Chip with simple program for Toy

[Bob Masta]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:26:04 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:53:22 GMT, NoSpam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

.
.
.

And the main virtue of an instrumentation amp
is low common mode rejection.

---
Low???

Oops! That shoulda been HIGH common mode rejection!
(When you are adjusting this, you feed the same signal to both inputs
and adjust for the LOWEST output signal.)

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Rod Speed]

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> 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.

Maybe 48%.

Thats not the number that matters with a POWER STATION.

The engine modification is used on LNG Carriers Ships.

Sure, but thats only part of what matters with a POWER STATION.

Why do you thing that a MAN 6S70ME-C engine (at 10 MW layout point)
could not keep such efficiency, fueled with natural gas ?

I didnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity and thats
the only thing that matters with a POWER STATION. There are other
ways to do a POWER STATION running on LNG that do a lot better.

 

[Rod Speed]

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
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.

Kites are absolutely not the same technology.

SOME of them are.

<reams of your juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a juvenile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[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.

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:d81a0643-61d1-4db0-a4be-b7712d0c2987@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Some of you may have seen my earlier posts regarding two of the
Velleman mini kits that perform sound to light.

Ideally I want to be able to take a mic level signal and control 2 20w
12v lamps. Just like the classic "light organ" circuit.

(For the curious these are going into Dalek 'ears')

So I built this:

http://www.stephenhobley.com/sound.jpg
The MK103 mic to LED light flasher

and this:
http://www.velleman.be/images/tmp/MK114.jpg
The 12v light flasher with optoisolator input.

Then I connected one side of the input of the MK114 to the output of
the MK103 just after R9. The other input line of the MK114 went to
ground.

This seemed to work really well (although I found that running the
MK103 at 12v created oscillation in the LED flasher circuit, so I ran
the power through a 9v regulator to get it back to running properly).

While I was moving jumpers around I did manage to blow the 557 (T4)
transistor in the MK103, this could just have been clumsiness on my
part. But it prompts me to ask - is there a mismatch in connecting
these two circuits together in this way?

I'm still running the line through both the resistor R9 in the MK103
schematic and R10 in the MK114 - so hopefully current should be
limited correctly for the OI.

Thanks,
Dave

If you raised the power supply of the MK103 to 12V and connected the input
of the MK114 parallel to the LEDs of the MK103 it might have caused the
transistor damage and blow. Especially when you moved replaced R10 of 1k by
a 330 type and turned RV1 of the MK114 too high or too low. You'd better
replace LD4 of the MK103 by the LED of MK114s 4N35. You may have to turn RV1
of the MK102 for a usefull light on the MK114. The best value for the LEDs
LD1-LD3 to light is not necessarily the best value for the lamps driven by
the MK114.

petrus bitbyter

 

[jjs]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6h368lFihcagU1@mid.individual.net...

John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

Kites are absolutely not the same technology.

SOME of them are.

None of them were before the parasail was invented. You don't even know WHY
the parasail was a breakthrough.

reams of your juvenile shit flushed where it belongs

I am guessing you are a bitter, middle-aged, divorced, unemployed alcoholic.
Or a pre-teen with no life. Same thing.

 

[Rod Speed]

jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote

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

Kites are absolutely not the same technology.

SOME of them are.

None of them were before the parasail was invented.

Wrong, as always.

You don't even know WHY the parasail was a breakthrough.

Irrelevant to what had been seen with kites previously.

<reams of your juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>

 

[jjs]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6h3g3lFifunsU1@mid.individual.net...

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

Kites are absolutely not the same technology.

SOME of them are.

None of them were before the parasail was invented.

Wrong, as always.

You don't even know WHY the parasail was a breakthrough.

Irrelevant to what had been seen with kites previously.

I get it now. Rod Speed lives at the monitor. He has no wish, nor perhaps
ability, to learn before he opens his mouth. Killfile another netnobody.

 

[jjs]

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc78cd80-021f-4a4c-952d-9cc268ae0aa4@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

I think the problem here is that we are dealing with something so
trivial that what, if anything, can be developed from it is far from
clear.

Trivial to he with little appreciate of what was actually done. But then,
you would have to be a curious and open person. Killfile.

 

[fang]

jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6h3g3lFifunsU1@mid.individual.net...
jjs <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote

Kites are absolutely not the same technology.

SOME of them are.

None of them were before the parasail was invented.

Wrong, as always.

You don't even know WHY the parasail was a breakthrough.

Irrelevant to what had been seen with kites previously.

I get it now.

Nope, you never ever do.

<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for a dead flushed where it belongs>

Killfile

Wont save your bacon, child.

 

[PeterBP]

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/7bb25151da2
0dba3/4d90781977a6e4dd?hl=en&lnk=st&q=pathetic+fantasyland#4d90781977a6e

4dd

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.

Oh my. A meta-troll?!

What is the world coming to...

--
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

...Science had been founded on the belief that the proper
route to understanding a complex system, such as the
movement of the heavens, the mixing of chemicals, or the
emergence of life, was to break it down into a collection
of parts linked by simple mathematical formulae.

Wrong, most obviously with biological and medical science.

You wanted a list of bits and the rules that put them back together again.

Wrong, most obviously with biological and medical science.

And if the essence of a system could be reduced to an equation
that fitted comfortably on the front of a T-shirt - something like
Einstein's famous e = mc^2 - then that was perfect.

Just a tiny part of real science.

But reductionism depends on the assumption that the
world is discontinuous, that it is made of discrete bits.

Wrong again.

However, real life does not have sharp boundaries.

And real science handles that fine.

For instance, even our own bodies are not cleanly separated
from their surroundings. The surface of our skin may appear
to be a perimeter marking 'us' from 'not us' with digital clarity.
It seems a binary distinction. Yet when viewed on a microscopic
scale, when does an oxygen or water molecule stop belonging
to the surrounding air and become part of ourselves? Or when
does a skin flake or spot of grease become sufficiently detached
from our body to count as just a passing speck of dust? From
a distance, things can seem to have sharp boundaries, but get
in close and those boundaries turn soft.

And real science handles that fine.

The idea of the bounded object is really just a convenient fiction.

Nope, just a simplification thats useful in some situations.

Of course, reductionism has served science well. The reason is
that for most of the time scientists stick to situations, or scales
of magnification, where the simplification does no real harm.

And real science handles other fields like evolution fine without
any need for any simplication. In spades with nuclear physics etc.

When we talk about having a body, the fuzziness of its actual physical
boundaries is normally quite irrelevant at our level of discussion. The
odd skin flake or water molecule the wrong side makes little difference
when our use of the concept captures at least 99.99 per cent of what
we mean to say. In the same way, the normal laws of physics are
as accurate as we need for most of the problems we face in life.

And Newton's laws continue to be very useful when the speed is nowhere near the speed of light etc.

When calculating the load forces on a new bridge design, the odd
quantum blip affecting an atom in a steel girder will be lost among
the statistical regularity of zillions of other atomic interactions.

There is a lot of science that can be done by concentrating on
situations so close to being digital as not to make a difference.

And you dont even need to go that far the vast bulk of the time either.

Yet there are clearly also a great many areas in life where the blurring
of boundaries and the fluid nature of relationships cannot be ignored.

And real science does not ignore them.

The classic examples are the weather, economics, social
systems, condensed matter physics, quantum mechanics,
fluid dynamics, and anything to do with biology. Such systems
are not just accumulations of components, bits of clockwork in
which every gear is locked into a fixed relationship with its fellows.

Some of them are, even with those systems.

Instead, they are restless and evolving, driven
by the pressures of their own internal competition.

Meaningless waffle.

If such systems seem to have any stability, it is only because
they have reached a momentary accommodation of tensions.

More meaningless waffle.

Like soap bubbles, they have been stretched to
some delicately trembling pitch of organisation.

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

It should not be surprising, then, that attempts to
break them into collections of labelled parts will
destroy what seems most important about them.

Pity it doesnt.

Reductionism is much too clumsy-fingered to perform such a task....

Wrong again. Its what worked out what evolution was about.

DNA in spades.

Infectious disease in spades.

Etc etc etc.

...While the path of any particular system could not be
predicted, outcomes had a tendency to group. Certain
kinds of outcome would be far more likely than others....

And real science handles that fine too.

The simplest type of attractor is a
point attractor - a system within which no matter where you begin the
calculation you will always end up at the same spot; water funnelling
down a plughole or a pendulum swinging to rest. [2] A slightly more
interesting class of attractor is the limit cycle in which the set of
allowed outcomes forms a line rather than a point; a marble rattling
around inside the brim of a bowler hat. The marble might roll about
from side to side a bit, but eventually it will have to settle
somewhere along a two-dimensional path.

More irrelevant waffle.

The butterfly effect, the gentle fluttering of a butterfly's wings
could be enough to tip the balance of a developing weather
system and make the difference as to whether or not a hurricane
eventually swept across a country on the far side of the planet...

Just another of your pathetic little complete wanks.

...So the concept of the attractor went some way to
salvaging the loss of certainty that came with chaos theory.

More meaningless waffle.

Even more encouragingly, there was the promise that science
might discover that many quite different systems actually shared
the same kinds of attractors. There could be a family resemblance
linking natural phenomena as diverse as weather systems, the
turbulence of a river, and the firing of a neuron.

Pigs might fly, too.

A study of attractor mechanics might end up uniting many areas of science...

Pigs arse it did.

...Once their eyes had been opened, scientists began to
see the hand of chaos in all kinds of natural phenomena.

Only the wankers who then proceeded to wank themselves completely blind.

Nothing useful ever came out of that desperate wanking.

Biologists used chaos theory to explain everything from the growth of
patterns on snail shells to the branching of the body's blood vessels.

Didnt need explaining.

Physicists saw chaotic patterning in the shape of clouds

Didnt need explaining.

or the melting of ice.

Nope.

Earth scientists found chaos in the frequency of earthquakes
and the tributary patterns of river systems...

Everyone knew that there was quite a bit of randomness in stuff like that.

...The distinction between chaos and complexity can seem
hazy at times, but, essentially, chaos theory describes how
a simple, repetitive interaction, left alone to rub along, can
produce something of rich structure.

Nope. There is no 'structure' by definition, stupid.

It is about the feedback-driven generation of complication.

Nope.

Genuine complexity is something else, however. Shorelines,
rain puddles and weather patterns have an intricate structure,
but the really interesting things in life - systems like cells,
economies, ecologies, and, of course, human minds - have
extra properties such as an ability to adapt, to self-organise,
to maintain some sort of coherence or internal integrity.

Must be one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers.

These systems are not slaves to their maths, passively
following a trajectory through phase space.

More meaningless waffle.

Instead, they have developed some sort of memory or genetic mechanism
which allows them to fine-tune the very feedback processes that drive them.

Nope.

They can change the attractor landscapes in which
they dwell, and so reshape their own futures.

Nope.

A complex system is one that has harnessed chaos,
rather than one that is merely produced by it.

Wrong, as always.

In its most straightforward guise, complexity theory sounds
no more than a restatement of classical Darwinian evolution,

Wrong, as always.

which is based on the simple statistical fact that
what works has a tendency to outlast what doesn't...

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

Going Inside - A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness
John McCrone - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/qid=1085586459/
http://www.dichotomistic.com/readings_intro.html

Wota fucking wanker.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Larkin"

Aluminum electrolytics slowly lose water through the seals and
eventually lose capacitance, very roughly half in 20 years? Depends on
the construction quality. High temperature accelerates the dryout.

** Aluminium electros are made with excess electrolyte inside - to allow
for evaporation loss over lifetime. The first sign that loss has reached the
limit is the ESR (or internal impedance) begins to rise. Not until the ESR
has risen by a large factor, maybe 10 to 100 times, will the actual
capacitance value drop.

This is the reason service techs always use ESR meters to test electros,
rather than capacitance bridges.

Also, I have seen many electros that have good ESR readings and full
capacitance when they are 50 years old.



..... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

RLDeboni <robertodeboni@deboni.name> 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
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.

Maybe 48%.

Thats not the number that matters with a POWER STATION.

The engine modification is used on LNG Carriers Ships.

Sure, but thats only part of what matters with a POWER STATION.

Why do you thing that a MAN 6S70ME-C engine (at 10 MW layout point)
could not keep such efficiency, fueled with natural gas ?

I didnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

The problem is that you dont get anything like that 48% with a POWER
STATION for the overall efficiency from natural gas to electricity

Generator efficiency 95%. Engine efficiency 50%. Combined 48%.

Nope.

If the power station is small and in the same block with all the users, you don't need a transformer.

That size of generator isnt even being discussed.

And if the cables are sized correctly, the are virtually no losses.

Wrong again.

I would say that I get that efficiency up to the user doorstep.

Then you'd be wrong.

and thats the only thing that matters with a POWER STATION. There are other ways to do a POWER STATION running on LNG
that do a lot better.

Combined cycle ?

Yep.

But you can do it with a diesel motor. The Wartsila does it.

And doesnt get anything like that total efficiency that is seen with the best LPG fuelled power stations.

For small plants like 5-10 MW,

That aint what was being discussed.

in the world they still build a Power Station starting with e diesel engine.

And dont get anything like the total efficiency that is seen with the best LPG fuelled power stations.

 

[BobW]

"H.S." <hs.samix@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c5$48acfdf5$cef89e50$27549@TEKSAVVY.COM-Free...

Hello,

I am playing around with a bullet camera which grabs video in daylight
and in darkness. In darkness it uses NIR LEDs to see the scene and
captures B/W video. Can somebody suggest a newsgroup or forums where I
can discuss various hacking aspects for this?

Thanks.

Try the Palmer House in Chicago.

Bob
--
== All google group posts are automatically deleted due to spam ==

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

I actually agree with alot of your points,

Bugger, now I will have to do a reversal.

Have you no sense of common decency and decorum what so ever ?

But there a couple of places where you and that author were saying the same thing,

Nope, not one.

but you were choosy about the particular terms.

Wrong again.

But systems theory is bigger than his ideas,
and he was trying to apply it to nerve cells.

And doing that is a complete wank, as I said.

The assumption was that brain cells were also basically digital devices.

They arent, and nothing like it either.

The brain might be a pink handful of gloopy mush;

Yours may well be a gloopy mush, but thats because of all that substance abuse you get up to.

brain cells themselves might be rather unsightly tangles of protoplasm,

Nope.

no two ever shaped the same;

Nothing unsightly about that.

but it was believed that information processing in the
brain must somehow rise above this organic squalor.

It aint a squalor either except with you flagrant drug abusers.

There might be no engineer to draw neat circuit diagrams, but something
about neurons had to allow them to act together with logic and precision.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers ?

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a juvenile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a juvenile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[jjs]

"fang" <fang@fang.com> wrote in message
news:6h3iliFi9ponU1@mid.individual.net...

Fang is Rod Speed.

So Fang Rod Speed, tell us all how the parasail is just another kite and the
same as some kites that have been around "for millenium" as you said.

Push away from the monitor and learn up.