Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
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.

Really?

Yep, the only thing that makes any sense is to work out a config
that the calculations show will work and build that instead.

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and error.

The exact opposite actually, as you know full well.

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

Yeah but, initially, we still have to experiment in order
to determine whether the calculation was right or not.

Different matter entirely to what was being discussed, what can be calculated to
be a non viable approach once we have established the basis for the calculations.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that if we calculate that
a big bridge or a big multistory building or a heavy aircraft wont work in a
particular config, we dont bother to build that config to prove the calculations,
we find a different config that we calculate will work and build that instead.

 

[Rod Speed]

Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
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.

Really?

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and error.

Everything IS built using trial and error.

Nope. Anything of any major value is calculated to be viable and then built.

Sometimes someone fucks up like that bridge in London for
the millennium, but that doesnt happen very often and that
usually happens with configs that cant be fully calculated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5h2NF2xMYI

Just another completely mindless steaming turd.

 

[Kris Krieger]

"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in
newspqdnazuWPSadDfVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@giganews.com:

"KMK" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:xIqdnaChBuLa_zfVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews.com...
"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in
newsPydnY64F-5q6DTVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews.com:


"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?

[snip]

I actually tried "What is a static power switch?" and
"static power switch" at both google, and ask.com.

ask.com has an "expand your search" box, which listed, among other terms,
"on
off switch", which is how I got to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch
but it has nothing about "static power switch" or "static switch".
ask.com has 3850 hits for "static switch", but I can't tell whetehr those
are
the same as "static power switch".



Try this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3726/is_200203/ai_n9070736

Good link! - I don't know why it didn't shgow up when I searched. Maybe I
ought to have skipped the quotes?

I also added the site to my "electronics" folder in Favorites - what a great
overall reference, Thanks! =

- Kris

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:Xns9AFF82C17B45Emeadowmuffin@216.168.3.70...

"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in
newspqdnazuWPSadDfVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@giganews.com:


"KMK" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:xIqdnaChBuLa_zfVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews.com...
"Tom Biasi" <tombiasi***@optonline.net> wrote in
newsPydnY64F-5q6DTVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews.com:


"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?

[snip]

I actually tried "What is a static power switch?" and
"static power switch" at both google, and ask.com.

ask.com has an "expand your search" box, which listed, among other
terms,
"on
off switch", which is how I got to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch
but it has nothing about "static power switch" or "static switch".
ask.com has 3850 hits for "static switch", but I can't tell whetehr
those
are
the same as "static power switch".



Try this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3726/is_200203/ai_n9070736


Good link! - I don't know why it didn't shgow up when I searched. Maybe I
ought to have skipped the quotes?

I also added the site to my "electronics" folder in Favorites - what a
great
overall reference, Thanks! =

- Kris

You're welcome.

 

[jjs]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6h0g2hFi2pnhU1@mid.individual.net...

Anyone with a clue can see that some birds dont beat their wings much and
so that mode
should work well with powered aircraft that use an engine instead of
beating the wings.

So you are saying that if you were thirty years-old in 1900 or so you would
immediately know exactly what the solution was? Is that correct?

And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.

Kites did not 'fly' in the same manner at all.

Irrelevant, they clearly do fly so there is no reason why you cant have
powered flight.

Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same method
aircraft do.

 

In sci.physics jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:

Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same method
aircraft do.

Nonsense.

Tie a strong enough string in the right place on a Cessna 182 and it
will fly just like a kite in a strong enough wind.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

An excellent example would be ships' hulls which, for millennia, were
developed empirically with no regard for the underlying physics since,
at the time, there was none and the only thing anybody (Archimedes)
had figured out was how flotation worked.

Another example would be blowguns. Of major value because they put
food on the table, there are no calculation made as to their viability
since they're built without their builders knowing anything about pi
or PSI, and they just work.

Yet another example, from more recent times, would be the development
of the airfoil. I believe that, early on, various profiles were
evaluated empirically using wind tunnels and data gathered from those
runs used to establish the mathematical underpinning of their
operation.

And how about other greats like Samuel Finley Breese Morse who knew
nothing about transmission lines and yet managed to make a telegraph
work?

Yeah, lots of things USED to be a combination of trial and error
and art.

These days most everything is calculated and/or simulated before
being built and most simulators use the math of basic principals.

The Wright brothers would have killed for a copy of FoilSim and
a computer to run it on, which BTW, uses basic principals, not
data gathered from NACA airfoils.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

I could be as silly and suggest that if a scientist did that today
he would come up with a theory, peers would review it, and nobody would ever get off the ground. Oh, well I just
said it.

Anyone with a clue would have noticed that birds and insect fly fine.

They beat their wings, too.

Because they dont have engines.

Anyone with a clue can see that some birds dont beat their wings much and so that mode
should work well with powered aircraft that use an engine instead of beating the wings.

So you are saying that if you were thirty years-old in 1900 or so you
would immediately know exactly what the solution was? Is that correct?

Nope, not saying anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

JUST saying that your original which you carefully deleted and I have restored is just plain wrong.

Plenty of those who 'reviewed it' would have enough of a clue to realise
that if some birds can go for long periods without beating their wings,
and fly fine, that its should be feasible to do powered flight that way
if you can get an engine and propeller that is light enough.

And that kites had been doing that for millennia too.

Kites did not 'fly' in the same manner at all.

Irrelevant, they clearly do fly so there is no reason why you cant have powered flight.

Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same method aircraft do.

Pity about the parasail. That technology has been around for millennia.

Again, all powered flight takes is an engine and propeller that is light enough.

Its hardly surprising that a couple of bicycle mechanics could decide that that might be feasible and worth trying.

 

[Rod Speed]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote

jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote

Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same method aircraft do.

Nonsense.

Tie a strong enough string in the right place on a Cessna 182
and it will fly just like a kite in a strong enough wind.

And you dont even need the string. They fly fine with the engine off in a strong enough wind
and that gets them unstuck regularly when some fool doesnt tied them down properly.

In spades with the lighter stuff like the Wright Flyer.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
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.

Really?

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and error.

Everything IS built using trial and error.

Nope. Anything of any major value is calculated to be viable and then built.

Sorry, Charlie, that's just not true.

Wrong, as always.

An excellent example would be ships' hulls which, for millennia, were
developed empirically with no regard for the underlying physics since,
at the time, there was none and the only thing anybody (Archimedes)
had figured out was how flotation worked.

Irrelevant to the FACT that we do big bridges and multistory buildings etc that way.

Another example would be blowguns. Of major value because they put
food on the table, there are no calculation made as to their viability
since they're built without their builders knowing anything about pi
or PSI, and they just work.

Yet another example, from more recent times, would be the development
of the airfoil. I believe that, early on, various profiles were evaluated
empirically using wind tunnels and data gathered from those runs used
to establish the mathematical underpinning of their operation.

And how about other greats like Samuel Finley Breese Morse who knew
nothing about transmission lines and yet managed to make a telegraph work?

All completely irrelevant to his stupid claim that EVERYTHING is built by trial and error.

Not anymore they aint.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the usual pathetic
excuse for a juvenile troll that fools absolutely no one at all, as always.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message news:539db221-8124-4397-8b8e-c89067ada782@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

Anyone knowledgeable on energy storage technology who gives advice on
investing in, say, copper, might be wondering about future advances in
battery technology.

No one can predict names, dates or improvements but time-profiles of
the most plausible developments may be useful.

Fix cost/watt-hr and plot energy density vs time.

or

Fix efficiency and plot cost-watt-hr vs. time.

or

and so on.


Bret Cahill

There seem to be moderate improvements with some breakthroughs in all important aspects of rechargeable batteries : energy density,
power density, (deep) cycle life, cycle efficiency, cost, safety etc. But it's nothing like what Moore's law does in
microelectronics.

When thinking about future battery developments, one interesting fact stands out like a sore :

The actual energy density obtained for packaged batteries today is FAR lower than the theoretical specific energy density !

I've long scratched my head why that is. This site talks about that difference briefly :
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10595&page=24

I can understand that container, electrode support, connectors, diluted electrolyte, unreacted materials etc would reduce the
capacity to 75% or so of theoretical.
But it's much worse than that. Most types get only 15-25% of their theoretical capacity !

For example, molten salt Na-NiCl2 cells (ZEBRAs) used to be spec'ed at 90 Wh/kg, recently enhanced by MESA to 120 Wh/kg.
A moderate improvement, similar to what we see with development of other battery types.
In contrast, the theoretical energy density of a Na-NiCl2 cell is 790 Wh/kg.
790 Wh/kg !!!! That is some 5-6 times higher than current best Li-ion's !!

ZEBRAs are made from very cheap materials : Nickel and NaCl (table salt) and a little bit of aluminum (at the basics).
So just imagine if we could make a ZEBRA that gets even HALF of its theoretical capacity !!
Combined with a reasonable power-density and good cycle lifetime, that would completely change (read 'solve') the economics of
battery driven vehicles.
It would open up a multi-billion dollar market ! Talking about incentives !

This brings up an interesting issue : Reducing the 'inactive' material in rechargeable batteries is an engineering task, and not a
task that requires scientific breakthroughs.
So, for future developments, I expect gradual improvement of existing battery types over time as engineers find more optimal ways to
make the chemistry work with less and less inactive material in the cell.

From an investment point of view, Lithium (metal) is probably the safest bet to invest in (or buy lithium carbonate futures if they
exist).
Once we start using Lithium for hybrids/PHEVs in large volume, the price of Lithium will likely go through the roof rather fast.
Even without Lithium cells used for hybrids, the world's 'easily harvested' Lithium supplies are pretty limited, and could even be
peaking pretty soon, and that is why I don't believe that large-scale use of Lithium-ion for electric drive vehicles is smart. But
as an investment it should be (pretty succesfull).

My 2 cts

Rob

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <6h0fm9Fhnv3tU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed wrote:

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

Why not ?

Because other approaches work a lot better.

50% efficiency is very good.

Not with natural gas powered power stations of any size.

50% efficiency is very good (or extremely good or pie-in-the-sky high)
for any power station working from conversion of heat energy to another
form of energy. Can you give a cite to support your claim that this is
not true when the fuel is natural gas?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:brpma4trqvtb6qqoklm3qilsmei3uf37ea@4ax.com...

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:45:47 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message news:539db221-8124-4397-8b8e-c89067ada782@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Anyone knowledgeable on energy storage technology who gives advice on
investing in, say, copper, might be wondering about future advances in
battery technology.

No one can predict names, dates or improvements but time-profiles of
the most plausible developments may be useful.

Fix cost/watt-hr and plot energy density vs time.

or

Fix efficiency and plot cost-watt-hr vs. time.

or

and so on.


Bret Cahill


There seem to be moderate improvements with some breakthroughs in all important aspects of rechargeable batteries : energy
density,
power density, (deep) cycle life, cycle efficiency, cost, safety etc. But it's nothing like what Moore's law does in
microelectronics.

When thinking about future battery developments, one interesting fact stands out like a sore :

The actual energy density obtained for packaged batteries today is FAR lower than the theoretical specific energy density !

I've long scratched my head why that is. This site talks about that difference briefly :
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10595&page=24

I can understand that container, electrode support, connectors, diluted electrolyte, unreacted materials etc would reduce the
capacity to 75% or so of theoretical.
But it's much worse than that. Most types get only 15-25% of their theoretical capacity !

For example, molten salt Na-NiCl2 cells (ZEBRAs) used to be spec'ed at 90 Wh/kg, recently enhanced by MESA to 120 Wh/kg.


I don't think I want to drive a car that's lugging around a hundred
kilograms of liquid sodium at 300C or so. Or wait two days or so for
it to warm up. Or wait a couple of hours to recharge it.

John,

My point was about battery development in general ; that engineering has a lot of room to play with until theoretical limits are
obtained in current cell chemistries.

Your comment is specifically on the Zebra, but seems rather uninformed.
But since you brought it up, here goes :

The Zebra has been tested by NREL and found to be safe under all fail conditions :
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/7101-0by8BY/native/7101.PDF
Regarding the liquid sodium : Noone (including NREL) has been able to rapture the cell and get liquid sodium out.
The explanation : the sodium will immediately react with the clorine ions when the cell is ruptured, creating....NaCl (table salt).

On warming up : Only needed if the battery cooled down all the way AND there is no auxilary power unit in the vehicle.

On recharge : Mostly 'recharge' is considered a benefit of batteries. Remember 'plug-in' ?

It's admittedly a little more appealing than a sodium-sulphur battery.

Sodium-sulphur had serious safety issues, so I agree.

Gasoline-powered cars work great, and don't need to be fixed. As the
price of gas goes up, people will be discouraged from driving hideous
beasts like Expeditions and Escalades and Ram trucks; fine by me.

Opinion.

John

 

In sci.physics John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:

Kites with the exception of the parasail do not 'fly' by the same method
aircraft do.

Nonsense.

Tie a strong enough string in the right place on a Cessna 182 and it
will fly just like a kite in a strong enough wind.

Sure. Put a rope on a trailer house and it would fly. You have
demonstrated nothing.

Nope. A house trailer would be hard pressed to raise the tether above
the horizontal while a C-182 (or any other airplane) would raise
above the horizontal as soon as the wind got above stall speed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote

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

Why not ?

Because other approaches work a lot better.

50% efficiency is very good.

Not with natural gas powered power stations of any size.

50% efficiency is very good (or extremely good or pie-in-the-sky high) for any
power station working from conversion of heat energy to another form of energy.

Yes, he wasnt using the correct number for a power station that involves the use of that engine.

Can you give a cite to support your claim that this is not true when the fuel is natural gas?

I didnt make that claim. Just said that no one with a clue uses that engine
in a modern power station running on natural gas, rather clumsily.

 

[Rod Speed]

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Pity about the parasail. That technology has been around for millennia.

I find that an interesting statement.

Your problem.

Can you tell us where and when the parasail appeared in history before, say, 1964?

Look at kites sometime. They've been around for millennia and some are the same technology.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48AA5D76.9D2AAA49@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

"nurk" <nurk@nurk.com> wrote in message

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

A different matter entirely.

Not just 'allow the EPA', but 'force the EPA' is what they decided.
There is a big difference.

I'm glad you have such faith in the courts.

That means Gore's film DOES contain lies and errors as determined by a
British Court.

Red herring

Graham

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48AB1C20.EE8F0EED@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

Face it dude : The ICE is responsible for the majority of air pollution
in
all cities around the world.

If you INSIST in living in cities then how do you plan to get around town
without serious infrastructure pre-planning. Which is not typically how
cities
arise, nor easily fixed after the event.

another red herring

And if you think is Los Angeles is bad try Mumbai/Bombay.

I know. I've been to Kolkata many times, and can't stay there more than a
week...
Air pollution there is human degrading.

Graham

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48AB561C.5F4D472F@hotmail.com...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

All Eeyore needs is a fancy little donkey cart. Maybe a nice pink
one, with flowers.

I dunno.

What with the intrusion of the Bret Cahill and Rod Speed slugs and his
responses to their crap I'd say, deep down, he's OK.

Maybe we should cut him a little slack?

He'll be in my kill file for at least a few more months, along with
cahill and his mindless followers. Speed has been there through three
ISPs, and at least a half dozen computers. Just because there are
bigger offenders doesn't automatically make him good. Every time I have
to change my access to Usenet, the usual trolls end up in quarantine.
Now that I use Newsproxy it's easier to mange the changeovers. I no
longer have the patience to wade through their crap, and almost three
months after losing the use of my good eye to a palsy, nothing they have
to say is worth wading through. The doctors tell me it will be three
more months before they will even consider surgery, to attempt to repair
the damage to the muscles of that eye. My remaining eye has low
sensitivity to light, and is colorblind. It has no fine focus, and I've
had to reduce the screen resolution as much as I can, to see the text.

That's a real bugger.

How did all this happen ?

You really want to know ?

Graham