Driver to drive?

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:11:07 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

John Fields wrote:


On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:24:57 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Squeezing jello in Iraq
By Scott Ritter



---
Scott Ritter is a traitorous son of a bitch who should be shot.


On the grounds that he was right and Bush was wrong...


If you ever have to go into battle, I guarantee that Ritter is the kind
of man you want in charge- not those political bullshitters in the
administration- who have been wrong about every damned projection they
have made so far- proven total idiots and incompetents. Remember, Bush
is a dangerous idiot and liar.


---
If I ever went into battle I'd want someone in charge who was as
willing to get behind his commander in chief and follow his orders as
he would expect me to get behind him and follow his.

I would _certainly_ not want some opinionated son of a bitch up there
telling me that there's no way that I'm going to win the fight that
I'm being sent to risk my life on.

But you seem to be well versed in military matters, and you must know
that we're at war right now, so why are you supporting that traitor
and his seditious behavior?

At war?
I thouigh Bush declared victory some time last year...

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <vn17p0pdsomvek0ladd8mga53ss6jneu45@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I live in a haze
where grey must be black or white
and I draw the lines.

You just walked off a cliff in the fog.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:dol4p0t5lfluc2m9u34qlf403ro5l530re@4ax.com...

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:27:13 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

You have no fucking brains at all, now do you, when there is
the tiniest amount of critism about this war. You're a piece
of programmed american patriotic shit, no less.

---
And you, Frank?

There are an increasing number of idiots here as well. Few
seem to understand how to deal with terrorists - and that is
not violently kill them, but should be focussed on taking
away their incentives that drive them.

The US is driving them up the wall. The US only increases
terrorism and extremist muslim behaviour.

When there's the tiniest amount of disagreement with what you consider
the right way for the US to conduct its military affairs you're more
than ready to denounce anyone who dares to have an opinion different
from yours.

The tiniest???? This is 180 degrees opposite shit.

Wait 'til a few more of your van Goghs get murdered for daring to
voice anti-Islamic points of view and maybe, just maybe, you'll begin
to realize that this isn't an American war, it just seems like it is
because most of the rest of you chickenshits would rather just sit
around and pretend that you're so above-it-all while someone else does
your dirty work for you.

It will soon not be an American war anymore, that's right. It's
spreading like a new virus.

"Sorry, Uncle Sam, we can't help you right now but call us when the
bread is baked and we'll help you to eat it"...

Shove that bread up your ass, perhaps it stops leaking out
the soup that was once your brain.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:47:46 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


John Fields wrote:


On 10 Nov 2004 16:58:35 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:



From: John Fields jfields@austininstruments.com

---
On the grounds that we're at war and by his traitorous actions he's
aiding and abetting the enemy.



This attitude is absurd. If we are making mistakes then it is the duty of our
'free' press to inform us of it.


---
It is the duty of the press to report factual matters, not to
propagandize, but that's not what we're talking about.

Ritter is an individual using the weight of the authority of his
_former_ position to sow the seeds of insurrection _now_.

And for what purpose? To get us out of Iraq? It ain't gonna happen.
To blow his own horn? Now we're probably getting close!
---



It is obvious to anyone following the news,
that most of the insurgents and their leaders have left Fallujah. Ridder is
only telling us that we are fighting a Gurerrilla war in Iraq, with our
military planners being out of touch with that. Again, this was obvious to
anyone!


---
If it was obvious to _anyone_ then I'm sure it was also obvious to our
military planners who, I daresay, have access to better intelligence
than you or I or Ritter. Such being the case, the reasoning behind

Like the WMDs you mean...


---
No. if that's what I meant that's what I would have said.
---


taking Fallujah may have been to deny to it to the guerrillas as a
convenient gathering place and to disperse them. But who knows for
sure? Certainly not you or I or Ritter.
---

I seem to be hearing an echo...
Like something I heard about 35yrs ago.


---
"Gimme Shelter"?

I bet you can see light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel.
All be over by Xmas.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:12:37 +0000, Mark Zenier wrote:

In article <vn17p0pdsomvek0ladd8mga53ss6jneu45@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I live in a haze
where grey must be black or white
and I draw the lines.

You just walked off a cliff in the fog.

That's not enough lines.

And the meter is just _way_ off.
But haiku, well, duh.

;^j

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:28:47 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:20:10 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:27:05 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:06:12 +0000, Steve Taylor wrote:

John Fields wrote:
---
It's still an example, and a good one.



...when your enemy's supply lines are 16 weeks long and you have French
help....

Or when you're defending your home from invaders.

---

RICH BUT GROUNDED

I am a gadwalk.
Small of brain but large with turd,
too heavy to fly

So, do you think, like, we haven't noticed?

---
Hmmm... Sorry, I guess allusion is lost on you.

maybe you'll get it if it's written like this:

RICH BUT GROUNDED

Rich is a gadwalk.
Small of brain but large with turd,
too heavy to fly

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:37:27 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:25:44 +0100, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:


"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com
wrote in message news:cn208r$p56$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

Ronald Reagan rather than Kennedy.

I just remember: Kennedy didn't blink when facing the Cuban Missil crisis
either - respect for that!

I wonder just how load the screaming and moaning would have been if that
same situation had happened today, with Kennedy at the wheel.

Y'know, I just kind of realized that the Kennedy legend is on the verge
of becoming a myth within our own lifetime.

This, I opine, shows striking resemblance to the myths and legends that
we carry about all of our former heroes.

Depending which side you're sitting on, History could have reported the
conflict between Alexander The Self-Righteous versus Ivan The Wonderful.

---
Depending on which side won, don't you mean?

--
John Fields

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:02:25 -0600, John Fields wrote:

If I had to guess
(which I'm doing) I'd think that it was due to the eye's AGC and its
response to the sudden change in intensity.

That brings to mind a question that has interested me for a while. I know
nothing about optics, so please bear with me. Do people who wear the
polarized? eyeglasses which adapt to ambient light and become darker in
bright sunlight weaken the eyes' 'AGC' response? It seems to me that if you
always walked around in mild, filtered light, your eyes would become lazy
and less able to react to a sudden intense busrt of light like a flashbulb.

Anybody know anything about this?

Probably should have OT'd this...


Bob

 

[John Smith]

"Chuck Olson" <chuckolson01@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
newsu7ld.24705$V41.17929@attbi_s52...

A few months ago I proposed a circuit to run LEDs on 120VAC 60Hz line using
a capacitor for the current-limiting element, and putting two LEDs in
parallel, oppositely polarized to conduct that current (maybe for
night-light use). The forward drop of one would keep the reverse voltage
low
for the other. One of the comments made concerned the surge of current
that
would be conducted at the moment of turn-on due to the higher frequency
content of the turn-on wavefront. Could this be the reason for the
brightness flash of red LED traffic lights at turn-on? Certainly the LED
array would have to plop right in where the incandescent lamp was, powered
by 120 VAC. But it's hard to imagine all the rather large, high-voltage
capacitors needed to do the current limiting on what I estimate may be 200
or more LEDs. One comment I just read, concerning the flash, said it's due
to poor regulation of the DC supply. But that implies the switching takes
place between the DC supply and the LEDs, and that's hard to imagine, as
well. Even worse, the use of capacitors on a large scale would wreak havoc
with the utility's power factor, not to mention the arcing of switch
contacts (but maybe the arcing is already taken care of since the old
incandescent lamps also produced a surge of start-up current) . So do any
of
you know FOR SURE just how these LED traffic lights are powered, and why
they flash brighter at turn-on?

Thanks,

Chuck

All states, AFAIK, require that LED traffic signals have a 0.9 power factor
or better. This comes from the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers,
http://www.ite.org/) specifications. Hence, all manufacturers, AFAIK, use
PWM or PFC ICs to meet the specifications. The flash on turn-on is indeed an
overshoot in the power supply usually due to improper compensation or
topology. I speak from experience and the company for which I once worked
will remain nameless.

Usually, the 120 VAC is applied to a circuit containing a PFC (Power Factor
Correction) IC with a transformer and, after rectification, puts out 30 to
100 VDC with a high power factor input. The LEDs are usually in
series/parallel strings of a sufficient quantity to meet the specifications
for light intensity. The total LED current is sensed and regulated. Lenses
may be used to focus the light, especially if the quantity of LEDs is small.
You may have noticed the sharp reduction off-axis brightness of some of
these signals.

Controllers at intersections use solid-state switches. The ones with which I
was familiar contained zero-crossing optical isolators to drive the triacs.

There is a lot more to it than this, but this may already be more than you
wanted to know.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:04:28 GMT, "John Smith"
<kd5yikes@mindspring.com> wrote:

There is a lot more to it than this, but this may already be more than you
wanted to know.

---
No, not at all! Please go on.

--
John Fields

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Fields wrote...

I heard yesterday that Hewlett Packard is selling [their]
HDTV sets, which means out private money is gonna go
head-to-head with Japan, Inc. for some of that market share.

Who is making these new HP sets, and where?


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[John Fields]

On 12 Nov 2004 14:34:14 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

I heard yesterday that Hewlett Packard is selling [their]
HDTV sets, which means out private money is gonna go
head-to-head with Japan, Inc. for some of that market share.

Who is making these new HP sets, and where?

---
Ooops...

I was vegged out in front of the TV last night and roused slightly
when I heard HPTV.

Looking for it on the web, I get HPTV = Helios.

Sorry.

--
John Fields

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:42:27 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:57:18 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:16:19 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:03:05 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:59:44 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:57:40 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
After they clean out Fallujah, maybe some of them can help out in The
Hague.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3998347.stm
It's all quiet now. No help needed. No doubt we are going to
see more of these events, all being the result of that
brilliant stategy towards terrorism, led by Bush.
As opposed to the Bemelman strategy, which is "Teach 'em to play nice
by appeasing 'em."?
I guess the idea of "don't go on a killing rampage in these folks'
home town" has never occurred to anybody.
I guess the idea of keeping it from happening in yours has never
occurred to you.

Well, you guess wrong, you numbskull. I keep it from happening in my
home town by refraining from initiating killing rampages half-way
around the world. Or next door, for that matter.

---
I don't know whether you'll be able to understand the parallel, but
let's say that there are a couple of gangs of thugs in your home town
who have been fighting amongst themselves for quite some time but, for
some reason, have now started to attack ordinary non-gang citizens.
At first the losses seem tragic but sadly acceptable for the sake of
maintaining the "peace", but as the virulence and number of attacks
increase, a threshold is crossed where physical retaliation becomes
warranted and the town takes up arms against the thugs.

Yes, I see your point, surprise, surprise.

Now.

Consider, the gangs aren't a block away down the street, but are in
their own country, playing the old religion game. And you decide to
go on an excursion, and, Oh! Imagine my surprise! You've decided to
take your excursion right into the middle of somebody else's battle.
In somebody else's neighborhood, in somebody else's home, in somebody
else's COUNTRY, YOU IDIOT!

Now, you seem to be claiming that, given these circumstances, you
_still_ have the delusion that somehow, by plopping your fat
neoconservative ass down in the middle of _their_ country, that
now, by gawdknows what process, you are suddenly the owner of
that territory, who has the Divine Edict to impose your will
on them, IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU BLOCKHEAD!

_YOU_ are the _INVADER!_

If you continue to refuse to observe the plain facts that are
obvious to sane people around the planet, then it is clear that
you have made your decision to put yourself amongst the
rest of the sheeple, who think killing people 10,000 miles
away is somehow rationalizable.

I was gonna say, may god have mercy on your soul, but since it
is blazingly clear that you have made the decision to feed your
soul to evil, then I have no choice but to let you go into your
master's waiting maw.

Good Luck? Hah!

You've made your choice.

Choose life as a way of life, or choose death as a way of life -
it doesn't really matter to the skin off my nose, because I,
being the paragon of self-righteousness that I am, know, somehow,
in the deepest core of my being, that being alive is, in some, so
far unknown, intangible way, better than being dead. It must be,
or why else would people (and every other living thing) want to
hang onto it so tenaciously?

And according to my philosophy, Not Killing People is somehow,
intangibly, indefinably "Better" than Killing People. It's
probably an artifact of my own supreme selfishness, but it is
this selfishness which, all of its own accord, has led me to
the conclusion that Live People Are Better Customers Than Dead
People Are.

So, go join your lord of death, and just exactly when that
happens is really out of my hands.

As if you need my permission.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:21:19 GMT, "John Smith"
<kd5yikes@mindspring.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:i4bap0p6o304l1g9s3egha0p7aqghhl87b@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:04:28 GMT, "John Smith"
kd5yikes@mindspring.com> wrote:


There is a lot more to it than this, but this may already be more than you
wanted to know.

---
No, not at all! Please go on.

--
John Fields


Well, let's see...

The current for the red LEDs have to just about double at high temperature
because of the drop in efficiency and Vf of the LEDs. But the green LEDs
required only about a 10% increase, as I recall. Yellow LEDs act about like
red ones and blue ones act about like green ones.

An early design I inherited was a boost PWM circuit with a string of LEDs
adding to about 300 V. There was a FET switch in series with the string of
LEDs which opened when no AC was applied. Why? Well, the filter cap was
large enough to cause the LEDs to stay on for awhile after AC was removed.
You can imagine what that does to traffic if it is a green signal. Worse
yet, the series FET switch failed a couple of times. It turns out that green
LEDs are so efficient that the signal may glow for minutes and be very
visible at night under a shorted switch condition. Very bad to have an
intersection with both directions of traffic seeing green. I learned
something very important from this. Always build a switching supply with a
transformer. That way, if your switch fails, output goes to zero. This is
true as well for getting 5V from a 12V battery for a computer. If you use a
series switch and it fails, good by computer. Yes, I know one can provide a
crowbar and fuse, but I don't like crowbars for reasons I don't want to get
into. My preference is for the power supply output to go dead for any power
supply fault I can think of.

Traffic signals have a CMC (Conflict Monitor Circuit) built in (this might
be specified by the ITE). Its function and its name have a distant
connection. Traffic controllers, as I said, use solid state switches
consisting of triacs and optos. If a triac fails shorted (or leaky), you've
got a problem with a signal not being able to turn off (a conflict). So, the
controller has a monitor which measures the voltage going out to the signal
and, if the SS switch is supposed to be off but the voltage is actually
above a threshold, it stops all normal signal sequencing and puts the
intersection in flash (flashes red in all directions simultaneously). In the
early days, the snubbers around the triacs allowed relatively hefty leakage
currents to flow. No problem for a 135 Watt incandescent to suck it up, and
it would keep the voltage low when the triac is off. Not so with an LED
signal. The nature of an LED signal is such that it will usually allow
enough voltage to build up at it terminals for the controller's monitor to
throw the intersection into flash mode. So, a circuit is added can draw the
snubber's current and hold the voltage to just a few volts unless the full
line voltage is applied.

And then there is the use of the CMC to force the controller into flash mode
if a certain percentage of LEDs fail. We used a cheap uC to monitor several
strings of LED currents and then disabled the CMC or, better, blow the line
fuse which accomplishes the same thing. I think the specs say that the
signal must appear as something like 500k Ohms or more for this fault.

We also had an autodimming option. We actually put a phototransistor in the
signal looking out the front. It caused a reduction in LED current at night
for two purposes. First, green signals are very bright to the eye at night.
They are blinding. This improved on that a lot. Second, it saves about 40 or
50% on power consumption. The spec said that all the signals in an
intersection must be coordinated, that is, dimmed at the same rate and time.
I didn't do that because there was no communications system. But, I learned
that nobody could tell the difference by eye. We always stated that we did
not meet the letter of the specifications. I don't think the end user cared.
But, I don't think many municipalities ordered it.

Our pedestrian Walk/Don't Walk Countdown signal had an 8405 in it. The micro
was used to learn the walk and don't walk cycles and then provide a
numerical display to show how many seconds remained to get out of the
crosswalk. It had to compensate for aperiodic sequences. Did you know that
policemen may be given a pushbutton to plug into an intersection controller
to manually control the walk/don't walk cycles? Usually near a stadium or
auditorium. I never saw this, but I was told that it was a possibility.

I've run down.

---
Best post in a long time.

Thanks!

--
John Fields

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:15:12 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:56:54 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

Well, I am currently playing around with simulations of an audio amp
using state of the art bipolar (ft=50Mhz, 15A, 230V, 150W) and its a
no contest. Mosfets switch much faster. I can get 1000V/us (500W
@8ohms) with mosfets, only about 100V/us with bipolar.

And such slew rates are relevant to audio in *which* way ?


One-upmanship/specmanship. Its the challange dude.

Why do people Climb Mt. Everest?

Because somebody told them to?
Or sombebody told them not to?

Thanks,
Rich

It only takes ~7V/uSec slew rate to reproduce 20KHz at 200W into 8
ohms.

So the only arguments for higher slew rate would be perhaps:

1) Scooting thru dead-band in the output... not necessary if you
actually know how to design an amplifier, instead of being a blowhard
;-)

2) Then there's the Class-D crowd :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Scott acepilot@bloomer.net wrote:

Well, you can look at it this way...It's basically a series circuit,
from generator, through all customer houses, and back to the generator.

Correct so far.......

You may be returning ALMOST all of the current coming into your house,

I think you'll find that unless he has an earth leakage problem he is returning
*all* of the current going into his house.

minus resistive losses,

No. there's your first mistake. If you pass 5 amps through a resitor you don't
have less than 5 amps at the other side of the resistor. You still have 5 amps.

but if you divert that voltage and current
through one of your appliances, the voltage and current (hence power)
will actually be doing some work. Electricity, while being USED in your
house, is like an employee of YOURS

He may not have any employees which reinforces OP's original argument that he
gets nothing from the supply company just like he gets nothing from the
employees which he doesn't have.

...it is doing WORK, so legally you
must pay the worker's wages for work performed.

But OP does just as much work by sending all the current back to the supply
company so they should pay him the same amount.

Count the electrons into OP's house, and count the electrons out of OP's house.
I bet they're pretty close in quantity.

Gibbo

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 7 Nov 2004 02:01:10 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in
news:eu6qo09bgp8ckgqe0hjq5ijcuhqnqosjeb@4ax.com:

On 6 Nov 2004 18:04:33 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

snip
A possibility,yes.Inevitable,no.And once that nuclear threat was ended
(by Israel),
snip

You lead off by making a very slight _counter_ and then go immediately
into the scenario where exactly what I was suggesting *does* take
place and proceed on that basis. You just don't seem to realize that
every word you say here on this goes exactly *towards* my point.

Iran is a much larger,more populous country than Iraq,an entirely
different situation I believe you do not fully understand.

It's not possible that I "fully understand" such a situation. But I
certainly won't take your implication that you do, either.

...

You look like someone wrestling with yourself... and losing the
battle. I'll just say that despite all your self-inflicted struggles,
you appear to agree with the thrust of my point. We both see the same
event taking place, soon.

Thanks,
Jon

You seem to overlook the sanctions that would be applied by the UN

What have I specifically said that makes you say this? Or is this just
unfounded prejudice on your part?

(your beloved UN)

Now *that* is unfounded. You are probably just casting an excessive aspersion
in order to pretend making yourself look more moderate. Doesn't wash with me.

before any military action would occur;

I'm not sure what you are talking about, so far. Can you put it into different
words?

all you appeasers

More extreme aspersion to artificially appear to bias yourself to the middle, I
see. (And I've no idea what an 'appeaser' is in your mind. And I can't address
myself to what's going on in your mind.)

seemed to think sanctions would have worked with Saddam,

Well, Saddam was contained. What 'worked' means to you, I can't say of course.

but now they won't with Iran?

Is it your point that they will or won't? (I haven't made any points about this
at all. It's your subject.)

Israel doesn't WANT to have to bomb out Iran's nuclear facilities,they
would much rather prefer to have Iran cease that activity without the
application of military force.

I'm sure they would prefer it to stop without that, of course. So would I.
Frankly, I'd like it if all countries completely disposed of their nuclear arms
and entered into frequent and invasive mutual inspection regimens to help keep
it that way. But it's hard to argue against the use of uranium by others for
military weapons when the US continues to deploy and tactically use DU, for
example, or continues to insist on a substantial base of nuclear weaponry that
it repeatedly claims that it *will* use, if it feels the need to do so to
'protect itself' either against an aggressor or against those it aggresses
against, should they resist all too well.

The issues aren't as simple as you paint them. And leading by example doesn't
always mean setting examples by leading invasions.

But they and the US will not stand by and
allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons that they could give (or allow to be
"stolen")to terrorists.

I heard that point from both Bush and Kerry in a debate, recently. Again, this
isn't a point of mine -- I frankly don't know what Iran would do with them. But
what evidence do you have that Iran's gov't would transfer such weapons to
anyone else? (This is your point, not mine, so defend it.) Personally, since
you bring it up, I'd imagine that Iran would have much more to gain by
maintaining complete control over what nuclear weapons they might manage to
make. Especially, because it would bolster the current government in the eyes
of its own people and it would certainly help to dissuade aggression on their
soil.

I just cannot understand your thinking here. It seems completely out of sync
with reality. If they gave any of them away it would bring an immediate
response from the rest of the world -- one that would be guaranteed to
completely eradicate the current government there. It's simply not in their
interest and it would work mightily against them. Also, can you specifically
name any other case where a nuclear-enabled government has provided nuclear
weaponry to terrorists or terrorist groups? It just hasn't happened. Because
it is NEVER in the interest of an administration to do so. It's not smart.

So why would you imagine otherwise? What specific evidential reasoning do you
use to arrive at this kind of crazy conclusion? I can't see it. And I suspect
it is nothing more than blind fear-making on your part. But I'll entertain your
logic and assumptions, should you have any. My own position is that if they do
develop them, they will keep them.

If sanctions and political pressures fail,then the only alternative is
military force.

If you absolutely insist that you aren't willing to give anything in exchange or
consider negotiated compromises that achieve most of what you want but not all
of it, so that you absolutely must have exactly what you want to have and others
are refusing to completely give in to each and every demand you make of them
without consideration in return or any good faith negotiation with them to find
a viable compromise that helps them achieve their own crucial concerns while
achieving yours too, ... then yes, I suppose so.

But to say that "if we can't force you through economic embargo and we can't get
you to cave in to political debate and pressures, then we are justified in going
off and engaging in a war" is downright childish. It's "my way, or the highway"
kind of thinking. The good work is in finding a way to satisfy the real and
legitimate worries of those concerned, without going to war. And Iran certainly
has a __legitimate__ worry or two based on real experience with the US that, if
we are honest, must be admitted.

Iran had long been under US control and it was that puppet gov't before that
probably had a lot to do with the uprisings leading to the installation of
essentially a religious gov't in retaliation. That outgoing gov't had to leave
so quickly, in fact, that critical US support weapons (like 11 of our Harpoon
missiles) were left there essentially in working order. The US then shot down
(USS Vincennes, Captain Will Rogers commanding at the time) flight 655 with the
loss of almost 300 civilians during gulf tensions under Reagan. US support for
the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran hasn't made them any happier
with the US, I'm sure. So yes, I believe Iran probably has millions of reasons
to feel the need to find a way to __sufficiently__ guard itself against US
aggression. Although we could also reasonably assume that they'd love to see
the US get a bloody nose in Iraq, we have NO tangible evidence I'm aware of that
says they plan to use nuclear weapons for anything other than a deterrent
against US aggression there. Israel is another matter, though, and a serious
one.

The short of it is that some very serious listening is in order and probably
some compromises we'd have to make in order to help assuage their legitimate
worries (we may not agree that we'd act the way they fear, but we can show that
we understand the perceptions at the same time.)

The problem is that the US may not *want* to have to pay the price of
appeasement, as you say, and would prefer to simply bully them instead. This is
where I think you come off. You don't like the idea of 'giving in' to a
compromise deal. It might not 'look strong' to you, but weak. Yet it may still
be an absolutely excellent deal that manages all legitimate concerns well and
you still wouldn't like it, because of how it would 'look' to you -- like
appeasement.

Which leads me to this question for you: "What kind of negotiated pact that
dealt with the more important perceived defense worries in Iran (their fears
that the US will simply become the area's new bully, for example, or that Israel
might just knock out their power plants 'just because') and at the same time
dealt with those legitimate concerns of Israel and the US (by promising to NOT
build any nuclear weapons and to allow adequate inspections to ensure this)
where it also required the exchange of some substantial US compromise points
that cost the US some serious and real money and also perhaps some logistical
complexities in the gulf area could you accept as not being appeasement?"

Or put more simply, isn't it the fact that you'd consider any compromise where
the US has to give up some important things, but somewhat lesser important ones,
in order to achieve a compromise on this nuclear score as __appeasement__?

Or even more simply put, that you don't want to have to make any significant
compromises, but you full well expect others to make them for you at no real
cost or obligation on your part or else you'll go to war about it?

Might makes right?

Do you have any OTHER suggestions ?
How do -you- propose to solve the situation?
Truly solve it,not just sit and wait for it to happen.

Well, you've already caught me. I admitted I don't "fully understand" the
situation. Any useful suggestion here would require an incredible amount of
detailed knowledge and additional negotiation to ferret out. That's what
statesmanship is about and I'm not the right person for working out a viable
solution.

Of course, war and killing is the simple-man's solution -- you either win and
get what you want or lose and don't. You don't have to listen, you don't need
to understand, and you don't have to trust anyone else. You just go and duke it
out. But I imagine that a really capable and powerful country can show that
strength better by taking the really hard path -- finding peaceful answers that
aren't necessarily easy but satisfy the legitimate needs of those concerned.

But we've digressed from my point. It appears to remain, even so.

Jon

 

[Winfield Hill]

I have taken the liberty of cross-posting this to s.e.d. because it
can be nicely considered as a nontrivial electronics design problem.

"NumanR" <numanracing@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49f8a664.0411061231.3b0a1d8e@posting.google.com...

Hello everyone, I need some help,

I have to convert voltage from a 12 volt car battery to 7.2 volts,
BUT be able to draw 150 amps for a short time (approximately 2 or 3
seconds). The voltage output must be accurate, can anyone help
regarding design and recommended components please?

NumanR later wrote:

Ok the reason I need 7.2 volts is because this is for a power supply
for a racing motor dynometer. The voltage could be around 7.5 volts
but needs to be stable as possible. The motor is placed in a machine
and has a flywheel fitted and then is accelerated to full speed. The
motor accelerates for approximately 3 seconds depending on power and
then stays at full speed for another two. These results are then
processed and then sent to my computer where they are graphed for
comparison. It is the comparison that makes the voltage supply
accuracy important.

NumanR also wrote ...

Oh and the load would be applied every ten minutes or so, I have
been checking a few charts and the average current over the whole
period is about 45-50 amps, but obviously it draws considerably
more when starting the acceleration.

I suggested a commercial 1 or 2kW power supply, such as a Xantrex
XHR 7.5-130, spec'd at 7.5V 130A (but can be externally programmed
to operate to 150A for a short time, and I gave a $350 eBay link,
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3850054721
That one finished, but the seller still has it, plus a few more...

I guess Numan wasn't interested in spending $350 for a used eBay
Xantrex, but hey, precision regulated 1.1kW power supplies aren't
trivial things, that's why they are expensive.

However, perhaps if one was to build one for himself it would make
sense to start with a 12V auto or truck battery to simplify the
task, as Numan envisioned.

NumanR also wrote...

Don't appear to be able to get an 8 volt battery in the uk, I
can't find a supplier anywhere, any more ideas?

A switching regulator would be most efficient, but a 1kW switcher
is not a good beginning project for someone to attempt, so let's
instead give Numan some guidance for making a linear 12V to 7.2V
150A regulator. He delivers his kW power level for only a few
seconds, and during that time dissipates 150A * 5V at most (likely
less, due to battery and cabling voltage drops), which amounts to
about 450 * 3 watt-sec = 1350J during that time. Unlike ordinary
linear kW supplies, this won't present a serious heat sink problem.

.. ______ ________
.. | + | | |
.. | o======| series |=======,
.. | | | reg | |
.. | | | +Vs |-------+
.. | 12v | | | motor
.. | batt | | -Vs |-------+
.. | | |________| |
.. | | | | |
.. | o========|==+==/\/\====='
.. |______| | 50mV I-meter shunt
.. control

Here's basically how it'll look. Note the two sense connections
located near the motor terminals for the feedback control, and the
on/off control input. Numan may also want a current-monitoring
shunt, short-circuit protection, and some type of safety interlock.

I'm going to sign off now, get breakfast, and shovel the snow. :&gt
Then I'll poke around and find an old post of mine to edit and put
up as my entry for Numan's 150A linear regulator.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Roger Johansson]

I have to convert voltage from a 12 volt car battery to 7.2 volts,
BUT be able to draw 150 amps for a short time (approximately 2 or 3
seconds). The voltage output must be accurate, can anyone help
regarding design and recommended components please?

The car battery you have there consists of a number of cells, which are
connected in series. The voltage between the two outermost placed
contacts is 12 Volt.

In between them there are other connections which carry different
voltages. If you can remove the plastiv cover on the battery, or drill
through it, you can connect to any number of cells you like, in series.


But I am pretty sure there are lead-acid batteries made for 7-8 Volt for
sale in UK. A country filled with motorcycles of all ages and needing
batteries of different voltages.

The lead-acid battery technology is well suited to delivering very high
currents for a short time. It will probably be the most cost-effective in
this case.



--
Roger J.

 

[Jeff Stout]

In our system, it is the controller which dims the intersection. The
controller
would pulse the field relays (solid state relays) at the zero crossing to
change
the intensity of the lights. The controller keeps track of the time of day
and
knows when it is night and day. Our controller even kept track of daylight
savings time and leap year and leap day and would change its behavior
depending on time of day or the day of week.

But getting back to the light dimming issue. Dropping half sin waves as
a method of dimming the intersection really does a number on the NEMA
specification. NEMA specifies that a phase (a signal light) is on when the
when the voltage is more than such and such RMS and on for more than
T milliseconds. What does that specification mean when every third half
sin wave is missing? The RMS voltage at night is now lower than the
specification, but all the lights can be seen on the intersection.
Questions
like that drove me nuts when I designed our first Conflict Monitor.

For those who don't know, a Conflict Monitor monitors the actual voltages
on every signal light at the intersection (not what the controller says they
should
be, but what they actually are) and looks for conflicts. An example of a
conflict
is if all green lights in all four directions are green. A second example
is if all
the lights (red, yellow and green) in a single direction are on at the same
time.

Jeff Stout


"John Smith" <kd5yikes@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3scld.2100$G36.950@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Well, let's see...

[snip]

We also had an autodimming option. We actually put a phototransistor in
the
signal looking out the front. It caused a reduction in LED current at
night
for two purposes. First, green signals are very bright to the eye at
night.
They are blinding. This improved on that a lot. Second, it saves about 40
or
50% on power consumption. The spec said that all the signals in an
intersection must be coordinated, that is, dimmed at the same rate and
time.
I didn't do that because there was no communications system. But, I
learned
that nobody could tell the difference by eye. We always stated that we did
not meet the letter of the specifications. I don't think the end user
cared.
But, I don't think many municipalities ordered it.

They probably didn't order it because dimming is usually done in the
controller.

[snip]

John