Driver to drive?

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <608b6569.0410151444.3088dd5d@posting.google.com>,
larwe@larwe.com says...

IIRC nasa does something like this, with a data stream on a couple of lines
of the video. They float it across the screen, so that it never consistently

It's not really related at all - the OP was talking about putting an
LCD in the field of view, which is very different from replacing video
lines with data lines. The latter method is impossible given my design
constraint - don't modify the camera. It would be impossible to
document a generic solution to do anything involving insertion of data
into the video stream, because the video path inside camcorders isn't
standardized (esp. not with respect to what parts of it are accessible
and what parts are buried in an ASIC).

I agree wholeheartedly with your desire to keep the camcorder intact.

This is as a result of a few attempts to repair VCRs----which are
mechanically much larger. The idea of loosening a screw on the
camcorder and hearing "click, click, sproing!" gives me the
shivers! Replacing the whirring noise of the motors in the
submarine with a telemtry stream seems very sensible.

I've managed to get 230KB async from a UART through a kilometer of
intercom wire (simulating an oceanographic cable) by putting out
full cycles of pseudo sine waves for 1 bits and nothing at all for
zero bits. The signals were transformer coupled for impedance
matching and DC isolated so the cable could be used for HV power.

I think a similar approach would work on an audio recorder---but
probably at a lower baud rate. I used an SX chip from UBICOM as a
modulator/demodulator. For lower baud rates, a PIC would probably
do the job with less power dissipation.

Mark Borgerson

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:22:52 +0100, Tony Williams wrote:

In article <20041014064620.07384.00002642@mb-m29.aol.com>,
Doug Goncz <dgoncz@aol.com> wrote:
Hello all. I have read Google: "self-excited induction
generator" to about 10%.

Induction generator
[snip]

There was a thread here (a year or so ago) that described
an interesting application of that "asynchronous generator".

It was about a conveying system, (in Australia?), that
carried ore for miles, up and down hills, but overall it
was downhill.

The whole system was driven by induction motors, which took
megawatts to get the ore moving, but once everything was up
to speed, the conveyer drove the motors. The motors then
became generators, and nicely acted as speed limiters for
the conveying system.

And if they let the intake end go empty for too long, it breaks
the siphon, right? ;-)

A two-mile, electric rock siphon. What will they think of next?

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<416F3750.7010505@nospam.com>...

Clarence wrote:

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ckll0202fba@drn.newsguy.com...


xray wrote...

snip

I'd call this one close to a draw.

That's because you couldn't see GWB's stupid smirks, "grins" and drools.


Because there weren't any. But you didn't watch the debate did you?

Consensus of the media people who were in the hall was that Bush was "clearly
the winner" of this debate.

Not that it matters, in a poll before the first debate 90% of those polled said
the debates would not change their vote. It was a show, and not a very good
one!



Just can't stop lying can you. I watched the entire debate and once
again Bush lost his composure- this time he actually had froth
developing on the right side of his mouth. Even the right wing spin
masters could say little more than Bush's performance has improved over
the first disaster- but a talking parrot meets that criterion. The
people who actually know what debating is about say Bush dropped out, he
had no intention of debating, he just wanted to get it over with. He did
this by evading the questions, plying supercilious humor, and retreating
into his campaign slogans and personal attacks against Kerry.
There are millions of Americans who are convinced that the issues
discussed, by Kerry, are of utmost importance and they want a serious
and considered debate; your cocaine user dropout from Texas did little
to help himself by trying to turn everything into a joke. Bush insulted
the forum of debate and he insulted the American public.


The GRAND lie of the debates was when Kerry looked into the camera and
said "I will NOT raise your taxes!". Pure bullshit, which you, the
bullshit artist, should instantly recognize.

He was telling the truth- there is absolutely NOTHING in the economic
analysis of his plans that requires middle income taxes be raised.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4175C33B.1030908@nospam.com>...
...

Boy! You sure do read a lot- huh dumbass? And look at all those
numbers- would ya'? sheesh- who can argue with such a powerful
intellect?


Well, you CERTAINLY have no difficulty arguing; your problem is
presenting a CONVINCING argument.

No- that is not my problem - your problem is that you're too thick to
understand anything. The HELLCAT was a carrier based fighter that took
the war to the Japs- it had the Zero outmaneuvered and out gunned. The
attrition ratio for Hellcat:Zero was something like 1:100, it was a
hands down slaughter. You do know that the Pacific is an *ocean* and
that Europe is a *land* continent? Right?


You are right (maybe not the 100:1). The Hellcat was designed
specifically to fight the Zeros-and not much else. The P-38, on the
other hand, was a multi-role fighter/bomber (it could carry 5,000 lb
of ordinance). It was land based, but with a 3,000 mile range who
needs a carrier?

The P-38 was the first air-dominance fighter.

The bottom line is that the US Navy went with the Hellcat and stayed
with it- they rejected the proposal to develop a carrier version of the
P-38 because the Hellcat was proven. The various documentaries I have
seen on the fighter tell that it did the job- the aerial combat wasn't
even close- the Hellcats cleaned house and the attrition was just that
high- you take that incredibly powerful maneuverability and add all
those 50 cals and the Zero is finished. The only other fighter that came
along was the P-51 Mustang near the end- this was even better than the
Hellcat.

Like above: you have no counter so

Nope- you're too dumb to be countered. I have no time to spell
everything out for you. You are a waste of time.

you call me a "dumbass", an insult of the red-neck variety (i.e. IQ =
50-75). It is the equivalent of saying "Yeah, you're right; I don't
know shit".

You display such lack of reasoning that I suspect you're sick. Is it
Alzeimer's?


There you go again, fredrook. Just as soon as you start making some
sense you flip into your red-neck punk rage mode and end up looking
silly.

I would see a doctor - they made be able to stop the progression of your
disease with the modern drugs.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:00:40 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2hcbn0dof3s5fa6df8vtprkaig690vsqlt@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:09:35 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

Hassan wrote:
Hello;
I want to design a switching power supply with:
Vin=24 Vdc and Vo=15V @ 7A
---
You "have" my design? Care to elaborate?

Okay, weak mind, poor to no control, the usual ilk of someone with megalomania.

---
What does that have to do with you "having" my design?
---

You don't have "John Fields",
you phony little "John Fields",
and trying to "John Fields"
out of it by saying that he wasn't
specific about the level he wanted
is typical of "John Fields" like you.

The foul mouth is properly labeled!

---
More cut and paste?

I'll bet your mommy won't let you use pointy scissors though, and I'll
bet she gets pissed when you scribble all over the walls with crayons.
---

I didn't say I 'did' the design, I sent it to him.

---
That's not the point. he asked for help, not for URLs. Any idiot (as
you've proven, many times) can look around and find something vaguely
related to the subject at hand and paste the URL where he found it. A
real no-brainer, and nothing like asking for spec's and then figuring
out how to put something together, from scratch, which will provide an
adequate answer to the poster's question.
---

I don't work for free like you.

---
Of course you don't. Greedy, money-grubbing worms like you _can't_
because you equate pecuniary gain with happiness and you think that if
you do _anything_ for free you've been taken advantage of.
---

Wow, walking the dog is getting tiring!

---
That's because the dog is bigger than you are and is pulling you
around wherever he wants to go! _You're- the one who's being walked,
imbecile.
---

He want to run and bite!

---
Then you better stay out of him way.
---

Now cool off, you started this and I do not care to keep trying to calm you
down.

---
I'll do what I damn well please, and if you find that the headwind is
too strong for you, then I suggest you save yourself some grief and
learn how to tack.

--
John Fields

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Product developer wrote:

Someone should take a few hours to compile a
roster of this bozos posts just to see how many times he has been
totally wrong and then lied to cover his tracks and then calls
everyone else a liar or a Bush operative.

Talk is cheap- and you are *all* talk. I invite you to make such a
compilation. We will all be looking out for it. This will never
materialize because you are a *dickless* little liar and cheat and
another latent queen. Shouldn't you be eyeballing some male bods in a
locker room somewhere?

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Joerg wrote:

Hello Folks,

Just wondering: Are there any low cost small transistors that have the
baker clamp (saturation protection) built in?

Is there some reason you can't just bung a schottky in there ?

Gibbo

 

[Anders F]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4176182c$0$34762$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

"Clarence" <no@No.com> schreef in bericht
news:Ujidd.16248$nj.15005@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

Hassan wrote:
Hello;
I want to design a switching power supply with:
Vin=24 Vdc and Vo=15V @ 7A
Notice the important part:
controller and power Mosfet just in a package.

I still recommend separate mosfets! But of course Hassan /might/ actually
mean what he wrote. He might look at Sipex's offerings... (ie. SP7655 8A
buck to 28V). That is if he's actually following the discussion ;-)

/Anders

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 20 Oct 2004 15:57:56 GMT, chrisgibbogibson@aol.com
(ChrisGibboGibson) wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Hello Folks,

Just wondering: Are there any low cost small transistors that have the
baker clamp (saturation protection) built in?


Is there some reason you can't just bung a schottky in there ?

Gibbo

The only reason for using a Schottky, or Baker clamp (not quite the
same), is to prevent saturation-based storage time.

I think a baker clamp was simply a way to achieve the same results before
schottkys were available

At least where I come from they are referred to interchangably but yes,
technically they are different.

Just use a gold-doped device, such as 2N2369, for the same effect.

Are they really as fast at turn off?

Gibbo

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

Gibbo wrote

Are they really as fast at turn off?

Gibbo

See http://www.pci-card.com/2n2369.pdf

Says 30ns turn-off time.

Yes it's fast out of saturation, 15nS. Saturation voltage is no better though.

Gibbo

 

[John Larkin]

On 18 Oct 2004 13:23:00 -0700, oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:

Amplifier projects but not good design: a cookbook


This is a smaller and more project-oriented version of this author's
earlier book on building solid-state audio amplifiers. The amplifiers
in this book are "plain vanilla" Class B direct-coupled transistor
amplifiers, which will provide reasonable performance for utility or
musical instrument use, but due to the lack of precision-matching of
semiconductors

Only people who don't understand electronics and thermal design think
they need to precision-match parts for simple things like audio amps.

and the "more-is-better" approach to using NFB,

More is better, unless it oscillates.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On 19 Oct 2004 11:51:29 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote ...

I'm looking for an RF amplifier module that can deliver
2 to 3 watts into 50 ohms, over a 20 to 80MHz (or 120
or 150MHz...) range. Variable gain isn't required, but
would be a plus. My budget price is $100 but higher
is OK. I'll get 5 pieces to start, more if necessary.

What about those potted CATV power amps, the epoxy blocks that sit on
aluminum bars, and have the wires poking out the bottom? Moto used to
make tham, but other people do now.

MHW9242, 24 volts, 24 dB gain 40-1000 MHz, +38 dBmv out.

MHW1244, 24v, 24 dB, 5-200 MHz, +50 dbmv.


John

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 20 Oct 2004 09:47:47 GMT, arthurj@aol.comet.net (James Arthur) wrote:

I wrote:
Either this, or perhaps his 6/30/71 debate with John O'Neill:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

Warning: this is a link to a *very long* video of the Dick Cavett Show of that
date.

As I mentioned, I cannot use this just now. But I'll definitely try, when I
can.

O'Neill indicates that he feels Vietnam vets had been defamed,
unjustly accused by Kerry of war crimes, and tries to make the
case that by his participation Kerry himself ought then be guilty
of the same. No frank admissions thereof were forthcoming,
however -- Kerry was unclear.

So, it's not a "self-admission" then?

Much time could be saved by Googling for the transcripts,
although these are not as informative -- significant emphases
and inflections are lost.

Yes, this would help me. If you have heard some "snippets" of the dialogue, you
may be able to search this better than I can. I'd appreciate having access to
the transcript.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:57:13 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

No, that's because the Catholic system has the option of ejecting the
bad teachers, whereas the public system cannot. ;-)

Hehe. I'm not sure so about this. Some of the nuns teaching me were pretty
hellish, I think, and I don't think "good" is the criteria they used when
assigning nuns as teachers (at least, not back when my experiences took place.)
But they were dedicated slaves to the system -- putting in much more time than
public teachers can be asked to do, I believe.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 20 Oct 2004 16:55:09 GMT, chrisgibbogibson@aol.com (ChrisGibboGibson) wrote:

Yes it's fast out of saturation, 15nS. Saturation voltage is no better though.

Digikey has it and it comes in a TO-18 can!!! A BJT after my hobbyist heart, I
can see!

Jon

 

[Bob Stephens]

On 20 Oct 2004 18:15:35 GMT, ChrisGibboGibson wrote:

Stolen from another newsgroup....

#####

How many mailing-list members does it take to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb.

1 to post that the light bulb has been changed.

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently.

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

22 to claim light bulbs were cheaper in 1973 after adjusting for
inflation.

5 to blame the Bush administration for allowing the bulb to burn out.

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb".

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is
"lamp".

15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light
bulb" is perfectly correct.

10 to post that this mailing-list is not about light bulbs and to
please take this discussion to a lightbulb mailing-list.

11 to defend the posting to this mailing-list saying that we all use
light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this mailing-list.

6 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to
buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this
technique and what brands are faulty.

27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URLs.

27 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to
this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.

19 to accuse the big light bulb corporations of depleting precious
vacuum resources.

4 to complain about Spain's new tax on used light bulbs.

3 to claim only the French make the best bulbs, and everything else is
"le crap".

5 Americans to remind the French they are making light bulbs instead
of candles because the US bailed them out, again.

33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety
including all headers and signatures.

5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

9 to call light bulbs "weapons of mass illumination" and to deny Iraq
had any WMI.

2 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

4 to say "do a search on 'light bulbs' before posting questions about
light bulbs".

3 to spam the post talking about how light is pretty....

7 to ask what kind of lightbulb they should buy.

2 to get in a heated debate about which is better, halogen or
fluorescent.

3 to ask about how to get it to turn on.

4 to post that they are forming a light bulb co-op.

1 to write some long cynical diatribe metaphorically reflecting the frustration
of the whole experience. and

1 new mailing-list member to respond to the
original post 6 months from now and to start it all over again.

#####

Gibbo

And of course:

etc.
lack of Googling
including top posting,
1 to start a flame war about every arcane netiquette violation

 

[Genome]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:no7dn0d87eksikcjb07ppokg4nqn44hqkb@4ax.com...
| On 18 Oct 2004 13:23:00 -0700, oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
|
| > and the "more-is-better" approach to using NFB,
|
| More is better, unless it oscillates.
|
| John
|
|

Whoops..... that's a bit simplistic.

DNA

 

[James Arthur]

On 10/20/04 Jonathan Kirwan jkirwan@easystreet.com wrote:

On 20 Oct 2004 09:08:47 GMT, arthurj@aol.comet.net (James Arthur) wrote:

It wasn't testimony, but I suspect the poster(s) are referring to John
Kerry's
4/18/04 appearance on Meet The Press:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

Can you please point out the section (some key words would be good enough) to
help me see what you see, here? (It's long and even if I read the entire
thing,
I may not realize what you are suggesting.)

Thanks.

Jon, the keyword you seek was there, posted just a tad below...

Searching the transcript for "videotape" will call up the relevant
remarks.

The _3rd_ instance (sorry 'bout that) will take you to the text: "MEET THE
PRESS, April 18, 1971," where John Kerry's comments are transcribed.

Either this, or perhaps his 6/30/71 debate with John O'Neill:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

I don't (and won't) install real-audio/video on my machine here. This will
either have to wait until I can set up a different machine for this task. If
you can put in the text, that would be great, but I'd understand if that's
not
reasonable.

Googling for "kerry cavett debate transcript" yields a number of useful
sites, the first of which is:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

Skimming past Mr. Cavett's introduction, O'Neill begins registering his
complaints
shortly into his opening remarks.

Best,
James

 

[Terran Melconian]

In article <20041014164246.20060.00003097@mb-m25.aol.com>,
ChrisGibboGibson <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote:

Joerg wrote:
backwards? A nice big diode across and a breaker should be able to
handle that.
That's one of those solutions that seems simple. You should try that trick with
a 3kW inverter. It just don't work.

What spec diode (or rather bank of diodes) would you need to guarantee no
reverse voltage at the inverter greater than the body diode in the mosfets for
the time it would take to blow a fuse or circuit breaker on a 3kW inverter with
a surge rating of 9kW ?

If I had to do it, I wouldn't use a diode at all. I'd put a
normally-open relay which closes only when the battery is connected
correctly. Sure, this can slow down the startup a little, but since the
time required for the user to physically connect the battery is going to
be measured in tens of seconds, I can't see that it would matter.

Does this not work in practice for reasons I haven't thought of?

 

[CBFalconer]

Mark Borgerson wrote:

.... snip ...

My application was for an oceanographic cable, which can be quite
different from a telephone cable. In particular, I had to cope
with the fact that one of the wires might have about 300V DC
to ground (or the other wire). I've also heard, but not been
able to verify, that the cable characteristics change as the cable
is reeled out into the ocean. I do know that we had be be able
to cope with slip ring noise also--which was handled with ACK/NAK
and packet repeats.

That sounds like moving power on the same copper. My approach
might be to use the common mode of a twisted pair to supply one of
the power potentials (including ground). Thus, if a 100 ohm line
is terminated by two 50 ohm resistors at each end, they look like
25 ohms per end to the common mode supply. The remote end can use
DC/DC converters to trade volts for amps. Redundant signal paths
mean redundant power paths with means of detecting partial
failures.

Changes in line characteristics look like taps on the line. The
system should be fairly immune to these when both ends are
terminated with a reasonable match, provided the taps are
reasonably high impedance. Obviously a short circuit doesn't let
anything past it.

You can even apply TDR (time domain reflectrometry) to the
installed line, and decide exactly what you have. You can then
compensate for its deficiencies or tell the maintenance people
where to look.

--
"I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"

"Any baby snookums can be a Yankee fan, it takes real moral
fiber to be a Red Sox fan"