Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/implode?view=uk

"verb collapse or cause to collapse violently inwards."

***INWARDS*** not DOWN.

The top imploded inwards, stupid.

No it didn't.

Yes it did.

It held steady.

Sitting in free air eh ? Yeah, right.

Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

How about addressing the source of the problem ?

Not even possible. Thats always been the problem with terrorism.

Ever heard of the 'Good Friday Agreement' ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Thats not addressing the source of the problem, thats just
ONE group of terrorists getting sick of being terrorists.

But they WERE terrorists and now they're not.

Yes but that wasnt due to any addressing of the source of the problem,

You need to do some reading sunshine.

You need to work on your bullshitting 'skills'.

That pathetically hoary old line is WAY past its useby date, moonshine.

Your ideas are way out of kilter with reality.

Yours are. About Churchill in spades. He wasnt stupid enough
to continue with talk talk when the shit had obviously hit the fan.

It was EXACTLY to do with addressing the source of the problem.

Nope, and it wouldnt work with the terrorists being discussed
anyway, because they havent got sick of being terrorists and
they are stupid enough to believe that blowing themselve to
bits is an instant ticket to nirvana.

Even the stupidest Irish fuckwit was never THAT stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

If you don't understand the phsychology of it, it'll never go away.

And it wont even if you do either. Its easy enough to understand
the psychology of the fools that are stupid enough to believe that
blowing themselves to bits is a guaranteed ticket to nirvana.

Understanding that doesnt do a damned thing about making it go away.

You're SO (mostly) wrong.

Nope, you are. About Churchill in spades.

And your silly line didnt work with Ireland itself.

It was Churchill that had to give up and let them stew in their own juice
and they were actually stupid enough to have a full civil war when he did too.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

secondary reply

How dare you ?

Ever heard of the 'Good Friday Agreement' ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Thats not addressing the source of the problem, thats just
ONE group of terrorists getting sick of being terrorists.

Why do you think they were sick of it ?

I already told you. They werent getting anywhere and the
english had fucked them over very comprehensively indeed.

I can tell you there were plenty who weren't.

Sure, but thats always the way, even with a full war.

They aint even the ones stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
yourself to bits will see you instantly transported to nirvana etc.

Once you have terrorists that stupid, there is no way to address the source of the problem.

So you'd give up ?

Nope, like I said, dont let them hijack aircraft, accept the fact that full
baggage searches just arent feasible with mass public transport like
city trains and buses, keep an eye out for suspicious looking swarthy
characters and avoid them when you see them with bags etc. And
be aware that other loonys may be stupid enough to try something too.

Accept the fact that if someone wants to fill a car with explosives etc,
that it just isnt practical to search all cars at every intersection etc and
if you're a complete neurotic, choose to stay off the roads at times
when they are most likely to be blowing themselves to bits etc.

Personally I just accept the fact that fuck all ever end up dead as a result
of terrorism and dont do anything special to avoid being one of them myself.

And accept the fact that airline travel is a little more hassle than it used to be.

And if a bomb does go off, dont rush over to assist the victims, because
there may be another one due to blow those doing that to bits.

And it makes a lot of sense to fuck over places like Afghanistan that
have been stupid enough to organise terrorist training camps etc.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yep, those damned rag heads aint exactly rocket scientist material.

Despite the CIA's best intel and the Iraq war !

Its always possible to do terrorist atrocitys.

In spades when the fools are happy to die in the process.

And to bring those atrocities to an end,

Not even possible, as I said.

you advocate that other "fools" who willingly give up their lives to end it are wrong?

Nope. Just do whats practical to stop them doing stuff like
hijacking aircraft and get used to the fact that there will always
be some risk when using mass public transport where its not
practical to search everyone and dont sit next to swathy
individuals who are carrying anything much who are sweating a bit.

London's 'tube' or NYC's subway being perfect examples.

Yep.

Now, if the West were on better terms with certain nations
instead of aggravating them and the extreme cults within them
.........

Again, not even possible. You english tried it tried it right thruout your
colonys and it just plain isnt possible with the worst of the rabid loonys.

You've been reading the wrong history books again.

Nope.

The former 'British Commonwealth' is the largest collective bloc of nations on the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

Irrelevant to what the english attempted with terrorists.

"The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as the Commonwealth,
is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, most of
which are former British colonies, or dependencies of these colonies
(the exceptions being the United Kingdom itself and Mozambique)."

No news. I might live in one of them myself.

So well considered that requests for membership have
been received from countries that were never previously
under formal British Control. Including even France (secretly)

That last is a lie. de Gaull wouldnt even let you lot join the EU.

You didnt even manage to apply the jackboot to the Irish for very long
and got fucked over trying to apply the jackboot to afghanistan very
comprehensively indeed. So comprehensively that with one attempt,
there was literally just ONE survivor out of thousands.

The Irish problem was unique.

Nope. The Balkans are no different.

It dates back at least 400 years.

Plenty of places just as long or longer.

It's now fixed.

Only by giving up and giving back what you lot stole in the first place.

Just like hordes of the other ex colonys too.

It is a former problem from another age.

It is however another example of where terrorism can work.

In spades with the current terrorist activity in India.

Care to elaborate ?

There is no 'problem' that can be addressed.

Those fools have been killing each other very enthusiastically indeed since long before you english even showed up
there.

Tho they did manage to invent that rather novel solution to the surplus mother in
law problem. She goes on the funeral pyre with hubby, whether she wants to or not.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/implode?view=uk

"verb collapse or cause to collapse violently inwards."

***INWARDS*** not DOWN.

The top imploded inwards, stupid.

No it didn't.

Yes it did.

It held steady.

Sitting in free air eh ? Yeah, right.

Supported by the floors below it that also held steady for ages.

Nope, the top imploded, stupid.

The pics are readily available.

Showing it imploding, stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

Try being nicer and less confrontational.

Go and fuck yourself.

I'd also advise you read dictionary definitions more thoroughly.

I order you to go shove your head up a dead bear's arse.

Over here we call that "game set and match".

Yep, I won long ago.

You need to learn some civility.

You need to go and fuck yourself.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Nope, the top imploded, stupid.

Totally unsupported by all the photographic evidence.

Wrong, as always. You're just using the WRONG meaning of the word imploded, stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

It was EXACTLY to do with addressing the source of the problem.

Nope, and it wouldnt work with the terrorists being discussed
anyway, because they havent got sick of being terrorists and
they are stupid enough to believe that blowing themselve to
bits is an instant ticket to nirvana.

Even the stupidest Irish fuckwit was never THAT stupid.

You clearly have NO IDEA what really happened.

We'll see...

Talks between the IRA and even the Thatcher
government (of all to imagine) took place in secret.

Irrelevant to whether it would work with fools that
are actually stupid enough to believe that blowing
themselves to bits is an instant transport to nirvana.

The english tried that with plenty that loony and never managed
to convince even a single one about the error of their ways.

They havent even managed to do that with the fools
stupid enough to do that sort of thing in england itself lately.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

If you don't understand the phsychology of it, it'll never go away.

And it wont even if you do either. Its easy enough to understand
the psychology of the fools that are stupid enough to believe that
blowing themselves to bits is a guaranteed ticket to nirvana.

Understanding that doesnt do a damned thing about making it go away.

You're SO (mostly) wrong.

Nope, you are. About Churchill in spades.

And your silly line didnt work with Ireland itself.

It was Churchill that had to give up and let them stew in their own juice
and they were actually stupid enough to have a full civil war when he did too.

You're talking about the 1920s ?

That bit was.

I'm talking about NOW.

How odd that the english havent managed convince a single one
of the fools that buy that line about blowing themselves to bits is
a guaranteed ticket to nirvana to stop doing that sort of thing just
by talking to them NOW either.

That might just be because it isnt actually possible
to deal with the sources of THAT problem that way.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

There is no 'problem' that can be addressed.

Is that so ?

Yep, have fun listing even a single example of anyone
actually addressing that particular problem successfully.

Once they are stupid enough to believe that killing themselves
is an instant transport to nirvana, you're fucked. No western
attempt to convince them otherwise is going to be credible.

Just another example of the power of ideas.

 

[Damon Hill]

"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in
news:comdnQRUiIsckwzVnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@posted.uniservecommunications:

Actually, cross-posting to irrelevant groups is a sign of
schizophrenia. Also: going on irrelevant tangents, conspiracy
theories, bizarre beliefs, "alternative" science, new-age woo,
vague/metaphoric language.

By that metric, he's almost Guthian--or Plutonium.

Oh well, Bret was entertaining for a while but he's bitbin
fodder now.

--Damon

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3dc26f03-bd5d-47ef-86cf-4305646af21c@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Occasionally you hear about someone without any formal training but
spent some time in a hospital, learned a lot and managed to get hired
as a doctor with no one suspecting a thing for years. In one case the
guy went back to school and becomes completely legitimate.

Occasionally you'll hear about a pro se litigant who wins almost all
his cases.

Newsgroups, however, is no substitute for a hospital or courtroom and
some tech fields aren't like medicine or law where some laymen can
often know a lot.

If you haven't had the math, you will, in short time, reveal it.

If you haven't done anything except play too clever by half word
games, then it'll quickly become obvious to those who _have_ done
something.

I wonder what that says about "doctors" and "lawyers"?

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:3a69da9c-1149-4f3a-a64d-53fd867a524c@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

Show us some stuff you've designed.

www.BretCahill.com

Very descriptive title:

<title>Blank</title>

Paul

 

[Deadrat]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:3dc26f03-bd5d-47ef-86cf-
4305646af21c@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Occasionally you hear about someone without any formal training but
spent some time in a hospital, learned a lot and managed to get hired
as a doctor with no one suspecting a thing for years. In one case the
guy went back to school and becomes completely legitimate.

Occasionally you'll hear about a pro se litigant who wins almost all
his cases.

Newsgroups, however, is no substitute for a hospital or courtroom and
some tech fields aren't like medicine or law where some laymen can
often know a lot.

If you haven't had the math, you will, in short time, reveal it.

If you haven't done anything except play too clever by half word
games, then it'll quickly become obvious to those who _have_ done
something.


Bret Cahill

I wish upon you the gift of self-insight.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

disgoftunwells wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Pure fantasy. Show us the plant doing anything like that.

Here you go:http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

It's actually 100 feet per minute, or about 1mph.(Not even 2
orders of magnitude error)

On the other hand, this isn't a plant doing 1GW (capacity) per
year. It's a machine.

They expect $1 / watt.

To the best of my knowledge nanosolar product has not been
independently tested and is only being sold to 'selected' customers.

At 1GW capacity per year you shouldn't have to wait too long - I'm
pretty sure their shipping stuff.. Though I don't think they'll deal
direct with the public.

Though for some reason their first municipal customer is in Eastern
Germany, that well known sunny spot.

When there's one of the shelf I can buy I'll believe it. If they
can do it - GREAT - but I see certain fundamental physical
principles of an extraordinary order that they would have had to
overcome.

Can you elaborate?

My understanding is that the crytsal lattice has to be
oriented at a certain angle for the the thing to function.

Nope.

How you can do that with printing baffles me.

Baffling you is never hard.

Also how do you 'print' a diode (which is what a solar cell is)
which is a diffused junction device ?

If they've patented it, you should be able to look the details up there.

If they havent, its just another scam.

 

[Jack]

<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:4e23dfc1-43d1-41dd-86b7-2971f716b0cf@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Pretty self explanatory: You can join if you figger out how to save a
quadrillion btus /year in oil.

Tweakers and issue dodgers need not apply.


Bret Cahill




Bret Cahill


I don't get it.

 

[Dan Coby]

<jalbers@bsu.edu> wrote in message
news:63046ac3-ad0a-46d8-9488-1667b82a171d@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

I have been reading a book about filters both passive and active and
have a few questions about active filters that I need some help on. I
have a link to pages 109-115 containing the information that I have
questions over.

https://ilocker.bsu.edu/users/jalbers/WORLD_SHARED/Electronics/ActiveFilter.PDF

1. For non-inverting op amps the book says that "Typically gain
remains constant up to 10 Khz , then falls steadily to reach 1 at at 1
Mhz." Why is this so?

Real components have some maximum operating frequency. No amplifier
can have a constant gain that goes all the way to infinite frequencies. With
op amps, there are limits due to the technology used to make the IC.

Op amp are also usually (almost always) used with feedback components.
With any feedback circuit, there are also problems with keeping the circuit
stable (i.e. not oscillating). A common example of feedback oscillation is
when a microphone picks up a signal from a speaker, the signal is amplified
and then sent back to the speaker. If the gain (volume) is high enough then
you get a loud squeal as the same signal feedback into the microphone,
Circuits will oscillate anytime that the gain around the feedback path is greater
than one AND there is 180 degrees of phase shift in the feedback path.
(The feedback path includes everything from the inputs through the op amp
and then back through the feedback components - the resistors Rf and Ra
in your example).

At first glance, it seems like thing should be simple. All that you need to do is to
avoid having 180 degree phase shift in the feedback path. After all, the resistors
should not have a phase shift. So no problem - WRONG. If you go to a high
enough frequency, everything has a phase shift. If nothing else, the speed of
light will start to introduce phase shifts. At 1 GHz, you will get a 180 degree
phase shift with about 6 inches of wire.

Since you cannot avoid phase shifts at high frequencies, feedback amplifiers
are usually built with a gain that starts very high at low frequencies and then
the gain is dropped at higher frequencies. This gain control is built into the
typical op amp. Op amps have both a specified maximum gain and a
'gain bandwidth product'. The later indicates the frequency at which the gain
drops to unity. Your book referred to an op amp with a gain bandwith of 1 Mhz.
Typical modern op amps are better than that.

2. In the inverting configuration, why is the resistor connected to
non inverting terminal Rb connected to ground through a resistor
having the resistance value of Ra and Rf in parallel? The book makes
a statement that for less accuracy the non inverting terminal could be
connected to ground.

If the op amp was 'ideal' then it would not matter whether or not a
resistor is connected to the non inverting input. However with real op
amps (i.e. op amps that have a finite input impedance, finite gain, and
non zero offset currents and voltages) then it is better if both inputs to the
op amp have the same source impedance. Having the same source
impedance helps to balance errors caused by having a non ideal op
amp.

3. On the bottom of page 113 a first order active filter circuit is
described. It is basically a low pass RC filter connected to the
input of a non inverting op amp. As far as I can tell from the
formulas the gain of the op amp is 1+Rf/Ra which means that the gain
has to be larger than 1 which means that the op amp is amplifying the
signal instead of attenuating the signal? I am thinking that it would
be better to have a gain of less than 1 to attenuate the signal.

Yes, the circuit is a simple RC low pass filter followed by no inverting
amplifier. The input resistor and capacitor will attenuate the signal before it
gets to the amplifier so the overall result will have a gain which is less than
1 at higher frequency.

4. I have never been to clear as to what output impedance really
means. I can understand why op amps need to have a high input
impeadance so that they do not put too much of a drain on the circuit
that they are trying to measure. The book says that the output
impeadance of an op amp is low (around 75 ohms) for example. What
does the 75 ohms mean?

It means that if you use the op amp without any sort of feedback and you
then compare the output signal size between no load versus a 75 ohm
load then the signal will be 1/2 of the unloaded size when a 75 ohm load
is added.

However if you have feedback then things are different. Due to the feedback,
the amplifier will try to compensate for the voltage drop across the
output impedance. The overall effect is to drop the effective output
impedance by a factor of (1 + GH) where G is the op amp gain and H
is the feedback gain (ratio). (Note; H is 1/gain for a non inverting amplifier).
Thus with an op amp that has a 75 output impedance and a gain of 100,000
and a unity gain (i.e. H = 1) then the effective output impedance is 0.75 milliohms.
However there are a few complications. Do not expect that op amp to drive
a large signal into a 1 ohm load. That 75 ohms is still going to limit the maximum
output current. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, op amps are intentionally designed
so that their gain drops as the frequency increases. So at higher frequencies,
the effective output impedance of a feedback circuit will go up as the gain
drops.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
disgoftunwells wrote
Eeyore wrote

When there's one of the shelf I can buy I'll believe it. If they can
do it - GREAT - but I see certain fundamental physical principles
of an extraordinary order that they would have had to overcome.

Can you elaborate?

My understanding is that the crytsal lattice has to be
oriented at a certain angle for the the thing to function.

Nope.

Well it certainly does for LEDS IIRC.

Nope and leds aint PV collectors anyway.

How you can do that with printing baffles me.

Baffling you is never hard.

Also how do you 'print' a diode (which is what a solar cell is)
which is a diffused junction device ?

If they've patented it, you should be able to look the details up there.

I may do just that.

If they havent, its just another scam.

Who knows ?

It certainly smells like a scam when you cant buy what they claim to be producing.

If it was that easy and cheap to produce PV panels, why cant you buy them from them ?

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Pure fantasy. Show us the plant doing anything like that.

Here you go:http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

It's actually 100 feet per minute, or about 1mph.(Not even 2
orders of magnitude error)

On the other hand, this isn't a plant doing 1GW (capacity) per
year. It's a machine.

They expect $1 / watt.

To the best of my knowledge nanosolar product has not been
independently tested and is only being sold to 'selected'
customers.

At 1GW capacity per year you shouldn't have to wait too long - I'm
pretty sure their shipping stuff.. Though I don't think they'll
deal direct with the public.

Though for some reason their first municipal customer is in Eastern
Germany, that well known sunny spot.

When there's one of the shelf I can buy I'll believe it. If they
can do it - GREAT - but I see certain fundamental physical
principles of an extraordinary order that they would have had to
overcome.

Can you elaborate?

My understanding is that the crytsal lattice has to be oriented at a
certain angle for the the thing to function. How you can do that
with printing baffles me.

Also how do you 'print' a diode (which is what a solar cell is)
which is a diffused junction device ?

I think this is the device they're talking about:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37404.pdf

Thanks Bill. That document sheds some light on the matter. It looks
like these were still constructed using sputtering rather than 'printing' though.

And you cant get anything like the 'print' rate they claim using sputtering.