idea of a yokel.Your yokel-like enthusiasm for
idiotic over-generalisation has led you astray - not for the first
time.

---
I find that over-generalization is often necessary when trying to
communicate with you in that you have a marked propensity to preach
that the forest is made up solely of Oak trees.
---

Curiously, even though you also profess great disdain for the
Republic of Texas, your wife took her doctorate here, at the
University of Texas.  

Surprising, to say the least, when there must be so many "better"
schools around.

I happen to a fan of the "obstacle course" theory of post-graduate
education, which sees the Ph.D. as evidence that the person who earns
it has been able to do significant research despite the numerous
obstacles placed in their way by the universities who barely support
the research, but taek credit for it once it is done. One of the first
things I had to do for my Ph.D. research project was make my own
silica glass windows for my reaction cell - my supervisor gave me a
sheet of cast silica, and I had to cut out the circular windows, grind
them flat, then polish them until they were optically smooth.

It took me about a week, and I've never used that particular skill
since then - unlike the electronics I had to learn in order to build
my own measuring gear. Happily, we did have a big enough budget to let
me buy discrete transistors, so I wasn't obliged to learn to diffuse
my own.

The University of Texas happened to be one of the better obstacle
courses around in my wife's area - she did clean out a few of the
obstactes on her way through the course,

---
Hmm... The way I heard it earlier is that she had some kind of a
tiff with her instructor about the rules and was required to follow
them, much to her chagrin.
---

which probably made it a better educational institution

---
Yeah, right...
---

Not that it ever seems to have been all that good,

---
Well, we do have a few Nobel laureates.
---

but a poorer obstacle course.

---
Geez, Bill, first it was:

"The University of Texas happened to be one of the better obstacle
courses around in my wife's area"

and then, at the end:

"Not that it ever seems to have been all that good, but a poorer
obstacle course."

LOL, which was it?

 

On Jun 18, 3:34 am, Tilmann Reh &lt;tilmann...@despammed.com&gt; wrote:

to use, and Future shows it as $3.33 in 1pc qty.

No, it's not DX. And the TH7122 supports only FM/FSK/ASK, not AM.

Hmm? Since the chip has an analog RSSI out, and the IF bandwidth is
set externally, what's the problem with using this part? We use it in
"AM" applications. Not at that low frequency, of course.

 

[Pomegranate Bastard]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 00:09:42 +1100, "Phil Allison"
&lt;philallison@tpg.com.au&gt; wrote:

"Jamie" =

Maynard A. Philbrook =

KA1LPA =

code scribbling,

autistic,

FUCKWIT

ham radio

CRIMINAL ASSHOLE !!!!!!!!!!



http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheets_pdf/S/T/B/2/STB20NK50ZT4.shtml

how about that ?


** It ain't fucking " logic- level" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT






.... Phil



I say, Mr Allison. Don't you think that your use of expletives and

insults is a tad excessive?

YOU KNOW NOTHING, MORONIC, AUSTRALIAN PIG'S CUNT.

 

Battersea Library 29/3/99

Certainty level: 60%

This one is quite dull. During the month of March 1999, MI5 made another
determined attempt to "get" me, substantially through radio programmes,
through Jon Snow on Channel Four News, and through abuse in public, of
which this is one example.

Recorded on my minidisc-walkman on Monday 29 March 1999, this audio file
consists of two girls talking. One says to the other, "he's got something
wrong with him." The usual words. How many millions a year do the Security
Service waste on this? But they've denied it - how silly of me to forget.
And they're not liars either, are they?

7209


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:39:23 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 30, 12:49 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:53:33 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:
You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American" than
the correct spellings.

---
Hmm...

It seems you have trouble comprehending American English since,
according to your cite, the changes weren't errors, they were
deliberate efforts made (by a brilliant man, BTW) to clean up the
baroque language we brought with us from England.
---

They would say that, wouldn't they. English spelling is a mess - it
embodies six sets of different rules for representing sounds with
alphabetic characters - and Noah Webster's heart could have been in
the right place when he started tidying up English spelling, but he
ended up changing the spelling of very few words, so American spelling
is just as much of mess as English spelling, albeit a slightly
different mess.

---
Slightly less of a mess, I'd say, since we're not saddled with
those 'ou's and 're's which are really pronounced the way we spell
them.
---

If he'd managed to impose a single consistent set of
rules he would have qualified as brilliant - as it is all he did - and
all he probably intended to do - was to make it difficult for U.K.
publishers to sell their dictionaries in the U.S.A.

---
Well, according to your cite, his dictionary included words which
originated here and weren't included in any English English
dictionary. There are also words which we use differently from you,
like 'bonnet', 'hood', and 'trunk', so using one of your
dictionaries would just have been confusing and rather limiting as
our version of English evolved.
---

Your ancestors bought the story and you have
been spelling like yokels ever since.

---
_You_ would say that, wouldn't you?
---

Sure, but it's still true ...

---
Well, Bill, according to you, America is nothing _but_ yokels, so
I'm sure you'll understand that I take everything you say with more
than just a grain of salt.

Curiously, even though you also profess great disdain for the
Republic of Texas, your wife took her doctorate here, at the
University of Texas.

Surprising, to say the least, when there must be so many "better"
schools around.


--
JF