Driver to drive?

[Rheilly Phoull]

On 2/07/2016 8:26 AM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:40:10 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 03:26:14 -0700 (PDT) bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
Message id: <5cb1b842-1a5d-41ea-a940-df4e3b680e2b@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 12:52:17 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

A bit late on this one, aren't you?

It takes him decades to design an oscillator. Do you think an
knee-jerk should take Slowman less than three and a half years?

AHH !! It's good to see you lot being so tolerant, where would ya be
without internet for a vitriol dump??

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 08:37:10 +0800, Rheilly Phoull
<rheilly@bigslong.com> wrote:

On 2/07/2016 8:26 AM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:40:10 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 03:26:14 -0700 (PDT) bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
Message id: <5cb1b842-1a5d-41ea-a940-df4e3b680e2b@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 12:52:17 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

A bit late on this one, aren't you?

It takes him decades to design an oscillator. Do you think an
knee-jerk should take Slowman less than three and a half years?

AHH !! It's good to see you lot being so tolerant, where would ya be
without internet for a vitriol dump??

Sloman doesn't have feelings, so no harm done.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 7:17:20 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 13:00:01 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 07:52:36 -0700 John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in Message id:
jl0dnb1e19bgk3icmrfqcv3f88s7sk0s6o@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:40:10 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 03:26:14 -0700 (PDT) bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
Message id: <5cb1b842-1a5d-41ea-a940-df4e3b680e2b@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 12:52:17 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

A bit late on this one, aren't you?

Sloman operates on a different time scale from the rest of us.

A different emotional scale, too.

(And I sense the beginnings of a turnaround on the insane AGW thing.
People are looking at the facts at last: our biggest hazard is the
possible solar-minimum mini-ice age starting soon. I'd prefer
warming.)

I'd prefer warming as well, I have a pool, Damn it!
(in New England still waiting for the first heat wave...)

Envision ice fishing in the back yard.

Don't bother. John Larkin has been reading denialist web-sites again. Expert opinion puts the next ice age quite millenia away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

The current interglacial probably would have been a long one even if we hadn't started burning lots of fossil carbon as fuel.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 2:37:54 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 08:37:10 +0800, Rheilly Phoull
rheilly@bigslong.com> wrote:

On 2/07/2016 8:26 AM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:40:10 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 03:26:14 -0700 (PDT) bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
Message id: <5cb1b842-1a5d-41ea-a940-df4e3b680e2b@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 12:52:17 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

A bit late on this one, aren't you?

It takes him decades to design an oscillator. Do you think an
knee-jerk should take Slowman less than three and a half years?

AHH !! It's good to see you lot being so tolerant, where would ya be
without internet for a vitriol dump??

Sloman doesn't have feelings, so no harm done.

I've definitely just experience feeling contemptuous - but Larkin is predictable and demonstrably incorrigible, so I skipped exasperation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 2:26:08 AM UTC+2, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:40:10 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 03:26:14 -0700 (PDT) bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
Message id: <5cb1b842-1a5d-41ea-a940-df4e3b680e2b@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 12:52:17 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

A bit late on this one, aren't you?

It takes him decades to design an oscillator.

Several in a lot less than one decade - but krw doesn't use facts, but rather whatever nonsense got loaded into his menory.

Do you think an
knee-jerk should take Slowman less than three and a half years?

Since my original "knee-jerk" reaction popped up on the same day as the original post, krw is demonstating his usual enthusiasm for ignoring what actually happened in favour of what he would have liked to have happen.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 8:54:41 AM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

That's just SO silly! This is about a global problem, there's seven billion
folk whose lives and livelihoods are impacted. Among clear-thinking
adults, you will find approximately zero persons who are
without 'an agenda other than science'.

Don't look for mindless unconcerned (zombie) individuals. Look, rather,
at individuals and institutions that have concern for truth. Try to ignore
the liars (or, better, identify them and publish their perfidies).

Scientists, by the way, generally DO care about accuracy and completeness,
but aren't likely to discuss economic projections of costs and benefits.
That's because science usually tries for high accuracy, while economists
and cost/benefits analysts try for low disaster count (aim for safety).

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 3:22:42 PM UTC-8, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Actually, Mr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

Oh, you TROLL you! The 'total blockage' is irrelevant to warming, because
there's an altitude dependence of the blockage with CO2 content.
Higher altitudes, have colder air. Blocking IR at high altitude means
low thermal radiation to space, CO2 concentration determines
the difference, and Sloman certainly DOES know this.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or not at all,
from the Pierian spring.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 15:20:35 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 8:54:41 AM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

That's just SO silly! This is about a global problem, there's seven billion
folk whose lives and livelihoods are impacted. Among clear-thinking
adults, you will find approximately zero persons who are
without 'an agenda other than science'.

Don't look for mindless unconcerned (zombie) individuals. Look, rather,
at individuals and institutions that have concern for truth. Try to ignore
the liars (or, better, identify them and publish their perfidies).

Scientists, by the way, generally DO care about accuracy and completeness,
but aren't likely to discuss economic projections of costs and benefits.
That's because science usually tries for high accuracy, while economists
and cost/benefits analysts try for low disaster count (aim for safety).

The problem isn't with true scientists, it's with academicians whose
very livelihoods depend on them propagating the climate change BS.

If we stopped _all_ government support of universities, public and
private, the climate change BS would vanish overnight.

BTW, anyone with half a brain for history recognizes that we are
heading into a mini ice-age... due to the collusion of Mother-Earth
and the Sun... NOT caused by man.

I relish the cool. Leftists without half a brain will freeze to death
>:-}

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

Wonder who was better, AG Loretta Lynch or Monica Lewinsky ?>:-}

 

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:27:54 AM UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 3:22:42 PM UTC-8, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Actually, Mr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

Oh, you TROLL you! The 'total blockage' is irrelevant to warming, because
there's an altitude dependence of the blockage with CO2 content.
Higher altitudes, have colder air. Blocking IR at high altitude means
low thermal radiation to space, CO2 concentration determines
the difference, and Sloman certainly DOES know this.

The test is whether the poster knows what "effective radiating altitude" means.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or not at all,
from the Pierian spring.

Couldn't agree more.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:51:23 AM UTC+2, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 15:20:35 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 8:54:41 AM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

That's just SO silly! This is about a global problem, there's seven billion
folk whose lives and livelihoods are impacted. Among clear-thinking
adults, you will find approximately zero persons who are
without 'an agenda other than science'.

Don't look for mindless unconcerned (zombie) individuals. Look, rather,
at individuals and institutions that have concern for truth. Try to ignore
the liars (or, better, identify them and publish their perfidies).

Scientists, by the way, generally DO care about accuracy and completeness,
but aren't likely to discuss economic projections of costs and benefits.
That's because science usually tries for high accuracy, while economists
and cost/benefits analysts try for low disaster count (aim for safety).

The problem isn't with true scientists, it's with academicians whose
very livelihoods depend on them propagating the climate change BS.

Most academics have tenure, so their very livelihoods don't depend on them conforming to fashion. In fact if you want to get promoted, knocking over a fashionable orthodoxy is the royal road to fame and promotion to a professorship at a high prestige institution. People do keep trying to do this with anthropogenic global warming - less frequently in recent years as the possible range of silly ideas gets mined out - but haven't had any success so far. It's looking very much as if the next step in global warming theory is going to be like Einstein's step up from Newton, with nothing changing where it matters to us.

If we stopped _all_ government support of universities, public and
private, the climate change BS would vanish overnight.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson reminding us how he earned the title..

BTW, anyone with half a brain for history recognizes that we are
heading into a mini ice-age... due to the collusion of Mother-Earth
and the Sun... NOT caused by man.

One of the more idiotic "over-turn prevailing orthodoxy" papers, which got discredited within a few months. Denialist web-sites refer to it frequently, but skip any reference to the errors that broguht it down.

I relish the cool. Leftists without half a brain will freeze to death
:-}

Jim does enjoy his delusions. It's less revolting than his delusion that his leftist neighbours would be sitting targets for the rifle he hasn't bought after the US had fallen apart, but equally demented.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:20:39 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 8:54:41 AM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

That's just SO silly!

Honesty is silly? Objective data is silly?

This is about a global problem, there's seven billion
folk whose lives and livelihoods are impacted. Among clear-thinking
adults, you will find approximately zero persons who are
without 'an agenda other than science'.

Don't look for mindless unconcerned (zombie) individuals. Look, rather,
at individuals and institutions that have concern for truth. Try to ignore
the liars (or, better, identify them and publish their perfidies).

That's exactly the point. Selling the benefits while intentionally omitting
the costs is not science, that's propaganda.

Scientists, by the way, generally DO care about accuracy and completeness,
but aren't likely to discuss economic projections of costs and benefits.
That's because science usually tries for high accuracy, while economists
and cost/benefits analysts try for low disaster count (aim for safety).

Salt is corrosive, poisons plants, and can render soil barren for decades.
Releases poisonous gas when heated, too much destroys sea life, and can even
be fatal to human beings. Crucially, salt(*) is even bad for puppies.
(*) chocolate, too

Is that a fair, unbiased, scientific description of salt? Does it accurately
balance the uses with the harms, the costs with benefits? Or should we simply
launch a global jihad on salt?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 3:59:37 PM UTC+2, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:20:39 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 8:54:41 AM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

That's just SO silly!

Honesty is silly? Objective data is silly?

You've just done one of your rehetorical tricks, getting in a false interpretion before whit3rd had completed his expostion.
You've snipped it to make it look as if whi3rd was ojecting to the idea of honesty about objective data.

From the full quote (below) it's clear that he was objecting to the idea that anybody could be completely objective, because the subject is a little too all-encompassing and important not to generate some emotional reaction.

This is about a global problem, there's seven billion
folk whose lives and livelihoods are impacted. Among clear-thinking
adults, you will find approximately zero persons who are
without 'an agenda other than science'.

Don't look for mindless unconcerned (zombie) individuals. Look, rather,
at individuals and institutions that have concern for truth. Try to ignore
the liars (or, better, identify them and publish their perfidies).

That's exactly the point. Selling the benefits while intentionally omitting
the costs is not science, that's propaganda.

Who has been omitting the costs? It's well known that converting to renewable energy sources before we run out of fossil carbon to dig up is going to be marginally more expensive - in the short term - than letting anthropogenic global warming continue to increase at the current rate.

Considering the damage that the global warming we've already had has done, the long term costs favour marginally more expensive electricity now rather than more climate disruption later.

Scientists, by the way, generally DO care about accuracy and completeness,
but aren't likely to discuss economic projections of costs and benefits..
That's because science usually tries for high accuracy, while economists
and cost/benefits analysts try for low disaster count (aim for safety).

Salt is corrosive, poisons plants, and can render soil barren for decades..
Releases poisonous gas when heated, too much destroys sea life, and can even
be fatal to human beings. Crucially, salt(*) is even bad for puppies.
(*) chocolate, too.

Too much salt is bad, enough is vital. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere - much more that the normal interglacial 270ppm - is bad. Enough is fine, too little - as in the 180ppm you get during ice ages - is bad. None would be catatraophic.

And chocolate is quite bad for dogs - they don't metabolise it as fast as we do, and the lethal dose - in milligrams per kilogram of body weight is 300mgm/kgm for dogs, versus 1000mgm/kgm for humans. Their salt (NaCl) metabolism is rather more like ours.

Is that a fair, unbiased, scientific description of salt? Does it accurately
balance the uses with the harms, the costs with benefits? Or should we simply
launch a global jihad on salt?

False analogy. A delibrate misrepresentation of what's going on.

James Arthur enjoys this sort of rhetorical dishonesty, but it is decidedly dishonest and delibrately misleading.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 06:59:31 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

[snip]

Salt is corrosive, poisons plants, and can render soil barren for decades.
Releases poisonous gas when heated, too much destroys sea life, and can even
be fatal to human beings. Crucially, salt(*) is even bad for puppies.
(*) chocolate, too

Is that a fair, unbiased, scientific description of salt? Does it accurately
balance the uses with the harms, the costs with benefits? Or should we simply
launch a global jihad on salt?

Cheers,
James Arthur

The medical "profession" _has_ "launch(ed) a global jihad on salt", on
butter, eggs, milk, meat...

Totally wrong scientifically, but didn't stop them from creating
turmoil.

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

Wonder who was better, AG Loretta Lynch or Monica Lewinsky ?>:-}

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-7, Jim Thompson wrote:

The problem isn't with true scientists, it's with academicians whose
very livelihoods depend on them propagating the climate change BS.

If we stopped _all_ government support of universities, public and
private, the climate change BS would vanish overnight.

AKA 'the climate change speech would be suppressed'. You wish.

Hitler managed to get his academics in line, with bookburnings.
By most accounts, Germany 75 years later still doesn't have a world-class
university again.

By contrast, government supported work at universities produced
a nice bunch of stuff, see the books of the "MIT Radiation Lab" series.

Our side won.

 

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:32:59 PM UTC+2, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 06:59:31 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

[snip]
Salt is corrosive, poisons plants, and can render soil barren for decades.
Releases poisonous gas when heated, too much destroys sea life, and can even
be fatal to human beings. Crucially, salt(*) is even bad for puppies.
(*) chocolate, too

Is that a fair, unbiased, scientific description of salt? Does it accurately
balance the uses with the harms, the costs with benefits? Or should we
simply launch a global jihad on salt?


The medical "profession" _has_ "launch(ed) a global jihad on salt", on
butter, eggs, milk, meat...

Totally wrong scientifically, but didn't stop them from creating
turmoil.

Not actually totally wrong - too much salt does raise blood pressure - but the people giving the dietary advice didn't have the full story when they started peddling the advice, and large chunks of the advice were inappropriate for most patients.

I can't see that it created any turmoil. Perhaps the sort of controversy that sells newspapers, but nothing game-changing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:02:07 PM UTC+2, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 22:00:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-7, Jim Thompson wrote:

The problem isn't with true scientists, it's with academicians whose
very livelihoods depend on them propagating the climate change BS.

If we stopped _all_ government support of universities, public and
private, the climate change BS would vanish overnight.

AKA 'the climate change speech would be suppressed'. You wish.

It isn't climate deniers that are trying to suppress free speech by
making climate change denial a crime.

The people who know enough about climate change to realise that climate change denial is mostly paid for by people who want to keep on making money out of digging up fossil carbon don't want to make climate denial a crime.

They want to prosecute the poeple who a peddling lies in order to make money for fraud. That's not suppressing free speech - it's goinmg after confidence tricksters and frauds.

The fact that gullible twits like you and John Larkin lack the wit to realise that they are being lied to - and why - doesn't make lying to the public the kind of "free speech" that anybody with any sense wants to protect.

Judge Learned Hand pointed out that yelling "Fire" in crowded theatre was taking free speech into an area that nobody wants to protect.

Hitler managed to get his academics in line, with bookburnings.
By most accounts, Germany 75 years later still doesn't have a world-class
university again.

When all else fails, leftists always fall back on bringing up Hitler.

He's a classical right-wing nitwit - well read, but read all all the wrong books and none of the right - non-far-right - ones.

By contrast, government supported work at universities produced
a nice bunch of stuff, see the books of the "MIT Radiation Lab" series.

Our side won.

Nope. Fortunately your side is dying off from incompetence... you're
a prime example.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson in characteristic form.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 22:00:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-7, Jim Thompson wrote:

The problem isn't with true scientists, it's with academicians whose
very livelihoods depend on them propagating the climate change BS.

If we stopped _all_ government support of universities, public and
private, the climate change BS would vanish overnight.

AKA 'the climate change speech would be suppressed'. You wish.

It isn't climate deniers that are trying to suppress free speech by
making climate change denial a crime.

Hitler managed to get his academics in line, with bookburnings.
By most accounts, Germany 75 years later still doesn't have a world-class
university again.

When all else fails, leftists always fall back on bringing up Hitler.

By contrast, government supported work at universities produced
a nice bunch of stuff, see the books of the "MIT Radiation Lab" series.

Our side won.

Nope. Fortunately your side is dying off from incompetence... you're
a prime example.

...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.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den tirsdag den 5. juli 2016 kl. 23.28.47 UTC+2 skrev DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 03:56:56 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

Would be interesting to learn how they estimated that reliability.
If you have a machine that properly aligns the connectors when
plugged, maybe.

The problem is that when it is already under power, which with most
dopey, lazy humans, it already is, it makes little arcs as it connects
and the microinch of Gold goes away and the carbonized conductor... no
longer does.

you don't think the manufacturers would have taken plugging under power into
account if it was an issue?

they already have switches on the supply to support usb on the go

-Lasse

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:16 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> Gave us:

Den tirsdag den 5. juli 2016 kl. 23.28.47 UTC+2 skrev DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 03:56:56 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

Would be interesting to learn how they estimated that reliability.
If you have a machine that properly aligns the connectors when
plugged, maybe.

The problem is that when it is already under power, which with most
dopey, lazy humans, it already is, it makes little arcs as it connects
and the microinch of Gold goes away and the carbonized conductor... no
longer does.

you don't think the manufacturers would have taken plugging under power into
account if it was an issue?

It IS an issue. I have examined it over and over again, and have had
far longer service from my cables and the connectors they plug into from
applying power AFTER making the connection. It is an undeniable fact.

That is how points "wear out". That is how relay contacts "wear out".

First, do YOU know what the level of gold electroplating is on a cheap
chinese USB cable?

Do you know what it is on the AMP or whatever brand of connector
incorporated into the device?

I doubt you do. I doubt you even know the typical plating level one
finds in the industry at all.

>they already have switches on the supply to support usb on the go

Which further emphasizes my point.

Do NOT plug your USB cables in to your device for charging purposes
while the cable is under power.

It is real simple and has been a standard for power cords, and
especially the DC variety for decades, and this very reason.

Where have you been?

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, September 2, 2002 at 2:02:21 PM UTC-7, sally wrote:

"Tom Bruhns" <k7itm@aol.com> wrote in message

With repect to capacitors, ... DA is an effect
you see mainly at low frequencies, so if you make your measurements
quickly, you won't see it.

Since polystyrenes are strongly discouraged in new equipment design, I
haven't bothered to look at how their DA is.

Why?

On material properties, polystyrene and PTFE both look splendid: very low leakage.
For mass production, though, styrene softens above about 100C. That's no good
for a surface mount/reflow soldered component, so it has to be hand-assembled.

PTFE and PPS go over 200C. Tin-silver-copper solder reflows at 217C.