Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Am I understanding properly that you suggested that they use an analogOne of my most disappointing experiences came when I addressed a note to
large general-interest (i.e., time-wasting) mail list at work where this
had come up, commenting on the fact that testing a reducion of error rates
on a *digital* medium needn't be done by "hey, it sounds better" but by
actua *digital* instrumentation, and getting blank stares and stupid
answers -- in a technoid company, digital category. And not from dumb
sales and management people.
Thats a different matter entirely to what was being discussed, when theyRod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
And only a few years ago admitted that Geocentrism was wrong.
No they didnt. They actually admitted that they treated Galileo badly at that time.
At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance
in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant,
so their recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was
tantamount to their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely*
cleared Galileo's work for unrestricted publication;
Clearly they had decided that the earth does revolve around the sun LONG beforebefore that, when they made some moves in that direction, it's much less clear,
despite frequent claims that hte Church had it all settled in 1700-whatever.
And it was that sort of thing that did ensure that it took them a longDepartment of satirical prophecy: Galileo wrote a note in the margin of
a copy of the Dialogue that the theologians should take care, because
later on it might be decided that Earth really does move, and then the
ones holding to the old view might have to be persecuted as heretics!
Thats a different matter entirely to what was being discussed, when theySo, in 1822, there was a stubborn censor who would not clear the work for publication,
Sure, but all bureaucracys are like that.and the Holy Office (Inquisition) had to threaten him!
And that institution alone is clear evidence that they had enoughSee Annibale Fantoli, "Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church",
p. 357. Published by the Vatican Observatory, by the way. <big grin
Yeah, I did at the time when they did that.And didnt have the balls to even mention Bruno.
Not true.
Fraid so.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
"Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of
"profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's
condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."
That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.
Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal
statement (plus other pronunciamenti at the time)?
Too long ago to remember the detail.I haven't, so it would be nice to hear specifics from someone who had.
From memory its available on the Vatican site.The text that happens to reside in a WIkipedia article at any given
time is, sadly enough, not an authority anyone could rely on.
Michael,Bret Cahill wrote:
"In the land of the blind delusionals the one eyed man is king."
In that land you would still be the biggest buffoon.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Is the held voltage AC or DC? It sounds like DC the way you describe it butI am working on a hobby project and would like to find a "single chip"
solution or "circuit" for a sample & hold frequency to voltage
converter with a no drift output.
I have a generated audio range of 50 Hz to 300 Hz
I would like to correlate the Output voltage range as:
5v @ 50 Hz - to - 8v @ 300 Hz
A new update or sample pulse would be once every 10 minutes. The
output voltage must hold solid, in other words absolutely drift/decay
free between 10 minute intervals.
I tried a 1 Meg resistor and a 1 uf film capacitor on a TL082 OP Amp
input with the unacceptable output voltage decay shown below.
Decay Time
5.58v 12:33
5.57v 12:36
5.56v 12:41
5.55v 12:46
5.54v 12:53
The ideal chip would be 8 pin and drift free on the Output. It needs
to operate from a single 9 volt battery, so minimum current drain is
important.
Any chip or circuit recommendation is appreciated.
Thank you for your insight and sharing your knowledge
* * * *
Christopher
Temecula CA.USA
http://www.oldtemecula.com
Why not look into washing machine water level sensor/switchI thought this would be easy, but I'm struggling with the details.
I have some lights (12VDC 200W) I want to turn on when the water level
in a fountain reaches a certain point (i.e., the fountain is on).
If I use a level switch and trigger a relay, I have the problem of
figuring out where to put the relay around the fountain (just rocks
and dirt). Do I bury a standard solid state relay in a water-tight
box? I can't really have an above ground box sitting there.
Is there such a thing as "water resistant" relays?
thanks!
G, B and U is one of the all-time greats.One of my favorites Phil. The cable company is running his movies all this
week. G,B& U yesterday, Fistfull of Dollars today.
Tom
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully ,
which make it very inconvenient to use.
Can any members help me to explain this phenomenon ? Thank You.
stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully , which make it very inconvenient to use.
Wow. I haven't had a crappy CFL like that in years. At the time it was
a Philips lamp. All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full brilliance
immediately - at least it's so subtle I don't notice it if they're
not. Those Philips lamps OTOH were very dim at first.
Modern Philips ones in the UK are fine.
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten fully ,
Depends on brand and model. I know some that are as close to 'instant
on' at close to full brightness as you could reasonably expect. It does
get worse as they age though.
You're either talking about old technology ones or very cheap crap.
I buy Philips or Osram (Sylvania in the USA IIRC).
All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full brillianceWhen you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully , which make it very inconvenient to use.
Can any members help me to explain this phenomenon ?
If you already have the frequency-to-DC and only want a "forever" S/H, one wayI hope to get a manufactures number for a single chip that operates on
a single supply at nine volts.
It must sample a voltage between 5 and 8 volts of smooth DC and hold
that value on the output indefinitely or until an update pulse is sent
to the chip.
The desired chip updates are only needed every 10 minutes or so.
Basically I am monitoring the "thermal drift" that is detected in a
theremin musical instrument; which is heard in the audio as a slow
audio frequency drift as the theremin sits idle. My circuity already
compensates for this but I need a chip that Inputs a voltage sample
from my freq to DC voltage converter circuit at a given moment and
hold that same voltage on the Output indefinitely.
stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully , which make it very inconvenient to use.
Wow. I haven't had a crappy CFL like that in years. At the time it was
a Philips lamp. All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full brilliance
immediately - at least it's so subtle I don't notice it if they're
not. Those Philips lamps OTOH were very dim at first.
Modern Philips ones in the UK are fine.
** Absolute BULLSHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buy a Philips "Ambience" CFL and see just how horribly slow they are.
That's not what they sell here.
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten fully ,
Depends on brand and model. I know some that are as close to 'instant
on' at close to full brightness as you could reasonably expect. It does
get worse as they age though.
You're either talking about old technology ones or very cheap crap.
I buy Philips or Osram (Sylvania in the USA IIRC).
** Philips "Tornado" spiral CFLs are also VERY SLOW to light up fully.
Even with a room temp of 20C they take about 3 minutes.
Haven't seen those ones. At least not that style by Philips.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:31:09 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:28:45 GMT, christopher@REMOVEoldtemecula.com
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:51:00 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
BTW, why are you limited to an 8 pin chip?
I am not limited to 8 pins. It was just a thought that
there must be the ideal chip out there I could use that would
temporarily match the Output voltage with the Input voltage at each
sample Input update pulse.
Two pins for 9 volt "power",
One pin for a DC voltage level analog "Input",
One pin for a DC voltage level analog "Output",
One pin for adjusting a "Clock Frequency".
One pin for Outputting a clock pulse which goes to the
"sample update" pin, I would not use this, it
is done by my existing circuit or manually with
a conditioned pulse.
One pin to "enable" the update sample & latch using
leading edge and trailing edge of the clock
pulse for temporary digital storage.
One pin for what else the chip would need.
---
I think you're going to find it from very difficult to impossible to
find a COTS single chip solution for your application.
If you can disclose some details about your application I'm sure at
least one of us will be able to help you wind up with something
practical and workable.
Are you using a microcontroller at all?
No
All my projects are eventually made public, here is a sneak peek, hope
it does not make it even more confusing. The technique works perfect
other than what I believe is called capacitor droop!
http://www.oldtemecula.com/theremin/tan/index.htm
* * * *
Christopher
Temecula CA.USA
http://www.oldtemecula.com
John's original, still right at the top, is just plain wrong on WHEN that collectionRod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
And only a few years ago admitted that Geocentrism was wrong.
No they didnt. They actually admitted that they treated Galileo badly at that time.
At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance
in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant, so their
recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was tantamount to
their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely*
cleared Galileo's work for unrestricted publication;
Thats a different matter entirely to what was being discussed, when they
had enough of a clue to realise that the earth did revolve around the sun.
I don't know quite what you're talking about,
I wasnt disagreeing with you there, just pointing out that that wasnt what was being discussed.or why you seem to think you're disagreeing with me.
The problem isnt with the *it*, the problem is with the rest of it that like I said has no relevance to whenPerhaps the "it" was too ambiguous in referent.
They realised that the earth did revolve around the sun well before 1822.Anyway, what they completely cleared in 1822 (and had NOT in the 1700s) was the heliocentrism,
Thats wrong too. That was the date on which one of the silly senile old fartsnot the rights & wrongs of the treatment of Galileo; obviously the latter
could not have been at issue then, as it was not settled till the 1990s.
Nope, well before that too.before that, when they made some moves in that direction,
it's much less clear, despite frequent claims that hte Church
had it all settled in 1700-whatever.
Clearly they had decided that the earth does revolve around the sun LONG before
they finally admitted that they had treated Galileo rather badly just a few years ago.
Yes. 1822, in fact.
Thats wrong too.Before that, of course, everyone knew it, but they had not agreed to admit it.
I didnt do anything of the sort.Department of satirical prophecy: Galileo wrote a note in the margin of
a copy of the Dialogue that the theologians should take care, because
later on it might be decided that Earth really does move, and then the
ones holding to the old view might have to be persecuted as heretics!
And it was that sort of thing that did ensure that it took them a long
time to have the balls to admit that they had treated him quite badly.
Yes indeed, never be so nasty as to speak unpleasant truths about people
who lock you up and ban your work. But I will emphasize the *truth* of what he
said. To call it self-fulfilling would be trivializing Church politics pretty severely.
No one does. Essentially because it wasnt formally documented.So, in 1822, there was a stubborn censor who would not clear the work for publication,
Thats a different matter entirely to what was being discussed, when they
had enough of a clue to realise that the earth did revolve around the sun.
At this point, I don't know when your "when" is.
They actually knew well before that.But, as stated, they did know in 1822;
And I pointed out that they knew well before 1822 too.that's what I was talking about in repsonse to your comment that they knew long before 1990.
Its never a good idea when the result is inevitable.and the Holy Office (Inquisition) had to threaten him!
Sure, but all bureaucracys are like that.
Duh. But of course threatening him to get him to stop the geocentric
foolishness wasn't that bad an idea from some points of view.
Precisely, so the 1822 date isnt really relevant.See Annibale Fantoli, "Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church",
p. 357. Published by the Vatican Observatory, by the way. <big grin
And that institution alone is clear evidence that they had enough
of a clue to realise that the earth did revolve around the sun.
Sure thing. As I said, they knew that in 1822, and
of course the Jesuits knew it long before that,
I bet plenty of them had enough of a clue to consider the evidence whileprobably even before the half-baked permission to publish Galileo a century earlier.
And didnt have the balls to even mention Bruno.
Not true.
Fraid so.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
"Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of
"profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's
condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."
That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.
Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal
statement (plus other pronunciamenti at the time)?
Yeah, I did at the time when they did that.
I haven't, so it would be nice to hear specifics from someone who had.
Too long ago to remember the detail.
The text that happens to reside in a WIkipedia article at any given
time is, sadly enough, not an authority anyone could rely on.
From memory its available on the Vatican site.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
How is the hunt for a long term single chip sample and hold going? I agreeOn Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:31:09 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:28:45 GMT, christopher@REMOVEoldtemecula.com
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:51:00 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
BTW, why are you limited to an 8 pin chip?
I am not limited to 8 pins. It was just a thought that
there must be the ideal chip out there I could use that would
temporarily match the Output voltage with the Input voltage at each
sample Input update pulse.
Two pins for 9 volt "power",
One pin for a DC voltage level analog "Input",
One pin for a DC voltage level analog "Output",
One pin for adjusting a "Clock Frequency".
One pin for Outputting a clock pulse which goes to the
"sample update" pin, I would not use this, it
is done by my existing circuit or manually with
a conditioned pulse.
One pin to "enable" the update sample & latch using
leading edge and trailing edge of the clock
pulse for temporary digital storage.
One pin for what else the chip would need.
---
I think you're going to find it from very difficult to impossible to
find a COTS single chip solution for your application.
If you can disclose some details about your application I'm sure at
least one of us will be able to help you wind up with something
practical and workable.
Are you using a microcontroller at all?
No
All my projects are eventually made public, here is a sneak peek, hope
it does not make it even more confusing. The technique works perfect
other than what I believe is called capacitor droop!
http://www.oldtemecula.com/theremin/tan/index.htm
* * * *
Christopher
Temecula CA.USA
http://www.oldtemecula.com
I do know what a Theremin is. In fact, I own one that was signed by Bobhttp://www.oldtemecula.com/theremin/tan/index.htm
* * * *
Christopher
By the way, have you seen the video (DVD) called An Electronic Odyssey
(the
story of Leon's life)? It's well worth getting if you're a Theremin fan.
Yes a wonderful movie!
Hmmm.... Could you explain the concept of a "tuned" Theremin?
Thank you for your interest. A theremin is musical instrument played
without touching anything.
Normally the thereminist tunes a theremin to place a specific note,
lets say, musical note "A1" eighteen inches from the pitch antenna.
Due to thermal and environmental conditions such as humidity this
moves or drifts away from this original set location.
I would like to donate a theremin to a local kids museum where tuning
the instrument is beyond the ability of people trying it out.
I can have it self tune if I can overcome the capacitor droop problem
of a basic sample & hold circuit.
Please visit my theremin webpage to understand my passion for the
instrument.
http://www.oldtemecula.com/theremin/index.htm
* * * *
Christopher
Temecula CA.USA
http://www.oldtemecula.com
Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore"
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten fully
,
Depends on brand and model. I know some that are as close to
'instant
on' at close to full brightness as you could reasonably expect. It
does
get worse as they age though.
You're either talking about old technology ones or very cheap crap.
I buy Philips or Osram (Sylvania in the USA IIRC).
** Philips "Tornado" spiral CFLs are also VERY SLOW to light up
fully.
Even with a room temp of 20C they take about 3 minutes.
Haven't seen those ones. At least not that style by Philips.
** Open you fucking eyes - asshole.
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm
Don't care.
Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore"
stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully , which make it very inconvenient to use.
Wow. I haven't had a crappy CFL like that in years. At the time it
was
a Philips lamp. All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full
brilliance
immediately - at least it's so subtle I don't notice it if they're
not. Those Philips lamps OTOH were very dim at first.
Modern Philips ones in the UK are fine.
** Absolute BULLSHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buy a Philips "Ambience" CFL and see just how horribly slow they are.
That's not what they sell here.
** What a blatant, fucking LIAR you are:
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20Ambiance.htm
Well you won't find them in Morrisons.
Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore"
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm
Don't care.
** Monstrous ego = zero honesty.
Snipping FUCKHOLE !