Comments on some of the explanations here...

[ObamaOrHillary2008]

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

In sci.electronics.advanced, everything is crystal clear language
between questioner and answerer, but here, in basics, breaking it out
a bit with a diagram and possibly a water-type analogy would help.

For instance, how could I make a "circuit" with, say, some plastic
pipes, water, and blowing into it for some type of force? Do timers
and flipflops and oscillators resemble valves? Why is voltage the
same in a parallel circuit? Why does an oscillator need three
connections to the transformer?

My electronics kit gives garbled explanations with plus voltage and
taps and feedback but I don't know what the hell that is. Some
"beginning" books immediately talk about -3 volts here, and + feedback
there, right after the V = IR equation. Geez. I'm glad people know
this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Gets downright frustrating.

 

[Eeyore]

ObamaOrHillary2008 wrote:

I'm glad people know this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Nope, it has to be learnt. That requires study.

Graham

 

[Michael Black]

ObamaOrHillary2008 (jgrace5@gmail.com) writes:

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

But realistically, if people are having problems with the explanations

here, and even maybe before that, they should be reading books rather
than asking questions here.

When someone here tackles a basic question, they are in effect writing
a subset of one of those books. But, they are doing it in an immediate
medium, so any answer suffers from the lack of publishing process, ie
rereading and proofreading and even giving second thought to what
they've written.

It is far simpler for the poster asking the question to read some
books in the first place, where they'll find lots of explanation, and
in the context of everything else, and likely that material has been
written for the long term and has been read and rewritten before
it gets published.

And too many times, people aren't asking for understanding, they
are asking to do something specific. And that's a very narrow view
of things.

If it isn't abuse, it's close to abuse to ask a basic question here
where the poster could simply read a book.

Note that doesn't preclude people asking questions here. But they
should be about reinforcing what they've read, or filling in some
detail that they can't grasp. "I want to know how batteries work"
is vastly diffferent from "I was reading about batteries and
they said XXX and I still don't get how YYY does its thing". IN
the latter case, the poster has read first, and even points that
out, and is having trouble grasping a concept, and hence any answer
is to address the poster's specific need, be it a badly formed explanation
in the book, or the fact that everyone has different ways of learning
and a different person's help may be what's needed for the original
poster.

It also doesn't preclude opinion questions. "Where can I buy a
soldering iron?" seems a tad obvious to be worthy of an answer, but
"I'm in XXX, does anyone have any experience with the local electronic
part stores? I went to YYY, but I had the feeling they didn't want
me there..." is looking for more than information.

Michael

 

[Doug Miller]

In article <1189620419.468664.59020@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ObamaOrHillary2008 <jgrace5@gmail.com> wrote:

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there.

In addition to Michael Black's excellent comments, I'd like to point out that
this is a text-only newsgroup, not a binaries group, and as such, the only
kind of diagrams that can be posted here are "ascii art". (Google that, if you
don't understand.)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

 

[Phil Allison]

"ObamaOrHillary2008"

** = Fuckwit TROLL 7007

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there.

** How ? This ain't a binaries NG - fool.

I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

** No-one can teach pigs to sing.

In sci.electronics.advanced,

** Hug ??? No such NG exists - cretin.

everything is crystal clear language
between questioner and answerer,

** Can't possibly be part of usenet, then.

but here, in basics, breaking it out
a bit with a diagram and possibly a water-type analogy would help.

** Problem with water type analogies is, well - they never hold water.

For instance, how could I make a "circuit" with, say, some plastic
pipes, water, and blowing into it for some type of force? Do timers
and flipflops and oscillators resemble valves? Why is voltage the
same in a parallel circuit? Why does an oscillator need three
connections to the transformer?

** Ahh - you need to visit: " alt.alternative.realities "

My electronics kit gives garbled explanations with plus voltage and
taps and feedback but I don't know what the hell that is. Some
"beginning" books immediately talk about -3 volts here, and + feedback
there, right after the V = IR equation. Geez. I'm glad people know
this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Gets downright frustrating.

** No-one said electronics was easy.



....... Phil

 

[Grouchy]

On Sep 12, 1:55 pm, et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote:

ObamaOrHillary2008 (jgra...@gmail.com) writes:
Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

But realistically, if people are having problems with the explanations
here, and even maybe before that, they should be reading books rather
than asking questions here.

When someone here tackles a basic question, they are in effect writing
a subset of one of those books. But, they are doing it in an immediate
medium, so any answer suffers from the lack of publishing process, ie
rereading and proofreading and even giving second thought to what
they've written.

It is far simpler for the poster asking the question to read some
books in the first place, where they'll find lots of explanation, and
in the context of everything else, and likely that material has been
written for the long term and has been read and rewritten before
it gets published.

And too many times, people aren't asking for understanding, they
are asking to do something specific. And that's a very narrow view
of things.

If it isn't abuse, it's close to abuse to ask a basic question here
where the poster could simply read a book.

Note that doesn't preclude people asking questions here. But they
should be about reinforcing what they've read, or filling in some
detail that they can't grasp. "I want to know how batteries work"
is vastly diffferent from "I was reading about batteries and
they said XXX and I still don't get how YYY does its thing". IN
the latter case, the poster has read first, and even points that
out, and is having trouble grasping a concept, and hence any answer
is to address the poster's specific need, be it a badly formed explanation
in the book, or the fact that everyone has different ways of learning
and a different person's help may be what's needed for the original
poster.

It also doesn't preclude opinion questions. "Where can I buy a
soldering iron?" seems a tad obvious to be worthy of an answer, but
"I'm in XXX, does anyone have any experience with the local electronic
part stores? I went to YYY, but I had the feeling they didn't want
me there..." is looking for more than information.

Michael

Michael,

Here is a link farm that should provide a reference for electrical
engineering/electronics sources.

http://www.musser.com/snm/ee/


The best others can do is to point people who are interested in
increasing their knowledge of electronics in productive and reputable
directions. We can't offer shortcuts that we ourselves don't
possess. Obviously, many people who are moderately well versed in
electronics have a tendency to forget that there was a time when they
themselves were as ignorant and uneducated as many of the posters they
scoff at on these boards... but that's their karma, no?

Otherwise, there are grades and shades of answers to questions like:
"how do batteries work?" Often the most accurate explanation isn't
the Mr. Wizard version many people are looking for, nor are the mid-
grade answers very comfortable for experts in other disciplines that
rely on electronics to support their own meta-physical or political
views... In my opinion the best option is to provide reputable and/or
official authorities re a particular area, in addition to the
shorthand/offhand explanation (that's in no way authoritive).

Anyway...

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:06:59 -0700, ObamaOrHillary2008
<jgrace5@gmail.com> wrote:

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

In sci.electronics.advanced, everything is crystal clear language
between questioner and answerer, but here, in basics, breaking it out
a bit with a diagram and possibly a water-type analogy would help.

For instance, how could I make a "circuit" with, say, some plastic
pipes, water, and blowing into it for some type of force? Do timers
and flipflops and oscillators resemble valves? Why is voltage the
same in a parallel circuit? Why does an oscillator need three
connections to the transformer?

My electronics kit gives garbled explanations with plus voltage and
taps and feedback but I don't know what the hell that is. Some
"beginning" books immediately talk about -3 volts here, and + feedback
there, right after the V = IR equation. Geez. I'm glad people know
this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Gets downright frustrating.

---
Well, OK then, to get rid of the frustration and get a good
grounding, let's start at the beginning with a water analogy and a
little quiz.

View in Courier and let's say we have some plumbing set up like
this: ( ~ = water)


.. +---------+ +---------+
.. |PRESSURE | |PRESSURE |
.. |GAUGE 1 | |GAUGE 2 |
.. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
.. |~| +-----------+ |~|
.. |~| | | |~|
.. |~+-------+ HYDRAULIC +------+~|
.. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
.. |~+-------+ MOTOR +------+~|
.. |~| | | |~|
.. |~| +-----------+ [VALVE]
.. |~| | |
.. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
.. |FLOWMETER| |FLOWMETER|
.. |~~~~1~~~~| | 2 |
.. +---+~+---+ +---+ +---+
.. |~| | |
.. |~| | |
.. |~| | |
.. |~| | |
.. |~| | |
.. +--|~|--------------------------| |--+
.. | |~| | | |
.. | [PUMP] |
.. | |~| |
.. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
.. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
.. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESERVOIR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
.. +------------------------------------+

Now let's say that the pump is on, that pressure gauge 1 reads
100PSI, and that the valve is off.

What will pressure gauge 2 read?

A. None of the below
B. 0 PSI
C. 100 PSI
D. 50 PSI


--
JF

 

[Charles]

"ObamaOrHillary2008" <jgrace5@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189620419.468664.59020@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

In sci.electronics.advanced, everything is crystal clear language
between questioner and answerer, but here, in basics, breaking it out
a bit with a diagram and possibly a water-type analogy would help.

For instance, how could I make a "circuit" with, say, some plastic
pipes, water, and blowing into it for some type of force? Do timers
and flipflops and oscillators resemble valves? Why is voltage the
same in a parallel circuit? Why does an oscillator need three
connections to the transformer?

My electronics kit gives garbled explanations with plus voltage and
taps and feedback but I don't know what the hell that is. Some
"beginning" books immediately talk about -3 volts here, and + feedback
there, right after the V = IR equation. Geez. I'm glad people know
this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Gets downright frustrating.

Yes, it is frustrating when one wants quick and easy answers. Unreasonable
expectations (and quick fixes) are a modern epidemic.

Diagrams are not supported here.

Nobody is born with knowledge. When there is a knowledge serum or a
microchip knowledge implant, go for it. In the meantime, may I suggest that
you peruse hobbies with shallow learning curves?

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:07:42 -0400, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

"ObamaOrHillary2008" <jgrace5@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189620419.468664.59020@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

In sci.electronics.advanced, everything is crystal clear language
between questioner and answerer, but here, in basics, breaking it out
a bit with a diagram and possibly a water-type analogy would help.

For instance, how could I make a "circuit" with, say, some plastic
pipes, water, and blowing into it for some type of force? Do timers
and flipflops and oscillators resemble valves? Why is voltage the
same in a parallel circuit? Why does an oscillator need three
connections to the transformer?

My electronics kit gives garbled explanations with plus voltage and
taps and feedback but I don't know what the hell that is. Some
"beginning" books immediately talk about -3 volts here, and + feedback
there, right after the V = IR equation. Geez. I'm glad people know
this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Gets downright frustrating.

Yes, it is frustrating when one wants quick and easy answers.

---
I disagree.

What's frustrating is when one wants quick and easy answers and
either doesn't get them or does and can't understand them.
---

Unreasonable expectations (and quick fixes) are a modern epidemic.

---
I disagree again.

Unreasonable expectations have been with us since we thought that
the surety of a kill during a hunt was inevitable, since the
beginning of time
---

Diagrams are not supported here.

---
I disagree again.

Are you not familiar with ASCII art?

Here's a simple sample:

+24
|
+--------+-----+----+------+-------+
| | | | |K |
| | | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | | |
[100.0k] [10.0k] | [10k] +-------+
| | | | |
| +----|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
Vin---+-------------|+/LM393 E
| | |
| | GND
| |
| |
| | +24
| [20.0k] |
| | +------+-------+
| | | |K |
| | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | |
| | [10k] +-------+
| | | |
+-------------|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
| +----|+/LM393 E
[100.0k] | | |
| [10.0k] | |
| | | |
+--------+-----+-----------+
|
GND
---

Nobody is born with knowledge.

---
I disagree again.

What causes a baby to hunt for the tit?
--

When there is a knowledge serum or a
microchip knowledge implant, go for it. In the meantime, may I suggest that
you peruse hobbies with shallow learning curves?

---
Of course you may, but your "advice" seems to be more intent on
exalting your ego by denigrating the OP than by enlightening him.


--
JF

 

[Michael Black]

John Fields (jfields@austininstruments.com) writes:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:07:42 -0400, "Charles"
charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

Nobody is born with knowledge.

---
I disagree again.

What causes a baby to hunt for the tit?

Actually, it's more like a bootstrapping operation. Just enough to
get going. Almost immediately they are learning. Their early lives
are both a long curve up, and a pretty rapid trip. Within two or
three years, they've gone from being mostly lumps in their mother's
arms to being able to move around themselves, and manipulate things,
and understand and speak words.

Everything else is a much smaller curve, though it may appear to be
a steep cliff when approaching something for the first time.

What often does seem to fail is that as people age, they forget
those skills that helped them to make sense of their surroundings.
So while they could hack how to walk and how to talk merely from
observing those around them and trying things themselves, later
in life (even just a few years) they often feel they need someone
to fill them up with knowledge, and before they can tackle anything.

So they read the books, and then when they feel up to it, try building
circuits. When in reality, they should be building the circuits as
they read, and use the failures of their projects to learn. "I wonder
why that doesn't work?" is a question that helps someone to find
answers. If they can't form questions properly, then they can't get
those answers. But that question is far better than "Tell me how
electronics works".

Michael

 

[John Fields]

On 13 Sep 2007 23:27:14 GMT, et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
Black) wrote:

John Fields (jfields@austininstruments.com) writes:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:07:42 -0400, "Charles"
charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:


Nobody is born with knowledge.

---
I disagree again.

What causes a baby to hunt for the tit?

Actually, it's more like a bootstrapping operation. Just enough to
get going.

---
Hardwired, innate knowledge.


--
JF

 

[Charles]

Yes, it is frustrating when one wants quick and easy answers.

---
I disagree.

What's frustrating is when one wants quick and easy answers and
either doesn't get them or does and can't understand them.

Huh? There are few quick and easy answers to technological issues. Of
course newbie posters are not going to get them or, if they do, understand
them. This actually supports my post.

Unreasonable expectations (and quick fixes) are a modern epidemic.

---
I disagree again.

Unreasonable expectations have been with us since we thought that
the surety of a kill during a hunt was inevitable, since the
beginning of time

I think you are being bombastic here.

Diagrams are not supported here.

---
I disagree again.

Are you not familiar with ASCII art?

Here's a simple sample:

+24
|
+--------+-----+----+------+-------+
| | | | |K |
| | | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | | |
[100.0k] [10.0k] | [10k] +-------+
| | | | |
| +----|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
Vin---+-------------|+/LM393 E
| | |
| | GND
| |
| |
| | +24
| [20.0k] |
| | +------+-------+
| | | |K |
| | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | |
| | [10k] +-------+
| | | |
+-------------|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
| +----|+/LM393 E
[100.0k] | | |
| [10.0k] | |
| | | |
+--------+-----+-----------+
|
GND

Most of us don't think that is worth the time and effort and, yes, I am
familiar with it.

Nobody is born with knowledge.

---
I disagree again.

What causes a baby to hunt for the tit?

Really reaching now, are you not? Ohm's Law has nothing to do with mother's
milk and fear of fire and falling and so on. Give me a break!

When there is a knowledge serum or a
microchip knowledge implant, go for it. In the meantime, may I suggest
that
you peruse hobbies with shallow learning curves?

---
Of course you may, but your "advice" seems to be more intent on
exalting your ego by denigrating the OP than by enlightening him.

The JF ego is bigger than mine or that of most anyone else.

Just piss off JF!

> JF

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:17:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

ObamaOrHillary2008 wrote:

I'm glad people know this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Nope, it has to be learnt. That requires study.

If you have an older brother that builds a Boy Scout crystal set
when you're 7, it helps a lot. ;-)

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:03:24 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:06:59 -0700, ObamaOrHillary2008
jgrace5@gmail.com> wrote:

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

In sci.electronics.advanced, everything is crystal clear language
between questioner and answerer, but here, in basics, breaking it out
a bit with a diagram and possibly a water-type analogy would help.

For instance, how could I make a "circuit" with, say, some plastic
pipes, water, and blowing into it for some type of force? Do timers
and flipflops and oscillators resemble valves? Why is voltage the
same in a parallel circuit? Why does an oscillator need three
connections to the transformer?

My electronics kit gives garbled explanations with plus voltage and
taps and feedback but I don't know what the hell that is. Some
"beginning" books immediately talk about -3 volts here, and + feedback
there, right after the V = IR equation. Geez. I'm glad people know
this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Gets downright frustrating.

Well, OK then, to get rid of the frustration and get a good
grounding, let's start at the beginning with a water analogy and a
little quiz.

View in Courier and let's say we have some plumbing set up like
this: ( ~ = water)


. +---------+ +---------+
. |PRESSURE | |PRESSURE |
. |GAUGE 1 | |GAUGE 2 |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| +-----------+ |~|
. |~| | | |~|
. |~+-------+ HYDRAULIC +------+~|
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~+-------+ MOTOR +------+~|
. |~| | | |~|
. |~| +-----------+ [VALVE]
. |~| | |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |FLOWMETER| |FLOWMETER|
. |~~~~1~~~~| | 2 |
. +---+~+---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. +--|~|--------------------------| |--+
. | |~| | | |
. | [PUMP] |
. | |~| |
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESERVOIR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. +------------------------------------+

Now let's say that the pump is on, that pressure gauge 1 reads
100PSI, and that the valve is off.

What will pressure gauge 2 read?

A. None of the below
B. 0 PSI
C. 100 PSI
D. 50 PSI

You forgot the positive displacement turbine with the flywheel, and the
diaphragm chamber. ;-)

What if the valve is here:

. +---------+ +---------+
. |PRESSURE | |PRESSURE |
. |GAUGE 1 | |GAUGE 2 |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| +-----------+ | |
. |~| | | [V] | |
. |~+-------+ HYDRAULIC +-[A]-----+ |
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[L] |
. |~+-------+ MOTOR +-[V]-----+ |
. |~| | | [E] | |
. |~| +-----------+ | |
. |~| | |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |FLOWMETER| |FLOWMETER|
. |~~~~1~~~~| | 2 |
. +---+~+---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. +--|~|-----------------------------| |--+
. | |~| | | |
. | [PUMP] |
. | |~| |
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESERVOIR~~~~~~~`~~~~~~~~~|
. +---------------------------------------+

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:50:25 -0400, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes, it is frustrating when one wants quick and easy answers.

---
I disagree.

What's frustrating is when one wants quick and easy answers and
either doesn't get them or does and can't understand them.

Huh? There are few quick and easy answers to technological issues.

---
I disagree.

Since this is seb, explaining how to figure out, for example, the
value and wattage of the current limiting resistor for an LED should
be quick and easy as long as the OP states what supply voltage he
wants to use, and the Vf of the LED.

YMMV.
---

Of course newbie posters are not going to get them or, if they do, understand
them. This actually supports my post.

---
Actually, it doesn't.

Your statement: "Yes, it is frustrating when one wants quick and
easy answers."

is nonsensical in that _wanting_ quick and easy answers isn't what's
frustrating.

Not getting quick and easy answers or, not being able to understand
them when they're forthcoming, is.
---

Unreasonable expectations (and quick fixes) are a modern epidemic.

---
I disagree again.

Unreasonable expectations have been with us since we thought that
the surety of a kill during a hunt was inevitable, since the
beginning of time

I think you are being bombastic here.

---
Then you're wrong. Again.

What I was doing was giving you an example to refute your claim that
unreasonable expectations are modern.

You may want to elaborate on the 'epidemic' part.
---

Diagrams are not supported here.

---
I disagree again.

Are you not familiar with ASCII art?

Here's a simple sample:

+24
|
+--------+-----+----+------+-------+
| | | | |K |
| | | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | | |
[100.0k] [10.0k] | [10k] +-------+
| | | | |
| +----|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
Vin---+-------------|+/LM393 E
| | |
| | GND
| |
| |
| | +24
| [20.0k] |
| | +------+-------+
| | | |K |
| | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | |
| | [10k] +-------+
| | | |
+-------------|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
| +----|+/LM393 E
[100.0k] | | |
| [10.0k] | |
| | | |
+--------+-----+-----------+
|
GND

Most of us don't think that is worth the time and effort and, yes, I am
familiar with it.

---
Well, when one has nothing to say, I suppose it must seem onerous to
generate ASCII graphics to prove it, but since when have you been
voted into the post of spokesman for the Anti ASCII Art movement?

If you think it's not worth the time and effort then it seems you've
become one of the victims of the "quick fix" epidemic which you
earlier damned.

Also, (tsk, tsk) you didn't admit that your statement that diagrams
aren't supported here was wrong.

Matter of fact, if you wanted to get cute you could UUencode a
binary file, include it inline with text and do it that way in a
text-only newsgroup like this one.
---

Nobody is born with knowledge.

---
I disagree again.

What causes a baby to hunt for the tit?

Really reaching now, are you not?

---
Not at all.

What I was pointing out was that your statement:

"Nobody is born with knowledge."

was wrong.

Look at kittens, for example.

They'll go hunting for the tit because of hardwired knowledge that
if they don't have they'll die.

They may not be able to stand up and plead a case in kitty court
about why they should, intellectually, have access to the tit, but
they know [ledge] what they have to do in order to keep the line
going.
---

Ohm's Law has nothing to do with mother's
milk and fear of fire and falling and so on. Give me a break!

---
Why should I?

You make a stupid, all-encompassing statement like:

"Nobody is born with knowledge." and you expect it to go
unchallenged?
---

When there is a knowledge serum or a
microchip knowledge implant, go for it. In the meantime, may I suggest
that
you peruse hobbies with shallow learning curves?

---
Of course you may, but your "advice" seems to be more intent on
exalting your ego by denigrating the OP than by enlightening him.

The JF ego is bigger than mine or that of most anyone else.

---
Sez you, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a mean
spirited little prick who, instead of helping out, insults others
because they make it known that they're having difficulty learning
something.
---

Just piss off JF!

---
Fuck you.


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:31:08 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:03:24 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:06:59 -0700, ObamaOrHillary2008
jgrace5@gmail.com> wrote:

Though explanations posted here to questions are very appreciated.

I want to suggest that, instead of a rambling massive paragraph
lumping the entire circuit theory together with volts and amps and
such, to take some time to break everything out with a couple diagrams
here and there. I often don't come out of a massive explanation in
one giant paragraph understanding any more than when I started.

In sci.electronics.advanced, everything is crystal clear language
between questioner and answerer, but here, in basics, breaking it out
a bit with a diagram and possibly a water-type analogy would help.

For instance, how could I make a "circuit" with, say, some plastic
pipes, water, and blowing into it for some type of force? Do timers
and flipflops and oscillators resemble valves? Why is voltage the
same in a parallel circuit? Why does an oscillator need three
connections to the transformer?

My electronics kit gives garbled explanations with plus voltage and
taps and feedback but I don't know what the hell that is. Some
"beginning" books immediately talk about -3 volts here, and + feedback
there, right after the V = IR equation. Geez. I'm glad people know
this stuff so well, maybe born knowing it.

Gets downright frustrating.

Well, OK then, to get rid of the frustration and get a good
grounding, let's start at the beginning with a water analogy and a
little quiz.

View in Courier and let's say we have some plumbing set up like
this: ( ~ = water)


. +---------+ +---------+
. |PRESSURE | |PRESSURE |
. |GAUGE 1 | |GAUGE 2 |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| +-----------+ |~|
. |~| | | |~|
. |~+-------+ HYDRAULIC +------+~|
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~+-------+ MOTOR +------+~|
. |~| | | |~|
. |~| +-----------+ [VALVE]
. |~| | |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |FLOWMETER| |FLOWMETER|
. |~~~~1~~~~| | 2 |
. +---+~+---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. +--|~|--------------------------| |--+
. | |~| | | |
. | [PUMP] |
. | |~| |
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESERVOIR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. +------------------------------------+

Now let's say that the pump is on, that pressure gauge 1 reads
100PSI, and that the valve is off.

What will pressure gauge 2 read?

A. None of the below
B. 0 PSI
C. 100 PSI
D. 50 PSI

You forgot the positive displacement turbine with the flywheel, and the
diaphragm chamber. ;-)

---
Hey, it's my quiz, not yours.
---

What if the valve is here:

. +---------+ +---------+
. |PRESSURE | |PRESSURE |
. |GAUGE 1 | |GAUGE 2 |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| +-----------+ | |
. |~| | | [V] | |
. |~+-------+ HYDRAULIC +-[A]-----+ |
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[L] |
. |~+-------+ MOTOR +-[V]-----+ |
. |~| | | [E] | |
. |~| +-----------+ | |
. |~| | |
. +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
. |FLOWMETER| |FLOWMETER|
. |~~~~1~~~~| | 2 |
. +---+~+---+ +---+ +---+
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. |~| | |
. +--|~|-----------------------------| |--+
. | |~| | | |
. | [PUMP] |
. | |~| |
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~|~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESERVOIR~~~~~~~`~~~~~~~~~|
. +---------------------------------------+

---
Then it would be your quiz, not mine.


--
JF

 

[Charles]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:eemne3hef7ctkmq03rar6689cgfj939bjo@4ax.com...

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:50:25 -0400, "Charles"
charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:



Yes, it is frustrating when one wants quick and easy answers.

---
I disagree.

What's frustrating is when one wants quick and easy answers and
either doesn't get them or does and can't understand them.

Huh? There are few quick and easy answers to technological issues.

---
I disagree.

Since this is seb, explaining how to figure out, for example, the
value and wattage of the current limiting resistor for an LED should
be quick and easy as long as the OP states what supply voltage he
wants to use, and the Vf of the LED.

YMMV.
---

Of course newbie posters are not going to get them or, if they do,
understand
them. This actually supports my post.

---
Actually, it doesn't.

Your statement: "Yes, it is frustrating when one wants quick and
easy answers."

is nonsensical in that _wanting_ quick and easy answers isn't what's
frustrating.

Not getting quick and easy answers or, not being able to understand
them when they're forthcoming, is.
---

Unreasonable expectations (and quick fixes) are a modern epidemic.

---
I disagree again.

Unreasonable expectations have been with us since we thought that
the surety of a kill during a hunt was inevitable, since the
beginning of time

I think you are being bombastic here.

---
Then you're wrong. Again.

What I was doing was giving you an example to refute your claim that
unreasonable expectations are modern.

You may want to elaborate on the 'epidemic' part.
---

Diagrams are not supported here.

---
I disagree again.

Are you not familiar with ASCII art?

Here's a simple sample:

+24
|
+--------+-----+----+------+-------+
| | | | |K |
| | | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | | |
[100.0k] [10.0k] | [10k] +-------+
| | | | |
| +----|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
Vin---+-------------|+/LM393 E
| | |
| | GND
| |
| |
| | +24
| [20.0k] |
| | +------+-------+
| | | |K |
| | | [DIODE] [COIL]
| | | | |
| | [10k] +-------+
| | | |
+-------------|-\ | C
| | | >--+----B npn
| +----|+/LM393 E
[100.0k] | | |
| [10.0k] | |
| | | |
+--------+-----+-----------+
|
GND

Most of us don't think that is worth the time and effort and, yes, I am
familiar with it.

---
Well, when one has nothing to say, I suppose it must seem onerous to
generate ASCII graphics to prove it, but since when have you been
voted into the post of spokesman for the Anti ASCII Art movement?

If you think it's not worth the time and effort then it seems you've
become one of the victims of the "quick fix" epidemic which you
earlier damned.

Also, (tsk, tsk) you didn't admit that your statement that diagrams
aren't supported here was wrong.

Matter of fact, if you wanted to get cute you could UUencode a
binary file, include it inline with text and do it that way in a
text-only newsgroup like this one.
---

Nobody is born with knowledge.

---
I disagree again.

What causes a baby to hunt for the tit?

Really reaching now, are you not?

---
Not at all.

What I was pointing out was that your statement:

"Nobody is born with knowledge."

was wrong.

Look at kittens, for example.

They'll go hunting for the tit because of hardwired knowledge that
if they don't have they'll die.

They may not be able to stand up and plead a case in kitty court
about why they should, intellectually, have access to the tit, but
they know [ledge] what they have to do in order to keep the line
going.
---

Ohm's Law has nothing to do with mother's
milk and fear of fire and falling and so on. Give me a break!

---
Why should I?

You make a stupid, all-encompassing statement like:

"Nobody is born with knowledge." and you expect it to go
unchallenged?
---

When there is a knowledge serum or a
microchip knowledge implant, go for it. In the meantime, may I suggest
that
you peruse hobbies with shallow learning curves?

---
Of course you may, but your "advice" seems to be more intent on
exalting your ego by denigrating the OP than by enlightening him.

The JF ego is bigger than mine or that of most anyone else.

---
Sez you, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a mean
spirited little prick who, instead of helping out, insults others
because they make it known that they're having difficulty learning
something.
---

Just piss off JF!

---
Fuck you.

Yawn.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:06:15 -0400, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

Yawn.

---
Oh, for goodness' sake...

You know you can't win the argument intellectually so, instead of
accepting the checkmate like an honorable person and admitting the
defeat, you feign boredom in order to dismiss the loss by pretending
to be disinterested in, and above, the game. If that were true you
wouldn't have engaged in the first place.

Typical of disingenuous creeps.


--
JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:06:15 -0400, "Charles"
charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

Yawn.

---
Oh, for goodness' sake...

You know you can't win the argument intellectually so, instead of
accepting the checkmate like an honorable person and admitting the
defeat, you feign boredom in order to dismiss the loss by pretending
to be disinterested in, and above, the game. If that were true you
wouldn't have engaged in the first place.

Typical of disingenuous creeps.


--
JF

His next 'trick' is to tell you to 'up your meds'.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Charles]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:39roe3h5ji7cinoifrr8eopokdqmdqoert@4ax.com...

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:06:15 -0400, "Charles"
charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:


Yawn.

---
Oh, for goodness' sake...

You know you can't win the argument intellectually so, instead of
accepting the checkmate like an honorable person and admitting the
defeat, you feign boredom in order to dismiss the loss by pretending
to be disinterested in, and above, the game. If that were true you
wouldn't have engaged in the first place.

Typical of disingenuous creeps.

You need some counseling and/or meds.