Driver to drive?

[whit3rd]

On Oct 21, 11:59 pm, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:21:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com
wrote:

The trick is, your current-transformer will saturate (like, at 50 mA)
so the series resistance on its secondary is no longer in-circuit
when the power is high.  

You do not seem know or understand squat about current transformers.
They are normally linear over 3 to 4 orders of magnitude, and can be
really fast

Note, however, that the simple copper sense resistor also
is linear over 4 orders of magnitude, and is much less expensive.
My intent was to put a low-current sensor (the current transformer,
of an inexpensive size and no great capacity) in series with a
high current sensor so as to make a low-Z current sense
array with two gain ranges.

Two resistors won't do it. A high-current transformer (my 800A
example here weighs about 2 kg) is expensive. A low-current
transformer, which drops out of the circuit when it saturates,
seemed suitable.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:47:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."

There is no heaven. What evidence do you have that there is more to
the universe than mass-energy physics? Hint James Randi...

---
The accelerating red shift with distance and the inverse square law
hints at something unbelievably massive toward which the distant
red-shifted galaxies are hurtling.

Oh dear...


A wall of some sort perhaps? But in every direction? A bubble of
some sort?

Why not?

Unfortunately, non specialist star gazers have this idea that any old
possibility *they* dream up, is a real possibility.

Tell me John, do you really believe that professional phd astronomers and
professional astrophysicists are so completely clueless as to not have
thought of such a trivial obvious potential explanation?

---
Well, so far they seem to be in the dark about what's causing the red
shift acceleration, and about 96% of the other shit that's going on in
the universe, and my hypothesis at least hints at an explanation.

Beside, I talked it over with Hal Puthoff a year or so ago, and he liked
it.
---

This is the issue
on the physics NGs, the "Einstein was wrong" brigade give no credit to
experts that have studied this stuff for 20+ years. Like, as if they
wouldn't also have similar ideas. Its not credible or reasonable.

---
Because one disagrees with a hypothesis doesn't mean it's unreasonable,
it just means that one thinks it's implausible.

I don't care much for the theatricals of the "Einstein was wrong
brigade",

but wasn't Eistein part of the "Newton was wrong" brigade in his own
way?

And, he was right for.

Unfortunately, he (Eistein) couldn't make the transition from jello to
grits
---

I can state without hesitation, that the idea of a mass shell enclosing this
universe, does not fit the observations.

---
You can state it without hesitation, but unless you can explain how the
_observation_ that the red shift accelerates with distance doesn't agree
with the hypothesis that a huge gravitational attraction from an
external source is the cause of the acceleration, the statement is
baseless.
---

Its the actual technical details
that matttter, not some ad-hoc well maybe...

---
In the end, yes, but it all starts with an ad-hoc well maybe.

Don't you think that some time elapsed between Einstein's first inkling
that matter and energy were two sides of the same coin and his formal
E = MC˛?
---

Like, do you really believe that the idea of exotic (negative) matter would
be considered if such a simple explanation as a mass shell were valid?

---
Like, since on this side of the wall, the rules we have allow exotic
matter to exist, why not?

More to the point, why does the mass of exotic matter in the universe
not equal the mass of ordinary matter?

BYW, it's not merely a mass "shell", it's more like a block of Swiss
cheese that goes on forever with lots and lots of bubble universes in
it.
---

Imagine an infinitely or nearly infinitely dense

No point. Already in contradiction to the known facts.

---
Hmmm...
Sounds like something Galileo was forced to listen to.

Or "Planet of the Apes".

JF

 

[Eeyore]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day it happened Eeyore wrote
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Eeyore wrote

Care to tell me why graphic equalisers are crap?
I wrote one that seems to work just fine (actually copied some of that code
from xine).

Do you want me to write a lecture ?

No, just simply answer the question,
maybe I can use your input to improve the code.
Maybe not....

You're a twat.

So you have no clue!
I am beginning to think John Lurkin's remarks about you are correct.
You do not deliver when it gets real.

It has NOTHING to do with code.

The simple truth of the matter is most users either don't know how to use a graphic
equaliser and / or abuse them.

I have in the real world seen an example where almost all the frequencies had been
'pulled' completely in order to get over a feedback problem (which it didn't). And
then I had to fix it because I was taking over the mix and it wasn't going to sound
that bad 'on my watch'.

It's the audio equivalent of painting yourself into a corner. The unpainting in this
case was time-consuming and frustrating.

It's about how they're (ab)used, not the technology.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You're a twat.

Pot-Kettle-Black?

Who's the Pot ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Eeyore wrote.

And 3dB is easily corrected with a graphic equaliser no?

Graphics are crap. It's like trying a crappy way to fix something
that's fundamentally broken.

Care to tell me why graphic equalisers are crap? I wrote one that seems
to work just fine (actually copied some of that code from xine).

Do you want me to write a lecture ?

Oh, please. Is there any way to stop you? ;-)

It's a horrible subject. Graphic equalisers can make me shudder.

They're commonly used to do the equivalent of pouring Daddies Sauce on haute
cuisine.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Well, I'm in high demand in the audio sector (amongst others).

There must be SOME reaon for that whether it it be my intellect, hearing
or both.

Audiophoolery?

Tempting financially as it may be (and I have been 'sort of' tempted) I have
more self-respect and integrity than that.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Fields wrote:
with maybe something interesting happening every six months or so.

Variety and new challenges are what keep me going, but if being tied
to a single "discipline" is what floats your boat,

Yep... tied up and disciplined, that's just the ticket for me. Leather whips
as well if you please.

St Andrew's Cross ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-frame

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Those little piezo tweeters will go that high, I have tried.
I killed 4 of those.

Piezos are shit. Check their voltage input.

They are very cheap though, at Ł5 from Maplin. I bought 8 for my twin
brother, but then he's clueless...

Oh, if only I still had that link to a DJ shop that had a 15" driver with
no less than SEVEN piezos above it (one on a flare of sorts).

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

with maybe something interesting happening every six months or so.

Variety and new challenges are what keep me going, but if being tied
to a single "discipline" is what floats your boat,

Yep... tied up and disciplined, that's just the ticket for me. Leather whips
as well if you please.

---
Thought so from the look of your kennel.

But he wasn't wearing a bondage collar when he visited The Horn.
http://thehorn.co.uk/
There was a very pretty girl who went there who used to. I couldn't resist
sometimes playing with the D ring at the front.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Robert Latest wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
"Pro" audio design seems like an infinite chain of stolen circuits.

Most important bit in "pro" audio is that it won't break under almost
any circumstances, especially on-stage in live situations.

The basic circuit topography is not so important - the older the
better.

Well there are some well proven designs for sure but as well as rugged,
it has to sound good too. There's been plenty of quite clever innovations
over the years. We hardly ever use signal transformers now for example
and more and more circuitry is becoming differential / balanced and ever
lower impedance for low noise. Most hi-fi is a joke in comparison, aside
from loudspeakers. And that's a story in itself.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

There is clearly massive parallel testing and selection going on. I
even design circuits in my sleep, sometimes weeks after I'd
consciously forgotten the situation. "Intellectualizing" the design
process leads one to treat it as an incremental tweak of prior art,
but brains are way past that.

Yes, I've often found the best way to deal with a tricky problem is simply to
forget about it. Randomly, some time later, the answer pops out.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JosephKK wrote:

When you do something new and original it gets named after you. Wilson
current mirror, Gilbert cell multiplier, etc., They are getting rarer
now.

The Sziklai pair is one of my faves. I only just discovered it had a name to
it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sziklai_pair

I've often wondered what a triple of that configuration might perform like.
Speed problems possibly ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

miso@sushi.com wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Eeyore wrote

Care to tell me why graphic equalisers are crap?
I wrote one that seems to work just fine (actually copied some of that code
from xine).

Do you want me to write a lecture ?

No, just simply answer the question,
maybe I can use your input to improve the code.
Maybe not....

If you need to boost a frequency band, this eats into dynamic range.
Most people rather live with the "suck out". While most audiophiles
don't even like tone controls, it is somewhat accepted that you can
filter out a peak in a room and it is not the end of the world.
Unless you use remez to generate a linear phase filter, any attempt to
equalize will alter group delay.

It's actually more complicated than this if the room isn't designed to
be well diffused. This is because music is not a sine wave. Given how
the sound bounces off the surfaces, it is possible that a short burst
would need different equalization than a sine wave. In fact, that is
how pseudo anechoic testing is done.

It's really harder to design a good room than a good amplifier. There
are room simulators. Not exactly what the pros use, but you can buy
CARA and simulate room acoustics.
http://www.rhintek.com

Not to mention that a graphic only gives a fixed set of and often inadequate set of
fixed frequencies and the Q of the filters is not adjustable. Plus there is
inter-band 'ripple' in the response.

A parametric equaliser is vastly more powerful in the right hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_equalization

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Maybe a few more years and direct brain implants will eliminate the room acoustics factor

Many decades ago I imagined humans with DB9 connectors on the back of their necks for this and
other purposes.

Sorry about the insult a while back btw. I HATE graphics.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Maybe the audiophools just make their own problems.

The average audiophool wouldn't know what IMD was. They'd probably think it was a new way of
treating their cables with LN2.

IMD is a genuine thing. High IMD sounds shit.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.

You mean like 'Global Warming'.

Shame it's actually getting cooler now. I wonder how long before the general
public notice ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Then you agree that my earlier statement:

"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."

Is correct?

Please don't bring religion into this !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rich the Philosophizer wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Sjouke Burry wrote:

Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Any name,god,fairy,gnome can be used to prove nothing.

This is how the audiophools operate.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

I can state without hesitation, that the idea of a mass shell enclosing this
universe, does not fit the observations. Its the actual technical details
that matttter, not some ad-hoc well maybe...

That's a shame.

I always though of the Universe as being a bit like some kind of an experiment
in a 'goldfish bowl' sitting on God's ? coffee table.

Graham