Chip with simple program for Toy

[Anthony Fremont]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0qbq61hssppqvddmoqf986kop3dnge001i@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:07:01 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
spam@anywhere.com> wrote:


Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it
doesn't
work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie posts
regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his problem
has
nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.

---
To whom and to what are you referring, specifically?

Odd how that is hard to tell now that you've snipped away the context.
Hmm. :-/

If you must know, we were talking about another thread. The OP of that
thread built a cheesy programmer circuit and substituted the one and
only IC that it contains with a different number _and_ family.
Therefore, it's really not too surprising that he can't get it to work.

The second sentence (as delineated by a capital letter and a period)
refers to the other thread. The OP posted no useful information in his
post. It was, therefore, typical of many newbie posts in that it went
something like, "I built xxxx and it doesn't work, why?" You know.

The final sentence points out that the OP didn't have a PIC problem yet,
just a programmer problem since it couldn't be detected by the
programming software. This was, in fact, going to be the least of his
problems since he'd need some way to put his new PIC chips into LVP mode
before being able to program them.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:03:47 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
<spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0qbq61hssppqvddmoqf986kop3dnge001i@4ax.com...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:07:01 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
spam@anywhere.com> wrote:


Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it
doesn't
work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie posts
regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his problem
has
nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.

---
To whom and to what are you referring, specifically?

Odd how that is hard to tell now that you've snipped away the context.
Hmm. :-/

---
Snipped away context, my ass. You're the one going around reading
stuff in one thread, commenting on it in another, and expecting
everyone to know what you're talking about.
---

If you must know, we were talking about another thread. The OP of that
thread built a cheesy programmer circuit and substituted the one and
only IC that it contains with a different number _and_ family.
Therefore, it's really not too surprising that he can't get it to work.

The second sentence (as delineated by a capital letter and a period)
refers to the other thread. The OP posted no useful information in his
post.

---
Perhaps he's emulating _your_ style...
---

It was, therefore, typical of many newbie posts in that it went
something like, "I built xxxx and it doesn't work, why?" You know.

The final sentence points out that the OP didn't have a PIC problem yet,
just a programmer problem since it couldn't be detected by the
programming software. This was, in fact, going to be the least of his
problems since he'd need some way to put his new PIC chips into LVP mode
before being able to program them.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

ZForce wrote:

RonGrossi382879@yahoo.com> wrote in message

NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.147.84.56

X-Trace: posting.google.com 1114395545 13101 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2005 02:19:05
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com

Complain to AOL. That's his ISP

abuse@aol.com

Search results for: 172.147.84.56

OrgName: America Online
OrgID: AOL
Address: 22000 AOL Way
City: Dulles
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country: US

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:l2pq611qmjc2h1o481hfc6b2b1oa855785@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:03:47 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
spam@anywhere.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0qbq61hssppqvddmoqf986kop3dnge001i@4ax.com...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:07:01 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
spam@anywhere.com> wrote:


Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it
doesn't
work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie
posts
regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his
problem
has
nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.

---
To whom and to what are you referring, specifically?

Odd how that is hard to tell now that you've snipped away the
context.
Hmm. :-/

---
Snipped away context, my ass. You're the one going around reading
stuff in one thread, commenting on it in another, and expecting
everyone to know what you're talking about.

What a hoot. Lord Garth brought the other thread up, not me. I didn't
know that was not allowed anyhow. Is this another of your personal
rules of engagement?

If you must know, we were talking about another thread. The OP of
that
thread built a cheesy programmer circuit and substituted the one and
only IC that it contains with a different number _and_ family.
Therefore, it's really not too surprising that he can't get it to
work.

What, no smart comments proving me wrong?

The second sentence (as delineated by a capital letter and a period)
refers to the other thread. The OP posted no useful information in
his
post.

---
Perhaps he's emulating _your_ style...
---

I think (outside of this thread) that most of the posts I've made here
contained some kind of useful information pertaining to the thread.
Perhaps you could point us to some of my "empty" posts? Would you like
for me to do the same for you?

It was, therefore, typical of many newbie posts in that it went
something like, "I built xxxx and it doesn't work, why?" You know.

The final sentence points out that the OP didn't have a PIC problem
yet,
just a programmer problem since it couldn't be detected by the
programming software. This was, in fact, going to be the least of
his
problems since he'd need some way to put his new PIC chips into LVP
mode
before being able to program them.

Nothing to criticize again? I must be losing my edge.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:26:48 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
<spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

---
Oh, so now you're an authority on the OP?

Only so far as what he posted. I thought he made his skill level fairly
clear.

Whether it was obvious to him or not wouldn't have made a particle of
difference as long as he used a 2N4401, as was shown on the schematic.

That's completely beside the point.

---
No it's not. The point was that a 0.6mA was a typo and the relay
would have clicked in whether that typo was there or not. Or do you
think there's some sort of entanglement between a typo and a physical
circuit which will keep it from working?
---

Just like the fact that it wouldn't have worked anyway.

---
You say that now like you knew it then, but the _fact_ is had Fred not
found it you'd still be just as in the dark now as you were then.
---

What I think is interesting is that for all your whining about a typo
you had a chance to catch a much more serious _technical_ error, yet
you didn't.

And you think that is something to brag about?

---
If you think that's bragging, then I think you need a course in
remedial English comprehension. It's a flame, boy. The clue should
have been the "your whining" part.
---

LMAO I'm not the one
touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".

---
No doubt because if you tried it you'd be laughed off the planet.
---

I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.

---
Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found out.
---

Perhaps you should have
told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because even
I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that you
knew would work.

---
"Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent you?

Most of us who have been around these technical newsgroups for any
length of time realize that unless it's explicitly stated that the
circuit has been tested or simulated, it hasn't. I see you have yet
to learn that. For the most part, most of the stuff we post is off
the top of our heads and is usually either right on or pretty close to
it, because it's stuff we do every day to make a living. However we
_do_ make errors from time to time, and some sharp individual will
usually catch the error and provide feedback. Luckily, Fred Bloggs
was there to catch mine and to graciously provide a solution.

You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.
---

I will certainly view your schematics from the proper perspective
from now on.

---
Yes, you should. Consider them documents from which you can learn how
to catch mistakes. However, I suspect that you'll miss even the most
glaring of technical errors and report back, scathingly, on all the
typos you find, LOL!
---

I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though.

---
You say that now, but earlier you felt that:

"Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct your mistake in
S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
sheez...."

was better than, say, "BTW, John, you stated in sed that the maximum
collector current for a 2N4401 is 0.6mA. I believe that should be
0.6A." ?

First off the sheez part wasn't addressed to you. You might have
deduced that from the punctuation.

---
Well, duhhh...

If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
misunderstand you?
---

Secondly I was being sarcastic, you
should have been able to tell that from the entire context of my post.

---
So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into sarcasm?
---

At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of their
posts.

---
If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I suggest
you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.
---

Or did you already forget about the photocell and resistor
fiasco in your unending love/hate relationship with Larry?

---
I'd hardly call that a fiasco; more like a disagreement, and it
started like this:

"
R1 = 6.2k
R2 = 400 -> 15M
R3 = 620



R1 (R2 + R3)
Rt = --------------
R1 + R2 + R3



6200 (400 + 620)
Rt1 = ------------------ = 875.9 ohms
6200 + 400 + 620



6200 (15e6 + 620)
Rt2 = ------------------- = 6197.4 ohms
6200 + 15e6 + 620


875.9 ohms to 6197.4 ohms isn't 1k to 5k.
"


BTW, I don't think my comment was all that bad, certainly not an FU or
anything like that. I noticed that Mike pointed out your error and
you didn't respond. I thought you might like to know about it.

---
Bullshit. You figured that since I called you on that
"curent-hogging" stupidity you'd try to throw a little barb to get
even.
---

It certainly woke you up didn't it. :-D

---
I stay awake.
---

At any rate, the sole reason that I even mentioned you was because you
had already made your attempt at setting me up. Given your typical
behavior lately, I knew what was coming next. I figured my way of
pointing out your mistake was just beating you to the punch. Obviously
I was correct, since you are now so pissed over it.

---
I have no idea what you're talking about.
---

I certainly didn't cuss you out over it though.

---
That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
because you're a pussy.
---

So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
selective memory lapse problems.

Where did I lie?

---
You said: "I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though."

After you said: "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
sheez...."

If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you didn't
feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.
---

I figured you'd catch it or someone else would.

---
Someone else did. Non-confrontationally, BTW

That was his choice. Like you, I reserve the right to respond when and
how I want.

---
So, you admit your reply was confrontational, and yet you said that
you didn't feel a need to make a scene. You just can't keep your
facts straight, can you?
---

No biggy.

---
One would think...
---

Certainly not
like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in S.E.B, I
see.

---
It wasn't the word 'current', it was the phrase 'current hogging'.

And?

---
And, in view of the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and
a stupid one at that, I maintain that you actually meant 'current
hogging' and decided that 'power hogging' would be a nice little
phrase to switch to to get you out of a jam.
---
..
..
..

I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one for
cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake.

---
Had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
And you'll get no apology. Don't like it, sue me.

No need to sue, you are doing enough damage to your business and
reputation all by yourself.

---
Yup, I thought so. You're the stereotypical petulant little puke who,
when she starts running out of ammunition starts whining about how I
should run _my_ business and how I should run _my_ life.
---

I admit my mistake yet again, when will it be enough for you?

---
Your first admission was sufficient for me, but you seem to feel a
need to keep admitting it, ad nauseam, so the question really should
be: When will it be enough for _you_?

You accused me of weaving and bobbing, so I figured that I hadn't been
plain enough for you.

---
You were plain enough, the bobbing and weaving part was about the
transfer to the "power hogging" ploy, the intent of which was to make
it seem like you knew what you were talking about, but merely used the
wrong choice of words to describe what you meant. What I'm saying is
that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there is
no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
"Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to one
device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common power
supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
from the supply.
---

You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking
around
saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly
accepted
technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense
and
trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat
that
you're in, LOL.

I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to
do?

---
I dont care _what_ you do.

I guess that's only as long as I don't say "current" when I really
mean
"power".

---
You misunderstand me. "I don't care what you do" means precisely
that. Make mistakes, don't make mistakes, it makes no difference to


me. Choosing to comment one way or the other is my prerogative and is
not based on caring about what you do, it's based on fixing the error.

Then, why did my comment upset you? I was only prompting you to fix
your error. I didn't call you any names, or use an cuss words so why
did you find it so upsetting?

---
Again, the context of your "prompt" was goading and your attitude was
clearly confrontational, yielding a richly deserved insulting reply.
---

Do you really think that I don't know the difference between
current
and
power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit
is
the same?

---
You do now...

I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.

---
Yes, well, if you don't use it you lose it.

I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
energy.

---
Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...
---

I think you know that too or you'd be filling your posts with
links to all my past errors.

---
I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
should give a shit about your past errors.

I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the huge
family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.
---

I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.

---
Shit happens...
---

Next time I'll be more careful.

---
Good.

whatever

---
Weak.

Not half as weak as someone that feels a need to dominate a basics
newsgroup just cuz they're an expert in the field.

---
Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're smarter
than me then why pick on me?" card.

I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like to
do is bring down self-important little bullshit artists like you, just
for fun. And as far as being an expert goes, I could be a complete
moron and you'd still have to consider me an expert.

BTW, what happened with running those numbers to see whether the power
dissipation spec of an LED with Vf max in series with an LED with Vf
min and If running through _both_ of them would be exceeded?
---
..
..
..

Again, had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.

Perhaps if you acted a little more civil around here, I would be
inclined to be nicer to you. As it stands, you certainly are
demonstrating that you deserve far less courtesy than I've shown you.

---
If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you might
come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's deserving
of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That doesn't
mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here and
starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[fpd]

BobG wrote:

Buy a 1553 interface card?

That's a start...

MIL-STD-1553 is a balanced signal (has a + wire, a - wire and a
ground/shield) for each channel. One channel usually has DUAL REDUNDANCY,
meaning Channel 1A and channel 1B... if channel 1A fails (and the box is
programmed correctly), channel 1B will be used (why? because it isn't nice
flying home with half an airplane).

The signal strength comes in two "volumes": DIRECT COUPLED and TRANSFORMER
COUPLED. Direct is 3V to 9V p-p. Transformer is 9v - 27v p-p. When
reading these signals, clip an O-scope Channel A onto 1553 Channel 1A+ and
O-scope Channel B onto 1553 Channel 1A-. select ADD and INVERT on your
O-scope.

MIL-STD-1553 is a 20-bit stream.

Bits 0, 1, 2 are SYNC.
Bits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are Remote Terminal
Bit 8 is Transmit/Receive
Bits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are Subaddress
Bits 15,16,17, 18, 19 are Word Count/Mode Code
Bit 20 is Parity

The 1553 language is standard world-wide (yes, the same stuff from Bejing to
Hoboken). How you get it to talk, or fill data buffers, or address Remote
Terminals and Subaddresses with Mode Codes or Data is proprietary, so you
will have to surf the site of the manufacturer.

Have fun!

 

[fpd]

I forgot to mention... the bits are tranmitted at 1 megabits per second
(1MHz).

fpd wrote:

BobG wrote:

Buy a 1553 interface card?

That's a start...

MIL-STD-1553 is a balanced signal (has a + wire, a - wire and a
ground/shield) for each channel. One channel usually has DUAL REDUNDANCY,
meaning Channel 1A and channel 1B... if channel 1A fails (and the box is
programmed correctly), channel 1B will be used (why? because it isn't nice
flying home with half an airplane).

The signal strength comes in two "volumes": DIRECT COUPLED and
TRANSFORMER
COUPLED. Direct is 3V to 9V p-p. Transformer is 9v - 27v p-p. When
reading these signals, clip an O-scope Channel A onto 1553 Channel 1A+ and
O-scope Channel B onto 1553 Channel 1A-. select ADD and INVERT on your
O-scope.

MIL-STD-1553 is a 20-bit stream.

Bits 0, 1, 2 are SYNC.
Bits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are Remote Terminal
Bit 8 is Transmit/Receive
Bits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are Subaddress
Bits 15,16,17, 18, 19 are Word Count/Mode Code
Bit 20 is Parity

The 1553 language is standard world-wide (yes, the same stuff from Bejing
to
Hoboken). How you get it to talk, or fill data buffers, or address Remote
Terminals and Subaddresses with Mode Codes or Data is proprietary, so you
will have to surf the site of the manufacturer.

Have fun!

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tkuq611cnt2ro09gbnr38lt29jo4tme6al@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:26:48 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
spam@anywhere.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

---
Oh, so now you're an authority on the OP?

Only so far as what he posted. I thought he made his skill level
fairly
clear.

Whether it was obvious to him or not wouldn't have made a particle
of
difference as long as he used a 2N4401, as was shown on the
schematic.

That's completely beside the point.

---
No it's not. The point was that a 0.6mA was a typo and the relay
would have clicked in whether that typo was there or not. Or do you
think there's some sort of entanglement between a typo and a physical
circuit which will keep it from working?

The point had nothing to do with whether it worked or not. The point
was your mistake, or "trypo" as you like to call them.

---

Just like the fact that it wouldn't have worked anyway.

---
You say that now like you knew it then, but the _fact_ is had Fred not
found it you'd still be just as in the dark now as you were then.

I never bothered to look that close. Obviously Fred is well aware that
you often post non-working circuits.

---

What I think is interesting is that for all your whining about a
typo
you had a chance to catch a much more serious _technical_ error,
yet
you didn't.

And you think that is something to brag about?

---
If you think that's bragging, then I think you need a course in
remedial English comprehension. It's a flame, boy. The clue should
have been the "your whining" part.

It might be different if I was actually looking for errors in the
schematic, but I simply wasn't. I just noticed the glaring "trypo" in
the text.

---

LMAO I'm not the one
touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".

---
No doubt because if you tried it you'd be laughed off the planet.

Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all that
is important?

I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.

---
Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found out.

Kinda like the pretense where you come off as a civil human being?

---

Perhaps you should have
told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because
even
I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that
you
knew would work.

---
"Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent you?

Actually, I meant that in a gullable sort of way. I've got your number
now though.

Most of us who have been around these technical newsgroups for any
length of time realize that unless it's explicitly stated that the
circuit has been tested or simulated, it hasn't. I see you have yet
to learn that. For the most part, most of the stuff we post is off
the top of our heads and is usually either right on or pretty close to
it, because it's stuff we do every day to make a living. However we
_do_ make errors from time to time, and some sharp individual will
usually catch the error and provide feedback. Luckily, Fred Bloggs
was there to catch mine and to graciously provide a solution.

You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.

Actually, I've been getting a kick out of watching you blow your top.

---

I will certainly view your schematics from the proper perspective
from now on.

---
Yes, you should. Consider them documents from which you can learn how
to catch mistakes. However, I suspect that you'll miss even the most
glaring of technical errors and report back, scathingly, on all the
typos you find, LOL!

I seriously doubt that I'll be reporting back much of anything about any
of your circuits. I do suspect that I will be hearing from you more
often in the future though.

---


I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though.

---
You say that now, but earlier you felt that:

"Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct your mistake
in
S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
sheez...."

was better than, say, "BTW, John, you stated in sed that the
maximum
collector current for a 2N4401 is 0.6mA. I believe that should be
0.6A." ?

First off the sheez part wasn't addressed to you. You might have
deduced that from the punctuation.

---
Well, duhhh...

If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
misunderstand you?

My comments in the original post were rhetorical, haven't you figured
that out yet?

---

Secondly I was being sarcastic, you
should have been able to tell that from the entire context of my
post.

---
So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into sarcasm?

What's to defend, I admitted my little faux pa.

---

At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of
their
posts.

---
If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I suggest
you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.

I didn't have to read 10,000 of them to figure out that you often go off
like this. Four letter words, invectives and ad-hominem attacks seem to
be a part of your regular forte.

---

Or did you already forget about the photocell and resistor
fiasco in your unending love/hate relationship with Larry?

---
I'd hardly call that a fiasco; more like a disagreement, and it
started like this:

"
R1 = 6.2k
R2 = 400 -> 15M
R3 = 620



R1 (R2 + R3)
Rt = --------------
R1 + R2 + R3



6200 (400 + 620)
Rt1 = ------------------ = 875.9 ohms
6200 + 400 + 620



6200 (15e6 + 620)
Rt2 = ------------------- = 6197.4 ohms
6200 + 15e6 + 620


875.9 ohms to 6197.4 ohms isn't 1k to 5k.
"


BTW, I don't think my comment was all that bad, certainly not an FU or
anything like that. I noticed that Mike pointed out your error and
you didn't respond. I thought you might like to know about it.

---
Bullshit. You figured that since I called you on that
"curent-hogging" stupidity you'd try to throw a little barb to get
even.
---

It certainly woke you up didn't it. :-D

---
I stay awake.
---

At any rate, the sole reason that I even mentioned you was because
you
had already made your attempt at setting me up. Given your typical
behavior lately, I knew what was coming next. I figured my way of
pointing out your mistake was just beating you to the punch.
Obviously
I was correct, since you are now so pissed over it.

---
I have no idea what you're talking about.

I certainly didn't cuss you out over it though.

---
That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
because you're a pussy.

Really? Do ya think so?

---

So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
selective memory lapse problems.

Where did I lie?

---
You said: "I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though."

After you said: "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
sheez...."

If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you didn't
feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.

As I said before, I didn't see a need to make a scene when I first saw
your mistake in SED. After that, when you posted your little trick
setup question in SEB, I felt a bit different. And then after Watson's
snide little remark about attrocious advice, I posted my little
sarcastic rant. And now here we are. Is that timeline really so hard
to grasp?

I figured you'd catch it or someone else would.

---
Someone else did. Non-confrontationally, BTW

That was his choice. Like you, I reserve the right to respond when
and
how I want.

---
So, you admit your reply was confrontational, and yet you said that
you didn't feel a need to make a scene. You just can't keep your
facts straight, can you?

See above.

No biggy.

---
One would think...
---

Certainly not
like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in
S.E.B, I
see.

---
It wasn't the word 'current', it was the phrase 'current hogging'.

And?

---
And, in view of the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and
a stupid one at that, I maintain that you actually meant 'current
hogging' and decided that 'power hogging' would be a nice little
phrase to switch to to get you out of a jam.

As I originally posted in reply to your little trick query:

<quote>
Perhaps "dissipate more power" would have been more appropriate than
"hog more current".
</quote>

So as we can all plainly see, 'current hogging' is your own little
fabrication of terminology that I never used.

---
.
.
.
I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one
for
cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake.

---
Had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
And you'll get no apology. Don't like it, sue me.

No need to sue, you are doing enough damage to your business and
reputation all by yourself.

---
Yup, I thought so. You're the stereotypical petulant little puke who,
when she starts running out of ammunition starts whining about how I
should run _my_ business and how I should run _my_ life.

If you think I'm running low on ammo, just keep posting. ;-) I could
care less how you run your business _or_ your life. That is until you
wish to horn into my life with your petulent, pedantic crap.

---

I admit my mistake yet again, when will it be enough for you?

---
Your first admission was sufficient for me, but you seem to feel a
need to keep admitting it, ad nauseam, so the question really
should
be: When will it be enough for _you_?

You accused me of weaving and bobbing, so I figured that I hadn't
been
plain enough for you.

---
You were plain enough, the bobbing and weaving part was about the
transfer to the "power hogging" ploy, the intent of which was to make
it seem like you knew what you were talking about, but merely used the
wrong choice of words to describe what you meant. What I'm saying is

Do you think that you've somehow proved that I didn't know the
difference?

that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there is
no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
"Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to one
device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common power
supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
from the supply.

Again, like as stated earlier. I was originally going to say "juice"
not current and not power. Again, I wish that I had just so I could see
how you could have twisted that around. Is juice power, or is it
current or maybe even energy? Again, my original intent was not to use
the word power either, even though it would have been the "most correct"
term. Hard to believe that set you onto a personal crusade to prove me
a liar.

---

You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking
around
saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly
accepted
technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other
nonsense
and
trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same
boat
that
you're in, LOL.

I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me
to
do?

---
I dont care _what_ you do.

I guess that's only as long as I don't say "current" when I really
mean
"power".

---
You misunderstand me. "I don't care what you do" means precisely
that. Make mistakes, don't make mistakes, it makes no difference
to


me. Choosing to comment one way or the other is my prerogative and
is
not based on caring about what you do, it's based on fixing the
error.

Then, why did my comment upset you? I was only prompting you to fix
your error. I didn't call you any names, or use an cuss words so why
did you find it so upsetting?

---
Again, the context of your "prompt" was goading and your attitude was
clearly confrontational, yielding a richly deserved insulting reply.

What type of reply do you think you deserve at this point in our
relationship?

---

Do you really think that I don't know the difference between
current
and
power, or that the current thru all components in a series
circuit
is
the same?

---
You do now...

I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.

---
Yes, well, if you don't use it you lose it.

I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
energy.

---
Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...

Why do I think that no matter what I posted you would ridicule it?

---

I think you know that too or you'd be filling your posts with
links to all my past errors.

---
I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
should give a shit about your past errors.

As you have so aptly demonstrated, you would leave no stone unturned in
order to crucify me.

I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the huge
family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.

Too funny.

I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.

---
Shit happens...
---

Next time I'll be more careful.

---
Good.

whatever

---
Weak.

Not half as weak as someone that feels a need to dominate a basics
newsgroup just cuz they're an expert in the field.

---
Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're smarter
than me then why pick on me?" card.

I never said that I thought you were smarter than me. Only that you
knew more about electronics. Don't flatter yourself, there is a
difference.

I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like to
do is bring down self-important little bullshit artists like you, just

Self important bullshit artist? That's got to be the most serious case
of projection I've ever seen. Do you see me waving my credentials
around? Do I have a sig line making bodacious claims?

for fun. And as far as being an expert goes, I could be a complete
moron and you'd still have to consider me an expert.

That's not far from how I see things right now.

BTW, what happened with running those numbers to see whether the power
dissipation spec of an LED with Vf max in series with an LED with Vf
min and If running through _both_ of them would be exceeded?

I don't know, what happened? How about you pick your own experiments,
and I'll pick mine.

---
.
.
.

Again, had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would
have
acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.

Perhaps if you acted a little more civil around here, I would be
inclined to be nicer to you. As it stands, you certainly are
demonstrating that you deserve far less courtesy than I've shown you.

If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you might
come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's deserving
of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That doesn't

Really, and I'm supposed to be convinced by that statement? ROTFL I
think I'll continue to decide for myself who I respect.

mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here and
starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.

Yeah, you're real civil.

 

[Fritz Oppliger]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:29:01 -0700, Maddy <mnitin73@gmail.com> wrote:

Will they be transmitting data simultaneously?

Do you need bi-directional links i.e. does the computer need to send
data /
commands to them?

Yes They will be transmitting data simultaneously. The computer does
not need to send any data. Can any other pin apart from pin 2 of the 9
pin serial port be used for receiving data?

Afraid not. THis might be most easily dealt with by a dedicated controller
with 4 serial ports: 3 inputs, one output, being smart enough to keep
packets coming from the different inputs separate and passing them on to
the main computer. Something pretty smart really.

The simplest thing coming to mind is: let the computer sort it out but
give it one serial port for each device. THere are inexpensive USB to
serial converters that give you four serial ports for one USB connection.
http://www.ionetworks.com/products/usbtoserialconverters/index.jsp
Then your software can sort out the different data streams.


--
Fritz Oppliger

 

[Tom Biasi]

"mythos-" <nonda@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1114478435.044365.160650@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Geoda...@yahoo.com wrote:
mythos- wrote:
Hi, I have a continuity test on my multimeter, and when i tested a
couple resistors, my meter beeped. Now the one resistor, as it
beeped
showed the proper resistance, does this mean the resistor is
shorted?
You already got your answer but think about what you said. The resister

showed the proper resistance, how could it be shorted?

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:11:58 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
<spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:fe8q61pdi7787n4c5c2sqvsqhj77nb9vrf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:43:35 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
spam@anywhere.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

snipped a bunch more side-stepping and invective/ad-hominem crap

---
Translation: "The sonofabitch nailed me, so I'll just shout one more
insult and pretend he didn't. And now for something completely
different..."

However you wish to see it John, though I didn't use any cuss words.

---
'Crap" is a cuss word, and besides, "The thought is the same as the
deed."
---

---
HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a nickle,
diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.

Didn't you have a pot in your design?

---
Yeah, but it was a nicety. For the cost-conscious, and if the period
isn't all that critical, 510k +/- 5% will be just fine.

I'd go with jumpers on a micro. They're cheap and highly configurable.

---
Not as configurable as a delta R, and good luch with those jumpers on
an 8 pin chip.
---

PCB, transistor, relay is a wash for either system.

Probably wouldn't need a transistor to drive the relay as long as
5V@25mA will do it. Why not a nice SSR instead?

---
Oh, I don't know... Maybe because that's not what the OP of the thread
in sed you referenced asked for?

An SSR doesn't qualify as a relay?

---
Not as a relay with mechanical contacts, but it doesn't matter. The OP
asked for something which could _drive_ a relay, which is what I gave
him. I showed a mechanical relay because that's what he said he was
going to use, but if he wanted to switch to an SSR, that would be up
to him.
---

A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
learning curve and programming and debugging time.

How come the full cost of a programmer and the micro's entire
learning
curve gets factored in every time a micro is mentioned as a solution?

---
Because if you haven't bought/built one and you haven't been through
the process, then you'll have to buy/build one and go through the
process if you want to play.
---

The same goes for test equipment, soldering stuff etc.... It's just one
more tool that you need, nothing more. A good PIC programmer is less
than $100. Compared to the $150 I spent on my audio frequency generator
that I almost never use, it's a great investment.

It's a one time cost, just like the rest of anyones test equipment or
education.

---
Yes, of course, but it's a one-time cost and an ongoing effort which
will will be unwarranted if the goal at hand is to build a one-off
widget with a total cost of, say, $10 or less.

But it would be worth buying a DMM, a soldering iron, solder, etching
stuff etc.....?

---
You'd need that stuff whichever way you decided to go, but you'd only
need the other stuff if you were going to implement the device using a
micro, so it would be stupid to go that way when the other way is so
simple.
---

I spent less than $75.00 on my programming hardware and the
dev tools were free from Microchip. My scope cost me more than $400
fifteen years ago and it was used then. Nobody worries about the
thousands of dollars needed for the rest of the stuff you need to
effectively tinker in electronics, just the $50 for the programmer
like
it's some kind of major show-stopper.

---
The keyword there is 'tinker'. If that's _your_ bent, then fine.
Spend away. Understand however, that that's not _everyone's_ cup of
tea and that some folks only want a simple, inexpensive, easily
realizable solution for a problem peculiar to them. Asking them to

Well, I guess that I see PIC chips like you see 74xx's

---
I doubt it. I work in both camps as well as in analog, and so far
you've demonstrated no skill with anything other than some alluded-to
ability to substitute programming for hardware you admittedly don't
understand and don't want to "take a lifetime to learn", or something
like that.
---

spend _anything_ on hardware which is going to gather dust after the
project is finished is, at best, stupid. As is asking them to spend
time learning how to use it, and to acquire the software skills
necessary to bring the "project" to completion.

Burning yet another straw man, you really are a fire bug. I don't
recall asking anyone to spend money on equipement to be used once.

---
It's not a straw man at all.
When you insist that using a ľC is a better solution than using
"discrete" logic, then if that insistance bears fruit, the requirement
for the equipment necessary to implement your solution will become
de rigueur. If the breadth of the project is the yield of a single
unit with a cost basically down in the noise compared to the required
expenditure in time and money to complete the project, then doesn't it
seem stupid to you to do it that way when doing it in hardware would
be so much faster and less expensive?
---

As I "self agrandised" before, if I was adamently suggesting a PIC to
someone, I'd be offering some help to go with it. You can make of that
what you wish.

---
From what you've offered so far, I would suggest that anyone who
decides to go that route find help elsewhere.
---

IME, debugging time for this
project would be virtually non-existent and the end result would be
more
useful since it would have a much greater dynamic range on the time
constant.

---
If you think the OP was wrong in asking for what he wanted, then why
don't you get your ass over to sed and tell him about it instead of
sitting here playing self - aggrandising games and kvetching about
every goddam thing under the sun?

Er um, because I don't want to. You really ought to stop trying to
control things around here. Ordering people around on usenet is not
likely to win you many friends.

---
Er um, because you're a chickenshit and you know that if you do you're
going to wind up getting your ass handed to you. Again.
You really ought to follow your own advice, hypocrite. You telling me
to stop trying to control things around here is you trying to control
me. Friends I've got. Insignificant gadflies like you I don't need.
---

Hint: He doesn't _want_ to be able to change the timing, he just
wants something that'll give him a contact closure, repeatedly, every
hour or so.
---

You figure it out.

Your cost may be a little less assuming a PIC 12Fxxx (~1.20 single
qty),
but a 4 bit micro would change that.

---
YAFI, LOL! Suggest away, and don't forget to include the cost of the
programmer and the dev tools, and the time required to learn how to
use them and to learn the instruction set.

Programmers and dev tools don't count. We've already covered this.
They are in the same category as all other dev tools and electronics
equipment you own.

---
Other than your just being obstinate, I fail to see why, (without
even going into the learning curve part of it) you think that paying
money for dev tools which will only be used once is better than not
having to pay for the dev tools, yet winding up with exactly what you
want anyway.
---

Outside of the minor cost
difference, I still feel that the micro offers far more potential for
a
better end result.

---
"Minor cost difference"? You're either trying to sneak some shit in
there or you can't do, or haven't done, the arithmetic, so I'll do it
for you: Since the transistor, the base resistor, the clamp diode,
the relay and the PCB are a wash, what's left is $1.20 for your
suggested PIC way VS about $0.63 for my way.

That comes to:


$1.20
-$0.63
------
$0.57

which is about 1/2 as expensive as your way. "Minor cost difference"?
I think not.

It's certainly not half as expensive when you factor in a board and the
rest of the common parts. The difference quickly shrinks to ~10% or
less, now doesn't it?

---
That's a good point but, bottom line, you still save about 50 cents if
you don't do it with a micro and you don't have to learn how to do it
and buy all the stuff to do it with if you're not going to do it
again.
---

Hmmm... Where did I read this:

"BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the network
appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?"

1. Cheaper? I've just proven that it's not cheaper in onesies, and I
doubt that with that huge cost differential it could be made cheaper
in volume.

Admittedly for one off, it's pretty hard to be cheaper using an 8-bit
micro. A 4-bit proc would do the job, and it would be cheaper. BTW,
your quoted prices were a bit low as shown on Digikey, so things aren't
as bad as you wish to make it seem. Of course your price was 70 cents
yesterday and now it's only 63 cents, so why am I not surprised?

---
Because you're stupid?
---

According to Digikey, the fairchild 4060 is 77 cents in single qty, the
ST part is 55 cents each.

2. Simpler? Since the ľC way would require a large investment in time
in order to climb the learning curve, that can hardly be considered a
simpler solution for a one-off.

What about the electronics learing curve? It's only about 1000 times
larger, be for real. That's the same old tired mantra formerly sung by
"professional tube circuit designers" when whining about having to learn
yucky old transistor theory.

---
Dumbass, the OP over on SED wasn't interested in spending a great deal
of time and some bucks on learning how to design a ľC timer; what he
wanted was something quick and easy which he could solder up, probably
on a piece of perfboard, which would do what he wanted. That's what
he got, and I got private email from him thanking me for the circuit
and letting me know that he'd let me know how it worked out. Rest
assured that I'll post the good news when I hear it.

Now, do you have any comments on whether it'll work or not? Why don't
you build one and find out? It'll only cost you five bucks or so and
we'll learn whether you know how to solder or not. Or wire-wrap. Or
whether you're just plain ol' fulla shit.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Peter Bennett]

On 25 Apr 2005 09:41:03 -0700, mnitin73@gmail.com (Maddy) wrote:

I have the following eqpt
a.Gyro with RS232 or RS422 output (NMEA word $HEHDT ...)
b.Log with RS232 output (NMEA word $GPRMC ...)
c.Standard GPS NMEA output
I want to give these to a single computer with only two serial ports.
I want to combine all these signals and feed them to the computer as a
single input.
Thanks
ps I live in India where nautical electronic hardware is hardly
available. So would prefer a software or circuit diagram which can be
made.

You need an NMEA multiplexer - there are several links on my GPS/NMEA
site listed below, in the NMEA Programs area.



--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

 

[Peter Bennett]

On 25 Apr 2005 17:12:35 -0700, "mythos-" <nonda@comcast.net> wrote:

Hi, I have a continuity test on my multimeter, and when i tested a
couple resistors, my meter beeped. Now the one resistor, as it beeped
showed the proper resistance, does this mean the resistor is shorted?

The continuity test just shows that the resistance between the leads
is less than some (probably fairly low) value, and does not indicate
that there is a short circuit (zero ohms) between the leads.

--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

 

[Don Kelly]

There appear to be strange values involved in your circuit values under
faulted conditions. For example. when there is a ground on L1A20 , why do
you appear to have non-zero values of current and voltage to the right of
the grounded point.? In addition, the Circuit breaker resistance appears
very high and unrealistic. It may be that you are interpreting the circuit
incorrectly.

Rather than play with ASCII diagrams, I will send you something directly.
--
Don Kelly
dhky@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
<dgoodwin@carleycorp.com> wrote in message
news:1114466443.659972.171490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Hello everyone,

To begin, I know next to nothing about circuits, Digital Multimeters,
and the like. Your patience with me is appreciated.

I am a programmer and have recently been assigned a project that shows
a virtual series circuit onscreen for a teaching simulation. A student
would interact with the circuit by flipping switches, circuit breakers,
unscrewing wires, and using a virtual Digital Multimeter to test a
circuit's Voltage, Current and Resistance. The simulation needs to
have total freedom to allow the student to do whatever they wish.
Faults are assigned to the circuit that cause problems that the student
is expected (with the use of the DMM) to identify.

My problem lies in getting the read-out of the virtual DMM to mimic
real life.

I have set up some initial tests, and they look very promising,
however, my lack of understanding circuits has left me with unreliable
results (mainly with voltage).

I have set up a web page (http://www.zerobomb.com/carley/series.htm)
that gives:

1) Brief descriptions of the faults (what happens and why)
2) A chart that shows the Resistance of each component when
a fault (or, no fault) is assigned (and through the V=I/R
formula, the Current and Voltage)
3) A circuit diagram
4) A testing tool to test my DMM code.

The Virtual DMM, locate just under the circuit diagram, allows you to
set a fault, toggle the circuits power, set the Circuit Breaker or
Switch of open or closed, choose your DMM setting (Voltage, Current,
Resistance) and type in a Test Point number for your DMM probes... The
calculate button then hopefully gives you the correct DMM read-out.

One problem in detail:

On the actual, real-life device, if I take a voltage measurement of the
circuit with Fault #4 set (Symptom: The lamp is dim when S1 is switched
to ON; Fault: High resistance across wire L1A20 - see the chart) with
my Positive DMM Lead is on anything from S1-T1 (TP4) through L1-T2
(TP7) and my Negative DMM Test Lead is on GND (TP8), I get about 14V...
Which makes sense due to the high resistance across the wire right
before the switch, but in my virtual test, I get 3.5V, no where near
the correct read-out.

To get this output, I am adding up the voltage in between TP4 (or
TP5-TP7, whichever you picked) through TP8: .02 + 3.48 = 3.5 (see the
chart under Fault #4 V, the first line under Fault #4). Is this not the
correct way to calculate Voltage? It seems to work in some areas, but
maybe I'm just getting lucky...?

It seems to work with resistance (adding up between the Test Points),
and current isn't a problem considering it's the same throughout a
series circuit.

Another thing I think I am unsure of is how opens are handled in the
various DMM readings: I believe the following to be true:

If reading Voltage OR Current:
- An open before the 1st DMM probe will result in a read-out of 0
- An open after the 2nd DMM probe will result in a read-out of 0
- An open in-between the DMM probes will result in the total VDC
(Does the DMM completes the circuit?)

If reading Resistance:
- An open before the 1st DMM probe or after the 2nd DMM probe will
not affect the read-out
- An open in-between the DMM probes will give the read-out "OL"

Does this sound right?

What if something is GROUNDED as above: before, after, or in-between
the DMM probes?

I will be more than happy to give further information if it is needed.

I appreciate any help, input, or maybe just a pointer to something I
could read on the web. I have looked into SPICE (and its variants) to
try to handle this, but I don't think I will be able to use that with
the final product this code will be going into. Also, I will eventually
have to do the same for a Parallel and Series-Parallel Circuit after
this.

Thanks again and have a great day!

Daniel Goodwin

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Abse
<excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote (in
<pan.2005.04.20.19.14.20.377855@cerebrumconfus.it&gt about 'Building an
interlock device for DUI parolee.', on Sat, 23 Apr 2005:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:32:06 +0000, Jason Pawloski wrote:

you have to do it at random times while driving, otherwise
your car shuts off

That should be fun for the guy in the eighteen-wheeler behind.

It might make him back of as far as 18 inches from your tailgate.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Lord Garth]

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:116seiqrq6pmr6a@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>

My pet P.O. yesterday afternoon was when I was trying to format a floppy
disk. I was logged on as administrator, and it told me "You do not have
sufficient permissions to perform this operation." GRRRRRRRRRR!!!! XP
must mean eXtra Pissed off!

It's trying to tell you that you can't format the disk you're currently
logged onto....

 

[Lord Garth]

"aman" <aman.bindra@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114533412.232021.50810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I know USB supplies 500mA at 5V. But somehow I need more current. I
need USB to provide current to a logitech webcam and 12 LED's. I need
a little more current. Any recommendations ? Can I drop the voltage
somehow to 3V and draw more current at that voltage ?

Your LED array should use external power to gain the required current.

 

[John Bokma]

aman wrote:

I know USB supplies 500mA at 5V. But somehow I need more current. I
need USB to provide current to a logitech webcam and 12 LED's. I need
a little more current. Any recommendations ? Can I drop the voltage
somehow to 3V and draw more current at that voltage ?

Lemme guess: IR LEDs?

--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

 

[Don]

On 04/26/2005 09:36:52 "aman" <aman.bindra@gmail.com> wrote:

I know USB supplies 500mA at 5V. But somehow I need more current. I need
USB to provide current to a logitech webcam and 12 LED's. I need a little
more current. Any recommendations ? Can I drop the voltage somehow to 3V
and draw more current at that voltage ?

One simple approach is to use a second USB port for the additional power.

I recently bought a case with electronics to fit a small 40G drive into; it
came with a Y at the computer end for plugging into two ports so it can be
used with early USB ports that do not provide 500mA. If the computer is up
to it, you should be able to draw 500mA from each.

Don

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:46:16 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
<spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

The point had nothing to do with whether it worked or not. The point
was your mistake, or "trypo" as you like to call them.

---
I think I already admitted that but, just in case you missed it, here
ya go: I made a typographical error. Happy now?
---

---

Just like the fact that it wouldn't have worked anyway.

---
You say that now like you knew it then, but the _fact_ is had Fred not
found it you'd still be just as in the dark now as you were then.

I never bothered to look that close. Obviously Fred is well aware that
you often post non-working circuits.

---
Well, since this _is_ an electronics group, I post circuits. Some
have technical errors in them, some don't. They usually get fixed.
The point is, _I_ post circuits. You, OTOH, critique typos when
someone catches you in a technical error.
---

It might be different if I was actually looking for errors in the
schematic, but I simply wasn't. I just noticed the glaring "trypo" in
the text.

---
More's the pity.
---

LMAO I'm not the one
touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".

---
Perhaps that's because you aren't.

It's what I do for a living, so that makes it my profession. So I put
what I do in my .sig, what's wrong with that?

Interestingly, the fact that I do seems to thoroughly irk you since
you've mentioned it in a derogatory way more than once. Perhaps it's
because I choose to include "Professional" and you think that I should
be more humble and merely post "Circuit designer"? Perhaps you need
to get over yourself and come to the realization that not everyone is
going to accede to your whims as to what does and what doesn't
constitute proper behavior.
---

Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all that
is important?

---
What skills you may have, other than in electronics, are of very
little interest to me since, in these groups, what's important is
electronics and the ability to communicate. In seb, it's also
important to be able to render technical criticism
non-confrontationally in order to not scare off the newbies.
---

I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.

---
Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found out.

Kinda like the pretense where you come off as a civil human being?

---
I generally respond to civility with civility and to non-civility with
non-civility, and I very seldom make a non-preemptive strike.
---

Perhaps you should have
told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because
even
I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that
you
knew would work.

---
"Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent you?

Actually, I meant that in a gullable sort of way. I've got your number
now though.

---
Did you know that 'gullable' isn't in the dictionary?
---

You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.

Actually, I've been getting a kick out of watching you blow your top.

---
Just a ruse to get you to bite, and now that the hook is set I own
you!
---

I seriously doubt that I'll be reporting back much of anything about any
of your circuits.

---
As do I. After all, it takes a modicum of acumen to do much more than
discover a typo in a technical article.
---

I do suspect that I will be hearing from you more often in the future though.

---
Perhaps.

I will say one thing now, though, and that is that after having
checked your posting history last night I found that you do seem to
know what you're talking about, technically, most of the time, so I
apologize for any inaccurate broad-brush slurs I may have made
earlier.

However, as far as the PIC VS "discrete" logic thing goes, you're
still all wet.
---

Well, duhhh...

If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
misunderstand you?

My comments in the original post were rhetorical, haven't you figured
that out yet?

---
Nope. Would you mind going back and dredging up those comments and
explaining what made them rhetorical?
---

---
So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into sarcasm?

What's to defend, I admitted my little faux pa.

---
Then what was the reason for the sarcasm? Surely you realized it
would lead to no good.
---

At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
^^^^^^^^^

precedent

jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of
^^^^^^^^

someone's

their posts.

---
If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I suggest
you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.

I didn't have to read 10,000 of them to figure out that you often go off
like this. Four letter words, invectives and ad-hominem attacks seem to
be a part of your regular forte.

---
Ahhh, you only read the juicy stuff. Try the tech, you might enjoy
it.
---

---
That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
because you're a pussy.

Really? Do ya think so?

---
Wellll... yeah.

After all, you say "WTF" so you can pretend that that's not saying
"What The Fuck", which is a pussy trait because pussies dont like the
"F" word, and you say that you don't use "cuss words" when the
acronym embodies the 'cuss words' you know the reader will expand
mentally to yield the 'cuss words' you want to wield, but can't.
So, your saying that you don't use 'cuss words' is a lie and lying is
another pussy trait.
---

If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you didn't
feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.

As I said before, I didn't see a need to make a scene when I first saw
your mistake in SED. After that, when you posted your little trick
setup question in SEB, I felt a bit different. And then after Watson's
snide little remark about attrocious advice, I posted my little
^^^^^^^^^^

atrocious

sarcastic rant. And now here we are. Is that timeline really so hard
to grasp?

---
Certainly not, but it's not about a timeline, it's about changing
streams in mid-horse. What you said earlier, unconditionally, was that
you didn't feel it was necessary to make a scene, while what you're
saying now is that you're now attaching conditions which made it OK to
make a scene. Can't you see that that's an ex post facto violation of
the first statement by the second?

"Please, Mommy, Oh, pleeeease make him give me back my marbles...
---

So, you admit your reply was confrontational, and yet you said that
you didn't feel a need to make a scene. You just can't keep your
facts straight, can you?

See above.

---
See reply, above, to "See above"
---

And, in view of the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and
a stupid one at that, I maintain that you actually meant 'current
hogging' and decided that 'power hogging' would be a nice little
phrase to switch to to get you out of a jam.

As I originally posted in reply to your little trick query:

quote
Perhaps "dissipate more power" would have been more appropriate than
"hog more current".
/quote

So as we can all plainly see, 'current hogging' is your own little
fabrication of terminology that I never used.

---
Not at all, just a substitution used to tighten up of the sloppy
construct, which included my substitution of 'power hogging' for your
"dissipate more power".
---

---
Yup, I thought so. You're the stereotypical petulant little puke who,
when she starts running out of ammunition starts whining about how I
should run _my_ business and how I should run _my_ life.

If you think I'm running low on ammo, just keep posting. ;-) I could
care less how you run your business _or_ your life. That is until you
wish to horn into my life with your petulent, pedantic crap.
^^^^^^^^ ^

petulant cuss word

---
I don't consider B-Bs much of a threat, but I _am_ tiring of your
uninspired banter, so unless you can pick up the pace I'm outta here.
---

You were plain enough, the bobbing and weaving part was about the
transfer to the "power hogging" ploy, the intent of which was to make
it seem like you knew what you were talking about, but merely used the
wrong choice of words to describe what you meant. What I'm saying is

Do you think that you've somehow proved that I didn't know the
difference?

---
No. _You_ proved it with:

"Since there are two LEDs in series, one may hog more current than the
other resulting in its demise."

I merely asked a question designed to determine whether you did, in
fact, know the difference, but you took affrontery and refused to
answer it directly.
---

that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there is
no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
"Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to one
device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common power
supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
from the supply.

Again, like as stated earlier. I was originally going to say "juice"
not current and not power. Again, I wish that I had just so I could see
how you could have twisted that around.

---
Perhaps that's what you should have done. "Juice" is vague enough to
have covered all your bases and is a cutesy colloquialism, so I
probably would have just ignored it.
---

Is juice power, or is it current or maybe even energy?
Again, my original intent was not to use the word power either,
even though it would have been the "most correct" term.
Hard to believe that set you onto a personal crusade to prove me
a liar.

---
You've supplied the proof, I merely pointed out the incidents.
---

Again, the context of your "prompt" was goading and your attitude was
clearly confrontational, yielding a richly deserved insulting reply.

What type of reply do you think you deserve at this point in our
relationship?


I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
energy.

---
Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...

Why do I think that no matter what I posted you would ridicule it?

---
That's not ridicule. I really don't think you know the difference and
I'm challenging you to provide proof that you do.
---

I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
should give a shit about your past errors.

As you have so aptly demonstrated, you would leave no stone unturned in
order to crucify me.

---
Oh, Gawd... Now you're casting yourself in the role of Christ and I'm
pounding in the nails. Get over yourself.
---

I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the huge
family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.

Too funny.

---
Thanks.
---

---
Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're smarter
than me then why pick on me?" card.

I never said that I thought you were smarter than me. Only that you
knew more about electronics. Don't flatter yourself, there is a
difference.

---
Not so far.
---

I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like to
do is bring down self-important little bullshit artists like you, just

Self important bullshit artist? That's got to be the most serious case
of projection I've ever seen. Do you see me waving my credentials
around? Do I have a sig line making bodacious claims?

---
Nope, but then, you've got nothing to make bodacious claims about.
---

for fun. And as far as being an expert goes, I could be a complete
moron and you'd still have to consider me an expert.

That's not far from how I see things right now.

---
Ah, a double entendre; how delicious! Intended?
---

BTW, what happened with running those numbers to see whether the power
dissipation spec of an LED with Vf max in series with an LED with Vf
min and If running through _both_ of them would be exceeded?

I don't know, what happened? How about you pick your own experiments,
and I'll pick mine.

---
Awww... baby demurs. And here I thought I was going to get to see
some good stuff.

OK, _I'll_ do it.

Here's the circuit:


E1
|
[R1]
|
+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND

Unfortunately, the data sheet at the link you provided:

http://www.epitex.com/Catalog_PDF/08_Point_source_LED/L590CE-34F.PDF

doesn't show Vf min, and I couldn't find any Vf min for white LEDs so,
since you said that Vf can vary 2:1, looking at a Vf max of 4.0V for a
"typical" white LED at 20mA yields a Vf min of 2.0V. Also, 100mW
seems to be a pretty typical max dissipation, so if we redraw the
circuit with that in mind, and with LEDs with equal low Vf's we'll
get:


9.0V-+---->E1
|
[R1]
|
4.0V-+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
2.0V-+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND


The choice of 9V for E1 is based on the assumption that E1 will be
regulated and will give 1V of headroom if DS1 and DS2 are both at Vf
max.

Now, since the current in a series circuit is everywhere the same,
solving for R1 with 20mA of LED current yields:

(E1-E2) 5V
R1 = --------- = ------- = 250 ohms
It 0.02A


and the LEDs will each be dissipating:


P = IE = 0.02A * 2V = 0.04W


so everything will be fine.


Now, though, let's select a high Vf LED for DS1 and see what happens.


Here's the circuit now:

9.0V-+---->E1
|
[250]
|
6.0V-+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
2.0V-+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND


Since we now have a 3V drop across R1 the current will fall to:


E 3V
I = --- = ------ = 0.012A
R 250R


and the power being dissipated by DS1 will be:


P = 0.012A * 4V = 0.048W

So, if the LED is rated for 100mW max, it will be dissipating 48mW
and everything will still be fine, except the light output will
suffer.

If we have two Vf max LEDs in the circuit it'll look like this:


9.0V-+---->E1
|
[250]
|
8.0V-+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
4.0V-+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND


and the current in the circuit will fall to:

1V
I = ------ = 0.004A
250R

So, while everything will still be fine from a power dissipation
viewpoint, the light output from the LEDs will be greatly degraded.

Although it would be possible to fiddle with supply voltages and
series resistances in order to come up with a solution which would
allow a greater light output without overdriving the LEDs regardless
of the Vf spread, It would be more practical, IMO, to drive them with
a constant current.
---

If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you might
come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's deserving
of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That doesn't

Really, and I'm supposed to be convinced by that statement? ROTFL I
think I'll continue to decide for myself who I respect.

---
Spoken like a true narcissist. It's 'whom', BTW.
---

mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here and
starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.

Yeah, you're real civil.

---
We've already covered that.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer