Driver to drive?

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

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.

I chopped the wild fantasy.

If these guys are saying they don't know the mechanism for the current
cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10
years ahead.

Me, I blame the sun as usual. Solar cycle 24 is very late.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 3 Mar 2009 04:21:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

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 )

Misquoting placement above. My paragraph is about "deaf", not about
7704A transformers.

...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 |

Obama's "stimulus" package has more pork in it than a pig farm

 

[Joerg]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 3 Mar 2009 04:21:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

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 )

Misquoting placement above. My paragraph is about "deaf", not about
7704A transformers.

I think he was responding to Fred. Anyhow, it's 1mH and that should
result in 30kHz. Which makes the 20usec periods out of the PWM chip a
bit weird. I've never driven a series-resonant converter that far "to
the side".

This 7000-series scope supply module was a bit disappointing. Looks
slapped together, not the cast-iron Tek quality I was used to see in
their older gear.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:6mfqq4lqn7974keehu3uq8cfe7frqbpeva@4ax.com:

On 3 Mar 2009 04:21:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

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 )

Misquoting placement above. My paragraph is about "deaf", not about
7704A transformers.

...Jim Thompson

I just added my post at the bottom of what you posted,keeping continuity in
the thread. Note how you left text from the previous poster between your
last comment and your name,creating the confusion.

My newsreader assigns different colors for different posters.

(I also filter out posts using "invalid" and other stuff spammers use,so I
didn't see Fred Abse's original post.That's why I replied to your reply.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[krw]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:04:16 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

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!

I remember that storm well. It took me about 20 hours to get home
from work that night. Got stuck in a firehouse in downtown
Poughkeepsie overnight. The volunteer brigade had beer in the Dr.
Pepper slot in the vending machine. ;-)

 

[krw]

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:11:06 -0800, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

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

D from BC wrote:
snip

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 ;-)

That was two coffees, so it's half sane. ..or perhaps half-n-half.

 

On Mar 3, 1:07 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
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-aro...

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.

I chopped the wild fantasy.

What you think is wild fantasy, because you don't understand enough to
follow the elementary loic involved.

If these guys are saying they don't know the mechanism for the current
cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10
years ahead.

Actually, they do know the mechanism - ocean currents are moving heat
around, along with the atmospheric circulation.Unfortunately they
don't know enough about the ocean currents to be able to make short
term climate predictions. People are busy sinking strings of flow and
temperature sensors in the oceans in order to get a more detailed idea
of what is going on, but there aren't yet enough of them in place to
give all that much information.

Predicting the broad long term effect of more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is easier - the surface of the earth is going to get warmer
- than precisely predicting which bits are going to get warmer and
when.

Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:07 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:16 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"

SNIP

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-aro...

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.

I chopped the wild fantasy.

What you think is wild fantasy, because you don't understand enough to
follow the elementary loic involved.

I understand the AGW argument, it just isn't settled or science.

If these guys are saying they don't know the mechanism for the current
cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10
years ahead.

Actually, they do know the mechanism - ocean currents are moving heat
around, along with the atmospheric circulation.Unfortunately they
don't know enough about the ocean currents to be able to make short
term climate predictions. People are busy sinking strings of flow and
temperature sensors in the oceans in order to get a more detailed idea
of what is going on, but there aren't yet enough of them in place to
give all that much information.

That's a crap argument I've seen many times. Moving the heat around
doesn't affect global temperature. X joules of heat on the planet is X
joules whether it's in the ocean or the atmosphere.

The top 6 metres of the oceans store as much energy as the whole
atmosphere. The oceans account for 90+% of energy storage. Anyone who
claims AGW without having meassured the oceans properly is an idiot.

Predicting the broad long term effect of more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is easier - the surface of the earth is going to get warmer
- than precisely predicting which bits are going to get warmer and
when.

Easier and almost irrelevent. If ocean currents can more than
compensate for CO2 for the next 30 years, according to Swanson, then
CO2 forcing isn't much to write home about.

Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

The AGW climate predictions up until the last couple of years were for
continuous warming. Can't say their predictions have been accurate or
useful.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

--
Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

"Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently
ignorant." As in those who believe in AGW ?

...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 |

An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question
unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their
behavior is of a religious nature. Thus, like all religious nut-
cases, they should be culled from the fraternity and dispatched.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“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.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

If you wish to discuss that do so. Trying to distract from the point
by claiming I'm trying to misdirect is pathetic.

Again you equate solar to insolation, I presume so you can dismiss the
sun out of hand.

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 3, 11:59 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:07 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:16 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"

SNIP



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-aro....

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.

I chopped the wild fantasy.

What you think is wild fantasy, because you don't understand enough to
follow the elementary loic involved.

I understand the AGW argument, it just isn't settled or science.



If these guys are saying they don't know the mechanism for the current
cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10
years ahead.

Actually, they do know the mechanism - ocean currents are moving heat
around, along with the atmospheric circulation.Unfortunately they
don't know enough about the ocean currents to be able to make short
term climate predictions. People are busy sinking strings of flow and
temperature sensors in the oceans in order to get a more detailed idea
of what is going on, but there aren't yet enough of them in place to
give all that much information.

That's a crap argument I've seen many times. Moving the heat around
doesn't affect global temperature. X joules of heat on the planet is X
joules whether it's in the ocean or the atmosphere.

The top 6 metres of the oceans store as much energy as the whole
atmosphere. The oceans account for 90+% of energy storage. Anyone who
claims AGW without having meassured the oceans properly is an idiot.



Predicting the broad long term effect of more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is easier - the surface of the earth is going to get warmer
- than precisely predicting which bits are going to get warmer and
when.

Easier and almost irrelevent.  If ocean currents can more than
compensate for CO2 for the next 30 years, according to Swanson, then
CO2 forcing isn't much to write home about.

Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

The AGW climate predictions up until the last couple of years were for
continuous warming. Can't say their predictions have been accurate or
useful.

"continuous"?

 

[Fred Abse]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:48:58 -0800, Joerg wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think he was responding to Fred. Anyhow, it's 1mH and that should result
in 30kHz. Which makes the 20usec periods out of the PWM chip a bit weird.
I've never driven a series-resonant converter that far "to the side".

Ahh.. You missed something: 1 mH and .03uF resonate at about 30kHz (29
actually), but they're in series with the leakage inductance of the
transformer, which is significant. The combination, with the transformer
loaded goes at about 25kHz.

The transformer construction is similar to a TV flyback, and we all know
how much leakage inductance they had :-(

I've not had chance to check up, yet, but I think the trigger circuit
fires every half-cycle, which would explain the 20usec period.

The result is pretty close to 25kHz. There's enough of it gets where it
shouldn't to put low-level pips 25kHz either side of the carrier on a
spectrum analyzer plugin in a 7000A series mainframe. There's some
spurious phase mod of one or more of the LO's going on. The non-A models
don't do it, so I suspect it's something to do with the separate HV
generator being driven up those long cables from the main PSU and ground
loops.

7L12, 7L13, 7L14 all do it on the 7704A, the 7904A, and, to a much lesser
extent on the 7104, which also has a separate HV unit. They don't do it on
either of the plain 7904s I have. The 7603 storage doesn't do it, but
that's got a "cooking" line frequency PSU.

This 7000-series scope supply module was a bit disappointing. Looks
slapped together, not the cast-iron Tek quality I was used to see in
their older gear.

I'm inclined to agree that they're not that pretty, but the performance is
fabulous. At least I can pick one up and carry it, unlike some of the earlier
stuff.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan



j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“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.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

 

[Joerg]

Fred Abse wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:48:58 -0800, Joerg wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think he was responding to Fred. Anyhow, it's 1mH and that should result
in 30kHz. Which makes the 20usec periods out of the PWM chip a bit weird.
I've never driven a series-resonant converter that far "to the side".

Ahh.. You missed something: 1 mH and .03uF resonate at about 30kHz (29
actually), but they're in series with the leakage inductance of the
transformer, which is significant. The combination, with the transformer
loaded goes at about 25kHz.

The transformer construction is similar to a TV flyback, and we all know
how much leakage inductance they had :-(

Whoops, that much leakage?

I've not had chance to check up, yet, but I think the trigger circuit
fires every half-cycle, which would explain the 20usec period.

Looks like that REG OUT signal goes straight to the drive transformer
for the H-bridge bases. But again, the waveforms are very faint in the
PDF file I have, hard to decipher. Probably they were red or something
and the scanner didn't pick them up too well.

The result is pretty close to 25kHz. There's enough of it gets where it
shouldn't to put low-level pips 25kHz either side of the carrier on a
spectrum analyzer plugin in a 7000A series mainframe. There's some
spurious phase mod of one or more of the LO's going on. The non-A models
don't do it, so I suspect it's something to do with the separate HV
generator being driven up those long cables from the main PSU and ground
loops.

7L12, 7L13, 7L14 all do it on the 7704A, the 7904A, and, to a much lesser
extent on the 7104, which also has a separate HV unit. They don't do it on
either of the plain 7904s I have. The 7603 storage doesn't do it, but
that's got a "cooking" line frequency PSU.

Those modules are a bit hard to find and often pretty pricey. At least
when I was in the market for one they were more expensive than a nice
PC-controlled scanner, so ...

This 7000-series scope supply module was a bit disappointing. Looks
slapped together, not the cast-iron Tek quality I was used to see in
their older gear.

I'm inclined to agree that they're not that pretty, but the performance is
fabulous. At least I can pick one up and carry it, unlike some of the earlier
stuff.

True, unlike after the HP4191 repair my back did not ache when I was
done repairing the Tektronix.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan



j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“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.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the

"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

 

On Mar 3, 11:32 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry





pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“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.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

The AGW claim is that ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
should - over the long term - give increasing global temperatures.

The distinction between "long term" and "short term" can be seen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Would you like to find a different straw man argument?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:27:12 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 3, 11:32 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry





pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“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.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

The AGW claim is that ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
should - over the long term - give increasing global temperatures.

The distinction between "long term" and "short term" can be seen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Would you like to find a different straw man argument?

As you quoted earlier:

"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years."

Is that long term enough for you?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:39:50 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

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

"Blame the sun"? Where else, exactly, other than volcanoes. geothermal
heat, and cosmic rays, does ALL of Earth's energy come from?

And if I ever see one of you fanatics even _acknowledge the existence of_
WATER, ... ah, hell, since it's a sure thing, I'll bet $1000.00* that none
will.

Thanks,
Rich

*(Nigerian Internet Money) ;-)

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:18:29 -0800, D from BC wrote:

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
...
No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

When's the next ice age due?

We're not even done with the LAST one yet! We're simply getting closer to
an end in the current lull. >:->

Cheers!
Rich