Chip with simple program for Toy

[Phil Allison]

"Bret Cahill = TROLL "

** What is 10 times more efficient than 92 % ??

Going 10X further with the same 8% loss?

One tenth as lossy for the same distance?



** No way either of those things is expressed the fuckwit way you came up
with.




......... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Paul E. Schoen"

The losses in electrical transmission have increased from about 5% to 9.5%
in recent years, so efficiency is 90.5% to 95%.

** Transmission * loss percentage * increases with the amount of load -
plus the overall energy lost depends on load levels and time.

The operating efficiency percentage of a transmission link cannot be known
stated unless the load is too.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission,
power losses were about 7.2% in 1995. And according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current, HVDC
transmission losses are about 3%. So a tenfold increase in efficiency
seems unreasonable.

** Total BOLLOCKS !

I would assume that a tenfold increase in efficiency would be a tenfold
reduction in losses,

** Why ?????

It makes nonsense of the English language.

One can increase the efficiency percentage OR reduce the loss percentage
by a number.

When the efficiency percentage is low, you use the former and when it is
high, the latter.


...... Phil

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:677d5oF2nj34rU1@mid.individual.net...

"Paul E. Schoen"

The losses in electrical transmission have increased from about 5% to
9.5% in recent years, so efficiency is 90.5% to 95%.

** Transmission * loss percentage * increases with the amount of
oad - plus the overall energy lost depends on load levels and time.

The operating efficiency percentage of a transmission link cannot be
known stated unless the load is too.

Of course. There has been an increase in demand without a corresponding
increase in the infrastructure, so the power grid is more heavily loaded.
Being largely dependent on I^2R losses, a 50% increase in demand (current)
results in a doubling of losses.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission,
power losses were about 7.2% in 1995. And according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current, HVDC
transmission losses are about 3%. So a tenfold increase in efficiency
seems unreasonable.


** Total BOLLOCKS !


I would assume that a tenfold increase in efficiency would be a tenfold
reduction in losses,


** Why ?????

It makes nonsense of the English language.

One can increase the efficiency percentage OR reduce the loss
percentage by a number.

When the efficiency percentage is low, you use the former and when it is
high, the latter.

A tenfold increase means ten times better. 99% is twice as good as 98%,
because it costs me half as much in losses. So it is a 100% increase in
efficiency, or a 50% reduction of losses.

A similar situation exists with accuracy, but it is reversed in meaning. A
1% instrument is really 99% accurate, so an instrument that is twice as
good is 0.5%. A 100% increase in accuracy, but the accuracy figure is
really a statement of inaccuracy.

So, when one tries to develop a more accurate instrument, the goal would
more reasonably be to make it like 10% more accurate or 50% more accurate,
which are easy to comprehend. To say one wanted to increase the accuracy of
an instrument by 1% would be reasonable if one knew it to be 2%, but would
be impossible if it were already 1% or better.

The same with efficiency, but it is better understood in terms of reducing
losses.

But you are right that it does put strains on English language usage.

Paul

 

[Phil Allison]

"Paul E. Schoen"

"Phil Allison"

The losses in electrical transmission have increased from about 5% to
9.5% in recent years, so efficiency is 90.5% to 95%.

** Transmission * loss percentage * increases with the amount of
oad - plus the overall energy lost depends on load levels and time.

The operating efficiency percentage of a transmission link cannot be
known or stated unless the load is too.

Of course. There has been an increase in demand without a corresponding
increase in the infrastructure, so the power grid is more heavily loaded.
Being largely dependent on I^2R losses, a 50% increase in demand (current)
results in a doubling of losses.

** Try learning to bloody READ - you imbecile !!!!

The PERCENTAGE loss of the transmission line is a *varying quantity* with
load.

The numbers you quoted are NOT measures of the energy efficiency of the
transmission lines.

I would assume that a tenfold increase in efficiency would be a tenfold
reduction in losses,


** Why ?????

It makes nonsense of the English language.

One can increase the efficiency percentage OR reduce the loss
percentage by a number.

When the efficiency percentage is low, you use the former and when it is
high, the latter.

A tenfold increase means ten times better.

** Asinine, idiotic shite.

A " tenfold increase " can only mean a 10 times increase in a quantity.

LEARN to READ !!

99% is twice as good as 98%, because it costs me half as much in losses.

** So must be stated as 50% reduction in losses.

( snip more reams of mind numbing, fuckwit drivel )

But you are right that it does put strains on English language usage.

** It is purest fuckwittery and a misuse of meaning.



....... Phil

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Hammy" <spamme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v99u045b7d8n2utngmuabl3da53g5k033i@4ax.com...

I'm using Fairchilds FCD5N60 in a D-PAK (TO-252).

Data sheet

http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/FC/FCD5N60.pdf

The D-PAK I'm using has a small drain tab that extends above the
plastic case; the bottom portion of the drain tab is recessed into the
plastic case Like a T0-220 .

I am unsure on how to solder the drain.

1. Are you supposed to just solder the metal tab that extends
above the plastic case?

2. Are you supposed to lay solder down on the whole drain
footprint? This includes the metal Drain that is recessed into the
plastic case. If so wouldn't this potentially damage the case?

I just soldered the tab part that extends above the case to a small
piece of PCB for testing the FET in my circuit. There is a no contact
between the drain, (the part of the drain that's recessed into the
plastic case) and the copper PCB. I pushed down to try and get contact
while soldering but either I wasn't pushing hard enough or it's not
supposed to touch the PCB. Is there supposed to be a gap for air flow
and the copper that the tab is soldered to acting as the heatsink.

huh? The drain needs as much cooling as it needs. If you only solder a very
small bridge between the tab and the copper then heat must flow through that
bridge... do you think thats a good idea? If you were not suppose to solder
the whole thing then why would they have it exposed?

You really need to think of why the did what the did and what is the purpose
and then it should be quite clear what to do.

 

[Claude]

It's just for fun amongst friends, not to antagonize the general public!
Touchy touchy aren't we? I've done the spook the neighbour on the FM band
trick, it's time for the next fun packed spook.

Claude




"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UtydnT8nEp-pjZPVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Claude wrote:

While I am here , anyone out there have plans for a functional cell phone
jammer that could jamm all 4 protocols to within 50 feet or so? I have
seen
theoretical papers ( Google) but would like to know if any hobbyist has
ever built a successful one?


If that is why you are here, go away.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[Claude]

It's just for fun amongst friends, not to antagonize the general public!
Touchy touchy aren't we? I've done the spook the neighbour on the FM band
trick, it's time for the next fun packed spook.

Claude




"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UtydnT8nEp-pjZPVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Claude wrote:

While I am here , anyone out there have plans for a functional cell phone
jammer that could jamm all 4 protocols to within 50 feet or so? I have
seen
theoretical papers ( Google) but would like to know if any hobbyist has
ever built a successful one?


If that is why you are here, go away.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[Michael Moroney]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> writes:

Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?

I won't argue the "10 times" part, but DC power transmission is more
efficient because:

Line inductance and capacitance are unimportant with DC. With AC they
contribute to "imaginary" power, where the system has to transmit power
(with losses) that does no work, because voltage and current are out of
phase.

Line radiation. I don't know how big an effect this is.

DC utilizes a line 100% of the time. An AC insulator has to withstand
the peak AC voltage (1.414 times the RMS value) but most of the time the
instantaneous voltage is lower and thus the instantaneous power is also
lower. It even goes to zero twice per cycle. A DC line will remain at the
peak voltage 100% of the time. Which will fill a kiddie pool faster, a
garden hose left on or a garden hose repeatedly turned off and on?

 

[Michael Moroney]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> writes:

Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?

I won't argue the "10 times" part, but DC power transmission is more
efficient because:

Line inductance and capacitance are unimportant with DC. With AC they
contribute to "imaginary" power, where the system has to transmit power
(with losses) that does no work, because voltage and current are out of
phase.

Line radiation. I don't know how big an effect this is.

DC utilizes a line 100% of the time. An AC insulator has to withstand
the peak AC voltage (1.414 times the RMS value) but most of the time the
instantaneous voltage is lower and thus the instantaneous power is also
lower. It even goes to zero twice per cycle. A DC line will remain at the
peak voltage 100% of the time. Which will fill a kiddie pool faster, a
garden hose left on or a garden hose repeatedly turned off and on?

 

In sci.physics "Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ? " <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?


Bret Cahill




It's not more efficient. That's why Edison's DC power idea failed and
Westinghouse's AC prevailed.

Apples and oranges.

Power companies are out to make money.

The economic cost of losses for a DC system can be significantly less
than that of an AC system over long distances.

For short distances, the cost of the losses are generally less than
the cost of the conversion equipment, so AC is usually used.

There are many reasons why a DC system would be prefered depending
on the situation.

Start here:

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Richard Tobin]

In article <068b228f-f5c8-44af-8fb2-a633bd413666@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Are modern "scientists" really this dense? Ten times efficient isn't
920%! What you must have just graduated from a "modern" high school?
Dig. If standard transmission is 92% efficient, then that means there
is 8% of the energy lost. TWICE as efficient would only have 4% of the
energy lost or would be 96%.

Your terminology seems pointlessly confusing. Presumably you think
a 100% efficient system is 20 times as efficient as another 100%
system.

The simple answer is that if something is 92% efficient, you can't
make it 10 times more efficient.

-- Richard
--
:wq

 

[Richard Tobin]

In article <068b228f-f5c8-44af-8fb2-a633bd413666@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Are modern "scientists" really this dense? Ten times efficient isn't
920%! What you must have just graduated from a "modern" high school?
Dig. If standard transmission is 92% efficient, then that means there
is 8% of the energy lost. TWICE as efficient would only have 4% of the
energy lost or would be 96%.

Your terminology seems pointlessly confusing. Presumably you think
a 100% efficient system is 20 times as efficient as another 100%
system.

The simple answer is that if something is 92% efficient, you can't
make it 10 times more efficient.

-- Richard
--
:wq

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

<Derphy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70883867-70df-4d42-8e4e-a0804093b549@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Before I go and start plugging things in I need to know this one
thing. I have a Philips VOIP841, the power adaptors that came with it
are 110VAC 60Hz only. I am now living in Belgium and of coarse cannot
plug my phone in without using the transformers. It seems easy enough,
and cheaper for me to just go out and purchase new AC to DC converters
for 220VAC 50Hz.

Original input: Proposed Input:
110VAC 60Hz 220VAC 50Hz
Original output: Proposed output:
7.5VDC 150mA ----handset charger------ 7.5VDC 300mA
7.5VDC 500mA ----base station----------- 7.5VDC 500mA

So here is my issue. I have two types of power outputs from my old AC/
DC converter. One is (7.5VDC 150mA) for the handset chargers, and the
other is (7.5VDC 500mA) for the base. I have found a universal AC/DC
220VAC converter for the 500mA base. But what I'd like to know is if
it's safe to use a (7.5VDC 300mA) converter on the handset charger
that originally requires (7.5VDC 150mA)?

If the converter is a simple step-down transformer, and the chargers are
powered from 110 VAC 50 Hz, they might heat up. A larger converter
(transformer) with 220 VAC input and 110 VAC output might be more cost
effective, as it can be used for other appliances as well. But you still
need to make sure the appliance is rated at 50 Hz. Also, most step down
transformers produce an open circuit output higher than 50% of the input,
so a small device like a charger might see an even higher voltage, like
120-130 VAC. It might be best to obtain a charger designed for the 220 VAC
50 Hz supply.

Another option is to get a VF motor controller, which sometimes can be
obtained cheaply, and set the output to 110 VAC 60 Hz with a 220 VAC 50 Hz
input. But you have to be careful to set it up properly.

You could also get an inexpensive automotive type inverter, that takes 12
VDC and produces 120 VAC 60 Hz, and get a 12 VDC universal switching supply
(or a battery charger) rated for 220 VAC 50 Hz mains. You could even add a
battery to make your own UPS, or obtain one that can generate 120 VAC 60 Hz
from the 220 VAC 50Hz.

The chargers should not be damaged immediately if you try them on the
converters you have, but they might overheat after a while. So, you can
just check the case temperature at 5 minute intervals for about a half
hour. If it's not too hot (compared to how they were on US mains), they are
probably OK.

It's usually OK to use a converter rated higher than the device, but that
depends on the load regulation of its output.

Paul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

<Derphy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70883867-70df-4d42-8e4e-a0804093b549@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Before I go and start plugging things in I need to know this one
thing. I have a Philips VOIP841, the power adaptors that came with it
are 110VAC 60Hz only. I am now living in Belgium and of coarse cannot
plug my phone in without using the transformers. It seems easy enough,
and cheaper for me to just go out and purchase new AC to DC converters
for 220VAC 50Hz.

Original input: Proposed Input:
110VAC 60Hz 220VAC 50Hz
Original output: Proposed output:
7.5VDC 150mA ----handset charger------ 7.5VDC 300mA
7.5VDC 500mA ----base station----------- 7.5VDC 500mA

So here is my issue. I have two types of power outputs from my old AC/
DC converter. One is (7.5VDC 150mA) for the handset chargers, and the
other is (7.5VDC 500mA) for the base. I have found a universal AC/DC
220VAC converter for the 500mA base. But what I'd like to know is if
it's safe to use a (7.5VDC 300mA) converter on the handset charger
that originally requires (7.5VDC 150mA)?

If the converter is a simple step-down transformer, and the chargers are
powered from 110 VAC 50 Hz, they might heat up. A larger converter
(transformer) with 220 VAC input and 110 VAC output might be more cost
effective, as it can be used for other appliances as well. But you still
need to make sure the appliance is rated at 50 Hz. Also, most step down
transformers produce an open circuit output higher than 50% of the input,
so a small device like a charger might see an even higher voltage, like
120-130 VAC. It might be best to obtain a charger designed for the 220 VAC
50 Hz supply.

Another option is to get a VF motor controller, which sometimes can be
obtained cheaply, and set the output to 110 VAC 60 Hz with a 220 VAC 50 Hz
input. But you have to be careful to set it up properly.

You could also get an inexpensive automotive type inverter, that takes 12
VDC and produces 120 VAC 60 Hz, and get a 12 VDC universal switching supply
(or a battery charger) rated for 220 VAC 50 Hz mains. You could even add a
battery to make your own UPS, or obtain one that can generate 120 VAC 60 Hz
from the 220 VAC 50Hz.

The chargers should not be damaged immediately if you try them on the
converters you have, but they might overheat after a while. So, you can
just check the case temperature at 5 minute intervals for about a half
hour. If it's not too hot (compared to how they were on US mains), they are
probably OK.

It's usually OK to use a converter rated higher than the device, but that
depends on the load regulation of its output.

Paul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:155f31ec-16a8-4bf3-a872-36772b553f99@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

you came up
with.

Never end sentences with prepositions.

But it sounds funny to say, "up with which you came."

Paul

 

[Ken Fowler]

On 22-Apr-2008, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, ronwer wrote:

I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
communication equipment during the Second World War.

Did they even _have_ silicon diodes in WWII? I remember when they
announced the first transistor, some time in the early 1950's.

I started working on military surplus radios and consumer broadcast radios
in 1954, went to US Navy ET school in 1956, and spent a few years reparing
communications and radar equipment manufactured in the 1947 - 1960 era.
Other than the 1N21 and 1N23 diodes used in radar receivers, which I
believe were point-contact germanium devices, the first signal diodes I saw
were the 1N34 types used in an IFF decoder. They were relatively large
axial packages with a hexagonal body shape. All other places where a diode
was necessary, vacuum tubes were used for small signals and Selemium-oxide
plate rectifiers were used in power supplies. By 1959, when I went to
school on the AN/URC-32 SSB Transceiver, both germanium and silicon diodes
and transistors were in wide use in new military radio circuits. From my
experience, no silicon diodes were used at any time before 1950 in USN
military equipment. The first consumer transistorized radios I remember
were sometime around 1960. I wish I still had my Allied Radio Catalogs
from 1954 and later. You could buy a Raytheon CK721 transistor for
something like $3. I think the CK722 cost more. By 1965, you could buy
grab bags of transistors and diodes at Radio Shack for $3.

Good Memories,
Ken Fowler, KO6NO

 

[Phil Allison]

"Benj"

( snip nauseating verbal diarrhoea)


** Fuck OFF - you asinine, illiterate cretin !!!




..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Benj"

( snip nauseating verbal diarrhoea)


** Fuck OFF - you asinine, illiterate cretin !!!




..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Bret Cahill = TROLL "

Never end sentences with prepositions.

** So it is a rote thinker -

as well as a complete fuckwit.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Bret Cahill = TROLL "

Never end sentences with prepositions.

** So it is a rote thinker -

as well as a complete fuckwit.



...... Phil