Driver to drive?

[Phil Allison]

"Raveninghorde"

And CFL lamps have typical power factor of 0.5. That is twice as much
power has to be generated as you would expect from the lamps power
rating.

** Nonsense.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"MooseFET"

And CFL lamps have typical power factor of 0.5. That is twice as much
power has to be generated as you would expect from the lamps power
rating.

The power factor does not mean that extra power must be created. They
draw lagging current..


** No they do NOT !!

CFL's current draw is in phase with the peaks of the AC supply voltage -
just like nearly all rectifier / capacitor loads found in electronics.


....... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:418qm4pve7mb9563a3vdtkdr1j1mrf2uqk@4ax.com...

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 10:08, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
You've no idea how dodgy the 19th century CO2 measurments were

The articles I've read say the exact opposite. It's not a difficult
measurement. Now
didn't the 19th century produce most Physics and Chemistry too ? How on
earth could
they have done that if they could even measure CO2 ?

They could measure it, but there are practical limits to the size of
the sealed container you can use to isolate your sample of air and
slosh it around with lime water.

As a graduate student I hooked up a 12 litre spherical flask to my
vacuum line to hold my stock of nitric oxide. It was the biggest flask
the department held in store, because it was about as big as you could
grasp securely.

It holds about half a gram molecule of air at atmospheric pressure an
room temperature (a gram mole occupies 22.4 litres at STP). In the
19th century - when the CO2 content of the air was around 300ppm -
that would have contained about 7 milligrams of CO2.

If you'd precipitated all of it as CaCO3 or BaCO3 (better) you'd get
to produce about 16 milligrams of calcium carbonate or 32 milligrams
of barium carbonate. You'd then have to get it all out of the flask
and into your filter paper, without exposing the lime water (or baryta
water) to any more carbon dioxide. You then have to calcine your
filter paper to get rid of it, which would also get rid of the CO2,
leaving you some 9 milligrams of calcium oxide to weigh, or some 25
milligrams of barium oxide.

It's a tedious procedure, so you won't do it often, and an analytical
balance is only sensitive to about a tenth of a milligram, so it isn't
all that precise, even if your technique is perfect.

If you looked at this link given by Don:

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

It shows the measurment techniques and notes the number of times
various scientist did them. For example Schultze 1600 measurement in 3
years, 1868-1871.

Even Keeling accepts the quality of some of the results taken in the
1870s. I note these are the ones that agree with his 280ppmv base
line. Me cynical?

Not cynical enough.

Note this sentence from the end of the paper

"Obviously they used only a few carefully selected values from
the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent
with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by
the burning of fossil fuel"

Since the crucial evidence that the rise in CO2 in air comes
burning fossil carbon is the changing carbon isotope ratio -
the Suess Effect - and is conclusive, this single sentence is
enough to reveal Ernst-Georg Beck to be an ignorant
amateur with an axe to grind.

My own opinion is that the measurements he's fussing about were
taken in places where people were already burning a lot of fossil
carbon, and are a great deal less reliable than he claims.

My own attitude to German chemists is slightly sceptical -
when doing my Ph.D. I ran into earlier work in the area from
Germany - W.Kraus, Z.Physik. Chem A175, page 295 (1936)
- which looked gorgeous, but turned out to be explicable only if
he'd failed to mix his reagents properly (as was more or less
inevitable with the equipment he was using). Because the error
was consistent from experiment to experiment, all the results
agreed perfectly, and all were consistently wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[JeffM]

John Larkin wrote:
For real microwave apps, there's Sonnet Lite and Puff, both free

Jim Thompson wrote:
I have a copy of "Puff" around here somewhere ;-)
Though I may have tossed it... IIRC it was on a 5-1/4" floppy :-(
Is it available for "modern" operating systems?

TTBOMK it's DOS-only.
In the 21st Century, however, that shouldn't be a hinderance:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/2132697de3d95a1e?q=effortlessly+great+VirtualBox+zz-zz+qq+multiple.virtual.machines+*-windows-variants+any.operating.system+virginal-*+*-cunning-*
news:F-udnfpqXdKVmaLUnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@lyse.net

VirtualBox will run with a Windoze host.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Jv0NBhJKvV8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_machines_features+Host.OS+VMware+VirtualBox+Slow+Proprietary+DOSEMU+free+DOSBox+Guest.OS+unsupported+no+last.modified+GPL+tax+text+DOS#General_Information
....and no one can bitch about the price.

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

Raveninghorde wrote:


Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs


Oh the irony.

100W GLS bulbs have just been withdrawn from British shops btw.

Graham


Like the British has your best interest in mind.

They're just patronizing you while setting you
up for the slaughter.

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

pseidel78@hotmail.com wrote:

Someone who can actually DO THE JOB instead of talking about it.

Graham

Does that mean you won't be applying any time soon ? ;/

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[Sylvia Else]

Raveninghorde wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:39:25 -0800 (PST), MooseFET
kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Jan 13, 5:14 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:47:22 +0000, Raveninghorde



raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:18:56 -0800 (PST), Arumugham
easyshoppingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Use dimmer control or rheostat / variable resistance to control
brightness of table lamps.
How much does that save? If we all set our lamps to 50% what would the
power factor be? Would we be able to shut down a power station every
1/4 of a cycle?
Use energy saving lamps like CFL (compact fluorescent lamp).
When using computers, make use of power saving modes, turn off
peripherals when they are not in use.
Power saved is power produced.
Visit
http://severaltips.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-electricity-save-energy-...
CFL is crap. The use hazardous chemicals and we are told in the UK to
treat them as hazardous waste and to call the council if we break one.
A lot of them are so dim at power up that you have to leave them on
the whole time. I bought some that take over 5 minutes to get up to
half brightness.
I'm waiting for decent led lamps.
And CFL lamps have typical power factor of 0.5. That is twice as much
power has to be generated as you would expect from the lamps power
rating.
The power factor does not mean that extra power must be created. They
draw lagging current so the power company needs to connect more power
factor correction capacitors.

That doesn't sound like a cheap option.

http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=9310

/quote

Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs

The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends
on the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast introduces a
lagging power factor, which is a problem, but an electronic ballast
usually has a leading power factor. Since other domestic equipment
containing inductive loads have lagging power factors, the use of CFLs
with electronic ballasts will reduce the net reactive power.

Sylvia.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:37:07 -0600, RB <burkheimer@gmail.com> wrote:

RangersSuck wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:17 pm, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:06:18 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:31:06 -0500, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com
wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
... snip ...
Right-wingers would be funny if they weren't allowed to vote.
Quick - pass a Constitutional Amendment to fix that.
Why not just use the standard Leftwing method of working around the
Constitution, and pay a Liberal Judge to make a ruling?
I wonder how they are going to keep Republicans or conservatives
from voting, what with same day registration and no photo ID at the
polling place?
The Democrats have institutionalized vote fraud.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Sure they have. Like the instant background checks for gun buyers. But
that's OK, because the Republicans like it. Right?

It *is* a Constitutionally protected right.

It's certainly a lot more stringent that, say, the documentation that
one is a legal Ohio voter.

Documentation?

How would you like if one could buy a handgun by answering a couple
questions?
"Is john Smith your real name?"
"Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
"Are you crazy? On drugs?"
"Here's your gun"

That's all I needed in both VT and AL (I'm sure OH is no different, it
is a federal check). Well, there were about a dozen questions, all
about that difficult (though the wording on the last two is silly).

 

On 13 jan, 20:54, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
"Gunner" <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> schreef in bericht
news:a5tom4dsamvsuqnsmd3vlftocgrp1rsp57@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:05:27 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

We've just heard the sing-song about how everything's been
broken, and we can't afford eight more years of it.
Everything suddenly became visibly broken in August 2008. to such an
extent that even the banks noticed, and promptly fell into panic. The
incompetent and unrealistic policies that got you into this state had
been running for nearly eight years at the time,

That should read..for nearly 14 yrs.  Your ignorance is noted with
fascination

It is true that there was a Republican majority in the house of
Representatives for the last six years of the Clinton administration,
which prevented that administration from reigning in the free market
excesses of the banks, but I thought I'd better keep it simple -
I do want to try to get through to the right-wingers who read these
posts.

The Clinton Adminstration was trying to rein in the free market
excess, but was thwarted by Republicans?  Funny, that's not what
the New York Times reported.

They specifically said the Clinton Administration /was pressuring
Fannie Mae to make risky subprime loans./

I should clarify it's actually even worse.  Fannie Mae itself
doesn't make loans; they were intentionally /trying/ to get
banks to make subprime loans.

   "By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae
    is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with
    less-than-stellar credit ratings."

It was deliberate--more loans was the goal, policy, pressure,
lowered standards and government subsidies were the means.

You do like to confuse "make more loans to people with less-than-
stellar credit ratings" with giving money to anybody who asked for it.
No elected official would be silly enough to endorse a "ninja" loan
(no income, no job) but the banks that you claim were the blamelss
victimns of government pressure - as opposed to the deceitful
exploiters of a government initiative - were silly enough to make
exactly that kind of loan, and silly enough to pay out performance
bonuses to employees who made lots of these kinds of loans.

You normally come across as a tolerably intelligent debater, but on
this point you keep on trotting out total nonsense as if it was
actually credible. What is going on? Were your kids making these kinds
of loan?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:12:08 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:37:07 -0600, RB wrote:

How would you like if one could buy a handgun by answering a couple
questions?

As a patriot and lover of Freedom, I'd like that a lot.

"Is john Smith your real name?"
"Have you ever been convicted of a felony? "Are you crazy? On drugs?"
"Here's your gun"

Here's my gun license:

Amendment II, Constitution of the United States:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
--
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

How does that work out for you in California? Do you carry concealed?

 

On 13 jan, 20:32, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
"Gunner" <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> schreef in bericht
news:a5tom4dsamvsuqnsmd3vlftocgrp1rsp57@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:05:27 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

We've just heard the sing-song about how everything's been
broken, and we can't afford eight more years of it.
Everything suddenly became visibly broken in August 2008. to such an
extent that even the banks noticed, and promptly fell into panic. The
incompetent and unrealistic policies that got you into this state had
been running for nearly eight years at the time,

That should read..for nearly 14 yrs.  Your ignorance is noted with
fascination

It is true that there was a Republican majority in the house of
Representatives for the last six years of the Clinton administration,
which prevented that administration from reigning in the free market
excesses of the banks, but I thought I'd better keep it simple -
I do want to try to get through to the right-wingers who read these
posts.

The Clinton Adminstration was trying to rein in the free market
excess, but was thwarted by Republicans?  Funny, that's not what
the New York Times reported.

They specifically said the Clinton Administration /was pressuring
Fannie Mae to make risky subprime loans./  And they said it was a
risky policy that could easily lead to a meltdown, requiring a
government "rescue."

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
  By STEVEN A. HOLMES, Published: September 30, 1999
 http://tinyurl.com/3k7rtf

Looks like you have that bass-ackwards Bill.  Good thing
you kept it simple.

You've posted that link before. The Clinton administration was
actually encouraging Fannie Mae to make more home loans to low-income
borrowers in disadvantaged neighbourshoods, which didn't have to be
sub-prime loans. The comment about the melt-down is not the reporter's
opinion but a quote

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another
thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the
government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped
up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

The American Enterprise Institute is a bunch of right-wing experts for
hire, who will also tell the general public that smoking isn't bad for
you and that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, if paid enough.

The fact that the policy was exploited by the banks to make very risky
loans - including the notorious "ninja"loans (no income, no job) -
doesn't make the Clinton administration responsible for the disaster
that has hit us recently. With the benefit of hindsight the Republican
unwillingness to restrain the excesses of this particular free market
does seem to have been unwise.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:01:12 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck
<rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 11, 2:06 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:


Why not just use the standard Leftwing method of working around the
Constitution, and pay a Liberal Judge to make a ruling?

Gunner

Right. Like the judges who put that asshole Bush into office in the
first place.

Another idiot heard from.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Sylvia Else"

The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends on
the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast

** Not been used for over 20 years.

but an electronic ballast usually has a leading power factor.

** Totally false.

The PF of a CFL is neither leading nor lagging.

In common with the vast majority of electronic loads, the PF ( usually
around 0.5) it is due to having a distorted current wave.

Since other domestic equipment containing inductive loads have lagging
power factors, the use of CFLs with electronic ballasts will reduce the
net reactive power.

** Absolute bullshit it CANNOT and DOES NOT HAPPEN.

You have been reading that UTTER load of technical CRAP accompanying the
new Australian Customs regulation - right?



....... Phil

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:34:21 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Raveninghorde wrote:

Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs

Oh the irony.

100W GLS bulbs have just been withdrawn from British shops btw.

What's a GLS bulb?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:57:22 -0600, krw wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:12:08 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Here's my gun license:

Amendment II, Constitution of the United States:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
--
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

How does that work out for you in California? Do you carry concealed?

You have to, here in the People's Republic. If they saw it in plain view,
they'd gun you down in cold blood.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Sylvia Else]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Sylvia Else"

The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends on
the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast

** Not been used for over 20 years.


but an electronic ballast usually has a leading power factor.

** Totally false.

The PF of a CFL is neither leading nor lagging.

In common with the vast majority of electronic loads, the PF ( usually
around 0.5) it is due to having a distorted current wave.


Since other domestic equipment containing inductive loads have lagging
power factors, the use of CFLs with electronic ballasts will reduce the
net reactive power.


** Absolute bullshit it CANNOT and DOES NOT HAPPEN.

You have been reading that UTTER load of technical CRAP accompanying the
new Australian Customs regulation - right?

Where did it mention a distinction based on ballasts?

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Sillier than Anyone Else"

Phil Allison wrote:


The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends
on the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast

** Not been used for over 20 years.

** MISSED this bit - eh ???

but an electronic ballast usually has a leading power factor.

** Totally false.

The PF of a CFL is neither leading nor lagging.

In common with the vast majority of electronic loads, the PF ( usually
around 0.5) it is due to having a distorted current wave.


Since other domestic equipment containing inductive loads have lagging
power factors, the use of CFLs with electronic ballasts will reduce the
net reactive power.


** Absolute bullshit it CANNOT and DOES NOT HAPPEN.

You have been reading that UTTER load of technical CRAP accompanying
the new Australian Customs regulation - right?

Where did it mention a distinction based on ballasts?

** The Q has no point at all.


SO PISS OFF - you ASD FUCKED TROLL !!!



...... Phil

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:42:16 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:01:17 -0500, "Paul E. Schoen"
pstech@smart.net> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:s2rcm45rdcha18hcto0od5j56otdlub03e@4ax.com...


Hi,

Our long-time PADS guy left to start a new life, and we're breaking in
a replacement.

It's going well, except for this annoyance: we used an old board as
the basis for a new one, with a big ECO, saving the outline, mounting
holes, and most of the power supply stuff. Works fine, renamed and
saved as a new design. But the fab and assembly drawings still show
the old design name at the lower-left, and we can't find the menu item
that might allow us to change this. The PADS docs and HELP are of
course no help.

We're running Logic and PCB version 5.0.

This isn't a problem in schematic printouts, since there the design
name comes out as a pleasing string of heiroglyphics.

Help appreciated.

John

This would be a good question to post on the PADS forum, but I think you
can change the name of the design when you "Run" the "Print/Plot" menu, and
there is a little text box for job name.

Otherwise, you can just export the design to an ASCII file and find the
offending text, change it, and ASCII import back in.

I have PADS2004sp2. I think it worked the same with its predecessor, 5.x.

If you had a newer version this might not work. Every time they fixed one
bug, they introduced a few more "features" and a whole sackful of new bugs.

Paul


Thanks: it turns out that you have to save the project and re-open
it... it's that simple. Our new pcb person had kept the job open for
days, without a save-as!

We dropped PADS support at V5. Pads 5 is essentially perfect, so all
Mentor could do is break it. When they started offering courses to
help experienced Logic users to use the new rev of Logic, we figured
it was time to bail.

John

I can still hear the echoes of the save early and often lecture you
gave him. Or am i just overly hopeful?

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:51:14 -0500, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

Punishing people for being productive helps nobody.

Well, taxation is not exactly punishment, but it can be viewed as such. The
sliding scale of income tax is a prime example. Why should the upper
brackets pay so much? Because they can afford it is an offensive answer.
Because our economic system has rewarded them is a slightly better answer.
The best answer deals with moving wealth around in a stimulating way. I
know, our Gov. really screws this up.

Taxation is a very powerful thing. Tax policy could/should be
structured to make life better for everybody, especially the poorest
and least skilled. Too often, it's designed to punish the productive,
emotionally satisfying but not really helpful.

Most taxation now discourages hiring, encourages
contracting/temps/outsourcing, discourages capital equipment
investments, and results in some bizarre, expensive, destructive tax
planning.

In a few more years, that $30K a year will be a million dollars I
don't have. Money well spent, I hope.

Prudent investments in humans is always well spent.

What are you personally doing to help the less fortunate? Aside from
whining about people you imagine to be rich?

Gee, I did not even know that you were rich. I am happy that you are rich.
Or comfortable. I am comfortable and share what I can with those who are
less comfortable. But, I hate fund raisers!

All I really want to do is design circuits. The money part is just an
annoyance.

John

 

[Joel Koltner]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:4ihqm41lj2e04vvl5o0a36ld8764lfb62a@4ax.com...

Most taxation now discourages hiring, encourages
contracting/temps/outsourcing, discourages capital equipment
investments, and results in some bizarre, expensive, destructive tax
planning.

Sounds like Germany!