Driver to drive?

On 14 jan, 11:19, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:06:24 -0500, "Charles"

charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:ac6a28fd-ec05-4b75-a019-8e41f90f5aea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com....

I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt.  This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse
agent.

Guess what?  You are grasping at wisps of vapor, it is obvious to
skeptics.  AGW always was a political scam, from long before Michael
Mann's fraud.  The Kyoto accords are simply an earlier version of it.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

Other sources predict a more rapid release of methane which could be a
future nexus in global warming, from which it could become a runaway system
with no hope of anthropogenic intervention.  Positive feedback should be
well understood in this forum, but is entirely ignored in discussions of GW.

Most of the geniuses here just don't care.

I actually do care; that my children's and grandchildren's futures
aren't foreclosed by foolish adherence to some political agenda
masquerading as science.  

Then stop believing the psuedo-science posted on denialist websites.

Other than that, we really do need to kick the fossil fuel habit to
the curb.

As Thomas L. Friedman points out in "Hot, Flat and Crowded" (ISBN
978-1-846-14129-4) there are lots of good geopolitical reasons for
kicking the fossil fuel habit, even if you don't want to believe in
anthropogenic global warming (but he does believe in anthropogenic
global warming).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:16:55 +0100, "Skybuck Flying"
<BloodyShame@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

When energy is sent towards money the money starts tranmitting a
signal/information.

For example, put money in microwave for 3 seconds and the chip will catch
fire.

Seen this myself

My question about this is:

What is the range of the signal ?

Should "we" be worried that criminals start scanning our houses in search of
money ?

The 20 euro bill I put in microwave was from 2001 and seemed to contain a
rf-chip, I am not sure though but I am bit worried about that !

Could have other privacy implications as well

Bye,
Skybuck.

Face it: soon Europeans will be tracked in everywhere they walk,
drive, park, use a phone or a computer, and spend or even carry money.
Not only will computers read and log RFIDs and national ID cards and
auto GPS locations, video cameras will be constantly recording stores,
streets, and highways. Since everyone else is tracked, too, they'll
know who you have been with. You will get a monthly report of every
transaction, every place you car has driven or parked, every
train/bus/airline you have traveled on, every meal you have ordered
and its health and environmental impact. A bill will list the
appropriate carbon taxes, sales taxes, VAT add-ons, and fines/fees for
speeding/parking/gardening without a permit/missing class/working too
little or too much.

Your paranoia is finally justified.

John

 

[Phil Allison]

"Moronic Cunt FET"

The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends
on the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast introduces a
lagging power factor, which is a problem, but an electronic ballast
usually has a leading power factor.

That depends a lot on the sort of ballast. The two tube ones often
are near unity power factor.

** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??




You can still find some fixtures that
use them. Almost all now use electronic ballasts. Next time you go
into the local Ace hardware store, take a look at the name plates on
the replacement ballasts.

** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??

YOU FUCKING QUADRUPED MORON

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo




....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Moose FUCKWIT FET CUNT "

The power fact certainly varies, with some claiming 0.9. But that's not
unity.

** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??

NOTHING !!


In some of the two tube ballasts, there is a capacitor in the design.


** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??

NOTHING !!


One tubes current is limited by the inductor as is done in a single
tube ballast.

** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??

NOTHING !!


The other tube is effectively current limited by the
capacitor's impedance.

** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??

NOTHING !!


This causes them to flicker out of phase with
each other and also makes the phase of the current near zero.

** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??

NOTHING !!


From
unit to unit it could vary a fair amount either side of zero so the
power factor number for just one won't be as good as the average for a
whole building full.

** HUH ?????????

What the FUCK has that got to do with CFLs ??

NOTHING !!


In electronic ballasts, there is a rectifier but this is generally not
followed by a large filter capacitor. Just enough capacitance is used
to filter out the pulses of the internal workings. This tends to make
the current run in phase with the mains voltage but it isn't perfect.


** Perfect ?????????????????????????????

So what does that matter in actual practice - eh ?


You ASININE MOOSE FUCKING

DUMB as DOG SHIT CUNT !!

Go drop dead you criminal asshole.






....... Phil

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

Today I bought American Dollar Bills to find out for myself.

Here is my website:

http://members.home.nl/hbthouppermans/WorldTradeCenterConspiracy/

I am convinced.

Then you're an idiot. The $5 and $10 bills you have were designed in
1999, the $20 and $50 bills in 1996, and the $100 bill way back in 1928.
(The bills were colorized slightly in 2004-2006, but the design was
otherwise unchanged.)

This is a coincidence; conspiracy nuts always find what they're looking
for, whether it's there or not. Even if there _were_ a conspiracy,
there is absolutely no logical reason that anyone in the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing would have known about it, much less secretly
inserted it into the design of bills, up to 73 years before the 9/11
attacks.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe

 

[Martin Brown]

On Jan 14, 10:04 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0100, "Bill Sloman"

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:418qm4pve7mb9563a3vdtkdr1j1mrf2uqk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 10:08, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
You've no idea how dodgy the 19th century CO2 measurments were

The articles I've read say the exact opposite. It's not a difficult
measurement. Now
didn't the 19th century produce most Physics and Chemistry too ? How on
earth could
they have done that if they could even measure CO2 ?

They could measure it, but there are practical limits to the size of
the sealed container you can use to isolate your sample of air and
slosh it around with lime water.

And pray that there wasn't too much CO2 dissolved in the water used to
make up your solution. It was a difficult wet chemistry measurement in
the 19th century. Also the method used tended to pick up some SO2/SO3
as well. Only with the advent of modern instruments did it become easy
to measure gaseous CO2 concentrations reliably.

Since the crucial evidence that the rise in CO2 in air comes
burning fossil carbon is the changing carbon isotope ratio -
the Suess Effect - and is conclusive, this single sentence is
enough to reveal Ernst-Georg Beck to be an ignorant
amateur with an axe to grind.

The carbon isotope ratio in CO2 probably is changing.  That doesn't
say anything about the total quantity of CO2.

But it does say a lot about where the CO2 building up in the
atmosphere is coming from. The stable isotope ratio of carbon
effectively tells you whether it is inorganic (volcanoes etc), or from
C3 or C4 photosynthesis (and if you can get hold of a sample of oil to
some extent where in the world it came from). The SIRA methods are
often used to check for food adulteration - notably cheap cane sugar
being added to "grape" juice. Perpetrators of this deception are very
surprised to be faced with hard evidence of what they did and how much
was added.

The isotope ratio in the atmosphere is moving inexorably towards the
ratio found in the mix of carbon based fossil fuels that we are
burning. Make no mistake the likes of Exxon know this perfectly well.
They chose to lie to the public about AGW right up until their recent
volte face last week instigated by the Rockerfeller family led
rebellion last year. It seems that some oilmen like the idea of not
wrecking the planet for short term gain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/09/exxon-wants-carbon-tax

Exxon will go down in history as the biggest pathological liar and
sponsor of antiscience about climate change.

The final arbiter in this story is nature. AGW is happening. What we
do about it is another matter.

My own opinion is that the measurements he's fussing about were
taken in places where people were already burning a lot of fossil
carbon, and are a great deal less reliable than he claims.

 I thought your argument was people buring fossil carbon was the
problem. But you want to ignore data that may be contaminated by
people buring fossil carbon?

In the nineteenth century there was a lot of local pollution in the
industrial heartlands the air was barely fit to breathe (and in some
places like iron bridge or around ore smelting plants it was most
hazardous). Labs would have coal fires, gas lamps and in cold weather
the odd Bunsen burner on as additional heating.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:53:38 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:07 -0500, "Charles"
charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:f51fm4tfbrctel0bql8bv8ciirqm5rlln2@4ax.com...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10138054-52.html

So here we have a struggling U.S. company trying to be innovative and their
effort is bashed.

My family has been driving Lincoln Town Cars or Grand Marquis for over 20
years, and we like them ... yes, of course, there have been problems. We
personally know a family who's brand new Lexus had a total engine failure
after only 3,000 miles. So what? Anecdotes are fun but useless without a
statistical reference frame.

Buick is consistently rated high in customer satisfaction. And on and on.

Someone who hates U.S. industry so much that they would never buy a Ford or
a Windows based instrument must live somewhere else, or plans to soon
emigrate. Please do emigrate.


Nissan, Toyota, et al, are also U.S. industries.

...Jim Thompson

Well yes, they are each one part owned and partnered with the us big 3
automakers. But only partly.

 

[MooseFET]

On Jan 13, 7:48 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
On Jan 13, 4:51 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Raveninghorde wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:39:25 -0800 (PST), MooseFET
kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 5:14 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:47:22 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:18:56 -0800 (PST), Arumugham
easyshoppingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Use dimmer control or rheostat / variable resistance to control
brightness of table lamps.
How much does that save? If we all set our lamps to 50% what would the
power factor be?  Would we be able to shut down a power station every
1/4 of a cycle?
Use energy saving lamps like CFL (compact fluorescent lamp).
When using computers, make use of power saving modes, turn off
peripherals when they are not in use.
Power saved is power produced.
Visit
http://severaltips.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-electricity-save-energy-...
CFL is crap.  The use hazardous chemicals and we are told in the UK to
treat them as hazardous waste and to call the council if we break one.
A lot of them are so dim at power up that you have to leave them on
the whole time.  I bought some that take over 5 minutes to get up to
half brightness.
I'm waiting for decent led lamps.
And CFL lamps have typical power factor of 0.5. That is twice as much
power has to be generated as you would expect from the lamps power
rating.
The power factor does not mean that extra power must be created.  They
draw lagging current so the power company needs to connect more power
factor correction capacitors.
That doesn't sound like a cheap option.
http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=9310
/quote
Wasserman, a consultant and program manager for a Minnesota utility
company, expects that a power factor correction penalty could be added
to residential energy bills in the future to offset the unproductive
power created by the influx of millions of low power factor CFL bulbs
The situation isn't so simple. The power factor sense of a CFL depends
on the type of ballast it has. An electromagnetic ballast introduces a
lagging power factor, which is a problem, but an electronic ballast
usually has a leading power factor.

That depends a lot on the sort of ballast.  The two tube ones often
are near unity power factor.  You can still find some fixtures that
use them. Almost all now use electronic ballasts.  Next time you go
into the local Ace hardware store, take a look at the name plates on
the replacement ballasts.

The power fact certainly varies, with some claiming 0.9. But that's not
unity.

In some of the two tube ballasts, there is a capacitor in the design.
One tubes current is limited by the inductor as is done in a single
tube ballast. The other tube is effectively current limited by the
capacitor's impedance. This causes them to flicker out of phase with
each other and also makes the phase of the current near zero. From
unit to unit it could vary a fair amount either side of zero so the
power factor number for just one won't be as good as the average for a
whole building full.

In electronic ballasts, there is a rectifier but this is generally not
followed by a large filter capacitor. Just enough capacitance is used
to filter out the pulses of the internal workings. This tends to make
the current run in phase with the mains voltage but it isn't perfect.
On the one that I looked at the workings of, the internals ran at
about 30KHz. This 30KHz decreased in both frequency and amplitude 120
times per second. This was just about at the zero crossing of the
mains. The upswing from the zero crossing was delayed from the actual
zero crossing.

No doubt these are more expensive as well. Even informed
consumers will go for the cheaper ones, on the rational ground that
increasing the power factor does not reduce their electricity bill.

Some high power factor models may be sold by misleading the buyers as to
the significance of the power factor.

Sylvia.

 

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <5450cffe-99db-4e06-bc46-afadc75ac4d7@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

Home prices is the broken leg. It will most likely be the first
problem fixed. We will still have an increasing split between the
very rich and the bottom 50%

Actually, Mr. Bernhard Madoff has pretty much taken care of that
"problem".
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:42:24 -0800 (PST)) it happened
"miso@sushi.com" <miso@sushi.com> wrote in
<04e34b99-fd66-44c4-8bd6-c17bb8773598@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

In a discrete design, in theory you could use depletion mosfets.
http://www.aldinc.com/pdf/ALD114804.pdf

mm
Here is a simple example for a MOSFET low dropout regulation I just composed:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/MOSFET_low_dropout_regulator_with_short_circuit_protection.gif

Output is over R7, so the regulator is in the *minus* lead.
Q1 is for start up, to hold current limit inactive for about 1.5 ms (C1 + R8).
The current is then measured by using the voltage drop over the MOSFET.
If it exceeds .75 V then Q1 starts conducting, and the MOSFET is switched off,
resulting in the voltage over it to become much higher, and Q2 conducting more,
output goes then to zero permanently.
It will, depending on the type of MOSFET, easily do 45A..... before it either evaporates
(too big a value for C1, too long current sense inhibit), or melts (huge heatsink needed).
You can limit much lower, I use a LM324 in my other project to sense the voltage over the MOSFET,
but did not find a spice model for the LM324 for LTspice, so maybe later.
C2 is needed to keep if from going bad if entering current limit.

You can leave Q1, Q2, and associated components out, and use a fast fuse I guess....
Good thing is that it seems stable with about any MOSFET I select.
Ripple rejection is about 10x for small signals..

 

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <ad2ba6d0-81ce-43b1-88c4-27540304f22d@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
<bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

Not spending the 4T might be a replay of the great depression.
Spending the 4T might result in something worse, it might result in
something better. Nobody really knows how this ends.

Well, there's the heat-death of the universe, but increasingly
hacked-up cosmological theories (dark energy indeed) have put even
that in doubt.

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

 

[RB]

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:37:07 -0600, RB wrote:

How would you like if one could buy a handgun by answering a couple
questions?

As a patriot and lover of Freedom, I'd like that a lot.

"Is john Smith your real name?"
"Have you ever been convicted of a felony? "Are you crazy? On drugs?"
"Here's your gun"

Here's my gun license:

Amendment II, Constitution of the United States:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

That works for me.

 

On Jan 14, 8:47 am, PinkFloyd43 <pinkFloy...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Someone that will come in early, stay late, don't bitch when you
don't get a raise in (5) years, answers yes to everything, "Heh
Bill want to s$ck my d*ck", and finally an individual that will not
get a lawyer after 20+ years of service and you get the shaft for
no being late multiple time cause you were taking your wife for
chemo treatment. BTW, we throw away application that have the
words DeVry on them!

Even if it's "didn't go to DeVry"?

 

[RST Engineering (jw)]

chemo treatment. BTW, we throw away application that have the
words DeVry on them!

That's OK, we throw away applications that don't know the difference between
the singular and plural forms of a noun.

Jim

 

[Joerg]

qrk wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:56:09 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

qrk wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:30:30 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Hal Murray wrote:
gEDA is rather strange with the power pins in multi-part packages. Kicad
does that nicely but has a raggedy looking title block and coordinate
frame, both of which cannot be customized well and cannot be removed at
all by the user.
Can you dance around their klutzy frame and title block by ignoring
them and putting your own smaller frame inside their frame, and then
running some postscript postprocessing to crop down to what you want?

That's what I want to try next because it seems there is no interest in
the gEDA community to look at the power pin issue and none in the Kicad
community to look at the frame thing. I'd love to write corrected code
myself by I am not a programmer. Being a hardware guy it's tough to
figure out PS postprocessing, could use some more mainstream file format
and do a crop by hand. Won't be very precise though.

If I have my druthers I'll fire up the old OrCad SDT. It was perfect but
didn't do zoom, print and stuff too well in a DOS window. I'll have to
see if it's better in a virtual machine with a clean native DOS on
there. Printing will probably remain an issue.
I still use SDT386+ as my primary schematic tool. With macros and a
keyboard with the function keys on the left side of the keyboard, this
is a very efficient way of designing. SDT386+ and PCB386+ drivers have
been constantly upgraded over the past 12 years outside of Orcad.

The biggest improvement: you don't need a real DOS environment
anymore. SDT & PCB now run in a real window in W2k, XP, and supposedly
Vista. A team effort by two people created video drivers so SDT and
PCB make real Windows graphics calls. One guy wrote VESA drivers in
assembly and another guy recoded in C, then created the GDI drivers.

Wow, thanks, Mark. I did not know that new drivers had been written. My
version is SDT-III so I'll have to look around on the Yahoo group again,
maybe it can be resurrected. Now where are those disks ... oops, would
be 5-1/4" ... now where's that old 5-1/4" drive ...

This would be cool. Back then I thought OrCad SDT was the best thing
since pivot irrigation.


As for printing, all my schematics are printed out to PDF which makes
them searchable. My work colleague wrote a tricky batch file which
automatically resizes any size drawing to a paper space of your choice
using Ghostscript. I modified an Open Office font which creates text
that closely matches what you see on the screen. To print a schematic
file to PDF is one command line batch file.

If you like printing to laserjet printers, there are drivers available
to do that.

That would be an issue since not all printers are HP-LJ compatible
anymore. But if one can print to PDF that problem goes away. Yeehaw!


If you need a GIF drawing to paste the schematic in a document, there
are conversion tools available to do that or you can convert your PDF
to bit map.

OrCad always put out nice bitmaps. In fact I did fully integrated docs
in MS-Word as early as 1989. Back then it was HPGL though and AFAIK
MS-Word has lost the ability to import that.


Want to stack a bunch of pins on top of another? Composer has been
modified to allow that which is useful for FPGA parts with dozens of
power and ground pins. 27 ground pins only require one pin space on
the schematic.

All this can be found on
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OldDosOrcad/ . There are a bit over
300 members. The files section has new drivers and exe files to
support modern methods. Plus, there are a few dozen people who
actively use SDT and PCB on a daily basis which provide good
information on use and setup of old DOS Orcad.

If your customer wants Capture formated files, Capture imports SDT
files, and does a good job at it if its version 7 or newer.

Yes, some clients would like Capture files.


SDT's back-end processing is so open that you can write your own
netlist formaters which we have done to support our PCB tools. The
intermediate ASCII netlist file that SDT spits out can be converted to
a netlist format of your liking.

OrCad has always been great with customizing. Then they were bought :-(

I'm pretty sure that the new display drivers won't work under SDT-III,
only SDT386+. Boy, version 3 really goes back in time! I think I still
have a 5.25" floppy in my home machine for resurrecting those old
projects.

It does go way back. In those days it was a rather young program, just a
few years old. Other than a minor printer driver glitch I found the
software to be bug-free. Amazing.

The driver glitch could be fixed if you wrote your own from a set of
generic routines which did not come with the package. So I called.
Forgot that I was nine time-hours away from Oregon but someone picked up
anyhow. "No, I am only cleaning up here but give me your address and
I'll place your request on an engineer's desk". No call back. Hmm. The
week after an airmail letter showed up, with a disk in there. Exactly
what I needed, allowed me to fix my printer problem. Now that was
customer service at its best.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:xvnbl.13666$YU2.2566@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...

Skybuck Flying wrote:
Today I bought American Dollar Bills to find out for myself.

Here is my website:

http://members.home.nl/hbthouppermans/WorldTradeCenterConspiracy/

I am convinced.

Then you're an idiot. The $5 and $10 bills you have were designed in
1999, the $20 and $50 bills in 1996, and the $100 bill way back in 1928.
(The bills were colorized slightly in 2004-2006, but the design was
otherwise unchanged.)

The video speaks for itself.

While some bills were designed long ago.

Recent bills have be modified to fit the story better.

This is a coincidence; conspiracy nuts always find what they're looking
for, whether it's there or not. Even if there _were_ a conspiracy, there
is absolutely no logical reason that anyone in the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing would have known about it, much less secretly inserted it into
the design of bills, up to 73 years before the 9/11 attacks.

The video compares bills from before 1996 and after 1996.

There is clearly a modification that makes it fit the story better.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:52:00 -0800, JosephKK wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:24:12 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

All of the country's problems would fix themselves if they simply
abolished the income tax and cut government spending back to
Constitutional levels.

To pay back the Soc. Sec. and Medicare scams, use an OUTGO tax - i.e.,
tax what people SPEND.

That is already taxed at the state level (in most states) Do you want to
add a Federal tax to that (even at the hope of eliminating personal income
tax, it would be very high ~ 20%).

Screw hope - lose the income tax FIRST!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:08:12 -0600, krw wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:04:25 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:57:22 -0600, krw wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:12:08 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Here's my gun license:

Amendment II, Constitution of the United States:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
--
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

How does that work out for you in California? Do you carry concealed?

You have to, here in the People's Republic. If they saw it in plain view,
they'd gun you down in cold blood.

I meant, are permits easily obtained? Here, concealed is the only legal
way to carry.

I dunno - I'd have to look it up:
Oh! Imagine my surprise!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=california+gun+permits

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[bungalow_steve@yahoo.com]

On Jan 12, 5:51 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

On Jan 12, 3:24 am, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:

In article <49696218.6A14D...@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com says...

T wrote:
I don't know about the economy side. That Cobalt I rented got a solid
37MPG on the highway and I was doing  65 to 70MPH the entire way.

That isn't especially good. Almost any decent modern wind tunnel
design should get 40+mpg cruising steadily.

??

A BMW 3.25 with ~220hp petrol engine averages around 51mpg on
motorways at 70+mph (even allowing for your smaller gallons that is
still a lot better). The diesel 320d manages almost 70mpg on
motorways.

you must have your liters/gallons or km/miles conversion screwed, no
325 gas gets 51mpg, if your's does tell BMW your modifications (they
claim 20/29mpg), small hybrids barely get 51,

it's just AMAZING you believe this, did you ever own a car?

The 5 series are 3-5 mpg behind.
blah, try 28mpg

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:05:55 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <gkl2h7$js5$1@news.datemas.de>:

On a sunny day (Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:42:24 -0800 (PST)) it happened
"miso@sushi.com" <miso@sushi.com> wrote in
04e34b99-fd66-44c4-8bd6-c17bb8773598@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

In a discrete design, in theory you could use depletion mosfets.
http://www.aldinc.com/pdf/ALD114804.pdf

mm
Here is a simple example for a MOSFET low dropout regulation I just composed:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/MOSFET_low_dropout_regulator_with_short_circuit_protection.gif

Output is over R7, so the regulator is in the *minus* lead.
Q1 is for start up, to hold current limit inactive for about 1.5 ms (C1 + R8).
The current is then measured by using the voltage drop over the MOSFET.
If it exceeds .75 V then Q1 starts conducting, and the MOSFET is switched off,
resulting in the voltage over it to become much higher, and Q2 conducting more,
output goes then to zero permanently.
It will, depending on the type of MOSFET, easily do 45A..... before it either evaporates
(too big a value for C1, too long current sense inhibit), or melts (huge heatsink needed).
You can limit much lower, I use a LM324 in my other project to sense the voltage over the MOSFET,
but did not find a spice model for the LM324 for LTspice, so maybe later.
C2 is needed to keep if from going bad if entering current limit.

You can leave Q1, Q2, and associated components out, and use a fast fuse I guess....
Good thing is that it seems stable with about any MOSFET I select.
Ripple rejection is about 10x for small signals..

Here is the same one with >25A trip.
The trip value is set by R10.
It pre-biases Q1, so it opens earlier, at a lower volatge across the MOSFET.
Had to increase C2 to 220pF to avoid oscillations in the trip region.