Chip with simple program for Toy

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Apr 15, 4:14 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote in messagenews:1176564758.722792.138510@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
No it isn't. You think it is because you don't understand the definition
of
an operant response class. If responses are affected differently by
independent variables they are, in general, different response classes.

Okay, and what's that independent variable that it's affected by
here? Oh, yeah, right ... it's the internal experience. Not
detectable from the outside. You can try to appeal to the fact that I
had a "reason" for giving the verbal response in the case I mentioned
that I don't have in the "normal" cases of pain, but then doesn't that
again just devolve to the fact that in the second case I have an
internal event happening of a specific type?

It is the same issue as a child pointing to water and saying "water" and a
person reading the word "water" and, thus, saying it. They are different
response classes.

Fine, but the difference, as I said IS THE INTERNAL EXPERIENCE or
PRIVATE EVENT or whatever the hell you want to call it. Could these
sentences be even LESS relevant to the point under discussion?


As far as an "internal event" goes, I don't use the term -

there is(are) some private behavioral event(s) occurring. But, other than
that, the answer is yes. When we "report pain" we are, according to my view,
reporting our own behavior.

Which is ... ? In my view, it's a phenomenal experience. What
behaviour are YOU claiming what we are reporting?

It's only if you
turn to the inside and introspection that you note that you need a
different explanation and get an inkling of what that explanation
might be. Thus, the verbal response is irrelevant.

That is nonsense. The conditions that generate the "verbal event" are what
generate the awareness. At least, that is my view. The fact that we may be
tricked, or other kinds of episodes may LOOK the same, but are not, is
irrelevant. Your logic is something like this: A woman claims to have killed
an attacker in self-defense but it was really premeditated murder.
Therefore, no woman ever kills an attacker in self-defense.

You got it completely wrong. My logic is this: A woman has killed
someone. If killing someone meant that she committed murder, then
she'd be claimed to have committed murder. But you can kill someone
out of self-defense. So whether or not she committed murder is
determined by something other that simply killing someone. And so her
killing someone is irrelevant to whether or not that killing was
murder or self-defense.

So to recast this to my argument: Someone had a verbal response of
pain. If having a verbal response determined whether or not we had
the internal "response" of pain, then that person would have had to
have had an internal "response" of pain. But that person DIDN'T have
an internal "response" of pain. Therefore having an internal
"response" of pain is more than having a verbal response of pain. And
thus the verbal response of pain is irrelevant as to whether there was
an internal "response" of pain or if it was one of your other
"response classes".

So, you are also saying that either we detect that we are acting as if
we are in pain, or we have some sort of private event that indicates
pain? Why not just take the private event roles AS pain? Especially
since you like to claim that you don't ignore them ...

Because we call other things pain. In the laboratory it is something like
"tail-flick" or "limb withdrawal" or more complicated behavior under more
complicated arrangements like escape and avoidance. But none of this means
that the person or animal is "aware of the private event." How many times do
I have to tell you that? True, most non-behavioristic researchers will think
that the responses that I mentioned are only possible if the animal "is
conscious of the private event," but I do not hold that view.

Well, you are conflating consciousness about consciousness with pain
experiences. I've never argued that you can't react to pain without
being conscious that you are in pain. I will argue that you
experience it, though.

One can't take a deliberate action based on pain without being aware
of pain. I'm not sure that your descriptions of the behaviour are
completely wrong, though, since they do seem to parallel the
consciousness of consciousness and just consciousness. This seems to
be devolving to arguing over terminology yet again.

They are meaningful only if one assigns behavior to categories based, not
on
how it is altered as a function of independent variables, but on its
superficial appearance.

Glen, please stop criticizing other people's research projects. Hint:
that "superficial appearance" is also the "phenomenal experience" ...
and that's a critical component of consciousness and mind. Thus, for
people interested in consciousness, it's a very important thing. You
may not care about it, but that does not make any of us wrong FOR
caring about, and it means that YOU will never explain consciousness
in an acceptable way.

The above statements do not appear to even be about what was under
discussion. You claimed that a person acting emitted the same responses -
i.e., that the responses of a person acting were the SAME as the responses
of a person reporting the private event. My reply is that those "acting
responses" only seem relevant to those that do not understand the importance
of functional distinctions. The fact that someone may say they are in pain
and not be, has no bearing on the fact that sometimes a person is not acting
and they are responding to a private event.

Your above statement implied that dividing up private events by their
phenomenal value -- as I want to do -- was doing in on the superficial
qualities of them and that dividing them into response classes -- as
you do -- was a functional description. That's criticizing my
research project. If that isn't what you meant, then I don't really
see what the point was.

It is the more reasonable view because you cannot EVER tell what
someone is experiencing from the third person view,

Nevertheless, we manage to train people to "use pain language" accurately.
Or a least somewhat accurately.

We don't train them. They learn. And that isn't all that hard to
imagine anyway, since they associate a word with the experience that
THEY have -- even if it's completely different than the one we have.

and so the

concerns of THAT perspective are not particularly important ... but in
order for someone to associate an experience with an action,
behaviour, or reaction they have to have at least a RAW form of that
experience to assign to the reaction.

There are so many assumptions tied up in this it is difficult to even say
that it rises to the level of being wrong. Your position simply assumes that
awareness is "automatic."

No, it doesn't, as I pointed out below: in order to associate an
experience with a stimulus or class of stimuli, you have to have the
experiences first. Then agian, I'm not sure what you mean by
"awareness" here.

In short, you couldn't train

them to associate a feeling of pain with saying "Ouch" if they didn't
have a feeling of pain to link with that behaviour in the first place.

Again, you are merely asserting that awareness is automatic.

Are you trying to argue that feelings AREN'T automatic?

I think it's safe to assume that I have experiences without ever
getting "trained" in terms of behaviours or words since everything
that I know about the "environment" comes from experiences. Could be
wrong, but no one would ever know it ...

This potentially causes confusions if
the child isn't really feeling pain and thus associates it with some
other feeling.

This is a sort of corollary of Skinner's view. The accuracy of reporting
a
private stimulus depends on how well correlated it is with what the
verbal
community uses to train the response.

Which means, by implication, that I can have an experience and report
the wrong one. This means that I have an experience before being
trained to report it.

No, that is not what it means.

Why not? Surely you can do better than simply a blanket dismissal ...

If I can get it wrong, then I'm associating the wrong experience with
the words I'm using to report it. That means that I had the
experience -- the wrong one -- before learning to report it, or else
I'd always be RIGHT about it. Or else how do we derive wrong
experiences from the same reproting behaviours.

You don't seem to know what "qualia" is as philosophers talk about.
Qualia is nothing more than the specific experience of a phenomenal
event, and the qualities that THAT has. Your explanation in no way
addresses qualia, even with the redefinition that you claimed I might
want to do. Which I wouldn't, since it wouldn't make it qualia\\

Your description of qualia is exactly what I am talking about.

Except it isn't.

Gee, a war of assertions. Loverly.

But this isn't quite right. What I'm saying is that, in your model, I
think that the "feeling" would BE a specific response, which we can
then react to. This means that I can examine the specific response of
the "feeling" and look at its qualities ... and examing THAT is the
problem of qualia and what is the key problem for "consciousness".

Then I have solved it.

No, you haven't, since yoiu don't classify feelings by their felt
qualities nor do you explain why they feel the way they do. And those
are the problems of qualia.

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Allan C Cybulskie says...

On Apr 15, 10:55 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Allan C Cybulskie says...

And you've ignored my other comments on this: basically, that calling
911 is ALSO a fire alarm by that definition, as well as the fire
department getting a "feeling" and going there, and any number of
other things that could make the fire department show up there.

Yes, that's true. The functional roles of all those cases
are slightly different, but they fall in the same broad
category of "alarm".

But then do you think that there's no interesting differences between
all of those types of alarms, and so that the final result isn't the
only interesting thing in the definition?

I didn't say that or imply that. What I said was that to be a fire
alarm is a functional role. Do you disagree with that?

And this is meaningless: a behavioural (though perhaps not neural) zombie
is still totally possible who acts on pain and yet never actually
feels it as a phenomenal experience.

I don't believe that makes any sense. I don't think that
"phenomenal experience" means anything other than the functional
role.

Yes, but what you "believe" doesn't amount to a hill of beans. When
people talk about phenomenal experience, that isn't what they mean.

I should say that "phenomenal experience" *is* a certain
functional role, whether people realize it or not.

We don't disagree here; I don't think that phenomenal experience is a
meaningful object for scientific study because it is subjective.
Where we disagree is that I do not accept that "not amenable to
scientific study" necessarily means "doesn't exist" or "shouldn't be
talked about by anyone in any way."

Sure, you can talk about anything you like.

Scientific explanation is about explaining
*causal relationships* between things. The
things themselves are not really accessible
to science, just the relationships.

Now, one issue here is this: if the behavioural zombie is possible,

....And I don't believe it is.

that 1-1 mapping you talk about isn't possible for phenomenal
experiences;

Sure it is. The zombie has a state that is isomorphic to
being in pain --- it's caused by the same things that cause
pain, and it has the same effect on the zombie that pain
has on us.

something that doesn't have those experiences may indeed
act in the same way, so you haven't shown, for example, that those
experiences are there when that action occurs, nor how I can tell if
they ARE there in those situations.

If the zombie winces or cries or screams when you hit his toe,
you know that hitting his toe has made a state change to whatever
controls the zombie's behavior. You can investigate what that state
change is. It is in a 1-1 correspondence with "experiencing a pain".

To put it into the fire alarm example, to explain what it means to be
an actual pulled fire alarm versus a 911 call critically involves
explaining how I can tell which is the case in any particular
scenario. You aren't doing that for phenomenal experiences.

Pulling the lever versus making a 911 call have slightly different
functional roles. They result in slightly different responses. The
zombie is, by assumption, making *identical* responses to humans.
So the analogy would be something that *looks* exactly like a
fire alarm, and causes exactly the same responses as a fire
alarm, but *isn't* really a fire alarm.

Crudely speaking, the pain is like a message board. Some neurons
notice something wrong with the body (your hand is on fire, or
a knife is sticking into your back) and posts a message to the
board (in not much detail). Other neurons are constantly checking
the board and responding to what they find there. The "phenomenal
experience of pain" I believe is just the way that the conscious
brain summarizes all this activity. When we reflect on "What's
going on inside me?" pain is the way we describe it.

Okay, and what is the message board? Is it a group of neurons?

Yes, something like that.

And why does that message board appear to me the way it does
-- with an experience of pain -- as opposed to something else?

What "something else" could it be? What are the details of
your particular experience of pain that need to be explained?

My claim (which admittedly is not currently susceptible to experiment)
is that pain is just an internal message, it doesn't matter how
it is encoded, what matters is how the rest of the brain and the
body produces and acts on that information.

As I suggested in
another post, imagine that we identify what exact neurochemical
reaction in which localized part of the brain corresponds to
"tasting sweetness" and we similarly identify what is the
neural correlate of "feeling pain". Now imagine that a clever
and diabolical brain surgeon rewires a person's brain so that
all the causal relations involving pain are replaced by
tasting sweetness. So now, stepping on somebody's toe causes
the person to taste sweetness, but tasting sweetness (localized
in his toe) causes the person to jerk his toe away and cry out
and later have the same short-term and long-term memories
as if he had felt pain.

Would it be correct to say that this person is no longer
capable of feeling pain when you step on his toe? According
to the functional view, such a rewiring would make no difference.
The person still feels pain, because pain is the functional
role played by the brain state, and the functional role is
still present.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Allan C Cybulskie says...

You miss the point. I have no privileged access to what it turns out
to be ... but I KNOW if I'm having it or not.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing whether that allows
you to generalize to other people, whether you know what
it means for someone *else* to feel pain.

Since the behaviour produced by the feeling is more dubious than
that, you can view my behaviour but cannot validate if the
experience is really there are not. So it isn't just the behaviour;
if the privately accessible experience is not present, pain isn't
present.

But how do you know whether that is possible? What reason
do you have for believing that experience without accompanying
behavior is possible? I don't see how you could
Ipossibly
know that. I understand that you can feel pain and "keep
it to yourself" and not cry, not scream, not wince. But
do you really think that it is possible to *perfectly*
behave as if you were not in pain? Is it possible for
the pain to have no effect on your ability to concentrate,
your ability to do your job, your ability to have fun?
That doesn't seem at all plausible to me.

Or, to put it better: From the inside, I KNOW that I'm in pain; from
the outside, with you looking at the behaviour, you don't know that
I'm in pain.

Yes, but if I understood perfectly *all* aspects of your behavior
(and by "behavior" here, I mean not only what you are currently
doing, but also your abilities and predispositions to behave, etc.)
do you really think that it is possible for there to be no difference
between being in pain and not being in pain?

I don't know whether you are in pain because I only have a superficial
knowledge of your behavior.

But if pain just was the behaviour, you WOULD know that
I was in pain. So being in pain is not just the behaviour produced by
pain experiences.

Since this is an informal discussion, I was using "behavior" loosely
to mean not only what the person is *currently* doing, but also
predispositions to do or not do things. If pain interferes with your
ability to concentrate, then it *will* affect your behavior. That
might not be noticeable in some circumstances, and when it is
noticeable, it might be attributed to a different cause other than
pain. But pain *is* associated with behavioral predispositions. If
it weren't it *wouldn't* be pain. If you could change the response
to pain so that it no longer bothered you, then it wouldn't be
pain.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[marcus]

OK, I'll look for an alt. with an A+ field.
Any ideas how to tell quickly if I have a suitable alt. with say my
multimeter in the local junkyard.
I can look up common models on the net of course.

thanks all,

Marcus in off-grid outback

 

[Lionel]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:53:57 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
wrote:

MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:24:05 +1000, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Gave
us:

Lyrics Copyright (c) 2007, Lionel Lauer

Fuck you and the horse that rode in here up your ass.

You have NO copyright on ANYTHING you have posted here, you fucking
idiot.

Numby's hot under the collar again.

MassiveDrongo's spazzing out again?

I'm sure that comes as a huge shock to anyone that knows him.

--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Phil Allison]

"Michael A. Terrell, Psychotic, Autistic FREAK "



YOU can go a shove your pointy head up a dead donkey's backside where you
normally hide it.

CUNT BRAIN !!




........ Phil

 

[Archie Leach]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell, Psychotic, Autistic FREAK "



YOU can go a shove your pointy head up a dead donkey's backside where you
normally hide it.

CUNT BRAIN !!




....... Phil

I think you just need to tell us (and Michael) how you really feel.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Archie Leach wrote:

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell, Psychotic, Autistic FREAK "



YOU can go a shove your pointy head up a dead donkey's backside where you
normally hide it.

CUNT BRAIN !!




....... Phil


I think you just need to tell us (and Michael) how you really feel.

Syphilis doesn't feel, she just flames.


--
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

 

[John Fields]

On 23 Apr 2007 11:21:17 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:01 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you noticed zero physics content in this thread due to your
inability/unwillingness to utilize the common language?

Or do you even care about that? It certainly appears that your sole
aim is to provoke arguments over trivialities.

I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.

The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.

---
You're wrong.

The language of science is English,

http://www.worldstudy.gov/featurearticles/crawford.html

though it seems that much of what you write is just gibberish.


--
JF

 

[Autymn D. C.]

On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 22 Apr 2007 17:08:31 -0700, "Autymn D. C."
I said nothing about fňnics. English has nothing to do with a Latin
word.

You post as though you think you're talking.

Wrong, I think I'm a'writing.

You're not, and your efforts to punctuate text in a way that makes
you think the text will "sound right" when it's read do nothing but
confuse your audience and cause antagonism.

I do not; I spell text as it's spellen. This has nothing to do with
sound.

http://google.com/groups?q=staffrs+alfa+včta

-Aut

 

[Bob Myers]

"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1177352477.483029.94170@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

I didn't start that; Gisse, Fields, and Cain did.

The common scientific language is Latin. See the first post.

I think you will find that there is very, VERY little Latin used
in electronics, or even in physics in general for that matter.

Bob M.

 

[default]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:38:59 +1000, "marcus" <123@344.445> wrote:

Thanks to everyone who's contributed ideas to this thread.

It's my understanding of alternator operation that the voltage is
"built-in" by the number of poles, the number of turns on the rotor/stator,
and least of all by the regulator.
The speed controls current, not voltage.

Speed controls voltage, not current - wire size determines current. I
think it was Homer that suggested you try to regulate engine speed for
maximum efficiency from a gas engine.

If the regulator is removed (or the reg.'s ability to reduce the field
current is removed), then the alternator voltage will rise to over 100 V.
(OK for US -
you could get mains power straight from output - either AC or DC, at a high
frequency,
but I need 240VAC in Oz.) I believe a large alternator [200A] might produce
around 7200 Watts when driven this way. It would probably need 2 belts and
12 HP to drive it at this level, assuming bearings, heat, diodes, etc. were
upgraded.

What I want to do is charge a bank of solar batteries at up to a C20 rate
(about 40A in my case), with a 24V alternator driven by a 3- 6HP stationary
engine, with an adjustable regulator circuit that will provide up to 30VDC
and taper the charge as the batteries fill.

Great booklet about alternators :
www.1stconnect.com/anozira/SiteTops/energy/Alternator/alternator.htm

cheers all,

Marcus in Oz @ 28.4VDC (Sunny day!)

--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[MooseFET]

On Apr 26, 9:23 am, "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message

news:1177597577.067736.87040@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 25, 6:56 am, "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
"Jay" <jjayzz...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1177503222.003209.196830@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...> Hello,

I would like to know the way to make 61.44MHz clock which has to
synchronized with 10MHz
periodically.
Let me say... 10MHz Clock Input(1PPS Sync. Aligned) -> PLL or
Something -> 61.44MHz Output!(1PPS Sync. Aligned)
If you may have a good solution, Please let me know that!

Thank you.
Jay

I think what you mean is that you want the two frequencies to be
coherent.
61.44MHz is 61,440 kHz. If you divide the 10 MHz by 1000, you will have
10
KHz. Now, in a phase locked loop put a div by 6144 in the feedback loop,
and
it will run at 61440 KHz. You could also use ratios of 125 and 768 for
better performance and fewer parts; in this case the reference frequency
will be 80 KHz, instead of 10 KHz.

Tam

If you have too very stable frequencies, you can remove one divider
chain. A simple flip-flop clocked from the output of a divider on one
signal and sampling the other will work as a phase detector. You end
up with some "phase ripple". Think of it like this: ASCII art.

"Late case"

--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- Undivided

--------------- Divided
---------------

???????????HHHHHHHHH Flip-flop output

"Early case"

--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- Undivided

----------------- Divided
-------------

?????????LLLLLLLLLLLLL Flip-flop output

In this case I'd leave out the 768 divide to save the most flip-flops,
if the timing will allow.

Yeah, that should usually work, provided the VCO pulling range is less than
80 KHz (or is it 40?). Div by 768 is no big deal though, just 16X16X3.

Some reasons to consider doing it with a 22CV10 :

Div 125 may fit into 8 or 9 sections of a 22V10 and the phase detector
into what is left of it.

If you use the "zero power" CMOS version of the 22V10, the current
draw will be low.

The swing on the flip-flop is nearly 0-5V

Using a part that is not shared with anything else prevents a route
for noise getting to the VCO.

Using one easy to get part to doa job will often score you attaboys.

 

[Chris]

On Apr 26, 11:06 pm, Me <M...@thishere.com> wrote:
I'd guess this is a continuation of a post from a couple of days ago:

Hi all,
I'm making a kitchen countdown timer ( my first pic project ) for the
wife,
who is half deaf and needs a low to mid range frequancy alarm with
some UMPH.

Q1. What's the best way to couple a pic output pin to a 20 watt
amp?
Q2. Will the amp try to draw too much current from the pin?
Q3. Should I use a transistor switch ( or pair ) to drive the
amp?
Q4. Would a line driver be better than an amp?


I need to keep the internal temperature down as low as posible as
it's
going in the kitchen.


Thanks for any help.

Mr. Popelish's response was complete and correct, if you're just
looking to drive an amp line input with a PIC. You might want to be
cautious and throw in a 330 ohm series resistor, like this (view in
fixed font or M$ Notepad):

| .-------------.
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | ___ +||
| | o----|___|--||-----.
| | PIC | 330 || |
| | | 1uF |
| | | .-.
| | | | |<-->to Line Input
| | | | |
| | | '-'
| | | |
| | | ===
| | | GND
| '------o------'
| |
| ===
| GND
(created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05 www.tech-chat.de)

Since PIC pins are HC-type outputs, there's no problem driving a 4mA
load. The line input of your amp is typically around a 1K ohm load,
which means your PIC won't be stressed at all. If this isn't
responsive, please take the time to explain why instead of just
repeating the header. Bad form and all that, you know.

Cheers
Chris

 

[Lionel]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:32 GMT, teandson@hotmail.com (Lamey) wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:37:05 -0700, SuperM
SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:51 +1000, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Gave
us:


The person who forged me in that post? - Yes, you're quite correct.

No, idiot. It was YOU that brought "help" along. And it is YOU that
is the idiot, and it has NOTHING to do with any post your buddy makes
in your name.


So basically from what I see, Yer still an idiot.

Prongy's the most hated & kill-filed poster in sci.electronics.*
That's why the sad little fuck changes nick's so often.

--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[DaRkAnGeL]

On 2007-04-27 21:37:57 -0500, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> said:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:32 GMT, teandson@hotmail.com (Lamey) wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:37:05 -0700, SuperM
SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:51 +1000, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Gave
us:


The person who forged me in that post? - Yes, you're quite correct.

No, idiot. It was YOU that brought "help" along. And it is YOU that
is the idiot, and it has NOTHING to do with any post your buddy makes
in your name.


So basically from what I see, Yer still an idiot.

Prongy's the most hated & kill-filed poster in sci.electronics.*
That's why the sad little fuck changes nick's so often.

Ah. And here I thought he was just ... compensating. :^)
--
---
DarkAngel
"Making the world a little bit darker, one life at a time, since 1975!"

 

[Lionel]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:11:49 -0500, DaRkAnGeL
<chaos@whydontyouFOAD.net> wrote:

On 2007-04-27 21:37:57 -0500, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> said:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:32 GMT, teandson@hotmail.com (Lamey) wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:37:05 -0700, SuperM
SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:59:51 +1000, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Gave
us:


The person who forged me in that post? - Yes, you're quite correct.

No, idiot. It was YOU that brought "help" along. And it is YOU that
is the idiot, and it has NOTHING to do with any post your buddy makes
in your name.


So basically from what I see, Yer still an idiot.

Prongy's the most hated & kill-filed poster in sci.electronics.*
That's why the sad little fuck changes nick's so often.

Ah. And here I thought he was just ... compensating. :^)

That too.
<ObElectronics> His "Prong" is about as "Massive" as one from a DB-9
connector.

--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[elecfree]

here is idea circuit inverter.
http://www.elecfree.com/electronic/12-volt-to-220-volt-inverter-500w/

 

[Andrew McMeikan]

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 20:30 -0800, panfilero wrote:

Hello

I need to deliver a variable current between 0-2 Amps to a small load
(15 Ohms).... At first I was thinking about building a current
amplifier..... but after investigating that route again, i think, it's
too difficult to build.

Depending on just how you need to hook thiungs up, you could do this
relatively easy, using an op-amp to measure voltage accross a small
value resistor (one end ground other end your load) as compared to your
control voltage. Use output of op-amp to drive a big fet to send juice
into other end of your load.

depending on type of load take appropraite care so it can not oscilate.

hope that give some ideas.

cya, Andrew...

 

[Stephen J. Rush]

On Tue, 01 May 2007 07:32:07 -0700, Kit wrote:

On May 1, 3:39 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Kit wrote:
Hi all,
I am making a battery powered device that uses a Single board computer
running Linux. The problem is that because I am using a CF Card
mounted read/write I cannot just cut the power to the SBC. So I need
to have some system by which the SBC can shutdown properly before it
cuts the power. I am thinking of something like the power button on a
computer.
So does anyone know how I could go about this?
A circuit would be great.

Some idea of the SBC you are using would be helpful, but it must have some
kind of i/o capability. Either a serial port, I2C or some kind of GPIO
ports must be present regardless of the SBC type. You should be able to
read from one of these in software and then initiate a "shutdown -h now"
procedure.

Sure, I am using a Technologic Systems TS-7200.
http://www.embeddedarm.com/epc/ts7200-spec-h.html

Yes, I can do that, but once the SBC is shutdown I need to turn off
the power.

You could use an output pin on the SBC to trigger a one-shot. The falling
edge of the one-shot output could then reset a flip-flop that drives the
power relay. To start the system, apply power directly to the relay and
to the 'set' input of that flip-flop.