Driver to drive?

[Jeff Wisnia]

I found this great little site wrote:

I found this great little site. I signed up two weeks ago and got 2 Disney tickets and this week they are sending me 2 Universal Studios tickets. Here's the link http://66.219.102.40/ and by the way I am a real person, this is my real email address. I'm not a spammer and didn't appreciate the nasty email I got last time I tried to post this link.
Thanks, Lisa

http://66.219.102.40/

http://66.219.102.40/

Judging by the email addie you chose for your account you must be one
classy lady, Lisa.....

Which gets me to thinking.....and writing.....



That annoying dame lisawill4u,
Said, "There's one part of me that's too sore to.
So you can't screw my rear end,
But you can my up-here end,
'Cause look, there's a hole in it too."



Jeff Who can't resist the opportunity to write a limerick...)


--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:59:33 -0500, Spehro Pefhany 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?

Oh, they're always, universally, _applicable_. Actual implementation,
however, and the prevention of the violation of those rights, are
another topic entirely. Usually left as an exercise for the reader.

;^j
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On 15 Nov 2004 18:10:52 -0800, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<u4uhp0let3kvog2n3h1cnq13fm6mk7uifm@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:47:48 +0100, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net
wrote:

Piezos are never driven with 50 Ohms, rather with a a bipolar
emiterfollower or Opamp, and some series resistor.

---
Not necessarily true.

I've designed multi-kilowatt underwater projectors driven by a 50 ohm
source by doing what was necessary to get a conjugate match to the
ceramic.

Wanna see some pictures of them in action?

By all means!

---
OK, they're on abse under "Driving piezoelectric transducers"

Enjoy!

--
John Fields

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:30:44 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
....
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...

Yes, it was - but nobody knew at the time how much it would _hurt_ to tear
oneself asunder. The Electric, spirit half can just shake it off, but the
Magnetic Essence doesn't work that way. When Spirit shakes it off, Will is
where it lands. On top of her own hurt from the Original Split. And Spirit
has been blaming Mother for hurting, for all of this long time.

But Mother is recovering from her coma now, and Magick is coming back.

And God wants to apologize. And he has declared his intent to heal _all_
of the hurt this time. Without scars, i.e. complete healing. This is
destined to be quite wonderful - beyond current human imagination.

Gabriel's trumpet has sounded. Armageddon is over. We won. Now, all the
strife on earth is just the shaking out of the old unloving energy from
her magnetic field. Yay, Mom!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:55:16 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:54:07 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:16:19 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


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?



Too bad; that's what happens to weak people who have no rights.

And how could you get Bush to pull the troops out of Iraq?
Ask him nicely?
Or wait a few years.

I'm just waiting for Little Fallujah Horn.

;^j
Rich

Would you enjoy that? Civil war, chaos, a corrupt Taliban-like islamic
tyranny, women forbidden from education and being beaten in the street
for uncovering a wisp of hair? Would you enjoy seeing terror
destabilize a civilization so the the US can be humbled?

Would you enjoy that?

John

 

Steve S <me@privacy.net> wrote:

So I'm considering using just one PCB, attaching right-angle 7-seg LED
displays and tactile buttons to it for use as the front panel.

I think the buttons will work better with a vertical PCB mounted to the
front panel. For the 7-segment displays, how about mounting them on
the main board, wiring them up to display a mirror image, and mounting
a mirror above them at a 45 degree angle so the image of the displays
comes through the front panel?

Matt Roberds

 

[Norman Pirollo]

Thx for the links....
I'm still stumped on how to toggle the switch, then monitor same
switch if piece rises above surface. Toggling the limit switch on
should do nothing, but if the switch turns off, then it will release
the motor dricve
at the mag. switch

Looks like I'll need a circuit which is normally set, then if unset,
will release the magnetic switch powering the motor.









On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:47:09 GMT, Ross Herbert
<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:44:26 -0500, Norman Pirollo <npirollo@storm.ca
wrote:

Need some advice..

I am designing a small feed system for lumber grading.
This feed system is part of a lumber grading system.

There is a motor drive feeding the individual boards along a
horizontal surface using rubber wheels or rollers.
The feed motor is started manually with a magnetic switch.

At a certain point the piece of lumber should activate a limit or
proximity switch indicating the lumber is correclty against the
horizontal surface of the grading component ( very important to
correctly grade)

If the board rises above the surface , even as little as 1/3 in., the
limit or proximity switch should shut the feed motor down using the
same magnetic switch used to start it..(severly warped board, etc..)

I wish to use one limit/proximity switch to do this.
The difficult part is that the switch is normally open while the board
is being fed through, then becomes closed, then open if there is a
problem.

The open switch then needs to shut the feed motor down...

I have been looking at metal roller ball type switches, preferably
dust-proof and rugged.

How to perform this trickery?


Norman

You will need to use an industrial limit switch such as the 9007AW
shown here
http://www.us.telemecanique.com/us/products/limit_switches.nsf/unid/254E80FD72E7937985256A1F0057EAEE/$file/HeavyDutyIndustLimits.htm

the SPDT and DPDT types have changeover contacts (single or double
contact) so that you can use the NO or NC side of the switch for your
purpose. You can obtain application information from the technical
library here
http://ecatalog.squared.com/techlib/browse.cfm?hid=0b008926800af21a

 

[Gabriele]

Ok

I'll investigate from this link.

Thank you very much Dan.

Gabriele.




"Dan Dunphy" <dandunphyREMOVESPAM@pcisys.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:hboip0lr6aeuaig8id3b4qfuq388ebnijp@4ax.com...

Here is a link that should be helpful.
I am a former employee of the scope lab at HP (now Agilent), but did
not work on this product.
Dan

http://we.home.agilent.com/cgi-bin/bvpub/agilent/techsupport/cp_TechSupport.jsp?NAV_ID=-11494.0.02&LANGUAGE_CODE=eng&COUNTRY_CODE=US

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:36:29 GMT, "Gabriele"
CANCELmwicLAMI@freemail.it> wrote:

Hello to everybody! Please help me!


I've bought an HP 54501A 100MHz digitizing oscilloscope, but it doesn't
work!

It seems to have a problem on the NON-VOLATILE RAM, so it doesn't pass
the
self-tests.

Performing all the self-tests it gives 3 fails:

FAILED Protected non-volatile RAM TEST - 0000 0000 0000 0001
FAILED A/D TEST - 0000 0000 0111 1111
FAILED D/A TEST - 0000 0000 0000 1000

I think A/D and D/A fails depends on first fail, becouse CPU stores the
calibration information in this memory (this information comes from the
manuals).

Moreover, if I perform the self-calibration procedure (UTIL -> SERVICE
MENU -> CAL SELECT 3 -> START CAL), I obtain "cal ram write protected",
even
if the rear calibration switch is set to UNPROTECTED mode.


Please help me! I'm looking for any information, particularly the
SCHEMATICS, the RAM position on the mainboard, the meaning of the
previous
numbers, internet links, emails of
service centers, and so on...

Thank you,
Gabriele (Florence, Italy).

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:58:06 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Would you enjoy that? Civil war, chaos, a corrupt Taliban-like islamic
tyranny, women forbidden from education and being beaten in the street

No, but that is going to be the outcome of the war for the South and Centre of Iraq.

---
Well, then, since you can predict the future we may as well all hang
it up and just depend on you to tell us what's going to happen from
now on. About everything. But first, please tell us when you're
going to die so that we can get all the questions lined up for you
before that bleak day dawns on us.
---

for uncovering a wisp of hair? Would you enjoy seeing terror
destabilize a civilization so the the US can be humbled?

Would you enjoy that?

No, but Bush's war makes that more likely, not less.

---
How so? Do you see the strengthening of radical Islam a direct
consequence of a taste of individual freedom for those who have been
under its heel for so long? I don't...
---

I don't see any way out for the US now except a Vietnam style humiliation.

---
You see what you want to see, and rather than having to admit to
yourself that you're not the be-all and the end-all you'd rather see
an entire society bend to your will.

--
John Fields

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:58:06 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:


Would you enjoy that? Civil war, chaos, a corrupt Taliban-like islamic
tyranny, women forbidden from education and being beaten in the street

No, but that is going to be the outcome of the war for the South and Centre of Iraq.


---
Well, then, since you can predict the future we may as well all hang
it up and just depend on you to tell us what's going to happen from
now on. About everything. But first, please tell us when you're
going to die so that we can get all the questions lined up for you
before that bleak day dawns on us.
---


for uncovering a wisp of hair? Would you enjoy seeing terror
destabilize a civilization so the the US can be humbled?

Would you enjoy that?

No, but Bush's war makes that more likely, not less.


---
How so? Do you see the strengthening of radical Islam a direct
consequence of a taste of individual freedom for those who have been
under its heel for so long? I don't...
---

The Iraqi people have not been under the heel of radical Islam.
Only Saddam and now the US.
Islam is looking good to them right now.

I don't see any way out for the US now except a Vietnam style humiliation.


---
You see what you want to see, and rather than having to admit to
yourself that you're not the be-all and the end-all you'd rather see
an entire society bend to your will.

Time will tell.

--
Dirk

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

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:27:57 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote...

I've designed multi-kilowatt underwater projectors driven by a 50 ohm
source by doing what was necessary to get a conjugate match to the
ceramic.

Are they, by any chance, used in an application where marine mammals
are exposed to the acoustic output?

---
The short answer, since they all swam in the same ocean in which the
device was used, is "yes".

However, I have no data relating to whether they would have been
adversely affected by it, if that's what you're getting at.

--
John Fields

 

[Dave]

Thanks for the advice, I am currently using two opamps, one connected
as a current source and the differential amp connected across current
sense resistor feeding the inverting terminal of the first. The
circuit works well for the range that I work with. However the
experiment where this will be used requires 32 of such current source
to be firing pulses into a muscle tissue and the electrodes are
located fairly close to each other. Therefore the interference is
quite high, I have tested a circuit with 2 current sources connected
to the load (1k) through a 50ohm resistor and input being a squarewave
pulse with peak to peak amplitude of 3V. The current sense resistor
is also 50ohms. I have found that when the amplitude of the adjacent
(say id 2) inputwave goes beyond 9 volts peak-to-peak then current
regulation capacity of the first stage is lost and the current does
not settle to the predertermined value.

My guess is that maybe the Vcc being at+-15V could limit the range of
the current that could be regulated by this circuit. What do you guys
think? Also, are there high speed opamps available that can handle a
+-Vcc of +-24V?

-Dave


Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<ML_fd.91$op3.2667@news.xtra.co.nz>...

Mac wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:45:51 +1300, Terry Given wrote:


Mac wrote:


On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:42:39 -0700, Dave wrote:
[snip]



Sorry I forgot, I am trying to obtain 2-4ms bi-phasic square pulses from
the current source (isoalted events). The resistance (500ohm to 2kohms)
values are guesstimates based on experiments done in the past (the
resident expert on this topic is
on vacation at the moment). Also, I saw some of the other suggestions
with supply voltages around 40-55V, I dont think that I will be able to
obtain sources above +-15V for the supply.


You also stipulated that the muscle be grounded, and that you might need
to drive 10 mA into 2k. This is impossible, I believe, since 10mA * 2k =
20 Volts.

snap


Anyway, If you are only going to have +/- 15 Volt supplies, and you only
need 10 mA, I would think you could work something out with op-amps.

For example, I still think you could use a current sensing resistor with a
difference amplifier across it, and take the output of the difference
amplifier back to the driving op-amp. You may need to use rail-to-rail IO
op-amps all around.

I don't know, maybe the offset voltages and stuff would add up and kill
you. I'm not going to do the analysis. ;-)


years ago I built a circuit that does exactly this, for a
(+/-10V)/(+/-20mA) analogue output circuit for a drive. The basic
circuit design was my techs, I just worked out the equations and
calculated the relevant component values. The circuit did work, in much
the way you suggest. A diff-amp sensed the drop across a small series
resistor, feeding back to the input of the voltage gain stage and
thereby controlling current - a current-limited voltage source. There
was a bit of stuff in there to switch between V & I out (actually that
was a real pain, we needed the low Vf of a schottky, but the leakage was
a huge problem and we were too tight to buy a good schottky, mostly
because having a single smt part is not cost-effective)

We built quite a few of these (5,000 or so), but what we found in
practice was the diff amp made a great resistor mismatch detector. Using
1% parts throughout, our overall tolerance ended up about +/- 7% IIRC.
We didnt want to throw away so much dynamic range for s/w cal, so we
re-designed the circuit as a voltage-limited current source (the
modified howland circuit) ie the topological dual of the suggested
circuit. The modified howland circuit is a piece of piss to analyse, and
worked a treat - tolerance dropped to around +/- 3% which pleased both
the s/w and production people immensely.

Cheers
Terry


[snip]

Heh. My notes from electronics 101 b do mention that the diff amp is
VERY sensitive to resistor mismatches.


I vaguely recall noting that the diff-amp essentially scales the
mismatch by the closed-loop gain, which intuitively makes sense, but may
well be complete nonsense - if I wasnt so lazy I'd look up my notes...


Anyway, I'm giving advice outside my area of experience, so I should just
shut up. ;-)

Thanks for the information, by the way.


no worries. At the time we were quite surprised at the actual tolerance,
but luckily we just (and boy do I mean just squeaked inside the
available dynamic range - Because we wanted +/-10V we designed for
+/-10.7V, and applied a suitable software scaling factor, determined at
test. The production guys came to us with their test logs, showing they
almost bottomed out the adjustment, and thats what kick-started the
design review and ultimate re-design. Its almost always the 2nd order
effects that get you in production.


regards,
Mac

ps, if a circuit is a "piece of piss" to analyze, does that mean it is
hard to analyze or easy? Or something else?


oops, antipodean slang. "piece of piss" & "pissless" both mean easy;
just to confuse matters piss = alcohol (usually beer), pissed = drunk,
piss-up = party etc.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Mark Fergerson]

<sorry to take so long replying; I'm trying to puzzle out a
paper on the death of some interpretations of QM>

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:06:04 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

They're all old familiar saws because every person
ever born has to make the relevant decisions.

I'd go even deeper. There's only one story, and all
the rest is
retellings. You just have to be able to see the
mapping
function.

Yup. OTOH once you get the central theme, having the
mapping functions takes all the fun out of hearing the

stories as you know how they'll turn out. OTGH you are able
to recognize when you're immersed in somebody else's story
and have the opportunity to rewrite the script on the fly...

Well, that's what Free Will is all about. With true Free
Will,
everybody is making up their own story on the fly all the
time,
everybody is immersed in everybody else's story, it's all
improv, and everything works because each instant is seen
_and_ _felt_ for what it really is _right now_, so every
action
is appropriate. And all of the information is available,
if you
can get past the memes. Or deeper, imprints.

At that point though, the entire story becomes so obvious
there's no point in playing it out except for those that
like slow dancing. For my part, I wish we'd all get there
real soon so I can concentrate on more interesting things
than The Great Soap Opera, like whether any interpretations
of QM will end up holding water.

But that's just me.

And sooner or later you're going to have to explain
exactly what you mean by "imprints", just so I can compare
with what _I_ think it means.

The nonviolence meme sometimes tries to take over
completely. Do not allow it to unless you believe you have

no right to survive.

I need to go into this in some depth, I think. From
what I understand of the nature of a meme, it has no choice

but to

try to take over completely. But not letting it take
over completely doesn't necessarily mean discarding all of the
information that might be available there.

Right. The meme wouldn't have propagated if it had no
value at all.

The way you say this it sounds like the equivalent of saying
that the HIV virus or Pox virus or whatever must have
some value. I can't see that, other than value to itself

Nonviolence as a default strategy for dealing with
unexpected violence is useful in coping with children.

But overweighting it means you don't survive.

This is either a total non-sequitur or totally
bass-ackwards.

??? Failing to apply violence when appropriate means
eventually you'll get hurt or killed when you didn't have to.

Your survival is built-in. The problem was when people
started
thinking and meming, they started making up stuff,
thinking their brand-new intellect could do a better job of

surviving

than what Body has had a billion years' experience learning.

Survival is indeed built in, and the fact that it can be
overridden just goes to show how powerful certain memes can
be. And I strongly doubt that our pre-conscious ancestors
killed their children for biting or kicking. Even mother
cats don't kill their kittens for biting them. But let the
mother cat think you're threatening one of her kittens and
see what you get.

Memes are the natural enemy of discretion, and vice versa.

I guess things were going OK before people got gods and
stuff,
huh? ;-)

I wouldn't know; I wasn't there. However, I do fairly
well without them.

At this point, the discussion seems to be taking a
couple of
directions simultaneously, which is why I've been
labeling my
responses.

It may seem that way to you, but ISTM that there's a
central theme, namely Survival and its potential

subordination to many outside influences.

OK, I think what the memes do, is deceive you as to what
is actually
a real threat to your actual survival.

Sounds about right; many seem to associate certain
classes of ideas with one's person. "Defend these ideas to
the (your, not their) death!"

Your fear, an element of your "survival instinct" doesn't
think,
or evaluate, or judge, or anything like that - it just goes,
"DANGER!". And then the mind kicks in and starts
analyzing what's
going on, and decides that two gay guys in San Francisco
are a
threat to your survival. And uses your fear against you. What
you're probably fearing is the unknown, that got stuck
when you
were about 1 1/2 YO when you _know_ there's a monster
under the
bed, and Dad says, "Don't be so stupid. Shut up or I'll
give you
something to cry about." So you shut up so that you don't get
smacked, and the fear gets a lid clamped on it and spends the
rest of your life suffocating. And when it tries to tell
you it's dying here, you make it go away again with more

drugs or

movies of politicians or war or whatever you have been
convinced
will ensure your survival, when your survival hasn't been
threatened since the day you were shit out of Heaven into Hell
here, with the cold and rough and noise and bright and SMACK!
Welcome to the world, kid!

I am constantly amazed at how many totally abstract ideas
can activate the fight-flight response.

Something about ending troubles by opposing them.
Don't most
sentient beings already know that "opposing," as in
"taking up arms against", might actually _exacerbate_ the

troubles in

the sea?

Note that I said "when appropriate", which may be
difficult to determine. I prefer to oppose violence by

getting out of the way or redirecting it so that nobody gets
hurt (Aikido), but sometimes that isn't an option like when
facing a gun sans cover, and the only options you have are
to shoot back or submit meekly. I never choose the latter
since I feel that I deserve to survive at least as much as
the hypothetical shooter. If he started it, I shoot to kill.

Well, my counter to this is, how did I ever put myself into
a situation where I'm being confronted by some guy who wants
to shoot me? Howcome he wants to shoot me?

It isn't a matter of your intent, but that of the other
guy. Something about you (skin color, smell, clothing,
stride, whatever) triggers his fight-flight reflex, and
since he's conditioned not to run...

If you say, oh, it could just happen at random walking down
the street minding your own business, I'll claim, which
nobody
can refute or prove other than by saying it's claptrap, is
that that will not happen unless there is some kind of reason
for it - some lesson that you need to learn. According to
the New Paradigm, victim and perpetrator are just two concurrent
incarnations of fragments of the same spirit.

That paradigm isn't all that new; you just may have
learned those particular lessons, but you won't know for
sure until you die peacefully in your sleep. OTOH you're a
member of a rather poorly-evolved societal slice of an
overall poorly-evolved species. Shit's flying in all
directions and knowing how and when to duck is a Good Thing.

Also, children
are the incarnation of their parents' own denials. Which is
pretty obvious, if you do a little observing. ;-)

Well, most may be, but I know not a few exceptions.

This is another place where I want to go into some
depth, on
a couple of different subtopics, like
violence/nonviolence,
meme/nonmeme, cause and effect, and that sort of
thing.

Sure. Slow weekend for me.

Like, how would a given person know if they were playing
a particular meme? Or whatever the verb would be. Like
executing
a program, or "acting out" a script, I guess.

By thinking about why they're doing what they're
doing. There's a major difference between reasoning and

rationalization causality-wise.

Well, yes, of course. But the ones who are acting out the
script think that they're seeing the whole picture, and that
anybody who says otherwise is a $HATED. The quickest way is
simply to undeny. And stay consciously present for emotional
movement, allowing the Light of Unconditional Love to heal
the hurt.

First you have to know what you've been denying, and why.
A good place to start is by untangling and discarding all
your memes. But they fight back...

Would he get pissed off if you offered contrary
information?

Probably, because that's what we're trained to do.
Memes take root largely because of the emotional investment

aspect, and we've already discussed how easily emotion
usually trumps mentation.

Well, emotion is _supposed_ to call the shots. Original Error
was Mind thinking that it had a better way. And whenever
something didn't feel right, Mind blamed Emotion and cast out
that part that didn't feel right. This was fundamentally
wrong,
and is the cause of all of the pain and suffering there is.

That's your opinion. Are you another of those trying to
find a way to believe that rational thought is a horrible
mistake?

About 50 years ago, God clued up that there was a problem
that
didn't get fixed last time he sent a savior, so this time He
went all the way to the root of the problem and found out
that
it was His mistake all along, and he's been trying to
weasel out of blame, and doing a pretty good job at it,

except that

it's been killing almost everything. He has stopped doing
that, but reality can't respond instantaneously, because
we're so much denser in the physical form that electrical
spirits.

Density isn't relevant, and I really wish you wouldn't
use terminology like "electrical" in this context.
Electricity is limited to c, and all physical manifestations
of whatever it is we're trying to discuss are limited
response-wise because physical systems are timebound
practically by definition. The nonphysical "other side"
isn't timebound, and has difficulty comprehending our
difficulties.

God's got a website devoted to saying he's sorry, and he
needs our help to recover all the Lost Will.

Yeah, well, don't give me a link. Arrogant bastard is
obviously incompetent to clean up his messes and can leave
us alone.

I see memes/scripts/programs as mental parasites that
steer us in directions that favor _their_ propagation,

including stimulating our emotions so that we protect them.
I note that yours don't piss you off as easily as do some
others' here...

Oh, that's because I'm so disgustingly highly-evolved. ;-)

Ah, yeah, except for the bit about cats (so far).

On the other tack, how did I get myself into a
situation where
somebody wants to shoot me? Maybe if we'd yelled and
screamed
at each other for awhile, and maybe slap each other
until somebody gets knocked down, then go buy each other a beer?
Isn't that how "real men" do it? ;-)

Yup, and that should tell you what I think of guys
that have to settle arguments with guns. But such people do

indeed exist, and being prepared for them in advance is
simple prudence.

Well, whatever I've been doing has been working. ;-)
Not going to gang clubs in East LA is probably one effective
thing. ;-)

Not sufficient. You also must not look like a target to
anyone looking for one.

Then there're those who will want to kill you not
because of anything you personally did, but because they

perceive you as a member of a group they want to eliminate.
You cannot reason with them until you disarm them, and often
not then, because their motivation is not amenable to reason.

Oh, them, I'm just hiding from. At the most selfish personal
level, it really isn't any skin off my teeth if they're
having
a war or invasion or whatever you want to call it on the
other
side of the world. I'm having sloppy joes for lunch. ;-)

Hiding is temporary, and will only get you killed after
all the "easy targets" are used up.

Exacerbation is relative to how bad you think your
current difficulties are. To take an extreme example, if

you're a well-treated slave, freeing yourself will be
engender a certain amount of inconvenience, and you'll have
the opportunity to freely starve to death afterward, but you
have to decide if freedom is worth the inconvenience.

For me, the bottom like would be, can I walk away and not
be punished for it? Other than, of course, the "punishment"
of needing to figure out a way of feeding myself, which is
not all that difficult.

Sure.

Now, if you're up to your ears in debt, with a wife and a
couple of kids and maybe an ex and couple of her kids
all depending on your paycheck, that's a kind of slavery
all its own.

Yup, which brings up the point that we willingly enslave
ourselves to the needs of others at times, which is called
"altruism".

Slavery need not be physical either; there is slavery
to ideas.

I guess it still comes down to "do I have the power to
exercise
my options as I see fit?" If not, then you're in a learning
experience, I guess.

Even if we do, we probably are (assuming we're breathing).

you _do_ recognize that most of what runs through our
minds is a collection of memes, right? At least, until we

learn to think about what we're thinking, and why.

They don't _have_ to be. They might _look_ indistinguishable,
and this can be the tricky part. There's more to everything
than just what it looks like.

Yeah, and mistaking Something Important for a meme can be
a bitch.

Once again, there are little struggles,
and big struggles. Differences of opinion are why
there are horse
races. It's all a continuum, and picking one side or
the other
and adamantly refusing to see the POV of the other
side simply
limits one's own options.

Sure. But you have to be ready to question the
implication that all PsOV are equally valid. Then, you have

to decide what criteria to use to determine validity. But
that flies in the face of so many memes that most people
can't do it at all, and default to their own particular meme
set.

Yeah, this is why alcoholics and other addicts have to hit
bottom before they'll change their mind. Unfortunately, most
of the memes - now that I think about it, "meme" and
"addiction"
are almost interchangeable - don't result in the personal
destruction of their host, but rather just a lot of general
malaise all around. And it's so much easier to just blame
somebody for your problems than to accept that what you were
told, that has been the foundation of everything you've based
your life on since you can remember, is wrong.

It doesn't help that those who usually try to "help"
bottom-hitters do so by perpetuating still more harmful
memes (frinst the way A.A. does).

This is, in my alleged mind, significantly different
from seeing
both PsOV, and picking one because the other one
simply sucks. ;-)

According to what criteria? Which side is refusing to
examine its fundamental assumptions because of emotional

attachment to those assumptions? The usual answer is, "all
of them".

But when you're meme-free, you can deal with the other
people's
assumptions, and you don't have to have those "attachments,"
although, what's really wrong with attachments? I think
that's
just another scare tactic word. For example, I'm really glad
that all of my parts are firmly attached! (except my head, of
course, thank you peanut gallery ;-) )

Don't go off on silly tangents; I meant attachments to
false ideas reinforced by society to promote somebody else's
ends in favor of yours.

Anyway, each person evaluates each situation according to the
criteria that suit that particular individual. That's what
Free Will is. It's really the only way to properly run a
universe. Each entity intrinsically knows what is right for

it. Humans, however, have been teaching the opposite for

quite some time. There simply are no two situations where
the exact same response is appropriate. Any time you act
based on a script rather than what the situstion really
is, right now, you're doing yourself a disservice.

That's where the overapplication of the nonviolence meme
causes the most trouble.

Have you ever heard of that ubiquitous character, The
School
Bully? Have you ever heard the ULs about one of his
victims
sneaking up behind him and sucker punching him right splat
in the nose with a carpenter's hammer?

Yup. No UL; I did that once, except I used a brick.
Fucker never bothered me again.

That's what 9/11 was.

I knew you were going to go there, and wanted me to
pre-agree with you. No, it wasn't. I _stopped_ after
whacking the bully because I got him out of my face, and was
happy to let him go his way thereafter. OBL et. al. want to
kill us all, and it has nothing to do with any alleged
"history of abuses". It's simply an attempt to put Islam
back on top of the world, a return to their "glory days".

Only now, apparently, Al has only pissed off the bully even
worse. Now the bastard's got _guns_!

Sigh.

(Who the fuck is Al?)

<re: tornadoes and terrorists>

Therefore assessing your chances of survival, and
devising strategies to assure it, come out to the same thing

in both cases. That kind of person can no more devise
counterstrategies on the fly than a tornado can. In fact, if
you know their meme sets, they're easier by far to
manipulate than any natural force because nature is subject
to uncertainty. Minds set in stone are never uncertain.

This is true. Fooling with Mother Nature, now that's an
entirely different issue! One thing you have to admit,

Mother Nature is one horny mama! <leer, snort!>

Yup. But she doesn't go out of her way to destroy anybody
in particular, trailer park mortality rates notwithstanding.
We're simply willing to risk living where her hips are
violently thrashing for various reasons.

It would certainly have done to at least have a
freaking _investigation_ before going charging off half-way

across

the world with guns blazing, intending to kick ass and
take names later. Especially when "Kick ass" includes
the wanton slaughter of thousands of people who probably
hadn't ever even heard of the World Trade Center anyway!

Do you even notice your choice of phrasing here?
"Charging with guns blazing", "kick ass and take names

later", "wanton slaughter", and so on? Where did you get
those memes?

Oh, it's all from the "America is being taken over by the
fascists and turning into the Fourth Reich" meme-set.

Which you're so very fond of. Why? How often do you think
about what you're thinking, and why you're thinking it?

The real issue here is the cause of the attack. You
seem to believe that 9-11 is justifiably the fault of

America, and I don't.

I never said "justifiable."
I'll thank you to refrain from supplying words while
alleging
to quote me.

That's why I said "seem", rather than supplying a
direct quote. You seem to spend lots of effort "justifying" it.

Maybe you're using a different form of the word "justifying"
it. I thought maybe it could be _explained_, but that doesn't
_excuse_ anything. When you psychoanalyze a Postal Psycho or
Serial Killer, you try to learn _why_ he did the things he
did, but that doesn't mean he's not still _accountable_.

Yet your default assumption is that he's "fighting the
good fight" against the Fourth Reich blah blah.

The "fault" of the airplane crashing into the building is
clearly the fault of the guy, now dead, who drove the
airplane
into the building. So obviously, none of them was
killed by a drunk driver. Right?

But the underlying "cause" of the attack, AKA why did that
crazy barstid and his team hijack an airplane and fly it
into the building? According to one report, it was a pop
in the snoot in response to a decades-long pattern of
oppression, harassment, whatever you want to call it.

"One report" which has been inflated into a righteous
jihad against the Great Satan. You've accepted this meme

wholeheartedly. Why?

It may _look_ like I've accepted some meme
wholeheartedly, but
from my POV, it looks like you're running one on me. ;-) I
said "according to one report". I haven't done anything
towards
the righteous jihad against the Great Satan other than to
root for the underdog, which my mom, bless her soul, trained

me to do. This makes it hard to enjoy a game when the home
team is winning. )-; And I mentioned that this might be a
valid other

way of looking at things, at least to see where the other
guy's coming from.

Ah, the "underdog" meme. Too bad it contains the hidden
assumption that said underdog is on the side of Right, being
trampled by the Bad.

Assumptions are dangerous things.

I mean, if you can find out what a guy wants, and in so doing
save lives, why not? Do you really want to see thousands more
sacrificed at the altar of George Bush's Fragile Ego?

There's that "George Bush's Fragile Ego" meme again. How
often do you think about what you're thinking, and why
you're thinking it?

Leaving that for the moment, doing what OBL and company
wants is easy; let's commit suicide and save the nutcases
the trouble of killing us all! But first, let's build
mosques all over the place so they remember us fondly.

Even the Japanese, after they found that the
declaraiton of war
didn't get to the prez. on time, realized, "Uh-oh. We've
awakened a sleeping giant."

Yup. They were also a static target. Al Qaeda isn't.

The base at Pearl Harbor was the twin towers. Al Quaeda is
Japan. Would they not have realized that such an attack would
piss off the US?

Targeting Japan was easy; it was firmly rooted in one
spot, and still is. Please show me Al Qaeda on a map; any map.

What purpose could that possibly accomplish?

As I asked, "Who benefits"? Think it through
carefully, keeping in mind that that somebody else's idea of

"benefit" might be different from yours or mine.

Well, yeah - they did it to piss off the US, to trigger their
"go to war" meme, so they can play themselves off as innocent
victims, and recruit thousands into their Jihad armies.

Which worked.

Or, they might have believed that it might have had the
desired effect of making somebody in the US go, "Hey - is
there somebody that doesn't like us? Why could that be?",
although I'd have to admit, that's a pretty unrealistic
expectation.

Which also worked.

What else?

You have been propagandized into failing to see
this the other way around;

Oh, I see. Now _I've_ been propagandized.

We _all_ have; it just took better in some of us than
others due to our pre-existing meme set (and hopefully, our

ability to analyze it for objective sensibility).

Oh, memes are nothing. Wait till you get to your own
_imprints_.

Define the term already!

those who participated in that attack are the ones
who "exacerbated" the past low-key business in the Middle

East into actual warfare. This is of course exactly what
they wanted; they have an Armageddon Complex as destructive
as do Xtians.

How stupid have you been programmed to think these
people are?

"Stupid" = "have a different meme set from mine"?
That's how I analyze the usual usage of that word.

They do not have lower-than-average intelligence. They
do however want different things to happen in the future

than do most of the rest of us. They see the cost of making
this happen differently than do you and I.

Well, I see a very deep, broad-based meme here in all
this "US
vs THEM" crap. Each person probably wants pretty much the
same
things as the next. A home, a family, friends, and most
of them
have some kind of church. It's the insane rulers that have to
be watched out for, and well, the bottom line is, if people
get whipped up into a frenzy by their leaders, well,
they're just going to have to do their own karma. Most of

them are grown-ups and supposedly qualified to make up their
own mind.

That would be fine, except that in order to work their
karma out, they must involve others who may have nothing to
do with it in what I like to call "karmic loops". See, the
direct way to run the karma would be to go to their leaders
and slap them for making such fools of them, then ignore
them. Instead, they play out the memetic program their
leaders infect them with, eventually (assuming they live
long enough) realizing they've been fooled, and start making
amends.

I guess I jumped the gun on this one too. Are you saying
that there was some "low-key business" and they just
decided,
up out of the clear blue sky, "Hey, let's launch an
unprovoked
assault on the Biggest Most Powerful And Destructive
Military
Machine In All Of Creation, just to watch them bomb us
back
to the stone age!"

Rich, the ones who planned 9-11 are not the ones being
bombed anywhere, as you've noted. That's a "benefit" of

their plan. The fact that others are being bombed is also a
benefit, acording to their criteria, because of which memes
fire off in response to it in suitably prepared minds.

OK, so they are pretty sharp - kill two or three birds
with one stone.

Exactly.

Yeah! Sounds like a _real_ fun plan!

Not! (in case anyone was wondering.)

Except those of the planners, who are enjoying the
hell out of it.

And yes, you have shed some new light on the issue, and
I'm not
as het up these days as I have been about the whole thing
anyway -
I think I just recently popped one of my own spiritual karmic
zits, so I'm feeling much better now. ;-)

I'm very glad to have been able to help.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rolavine]

This thread is about the bull-jolais Nouveau that never ends on scielecdesign?

Do any of you have anthing of value to say?

 

[John Smith]

"Paul Mathews" <optoeng@pioneernet.net> wrote in message
news:ed443a10.0411221021.6c9a3e4a@posting.google.com...

My opinion: Run, don't walk, away from any digital scope older than
about 6 years, especially HP scopes, and most especially 54100 and
54200 series, which are incredibly heavy, noisy, impossible to
service, and, just plain obsolete.

Tektronix scopes are much to be preferred, but they put out some dogs,
too. For the casual user, it's hard to beat the TDS210/220 scopes,
which can be found for as little as $500 on ebay, and well worth it.
THS720/730 has its place for portable applications, but batteries are
lousy nicads, and processor is very slow, meaning that waveform update
rate is frustratingly slow.

The above mentioned Tek scopes have sampling rates high enough that
you seldom have to worry about Nyquist rate, although you must
continue to be aware that the sampling rate slows down as you display
more time on the screen.
Paul Mathews

Hey, Paul! Thanks for these pointers. This is just the kind of info I need.

Hooha, back to Ebay.

John

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:19:14 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Oh, if you have time/interest, here's some stuff on the
QM issue:

http://users.rowan.edu/~afshar/

Oh, big deal. I've known for quite some time that a photon

is not only a particle and wave simultaneously, but even
more than that. And I've already delved into the deeper
realities here, such that the meanings of "particle" and
"wave" aren't as clearly-defined as we think they are.
Whatever a photon is, if you look for particle phenomena,
you'll see evidence that it behaves like a particle, in
those particular ways. If you look for wave-stuff, you'll
see wave-stuff, and this guy was clever enough to devise
an experiment that can look for particle-stuff and wave-
stuff simultaneously.

And, of course, the reason for the "uncertainty principle"
is that they all have free will. Just little tiny pieces
of it, admittedly, but as Free as yours or mine. And just
as thoroughly misunderstood.

;^j
Rich

 

[Rock]

Norman,

Most micro switches such as the one you describe have three contacts so that
you can wire them as normally open or normally closed. If I understand your
problem correctly you would connect it in series with the coil of a relay
controlling the motor and wire the switch in the normally closed condition.

Gary

"Norman Pirollo" <npirollo@storm.ca> wrote in message
news:rm7lp0hol02pt9mahgtit6bgbhgqejpse3@4ax.com...

Need some advice..

I am designing a small feed system for lumber grading.
This feed system is part of a lumber grading system.

There is a motor drive feeding the individual boards along a
horizontal surface using rubber wheels or rollers.
The feed motor is started manually with a magnetic switch.

At a certain point the piece of lumber should activate a limit or
proximity switch indicating the lumber is correclty against the
horizontal surface of the grading component ( very important to
correctly grade)

If the board rises above the surface , even as little as 1/3 in., the
limit or proximity switch should shut the feed motor down using the
same magnetic switch used to start it..(severly warped board, etc..)

I wish to use one limit/proximity switch to do this.
The difficult part is that the switch is normally open while the board
is being fed through, then becomes closed, then open if there is a
problem.

The open switch then needs to shut the feed motor down...

I have been looking at metal roller ball type switches, preferably
dust-proof and rugged.

How to perform this trickery?


Norman

 

[Terry Given]

John Smith wrote:

"Paul Mathews" <optoeng@pioneernet.net> wrote in message
news:ed443a10.0411221021.6c9a3e4a@posting.google.com...

My opinion: Run, don't walk, away from any digital scope older than
about 6 years, especially HP scopes, and most especially 54100 and
54200 series, which are incredibly heavy, noisy, impossible to
service, and, just plain obsolete.

Tektronix scopes are much to be preferred, but they put out some dogs,
too. For the casual user, it's hard to beat the TDS210/220 scopes,
which can be found for as little as $500 on ebay, and well worth it.
THS720/730 has its place for portable applications, but batteries are
lousy nicads, and processor is very slow, meaning that waveform update
rate is frustratingly slow.

The above mentioned Tek scopes have sampling rates high enough that
you seldom have to worry about Nyquist rate, although you must
continue to be aware that the sampling rate slows down as you display
more time on the screen.
Paul Mathews



Hey, Paul! Thanks for these pointers. This is just the kind of info I need.

Hooha, back to Ebay.

John

As an aside I once needed to cobble together an inductor to repair a
cooked smps. The only scope I had access to was a 54600. I did a "splat
test" on the proposed choke, dumping a large charged cap across it and
monitoring the current thru it (10 1R resistors in parallel) and the
voltage across it. I got 2 dots on the screen in single-shot mode - IIRC
the single-shot sampling rate is a miserable 40MSPS or something low
like that. Needless to say the exercise was rendered pointless.

A bit after that I built an RGB-to-PAL modulator, and I wanted to test
it. I used an expensive HP digital scope (a huge thing, 3.5" floppy
etc). No colour burst, even though the scope was 400MSPS or so. So I
used a crappy old analogue scope, and sure enough there it was. I later
saw one of those scopes for sale at tucker for about $10,000 when I
could buy a new TDS224 for $4000.

Cheers
Terry

 

[my_your_chang]

a o I agree.

 

[James Beck]

In article <38g7q095njiqifbak6dlu6q7k238uhnraq@4ax.com>,
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat says...

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:11:58 -0500, the renowned Boris Mohar
borism_-void-_@sympatico.ca> wrote:

I use only one address but I fail to see why I could not have different
billing and shipping address.

That's a fraud indicator.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

A lot of us use our personal credit cards, which have our home address

as the billing address, for "company" purchases, which get shipped to
the company. No fraud there. We have several customers that do that to
save the hassle of a COD package.

Jim