Chip with simple program for Toy

[Sapient Fridge]

In message
<08623baf-93ac-4e67-8ad6-421886a7e283@k23g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Gordge <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> writes

On Jul 3, 8:22 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org
wrote:

If it was localised then it has nothing to do with global climate
change.

Stupid lying leftist cunt, ewe lefturdian retards

I bet your insults work great in the school playground to impress the
other kids! Doesn't work so well outside of school.

have been using
localised events (localized cyclones, localized hurricans, localized
droughts, localized floods) as your evidence of man making the globe
hot since the hoax began, but when localized events are used to show
the shit ewe are talking ewe dont like it and dont want to use them.

Single events are not evidence of climate change, patterns of events
are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/extreme-weather-flooding-droughts-fires

An increase in the frequency of extreme weather events is what was
predicted as the result of climate change, and that is what we are
seeing. Google "global weirding".
--
sapient_usenet02@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org

 

In alt.philosophy Sapient Fridge <use_reply_address@spamsights.org> wrote:
....

I bet your insults work great in the school playground to impress the
other kids! Doesn't work so well outside of school.

What insults? Niw Zilindrs tlk lk tht even wth thr moms -- think yourself
prvlgd.

--
[When complaining loudly about someone's arithmetic:]
"Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_ae>, 30 Dec 2010 10:53 UTC:

Einstein's calculation is tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
2.2usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2) = 0.098362 usec
and NOT the measured 64 usec.
You have got t and tau around the wrong way.

-- Peter Webb, 31 Dec 2010
[And later:]
The only error is Einstein's, you snipping ignorant cunt.
-- "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>, 07 Jan 2011 04:20 UTC

 

[Bret Cahill]

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus....

"More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate
models, are now a matter of observation.

"So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also
examples of predictions turned into cold, hard reality?

"Increasingly, the answer is yes. Scientists used to say, cautiously,
that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of
climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement that particular
events would not have happened the same way without global warming,"
says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo".

See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

Supposedly, if it weren't for the earth's deserts the [natural]
greenhouse effect would cause constant hurricane force winds all over
the planet.  It has something to do with the increase in entropy
mixing dry air with humid air to bleed off the mechanical energy of
wind.  So the reverse could also be stated "if it weren't for the
oceans and wet regions there would be constant hurricane force winds
all over the planet."

Here we have every materials engineer on the planet engaged in a
struggle against 2nd law / Carnot limitations, i.e., tweaking super
alloys and high purity Si solar cells to get mechanical or electrical
energy, and then these alarmists come along saying we need to _sink_
mechanical energy or get blown away in a Cat 5 hurricane.

Since mechanical energy is all you need from burning fossil fuels
there may be other cheaper ways to "match" the human need for
mechanical energy with the human / biosphere need to convert
mechanical energy than wind mills.

To be sure the mechanical energy isn't readily accessible but it
wouldn't take a large percentage of it to get 15 billion off of
carbon.

One question may be what is the cheapest big thing that can be rigged/
improvised that can move or put out a current?

No response?


Bret Cahill

 

[Rich Grise]

Sapient Fridge wrote:

Michael Gordge <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> writes
On Jul 3, 1:41 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change.

Hahahhahah, are ewe hoping that explains the coldest June on record in
one of the hottest populated places on earth?

Can you cite the source that says that this was a global event?

If it was localised then it has nothing to do with global climate
change.

That's only fair, since global climate change has nothing to do with
reality.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[Jonathan]

"Sapient Fridge" <use_reply_address@spamsights.org> wrote in message
news:$kIZzkiW0BEOFw3Q@spamsights.org...

Apart from anything else the price of fossil fuel is going to go through
the roof in the next few years (it's already starting) so moving to
non-fossil fuels and renewable energy supplies makes sense even if you
refuse to accept the scientific evidence for AGW.

And guess what energy source the world, especially the
rapidly growing third world and China, will turn to as oil
steadily increases in price?

Coal! Dirty stinky chock full of greenhouse gases...coal.
That's when we'll see the trends of global warming
more clearly, once it's too late.

--
sapient_usenet02@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org

 

[Harry Merrick]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:32:52 -0400, "Jonathan" <Write@gmail.com> wrote:

"Sapient Fridge" <use_reply_address@spamsights.org> wrote in message
news:$kIZzkiW0BEOFw3Q@spamsights.org...

Apart from anything else the price of fossil fuel is going to go through
the roof in the next few years (it's already starting) so moving to
non-fossil fuels and renewable energy supplies makes sense even if you
refuse to accept the scientific evidence for AGW.


And guess what energy source the world, especially the
rapidly growing third world and China, will turn to as oil
steadily increases in price?

Coal! Dirty stinky chock full of greenhouse gases...coal.
That's when we'll see the trends of global warming
more clearly, once it's too late.

In that regard it is clearly FAR too late already! However, fear not!
ALL is not lost! We have seen figures far worse in the distant time,
and mankind came through OK if somewhat bruised. We do have to accept
that change does happen. We have NO control at all over that. So,
buckle up! Learn to live with it! Manage the planet better for the
more distant future so no cataclysmic disaster befalls us! The word is
that signs are there may be a planetary cooling round the corner for
whatever reason. Maybe so, maybe not. But if so, a bit of warming can
do little harm meantime and may actually be good!

Harry Merrick.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

"More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate
models, are now a matter of observation.

"So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also
examples of predictions turned into cold, hard reality?

"Increasingly, the answer is yes. Scientists used to say, cautiously,
that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of
climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement that particular
events would not have happened the same way without global warming,"
says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo".

Simple chaos theory. Particular events would not have happened the
same way if I'd washed my car less often. Whata jerk.

Weather has always been extreme. We've had palm trees growing in artic
regions. We had glaciers in central California. Once it rained for 40
days and 40 nights.

See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

Supposedly, if it weren't for the earth's deserts the [natural]
greenhouse effect would cause constant hurricane force winds all over
the planet.

What nonsense.

John

 

[Bret Cahill]

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

"More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate
models, are now a matter of observation.

"So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also
examples of predictions turned into cold, hard reality?

"Increasingly, the answer is yes. Scientists used to say, cautiously,
that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of
climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement that particular
events would not have happened the same way without global warming,"
says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo".

Simple chaos theory. Particular events would not have happened the
same way if I'd washed my car less often. Whata jerk.

Weather has always been extreme. We've had palm trees growing in artic
regions. We had glaciers in central California. Once it rained for 40
days and 40 nights.



See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

Supposedly, if it weren't for the earth's deserts the [natural]
greenhouse effect would cause constant hurricane force winds all over
the planet.

What nonsense.

Average wave height, a good if nonlinear indicator of average wind
speed, has already increased from six to 7 feet off Australia over the
past few decades.

Flooding big deserts like the Sahara or Outback could significantly
change average wind speeds over the entire planet. This might not
always be an academic issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/02/alternativeenergy.solarpower

If irrigating deserts amounts to increasing the change in entropy or
delta S [the dry desert is mixed with water] then it should lower the
mechanical energy of the system and ave. wind speed.

If it makes it more difficult for the delta S to increase [because
there is no longer anything ti mix] then ave wind speeds could
increase.

The MIT engineer who wrote the desert/wind speed//entropy article
would know the sign.

We're looking for dove tails. Climate scientists and home owners want
to dissipate exactly what engineers have been trying to maximize for
centuries.

There's got to be more opportunities in that situation besides wind
turbines.


Bret Cahill

 

[Rich Grise]

John Larkin wrote:

... Once it rained for 40
days and 40 nights.

That happens every January and February in southern California. ;-)

What's it like up there in SFO? or even SEATAC? Doesn't it rain there
practically continuously? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 08:56:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

"More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate
models, are now a matter of observation.

"So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also
examples of predictions turned into cold, hard reality?

"Increasingly, the answer is yes. Scientists used to say, cautiously,
that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of
climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement that particular
events would not have happened the same way without global warming,"
says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo".

Simple chaos theory. Particular events would not have happened the
same way if I'd washed my car less often. Whata jerk.

Weather has always been extreme. We've had palm trees growing in artic
regions. We had glaciers in central California. Once it rained for 40
days and 40 nights.



See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

Supposedly, if it weren't for the earth's deserts the [natural]
greenhouse effect would cause constant hurricane force winds all over
the planet.

What nonsense.

Average wave height, a good if nonlinear indicator of average wind
speed, has already increased from six to 7 feet off Australia over the
past few decades.

What instrumentation has been consistantly logging this data for the
past few decades? And what other places have, perhaps, seen a
decrease? Is the data corrected for subsurface erosion?

Using wave height as a surrogate for wind speed is goofy. We certainly
have better wind speed records than wave height records.

Flooding big deserts like the Sahara or Outback could significantly
change average wind speeds over the entire planet. This might not
always be an academic issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/02/alternativeenergy.solarpower

If irrigating deserts amounts to increasing the change in entropy or
delta S [the dry desert is mixed with water] then it should lower the
mechanical energy of the system and ave. wind speed.

If it makes it more difficult for the delta S to increase [because
there is no longer anything ti mix] then ave wind speeds could
increase.

The MIT engineer who wrote the desert/wind speed//entropy article
would know the sign.

With 50% probability.

John

 

[Jasen Betts]

One question may be what is the cheapest big thing that can be rigged/
improvised that can move or put out a current?

probably some sort of air-ram kite, could be unpopular with pilots.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-07-04, Jonathan <Write@gmail.com> wrote:

And guess what energy source the world, especially the
rapidly growing third world and China, will turn to as oil
steadily increases in price?

长江三峡大坝

 

[Jonathan]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:iuuq4f$i9h$4@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

On 2011-07-04, Jonathan <Write@gmail.com> wrote:

And guess what energy source the world, especially the
rapidly growing third world and China, will turn to as oil
steadily increases in price?

??????

No it isn't~

 

[Jonathan]

"Harry Merrick" <Homestud@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u033179142qb537bsqbmj2mfdh2au7cnqi@4ax.com...

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:32:52 -0400, "Jonathan" <Write@gmail.com> wrote:


"Sapient Fridge" <use_reply_address@spamsights.org> wrote in message
news:$kIZzkiW0BEOFw3Q@spamsights.org...

Apart from anything else the price of fossil fuel is going to go through
the roof in the next few years (it's already starting) so moving to
non-fossil fuels and renewable energy supplies makes sense even if you
refuse to accept the scientific evidence for AGW.


And guess what energy source the world, especially the
rapidly growing third world and China, will turn to as oil
steadily increases in price?

Coal! Dirty stinky chock full of greenhouse gases...coal.
That's when we'll see the trends of global warming
more clearly, once it's too late.


In that regard it is clearly FAR too late already! However, fear not!
ALL is not lost! We have seen figures far worse in the distant time,
and mankind came through OK if somewhat bruised. We do have to accept
that change does happen. We have NO control at all over that. So,
buckle up! Learn to live with it! Manage the planet better for the
more distant future so no cataclysmic disaster befalls us! The word is
that signs are there may be a planetary cooling round the corner for
whatever reason. Maybe so, maybe not. But if so, a bit of warming can
do little harm meantime and may actually be good!

I believe the ultimate solution for climate change is
democracy and free markets. Our societies need
to be as adaptive as our ecosystem. So that we can
have the ability to manage climate either way it goes, instead
of just hoping it all works out.

Harry Merrick.

 

[Hungry Hippie]

"On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects
were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a
serious
threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

This finding isn't really surprising if you spend any time on the
Internets.

 

In alt.philosophy Hungry Hippie <lollapaloozapocalypse@gmail.com> wrote:

"On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects
were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a
serious
threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
This finding isn't really surprising if you spend any time on the
Internets.

The comments are sometimes the most informative part of things
you pick up on random websites.

DIGG.COM
Jul 5 2011

STUDY: The more people know about science, the less they believe in global warming

[PDF at papers.ssrn.com]

Abstract:
On the whole, the most scientifically literate
and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate
change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate
ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were
associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by
their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and
those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as
science literacy and numeracy increased.

Comments
********

- (dirtyfies) The more important part of the abstract: 'Respondents
predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more
dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence
more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased.'

In other words, value systems were, as expected, stronger for extremists at
each end. If you read the whole study, their conclusions point to a lack of
communication and people using the science for political means, polarizing
outlooks.

I'm a little perplexed as to why this was mostly conducted by Law schools.

- alan basically boiled it down into a partisan article headline that doesn't
convey the study properly.

- This headline is BS. The article states that values more strongly influence
a belief in climate change than scientific knowledge, which is proving a
fact widely known. Garbage. Buried.

- I won't bury you but you don't seem to have actually read the
article/study. The headline is making a false claim and mis-repesenting the
findings of the study not making any claims about the scientific evidence of
climate change. You can believe whatever you want about climate change but
the focus of the article is actually to explicitly show that values more
strongly influence a belief in climate change. So therefore, I buried the
article as a misrepresentation of the study's findings.

Also, most of the sites or discussions or papers that site you specify
references are 10 or more years old with the exception of one, which is 8
years old. I'm not sure it's the most authoritative site for debunking
climate change.

--
[Yasi is "the worst cyclone" to hit Qld:]
CORRECTION: The worst cyclone in history was the cat 5 Mahina in 1899.
[Bzzt! Thank you, come again!]
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 3 Feb 2011 15:12 +1100
--
Earth's atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water
vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers
of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those
gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation - the radiant heat
energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to
solar heating. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal,
petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth's natural
greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the
start of the industrial revolution in the 1800's.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008

 

[Tom P]

On 07/03/2011 06:06 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus....

"More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate
models, are now a matter of observation.

"So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also
examples of predictions turned into cold, hard reality?

"Increasingly, the answer is yes. Scientists used to say, cautiously,
that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of
climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement that particular
events would not have happened the same way without global warming,"
says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo".

See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caus...

Supposedly, if it weren't for the earth's deserts the [natural]
greenhouse effect would cause constant hurricane force winds all over
the planet. It has something to do with the increase in entropy
mixing dry air with humid air to bleed off the mechanical energy of
wind. So the reverse could also be stated "if it weren't for the
oceans and wet regions there would be constant hurricane force winds
all over the planet."

Here we have every materials engineer on the planet engaged in a
struggle against 2nd law / Carnot limitations, i.e., tweaking super
alloys and high purity Si solar cells to get mechanical or electrical
energy, and then these alarmists come along saying we need to _sink_
mechanical energy or get blown away in a Cat 5 hurricane.

Since mechanical energy is all you need from burning fossil fuels
there may be other cheaper ways to "match" the human need for
mechanical energy with the human / biosphere need to convert
mechanical energy than wind mills.

To be sure the mechanical energy isn't readily accessible but it
wouldn't take a large percentage of it to get 15 billion off of
carbon.

One question may be what is the cheapest big thing that can be rigged/
improvised that can move or put out a current?

No response?


Bret Cahill


Sailing ships convert wind energy directly into motive energy.

And prior to the invention of the steam engine there were water mills.
Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

 

[Jamie]

Rich Grise wrote:

Gloria West wrote:


From what I've seen, avalanche rectifiers have waned in popularity -
giving ground to MOVs - which in their turn have stared to give way to
SIDACs.

MOVs generally have higher spike quenching capability than avalanche and
are less likely to fail S/C, they can however shatter and arc when
damaged by extreme surges.
Ian Field

Thanks, Ian, for the information. I did not know that MOVs can take the
place of avalanche dioces. I had a difficult time locating avalanche
diodes locally but MOVs I can find and have bought a few.


Ah. After a little clarification, it seems that what you're actually
looking for is a Transzorb:
http://www.vishay.com/diodes/protection-tvs-esd/trans-zorb/

I once worked at a place where they had MOVs all over the place -
MOVs have a soft breakdown curve, and they deteriorate a little bit
with each transient they suppress. When the company muckety-mucks
discovered Transzorbs, they issued ECOs to throw away all the MOVs
and replace them with Transzorbs.

It worked.

Good Luck!
Rich

I've been using the 1.5k series for some time now. I use lots of 11V

bipolar types to protect sensitive 10 Volt inputs/outputs. We also have
some option modules that employ LM324 chips which seem to get hit a lot
in the applications we use them on. I place a TVS on the input and
output of those units and we no longer have issues with those, too.

I recently did home repair for one my friends Electric dog fence that
got hit by mother nature, that unit uses 2 48V BP types that saved the
day directly connected to the R.F. loop. That just goes to show they can
also be used in some basic low Freq R.F. applications.

Mov's are good in conditions where things are not suppose to happen.
TVS diodes are great in applications where you suspect something to
happen randomly.

Jamie

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:01:42 -0700, Rich Grise <richg@example.net.invalid>
wrote:

Gloria West wrote:

From what I've seen, avalanche rectifiers have waned in popularity -
giving ground to MOVs - which in their turn have stared to give way to
SIDACs.

MOVs generally have higher spike quenching capability than avalanche and
are less likely to fail S/C, they can however shatter and arc when
damaged by extreme surges.
Ian Field

Thanks, Ian, for the information. I did not know that MOVs can take the
place of avalanche dioces. I had a difficult time locating avalanche
diodes locally but MOVs I can find and have bought a few.

Ah. After a little clarification, it seems that what you're actually
looking for is a Transzorb:
http://www.vishay.com/diodes/protection-tvs-esd/trans-zorb/

Transorb is one trade name for a TVS diode. I use lots of 'em. They even
come in SC-70s, five per. ;-) They're especially useful if you can get some
impedance in front of them. Also useful after a polyfuse.

I once worked at a place where they had MOVs all over the place -
MOVs have a soft breakdown curve, and they deteriorate a little bit
with each transient they suppress. When the company muckety-mucks
discovered Transzorbs, they issued ECOs to throw away all the MOVs
and replace them with Transzorbs.

Different component for a different purpose. I don't think I'd use a TVS
diode on the AC entry. ;-)

 

[Rich Grise]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:01:42 -0700, Rich Grise <richg@example.net.invalid
wrote:

Gloria West wrote:

From what I've seen, avalanche rectifiers have waned in popularity -
giving ground to MOVs - which in their turn have stared to give way to
SIDACs.

MOVs generally have higher spike quenching capability than avalanche
and are less likely to fail S/C, they can however shatter and arc when
damaged by extreme surges.
Ian Field

Thanks, Ian, for the information. I did not know that MOVs can take the
place of avalanche dioces. I had a difficult time locating avalanche
diodes locally but MOVs I can find and have bought a few.

Ah. After a little clarification, it seems that what you're actually
looking for is a Transzorb:
http://www.vishay.com/diodes/protection-tvs-esd/trans-zorb/

Transorb is one trade name for a TVS diode. I use lots of 'em. They even
come in SC-70s, five per. ;-) They're especially useful if you can get
some
impedance in front of them. Also useful after a polyfuse.

I once worked at a place where they had MOVs all over the place -
MOVs have a soft breakdown curve, and they deteriorate a little bit
with each transient they suppress. When the company muckety-mucks
discovered Transzorbs, they issued ECOs to throw away all the MOVs
and replace them with Transzorbs.

Different component for a different purpose. I don't think I'd use a TVS
diode on the AC entry. ;-)

Nah, these were mostly on inputs of sensors used in a HV ultra-high vacuum
environment with various electron guns, ion guns, x-ray sources, and
secondary electron analyzers and all kinds of kewl stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_electron_spectroscopy
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cylindrical%20mirror%20analyzer

I was an Engineering Tech, my first job out of the USAF in 1977;
I arranged to get myself fired after my boss quit and they hired
the Fourth Stooge to replace him. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich