Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 12, 1:30 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Yesterday I posted:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel."

Bret Cahill
Funny, I posted about how that 3X-4X efficiency was just plain
false, because even farm diesels can feasibly be built to 50%
efficiency and there has to be a conversion loss from whatever it
was that generated the electricity. Unlike Otto cycle ICE's, the
part-load efficiency of a diesel is also rather high. As they are
always run at wide open throttle, even idling is not overly
consumptive of fuel( truckers stopped idling their engines to stop
polluting, not to save money [although they now do that, too]).

The biggest advantage of electrics is not efficiency, but combining
all of the polluting where economies of scale lessen the costs of
pollution control/ CO2 sequestration.

And eliminating CO2 completely by using nukes to generate the
electricity. Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

Have you noticed that the only politician who has uttered the swear words "build more nuclear powered plants" is
President Bush?

Lie.

No Democrat will even say those words with an not before it.

Another lie. Obama has.

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:31 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its
chargable component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its
wastes. Sure sounds like a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.
Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.
The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.
That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a
big problem ?
Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.
The battery drives a very lightweight electric motor, at 95%
efficiency or so. The gasoline drives a heavy ICE
(+drivetrain/exchaust etc), at 20% efficieny or so (if you are
lucky).
Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel.
Only if you ignore the efficiency of whatever makes electricity. We cannot just pump electricity out of the ground,
nor does it
fall from the sky in a readily collectable form. It has to be
converted from some other energy. Our best option, efficiency
wise, is natural gas fired, combined cycle plants with thermal
efficiencies advertised at 60% (GE H1), so the electric motor is
limited to 57%, not counting transmission losses, and assuming a
connection from the power station to the vehicle without having to
store it in a battery.

It also puts food production into a single point failure condition.

No big deal when the grid is so reliable now.

It is?

Yep. Specially at the time of year that food production happens.

You really do need to clean those rose-colored glasses.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

No functional power grid, no food nor meat.

But the functional power grid always comes back quickly.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

It requires people who know how to work for that to happen.

And we have enough of those where food and meat are produced.

There are no new power plants being built that doesn't depend on the swear a.k.a. carbon fuels.

France generates 80% of its power using nukes.

It would be extremely stupid to transform to electric power.

Have fun explaining how come factorys manage that fine.

What factories?

The ones producing everything we need.

Have you ever met and _listened_ to a plant manager?

Yep. And have noticed that ALL of them are powered from the grid too.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

Rod Speed wrote

hence you haven't shown that new ideas are not due to a random process.

There are no new ideas in the sense you are using the term.

Of course there are. Lots of them.

Name even just one. You cant.

The speed of light is an invariant.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The statement that light is invariant is certainly consistent with a randomly generated process.

Waffle.

The idea is certainly not derivable, so where did the idea come from?

Same place other not derivable ideas came from, someone thought of that.

You aint established that there is any random process involved.

With for example the idea that the earth revolves around the sun instead of
the reverse, the fact that thats the only configuration that fits the observations.

You aint established that there is any random process involved with that either.

Same with say the atomic structure of matter.

It is an independent axiom of physics that is not derivable from any
other law of physics.

Yes, but clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The shrodinger equation of quantum mechanics. It is an independent
axiom of physics that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The Einstien Field equations. For eaxmple,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, setting the
Stress-Energy or Energy-Momentum Tensor equal to the contracted
Riemann tensor, was guesswork.It is an independent axiom of physics
that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

Of course, there are some aspects of these physic laws that are based and developed on prior ideas, but each one of
the above has a unique component,

So does any significant new idea.

that is quite impossible to derive from existing knowledge.

It is educated guess work.

Nope, no guess involved. They did in fact explain what was unexplainable without them.

That is, Selection (non random) of a randomly generated component,

Nope, nothing like that at all on the components.

from which, these non-random selected, random variations are copied
on to generate more derivable information,

Nope, no random variations involved at all. Completely non random in fact.

from which, new ideas may be randomly generated from etc.

Nope, no randomness present at all.

Its a Darwinian Algorithm.

Nope, nothing like it.

Unfortunately, you simple have not understood anything. Mere denial achieves nothing for your viewpoint.

True in spades of your mindless claim that all those involved some random process.

Everyone of the above are mathematical concepts that did not exist untill invented.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether there is any RANDOM PROCESS involved in producing them.

To quote Einstein:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether there is any RANDOM PROCESS involved in producing them.

You seem to confuse that fact that there is Darwinian Selection going on.

You keep claiming that without a shred of evidence to support that claim with NEW IDEAS.

Most randomly generated ideas are filtered first. A bit like
white noise going through a filter, effectively producing an
oscillator. This gives the niave impression, that the new ideas that
actually make it through the filter, are designed by construction, or
derivable, becuse you dont get to see the bad ones.

You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy come from.

You in spades. You havent presented a shred of evidence that there is any random process involved.

Particularly when the new idea explains what is otherwise unexplainable, thats
nothing like random, its just considering what configuration can explain the observations.

Like the idea that some disease is spread by insects. Thats an idea
that explains the observation that you dont get the disease when those
insects arent present. Nothing random involved in that idea.

The exact opposite of random in fact.

 

[ian field]

"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c3e34f52-0b01-48d1-b347-870bfd0816ae@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

I built this kit last night, and tapped the input across one of my
speakers.

http://www.velleman.be/images/tmp/MK114.jpg

It's their standard one channel light organ designed to work with low
voltage lamps.

It worked, but I had to crank the speaker really high to get the lamp
to flash. Looking at the circuit it seems that all I need to do is
find a way to flash one side of the optisolator to make it work. At
the moment it's using the power from the audio amplifier to do this,
but could I add a transistor from the 12v supply, connect this to the
OI input and feed in a lower power signal to do the switching?

Ideally I would like to run this from an audio line level signal, not
the speaker output of my amp.

Any input is always appreciated.

Dave

You could try a hefty capacitor between RV1 and the parallel combination of
the shunt diode and optocoupler diode, this would act as a voltage doubler
as far as the opto coupler diode is concerned because the shunt diode would
cause the capacitor to charge to the peak input voltage, then on the
opposite half cycle the voltage on the capacitor is added to that of the
incoming signal. Whether that's enough to run off a line signal is another
matter, you may have to put a couple of transistors in a gain stage in front
of the opto - is there some safety reason why you need to use the opto?

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

You aint established that 'copying errors' are what matters with worthwhile new ideas.

What would constitute having been "established"?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

A gave alot of theoretical information

Not a shred relevant to what was being discussed, whether
there is any RANDOM PROCESS involved in NEW IDEAS.

and it hasn't been countered by you.

HE made the claim.

HE gets to provide the evidence that supports the claim.

THATS how it works.

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:5b96c98c-dbb4-479e-9821-ef3c2ebe9144@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

I was looking at the schematic again - do you think that the pin 6 on
the OI could be wired up to do the job?
It seems to provide an electrical input to trigger the switching .

Maybe breaking the connections on pin 1 , connecting this to pin 6.
Then breaking pin 2 and connecting this to GND.

Obviously at this point I would never want to wire it up to a speaker
again, but maybe the half rectified line level signal would be enough.

I'm great with theory, just no so good with number crunching.

That opto-coupler is required to insulate the speaker output from the lamps
and their power supply. I'd leave it that way. Make an error and you blow
your amplifier.

At the same time that opto coupler causes your problem. It's input LED uses
to function at 0.8-1.2V and some mA of current. At normal speaker output
levels the LED will hard produce any light. That's why the output of that
optocoupler is ampified so hard.

Increasing the volume makes sense but you've already found out that you have
a lot of sound at about 2Vpp already. Besides, you introduce some distorsion
as the diodes (the LED and the 1N4148) are a highly non-linear load. That's
one of the reasons that pretty high series resistor is added. As long as the
impedance of the speaker is far below the impedance of the LED-resistor
combination you'll hear not too much of it. You nevertheless will need some
series resistor as you need to limit the current through that LED.

One thing you can try is getting another opto-coupler. Maybe you're lucky to
find one that works better in your circuit. But you can be sure. After all,
the LED is supposed to work way below its normal specs.

Another, better, way is using an input amplifier. See below.

-----+----+--12V
| |
| V Opto
| - LED
| |
| |
.-. .-.
100k| | | |4k7
| | | |
+ '-' '-'
LS #| | |
----#|---+ | |
#| | + | |
10uF .-. ___ |# | |/
| |<--|___|---|#--+--|
| | 1k |# | |>
'-' 10uF | |
| 10k | |
| | |
| | |
| .-. .-.
| | | | |
| 10k| | | |470
| '-' '-'
| | |
-------+----------------+----+-
created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.24.140803 Beta www.tech-chat.de

Aan de ene kant is het een klassieke schakeling. Aan de andere kant, ik heb
hem zo'n beetje uit mijn blote hoofd opgekrabbeld. Deze schakeling wordt
geacht een keer of tien te versterken. Belangrijker is dat er ongeveer 1mA
ruststroom door de LED gaat. Wat weer tot gevolg kan hebben dat de
versterker achter de optocoupler zwaar overstuurd wordt. Je kunt eventueel
experimenteren door de 100k weerstand groter of kleiner te nemen.

(Uiteraard haal je de 12V voeding uit de versterker en niet uit die van de
lampen.)

Succes

petrus bitbyter

 

[ian field]

"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d742beb0-457c-48dc-ad74-8eb4271e46a8@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Is there some safety reason why you need to use the opto?- Hide quoted
text -

No I don't reallly need the opto - the line level signal is 'safe' -
that's why I was thinking about using the transistor in the OI - if I
understand the pin out, then pin 6 is an electrical 'base'.

Dave

Some optos have no external connection to the base of the phototransistor
but its easy to check if you have a DMM with a diode check function - each
of the E/B & C/B junction tests as a diode.

You could replace R1 with a 47k pot from Vcc to GND with R2 to the wiper -
adjust so its just on the switching point, feed the line signal to T1 base
via a DC blocking capacitor - say about 0.22 or 0.47uF.

 

[Dan Coby]

"whit3rd" <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01327463-7dea-4494-80a8-93c8e00e3e90@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 8, 2:55 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in
messagenews:489c8f96$0$19657$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...

According to the data given, 1 square meter of water pumped up to a height
of 30 meters weighs 1000 kg, and has a potential energy of 30 kJoules. This
is enough energy to power a 30 watt lamp for 3.3 hours.

Er.... I make that 1000 seconds, which is more like 17 minutes, not
three hours.
Not 3.3 hours, either.

also, don't you need to know how much mass of water (i.e. not square
meters,
but cubic meters?) Or, is this a 1 square meter column of water 30
meters high?

Actually the potential energy is given by m*g*h. Where m is the mass,
g is the gravitational constant (9.8 m/s/s at the earth's surface) and h is
the height. Assuming 1 cubic meter, then you get 294 kJ or 9800 seconds
for a 30 watt lamp (2.72 hours).

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:15:14 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

hence you haven't shown that new ideas are not due to a random
process.

There are no new ideas in the sense you are using the term.

Of course there are. Lots of them.

Name even just one. You cant.

The speed of light is an invariant.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The statement that light is invariant is certainly consistent with a
randomly generated process. The idea is certainly not derivable, so
where did the idea come from?


It is an independent axiom of physics that is not derivable from
any other law of physics.

Yes, but clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The shrodinger equation of quantum mechanics. It is an independent
axiom of physics that is not derivable from any other law of
physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The Einstien Field equations. For eaxmple,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, setting the
Stress-Energy or Energy-Momentum Tensor equal to the contracted
Riemann tensor, was guesswork.It is an independent axiom of physics
that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

Of course, there are some aspects of these physic laws that are
based and developed on prior ideas, but each one of the above has a
*unique* component,

So does any significant new idea.

that is quite impossible to derive from existing knowledge.

It is educated guess work.

Nope, no guess involved. They did in fact explain what was
unexplainable without them.
That is, *Selection* (non random) of a randomly generated
component,

Nope, nothing like that at all on the components.

from which, these non-random selected, random variations are copied
on to generate more derivable information,

Nope, no random variations involved at all. Completely non random in
fact.
from which, new ideas may be randomly generated from etc.

Nope, no randomness present at all.

Its a Darwinian Algorithm.

Nope, nothing like it.


Unfortunately, you simple have not understood anything. Mere denial
achieves nothing for your viewpoint.

Everyone of the above are mathematical concepts that did not exist
untill invented. To quote Einstein:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.

You seem to confuse that fact that there is Darwinian Selection
going on. Most randomly generated ideas are filtered first. A bit
like white noise going through a filter, effectively producing an
oscillator. This gives the niave impression, that the new ideas that
actually make it through the filter, are designed by construction,
or derivable, becuse you dont get to see the bad ones.

You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy
come from.

---
Indeed.

In the dawn of our time, a stretched sinew grabbed at and released
during the slaughter after a successful hunt or, during feeding, would
have emitted a tone/tones which led to the development of all our
present-day stringed instruments.

Initially, a truly random occurrence which one of our ancestors picked
up and capitalized on.

It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being
discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE
MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

You aint established that 'copying errors' are what matters with worthwhile new ideas.

What would constitute having been "established"?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Do you accept the major neuroscience theories about how the brain functions?

Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.

They are somewhere between hard physical sciences and social science,
in the degree of verifiability available considering all the factors.

Yep, so it hasnt been established that normal brain functions have
anything to do with darwin, let alone how new ideas are produced.

These are inductive theories and hypothesis not deductive necessity.

Which is a fancy way of saying its just a CLAIM, and that hasnt been established.

A gave alot of theoretical information

Not a shred relevant to what was being discussed, whether
there is any RANDOM PROCESS involved in NEW IDEAS.

<reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

You aint established that 'copying errors' are what matters with worthwhile new ideas.

What would constitute having been "established"?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Do you accept the major neuroscience theories about how the brain functions?

Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.

Then you are saying that if ideas are are result of the
activities of particular regions of the brain, then they are
not relevant to the activities of particular areas of the brain?

Nope, not saying anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Your position doesn't make sense, since the best science we have indicates
that it is likely that ideas are produced by neural activities in a brain.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

New ideas are identical to the activities of some nerve cells.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

<reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs>

Are we agreed that ideas and new ideas are the activities of nerve cells in brains?

Yep. But you aint established that there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

They are somewhere between hard physical sciences and social science,
in the degree of verifiability available considering all the factors.

Yep, so it hasnt been established that normal brain functions have
anything to do with darwin, let alone how new ideas are produced.

Again you being vague on what you mean by being established.

Nope.

There are many theories about brain circuits and the activities that
take place within them, and neural darwinism is right up there with
"games theory" and "neural network" theories.

And it aint been established that that has anything to do with
what is being discussed, HOW NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED.

The way the brain is wired has everything to do with the activities of the brain.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers ?

I can easily show evidence that these are the three main theories
in brain science at this time and they are very similar, and based
upon "systems theory" or complexity theory.

But you dont have a shred of evidence for what is being discussed,
WHETHER NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED BY RANDOM EVENTS.

These are inductive theories and hypothesis not deductive necessity.

Which is a fancy way of saying its just a CLAIM, and that hasnt been established.

By that reasoning anything in science is just a claim,

Wrong. As always. We have established that the earth revolves around the sun,
that the sun is a huge fusion reactor, that infection is due to viruses and bacteria etc.

<reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

What would constitute having been "established"?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Do you accept the major neuroscience theories about how the brain functions?

Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.

Then you are saying that if ideas are are result of the
activities of particular regions of the brain, then they are
not relevant to the activities of particular areas of the brain?

Nope, not saying anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Your position doesn't make sense, since the best science we have indicates
that it is likely that ideas are produced by neural activities in a brain.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Well brain functions and neural activities are the same thing,

You did get that bit right, presumably by accident.

so therefore it is not a straw man.

There is no 'so therefore' involved.

New ideas are identical to the activities of some nerve cells.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

Strange,

Nope.

if new ideas are identical to activities in some nerve cells

Meaningless gobbledegook.

and the causes of those activities were established
to be sometimes in- line with other neural activities

More meaningless gobbledegook.

and at other time not in-line with regular functions, as in copy errors,

More meaningless gobbledegook.

then it would be relevant wouldn't it?

Nope.

Are we agreed that ideas and new ideas are the activities of nerve cells in brains?

Yep. But you aint established that there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

Would you agree that patterns of activity in one area of the brain
needs to be transfered to other parts of the brain; for instance in
vision how there are different filters for depth, contrast, brightness,
color, movement and more, each in there own area that need
to work on the same patterns?

Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

In this image a similar pattern needs to be moved to most of the spots lit up
http://www.primidi.com/images/brain_vision_and_attention.jpg
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=92

Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

They are somewhere between hard physical sciences and social science,
in the degree of verifiability available considering all the factors.

Yep, so it hasnt been established that normal brain functions have
anything to do with darwin, let alone how new ideas are produced.

Again you being vague on what you mean by being established.

Nope.

Then you are not making yourself clear on what
is to be considered as established and what is not.

Its obvious what that means.

Please define the term you continue to introduce to this conversation.

Go and fuck yourself and find a less pathetically hoary old line.

There are many theories about brain circuits and the activities
that take place within them, and neural darwinism is right up
there with "games theory" and "neural network" theories.

And it aint been established that that has anything to do with
what is being discussed, HOW NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED.

Some neural activities are identical to "trains of thought" and these
like other neural processes need to be iterated and continue to cycle
so that constancy can be maintained, based upon these changes.

More meaningless gobbledegook.

The way the brain is wired has everything to do with the activities of the brain.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers ?

Please explain what that means.

Go and fuck yourself and find a less pathetically hoary old line.

I can easily show evidence that these are the three main
theories in brain science at this time and they are very
similar, and based upon "systems theory" or complexity theory.

But you dont have a shred of evidence for what is being discussed,
WHETHER NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED BY RANDOM EVENTS.

I have evidence that patterns need to be shuffled around the brain

No you dont.

and that there is a probability of errors in the copying process.

And that in spades.

There is evidence that a group of cells creating a
pattern clone that pattern in nearby groups of cells.

Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

Even copying files in a computer have some errors.

Wrong again.

<reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs>

These are inductive theories and hypothesis not deductive necessity.

Which is a fancy way of saying its just a CLAIM, and that hasnt been established.

By that reasoning anything in science is just a claim,

Wrong. As always. We have established that the earth revolves around the sun,
that the sun is a huge fusion reactor, that infection is due to viruses and bacteria etc.

Actually those are theories.

Nope, its been established that that is what happens.

<reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:15:14 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy
come from.

---
Indeed.

In the dawn of our time, a stretched sinew grabbed at and released
during the slaughter after a successful hunt or, during feeding,
would have emitted a tone/tones which led to the development of
all our present-day stringed instruments.

Initially, a truly random occurrence which one of our ancestors
picked up and capitalized on.

It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being
discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE
MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas.

I see.

Nope, you never ever do.

Then the very first idea didn't happen randomly, one of our ancestors
made conscious plans and thought: "OK, now I'm going to have an idea."

Pathetic.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:29:33 -0700 (PDT), oeguet@gmx.de wrote:

Is a powerful metal detector possible by using only laptop and sensor
(search-head) without any additional electronics?

See the generation and progress of this experimental project on:
http://www.thunting.com/geotech/forums/showthread.php?t=14102

The metal detector uses only the sound-card (output/input) for
interfacing the search-head.
;-)
Aziz

I haven't looked into metal detectors, but my Daqarta system has a
signal generator that can probably create any sort of driver signal
you want, plus real-time spectral (or waveform) analysis of the input
signal. It might be useful for development purposes, to try out
concepts before you devote a lot of time to writing your own code.

If you can explain the basic principles involved (or point me to a
Website), I'll be able to give you a better idea of whether Daqarta
can handle the task. (And if it can't do it now, it might be
something to add to the next version!)

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Spaceman]

Immortalist wrote:

A 'Frankenrobot' with a biological brain

Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively
by living brain tissue.

Oh crap,
The creation of the Dalak race has begun.

 

[Rick]

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
newsine.LNX.4.64.0808141055530.22429@darkstar.example.org...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Bob Masta wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:29:33 -0700 (PDT), oeguet@gmx.de wrote:

Is a powerful metal detector possible by using only laptop and sensor
(search-head) without any additional electronics?

See the generation and progress of this experimental project on:
http://www.thunting.com/geotech/forums/showthread.php?t=14102

The metal detector uses only the sound-card (output/input) for
interfacing the search-head.
;-)
Aziz

I haven't looked into metal detectors, but my Daqarta system has a
signal generator that can probably create any sort of driver signal
you want, plus real-time spectral (or waveform) analysis of the input
signal. It might be useful for development purposes, to try out
concepts before you devote a lot of time to writing your own code.

If you can explain the basic principles involved (or point me to a
Website), I'll be able to give you a better idea of whether Daqarta
can handle the task. (And if it can't do it now, it might be
something to add to the next version!)

That page was too much to follow, too little detail and too many
links.

Many metal detectors work by having an oscillator with a coil that
is open to the world. When metal comes close to the coil, that shifts
the oscillator's frequency and that shift is the giveaway that there
is metal.

That won't work by merely feeding the coil with a signal, the coil
has to be part of the signal generator.

I seem to recall there are things where the metal acts as coupling
between two coils, one excited by an oscillator and another a pickup,
and then the amplitude in the second coil varies depending on the
unknown metal. I suspect that is less workable than the first method,
though the excitation coil does not have to be a part of the oscillator.

Most common today are the induction balance types. The various patents have a lot of
thory.

From a memory of a Carl & Jerry story, I think the magnetometer uses
a standalone excitation, and not that much more than a milk bottle filled
with water and wound with wire. I can't remember what they used as a
pickup.

The problem is the question is based on some discussion somewhere, rather
than based on a foundation of what a metal detector is. If the original
poster had done some basic reading before asking here, he'd have a better
idea of what was required, and maybe an idea of whether it's possible.

Michael

 

[Rod Speed]

Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote

The last thing my farmer relatives want to do is
waste their time refueling when doing the field work.

No one ever promised that post peak would be a rose garden.

Maybe algae diesel will work out. That's plan A.

If it doesn't then we need a plan B.

Plan C is oxen.

Why do we need algae diesel as a plan A, when there are
centuries worth of synthetic crude to processed from coal?

Centuries? I don't think so.

Fraid so.

Quoting http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188 :

"At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 147 years."

Thats only because no one bothers to prove more coal reserves when there is that much already proven.

35% of world energy consumption is oil, 25% is coal, as seen on this piechart :

http://www.worldcoal.org/assets_cm/files/image/coalfacts_piechart_2005.gif

If we, per your suggestion, use coal to produce enough synthetic
fuel to substitute for oil, it's obvious that we are not talking about
"current production levels" for coal anymore, and then the coal
reserves may last perhaps only half of the estimated 147 years.

Thats only because no one bothers to prove more coal reserves when there is that much already proven.

Probably even less, since the World Coal Institute, which makes this
estimate, is, in its own words, "the Voice of the International Coal
Industry", and the coal industry, just like the oil industry, is
likely to make optimistic estimates about their assets.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that no one bothers
to prove more coal reserves when there is that much already proven.

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote

Yesterday I posted:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why we must constantly explain that an electric
motor is 3X - 4X more efficient than a diesel."

Funny, I posted about how that 3X-4X efficiency was just plain
false, because even farm diesels can feasibly be built to 50%
efficiency and there has to be a conversion loss from whatever it
was that generated the electricity. Unlike Otto cycle ICE's, the
part-load efficiency of a diesel is also rather high. As they are
always run at wide open throttle, even idling is not overly
consumptive of fuel( truckers stopped idling their engines to stop
polluting, not to save money [although they now do that, too]).

The biggest advantage of electrics is not efficiency, but
combining all of the polluting where economies of scale lessen
the costs of pollution control/ CO2 sequestration.

And eliminating CO2 completely by using nukes to generate the
electricity. Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

Have you noticed that the only politician who has uttered the swear
words "build more nuclear powered plants" is President Bush?

Lie.

No Democrat will even say those words with an not before it.

Another lie. Obama has.

No, he hasn't.

Yes he has.

He wrapped the words "nuclear power" in R&D handwaving.

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote
rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its
chargable component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its
wastes. Sure sounds like a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.
Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.
The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.
That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a
big problem ?
Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.
The battery drives a very lightweight electric motor, at 95%
efficiency or so. The gasoline drives a heavy ICE
(+drivetrain/exchaust etc), at 20% efficieny or so (if you are
lucky).
Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is
why we must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X -
4X more efficient than a diesel.
Only if you ignore the efficiency of whatever makes electricity.
We cannot just pump electricity out of the ground, nor does it
fall from the sky in a readily collectable form. It has to be
converted from some other energy. Our best option, efficiency
wise, is natural gas fired, combined cycle plants with thermal
efficiencies advertised at 60% (GE H1), so the electric motor is
limited to 57%, not counting transmission losses, and assuming a
connection from the power station to the vehicle without having
to store it in a battery.

It also puts food production into a single point failure
condition.

No big deal when the grid is so reliable now.

It is?

Yep. Specially at the time of year that food production happens.

You really do need to clean those rose-colored glasses.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

No functional power grid, no food nor meat.

But the functional power grid always comes back quickly.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

It requires people who know how to work for that to happen.

And we have enough of those where food and meat are produced.

There are no new power plants being built that doesn't depend on
the swear a.k.a. carbon fuels.

France generates 80% of its power using nukes.

It would be extremely stupid to transform to electric power.

Have fun explaining how come factorys manage that fine.

What factories?

The ones producing everything we need.

Have you ever met and _listened_ to a plant manager?

Yep. And have noticed that ALL of them are powered from the grid too.

No, they aren't.

Yes they are.

You should more attention to all the news reports of all the power outages that occur each day.

They still get almost all the power they use from the grid.

 

[john jardine]

<jalbers@bsu.edu> wrote in message
news:e6b9dffc-f1cd-46fb-b630-d0f691597917@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I have been doing some reading about and experimenting with op amps
(LM741) playing with and following and reproducing the results behind
the classic voltage follower, inverting, non-inverting, summing
feedback loops. After satisfying my curiosity with that I decided to
do some of my own experiments with various components in the feedback
loop to see if I could predict what was going to happen. Just when
you think that you understand something and can go out on your own...

I decided to start by introducing a diode and diode-resistor into the
feedback loop. The circuits are at:
https://ilocker.bsu.edu/users/jalbers/WORLD_SHARED/DiodeFeedback.PDF
These circuits are probably not good for anything other than
experimentation and learning. The diagrams show both the predicted
and actual results.

On page 1, the POT is set to +4V and various voltage measurements were
made around the circuit which were different from what I had
predicted. I am troubled by the fact that the voltages at V+ and V-
are so far apart. They should be micro volts apart. Using an open
loop gain Gopen of 20,000 to 200,000 and Vout = Gopen(V+ - V-) the
output Vout should be way more than 4.43V .

On pages 2A and 2B, the POT is set to +4V and -4V and various voltage
measurements were made around the circuit which were different from
what I had predicted. I am again troubled by the V+ and V-
differential. I thought that an OP amp would do everything in its
power to make V+ and V- the same.

As usual, any “constructive” help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

Under normal conditions you'll always only see maybe 2 to 3mV difference
between + and - inputs of a (working) typical 741 style opamp.
I'd suspect you've maybe a little bit of oscillation going on when you
connect the long test leads of your voltmeter. This will upset the readings.
Would suggest sticking a 100uF from the pot' slider to 0V and re-measuring.
[That's assuming of course you're using a DVM in the first place and not
some high loading 20kohms per volt analogue meter].