Chip with simple program for Toy

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Dave, I can't do that" <davenpete@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d81098f3-6848-424e-8b6e-e5ff7c49011f@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed but you guys are starting
to get way out of my knowledge-depth.

I think I will order some CMOS, I only asked as I don't have any on
hand but I have plenty of NE555.

The NE555 should be fine to get started and learn, especially if you add
the pullup on the output. The CMOS versions are not expensive, but you'll
probably pay a lot for shipping, unless you bundle them with other items
you need. You can also try getting samples from TI, Linear, Microchip,
Maxim, or whoever has what you would like to try. You can pretend that you
are a company. Who knows, you might really get into this and start one. I
have had my own S Corporation consisting of only myself for almost 20
years.

I only suggested the Microchip parts because PICs and similar uPs are often
the best way to accomplish what was once only possible with discrete parts.
It is much more convenient to design a basic circuit (or use a pre-made
demo board), and then change frequency, pulse width, and other parameters
just by programming or by sampling the voltage on a pot. And once you learn
some basic PIC programming, it opens up a lot of opportunities.

But you do need to get a good grasp of basic fundamentals as well. And
balance the fun and the mental parts!

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was
from the solver’s expertise, the more likely they were
to solve it,” often by applying specialized knowledge
or instruments developed for another purpose.

Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.

Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the
stunning breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery
of electricity, evolution, working out what DNA is about, the
invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio,
or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.

A chemist came up with the MRI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansfield

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lauterbur

Which says

Which says Lauterbur was a chemist.

Yes, but a PHYSICAL chemist. That technology, NMR and MRI
is the province of PHYSICAL chemists, not physics, so there is
no interdisciplinarity or different fields whatever involved.

Einstein came up with the Freon based cooling system which
is considered more mechanical engineering that atomic physics.

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in the patent office.

How does that make Einstein a ME?

Pathetic.

You have no calculations or reasoning.

You in spades, child.

Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:

And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.

How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Pathetic.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.

And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.

Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?

 

[Rod Speed]

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally have bad ideas?

Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like a great inventor, child.

Just a pathetic wanker, actually.

To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Thats just plain wrong too.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by the smell.

Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and choose the good ones.

Some do, plenty dont.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

You in spades above, child.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

You in spades, child.

Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours in spades, child.

"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

Wota terminal fuckwit.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rod Speed wrote:

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the
one I specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally
have bad ideas?

Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like a great
inventor, child.
Just a pathetic wanker, actually.

To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly
out number the good ideas.

Thats just plain wrong too.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by
the smell.
Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and
choose the good ones.

Some do, plenty dont.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

You in spades above, child.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

You in spades, child.

Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours
in spades, child.
"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

Wota terminal fuckwit.

I am stunned with this answer. Its trivially obvious that by most random
variations (i.e. new ideas) are detrimental variations, noting the inherent
Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that the
brain actually uses.(
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html , see illusion
of creativity bottom of page)

I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for example,
Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous errors he made from
1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of Relativity.

Most ideas by experts and novices alike, are worthless. Its that simple
really.

Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Rod Speed]

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally have bad ideas?

Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like a great inventor, child.
Just a pathetic wanker, actually.

To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Thats just plain wrong too.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by the smell.
Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and choose the good ones.

Some do, plenty dont.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

You in spades above, child.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

You in spades, child.

Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours in spades, child.

"There are no bad ideas."
-- the Governator

Wota terminal fuckwit.

I am stunned with this answer.

Your problem.

Its trivially obvious that by most random variations (i.e. new ideas)

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

are detrimental variations, noting the inherent Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that
the brain actually uses.

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

( http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html , see illusion of creativity bottom of page)

Just more completely silly stuff along the same lines.

I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for
example, Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous errors
he made from 1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of Relativity.

Irrelevant to how many inventions happened nothing like that. Most obviously with the Wright Bros and Parkes.

Most ideas by experts and novices alike, are worthless.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Its that simple really.

Just because you proclaim that doesnt make it so.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

It worked again.

Yep, you face down in the mud, as always.

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed mud stained fantasys, child.

Which project?
All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the
one I specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally
have bad ideas? To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful
inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and
choose the good ones.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge the question
about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Bret Cahill

"There are no bad ideas."

-- the Governator

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Kevin Aylward <kaExtractT...@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I specifically had in mind

How do you know with seeing them?

Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally have bad ideas?

Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything
like a great inventor, child. Just a pathetic wanker, actually.

To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly out number the good ideas.

Thats just plain wrong too.

Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.

You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by the smell.

Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and choose the good ones.

Some do, plenty dont.

You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.

You in spades above, child.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.

You in spades, child.

Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.

Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.

Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.

Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours in spades, child.

"There are no bad ideas."
-- the Governator

Wota terminal fuckwit.

I am stunned with this answer.

Your problem.

Its trivially obvious that by most random variations (i.e. new ideas)

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

are detrimental variations, noting the inherent Darwinian random
variation, selection and replication algorithm that the brain actually uses.

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Neural Darwinism, a large scale theory of brain function by Gerald Edelman,
was initially published in 1978, in a book called The Mindful Brain (MIT Press).

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, how inventors come up with good ideas.

It was extended and published in the 1989 book Neural
Darwinism - The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection.

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, how inventors come up with good ideas.

Edelman won the Nobel Prize in 1972 for his work in immunology
showing how the population of lymphocytes capable of binding to
a foreign antigen is increased by differential clonal multiplication
following antigen discovery. Essentially, this proved that the human
body is capable of creating complex adaptive systems as a result
of local events with feedback. Edelman’s interest in selective
systems expanded into the fields of neurobiology and neurophysiology,

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, how inventors come up with good ideas.

and in Neural Darwinism, Edelman puts forth a theory called "neuronal group selection".

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, how inventors come up with good ideas.

It contains three major parts:

1. Anatomical connectivity in the brain occurs via selective
mechanochemical events that take place epigenetically
during development. This creates a diverse primary
repertoire by differential reproduction.

2. Once structural diversity is established anatomically, a
second selective process occurs during postnatal behavioral
experience through epigenetic modifications in the strength
of synaptic connections between neuronal groups. This creates
a diverse secondary repertoire by differential amplification.

3. Reentrant signaling between neuronal groups allows for
spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism

All completely irrelevant to what is being discussed, how useful ideas are produced.

(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html,
see illusion of creativity bottom of page)

Just more completely silly stuff along the same lines.

Once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, is the truth
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Wrong.

To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass
action, there must be a continuous supply of energy
and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous
process of elimination of the reaction products.
- P. Mora
- http://tinyurl.com/px9j6

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, how inventors come up with good ideas.

Trial and error (AKA: generate and test or guess and check)
is a method of problem solving for obtaining knowledge, both
propositional knowledge and know-how.

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, how inventors come up with good ideas.

<reams of even more irrelevant shit that has absolutely nothing to with what was being discussed flushed where it
belongs>

I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for example,
Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous> errors he made
from 1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of Relativity.

Irrelevant to how many inventions happened nothing like that.
Most obviously with the Wright Bros and Parkes.

Most ideas by experts and novices alike, are worthless.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Its that simple really.

Just because you proclaim that doesnt make it so.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Some science is like some creative methods in other areas of life,

Very little of it is in fact.

while not all scientific discovery is creative.

Not much of it is in fact.

The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.

Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.

Just like in evolution.

Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.

When you said

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"

I never ever said anything like that.

and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,

Wrong again.

but here you are making predictions like you cannot be wrong.

And again.

That be a no no in logic.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

In the second place much research has been done when scientists set back
and let their minds wander and the solution is selected out from the noise.

Thats again nothing like what that fool claimed either.

And it isnt from the noise either.

Therefore it is not the case that the positions I offered
"has absolutely nothing to with what was being discussed"

Wrong again.

and consequently you have been shown to be wrong and in error.

Just more of your desperate drug crazed wanking.

...the growth of our knowledge is the result of a process
closely resembling what Darwin called 'natural selection';
that is, the natural selection of hypotheses...
--Karl Popper

Thats nothing like that fool claimed either. He
mindlessly rabbitted on about RANDOM VARIATIONS.

<reams of your mindless rabbitting on about what wasnt even being discussed flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

This is working out better than the sabotage in _Confederacy of Dunces_.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed mud stained fantasys, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

Yes, but a PHYSICAL chemist.

OK, so he worked out in the weight room a lot.

So what?

Pathetic.

That technology, NMR and MRI is the province of PHYSICAL chemists

P-chemists ain't provential.

No such word.

They are cosmopolitan and drink six packs of Bud just like anyone else.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed mud stained fantasys, child.

not physics,

If you think you have a better physique than the governator,
then why don't you post under your real name?

Pathetic.

so there is no interdisciplinarity or different fields whatever involved.

Lunatics have no credibility

Thats why we keep you in your padded cell, child.

Einstein came up with the Freon based cooling system which
is considered more mechanical engineering that atomic physics.

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in the patent office.

How does that make Einstein a ME?

Pathetic.

You have no calculations or reasoning.

You in spades, child.

Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:

And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.

How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Pathetic.

Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.

And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.

We'll assign a number to this wacko.

Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?

The number = number of dodges before he gives up.

You wouldnt know what a real dodge was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message news:95293db8-ddaf-40e9-b931-5f64b0b868c7@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I DID find a manufacturers folder that reports 119 kWh/kg (better than NiMH) :

Energy density just isn't a factor when you can recharge or swap out
batteries several times/hr.

. . .

Electric drive (like the Caterpillar tractor mentioned earlier) make much more sense currently for efficiency and torque
improvements on big-ass farm equipment.

We really need a tractor pull to show a 350 lb battery just isn't a
big deal.

It is not 350 pounds.

It's more like 300 lbs max.

Using the numbers posted in the thread
(300kWh equivalent tractor,

What part of "frequent recharge" do you NOT unnerstand?

A 400 hp tractor only needs a couple of gallons to get across a field.

90Wh/kg battery)

Not that it matters but now he's saying 120 w- hr / kg.

it is over *7333*
pounds of batteries. ?

For _what _ operation?

Energy density most certainly is a
huge factor, if those numbers you & Rob have been posting
are accurate.

What part of "frequent recharge" do you NOT unnerstand?

A 350 pound Zebra battery would yield 14318 Wh. ?That is
the equivalent of 19 horsepower

Now everyone knows yer an idiot. Energy ain't power.


Bret Cahill


--

Hi Bret, Rob here.

I do not want to throw a monkey-wrench in the idea of plug-in tractors (I still think it's a creative idea, although not practical
at this time).
But for batteries you also need to keep an eye out on the power density (not just the energy density).
Zebra's provide about 120 Wh/kg energy storage, and can provide about 150 W/kg (in power).
Essentially a Zebra can be drained (and charged) in about 50 min, but not less than that.
So a 350 pound (157kg) Zebra can provide about 23.3 kW power, which is about 31 hp.
You need about 1 1/2 ton of Zebra batteries to provide 300kW for the tractor.

If you want fast-charging (and fast-draining) batteries then you are better off with the ones I mentioned earlier : the AltAirNano's
:
Their 35kWh pack can provide about 210 kW (charges/discharges in 10 minutes).
They do have comparable energy density to Zebra's (about 100 Wh/kg), so the 35kWh pack should have a mass of about 350 kg.
However, they are expensive. Wikipedia mentions $2/Wh (due to low volume production so far). Their 35kWh pack should cost about
$70k.
They DO have amazing long lifetime of up to 25,000 deep cycles, which seriously reduces their capital cost overall to 8ct/kWh ($70k
/ (25000x35)).
They seem the ideal battery for your application if their price goes down a bit more.

Rob

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Some science is like some creative methods in other areas of life,

Very little of it is in fact.

You concession hardily accepted that at least some science involve creative methods.

Wrong again.

while not all scientific discovery is creative.

Not much of it is in fact.

At least you can admit you were wrong

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

when you perceived that you were, by accepting that "some"
is more appropriate than "all" in the stated case against you.

More of your mindless wanking.

The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
then method is applied and some are eliminated.

Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.

But you claimed that;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Just like in evolution.

Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.

So your making some claim about all scientists and
researchers and what they do every time they get ideas?

Nope. Just pissing on his stupid claim from a great height.

When you said

New ideas are nothing like random variations.

that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"

I never ever said anything like that.

Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

You've ripped that from its context. The original was completely clear.

and this would first off imply omniscience by you
since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,

Wrong again.

If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the case
that "Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works"

Nope, never ever said anything like that either.

then that would imply omniscience.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

In science, a theory is an explanation.

Not necessarily. It can be just an observation.

Evolution is a theory, just like gravitation.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination of observations.
If you drop something, it's going to fall.

There is a hell of a lot more too gravity than just that.

That's an observation: unsupported things fall.

There is a hell of a lot more too gravity than just that.

But you explain that observation with the theory of gravity, which is
that the mass of what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen
or something, is attracted by the mass... it's really a theory of gravity?

Nope.

But remember, a theory is an explanation.

Not necessarily.

And irrelevant to what was being discussed anyway.

but here you are making predictions like you cannot be wrong.

And again.

Then you meant to quantify your contention; Darwinian
random variation is [mostly] nothing like how the brain
works, but may sometimes [is] like how the brain works?

Nope. What I meant is obvious from the context that you ripped that from.

That be a no no in logic.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Please explain?

You're too stupid to understand the answer.

It appears you quantified your inductive theory about
randomness and the brain as always being a particular way.

Wrong, as always.

In the second place much research has been done when scientists set back
and let their minds wander and the solution is selected out from the noise.

Thats again nothing like what that fool claimed either.

Oh, but I was responding to your contention about the brain, not his position.

That particular comment was about his position, stupid.

And it isnt from the noise either.

If you try and define "noise" in a way I didn't mean it,

I didnt define anything or try either.

you would verge onto a straw man, but more likely you would commit
the "four term fallacy" which would be an attempt to equivocate me;

Wrong, as always.

<reams of your irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Therefore it is not the case that the positions I offered
"has absolutely nothing to with what was being discussed"

Wrong again.

My position remain sustained if you cannot refute my position on the relevance of my comments.

Wrong, as always.

Therefore it is not the case that the positions I offered
"has absolutely nothing to with what was being discussed"

Wrong, as always. And there is no therefore either.

and consequently you have been shown to be wrong and in error.

Just more of your desperate drug crazed wanking.

<reams of your irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

...the growth of our knowledge is the result of a process
closely resembling what Darwin called 'natural selection';
that is, the natural selection of hypotheses...
--Karl Popper

Thats nothing like that fool claimed either. He
mindlessly rabbitted on about RANDOM VARIATIONS.

Who cares,

Anyone with a clue. Which obviously counts you out.

I was responding to your proposal that;

It isnt a proposal.

Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

You ripped that from its context. As always.

<reams of your irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

Yes, but a PHYSICAL chemist.

OK, so he worked out in the weight room a lot. So what?

Pathetic.

That technology, NMR and MRI is the province of PHYSICAL chemists

P-chemists ain't provential.

No such word.

You just haven't _heard_ of the word.

Neither has any of the dictionarys either.

You wanted some wimp word like provincial.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed mud stained fantasys, child.

They are cosmopolitan and drink six packs of Bud just like anyone else.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed mud stained fantasys, child.

not physics,

If you think you have a better physique than the governator,
then why don't you post under your real name?

Pathetic.

We won't know that until you go on youtube.

Pathetic.

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in
the patent office.
How does that make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
You have no calculations or reasoning.
You in spades, child.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.

We'll assign a number to this wacko.

Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?

Every time you dodge it will be noted.

You wouldnt know a real dodge if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Viel Spass" <andy77017@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ccd2ded-81ff-42cb-9e8e-24f35a639f42@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 4, 4:37 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT), Viel Spass

andy77...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am looking for some ideas. I have an answering machine runnning off
a 12 VDC transformer.

---
There is no such thing; you must be referring to an AC to DC
wall-wart, yes?
---

Whenever power goes out, I have to turn it back on. (Recording is
still kept)

It draws 200 ma of current which I calculate to be V x A = 6 watts.

Could I use 8 D size 1.5 V batteries?
Do they make a 12 volt UPS ?

---
You can.
Do you have any test equipment?

Assuming your answering machine doesn't draw 200 mA all the time, why
not use a sealed lead-acid battery and a couple of Schottky diodes
instead and use your wall-wart to charge the battery and run the
answering machine at the same time?

Then when the mains go down, battery power will be steered into the
answering machine seamlessly and the answering machine will stay on
for as long as the battery can keep it on.

That's a 12V UPS.

View in Courier:

WALL ANS.
WART MACH
+----+ +----+
MAINS>--|~ +|--[1N5817>]-+-[1N5817>]--|+ |
| | |+ | |
| } [BAT] | |
| | | | |
MAINS>--|~ -|------------+------------|- |
+----+ +----+

JF

By transformer, I mean that it reduces 120V to 12DC.
What would a 12V sealed battery run ?

Are the diodes or rectifiers used to smooth out the DC output ?

I was also thinking of using NiMh batteries as an alternative.
Making a charger should be too big a deal.

Andy

NiMH batteries require precise charging. They are not very forgiving. ( Look
up the laptop battery recall. )
Lead acid or NiCads would be better.
As I said in my first post to you, all you need is a battery with a charger.

Tom

 

[Kevin Aylward]

I am stunned with this answer. Its trivially obvious that by most
random variations (i.e. new ideas) are detrimental variations,

That isn't trivially obvious at all, or even true, depending on the
context. Most variations in the evolutionary context are probably
neutral.

I doubt it. How many good ideas have you had to make a million? How many
panned out?

e.g. I belive that its a fact that of the order of 90% of new products
introduced, fail so... 90%, by my book is detrimental

noting the inherent
Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that
the brain actually
uses.(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html,
see illusion of creativity bottom of page)

I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for
example, Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous
errors he made from 1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of
Relativity.


In this context, you have to distinguish between conceptualization and
implementation. Einstein was indeed creative in recognizing the
problem(s) that he dealt with and 'thinking outside the box' in
finding the direction to follow. Once that decision is made, of course
there is a process of trial and error in working out the details---
indeed, it is the nature of mathematics and some physics that those
details are not subject to intuition but must be worked through.
Otherwise we wouldn't need the math, would we?

My point is all there is, essetially, a dawinian algorithm of replication,
selection and randam variation to the universe.

As I note, from th paper

*************

1 A new idea is derivable from existing ideas - i.e. not intrinsically new

2 A new idea is not derivable from existing ideas - i.e. intrinsically new

If "1" is correct for an idea, then by construction it is not a new idea, it
is simply a logical consequence of existing traits.

If "2", the idea is new, that is not derivable from existing traits, then
that idea must therefore be non predictable. However, a non predictable
trait is, essentially, a random trait, by definition.

Thus, those of us that believe that having a "bright" idea is something to
be intrinsically valued, actually value a coin toss as a "superior" way to
go. Indeed, it is being able to derive unsuspected results from existing
knowledge that would appear to have the greater worth.

So, creativity is nothing more that the brains random trait generator
feature of its Intelligent Replicator kicking in.

*************



Kevin Aylward
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"The Phantom" <phantom@aol.com> wrote in message
newsanf941hg6o7jdktb2bo7vknvpi5agk6jr@4ax.com...

Imagine a rectangular grid of 1 ohm resistors, 3 on a side like this:

A ___ ___ ___
|-|___|-|-|___|-|-|___|-|
.-. .-. .-. .-.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
'-' ___ '-' ___ '-' ___ '-'
|-|___|-|-|___|-|-|___|-|
.-. .-. .-. .-.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
'-' ___ '-' ___ '-' ___ '-'
|-|___|-|-|___|-|-|___|-|
.-. .-. .-. .-.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
'-' ___ '-' ___ '-' ___ '-'
|-|___|-|-|___|-|-|___|-|
B


Now expand the grid so it's 20 resistors on a side. What is the
resistance
between diagonally opposite corners A and B?

Does anyone see a shortcut method?

Theres a trick to this. If you put a voltage across the grid, say 1V, then
the anti-diagonal is always 500mV.

So think about that a bit. (think of a simple voltage divider... how can we
get 500mv "halfway" inbetween)

The hole thing about this is symmetry. Look at the diagnol and the
anti-diagonal and see what you can come up with.

I suggest you figure it out yourself though so you get better at that kinda
stuff.

 

[Andrew Holme]

<jalbers@bsu.edu> wrote in message
news:f6135ab3-c7fc-4ddb-8bea-dbd24a4ed8ee@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

I have a few questions about feedback. For discussion consider an
inverting op amp configuration with R2 feedback @ 4K ohms and R1
(connected to V-) @ 1K at 1K ohms. The open loop gain to be 200,000 .

Assume that Vin is at 2 volts, according to my calculations using Vout
= (V+ - V-)*200,000 and V- = (Vin-Vout)*R2/(R1+R2)+Vout, V- should be
around .0003999 volts and Vout should be around -7.9980005 volts.

My question is in what fashion does Vout get to -7.9980005? I know it
happens but it seems like magic. I have looked at the schematic
diagram of a 741 for example. It will probably take decades before I
would be able to understand something like that. Is it instantaneous
or does the op amp spend some time hunting for this value? If it
hunts, does it swing low to the negative rail and move towards the
upper rail or do something else?

It takes time. Vout can't change instantly. The maximum speed at which
Vout can change is called slew rate and is specified on the op-amp
datasheet. If your Vin changes, the resultant differential input voltage
(V+ - V-) causes Vout to start moving in the right direction. It actually
overshoots before finally settling at -8V or whatever. The dynamics depend
on factors such as bandwidth and phase shift as well as slew rate.

 

[Rod Speed]

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

I am stunned with this answer. Its trivially obvious that by most
random variations (i.e. new ideas) are detrimental variations,

That isn't trivially obvious at all, or even true, depending on the context. Most variations in the evolutionary
context are probably neutral.

I doubt it.

Your problem.

How many good ideas have you had to make a million? How many panned out?

e.g. I belive that its a fact that of the order of 90% of new products introduced, fail so... 90%, by my book is
detrimental

Nope, just not different enough from whats currently available to be commercially successful.

noting the inherent
Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that
the brain actually
uses.(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html,
see illusion of creativity bottom of page)

I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for
example, Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous
errors he made from 1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of
Relativity.


In this context, you have to distinguish between conceptualization
and implementation. Einstein was indeed creative in recognizing the
problem(s) that he dealt with and 'thinking outside the box' in
finding the direction to follow. Once that decision is made, of
course there is a process of trial and error in working out the
details--- indeed, it is the nature of mathematics and some physics
that those details are not subject to intuition but must be worked
through. Otherwise we wouldn't need the math, would we?

My point is all there is, essetially, a dawinian algorithm of
replication, selection and randam variation to the universe.

As I note, from th paper

*************

1 A new idea is derivable from existing ideas - i.e. not
intrinsically new
2 A new idea is not derivable from existing ideas - i.e.
intrinsically new
If "1" is correct for an idea, then by construction it is not a new
idea, it is simply a logical consequence of existing traits.

If "2", the idea is new, that is not derivable from existing traits,
then that idea must therefore be non predictable. However, a non
predictable trait is, essentially, a random trait, by definition.

Thus, those of us that believe that having a "bright" idea is
something to be intrinsically valued, actually value a coin toss as a
"superior" way to go. Indeed, it is being able to derive unsuspected
results from existing knowledge that would appear to have the greater
worth.
So, creativity is nothing more that the brains random trait generator
feature of its Intelligent Replicator kicking in.

*************



Kevin Aylward
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Rod Speed]

ZerkonX <Z@X.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Just a pathetic wanker, actually.

Why do you feed it?

I have been know to torment small children. I find that amusing.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in
the patent office.
How does that make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
You have no calculations or reasoning.
You in spades, child.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

A pathetic dodge.

You wouldnt know what a real dodge was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.
We'll assign a number to this wacko.

5 dodges and counting.

You wouldnt know what a real dodge was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.