Driver to drive?

[Tim Williams]

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:x8GdnSfRDpfAEdjXnZ2dnUVZ_gNi4p2d@supernews.com...

I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where the
atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?

I'd love to, but first you'd better tell Congress to raise the speed of
light.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[Tim Williams]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:fo7b451o2kkvivcmf64r3usrco940versg@4ax.com...

That's about what I'd need to run Spice fast enough that I can vary
component values with a slider and see the transient response change
in real time.

Fortunately, you can already do that in your head. The system works!

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[James Arthur]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:08:51 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.
What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the
researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.
It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what
really sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a
whole bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are
not deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray
lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock
that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.
If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would
it provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you
willing to pay for that? I don't see much difference between the
computers of today and the computers of 10 years ago.

The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.
Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably
to carbon.

Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely
different from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is
definitely over.
Well, beyond carbon there has got to be a change to self assembling
nanotech. After all, that's how Nature makes brains.

I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where
the atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?
An un-optimised biocomputer can execute an estimated 10^16 FLOPS per kg
using around 20W. Just on power consumption, and assuming non-reversible
computing, there's at least 4 orders of magnitude of efficiency to be
had. So the ultimate, near term feasible, laptop should be able to knock
out 10^20 FLOPS or so. That's about 1 billion times better than today's
machines.

That's about what I'd need to run Spice fast enough that I can vary
component values with a slider and see the transient response change
in real time.

John

A pot simulator. Kewl.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:18:22 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:08:51 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.
What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the
researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.
It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what
really sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a
whole bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are
not deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray
lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock
that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.
If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would
it provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you
willing to pay for that? I don't see much difference between the
computers of today and the computers of 10 years ago.

The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.
Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably
to carbon.

Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely
different from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is
definitely over.
Well, beyond carbon there has got to be a change to self assembling
nanotech. After all, that's how Nature makes brains.

I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where
the atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?
An un-optimised biocomputer can execute an estimated 10^16 FLOPS per kg
using around 20W. Just on power consumption, and assuming non-reversible
computing, there's at least 4 orders of magnitude of efficiency to be
had. So the ultimate, near term feasible, laptop should be able to knock
out 10^20 FLOPS or so. That's about 1 billion times better than today's
machines.

That's about what I'd need to run Spice fast enough that I can vary
component values with a slider and see the transient response change
in real time.

John

A pot simulator. Kewl.

If you use real transistor-level models of opamps and things, and
simulate a reasonably complex system, it's common to get sim times of
hours. That's bad for the human-learning feedback loop. A run per
second is a tolerable goal, so I guess I could grudgingly live with a
mere 10,000 or so increase in compute power.

We wind up using VCVSs instead of opamps, and other hacks, to get sim
times down.

John

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:18:22 GMT, James Arthur
bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:08:51 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.
What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the
researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.
It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what
really sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a
whole bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are
not deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray
lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock
that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.
If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would
it provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you
willing to pay for that? I don't see much difference between the
computers of today and the computers of 10 years ago.

The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.
Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably
to carbon.

Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely
different from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is
definitely over.
Well, beyond carbon there has got to be a change to self assembling
nanotech. After all, that's how Nature makes brains.

I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where
the atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?
An un-optimised biocomputer can execute an estimated 10^16 FLOPS per kg
using around 20W. Just on power consumption, and assuming non-reversible
computing, there's at least 4 orders of magnitude of efficiency to be
had. So the ultimate, near term feasible, laptop should be able to knock
out 10^20 FLOPS or so. That's about 1 billion times better than today's
machines.
That's about what I'd need to run Spice fast enough that I can vary
component values with a slider and see the transient response change
in real time.

John
A pot simulator. Kewl.

If you use real transistor-level models of opamps and things, and
simulate a reasonably complex system, it's common to get sim times of
hours. That's bad for the human-learning feedback loop. A run per
second is a tolerable goal, so I guess I could grudgingly live with a
mere 10,000 or so increase in compute power.

Actually, a billionfold increase in power.
If the Moore's Law variant for computing power holds, that places it
around 2055CE

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Frnak McKenney]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:06:00 -0500, Tim Williams <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:x8GdnSfRDpfAEdjXnZ2dnUVZ_gNi4p2d@supernews.com...
I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where the
atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?

I'd love to, but first you'd better tell Congress to raise the speed of
light.

_Please_ don't. The image of a faster-running Congress passing larger
(but worse) bills after speding only 48 _nanoseconds_ considering their
intended -- and unintended -- consequences is too much for me to take
this early on a Sunday morning.

Wake me up when Congress finally decides to show that they're serious
about fixing the Financial Crisis... by cutting _all_ Federal salaries.


Frank "Grumpy" McKenney
--
...f we admit that that there must be varieties in art or
opinion, what sense is there in thinking that there will not be
varieties in government? The fact is very simple. Unless you are
going deliberately to prevent a thing being good, you cannot
prevent it being worth fighting for. If there were no longer our
modern strife between nations, there would only be strife between
Utopias. -- G.K. Chesterton: Mr. H.G. Wells and the Giants (1905)
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:00:40 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

We wind up using VCVSs instead of opamps, and other hacks, to get sim
times down.

John

You should use the behavioral OpAmp model on my website, or Mikey's
(LTspice), since they both include GBW and phase shift, which a VCVS
does not.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Gourmet Puzzles:

What part of the fish are the "sticks"?

Likewise where are the chicken "fingers" located?

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-06-11, Soundhaspriority <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

"David Gravereaux" <davygrvy@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:I--dnf4lLcQuZbPXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Dave,
I've just looked at your signed messages with both Outlook Express, and
Windows Live. I cannot see the content unless I use the "view source"
option, which is a procedure of several steps. Please, give this up. It is a
senseless way of alienating yourself, and makes it much harder for me to
create a dossier of your activities, location, contact details, and other
personal information.

no such message, no such author, what's this really about?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On 4 Jul 2009 10:17:42 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2009-06-11, Soundhaspriority <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

"David Gravereaux" <davygrvy@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:I--dnf4lLcQuZbPXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Dave,
I've just looked at your signed messages with both Outlook Express, and
Windows Live. I cannot see the content unless I use the "view source"
option, which is a procedure of several steps. Please, give this up. It is a
senseless way of alienating yourself, and makes it much harder for me to
create a dossier of your activities, location, contact details, and other
personal information.

no such message, no such author, what's this really about?

You wouldn't know unless you had a giganews account, idiot. It is a
giganews link to a giganews article.

What idiot updates their news or mail client to track another poster
anyway? The guy is an idiot. His mom letting him onto a computer was
also a "procedure of several steps".

 

[Bart, Your Local Sheriff]

Oh looky there. There's one from 2006.

There is proof right there that you don't know a goddamned thing about
it, Farnsworthlessness.


On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:13:56 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
<roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> Gave us:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:06:55 GMT, "Rich Grise, PLainclothes Hippie"
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> Gave us:


It appears that you completely missed the fact that he was further
insulting YOU, dipshit.

No, he was _trying_ to insult me. It's impossible to insult me with
idiotic rantings.

It was ME that wrote that sentence, dipshit, not John. It was John
that WAS further insulting you with his remark.

Just something else the "Rich Grise, but drunk" derelict missed...

I was calling Michael A. Terrell, "Phil", because of his display of
Allisonic tendencies, thank you very much.

Whatever. That doesn't change the FACT that you missed where John's
insult directed.

Gawd, I hate it when I have to explain my pearls to the swine.

Hahahaha... do you actually think anyone needs an explanation to
grasp your pathetic tripe?

And FWIW, I filtered Fuchs a long time ago, so thanks for the reminder
of why.

Hhahahahaha... Most folks have filtered you, and you other
personalities.

Cheers!
Rich

You're a fucking retard!

I called YOU a Bat's Turd, and John told me I was insulting bats AND
turds.

You are sooooo clueless that you cannot even grasp the fact that
what he said had NOTHING to do with M.T. OR P.A.!

Then, you finish your posts with "Cheers"! You could be a bit more
retarded, just not today.

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:40:18 -0700, John E. <incognito@xbjcd.com> wrote:

I have been asked to offer an opinion in a sensitive situation.

A machinist moved his shop across town and required some rewiring (3-phase
outlets, conduit, etc.) in order to locate some machines where he wanted
them.

He hires a guy who's not a pro (and later discovers is not insured) but has
done shop wiring before and had a good attitude and track record. The guy
does good work. No complaints about the quality of his work.

Owner throws the switch, all works fine.

The story continues 4 weeks later when the very expensive CNC fries its
controller PCB to the tune of $4000.

Turns out the voltage in the shop was upward of 245 and the taps in the CNC's
power supply were set for 220.

What is the legal and moral responsibility of each party?

What will not be helpful are replies about the character or intelligence of
either of the players or their actions.

Thanks.

The "electrician" is culpable as it was found that the wiring was to
blame. That proof alone means that he would be culpable, regardless of
his credentials, or lack thereof.

The owner should bear some blame (as in be lenient in court) for trying
to economize costs in the wrong area (he should have paid the licensed
and insured electrician).

Also knowing how to hook up systems well, and knowing how to do a
proper requirements analysis are two different things and define some of
the differences between the grunt pulling the wires and the supervisor
laying out the plan and making sure that the machines and their power
sources are matched. Since a failure mode did occur, it would be
improper not to make a negative statement about the character of the
installer.

Also, though it was not a lack of intelligence that compelled the owner
to choose the riskier path, it does indicate a lack of wisdom, which I am
sure has received a boost due to these events already.

PS Cross-posting is lame.

 

[Harold and Susan Vordos]

"StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt" <Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote in message
news:2bm055h02mhs5trp9geg6dmmvl3ssgo60o@4ax.com...
snip----

The "electrician" is culpable as it was found that the wiring was to
blame. That proof alone means that he would be culpable, regardless of
his credentials, or lack thereof.

Nonsense. The voltage at the panel has nothing to do with the wireman. It's
a function of the transformer at the pole. The voltage in my shop, wired
with three phase delta, is also upwards of 245 volts.

The only way a wireman could be responsible is if the panel was wired three
phase delta, with a high leg, and he had assigned the high leg to one of the
120 volt circuits, yielding 208 or more volts.

The voltage declared indicates that the service is, indeed, delta.

Harold

 

[Nico Coesel]

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:40:18 -0700, John E. <incognito@xbjcd.com> wrote:

I have been asked to offer an opinion in a sensitive situation.

A machinist moved his shop across town and required some rewiring (3-phase
outlets, conduit, etc.) in order to locate some machines where he wanted
them.

He hires a guy who's not a pro (and later discovers is not insured) but has
done shop wiring before and had a good attitude and track record. The guy
does good work. No complaints about the quality of his work.

Owner throws the switch, all works fine.

The story continues 4 weeks later when the very expensive CNC fries its
controller PCB to the tune of $4000.

Turns out the voltage in the shop was upward of 245 and the taps in the CNC's
power supply were set for 220.

What is the legal and moral responsibility of each party?

What will not be helpful are replies about the character or intelligence of
either of the players or their actions.

Thanks.

The "electrician" is culpable as it was found that the wiring was to
blame. That proof alone means that he would be culpable, regardless of
his credentials, or lack thereof.

The owner should bear some blame (as in be lenient in court) for trying
to economize costs in the wrong area (he should have paid the licensed
and insured electrician).

Nonsense. If you hire a 'pro' chances are they make even more
mistakes. In this case the owner is to blame. He should have hired
someone from the company that sells the CNC machines to connect them
properly to the mains.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
"If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:50:13 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
<vordos@tds.net> wrote:

"StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt" <Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote in message
news:2bm055h02mhs5trp9geg6dmmvl3ssgo60o@4ax.com...
snip----

The "electrician" is culpable as it was found that the wiring was to
blame. That proof alone means that he would be culpable, regardless of
his credentials, or lack thereof.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? Take your retarded queries elsewhere, crossposting, idiot,
troll fucktard.

The voltage at the panel has nothing to do with the wireman. It's
a function of the transformer at the pole. The voltage in my shop, wired
with three phase delta, is also upwards of 245 volts.

When a man wires up a machine, it is his responsibility to make sure
that the machine he is connecting to power is set up for the voltage he
is providing to it.

The only way a wireman could be responsible is if the panel was wired three
phase delta, with a high leg, and he had assigned the high leg to one of the
120 volt circuits, yielding 208 or more volts.

He is responsible because he did not perform the requirements analysis.

The voltage declared indicates that the service is, indeed, delta.

Doesn't matter. The device to be powered must not be wired up with an
inappropriate feed, or fail to be set up to take the feed that is
provided.

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:34:43 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Nonsense. If you hire a 'pro' chances are they make even more
mistakes. In this case the owner is to blame. He should have hired
someone from the company that sells the CNC machines to connect them
properly to the mains.

If a proper electrician does not know how to hook up a machine, he is
not a proper electrician.

Pro work is usually insured.

That makes you wrong on both counts.

 

[Nico Coesel]

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:34:43 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:


Nonsense. If you hire a 'pro' chances are they make even more
mistakes. In this case the owner is to blame. He should have hired
someone from the company that sells the CNC machines to connect them
properly to the mains.

If a proper electrician does not know how to hook up a machine, he is
not a proper electrician.

A CNC machine is something different than a light bulb. Few
electricians know more than how to connect a light bulb and outlets.
Besides, the story doesn't tell whether the machine has a permanent
mains connection or is connected by a cord.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
"If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Baron]

John E. wrote:

I have been asked to offer an opinion in a sensitive situation.

A machinist moved his shop across town and required some rewiring
(3-phase outlets, conduit, etc.) in order to locate some machines
where he wanted them.

He hires a guy who's not a pro (and later discovers is not insured)
but has done shop wiring before and had a good attitude and track
record. The guy does good work. No complaints about the quality of his
work.

Owner throws the switch, all works fine.

The story continues 4 weeks later when the very expensive CNC fries
its controller PCB to the tune of $4000.

Turns out the voltage in the shop was upward of 245 and the taps in
the CNC's power supply were set for 220.

What is the legal and moral responsibility of each party?

Non since the machine could fail at any time irrespective of the move or
wiring. The CNC machine would quite easily cope with this variation in
supply voltage particularly in an industrial environment where spikes,
dips and line noise would predominate.

What will not be helpful are replies about the character or
intelligence of either of the players or their actions.

Thanks.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Doug Miller]

In article <VWY3m.1928$cW.1327@newsreading01.news.tds.net>, "Harold and Susan Vordos" <vordos@tds.net> wrote:

The voltage declared indicates that the service is, indeed, delta.

Nonsense. 245VAC could *easily* be a [nominal] 240V single-phase service.

 

[Richard Cranium]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:24:29 -0700, "Bart, Your Local Sheriff"
<B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Ni****!.org> wrote:

Oh looky there. There's one from 2006.

<<<<<Snip>>>>>

Hey - looky a bit more and you might find one from before you were
born. To wit:

On Tue, 07 May 1959 13:05:21 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
<roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:

You seem to be a totally useless slut who cannot understand
anything. Please tell us you will not reproduce.

No way. I am trying as hard as I can to entice someone to fertilize me. I
sit outside naked with my legs spread wide and honey smeard over my
snatch. I WILL attract something. My offspring will inherit my branes
and lead what will be called Usenet in the future. Indeed, I truly feel that
it is my offspring who is leading my fingers to type now. You will recognize
his genius by his accomplishments as a child. He will reveal massive
mechanical abilities years before his BarMitzvah. Maybe he will build an
automobile engine; maybe he will cover a pool table; maybe he'll do
all that and more. Excuse me, the rest of the team has come into the
room and I have to earn rent money. Let's go fellows, white guys to the
end of the line. There's no discrimination in my bedroom!

That is quite disturbing as I am sure that your honeyed snatch will attract
many forms that can lead to fertilization. I feel sorry for those who will have
to deal with your offspring in the future. Just as an aside, why is your
husband playing anal games with your brother on the couch?



You're a fucking retard! I have not even been conceived yet and I can
see that. Wait until I am shat and I will surely come back to haunt you.

 

[Rich.]

Equipment is designed to operate +/- 10% of the nameplate rating. In the
case of taps like what happened here, the taps are supposed to be set by the
electrician to fall within the 10% range. With the taps set at 220v the CNC
machine was good to operate from 218v to 242v. As the power installer, it
was the electrician's responsibility to verify the voltage coming into the
building and adjust the taps on the machine accordingly. He was paid to
correctly hook up power to the machine and failed to do so.


"John E." <incognito@xbjcd.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C67598E2001051EEB08A39AF@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

I have been asked to offer an opinion in a sensitive situation.

A machinist moved his shop across town and required some rewiring (3-phase
outlets, conduit, etc.) in order to locate some machines where he wanted
them.

He hires a guy who's not a pro (and later discovers is not insured) but
has
done shop wiring before and had a good attitude and track record. The guy
does good work. No complaints about the quality of his work.

Owner throws the switch, all works fine.

The story continues 4 weeks later when the very expensive CNC fries its
controller PCB to the tune of $4000.

Turns out the voltage in the shop was upward of 245 and the taps in the
CNC's
power supply were set for 220.