Driver to drive?

[D from BC]

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:36:23 -0800, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:06:53 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
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
LMV431 ref voltage is 1.24V
LM431 ref voltage is 2.5V

Sure, but do you need less than 2.5V Vout?

Yup.. 2V is required in my design..


Ok, didn't know that. That'll be 15 cents extra

I bought 2 coffees today for $4.50.. :O

I'll cheapen up the design later on..
No point in sharpening the pencils if they're being used for firewood.
(uh...I just made that up..I'll think of a better expression later.)

It's not pretty but I got a LMV431 stuck on the output of an op amp to
create a 2V offset.
(Long story how that got decided.)


Yeah, those legacy solutions. "Hey, that goes back to ol'Leroy, not
purdy but it's always worked, why's it wrong now?"

I suppose it's subjective..
Maybe it's strange compared to the other ways I get an offset.
Perhaps it's a sign I'm getting better at electronics..


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

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:18:24 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <locmq4tbuacer9il8f9dpn11sicrs5484o@4ax.com>, D from BC 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.

When's the next ice age due?

If not for AGW, good chance within a few millennia. We have probably
already averted it and then some.

If not for AGW, a century or two from now could easily repeat the
"Little Ice Age" of 2-3 centuries or so ago, with noticeable downturn in
first half of 22nd century appearing likely on basis of MAO and longer
term sunspot cycles.

Which might kill a billion people and wipe out a good chunk of a
million species.

Should we set new global surface and/or lower
troposphere temperature highs at those times when we should be repeating
"little ice age" as a harbinger of "next real ice age", then we end up
being shown that AGW is for real and that we have given ourselves warming
that will probably persist through the next several millennia and
probably be reinforced to multi-mega-year highs by the time the
"should-be-coming next ice age glaciation" would end maybe 90,000 or so
years from now.

And the plants love the CO2 we're feeding them.

John

 

[D from BC]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:18:24 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <locmq4tbuacer9il8f9dpn11sicrs5484o@4ax.com>, D from BC 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.

When's the next ice age due?

If not for AGW, good chance within a few millennia. We have probably
already averted it and then some.

If not for AGW, a century or two from now could easily repeat the
"Little Ice Age" of 2-3 centuries or so ago, with noticeable downturn in
first half of 22nd century appearing likely on basis of MAO and longer
term sunspot cycles. Should we set new global surface and/or lower
troposphere temperature highs at those times when we should be repeating
"little ice age" as a harbinger of "next real ice age", then we end up
being shown that AGW is for real and that we have given ourselves warming
that will probably persist through the next several millennia and
probably be reinforced to multi-mega-year highs by the time the
"should-be-coming next ice age glaciation" would end maybe 90,000 or so
years from now.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

We try not to mess up the planet with pollution but mother nature
intends on freezing our asses off anyways..
A reset button?

But an asteroid strike might make all our pollution and garbage seem
insignificant.
http://ezinearticles.com/?We-Are-Not-Alone---Asteroids&id=888954
Digging up plastic bags during a nuclear winter might be a wonderful
thing.

btw
Earth's magnetic field is declining.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/reversals.html
"Indeed projecting this forward in time would suggest zero dipole
moment in about 1500-1600 years time. "


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

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <locmq4tbuacer9il8f9dpn11sicrs5484o@4ax.com>, D from BC 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.

When's the next ice age due?

If not for AGW, good chance within a few millennia. We have probably
already averted it and then some.

If not for AGW, a century or two from now could easily repeat the
"Little Ice Age" of 2-3 centuries or so ago, with noticeable downturn in
first half of 22nd century appearing likely on basis of MAO and longer
term sunspot cycles. Should we set new global surface and/or lower
troposphere temperature highs at those times when we should be repeating
"little ice age" as a harbinger of "next real ice age", then we end up
being shown that AGW is for real and that we have given ourselves warming
that will probably persist through the next several millennia and
probably be reinforced to multi-mega-year highs by the time the
"should-be-coming next ice age glaciation" would end maybe 90,000 or so
years from now.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <99Gql.528$gm6.289@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Martin Riddle wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:amhlq4l1qjl8l9lli17coqvffe3386a06l@4ax.com...
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.

Thanks to GW were looking at upto 14" of the white stuff.
http://www.accuweather.com/watches-warnings.asp?
partner=1010wins&zipcode=10101&zone=NYZ072&county=NYC061

As if a 14 inch (or bigger) snowstorm is not something to hit NYC on
average once or twice a decade or so.

Heck, NYC got 2 snowstorms at least that big about 4 weeks apart in
early 1978!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:10:05 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:58:53 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <a95d21c1-a351-49cc-b176-b0217011ca24
@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, jeffm_@email.com says...
Ian Bell wrote:
Most ISPs these days provide newsnet access for free.
Mine has done for the last 10 years.

JeffM wrote:
...then there are those on this side of the pond
who have posturing "public servants"
who have done their best to make that go away
--especially those folks in the Empire State:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Andrew-Cuomo+Usenet&num=100

In matters of digital freedom, many Democrats are NOT your friend.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:slashdot.org+Feinstein&num=100

krw wrote:
That's an excuse to shut down a loser.

She hasn't gotten any votes from me.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:VkTPXKdEx_kJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2006+c+inc+Green.Party+c+inc+c+Todd.Chretien&strip=1
http://google.com/search?q=cache:5_Ht2gQR4BcJ:www.therealdifference.org/issues.html+*-*-Enron-scandal-*+logging+Green.Party+Failed.to.Act+wiretaps+Weak.Support+marijuana+Minimal.Support+agribusiness+Privatization.of.prisons+*-*-*-Marriage-*&strip=1

...and if I lived in NY, I'd be telling everyone I encountered *there*
about how the *that* posturing idiot
is trying to get it where gov't can control what you can think.

Two *completely* different issues.

Oh really? Both that feinstein and that cuomo are afer all the
control they can get.

So how are the issues all that different?

ISPs shutting down NNTP servers is about costs. Cuomo was a timely
excuse.

Instead of shutting them down completely, they only quit carrying
parts of alt.*, nor does it answer the question.

 

[Martin Riddle]

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngqmq6g.ntj.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <99Gql.528$gm6.289@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Martin Riddle
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:amhlq4l1qjl8l9lli17coqvffe3386a06l@4ax.com...
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.

Thanks to GW were looking at upto 14" of the white stuff.
http://www.accuweather.com/watches-warnings.asp?
partner=1010wins&zipcode=10101&zone=NYZ072&county=NYC061

As if a 14 inch (or bigger) snowstorm is not something to hit NYC on
average once or twice a decade or so.

Heck, NYC got 2 snowstorms at least that big about 4 weeks apart in
early 1978!

Ah the Blizzard of 78. It was 2 storms 2 days apart. A stalled front.

About 3ft of snow fell. There were mounds of snow on every corner.
and it stayed cold for pretty much all of Feburary, which meant the snow
stayed on the roads for weeks.

Then there was the Ice storm in 79 or 80 that made a big mess for what
was then LILCO.

Cheers

 

[Joerg]

D from BC wrote:

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:36:23 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:06:53 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
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
LMV431 ref voltage is 1.24V
LM431 ref voltage is 2.5V

Sure, but do you need less than 2.5V Vout?
Yup.. 2V is required in my design..

Ok, didn't know that. That'll be 15 cents extra

I bought 2 coffees today for $4.50.. :O

I'll cheapen up the design later on..

And crack out the old percolator. $4.50 for a coffee is insane ;-)

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[amdx]

34,000,000 years ago?
That's 12,420,000,000 days ago!
I can't get the local weathermen to agree on what the temperature
was---yesterday.
Mike
Is your point that the climate changes? duh.



"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:49aaa35f$0$6685$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl...

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:43:43 -0600, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

34,000,000 years ago?
That's 12,420,000,000 days ago!
I can't get the local weathermen to agree on what the temperature
was---yesterday.
Mike
Is your point that the climate changes? duh.



"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:49aaa35f$0$6685$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl...
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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

...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 | |
| Voice480)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.

 

[krw]

In article <9kenq4h04bf2s9tcnfd2cml28d64ag5rv4@4ax.com>,
quiettechblue@yahoo.com says...>

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:10:05 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:58:53 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <a95d21c1-a351-49cc-b176-b0217011ca24
@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, jeffm_@email.com says...
Ian Bell wrote:
Most ISPs these days provide newsnet access for free.
Mine has done for the last 10 years.

JeffM wrote:
...then there are those on this side of the pond
who have posturing "public servants"
who have done their best to make that go away
--especially those folks in the Empire State:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Andrew-Cuomo+Usenet&num=100

In matters of digital freedom, many Democrats are NOT your friend.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:slashdot.org+Feinstein&num=100

krw wrote:
That's an excuse to shut down a loser.

She hasn't gotten any votes from me.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:VkTPXKdEx_kJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2006+c+inc+Green.Party+c+inc+c+Todd.Chretien&strip=1
http://google.com/search?q=cache:5_Ht2gQR4BcJ:www.therealdifference.org/issues.html+*-*-Enron-scandal-*+logging+Green.Party+Failed.to.Act+wiretaps+Weak.Support+marijuana+Minimal.Support+agribusiness+Privatization.of.prisons+*-*-*-Marriage-*&strip=1

...and if I lived in NY, I'd be telling everyone I encountered *there*
about how the *that* posturing idiot
is trying to get it where gov't can control what you can think.

Two *completely* different issues.

Oh really? Both that feinstein and that cuomo are afer all the
control they can get.

So how are the issues all that different?

ISPs shutting down NNTP servers is about costs. Cuomo was a timely
excuse.

Instead of shutting them down completely, they only quit carrying
parts of alt.*, nor does it answer the question.

Leftist weenies power grab has nothing to do with ISPs shutting

down losers (yes, some are shutting them down). NNTP is a loser
and there aren't enough users to complain. Is that clear enough, or
do you need more help?

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:duooq4hvk3ucbsup0h95jg9icakf4fdics@4ax.com:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:52:36 -0800, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:24:52 -0800, Joerg wrote:

Must be a bit higher than 20kHz, else the shepherd would leave the
lab and give me "the looks". She always does that when one of my
switcher test beds goes into hiccup mode.

I could do with a lab-trained dog. I'm down to about 12kHz, now. In my
teens I could hear 24.

I'm down to can't hear the wife unless she's right in my face ;-)

(Almost totally deaf in the left ear... you know... the one I damaged
while designing a hearing aid chip ;-)


Just dug the 7704A service manual out. That says 25kHz. In the past,
I've tested the transformers out of circuit by resonating the primary.
Using the series capacitor from the PSU, if memory serves, driving
with 20 volts, I got around 30kHz with a Q of about 16. Can't find my
notes any more.

...Jim Thompson

Uh,the 7704A transformer doesn't determine the resonant frequency.
there's a series-LC circuit in series with the XFMR that determines the Fr.

that's why it's a SERIES-resonant power supply.

IIRc,it's a .03 uf/600v high current cap,can't recall the inductor's uH.
it's buried in the middle of the PS,too.

(and there was a problem with some of the .03uF caps being faulty...all
throughout the 7K series using the series resonant PS )

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[John Larkin]

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/


John

 

[D from BC]

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:54 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/


John

Maybe it's just warmer than normal somewhere else..


I wonder if all the crap that volcanos pump out compete with the
effects of gas and dust from people.

Seems like there are 21 active volcanos.
http://www.volcanolive.com/active2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
"
Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon
dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen
fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the
stratosphere to heights of 16–32 kilometres (10–20 mi) above the
Earth's surface. The most significant impacts from these injections
come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (H2SO4),
which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate
aerosols. The aerosols increase the Earth's albedo—its reflection of
radiation from the Sun back into space - and thus cool the Earth's
lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat
radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere.
"


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

 

[Raveninghorde]

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.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.”

/end quote

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:41:08 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <9kenq4h04bf2s9tcnfd2cml28d64ag5rv4@4ax.com>,
quiettechblue@yahoo.com says...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:10:05 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:58:53 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <a95d21c1-a351-49cc-b176-b0217011ca24
@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, jeffm_@email.com says...
Ian Bell wrote:
Most ISPs these days provide newsnet access for free.
Mine has done for the last 10 years.

JeffM wrote:
...then there are those on this side of the pond
who have posturing "public servants"
who have done their best to make that go away
--especially those folks in the Empire State:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Andrew-Cuomo+Usenet&num=100

In matters of digital freedom, many Democrats are NOT your friend.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:slashdot.org+Feinstein&num=100

krw wrote:
That's an excuse to shut down a loser.

She hasn't gotten any votes from me.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:VkTPXKdEx_kJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2006+c+inc+Green.Party+c+inc+c+Todd.Chretien&strip=1
http://google.com/search?q=cache:5_Ht2gQR4BcJ:www.therealdifference.org/issues.html+*-*-Enron-scandal-*+logging+Green.Party+Failed.to.Act+wiretaps+Weak.Support+marijuana+Minimal.Support+agribusiness+Privatization.of.prisons+*-*-*-Marriage-*&strip=1

...and if I lived in NY, I'd be telling everyone I encountered *there*
about how the *that* posturing idiot
is trying to get it where gov't can control what you can think.

Two *completely* different issues.

Oh really? Both that feinstein and that cuomo are afer all the
control they can get.

So how are the issues all that different?

ISPs shutting down NNTP servers is about costs. Cuomo was a timely
excuse.

Instead of shutting them down completely, they only quit carrying
parts of alt.*, nor does it answer the question.

Leftist weenies power grab has nothing to do with ISPs shutting
down losers (yes, some are shutting them down). NNTP is a loser
and there aren't enough users to complain. Is that clear enough, or
do you need more help?

Failures on your part do not constitute any need on my part. RTFQ

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:56:22 -0800, D from BC
<myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:18:24 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <locmq4tbuacer9il8f9dpn11sicrs5484o@4ax.com>, D from BC 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.

When's the next ice age due?

If not for AGW, good chance within a few millennia. We have probably
already averted it and then some.

If not for AGW, a century or two from now could easily repeat the
"Little Ice Age" of 2-3 centuries or so ago, with noticeable downturn in
first half of 22nd century appearing likely on basis of MAO and longer
term sunspot cycles. Should we set new global surface and/or lower
troposphere temperature highs at those times when we should be repeating
"little ice age" as a harbinger of "next real ice age", then we end up
being shown that AGW is for real and that we have given ourselves warming
that will probably persist through the next several millennia and
probably be reinforced to multi-mega-year highs by the time the
"should-be-coming next ice age glaciation" would end maybe 90,000 or so
years from now.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

We try not to mess up the planet with pollution but mother nature
intends on freezing our asses off anyways..
A reset button?

But an asteroid strike might make all our pollution and garbage seem
insignificant.
http://ezinearticles.com/?We-Are-Not-Alone---Asteroids&id=888954
Digging up plastic bags during a nuclear winter might be a wonderful
thing.

btw
Earth's magnetic field is declining.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/reversals.html
"Indeed projecting this forward in time would suggest zero dipole
moment in about 1500-1600 years time. "

That would be just about on time wouldn't it?

--

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

 

On Mar 3, 6:12 am, D from BC <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:54 -0800, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-prot...

John

Maybe it's just warmer than normal somewhere else..

I wonder if all the crap that volcanos pump out compete with the
effects of gas and dust from people.

IIRR volcanoes are currently pumping out about 1 unit CO2 for every
hundred units of CO2 that we are injecting into the atmosphere by
burning fossil carbon.

Seems like there are 21 active volcanos.http://www.volcanolive.com/active2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
"
Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon
dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen
fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the
stratosphere to heights of 16–32 kilometres (10–20 mi) above the
Earth's surface. The most significant impacts from these injections
come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (H2SO4),
which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate
aerosols. The aerosols increase the Earth's albedo—its reflection of
radiation from the Sun back into space - and thus cool the Earth's
lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat
radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere.
"

Big eruption do push out enough sulphur dioxide to make a difference
for a year or so. The most recent was Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which
injected more aerosols into the atmosphere than any eruption since
Krakatoa in 1883

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 2, 5:50 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:43:43 -0600, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
34,000,000 years ago?
That's 12,420,000,000 days ago!
I can't get the local weathermen to agree on what the temperature
was---yesterday.
                                        Mike
Is your point that the climate changes? duh.

"Bill Sloman" <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:49aaa35f$0$6685$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl...
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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

                                        ...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  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

       How severe can senility be?  Just check out Slowman.

Or Thompson. At least I've still got enough neurones left to be able
to spell his name the same way he does.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 3, 10:16 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"

bill.slo...@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.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.”

/end quote- Hide quoted text -

This is an incomplete quotation. For the full text, look at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/cooler-heads-at-noaa-coming-around-to-natural-variability/

where Swanson is quoted as going on to say

"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he
warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing
greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

“When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive
warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative
forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and
be very aggressive.”

which isn't quite the message that your deceitful text-chopping is
intended to convey.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen