Driver to drive?

[Kevin Aylward]

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Ohhh.. its a lot worse than that. I visited my twin brother today over in
Lowestoft. He noted to me how he had connected up his two mixers, in || at
their direct outputs, and other than noting that it reduced the signal a
tad, thought that was just fine.....but as I said in the other post the
other day..."but then, he's clueless"...seems to be amply confirmed on
further experimental examination.


Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:58:53 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk


What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.


Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

---
You're ever so right Kevin.

I think you've proven that job is well handled by those with vehemently
anti-religious views such as yours.

JF

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.


I'll go further than that.

Any religious fundamentalist should be banned from holding public office along
with anyone with an IQ < 140. To hold public office all candidates must show
they have *contributed* to society in a postive way that required the unpaid
use of their time.

Also political parties should be banned. All they do is attract similar types
of scum.

Ideally, govt should be run by proven engineers. We HAVE to make things work.

Graham

You say we? Does that also include your self? God have mercy on us all.


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[TWayne]

I am in the UK (230V) and have a 100W standing lamp with a dimmer
wired in line with it's mains lead.

I have recently got a remote controlled dimmer which plugs into the
wall mains socket and then I plug the device into the dimmer.

This means I would have two dimmers in series. Could this cause a
problem?

If it might be troublesome then could I leave the inline one on its
maximum setting (it does not "click" at max so I guess it does not
truly bypass the dimming circuit). Then I would use only the remote
dimmer.

Thanks for any info.

The only real answer there is to test it and see if anything gets hot.
Setting hte one full on and using the other is a possibility, but not
being able to see them from here ...

 

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:22:52 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



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.


---
A shower works for me.

JF
Are you implying that you don't function well, while emitting

undesirable fragrances ?


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:58:53 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk


What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.


Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views. I suppose you think it's better to believe in nothing
than to believe in something.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:17:18 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

I'll go further than that.

Any religious fundamentalist should be banned from holding public office along
with anyone with an IQ < 140. To hold public office all candidates must show
they have *contributed* to society in a postive way that required the unpaid
use of their time.

Also political parties should be banned. All they do is attract similar types
of scum.

Ideally, govt should be run by proven engineers. We HAVE to make things work.

Graham

The US has had several engineer presidents. They weren't especially
good.

John

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:58:53 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:


Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty.

[...]

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

www.kevinaylward.co.uk



Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views. I suppose you think it's better to believe in nothing
than to believe in something.

There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.

VLV

 

[John Popelish]

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.

Yep. The religions not based on blind faith in imaginary
places, forces and beings (and their imagined intentions)
are quite different than the ones that are.

--
Regards,

John Popelish

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Ohhh.. its a lot worse than that. I visited my twin brother today over in
Lowestoft. He noted to me how he had connected up his two mixers, in || at
their direct outputs, and other than noting that it reduced the signal a
tad, thought that was just fine.....but as I said in the other post the
other day..."but then, he's clueless"...seems to be amply confirmed on
further experimental examination.

Does that count as assertion confirmed ?

I can tell you from personal expereince that many bands have LOVED the sound I
gave them because I used 'clean' mics and minimal EQ. Even to the extent that
I did 'briefcase' gigs.

It really is as simple as that. Amplify the original signal clearly and it
sounds great. Damn it's simple and sounds good (except for people who can't
sing of course).


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.


Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

---
You're ever so right Kevin.

I think you've proven that job is well handled by those with vehemently
anti-religious views such as yours.

And what's wrong with being anti-religious such as anti-fundamentalist-Muslim
for example ?

Religion is merely belief in ignorance and magick. I sussed it at age 8.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

I'll go further than that.

Any religious fundamentalist should be banned from holding public office along
with anyone with an IQ < 140. To hold public office all candidates must show
they have *contributed* to society in a postive way that required the unpaid
use of their time.

Also political parties should be banned. All they do is attract similar types
of scum.

Ideally, govt should be run by proven engineers. We HAVE to make things work.

You say we? Does that also include your self? God have mercy on us all.

When he gets back from Asia you might care to have a chat with the following fellow
(fellow being an appropriate description).

He'll put you right on a few points.

http://www.ibd-uk.com/members/jones-martin.htm

He used to be a Concorde regular btw.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

I'll go further than that.

Any religious fundamentalist should be banned from holding public office along
with anyone with an IQ < 140. To hold public office all candidates must show
they have *contributed* to society in a postive way that required the unpaid
use of their time.

Also political parties should be banned. All they do is attract similar types
of scum.

Ideally, govt should be run by proven engineers. We HAVE to make things work.

The US has had several engineer presidents. They weren't especially
good.

They could hardly be worse than the incumbent ot what's on offer. Besides, check
the IQ bar.

When engineers talk about Monte Carlo analysis they don't actually mean turning the
wheel and grabbing the profit.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty.

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views. I suppose you think it's better to believe in nothing
than to believe in something.

There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.

Would you care to elaborate ? Just in case I misunderstood you. ;~)

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Popelish wrote:

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.

Yep. The religions not based on blind faith in imaginary
places, forces and beings (and their imagined intentions)
are quite different than the ones that are.

Does that mean that one is better than another ?

Grahama

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

John Popelish wrote:

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.


Yep. The religions not based on blind faith in imaginary places, forces
and beings (and their imagined intentions) are quite different than the
ones that are.

To me, the main distinction is that the religion is aimed at oneself
whereas the faith is aimed at the others.

But, this all is stuff and nonsense. The main thing I have just launched
the 1.5kW DC-DC with the synchronous rectifier! It's 21:00 and I can go
home now.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:58:26 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:17:27 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:47:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"


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?


Why did you not answer the above?

---
Since I have free will, I can pick and choose what I want to reply to
and what I don't, so the answer to your question is, obviously, "It
wasn't in the cards."
---

What makes *you* *more* quailified to
dream up some comic book explanation that is more valid?

---
Remember Chester Gould?
---

---
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,

Yes. It is an unknown.

and my hypothesis at least hints at an explanation.

It doest, as it does not agree with the actual details of
observations.

---
It most certainly does,

It most certainly does not.

since there is no other rational explanation
for the acceleration of the red shift with distance other than an
external gravitational source.

No. Other masses cannot explain the acceleration.

---
OK, then, what are the other _rational_ explanations?
---

You need to give credit where credit is due, like,
what university did you get you phd in astrophysics at?

---
"You" phd?

I see.

In your view, one is not allowed an opinion without having attended a
university which is included in your "approved" list and having followed
a curriculum of which you approve.

Fortunately, you're not the censor/moderator here and we're all free to
post just exactly what we please no matter how much it rankles you.

I'm amazed that my simple proposition seems to gall you to the point of
apoplexy when it would be so simple for someone with your "obviously
superior intellect" to silence me logically.
---

All you have here is a vague idea, of well, err..mass attracts things, so
there must be mass attracting our universe to make the universe mass move
faster.

---
You still don't get it.

It's not "mass attracting our universe", it's "mass external to our
universe attracting mass in our universe."
---

It don't work like this.

---
Sure it do.
---

You need to show that this idea actual accounts for the facts in detail.

---
"Actually accounts"?

All in good time...
---

If there is a distribution of mass outside, pulling the mass of our
universe, it will have (approximately) say, 1/R gravitational potential
acting on our universe (or someother depening on the distribution). Our
galaxies are all at different distances from this net external potential,
hence the relative effect that this external potential should on each galaxy
can be quantified. The specific, different, accelerations experienced by,
and measured for, our galaxies can not be accounted for by any assumption
that there is any distribution of mass outside our universe. Its that
simple.

---
No, it's not.

In the first place, you seem to be assuming that my hypothesis claims
that the external mass is a point source attracting our entire universe
toward it.

It does not.

My hypothesis states that a mass surrounds our universe which attracts
objects in our universe toward whichever part of the mass exerts the
greatest influence upon them.
---

Now, what you are doing here is stepping out of your area of any expertise
that you may have, i.e. electronics. If you can convince me that you
understand the math and theory I have here,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, then it may be possible to
explain to you the calculations.

---
Convince you?

I have no need for your imprimatur, you condescending, arrogant boor,
and when I'm ready to publish my findings (if, indeed, there ever are
any) I'll do it with no help from you.

Actually, it seems, with a great deal of resistance from you.
---

However, I know as fact that you don't. If
you did, you would already know the correct answer to this issue, that is,
external mass cannot be the source of the acceleration, when you plug in the
*actual numbers*.

---
What *actual numbers*?

You've already determined what the distribution of the attraction
gradients in the the proposed external gravitational source should be,
with respect to the red shifts of the attracted galaxies, as well as its
distance, shape, and internal machinations and have come to the
conclusion that it can't exist?

Let's see the numbers.
---

Look, physicists use general purposes simulation programs. It is simple for
them to plug in mass distributions, and compare with observations. Trust me
dude, its already been done.

---
"Trust me"???

Shirley, you must be joking.

You're no physicist, Kevin, you're just a garden variety IC designer
with delusions of grandeur who wants to believe that anyone who you
consider to be your inferior couldn't possibly come up with a concept
which might be right if you disagree with it.
---

Exotic matter is the thing invented when all
the other alternative explanations failed.

---
I don't think _all_ of the other alternative explanations were
considered.

In particular, not as bizarre a concept as external mass.
---

The idea that a non specialist
like you, with all due respect, can have an idea in physics that contradicts
the experts, and has value, is essentially, zero. Maybe 200 years ago, but
today, the subject is way to sophisticated now for any non specialist to
have any relevance.

---
As in the past, I'm sure that nowadays that's pretty much what everyone
who has ideas which run counter to the conventional wisdom hears.

I was once told, by an expert, that building a frequency doubler which
reproduced the duty cycle of an input signal was impossible.

Guess what?

It's not, and I proved it by not trusting him and actually building one,
in the real world, that worked.
---

If you know about anything that could be causing it, how about letting
us know about it?
---

I don't know what is causing it, other than it aint external matter, because
that is ruled out by observations, as noted above.

---
You mean observing the outputs of simulations which don't consider the
possibilty of external mass being responsible for the acceleration?

Good one, Kevin...
---

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


Yeah...right....

---
That's very rude.

Why would you say that? Do you think I'm lying?

You missed my point. I now see that you think I was dubting that you talked
with Hal Puthoff. My comment was that I care a %^&* about Hal Puthoff crank
brained err. so called theories. That is, "yeah... right,... Hal is a person
that is like.. credible in physics?".

---
Yes, eminently.

1.You damn Puthoff for his courageous investigations into fields which
aren't considered mainstream science, yet you don't give him credit
for work of a more conventional nature which has been published in
peer reviewed journals, notably the American Physical Society's
"Physical Review A", Volume 40, Number 9 and Volume 49, Number 2.

And your rebuttal of his work has been published where?


2. "dubting"?

Kevin, you've got to, at least, get your grammar and your spelling under
control if what you want is to be considered seriously.

It's not like you're a savant who can be excused for his egregious
errors because of his stellar contributions.

Typos are one thing, but the way you write is so ambiguous that it
leaves a lot the imagination.

That might be fine for your Blondie covers, but if you're interested in
serious scientific discourse you might, at least, run your posts through
a spelling checker.

BTW, what is "%^&*" ?

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Eeyore wrote:

I'll go further than that.

Any religious fundamentalist should be banned from holding public office along
with anyone with an IQ < 140. To hold public office all candidates must show
they have *contributed* to society in a postive way that required the unpaid
use of their time.

Once again you have gone beyond ignorant, right to stupid. You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves. It was
one of the worthless British royals who did it to you, because your form
of government is so weak.

Also political parties should be banned. All they do is attract similar types
of scum.

No wonder the you keep striking out with women, constantly harping
about things that don't concern you.

Ideally, govt should be run by proven engineers. We HAVE to make things work.

Ideally you would mind your own damn business.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Eeyore wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.

Only to small minds like yours. People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.