Driver to drive?

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:19:42 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:

Back at ya. Go look at the pulley ratio on an old engine (say '40s or
'50s) with a DC generator, then go look at a modern auto. Until you've
done that, just shut up and blow away...

You obviously have not been reading the thread.

I ALREADY stated that I built 60's era V-8s, and that I know what size
the drive pulley on the harmonic balancer is, and I know what the
generators I had back then had for pulleys, and I know that you are full
of shit. I already mentioned those FACTS, you pissy little bitch.

Until you learn to read a fucking thread, fuck off and die.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:26:56 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:

No, you can't read. Find a quote of mine where I mentioned *any*
specific ratio. Now you're just making shit up (as usual).

You said "right near the engine speed". Because SINCE you do NOT know a
fucking thing about it, you decided to tickle out what you think might be
a fact. It wasn't, and I called you on it, fuckhead.

So, the mention of "near engine speed" equates to 1:1 to me, you
retarded little pussy. Don't jack off at the mouth about specifics if
you are too pussified to declare any.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:26:56 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:

You keep claiming the only reason to switch to alternators was because
of efficiency.

No. I NEVER made any such claim. What I stated was that they switched
because of LOW engine speed efficiency, you retarded fuck, not overall
efficiency, and I only "claimed" it once. AND it was NOT a claim, it was
an iteration of fact of what the industry did and why they did it, you
retard.

IF you could actually READ, and you could actually REMEMBER what you
read, you MIGHT be able to put up an argument.

So "You claimed once that... yada yada yada..."

Is not "You keep claiming..."

So, you keep mouthing off like a little retarded fuck, and that is all
you will have coming.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:26:56 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:

Others and myself have explained repeatedly that it had
more to do with being able to get a usable voltage output at idle

No, you fucking retard. I stated that it was for low speed efficiency.

You nor anyone else repeatedly did a goddamned thing. Maybe you should
go back and find the poster you think you are talking to, you stupid
fuck.

 

[George Orr]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:26:56 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:

Another clue for you (the clueless) is that the headlights on those old
cars would be dimmer at idle than when driving. This is because the
voltage would drop to just the battery voltage when the DC generator was
spinning so slowly and would rise up to the regulator set-point once you
sped up the engine.

You don't have a clue, you can't be taught, so <PLONK

daestrom

You're a goddamned retard, and I OWNED generators and I knew at ten
years old why they were changed out to alternators by the industry
because I worked on cars back then. I knew what Chilton's was before your
little pussy ass was even born, boy.

Delco factories were right up the road, and Detroit was a little
farther.

You couldn't teach a fucking dog a pavlovian response. That is truly
sad.

Plonk? It takes a true retard to announce his filter edit sessions.
You are one such retard.

 

[George Orr]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:33:15 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:03:48 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com
wrote:

This was necessary because when the engine was
turning at 3k-4k, you couldn't have the generator spinning much faster
than 4k itself or it would disintegrate from the centrifugal forces.
(unless you want to spend the $ on a variable-ratio belt drive for just
the DC generator).

There are no cars that incorporate variable ratio belt drives in
America. It is too expensive, and there is no need.


And that's why, you illiterate chump, I said what I did. I did *not*
*ever* say they actually were driven by a variable ratio drive.

What I said was the ratio was kept low so as to *not* require such a
drive. Too high a ratio and the generator would self-destruct.

A typical loser tactic, claim that I said something ridiculous and then
argue that I'm clearly wrong. But the text is there for you to read
(and re-read and re-read until you have some comprehension).

daestrom

You're an idiot.

 

[News]

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.08.10.22.54.57.606159@example.net...

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:36:21 +0100, News wrote:

I believe GM may make the engine variable speed, and lower efficiency, as
the customers may be disconcerted at experiencing a constant speed
revving
engine. Sounds garbage to me. Who cares about the speed of the engine?

The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.

Cheers!
Rich

Since when has a woman ever taken any notice of noises coming from the
engine?

 

[George Orr]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:57:37 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:36:21 +0100, News wrote:

I believe GM may make the engine variable speed, and lower efficiency, as
the customers may be disconcerted at experiencing a constant speed revving
engine. Sounds garbage to me. Who cares about the speed of the engine?

The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.

Cheers!
Rich

Aunt tillie doesn't need to be driving a new techno car or any car if
she has issues rationalizing what the causes of sounds are.

 

[legg]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:53:49 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:29:40 -0400, legg wrote:

It's even worse that they are "inverted". Not sure how they get 01005
out of .015 and .008...
METRIC IMPERIAL

0603 (0.6x0.3mm) 0201 (.02x.01inch)
1005 (1.0x0.5) 0402 (.04x.02)
1608 (1.6x0.8) 0603 (.06x.03)
2012 (2.0x1.2) 0805 (.08x.05)
3216 (3.2x1.6) 1206 (.10x.06)
3225 (3.2x2.5) 1210 (.12x.10)
3720 (3.7x2.0) 1408 (.14x.08)
5025 (5.0x2.5) 2010 (.20x.10)

How do these relate to package designations? I see SOD-23, SOT-123,
and all kinds of other packages called out on, say, Digi-Key and stuff.

Oh, never mind. RTFDS. ;-) (makes it kinda tedious to spec a part for
a certain size.)

Thanks,
Rich

This may help.

http://www.magma.ca/~legg/TVS/090805_smd_Case.pdf

The table covers only smaller semiconductor packages used for bipolar
transistors and mosfets.

You really do have to check data sheets when confirming physical
compatability. A vendor can only really convey the surface info
provided by the mfr, and terminologies differ.

Substituting for more complex devices nowadays may just be wishfull
thinking, as second sourcing is no longer considered to be in a
semiconductor mfrs best interest.

RL

 

[OutsideObserver]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:58:50 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:19:42 -0400, daestrom wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:

If all you are going to do is make shit up, you should stay out of a
discussion where you tout yourself as knowing about it.

Back at ya. Go look at the pulley ratio on an old engine (say '40s or
'50s) with a DC generator, then go look at a modern auto. Until you've
done that, just shut up and blow away...


The only way to get rid of trolls like that is to filter them.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

There hasn't been a single person in Usenet in the last ten years (well
a couple actually)that even knows what a troll really is.

Including you.

You are all just like the pissy little 11 year olds on all the games
servers every time a new game comes out that the adults like.

Any negative remarks gets a cry baby pussy child response, and the
person that made the remark is suddenly "spamming" or "trolling".

You are all about as retarded as any one group of people can be. You
are all so fucking full of yourselves that you cannot even see the shit
smear you decorate your faces with each night when you step into the cess
pool that is Usenet.

There are exceptions. John Fields still remembers what makes up a real
man. There are others. I do not claim to be at that level, but that
knowledge and admission alone places me way above many of you bat's
turds.

I have an excuse though. With all the shit I have been through in the
last two decades, the really stupid fucks here are lucky that I was never
one of those guys that went off on someone. You are lucky that I AM a
nice guy, despite what you fuckheads spew from day to day.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Well... It is too fucking late for that in Usenet. Everybody lied and
threw in a stone, and then couldn't figure out why there were being
popped in the head by a stone.

 

[gearhead]

On Aug 9, 6:29 pm, du...@bunghole.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:

I just wanted to let you know I received my stimulus package
yesterday...  

It contained watermelon seeds, cornbread mix, and ten coupons for KFC.

The directions were in Spanish.

Somebody ate your watermelon and sent you the seeds!
You're not going to take this lying down, are you?

 

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:45:42 -0600, "Don T" <-painter-@louvre.org>
wrote:

"daestrom" <daestrom@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:h5q7en12lar@news2.newsguy.com...
Don T wrote:
"Richardson" <member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:JYWdncZmtr_K2uPXnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@posted.toastnet...

Again power is not measured in AMP, but in WATT you stupid jerks, Give it
up now suckers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If you know it all answer me this. Why are tools like electric drills and
even shop vacuums listed as having 6.0 AMP etc. motors?

http://www.blackanddecker.com/ProductGuide/CategoryOverview.aspx?cPath=1496.2050


Because it makes better advertising copy than 0.48 horsepower??

daestrom

=> snicker <=

Probable, but it makes the statement that "power is never measured in
ampere units" quite wrong.

The 6 amp motor means it draws 6 amps from the mains. It does not mean
ANYTHING as far as how much power it produces, other than that it
cannot produce more than 690 watts at 115 volts

 

[castvee8]

On Aug 9, 6:29�pm, du...@bunghole.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:

I just wanted to let you know I received my stimulus package
yesterday... ďż˝

It contained watermelon seeds, cornbread mix, and ten coupons for KFC.

The directions were in Spanish.

Damn! You got coupons for KFC? Wow......Wish I could get some........

 

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:12:03 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:54:09 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:26:48 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:03:48 -0400, daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com
wrote:

This was simply because they were belted to
run at a slower RPM.

No, it is not. Generators were specifically less efficient at lower
engine speeds, and it had NOTHING to do with pulley ratios, you fucking
dipshit. The pulley ratio was only slightly lower, and that was due to
the larger mass that the rotor of the typical generator of the time had.

If all you are going to do is make shit up, you should stay out of a
discussion where you tout yourself as knowing about it.


They WERE less efficient at low speeds, but he is right - they were
also run at much lower speeds for the reason stated.

That is NOT what he stated. He stated that they were run at 1:1 of the
engine speed, and that is what I refuted. You need to learn how to read.


I believe you should take your own advice

I believe that you should fuck off until you learn how to read. No I
am not talking about only getting PART of what you read either.

I was responding to YOU, not him.

re: staying out of a
discussion where you do not know what you are talking about. (or your
knowledge is relatively limitted)

Said the ditz that cannot even spell the word limited.

 

[Son of a Sea Cook]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:25:53 +0100, "News" <Killspam@invalid.kill> wrote:

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.08.10.22.54.57.606159@example.net...
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:36:21 +0100, News wrote:

I believe GM may make the engine variable speed, and lower efficiency, as
the customers may be disconcerted at experiencing a constant speed
revving
engine. Sounds garbage to me. Who cares about the speed of the engine?

The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.

Cheers!
Rich

Since when has a woman ever taken any notice of noises coming from the
engine?

Good point, but the obvious answer is:

"Whenever the noise has no bearing on the operation of anything..."

I know my script.

 

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:13:40 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:56:56 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

And many engines back in the generator years redlined at about 3600.

You're an idiot. The engines of the 50s and 60s redlined above 5000
rpm.

3600 rpm was the model T years, you ditz.

1962 buick v6- max hp rated at 4600 rpm
1949 buick straight 8 - max hp rated at 3600 rpm
1958 buick 364 v8 - max hp rated at 4400 rpm
1957 caddy365 v8 max hp rated at 4400 rpm
1953 chevy max hp at 3600 rpm
1958 6 cyl chevy max hp rated at 4200 rpm
1958 chevy v8 - max hp rated at 4600 rpm
1949 chrysler max hp rated at 3600 rpm for the 6, 3200 for the 8.1954
chrysler hemi - 331 cu in - max hp at 4400 rpm
1953 forf flathead 0 max hp rated at 3800 rpm.
1955 ford "Y" block max hp rated at 4400 rpm
1953 hudson max hp at 4000 rpm
1957 rambler 6, max hp at 4200 rpm
1955 olds rocket v8 - max hp at 4000 rpm
1954 pontiac six, max hp at 3800
1954 pontiac 8, max ph at 3800 rpm

worked on these babies - I know how fast they ran. NOT MANY engines
of the 50s would even rev to 5000 without losing parts. Many stock
engines of the 60s and 70s could not rev over 5000 rpm Most redlined
WELL UNDER 5000.

Even the mighty Chevy 396, in stock form in 1966 was not happy much
over 4200 rpm. With aftermarket parts, or the L34 factory hotrod
version, they would hang together for a while at 5000 RPM.

A slant six 225 Dodge would not hit 5000 RPM stock - the little 170
could wind to 5500 with its 1 inch shorter stroke.

 

[Don T]

<clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:jck18590grpni0bvkf4jgqd1sujh97edc1@4ax.com...

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:45:42 -0600, "Don T" <-painter-@louvre.org
wrote:

"daestrom" <daestrom@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:h5q7en12lar@news2.newsguy.com...
Don T wrote:
"Richardson" <member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:JYWdncZmtr_K2uPXnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@posted.toastnet...

Again power is not measured in AMP, but in WATT you stupid jerks, Give
it
up now suckers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If you know it all answer me this. Why are tools like electric drills
and
even shop vacuums listed as having 6.0 AMP etc. motors?

http://www.blackanddecker.com/ProductGuide/CategoryOverview.aspx?cPath=1496.2050


Because it makes better advertising copy than 0.48 horsepower??

daestrom

=> snicker <=

Probable, but it makes the statement that "power is never measured in
ampere units" quite wrong.


The 6 amp motor means it draws 6 amps from the mains. It does not mean
ANYTHING as far as how much power it produces, other than that it
cannot produce more than 690 watts at 115 volts

I know exactly what it means. I also know that corded tools in the USA are
rated in amps these days. I even provided a random link to demonstrate that
FACT. So whether you or richardson claim it is never done I have
demonstrated that it IS done. An apology would be asking too much so just
accept that you have been successfully refuted and let it go at that.

--


Don Thompson

Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe

It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain

 

[Richard Cranium]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT), castvee8 <castvee8@aol.com>
wrote:

On Aug 9, 6:29=EF=BF=BDpm, du...@bunghole.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:
I just wanted to let you know I received my stimulus package
yesterday... =EF=BF=BD

It contained watermelon seeds, cornbread mix, and ten coupons for KFC.

The directions were in Spanish.

Damn! You got coupons for KFC? Wow......Wish I could get some........

'Cause I can break dance!

 

[linse maki]

we can supply kind of the replica watches like
Catier,Omega,Breitling,Corum,Tissot,Rolex,Hublot .....
Over 50 sort brand name on our website,and over 5000 style replica
watches !
The movment have swiss 7750,ETA2836,2824,Automatic,japanese quartz
OS .....
You can choose it !
The belt and frame are 316L steel !
We can send it to Spain,Mexico,Canada,Greece .....
The EMS freight is free !
The freight time is 6 days!
The price is about $50 each pc !
If you are interest in it,please you go to see visit our website !
Our website is www.overworth.com !

We also have replica bags,replica shoe,replica clothing,replica
watches .......

Hope you can like it !thanks !

Our website is www.overworth.com !
My email: overworth@hotmail.com !
My name : Maki Linse

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 10, 2:21 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de>
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 07:41:02 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
Notice that I am now suggesting a battery.  Unfortunately, batteries
have a bad tempco too.  They are very low noise however so it may be
worth the trouble they cause.

This could be interesting:

   http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1133.pdf

Yes, very worth reading. It is likely that the low frequency rise in
the noise is the effect of things like temperature.

I don't see any reason that a battery that will hold a charge for 6
months wouldn't have a noise level well below:

6*30*24*60*60= 16 x 10^6 : 1 = 144dB

because the fall off is very slow at the fully charged end of the
charge vs voltage curve.

regards, Gerhard