Chip with simple program for Toy

[christofire]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message news:g8bn3b$2ec$2@gonzo...

On 2008-08-18, christofire <christofire@btinternet.com> wrote:

Such piezo sounders usually have the disc (metal disc with a layer of
piezo
material covered with a layer of metallisation) mounted in a small closed
plastic cylinder with a hole which acts as a Helmholtz resonator.

so he could cut and lengthen the tube (maybe use PVC pipe) and get a lower
frequency ?

Bye.
Jasen

It's true that he could re-package the disc in a larger resonator cylinder
(Wikipedia has the low-down on Helmholtz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_resonance), but he'd probably need to
modify the oscillator driving it as well unless the sounder is of the
(relatively-complicated and less-common) type that provides a feedback
signal.

Chris

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Mr. INTJ" <mr.intj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4d5ac03-925b-4065-ab62-bd12d1bcac27@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

Hi,

I have a problem - our dog has developed a phobia of smoke alarm
beeps. She's always been afraid during thunderstorms, but this smoke
detector thing is a whole new level of abject terror for her. It's
gotten to the point where if one of them even pips briefly (due to low
battery), she trembles all over, and tries to burrow under furniture
(usually at some ungodly hour of the morning).

OK, so I did what any responsible adult would do... I disconnected
every single smoke detector in the house. It was only supposed to be
short-term, but behavior mod. on our dog was $$$ and ineffective, and
after several months, I still don't have a solution.

MORE INFO:

Not all beeps are created equal - only certain combinations of
frequency, amplitude (and possibly waveform) strike terror in her. I'm
a software guy by trade, but I play an EE in my spare time, so when
this first started happening, I opened one of the smoke detectors and
examined it - hoping there'd be a simple R-C circuit that I could
modify in some way to alter things enough that it wouldn't freak out
the dog.

Of course there's a big piezo disc in there that's responsible for the
piercing beeps, and it was put together in such a way that I concluded
at the time that the pitch was tied to the physical dimensions of the
disc itself (a kind of mechanical buzzer), vs. the signal being
applied... does this sound possible, or was I sleep-deprived that day?

Can anyone shed more light on this?

Thanks.

Mr. INTJ
San Diego, CA

My suggestion is to try different brands of smoke detectors. As soon as you
modify a life safety device your insurance company will not pay any damage
due to smoke of fire.
And you may die.

Modern detectors use a single chip. Everything is designed already. The
piezo is a resonant device that needs the proper pulse to meet the specs on
audible output for home detectors.
Don't mess with it.

Tom

 

[Tom Biasi]

"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f29d6cf5-7887-4670-9353-d4f82fefb9dc@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 15, "Tom Biasi" <tombiasi...@optonline.net> wrote:
What is a static power switch?

What would happen if you typed "What is a static power switch?"
into Google?

I don't know, nor care much... I don't trust
some random collection of Web links, I'd
rather talk to real people, like the nice friendly
experts on this board. It's sci.e.BASICS, have
you noticed? Like, maybe for asking questions?


Google is not my vicar... I am not Barry Obama,
Google is not my Jeremiah Wright... sorry if you
find that blasphemous, O True Believer...


--
Rich

My point was that you could have found out quite a lot by doing some work on
your own. Then you could come here and have things explained better.
You did no work at all.
The "random collection of web links" would have led you to people that
manufacture such devices, to the web sites of designers, etc.
I share no love for Google either, but its a tool.
Tom

 

[Rod Speed]

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> wrote

In the example, the Power Station is powered with a MAN 5S50ME-C7 low speed engine (95 RPM, 3'800 kW power, 159
gr/kWh specific fuel oil consumption):

Thats irrelevant, hardly anyone is stupid enough to do a power station that way anymore.

It burns also natural gas (with some modifications) ...

If you're gunna power it with natural gas, you dont use that sort of engine either.

with enough cattle ... ;-)

Pity about collecting and processing all that shit.

 

[Rod Speed]

The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:19:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:



Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change?

Natural variation.

We see that the sunspot correlation is crapola.

Yes, but the total sun output correlation aint.

Is the climate changing and the north pole melting because we fart too much?

Nope, there isnt any evidence for any more than natural variation.

The conditions in greenland were actually quite a bit warmer than they currently
are in medieval times, before we increased the atmospheric CO2 levels.

Are you seeing something in coal that you do not see in auto exhausts

Yes, the emissions from power stations are quite different to car exhausts.

and can you formulate a correlation?

Nope. And we dont need one, natural variation has clearly been more than we are currently seeing.

 

[Rod Speed]

DarkMatter <darkmatter34@yahoo.com> wrote:

Rod Speed is arrogant, along with Grendel, Jim Pennino and Greg Nail.
I remember a thread where Rod Speed called my altruistic and socialist
ideas about land and illegal alliens my "little pathetic fantasyland".
Here's the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/browse_thread/thread/7bb25151da20dba3/4d90781977a6e4dd?hl=en&lnk=st&q=pathetic+fantasyland#4d90781977a6e4dd

There are a lot of pro-capitalist, fascist and anti-communist posters
on usenet which makes me believe usnet serves as an haven for greedy
pro-capitalist assholes and Nazis.

You wouldnt know what a real Nazi was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.

That's one of the reasons i stopped posting on usenet
a long time ago, especially on the politics section.

Is this where we're all sposed to slash our wrists or sumfin ?

 

[Rod Speed]

The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:18:09 -0700, DarkMatter wrote:

There are a lot of pro-capitalist, fascist and anti-communist posters
on usenet which makes me believe usnet serves as an haven for greedy
pro-capitalist assholes and Nazis. That's one of the reasons i stopped
posting on usenet a long time ago, especially on the politics section.

There is nothing wrong with true capitalism once
one understands that capital is produced by labor

Plenty of it aint.

and that it is productions that are employed in the pursuit of commodities (goods).

Modern first world economys are about a hell of a lot more than JUST goods.

With strict definition of capital

You wouldnt know what real capital was if it bit you on your lard arse.

it is seen that private ownership of it increases the creation of it

Meaningless waffle.

and that in doing so the productivity of the people

Not necessarily, most obviously with land.

and hence the leisure of the people is increased.

There's a hell of a lot more involved in any modern first world economy than JUST leisure.

In fact some of the most successful economys dont provide a lot of leisure for its people.

But we morph into plutocracy

You wouldnt know what a real plutocracy was if it bit you on your lard arse.

and the creation of a ruling class

You wouldnt know what a real ruling class was if it bit you on your lard arse, comrade.

when we treat natural resources as though they were products of labor (capital).

More meaningless waffle.

Land is the ultimate piggy bank in that it does not depreciate

Plenty of it does just that.

and it gains value solely from the natural growth of population.

Have fun explaining how come it gains significant value even when the population is shrinking.

Unlike capital ownership that enhances the creation of capital,
there is no more and no less land created by ownership of land.

Wrong again. Land can indeed be created. Have a look at HongKong sometime.

And it is that land ownership is economically perverse in that economic rent
is thereby concentrated in a class with no good purpose but to rule the rest.

You wouldnt know what a real ruler was if it bit you on your lard arse.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

And it is that land ownership is economically perverse
in that economic rent is thereby concentrated in a
class with no good purpose but to rule the rest.

You wouldnt know what a real ruler

For a more formal treatment of ownership of geo resources read Henry
George's _Progress and Poverty_.

Also see Locke, Jefferson and DeTocqueville.

The real world has moved on just a tad since then, stupid.

"The search for gold has impoverished more European countries . . ."

-- DeTocqueville

And then the world moved on on that too.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote just
the pathetic excuse for a juvenile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48A976F0.430F4321@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking at the facts
came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy
and ultimately our health as well. Which makes it a pollutant.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?
Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

Rob

Graham

 

[Rob Dekker]

"The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message newsan.2008.08.18.15.06.57.381955@verizon.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:19:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:



Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change? We see that the sunspot
correlation is crapola. Is the climate changing and the north pole
melting because we fart too much? Are you seeing something in coal that
you do not see in auto exhausts and can you formulate a correlation?

Don't you know ? It's pirates ! Here is the proof :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_Pirates.png

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

 

[Rod Speed]

Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

jmfbahciv wrote
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote
zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote

Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove them
wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude flying
machines will never be useful for transport. The list goes on and on.-

Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research, was
developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional
scientist. The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers,
bicycle mechanics, not professional scientists. My criticisms are
not of the process of science, or the concept of science, but of
the professional scientific bureaucracy, specifically. Which I
consider to be exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.

Neither of you seems to know the difference between science and engineering.

Nor how many model airplanes the Wrights made.

I think one could make a case that the Wright brothers development
and use of a wind tunnel involved doing science in the traditional sense.

More engineering than science.

They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.

And thats just engineering, not science.

The fact that they continued on through the engineering stages
of designing, building, and test flying successful aircraft based
on their original research shouldn't really detract from their
fundamental scientific efforts which enabled them to reach that goal.

See:
http://www.wrightflyer.org/WindTunnel/testing1.html

Still engineering, not science.

 

[nurk]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker wrote
John Larkin wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

No you dont.

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking
at the facts came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt'

No they didnt. Thats the CRIMINAL test, not the civil test.

that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy and ultimately our health as well.

You can make the same stupid claim about water too.

Which makes it a pollutant.

Pity about water.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?

It aint a binary choice.

Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

They obviously didnt when they would have come to the same conclusion about water.

 

[Rod Speed]

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 18, 2:39 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:16:23 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 16, 5:32?pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:40?am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Despite the braying of naysayers scientists continually prove
them wrong! Example- DNA research will have no utility, Crude
flying machines will never be useful for transport. The list
goes on and on.-
Ummm....The science of Genetics, the basis for DNA research, was
developed by Gregor Mendel, a Monk and Abbott, not a professional
scientist. The airplane was invented by the Wright brothers,
bicycle mechanics, not professional scientists. My criticisms are
not of the process of science, or the concept of science, but of
the professional scientific bureaucracy, specifically. Which I
consider to be exceedingly self-serving, inefficient, and corrupt.

Neither of you seems to know the difference between science and
engineering.

Nor how many model airplanes the Wrights made.

/BAH

I think one could make a case that the Wright brothers development
and use of a wind tunnel involved doing science in the traditional
sense. They carefully took and recorded data, finding numerous
errors in the work of previous aeronautical researchers.

The fact that they continued on through the engineering stages of
designing, building, and test flying successful aircraft based on
their original research shouldn't really detract from their
fundamental scientific efforts which enabled them to reach that goal.

See:http://www.wrightflyer.org/WindTunnel/testing1.html

The question is, why did the Wright Brothers realize the necessity of the Wind Tunnel, while no one else did?

There is no such 'necessity'

Once the wind tunnel had been invented, the development
of manned flight was inevitable. Without it, people like Otto
Lillenthal broke their necks before they could get much work done.

And plenty of others didnt without using wind tunnels. Its just one way of doing it.

And there was plenty of manned flight that didnt use windtunnels at all.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

ANd anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking,
and so on, needed to at least *try* to make it succeed

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable alternative.

Not at all pointless, since in order to prove the calculations
correct reduction to practice must be attempted and result
in failure, quantitatively, as predicted by the calculations.

Pointless bothering with most real world engineering calculations.

There might just be a reason why we calculate instead of experiment.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48A9EE8C.8AE9485D@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.


That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking at the
facts
came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy
and ultimately our health as well. Which makes it a pollutant.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?
Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

Maybe oxygen is a pollutant too ?

Once our oxygen emissions end up increasing the O2 quantity in the atmosphere by more than 50% that question would be a good one to
investigate.

Graham

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Mr. INTJ" <mr.intj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b125880-d653-4b9c-b7fd-87e102f6c7cf@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 6:04 am, "Tom Biasi" <tombiasi...@optonline.net> wrote:

"Mr. INTJ" <mr.i...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f4d5ac03-925b-4065-ab62-bd12d1bcac27@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...



Hi,

I have a problem - our dog has developed a phobia of smoke alarm
beeps. She's always been afraid during thunderstorms, but this smoke
detector thing is a whole new level of abject terror for her. It's
gotten to the point where if one of them even pips briefly (due to low
battery), she trembles all over, and tries to burrow under furniture
(usually at some ungodly hour of the morning).

OK, so I did what any responsible adult would do... I disconnected
every single smoke detector in the house. It was only supposed to be
short-term, but behavior mod. on our dog was $$$ and ineffective, and
after several months, I still don't have a solution.

MORE INFO:

Not all beeps are created equal - only certain combinations of
frequency, amplitude (and possibly waveform) strike terror in her. I'm
a software guy by trade, but I play an EE in my spare time, so when
this first started happening, I opened one of the smoke detectors and
examined it - hoping there'd be a simple R-C circuit that I could
modify in some way to alter things enough that it wouldn't freak out
the dog.

Of course there's a big piezo disc in there that's responsible for the
piercing beeps, and it was put together in such a way that I concluded
at the time that the pitch was tied to the physical dimensions of the
disc itself (a kind of mechanical buzzer), vs. the signal being
applied... does this sound possible, or was I sleep-deprived that day?

Can anyone shed more light on this?

Thanks.

Mr. INTJ
San Diego, CA

My suggestion is to try different brands of smoke detectors. As soon as
you
modify a life safety device your insurance company will not pay any damage
due to smoke of fire.
And you may die.

Modern detectors use a single chip. Everything is designed already. The
piezo is a resonant device that needs the proper pulse to meet the specs
on
audible output for home detectors.
Don't mess with it.

Tom

Good point about the insurance aspect - hadn't considered that (i.e.
dying is OK, but not getting reimbursed simply won't do).

OK, so I'll focus my efforts on smoke alarms with a different sounding
alarm.

Rich Webb had an excellent suggestion, unless your dog doesn't like the
sound of your own voice either.
Tom

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48A97A91.25BAD1CB@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

Sure. Light, aerodynamic vehicles that don't go very far will in fact
reduce pollution.

Right, but that's not what was stated in the studies.

What was stated is that vehicles driven from grid electricity pollute
significantly less that similar vehicles driven from gasoline or diesel.

When you do a 'total environmental impact' analysis I very much doubt that
actually unless the electricity is all coming from nukes.

Sigh. So in France all air pollution problems are solved now ?

Graham

 

[Rob Dekker]

"nurk" <nurk@nurk.com> wrote in message news:6gu70iFhg7k1U1@mid.individual.net...

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker wrote
John Larkin wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

No you dont.

Yes I do. It's right here :

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and looking at the
facts came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt'

No they didnt. Thats the CRIMINAL test, not the civil test.

Picky with words ?

that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy and ultimately our health as well.

You can make the same stupid claim about water too.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Which makes it a pollutant.

Pity about water.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?

It aint a binary choice.

It kind of is : Human induced CO2 emissions are a pollutant or not.
You can talk until the cows come home, but your opinion in this is rather irrelevant :
The Supreme Court made a decision that it is (a pollutant).
End of story, unless they overturn the decision.

Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

They obviously didnt when they would have come to the same conclusion about water.

Once our human induced water emissions end up increasing the water quantity on the planet by more than 50% I'm sure the Supreme
Court will look at the impact of that, and determine if these human-induced water emissions are damaging to the planet and our heath
and need to be regulated.

Meanwhile, you are free to appeal the Supreme Court decision with the 'water' argument.
Good luck with it.

 

[nurk]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

nurk <nurk@nurk.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker wrote
John Larkin wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

That's one possible explanation.
I have another one :

No you dont.

Yes I do. It's right here :

Nope, it isnt.

They looked at the presented evidence very carefully, and very thoroughly and after considerable analysis and
looking at the facts came to the conclusion that the evidence showed 'beyond reasonable doubt'

No they didnt. Thats the CRIMINAL test, not the civil test.

Picky with words ?

Pathetic excuse for bullshit in your case.

that CO2 emissions case harm to the planet, our economy and ultimately our health as well.

The Supreme Court didnt even do that. They ACTUALLY found that the EPA
does have the legal say on CO2 emissions from cars, a different matter entirely.

You can make the same stupid claim about water too.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

Which makes it a pollutant.

Pity about water.

Not unless the water is created by human activity.

Wrong again. The legislation that the Supremes ruled on doesnt just cover human activity.

For behavior of the US Supreme Court, which explanation is most probably to be right ?

It aint a binary choice.

It kind of is :

Nope.

Human induced CO2 emissions are a pollutant or not.

That aint what the supremes ruled on.

You can talk until the cows come home, but your opinion in this is rather irrelevant : The Supreme Court made a
decision that it is (a pollutant).

No it didnt. It actually made a decision that the EPA does have the legislative
authority to deal with CO2 when it comes from some sources, but not with others.

End of story,

Nope, nothing like the actual story.

unless they overturn the decision.

And that too. The Congress can change the EPA legislation if it wants to too.

Could it possibly be that they studied the matter better than you did ?

They obviously didnt when they would have come to the same conclusion about water.

Once our human induced water emissions end up increasing the water quantity on the planet by more than 50% I'm sure
the Supreme Court will look at the impact of that,

Your surety is completely irrelevant. Thats nothing like the Supreme Court's role.

and determine if these human-induced water emissions are damaging to the planet and our heath and need to be
regulated.

The Supreme Court didnt even do that with CO2.

ALL they actually did was rule that the current EPA legislation allows the EPA to deal with SOME CO2 sources.

A different matter entirely.

Meanwhile, you are free to appeal the Supreme Court decision with the 'water' argument.

Not even possible, it isnt something that the Supreme Court gets any say what so ever on.

Good luck with it.

Dont need any luck, just an understanding of the Supreme Court's role.

Its nothing like what you claim it is.