Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 22:44:11 UTC+10, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

Another science hoax is the medical establishment's view of supplements, and the

rda (rec. daily allowance).

Cut to the chase: 70% of the population is D3 deficient, you need 5000 iu a day.

70% deficient in magnesium, etc.


The rda is oriented to preventing disease, like rickets in childhood.

It would be interesting to estimate the number of deaths caused by this hoax - probably 10m a year world-wide. Could be 50m.

Probably not. The recommended daily intakes are evidence-based, and at least some of them do get tested from time to time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D

Vitamin D3 is cholecalciferol. Too much increases mortality, as does too little.

The evidence about how much the normal population ought to be taking is mixed. Any recommendation that you should take more than 4000 iu per day is decidedly suspect. Haitic's 5,000 iu per day recommendation is thus on the dangerous side, particularly when you consider that we tend photosynthesise enough from the precursors present in normal diet.

> The health impact of the wide-spread D3 deficiency is enormous. As you age, your chance of getting alzheimers goes up 25X if you are D3 deficient!

I wonder how deficient you have to be to significantly increase your risk of getting Alzeimer's? This sounds like a hoax to me. If you were getting Alzheimer's, you might be less careful about your diet, so vitamin D deficiency might be a symptom rather than a cause

>I can't tell you how many people have told me they get it from milk. The public ignorance is vast!

Your own ignorance is impressive. If you expose milk to sunlight the 7-dehydrocholesterol present in the milk gets converted to cholecalciferol. If you drink milk and expose your skin to sunlight, the same conversion takes place, so your informants were almost certainly telling you the truth.

<snipped the rest of the twaddle that haitic probably got from a "health food" website aka money-making hoax>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 17:09:15 UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:12:40 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
My suspicion is that the increased burden in the primary circuit from
adding a Hall effect sensor is probably unmeasurable, which is why I asked
about a theoretical solution. And it is just out of curiosity, but I
thought that somebody else with better analytical chops than me and better
knowledge of Hall effect device design might take up the challenge.

I'm pretty sure the Hall effect is due to electron drift velocity
and deflection of the moving electrons by a magnetic field. There's
no work whatever done by the magnetic field on such a moving charge.

IIRR Hall-effect sensors depend on having roughly equal currents being carried by positive and negative charge-carriers.

The work being done by those charge carriers is supplied by your measuring circuit and has no effect on the load.

Getting a magnetic field for the Hall effect sensor to detect could involve forming the current carrying conductor into a loop, which would add inductance to the circuit being measured, but you can just measure the magnetic field being created around a straight wire, and the inductance of a straight wire is around 5nH per cm, which isn't much.

http://www.k7mem.com/Electronic_Notebook/inductors/straight_wire.html

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:03:37 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 22:44:11 UTC+10, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

Another science hoax is the medical establishment's view of supplements, and the



rda (rec. daily allowance).



Cut to the chase: 70% of the population is D3 deficient, you need 5000 iu a day.



70% deficient in magnesium, etc.





The rda is oriented to preventing disease, like rickets in childhood.



It would be interesting to estimate the number of deaths caused by this hoax - probably 10m a year world-wide. Could be 50m.



Probably not. The recommended daily intakes are evidence-based, and at least some of them do get tested from time to time.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D



Vitamin D3 is cholecalciferol. Too much increases mortality, as does too little.



The evidence about how much the normal population ought to be taking is mixed. Any recommendation that you should take more than 4000 iu per day is decidedly suspect. Haitic's 5,000 iu per day recommendation is thus on the dangerous side, particularly when you consider that we tend photosynthesise enough from the precursors present in normal diet.



The health impact of the wide-spread D3 deficiency is enormous. As you age, your chance of getting alzheimers goes up 25X if you are D3 deficient!



I wonder how deficient you have to be to significantly increase your risk of getting Alzeimer's? This sounds like a hoax to me. If you were getting Alzheimer's, you might be less careful about your diet, so vitamin D deficiency might be a symptom rather than a cause



I can't tell you how many people have told me they get it from milk. The public ignorance is vast!



Your own ignorance is impressive. If you expose milk to sunlight the 7-dehydrocholesterol present in the milk gets converted to cholecalciferol. If you drink milk and expose your skin to sunlight, the same conversion takes place, so your informants were almost certainly telling you the truth.



snipped the rest of the twaddle that haitic probably got from a "health food" website aka money-making hoax



--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

The vitamin D was originally added to milk to facilitate calcium absorption and had less to do with vitamin supplementation. It has been found that the D3 is a much better facilitator and thus you will find many calcium supplements are combined with the D3. Then high levels of D3 depress blood levels of vitamin K, so vitamin K is also included in the better calcium supplements.

The best website for scientifically sound consultation on any supplement is webmd.com . It is edited by a staff of MDs, they have line cards on everything legally available, covering uses, side effects, interactions with prescription drugs and dosing schedules for medically supervised trials and therapies, all very practical information. Here is the line card for pomegranate:

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-392-pomegranate.aspx?activeIngredientId=392&activeIngredientName=pomegranate&source=1

As you can see, there is no industry coverup there.

 

Well, I mentioned one aspect of hoaxes - that they have fan-boys who have
closed minds about the issues - like a political issue rather than a scientific
one. The defining characteristic of these advocates is that they engage in
personal attacks as a buttress of their arguments, rather than getting at the
truth about the issue.
This is the nature of hoaxes and hucksters as I have defined it here. Despite your obvious approach, I will respond - this time. See &&& lines.

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:03:37 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 22:44:11 UTC+10, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

Another science hoax is the medical establishment's view of supplements, and the



rda (rec. daily allowance).



Cut to the chase: 70% of the population is D3 deficient, you need 5000 iu a day.



70% deficient in magnesium, etc.





The rda is oriented to preventing disease, like rickets in childhood.



It would be interesting to estimate the number of deaths caused by this hoax - probably 10m a year world-wide. Could be 50m.



Probably not. The recommended daily intakes are evidence-based, and at least
some of them do get tested from time to time.

&&& Nonsense. The rda were formulated many years ago. Teir purpose was to
prevent disease, not confer health. Szent-Gyorgi, the discoverer of vitamin C,
wrote extensively abut this problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D



Vitamin D3 is cholecalciferol. Too much increases mortality, as does too little.

&&& You should check your blood levels with an ordinary blood test.


The evidence about how much the normal population ought to be taking is mixed. Any recommendation that you should take more than 4000 iu per day is decidedly suspect. Haitic's 5,000 iu per day recommendation is thus on the dangerous side, particularly when you consider that we tend photosynthesise enough from the precursors present in normal diet.

&&& I am certainly not recommending anything - just saying that the dose should
be way beyond the amount in milk and the rda. There have been tens of thousands
of people who take 5000 a day, and then had their blood checked. Yes, there is
some controversy about whether you should be at a level of 30 or 50 in the blood. There was a recent conference which was solely about dosing D3. Life guards and indigenous people in Africa who spend much time in the sun have levels around 50.
But you should not say I was recommending anything. I am making an argument
that the rda of 400 is way too low. I would say that your ideas are more
dangerous to health, furthermore. For recommendations, see your doctor.

&&&And to say that photosynthesis is adequate is, in my mind, racial prejudice
against the minority populations with dark skin, who have this health problem the most. How can you say that dark-skinned people in the North can get vitamin
D from photosybthesis when it is widely known they can't because of their skin
color? Have you lost your mind? Any health researcher in this field knows that
this is a major problem for non-whites, and your ideas seem like a sick joke
at best.

The health impact of the wide-spread D3 deficiency is enormous. As you age, your chance of getting alzheimers goes up 25X if you are D3 deficient!



I wonder how deficient you have to be to significantly increase your risk of getting Alzeimer's? This sounds like a hoax to me. If you were getting Alzheimer's, you might be less careful about your diet, so vitamin D deficiency might be a symptom rather than a cause.
&&& Deficient people are defined as below 30. Those who don't take supplements can be as low as 10-20.



I can't tell you how many people have told me they get it from milk. The public ignorance is vast!

&&& Below - Aha The personal attack when you lose your grasp of the subject.. Free speech and intellectual inquiry are an impossibility around you.
I will respond to your points.

> Your own ignorance is impressive. If you expose milk to sunlight the 7-dehydrocholesterol present in the milk gets converted to cholecalciferol.

&& Wrong. The amount too low to make any difference in blood levels. Nutritional rickets a problem in minority communities, and the prevention requires vitamin D supplementation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780122526879500681


If you drink milk and expose your skin to sunlight, the same conversion takes place, so your informants were almost certainly telling you the truth.

&&& Nonsense again. Ordinary sunlight does not do the conversion. It requires
UVB at 311 nm., and that wavelength is not present in geographical locations
above 30 latitude, and gets less during winter months. This lack of 311 nm.
radiation is responsible for the widespread deficiency, as well as the obvious
fact that people don't walk around unclothed most of the year there. This
problem is most severe in dark-skinned minorities. So your ideas are a form of
racial prejudice against them, as their risk highest.

snipped the rest of the twaddle that haitic probably got from a "health food" website aka money-making hoax
&&& There you go again!



--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:56:57 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:03:37 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 22:44:11 UTC+10, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:



Another science hoax is the medical establishment's view of supplements, and the







rda (rec. daily allowance).







Cut to the chase: 70% of the population is D3 deficient, you need 5000 iu a day.







70% deficient in magnesium, etc.











The rda is oriented to preventing disease, like rickets in childhood.







It would be interesting to estimate the number of deaths caused by this hoax - probably 10m a year world-wide. Could be 50m.







Probably not. The recommended daily intakes are evidence-based, and at least some of them do get tested from time to time.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D







Vitamin D3 is cholecalciferol. Too much increases mortality, as does too little.







The evidence about how much the normal population ought to be taking is mixed. Any recommendation that you should take more than 4000 iu per day is decidedly suspect. Haitic's 5,000 iu per day recommendation is thus on the dangerous side, particularly when you consider that we tend photosynthesise enough from the precursors present in normal diet.







The health impact of the wide-spread D3 deficiency is enormous. As you age, your chance of getting alzheimers goes up 25X if you are D3 deficient!







I wonder how deficient you have to be to significantly increase your risk of getting Alzeimer's? This sounds like a hoax to me. If you were getting Alzheimer's, you might be less careful about your diet, so vitamin D deficiency might be a symptom rather than a cause







I can't tell you how many people have told me they get it from milk. The public ignorance is vast!







Your own ignorance is impressive. If you expose milk to sunlight the 7-dehydrocholesterol present in the milk gets converted to cholecalciferol. If you drink milk and expose your skin to sunlight, the same conversion takes place, so your informants were almost certainly telling you the truth.







snipped the rest of the twaddle that haitic probably got from a "health food" website aka money-making hoax







--



Bill Sloman, Sydney



The vitamin D was originally added to milk to facilitate calcium absorption and had less to do with vitamin supplementation. It has been found that the D3 is a much better facilitator and thus you will find many calcium supplements are combined with the D3. Then high levels of D3 depress blood levels of vitamin K, so vitamin K is also included in the better calcium supplements.



The best website for scientifically sound consultation on any supplement is webmd.com . It is edited by a staff of MDs, they have line cards on everything legally available, covering uses, side effects, interactions with prescription drugs and dosing schedules for medically supervised trials and therapies, all very practical information. Here is the line card for pomegranate:



http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-392-pomegranate.aspx?activeIngredientId=392&activeIngredientName=pomegranate&source=1



As you can see, there is no industry coverup there.

The industry cover-up occurs by the FDA preventing the pomegranate sellers from
saying how good it is. The FDA has no authority over doctors, just industry..
I applaud doctors who will stick their necks out, and it is a moving line.
Yes, unfortunately, there has been a huge amount of cover-up, as much s I'd
like to agree with you. The FDA was sued in DC court in 1991 about the vitamin
cover-ups. Te suit involved folic acid to prevent birth defects and aspirin to act as a heart attack medicine.

The FDA lost the suit, so today we know about these factors. (forbidden to say
by makers before.)

Great that webmd talking about pomegranate. Thanks. It has taken 25 years, but
at least they can't ignore any further.

 

[George Herold]

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:56:18 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 17:09:15 UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:12:40 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
My suspicion is that the increased burden in the primary circuit from
adding a Hall effect sensor is probably unmeasurable, which is why I asked
about a theoretical solution. And it is just out of curiosity, but I
thought that somebody else with better analytical chops than me and better
knowledge of Hall effect device design might take up the challenge.


I'm pretty sure the Hall effect is due to electron drift velocity
and deflection of the moving electrons by a magnetic field. There's
no work whatever done by the magnetic field on such a moving charge.

IIRR Hall-effect sensors depend on having roughly equal currents being carried by positive and negative charge-carriers.

I don't think so.. OK I'm not hall effect expert. But I have been measuring it recently in Si and Ge wafers. (I need to start a thread about that...later.)
So if you had equal pos. and neg. charge carriers (each with the same mobility*)
then in theory you'd get no Hall voltage. The sign of the Hall voltage gives you the sign of the charge carriers.

As far as the load of a Hall effect on the line... If I'm allowed to speculate wildly. I'd guess the load will only be on changing magnetic fileds...Any nearby conductor will have induced eddy current, and that will be some sort of "load" (loss). Since Hall effect devices are pretty darn small, and also will be fairly poor conductors**, I'm thinking this is a pretty small effect.

George H.
*the Hall mobility is different from the normal electric field mobility.
by somethng like a factor of 1.2 to a factor of almost 2. (Sze sec 1.5.2)
** the Hall signal is proportional to the carrier velocity, so all other things being equal you get a bigger signal with fewer carriers.

The work being done by those charge carriers is supplied by your measuring circuit and has no effect on the load.



Getting a magnetic field for the Hall effect sensor to detect could involve forming the current carrying conductor into a loop, which would add inductance to the circuit being measured, but you can just measure the magnetic field being created around a straight wire, and the inductance of a straight wire is around 5nH per cm, which isn't much.



http://www.k7mem.com/Electronic_Notebook/inductors/straight_wire.html



snip



--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:21:06 AM UTC-4, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

The industry cover-up occurs by the FDA preventing the pomegranate sellers from

saying how good it is. The FDA has no authority over doctors, just industry.

I applaud doctors who will stick their necks out, and it is a moving line..

Yes, unfortunately, there has been a huge amount of cover-up, as much s I'd

like to agree with you. The FDA was sued in DC court in 1991 about the vitamin

cover-ups. Te suit involved folic acid to prevent birth defects and aspirin to act as a heart attack medicine.



The FDA lost the suit, so today we know about these factors. (forbidden to say

by makers before.)



Great that webmd talking about pomegranate. Thanks. It has taken 25 years, but

at least they can't ignore any further.

The FDA merely enforces the law and that is the supplement manufacturers cannot mmake claims not supported by scientific evidence aka a medically supervised trial study. No one is preventing the pomegranate industry from conducting these trials. You proably advocate that useless and dangerous chelation therapy too, long since debunked as ineffective and even dangerous. History is rife with incidents of insanity regarding miracle cures and fountains of youth. I was recently researching the 17th insanity over the supposed benefits of New World sassafras extracts in 17th century England. That junk was going for $25,000 per ton in today's dollars, it took about 50 years for them to finally catch on the stuff was worthless, and then another 375 years before it was established the essential ingredient of the oil, safrole, was carcinogenic, and it was completely banned in this country. Up until that time it was widely used in everything from making root beer, flavoring medicine to bubblegum, lipsticks, and insect repellent. Finally the sassafras albidum caught some relief as it required 80,000 pounds of root to make 50 gallons of the oil, the devestation was fairly extreme.

 

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:12:43 PM UTC-4, meow...@care2.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:12:09 AM UTC+1, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:



I'm open to any suggestions of further scientific flim-flam. On my list are

AI, medical research, much nano-technology, alternative energy, climate change,

SSRI drugs, medical treatments, IPhone, IOT...





Freud & modern psychiatry are 2 more





NT

Yes, Freud never developed a usable therapy, imo, but he is the most researched
psychologist of any. (in databases). I like his writing and his classical
education. But he has been accused of denying childhood sex abuse by calling it
projection. In his original Vienna circle, only he and Adler did not go insane.
(!)

Modern psychiatry and their drugs are a hoax. The use of SSRI drugs among
school and mass shooters is widespread. You see, to doctors, we are just a hunk
of flesh without anything else. So a drug is needed to cure our ills. It's in
the schools too!

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:45:56 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:21:06 AM UTC-4, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:





The industry cover-up occurs by the FDA preventing the pomegranate sellers from



saying how good it is. The FDA has no authority over doctors, just industry.



I applaud doctors who will stick their necks out, and it is a moving line.



Yes, unfortunately, there has been a huge amount of cover-up, as much s I'd



like to agree with you. The FDA was sued in DC court in 1991 about the vitamin



cover-ups. Te suit involved folic acid to prevent birth defects and aspirin to act as a heart attack medicine.







The FDA lost the suit, so today we know about these factors. (forbidden to say



by makers before.)







Great that webmd talking about pomegranate. Thanks. It has taken 25 years, but



at least they can't ignore any further.



The FDA merely enforces the law and that is the supplement manufacturers cannot mmake claims not supported by scientific evidence aka a medically supervised trial study. No one is preventing the pomegranate industry from conducting these trials. You proably advocate that useless and dangerous chelation therapy too, long since debunked as ineffective and even dangerous. History is rife with incidents of insanity regarding miracle cures and fountains of youth. I was recently researching the 17th insanity over the supposed benefits of New World sassafras extracts in 17th century England. That junk was going for $25,000 per ton in today's dollars, it took about 50 years for them to finally catch on the stuff was worthless, and then another 375 years before it was established the essential ingredient of the oil, safrole, was carcinogenic, and it was completely banned in this country. Up until that time it was widely used in everything from making root beer, flavoring medicine to bubblegum, lipsticks, and insect repellent. Finally the sassafras albidum caught some relief as it required 80,000 pounds of root to make 50 gallons of the oil, the devestation was fairly extreme.

&&& Actually, trials are too expensive for a fruit juice company. The cost can go
up to 500 million dollars. If a pharma company like Pfizer has a promising
drug which will only sell say 300m a year, they often will not apply for a
trial, because of the high cost. This effectively precludes any supplement
maker from even considering this route.

Yes, I heard that about safrole. It is used today to make illicit drugs. No, I
don't advocate chelation therapy. It is used in some forms of lead poisoning, I believe. I knew a doctor who was into it, and he died of a heart attack.

 

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <amcpk9tcn9459ce0qoik7kvcm8cafq3qj3@4ax.com>, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:39:01 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/04/2014 16:47, John Larkin wrote:
On 14 Apr 2014 10:34:55 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2014-04-14, Tim Williams <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:br0tf2Fs854U1@mid.individual.net...

Of all the dubious aspects of the language, that's one that should
recieve
the most ire. What a stupid idea. Other languages (I'm only familiar
with QuickBasic offhand) store strings with a length prefix. And do
bounds checking besides.

yeah, but doesn't it put some stupid arbitrary limit on string length?

PowerBasic doesn't put a limit on string length, allows embedded nulls,
and has
groovy inherent string functions. Without hazards. Ask for a substring out
of
the range of a string and you get the null string. Append to a string and
it
just works.

I think you will find it limits maximum string lengths at 2^31-1 or
possibly 2^32-1. Older basics tend to limit it at 2^16-1 = 65535.

Well, in a 32-bit program, strings won't get much bigger than that.

It's not usually much of a limitation.


Memory was a rare expensive commodity when these languages were born.

I've written PB programs that manipulate huge data arrays, using
subscripts,
that run 4x as fast as the obvious c pointer equivalents. With an
afternoon of
playing with code and compiler optimizations, the c got close.

Only because you don't know what you are doing.


Oh, it was a senior c programmer who wrote the c version. It ran slower than I
thought reasonable, so I tried it in PowerBasic, which only took a couple of
minutes to write and run. It was a fairly simple signal averaging thing, but on
big data sets.

Something is fishy here. Basic is an interpreted language. If the
program has high locality, aggressive caching of repeated bits can make
it only one tenth as fast as the same algorithm coded in a compiled
language like C. If the program has low locality (like lots of
realtime stuff), interpreted code is more like one 50th of the speed of
compiled code.

I'd look at the C code with a profiler, and find the bug.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Martin Brown]

On 17/04/2014 13:18, Joe Gwinn wrote:

In article <amcpk9tcn9459ce0qoik7kvcm8cafq3qj3@4ax.com>, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:39:01 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/04/2014 16:47, John Larkin wrote:
On 14 Apr 2014 10:34:55 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2014-04-14, Tim Williams <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:br0tf2Fs854U1@mid.individual.net...

Of all the dubious aspects of the language, that's one that should
recieve
the most ire. What a stupid idea. Other languages (I'm only familiar
with QuickBasic offhand) store strings with a length prefix. And do
bounds checking besides.

yeah, but doesn't it put some stupid arbitrary limit on string length?

PowerBasic doesn't put a limit on string length, allows embedded nulls,
and has
groovy inherent string functions. Without hazards. Ask for a substring out
of
the range of a string and you get the null string. Append to a string and
it
just works.

I think you will find it limits maximum string lengths at 2^31-1 or
possibly 2^32-1. Older basics tend to limit it at 2^16-1 = 65535.

Well, in a 32-bit program, strings won't get much bigger than that.

It's not usually much of a limitation.

Memory was a rare expensive commodity when these languages were born.

I've written PB programs that manipulate huge data arrays, using
subscripts,
that run 4x as fast as the obvious c pointer equivalents. With an
afternoon of
playing with code and compiler optimizations, the c got close.

Only because you don't know what you are doing.

Oh, it was a senior c programmer who wrote the c version. It ran slower than I
thought reasonable, so I tried it in PowerBasic, which only took a couple of
minutes to write and run. It was a fairly simple signal averaging thing, but on
big data sets.

Something is fishy here. Basic is an interpreted language. If the

Not necessarily.

PowerBasic is a decent optimising native code compiler. And in some ways
it has more freedom to optimise its loop code than a C compiler!

Basic and Lisp are usually interpreted languages but there are
optimising native code compilers for both of them on some platforms.

http://www.powerbasic.com/products/

program has high locality, aggressive caching of repeated bits can make
it only one tenth as fast as the same algorithm coded in a compiled
language like C. If the program has low locality (like lots of
realtime stuff), interpreted code is more like one 50th of the speed of
compiled code.

From memory the data was just about big enough and involved words and
integers to go I/O bound and their C code was decidedly non-optimal.

On the current crop of optimising compilers there is seldom much to
choose between different ways of implementing vector dot products.

I'd look at the C code with a profiler, and find the bug.

Joe Gwinn

C code isn't quite as fast at some things as you might like to believe,
but ISTR the slowness in this case was mostly down to user error.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:57:29 PM UTC+1, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

> &&& Actually, trials are too expensive for a fruit juice company. The cost can go

The huge cost of such trials precludes lots of testing. Society needs a cheaper option, and it doesnt strike me as too hard to do.


NT

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:10:04 PM UTC+1, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

Probably not. The recommended daily intakes are evidence-based, and at least
some of them do get tested from time to time.

&&& Nonsense. The rda were formulated many years ago. Teir purpose was to
prevent disease, not confer health. Szent-Gyorgi, the discoverer of vitamin C,
wrote extensively abut this problem.

IIRC The original definition of RDA was the level at which 95% of population does not show signs of severe deficiency. Now that's for each substance alone - so if people all get the RDA for each nutrient, a large percentage will exhibit some sign of _severe_ deficiency.

RDA was never in any way based on best health levels, and still isn't.

You might get some interesting stuff from Health Defence by Dr. Paul Clayton.


NT

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:45:08 -0700, edward.ming.lee wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:03:04 PM UTC-7, Tim Wescott wrote:
I have a customer who wants a USB-powered battery charger designed,
with certification -n- all. I figure the certification part will be
harder than the charger part, so I have to give it a pass.

Anyone do that and have spare cycles, or know someone? He wants
someone with a track record, or I'd talk him into using me!

Yes, i've done USB charger designs, but certifications are usually done
by the manufacturer. Cert. means every single aspect of productions
needed to be involved. I can certainly get your customer linked to the
right people, if they volume is high enough. I would have to pass if
they when certification design for a few hundreds or thousands pcs (it
happened).

I'm not sure what he's got in mind -- his current product is certainly
not high volume.

Someone who could hand-hold him through the cert process would probably
be enough.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:18:36 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <amcpk9tcn9459ce0qoik7kvcm8cafq3qj3@4ax.com>, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:39:01 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/04/2014 16:47, John Larkin wrote:
On 14 Apr 2014 10:34:55 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2014-04-14, Tim Williams <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:br0tf2Fs854U1@mid.individual.net...

Of all the dubious aspects of the language, that's one that should
recieve
the most ire. What a stupid idea. Other languages (I'm only familiar
with QuickBasic offhand) store strings with a length prefix. And do
bounds checking besides.

yeah, but doesn't it put some stupid arbitrary limit on string length?

PowerBasic doesn't put a limit on string length, allows embedded nulls,
and has
groovy inherent string functions. Without hazards. Ask for a substring out
of
the range of a string and you get the null string. Append to a string and
it
just works.

I think you will find it limits maximum string lengths at 2^31-1 or
possibly 2^32-1. Older basics tend to limit it at 2^16-1 = 65535.

Well, in a 32-bit program, strings won't get much bigger than that.

It's not usually much of a limitation.


Memory was a rare expensive commodity when these languages were born.

I've written PB programs that manipulate huge data arrays, using
subscripts,
that run 4x as fast as the obvious c pointer equivalents. With an
afternoon of
playing with code and compiler optimizations, the c got close.

Only because you don't know what you are doing.


Oh, it was a senior c programmer who wrote the c version. It ran slower than I
thought reasonable, so I tried it in PowerBasic, which only took a couple of
minutes to write and run. It was a fairly simple signal averaging thing, but on
big data sets.

Something is fishy here. Basic is an interpreted language.

PowerBasic is a very good optimized compiler. It can run useful FOR loops at
hundreds of MHz.

If the

program has high locality, aggressive caching of repeated bits can make
it only one tenth as fast as the same algorithm coded in a compiled
language like C. If the program has low locality (like lots of
realtime stuff), interpreted code is more like one 50th of the speed of
compiled code.

I'd look at the C code with a profiler, and find the bug.

It was, like, 20 lines of code. It didn't have a bug, it was just slow. As I
noted, futzing with c compiler optimizations helped.

The PowerBasic compiler gives you one choice: size or speed. Compiled programs
are so small that I always go for speed.


--

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

Precision electronic instrumentation

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:03:04 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> wrote:

I have a customer who wants a USB-powered battery charger designed, with
certification -n- all. I figure the certification part will be harder
than the charger part, so I have to give it a pass.

Anyone do that and have spare cycles, or know someone? He wants someone
with a track record, or I'd talk him into using me!

What certs? UL/CSA/CE? FCC?

A test lab will do those, for a moderate pile of money.

Is there a USB certification standard?


--

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

Precision electronic instrumentation

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:57:29 AM UTC-4, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

&&& Actually, trials are too expensive for a fruit juice company. The cost can go

up to 500 million dollars. If a pharma company like Pfizer has a promising

drug which will only sell say 300m a year, they often will not apply for a

trial, because of the high cost. This effectively precludes any supplement

maker from even considering this route.

Nah, you're crazy, there is a big BIG difference between a naturally occurring health food supplement and a pharmaceutical or vaccine.
Here's one where once again vitamn E leads to bad results, except if you're low on selenium:

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/qa/2008/selectqa

 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:16:13 PM UTC+1, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:57:29 AM UTC-4, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:

&&& Actually, trials are too expensive for a fruit juice company. The cost can go
up to 500 million dollars. If a pharma company like Pfizer has a promising
drug which will only sell say 300m a year, they often will not apply for a
trial, because of the high cost. This effectively precludes any supplement
maker from even considering this route.

Nah, you're crazy, there is a big BIG difference between a naturally occurring health food supplement and a pharmaceutical or vaccine.

it still costs

Here's one where once again vitamn E leads to bad results, except if you're low on selenium:
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/qa/2008/selectqa

So take both and no harm, take the ATBC supplement protocol and cancers dropped. That's the point of such studies, find out what works and what doesnt.


NT

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:14:15 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

Jim,

Since you said you were interested in suggestions for Spice models, so
here's two:

SA612/SA602. There are models around, but I have no way of knowing how
good they are.

Nothing on the data sheet tells me the voltage on pins 1 and 2, just
shows a block called "bias".

Can you provide those numbers?

BF904R. This strange dual-gate MOSFET is NLA, but was the secret sauce
in some interesting RF front-ends because of its ability to run very
high gain or attenuation (+-70dB in one example I'm aware of) with
amazing IP3. A model would help in finding something that can reproduce
this performance. Yes, I'm aware of Phil's GaAs/SiGe cascode combination...

Just a thought, in case it tickles your fancy.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:26:12 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:03:04 -0500, Tim Wescott
tim@seemywebsite.really> wrote:

I have a customer who wants a USB-powered battery charger designed, with
certification -n- all. I figure the certification part will be harder
than the charger part, so I have to give it a pass.

Anyone do that and have spare cycles, or know someone? He wants someone
with a track record, or I'd talk him into using me!

What certs? UL/CSA/CE? FCC?

A test lab will do those, for a moderate pile of money.

Is there a USB certification standard?

You have to pass their compatibility tests if you want to use their logos
& such. I'm not sure whether you can even use "USB", but I suspect by
now that you can if you use the right wording.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com