Driver to drive?

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:25:30 -0800, D from BC <myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

:On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:14:08 GMT, Ross Herbert
:<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:
:>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:58:46 -0800, D from BC <myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:
:>
:>:On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:06:38 GMT, Ross Herbert
:>:<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:>:
:>:>
:>:>I pulled a psu from a defunct Epson inkjet printer and it uses a similar
setup
:>:>to your description. The mains input primary side switcher uses a mosfet
:>:>controlled by bjt's and the secondary side uses a L4962EA 1.5A smps
controller
:>:>to produce a 42V output.
:>:>
:>:>As for the OP's query, my initial reading is that the digital isolator
cannot
:>:>be applied to smps feedback control. The output control of an smps relies on
:>:>
:>:
:>:I don't think so.
:>
:>:Once the analog error signal gets to a PWM (or other), the error
:>:signal crosses into digital land.
:>:This works when the PWM is on the secondary side.
:>
:>Take a look at the data sheet for a typical controller IC commonly used in
SMPS,
:>eg. UC3842.
:>
:>"Pin 2 - Voltage feedback - This is the inverting input of the Error
Amplifier.
:>It is normally connected to the switching power supply output through a
resistor
:>divider."
:>
:>That says the feedback signal is analog, not digital.
:>
:>In SMPS which don't use a PWM controller IC, the feedback signal is always
:>analog.
:
:I think the UC3842 is meant to be used on the primary side.
:I don't think a digital isolator can be used with a current mode
:controller (UC3842) because it uses 2 feedback loops. One loop is the
:current ramp from the primary side and other loop is the voltage
:monitoring (via linear opto) from the secondary side.
:To use a digital isolator, there can only be linear feedback loops on
:secondary side.
:(The UC3842 uses a primary (I mode) and secondary (V mode) feedback
:loops.)
:A digital isolator can work with a voltage mode controller used on the
:secondary side. (The UC3842 is a current mode controller.)
:With a digital isolator, it's the mosfet gate signal that is
:isocoupled not a sample of the output voltage.

In this thread so far, you hadn't indicated that you were trying to implement a
smps design with the PWM control on the secondary side. It was Tim who raised
this possibility but you didn't indicate that you were going down this path. It
is no wonder that I assumed that you were trying to implement digital feedback
control from the secondary side to the primary side of a line powered smps.

Only now, when I pointed out that a typical widely used smps controller IC
wouldn't work using digital feedback, did you specify that you were thinking of
doing the pwm and feedback control on the secondary side. If I had known what
you were trying to do then I probably wouldn't have commented at all.
 
On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:14:08 GMT, "Martin Riddle"

martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
snip
I could not find the article but the US government research did prove
that there is a net engery gain in their experiements.

At the time, I surveyed much of the following few years of attempts at
replication.  There were related experiments also performed at a
nearby university, which is part of why F&P were "forced" into an
early release at the start.  While no one actually was able to state
that the original experiments produced energy (who can, after all?),
and while there were energy gains from some of the replications --
most importantly from Texas A&M's pre-eminent calorimetrist, John
Bockris.  However, none of them were able to demonstrate fusion above
the level of detectability.  So far as I'm still aware, and I'm not
privy to secret military research obviously, there are no replicable
demonstrations of _cold fusion_ at room temperatures beyond what was
already known by physicists earlier (muon catalyzed and ion fusion,
for example.)  At all.  And not by "US government research" that has
been later confirmed through the weight of independent experiments.

(Bockris had had earlier 'disasters' such as a secret catalyst that
split water into hydrogen and oxygen even without energy announced
about 6 years before he "confirmed" cold fusion and a claimed material
that yielded a complete conversion of sunlight to electricity about 4
years earlier.  Both were from basic errors in his research --
although Bockris, as in the case of his cold fusion experiments too,
never has acknowledged these mistakes.  He was absolved a few years
later, after some further transmutation idiocy, by a four-professor
panel for violating Texas A&M standards in proposing, conducting or
reporting controversial research.)

Jon
Click to expand...
If they produce as much energy as they claim, they would all be dead
from the neutron flux.
 
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:20:25 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:14:08 GMT, "Martin Riddle"

martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
snip
I could not find the article but the US government research did prove
that there is a net engery gain in their experiements.

At the time, I surveyed much of the following few years of attempts at
replication.  There were related experiments also performed at a
nearby university, which is part of why F&P were "forced" into an
early release at the start.  While no one actually was able to state
that the original experiments produced energy (who can, after all?),
and while there were energy gains from some of the replications --
most importantly from Texas A&M's pre-eminent calorimetrist, John
Bockris.  However, none of them were able to demonstrate fusion above
the level of detectability.  So far as I'm still aware, and I'm not
privy to secret military research obviously, there are no replicable
demonstrations of _cold fusion_ at room temperatures beyond what was
already known by physicists earlier (muon catalyzed and ion fusion,
for example.)  At all.  And not by "US government research" that has
been later confirmed through the weight of independent experiments.

(Bockris had had earlier 'disasters' such as a secret catalyst that
split water into hydrogen and oxygen even without energy announced
about 6 years before he "confirmed" cold fusion and a claimed material
that yielded a complete conversion of sunlight to electricity about 4
years earlier.  Both were from basic errors in his research --
although Bockris, as in the case of his cold fusion experiments too,
never has acknowledged these mistakes.  He was absolved a few years
later, after some further transmutation idiocy, by a four-professor
panel for violating Texas A&M standards in proposing, conducting or
reporting controversial research.)

Jon

If they produce as much energy as they claim, they would all be dead
from the neutron flux.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem was that these chemists didn't even know the
proper neutron energies to look for, should it have happened -- nor
how to properly calibrate and use such equipment when borrowed. They
weren't physicists, after all. In one case I remember reading about
where a team at the Georgia Institute of Technology claimed to observe
neutron production, it turned out that they had failed to understand
the equipment they'd borrowed (without being honest about why) from
the nearby physics department. Later, shame-faced when the department
heard about their "confirmation" and managed to guess what had been
going on with the borrowed equipment, some folks dropped on over to
point out their mistaken understandings and the "confirmation" was
retracted soon after.

It was a very sad affair. Reminiscent in some ways of polywater. The
idea of distrusting anyone who didn't already accept the conclusions
of F&P fell pleasantly upon some who were far too willing to then work
as willing co-conspirators. The active refusal of proponents within
chemistry departments to then expose what they were doing in plain
view and to deal with informed criticism dragged this out much longer
than it should have lasted. Worse, cold fusion proponents managed to
line up emotions among chemists sufficiently that the ACS (American
Chemical Society) as an organized body actually went to the extreme
(and unique) measure of barring the presentations of physicists at
their annual meeting in the US, the following spring. (They usually
allow various presentations by physicists.)

Many paid a profound personal price for that hubris. As they should.

Jon
 
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 02:33:42 GMT, Ross Herbert
<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:25:30 -0800, D from BC <myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

:On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:14:08 GMT, Ross Herbert
:<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:
:>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:58:46 -0800, D from BC <myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:
:
:>:On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:06:38 GMT, Ross Herbert
:>:<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:>:
:>:
:>:>I pulled a psu from a defunct Epson inkjet printer and it uses a similar
setup
:>:>to your description. The mains input primary side switcher uses a mosfet
:>:>controlled by bjt's and the secondary side uses a L4962EA 1.5A smps
controller
:>:>to produce a 42V output.
:>:
:>:>As for the OP's query, my initial reading is that the digital isolator
cannot
:>:>be applied to smps feedback control. The output control of an smps relies on
:>:
:>:
:>:I don't think so.
:
:>:Once the analog error signal gets to a PWM (or other), the error
:>:signal crosses into digital land.
:>:This works when the PWM is on the secondary side.
:
:>Take a look at the data sheet for a typical controller IC commonly used in
SMPS,
:>eg. UC3842.
:
:>"Pin 2 - Voltage feedback - This is the inverting input of the Error
Amplifier.
:>It is normally connected to the switching power supply output through a
resistor
:>divider."
:
:>That says the feedback signal is analog, not digital.
:
:>In SMPS which don't use a PWM controller IC, the feedback signal is always
:>analog.
:
:I think the UC3842 is meant to be used on the primary side.
:I don't think a digital isolator can be used with a current mode
:controller (UC3842) because it uses 2 feedback loops. One loop is the
:current ramp from the primary side and other loop is the voltage
:monitoring (via linear opto) from the secondary side.
:To use a digital isolator, there can only be linear feedback loops on
:secondary side.
:(The UC3842 uses a primary (I mode) and secondary (V mode) feedback
:loops.)
:A digital isolator can work with a voltage mode controller used on the
:secondary side. (The UC3842 is a current mode controller.)
:With a digital isolator, it's the mosfet gate signal that is
:isocoupled not a sample of the output voltage.

In this thread so far, you hadn't indicated that you were trying to implement a
smps design with the PWM control on the secondary side. It was Tim who raised
this possibility but you didn't indicate that you were going down this path. It
is no wonder that I assumed that you were trying to implement digital feedback
control from the secondary side to the primary side of a line powered smps.

Only now, when I pointed out that a typical widely used smps controller IC
wouldn't work using digital feedback, did you specify that you were thinking of
doing the pwm and feedback control on the secondary side. If I had known what
you were trying to do then I probably wouldn't have commented at all.
Click to expand...
Well..yeah.. My posts can be a bit buggy sometimes..

So I guess you haven't seen a smps design using a digital isolator
instead of a linear isolator...



D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
 
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:40:03 -0800, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:55:41 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:11:49 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

qrk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:40:45 -0800, D from BC
myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

I've seen a few schematics of opto's being used in linear mode for
smps designs..
But what about those digital isolators? Are they just for digital
circuits?

Right now I'm working on applying a digital isolator for a smps
design..
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/iso721.pdf
Note that the datasheet doesn't mention smps applications. hmmm :(

Anybody know some design examples of smps's using digital isolators
(opto digital, galvanic, GMR or RF)?


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
I use both in switching power supplies. The analog opto for voltage
feedback, the digital isolator (Analog Devices ADuM1200 series) for
setting power supply voltage.

Three bucks for an isolator in a switcher? Yikes.
Relative to sluggish optos, the galvanic ISO721 is not cheap.
Probably the only reason I'm using it is to dodge modelling a fast
opto in ltspice.

Sluggish? How fast do you need it to be? I haven't seen loops much past
a couple hundred kHz in switcher.

True.
For my design, it only needs loop gain less than 10khz. Alls fine in
that case if I use an optoisolator to feedback the output voltage.
But if I change the design to use a digital isolator, I have to use
something really fast since my PWM is at 1Mhz.
Optos are sluggish in a digital role compared to the other isolation
methods (GMR, galvanic etc..)
I've never seen a digital isolator used in an smps design. Only
linear.


I just never saw a compelling reason to use any fancy isolators. One of
my staples for very high isolation and where cost is warranted is the
CNW137 widebody:

http://www.avagotech.com/docs/AV02-0940EN

Rise/fall times in the 25nsec range, how much more would you want?

[...]
Click to expand...
Let's see..
Smps clock: 1Mhz
Min duty: 10%
Tonmin = 100nS

ok...looks like the CNW137 is fast enough for my app.. :(

So maybe I was getting a little speed crazed.. :)


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
 
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:05:30 -0800, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

qrk wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:22:52 -0800, D from BC
myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:11:49 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

qrk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:40:45 -0800, D from BC
myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

I've seen a few schematics of opto's being used in linear mode for
smps designs..
But what about those digital isolators? Are they just for digital
circuits?

Right now I'm working on applying a digital isolator for a smps
design..
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/iso721.pdf
Note that the datasheet doesn't mention smps applications. hmmm :(

Anybody know some design examples of smps's using digital isolators
(opto digital, galvanic, GMR or RF)?


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
I use both in switching power supplies. The analog opto for voltage
feedback, the digital isolator (Analog Devices ADuM1200 series) for
setting power supply voltage.

Three bucks for an isolator in a switcher? Yikes.
Relative to sluggish optos, the galvanic ISO721 is not cheap.
Probably the only reason I'm using it is to dodge modelling a fast
opto in ltspice.
Another reason I'm dodging a linear opto is that my smps design is
experimental and a poorly applied opto may cause loop stability
problems. If anything goes wrong, I can't blame an opto if it's not
there.

It's a tradeoff.. So the parts are expensive, but I get the design
done earlier.

A linear opto in the feedback loop is plenty fast enough. I'm using a
PS2801-1, about $0.40 in quantity, in a 50W, 600 kHz switcher. It's
almost trival to use an opto. Programmable shunt regulators like the
LMV431 are about $0.20.


If you use a TL431 you can shave off another $0.15 :)
Click to expand...
LMV431 ref voltage is 1.24V
LM431 ref voltage is 2.5V


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
 
Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:

** Copied from an investment newsletter **

Chalk one up for dissent. Japanese scientists were smart enough to
find the fraud in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and then
had the balls to publicly disagree with the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change about it.

The Japan Society of Energy and Resources issued a report that says
global warming is related to solar activity, and the rise in global
temperatures was primarily a recovery from the so-called Little Ice
Age, which lasted from 1400 to 1800. Kanya Kusano, program director
for the Earth simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science &
Technology, says computer climate modeling used to support the manmade
global warming theory is like "ancient astrology."

If you think fraudulent climate science doesn't affect you
financially, you may wish to know that, according to The Politico,
there are now four climate change lobbyists for every member of Congress.

And we all know that the ethical standards of bankers and investment
advisers are beyond reproach so it must be true...

Japanese science can be pretty flaky. They still have people researching
Fleschmann and Pons style "cold fusion" and watching catfish to try and
predict earthquakes. Some of it is good but by no means all.

The society for "Energy and Resources" sounds very much like a fossil
fuel lobby group. AGW really only began to bite in the past 4 decades.
The bounce back from the Little Ice Age was over by then.

Regards,
Martin Brown

FYI, cold fusion has been verified and proven to be an alternate
approach to energy generation.
A lot cheaper and smaller than a Tokomak in the back yard...
**


????

Really? That is news. Tell us more.
....use google...
Click to expand...
 
"Andrew Holme" <ah@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GBYpl.53874$TK1.51569@newsfe16.ams2...
I'm designing a board with a 100-ohm diff. pair carrying LVDS. For
economy, I want to make a 2-layer PTH board with a solid copper ground
plane on the bottom. The PCB fab said this was impossible because of
board thickness. After playing with a trace impedance calculator, I see
what they mean, at least as far as normal track widths are concerned. To
get 100-ohms differential on a 62 mil thick 2-layer board, I need 60 mil
wide tracks spaced 40 mil apart. So my question is: what's wrong with
that?
Click to expand...
Nothing is inherently wrong with that.

BTW, don't get fixated on differential impedance, you don't actually need it
in your case:
http://www.speedingedge.com/PDF-Files/diffsig.pdf

Dave.
 
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:14:08 GMT, "Martin Riddle"
martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:


snip
I could not find the article but the US government research did prove
that there is a net engery gain in their experiements.


At the time, I surveyed much of the following few years of attempts at
replication. There were related experiments also performed at a
nearby university, which is part of why F&P were "forced" into an
early release at the start. While no one actually was able to state
that the original experiments produced energy (who can, after all?),
and while there were energy gains from some of the replications --
most importantly from Texas A&M's pre-eminent calorimetrist, John
Bockris. However, none of them were able to demonstrate fusion above
the level of detectability. So far as I'm still aware, and I'm not
privy to secret military research obviously, there are no replicable
demonstrations of _cold fusion_ at room temperatures beyond what was
already known by physicists earlier (muon catalyzed and ion fusion,
for example.) At all. And not by "US government research" that has
been later confirmed through the weight of independent experiments.

(Bockris had had earlier 'disasters' such as a secret catalyst that
split water into hydrogen and oxygen even without energy announced
about 6 years before he "confirmed" cold fusion and a claimed material
that yielded a complete conversion of sunlight to electricity about 4
years earlier. Both were from basic errors in his research --
although Bockris, as in the case of his cold fusion experiments too,
never has acknowledged these mistakes. He was absolved a few years
later, after some further transmutation idiocy, by a four-professor
panel for violating Texas A&M standards in proposing, conducting or
reporting controversial research.)

Jon
Recently, there was a science fact article covering cold fusion, in
Click to expand...
(i think) Analog SF&F.
Look it up.
 
Richard Henry wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:14:08 GMT, "Martin Riddle"

martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:

snip
I could not find the article but the US government research did prove
that there is a net engery gain in their experiements.

At the time, I surveyed much of the following few years of attempts at
replication. There were related experiments also performed at a
nearby university, which is part of why F&P were "forced" into an
early release at the start. While no one actually was able to state
that the original experiments produced energy (who can, after all?),
and while there were energy gains from some of the replications --
most importantly from Texas A&M's pre-eminent calorimetrist, John
Bockris. However, none of them were able to demonstrate fusion above
the level of detectability. So far as I'm still aware, and I'm not
privy to secret military research obviously, there are no replicable
demonstrations of _cold fusion_ at room temperatures beyond what was
already known by physicists earlier (muon catalyzed and ion fusion,
for example.) At all. And not by "US government research" that has
been later confirmed through the weight of independent experiments.

(Bockris had had earlier 'disasters' such as a secret catalyst that
split water into hydrogen and oxygen even without energy announced
about 6 years before he "confirmed" cold fusion and a claimed material
that yielded a complete conversion of sunlight to electricity about 4
years earlier. Both were from basic errors in his research --
although Bockris, as in the case of his cold fusion experiments too,
never has acknowledged these mistakes. He was absolved a few years
later, after some further transmutation idiocy, by a four-professor
panel for violating Texas A&M standards in proposing, conducting or
reporting controversial research.)

Jon


If they produce as much energy as they claim, they would all be dead
from the neutron flux.
Sorry, the cold fusion conversion does not produce a neutron flux...
Click to expand...
 
Robert Baer wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:14:08 GMT, "Martin Riddle"

martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:

snip
I could not find the article but the US government research did prove
that there is a net engery gain in their experiements.

At the time, I surveyed much of the following few years of attempts at
replication. There were related experiments also performed at a
nearby university, which is part of why F&P were "forced" into an
early release at the start. While no one actually was able to state
that the original experiments produced energy (who can, after all?),
and while there were energy gains from some of the replications --
most importantly from Texas A&M's pre-eminent calorimetrist, John
Bockris. However, none of them were able to demonstrate fusion above
the level of detectability. So far as I'm still aware, and I'm not
privy to secret military research obviously, there are no replicable
demonstrations of _cold fusion_ at room temperatures beyond what was
already known by physicists earlier (muon catalyzed and ion fusion,
for example.) At all. And not by "US government research" that has
been later confirmed through the weight of independent experiments.

(Bockris had had earlier 'disasters' such as a secret catalyst that
split water into hydrogen and oxygen even without energy announced
about 6 years before he "confirmed" cold fusion and a claimed material
that yielded a complete conversion of sunlight to electricity about 4
years earlier. Both were from basic errors in his research --
although Bockris, as in the case of his cold fusion experiments too,
never has acknowledged these mistakes. He was absolved a few years
later, after some further transmutation idiocy, by a four-professor
panel for violating Texas A&M standards in proposing, conducting or
reporting controversial research.)

Jon

If they produce as much energy as they claim, they would all be dead
from the neutron flux.

Sorry, the cold fusion conversion does not produce a neutron flux...
Click to expand...
Then it is chemistry effect and/or a defect in the calorimetry of the
various groups that claim to have seen a "cold fusion" effect.

Almost everyone with access to palladium and heavy water tried to
reproduce the F&P result in their lab. If there was anything in it
someone would have obtained macroscopic amounts of helium by now.

The vast majority of "cold fusion" sites on the web and a fair
proportion of the remaining researchers are delusional nutters whose
"scientific" papers also include things like "Jesus visited the USA"
and "9/11 was a controlled demolition". Only the most utterly credulous
conspiracy theorists could possibly take them seriously.

The muon catalysed reaction (that flushed F&P into premature
publication) does work, but because muons are so energetically expensive
to produce it isn't a likely source of power although it seems to be
useful to the TCM experimenters as a probe. I don't like using Wiki on
such sensitive subjects, but what it says at the moment seems to be
mostly sensible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Robert Baer wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:

** Copied from an investment newsletter **

Chalk one up for dissent. Japanese scientists were smart enough to
find the fraud in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and then
had the balls to publicly disagree with the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change about it.

The Japan Society of Energy and Resources issued a report that says
global warming is related to solar activity, and the rise in global
temperatures was primarily a recovery from the so-called Little Ice
Age, which lasted from 1400 to 1800. Kanya Kusano, program director
for the Earth simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science &
Technology, says computer climate modeling used to support the manmade
global warming theory is like "ancient astrology."

If you think fraudulent climate science doesn't affect you
financially, you may wish to know that, according to The Politico,
there are now four climate change lobbyists for every member of
Congress.

And we all know that the ethical standards of bankers and investment
advisers are beyond reproach so it must be true...

Japanese science can be pretty flaky. They still have people
researching
Fleschmann and Pons style "cold fusion" and watching catfish to try and
predict earthquakes. Some of it is good but by no means all.

The society for "Energy and Resources" sounds very much like a fossil
fuel lobby group. AGW really only began to bite in the past 4 decades.
The bounce back from the Little Ice Age was over by then.

Regards,
Martin Brown

FYI, cold fusion has been verified and proven to be an alternate
approach to energy generation.
A lot cheaper and smaller than a Tokomak in the back yard...
**

????

Really? That is news. Tell us more.

...use google...
Click to expand...
And you will get the usual bunch of absolute raving lunatic sites
claiming infinite free energy just send $10k to fund our "research".
Some of it is really funny in a warped sort of way.

If you believe cold fusion is just around the corner based on a few daft
websites no wonder you are suckered by all the sophisticated PR based
AGW denialist propaganda.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:47:12 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
For long time (perhaps years) I haven't been able to figure out why I
hear a random burst of noise from my audio PC system..

I finally found out why..

It's that stupid animated dog that shows up when using windows xp file
search..
The dog scratches itself and that makes a noise. I never noticed.
Clicking on the dog makes the scratching sounds too.

I thought my computer had bugs or my PC was getting blasted by EMI.

Arrrrrghhhhh!!! :(


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design

I wondered about a similar mystery noise - turned out to be my mobile
phone contacting the local base for some reason or other. Must pump out
quite a field to get into the PC/speaker electronics.
Click to expand...
Hell, i have heard and recognized cell phone hash for so long that i
have nearly forgotten about it.
 
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:18:25 -0800, D from BC
<myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:43:54 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
For long time (perhaps years) I haven't been able to figure out why I
hear a random burst of noise from my audio PC system..

I finally found out why..

It's that stupid animated dog that shows up when using windows xp file
search..
The dog scratches itself and that makes a noise. I never noticed.
Clicking on the dog makes the scratching sounds too.

I thought my computer had bugs or my PC was getting blasted by EMI.

Arrrrrghhhhh!!! :(


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
..but.. it *did* have bugs...more accurately, !fleas! .

Freakn noisey XP dog scratchn with fleas.. geezzz

For years!
I'd be doing some reading ...'fsssst fsssht'..
One time I was audio recording....'fssstt fsssshtt'..
During a quiet part in a movie ...'fssshtt fssshht'..


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
Click to expand...
Garbage irritants like that and others still wonder why try linux.
 
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:45:55 -0800, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:24:16 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
I'm really happy with my filters. I'll share my info with anyone
running Agent v5 (required for Message-ID filtering).

To be honest I don't want to spend time massaging exceptions all the
time. There's always PM (where I haven't set a block).

Exceptions are trivial... there aren't very many ;-)

How I work it is I notice a thread of interest, discover that the OP
was reputable, drop his name, Message-ID, or whatever, into the
exception filter... very easy.

You sure complain a lot, then whine about difficulty.


Huh? No complaints here. Filtered google-domains to bucket, spam gone.


Of course I actually paid money for my reader ;-)


I didn't, although I wouldn't mind paying. Thunderbird filters rather well.
Click to expand...
It didn't do so well for me. It is a reason why i bought Agent.
 
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:45:26 -0800, Bart!
<B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:49:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:



The offending poster was posting from a yahoo address, moving to
googlegroups. I would normally never see the post, except for the
reposts by the troll feeders ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No, idiot, he was not posting from yahoo. IF you had read the post,
instead of your standard blanket assumption CRAP, you might have caught
that, except you are too busy being a header prude, and a very bad one at
that. What a WUSSY you are!
Click to expand...
You as well should bother checking the headers.
 
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:38:20 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:45:26 -0800, Bart!
B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:49:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:



The offending poster was posting from a yahoo address, moving to
googlegroups. I would normally never see the post, except for the
reposts by the troll feeders ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No, idiot, he was not posting from yahoo. IF you had read the post,
instead of your standard blanket assumption CRAP, you might have caught
that, except you are too busy being a header prude, and a very bad one at
that. What a WUSSY you are!

You as well should bother checking the headers.
Click to expand...
Already in place...

Author: ... | {bart\!}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Postings via gmail, yahoo, hotmail, aioe, uar or googlegroups, and
wild-cross-posts are now automatically kill-filed using Agent v5.0

To be white-listed, send request via the E-mail icon on my website
 
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.
Click to expand...

Five inches of snow in Alabama, in March!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090301/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm

And Hansen's global warming civil disobedience protest in DC will
probably be snowed-in.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,501064,00.html


It's cold and rainy here, ideal to refill the reservoirs and put some
more base on the ski slopes.

http://www.squaw.com/

A 7-foot base is OK, but the more the better.

John
 
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:39:50 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.


Five inches of snow in Alabama, in March!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090301/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm

And Hansen's global warming civil disobedience protest in DC will
probably be snowed-in.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,501064,00.html


It's cold and rainy here, ideal to refill the reservoirs and put some
more base on the ski slopes.

http://www.squaw.com/

A 7-foot base is OK, but the more the better.

John
Click to expand...
Slowman is so senile he thinks his opinions supersede all others.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.
 
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:45:37 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:39:50 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.


Five inches of snow in Alabama, in March!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090301/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm

And Hansen's global warming civil disobedience protest in DC will
probably be snowed-in.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,501064,00.html


It's cold and rainy here, ideal to refill the reservoirs and put some
more base on the ski slopes.

http://www.squaw.com/

A 7-foot base is OK, but the more the better.

John


Slowman is so senile he thinks his opinions supersede all others.

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...

I suspect he was always that way. That's why he has such a lifetime
history of being involved in failed projects. Global Warming Hysteria
is just his latest failed project.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top