difference between bipolar and mosfet

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:38:24 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:35:45 -0700, "Bob Myers"
nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

Are those explanations, in many cases, "wrong" in the sense that
they give what is to some degree a false or misleading understanding
of the fundamental physics underlying the operation of these
devices? Of course they are. But so what?

"Of course they're wrong, but so what?"????
The mind boggles.
I do appreciate the dilemma, though. On the one hand we'd like to
convey a complete understanding of the subject to the questioner. On
the other hand, we suspect that if we did so, they'd find it all too
much, be turned off and simply find another hobby to pursue.

---
Well, Sherlock, you _do_ have a remarkable grasp of the obvious!
---

Perhaps the answer is to provide the simpler explanation, based on the
questioner's level of knowledge, but spell out the caveat that there
is more to the topic than has been explained in the follow-up. IOW,
tell the questioner that the answer provided is sufficient for their
current purposes, but they may need to take more on board as they
advance in their studies.

---
Yes, and hire a lawyer to make sure the caveat is worded properly in
order to assure that there will be no legal repercussions from the
newbie and blah, and blah, and blah...

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:38:25 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:41:25 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I, for one, no longer have the desire to continue with this
"discussion", so I'll excuse myself and bid you good day.

Translation: "My ass can't take no more whuppin' so I'm outa here!"

---
Actually, it's "What's the point of whipping a dead horse?" (Not you,
Kevin, the subject material.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:38:26 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:20:16 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

[snip pointless, uncalled-for lecture on base current but maybe some
newbie can make use of it]

---
Then why did you snip it? Bandwidth is cheap.
---

BTW, since I find you mildly annoying I decided to take a look at your
posting history to see what you're about, and I found that other than
about the 20 posts archived at Google (where you also seem to have an
attitude) you seem only to have posted here, so welcome to the swamp.

I've been posting to Usenet for many years, but normally use
X-no-archive or my nickname or whatever. Some of the views I put
forward on political matters are sadly not regarded as acceptable
these days, so when needs must....

---
So on top of it all you're a sneak? What a surprise!
---

While looking, I found this rather interesting post on this NG:

QUOTE
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:29:24 -0000, "Andrew Holme" <andrew@nospam.com
wrote:

Didoes drop voltage not current. Silicon diodes (e.g. 1N4148 or 1N4001)
drop about 0.7V so one would probably be adequate; but two, in series, would
be safer.

Um, yeah, but they drop voltage _according_ to current! If they're
dropping 0,7V., they're not passing much current! Diodes are a crap
way to drop voltage unless the load is light and predictable!!!

miles
END QUOTE

which seems to belie your claim that you're an electrical engineer
with 35 years of experience.

Really? So what is it you're taking issue with? Taken as a
generalization for most silicon diodes I can't see real problem with
it.

---
The fact that you can't see that there's a problem with it is
precisely the problem. Tell me, did you help desigh the Tacoma
Narrows bridge?
---

Continuing on, we find, from Danny T:

QUOTE
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/components/diode.htm

says

"There is a small voltage across a conducting diode, it is called the
forward voltage drop and is about 0.7V for all normal diodes which are
made from silicon. The forward voltage drop of a diode is almost
constant whatever the current passing through the diode so they have a
very steep characteristic (current-voltage graph)."

--
Danny
END QUOTE


To which you replied:

The forward voltage drop is entirely dependent on temperature (the
junction temp. of the p/n junction; which is in turn dependent upon
the current passed.) Higher currents equals higher temp. equals lower
voltage drop. It's a well known effect which can eventually destroy
the diode altogether. The physics of diodes is actually more complex
than a lot of texts would have you believe.

---
Indeed, but if you think the forward voltage drop is _entirely_
dependent on temperature, you seem to have missed reading some of the
more fundamental ones.

For example, while it's certainly true that the voltage across the
junction can be described by:


kT / If \
Vf = ---- ln ( 1 + ---- )
q \ Ir /

and that when T is equal to zero at 0°K, Vf will be 0, you've
neglected to mention that current passing through the bulk resistance
of the diode, at any temperature, will cause a drop across the
junction which is dependent on the resistance and the charge flowing
through the diode.

More importantly, perhaps, you pooh-pooh'd Danny T's idea to use a
diode as a bad one merely because of your opinion, which was
erroneous. Diodes are _often_ used as voltage dropping elements in
the real world because of the small change in Vf caused by If.
Moreover, your example of the negative TC of a diode destroying it
would more closely describe a diode with a voltage source connected
across it allowing the diode to get into thermal runaway. Such a
condition would not happen with the load limiting the current through
the diode and the diode sized to carry the required current under the
required environmental conditions. Furthermore, depending on the
diode, above a certain current the tempco becomes positive, something
else you "neglected" to mention.

What's most disturbing, however, is that with Danny T admittedly being
a newbie and asking for information, you deliberately sidestepped the
issue when he presented you with the [valid] information he found
which supported Andrew Holmes' suggestion to use a diode in order to
keep from having to admit that you were wrong in stating that: "Diodes
are a crap way to drop voltage unless the load is light and
predictable!!!

For shame, sir! :-(

It can hardly be described as "disturbing" FFS.
Excuse me for not having the time or inclination to wade through your
entire post and answer every individual point; but if you're trying to
suggest that I'm as guilty as you in giving 'easy' and expedient
explanations to newbies that don't reflect the full picture, then I
guess I'd have to plead guilty. None of us are perfect.
If you don't like it, sue me.

---
I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. What I'm _stating_ is that
you made a mistake and then tried to pretend you didn't by doing that
little sidestep shuffle.

Sue you? Fuck you.

--
John Fields

 

[Bob Myers]

"Miles Harris" <mazzer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbicu0lb4qq8aulrnbi1ttug7nu1dgqfvg@4ax.com...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:35:45 -0700, "Bob Myers"
nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

Are those explanations, in many cases, "wrong" in the sense that
they give what is to some degree a false or misleading understanding
of the fundamental physics underlying the operation of these
devices? Of course they are. But so what?

"Of course they're wrong, but so what?"????
The mind boggles.

The boggling threshold, of course, varies with the individual
mind in question...

I do appreciate the dilemma, though. On the one hand we'd like to
convey a complete understanding of the subject to the questioner. On
the other hand, we suspect that if we did so, they'd find it all too
much, be turned off and simply find another hobby to pursue.

Precisely my point.

Perhaps the answer is to provide the simpler explanation, based on the
questioner's level of knowledge, but spell out the caveat that there
is more to the topic than has been explained in the follow-up. IOW,
tell the questioner that the answer provided is sufficient for their
current purposes, but they may need to take more on board as they
advance in their studies.

You DID read everything I wrote, right? I believe I said
exactly that.

Bob M.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:40:59 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:28:08 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Then why did you snip it? Bandwidth is cheap.

Storage, OTOH, isn't as cheap and we can all snip a lot more savagely
to make life easier for Google and other archivists.

---
Puh-leeze!!! Now you're second-guessing Google and all the other
archivists? I suggest you take care of your own business and let
everyone else take care of theirs.
---

I've been posting to Usenet for many years, but normally use
X-no-archive or my nickname or whatever. Some of the views I put
forward on political matters are sadly not regarded as acceptable
these days, so when needs must....
---
So on top of it all you're a sneak? What a surprise!

Sadly, pointing out the truth about certain things in this world is no
longer acceptable. Political-correctness and such like. It's slowly
getting worse, too. For some factual historical views one can even
risk imprisonment and have one's carreer and livelihood destroyed. The
views are too important to hide, so they have to be disseminated by
stealth. It requires that certain precautions be taken. A shameful
situation, I grant you.

---
Ridiculous twaddle.

You propose to disseminate your "dangerous" but important viewpoints
by using methods and language which only a select few can understand?
Sounds to me like you're part of the problem.
---

---
The fact that you can't see that there's a problem with it is
precisely the problem. Tell me, did you help desigh the Tacoma
Narrows bridge?

As I recall (dimly) high winds cutting across the bridge built up a
series of increasingly violent osicallations, resulting in its total
destruction. Are you trying to say a diode would oscillate itself to
destruction? I've noticed you're not very good with analogies so I'm
afraid whatever your beef is, you're gonna have to spell it out in
plain English....

---
I have no trouble with analogies, but the thick do, and it seems you
have trouble with the subtlety needed to understand them. So much for
your "dissemination by stealth", huh?

In plain English: If, after 35 years of experience as an electrical
engineer, you haven't come to realize something as fundamental as that
a large change in forward current through a diode will result in only
a small change in voltage across it, then we have a problem, Houston.

The same kind of glaring problem, the failure to recognize something
as fundamental as that the bridge and its support structure were a
resonant system puts you in that league of what would seem to be
accidents waiting for a place to happen.

At least now you've learned about the Vf vs If characteristic of a
diode so, hopefully, you can add that to your bag of tricks.
---

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. What I'm _stating_ is that
you made a mistake and then tried to pretend you didn't by doing that
little sidestep shuffle.

Sue you? Fuck you.

No idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid, Old Fruit.

---
Do-si-do...

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:41:01 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:42:52 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

That was unnecessarily nasty. I apologize.

No problem.
Being a seasoned Usenetter of some 13 years standing, it takes a bit
more than mild sarchasm to give me a bad day ;-

---
Waking up in the morning knowing you've got email waiting does it for
you, I expect Anyway, what's 'sarchasm'? Sounds like something you
fall into when you can't figure out the insult...
---

Work hard on your studies, Junior. Nothing comes easy in this life
except to the very fortunate.

---
Thanks for the platitude, Grandma!

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:41:02 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:05:07 -0800, Jamie
jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote:


thats ok, i am enjoying it!

Put it out of your mind as a pointless distraction, sonny and get
stuck back into your textbooks. Head down and study, study, study is
the only realistic way to success.

---
Hogwash.

All work and no play is _not_ a good thing.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:13:32 -0700, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:km2eu09sm9uccpeitrviqfmddtf783cq3k@4ax.com...
-
Waking up in the morning knowing you've got email waiting does it for
you, I expect Anyway, what's 'sarchasm'? Sounds like something you
fall into when you can't figure out the insult...

No, a sarchasm is where they tossed all those poor unfortunate
chickens in China and Hong Kong a couple of years back....

Sorry to interrupt this little lovefest here...I'll go back to my
knitting now....

---
Casting purls before swine?^)

--
John Fields

 

[Miles Harris]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:41:50 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Ridiculous twaddle.

You propose to disseminate your "dangerous" but important viewpoints
by using methods and language which only a select few can understand?
Sounds to me like you're part of the problem.

Once again your comprehension problem raises its ugly head.
I think it was Charles Peguy who once said: "He that does not bellow
the Truth when he knows the Truth is the accomplice of liars and
forgers."
I am no such accomplice. I *do* bellow the truth. The "stealth" I
mentioned relates solely to the *means* by which the Truth is
disseminated. I don't compromise by publishing innuendo; I simply
obscure myself as the source, that's all. And even that only to
preserve my liberty and livelihood in this modern era of suppression
and Liberal bigotry.

I have no trouble with analogies, but the thick do, and it seems you
have trouble with the subtlety needed to understand them. So much for
your "dissemination by stealth", huh?

See above, Bonehead.

In plain English: If, after 35 years of experience as an electrical
engineer, you haven't come to realize something as fundamental as that
a large change in forward current through a diode will result in only
a small change in voltage across it, then we have a problem, Houston.

The change in drop may only be 200mV., but when you're talking about
an initial level of only IRO 650mV., I'd say that amounts to a large
drop alright! It's all relative. You *do* realize that one diode drop
at room temperature is only just over half a volt, don't you, Junior?

The same kind of glaring problem, the failure to recognize something
as fundamental as that the bridge and its support structure were a
resonant system puts you in that league of what would seem to be
accidents waiting for a place to happen.

At least now you've learned about the Vf vs If characteristic of a
diode so, hopefully, you can add that to your bag of tricks.

Lectures from someone who doesn't even know how a BJT works, I don't
need. My youngest boy of 11 knows more about transistor theory than
you do, Junior. Plus I'll wager from your postings that you're a good
few years older than he is.
More effort required!!

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:58:19 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:41:50 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Ridiculous twaddle.

You propose to disseminate your "dangerous" but important viewpoints
by using methods and language which only a select few can understand?
Sounds to me like you're part of the problem.

Once again your comprehension problem raises its ugly head.

---
Hardly. Your statement:

"Sadly, pointing out the truth about certain things in this world is
no longer acceptable. Political-correctness and such like. It's slowly
getting worse, too. For some factual historical views one can even
risk imprisonment and have one's carreer and livelihood destroyed. The
views are too important to hide, so they have to be disseminated by
stealth. It requires that certain precautions be taken. A shameful
situation, I grant you."

contains no mention of the method of anonymity you use, hiding, which
you admit to later on in the post to which I'm currently replying.

Consequently, it's not a question of lack of comprehension on my part,
but a lack of clarity on yours.

However, I should have guessed that would be your method of choice
judging from the bob-and-weave tactics you've employed in your earlier
posts.
---

I think it was Charles Peguy who once said: "He that does not bellow
the Truth when he knows the Truth is the accomplice of liars and
forgers."
I am no such accomplice. I *do* bellow the truth. The "stealth" I
mentioned relates solely to the *means* by which the Truth is
disseminated. I don't compromise by publishing innuendo; I simply
obscure myself as the source, that's all. And even that only to
preserve my liberty and livelihood in this modern era of suppression
and Liberal bigotry.

---
If you have to hide to preserve your liberty then you have no liberty
to preserve.
---

I have no trouble with analogies, but the thick do, and it seems you
have trouble with the subtlety needed to understand them. So much for
your "dissemination by stealth", huh?

See above, Bonehead.

---
Uh-huh...
---

In plain English: If, after 35 years of experience as an electrical
engineer, you haven't come to realize something as fundamental as that
a large change in forward current through a diode will result in only
a small change in voltage across it, then we have a problem, Houston.

The change in drop may only be 200mV., but when you're talking about
an initial level of only IRO 650mV., I'd say that amounts to a large
drop alright! It's all relative.

---
More bob-and-weave, huh?

The point wasn't that the change in drop was a large percentage of the
drop at the knee, it was that the change in drop was small compared to
the large change in current through the diode. If you recall, the
application was inserting a silicon diode or two in series with a
power supply in order to realize the ~ 0.7V drop each diode would
yield with the device operating, to which you responded with:

"Um, yeah, but they drop voltage _according_ to current! If they're
dropping 0,7V., they're not passing much current! Diodes are a crap
way to drop voltage unless the load is light and predictable!!!"

which _is_ crap since, in the first place, the load current will be
predictable since it will vary between two limits and, in the second
place, the drop across the diode with the variations in load current
and junction temperature will also be predictable.

For example, a 1N5400 will drop about 0.7V with about 100mA through
the junction, but that drop will only increase by 200mV for an
increase in current to 3A.

Likewise, a 1N3491 will drop about 0.7V with 100mA through the
junction, but with 0.9V across the junction the current through the
diode will be about 8 amps.

So, in the first case, if a 200mV change in input voltage to a load
can be tolerated for a load current change of 3 amps, it'll work fine.

In the second case, an 8 amp change in load current will cause a
change of only 200 mV in the drop across the diode. Not exactly what
I'd call a 'light' load, and all of it predictable.
---

You *do* realize that one diode drop
at room temperature is only just over half a volt, don't you, Junior?

---
Well, IME, for the same If, Vf depends on what the diode's made of.

Easy enough to check it out... get yourself a 9V battery, a 20K
rheostat, a silicon junction diode, a Schottky diode, a 0-1mA ammeter
and a 0-1V voltmeter. Making sure you have the rheostat cranked to
the max resistance position, connect everything up like this:


+9V
|
[R]
|
+----->>----+
|A |
[DUT] [0->1V]
| |
+----->>----+
|
[0->1mA]
|
-9V

Then, adjust the rheostat to the position required to make the
milliammeter read 1mA, note whether the DUT is the Schottky or not and
write that down along with the voltage indicated by the voltmeter when
the milliammeter reads 1mA. Do the same thing using the remaining
diode and report back to us with what you find, OK?
---

The same kind of glaring problem, the failure to recognize something
as fundamental as that the bridge and its support structure were a
resonant system puts you in that league of what would seem to be
accidents waiting for a place to happen.

At least now you've learned about the Vf vs If characteristic of a
diode so, hopefully, you can add that to your bag of tricks.

Lectures from someone who doesn't even know how a BJT works, I don't
need.

---
Before you can determine whether or not someone knows how a BJT works,
you need to know how a diode works. You haven't demonstrated any real
competence in that arena, so I suggest you do the experiment I
described and see what you can learn from it.
---

My youngest boy of 11 knows more about transistor theory than
you do, Junior.

---
Before you start making noises about who knows what about BJTs you
really ought to get that diode theory down.
---

Plus I'll wager from your postings that you're a good
few years older than he is.

---
So, the obvious you don't have much trouble with?
---

More effort required!!

---
Go for it!

--
John Fields

 

[Jamie]

Miles Harris wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:05:07 -0800, Jamie
jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote:



thats ok, i am enjoying it!


Put it out of your mind as a pointless distraction, sonny and get
stuck back into your textbooks. Head down and study, study, study is
the only realistic way to success.
HTH

i don't remember ever getting involved in this thread, i was just

enjoying the bickering that was taking place.
i don't need to open text books on Silicone theory, let see if i can
remember anything from years ago. 4 electrons for each (silicone)which
bond to 4 other atoms, N Dope material that has 5 electrons which allows
one to move freely and the P material that has 3 electrons which creates
a hole, or more like a void etc..(poorly worded i know)
i don't remember the compounds used now for the N an P doping/but
phosphorus, arsenic, boron,gallium and some others i can't remember.
all i remember is that they need > 4 electrons for the N dope
and < 4 for the P dope.
etc..
the above maybe a little vague because i don't sit and study physics and
have no need to keep that at the top of my head every day.
SO what ever, transistor theory is basic to me , i understand and
know how to work with it and i guess that is all that matters.
Have a good day.

 

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:41:02 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com
wrote:


On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:05:07 -0800, Jamie
jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote:



thats ok, i am enjoying it!

Put it out of your mind as a pointless distraction, sonny and get
stuck back into your textbooks. Head down and study, study, study is
the only realistic way to success.


---
Hogwash.

All work and no play is _not_ a good thing.

how's it going John.. see your having a nice day )

keep up the good work.!

 

[Bob Myers]

"Miles Harris" <mazzer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jdbfu0hrvtach9df72b0f7j30fo5j18b29@4ax.com...

The change in drop may only be 200mV., but when you're talking about
an initial level of only IRO 650mV., I'd say that amounts to a large
drop alright! It's all relative. You *do* realize that one diode drop
at room temperature is only just over half a volt, don't you, Junior?

Ummmm...I would like to point out that the "relative" in most
relevant cases here will mean "with respect to other DC voltages
in the circuit," NOT with respect to the magnitude of the B-E
drop itself. For the purpose of most DC biasing calculations,
f'rinstance, assuming the B-E junction to be a constant drop of
~0.6-0.7V works just fine, thank you very much. You can go
back and refine things if you like, later on, but you'll generally wind
up with results far closer to reality than the accuracy you can
count on in the component values, supply voltage, etc.. So
what's all the hubbub, bub?

Why do I get the impression that the "works and plays well
with others" box was rarely checked on your report card?


Bob M.

 

[Miles Harris]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:58:06 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

[semantics snipped]

Consequently, it's not a question of lack of comprehension on my part,
but a lack of clarity on yours.

More semantics.. Where's the beef??

However, I should have guessed that would be your method of choice
judging from the bob-and-weave tactics you've employed in your earlier
posts.

Semantics again...

[snip more bilge]

Well, IME, for the same If, Vf depends on what the diode's made of.

No really??? Goodness me!

Easy enough to check it out... get yourself a 9V battery, a 20K
rheostat, a silicon junction diode, a Schottky diode, a 0-1mA ammeter
and a 0-1V voltmeter. Making sure you have the rheostat cranked to
the max resistance position, connect everything up like this:


+9V
|
[R]
|
+----->>----+
|A |
[DUT] [0->1V]
| |
+----->>----+
|
[0->1mA]
|
-9V

Then, adjust the rheostat to the position required to make the
milliammeter read 1mA, note whether the DUT is the Schottky or not and
write that down along with the voltage indicated by the voltmeter when
the milliammeter reads 1mA. Do the same thing using the remaining
diode and report back to us with what you find, OK?

I don't have to do this stupid experiment. Any half-competent engineer
will know that the barrier height potential of the Schottky will be
*much* lower than a 'comparable' silicon diode. You're talking maybe
270mV. Germaniums likewise (but you won't remember germanium diodes,
Junior). Shall we perform your dumb experiment with other types, too?
How about a back diode? can you get any lower than that?

Before you can determine whether or not someone knows how a BJT works,
you need to know how a diode works. You haven't demonstrated any real
competence in that arena, so I suggest you do the experiment I
described and see what you can learn from it.

If I learned anything new from *that* experiment I'd give up
electronics altogether tomorrow.

Before you start making noises about who knows what about BJTs you
really ought to get that diode theory down.

There's nothing wrong with my diode theory, Junior. I'd probably
completed my studies before you were even born. Don't talk back to
your elders and betters. Learn some respect.

---

Plus I'll wager from your postings that you're a good
few years older than he is.

---
So, the obvious you don't have much trouble with?

Sorry, no compliment intended. I infer you're older in view of your
cockiness and the foul language you readily resort to each time your
ignorance is exposed.
HAND, Junior!

 

[Miles Harris]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:08:48 -0700, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

Ummmm...I would like to point out that the "relative" in most
relevant cases here will mean "with respect to other DC voltages
in the circuit," NOT with respect to the magnitude of the B-E
drop itself. For the purpose of most DC biasing calculations,
f'rinstance, assuming the B-E junction to be a constant drop of
~0.6-0.7V works just fine, thank you very much. You can go
back and refine things if you like, later on, but you'll generally wind
up with results far closer to reality than the accuracy you can
count on in the component values, supply voltage, etc.. So
what's all the hubbub, bub?

I don't know. Ask Fields. He's the one with the problem!
I'm well aware that diodes are used to drop voltage in many circuits.
The technique crops up frequently in the drives to Class AB and B
amplifiers. It has shortcomings, however and I'd never suggest a
newbie make use of it.

Why do I get the impression that the "works and plays well
with others" box was rarely checked on your report card?

Correct. No one likes an achiever, but I never gave a damn about
popularity. My coursework always came first - like myself at the top
of the class.

 

[Miles Harris]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:47:38 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Now that I've explained it to you you can pretend you knew it all
along?

I ain't pretendin' nuthin'. This is all *basic* stuff and nowhere near
even undergrad level.

Here's a little something (Positively Fourth Street) from Bob Dylan
you might identify with: (Pay particular attention to the sixth,
eleventh, and twelfth verses.)

6:

Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with
11:
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
12:
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is

[bafflement]
None of which is applicable here. Thank God they don't write 'em like
that anymore.

I don't have to do this stupid experiment. Any half-competent engineer
will know that the barrier height potential of the Schottky will be
*much* lower than a 'comparable' silicon diode.

---
And yet, "knowing" all that you chose to make this unqualified
statement earlier on?:

"You *do* realize that one diode drop at room temperature is only just
over half a volt, don't you, Junior?"

I'd say that sentence speaks volumes about your competence.

I'd say your remark simply shows once again that you either don't
read, or don't understand, what is written for your consumption. (That
much was obvious from your tedious exchanges with Kevin). You ought to
know perfectly well that my earlier comments were in relation to a
typical silicon diode with a Vbe of 0.6-0.7V. Allow me to quote from
an earlier post of mine made 2 days ago:

"Really? So what is it you're taking issue with? Taken as a
generalization for most silicon diodes I can't see real problem with
it."

I thereby made it perfectly clear I was *not* including the more
exotic varieties of diode in my remarks!

You're talking maybe
270mV. Germaniums likewise (but you won't remember germanium diodes,
Junior).

---
Sure I do. they were after copper oxide and selenium, but before
silicon.

So you did a little research on the Web, uh, Junior? Well it's about
time you absorbed something for a change. Keep it up!

but the experimenter can.
That's why I suggested that _you_ start with the pot cranked to
maximum resistance.

How very thoughtful. And there was I about to connect it straight
across a lead/acid battery...(forward-biased, of course).

How about a back diode? can you get any lower than that?

---
I'd have to look it up to find out, but the subject isn't diodes with
a negative resistance characteristic, it's just plain ol' garden
variety rectifiers.

Indeed. So why all this nonsense about Schottkys?

Hmmm... Where have I heard _this_ before?:

"You *do* realize that one diode drop at room temperature is only just
over half a volt, don't you, Junior? "

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your persistence, I'll grant you
that.

---
Fuck you. Respect is earned. I'll do what pleases _me_, not walk on
eggshells the way you'd like me to in order to make your life more
convenient for you.

Fine; that's the way it is all too often with you kids today. I blame
rap music for turning their heads.

Ignorance isn't exposed by the use of "foul" language, it's exposed by
posting material full of errors as you are wont to doing.

ROTFLMAO!! That's rich, coming from you of all people.

Also, PKB with that "FOAD" to Jim Thompson in abse, no?

"FOAD" isn't a swear word; it's an acronym containing one. I wouldn't
stoop so low as post the 'F-word' in a public forum. And from what
I've read of Mr. Thompson's contributions, he makes pretty frequent
use of the acronym himself. "Honi Soi Qui Mal Y Pense" as they say in
France!

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:52 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:47:38 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Now that I've explained it to you you can pretend you knew it all
along?

I ain't pretendin' nuthin'. This is all *basic* stuff and nowhere near
even undergrad level.

Here's a little something (Positively Fourth Street) from Bob Dylan
you might identify with: (Pay particular attention to the sixth,
eleventh, and twelfth verses.)

6:
Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with
11:
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
12:
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is

[bafflement]

---
What a surprise!
---

None of which is applicable here. Thank God they don't write 'em like
that anymore.

---
Don't undestand allusion, huh?
---

I don't have to do this stupid experiment. Any half-competent engineer
will know that the barrier height potential of the Schottky will be
*much* lower than a 'comparable' silicon diode.

---
And yet, "knowing" all that you chose to make this unqualified
statement earlier on?:

"You *do* realize that one diode drop at room temperature is only just
over half a volt, don't you, Junior?"

I'd say that sentence speaks volumes about your competence.

I'd say your remark simply shows once again that you either don't
read, or don't understand, what is written for your consumption. (That
much was obvious from your tedious exchanges with Kevin). You ought to
know perfectly well that my earlier comments were in relation to a
typical silicon diode with a Vbe of 0.6-0.7V. Allow me to quote from
an earlier post of mine made 2 days ago:

"Really? So what is it you're taking issue with? Taken as a
generalization for most silicon diodes I can't see real problem with
it."

I thereby made it perfectly clear I was *not* including the more
exotic varieties of diode in my remarks!

You're talking maybe
270mV. Germaniums likewise (but you won't remember germanium diodes,
Junior).

---
Sure I do. they were after copper oxide and selenium, but before
silicon.

So you did a little research on the Web, uh, Junior? Well it's about
time you absorbed something for a change. Keep it up!

An experiment can't be dumb, [stupid] but the experimenter can.
That's why I suggested that _you_ start with the pot cranked to
maximum resistance.

How very thoughtful. And there was I about to connect it straight
across a lead/acid battery...(forward-biased, of course).

---
A 9V lead-acid battery? Where would you propose to find one of those?
---

How about a back diode? can you get any lower than that?

---
I'd have to look it up to find out, but the subject isn't diodes with
a negative resistance characteristic, it's just plain ol' garden
variety rectifiers.

Indeed. So why all this nonsense about Schottkys?

---
Nonsense? Schottkys _are_ as plain ol' garden variety diodes as
silicon junction diodes are WRT negative resistance characteristics,
but that's hardly the point, the point being that you made the
statement (no matter how you hard you try to slime out of it) that a
diode's Vf is about 0.5V at room temp, which it is _not_ if you're
talking about a silicon junction diode, which we were.
---

Hmmm... Where have I heard _this_ before?:

"You *do* realize that one diode drop at room temperature is only just
over half a volt, don't you, Junior? "

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your persistence, I'll grant you
that.

---
Then you acknowledge that my persistence is > 0. Thank you!
---

---
Fuck you. Respect is earned. I'll do what pleases _me_, not walk on
eggshells the way you'd like me to in order to make your life more
convenient for you.

Fine; that's the way it is all too often with you kids today. I blame
rap music for turning their heads.

---
Did you really think the lyrics I posted earlier were from a rap song?

I blame phony, self-important bastards like you who drive them to want
to do _anything_ but be like you. Watch that eleven-year-old...
---

Ignorance isn't exposed by the use of "foul" language, it's exposed by
posting material full of errors as you are wont to doing.

ROTFLMAO!! That's rich, coming from you of all people.

---
IKYABWAI? Pretty lame, Bozo!
---

Also, PKB with that "FOAD" to Jim Thompson in abse, no?

"FOAD" isn't a swear word; it's an acronym containing one. I wouldn't
stoop so low as post the 'F-word' in a public forum.

---
But you'd stoop even lower by refusing to?

An interesting picture of you is emerging from this exchange;
basically that of someone who is afraid to say what he really means or
with being associated with having said it. Basically, a coward.
---

And from what I've read of Mr. Thompson's contributions, he makes pretty frequent
use of the acronym himself.

---
Sure, but he uses it for the sake of brevity, not for the sake of the
false propriety you swim in.
---

"Honi Soi Qui Mal Y Pense" as they say in France!

---
As we say in Texas,

"Tu eres un come mierda."

--
John Fields

 

[Miles Harris]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:47:48 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:39:31 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

NOTHING!!!
Come on, you gutless bonehead! Respond and defend your position!

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:52 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:47:38 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Now that I've explained it to you you can pretend you knew it all
along?

I ain't pretendin' nuthin'. This is all *basic* stuff and nowhere near
even undergrad level.

Here's a little something (Positively Fourth Street) from Bob Dylan
you might identify with: (Pay particular attention to the sixth,
eleventh, and twelfth verses.)

6:
Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with
11:
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
12:
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is

[bafflement]

---
What a surprise!
---

None of which is applicable here. Thank God they don't write 'em like
that anymore.

---
Don't undestand allusion, huh?

I understand allusion perfectly, Junior. What I don't understand is
why some spotty-faced, high-school-reject jerkoff like you would want
to post lyrics from a song that so clearly flags up his own
self-loathing. You're so full of yourself in your postings, yet you
cite self-disparaging lyrics that basically show you up to be the sad,
sorry-assed, sack of s**t loser/loner that you really are. That's
quite an admission in a world-wide public forum!

A 9V lead-acid battery? Where would you propose to find one of those?

I appreciate you're only trolling here, Junior, but if you do a little
research on the Web you'll find that such batteries are comprised of a
series of lower value cells. You just place them in series and stick
'em in one box and voila: you have the required voltage.
BTW, I don't appreciate sarchasm from spotty-faced, high school
rejects, so cut the crap and show some respect, boner.

Nonsense? Schottkys _are_ as plain ol' garden variety diodes as
silicon junction diodes are WRT negative resistance characteristics,
but that's hardly the point, the point being that you made the
statement (no matter how you hard you try to slime out of it) that a
diode's Vf is about 0.5V at room temp, which it is _not_ if you're
talking about a silicon junction diode, which we were.

You can't have it both ways, Junior. Let me repost that quote of mine
that you're so fond of citing in this thread:

"You *do* realize that one diode drop at room temperature is only just
over half a volt, don't you, Junior? "

Now, please tell us which common-or-garden, run-of-the-mill,
general-purpose silicon diode *doesn't* have a drop of "just over half
a volt" at room temperature??

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your persistence, I'll grant you
that.

---
Then you acknowledge that my persistence is > 0. Thank you!

Yes, I do. As is clear for all to see. Sadly, I don't have Kevin
Aylward's degree of persistence, however.
I find it exceedingly tiresome to have to repeat, ad nauseam, the kind
of entry-level basics that my youngest son was acquainted with a good
3 years ago.

Did you really think the lyrics I posted earlier were from a rap song?

Certainly not. I know the song you quoted, but like everything else
Dylon wrote, it's an overvalued crock of s**t. I'd wager that in truth
you get off on the likes of Eminem, 50 Cent, Tupac and Dr. Dre. That's
where you get your dire attitude problem from, IMO.

I blame phony, self-important bastards like you who drive them to want
to do _anything_ but be like you. Watch that eleven-year-old...

Why wouldn't anyone want to be successful and erudite? Why wouldn't
anyone want to be able to piss all over jerks like you in debates? Why
wouldn't anyone want to be able to see through the smoke and cut to
the quick?
My youngest (like his siblings) is going to grow up to be just like
his dear old dad - a chip off the old block - whether he likes it or
not. It's for the best. The alternative is too horrific to
contemplate. It's just a tragedy that I can't save him from exposure
to the poisonous, soul-destroying influences of the rap music culture
that you so clearly embrase and embody.

IKYABWAI? Pretty lame, Bozo!

I'm not familiar with that term and I shudder to think what it might
mean, coming from a foul-mouthed young hudlum like you. Kindly
preserve my igorance!

Also, PKB with that "FOAD" to Jim Thompson in abse, no?

"FOAD" isn't a swear word; it's an acronym containing one. I wouldn't
stoop so low as post the 'F-word' in a public forum.

---
But you'd stoop even lower by refusing to?

No, I'm simply maintaining my place on the moral high ground.

An interesting picture of you is emerging from this exchange;
basically that of someone who is afraid to say what he really means or
with being associated with having said it. Basically, a coward.

We don't all live in a free country, Junior. My right to say what I
believe has been proscribed by the stinking British government. Just
think yourself lucky that you're alive and well in a country that's
only too happy for you to sit in front of your dumb TV shows, jerking
off at all those topless models.

And from what I've read of Mr. Thompson's contributions, he makes pretty frequent
use of the acronym himself.

---
Sure, but he uses it for the sake of brevity, not for the sake of the
false propriety you swim in.

There's nothing false about me, Junior.

As we say in Texas,

"Tu eres un come mierda."

Does your mommy know you have access to a computer??

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:47:48 GMT, Miles Harris <mazzer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:39:31 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
Don't undestand allusion, huh?

I understand allusion perfectly, Junior. What I don't understand is
why some spotty-faced, high-school-reject jerkoff like you would want
to post lyrics from a song that so clearly flags up his own
self-loathing. You're so full of yourself in your postings, yet you
cite self-disparaging lyrics that basically show you up to be the sad,
sorry-assed, sack of s**t loser/loner that you really are. That's
quite an admission in a world-wide public forum!

---
If you weren't so insistent on fooling yourself into believing that
you're Mister Oh-So-Wonderful it might be easier for you to see that I
was alluding to your fear of being exposed for the phony that you are
by using Dylan's "hiding what you don't know to begin with" line to
point it out to you.
---

A 9V lead-acid battery? Where would you propose to find one of those?

I appreciate you're only trolling here, Junior, but if you do a little
research on the Web you'll find that such batteries are comprised of a
series of lower value cells. You just place them in series and stick
'em in one box and voila: you have the required voltage.
BTW, I don't appreciate sarchasm from spotty-faced, high school
rejects, so cut the crap and show some respect, boner.

---
Boner??? Is that supposed to be some kind of insult where you come
from? It doesn't make any sense as an insult here, and I'm pretty
sure it's not supposed to be a compliment, so unless you care to
explain it, it'll fall on deaf ears. Even if you do explain what you
mean though, it probably won't make much difference since most of what
you say is bullshit, anyway. Case in point, that 9V claim of yours.

With a terminal voltage of about 2.041V,

http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/hdbk1084/css/hdbk1084_24.htm

There's no way you can get 9V out of any number of lead-acid cells no
matter how you choose to arrange them or what kind of a box you put
them in, LOL! Now, you can't get much more basic than batteries, and
you obviously don't know what you're talking about even there, so
you're running at about what so far? Zero for two?
---

Nonsense? Schottkys _are_ as plain ol' garden variety diodes as
silicon junction diodes are WRT negative resistance characteristics,
but that's hardly the point, the point being that you made the
statement (no matter how you hard you try to slime out of it) that a
diode's Vf is about 0.5V at room temp, which it is _not_ if you're
talking about a silicon junction diode, which we were.

You can't have it both ways, Junior. Let me repost that quote of mine
that you're so fond of citing in this thread:

"You *do* realize that one diode drop at room temperature is only just
over half a volt, don't you, Junior? "

Now, please tell us which common-or-garden, run-of-the-mill,
general-purpose silicon diode *doesn't* have a drop of "just over half
a volt" at room temperature??

---
Rather than just handing you the information, I think it would be a
good thing if you got off of your fat, lazy, ass and performed that
little experiment I suggested and then post what you find. I mean,
after that battery fiasco aren't you even interested in finding out
whether what you think you know about diodes is true?
---

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your persistence, I'll grant you
that.

---
Then you acknowledge that my persistence is > 0. Thank you!

Yes, I do. As is clear for all to see. Sadly, I don't have Kevin
Aylward's degree of persistence, however.

---
Or, obviously, his acumen.

If you did you would have noticed that if my persistence is >0, then
at the lower limit of persistence (which I've been exercising so far)
my ignorance would be zero.
---

I find it exceedingly tiresome to have to repeat, ad nauseam, the kind
of entry-level basics that my youngest son was acquainted with a good
3 years ago.

---
Commit them to memory, then. I'm getting kind of bored with it as
well.
---

Did you really think the lyrics I posted earlier were from a rap song?

Certainly not. I know the song you quoted, but like everything else
Dylon wrote,

---
Dylan. http://www.bobdylan.com/index.html
---

it's an overvalued crock of s**t. I'd wager that in truth
you get off on the likes of Eminem, 50 Cent, Tupac and Dr. Dre. That's
where you get your dire attitude problem from, IMO.

---
As usual, you're wrong on all counts and the attitude only _seems_
dire to pukes like you because you're used to people falling for your
crap and not contesting it.
---

I blame phony, self-important bastards like you who drive them to want
to do _anything_ but be like you. Watch that eleven-year-old...

Why wouldn't anyone want to be successful and erudite?

---
If the price of achieving those goals is winding up with a personality
like yours, I can see why a lot of folks would rather be failures.
---

Why wouldn't anyone want to be able to piss all over jerks like you in debates?

---
They can try if they want to, but I'll just piss back harder.
---

Why wouldn't anyone want to be able to see through the smoke and cut to the quick?

---
LOL! Because when you finally get the chutzpah to look through the
smoke what you see will scare you to death?
---

My youngest (like his siblings) is going to grow up to be just like
his dear old dad - a chip off the old block - whether he likes it or
not. It's for the best. The alternative is too horrific to
contemplate. It's just a tragedy that I can't save him from exposure
to the poisonous, soul-destroying influences of the rap music culture
that you so clearly embrase and embody.

---
You're an idiot. You have no idea who I am or what I believe in, and
yet you consider yourself fit to make pronouncements based upon your
opinions, pretty much the same way you've fallen on your face
pretending you have technical skills.
---

IKYABWAI? Pretty lame, Bozo!

I'm not familiar with that term and I shudder to think what it might
mean, coming from a foul-mouthed young hudlum like you.

---
And you've been around here for thirteen years without running into
it? Yeah, right! Go see a Pee-Wee Herman movie.
---

Kindly preserve my igorance!

---
No need for me to do that, you're doing an admirable job of it
yourself!-)
---

Also, PKB with that "FOAD" to Jim Thompson in abse, no?

"FOAD" isn't a swear word; it's an acronym containing one. I wouldn't
stoop so low as post the 'F-word' in a public forum.

---
But you'd stoop even lower by refusing to?

No, I'm simply maintaining my place on the moral high ground.

---
Crappola. All you're doing is posturing, pretending that you're
"above it all".
---

An interesting picture of you is emerging from this exchange;
basically that of someone who is afraid to say what he really means or
with being associated with having said it. Basically, a coward.

We don't all live in a free country, Junior. My right to say what I
believe has been proscribed by the stinking British government.

---
Yeah, ours was too until we kicked the British government out of here.
---

Just think yourself lucky that you're alive and well in a country that's
only too happy for you to sit in front of your dumb TV shows, jerking
off at all those topless models.

---
There's a lot better porn on the net than there is on TV, I'm sure you
know, and it's not luck that we are where we are. First we had to
kick out the Brits and lose a lot of lives doing that, then we had to
jump into WW1 to _save_ the Brits and then, a few years later jump
into WW2 to save the Brits again. We _all_ lost a lot of lives to
"save the world", and a little luck here and there helped, but it
wasn't _all_ serendipetous.
---

And from what I've read of Mr. Thompson's contributions, he makes pretty frequent
use of the acronym himself.

---
Sure, but he uses it for the sake of brevity, not for the sake of the
false propriety you swim in.

There's nothing false about me, Junior.

---
So say you.
---

As we say in Texas,

"Tu eres un come mierda."

Does your mommy know you have access to a computer??

---
She may not, since she's dead, but _you_ sure as hell do!


--
John Fields

 

[Miles Harris]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:40:50 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Yeah, but I'm not talking about cheating and loading the battery down
so hard that its internal resistance drops 3V (if it's a 12V battery).

But, I could be wrong, so what did you have in mind?

5 cells in series, partially-discharged, powering a small transistor
radio.

Look, Junior, your 'experiment' simply demonstrates that the barrier
height potential of the Schottky is around half the level of a regular
silicon diode. You OTOH seem to think they're the same thing and
therefore interchangeable, presumably. I wonder why they bother to
make Schottkys then? <sigh...

The purpose of the experiment is to prove that your statement that the
Vf of a silicon junction ("regular")diode is a little over 0.5V is
wrong. The reason for performing the experiment on a Schottky diode
as well is to show that the Vf of a Schottky is lower than that of a
silicon junction diode. So do the experiment and prove that I'm wrong
and that the Vf of a silicon junction diode _is_ close to 0.5V, or
shut up.

I've heard of splitting hairs but this is ridiculous, you insolent
young pup. You are saying both diodes are essentially the same and
therefore interchangeable. I'm saying no way; certainly not for all
applications at the very least.

Well, yes. I tend to be critical of blowhard self-proclaimed
purveyors of "Trooth", who do little more than proselytize.

You want to be careful with those long words, punk; they'll aggravate
your acne.

It's not that _I_ like it or dislike it, I do neither. I look on it
as just another manifestation of an ego trying desperately to seem
important.

I don't give a fig for being revered. That's a concern solely for
lonely, lame-ass losers with a fragile sense of self. Ring any bells?

---

They can try if they want to, but I'll just piss back harder.

I haven't seen any evidence of that yet...

Selective vision at work...

You gotta try harder....

---
Well, you may have made a good living, but if you have to ask for help
with writing a verbal description of the internal resistance of a
battery, then I suggest that the quality of your "technical skills"
is suspect.

Once again, you misunderstand. That's what comes from listening to too
much rap music. I can't communicate on the same level as young punks
like you; that's all there is too it.

If they're bigger boneheads than you are and you can talk them into it
they will.

Not at all. They beat a path to my door. I don't even have to
advertise.

Actually, you're right. This exchange seems to be little more than
mental masturbation, and I _do_ need to get some development work
done, so I think after this post I'll just cut you loose and leave
you to your own devices.

Translation: "My ass can't take no mo' whuppin' from this Miles guy! I
need to bail out - and fast!!!"
ROTFLMAO!!!
BTW, if this "development work" you have in mind is to make your dick
bigger, you'll find the Swedes make the best devices. ;->

Count me out of that one. We've got enough problems over here without
taking on yours as well. You fix it.

That'd probably be safer. We're fed up with getting shot-up by your
gung-ho, narcoleptic troops in these all-too-frequent "friendly-fire"
incidents. :-(

Had we not jumped in the first time you would have been, and there
probably would not have been a Britain to defend the second time.

Nonsense. We had the largest navy in the world at the outbreak of WW1.
And the Germans never wanted to wipe us out, anyway. They were our
biggest admirers! Hitler was a great anglophile; it must have broke
his heart to bomb us.

Well, we preferred to _try_ to remain neutral, but no... somebody
always has to start shit and then we get involved in it because we get
asked to or because we get war declared on us and then everything just
spirals out of control and it turns into a big ol' war.

So what's your excuse for invading Vietnam? Or Korea? Or Iraq (to name
but a few) for that matter? I don't recall any of those countries
attacking your lame ass.

As far as the Japs are concerned, they attacked us on December 7th of
1941, and we probably would have gone off and just taken care of that
if it hadn't been for Germany declaring war on us a few days later, so
maybe it's lucky for you all that in addition to being attacked by the
Japs, the Germans also declared war on us. We eventually would have
jumped in to help you guys, we always do, but the German action left
us little choice about the timeline. Anyway, that's all water under
the bridge, and what we're _really_ talking about is your technical
incompetence.

I possess none. I must add one point, though: when *your* ass is on
the line, *we* are just as keen to jump in and help you (for what its
worth with what's left of our vastly downsized armed forces). We don't
forget past favors and there's still a lot of affection here for you
bastards.

Uh-huh... Kind of like you showing me that you've squirrelled away a
lot of currency into a safe deposit box and then me explaining to you
why it's all counterfeit.

ROTFLOL! I can't help but like you in a strange kind of way. You
remind me of the son I never had - THANK GOD!!! ;->

As opposed to what? Inorganic brain damage?

Bwahahahahahaha! Nice one, Junior.