Driver to drive?

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:13:08 -0700, JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:01:49 -0500, AZ Nomad
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:13:56 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:59:36 -0700, JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:22:12 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
...
Any opinions about DI water in a battery?

Genuine DI water is typically chemically cleaner than ordinary
distilled water. The issue is whether or not it really is DI water.

I'm pretty sure it is - the shop's deionizer is right next to the
deep sink. It looks a lot like a water softener, but aren't they
pretty much the same thing?

There's no need to get too anal over it. It isn't like you're going
to be running thousands of gallons of water through a battery.

The difference between "genuine DI water" and water run through a
simple filter isn't enough to matter. If you can't taste the
difference, the battery won't care either.

Not true. It depends very much on the particular unwanted dissolved
contaminants. Dissolved arsenic just happens to be a good example.
Standard water softeners won't remove As, or most transition metals.
Bottom line, reverse osmosis it the easiest process for basic purified
(but not quite deionized) water in the presence of high metals (other
than alkaline earth [column 2A] "hard water") concentrations.

Then again, you can get essentially distilled water from the catch basin
of your dehumidifier. (you might want to run it through a coffee filter to
catch the dust.)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:54:47 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

It isn't like you're running thousands of gallons through a battery and
the contiminents will be left behind and build up.

No, if you were running water _through_ the battery, there'd be no
problem. What it does is just sit there, and you replace a few teaspoons
at a time, as needed, while the contaminants pile up.

Would you rather have a battery last five years, or ten?

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:47:56 -0700, Mycelium wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:41 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:05:42 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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

Have you returned to constant current power distribution with 6 A
circuits ?

Arc lamps in the 1880's were specified by the number of amperes
(typically 6 A for street lighting). All lamps were series connected
and you could operate 20-25 of these in series from a 6 A DC generator
producing a 1000-1500 V DC loaded voltage. Thus, the voltage drop
across each arc lamp was about 55 V on average.

And, like the series Xmas lights of yore, when one goes out, they all
go out.

Not if it fails shorted.

You must be very young. I remember, oh, about a half-century ago, laying
the Xmas tree lights out on the floor, and if the string didn't light,
we'd take a known good bulb and go down the string swapping out bulbs,
one at a time; if the string didn't light, we'd take the bulb we just
removed from its socket and swap it out with the next one, and so on.
When the string lights up, you'd throw away the bulb that you just
removed/replaced.

Nowadays, they apparently do have low-V bulbs that are designed to fail
short; I'm danged if I know how they accomplish it.

I can guess - one of the filament supports is springy - when the filament
opens, that support springs back, contacting another electrode, shorting
the bulb - but wouldn't that be kinda expensive?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:27:42 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:

On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I think its that bit about the genral welfare.

And "promoting the general Welfare" is why the founders immediately
enacted a raft of social safety net & handout programs. Like
guaranteed
retirement, school lunches, medical care, and programs for the poor.

This is sarcasm, right?

It was Roosevelt who turned the Crash of '29 into the Great Depression
with all his socialist handout programs.

The Obamanation is just driving the last nail into the coffin.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:32:10 -0700, "Richardson" <member@newsguy.com>
wrote:

"John Fool" <jfool@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:bi7985l908vr5togu8ieqq2c1n302k3s80@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:44:27 -0700, "Richardson" <member@newsguy.com
wrote:


"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigShit@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message news:lng785d8ma92m5gio168v5al25nb7bhr5i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:41 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:05:42 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


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

Have you returned to constant current power distribution with 6 A
circuits ?

Arc lamps in the 1880's were specified by the number of amperes
(typically 6 A for street lighting). All lamps were series connected
and you could operate 20-25 of these in series from a 6 A DC generator
producing a 1000-1500 V DC loaded voltage. Thus, the voltage drop
across each arc lamp was about 55 V on average.


We have a winner.



What? That bologna is a winner?

---
Can you say: "Tongue in cheek?"
---

Then you don't know much about Wattage and AMP.

This is what is wrong with your winner:

ANYTHING as far as how much power it produces, other than that it
cannot produce more than 690 watts at 115 volts

---
Huh???

It's clear to me that if the motor load is resistive and draws 6 amperes
from 115VRMS mains, then the power delivered to a nonreactive mechanical
load cannot be greater than:


P = IE = 6A * 115V = 690 watts.


As a matter of fact, (so far) the three basic laws of thermodynamics
are:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even
3. You can't get out of the game

So, for 690 watts taken from a source, what will be delivered to the
eventual load will depend on the price exacted by the delivery system.
---

600watt can be any form of voltage, it is a combined Voltage and AMP together to form a power
of 600watt, you can't say it's fixed to 115V.

---
True, but still utter nonsense since we draw power from a voltage source
which _is_ fixed at 120V.

That means that no matter how much power we ask the source to deliver,
it will deliver it into a load which is designed to drop 120V at its
required power
---

12VDC can light up a 600watt light bulb too.

---
Sure, if the 12VDC source can supply 50 amperes into the load without


97% of car alternators can deliver more than 50A, only your dickhead can't.



sagging, but so what?
---


Stop misleading the youngsters now John Fool, don't make excuse to jump
off the proper formula. Unless you never been to school of electrical engineering.

---
Hmmm...
I guess you read just as bad as you write, since I earlier gave the
proper formula for calculating power:


P = IE


and even gave an example for a load drawing 6 amperes from a 120 volt
source, as is common here in the US&A

P = IE = 6A * 115V = 690 watts.
---

You insist .that power is in AMP and you assume power in car is fixed at 14V.

---
Make up your mind.

Either you think that I think power is in amperes or you think that I
think that it's in volts.

FYI, it's actually the product of current and voltage.
---

Not .always, some are less some are more, big truck uses 24V.

---
Big truck aint car in my world. YMMV.
---

So you were wrong.

---
Nope, and not even a good try.

You really ought to try to stick to what you're good at, and from the
numerous penile references you've made since you raised your little head
in this esteemed forum, I'd say it was sucking donkey dicks.

I don't think there's a lot of opportunity here for that, though, so
maybe that's why you're pining away for your pissant turd world country?
---

Give it up now, why is it so hard for you to admit the right thing sonofabitch?

---
It isn't.

The right thing, for me, is to keep firing away at pig-ignorant
motherfuckers like you until you learn to flame decently, at which point
going through that learning process should have raised your language
skills and your consciousness to the point where you might be able to
realize how really stupid you are.

No guarantees though, and I think playing with you is probably a waste
of time.

Something like trying to teach a pig how to sing...

JF

 

[AZ Nomad]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:05:06 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:54:47 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

It isn't like you're running thousands of gallons through a battery and
the contiminents will be left behind and build up.

No, if you were running water _through_ the battery, there'd be no
problem. What it does is just sit there, and you replace a few teaspoons
at a time, as needed, while the contaminants pile up.

Would you rather have a battery last five years, or ten?
The contaminents in tap water aren't going to reduce the life of the

battery by a single minute. What will affect the battery are
discharges, overcharges, freezing it, boiling it, and running it out of water.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:17:41 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

I can guess - one of the filament supports is springy - when the filament
opens, that support springs back, contacting another electrode, shorting
the bulb - but wouldn't that be kinda expensive?

That's not how they work. It's generally a wire-wound shunt across the
filament supports that has enough oxide that it breaks down well below
line voltage (when the lamp fails) but not at the operating voltage of
the lamp (a few volts). Costs next to nothing to wind a few turns of
wire around the filament supports.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 14, 12:40 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_...@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:27:42 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I think its that bit about the genral welfare.

And "promoting the general Welfare" is why the founders immediately
enacted a raft of social safety net & handout programs.  Like
guaranteed
retirement, school lunches, medical care, and programs for the poor.

This is sarcasm, right?

It was Roosevelt who turned the Crash of '29 into the Great Depression
with all his socialist handout programs.

So Roosevelt was so powerful that his policies could have effect
before he got into office. Wow that I didn't know!

The Obamanation is just driving the last nail into the coffin.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Jamie wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-07-31, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

All in flux at this point. Low tens of mH, about an ohm, total
on-time msecs to hours, flyback diode yes but must play tricks for
faster ramp-down (nasty ...), cannot heatsink, would melt plastic.


can you do a two windining coil relay? or is quantity too low?


No, they'd have me flogged if I suggested that

Anyhow, I am pretty much done. Discrete transistor-level solution, the
usual. Meaning the prototype experiments will be fun, SC75 packages,
0402 or maybe even 0201. Drop a part and you'll never find it back. So
here I am, my eyes getting older and the parts on my designs becoming
smaller and smaller.

That's where I envy guys like Jim. Their IC mask geometries are also
becoming smaller but on the screen it always remains the same, or they
can even buy a larger monitor when getting older. They never have to
solder the stuff.

That is why I got a 47x boom microscope.

I have one of those 20x Veho USB microscopes. But for work at clients I
still have to get some software loaded that can turn its big LEDs off so
the fan of the laptop doesn't always come on. It's one of those almost
mil-spec laptops and its fan can literally blow SC75 transistor off the
table.

I have no problem seeing the components

And easy on the coffee

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:38:59 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:12:41 -0700, TheJoker wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:39:03 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:49:11 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/06/white-house-to-dems-on-town-halls
-if-you-get-hit-we-will-punch-back-twice-as-hard/

those "Brown Shirt tactics" are what "progressives" have used on
conservative speakers,and part of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
Obama himself has likely used them.

But if the other side uses them.....Oh,how terrible,BAD,BAD!

and of course,any opposition expressed is "disruptive"....
"it's the mob" or the "VRWC"....etc.

And the DemocRATS fall for it every time.

Spotted in yesterday's (Aug. 6) Orange County Register:

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
--- William F. Buckley, Jr.

Reminds me of "The Magic Christian"
Peter Sellers was something else.

Hahahahahaha! Unbelievable!

Why so one sided?

Which "side" do I look like I'm on? ;-)

I've found that generally the liberal weenies perceive me as being a
wingnut, and the wingnuts perceive me as being a liberal weenie.

Both extremes hate me - that's a pretty strong indication that I'm on
the correct "side", namely Liberty. ;-)

I am an extremist when it comes to Liberty - remember, that stuff that
America was supposed to be about?

Liberty is Good - Statism is bad; the liberal weenies and the
wingnuts are just the two wings of the same statist bird.

Where do you stand?
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Thanks,
Rich

The only problem is that there only two scores, 100 % and 0 %. What a
fraud.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 19:03:37 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
<wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:

hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) writes:



Thanks. I thought of batteries, but wasn't smart enough to notice
that you could push the battery life out far enough so that you
didn't have to replace them routinely.

10 years might be a bit short, but I assume the unilities can work
that out. (My previous gas meter was there way over 10 years.)


ISTM they rotate out the gas meters every N years anyhow, to
test the calibration.

Maybe, with N being in the 25 to 75 (years) region. That may have to
change thanks to new smart meters.

 

[krw]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:25:36 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:46:36 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote:



Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote:
Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415

Insane.
My car is a VW Golf >10 years old and would qualify under the similar UK
scheme.
It does an *average* of 56mpg, and tops out at 75mpg at 55mph.

Quite. It's a disgrace that will take very efficient cars off the market.

Unless you can affors a NEW car will keep that 'clunker'. Pure political
insanity.

Graham

Perhaps it is part of the package to "save" the car companies and the
banks.

And sell even more people loans they can't afford.

 

[krw]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:31:02 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Aug 14, 12:40 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:27:42 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I think its that bit about the genral welfare.

And "promoting the general Welfare" is why the founders immediately
enacted a raft of social safety net & handout programs.  Like
guaranteed
retirement, school lunches, medical care, and programs for the poor.

This is sarcasm, right?

It was Roosevelt who turned the Crash of '29 into the Great Depression
with all his socialist handout programs.

So Roosevelt was so powerful that his policies could have effect
before he got into office. Wow that I didn't know!

Yep, more proof that you loopy lefties can't read.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:12:03 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
<wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:

hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) writes:

But a liev backchannel, be it RF or BPL, would get them several things
beyond meter reading. First is outage monitoring; rapidly knowing exactly
what houses are dark. Second is load shedding. While some do that now
with 150 Mhz RF for HVAC loads; I'm sure they'd love to stagger turnons
of everything: i.e. bring up an unloaded neighborhood segment, then turn
on houses one at a time over a few minutes...

I assume the electric meter doesn't have any power when the power is
off. I suppose you could add a supercap with enough energy for
a handful of exchanges. (Power died, power still dead, power back.)

Why bother? The meter is polled every minute; Big Brother keeps a
log. When a buncha meters stop chirping, guess why...
Every minute? not a chance in hell.

In my case, there is no provision for controlling anything. All
they did was replace the meter in an old house with a new meter.

True, but that's now. Next year, maybe...

The staggered turn-on could be done without a back channel. Just
have each meter pick a random number. No big deal if two end up
being close together. It's still a lot nicer than the whole place
turning on at the same time. (You still need the switch.)

True. But what I was thinking was it defaults to powering up with the
loads off. It immediately reports in, and is told to wait xxx seconds
before turning on the unspecial loads. Only after a few more minutes
would the HVAC and water heater be brought on.

What crap, it would only have whole house/apartment/residential unit
on/off. Appliances with that kind of smart are still a ways off.

If it never reached Big Brother, have it wait randomly then power
up the house.

They'll want power control for another reason, I bet -- to turn off
delinquent accounts.

Why do you spew the most unrealistic crap here?

 

[krw]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:58:10 -0500, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:05:06 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:54:47 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

It isn't like you're running thousands of gallons through a battery and
the contiminents will be left behind and build up.

No, if you were running water _through_ the battery, there'd be no
problem. What it does is just sit there, and you replace a few teaspoons
at a time, as needed, while the contaminants pile up.

Would you rather have a battery last five years, or ten?
The contaminents in tap water aren't going to reduce the life of the
battery by a single minute. What will affect the battery are
discharges, overcharges, freezing it, boiling it, and running it out of water.

Try dumping a tablespoon of salt into yours.

 

[RoyLFuchs]

Abuse complaint forwarded.

All other interested parties please follow with same.
Perhaps this dope will listen when his ISP tells him.

forward the entire message below to

abuse@toast.net




On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:32:10 -0700, "Richardson" <member@newsguy.com>
wrote:

Path: s02-b02.iad!num01.iad!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.posted.toastnet!news.posted.toastnet.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:32:11 -0500
From: "Richardson" <member@newsguy.com
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower,alt.energy,alt.energy.homwpower,sci.electronics.design
References: <iL6dndG7ufubjeDXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@posted.toastnet> <tjsq7558gr8ddcp1d5ihl0po8jg24er11c@4ax.com> <JYWdncZmtr_K2uPXnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@posted.toastnet> <EOmdnV9zn_Je9B3XnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <h5q7en12lar@news2.newsguy.com> <l4mdnb1V5frULB3XnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <jck18590grpni0bvkf4jgqd1sujh97edc1@4ax.com> <sm178598ogfq7kfa5mmft2drp5b4joclme@4ax.com> <lng785d8ma92m5gio168v5al25nb7bhr5i@4ax.com> <bdWdnYedleWjFBnXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@posted.toastnet> <bi7985l908vr5togu8ieqq2c1n302k3s80@4ax.com
Subject: Re: Again power is not measured in AMP, but in WATT you stupid american jerks, Give it up now suckers.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:32:10 -0700
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Message-ID: <k6Wdndq5zKYRDBjXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@posted.toastnet
Lines: 119
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.251.77.46
X-Trace: sv3-QBymhkftfAtAbQ0Wuz08SekfIrHxq78L5mUNnnI0eN+farvLl9OblhV10k7T1ZunSbibP+OEhBDKRMa!ZWiLOQY6KBx+YsVJdEaXjvxdypiOpKtEda/eqp1cF0oNSnM8rfjla4tJkPyFWNvv8ukbep4IPuMb!Qr+6AcPnHMzPi2N9Sr0a3ddDIKcbt3I=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@toast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@toast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
Bytes: 5301
X-Original-Bytes: 5258
Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.energy.homepower:82597 alt.energy:13889 alt.energy.homwpower:148 sci.electronics.design:626012
X-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:32:23 UTC (s02-b02.iad)


"John Fool" <jfool@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:bi7985l908vr5togu8ieqq2c1n302k3s80@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:44:27 -0700, "Richardson" <member@newsguy.com
wrote:


"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigShit@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message news:lng785d8ma92m5gio168v5al25nb7bhr5i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:41 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:05:42 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


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

Have you returned to constant current power distribution with 6 A
circuits ?

Arc lamps in the 1880's were specified by the number of amperes
(typically 6 A for street lighting). All lamps were series connected
and you could operate 20-25 of these in series from a 6 A DC generator
producing a 1000-1500 V DC loaded voltage. Thus, the voltage drop
across each arc lamp was about 55 V on average.


We have a winner.



What? That bologna is a winner?

---
Can you say: "Tongue in cheek?"
---

Then you don't know much about Wattage and AMP.

This is what is wrong with your winner:

ANYTHING as far as how much power it produces, other than that it
cannot produce more than 690 watts at 115 volts

---
Huh???

It's clear to me that if the motor load is resistive and draws 6 amperes
from 115VRMS mains, then the power delivered to a nonreactive mechanical
load cannot be greater than:


P = IE = 6A * 115V = 690 watts.


As a matter of fact, (so far) the three basic laws of thermodynamics
are:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even
3. You can't get out of the game

So, for 690 watts taken from a source, what will be delivered to the
eventual load will depend on the price exacted by the delivery system.
---

600watt can be any form of voltage, it is a combined Voltage and AMP together to form a power
of 600watt, you can't say it's fixed to 115V.

---
True, but still utter nonsense since we draw power from a voltage source
which _is_ fixed at 120V.

That means that no matter how much power we ask the source to deliver,
it will deliver it into a load which is designed to drop 120V at its
required power
---

12VDC can light up a 600watt light bulb too.

---
Sure, if the 12VDC source can supply 50 amperes into the load without


97% of car alternators can deliver more than 50A, only your dickhead can't.



sagging, but so what?
---


Stop misleading the youngsters now John Fool, don't make excuse to jump off the proper formula. Unless you never been to school of electrical engineering. You insist that power is in AMP and you assume power in car is fixed at 14V. Not always, some are less some are more, big truck uses 24V. So you were wrong. Give it up now, why is it so hard for you to admit the right thing sonofabitch?

 

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:47:56 -0700, Mycelium
<mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:41 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:05:42 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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

Have you returned to constant current power distribution with 6 A
circuits ?

Arc lamps in the 1880's were specified by the number of amperes
(typically 6 A for street lighting). All lamps were series connected
and you could operate 20-25 of these in series from a 6 A DC generator
producing a 1000-1500 V DC loaded voltage. Thus, the voltage drop
across each arc lamp was about 55 V on average.

And, like the series Xmas lights of yore, when one goes out, they all
go out.



Not if it fails shorted.
Except a fillament virtually can NOT fail shorted. The bulb has to

besigned to be "failsafe", so if the filament does not heat the bulb
shorts

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:44:42 -0800, You <you@shadow.orgs> wrote:

In article <bi7985l908vr5togu8ieqq2c1n302k3s80@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It's clear to me that if the motor load is resistive and draws 6 amperes
from 115VRMS mains, then the power delivered to a nonreactive mechanical
load cannot be greater than:

Sonny, there is NO SUCH THING as a pure Resistive for a Motor.......

Yes, there is.

A rail gun is a linear motor, and there is ZERO inductance involved.

Mag lev is resistive as well, since it is a DC field on the levitation
coils.

There are other examples. Piezo comes to mind.

Sonny? Jeez, ya retarded fuck, get a clue.

 

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:44:42 -0800, You <you@shadow.orgs> wrote:

In article <bi7985l908vr5togu8ieqq2c1n302k3s80@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It's clear to me that if the motor load is resistive and draws 6 amperes
from 115VRMS mains, then the power delivered to a nonreactive mechanical
load cannot be greater than:

Sonny, there is NO SUCH THING as a pure Resistive for a Motor.......
Pure resistive would be BEST CASE - So it cannot be BETTER than 690

watts. It has to be less.

 

[Mycelium]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:17:41 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:47:56 -0700, Mycelium wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:41 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:05:42 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

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

Have you returned to constant current power distribution with 6 A
circuits ?

Arc lamps in the 1880's were specified by the number of amperes
(typically 6 A for street lighting). All lamps were series connected
and you could operate 20-25 of these in series from a 6 A DC generator
producing a 1000-1500 V DC loaded voltage. Thus, the voltage drop
across each arc lamp was about 55 V on average.

And, like the series Xmas lights of yore, when one goes out, they all
go out.

Not if it fails shorted.

You must be very young. I remember, oh, about a half-century ago, laying
the Xmas tree lights out on the floor, and if the string didn't light,
we'd take a known good bulb and go down the string swapping out bulbs,
one at a time; if the string didn't light, we'd take the bulb we just
removed from its socket and swap it out with the next one, and so on.
When the string lights up, you'd throw away the bulb that you just
removed/replaced.

NO! You said "and like the Xmas lights..." which means that you were
talking about arc lamps in series. THAT is what my comment is about.

Are you drunk, or do you just have a problem remembering what YOU
wrote?

I know how light bulbs fucking work. There is no such thing as such a
bulb "failing shorted" so you fail yet again on common sense as well.


So, while using your BRAIN, re-read what I wrote, which is CLREALY
referencing ARC LAMPS.

Nowadays, they apparently do have low-V bulbs that are designed to fail
short; I'm danged if I know how they accomplish it.

They are not incandescents.

I can guess - one of the filament supports is springy - when the filament
opens, that support springs back, contacting another electrode, shorting
the bulb - but wouldn't that be kinda expensive?

Again, use your common sense. and NO, I know of NO light bulbs that
fail shorted.

Thanks,
Rich