Driver to drive?

[Keith Williams]

In article <poekp0hh4v4inlb94nqv32fegor0j137tu@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:25:47 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:55:07 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:



'Rights' have historically been wrested from the powerful by force. See Magna
Carta for a good example. Or maybe the US Constitution.
Our societies are balance of forces.


But the US constitution presumes axiomatic, God-given "inalienable
rights" and defines them in the Bill of Rights. They are assumed to be
absolute.

The Constitution only exists because control was wrested from the British by
force of arms.

Cool. Then why would a bunch of european wimps complain because the US
has a huge military and pretty much does what it wants?

Umm, because they are european wimps?

--
Keith

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:59:33 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:07:01 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:55:07 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:



'Rights' have historically been wrested from the powerful by force. See Magna
Carta for a good example. Or maybe the US Constitution.
Our societies are balance of forces.

But the US constitution presumes axiomatic, God-given "inalienable
rights" and defines them in the Bill of Rights. They are assumed to be
absolute.

John

How can they be absolute human rights if they are not universally
applicable to all humans?




That's my question: is there a set of universal human rights that the
world could agree on, and use action as required to enforce? If there
is no such set of rights, the UN becomes a crueler joke than it is
already.

If Hutus are hacking Tutsis to death by the hundreds of thousands, is
it purely a local affair, none of our business?

IMO, yes.
However, such a policy should be applied consistently.

--
Dirk

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

 

[Genome]

"Winfield Hill" <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote in
message news:cn5ntd0249v@drn.newsguy.com...

Winfield Hill wrote...

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

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.

. 7.2V 150A Linear Regulator
. BATT 250A fuse by Winfield Hill
. POS __or breaker
.
=====|__|==(O)===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+
. +12.5-14.5V | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
. ,---+----+------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
. | | 2R7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
. | 470 5W | | | | |
|
. | | | | | | Q3 to Q17 = BDW83C, TIP42 or 2n6284 | |
|
. | | |/ Q2 | | | bank of 15 Darlington transistors | |
|
. | +--| ZTX851 | | | | |
|
. | | |\ Q3 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Q17
. | | V | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
. | | | |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
|/
. | | +====|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|
. | | | |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\
|\
. | | | V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
V
. | | 220 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
. | | 1W 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m 20m
20m
. | | | 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W 3W
3W
. 2k7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
. | | |
'===+===+===+===+===+===++==+++=+===+===+===+===+===+==='
. | | '---------------------, | ||
. | | | | || +7.20V 0 - 150A
. | +----100--, | | ++====(O)=============++
. | | | 0.01 | | ||
. | '---, +--||--, ,----|---------|---------(O)--------, ||
. | | | | | | | + sense \ ||
. | Q1 | __|__ 2k7 4k75 | ,-----+ '--++
. | |/ | | | | | | | 1000uF ||
. +-1k--| | |---+----+ | 22 |+ 16V MOTOR
. | |\ |_____| 2.50V | | 5W === ||
. | V | IC1 2k49 | | | ,--++
. | | | TL431 | | | | - sense / ||
. o +-----+-----------+----+---+-----+---------(o)--------' ||
. o---33--' ||
. close = ON ||
. optional 50mV ||
. ===========================================+= meter shunt =+=======++
. BATT NEG

Fifteen places NPN power Darlington, mounted on large aluminum heat sink
with thin heat-sink grease, and no insulating pads. Insulate heat sink
from
the chassis and add plastic to protect it from exposure to metal tools,
etc.
---

To analyze the circuit we'll start with the 10-milli-ohm emitter
resistors,
which are required to insure equal current sharing among the transistors.
These are Ohmite 630HR020 metal-element types, at DigiKey for $0.42 each,
and they'll drop 0.2V at the nominal 10A current each transistor carries
at
full load. The Darlington power transistors will have a Vbe drop of up
to
2V at 10A, severely eating into the voltage difference available between
the
battery and the motor at 150A, so we'll have to be careful with what's
left.
(The high Vbe drop is one reason we're limiting each pass transistor to
10A,
which then requires us to use 15 parallel transistors in the pass bank.)

Although we have used high-gain Darlington transistors in an attempt to
get
the base drive current down to reasonable levels, assuming a minimum gain
of
500 at 10A means Q2 will have to provide over 300mA at full output. Q2
must
have high beta at 300mA, and dissipate up to 1W for high 14.5V battery
(i.e.
under charge). A Zetex ZTX851, etc. (available at DigiKey), should work
OK.

We cannot use a Darlington transistor at this spot because too much
voltage
has been used up by the 15 power Darlington transistor's base-emitter
drop
at full current. We have to save some overhead to allow the battery to
sag.

In the event of an output short, Q2's 2.7-ohm collector resistor limits
its
current, but the power transistors must fend for themselves until the
fuse
blows (you can get 250A fuses at auto parts stores). Alternately a ~
200A
current limit function could be added by amplifying the 50mV shunt
voltage,
comparing it to a fixed voltage, and pulling down Q2's base.

Another valuable feature would be a comparator to tell whenever battery
sag means the circuit is running out of headroom, which can be seen by
looking at the control-loop voltage on the TL431's output terminal.

Some folks will say this linear power regulator design illustrates why a
buck switching converter should be used instead. I will not contest
their
point, except to point out that I've learned from making SMPS in the 100
to 1000A region that there are many non-trivial issues one will
encounter,
dictating knowledge, experience, and good instruments on your workbench.
On the other hand, this circuit can be made and tested by a hobbyist.


--
Thanks,
- Win

What happens to your circuit after you have spun the motor up to 150A and it
(your circuit) decides to reduce the current?

DNA

 

[Steve]

Koen Postma wrote:

Because i own a versatile programmer, someone asked me to help him.
He would like to program a atmel AT90S2343. Normally I write my own
software, but he got it ( *.rom file )from the internet. When I open the
file in notepad i see the following:
S00D00006774756E65722E726F6DE1
S118000002C018C018C0ECE4F1E0A0E6B0E0C6E1D0E020972987
S1180015F0C89531960D922197D9F71124A6E7B0E000E001C0A4
S118002A1D92A737B007E1F712C018951F920F920FB60F921159
S118003F248F93809176008F5F809376008F910F900FBE0F9039
S11800541F901895CFEDD0E0CDBFDEBFB998C198B89ABA9A83CF
S1180069E083BF82E009B6082A09BE789460E670E0CCE6D0E03E
S118007E44275527B19BFECF12BE10927600AA27BB278827B16E
S1180093998395882321F0809176008135B8F38827B19B8395EC
S11800A8882321F0809176008135B8F3809176009927382F22CB
S11800BD2782B79927280F391F420F531F12BE809176008135AB
S11800D230F4109276001196A032B105C0F2C09AC29A809176BB
S11800E700813508F0C8CF85E0569547958A95E1F7AA27BB27E5
S11800FC888199814817590760F0FD2FEC2F1196A530B1053010
S1180111F432968081918148175907B0F7952F842F0197AA0FD8
S1180126BB1FA60FB71F2D913C9111972817390708F0C0984F0A
S114013B5F5F4F4217530708F49CCFC2989ACFFFCFF7
S118014C06015D01B8014C02110318042B018601F801A002822E
S10401610396
S9030000FC

What kind of format is this?

Thanks already.]

Koen Postma

Koen,

As others note, it is Motorola S record format.

If that is a format you can't deal with, I recommend
the following utility to convert it to just about anything.

http://srecord.sourceforge.net

Good Luck, Steve

 

[CK@@L]

Hi, I was asked to referred to this newsgroup for some expert advise, can
anyone help pls!

"CK@@L" wrote in message :-

I have accidentally wipe out my years of data in my HDD & now is zero

files. Can anyone advise how to retrieve the lost data & can recommend

where to go to restore the data. Thanks.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Rich Grise wrote...

ChrisGibboGibson wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
ChrisGibboGibson wrote:

No. Not safely. That's why the spec exists in the first place.
You pillock.
This is misleading and rude.

No it isn't.

You _can_ safely exceed the breakdown voltage of a junction, IF
you ensure that the power dissipated in the device is less than
some given specified value, which you can find in the data sheet.

If you measure the voltage across the diode you will find it hasn't
actually exceeded the breakdown voltage.

If you don't believe this, then please go look up "zener diode"
and "reverse breakdown" in any reasonably qualified electronics
reference.

I think perhaps you'd better do that.

Put 20 volts across a 10 volt zener, not via a resitor. I want you
to "measure* 20 volts across the zener. See what happens. This is
rather basic.

Oh - I see your point - you can't get a voltage _over_ the breakdown
voltage, because that's where the zener knee is.

OK, fair enough. But just doing that doesn't automatically destroy
the diode, as long as you limit the current and are happy with
the resulting (possibly poorly) regulated voltage.

So I was wrong, but only to the extent that I misunderstood
what you were trying to say.

But it was still rude to call the guy names. >:-[

Rich, you were correct, and was Chris wrong. You certainly can go
well above the specified breakdown voltage. That's because this is
simply the manufacturer's value, above which at some point you will
encounter real breakdown. And when you do finally have breakdown,
you'll find it's like a stiff zener plus an internal resistance, so
the measured breakdown voltage depends on the current. Furthermore
breakdown voltage increases as the junction heats up (AoE fig 6.20).
Bottom line, the voltage will be above the manufacturer's breakdown
spec. Moreover, no damage will occur if breakdown energy (current
* voltage * time) is low enough to keep junction heating below safe
maximums. As detailed with transient thermal dissipation curves
(i.e. (maximum surge-power) and thermal mass calculations. That's
safe. It's basically what you said. Avalanche can be your friend.
You can that to the bank. :&gt Yep, that's my educated opinion.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Tim Shoppa]

"John Smith" <kd5yikes@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<Zb7nd.2293$Tq6.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

I saw two scopes (54100A and 54100D) with pods go for just over $500 the
other day. They are 1 gHz (woohoooo!) digitizing scopes. I've seen some
references to the fact that these can also be used for repetitive waveforms.
Huh? They seem to be touted for their glitch capturing capability but not
necessarily for their repetitive waveform handling.

The 54100A has two specs:

1. 40 MegaS/s single-shot digitizing rate
2. 100 GigaS/s "effective digitizing rate"

What that means, is that for truly repetitive waveforms you can get the
effective 1GHz bandwidth. And to get that bandwidth you have to see
something like 50 exactly identical glitches. (50*40MegaS/s = 2 gigasamples
which by Nyquist's theorem means you have response at 1 GHz).

The fact that 100GigaS/s is so much bigger than
1GHz does not mean that it's really a faster than 1GHz scope, this
is related to Nyquist's theorem. Oversampling is nice but not a
cure-all.

If the waveform is not truly, exactly, repetitive then the 40 MegaS/s
single-shot rate is what applies. And the effective bandwidth of that
digitizing rate means a bandwidth no bigger than 20MHz (Nyquist's theorem
again). It depends on exactly what kind of glitches you are trying to
capture.

If you're going to be dropping the bucks on GHz-range digitizing scopes
to capture glitches you probably care a lot about the triggering features
first. The bandwidth and sampling rates are all well and good but won't
do you any good if the trigger doesn't see your glitch. Other features
like total # of samples stored, ability to store pictures of multiple
glitches accumulated overnight in one of several different modes, etc
may or may not matter to you too.

There are minor and major religious wars on the triggering feature of
one scope vs another (and especially one brand vs another).

Should I stay clear of digitizing scopes? How are they different from just
digital scopes?

They aren't really different, although of course features and "feel"
vary by manufacturer and model.

I personally still like analog scopes. Even analog storage scopes.
I'm not even sure they make new analog storage scopes, though, certainly
all the ones in the catalogs are digital now... I personally prefer
digital scopes that have knobs (not just buttons) if I'm going to use
them for any length of time. Then I see kids come through the lab and
they've never even seen a scope with a knob, and they have no problem
at all breezing through a bazillion menus on the pushbutton scopes.

Tim.

 

[John Fields]

On 15 Nov 2004 01:37:00 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<hcnep052toe7iu78dqhg191jg5f930jtfu@4ax.com>...
On 13 Nov 2004 15:28:15 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<imacp09ug5gr716a2l4mcgnmdes5uu41jd@4ax.com>...

---
OK, but disenfranchisement because of ignorance isn't going to happen
(again) anytime soon, I think.
---

Self-serving optimism.

---
Sure. I see the glass half full and filling, while you see the glass
half empty and emptying. Besides, I can't think of any optimism which
_isn't_ self-serving, can you?
---

I seem to be able to think of lot of things that you don't

---
Really? show me, then, by answering the question instead of dodging
it.
---

you do
have the disadvantage of living in Texas, where they don't start
teaching you about the world outside Texas until you get to secondary
school, and it does show.

---
There's _so_ much to learn about Texas that it takes a lot longer to
assimilate that than it does to assimilate what's important about the
"rest of the world" (whatever that is...) so that's necessarily put
off until later, since it's mostly trivial anyway.
---

There are Texans who are sophisticated enough to know that they don't
know much about the outside world, but you don't seem to be one of
them.

---
I'm not, and thank you for noticing. I'm of those who are are
sophisticated enough to know that they do, thank you very much.
---

Sounds to me like a case of the literati being more equal than the
illiterati.

As it should be. Do you want your diseases treated by someone who
lacks a medical education?


---
Apples and oranges.

Scarcely. Medical practitioners treat diseases of the body,
politicians treat diseases of society.

---
As usual, you've ducked the issue for the purpose of getting on your
soapbox. Here's a "rethreading" of the "apples and oranges" post


Fred:
Democracy is finished in
America- the more educated members of the electorate will no longer
tolerate the moron majority at the bottom.

Me:
Sounds to me like a case of the literati being more equal than the
illiterati.

You:
As it should be. Do you want your diseases treated by someone who
lacks a medical eductation?

Me:
Apples and oranges.

You, current:

Scarcely. Medical practitioners treat diseases of the body,
politicians treat diseases of society.

---
Note that the "more equal" allusion to Orwell's "Animal Farm" was in
reference to disenfranchisement a la "all animals are equal but some
animals are more equal than others", which you either missed or
decided to skirt by attempting to change the course of the argument.
---

We've got legal rules that
prevent medical quacks from offering their services to the sick, and -
with Dubbya as a prime example - we need similar rules to prevent
political quacks from offering their services to the country.

---
With as much ducking as you do, I'm surprised you'd offer up such a
self-limiting "solution".
---

Since politicians make the rules, we can't simply license politicians,
as we do doctors, because the politicians in power would then just
license only their friends and allies, so we have to work on the
electoral process to stop the quacks getting elected in the first
place.

---
But, but... If your scheme for preventing quacks from offering their
services came to fruition in the first place, there'd be no need to
change the electoral process to keep them from getting elected in the
second place, would there?
---

This means organising the electoral process so that the actual voting
population is dominated by voters with the capacity to detect quacks.

---
That's ridiculous and smacks of either naiveté or megalomania.
Disenfranchisement by virtue of unsuccessful demonstration of quack
detection? Let's all rally 'round Sloman and use his daffynition of
quackiness to:

1. Keep quacks from running for political office in the first place
and, if some manage to waddle their way onto a ballot,

2. Make sure only citizens with approved quack detection skills are
allowed to vote.

All you're really doing, Bill, is advocating ways of making sure that
_you're_ never allowed to take political office.
---

There are lots of ways of doing this. Banning party political ads on
television strikes me as one of the more promising.

---
If you consider stupidity promising, then I agree. There is currently
no better way to access a large number of people in a short amount of
time than television, and a political message which is designed to be
exposed to the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of
time should have access to television.
---

---
What do you suggest? A purge? Sterilization?
Euthanization of the offspring of parents with IQ's lower than _or_
higher than "x"? Euthanization of that portion of the population with
equally "unacceptable" IQ's?

Electoral expenditure rules with teeth, so that multi-millionaires
can't buy up TV time to push electoral misinformation into the brains
of the couch potatoes.

---
Agreed, but I'd go farther than that.
As part of the licensing procedure for commercial broadcast stations
I'd include a requirement for the donation of a certain amount of free
time during election years (perhaps restricted to a month or so before
the election) for each/all of the candidates who have managed to meet
certain requirements; perhaps 100,000 signatures. Dunno... haven't
worked it out yet. What do you think?

I think that that is a terrible idea, even though that is pretty much
exactly what they do in the U.K. at the moment, because it makes it
even more dificult to set up new political parties.

---
No matter... you'd think it was a terrible idea no matter how good it
happened to be if it was anyone's idea but yours, and the way they do
it in the UK makes sense. Think about it... let's say you want to set
up a new political party and you're the only one in it, but as a
consequence of the existence of the party you get to go on TV, for
free, and blather on, ad nauseam, for your ten minutes. Now let's say
ten thousand other idiots get the same idea. Pretty soon TV would be
filled up with nothing but idiots. Like it is now, but with the
caliber of idiot which would drive you to turn off the TV and maybe
read a book.

We do kind of the same thing here, but it's not creating a political
party that's difficult, it's getting on the ballot. To create a
political party basically all you have to do is register it with the
proper authorities, but to get on the ballot you need a zillion
signatures to prove that you're not wasting everyone's time and money
to enter you into the race.
---

The one benefit of the UK system of party political broadcasts is that
the TV time is dealt out as a limited number of roughly ten minute
slots, and the broadscasts are so excruciatingly boring that even the
most torpid of couch potatoes goes to the trouble of changing the
station to get away from them.

---
Sounds to me like a real opportunity for someone with a snappy
personna and TV savvy to do some moving and shaking.
---

It is the 90 second political advertisement that is the real problem -
it is aimed at the non-critical viewer, and is long enough to contain
a simple message, and short enough to fit into the attention span of
the dumbest voter.

---
So, it's the same in the UK as it is here? That is, it's all dumbed
down to the LCD?
---

Make them longer, and the vacuity of the message becomes obvious to
the smarter viewers, while the dumber viewers tune out, which is why
TV advertisers go for 90 second spots.

---
Hmmm... I though it might be that, with prime-time TV time going for
about a zillion dollars a second, a ten minute ad might cost more than
the revenues to be realized over the expected lifetime of the product.


--
John Fields

 

[Mark Jones]

Winfield Hill wrote:

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.

Hmm... once I ripped 6 huge electrolytic caps from some old machine
- it might have been a photocopying machine, dunno. It had some kind
of primitive fixed disk in it (and a bubble memory of the magnetic
bead variety, imagine that.) Anyways the caps were at least 4" in
diameter by 10" long and were rated for 16V/250,000uF each. So yep, I
wired them all in parallel and charged them to 12V through a 5kW
autotransformer (used as a potentiometer.)

WOW, instant spot-welder. Jumping wires, permanent magnetization of
nearby metal objects, neat. Today, you could probably do even better
with the 2.0 Farad "supercaps" sold to car audio enthusiasts. (Their
explosion-resistance should be checked though...)

But the point is this, an idea might be to use a linear supply to
charge an array of supercaps to about 8V, then (using an automotive
solenoid or two) short these to your motor. This will provide a large
inrush current for a short time, enough to get your motor spun up.
Also switch on a big 7.2V linear supply to power the motor as the caps
discharge.

Or better yet, use a PWM method and straight 12V to drive the motor,
as car batteries are cheap compared to kW-rated supplies. If RPM is
the goal, PWM is the best method to obtain accurate speed of a DC
motor. A microcontroller could sample the shaft RPM and base the PWM
duty cycle off that easily. If the design goal is measuring how much
power it takes to spin the motor at that speed (how resistive the load
is) then use PWM for accurate speed but measure the motor's
steady-state current and calculate the power delta from that.

IGBT's make a good PWM driver stage with their built-in fast
commutating diodes, high voltage and current ratings, and simplified
drive characteristics. If a very low Rds is achieved, (max Vgs),
(relatively) small heatsinks could be used with (relatively) little
loss. (Might not make a full seat-warmer, but that motor is going to
get hot no matter what.) And hey, the motor placed under your seat
would give a massage along with heat!

-M

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:20:15 -0500, Active8 wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:15:13 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


That is, a Colpits oscillator is when, topological, there are caps
across base emitter and collector emitter, with an inductance from base
to collector (Colpits), or where the caps and inducters are swaped
(Hartly).

Argh. Yes, I got the transistor in there wrong -- I was concentrating
on the nifty notion that you draw the circuit free of any entanglements
from bias networks, then you ground whatever point is most convenient
for you.

Oddly enough I almost never do that in practice -- its only when I have
an audience that I screw up in such a stupid way.

@#$%! See Kevin Aylward's comments -- I got my transistor in there
wrong. All other comments apply.

.------o------.
| | |
| --- |
| --- |
C| | ---
C| o-----v \--.
C| | |
| --- |
| --- |
| | |
'------o----------'

What about - I've seen this, but it's an n-fet, not an npn. The c-e
cap isn't part of the tank, per se, but it's a bypass - ?

Yes - the cap is a short for RF, so from the RF's POV, it's the same

circuit.

+---------+
| |
| Bypass |
|/ ---
+----------+------| ---
| | |> |
| --- | |
| --- | |
C| | | |
C| +--------+---- out |
C| | |
| --- |
| --- |
| | |
+----------+------------------+-- GND, IIRC

created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.22.310103 Beta www.tech-chat.de

Cheers!
Rich

 

[JeffM]

Electoral expenditure rules with teeth, so that multi-millionaires
can't buy up TV time to push electoral misinformation into the brains
of the couch potatoes.
Bill Sloman

Agreed, but I'd go farther than that.
As part of the licensing procedure for commercial broadcast stations
...free time during election years...for each/all of the candidates
who have managed to meet certain requirements; perhaps 100,000 signatures.
John Fields

I think that that is a terrible idea...because it makes it
even more dificult to set up new political parties.
Bill Sloman

Disagree. If you can't meet a minimun threshold,

perhaps you shouldn't be the one to carry the banner
....or you should refine your platform.

90 second political advertisement...long enough to contain a simple message
and short enough to fit into the attention span of the dumbest voter.

Make them longer, and the vacuity of the message becomes obvious to
the smarter viewers, while the dumber viewers tune out, which is why
TV advertisers go for 90 second spots.
Bill Sloman

All hail Sloman. Lead on!

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:46:30 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

And I strongly doubt that our pre-conscious ancestors
killed their children for biting or kicking.

I doubt if they had to do much disciplining at all.

We can extrapolate somewhat from the parenting behavior
of gorillas etc. They have to, because their young are as
ignorant as ours.

Yeah, it's that pesky forebrain, that needs all that stupid
training.

See, it depends how you define "conscious". I define it
as "awareness of the separateness of Self and Other, _and_
the separateness of Self's characteristics and those of Other".

Note that this can only apply to us timebounds.

Also note that forebrains are not the sole mechnism this
principle can be expressed in; the infamous "lizard brain"
does it too, just with stricter limits than forebrains have,
and they not only don't need any training, they basically
aren't capable of benefiting from it.

There's a caveat; a given being can only enumerate so
many characterisctics of _itself_, so it's limited in its
ability to understand Other by its ability to understand itSelf.

The more characteristics you can enumerate, the better
you can tell different things apart (which is where I think
you get your dissatisfaction with "mere mentation"). But,
the easier it is to see the _similarities_ too.

But early on, forebrains need to be guided in how to
discern between apparent and real differences and
similarities. That's what "training" is about. If we ran on
our hardwired lizard brains all the time, we wouldn't need
training, but then we wouldn't be able to learn anything.

Gods are such pathetically limited things; more so by far
that we are.

No, no. I meant, you'd be surprised who was and wasn't "there."
But, I think because of your ability to grasp larger concepts, you
won't be 1/10^60 as surprised as _they_ are when _they_ find out!

Oh, sorry; you meant "nonphysical entities" in general? Yeah.

BTW, ready for a shock? We have more free will than they
do, because they don't need it. Not in the lizard brain
sense, because they have fewer choices to make.

re: the BIG HUGE big picture.

<snip>

This is partly why I could qualify as nuts.

Nah, just start a church, make money, die happy. Oh,
wait; you too are afflicted with Ethics.

No, it's that money simply isn't where the happiness _is_.

Spending it is a Hell of a lot more fun than making it!

I already knew that you grokked that fun=/=happiness.

<snip some more>

I could point out that what maps into fourspace as
"Survival" is the interplay of "persistence of current" in
one torus and "inductance" in the other. We're still talking
about the same Big Huge big picture.

Cool! Wanna be my high priest? This is the closest anyone's
ever got!

Uh, no thanks. I have enough trouble learning my own
lessons...

B: Now, give the "magnetic field" volition. This is free will. ;-)

If you think about it a bit, the Original Separation was
an act of free will, the only one the pre-separation
complete "being" was capable of. That branched messily out
in a fractal fashion, which is why the physical world looks
so complicated. We have all these damn choices...

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[CBarn24050]

you deserve all the nasty email you get

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:08:18 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


John Fields wrote:


On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:08:26 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:



JeffM wrote:



::o you know the difference between a battle and a war?
::irk Bruere
:::

I do.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:LZRfLYD-gR8J:www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html+The-Congress-shall-have-Power+To-declare-war

Yes. I also know that one can win all the battles and still lose the war.
The US is an expert in this.


---
Only lately, and only because we've let others talk us out of the win.
We really do need to stop listening to wimps.

ie your own electorate.
Don't worry - Bush is going to fix that 'democracy' problem you have.


---
Not by listening to the likes of pukes like you, and that's for
sure...

I hear Patriot Act II is going to be a real laugh.

--
Dirk

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

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:24:44 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:


Oh, dear. The drugs are kicking in.

Piss-poor excuse. I'm stoned nearly blind right now on
good bud from Washington state. Spellcheckers are Good
Things. ;&gt


Oh, I just didn't want to try to continue to try to make
coherent arguments at the time. It's not an "excuse" It's
more like "Since I'm getting pretty buzzed, and know that
when I'm buzzed I don't make much sense, I'll refrain from
trying to make sense for the nonce.

It's good practice; I used to study a lot while stoned,
so lots of things now only make sense if I get stoned first.
"State-dependent learning", you see.

Can I get back to you on this?

Take your time. Just be sure you believe your survival is
worth the effort, or you might not be around to do so.

Oh, heavens! My survival is so far from threatened - wait -
that's not what you said. "worth the effort?" Hm. Hmhm. Mmm,Hmhm.
Heh. Heheh. KH'm! KH'm! <stifle, snort, lose
BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

Your survival _is_ threatened though, even if you don't
notice the threats. The entire Universe _is_ out to get you,
and in the end, it will. Meanwhile, have fun!

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:05:05 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:24:44 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:


Oh, dear. The drugs are kicking in.

Piss-poor excuse. I'm stoned nearly blind right now on
good bud from Washington state. Spellcheckers are Good
Things. ;&gt


Oh, I just didn't want to try to continue to try to make
coherent arguments at the time. It's not an "excuse" It's
more like "Since I'm getting pretty buzzed, and know that
when I'm buzzed I don't make much sense, I'll refrain from
trying to make sense for the nonce.

It's good practice; I used to study a lot while stoned,
so lots of things now only make sense if I get stoned first.
"State-dependent learning", you see.

Can I get back to you on this?

Take your time. Just be sure you believe your survival is
worth the effort, or you might not be around to do so.

Oh, heavens! My survival is so far from threatened - wait -
that's not what you said. "worth the effort?" Hm. Hmhm. Mmm,Hmhm.
Heh. Heheh. KH'm! KH'm! <stifle, snort, lose
BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

Your survival _is_ threatened though, even if you don't
notice the threats. The entire Universe _is_ out to get you,
and in the end, it will. Meanwhile, have fun!

Our survival _has been_ threatedened, this is true, since the
beginning. But that's what all the fighting has been about. But
Mother's dedicated rangers have succeeded in getting the word
across the gap as to what the problem _really_ has been for all
of this time, and I've recently got word directly from The Highest
Source Herself that Evil has lost the great battle, and the rest
is just a matter of getting the guilt and denial vibrated out of
Mother's magnetic energy field.

So, everybody who wants to live will live. And more importantly,
the spirits that seek death are being released without taking any
life-seeking essence with them back to the Void.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Robert Baer]

You have been reported.

 

[Ban]

Joerg wrote:

Hi Ban,

The US probes he is refering to need a pulse of 100 to 400V to
produce a noticable output, this is done by discharging a capacitor
of suitable size into the probe. The probes work in different
frequency ranges from 1MHz to 100MHz, depending on the desired
resolution and depth. The faster(smaller) ones you can operate with
an avalance transistor, which gives the best rise times.
The receiver is in parallel with the transmitter and is protected by
a diode ring made with si-carbide diodes or Schottky diodes for the
lower voltages. www.Krautkramer.com is the leading manufacturer of
ultrasonic flaw detectors. I have been designing for them .



You don't need an avalanche transistor, those can be very expensive
and hard to procure. We did it with pulsed FETs. The receiver
benefits from using a true T/R switch and not a limiter. Limiters
distort the signal.
Regards, Joerg

No Sir, this is the cleanest limiting you can get. The current sources can
be just simple resistors, if the supplies are sufficiently high. The change
of impedance on the input side can be compensated for by an antiparallel
dual diode to gnd through a 1k resistor.

o
|
/ \
( I ) 1mA
\+/
|
+----+---+
| |
V V
+/- - - +/-
400V | | 1.2V
o-----+ +-----+--o
| | |
V V .-.Input impedance
- - | |
| | | |1k2
+---+----+ '-'
| |
/-\ ===
( I ) 1mA GND
\_/
|
o
(created by AACircuit v1.28 beta 10/06/04 www.tech-chat.de)

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:25:47 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:55:07 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:



'Rights' have historically been wrested from the powerful by force. See Magna
Carta for a good example. Or maybe the US Constitution.
Our societies are balance of forces.


But the US constitution presumes axiomatic, God-given "inalienable
rights" and defines them in the Bill of Rights. They are assumed to be
absolute.

The Constitution only exists because control was wrested from the British by
force of arms.

Cool. Then why would a bunch of european wimps complain because the US
has a huge military and pretty much does what it wants?

John

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:25:47 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax

dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:55:07 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:




'Rights' have historically been wrested from the powerful by force. See Magna
Carta for a good example. Or maybe the US Constitution.
Our societies are balance of forces.


But the US constitution presumes axiomatic, God-given "inalienable
rights" and defines them in the Bill of Rights. They are assumed to be
absolute.

The Constitution only exists because control was wrested from the British by
force of arms.


Cool. Then why would a bunch of european wimps complain because the US
has a huge military and pretty much does what it wants?

Because your poodle Blair is making us a target along with you?

--
Dirk

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