Driver to drive?

[Tim Wescott]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:41:52 GMT, "Mook Johnson" <mook@mook.net
wrote:


Hey all,

When designing sub 1Hz filters for a very slow moving signal that can have
noise on it from 1Hz and upward, what is the safest way to achieve low DC
offset and only mild shifting of the corner frequency? Let say the
temperature range is from 0 to 125C.

The signal is a 0 - 5V analog signal analog signal being read by a 16 bit
a2d.

looking at two way of doing this.

1) good old S-K analog filter using X7R or NPO caps.
problem- Resistor in the network are 500K with 1uF (largest practical
size in X7R). The drift if X7R with temperature is tolerable but the offset
voltages, noise pickup and laternate path through the Polymimide PCBs at
160+C temperature are concerns.

2) DSP filter,
the antialias filters will have similar but reduced affects of the
straight analog option with teh only advantage being the lack of crossover
point drift. The increased performance of the "brickwall" filters will not
have a big benefit.

Any other circuit topologies or tricks to making this thing stable?





2, for sure. The filter can be simple exponential smoothing, not
official "DSP", if you're not picky about rolloff shape.

Out = Out + (In-Out) / K

If that settles too sloppily for your taste, just do a 2nd or 4th
order version of same.

John

On an ultra-cheap processor that's

Out = Out + ((In - Out) >> S);

Just make sure that your variables have at least 16+S bits.

--

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

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:27:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

As Rich Grise has pointed out, there is a strong tendency for human
beings to believe in a god or gods -

Just for the record, it wasn't me who said this.

In fact, I've said almost the opposite. Claiming to know, "for a fact",
that there's no such thing as "God" takes just exactly the same kind
of self-hypnosis as it takes to swallow any other dogma purely because
somebody said so.

The only true "authority" is one's own ass.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:01:59 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org> schreef in bericht
news:1106867645.916641.20390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:44:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:04:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:01:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:38:34 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:


He'd probably like the wines
though, if he tasted them blind - granting the rather pedestrian
quality of the Australian wines he has boasted about, he
probably
wouldn't appreciate them as much as someone with a more
sophisticated
palate ....


Gosh, Jim, your palate has just been called a redneck. Those
eurodudes
are all as sophisticated as a French whore. I bet your heart is
just
plum broken... better have a drink.

Who was it that impugned my tastes? I didn't see the original
message.


I guess you plonked him. B*** S*****.

John

Oh? You mean, B*** "Limp Dick" S*****?

He's even more impotent than F***k B******n

Must be a Netherlands thing ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Consider:

Bill Sloman
Fred Bloggs

Here, we have

4 letters + 6 letters

BLO ... SLO

Double-l, double-g


Then, for

Bill Sloman
Frank Bemelman
Fred Bloggs

Here, we see the 'F.B' and 'man' themes again.

These are all obviously the same guy.

This is the sort of logic Dubbya used when he decided that the US was
going to invade Irak. Jim Thompson seems to get his intelligence from
the same reliable source that Dubbya used to "prove" that Irak had
weapons of mass desctruction. Clearly - applying the same sort of logic
- "John Larkin" and "Jim Thompson" are pseudonyms for a single neocon
with some sort of symbolic administrative function.

Nice to see it wasting its time here, rather than improvising cunning
plans for the invasion of Iran .....

I can hardly imagine that John Larkin is serious about his claim that
the three he mentioned are the same person. It's not that obvious to
me, anyway. Perhaps he tries to be funny or witty.

I would give an arm and a leg if I were able to make the same contributions
that Fred Bloggs comes up with,

Really, it's not that difficult. Just type a lot of obscenities in
capital letters.

only an arm for your excellent contributions
on various topics, and to put all these kind words in perspective, I would
rather die if I shared common thoughts with Jim Thomson,

Better not use any of the linear IC's he designed. You might get
contaminated.

and, well, about
John Larkin, he's just a poor sucker

Sucker is a matter of opinion. But not poor.

who is probably not too bad, but
nonetheless
is lost forever.

The other proof that these are all the same guy is that none of them
has ever evidenced a shred of humor.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Noah Roberts
<nroberts@stmartin.edu> wrote (in <1106683157.681825.208750@c13g2000cwb.
googlegroups.com&gt about 'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Tue, 25 Jan
2005:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Unfortunately,
the ignorant peasants that invented god, knew sod all about maths.
I have no problem with your argument until that.

You needed a lot of math to build that ark!

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Noah Roberts]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

The issue is that you don't understand the *implications* of your
arguments. This is typically with the religious, e.g not realising
an

"all powerful god" is logically self contradictory, hence a false
idea.

How so?

Here we go..

If god is all powerful he can make a weight that is so heavy no one
can
lift it, including god. If it is so heavy, and god himself can't lift

it, then he cant be all powerful. This contradicts the original
assumption, hence the original assumption must be false.

After consideration I believe your argument to be flawed.

You assume that the laws of this universe apply to God, when God is
very likely not bound by these rules. Like I said before, since God
made the Universe he probably is not contained by it as we are. What
is outside of the universe is not necessarily bound by the laws of it.

Same applies to any argument about infinity...you assume that God is
bound by the same linear rules of time and space as we are, yet since
he /created both/ I seriously doubt that to be so, and obviously cannot
be assumed.

We cannot possibly know what rules God operates under, if any, since we
are bound to the universe and its rules whereas he/she/it is not. The
rules of logic may apply, but the rules governing mass, distance, and
time probably do not.

Basically what I am saying is that your logic is correct, but is based
on a premise that is not obviously true and probably isn't. Therefor
the conclusion does not follow. And since there are no premises we can
say are true about anything that exists outside of the universe I don't
see how you can apply logic to arrive at any valid conclusion about
God's existance.

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


The issue is that you don't understand the *implications* of your
arguments. This is typically with the religious, e.g not realising

an

"all powerful god" is logically self contradictory, hence a false
idea.

How so?

Here we go..

If god is all powerful he can make a weight that is so heavy no one

can

lift it, including god. If it is so heavy, and god himself can't lift


it, then he cant be all powerful. This contradicts the original
assumption, hence the original assumption must be false.


After consideration I believe your argument to be flawed.

You assume that the laws of this universe apply to God, when God is
very likely not bound by these rules. Like I said before, since God
made the Universe he probably is not contained by it as we are. What
is outside of the universe is not necessarily bound by the laws of it.

Same applies to any argument about infinity...you assume that God is
bound by the same linear rules of time and space as we are, yet since
he /created both/ I seriously doubt that to be so, and obviously cannot
be assumed.

We cannot possibly know what rules God operates under, if any, since we
are bound to the universe and its rules whereas he/she/it is not. The
rules of logic may apply, but the rules governing mass, distance, and
time probably do not.

Basically what I am saying is that your logic is correct, but is based
on a premise that is not obviously true and probably isn't. Therefor
the conclusion does not follow. And since there are no premises we can
say are true about anything that exists outside of the universe I don't
see how you can apply logic to arrive at any valid conclusion about
God's existance.

None of these comments could in any way alter the fact that God is
logically impossible, and therefore logically proven to not exist.

 

[Tim Shoppa]

good old S-K analog filter using X7R or NPO caps.
500K with 1uF (largest practical
size in X7R).

Why limit yourself to ceramic caps? [Metalized] polyester and
polypropylenes are available up to 10uF and there's no problem at all
with using multi-megohm resistors if you want. FET op-amps (like you'd
use with high impedances like this) have a bigger offset voltage but
you seem vague as to what your offset requirements are. (You're also
vague about the temperature requirements, starting with 125C but then
complaining about Polymimide PCB's at 160C).

But your option 2:

2) DSP filter

seems like a no-brainer winner, because your acquisition rate is so
glacially slow and you're going to A-D the result anyway.

Tim.

 

[Joerg]

Hello Tim,

Why would you want to gold plate paint?

Maybe because it'll give that bling bling appeal?

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Noah Roberts]

Parse Tree wrote:

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Parse Tree
account@domain.extension> wrote (in
pMyJd.7746$ju.1113@news.easynews.c
om&gt about 'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Tue, 25 Jan 2005:


None of these comments could in any way alter the fact that God is
logically impossible, and therefore logically proven to not exist.

All your proof says is that a universal creator cannot be bound by
rules
of logic. It isn't a non-existence proof.

Actually, that's exactly what it is. If something cannot exist in
logic,
then it logically does not exist.

*IF* the argument were valid then that would be a true statement, but
what does that mean? "Logically god does not exist." So what? Logic
explains a lot of things but cannot everything. It works in math, it
works in science...but does it work, for instance, to describe a piece
of music? Of course not. Me thinks you don't watch enough Star Trek,
Mr. Spock.

If God does not exist by logic then logic is in error were God is
concerned. You're claims to the contrary, and the mean spirited
attacks on anyone not subscribing to your claims, makes no difference.

I can say this because I opened my mind to the possibility and saw
first hand evidence that could not be denied. Nothing you claim will
make that different.

You claim to want to be free of religious persecution, yet that is what
you are doing. I say God exists and don't care what you think or say,
I will listen as soon as you become rational, but I doubt you can sway
me. I am allowing you to believe as you believe and only attacking the
inteligence of your arguments and the inteligence of being so close
minded. I never said you were stupid for not believing...only an idiot
would do that (which is why you and yours are).

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

But he applied physical laws in his logic; his entire argument was
based on them. There is no way to argue logic if you are going to

be

irrational.

No, the physics was immaterial. It was the logic that showed the
contradiction.


Ok, I can't tell if you guys are pulling my leg or if you really are
that slow...his argument against god's existance was that an all
powerful being can create an object too large for itself to lift. If
not it is not all powerful, if so it is not all powerful, therefor does
not exist. That is an argument based on the assumption that mass
behaves for God as it does for us.

No, it was an example of a contradictory situation. Either he can lift
everything, or he can create something that he cannot lift.

Either possibility places a restriction on his omnipotence.

It doesn't directly rely on physics, but instead on him creating a task
that he cannot do.

Come up with a better argument if you don't like the answer.

You're simply choosing not to answer it.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Parse Tree wrote:

In comparison to those in the future we certainly are ignorant peasants.
Provided their mathematics is more advanced, of course.

I would hope that the people of the future will have learned more and
have more respect for others than to call us ignorant peasants just
because we didn't know what they know. To do so would be to trivialize
our contribution to their knowledge.

I always hope mankind will learn and improve. Unfortunately I am often
dissapointed and shown that my hope may be utterly unfounded.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <5iskv099eka36p714f992vglfv20hftvap@4ax.com&gt about
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Fri, 28 Jan 2005:

What I find incomprehensible is that with as
little as we know and with as much mystery as there is in the universe
you refuse to even admit that there's a possibility that an intellect
can exist which so far overshadows our own that it dwarfs our powers of
perception.

This is not inconceivable. But during this debate we have seen evidence
that such an entity has to have powers that preclude our understanding
*anything* about its nature, since it is not bound by logic or any of
what we observe as the laws of nature.

Which is sufficient, hypothesizing this all-powerful, omnipresent,
omniscient entity, of which we can know nothing unless a priest tells us
what to believe by 'faith', or not hypothesizing it?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
<rtp@example.net> wrote (in <pan.2005.01.28.18.40.59.62933@example.net&gt
about 'Hello, I Have Good News! - No no! It's _really_ good This Time!',
on Fri, 28 Jan 2005:

Suppose we do an experiment. You put your hand on the table. I hit it
with a hammer.

Did you feel pain?

No, you missed.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <vExKd.9334$v8.3966@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk says...

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:16:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


The LSD Church is demonstrable false. They are frauds, so sure, I
have a moral issue with staying silent on such knowledge. I take the
same action against those that claim oxygen free cable makes for a
better sound, and subsequently charge $100 for a bit of wire. The
LSD steal 10% of peoples earnings by fraudulent methods. Its that
simple.

---
"Latter Day Saints", Kevin, not "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

Whats the differance?

"What a difference an a makes."

I think someone should write a song.

--
Keith

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:05:50 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:

Touchy little fucktard, ain't ya? So HAVE you stopped beatin' yer whore?

---
No, ya miserable slit, and I won't 'til you turn over what you've made
turning tricks, like you're supposed to.
---

How can you , when you made the cunt up to begin with?

---
It's not that I can't, it's that I won't. I made you up to begin with
since you didn't know anything about painting that ugly face of yours,
and then I turned you out, so you owe me.

--
John Fields

 

[keith]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:06:25 +0000, Parse Tree wrote:

keith wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:30:31 +0000, Parse Tree wrote:


keith wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:18:22 +0000, Parse Tree wrote:



keith wrote:


On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:47:48 +0000, Parse Tree wrote:




keith wrote:



On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:24:05 +0000, Parse Tree wrote:





Clarence_A wrote:




"DW" <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106343743.567899.251800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...





The term "liberal" gets thrown a lot.

I saw something a while back that I like to cite w
when someone slames liberals.

1. Thank a liberal when you go to the grocery store
and find that it is illegal for them to sell that
peice of meat that went rancid a month ago.
2. Thank a liberal when you go to the emergency room
and they treat your heartt attack right away. There was a time
when an ermergency room could decline treatment if you
couldn't afford it and they would throw you out in the street.
So what if you died.
3. If you're a woman thank a liberal that your
husband can't beat you. Believe it or not there was
a time when it was legal for a husband to beat his
wife in the US.



Thank a liberal when you get your tax bill and you have to sell
the house to pay the tax. Then state and federal Income tax
reduces the net from the home sale to a level below what you would
need to put a down payment on a mobile home. And all the license
fees go up each year.

Bless a liberal, send them to hell!
They can party there without hurting anyone!

Taxes are really not very onerous at all. People in the US can be such
babies about them.


If they're not onerous, perhaps you want to pay mine?

How much do you pay? $80000 or so?


Nope, so it shouldn't be any problem for you to send me half that or so
(I'll suck up the rest myself). I'll be expecting the check by 4/15.

Yeah, your taxes aren't onerous at all. You just need to start making
more money.


Don't want to make more money. I want to lower my expenses, taxes are by
*far* the largest ones.

I'm still awaiting my check. Come on, fork over. Put your money where your
mouth is.

You don't want to make more money. Why would I send money to someone
that doesn't want any? How silly.


Now you're welshing. No, I don't want to make more money.

Ok. I won't send you any, then.

Ah, so you don't have a pot to piss in, so you used your hat. ...as I
suspected.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:26:02 +0000, Cardinal Fang wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:31:50 -0500, with express permission from Pope Urban VIII, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> decreed:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:18:22 +0000, Parse Tree wrote:

Yeah, your taxes aren't onerous at all. You just need to start making
more money.

Don't want to make more money. I want to lower my expenses, taxes are by
*far* the largest ones.

I understand the Antarctic goverment doesn't levy taxes. Why don't you move there?

I'm looking to move to a warmer place with *less* government intrusion.
Perhaps you might want to conider who lives in Antarctica?

OTOH, If you'd get a job, perhaps I wouldn't have to pay to clean up after
your snot.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:01:31 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <899av0hc1ukr286i3re3dqfplth8okhb3m@4ax.com&gt
about 'What Is God?', on Mon, 24 Jan 2005:

Maybe the earth's orbit could be re-aligned to make things more
consistent. By the time the environmental assessment is approved, the
technology will probably exist.

Yes, we would just have to eliminate the 23.5 degree tilt of the axis.
No more seasons: sunrise at 6 AM every day, everywhere, sunset at 6 PM
ditto. No visible sun at either Pole, ever.

Might be difficult to move the Moon, though. (;-)

No big deal. Just get a big enough lever and take care of both at the
same time.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:41:54 -0500, Aunty Kreist wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.23.16.19.15.142665@att.bizzzz...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:49:56 -0500, James Knott wrote:

Aunty Kreist wrote:

Does Scientology count as a religion, or a cult?

Is there a difference?

Ask yourself if your atheism is a cult, and maybe you'll see the
difference.

--
Keith


There's a hierarchy and organization to Scientology, though. Atheism doesn't
have any such nonsense.

You're logic limited, eh?

--
Keith

 

[Charles Schuler]

That's where I was headed above. So many people are quick to say that
science has "proven" xxxxxxx.

Not real scientists. In hard science, everything is subject to revision
which includes the possibility of the trash bin. This includes core
theories, such as the conservation of angular momentum (which, so far, has
held up amazingly well, even in quantum mechanics). To talk about science
does not make one a scientist.

I have no problem with matters of faith. I do have a problem with folks
citing science to support a belief system that is clearly not in the purvey
of science. Science is the only belief system that continues to make
progress. Since it was invented by humans, it is necessarily flawed but
clearly has demonstrated its prowess. Religion has caused more trouble,
wars, bias, and stupid mistakes than all other belief systems combined.