Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:19:36 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
Would be a real waste of time
Would be a real waste of time
Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:27:10 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
Lots of corporations and individuals are working on better and new products.. They arent all capital intensive.
You really think no new stuff will come out developed on a shoestring? C'mon.
> Got any more seriously bad advice to dish out?
I guess you don't have the skills.
NT
Lots of corporations and individuals are working on better and new products.. They arent all capital intensive.
You really think no new stuff will come out developed on a shoestring? C'mon.
> Got any more seriously bad advice to dish out?
I guess you don't have the skills.
NT
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, 15 December 2014 22:56:40 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Sure. And you are a waste of space.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Sure. And you are a waste of space.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, 15 December 2014 22:59:35 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
I'd like you to explain how a development of as mass-market consumer product isn't going to be capital intensive, but you are NT and explanation isn't your strong suit.
Not if it's going to compete in a large-scale consumer market - that's ASIC territory, and you can't develop an ASIC on a shoestring.
I've got enough skill to detect when a windbag is bluffing about stuff he doesn't understand.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
I'd like you to explain how a development of as mass-market consumer product isn't going to be capital intensive, but you are NT and explanation isn't your strong suit.
Not if it's going to compete in a large-scale consumer market - that's ASIC territory, and you can't develop an ASIC on a shoestring.
I've got enough skill to detect when a windbag is bluffing about stuff he doesn't understand.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 1:03:52 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
If you dont know how to design a system that either expert end users or a company can put together without spending megabucks then shrug, I'm not about to show you how. Lots of startups & individuals have done it.
At the risk of stating the obvious, product sales scale up over time, you don't need to begin with an ASIC when you have no competitor.
clearly not
People have been designing and inventing things for centuries. I assumed you had these skills.
NT
If you dont know how to design a system that either expert end users or a company can put together without spending megabucks then shrug, I'm not about to show you how. Lots of startups & individuals have done it.
At the risk of stating the obvious, product sales scale up over time, you don't need to begin with an ASIC when you have no competitor.
clearly not
People have been designing and inventing things for centuries. I assumed you had these skills.
NT
Guest
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:24:33 AM UTC-5, meow...@care2.com wrote:
I'm an ardent green myself. All energy has environmental (and financial)
cost, so it makes sense to use no more than necessary. I live green and
have designed equipment green my whole life.
But Bill does his case no favors with constant absurd doomsaying,
repeating the "97% of scientists" tripe, and all sorts of dishonest or
plainly non-scientific rationales. That's propaganda. There isn't
adequate scientific information to make the predictions they're offering
as fact.
I design things for minimum dissipation as a matter of course, and ignore
the discredited East Anglia University climategate crowd. They're shoddy
workmen (as indicated by their source code) and petty politicians.
Cheers,
James Arthur
I'm an ardent green myself. All energy has environmental (and financial)
cost, so it makes sense to use no more than necessary. I live green and
have designed equipment green my whole life.
But Bill does his case no favors with constant absurd doomsaying,
repeating the "97% of scientists" tripe, and all sorts of dishonest or
plainly non-scientific rationales. That's propaganda. There isn't
adequate scientific information to make the predictions they're offering
as fact.
I design things for minimum dissipation as a matter of course, and ignore
the discredited East Anglia University climategate crowd. They're shoddy
workmen (as indicated by their source code) and petty politicians.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:29:40 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
we have come full circle....
it was YOU who claimed AGW was "scientific" and therefore we should all belive in it
I quote you:
"...But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish...."
Actualy I don't care is AGW is real or not.
I am against additional taxes.
If you want a solution to AGW that everyone will support, find one that does not add more taxes. Start a massive tree planting effort.
I was surprised to read that one of the originators of the theory of AGW proposed the carbon tax as a solution BUT the tax was to be implemented such that ALL the money collected would be returned to the people. NONE would be retaind to fund the govt. This would serve as an incentive to use non carbon fuels. Not as a revenue source for the govt.
I would even support that.
But the orignal proposal has been perverted into a money making scheme.
Mark
we have come full circle....
it was YOU who claimed AGW was "scientific" and therefore we should all belive in it
I quote you:
"...But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish...."
Actualy I don't care is AGW is real or not.
I am against additional taxes.
If you want a solution to AGW that everyone will support, find one that does not add more taxes. Start a massive tree planting effort.
I was surprised to read that one of the originators of the theory of AGW proposed the carbon tax as a solution BUT the tax was to be implemented such that ALL the money collected would be returned to the people. NONE would be retaind to fund the govt. This would serve as an incentive to use non carbon fuels. Not as a revenue source for the govt.
I would even support that.
But the orignal proposal has been perverted into a money making scheme.
Mark
Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:59:35 AM UTC-5, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Here's exactly such a thing, developed on a shoe-string, that could
drastically cut carbon soot from cooking stoves:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stove-537497-smoke-rocket.html
It burns the soot cleanly and also cuts fuel use in half,
all without taking anyone's life, liberty, or property.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Here's exactly such a thing, developed on a shoe-string, that could
drastically cut carbon soot from cooking stoves:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stove-537497-smoke-rocket.html
It burns the soot cleanly and also cuts fuel use in half,
all without taking anyone's life, liberty, or property.
Cheers,
James Arthur
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 02:40:34 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
If you don't appreciate the costs involved in engineering for really large-scale production of mass-market items, there's absolutely no reason to take your comments seriously.
You might read about Henry Ford's relatively slow progression into mass production as an example of how an individual (with a lot of investors) did it..
It's not particularly clever to develop a new market with a product than can be undercut by a fairly obvious investment. You may may not have a competitor when you open up the market, but you'll certainly acquire competitors as soon as you've demonstrated that there's money to be made with your kind of product.
I've got a couple of patents. I couldn't have financed any of the inventions, or even paid the patent lawyers to cover the cost of the patenting process. My father had 25 patents and knew quite a it about the costs involved - he didn't pay them, but he was high enough in the company that did pay for the patents that he knew exactly what they cost.
One of my friends eventually made a couple of million dollars out of a patent he'd taken out - rather against the advice he'd got from me and my father (which he much later acknowledged to be most realistic of all the advice he'd been given). For a couple of years the ownership of that patent was uncertain, and my friend didn't have the capital to do much development, but once the ownership was clarified, there was something for a venture capitalist to buy into.
I don't know what your skills are, but from what little you've said here "non-existent" would probably cover them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
If you don't appreciate the costs involved in engineering for really large-scale production of mass-market items, there's absolutely no reason to take your comments seriously.
You might read about Henry Ford's relatively slow progression into mass production as an example of how an individual (with a lot of investors) did it..
It's not particularly clever to develop a new market with a product than can be undercut by a fairly obvious investment. You may may not have a competitor when you open up the market, but you'll certainly acquire competitors as soon as you've demonstrated that there's money to be made with your kind of product.
I've got a couple of patents. I couldn't have financed any of the inventions, or even paid the patent lawyers to cover the cost of the patenting process. My father had 25 patents and knew quite a it about the costs involved - he didn't pay them, but he was high enough in the company that did pay for the patents that he knew exactly what they cost.
One of my friends eventually made a couple of million dollars out of a patent he'd taken out - rather against the advice he'd got from me and my father (which he much later acknowledged to be most realistic of all the advice he'd been given). For a couple of years the ownership of that patent was uncertain, and my friend didn't have the capital to do much development, but once the ownership was clarified, there was something for a venture capitalist to buy into.
I don't know what your skills are, but from what little you've said here "non-existent" would probably cover them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 05:26:55 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
Either green or cheapskate. I tend to believe James is more cheapskate than green.
This is a matter of opinion. That 97% of the top 300 climatologists accept the evidence for anthoprogenic global warming comes from the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science, who don't publish either "tripe" or "propaganda".
You can take James Arthuir's opinion seriously - despite the fact that he's a right-wing nitwit, with a rooted ideological objection to recognising the "externalities" that distort the proper operation of ostensibly free markets - or you can think why 97% of the top climatologists might think better of the case for anthropogenic global warming than James Arthur does.
He isn't the first scientifically sophisiticated right-winger to reject good science for ideological reasons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
lists a few others (all of them with better scientific credentials than James Arthur - but even I have got marginally better scientific credentials than James Arthur).
James Arthur may have read Fred Pearce's " The Climate Files" but he hasn't understood the science (any more than Fred Pearce did). East Anglia University came out of the Climategate affair with an unblemished reputation - there were several enquiries, and nobody was "discredited".
http://www.amazon.com/The-Climate-Files-Battle-Warming/dp/0852652291
Fred Pearce didn't like the way the people whose private e-mails had been made public had gone after a rogue editor on some minor climate science journal - he published a rotten piece of denialist pseudo-science after four referees had rejected it, and the East Anglia crowd made enough fuss that the rest of the editorial board resigned, getting him fired.
Fred Pearce isn't a scientist - he's a British science journalist, and they are almost all trained as journalists, not as scientists - and he didn't understand the importance of the integrity of the peer-reviewed publication system.
He thought that the East Anglia crowd were upset by denialist content of the paper, when they were more upset because it had been published after being rejected by four referees.
Nothing in the published e-mails suggest that they were shoddy workmen. The source code that James Arthur thinks of as "theirs" seems to have been a graduate student's "sandpit" where people learning how to code climate models swapped puerile attempts at coding.
James Arthur hasn't revealed any time spent as a graduate student. Graduate students can combine equally remarkable levels of incompetence and over-confidence. My favourite example was of another graduate student in chemistry who wanted to dismantle the vibrating reed electrometer (that I was looking after at the time) to extract the 100M resistor in the head, so that he could drop the very low current he wanted measure across enough resistance to develop a voltage he could measure with a multimeter.
It took me a while to explain to him that his multimeter was actually a 0 to 50uA current meter, and the electrometer was actually designed to measure the sorts of currents he wanted to measure. Rather than taking away the electrometer and doing the measurement, he rethought the experiment.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Either green or cheapskate. I tend to believe James is more cheapskate than green.
This is a matter of opinion. That 97% of the top 300 climatologists accept the evidence for anthoprogenic global warming comes from the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science, who don't publish either "tripe" or "propaganda".
You can take James Arthuir's opinion seriously - despite the fact that he's a right-wing nitwit, with a rooted ideological objection to recognising the "externalities" that distort the proper operation of ostensibly free markets - or you can think why 97% of the top climatologists might think better of the case for anthropogenic global warming than James Arthur does.
He isn't the first scientifically sophisiticated right-winger to reject good science for ideological reasons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
lists a few others (all of them with better scientific credentials than James Arthur - but even I have got marginally better scientific credentials than James Arthur).
James Arthur may have read Fred Pearce's " The Climate Files" but he hasn't understood the science (any more than Fred Pearce did). East Anglia University came out of the Climategate affair with an unblemished reputation - there were several enquiries, and nobody was "discredited".
http://www.amazon.com/The-Climate-Files-Battle-Warming/dp/0852652291
Fred Pearce didn't like the way the people whose private e-mails had been made public had gone after a rogue editor on some minor climate science journal - he published a rotten piece of denialist pseudo-science after four referees had rejected it, and the East Anglia crowd made enough fuss that the rest of the editorial board resigned, getting him fired.
Fred Pearce isn't a scientist - he's a British science journalist, and they are almost all trained as journalists, not as scientists - and he didn't understand the importance of the integrity of the peer-reviewed publication system.
He thought that the East Anglia crowd were upset by denialist content of the paper, when they were more upset because it had been published after being rejected by four referees.
Nothing in the published e-mails suggest that they were shoddy workmen. The source code that James Arthur thinks of as "theirs" seems to have been a graduate student's "sandpit" where people learning how to code climate models swapped puerile attempts at coding.
James Arthur hasn't revealed any time spent as a graduate student. Graduate students can combine equally remarkable levels of incompetence and over-confidence. My favourite example was of another graduate student in chemistry who wanted to dismantle the vibrating reed electrometer (that I was looking after at the time) to extract the 100M resistor in the head, so that he could drop the very low current he wanted measure across enough resistance to develop a voltage he could measure with a multimeter.
It took me a while to explain to him that his multimeter was actually a 0 to 50uA current meter, and the electrometer was actually designed to measure the sorts of currents he wanted to measure. Rather than taking away the electrometer and doing the measurement, he rethought the experiment.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 08:31:07 UTC+11, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
That wasn't what I said. I said it was a scientific question, and you needed to understand the scientific evidence for (quite lot) and against (sod-all).
I wasn't using "scientific" to mean "immune from scrunity" but rather as "requiring scientific scrunity".
AGW doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. It will keep on happening even if nobody believes in it - probably rather more rapidly than if anybody believed in it enough to do something to slow it down.
> I am against additional taxes.
Aren't we all. Sadly, the phrase is "as inevitable as death and taxes".
> If you want a solution to AGW that everyone will support, find one that does not add more taxes. Start a massive tree planting effort.
We'd all like that. Starting a massive tree-planting effort would be expensive, and would have to be paid for by more taxes, and has the downside that we can't plant remotely enough tree to absorb all the CO2 we are currently generating by digging up a couple of hundred millions year's worth of fossil carbon and burning it as fuel. It's a lot cheaper to invest in solar power generation, and if we invest enough - and we can - we can pretty much stop having to burn fossil carbon as fuel. You'd have to live with the limitations of electric cars, and international air travel would have to shrink to negligible dimensions (until we worked out to make planes bulbous enough to accommodate liquid hydrogen fuel tanks).
Even that is more expensive than business as usual, until you start adding in the costs of more extreme weather (happening now) and the disruption of agriculture (probably starting to happen now, but it's hard to blame a particular drought on anthropogenic global warming). More global warming is going to be more expensive, and it's hard to reverse.
That's politicians for you. Elect some politicians with more sense. Getting rid of the Tea Party would be a start.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
That wasn't what I said. I said it was a scientific question, and you needed to understand the scientific evidence for (quite lot) and against (sod-all).
I wasn't using "scientific" to mean "immune from scrunity" but rather as "requiring scientific scrunity".
AGW doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. It will keep on happening even if nobody believes in it - probably rather more rapidly than if anybody believed in it enough to do something to slow it down.
> I am against additional taxes.
Aren't we all. Sadly, the phrase is "as inevitable as death and taxes".
> If you want a solution to AGW that everyone will support, find one that does not add more taxes. Start a massive tree planting effort.
We'd all like that. Starting a massive tree-planting effort would be expensive, and would have to be paid for by more taxes, and has the downside that we can't plant remotely enough tree to absorb all the CO2 we are currently generating by digging up a couple of hundred millions year's worth of fossil carbon and burning it as fuel. It's a lot cheaper to invest in solar power generation, and if we invest enough - and we can - we can pretty much stop having to burn fossil carbon as fuel. You'd have to live with the limitations of electric cars, and international air travel would have to shrink to negligible dimensions (until we worked out to make planes bulbous enough to accommodate liquid hydrogen fuel tanks).
Even that is more expensive than business as usual, until you start adding in the costs of more extreme weather (happening now) and the disruption of agriculture (probably starting to happen now, but it's hard to blame a particular drought on anthropogenic global warming). More global warming is going to be more expensive, and it's hard to reverse.
That's politicians for you. Elect some politicians with more sense. Getting rid of the Tea Party would be a start.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 20:46:16 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
I think you've just gone mad. Iterating 555's just gives a linearly increasing delay, not a multiplication.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
I think you've just gone mad. Iterating 555's just gives a linearly increasing delay, not a multiplication.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:41:05 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Do you have any idea what the peak rainfall rate was? I heard the total there was only about 1.5", but, if it all comes down at once, it causes problems. A flat roof is anything less than 3 in 12 rise to run, they're non-trivial and require more than just slapping down a membrane.
Well, it's not the roofing material but the "flashing" that's the problem. Grace is the de facto leader in state of the art flashing products.
https://grace.com/construction/en-us/Documents/TP-073J-V40.pdf
(surprisingly HomeDepot actually carries it...)
....is one example of their conformable, self-adhering, and easily installed product. Sounds like you need to lap it 4-6" minimum.
That doesn't sound right...Sounds like the door frame is too low on the roof deck. Tell the whiz you want an internal open gutter installed along the entire length of wall of the door, you'll need some kind of perforated metal grate covering the part where you step out the door. ( and this gutter needs slope -duh)
Do you have any idea what the peak rainfall rate was? I heard the total there was only about 1.5", but, if it all comes down at once, it causes problems. A flat roof is anything less than 3 in 12 rise to run, they're non-trivial and require more than just slapping down a membrane.
Well, it's not the roofing material but the "flashing" that's the problem. Grace is the de facto leader in state of the art flashing products.
https://grace.com/construction/en-us/Documents/TP-073J-V40.pdf
(surprisingly HomeDepot actually carries it...)
....is one example of their conformable, self-adhering, and easily installed product. Sounds like you need to lap it 4-6" minimum.
That doesn't sound right...Sounds like the door frame is too low on the roof deck. Tell the whiz you want an internal open gutter installed along the entire length of wall of the door, you'll need some kind of perforated metal grate covering the part where you step out the door. ( and this gutter needs slope -duh)
Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:41:05 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Another possibility is the door frame was installed upside down...
Another possibility is the door frame was installed upside down...
R
Robert Baer
Guest
Bill Sloman wrote:
set like a 30:1 divider which in turn can drive a third set like a
divider, etc; can get down to days with good accuracy..
But the micro gives excellent precision and accuracy with no RC tweaking.
Beg to differ; one 555 running at (say) 1KC can drive a second one
set like a 30:1 divider which in turn can drive a third set like a
divider, etc; can get down to days with good accuracy..
But the micro gives excellent precision and accuracy with no RC tweaking.
A
alb
Guest
Hi Frank, my apologies for such a delayed reply, the thread has moved to
s.e.d. a week ago and I did not inform c.a.e. promptly (shame on me). I
took the liberty to crosspost your reply on s.e.d.
Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> wrote:
[]
Maybe not a showstopper for my application where the motor is *always*
running and is stopped only in non nominal cases (profile
reconfiguration, or similar stuff).
An open-loop will not be able to attain the precision required. The
whole system is thought to be operated in closed loop.
Al
s.e.d. a week ago and I did not inform c.a.e. promptly (shame on me). I
took the liberty to crosspost your reply on s.e.d.
Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> wrote:
[]
Maybe not a showstopper for my application where the motor is *always*
running and is stopped only in non nominal cases (profile
reconfiguration, or similar stuff).
An open-loop will not be able to attain the precision required. The
whole system is thought to be operated in closed loop.
Al
D
dcaster@krl.org
Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:46:26 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
So what you are saying is that poor management will produce poor results.
Instead of your example why not take the example of Nucor. Nucor started making bar joists with pretty much no capital. At the time their biggest asset was a large tax loss. But Nucor decided to use their profits from making bar joists to improve their profit margin and bought an electric furnace to melt scrap and make their own angle iron and rebar. And they produced enough steel from scrap that they started selling structural steel. Later they built the first steel mill that cast thin slabs and ran the thin slabs into a rolling mill with out having to reheat the slabs. To keep this brief Nucor is now the largest steel producer in the U.S. and still in the bar joist business.
http://www.nucor.com/
Dan
So what you are saying is that poor management will produce poor results.
Instead of your example why not take the example of Nucor. Nucor started making bar joists with pretty much no capital. At the time their biggest asset was a large tax loss. But Nucor decided to use their profits from making bar joists to improve their profit margin and bought an electric furnace to melt scrap and make their own angle iron and rebar. And they produced enough steel from scrap that they started selling structural steel. Later they built the first steel mill that cast thin slabs and ran the thin slabs into a rolling mill with out having to reheat the slabs. To keep this brief Nucor is now the largest steel producer in the U.S. and still in the bar joist business.
http://www.nucor.com/
Dan
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2014-12-16, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
Or a CD4060, this timer has a 14 bit divider attached.
it's used in toasters etc 5 minutes is no problem.
--
umop apisdn
Or a CD4060, this timer has a 14 bit divider attached.
it's used in toasters etc 5 minutes is no problem.
--
umop apisdn
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 16/12/2014 08:46, Robert Baer wrote:
That sounds like making life unnecessarily difficult just to use 555's
for the job. A CMOS 555 followed by a divide by 2^N chip should do the
job admirably (although I think a PIC might be easier/cheaper).
A CMOS 4060 might well do it in a single chip oscillator & divider.
http://electronicsclub.info/cmos.htm#4060
(for the benefit of the OP)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That sounds like making life unnecessarily difficult just to use 555's
for the job. A CMOS 555 followed by a divide by 2^N chip should do the
job admirably (although I think a PIC might be easier/cheaper).
A CMOS 4060 might well do it in a single chip oscillator & divider.
http://electronicsclub.info/cmos.htm#4060
(for the benefit of the OP)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
G
George Herold
Guest
On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:53:20 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
OT, but are honeydews the melon or the secretion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeydew_%28secretion%29
George H.
Today's HoneyDo Project
Too many glasses, had to add...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/PantryWineGlassRack.jpg
Mounted 18" down from ceiling (9' ceiling) so I can reach ;-)
48" wide by 22" deep
Mean to work inside that narrow a space.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| 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.
OT, but are honeydews the melon or the secretion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeydew_%28secretion%29
George H.