Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isnt MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

Better yet, try this from:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1621
"From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 79--PERJURY

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just
strong
enough ?to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough ?(100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest
mountain, a
series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain
work.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than
on flat
land (compared to a standard diesel rig).
Why did you suddenly bring mountains into the discussion ?
Because the claim above was that series hybrids would not save
fuel by that much and only work on flat land.
It would be interesting to determine the reasoning behind Eaton's
choice of a parallel hybrid, a complicated drive train where
performance and other characterics fall somewhere between a full
series hybrid and conventional ICE.

Parallel is as good as series around town and better than
conventional on the highway but parallel is worse in the mountains
than conventional or series.

Series is better than parallel on the highway, is a much simpler to
design and much easier to maintain and modify drive train.

The only reasons are,

1. ?They had some patents on parallel. ?It's probably impossible to
make any claims on full series hybrids.

2. ?They are planning on upgrades.

It would indeed be great if automakers would comment on their
drivetrain choices.
But I think it is a matter of evolution versus revolution that the
'parallel' hybrid has been chosen as the drivetrain platform for
most hybrids.

That was number "3" but I left it out.

The old Model T Ford looks a lot like a carriage -- another example of
consciously or unconsciously paying homage to the past.

Nothing whatever to do with homage, everything to do with design being a progression.

When changing the drivetrain with hybrid, there are a lot more
issues to solve apart from pure plain technical efficiency numbers.
Think new suppliers, new contracts, re-training maintenace crews and
sales people, risk of product safety problems and lawsuits, product
failure recalls etc. etc.

In that sense, a parallel hybrid is already considered more than
'evolutionary' for big automakers.
A series hybrids and EVs (even though it has the best technical
future and the simplest design) would probably be a 'revolution'
which involves taking bigger risks.

That's it.

And automakers are much more conservative than most people think :

It was pretty funny when Schwartznegger told auto executives to build
greener cars.

For example, the GM board claimed that Toyota was going to "loose
their shirt" (actual quote from the board room) by bringing the
Prius (parallel hybrid) to production.
Now see where we are : Prius is quickly becoming one of the best
sold vehicles in the US, and GM lost not just their shirt but their
underwear as well.

W.r.t. fuel efficiency, series hybrid would be best, but parallel
hybrid is better than no hybrid at all :
This (parallel hybrid popularity) is a good test of large scale use
of vehicle batteries, and a test of large scale use of plug-in.
After this, you can see another 'evolutionary' step parallel hybrid
where the electric motor and battery get bigger, and the ICE gets
smaller. After that, it's a small step to series hybrid and full EV.
So we are moving in the right direction, albeit with baby steps.

I hope the decline in oil supplies will be more gradual than the
predictions, because automakers are slow movers...

They'll just go belly up.

Bet they dont.

 

[bw]

"Dave, I can't do that" <davenpete@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:310ff9f1-c94a-4eb6-82b0-6dd7100cdd0d@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Hi people,

OK, out of my depth here so be gentle.

I have a 6" x 4" PCB with a display and other stuff on it and it is
supposed also output a variable PWM signal of 5vdc at 5KHz. Tracing
back from the output connector, the first chip is a SN74LS123N,
Monostable Multivibrator.

It is putting out a square wave but at only around 460mv, it
fluctuates between 440mv and 480mv.

Using a Tektronix TDS-210 scope, I am getting a wildly drifting
frequency ranging from about 3.8KHz to a little over 8KHz.

Would this indicate the chip is faulty and that by replacing it I can
solve this problem?

OR

Could it be something before that chip?

The chip has 5 caps in it's vicinity and 2 resistors, I am guessing
that some or all set the 5KHz frequency. Not all of those may be
connected to the chip but they are close by. It is difficult to follow
the traces as it is a multi layer board. One of the small blue caps
with 473M as the only marking looks like it has been replaced as there
is resin marks around the soldering.

I know it is probably a question like, "how long is a piece of string,
" But I am totally dumb when it comes to digital stuff but quite
capable of swapping out the chip. I live out in the boonies and it
takes about a week for stuff to get here so if I have to order I'd
like to get the right thing.

Thanks for any crumbs you guys can sprinkle.

Dave

Standard troubleshooting. Is V+ steady at pin 16??
Flex the board a little and look carefully at the solder joints. Put finger
pressure on the chip and look for changes.
Is is a DIP or flat pack, etc, etc

 

[stan]

Rod Speed wrote:

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

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

Better yet, try this from:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1621
"From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 79--PERJURY

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;

You questioned what he thought about perjury.
You asked for a dictionary definition.
He provided one example of a legal definition.
You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with an attempt to sidestep
the issue by acting stupid.

Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To deliberately
testify falsely under oath"

Also of note, your statement above could be taken as saying you believe
he was burnt at the stake. I'll grant even you with the knowledge that
he wasn't and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.

 

[Rod Speed]

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote

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

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

Better yet, try this from:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1621
"From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 79--PERJURY

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

You questioned what he thought about perjury.

You're lying, as always.

I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.

You asked for a dictionary definition.

You're lying, as always.

He provided one example of a legal definition.

Which has no relevance what so ever to the individual being discussed, Galileo.

You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with an attempt to sidestep the issue by acting stupid.

You're lying, as always.

Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To deliberately testify falsely under oath"

You need a better dictionary.

Also of note, your statement above could be taken as saying you believe he was burnt at the stake.

Only by fools that dont have a fucking clue. You qualify.

I'll grant even you with the knowledge that he wasn't

It is clear from what else I have said in this thread that I know he wasnt, fuckwit.

and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.

And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.

 

[stan]

Rod Speed wrote:

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.

<snip>

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

You truly do suffer from a lack of imagination and skill at insults.

You questioned what he thought about perjury.

You're lying, as always.

Apparently you have no memory and can't read.

I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.

Is that what you think happened? You really do need to have your meds
checked.

You asked for a dictionary definition.

You're lying, as always.

Have you tried hooked on phonics? It seemed to help my grandchildren
with reading.

He provided one example of a legal definition.

Which has no relevance what so ever to the individual being discussed, Galileo.

There is no evidence you are capable of a discussion. What you do isn't
"discussion" by any definition.

You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with an attempt to sidestep the issue by acting stupid.

You're lying, as always.

Unfortunately, most people have less trouble with reading and
comprehension. You might get it, keep trying.

Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To deliberately testify falsely under oath"

You need a better dictionary.

I'm sorry I can't find a dictionary with pictures to describe "perjury."
Just for the fun of it, what do you think the definition of perjury is?

Also of note, your statement above could be taken as saying you believe he was burnt at the stake.

Only by fools that dont have a fucking clue. You qualify.

I'll grant even you with the knowledge that he wasn't

It is clear from what else I have said in this thread that I know he wasnt, fuckwit.

Yet again you miss the point. I admitted you knew better in the
statement above, but now I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe you
really don't get it at all.

and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.

And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.

Actually it takes so little to hurt your feelings and force you into a
juvenile and mindless response that I wonder if I couldn't simply
simulate you with an AI program like zippy the pinhead. Actually zippy
is much more imaginative and interesting.

 

[Rod Speed]

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.

I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

You truly do suffer from a lack of imagination and skill at insults.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

You questioned what he thought about perjury.

You're lying, as always.

Apparently you have no memory and can't read.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.

Is that what you think happened? You really do need to have your meds checked.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

You asked for a dictionary definition.

You're lying, as always.

Have you tried hooked on phonics?

Have you tried remedial english ? Obviously not.

It seemed to help my grandchildren with reading.

Wont be long before they have give you the bums rush into the nursing home.

He provided one example of a legal definition.

Which has no relevance what so ever to the individual being discussed, Galileo.

There is no evidence you are capable of a discussion.
What you do isn't "discussion" by any definition.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with
an attempt to sidestep the issue by acting stupid.

You're lying, as always.

Unfortunately, most people have less trouble with reading
and comprehension. You might get it, keep trying.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To
deliberately testify falsely under oath"

You need a better dictionary.

I'm sorry

Liar.

I can't find a dictionary with pictures to describe "perjury."

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Just for the fun of it, what do you think the definition of perjury is?

Try a decent dictionary.

Also of note, your statement above could be taken
as saying you believe he was burnt at the stake.

Only by fools that dont have a fucking clue. You qualify.

I'll grant even you with the knowledge that he wasn't

It is clear from what else I have said in this thread that I know he wasnt, fuckwit.

Yet again you miss the point.

Wota stunningly original line...

I admitted you knew better in the statement above, but now I'm
starting to get the feeling that maybe you really don't get it at all.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.

And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.

Actually it takes so little to hurt your feelings

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

and force you into a juvenile and mindless response

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

that I wonder if I couldn't simply simulate you with an AI program

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

like zippy the pinhead. Actually zippy is much more imaginative and interesting.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

 

[Electronworks.co.uk]

Hi Ross

I was referring to the water getting into the cable deteriorating the
signal, not the pressurised line deteriorating the signal.

I had problems some years ago when water entered my local phone cable. Phone
line was crackly, internet bandwidth was nearly zero and caller ID was
intermittent. It was due to water ingress into the cables. No hum though -
just crackles

Rgds

Bill
Electronworks.co.uk - electronic kits for education and fun

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:0f5qb4lddjkk3ukueohng0rm79lecrqsk4@4ax.com...

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:59:41 +0100, "Electronworks.co.uk"
bill.naylor@electronworks.co.uk> wrote:

:what is the audio quality of the phone like?
:If it is crackly, then water might have got into the phone line (they
:sometimes use airtight pipes to run the cables inside). This will mess up
:the caller id signal.
:

Not correct...

The main junction cables between exchanges are usually pressurised
(usually dry
air) to prevent water ingress when minor damage like pin holes in the
sheath
occur and to generate an alarm to bring the attention of the telco to the
fact
that the cable is leaking. Pressurising the cable does NOT have any
deleterious
effect on caller id or any other signals travelling along those cables.

Usually, if water ingress takes place on a subscriber pair it will produce
quite
loud 50Hz hum (60Hz in the US) and it may even permanently loop the line
if bad
enough. It may also reduce the level and s/n ratio of dtmf signalling.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Electronworks.co.uk"

I was referring to the water getting into the cable deteriorating the
signal, not the pressurised line deteriorating the signal.

I had problems some years ago when water entered my local phone cable.
Phone line was crackly, internet bandwidth was nearly zero and caller ID
was intermittent. It was due to water ingress into the cables. No hum
though - just crackles

** Water plus copper wires plus DC voltage

= recipe for TROUBLE !



...... Phil

 

[Bob Masta]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:17:48 GMT, PinkFloyd43 <pinkFloyd43@hotmail.com> wrote:

Building a AM/FM Radio kit and you test each section after construction,
so far I have not screwed up, now I am at the part where I need to use
a 'audio generator' and introduce a signal into the board. As I don't
have this piece of equipment found one on the net which will allow me
to create the tone at the frequency required (400HZ), I can attach a
cable to the 'output' or 'headphone' jack of the PC and can hear the
tone there, first checked with headphones.

How to I get the tone to the circuit, I have a 6' stereo cord with
stereo connector at each end, cut of one end and found (2) wires
within it, though I would solder a clip to each one of the and
attempt to use it to 'inject'? This is where I am lost, how do I
get the 'tone' from the PC to the circuit?

Thanks!

When you cut the stereo connector off, you should have found either 2 conductors
plus a shield around the pair, or else 2 conductors each with its own shield.
You want to use one of the conductors as the signal source, and connect the
shield to the common ground of the circuit you are injecting it into.

If you are using Daqarta as the signal generator, there are separate Left and
Right volume controls, so depending on the conductor you choose you may need to
adjust the corresponding control. If you want to determine which conductor is
which ahead of time, you can use an ohmmeter to check for continuity. The Left
conductor goes to the tip of the plug, and the Right goes to the little ring
next to it. The shield(s) go to the rest of the plug. Just check which
conductor has "zero" ohms to the tip, and mark that Left and the other Right.

I don't know what instructions your kit has about how to inject the signal, but
if there aren't any I'd put 10K-100K in series with the signal for starters.
This is more to protect the kit than the sound card, which is typically able to
handle a short circuit.

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]

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

 

[Electronworks.co.uk]

The 7555 is a lower power version.

Apart from that, the 555 hits the nail on the head for most low cost designs
(ie consumer electronics) applications I ever come across.

What are you looking for in the newer chip that the 555 does not do?

Bill Naylor
Electronworks.co.uk - Electronic kits for fun and education


"E.persia" <erfan.talebzadeh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91f0ea3b-fd4c-436a-8580-a5ead2c5e024@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

hi
I have a project that is connected with the famous 555 timer
I want ask you if you know a newwer chip with the better feature ...
this is very urgent to me
thank you all!

 

[ian field]

"Electronworks.co.uk" <bill.naylor@electronworks.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HdKdnWZijq343V3VnZ2dnUVZ8hednZ2d@bt.com...

The 7555 is a lower power version.

Apart from that, the 555 hits the nail on the head for most low cost
designs (ie consumer electronics) applications I ever come across.

What are you looking for in the newer chip that the 555 does not do?

Bill Naylor
Electronworks.co.uk - Electronic kits for fun and education


"E.persia" <erfan.talebzadeh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91f0ea3b-fd4c-436a-8580-a5ead2c5e024@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
hi
I have a project that is connected with the famous 555 timer
I want ask you if you know a newwer chip with the better feature ...
this is very urgent to me
thank you all!

There's also an ultra low voltage type - The ZSCT555 from Zetex which works
down to 0.9V.

 

[Rod Speed]

Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

Why do I suspect that it was never his intention to argue a case?

Because you are a terminal fuckwit.

I did just that with you, including a link to what the silly
senile old fart said about what those fools did to Galileo.

I must be a mean, suspicious bastard.

Just a terminal fuckwit.

 

[Rod Speed]

Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 01:51:45 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:

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

It isnt MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a
dictionary sometime.

Better yet, try this from:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1621
"From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 79--PERJURY

Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.


OMFG!!!!!1!

Honest, folks, I thought my preceding post, making exactly this
point, was SARCASTIC.

Pity that what US legislation may or may not say about perjury has
no relevance what so ever to whether Galileo ever perjured himself.

When shall I learn that with trolls there is no possibility of sarcasm?

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

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a
roller at paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV,
and then work backwards from that to develop a battery.

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

 

[Rod Speed]

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