Driver to drive?

In article <ooahk91t47mi7a99g5pnjf2b9njusfbnh7@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:24:01 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:


See Link:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/04/critical-crypto-bug-exposes-yahoo-mail-passwords-russian-roulette-style/

?;..((


Here is the technical analysis:

http://xkcd.com/1354/


And some details:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/09/heartbleed_explained

which reinforces what an astonishingly bad programming language c is.
Click to expand...

After what I've seen happening with the security agencies that we are
suppose to trust, I don't discount foul play.

I too, do C/C++ programming and that sort of bug to me is not
accidental.

I can think of only one reason to have an additional buffer length in
the message package and have the software ignore the primary buffer
length.

The problem here is, the OpenSSL should of tested for that from day one
or totally ignore any data in the buffer for size parameters.

Sorry, sounds a little fishy to me.

Jamie
 
In article <d4283bae-37da-4e0a-a8fb-394b5d95684f@googlegroups.com>,
edward.ming.lee@gmail.com says...
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:30:59 AM UTC-7, edward....@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/09/heartbleed_explained
which reinforces what an astonishingly bad programming language c
is.
That just reinforces what an astonishingly poor understanding you - and
many others - have about programming languages, and about bugs in software.

This was a bug in the implementation of the response to "heartbeat"
telegrams in OpenSSL, which is a commonly used library for SSL. The bug
was caused by the programmer using data in the incoming telegram without
double-checking it. It is totally independent of the programming
language used, and totally independent of the SSL algorithms and encryption.

This is really a problem of the go
(ghost key pressed)

This is really a problem of the Government/Industrial leadership (or lack of). This could have been fixed quietly with must less damages. But now, everybody (including criminals) know how to and how easy it is to hack into servers.

If someone discoveres a bug, who are you going to call? NSA, CIA, FBI, etc?
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to talk to the ones that may have had something to do
with it, go ahead, call them.

Jamie
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:02:37 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

In article <c20hk9tnsm05vbirg1uuauaj6jv2q6f011@4ax.com>,
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com says...

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:31:46 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:14:25 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:03:20 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund
klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

I really don't want to argue with you, but you sure seem beyond reach

What do you want to bet?

I've already won. You've obviously never measure it or you wouldn't
be spouting such nonsense here. Hint: a full-sized cabinet saw is
"only" 3HP, and weighs 600lbs.

If a saw is rated for 13 amps at 120 volts, they would have to be
lying by a factor over 2 to be below 1 HP.

If it actually delivered 1/4HP in use, I would be *shocked*. It's
likely less than half that. If it were really delivering 2HP, it'd
break your arm. It's a little universal motor, fer chrissakes.

Do you think my circular saw, rated 13 amps, dims the lights, warms
the extension cord, has a 1/8 HP motor? It inertia-torques pretty hard
when you pull the trigger. It slices through a 2x4 in under 2 seconds.

Sorry, can't believe it's 1/8 HP.

A universal motor is a work horse in a small package.

At 13 amps you are getting 2 HP.
Click to expand...

Wrong. At 13A, the rotor is stalled, or damned near (RPM *way* less
than unloaded). In addition, you assume 100% efficiency, which
universal motors certainly don't enjoy. That's how Crapsman used to
rate their tools (still do, sorta).

However, they like to eat up brushes, not very good for a constant
speed application and is important to keep a load on them..

We have 2 HP vacuum loader systems at work and those that have the
universal motors, you can hold the motor in your hand.
Click to expand...
At *very* high RPM. Different motors and still not 100% efficient.
Universal motors are cheap and light. Not much else can be said for
them.
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:45:39 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:27:03 PM UTC-7, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:41:22 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com

wrote:

So how to protect against this threat?
I just got an email from a friend's yahoo address, saying that this person
had been in an accident and needed me to send $1300 to a western union in Rome,
Italy. All false of course.

What to do? - practical steps?

Do you have your friends linked with social media like google+, facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc? People in some countries have plenty of time and motive to find links in social media. Social media is fun, but really dangerous. I stay away from them and people should be more careful using them. No wonder social media stocks are crashing.

I think the social media market is crashing because the subscription
lies are coming out (44% of twitter accounts have never tweeted). No
problem. The IPO is over and the suckers now own the pig, lipstick
and all.

And I go on facebook to play poker only. Don't post any real data. Can't believe people are posting so much personal data for scamer to harvest. I have no friend on facebook. I am anti-social.
Click to expand...

I've never been on Facebook, though my wife keeps up with the family
there. I can't believe people post pictures of their vacation, real
time. "Dumb" doesn't even begin...
 
In article <pinjk9dlhopl2ocj61vak20dj1mgtbaheu@4ax.com>, krw@attt.bizz
says...
A universal motor is a work horse in a small package.

At 13 amps you are getting 2 HP.

Wrong. At 13A, the rotor is stalled, or damned near (RPM *way* less
than unloaded). In addition, you assume 100% efficiency, which
universal motors certainly don't enjoy. That's how Crapsman used to
rate their tools (still do, sorta).

However, they like to eat up brushes, not very good for a constant
speed application and is important to keep a load on them..

We have 2 HP vacuum loader systems at work and those that have the
universal motors, you can hold the motor in your hand.

At *very* high RPM. Different motors and still not 100% efficient.
Universal motors are cheap and light. Not much else can be said for
them.
Click to expand...

afraid you're on the wrong side this time..

Don't bother to reply, because this is the last I'll say about it.
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:58:25 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:42:20 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:32:44 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:19:00 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:04:25 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:00:17 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:31:46 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:14:25 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:03:20 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund
klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

I really don't want to argue with you, but you sure seem beyond reach

What do you want to bet?

I've already won. You've obviously never measure it or you wouldn't
be spouting such nonsense here. Hint: a full-sized cabinet saw is
"only" 3HP, and weighs 600lbs.

If a saw is rated for 13 amps at 120 volts, they would have to be
lying by a factor over 2 to be below 1 HP.

If it actually delivered 1/4HP in use, I would be *shocked*. It's
likely less than half that. If it were really delivering 2HP, it'd
break your arm. It's a little universal motor, fer chrissakes.

Do you think my circular saw, rated 13 amps, dims the lights, warms
the extension cord, has a 1/8 HP motor? It inertia-torques pretty hard
when you pull the trigger. It slices through a 2x4 in under 2 seconds.

Sorry, can't believe it's 1/8 HP.

I'm sorry if you think you can hold onto a tool (or lift) a tool with
a 2HP motor. Hint: Don't try this at home.

It's air cooled, all exposed, intermittent duty. It can do a HP or so, but not
continuously. An enclosed induction motor, like on a bench saw, will be far more
reliable in continuous use, and many times the mass, of an open construction
series/brush motor. Very different animal.

Nope. HP is torque (given the same tool).


****** Power is NOT torque! ********

******Power is torque X RPM! ******** Like tools have similar RPM,
so...

You couldn't hold onto a
saw delivering 2HP to the blade.

If the motor shaft were welded to some big object, it would be hard to hold the
saw. But the reaction torque is mostly applied to the wood being cut.

Without reaction from the wood, there is little reason for power.

1/8 HP is silly.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timber_Framing_Circular_Saw.jpg

At least you've admitted that you've lost the argument.
Click to expand...

That seems to be your pattern: be wrong and declare victory.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:28:33 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

In article <ooahk91t47mi7a99g5pnjf2b9njusfbnh7@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:24:01 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:


See Link:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/04/critical-crypto-bug-exposes-yahoo-mail-passwords-russian-roulette-style/

?;..((


Here is the technical analysis:

http://xkcd.com/1354/


And some details:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/09/heartbleed_explained

which reinforces what an astonishingly bad programming language c is.

After what I've seen happening with the security agencies that we are
suppose to trust, I don't discount foul play.

I too, do C/C++ programming and that sort of bug to me is not
accidental.

I can think of only one reason to have an additional buffer length in
the message package and have the software ignore the primary buffer
length.

The problem here is, the OpenSSL should of tested for that from day one
or totally ignore any data in the buffer for size parameters.

Sorry, sounds a little fishy to me.

Jamie
Click to expand...

The heartbeat query could have had a fixed-length payload; 4 or maybe 8 bytes
would work fine. Heck, one byte would work fine, just a local variable, no
malloc at all.

malloc is evil.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
 
Quoted:

On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:37:39 AM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:07:38 -0700, John Larkin

jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:50:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:16:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin

jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in

asgdk9d29q9ds74218i3r5me51loi12pm5@4ax.com>:



I avoid battery-powered tools. They are wimpy, and the batteries will die in a

year or two.



You have a cellphone?



Sure, a simple one. I charge it about every other week, and I've

replaced the battery once. But it's not a power tool.



You're not going to get a horsepower or so out of a battery for long,

especially when the battery is two years old.



You're not going to get a "horsepower or so" out of a hand tool.

You're in the stationary tool realm at a HP (Craftsman HPs don't

count).
Click to expand...

Sure you will

I swear to Festool tools. I am dreaming about this one:

https://www.festool.com/Microsite/Pages/TSC.aspx

Something like 1-2kW, so about 2HP

Cheers

Klaus
 
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:45:39 PM UTC-4, edward....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:27:03 PM UTC-7, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:41:22 -0700 (PDT), edwsard.mingg.lexe@gmail.com



wrote:



So how to protect against this threat?

I just got an email from a friend's yahoo address, saying that this person

had been in an accident and needed me to send $1300 to a western union in Rome,

Italy. All false of course.



What to do? - practical steps?



Do you have your friends linked with social media like google+, facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc? People in some countries have plenty of time and motive to find links in social media. Social media is fun, but really dangerous. I stay away from them and people should be more careful using them. No wonder social media stocks are crashing.



I think the social media market is crashing because the subscription

lies are coming out (44% of twitter accounts have never tweeted). No

problem. The IPO is over and the suckers now own the pig, lipstick

and all.



And I go on facebook to play poker only. Don't post any real data. Can't believe people are posting so much personal data for scamer to harvest. I have no friend on facebook. I am anti-social.
Click to expand...

I don't either - but Facebook is really "Fakebook." Fakebook likes and Fakebook
"friends" are a falsity. Similar to people one meets in a bar.
 
On 12/04/2014 18:10, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

Buffer and stack overflows, and unchecked buffers, have been chronic security
problems for decades. The language should prevent it; the culture should
routinely check it. It's disgraceful.
Click to expand...

You would have thought with the consequence of stack overflow being so
great, and with the desired improvement of safety in various
environments such as automotive, that a hardware stack MMU that only
allowed certain instructions to write to stack would have been
implemented by a semiconductor manufacturer. That might mean separate
stack and heap areas, but can't be beyond the wit of man to implement that.

We have a checklist for PCB layouts. Why don't programmers have a checklist for
code?
Click to expand...

Having a checklist is one thing, but it's difficult for a third party to
check someone else's code. I don't know if there are means to check if
code is say MISRA compliant after the event?


--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:10:18 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:34:12 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:53:54 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:
many others - have about programming languages, and about bugs in software.
Click to expand...

The c language and, more significantly, the c language culture, will make this
sort of thing keep happening.

Data should be stored in declared buffers, and runtime errors thrown if attempts
are made to address outside the buffer. Items should be addressed by named
indexes, not by wandering around with pointers.

There is already something like that: server side Java. But think for a moment how that would impact performance of servers with hundreds and thousands of clients. For servers, every bit of performance count.

And it's crazy for compilers to not use MMUs to prevent data and stacks and code
from being all mixed up.

Remapping MMU hundreds or thousands times for every program? Impractical!
Click to expand...

iAPX432 tried to use it, IBM AS/400 used it by dividing programs into
objects with separate MMU access.

Similar results can be used with libfence style tools, in which an
inaccessible virtual memory page was inserted after each malloc
allocation (and possibly before a stack segment). If the program went
past the allocated space, first nothing happens, but trying to access
the next virtual memory page, a page fault would occur, which then
could be trapped.

Similarly inaccessible pages could be used between each stack frame.

The virtual memory consumption would not be a big deal, but the
physical memory consumption, since even a single byte malloc would
always require a full virtual memory page (4 KiB). Unfortunately C
(and especially C++) seems to generate a huge number of small memory
allocations and stack frames, thus consuming a lot of physical memory.

Unfortunately, the early x86 models had proper memory protection only
at segment register level (not on individual virtually memory page
level). Thus, the virtual page mapping described below, would not have
been very effective on earlier x86 processors. The segment registers
are used (all set to 0) in the x86 even in virtual memory paged
systems.

Reliable, secure code? Impractical!


The technology is already there, but at what cost? What you are saying is really putting JVM like sand boxes on all servers. Performance hits could be 70% to 90%, on my conservation estimate.

The PDP-11 separated code, stack, and data spaces.
Click to expand...

Some, but not all PDP-11s had separate I/D Instruction/Data spaces,
but were supported only on some OSs such as RSX-11M+ (but not in
RSX-11M). A data access could refer to the static/dynamic as well as
stack memory even in I/D mode enabled.


>A stack overflow made a hardware trap,

Any real HW protection was possible, as long as on of the 8 APR
(Active Page Register) registers did not use the full 8 KiB. This was
the case, if the last APR/APR were not used, so any stack wrap below 0
would be detected (both in single or I/D mode), if the stack was
sitting in the low memory, such as in Fortran. For other languages,
such as Pascal, with the stack in the address space growing downwards
and the top APR set to expand downwards, a stack overflow could be
detected, if the stack APR addressed less than the full 8 KiB.

However, since programs were often larger than 64 / 128 KiB,
overlaying would be used, making it impractical to leave gaps between
memory areas addressed by different APRs.

it didn't clobber code space. Code space was execute-only and
could not be written by the application running it. Data pages could be r/w or
read-only. All that in the 1970's.
Click to expand...

Only eight 8 KiB segments could be separately protected.

Only proper virtual memory systems, such as the late 70's VAX/VMS with
512 byte pages with page specific protection bits, could handle these
protections much better.

C, or at least most c compilers, tangle code, data, and stacks so much that MMU
protection is not feasible. A pointer can clobber anything... bytes, longs,
floats, other pointers, stuff on stacks, opcodes.
Click to expand...

Even with early x86 processors, the OS makers could have at least used
a different CS base address and allocate the code to different virtual
memory area and hence effectively use the segment specific protection
bits to avoid code overwriting.
 
Den sřndag den 13. april 2014 04.46.11 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:58:25 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:



On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:42:20 -0700, John Larkin

jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:32:44 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:19:00 -0700, John Larkin

jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:04:25 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:00:17 -0700, John Larkin

jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:31:46 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:14:25 -0700, John Larkin

jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:03:20 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund

klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:



I really don't want to argue with you, but you sure seem beyond reach



What do you want to bet?



I've already won. You've obviously never measure it or you wouldn't

be spouting such nonsense here. Hint: a full-sized cabinet saw is

"only" 3HP, and weighs 600lbs.



If a saw is rated for 13 amps at 120 volts, they would have to be

lying by a factor over 2 to be below 1 HP.



If it actually delivered 1/4HP in use, I would be *shocked*. It's

likely less than half that. If it were really delivering 2HP, it'd

break your arm. It's a little universal motor, fer chrissakes.



Do you think my circular saw, rated 13 amps, dims the lights, warms

the extension cord, has a 1/8 HP motor? It inertia-torques pretty hard

when you pull the trigger. It slices through a 2x4 in under 2 seconds.



Sorry, can't believe it's 1/8 HP.



I'm sorry if you think you can hold onto a tool (or lift) a tool with

a 2HP motor. Hint: Don't try this at home.



It's air cooled, all exposed, intermittent duty. It can do a HP or so, but not

continuously. An enclosed induction motor, like on a bench saw, will be far more

reliable in continuous use, and many times the mass, of an open construction

series/brush motor. Very different animal.



Nope. HP is torque (given the same tool).





****** Power is NOT torque! ********



******Power is torque X RPM! ******** Like tools have similar RPM,

so...



You couldn't hold onto a

saw delivering 2HP to the blade.



If the motor shaft were welded to some big object, it would be hard to hold the

saw. But the reaction torque is mostly applied to the wood being cut.



Without reaction from the wood, there is little reason for power.



1/8 HP is silly.



Wrong.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timber_Framing_Circular_Saw.jpg



At least you've admitted that you've lost the argument.



That seems to be your pattern: be wrong and declare victory.
Click to expand...

you forgot his usual ramblings about everyone who disagrees
being leftist and lying

-Lasse
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 19:46:11 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:58:25 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:42:20 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:32:44 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:19:00 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:04:25 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:00:17 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:31:46 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:14:25 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:03:20 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund
klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

I really don't want to argue with you, but you sure seem beyond reach

What do you want to bet?

I've already won. You've obviously never measure it or you wouldn't
be spouting such nonsense here. Hint: a full-sized cabinet saw is
"only" 3HP, and weighs 600lbs.

If a saw is rated for 13 amps at 120 volts, they would have to be
lying by a factor over 2 to be below 1 HP.

If it actually delivered 1/4HP in use, I would be *shocked*. It's
likely less than half that. If it were really delivering 2HP, it'd
break your arm. It's a little universal motor, fer chrissakes.

Do you think my circular saw, rated 13 amps, dims the lights, warms
the extension cord, has a 1/8 HP motor? It inertia-torques pretty hard
when you pull the trigger. It slices through a 2x4 in under 2 seconds.

Sorry, can't believe it's 1/8 HP.

I'm sorry if you think you can hold onto a tool (or lift) a tool with
a 2HP motor. Hint: Don't try this at home.

It's air cooled, all exposed, intermittent duty. It can do a HP or so, but not
continuously. An enclosed induction motor, like on a bench saw, will be far more
reliable in continuous use, and many times the mass, of an open construction
series/brush motor. Very different animal.

Nope. HP is torque (given the same tool).


****** Power is NOT torque! ********

******Power is torque X RPM! ******** Like tools have similar RPM,
so...

You couldn't hold onto a
saw delivering 2HP to the blade.

If the motor shaft were welded to some big object, it would be hard to hold the
saw. But the reaction torque is mostly applied to the wood being cut.

Without reaction from the wood, there is little reason for power.

1/8 HP is silly.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timber_Framing_Circular_Saw.jpg

At least you've admitted that you've lost the argument.

That seems to be your pattern: be wrong and declare victory.
Click to expand...

IKWYABWAI
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:52:06 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

In article <pinjk9dlhopl2ocj61vak20dj1mgtbaheu@4ax.com>, krw@attt.bizz
says...
A universal motor is a work horse in a small package.

At 13 amps you are getting 2 HP.

Wrong. At 13A, the rotor is stalled, or damned near (RPM *way* less
than unloaded). In addition, you assume 100% efficiency, which
universal motors certainly don't enjoy. That's how Crapsman used to
rate their tools (still do, sorta).

However, they like to eat up brushes, not very good for a constant
speed application and is important to keep a load on them..

We have 2 HP vacuum loader systems at work and those that have the
universal motors, you can hold the motor in your hand.

At *very* high RPM. Different motors and still not 100% efficient.
Universal motors are cheap and light. Not much else can be said for
them.



afraid you're on the wrong side this time..
Click to expand...

Nope. You're clueless, as usual.

> Don't bother to reply, because this is the last I'll say about it.

Of course, when you're wrong you always run away. It's you.
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund
<klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quoted:

On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:37:39 AM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:07:38 -0700, John Larkin

jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:50:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:16:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin

jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in

asgdk9d29q9ds74218i3r5me51loi12pm5@4ax.com>:



I avoid battery-powered tools. They are wimpy, and the batteries will die in a

year or two.



You have a cellphone?



Sure, a simple one. I charge it about every other week, and I've

replaced the battery once. But it's not a power tool.



You're not going to get a horsepower or so out of a battery for long,

especially when the battery is two years old.



You're not going to get a "horsepower or so" out of a hand tool.

You're in the stationary tool realm at a HP (Craftsman HPs don't

count).

Sure you will

I swear to Festool tools. I am dreaming about this one:
Click to expand...

I like Festools, too. Great stuff. You are dreaming about your
knowledge of motors.

>https://www.festool.com/Microsite/Pages/TSC.aspx

I own one. I can *guarantee* you that it does *NOT* develop anywhere
close to 2HP. It's actually a rather wimpy saw (my DeWalt is far more
powerful) but also quite useful. Its purpose is to cut sheet goods;
not an incredibly demanding job.

>Something like 1-2kW, so about 2HP

You just show how clueless you are. That's the maximum current, i.e.
locked rotor, so 0HP.
 
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:46:50 -0700 (PDT), haiticare2011@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:45:39 PM UTC-4, edward....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:27:03 PM UTC-7, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:41:22 -0700 (PDT), edwsard.mingg.lexe@gmail.com



wrote:



So how to protect against this threat?

I just got an email from a friend's yahoo address, saying that this person

had been in an accident and needed me to send $1300 to a western union in Rome,

Italy. All false of course.



What to do? - practical steps?



Do you have your friends linked with social media like google+, facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc? People in some countries have plenty of time and motive to find links in social media. Social media is fun, but really dangerous. I stay away from them and people should be more careful using them. No wonder social media stocks are crashing.



I think the social media market is crashing because the subscription

lies are coming out (44% of twitter accounts have never tweeted). No

problem. The IPO is over and the suckers now own the pig, lipstick

and all.



And I go on facebook to play poker only. Don't post any real data. Can't believe people are posting so much personal data for scamer to harvest. I have no friend on facebook. I am anti-social.

I don't either - but Facebook is really "Fakebook." Fakebook likes and Fakebook
"friends" are a falsity. Similar to people one meets in a bar.
Click to expand...

Not 100% true. Extending your bar analogy a bit further, it's also a
place for friends (and family) to meet.
 
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 5:14:50 PM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund

klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:



Quoted:



On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:37:39 AM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:07:38 -0700, John Larkin



jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:







On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:50:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje



pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:







On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:16:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin



jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in



asgdk9d29q9ds74218i3r5me51loi12pm5@4ax.com>:







I avoid battery-powered tools. They are wimpy, and the batteries will die in a



year or two.







You have a cellphone?







Sure, a simple one. I charge it about every other week, and I've



replaced the battery once. But it's not a power tool.







You're not going to get a horsepower or so out of a battery for long,



especially when the battery is two years old.







You're not going to get a "horsepower or so" out of a hand tool.



You're in the stationary tool realm at a HP (Craftsman HPs don't



count).



Sure you will



I swear to Festool tools. I am dreaming about this one:



I like Festools, too. Great stuff. You are dreaming about your

knowledge of motors.



https://www.festool.com/Microsite/Pages/TSC.aspx



I own one. I can *guarantee* you that it does *NOT* develop anywhere

close to 2HP. It's actually a rather wimpy saw (my DeWalt is far more

powerful) but also quite useful. Its purpose is to cut sheet goods;

not an incredibly demanding job.
Click to expand...

You bought one? Ha, imagining stuff now, eh?

Cheers

Klaus
 
On 4/13/2014 5:02 AM, Mike Perkins wrote:
On 12/04/2014 18:10, John Larkin wrote:

snip

Buffer and stack overflows, and unchecked buffers, have been chronic
security
problems for decades. The language should prevent it; the culture should
routinely check it. It's disgraceful.

You would have thought with the consequence of stack overflow being so
great, and with the desired improvement of safety in various
environments such as automotive, that a hardware stack MMU that only
allowed certain instructions to write to stack would have been
implemented by a semiconductor manufacturer. That might mean separate
stack and heap areas, but can't be beyond the wit of man to implement that.

We have a checklist for PCB layouts. Why don't programmers have a
checklist for
code?

Having a checklist is one thing, but it's difficult for a third party to
check someone else's code. I don't know if there are means to check if
code is say MISRA compliant after the event?
Click to expand...

Yes, e.g. PCLint.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 21:21:27 -0700 (PDT), dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:


There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with C. The original
designers - Ritchie/Kernighan created a language, often
called "souped up Assembly" to do system-level tasks.
Incompetent programmers cannot pass on their stupidity
on some computer language. Please try finding out why
Yahoo or later Bing could not come remotely close to
Google in terms of search speed performance.
Click to expand...

K&R wrote the best book on a computer language ever: the C Programming
Language. It's beautifully written; so clear and precise in every
respect - a rare achievement in a technical work.
 
On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:30:45 AM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:22:28 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund

klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:



On Sunday, April 13, 2014 5:14:50 PM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund



klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:







Quoted:







On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:37:39 AM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:



On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:07:38 -0700, John Larkin







jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:















On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:50:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje







pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:















On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:16:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin







jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in







asgdk9d29q9ds74218i3r5me51loi12pm5@4ax.com>:















I avoid battery-powered tools. They are wimpy, and the batteries will die in a







year or two.















You have a cellphone?















Sure, a simple one. I charge it about every other week, and I've







replaced the battery once. But it's not a power tool.















You're not going to get a horsepower or so out of a battery for long,







especially when the battery is two years old.















You're not going to get a "horsepower or so" out of a hand tool.







You're in the stationary tool realm at a HP (Craftsman HPs don't







count).







Sure you will







I swear to Festool tools. I am dreaming about this one:







I like Festools, too. Great stuff. You are dreaming about your



knowledge of motors.







https://www.festool.com/Microsite/Pages/TSC.aspx







I own one. I can *guarantee* you that it does *NOT* develop anywhere



close to 2HP. It's actually a rather wimpy saw (my DeWalt is far more



powerful) but also quite useful. Its purpose is to cut sheet goods;



not an incredibly demanding job.





You bought one? Ha, imagining stuff now, eh?



Yes, I've owned a TS55 for three or four years, with several of the

attachments (two 55" rails, a 106", and a parallel guide

w/extensions). I've said as much. I also own a 1400EQ router and a

500Q Domino. Unlike your blathering, I do know a little about the

things. Your can resume your lies now.
Click to expand...

Can't you read? the "TSC" what the one you replied to, but I guess you will only read what you want
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top