Driver to drive?

[Sylvia Else]

On 6/01/2015 7:41 AM, Glenn wrote:

On 04/01/15 03.45, Sylvia Else wrote:
I had (naively, perhaps) thought that the main reason for having a
transformer in a sinewave inverter circuit was to provide isolation,
between the mains voltage output and the low voltage input, so that the
latter would not be live.

My thinking was then that if that's not a consideration (because the
input is also at a dangerous voltage) then one could dispense with the
transformer.

Yet the standard PWM sinewave inverter circuit seems to rely on the very
high transformer primary inductance for its function. Certainly, I
haven't managed to conceive a transformerless PWM circuit that works,
even in SPICE.

So I tried conceiving of it as a buck converter, where the regulated
output voltage tracks the required sinewave. That doesn't work because
there's not enough output current at lowish points in the output cycle
to discharge the smoothing capacitor fast enough for the output voltage
to track properly.

My generator's original inverter clearly did not have a 2.5kW 50Hz
transformer, just two chokes (perhaps 300uH) on the mains output lines,
and two electrolytic capacitors (220uF, if memory serves - certainly
about that).

Equally, my 300W pure-sinewave inverter does not contain a 300W 50Hz
transformer. It contains what looks like a transformer, but nothing like
that big.

It appears I'm missing something, and multiple Google searches have not
been informative. Anyone have knowledge of this?

Sylvia.


Hi Sylvia

How about this one?:

Here is a one [active] switch inverter - but besides the one switch, it
also has two parallel coupled reverse-blocking-switches closer to the
output, that functions as active rectification - see the schematic at
page 2:

A Synchronous Single Switch Inverter - Purdue School of:
http://www.engr.iupui.edu/~aizadian/index_files/Papers/C-58.pdf
Quote: "...
Four modes of operation were detected in creation of negative and
positive polarity voltages.
...
Not only did the bench test work, it lead to the discovery of several
other circuits and controllers for high-power inverters with lower
switching loss, higher voltage performance and lighter reconfigured
circuits.

Therefore, as the number of high frequency switching devices is
decreased, the efficiency is increased. For instance, a 90% efficient
[H-bridge] converter becomes 97.2% efficient.
...
CONCLUSION
A new power inverter circuit was introduced that required only one high
frequency switching transistor. The inverter used a synchronizing
structure to change the voltage polarity on demand. Therefore, real time
generation of infinite voltage levels was realized. The state space
equations demonstrated a forth order system.
..."

The inverter could be used for solar micro-inverters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_micro-inverter

The inverter could also be used for:
* brushless motor
* step motor

The circuit is a "all-in-one". It could be used for (T1 and T2 refer to
the iupui.edu article):

* Positive DC, DV. T1 is used for active rectification. T2 is not used.

* Negative DC, DV. T2 is used for active rectification. T1 is not used.

* Any curve shape can be amplified with a signal from a suitable signal
generator. (retangular, saw tooth, triangular...) T1 is used for
positive curve parts - and T2 is used for negative curve parts.

Could it be used for a Class D audio amplifier with the right control
circuit? Low enough distortion?

The circuit bear resemblance with a reversed SEPIC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-ended_primary-inductor_converter

-

Indiana University. (2012, October 17). New class of power inverter
could mean cheaper, faster hybrid vehicles. ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121017153913.htm
Citat: "...
Izadian's invention, the result of a creative reconfiguration of an
electrical circuit during a laboratory experiment, would make inverters
cheaper, lighter and therefore more efficient than current models.
...
For example, unwanted harmonics are greatly reduced with Izadian's
invention.
..."

-

Additional reading:
http://www.engr.iupui.edu/~aizadian/index_files/Page356.htm
http://www.engr.iupui.edu/~aizadian/

Active rectification (synchronous rectification):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_rectification

-

They must be but besides the one switch, it also has two parallel
coupled e.g. Reverse Blocking IGBT (RB-IGBT). (Or two serially connected
Power MOSFETs. The Power MOSFETs must be connected so that their
substrate diodes have opposite directions):

http://www.google.dk/search?q=RB-IGBT

Application Characteristics of an Experimental RB-IGBT (Reverse Blocking
IGBT) Module:
http://www.pwrx.com/pwrx/app/04ias42p4.PDF

A High Efficiency Indirect Matrix Converter Utilizing RB-IGBTs:
http://www.pes.ee.ethz.ch/uploads/tx_ethpublications/friedli_PESC06.pdf

-

Definition:

http://www.ece.uic.edu/~i445/2011_445_Lecture7.pdf
Quote: "...
* Active switch: Switch state is controlled exclusively
by a third terminal (control terminal).

* Passive switch: Switch state is controlled by the
applied current and/or voltage at terminals 1 and 2.
...
Single-quadrant switch: on-state i(t) and off-state v(t) are unipolar.
[e.g. diode-like, reverse blocking]
..."


Better name: One active switch inverter.

The two active rectification switches are passive switches.

.

A half bridge uses two active switches.

A full bridge uses four active switches.

-

Alternative:

Design:

T1 serially connected to T2.

T1 is N-MOSFET with drain "up" (drain connected to L2 and C1).

T2 is N-MOSFET with drain "down" (drain connected to zero/commen).

T1 and T2 sources connected together.

.

Active rectification:

When positive output is needed T2 is on. T1 do active rectification.

When negative output is needed T1 is on. T2 do active rectification.

Glenn



It'll take me a while to work through that.

In the mean time, I've managed to get something in Spice to give more
sensible results, though the output filter still requires a large
inductor (~1mH) capable of operating at 50 - 100kHz, and 14A peak. These
are not out of the question, but they're not so easy to source either.

The original inverter had a couple of large inductors wound on 45mm
(outside diameter) toroidal cores. I'm a little sceptical as to whether
these really avoided saturation, and thus worked as an effective filter,
at high loads. Certainly if they're just an ordinary powered-iron core,
rather than something more exotic, the math suggests that they'd
saturate. I never looked at the output before the inverter failed. Maybe
doing so would have been enlightening.

Sylvia.

 

[Don Y]

On 1/5/2015 11:56 AM, Joerg wrote:

Don Y wrote:
On 1/5/2015 7:40 AM, George Herold wrote:

[...]

It's not something I know much about. Are you setting something up?
What technology are you favoring?

I had set up a mailing list service. Basically, just a piece of code that:
- fetches mail from an account (which need not reside on "your" server)
- verifies that the sender is legitimate (so only "members" can post)
- does some gross checks on the content (e.g., profanity, etc.)
- resends the message to the "list" (again, doesn't need "your" server)

(there are several other features that make it a bit more usable than
other "OTS" solutions)

IME, mailing lists are a win because they deliver content *to* the
user. ...

And there's the problem. Imagine sitting in Outer Podunk on a rickety
Internet connection. Now instead of just headers a major barrage of
mailing list message bodies floods in that you really don't want right now.

Um, don't *fetch* the messages that you suspect have "big payloads".
IMAP allows you to examine headers, download the text body *without*
also dragging down any attachments, server-side *search* (so you don't
need to "see" the entire message to know which ones may be of interest,
etc.

Or, don't check that email account (if you are stuck with a POP account).
You wouldn't visit that web portal over that sluggish connection, would you?

I had a dialup (19.2K) account when I used to subscribe to freebsd-hackers.
*Hundreds* of messages. I never saw a problem with that.

Note that mailing lists tend to be finer-grained than, e.g., USENET
newsgroups. E.g., NetBSD currently supports ~110 mailing lists for
that *single* "product" (NetBSD). I.e., if you're interested in just
release announcements, you'd *only* subscribe to the -announce mailing
list. Over the past 10 years, you would see, on average, 0.2 messages
per day. OTOH, if you are interested in tracking changes to the sources,
you'd see about 30 daily over that same period. Only interested in
bug reports/discussions? Closer to 10 per day.

With an IMAP client, you can skim the message subjects and delete
those that you have no interest in *without* ever "downloading"
their content.

... The user doesn't have to "check to see if anything new has been
said" by visiting a web site.

That is exactly what this here user wants

Great! How often do you check the websites of each of your tool
vendors to see if there are problems/updates/new releases of any of
the tools that you are using? Or, do you just wait until you have
been inconvenienced by a bug before you go looking to see *if* there's
a problem?

... The user can chose to archive whatever
he wants and *preserve* what's important (to *him*) -- eliding all else.

The why would I want all the unwanted stuff downloaded onto my PC in the
first place?

You wouldn't download that which you don't want to *read* and/or *keep*!
What do you do when you visit a forum? You see whatever is there. *If*
you want to save it, you have to take extra steps to do so.

The same applies with USENET. You have to download (retrieve message
from NNTP server) in order to examine it's content *and* decide if you
want to save it or delete it. And, if it's *genuinely* precious, make
a point of "Save As File".

You're no worse off with an IMAP mail client than an NNTP news client.

 

[Don Y]

Hi Martin,

On 1/5/2015 9:02 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/01/2015 19:04, Don Y wrote:

With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums,

On the plus side significantly better SNR and moderation to keep the whole
thing on topic. Experts that have been driven away from Usenet still reside in
various specialist forums or mailing lists.

Agreed. Even non-corporate forums tend to have more effective policing, etc.

On the minus side you end up with yet another password and userid for each and
every forum and you have to remember to go and look at it.

The UID/credential issue can be automated with many browsers. But, you
*do* need to remember to "go look at it". There is no way that "it"
can tap you on the shoulder if something significant has transpired
(e.g., auto manufacturers mail recall letters to owners instead of
expecting those owners to periodically check a corporate web site!)

Waiting to get bitten by a problem (and *hoping* you can realize that
you ARE encountering a problem) is not the way I like to do things! :>
Do you hand-verify all of the computations that your spreadsheet performs?
It might be handy to get NOTIFIED by someone who has already stumbled on
this instead of retroactively LOOKING for such a report after you
*suspect* a problem ("Oh, yeah... that was reported 3 months ago!")

what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored
(and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen

Disadvantage of corporate sponsored ones is that posts criticising defects in
their products won't appear or if they do won't last long.

I've seen this also true of independent sites. You're at the mercy of the
"entity" controlling the resource. I think it's a reflection of the
"corporate maturity/confidence" in how they address public gripes. I.e.,
a disgruntled customer can gripe in any of several other ways (social
media, mouth-to-mouth, blog, etc.). So, running from criticism is a
Chicken Little approach, IMO.

good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players"
are the deciding factor (?)

There have to be enough people reading it for it to work at all.

Or, the *right* people reading (and responding)! E.g., a low traffic
forum/list can be very effective if each question posted receives an
ACCURATE reply -- no need for 20 messages if 1 will suffice.

One real issue is forcing folks to search archives and FAQs *before*
posting. Answering the same question repeatedly (asked by different
people) can jade an otherwise cooperative "forum member". I.e.,
*ding* the querant and reply with "read the FAQ" (etc.). This
should serve notice that laziness will get no response and,
ultimately, cost them their access to the resource!

 

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 7:36:48 AM UTC-5, Piotr Wyderski wrote:

I am unable to simulate the followingg PUT-based relaxation oscillator
in the most recent LTspice (with BC547B and BC557B):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/PUT_LED_blinker.png

Nothing wants to oscillate.

Looking for a bug I have also tried the simplest possible neon lamp
oscillator (with Vstrike=100V, Vhold=50V, R=220k, C=1u), but there are
no scillations either: the voltage on the capacitor saturates at 50.25V.

What magic should I apply to make such circuits work as expected?

Best regards, Piotr

One trick to remember while simulating
oscillators with SPICE is to provide
initial asymmetry conditions. That is
use the ".IC" directive in SPICE to
set the initial voltages on the nodes
to some perturbed vales e.g.,
V(1)=0.0 V(2)=5.0 ... etc., etc.,
Hope that helps.

 

[Don Y]

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/5/2015 7:05 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 05.1.2015 Đł. 19:14, Don Y wrote:
On 1/4/2015 5:35 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

The quality of our users is typically fairly high, those are people

8<

When they ultimately contact you for an issue, is it something that
you can quickly resolve:
"Click here, type this in there, then set the detector..."
or is it a "problem solving" experience for you, as well?

Well it is hard to draw a line but I guess we have both. Obviously
more of the kind "click here type in that" of course but sometimes

So, RTFM would have solved their problem?

we have had real problems, e.g. one of our units had to work with
a sample changer - both had never seen each other prior to delivery.
Simple as it is - pulse an output to "change sample", wait for "ready"
then go ahead - I had to change the pulse duration so the changer
would see it, mine was too short initially (I had made it 1mS or so
by assumption, turned out it had to be a lot longer). Took me an
hour or so, IIRC I made the pulse duration command line programmable.

OK. So, things that are "unique" to particular applications. Things
you (as designer) may not have envisioned *when* you made the design.
These are the sorts of things (I suspect) that other users would
benefit from "overhearing". I.e., preemptively solve their problem
before it results in a "support" call/email.

And, also plant ideas in their heads for other uses to which your device
could be applied -- thereby increasing its perceived utility.

Oh come on, this is a non-issue. If the browser on a phone cannot deal
with what is going to be posted on the list then what will they use.

Agreed. I suspect there is some other motivation for pestering me
about this (perhaps trying to drag me back onto the payroll?).

Oh if the reasoning is inexplicable from a technical point of view
it means they are just not telling you what they actually want, we
have all been there already. I guess we all have fallen for that
at one moment or another when we were younger...

Yes. As I said, I expect they just want me back on the payroll so
they have an "expert on hand" -- for *other* purposes. Had there been
a *genuine* problem with my implementation (or, something that I had
"overlooked" like the utility of automatically resampling JPEG attachments)
then I would be far more receptive to their "complaint". But, this looks
like a smokescreen.

Still, to be fair, I can reply with an "expert" recommendation of other
alternatives that *they* can pursue -- if they think the mailing list
is ineffective (for whatever "nonsensical?" reason)

Whoa, half a ton oranges (well, kilogram but sounds pretty huge
to me ).

Yeah, they're pretty big. Lemons were big as well -- 60 pounds off the
little 3 ft tree! No idea what we'll do with all the juice when it
"grows up"!

That is a lot indeed, you can make a lemonade party for the
neighbourhood I guess (if there is no such thing like a lemonade party
then invent it ).

I use a lot of lemon juice in my tea. I think I've already consumed more
than a quart (~liter) -- a tablespoon (15ml) at a time -- of it in the few
weeks since I juiced them!

 

[Don Y]

Hi George,

On 1/5/2015 12:34 PM, George Herold wrote:

On Monday, January 5, 2015 12:46:44 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 1/5/2015 7:40 AM, George Herold wrote:

It's not something I know much about. Are you setting something up?
What technology are you favoring?

I had set up a mailing list service. Basically, just a piece of code that:
- fetches mail from an account (which need not reside on "your" server)
- verifies that the sender is legitimate (so only "members" can post)
- does some gross checks on the content (e.g., profanity, etc.)
- resends the message to the "list" (again, doesn't need "your" server)

(there are several other features that make it a bit more usable than
other "OTS" solutions)

IME, mailing lists are a win because they deliver content *to* the
user. The user doesn't have to "check to see if anything new has been
said" by visiting a web site. The user can chose to archive whatever
he wants and *preserve* what's important (to *him*) -- eliding all else.
It keeps things on-topic (folks who digress can be censored by other
participants ultimately losing access to the resource). Eliminates
spam (you can't just "join" the list; the vendor adds you to the list
with a "verified purchase" -- obviously only works in certain markets).
It's low cost (you don't have to maintain a "web site" -- just a list of
email addresses in a TEXT file), can be implemented damn near anywhere
(an old PC, on a server, on a smart phone, etc.) and *moved* almost
instantly, etc.

A list server (email thing) might be the right way. I'm on a few.
I guess one problem is activity level.
If there is only a little activity then
there is not all that much incentive for people to ask questions.
(Versus emailing or calling me directly.)

You can elect to "do your support" via that mechanism, exclusively.
I.e., if folks can email, they can email a mailing list just as
easily as they can email *you*!

[For some products, "privacy" may be an issue]

I weened clients from telephone contact by simply taking a long time
to return phone calls -- but email got answered almost immediately.
Saved me the effort of taking and transcribing notes on each phone
conversation (to remind clients what was *really* said, not what they
later "chose to remember"!).

In any approach, the *technology* isn;t the problem. Rather, it's "policy"
and "control" that tend to be the real issues.

I.e., do *you* (or an agent of yours) want to be an active participant in
those discussions? Or, just let it operate on its own? Do you want to
exercise control over the *content*? E.g., what if a disgruntled customer
starts berating you and your products... do you "shut him up" by disconnecting
him from the resource? Or, engage him in a public discussion and hope others
see his folly? Or, ignore him altogether and let his comments "speak for
HIMSELF"?

My *personal* (not speaking on behalf of any client) belief is you should
try to address his comments rationally. Not "giving away the farm" just
to make him happy (which then sets a public precedent for others to mimic).
And, *hope* your professionalism comes through and is respected by the
others reading the exchange.

IME, offering a full refund is a quick way to shut someone up. "Hey, if
you don't like the product, we'll buy it back from you and you can find
someone else who you *hope* has a better product." Of course, if they
*don't* exercise this option, there is a tacit understanding that they
must think your product "worth the money" -- given the alternatives that
they have available. And, if they *do* exercise the option and later
*return* to the mailing list (cuz they'd be dropped from the list once
you refunded their money!), then it tells others that the choice to
opt for the refund turned out to be a *wrong* choice! :

[Of course, if they take the refund and you never hear from them again,
that's also a win for you -- one less "unhappy" customer!]

No that's not a problem. I think customer service is one thing we do right.
Support, generous return/repair policy, and yeah if you totally don't
like it then we'll take it back and sell it to someone else.

Exactly. I think "reasonableness" goes a long way when others are
eavesdropping on the conversation. It "provides cover" for your
final action -- even if it doesn't satisfy the complainant.

I'll send you a copy of the summary I've been preparing for client so
you can see what options are available and the pros/cons of each approach.

Oh wow, thanks but that's not really necessary.
I've got no time to try and get this up and running.
To be honest I think it would better for me to post a bunch of
"how to" videos on the web.
That would help ease the "fear factor" that some users may have.
And might also be useful for marketing.

You'll still have to deal with the RTFM crowd. Too many people think
it easier to "ask/gripe" than take the initiative for themselves.

A tool vendor that I was using many years ago got a little "snippy"
with me for complaining about bugs. Being able to quote the page
number in *their* manual that presented the example that I was
trying to REPLICATE went a long way to shutting them up:
"Well, the manual is in error."
"Fine. And which one of us is responsible for the manual's accuracy?"

We've recently shipped a number of diode laser apparatus to India
and I'm waiting for the questions... It's one of our harder experiments.
A video showing simple alignment and tuning would certainly forestall
a number of problems....AFAICT no on reads the manual.

Have you *objectively* looked at the manual to see how well it addresses
the needs of that type of user? I recently looked at the "manual" for
FreeNAS and was disappointed by the manner it presented the "product".
As if the writer hadn't considered the needs of ALL who might reference
that document -- just "him/her-self".

I'd have to clean up some, my optics table looks like a bomb hit it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e9ip354vk2bxgwd/DSCF0015.JPG?dl=0

Ha! One advantage optics has is that it *requires* you to keep a
clear line-of-sight! I can be MUCH more creative in how cluttered
*my* benches get! :-/

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 05.1.2015 Đł. 19:14, Don Y wrote:

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/4/2015 5:35 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

[attrs elided]

Said another way, what sorts of "support venues" would you consider
appropriate for *your* products -- and *why* (esp why *not*!).

Our customers are not that many, I wish they were in the thousands so
I had to organize something like that. Then our devices are typically
used by end users, not developers - where the user manual tends to
do a good enough job. For the few cases when people have some issue
usually it can be resolved one on one over the net, being able to
see the *same* screen at both sides (the netMCA working over RFB/VNC)
makes things quite easy.

Understood. I was *going* to conclude that the "quality" of user
probably
plays a role in the extent to which "support" is required (wrt the level
of familiarity with the topics -- newbies can get by with folks who know
where the POWER switch is located! :-/ ).

The quality of our users is typically fairly high, those are people
who have been dealing with systems a lot less friendly than ours.
Some (many?) of them have no basic networking knowledge so the
main obstacle we had initially was until their unit would come
online..... Since we started to supply a router with it,
prepared such they could have a "quick start" - just plug things
and have them running (e.g. the router would assign their device
a known IP address, would forward ports it has to forward so
whatever server part on the device is running will be accessible
from the outside etc.) this problem largely disappeared.

Makes sense. The effort (on your part) to provide that "up front"
is probably saved many times over vs. trying to talk them through the
process when they have problems.

When they ultimately contact you for an issue, is it something that
you can quickly resolve:
"Click here, type this in there, then set the detector..."
or is it a "problem solving" experience for you, as well?

Well it is hard to draw a line but I guess we have both. Obviously
more of the kind "click here type in that" of course but sometimes
we have had real problems, e.g. one of our units had to work with
a sample changer - both had never seen each other prior to delivery.
Simple as it is - pulse an output to "change sample", wait for "ready"
then go ahead - I had to change the pulse duration so the changer
would see it, mine was too short initially (I had made it 1mS or so
by assumption, turned out it had to be a lot longer). Took me an
hour or so, IIRC I made the pulse duration command line programmable.

....
Oh come on, this is a non-issue. If the browser on a phone cannot deal
with what is going to be posted on the list then what will they use.

Agreed. I suspect there is some other motivation for pestering me
about this (perhaps trying to drag me back onto the payroll?).

Oh if the reasoning is inexplicable from a technical point of view
it means they are just not telling you what they actually want, we
have all been there already. I guess we all have fallen for that
at one moment or another when we were younger...

Whoa, half a ton oranges (well, kilogram but sounds pretty huge
to me ).

Yeah, they're pretty big. Lemons were big as well -- 60 pounds off the
little 3 ft tree! No idea what we'll do with all the juice when it
"grows up"!

That is a lot indeed, you can make a lemonade party for the
neighbourhood I guess (if there is no such thing like a lemonade party
then invent it ).

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

 

[Joerg]

Don Y wrote:

On 1/5/2015 11:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
Don Y wrote:
On 1/5/2015 7:40 AM, George Herold wrote:

[...]

It's not something I know much about. Are you setting something up?
What technology are you favoring?

I had set up a mailing list service. Basically, just a piece of code
that:
- fetches mail from an account (which need not reside on "your" server)
- verifies that the sender is legitimate (so only "members" can post)
- does some gross checks on the content (e.g., profanity, etc.)
- resends the message to the "list" (again, doesn't need "your" server)

(there are several other features that make it a bit more usable than
other "OTS" solutions)

IME, mailing lists are a win because they deliver content *to* the
user. ...

And there's the problem. Imagine sitting in Outer Podunk on a rickety
Internet connection. Now instead of just headers a major barrage of
mailing list message bodies floods in that you really don't want right
now.

Um, don't *fetch* the messages that you suspect have "big payloads".

With Usenet I don't have to suspect, I know. Because size is listed.

IMAP allows you to examine headers, download the text body *without*
also dragging down any attachments, server-side *search* (so you don't
need to "see" the entire message to know which ones may be of interest,
etc.

I like properly threaded displays of discussions and the ability to
click on only those responses that I want to see. One at a time. Without
having to initiate anything else such as a download. Just one click.

Or, don't check that email account (if you are stuck with a POP account).
You wouldn't visit that web portal over that sluggish connection, would
you?

No, but I can easily handle Usenet over that connection. Done it many
times from the road.

I had a dialup (19.2K) account when I used to subscribe to freebsd-hackers.
*Hundreds* of messages. I never saw a problem with that.

That's because you never had to suffer through situations where the rate
gradually negotiated down to 1200bd with frequent interruptions.

Note that mailing lists tend to be finer-grained than, e.g., USENET
newsgroups. E.g., NetBSD currently supports ~110 mailing lists for
that *single* "product" (NetBSD). I.e., if you're interested in just
release announcements, you'd *only* subscribe to the -announce mailing
list. Over the past 10 years, you would see, on average, 0.2 messages
per day. OTOH, if you are interested in tracking changes to the sources,
you'd see about 30 daily over that same period. Only interested in
bug reports/discussions? Closer to 10 per day.

Fine grain does not suit me. s.e.design and similar all-in-one formats
are just fine. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

With an IMAP client, you can skim the message subjects and delete
those that you have no interest in *without* ever "downloading"
their content.

Well, I've got POP here.

... The user doesn't have to "check to see if anything new has been
said" by visiting a web site.

That is exactly what this here user wants

Great! How often do you check the websites of each of your tool
vendors to see if there are problems/updates/new releases of any of
the tools that you are using? ...

Essentially never unless there is a problem.

... Or, do you just wait until you have
been inconvenienced by a bug before you go looking to see *if* there's
a problem?

Yup.

... The user can chose to archive whatever
he wants and *preserve* what's important (to *him*) -- eliding all else.

The why would I want all the unwanted stuff downloaded onto my PC in the
first place?

You wouldn't download that which you don't want to *read* and/or *keep*!

I don't want to keep any. On Usenet I read and move on. Nothing is ever
stored.

What do you do when you visit a forum? You see whatever is there. *If*
you want to save it, you have to take extra steps to do so.

Web forums? All the ones I saw so far are way sub-par compared to
Usenet. Most can't even do proper threading to start with.

The same applies with USENET. You have to download (retrieve message
from NNTP server) in order to examine it's content *and* decide if you
want to save it or delete it. And, if it's *genuinely* precious, make
a point of "Save As File".

You're no worse off with an IMAP mail client than an NNTP news client.

But NNTP works just fine. Why should I change?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Robert Baer]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 20:40:03 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:16:50 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Attached are screenshots of attempt to login to a webmail spam check
site that i use.
As you can see, there is a complaint about the password (altho, the
problem might really be the username).
I know i have the user name and password correct,because the EXACT
same character construction is used and WORKS wen i do this in Win2K.
Also, that e-mail that is allued to in LLC1.jpg seems to not be sent.

What gives?

They're obviously targeting Robert Baer, paranoid though you may be,
doesn't mean they're not out to get you>:-}

...Jim Thompson
Did you dig that out of SkyBuck's frazzle box?

Nope. That's a _very_ old gag line, paraphrased from... "Just because
you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you".

...Jim Thompson

...only PARAnoid people can PARAphrase?
PARAhaps after this sillyness,one might be kind enough to provide an
answer to the question?

 

[Don Y]

On 1/5/2015 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not something I know much about. Are you setting something up?
What technology are you favoring?

I had set up a mailing list service. Basically, just a piece of code
that:
- fetches mail from an account (which need not reside on "your" server)
- verifies that the sender is legitimate (so only "members" can post)
- does some gross checks on the content (e.g., profanity, etc.)
- resends the message to the "list" (again, doesn't need "your" server)

(there are several other features that make it a bit more usable than
other "OTS" solutions)

IME, mailing lists are a win because they deliver content *to* the
user. ...

And there's the problem. Imagine sitting in Outer Podunk on a rickety
Internet connection. Now instead of just headers a major barrage of
mailing list message bodies floods in that you really don't want right
now.

Um, don't *fetch* the messages that you suspect have "big payloads".

With Usenet I don't have to suspect, I know. Because size is listed.

The same is true of IMAP connections: you (to be precise, YOUR MAIL CLIENT)
can pull down *just* the headers for WHICHEVER MESSAGES IT OPTS TO EXAMINE
(i.e., it can pull down 10 headers and wait before deciding that you might
want to ALSO look at the NEXT 10 headers). Or, the BODY text. Or selected
attachments, etc.

I suspect this capability is present in all modern MUA's (e.g., in Tbird).
As such, you can have 10,000 *new* messages in your inbox -- each of
which are 1MB in size (for example) and only have to wait for 10,000
*headers* to be transfered to your mail client. (e.g., consider reading
email on a cell phone -- you sure as hell wouldn't want a PROTOCOL that
requires the entire message BODY to be transfered -- even if you aren't
interested in reading that message!)

E.g., I can configure Tbird to leave *everything* on the server (just like
an NNTP connection) and *only* transfer the bodies of the SELECTED (viewed)
messages to my PC as I choose to read them. I can further arrange for it to
KEEP/DISCARD the downloaded local copy.

This isn't true of things like POP -- which is an all-or-nothing approach.

I.e., you couldn't tell whether you were reading a newsgroup or a mailbox,
based on performance and "data available BEFORE you click on a message".

IMAP allows you to examine headers, download the text body *without*
also dragging down any attachments, server-side *search* (so you don't
need to "see" the entire message to know which ones may be of interest,
etc.

I like properly threaded displays of discussions and the ability to
click on only those responses that I want to see. One at a time. Without
having to initiate anything else such as a download. Just one click.

That's exactly what IMAP affords. Click on mailbox (newsgroup) and list
of NEW message (headers!) appears. Click on individual email (USENET)
message and it's content (BODY) gets fetched.

You can prove this to yourself:
- click on a newsgroup
- wait for list of messages to appear
- unplug network cable
- click on a message
(observe news client complain that server is unreachable; no message displayed)

Repeat this for an email account.

Most people configure their email clients to download *everything* -- because
they *tend* to want to read everything that has been sent to them. But, this
isn't a consequence of "email" but, rather, the way folks tend to *use* it!

If you subscribed to a busy mailing list (or, regularly received mail
from folks to whom you were unlikely to reply), you wouldn't configure
your mail client to naively download all message bodies, attachments, etc.

I have certain email accounts on which friends/colleagues regularly send me
large attachments (upwards of many MB). It would be foolish of me to
have those *accounts* (mail clients allow you to configure each account
differently) download all their "new content" blindly. Instead, I examine
headers and opt to postpone opening messages that I know will be big
(i.e., take a fair amount of time to transfer, depending on how I am
currently using my conection).

Or, don't check that email account (if you are stuck with a POP account).
You wouldn't visit that web portal over that sluggish connection, would
you?

No, but I can easily handle Usenet over that connection. Done it many
times from the road.

And, as above, you would JUST AS EASILY handle an IMAP mail account.
(I could probably sit down and COUNT the number of bytes of overhead
in each protocol -- but suspect it's "lost in the signal")

I had a dialup (19.2K) account when I used to subscribe to freebsd-hackers.
*Hundreds* of messages. I never saw a problem with that.

That's because you never had to suffer through situations where the rate
gradually negotiated down to 1200bd with frequent interruptions.

Then don't click on any email messages that you see are too large!
Or, have attachments. Or, that you don't want to bother reading, NOW.

Note that mailing lists tend to be finer-grained than, e.g., USENET
newsgroups. E.g., NetBSD currently supports ~110 mailing lists for
that *single* "product" (NetBSD). I.e., if you're interested in just
release announcements, you'd *only* subscribe to the -announce mailing
list. Over the past 10 years, you would see, on average, 0.2 messages
per day. OTOH, if you are interested in tracking changes to the sources,
you'd see about 30 daily over that same period. Only interested in
bug reports/discussions? Closer to 10 per day.

Fine grain does not suit me. s.e.design and similar all-in-one formats
are just fine. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Which newsgroups do you frequent for SUPPORT on PRODUCTS that you have
purchased? Note, I didn't ask which BARS you frequent to discuss
<whatever>. Or, chat rooms. You're confusing places like s.e.d with
genuine *support* forums.

Conversely, which newsgroups do your *customers* visit to have problems
with YOUR PRODUCTS resolved? Or, to discuss the shortcomings, wish-lists,
monitor for update/new-product announcements, etc.?

With an IMAP client, you can skim the message subjects and delete
those that you have no interest in *without* ever "downloading"
their content.

Well, I've got POP here.

Chances are, you also have IMAP available. Whether or not you've configured
your mail client to *use* it is a different matter. POP is much more limited
in capabilities than IMAP (I think POP4 is trying to work-around some of these
but suspect that won't be well adopted).

E.g., IMAP supports server-side folders. So, I can "move" all messages
from mailing-list-X into a folder (appropriately named) "MailingListX".
And, *not* have to transfer them onto my local PC/phone/etc. Likewise,
I can choose to delete a message after seeing *just* it's headers
(POP can show *just* the headers if the MUA uses "TOP" to reveal just
the headers and a "few lines" of the body).

IMAP extends your PC *into* the mail server. POP keeps them separate.
(e.g., you can mark messages with various flags in IMAP that have
no counterpart under POP; you can *search* a message via IMAP -- without
downloading it's body -- which isn't possible under POP; etc.)

... The user doesn't have to "check to see if anything new has been
said" by visiting a web site.

That is exactly what this here user wants

Great! How often do you check the websites of each of your tool
vendors to see if there are problems/updates/new releases of any of
the tools that you are using? ...

Essentially never unless there is a problem.

Ah, I want to know *before* there is a problem. Especially if I may
be victimized by that problem and not aware of it! E.g., "The DRC algorithm
is flawed and doesn't report clearance violations". *If* I use that
tool, do I have to *manually* verify that everything is correct just so
I can *detect* when the tool has failed? (as I haven't been NOTIFIED of
this problem -- because I wasn't WATCHING THE FORUM) Do I have to
examine the object code produced by my compilers for each line of code
that I write so *I* can detect any problems (because I haven't *noticed*
them in a forum)?

Do I have to keep checking the web sites for each of my autos, appliances,
children's toys, etc. to monitor for safety issues (because the vendors
won't PUSH that information *to* me?)

... Or, do you just wait until you have
been inconvenienced by a bug before you go looking to see *if* there's
a problem?

Yup.

I guess we have different development and living standards. Or, you
are supremely qualified to notice bugs before anyone else (and, DULY
REPORT them to everyone less fortunate!)

In which case, you have no NEED for a support venue, at all! :>

... The user can chose to archive whatever
he wants and *preserve* what's important (to *him*) -- eliding all else.

The why would I want all the unwanted stuff downloaded onto my PC in the
first place?

You wouldn't download that which you don't want to *read* and/or *keep*!

I don't want to keep any. On Usenet I read and move on. Nothing is ever
stored.

Same is true of an email account. Unless it's POP (in which case YOU are
storing the messages and obliged to manually click on "delete").

As I said, there is no difference between IMAP and NNTP in terms of
these capabilities.

What do you do when you visit a forum? You see whatever is there. *If*
you want to save it, you have to take extra steps to do so.

Web forums? All the ones I saw so far are way sub-par compared to
Usenet. Most can't even do proper threading to start with.

You are trying really hard to avoid the question -- the subject of
this post. HOW DO YOU GET AND PROVIDE *SUPPORT* FOR THE PRODUCTS
THAT YOU USE AND THAT YOU SUPPLY?

If your ONLY product is "service", then "support" boils down to how
happy each client is with the response you provided to their latest
inquiry.

If you only *use* services, do you never seek opinions from others
who've used *that* service? Or, do you just go to your local "bar"
and holler: "Anyone here ever hired Joe's Tree removal Service?"

The same applies with USENET. You have to download (retrieve message
from NNTP server) in order to examine it's content *and* decide if you
want to save it or delete it. And, if it's *genuinely* precious, make
a point of "Save As File".

You're no worse off with an IMAP mail client than an NNTP news client.

But NNTP works just fine. Why should I change?

Stay exactly where you are. Stick with POP. Stick with NNTP. Don't ever buy
any new products. Don't ever seek out other folks' experience with those
products. Don't ever expect folks to share their experiences (good *or* bad)
with yours. When you buy a new car, ask the dealer to set up a USENET
newsgroup to disseminate information about the vehicle, its safety issues,
etc. And, so folks can freely discuss the problems they've encountered
with the vehicle, various dealerships, service departments, etc. I'm
*sure* they will oblige you!

[No?]

No one is TELLING you to change. You can stick with an abacus or chalk
marks on the sidewalk -- no need to bother with new fangled computers! :>

But, you don't speak for the majority of businesses -- based solely on
the number of "support forums" that you can STUMBLE onto. *I'm* asking
for businesses that exist in the 21st century, not those clinging
to 20th century practices.

To repeat:

HOW DO YOU GET AND PROVIDE *SUPPORT* FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT YOU USE AND THAT
YOU SUPPLY?

And, to justify your answer to those of us reading, WHAT ARE THOSE PRODUCTS
(so we can judge how effective *we* think those support venues would be
if *we* had purchased those products -- from you or from the vendor that
you patronize).

 

On Monday, January 5, 2015 10:07:44 PM UTC, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

meow2222@care2.com wrote:
On Monday, January 5, 2015 10:18:45 AM UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 5 Jan 2015 01:54:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened
meow2222@care2.com wrote in
910564b0-6207-495c-b74a-9d4448ae1d91@googlegroups.com>:

On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:09:32 AM UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:09:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened
meow2222@care2.com wrote in
a1f1d940-3cae-4096-a1d7-d4983aa72cc8@googlegroups.com>:

https://app.box.com/s/hin6mhzpzl147473r1td

I'm wondering why the circuit's more complex than just:
RC ballast
neon
coil & C

Last night, before falling asleep, I think I figured out the rest of the 'why' of this circuit:

1) the diodes cause harmonics of 50 Hz every zero crossing of the mains, this
is transformed to the RF tuned circuit, and then transmitted via the antenna.
Mainly odd harmonics, but there is a lot of slow rise etc, so probably even harmonics too.
This gives an annoying AM (sideband every 50 Hz) rattle.

2) the FL starter tube (or whatever you call) it interrupts this at irregular intervals,
mostly in the second or part thereof range.

The purpose of (2) is to f*ck up the AM receiver AGC.

Normally when you only jam with that AM rattle, you could get used to it,
or even filter it out afterwards, I used an elliptical filter to remove 60 Hz with harmonics from a long audio recording from
some conference.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/download.html#humfilter

But now when the jam signal is cut, the receiver AGC will turn the gain up so the remote political brain wash is made
audible.
Just after the gain reaches near maximum,,, the jammer comes in with full strength (locally).
BRBRBRBRBRBRBRBBRBBrBrrbrbrbrbrsilence(AGC gain now low)this is the voice of A(hardly audible if at all)
BRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBBrBrbrbrbrbrb
etc etc etc.
Very hard to listen to that without ear damage,,,
Manual AGC does not help a lot either, you still need the gain to hear far away stations, and need fading compensation on
short wave.

So its simple, its effective.

The neon switches with 90v steps 4 times a cycle. The diodes switch with whatever their Vdrop is 4 times a cycle.
Presumably here's how it works:
When the neon's conducting, C to the mains is C1 = 0.25-0.5uF
When the neon's oc, C to the mains is C3 = 200-500pF
So probably the 2 switching devices cause different resonant frequencies in the LC tank.

Somebody needs to build this,

Unless there are spice models for neons & copper oxide diodes

Those are NOT copper oxide. D220S (that is what they are on that bogus snake
oil device schematics) are STABISTORS. It is like zeners but used in forward
direction. Not any different from using a diode forward drop for low voltage
reference and those are actually very similar to regular russian low signal
silicon D220 diodes (close to 1N914, 1N4148 etc) and packed in the same
package. The only difference is their forward drop was specified and
supposed to be relatively constant and within tolerance. Trailing "S"
(cyrillic "C") stays for "Stabistor". There were several different
stabistors with voltage drops from 0.7 to 1.3 Volts available back then.

Also russian FL starters were not Neon -- they glow purple so it is more
like argon or whatever else -- but that doesn't make much difference except
higher strike voltage. Mains power is 220V 50Hz there.

Thank you. So we have several pulses exciting the LC tank:

Stabistors taking 0.7-1.3v out the mains waveform
Argon striking
Argon dropping out of conduction
Thermal switch closing
Thermal switch opening
Crud on the mains waveform will also reach the tank

The various pulses will give different resonant frequencies too, depending on what's conducting at the time.


NT

 

[John Devereux]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:04:25 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

Hi,

With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums,
what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored
(and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen
good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players"
are the deciding factor (?)

Corporate forums are specialized. Here, you can ask general questions,
like about architectures, circuits, parts, equipment, techniques,
history.

There are several "web forums" that are directly ripped from SED, with
ads. You can post something silly here, and then google it and see
where it winds up. Teal elephant sidesaddle.

Dave Jones' forum is very good and very active.

--

John Devereux

 

[Joerg]

Don Y wrote:

On 1/5/2015 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not something I know much about. Are you setting something up?
What technology are you favoring?

I had set up a mailing list service. Basically, just a piece of code
that:
- fetches mail from an account (which need not reside on "your"
server)
- verifies that the sender is legitimate (so only "members" can post)
- does some gross checks on the content (e.g., profanity, etc.)
- resends the message to the "list" (again, doesn't need "your"
server)

(there are several other features that make it a bit more usable than
other "OTS" solutions)

IME, mailing lists are a win because they deliver content *to* the
user. ...

And there's the problem. Imagine sitting in Outer Podunk on a rickety
Internet connection. Now instead of just headers a major barrage of
mailing list message bodies floods in that you really don't want right
now.

Um, don't *fetch* the messages that you suspect have "big payloads".

With Usenet I don't have to suspect, I know. Because size is listed.

The same is true of IMAP connections: you (to be precise, YOUR MAIL
CLIENT)
can pull down *just* the headers for WHICHEVER MESSAGES IT OPTS TO EXAMINE
(i.e., it can pull down 10 headers and wait before deciding that you might
want to ALSO look at the NEXT 10 headers). Or, the BODY text. Or selected
attachments, etc.

I suspect this capability is present in all modern MUA's (e.g., in Tbird).
As such, you can have 10,000 *new* messages in your inbox -- each of
which are 1MB in size (for example) and only have to wait for 10,000
*headers* to be transfered to your mail client. (e.g., consider reading
email on a cell phone -- you sure as hell wouldn't want a PROTOCOL that
requires the entire message BODY to be transfered -- even if you aren't
interested in reading that message!)

E.g., I can configure Tbird to leave *everything* on the server (just like
an NNTP connection) and *only* transfer the bodies of the SELECTED (viewed)
messages to my PC as I choose to read them. I can further arrange for
it to
KEEP/DISCARD the downloaded local copy.

So in your mailing list solution, can I look at a properly and fully
threaded display with subject lines, sender, names, dates and sizes
before I download any messages? The emphasis is on threaded including
sub-threads and all because anything else is IMHO useless in technical
discussions like we have here.

This isn't true of things like POP -- which is an all-or-nothing approach.

I.e., you couldn't tell whether you were reading a newsgroup or a mailbox,
based on performance and "data available BEFORE you click on a message".

I've seen people using IMAP and the only difference I could see was that
the messages were on the server. But no threading.

IMAP allows you to examine headers, download the text body *without*
also dragging down any attachments, server-side *search* (so you don't
need to "see" the entire message to know which ones may be of interest,
etc.

I like properly threaded displays of discussions and the ability to
click on only those responses that I want to see. One at a time. Without
having to initiate anything else such as a download. Just one click.

That's exactly what IMAP affords. Click on mailbox (newsgroup) and list
of NEW message (headers!) appears.

Properly threaded?

... Click on individual email (USENET)
message and it's content (BODY) gets fetched.

Yeah, that's how Usenet works and it is ideal. I still don't see why I
should change. What would be better than on Usenet?

You can prove this to yourself:
- click on a newsgroup
- wait for list of messages to appear
- unplug network cable
- click on a message
(observe news client complain that server is unreachable; no message
displayed)

Repeat this for an email account.

I know that, don't have to try it. AT&T service went down rather often
until I complained very loudly.

Most people configure their email clients to download *everything* --
because
they *tend* to want to read everything that has been sent to them. But,
this
isn't a consequence of "email" but, rather, the way folks tend to *use* it!

If you subscribed to a busy mailing list (or, regularly received mail
from folks to whom you were unlikely to reply), you wouldn't configure
your mail client to naively download all message bodies, attachments, etc.

I have certain email accounts on which friends/colleagues regularly send me
large attachments (upwards of many MB). It would be foolish of me to
have those *accounts* (mail clients allow you to configure each account
differently) download all their "new content" blindly. Instead, I examine
headers and opt to postpone opening messages that I know will be big
(i.e., take a fair amount of time to transfer, depending on how I am
currently using my conection).

I do not have that problem with email.

Or, don't check that email account (if you are stuck with a POP
account).
You wouldn't visit that web portal over that sluggish connection, would
you?

No, but I can easily handle Usenet over that connection. Done it many
times from the road.

And, as above, you would JUST AS EASILY handle an IMAP mail account.
(I could probably sit down and COUNT the number of bytes of overhead
in each protocol -- but suspect it's "lost in the signal")

Threaded view before downloading?

I had a dialup (19.2K) account when I used to subscribe to
freebsd-hackers.
*Hundreds* of messages. I never saw a problem with that.

That's because you never had to suffer through situations where the rate
gradually negotiated down to 1200bd with frequent interruptions.

Then don't click on any email messages that you see are too large!
Or, have attachments. Or, that you don't want to bother reading, NOW.

Note that mailing lists tend to be finer-grained than, e.g., USENET
newsgroups. E.g., NetBSD currently supports ~110 mailing lists for
that *single* "product" (NetBSD). I.e., if you're interested in just
release announcements, you'd *only* subscribe to the -announce mailing
list. Over the past 10 years, you would see, on average, 0.2 messages
per day. OTOH, if you are interested in tracking changes to the
sources,
you'd see about 30 daily over that same period. Only interested in
bug reports/discussions? Closer to 10 per day.

Fine grain does not suit me. s.e.design and similar all-in-one formats
are just fine. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Which newsgroups do you frequent for SUPPORT on PRODUCTS that you have
purchased?

For example, Cadsoft Eagle newsgroups. Most other companies do not
understand the efficiency and value in newsgroup formats. The result is
that I generally do not frequent their forums but always ask the FAEs if
I need to know something. I just don't have the time to dig out some
stupid log-in and password data. One time TI refused and said that I
have to ask this in the forum. I did, received no quality answers and
moved on to design in a chip from their competition. Because their FAE
answered properly. With Cadsoft I don't have to do this because I get
all answers in the NGs.

... Note, I didn't ask which BARS you frequent to discuss
whatever>.

Relish Burger Bar in El Dorado Hills. On almost every mountain or road
bike ride out West.

http://relishburgerbar.com/

... Or, chat rooms. You're confusing places like s.e.d with
genuine *support* forums.

IME "support" forums are often just attempts to pare down the ranks of
FAEs and try to do "support" on the cheap. Rarely have I seen the
technical discussion quality as here. Ok, no political rants but I can
live with that and siometimes they are fun.

Conversely, which newsgroups do your *customers* visit to have problems
with YOUR PRODUCTS resolved? Or, to discuss the shortcomings, wish-lists,
monitor for update/new-product announcements, etc.?

I do not sell products, I am a consultant who designs stuff or find and
corrects bugs in other designs.

With an IMAP client, you can skim the message subjects and delete
those that you have no interest in *without* ever "downloading"
their content.

Well, I've got POP here.

Chances are, you also have IMAP available. Whether or not you've
configured
your mail client to *use* it is a different matter. POP is much more
limited
in capabilities than IMAP (I think POP4 is trying to work-around some of
these
but suspect that won't be well adopted).

E.g., IMAP supports server-side folders. So, I can "move" all messages
from mailing-list-X into a folder (appropriately named) "MailingListX".
And, *not* have to transfer them onto my local PC/phone/etc. Likewise,
I can choose to delete a message after seeing *just* it's headers
(POP can show *just* the headers if the MUA uses "TOP" to reveal just
the headers and a "few lines" of the body).

IMAP extends your PC *into* the mail server. POP keeps them separate.
(e.g., you can mark messages with various flags in IMAP that have
no counterpart under POP; you can *search* a message via IMAP -- without
downloading it's body -- which isn't possible under POP; etc.)

My email has IMAP capability. Thought about switching but haven't yet.
Every time I switch some IT stuff it ends up in some lengthy nightmare.
Like the Windows 7 transfer I am doing right not where it seems Windows
7 is incapable of talking to the printer on the LPT port on my SMC
Barricade router. So, generally, newer stuff is not as good in quality
as the old stuff was.

Again, if it works I don't try to fix it.

... The user doesn't have to "check to see if anything new has been
said" by visiting a web site.

That is exactly what this here user wants

Great! How often do you check the websites of each of your tool
vendors to see if there are problems/updates/new releases of any of
the tools that you are using? ...

Essentially never unless there is a problem.

Ah, I want to know *before* there is a problem. Especially if I may
be victimized by that problem and not aware of it! E.g., "The DRC
algorithm
is flawed and doesn't report clearance violations". *If* I use that
tool, do I have to *manually* verify that everything is correct just so
I can *detect* when the tool has failed? (as I haven't been NOTIFIED of
this problem -- because I wasn't WATCHING THE FORUM) Do I have to
examine the object code produced by my compilers for each line of code
that I write so *I* can detect any problems (because I haven't *noticed*
them in a forum)?

If you are that scared of it then turn on auto-updates. That's how it's
usually done. Often you can set those so it alerts but only installs
after you agree.

Do I have to keep checking the web sites for each of my autos, appliances,
children's toys, etc. to monitor for safety issues (because the vendors
won't PUSH that information *to* me?)

I don't, I get an alert right there in the software. If I want to.

... Or, do you just wait until you have
been inconvenienced by a bug before you go looking to see *if* there's
a problem?

Yup.

I guess we have different development and living standards. Or, you
are supremely qualified to notice bugs before anyone else (and, DULY
REPORT them to everyone less fortunate!)

In which case, you have no NEED for a support venue, at all! :

Mostly I really don't. For example, I used a CAD "as is" for about 10
years and I upgraded just a month ago. Only because the old one couldn't
handle a project as big as the upcoming one (had no schematic
hierarchy). Of course I had to pay full fare because that was considered
too long by the mfg.

... The user can chose to archive whatever
he wants and *preserve* what's important (to *him*) -- eliding all
else.

The why would I want all the unwanted stuff downloaded onto my PC in
the
first place?

You wouldn't download that which you don't want to *read* and/or *keep*!

I don't want to keep any. On Usenet I read and move on. Nothing is ever
stored.

Same is true of an email account. Unless it's POP (in which case YOU are
storing the messages and obliged to manually click on "delete").

Well, I want to store some because I need to be able to read when no
server is in reach or it is down. With IMAP I could. But so can I with
POP. Also with NNTP if I set it accordingly but I dont need to.

Sorry, but I don't see anything in your mailing list idea that I can't
already do if I wanted to.

As I said, there is no difference between IMAP and NNTP in terms of
these capabilities.

So why not just keep using NNTP?

What do you do when you visit a forum? You see whatever is there. *If*
you want to save it, you have to take extra steps to do so.

Web forums? All the ones I saw so far are way sub-par compared to
Usenet. Most can't even do proper threading to start with.

You are trying really hard to avoid the question -- the subject of
this post. HOW DO YOU GET AND PROVIDE *SUPPORT* FOR THE PRODUCTS
THAT YOU USE AND THAT YOU SUPPLY?

Through NNTP, via phone calls, during online video/phone conference, and
via emails. Works for me. In fact, have one of those coming up in an
hour and a half, then another this afternoon. This time video so I got
to dress up

If your ONLY product is "service", then "support" boils down to how
happy each client is with the response you provided to their latest
inquiry.

And those generally happen via the means I described above. There simply
is not need at all for mailing lists or online forums.

If you only *use* services, do you never seek opinions from others
who've used *that* service? ...

Rarely. Very occasionally I look at reviews on Amazon or post one.
Because they do not have NNTP. If they provided these in parallel in
NNTP I would give a ton more feedback and use the site more often, it
would bosst their revenue. Because then I don't need to log in.

... Or, do you just go to your local "bar"
and holler: "Anyone here ever hired Joe's Tree removal Service?"

Pretty much. We also often ask at church. Or my biking buddies.

The same applies with USENET. You have to download (retrieve message
from NNTP server) in order to examine it's content *and* decide if you
want to save it or delete it. And, if it's *genuinely* precious, make
a point of "Save As File".

You're no worse off with an IMAP mail client than an NNTP news client.

But NNTP works just fine. Why should I change?

Stay exactly where you are. Stick with POP. Stick with NNTP. Don't
ever buy any new products. Don't ever seek out other folks' experience
with those
products. Don't ever expect folks to share their experiences (good *or*
bad)
with yours. When you buy a new car, ask the dealer to set up a USENET
newsgroup to disseminate information about the vehicle, its safety issues,
etc. And, so folks can freely discuss the problems they've encountered
with the vehicle, various dealerships, service departments, etc. I'm
*sure* they will oblige you!

[No?]

No one is TELLING you to change. You can stick with an abacus or chalk
marks on the sidewalk -- no need to bother with new fangled computers! :

I am driving a 17+ year old car, it's works just fine, and chance are
that I might not have to ever buy a new one. Did I discuss and reserach
the purchase in an NNTP group beforehand? You bet! Except that it was a
clandestine one, AFAIR started by Mitsubishi engineers and then shut
down. They got tons of good feedback from it.

But, you don't speak for the majority of businesses -- based solely on
the number of "support forums" that you can STUMBLE onto. *I'm* asking
for businesses that exist in the 21st century, not those clinging
to 20th century practices.

Cadsoft happily exists and thrives in the 21st century. And ...

news://news.cadsoft.de/eagle.support.eng

_This_ is how support ought to be. Comes in two languages and I happen
to speak both so I can just pick.

They are trying to move people to some web-based forum via Farnell which
then also feeds into their seven newsgroups. But guess what, people so
far still prefer NNTP. Therefore, I am not alone here. Not at all.

To repeat:

HOW DO YOU GET AND PROVIDE *SUPPORT* FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT YOU USE AND THAT
YOU SUPPLY?

I repeat: As I explained above

And, to justify your answer to those of us reading, WHAT ARE THOSE PRODUCTS
(so we can judge how effective *we* think those support venues would be
if *we* had purchased those products -- from you or from the vendor that
you patronize).

CAD, schematic design and layout. I haven't used the autorouter (yet).
Mostly I am on the giving side when it comes to help there because I've
used it for over a decade now.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:20:45 -0800, cjensen@netplus.com wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 10:18:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com
wrote:

So its simple, its effective.

The neon switches with 90v steps 4 times a cycle. The diodes switch with whatever their Vdrop is 4 times a cycle.
Presumably here's how it works:
When the neon's conducting, C to the mains is C1 = 0.25-0.5uF
When the neon's oc, C to the mains is C3 = 200-500pF
So probably the 2 switching devices cause different resonant frequencies in the LC tank.

Somebody needs to build this,


Yes, can someone please build this and provide an updated circuit?

The Russians are so good at keeping things so simple they actually
work.

You mean like the N1?

 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:03:51 -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

Somebody needs to build this,


Yes, can someone please build this and provide an updated circuit?

The Russians are so good at keeping things so simple they actually
work.

You mean like the N1?

Well, they knocked out the electronic defenses of a certain US frigate
a few weeks ago, their jets fly sideways, and I love that supersonic
torpedo.

Getting back. Is anyone interested in perhaps building the circuit in
my OP? It's a security issue. We need to keep up with these guys.

https://app.box.com/s/hin6mhzpzl147473r1td

Klaus Jensen

 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 10:18:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com>
wrote:

So its simple, its effective.

The neon switches with 90v steps 4 times a cycle. The diodes switch with whatever their Vdrop is 4 times a cycle.
Presumably here's how it works:
When the neon's conducting, C to the mains is C1 = 0.25-0.5uF
When the neon's oc, C to the mains is C3 = 200-500pF
So probably the 2 switching devices cause different resonant frequencies in the LC tank.

Somebody needs to build this,

Yes, can someone please build this and provide an updated circuit?

The Russians are so good at keeping things so simple they actually
work.

Klaus Jensen
>

 

>"We need to keep up with these guys. "

Right. People underestimate them al the time. If that is true then the cold war was a fucking scam, for one. It was but it was both sides. Neither side will ever push the button unless threatened with the loss of power.

Russian technology is better than US in some aspects. I also would like to mention that their government does not spend $600 on a fucking hammer. what's more, the People are what brought the Soviets down, not the west. They pretended to pay them so they pretended to work. Failure rate, defect rates, they couldn't build a fucking dman a beaver could because the People were against them. THAT is what illed that regime. You cannot survive when over half of what you build need to be melted down.

Even then their technology was to be considered. Look at the dogfights with the MIGs. They are truly superior aircraft. To this day you don't fuck with them. Also, other countries are working on alot of shit. Iran for one. they really weren't all that nuclear bound but now that the west has fucked with themm they are. Technologically they are no slouch.

Be nice if the US would play nice. There are potentially alot of enemies out there and it ain't fucking Iraq which we owned for a decade or so. China and Russia have "agreements" now. thye are all starting to dump the dollar.

We better keep an eye on them.

 

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 11:30:09 AM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

On 05/01/2015 20:49, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
On Monday, January 5, 2015 7:35:48 PM UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/5/2015 1:37 PM, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

A lot of people have looked at the future of computing. There are things we don't know, and things we can be fairly confident of. And the latter includes a massive increase in the automated use of relatively trivial data to optimise the design and operation of most things in life.

We also know that infrastructure keeps advancing - it inevitably will in any developed country. The lack of nationwide fast broadband in the 1st world is hampering business and thus economic development, and large sums continue to be invested year on year in improving this infrastructure. I dont see that about to stop any decade soon.

People repeat that mantra to justify ever more spending on telecoms
infrastructure but I am not convinced it is true. The companies that
need ultrafast high speed broadband move to where it is available and/or
build their own private infrastructure.

Those that practically can do. Those that practically can't miss out, and we all miss out on economic development.

High frequency traders will
literally move heaven and earth to get a 2us edge on deals.

You dont need a crystal ball or to know all the details at this point to be pretty confident that internet infrastructure will keep spreading wider, getting faster and gaining more capacity.

It will up to a point but wireless will take up the slack in many areas.
Plenty of the third world have jumped from a rudimentary wired phone
system to modern digital mobile phones with no serious wired broadband.

I know some people who have a mobile and no landline in the UK now.

I am examining the possibility of using 4G with a fancy directional
aerial configuration to get superfast broadband where I live since there
is no prospect of wired VDSL provision ever coming here.

Wireless will be part of the picture for quite a long time, but there are limits to what it can provide. Just as local gensets were part of the picture until the 1950s. Eventually mains reached pretty much everywhere.

I'd venture that the situation with net provision today has a fair bit in common with the electrification situation in the 1930s.

What you said was so broad and vague as to certainly be true... until
that last bit about the parallel with electrification. Universal
electrification happened because the government pushed it and made it
both a priority and a mandate to the monopolies as part of their
responsibility for operating a monopoly.

Government prioritised and pushed it because it made so much difference to the economy and standards of living.

The same is true for the net when a significant % of the population still crawls along with dialup - how can you do business via dialup? Its a huge waste of time & restriction.

And as computing power grows, the desire/need for more bandwidth will intensify greatly. Even today I wouldnt be prepared to go back to dialup.

I can't imagine going back to dialup but once consumers have enough
bandwidth to stream one or two HD movies in realtime and/or play Game of
Thrones without being killed due to latency they are satisfied.

1980: 300baud is ok, give us 1200 and we'd be in heaven. How could anyone want more?
1990: dialup is ok, give us 128k and we'd be in heaven. How could anyone want more?
2000: 56k is ok, give us 256k....
2010: 8M is ok, give us 30M....
2014: 30M is ok, give us 100M....

If you look at likely far future apps, we can be fairly confident that a lot more bandwidth will be used.

Anything above 7Mbps will do this comfortably even ADSL2+ or HSPA.

This monopoly does not exist in Internet access and so there will be no
mandate or even "priority". It is all profit driven so that many parts
of the country will not see the large investments because there is
insufficient return. Heck, even in the second largest city in Maryland,
I can't get DSL because the phone lines are hobbled by 1970's
infrastructure Verizon won't replace because there is not sufficient
profit.

There already is significant investment in net infrastructure, every single year. Its been going on for some time. As time goes on it'll only get more important. And with rising wealth over time, corner cutting policies become ever less accepted as decades go by.

3G and 4G cell provision and various local microwave based systems will
erode the wired and cable broadband market eventually. Digging up the
street to put wires in is intrinsically expensive as are the long wires
or installed today fibres in sparsely populated regions.

What sort of bandwidth can those deliver to everyone in the country? I suspect it'll be an interim solution.


NT

 

[Martin Brown]

On 05/01/2015 20:49, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

On Monday, January 5, 2015 7:35:48 PM UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/5/2015 1:37 PM, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

A lot of people have looked at the future of computing. There are things we don't know, and things we can be fairly confident of. And the latter includes a massive increase in the automated use of relatively trivial data to optimise the design and operation of most things in life.

We also know that infrastructure keeps advancing - it inevitably will in any developed country. The lack of nationwide fast broadband in the 1st world is hampering business and thus economic development, and large sums continue to be invested year on year in improving this infrastructure. I dont see that about to stop any decade soon.

People repeat that mantra to justify ever more spending on telecoms
infrastructure but I am not convinced it is true. The companies that
need ultrafast high speed broadband move to where it is available and/or
build their own private infrastructure. High frequency traders will
literally move heaven and earth to get a 2us edge on deals.

>>> You dont need a crystal ball or to know all the details at this point to be pretty confident that internet infrastructure will keep spreading wider, getting faster and gaining more capacity.

It will up to a point but wireless will take up the slack in many areas.
Plenty of the third world have jumped from a rudimentary wired phone
system to modern digital mobile phones with no serious wired broadband.

I know some people who have a mobile and no landline in the UK now.

I am examining the possibility of using 4G with a fancy directional
aerial configuration to get superfast broadband where I live since there
is no prospect of wired VDSL provision ever coming here.

I'd venture that the situation with net provision today has a fair bit in common with the electrification situation in the 1930s.

What you said was so broad and vague as to certainly be true... until
that last bit about the parallel with electrification. Universal
electrification happened because the government pushed it and made it
both a priority and a mandate to the monopolies as part of their
responsibility for operating a monopoly.

Government prioritised and pushed it because it made so much difference to the economy and standards of living.

The same is true for the net when a significant % of the population still crawls along with dialup - how can you do business via dialup? Its a huge waste of time & restriction.

And as computing power grows, the desire/need for more bandwidth will intensify greatly. Even today I wouldnt be prepared to go back to dialup.

I can't imagine going back to dialup but once consumers have enough
bandwidth to stream one or two HD movies in realtime and/or play Game of
Thrones without being killed due to latency they are satisfied.

Anything above 7Mbps will do this comfortably even ADSL2+ or HSPA.

This monopoly does not exist in Internet access and so there will be no
mandate or even "priority". It is all profit driven so that many parts
of the country will not see the large investments because there is
insufficient return. Heck, even in the second largest city in Maryland,
I can't get DSL because the phone lines are hobbled by 1970's
infrastructure Verizon won't replace because there is not sufficient
profit.

There already is significant investment in net infrastructure, every single year. Its been going on for some time. As time goes on it'll only get more important. And with rising wealth over time, corner cutting policies become ever less accepted as decades go by.

3G and 4G cell provision and various local microwave based systems will
erode the wired and cable broadband market eventually. Digging up the
street to put wires in is intrinsically expensive as are the long wires
or installed today fibres in sparsely populated regions.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 9:42:16 AM UTC, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"We need to keep up with these guys. "

Right. People underestimate them al the time. If that is true then the cold war was a fucking scam, for one. It was but it was both sides. Neither side will ever push the button unless threatened with the loss of power.

How I wish that were true.
http://www.logtv.com/films/redbutton/
At the time I thought CND were overplaying their hand, little did we know how bad things really were.

> Russian technology is better than US in some aspects.

They were both superpowers, both had their moments. What let much of their tech down was overly tight economics

> I also would like to mention that their government does not spend $600 on a fucking hammer.

The soviet govt was legendary for idiotic financial decisions. Their fiat financial system was not self correcting, and not well run.

> what's more, the People are what brought the Soviets down, not the west. They pretended to pay them so they pretended to work. Failure rate, defect rates, they couldn't build a fucking dman a beaver could because the People were against them. THAT is what illed that regime. You cannot survive when over half of what you build need to be melted down.

Alienate the population and you can't expect cooperation. The government was the problem. And too much of the same shit goes on now, they're just wearing a new jacket.


NT