Chip with simple program for Toy

[neil]

<mnitin73@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114481060.688099.87690@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Can I connect the port to the rx pin of the 9 pin serial port and make
any sense? Are the 1553B interface cards standard or does it have to be
custom made depending on the equipment
Excalibur make 1553 interface cards but they are about Ł1500 each.

The data (as I recall, no doubt someone will correct/clarify...)
is a serial differential transformer coupled stream, at 1Megbaud.
Each data word is 16 bits, with a couple of start and stop bits.
The words are grouped in messages, and sent under control of the bus
controller.
You may have a controller or remote terminal (slave device).
The voltage level ranges from 3 to 30 volts.
Probably difficult to get a com port to talk/listen.
hope this helps,
Neil

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hcqs61t28efpnkqujvjk680fe75q6f7mm7@4ax.com...

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.

Well duh, that would be the appropriate thing to do wouldn't it?

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.

Did I say that somewhere? Since you mentioned it, don't you find the
word professional to be tiny bit redundant? Why do you feel a need to
tell the world that you really do get paid?

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

Translation: Yes, you probably do know a bunch of stuff that I don't
know, but since I don't know it, it's not relevant.

electronics and the ability to communicate. In seb, it's also

Have I not communicated well enough?

important to be able to render technical criticism
non-confrontationally in order to not scare off the newbies.

Have you _ever_ seen me be confrontational to a newbie?

---

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.

You probably meant preemptive (without the non).

---

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?

Oh man, you're not going to start tossing spelling flames are you? How
lame.

---

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!

ROTFLMAO, oh yeah I'm definitely hooked.

---


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.

Modicum and acumen in the same sentence. No wonder it took you all
night to respond.

---

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.
---

OMG, I can't believe it. That must have been really hard. Maybe we can
coexist then.

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?

OK, here we go:

First I said, "Maybe I could help make amends by belittling others,
nit-picking posts and posting a bunch
of OT crap?". Then I said, "Lets see if we can't get on to the road to
recovery now." That's all kinda the setup up indicating that sarcastic
and rhetorical remarks may follow. And then they did. I jibed Watson
since he tossed the first punch and you for what amounts to several
reasons (mainly your setup question when I've never slapped at you
before, I knew what you were trying to do and it torqued me off,
finally I've frankly found you to be a bit offensive lately and without
cause to other people namely Larry). So while it may not have been
entirely rhetorical, I really didn't expect this outcome.

---


---
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.

Why are spell checking my old posts now?

---
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.

I've read some of it and you have your good side.

---


---
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

Actually I use the "F" word plenty well, I just tend to not spell it out
in usenet articles. Just trying to consider the children. ;-)

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.

Interesting extrapolation you made there.

---


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

At the time that is how I felt. And then you changed all that when you
tried to bust my chops on current vs. power or "current hogging" as you
like to call it. So, you prompted the horse change, not me.

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".

Yes, it's all about what serves your agenda best, isn't it?

---

---
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.

And I thought by saying "dissipate more power" that I made it perfectly
clear that I knew what you were hinting at. How direct does something
need to be before you can see it?

---

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.

See, I knew I should have used 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.

Do you really think that? I doubt that you do.

In my own simple minded terms, current is the rate of electron flow. X
electrons in Y amount of time. Power is just putting some voltage
behind it so that we have the rate that work is being done, energy is
just putting a time constraint on how much total power is available to
do work (i.e. a 12V 8AH battery contains 96WH of energy). Is that good
enough or do you want joules, coulombs and other textbook what not?

---

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.

If that's how you feel, maybe you should listen to your conscience.

---

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.

See, there you go making prejudicial statements again. You have no
idea.

---

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.

So there we have it, the OP has been proven wrong. His LED's could not
have possibly failed.

---


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.

I was honestly going to say that, but I didn't want to seem pretentious.
LOL

---

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.

Yes, I'd agree that we buried your civility a good while ago.

 

[Peter Bennett]

On 25 Apr 2005 19:09:49 -0700, mnitin73@gmail.com wrote:

I saw the GPS multiplexer and it is exactly what I need. The problem is
I dont think I can get it in India.

I think most of the vendors listed on my site will ship naywhere.

Is any circuit diagram scematic
available whic I can use for makin a simple 2 in 1 out multiplexer?

It isn't too simple.

What you need is a microcontroller with one serial port for each
source, and enough memory to hold at least one sentence from each
port. The microcontroller will read and store incoming data then send
it out when it gets a full sentence, providing it isn't already
sending data from another input.


--
Peter Bennett VE7CEI
email: peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
GPS and NMEA info and programs: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter/index.html
Newsgroup new user info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:57:57 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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

LOL, strike this....../


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:17:46 -0700, aman wrote:

So doesnt this imply that if there are free ions in water there will
be a different K from a nuetral sample of water with no free ions ? I
am actually adding chemicals(ionic) to water which nuetralises harmful
ions in water to form a nuetral particle floc. So I need to detect zero
crossing. As i am adding ions into water i need to detect a zero
crossing in going from postive charge to negetive.

What you're actually looking for is a pH meter.

This isn't really related to dielectric constant at all, unless, as
Larry said, the solute has a dramatically different K than water, and
if it were in enough concentration to affect a capacitive readout,
you wouldn't have a capacitor but an electroplating tank.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:29:02 +0000, John Bokma wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:

You
might consider not driving them so hard. There is probably a
relatively insignificant brightness difference between 10mA and 20mA
anyway.

In my case: 30 mA is max, so feeding them 22 mA shouldn't be that bad.
Moreover, the LED died when the circuit at
http://johnbokma.com/pet/scorpion/detection-using-uv-leds.html

was connected to 9V, or maybe even 7V (less then 12V anyway).

If you really used that exact circuit, with three LEDs in series
in each leg, then you have not killed any LEDs - 9V is simply
not enough to make them conduct. With three LEDS with a forward
voltage of 3.6V each, that's 3.6 * 3, or 10.8V, before any
current will flow at all. It's probably somewhat lower, but
once the forward threshold voltage is reached, the current
increases exponentially, which is why you limit the current,
and let the voltage find its own value.

Try two in series with a 91R resistor, as others have suggested,
or use a 12V source, like on the website, and put three in series
with 60 ohms - 62 is the nearest 5% value, I think.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich Webb]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:08:46 -0700, Peter Bennett
<peterbb@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

On 25 Apr 2005 19:09:49 -0700, mnitin73@gmail.com wrote:

I saw the GPS multiplexer and it is exactly what I need. The problem is
I dont think I can get it in India.

I think most of the vendors listed on my site will ship naywhere.

Is any circuit diagram scematic
available whic I can use for makin a simple 2 in 1 out multiplexer?

It isn't too simple.

What you need is a microcontroller with one serial port for each
source, and enough memory to hold at least one sentence from each
port. The microcontroller will read and store incoming data then send
it out when it gets a full sentence, providing it isn't already
sending data from another input.

Or sufficient small microcontrollers, each with one UART and enough
memory for a sentence, plus a supervisor (which could be one of them)
that acts as a traffic controller. Request-to-send, clear-to-send, and
an open collector buffer perhaps.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Matt J. McCullar]

The beeper function on your meter probably beeps whenever anything lower
than 30 ohms or so is across the test leads. This level may vary from one
make of meter to another, but it's a starting point.

BTW -- I learned this the hard way: Don't depend on the beeper!!! If you're
trying to find out of something is shorted, or trying to "ring out" a cable
harness (that is to say, locate a particular wire among a bunch of others),
or checking a fuse, it's tempting to listen to the beeper only and not look
at the meter's display. Don't do this!!!! I once had a weak fuse give me
trouble this way... instead of opening, it was dying of old age and had
increased its resistance just enough to "eat up" all the current going
through it and cause trouble downstream. But because I was checking the
fuse "by ear," I didn't realize this. Since the meter was still beeping, I
assumed that the fuse was good. But it wasn't! From that point on, I
always look at the numeric display and see what it says instead.

 

[John Bokma]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:29:02 +0000, John Bokma wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:

You
might consider not driving them so hard. There is probably a
relatively insignificant brightness difference between 10mA and 20mA
anyway.

In my case: 30 mA is max, so feeding them 22 mA shouldn't be that
bad. Moreover, the LED died when the circuit at
http://johnbokma.com/pet/scorpion/detection-using-uv-leds.html

was connected to 9V, or maybe even 7V (less then 12V anyway).

If you really used that exact circuit, with three LEDs in series
in each leg, then you have not killed any LEDs - 9V is simply
not enough to make them conduct. With three LEDS with a forward
voltage of 3.6V each, that's 3.6 * 3, or 10.8V, before any
current will flow at all. It's probably somewhat lower,

Yupm note that 3.6V is typical. And yes, the LEDs *do* burn on 7V, since
2V / LED = Vf min, which leaves 1V for the resistor, and hence: 1V/56
Ohm = 17.8 mA through each LED, which is well within range.

but
once the forward threshold voltage is reached, the current
increases exponentially, which is why you limit the current,
and let the voltage find its own value.

Try two in series with a 91R resistor, as others have suggested,

Uhm I think you misread their posts, or I did, I am not the OP.

or use a 12V source, like on the website,

It's mine, I did . Ok I will describe what exactly happened: the
first LED that died on me: when I heated it (I thought I didn't solder
it right, "cold connection" (no idea of the right English expression),
so I made the solder melt again: LED worked (and all 3 in a row worked).
When I added more LEDs (I was building the circuit), and tested again: 3
LEDs didn't work, so I used the solder iron again on the suspicious
part: it worked. After a few attempts I gave up, and replaced the LED.

When I had finished the circuit and had it running for quite some time
(on < 12V), one row started to flash on and off several times (quite
rapidly, like a tube light starting), and then went off all together.
Same problem. I did a burn in test of the circuit for quite some time (I
am not sure, guess 12V or close, for one hour), and no other LEDs showed
the same problem. So out of 50 LEDs, 2 gave problems. I wonder if this
is "normal", ie: it is the quality of the badge?

Moreover, I bought a multimeter, and will check the voltage over each
and every LED, etc.

and put three in series
with 60 ohms - 62 is the nearest 5% value, I think.

68 as far as I know. However, I consider 56 Ohm well within range, since
the max current is 30 mA.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On 26 Apr 2005 15:32:50 -0700, "aman" <aman.bindra@gmail.com> wrote:

I dont understand the real meaning of DC and AC readings on the Digital
voltmeter. Is it correct to say that if the signal = DC component + AC
component then DC reading gives the DC component and AC reading gives
the AC component ?

Usually, yes. On most DVMs, the DC range is heavily averaged/lowpass
filtered, so the AC component is mostly ignored. And on the AC range,
it's AC-coupled, and response drops off below 10 Hz or something like
that, so the AC range ignores any DC component entirely.

It needn't be so, though: some meters read the *true* RMS voltage on
their AC range, which includes any DC component; but that's rare.

I think the old analog Simpson-type VOMs may have responded to DC on
their AC range. Anybody know for sure? Did they have a series cap, or
just a rectifier and the meter movement?

John

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hlet615kqfu1aa3dtvru5o08oc1g0539ln@4ax.com...

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:05:10 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
spam@anywhere.com> wrote:


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

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

Well duh, that would be the appropriate thing to do wouldn't it?

---
Precisely. My .sig reads 'Professional Circuit Designer' because
that's what I am. Your .sig, OTOH, reads... nothing???

I guess that means my ego gets enough to eat without me feeding it.

---

Did I say that somewhere? Since you mentioned it, don't you find the
word professional to be tiny bit redundant?

---
Not at all. 'Circuit Designer" means one thing, Professional Circuit
Designer' means quite another. Perhaps you're miffed because you'd
feel ridiculous using 'Professional Hobbyist' as a .sig?

Those words are mutually exclusive, so yes I'd be embarrassed to call
myself that.

---

Why do you feel a need to tell the world that you really do get
paid?

---
Actually, it's more of an ad than anything else, and has brought in
some work from time to time, so it's important in that sense.
---

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

Translation: Yes, you probably do know a bunch of stuff that I don't
know, but since I don't know it, it's not relevant.

---
Interesting that you find it necessary to try to put words in my
mouth. Sounds like you're so unsure of yourself that you have to
manufacture situations in which parts of imaginary conversations fill
in the empty spaces.

Pot, kettle black and all that.

---

electronics and the ability to communicate. In seb, it's also

Have I not communicated well enough?

---
Obviously not well enough to put this matter to rest.
---


Modicum and acumen in the same sentence. No wonder it took you all
night to respond.

---
You were up all night just waiting for my response? How sweet!
---

OMG, I can't believe it. That must have been really hard.

---
For you, maybe, but not for me. Like I said before, if an apology is
warranted i'll offer it.

I think we all could have appreciated you researching your case BEFORE
making it. Now you've gone and said all kinds of hateful, mean, and
ugly things to me just because I made one statement that really wasn't
all that bad.

---

Maybe we can coexist then.

---
We'll see.
---

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?

OK, here we go:

First I said, "Maybe I could help make amends by belittling others,
nit-picking posts and posting a bunch
of OT crap?". Then I said, "Lets see if we can't get on to the road
to
recovery now." That's all kinda the setup up indicating that
sarcastic
and rhetorical remarks may follow. And then they did. I jibed
Watson
since he tossed the first punch and you for what amounts to several
reasons (mainly your setup question when I've never slapped at you
before, I knew what you were trying to do and it torqued me off,
finally I've frankly found you to be a bit offensive lately and
without
cause to other people namely Larry). So while it may not have been
entirely rhetorical, I really didn't expect this outcome.

---
None of it was rhetorical, in that 'rhetorical' is defined as language
used for mere style or effect or language marked by or tending to use
bombast.

And isn't that precisely what it did? Did you not feel personally
bombasted?

What you were doing was using sarcasm and invective vituperatively in

There was absolutely no invective involved. I merely posed a question,
it could have been phrased nicer, but it was just a question
nonetheless. Perhaps you should rethink that statement.

order to retaliate for your feelings of having been belittled.
---



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.

Why are spell checking my old posts now?

---
I'm not _just_ spell checking your posts, I'm correcting your improper
use of the language in order to allow you to communicate more
effectively.

Perhaps I should just send you a box of characters then you can
completely construct the sentences for me. That way you'll always know
what I mean.

And because I feel like it.
---

Actually I use the "F" word plenty well, I just tend to not spell it
out
in usenet articles. Just trying to consider the children. ;-)

---
How sickeningly pompous. If you don't want to use 'fuck' when you
write, you don't have to blame it on the kids, just don't use it.

The children thing was just a joke, didn't you see the winkey?

Besides, any "children" who hang out here have heard it all before
just in case you've been away from the planet for a while.

Yes, well that certainly justifies it, doesn't it?

---


---
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

At the time that is how I felt. And then you changed all that when
you
tried to bust my chops on current vs. power or "current hogging" as
you
like to call it. So, you prompted the horse change, not me.

---
SWYMMD? ROTFLMAO!!!
---


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".

Yes, it's all about what serves your agenda best, isn't it?

---
Of course. I should subjugate mine and hitch my wagon to your star?
---


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.

And I thought by saying "dissipate more power" that I made it
perfectly
clear that I knew what you were hinting at. How direct does
something
need to be before you can see it?

---
I'm not sure you remember, but I didn't comment on your answer until
you started with your diatribe after I had the _affrontery_ to hit you
with a "trick question" and Watson _dared_ to throw that little barb

Exactly, that's the whole problem. You posted your "trick" question and
Watson saw it for what it was and made his snide remark. That directly
makes you the proximate cause of this whole fiasco. ;-)

at you, and you're _still_ not over it. For an 'old hand' on usenet
you sure have thin skin!

No, just a good recollection of what happened when.

---




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

See, there you go making prejudicial statements again. You have no
idea.

---
Ok, then, let's hear about your bodacity

I already did my bragging in another post that you have yet to respond
to.
..

---

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.

So there we have it, the OP has been proven wrong. His LED's could
not
have possibly failed.

---
But since there _was_ a failure, if LEDs with the range of Vf's you
said was possible were hooked up as shown and the supply voltage and
series resistance were as shown, it would have been impossible for an
overcurrent situation to cause one of the LEDs to fail, so _your_
analysis of the failure mode was in error!

Oh, obviously. Yes they died after a time, but it had nothing to do
with too much dissipation. We know that, because the datasheet is the
end-all authority on the reality of any situation and that all parts
meet specs. Well, I'm sure glad that's finally settled.

In all fairness, though, I don't recall what the situation surrounding
the failure was or anything about the circuit other than that it was a
couple of LEDs hooked up in series with a current limiting resistor of
some kind and a power supply. If you can supply the details we can
get to the bottom of it.

You have access to the same material as me.

---



We've already covered that.

Yes, I'd agree that we buried your civility a good while ago.

---
Not bad...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[fpd]

mnitin73@gmail.com wrote:

Can I connect the port to the rx pin of the 9 pin serial port and make
any sense? Are the 1553B interface cards standard or does it have to be
custom made depending on the equipment

The MIL-STD-1553B "output" from the board can range from 3vdc to 27vdc. You
do not want 27vdc on your computer's comm port.

However, there is a TRANSCEIVER on the board somewhere. This transceiver
has one side digital TTL levels (toward the circuitry) and one side analog
(3vdc/9vdc or 9vdc/27vdc - toward the output).

The transceiver IC usually has a brass tint to it, with twenty legs. The
number on top will give you something to Google. Some of the TTL legs are
TXA+, TXA-, TXB+, TXB-.

Before clipping on to these TTL legs, please make sure your COMM port can
handle the voltage levels... please?

There might be another odd-looking connector, that would be the Discrete
Output Signal port. It operates in RS-422 (balanced) and can be used as an
input or output for synchronizing devices in the system.

Just a little more info on 1553:
- It is a command/response system.
- The Bus Controller does all the commanding
- The Remote Terminal(s) do all the responding.
- Remote Terminals can range from 0 to 31 (five bits)
- Each Remote Terminal can have up to 32 Subaddresses (five bits, 0 to 31)
- The bus architechture is like that of the old-school thicknet ethernet.
- A 1553 device will have a "stub" that connects the device to a "T" or
"Transformer Coupler"
- The "T" or "Transformer Coupler" connect the stub to the bus (backbone).
- Each end of the bus is terminated, to reduce reflected waves below the
1553 threashold.

Guess that's all for now. Time for dinner.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:28:21 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On 26 Apr 2005 15:32:50 -0700, "aman" <aman.bindra@gmail.com> wrote:

I dont understand the real meaning of DC and AC readings on the Digital
voltmeter. Is it correct to say that if the signal = DC component + AC
component then DC reading gives the DC component and AC reading gives
the AC component ?


Usually, yes. On most DVMs, the DC range is heavily averaged/lowpass
filtered, so the AC component is mostly ignored. And on the AC range,
it's AC-coupled, and response drops off below 10 Hz or something like
that, so the AC range ignores any DC component entirely.

It needn't be so, though: some meters read the *true* RMS voltage on
their AC range, which includes any DC component; but that's rare.

I think the old analog Simpson-type VOMs may have responded to DC on
their AC range. Anybody know for sure? Did they have a series cap, or
just a rectifier and the meter movement?

John

Cool: the AC range is DC coupled, but the OUTPUT range adds a series
cap!

http://www.simpsonelectric.com/pdf/manuals/test/260-8Ximan.pdf


John

 

[Rikard Bosnjakovic]

Herb T wrote:

a. Essentially does anyone have rules of thumb they use to help them
figure out what an unknown IC is?

http://www.datasheetarchive.com/


--
Rikard Bosnjakovic http://bos.hack.org/cv/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to my address will be
charged $250 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

 

[mike]

deepaa@gmail.com wrote:

Wondering if I need to buy a NiMH charger for NiMH batteries or a
normal AA charger will work with the NiMH batteries. Can anyone tell me
if this is possible?

Thanks in advance!

What is a "NORMAL" AA charger???
Absent any useful information...it's prudent to charge batteries with
the charger designed to charge them.
mike

--
Return address is VALID but some sites block emails
with links. Delete this sig when replying.
..
Wanted, PCMCIA SCSI Card for HP m820 CDRW.
FS 500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
Wanted, 12.1" LCD for Gateway Solo 5300. Samsung LT121SU-121
Wanted 12" LCD for Compaq Armada 7770MT.
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
MAKE THE OBVIOUS CHANGES TO THE LINK
ht<removethis>tp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

 

[Rikard Bosnjakovic]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

I am still staggered that anyone uses EWB. It is truly dreadful.

I use it for drawing my circuits and do basic testing. I don't find it
that dreadful, but then I'm not an EE either so I can't say what's so bad
about it.



--
Rikard Bosnjakovic http://bos.hack.org/cv/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to my address will be
charged $250 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

 

[Rikard Bosnjakovic]

John Larkin wrote:

I'm from Belgium ( somewhere in Europe ) ,

I think I've heard of that. It's a small city in Spain, right?

Belgium is a country far NNE of Spain


--
Rikard Bosnjakovic http://bos.hack.org/cv/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to my address will be
charged $250 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

 

[John Fields]

On 27 Apr 2005 06:11:59 -0700, "mjohnson" <crvmp3@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was going to use an optical sensor to determine if the door was up or
down so the device would be very close to the door. The garage door
button is opposite from the door itself so it wouldn't be very close
(13' away). Anyway, this project is just for fun. I just want to do it
as an experiment to learn something from the whole process. Like I
said I could go buy something but the goal isn't to solve a problem
it's just for exploratory purposes.

---
What purpose will the output of the optical sensor serve? That is,
how will it affect the operation of the system?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Lord Garth]

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:116uca4tlj1ppa4@corp.supernews.com...

"Tom Del Rosso" <ng01@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:zpEbe.653617$w62.234009@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com
wrote
in message news:116seiqrq6pmr6a@corp.supernews.com...

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!

How can that happen? Did you have explorer open with a view of the
floppy?

--

I dunno what you call explorer, but I may have had 'my computer' open.
I didn't think that was explorer. I had been doing some floppy disk
stuff with some weird software. Might've been the cause.

Microsoft has gone out of their way to hide Windows Explorer. They have
even removed the default option switches that cause the program to show
you the C:\ drive as opposed to the 'My Documents' folder.

To be most useful, you should be displaying everything including known
file type extensions and system files. You do that selection in 'Tools',
'Folder Options', 'View'. There are 4 radio button dealing with these
settings.

Windows Explorer is a quick launch tray icon for me but you may choose to
leave it on the desktop. The icon is in 'Start', 'Program Files',
'Accessories',
'Windows Explorer'. Right click the file and select 'Send To', 'Desktop
(create shortcut)'

Go to your desktop and right click the icon then select 'Properties'.
The Target line should look like this: %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe
Edit this line to read like this: %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe /n,/e,c:\
I also remove all the text from the comment line as this is simply junk.
Feel free to change the c:\ part of this line if your main data drive is not
C:\

Assuming you've gone to classic menus within WinXP, dumping the
Fisher-Price look and unhidden everything, these changes will provide
you with your file manipulation screen in a way that technical people
usually prefer.

 

[John Larkin]

On 27 Apr 2005 06:48:22 -0700, chemelec@hotmail.com wrote:

I Totally Agree that EWB, SUCKS.
It is about the most useless program I have ever bought and it cost me
almost $1000.00 for the Professional Version.

They sent me a brochure trying to sell me their microwave version
because "Spice doesn't work above 100 MHz"

No, I'm not making this up!

John