Driver to drive?

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 24 Oct 2004 09:24:22 -0700, Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:

. +Vs o------+----------------+-------,
. 40 - 55V | | |
. R4 R5 BFC
. 1k00 249 |
. | npn | gnd
. Q2 e\| |/e
. pnp |----+-------| Q3
. c/| | |\c 100V pnp
. | | | small heat sink
. +------' |
. | |
. |/c Q1 | bipolar current source
. +15V --| npn | 20mA fs, 30V compliance
. |\e |
. | | R4 R2 1
. R1 ,----|--R2--, | Io = - Vin -- ( ---- + -- )
. 10k0 | _| 10k0 | | R5 R1 R3 R1
. Vin --/\/\--+--|- \ | x |
. -10V pk in | >----+ +---- Io out
. = +20mA out ,--|+_/ | |
. | | R3 2k49 |
. gnd | | |
. | gnd |
. | |
. and etc for neg portion

I ran some simulations on the extended version of this schematic and output
current isn't particularly flat relative to the driving voltage as one might
hope for. (I selected the OPA227 as the opamp, the 2N3906/2N3904 for the Q1
equivalents, and the 2SB709A and the 2SD601A for the (+) and (-) side pairs.)

Firstly, accuracy is off for reasons I cannot completely fathom. I'm getting an
Iout that is about 12% lower than what the equation predicts. I can see where
the equation arises, I think, but my understanding doesn't appear to change the
simulation results (of course):

[1] The current from Vin to the (-) input node is Vin/R1.
[2] The current flowing from the (-) input node to the opamp output
is then -Vin/R1.
[3] This current, [2], must flow through R2, thus the voltage at
the opamp output must be -R2*(Vin/R1).
[4] The current flowing through R3 is then -R2*(Vin/R1)/R3.
[5] These currents sum, [2] and [4], so the total current arriving at
(or leaving) is -Vin/R1 + -R2*(Vin/R1)/R3 or -Vin*(1/R1+R2/(R1*R3)).

The output must either source or sink this, so this is what either draws an
extra from the V+ or the V- of the opamp, yielding the behavior. As I see it,
anyway.

[6] So, this is then applied to one side of the current mirror and is
gained up by the ratio of R4/R5.

But regardless of this logic above, I still get 9.293mA at -5V. The calculation
suggests:

-5V*1k/249*(1/10k+10k/(10k*2.49k)) = 10.072mA

That's about 92% of the predicted value. Of course, this is simulation. But
I'm curious if you think this is a simulation problem or if you think it's
probably real.

Aside from this accuracy difference from the equation, I'm curious about another
behavior I noticed in simulation. The relative gain varies rather widely as the
controlling input varies from -5V to +5V. (I used a .dc sweep.) As I sweep the
DC controlling voltage from -5V towards 0V, the relative change (using -5V as
the standard of 1.000) is:

Vin Iout gain Rel %
------ ------- ---------- -------
-5V 9.293mA 1.859mMhos 1.000
-1 1.947 1.947 1.047
-.5 1.026 2.052 1.104
-.4 842.1uA 2.105 1.132
-.3 657.8 2.193 1.180
-.2 473.4 2.367 1.273
-.1 289.0 2.890 1.555
-.05 196.7 3.934 2.116

etc.

Does this mean it needs a micro to support a correction table? Or is this more
likely to be some problem in my simulation?

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:35:40 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com>
wrote:

about 12% lower

sorry, about 8% lower at -5V...

Jon

 

[Joerg]

Hi Steve,

Just look for transistors with similar data (voltage, current, beta).
The voltage here is low so that shouldn't be critical. Depending on the
motor check out whether BC337 and BC327 might do it. If you draw several
hundred mA you might want to look for some others that could be mounted
on a heatsink.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:09:53 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41786EC5.20809@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:



It's been that way for some time now.

And you have been a liar for all of your life- that's an even longer
time.


Compare that to the libs demand that
DeLay resign as Majority Leader because of an "admonishment" by the
ethics committee.

Not quite true-criminal investigations are being pursued. The Majority
Leader is supposed to set an example- even an admonishment is too much
of a bad example- he should go.


Then take the case of Trent Lott, who made the fatal sin of praising a
man who had been a racist, Strom Thurmond. No apology by Lott could
placate the libs, who smelled blood in the water. Only a resignation
would do. And the bastards got it!

That's because he went a little bit further than praise Thurmond- he
said something along the lines of America being a better place if
Thurmond's racial agenda had gone through. Lott got what he deserved,
and it was not just a Democrat thing- even Bush disowned him after that.
Hehe.


Libs are not bothered in the least by an obvious, blatant lack of
balance in their statements and positions. This is the way it is, get
used to it because it ain't gonna change.

And you don't seem to let little things like *facts* get in the way of
your bullshit. Do ya' now, fatarse?


FREDFRAUD, VIETNAM VET IMPOSTER - Need I say any more?

Hehe- tell that to the Veterans Administration- they paid for my college
education. We are all anxiously awaiting the description of your military
service. It is clear to everyone by now that you are a loudmouthed
blowhard coward. You sure are a brave one talking about getting tough with
killing Arabs as long as you're not the one having to get tough eh? You
are such a typical stinking fraud it is almost comical. You're are garbage
to this newsgroup.

Doesn't the Congress have the power and authority to issue a "cease and
desist forthwith" order?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[CFoley1064]

Subject: Transistors Help - SK100/SL100
From: "Steve" aeroman10@yahoo.com
Date: 10/26/2004 6:40 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <1098834032.441866.237870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

I need the SK100 and SL100 transistors to build the following circuit:
http://www.electronic-circuits-diagrams.com/motorimages/3.gif

The problem is I cant find where to buy those. I look at RadioShack,
they didnt have it. I looked through the DigiKey and Jameco catalog and
they dont have it either..

What are some transistors that are equivalent to and can replace SK100
and SL100 and still make this circuit operational?

Thank you

Hi, Steve. The requirements of the circuit are NPN and PNP power transistors
that can switch 1 amp and have a Vceo of greater than 10V or so. Basically,
just about any NPN and PNP TO-220 transistors will do. If you want to do Radio
Shack, try the

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On 26 Oct 2004 23:31:04 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik
<jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

Do you honestly believe that Saddam Hussein had a passenger jet airframe
for any other purpose than terrorist training?

Dunh. Every airport in the world has firefighters and their training
areas.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Joerg]

Hello,

Hi, Steve. The requirements of the circuit are NPN and PNP power transistors
that can switch 1 amp and have a Vceo of greater than 10V or so. Basically,
just about any NPN and PNP TO-220 transistors will do. If you want to do Radio
Shack, try the


And make sure they have enough beta. Those 1K resistors won't source

more than about 8mA of base current.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On 26 Oct 2004 08:35:11 -0700, jdurban@vorel.com (Product developer)
wrote:

From Drudge:

NBCNEWS: CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ BEFORE TROOPS
ARRIVED...


History. It's no doubt since been split up into hundreds of parts and
secreted all over the show.
Perhaps we should re-engage the weapons inspectors to search for it.

No need to search for it.
It will be turning up at US positions for the foreseeable future.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Rolavine wrote:

From: John Larkin jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISno


Rumor has it that 60 Minutes was going to run another smear piece on
the missing explosives, just before election night. Danly Dan hasn't
given up!



Good for him, if the media was not yanked to the right, cowering to their
corporate owners they would have torn Bush into tiny pieces of shit by now.

What should have been the editorials in response to '75% of Al Qaida leaders
have been captured or killed'.

Which explains why the insurgency is running out of steam eh?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

I wonder how long it would take to move and hide 380 tons of
explosives. More than one day, I'm guessing.

Get a clue, moron. What you have here is your basic HE storage facility
and this one was a big one- over 70 bermed storage bunkers and numerous
outbuildings. The estimate is 40 big truckloads- and difficult for a
move to go undetected under the surveillance of our satellites. This
particular facility should have been on the top ten list of strategic
sites to watch in Iraq, but because of the total incompetence of the
military and political planning, all forms of traditional "enemy asset
management" operating procedures were abandoned on the promise of a
world class charlatan by the name of Ahmed Chalabi, and two world class
dupes by the names of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, that the Iraqis would be
dancing in the streets and cooperating in every possible way to assist
the US in restoring control. That damned RDX is tops for a very high
yield HE- they say that only 1/2 pound was used to bring down that
flight over Lockerbee that killed a few hundred servicemen. The other
nice thing about these compounds is that they make beautiful primer
material for more readily available improvised explosives- I hear that
artillery shells are popular now. But don't you worry about any of this
stuff, softy. You are a good 10,000 miles from any of that action. Just
snuggle up to a good book by your gas simulated log fire and sip your
latte- the US has plenty of dupes they can exploit to take the brunt of
the damage long before anything comes your way. All you need to do is
see whose explosive detection device is the hottest seller and maybe
invest some dollars for a profit, eh?

Rumor has it that ...

Well- it ain't no rumor that you're a moron.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 26 Oct 2004 18:58:23 -0700, paulk880@yahoo.com (Paul K.) wrote:

Thanks everyone for your help.

JFETs are pretty interesting devices. In some ways the're much easier
to work with than BJTs.

Not for some of us ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Guy Macon]

Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> says...

I went to school at UC Irvine in SoCal. I made the mistake of driving a
non-Mercedes Benz automobile in nearby (big time ritzy) Newport Beach. A
cop appeared on my rear bumper and basically pushed me through a yellow
light and immediately pulled me over. He swaggered up and demanded to know
why I ran a red light. I explained that if I hadn't run the *yellow* light
we would have been having this discussion in my backseat through his
windshield. He said "I'm not going to argue the 'semanics' of it with you
mister Stephens." The sorry idiot not only misused the word but
mispronounced it as well. I damn near bit my tongue off to avoid a retort.

still pisses me off...

Welcome to "The OC."

 

[Terry Given]

Dave wrote:

Whether a "normal" op-amp will drive this load will depend on the interval
between the biphasic pulses as well -- and you haven't told us anything about
that timing (whether these will be pulse trains rather than isolated events).
Is the 500-2000 ohms measured at 1kHz? Is that the resistive component or
total impedance (typically Z(R)~=Z(C) for most metals) ?


Sorry I forgot, I am trying to obtain 2-4ms bi-phasic square pulses from
the current source (isoalted events). The resistance (500ohm to 2kohms)
values are guesstimates based on experiments done in the past (the resident expert
on this topic is
on vacation at the moment). Also, I saw some of the other suggestions with supply
voltages around 40-55V, I dont think that I will be able to obtain sources
above +-15V for the supply.


You should be able to make a Howland with higher output resistances than
that if you use close- tolerance resistors, perhaps 0.1%. These are
comparatively cheap now. If they are for a one-off, you could even
select the parts to reduce size (eliminate the tweaks).


I experimented with low R values on the Howland, then I used LTSPICE
to see what it would do with higher resistance values and saw that it didnt
show any of the linearity that it did at low resistance values.


Are you going to need to record (EMG) from any of these electrodes? If so
you may need to be more careful about electrode polarization. Otherwise
microphonics will probably overwhelm the signal.



The response of the muscle will be imaged using voltage-triggered dyes
some students have already done that part before so its well laid out

pumping +/- 10mA into a 2k load with +/-15V supplies will be a good
trick. The modified howland current source is a great circuit, I have
built a few hundred thousand +/-10V/+/-20mA analogue output circuits
using this approach.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <VBlfd.424606$mD.323494@attbi_s02>,
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <clkb7b$2m45$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:

Please refer to the attacks against GOP headquarters over the last few
weeks.


Yup. Including gun shots. I didn't find anyone charged or any suggestion
that it was organized by the democratic party. Do you know of any?



Dyson says this was probably all arranged by the DNC, with 'the nod'
from Kerry himself. Remember, you heard it here first!

According to the only story I could find (not counting the rw bloggers,
many of whom appear to have the same cognitive deficit as Dyson) there
was a bank robbery across the street when cops were investigating the
incident!

Dyson hasn't responded yet. I think I'll wait to see if he has any site
or suggested google search to find any evidence. I couldn't find any but
as always a lack of evidence is not always evidence of a lack.

Even paranoids have enemies so it is posible that some Democrate or
another did something like that.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:40:03 -0400, techdrive wrote:

... When I was in chemistry in college, about 1982, I asked a prof: "If
water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen, What if you split the
bond and used the hydrogen as the fuel and the oxygen as the oxident or
catalyst and use it as a fuel source?" He told me that it would take more
energy to split the molecule then you would get in energy. Now there are
buses running around that use this very principle, it's called fuel cell
technology.

Yes, and it still takes more energy to split the H2 and O than you can get
back burning it. That's not where they get the hydrogen, and the fuel
cells might be methane-fueled, anyway. In either case, they're still
getting it from dinosaur blood.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Mac]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:06 -0600, uvcceet wrote:

In <pan.2004.10.26.02.41.12.731624@bar.net>, on 10/26/04 at 02:40 AM,
Mac <foo@bar.net> said:

It seems to me that you could just take four of them and set them all up with
a gain of 2, then put a 75-Ohm resistor in series with each output and you
are done. Put a 75-ohm resistor on the common input to ground for input
termination, of course.

I am loathe to admit my ignorance in a public forum, but I do want to learn
something so I have to ask why I want a gain of two? I am not trying to fool
anyone here, its not something I know a lot about and would rather not be
sitting in the back room of this place in a month, trying to figure out why
what I did does not work. I would prefer to look silly up front and get it
right, if you know what I mean

I suspect there is something about this problem that I am not getting,
because it seems too easy to me. ;-)

No, its just that I have never video distribution before, and will listen to
any and all advice before commiting to a design that is flawed from the
begining. Some would probably tell me not to do it at all, but there is enough
help and wisdom in the world that I will give it a try. I need the money, and
I am sure I can figure it out as I go.

Thank you for the artwork. It came across fine once I switched the fonts. I
appreciate you taking the time to draw it up and explain it.

Much obliged to you,

John

Well, I have to repeat, I'm not a video guy. Most of what I know about
video I learned from datasheets. ;-)

Anyway, I guess I'll address this by giving a quick review of transmission
line basics.

Typical transmission lines have a characteristic impedance. For radio and
microwave equipment this is usually 50 Ohms. For video it is usually 75
Ohms. Other values are also possible. Twisted pair might have around 80
or 100 Ohms or 150 Ohms.

But lets stick with video cable which is 75 Ohms.

What does the characteristic impedance mean? It means that if the 75
Ohm cable were infinitely long, it would look exactly like a 75 Ohm
resistor as far as the driving buffer (your buffer) is concerned.

But with finite length cables, the signal eventually reaches the end of
the cable and might reflect back towards the source. This can lead to some
messy interference on the cable, but there is a simple way to avoid it.
You just put a 75 Ohm resistor at the far end of the cable. As far as I
know, all video equipment will be designed this way. That is, it will look
like a 75 Ohm resistor to whatever drives it. Because of the way
transmission lines work, a cable terminated with a resistor of the same
characteristic impedance looks just like the resistor, as far as the
driver is concerned. It doesn't matter if the cable is 1 foot or 1000
feet. It will present a 75 Ohm load to the driver.

So, now you know that your buffer needs to drive a 75 Ohm load. That
still doesn't explain why you need a gain of two instead of one.

Sometimes the resistor (or whatever) at the end of the cable is not
exactly 75 Ohms. When this happens, a little bit of energy will reflect
back towards the source. When it gets to the source, depending on the
impedance presented by the source, some of that energy will reflect back
towards the load again. If you don't have the series 75 Ohm resistor,
virtually all of the energy will be reflected back toward the load, and
this can lead to interference. But WITH the 75 Ohm resistor, almost all of
the energy will be absorbed. This will lead to the cleanest signals,
especially if long cables are involved.

There is another reason to have the 75 Ohm resistor, too. When the buffer
is not attached to a load, the op-amp will still see a small capacitance
as a load. This capacitance can cause the op-amp to oscillate and possibly
overheat. The series resistor will isolate this tiny capacitance and keep
that from happening. The series resistor will also provide pretty
bullet-proof short circuit protection.

So now that we have this series 75 Ohm resistor, we need a gain of two
because the load at the end of the cable and the series resistor will
share the voltage equally. That is why you "need" a gain of 2. If you
could be totally sure that no one would ever short circuit it, leave it
open, or connect it to a load that was way off of 75 Ohms, you could drop
the series resistor, and stick with a gain of 1. But I would strongly
recommend that you include the series 75 Ohm resistor.

As a general rule, whenever you have a long cable, you will have the best
signal integrity if both ends of the cable are terminated in the
characteristic impedance of the cable.

Oh, since the op-amp is a voltage source, we want a series resistor to
terminate it (just like I showed in my ascii art diagram). If we had a
current source (this is rare, AFAIK, in these types of circuits), we would
want a shunt termination, just like we use at the load end.

So there are a couple of main things you should take away from this:

1) You want a series termination for each 75 Ohm load you drive.
2) You want to make sure that whatever drives your board from the outside
world sees your board as a 75 Ohm load.
3) You will need to keep your input and output signal traces as short as
practical, and, if possible, choose a trace width that will give you 75
Ohm impedance for the trace. (There are equations for this.)

If you have some video signals on the board which originate on the board
and do not leave it, you probably don't need to worry about impedance
as much for those signals.

I hope this helps!

--Mac

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:35:09 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: John Larkin jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISno

Rumor has it that 60 Minutes was going to run another smear piece on
the missing explosives, just before election night. Danly Dan hasn't
given up!


Good for him, if the media was not yanked to the right, cowering to their
corporate owners they would have torn Bush into tiny pieces of shit by now.

What should have been the editorials in response to '75% of Al Qaida leaders
have been captured or killed'.

Yeah. 75% of the leaders are gone, and the remaining 25% are leading
thousands of new members clamoring to sign up every day.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Hi Rene, Hi Harry,

... Note that opamps do not like capacitive loads. So when you drive
the input with an opamp, make sure to have a series resistor.

Or better yet, follow it with a sturdy buffer. Most ADCs need a nice low
drive impedance. Else digital noise might make it back into their
inputs. Sometimes that can even happen via paths on the chip that are
beyond a design engineer's control.

Other hint: Try a single solid ground plane. Breaking ground into AGND,
DGND and whatnot rarely works.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message
news:<7c584d27.0410261342.664b415c@posting.google.com>...

soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote in message
news:<6c71b322.0410251944.4d66f058@posting.google.com>...

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<417D10E6.6060503@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote in message
news:<20041024033822.18077.00005777@mb-m03.aol.com>... ...


That sounds worse to me. However, all Bush voters should be
yelled at, though it seems unlikely anything less than use
of hammers would have any effect on their thick skulls!

Rocky


Thanks for proving my case, Rocky.

You haven't stated a case since you started posting here-
you're just a smug little phony wannabe bs artist, and you are
just another alienated freak in your home state.

The case if obvious to anyone with an IQ better than 50 - OH,
guess that leaves you out, fredfraud!

The case stops being obvious to those whose IQ is rather higher
than 50 - not one of my real-world U.S. acquaintances is going to
vote for Bush, and the common factor here is that they have all
earned post-graduate degrees and work as academics, which means
that their IQ's are all going to be higher than 110.

It must be nice to live in your nice simple little world, where you
can choose to be believe that Dubbya is telling the truth, and
everybody else is lying. The real world is a little more
complicated than that, but I'm not volunteering to try to educate
you - I'm really not that good with slow students.

------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


Thanks for your insight. I have conversations with PhD's that are
going to vote for Kerry - and other PhD's that are going to vote for
Bush. Do you REALLY think that EVERYTHING Kerry has told you is the
truth? If so, you are one gullible sonofabitch. Let's be realistic
here, there is spin going on from BOTH SIDES!

Is that what outright fraudulent propaganda and misrepresentation is
called these days- spin? So Bush was only "spinning" when he mislead
Congress and the American people about Iraq, and Bush was only
"spinning" when he sent 150,000 troops into theater without sufficient
armament, logistics support, or post-occupation plans, and Bush is only
"spinning" when he lies about how well "freedom" is doing "on the march"
in Iraq, and Bush is "spinning" those nearly one trillion dollars in
lost revenues in tax cuts to the super rich, and Bush is just "spinning"
when he tells us the air is cleaner than ever and we can trash all of
the EPA inspections, and Bush is just "spinning" when he says those 2.5
million lost permanently to overseas will return someday, and Bush is
just "spinning" and "spinning" and "spinning"...no wonder he always
looks so dumb. Why don't you go tell the tens of thousands of relatives
of the 1100+ KIAs, and the 12,000 horribly maimed for life veterans,
that it's only "spin."

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Clarence wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:417EB367.324A88F7@Hovnanian.com...

Product developer wrote:

From Drudge:

NBCNEWS: CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ BEFORE TROOPS
ARRIVED...

The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday in an apparent October
Surprise: The Iraqi interim government and the U.N. nuclear agency
have warned the United States that nearly 380 tons of powerful
conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most
sensitive former military installations.

If they disappeared long before the coalition troops arrived, That would
have been under Saddam's regime. He'd have moved them someplace, so
where are they?


That IS the question. Maybe in the stocks being destroyed?


If they were pinched as the troops were advancing, how did a bunch of
insurgents manage to haul 380 toms of anything around without our
knowledge? That would be a sizable convoy. One which any military
leaders would need to be aware of, particularly if it was headed their
way.

If they disappeared over time after the occupation, it not only
demonstrates the military's incompetence, but calls 'the search for WMD'
into question. If we had no idea what was in one of Saddam's bunkers or
when it disappeared, how could we be expected to find WMD? Answer: There
was no search conducted, because the administration knew the answer.
Just like OJ, searching for the real killer.



It seems there were none of the super explosives there when the 101st took the
place. So the stuff has been gone a long time.

Well, come the revolution I'll be the first to start looting my local military
labs and bases for goodies.
Rather than 40 large trucks worth of RDX and HMX I suspect it was more like
hundreds of cars and a few handcarts over a longish period.

And what about that entire nuclear research base (different one) that was
totally dismantled?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org