Chip with simple program for Toy

[legg]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:04:37 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

According to the Henney's Radio Engineering Handbook 4th ed (1950),
1N25 and 1N26 silcon point contact 'crystals' for use in UHF and SHF
converters (1 to 25 GHz) are discussed in commercial publications by
Cornelius in 1945; 1N34 and 1N38 germanium 'crystals' for use at VHF
(~200mHz) appear in publications the following year.

Waritime radar operated in the 195MHz-10,000MHz range.

1N21B 'crystal' mixers were used by GE in commercial 2GHz relay
service before 1948 and similar parts were used by Bell in multiplex
telephone and television relay systems at 4GHz around the same time.

RL

 

[Tom Bruhns]

On Apr 26, 5:04 pm, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
....

HSMS-2850 is about 0.2V @ 1mA, but it also has a PIV rating of just 2
volts. Capacitance is considerably less than that CMMSH1-20, though.
I don't have any point-contact diodes to compare it with, but can tell
you that it's useful for detecting RF down to a bit below 100uV,
possibly less if you're careful with thermal potentials and the like,
or chop the signal.

Cheers,
Tom

I am getting a little tired so may blatting about modern parts as if
they were available in the 1940'sand 1950's. The question is "What
were the original parts made of?"

Newer implementations is, at best, a side issue.

WTF??!! YOU are the one, a day before my posting quoted above, who
pondered in a post directly in the thread above mine about where to
get Schottky diodes with Vf below 0.2V. I would suppose you weren't
asking there about parts from the 40's or 50's. Don't complain about
drift into new areas after willing taking part in the drift yourself.
Please have the grace to not complain about answers to the very
questions you've asked. Alternatively, just ignore the drift. To
some of us, the side issues become more interesting than the original
topic.

 

[Timothy Golden BandTech]

On Apr 28, 1:38 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"

Hi Thomas. Here is some feedback on your google doc. I have a hard
time with this statement that you make early on:

"The model don't need anything:
-no fields
-no particles
-no physical laws
-no observer
-no coordinates
-no constants"

don't should be doesn't but my criticism is not about grammar or
typoos. You rely upon quaternions and they do form a coordinate
system. It seems you've been careful yet the page after I've quoted
you say:

I'm german and i'm not a writer. I gues style has to be changed.
What I did: I took all my postings here, selected the best, put them each on
one slide. They I shuffled them around, corrected them, add something in,
wrote a lot, sorted things out.

That was roughly the method. Its quick and dirty. So it would need some
cleaning.



"The observer has a specific role in this model.
The model is working without an observer, but to make some use of it,
it is neccecary to define a few units.
For this porpose an observer is required."

This is too sticky and I think by withdrawing the initial claims you'd
be better off. Such details prevent us from going deeper.
Interpretation and reinterpretation are fine to focus on I think, but
to deny some of the old traits and then come right back to them so
directly is not productive.

How many of your readers get to antisymmetric spacetime versus
symmetric spacetime under Handedness and Hyperspheres? Few I'll bet
and it is here that the interesting thoughts are going on. If you like
to think of coordinates as relations that is fine, but to claim that
you've destroyed coordinates is too much. Interpretation is allowed to
be loosely coupled and without this your own context cannot come
through. Instantiation of a quaternion on a piece of paper will
involve coordinates in the representation. I don't see any way around
that.

I didn't distroy coordinates, and that was not intended. I wanted to arrange
the tools appropropriate to QM and wick-rotate the whole thing into
relations of GR. The pivou point of this is the observer or Nil-point.
The shocking result is, that its really true and you CAN describe our world
by dimensionless numbers.

Thomas Heger

Yeah, but how many numbers? By the time we get to three dimensionless
numbers then we have regenerated dimension. This fits our ordinary
sense of geometry. Then along come the tensor or quaternion and
reencapsulate those dimensions with some satisfaction, but only part
way. Still, OK, we can view the system from those forms as more
integrated and if there are some beneficial side effects in one
particular representation then we can claim one form to be superior
and maybe even claim it to be the native form. If we focus on time as
unidirectional should we anticipate its representation within one of
these formats? It happens that the polysign progression contains a
unidirectional and zero dimensional entity that matches time, that
being P1; the one-signed numbers:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/OneSigned.html
but that is tangential to any discussion of fields.

Getting back to fields to what degree are we really only discussing a
mathematical entity? The strictly mathematical field behaviors(eg real
numbers, complex numbers) are not at all what we mean though the
physical field's behaviors are mathematically pure.

That brings me to the puzzle of the self shielding toroidal coil. How
is it that the external magnetic field is negligible? Doesn't this
behavior contradict standard electromagnetics? In effect we are
sucking all of the flux into the core when traditionally half of it
had to pass along the outside of each wire. I have yet to see any
treatment that takes this discrepancy head-on. I would appreciate a
link that considers this puzzle directly. I suppose that this puzzle
has been around with ordinary transformers as well, it's just that
visualizing all of that flux whirring around in the toroid is far
prettier.

If the flux did travel through air for even a portion of its trip then
the remarkable permeabilities of any core xformer would be corrupted.
If that flux that would have travelled through air went into the core
then it would cancel out any induced magnetic field. The
interpretation can no longer be of a loop of flux traveling about the
conducting wire. I don't see any way around this and it goes against
traditional EM interpretation. Trying to visualize a double ended
strand of flux feels alright, but nobody uses this as a model do they?

Am I missing something?
Are we all a bunch of morons?

- Tim

 

[Timothy Golden BandTech]

On Apr 30, 9:39 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:55309afa-4aee-4644-b9fb-c61944d1195e@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

That brings me to the puzzle of the self shielding toroidal coil. How
is it that the external magnetic field is negligible?

The idea is that the magnetic field produced (strictly) by the current flowing
in the conductors that completely enclose the toroid produce zero external
field. Certainly in the real world there are wires running up to that toroid
and those wires will contain a field around them. This is probably not
specifically mentioned in the text because (1) it detracts from the problem at
hand (determining the fields inside and outside of the toroid), (2) actually
computing the fields at the junction between, say, some twisted pair of wires
that then diverge and encircle the toroid is a highly non-trivial problem that
probably can't be solved analytically (look up the papers on calculating the
fields in something as "simple" as a step change in the width of a microstrip
transmission line and you'll get a field for what you're up against), (3) the
field from the wires leading up to the toroid will generally be quite small in
comparison to those inside of it and hence can be neglected, and (4) some
authors probably figure this would all be self-evident.

(Note that authors usually do explicitly mention "feed" concerns when they're
dealing with devices intended to create significant external fields, such as
antennas. Pretty much every discussion of dipole antennas, for instance,
contains at least a little bit about how you need to be careful in arranging
the feed...)

I suppose that this puzzle
has been around with ordinary transformers as well, it's just that
visualizing all of that flux whirring around in the toroid is far
prettier.

The other thing is that, by design, transformers are controlling where almost
all of the flux goes (the bit that "gets away" is leakage, and there's plenty
of discussion on designing transformers to minimize it), whereas with "random
wiring" there's no such control and it's difficult to make accurate
predictions. There are common middle grounds, though, such as microstrip
lines and twisted-pair wiring where -- while the field does extend off to
infinity -- you can still draw reasonably accurate pictures of what's going on
in regions close to the conductors.

If the flux did travel through air for even a portion of its trip then
the remarkable permeabilities of any core xformer would be corrupted.

Um, no, it just creates leakage inductance, which primarily serves to limit
frequency response and decrease the transformer's efficiency.

If that flux that would have travelled through air went into the core
then it would cancel out any induced magnetic field.

Not in the general case... fields are vector quantities, so unless you can get
the magnitudes and directions to line up exactly the right way (like a
reversed secondary coil on a transformer does), the fields don't cancel.

---Joel

Thanks Joel for the detailed response. But I don't feel that my
concern has been sufficiently quashed. Still, I really like the
details that you've gone into. Magnetism does seem to get complicated
quickly when real world materials are used.

But lets just focus on a current carrying wire and the circular loop
of flux that supposedly exists around that wire. Vector, yes, but also
with this loop concept supposedly unbreakable. Now when we bring a
little dl of wire up against a toroidal core we should still see half
of its magnetic loop passing through the air. This has nothing to do
with effects of the leads. If we allow all of the flux to enter the
core then we have broken the basic model of the wire and loop of
flux.

Is there actually leakage around a toroidal coil neglecting the leads?
We see a beautiful clean inner circular path and tend to visualize all
of the flux travelling that inner path, but it had to get there from
the wire so for every line of flux inside doesn't there have to be as
much travelling outside?

Another way of getting to a theoretical conflict is to consider that
when a gap is introduced into a core (which I've read is done to keep
a flat frequency response for low frequency inductors) then that gap
becomes the controlling factor. Don't we really see an air gap for
every line of flux when we come back to studying a differential piece
of the winding? Even for the non-gapped toroidal core I do see that
this is true. Worst of all half of the flux path is through air so we
observe this conflict unless the winding is completely immersed as
with a 'pot' core.

How can we be comfortable with the closed flux path in the toroid? It
goes against theory more than it goes against the toroidal coil. I
must be oversimplifying something. To stay with theory it should
probably be that the flux within the core itself is induced flux and
so those lines of flux should not be confused with the lines of flux
of the wire. This then sets up an extremely high impedance to the
wire's own flux which I guess causes the radius of that flux to be
extremely small. So then we would admit that there is leakage but that
it is small. Is this a clean analysis? I think if it is then alot of
sources may be oversimplifying.

Even the air core coil is inducing those lines of flux of its solenoid
form. It may be that even the loops of flux around the differential
piece of current carrying wire are merely induced. Could this
reasoning take us all the way down to the electron? Perhaps.

- Tim

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:05:15 -0500, OverUnity

Umm, what names did you have in mind?

John


Well, in your case, I think John would fit nicely.


Those arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin know
who they are. They need to come to an understanding. I'm curious about
I^2R losses and the impact distributive generation (private solar etc.)
would have on those line losses.

Seems to me that a DC "local bus" should be standard within
solar/wind/whatever systems; I'd suggest 400 volts DC. Then a
standard, modular inverter topology could be used to connect to the
grid.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:15:55 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:05:15 -0500, OverUnity

Umm, what names did you have in mind?

Well, in your case, I think John would fit nicely.


Those arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin know
who they are. They need to come to an understanding. I'm curious about
I^2R losses and the impact distributive generation (private solar etc.)
would have on those line losses.

Seems to me that a DC "local bus" should be standard within
solar/wind/whatever systems; I'd suggest 400 volts DC. Then a
standard, modular inverter topology could be used to connect to the
grid.

Just wondering, why 400? I've seen industrial-grade 90VDC motors, so
I'm guessing 90V is some kind of a standard; of course, 400VDC would
have less than 1/16 of the I^2*R losses, but why 400 and not, say, 480?
Or some other number? Should we start another religious war, this one
about "standard" local DC bus voltage selections? >:->

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:15:55 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:05:15 -0500, OverUnity

Umm, what names did you have in mind?
Well, in your case, I think John would fit nicely.


Those arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin know
who they are. They need to come to an understanding. I'm curious about
I^2R losses and the impact distributive generation (private solar etc.)
would have on those line losses.
Seems to me that a DC "local bus" should be standard within
solar/wind/whatever systems; I'd suggest 400 volts DC. Then a
standard, modular inverter topology could be used to connect to the
grid.

Just wondering, why 400? I've seen industrial-grade 90VDC motors, so
I'm guessing 90V is some kind of a standard; of course, 400VDC would
have less than 1/16 of the I^2*R losses, but why 400 and not, say, 480?
Or some other number? Should we start another religious war, this one
about "standard" local DC bus voltage selections? >:-

Thanks!
Rich


Did I not hear somewhere that DC power is dangerous?

I.E. it kills you better than AC?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Sjouke Burry wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:15:55 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:05:15 -0500, OverUnity

Umm, what names did you have in mind?
Well, in your case, I think John would fit nicely.


Those arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin know
who they are. They need to come to an understanding. I'm curious about
I^2R losses and the impact distributive generation (private solar etc.)
would have on those line losses.
Seems to me that a DC "local bus" should be standard within
solar/wind/whatever systems; I'd suggest 400 volts DC. Then a
standard, modular inverter topology could be used to connect to the
grid.

Just wondering, why 400? I've seen industrial-grade 90VDC motors, so
I'm guessing 90V is some kind of a standard; of course, 400VDC would
have less than 1/16 of the I^2*R losses, but why 400 and not, say, 480?
Or some other number? Should we start another religious war, this one
about "standard" local DC bus voltage selections? >:-

90 VDC motors are common, because that is the effective voltage you
get when you rectify the 120 VAC line voltage, and don't filter it.

Did I not hear somewhere that DC power is dangerous?
I.E. it kills you better than AC?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=edison+elephants&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GWYA>


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Tom Biasi wrote:

Radium,
Why do you persist in these ventures?
It would be difficult for one to research the subject as you did and not
answer their own question.

Well, I still haven't found the answers.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4824DBAD.AC2408EF@earthlink.net...
Sjouke Burry wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:15:55 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:05:15 -0500, OverUnity

Umm, what names did you have in mind?
Well, in your case, I think John would fit nicely.


Those arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
know
who they are. They need to come to an understanding. I'm curious
about
I^2R losses and the impact distributive generation (private solar
etc.)
would have on those line losses.
Seems to me that a DC "local bus" should be standard within
solar/wind/whatever systems; I'd suggest 400 volts DC. Then a
standard, modular inverter topology could be used to connect to the
grid.

Just wondering, why 400? I've seen industrial-grade 90VDC motors, so
I'm guessing 90V is some kind of a standard; of course, 400VDC would
have less than 1/16 of the I^2*R losses, but why 400 and not, say,
480?
Or some other number? Should we start another religious war, this one
about "standard" local DC bus voltage selections? >:-


90 VDC motors are common, because that is the effective voltage you
get when you rectify the 120 VAC line voltage, and don't filter it.

Full wave rectified 120 VAC is still 120 V RMS (effective voltage), and 108
volts average, and 170 volts peak. But perhaps such motors are usually
driven with PWM or phase-controlled SCRs or TRIACs, and 90 volts is easily
produced. Motors can be driven at higher voltages for less than continuous
duty cycle, so this rating allows for that as well, and it also allows for
low line voltages.

Half wave rectified 120 VAC is about 84 volts. 120 * .707 = 84.84 -.6
V = 84.24 VDC, unfiltered. I have seen 90 VDC motors run this way, with
no speed control. When they were variable speed, a variac fed the half
wave rectifier. this was in '50s and '60s equipment.

DC bus voltages for use with V/F inverter drives are based on the peak
voltage of the sine wave, so it is about 180, 360, and 720 VDC for common
voltages of 120, 240, and 480 VAC. A DC local bus would be easy to use for
either adding or taking power. There is no phase angle or waveform to
contend with, and no power factor, so your watts in or out is just the
voltage times the current. And there is no ELF field to cause concerns, at
least on the DC bus.


Did I not hear somewhere that DC power is dangerous?
I.E. it kills you better than AC?


http://www.google.com/search?q=edison+elephants&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GWYA

This was his way to demonstrate the danger of AC, although the equivalent
amount of DC may have proven just as fatal. AC has the distinction of
causing fibrillation, while DC might cause your muscles to contract and
make you less able to release a "hot" conductor. Here it says (for dummies)
the main danger of DC is burns:

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/The-Dangers-of-Electrical-Shock.id-2922.html

Try this powerpoint presentation (I'm still waiting on dial-up):
http://hightech.lbl.gov/presentations/dc-powering/DCP-overview-presentation.ppt

Here's a discussion a couple years ago:
http://www.control.com/thread/1026220674

This is pretty good:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ias-esw/pdfs/Hazards_of_Electricity.pdf

The bottom line for electricity: "Touch Me Not!"

Paul

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:

Tom Biasi wrote:


Radium,
Why do you persist in these ventures?
It would be difficult for one to research the subject as you did and not
answer their own question.


Well, I still haven't found the answers.
And you wont get them by trolling.

 

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Tom Biasi wrote:

Why do you persist in these ventures?

I would like to know the artifact spatial-aliasing causes. Does it
cause jaggies, Moire, or pixelation? Or all 3?

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:46 -0700, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

Tom Biasi wrote:


Why do you persist in these ventures?


I would like to know the artifact spatial-aliasing causes. Does it
cause jaggies, Moire, or pixelation? Or all 3?

---
Google "spatial aliasing", troll asshole.

JF

 

On May 22, 10:40 am, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

  A question often asked is about relay coil transient suppression. I ran
across this in my files. It has some good information.

 http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

                                                 Mike

This is a good article; particularly with respect to the common (but
often damaging) technique of using a simple diod across the switch or
the load.
Jon

 

[PhattyMo]

Talal Itani wrote:

Why is it that some USB chargers cannot charge the Apple iPods? I tested
multiple USB charges, and only those that say "for iPods" work.

There's some tricks..
Some older iPods will work on any USB (+5V) source..others require that
the D+ and D- pins in the USB plug are tied high,or low through a ~10K
resistor (i don't remember the exact details)..and yet newer models,like
the 2nd-gen Nano I have here won't charge with any type of "dumb" USB
port. It needs an actual USB host to negotiate power requirements
with... no host,no negotiation,no charge.

 

[Dave]

"PhattyMo" <phattymo@not.net> wrote in message
news:4836434d$0$87064$815e3792@news.qwest.net...

Talal Itani wrote:
Why is it that some USB chargers cannot charge the Apple iPods? I tested
multiple USB charges, and only those that say "for iPods" work.


There's some tricks..
Some older iPods will work on any USB (+5V) source..others require that
the D+ and D- pins in the USB plug are tied high,or low through a ~10K
resistor (i don't remember the exact details)..and yet newer models,like
the 2nd-gen Nano I have here won't charge with any type of "dumb" USB
port. It needs an actual USB host to negotiate power requirements with...
no host,no negotiation,no charge.

Interesting. I wondered the same thing about my Blackberry phone... I can
plug it in to a computer's USB port, but unless there is BB device manager
software installed on that machine, I get "insufficient charging voltage
available" although I can still access the device as a removable device,
i.e. I can do everything but charge it.

 

[mike]

anglomont@yahoo.com wrote:

Can anyone confirm whether following microwave oven components are
dead
-diode hvr1x8019:tested with analog ohm meter-short both directions
probably
-rectifier 2x062h 8025:..open in both directions
What's the forward voltage spec of the diode?

What's the highest voltage your meter can supply?
if second is lower than the first it will look open.

tnx

--
Return address is VALID!
Bunch-O-Stuff Forsale Here:
http://mike.liveline.de/sale.html

 

On May 28, 2:52 pm, "Lord Garth" <lga...@tantalus.net> wrote:

ngd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f90b4044-a9b2-4922-baa1-6002c0794b0c@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Hey everybody. I am a hobbyist in the field of electronics with no
formal training. I have a pretty good understanding of components but
know basically nothing about systems as a whole. I got my hands on an
old computer supply and read about converting them for use as a lab
power supply. The directions said the poower supply needs to be loaded
to run, For their 450 watt power supply a 10 ohm 10 watt resistor was
used. My power supply is only a 90 watt, 10 ohms sounds like overkill.
I have a 250 ohm power resistor laying around. by my calculations this
will pull about 45 milliamps at 12 volts. Does this sound like enough
to load my 90 watt power supply? if not how many amps will it take?
thanks in advance!

Is that an old 90 watt PCXT power supply????  Those needed a load similar
to an ST506 hard drive or an amp or so on the 12 volt line.  In any case,
you
don't say what the current capability is of the 12 volt output.  90 watts is
likely
the total supply capability inclusive of all its outputs.

Sorry, i'm not sure what kind of ower supply it is, all i can tell you
is the model number sfx-1209f. and yes, 90 watts is the overall out
put. 1.5 amps are availble on the 12 volt channel. here is another
though, since i only plan on using the 12v channel would it be a
better idea to load the 5 volt channel? Thinking out loud.... I'll
probablly go with jamies ide and just try it. obviously I'll have to
bost the resistance since less current is going to be pulled at 5v.
perhaps some led's? i'll ned a few of em to pull enough amperage...

 

I need guidiance on the following
a. how to design remote input/ output panel, distribution panels and
loop drawings
b. how to produce the following documents: circuit diagrams, list of
components,layout drawing and terminal
schedules.
c. components slection for PLC's, remote input/output panel and field
devices
d. hardware commissioning on site
thanks
Maxwell Zabayo


JeffM wrote:

I need a Cad program...to draw electrical wiring diagrams
Steve

Orcad...the part editor in that program is very easy to use
and it doesn't take long to create your own libraries
Rheilly Phoull

The Library editor in CadSoft EAGLE can do the same.
It can generate 1-page schematics.
(The free version doesn't do tabbed-page drawings.)

 

[C. Nick Kruzer]

Hi Don, you wrote:

Your fire insurance company and your landlord
may cause you major grief if you burn up your
apartment (and any other apartments) from
abused ballasts going KABLOOEY

Yes, the worst case scenario would be human injury/death in addition to
the events proposed in your wise admonition. The chance of danger and
failure has been unanimous with all those responding this thread.

I respect the scientific knowledge and advice of those who post this
forum. And to those who take the time to respond to my inquiry with
their expert knowledge I give a special "thank you".

insula