Driver to drive?

Michael A. Terrell · Mar 7, 2009

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:53:52 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global
extinction.

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always
ignore feedbacks.

If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he
claim to understand the so called global warming?

Michael Terrell doesn't appreciate that you can make better
electrolytic capacitors with tantalum than aluminium.

---
I don't think that's a valid extrapolation since all he claimed was that
you don't understand simple aluminum electrolytics.

True. I do know the difference, and where not to use a tantalum.
Its just his usual half assed attempt to cover the fact that he's
incompetent.

He still can't remember that I have both of his .ieee and Google
accounts filtered so he's becoming senile, as well. That is probably
why he's 30 or more years out of date.

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

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

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

Jim Thompson · Mar 7, 2009

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:56:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:53:52 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global
extinction.

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always
ignore feedbacks.

If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he
claim to understand the so called global warming?

Michael Terrell doesn't appreciate that you can make better
electrolytic capacitors with tantalum than aluminium.

---
I don't think that's a valid extrapolation since all he claimed was that
you don't understand simple aluminum electrolytics.

True. I do know the difference, and where not to use a tantalum.
Its just his usual half assed attempt to cover the fact that he's
incompetent.

He still can't remember that I have both of his .ieee and Google
accounts filtered so he's becoming senile, as well. That is probably
why he's 30 or more years out of date.

Michael A. Terrell · Mar 7, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:56:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:53:52 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global
extinction.

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always
ignore feedbacks.

If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he
claim to understand the so called global warming?

Michael Terrell doesn't appreciate that you can make better
electrolytic capacitors with tantalum than aluminium.

---
I don't think that's a valid extrapolation since all he claimed was that
you don't understand simple aluminum electrolytics.

True. I do know the difference, and where not to use a tantalum.
Its just his usual half assed attempt to cover the fact that he's
incompetent.

He still can't remember that I have both of his .ieee and Google
accounts filtered so he's becoming senile, as well. That is probably
why he's 30 or more years out of date.

That's why I say SHUN Slowman.

He should be used to it, by now. People have shunned the loser his
whole life. He makes Rodney Dangerfield look like the life of the
party.

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

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

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

John Larkin · Mar 7, 2009

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:21:30 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:17:36 -0600, "Tim Williams"

tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tsg3r4l33v9kec50anp39ksk17du0vpsi4@4ax.com...
I'm impressed at how your prejudices constantly overpower your ability
to think or to research. This was right in your face:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Causes_of_the_disaster

"The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. ...

It was a bad design, but it wasn't a bomb. Realize that many other RBMKs
operated smoothly for years. Only one exploded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK
"Some RBMK designs did include control rods on electromagnetic grapples,
thus controlling the reaction speed ..."
Still a lot more blowupable than, say, a U.S. design, but the operators
still had to go above and beyond to make it fuck up. And approximately the
same thing (including operator stupidity) can happen, and did in one case,
with all American PWRs and BWRs.

In commercial BWRs, loss of water coolant stops the fission reaction.
And core meltdown also stops the fission. Now only latent isotopes are
generating heat, presumably in a puddle of molten gunk in the botton
of the containment vessel. These are hot but have short half-lives so
cool off a lot in hours and days. If it melts through, it's going
down, not up. There's no graphite to catch fire and spread isotopes
over millions of square km. There's a huge difference from dynamically
unstable graphite reactors that are safe only when thay are carefully
managed.

And Three Mile Island, which was just barely safe when it was
carelessly managed.

Exactly. A good reactor design won't blow up even if the operators try
to blow it up. When the stakes are this high, that's simply an
engineering requirement.

The TMI meltdown cost a lot of money but injured nobody. For the
reasons I've noted: dynamic stability, containment.

I'm sure that even America's infallible engineers will eventually
manage to find some way of beating the superior design of US boiling
water reactors, and create their own Chernobyl-sized disaster if we
give them enough time and enough reactors.

What an ass you are. The newer designs are even safer than the old
ones, which have killed zero people so far. Reactor management,
training, and culture are also far better than in the days of TMI.

All big disasters have multiple contributing factors. Some have a
more-or-less dangerous basis (like overall reactor stability), but one
which, under normal operation, will never fail because other factors are in
place. "Control theory concepts" end up having very little to do with it.

Control theory has nothing to do with the safety of a high-energy
dynamic system? Do you even own a car?

My experience with engineers who have claimed to understand control
theory suggests that it is a poor substitute for common sense.

When common sense is used to evaluate complex system dynamics, it
rarely works. And it never bestows confidence that a system is safe.

I am increasingly convinced, based on numerous examples, that you are
not among the engineers who actually *do* understand control theory.

John

Jim Thompson · Mar 7, 2009

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:44:25 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:21:30 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

[snip]

My experience with engineers who have claimed to understand control
theory suggests that it is a poor substitute for common sense.

When common sense is used to evaluate complex system dynamics, it
rarely works. And it never bestows confidence that a system is safe.

I am increasingly convinced, based on numerous examples, that you are
not among the engineers who actually *do* understand control theory.

John

Michael A. Terrell · Mar 7, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:44:25 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:21:30 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

[snip]

My experience with engineers who have claimed to understand control
theory suggests that it is a poor substitute for common sense.

When common sense is used to evaluate complex system dynamics, it
rarely works. And it never bestows confidence that a system is safe.

I am increasingly convinced, based on numerous examples, that you are
not among the engineers who actually *do* understand control theory.

John

Please do not sully the profession by denoting Slowman as "engineer".
He can't even find his own asshole with a flashlight and a mirror.

While there are big enough mirrors, no flashlight is up to that
task.

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

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

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

Jim Yanik · Mar 7, 2009

John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> wrote in
news:49b2c08a$0$1666$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

Paul wrote:
Hi,

Is it legal to sell a kit that includes all of the parts,
instructions, and diagrams so someone could build there own DC-DC
Converter kit?

Yes. But it's pointless.

Nobody sells kits any more, other than in very tiny volume. It's
cheaper to have the whole thing assembled in Asia.

Also, in an assembly plant, surface mount components, which are
cheaper, can be used.

John Nagle

Uh,hobbyists use SMD,too. I've used them.
It's not that hard,you just need the right tools.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik · Mar 7, 2009

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
news:9ng5r49t7stcdihp4h7q6l7718ull3hu66@4ax.com:

---
You'd be better off getting legal advice from a lawyer rather than the
likes of us.

JF

AMEN! I'd NEVER ask for legal advice on UseNet.
There's a "lawyer" posting on sci.military.naval that's a complete joke;
goes by the name of Vince Brannigan.Just Google for some of his nonsense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Mar 8, 2009

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> |>
|> |> |> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:51:33 -0500 Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |> |>
|> |> |> | I have no problem reading and identifying moronic concepts.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> You have no skill in reading electrical enginering or technology. All the
|> |> |> rest is fiction in your mind.
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> | Yawn. Another lame attempt to slur my name. The 'fiction' is that
|> |> | you believe the crap you dream up will work. What have you ever done in
|> |> | the real world? My design ideas are in space, aboard the ISS, used to
|> |> | track everything launched by NASA, the ESA, and by NOAA to track and
|> |> | control their LEO Weather Satellites. I also came up with the idea of
|> |> | uplinking a subcarrier channel to a C-band satellite from a different
|> |> | site than the main carrier. This was for United Video's microwave
|> |> | division for their EPG service on the WGN feed. It eliminated two
|> |> | leased phone lines from Salt Lake City where the mainframe computers
|> |> | were, to the WGN uplink in Chicago. It provided a more reliable service,
|> |> | and the savings of over $15,000 a month for the company I worked for.
|> |>
|> |> You could have made a lot more contributions to the world if you had the
|> |> ability to read English and did not have the attitude of distorting what
|> |> people say so you gain the ability to make assertions that are really false
|> |> and lets you blame it on them. I'm not going to play your penis length
|> |> game. There's no way to verify the truth or significance in anything you
|> |> say.
|> |>
|> |> Maybe you really did those things in the past and maybe they will work fine.
|> |> But your brain is certainly not keeping up. Damaged?
|> |
|> |
|> | Keep throwing your hissy fits, Phil. You can't design anything, and
|> | continue to show the world what a fool you are.
|>
|> What did you think I designed?
|
|
| Absolutely nothing that has ever worked.

With respect to this thread, I did not design anything. So I guess you
have actually made a statement that would evaluate as true.

|> You're the one that doesn't understand how to extend the life of a battery
|> by reducing its load.
|
|
| Bullshit. I stated several times in this thread about choosing the
| proper capacity which isn't using them at 99% of their rated capacity.
| I am a firm believer in properly de-rating a design so it is never
| stressed beyond reason, but your blind ignorance forces you to ignore
| what anyone tells you.

When have you ever designed a UPS that is in commercial production?
Guess what. They don't do this. They can't. The reason they can't
is because needs vary so widely. The best they can do is make a
range of designs and let the buyer select what will most closely fit
their needs.

| As you can see a few lines down I stated : Then the battery is too
| small, or too old. An overly complex design isn't the answer to crappy
| maintenance. then you tell me I would chose too small of a battery,
| once again proving you have zero comprehension of anything you read.

What I stated is a fact that follows across all sizes, ratings, and ages
of common batteries. Your statements don't even address it at all. You
have no comprehension of what is being discussed. As I have said before
in other past threads, your difficulty is comprehending English well enough
to realize what people are talking about.

|> Whatever size you have, if the load is reduced, the battery runs longer.
|> If you do ever need it to run that long, maybe you got a too large battery.
|
|
| Sigh. You can't even tell there is anything outside the box, can
| you?

Specify what box you are referring to.

|> The real world involves UPSes that in most cases have limitations on the
|> battery size, while the market wants longer run times. The "proper sizing"
|> is just not something that is easily doable. That's a concept that applies
|> when setting up large scale batteries with separate chargers and inverters.
|> And I've done that for two mainframe data centers.
|
|
| Whoopee. Two whole jobs. Get back to me when you know what your
| trying to do. y starting with say 50% extra batter capacity, they will
| last longer, and still be usable as they start to degrade, as well as
| handle surges if something has to be restarted while the system is
| running on the UPS.

I never said anything about "50% extra batter capacity". Your failure to
understand what you read is in play, again.

I referred to reducing the load on the battery by 50%. That means a battery
with linear runtime characteristics (a hypothetical battery that merely
approximates real life battery performance) would run twice as long. That
isn't "50% extra batter capacity". It *IS* effective a 100% extra UNIT
capacity when considering one unit with the feature I suggested against a
unit without, when they each have the same battery.

Of course real batteries are non-linear with respect to runtime, and vary
with other factors like aging, wear (number of cycles), temperature, and
rate of usage (the power drawn from it).

|> |> Now I have to say it ... what an utter moron.
|> |
|> |
|> | We know you're a moron.
|>
|> You've proven your ignorance.
|
|
| Phil, you are a world class ignoramus who lives to put layer after
| layer of cheap lipstick on the pigs you dream up. Your other hobby is
| separating fly shit from pepper, under a broken microscope.
|
| Keep showing everyone what a fool you are. Some people enjoy watching
| you go down for the third time, so they can toss you a concrete life
| preserver.
|
| No one expect you to ever learn anything or to admit what a fool you
| really are. You make Roy look smart, by comparison.

I'm only showing what a fool you are.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Michael A. Terrell · Mar 8, 2009

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |
|> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> |> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:51:33 -0500 Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> |> | I have no problem reading and identifying moronic concepts.
|> |> |
|> |> |> You have no skill in reading electrical enginering or technology. All the
|> |> |> rest is fiction in your mind.
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> | Yawn. Another lame attempt to slur my name. The 'fiction' is that
|> |> | you believe the crap you dream up will work. What have you ever done in
|> |> | the real world? My design ideas are in space, aboard the ISS, used to
|> |> | track everything launched by NASA, the ESA, and by NOAA to track and
|> |> | control their LEO Weather Satellites. I also came up with the idea of
|> |> | uplinking a subcarrier channel to a C-band satellite from a different
|> |> | site than the main carrier. This was for United Video's microwave
|> |> | division for their EPG service on the WGN feed. It eliminated two
|> |> | leased phone lines from Salt Lake City where the mainframe computers
|> |> | were, to the WGN uplink in Chicago. It provided a more reliable service,
|> |> | and the savings of over $15,000 a month for the company I worked for.
|> |
|> |> You could have made a lot more contributions to the world if you had the
|> |> ability to read English and did not have the attitude of distorting what
|> |> people say so you gain the ability to make assertions that are really false
|> |> and lets you blame it on them. I'm not going to play your penis length
|> |> game. There's no way to verify the truth or significance in anything you
|> |> say.
|> |
|> |> Maybe you really did those things in the past and maybe they will work fine.
|> |> But your brain is certainly not keeping up. Damaged?
|> |
|> |
|> | Keep throwing your hissy fits, Phil. You can't design anything, and
|> | continue to show the world what a fool you are.
|
|> What did you think I designed?
|
|
| Absolutely nothing that has ever worked.

With respect to this thread, I did not design anything. So I guess you
have actually made a statement that would evaluate as true.

|> You're the one that doesn't understand how to extend the life of a battery
|> by reducing its load.
|
|
| Bullshit. I stated several times in this thread about choosing the
| proper capacity which isn't using them at 99% of their rated capacity.
| I am a firm believer in properly de-rating a design so it is never
| stressed beyond reason, but your blind ignorance forces you to ignore
| what anyone tells you.

When have you ever designed a UPS that is in commercial production?
Guess what. They don't do this. They can't. The reason they can't
is because needs vary so widely. The best they can do is make a
range of designs and let the buyer select what will most closely fit
their needs.

| As you can see a few lines down I stated : Then the battery is too
| small, or too old. An overly complex design isn't the answer to crappy
| maintenance. then you tell me I would chose too small of a battery,
| once again proving you have zero comprehension of anything you read.

What I stated is a fact that follows across all sizes, ratings, and ages
of common batteries. Your statements don't even address it at all. You
have no comprehension of what is being discussed. As I have said before
in other past threads, your difficulty is comprehending English well enough
to realize what people are talking about.

|> Whatever size you have, if the load is reduced, the battery runs longer.
|> If you do ever need it to run that long, maybe you got a too large battery.
|
|
| Sigh. You can't even tell there is anything outside the box, can
| you?

Specify what box you are referring to.

You are so stupid that you hav enver hear of "Thinking outside the
box"?

|> The real world involves UPSes that in most cases have limitations on the
|> battery size, while the market wants longer run times. The "proper sizing"
|> is just not something that is easily doable. That's a concept that applies
|> when setting up large scale batteries with separate chargers and inverters.
|> And I've done that for two mainframe data centers.
|
|
| Whoopee. Two whole jobs. Get back to me when you know what your
| trying to do. y starting with say 50% extra batter capacity, they will
| last longer, and still be usable as they start to degrade, as well as
| handle surges if something has to be restarted while the system is
| running on the UPS.

I never said anything about "50% extra batter capacity". Your failure to
understand what you read is in play, again.

No, I SAID THAT I WOULD USE A BATTERY BANK 50% MORE THEN THE MINIMUM
TO EXTEND ITS LIFE.

I referred to reducing the load on the battery by 50%. That means a battery
with linear runtime characteristics (a hypothetical battery that merely
approximates real life battery performance) would run twice as long. That
isn't "50% extra batter capacity". It *IS* effective a 100% extra UNIT
capacity when considering one unit with the feature I suggested against a
unit without, when they each have the same battery.

Of course real batteries are non-linear with respect to runtime, and vary
with other factors like aging, wear (number of cycles), temperature, and
rate of usage (the power drawn from it).

|> |> Now I have to say it ... what an utter moron.
|> |
|> |
|> | We know you're a moron.
|
|> You've proven your ignorance.
|
|
| Phil, you are a world class ignoramus who lives to put layer after
| layer of cheap lipstick on the pigs you dream up. Your other hobby is
| separating fly shit from pepper, under a broken microscope.
|
| Keep showing everyone what a fool you are. Some people enjoy watching
| you go down for the third time, so they can toss you a concrete life
| preserver.
|
| No one expect you to ever learn anything or to admit what a fool you
| really are. You make Roy look smart, by comparison.

I'm only showing what a fool you are.

Tell me, Phil, how low of a line voltage do you expect your fantasy
UPS to work, without being completely on batteries?

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

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

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

Mar 8, 2009

On Mar 7, 9:44 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:21:30 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:17:36 -0600, "Tim Williams"

tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tsg3r4l33v9kec50anp39ksk17du0vpsi4@4ax.com...
I'm impressed at how your prejudices constantly overpower your ability
to think or to research. This was right in your face:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Causes_of_the_disaster

"The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. ...

It was a bad design, but it wasn't a bomb. Realize that many other RBMKs
operated smoothly for years. Only one exploded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK
"Some RBMK designs did include control rods on electromagnetic grapples,
thus controlling the reaction speed ..."
Still a lot more blowupable than, say, a U.S. design, but the operators
still had to go above and beyond to make it fuck up. And approximately the
same thing (including operator stupidity) can happen, and did in one case,
with all American PWRs and BWRs.

In commercial BWRs, loss of water coolant stops the fission reaction.
And core meltdown also stops the fission. Now only latent isotopes are
generating heat, presumably in a puddle of molten gunk in the botton
of the containment vessel. These are hot but have short half-lives so
cool off a lot in hours and days. If it melts through, it's going
down, not up. There's no graphite to catch fire and spread isotopes
over millions of square km. There's a huge difference from dynamically
unstable graphite reactors that are safe only when thay are carefully
managed.

And Three Mile Island, which was just barely safe when it was
carelessly managed.

Exactly. A good reactor design won't blow up even if the operators try
to blow it up. When the stakes are this high, that's simply an
engineering requirement.

All you can say about Three Mile Island is that it didn't blow up.
You - and the designers - would like to think that it couldn't blow
up, no matter how ingenious the human errors it is subjected to, but
that's just wishful thinking.

The TMI meltdown cost a lot of money but injured nobody. For the
reasons I've noted: dynamic stability, containment.

And a certain amount of luck.

I'm sure that even America's infallible engineers will eventually
manage to find some way of beating the superior design of US boiling
water reactors, and create their own Chernobyl-sized disaster if we
give them enough time and enough reactors.

What an ass you are. The newer designs are even safer than the old
ones, which have killed zero people so far. Reactor management,
training, and culture are also far better than in the days of TMI.

Right, and your designs are all insanely good. All you are saying is
that nothing has gone wrong recently, and you have gotten complacent
again.

All big disasters have multiple contributing factors. Some have a
more-or-less dangerous basis (like overall reactor stability), but one
which, under normal operation, will never fail because other factors are in
place. "Control theory concepts" end up having very little to do with it.

Control theory has nothing to do with the safety of a high-energy
dynamic system? Do you even own a car?

My experience with engineers who have claimed to understand control
theory suggests that it is a poor substitute for common sense.

When common sense is used to evaluate complex system dynamics, it
rarely works. And it never bestows confidence that a system is safe.

Neither does control theory. It just offers a more complicated scheme
for failing to understand what is actually going on.

I am increasingly convinced, based on numerous examples, that you are
not among the engineers who actually *do* understand control theory.

You haven't got enough evidence on the subject to come to any rational
conclusion, and - as usual - are indulging in wishful thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mar 8, 2009

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

|> their needs.
|>
|> | As you can see a few lines down I stated : Then the battery is too
|> | small, or too old. An overly complex design isn't the answer to crappy
|> | maintenance. then you tell me I would chose too small of a battery,
|> | once again proving you have zero comprehension of anything you read.
|>
|> What I stated is a fact that follows across all sizes, ratings, and ages
|> of common batteries. Your statements don't even address it at all. You
|> have no comprehension of what is being discussed. As I have said before
|> in other past threads, your difficulty is comprehending English well enough
|> to realize what people are talking about.
|>
|> |> Whatever size you have, if the load is reduced, the battery runs longer.
|> |> If you do ever need it to run that long, maybe you got a too large battery.
|> |
|> |
|> | Sigh. You can't even tell there is anything outside the box, can
|> | you?
|>
|> Specify what box you are referring to.
|
|
| You are so stupid that you hav enver hear of "Thinking outside the
| box"?

You are quite creative. You have that going for you.

I know about "Thinking outside the box". But you didn't specify that
box as the one you were referring to before I asked you to.

|> |> The real world involves UPSes that in most cases have limitations on the
|> |> battery size, while the market wants longer run times. The "proper sizing"
|> |> is just not something that is easily doable. That's a concept that applies
|> |> when setting up large scale batteries with separate chargers and inverters.
|> |> And I've done that for two mainframe data centers.
|> |
|> |
|> | Whoopee. Two whole jobs. Get back to me when you know what your
|> | trying to do. y starting with say 50% extra batter capacity, they will
|> | last longer, and still be usable as they start to degrade, as well as
|> | handle surges if something has to be restarted while the system is
|> | running on the UPS.
|>
|> I never said anything about "50% extra batter capacity". Your failure to
|> understand what you read is in play, again.
|
|
| No, I SAID THAT I WOULD USE A BATTERY BANK 50% MORE THEN THE MINIMUM
| TO EXTEND ITS LIFE.

With some UPSes you can do that. With others, you can't.

I *AM* talking about a redesign (without yet doing that redesign) of the
charging (AC to DC) component of the UPS so that it will get whatever
power it can get from a deep brownout condition, and use that to charge
the battery or supplement the use of the battery.

It is PLAUSIBLE to do this because switch mode power supplies, which are
devices that convert AC to DC at one or more DC output voltages, can
readily and easily be made to operate over a voltage range greater than
2:1. Most computer power supplies now do 100 to 240 volts AC continuous,
without needing one of those "115/230" switches. Almost all my wall
warts do this, too. If it can be done for 100 to 240, it could also be
done for 50 to 120, and thus be within the range for the class of deep
brownout I have seen about half the time. Or a 240 volt class UPS can
be left at the 100 to 240 volt range. What will need to be done to
accomodate this is to be sure the current at the low voltage can be
handled, or be restricted/limited.

So really, I don't even need to design this. It has already been done.

|> I referred to reducing the load on the battery by 50%. That means a battery
|> with linear runtime characteristics (a hypothetical battery that merely
|> approximates real life battery performance) would run twice as long. That
|> isn't "50% extra batter capacity". It *IS* effective a 100% extra UNIT
|> capacity when considering one unit with the feature I suggested against a
|> unit without, when they each have the same battery.
|>
|> Of course real batteries are non-linear with respect to runtime, and vary
|> with other factors like aging, wear (number of cycles), temperature, and
|> rate of usage (the power drawn from it).
|>
|> |> |> Now I have to say it ... what an utter moron.
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> | We know you're a moron.
|> |>
|> |> You've proven your ignorance.
|> |
|> |
|> | Phil, you are a world class ignoramus who lives to put layer after
|> | layer of cheap lipstick on the pigs you dream up. Your other hobby is
|> | separating fly shit from pepper, under a broken microscope.
|> |
|> | Keep showing everyone what a fool you are. Some people enjoy watching
|> | you go down for the third time, so they can toss you a concrete life
|> | preserver.
|> |
|> | No one expect you to ever learn anything or to admit what a fool you
|> | really are. You make Roy look smart, by comparison.
|>
|> I'm only showing what a fool you are.
|
|
| Tell me, Phil, how low of a line voltage do you expect your fantasy
| UPS to work, without being completely on batteries?

At least one existing UPS can go down to 86 volts or lower for a 120 volt
system. Switch mode power supplies are readily available for the 100 to
240 volt range (check your own computer(s) and see). Just build one big
enough to drive the inverter and charge the battery. Front end it with a
120 volt to 240 volt transformer if you want to power it on 120 volts. Or
just connect it to a 240 volt circuit.

If a switch mode power supply can be made to operate over a 100 to 240 volt
range, then a similar design for a smaller voltage could do 50 to 120 volts
if that is the desired system voltage.

Note that the 100 to 240 volt range is nominal. They do have a wider range
to accomodate voltage variations of 5% or even 10%. Power supply specs I
have seen often say they work down to 90 volts. And this is without looking
for wider range ones. I bet a real electrical engineer would know how to
make one handle 45 to 305 volts input AC with a reasonbly constant DC output
at some voltage.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

John Larkin · Mar 8, 2009

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 22:32:26 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Neither does control theory. It just offers a more complicated scheme
for failing to understand what is actually going on.

Just whwn I conclude, once again, that you are a bad-tempered, useless
old geezer whose posts aren't worth reading, you come up with a gem
like this. A classic!

John

Mar 8, 2009

On Mar 7, 12:30 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:07 am, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:58:30 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:42 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
and China and India and the rest of the developing world
will simply not restrict energy use (lots of nasty coal) for our
benefit.

They may well do it for their own benefit, Anthropogenic global
warming is already starting to crimp their food output...

Really? How so?

What specific aspect of the climate has changed in a MEASURABLE way
enough to impact agricultural output in China a NEGATIVE way?

The aspect that this year gave northern China the worst drought in
half a century

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/05/china-food-farming

"Worst drought in half a century" implies that things were about as
bad 50 years ago. And presumably this drought isn't as bad as some
other drought farther back in time. And much of the water woes in
China are self-inflicted.

There have been floods and droughts somewhere in the world since the
dawn of recorded history.

That's the trouble with noisy signals. Southern Australia seems to be
in the middle of the worst drought for a thousand years, but that too
could just be coincidence.

The onset of the Younger Dryas probably looked like just a
particularly bad winter when it started. Temperatures in Europe and
North America dropped 5 degrees Celcius over a decade, and stayed low
for 1300 years before recovering just as fast.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

EXACTLY,

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

Mark

Spehro Pefhany · Mar 8, 2009

On 7 Mar 2009 23:21:12 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>
wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
news:9ng5r49t7stcdihp4h7q6l7718ull3hu66@4ax.com:

---
You'd be better off getting legal advice from a lawyer rather than the
likes of us.

JF

AMEN! I'd NEVER ask for legal advice on UseNet.
There's a "lawyer" posting on sci.military.naval that's a complete joke;
goes by the name of Vince Brannigan.Just Google for some of his nonsense.

OTOH, engineers in general have a much better grasp of civil law than
most people-- aside from coming into contact with legal practitioners
and process through creation of IP, expert witness, product liability
and E&O concerns and such like, in many jurisdictions we are required
to have and demonstrate such knowledge formally in order to get a
license. The minority who are also business owners are generally well
aware of business structures and commercial codes and practices from a
legal as well as taxation and insurance pov.

So, it's not silly to ask for legal advice, but it's reckless for a
non-lawyer to offer it without appropriate disclaimers and it would be
pretty stupid to *RELY* upon such advice.

Given the high cost (and specialized scope) of good legal advice, it's
not a bad idea to know what information to give a lawyer, what
questions to ask, and which other professionals you will also have to
consult.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Michael A. Terrell · Mar 8, 2009

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| You are so stupid that you hav enver hear of "Thinking outside the
| box"?

You are quite creative. You have that going for you.

I know about "Thinking outside the box". But you didn't specify that
box as the one you were referring to before I asked you to.

Lame excuse.

| No, I SAID THAT I WOULD USE A BATTERY BANK 50% MORE THEN THE MINIMUM
| TO EXTEND ITS LIFE.

With some UPSes you can do that. With others, you can't.

We were talking a new design so that is a lame answer. Do I have do
define 'Lame' as well?

I *AM* talking about a redesign (without yet doing that redesign) of the
charging (AC to DC) component of the UPS so that it will get whatever
power it can get from a deep brownout condition, and use that to charge
the battery or supplement the use of the battery.

It is PLAUSIBLE to do this because switch mode power supplies, which are
devices that convert AC to DC at one or more DC output voltages, can
readily and easily be made to operate over a voltage range greater than
2:1. Most computer power supplies now do 100 to 240 volts AC continuous,
without needing one of those "115/230" switches. Almost all my wall
warts do this, too. If it can be done for 100 to 240, it could also be
done for 50 to 120, and thus be within the range for the class of deep
brownout I have seen about half the time. Or a 240 volt class UPS can
be left at the 100 to 240 volt range. What will need to be done to
accomodate this is to be sure the current at the low voltage can be
handled, or be restricted/limited.

So really, I don't even need to design this. It has already been done.

Really? Then go buy it.

| Tell me, Phil, how low of a line voltage do you expect your fantasy
| UPS to work, without being completely on batteries?

At least one existing UPS can go down to 86 volts or lower for a 120 volt
system. Switch mode power supplies are readily available for the 100 to
240 volt range (check your own computer(s) and see). Just build one big
enough to drive the inverter and charge the battery. Front end it with a
120 volt to 240 volt transformer if you want to power it on 120 volts. Or
just connect it to a 240 volt circuit.

If a switch mode power supply can be made to operate over a 100 to 240 volt
range, then a similar design for a smaller voltage could do 50 to 120 volts
if that is the desired system voltage.

Note that the 100 to 240 volt range is nominal. They do have a wider range
to accomodate voltage variations of 5% or even 10%. Power supply specs I
have seen often say they work down to 90 volts. And this is without looking
for wider range ones. I bet a real electrical engineer would know how to
make one handle 45 to 305 volts input AC with a reasonbly constant DC output
at some voltage.

Is this fantasy supply for a single computer, or for a room full of
servers? It makes a huge difference.

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

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

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

John Larkin · Mar 8, 2009

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:23:36 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:54 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:30 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:07 am, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:58:30 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:42 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
and China and India and the rest of the developing world
will simply not restrict energy use (lots of nasty coal) for our
benefit.

They may well do it for their own benefit, Anthropogenic global
warming is already starting to crimp their food output...

Really? How so?

What specific aspect of the climate has changed in a MEASURABLE way
enough to impact agricultural output in China a NEGATIVE way?

The aspect that this year gave northern China the worst drought in
half a century

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/05/china-food-farming

"Worst drought in half a century" implies that things were about as
bad 50 years ago. And presumably this drought isn't as bad as some
other drought farther back in time. And much of the water woes in
China are self-inflicted.

There have been floods and droughts somewhere in the world since the
dawn of recorded history.

That's the trouble with noisy signals. Southern Australia seems to be
in the middle of the worst drought for a thousand years, but that too
could just be coincidence.

The onset of the Younger Dryas probably looked like just a
particularly bad winter when it started. Temperatures in Europe and
North America dropped 5 degrees Celcius over a decade, and stayed low
for 1300 years before recovering just as fast.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

EXACTLY,

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts. You have no reason to
attack me personally.

He has a perfectly good reason to attack you personally. Insulting
other people is the only way he knows to validate his own worth.

John

Mar 8, 2009

On Mar 7, 5:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:53:52 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global
extinction.

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always
ignore feedbacks.

If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he
claim to understand the so called global warming?

Michael Terrell doesn't appreciate that you can make better
electrolytic capacitors with tantalum than aluminium.

---
I don't think that's a valid extrapolation since all he claimed was that
you don't understand simple aluminum electrolytics.

His attention span isn't all that long, and the only discussion I've
been involved in about aluminium electrolytics is the recent one with
you, which was actually about the difference between aluminium and
tantalum electrolytics, a point that you don't seem to understand any
too well either, since you only posted data on aluminium
electrolytics.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mar 8, 2009

On Mar 7, 6:56 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:53:52 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global
extinction.

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always
ignore feedbacks.

If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he
claim to understand the so called global warming?

Michael Terrell doesn't appreciate that you can make better
electrolytic capacitors with tantalum than aluminium.

---
I don't think that's a valid extrapolation since all he claimed was that
you don't understand simple aluminum electrolytics.

True. I do know the difference, and where not to use a tantalum..
Its just his usual half assed attempt to cover the fact that he's
incompetent.

He still can't remember that I have both of his .ieee and Google
accounts filtered so he's becoming senile, as well. That is probably
why he's 30 or more years out of date.

I should care that Michael Terrell chooses not to read my posts? He
does have inflated idea of his place in the scheme of things.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mar 8, 2009

On Mar 8, 12:54 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:30 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:07 am, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:58:30 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:42 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
and China and India and the rest of the developing world
will simply not restrict energy use (lots of nasty coal) for our
benefit.

They may well do it for their own benefit, Anthropogenic global
warming is already starting to crimp their food output...

Really? How so?

What specific aspect of the climate has changed in a MEASURABLE way
enough to impact agricultural output in China a NEGATIVE way?

The aspect that this year gave northern China the worst drought in
half a century

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/05/china-food-farming

"Worst drought in half a century" implies that things were about as
bad 50 years ago. And presumably this drought isn't as bad as some
other drought farther back in time. And much of the water woes in
China are self-inflicted.

There have been floods and droughts somewhere in the world since the
dawn of recorded history.

That's the trouble with noisy signals. Southern Australia seems to be
in the middle of the worst drought for a thousand years, but that too
could just be coincidence.

The onset of the Younger Dryas probably looked like just a
particularly bad winter when it started. Temperatures in Europe and
North America dropped 5 degrees Celcius over a decade, and stayed low
for 1300 years before recovering just as fast.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

EXACTLY,

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts. You have no reason to
attack me personally. It makes you look bad by the way.

2) The theory of relativity was hard for many people to believe at
first and there was no physical evidence to back it up at first.
Eventually the measurements became refined enough to verify it. The
theory of relativity has now been verified.

3) The theory of AGW is based on computer simulations and calculations
but there are no clear physical measurements to verify it. If there
were unambiguous measurements of global temperature or sea level
rise, then there would be some evidence that AGW is true. Right now
it is a theory that predicts that the temp and sea will rise at some
time in the future. If and when that starts to happen, I'll be a
believer too.

I think it is wrong to base important national and global policy
decisions about carbon taxes and sequestration and use of coal on an
unverified theory. I have no argument with developing conservation
and renewable energy sources.

Mark

Driver to drive?

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Yanik

Guest

Jim Yanik

Guest

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Guest

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Driver to drive?

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Yanik

Guest

Jim Yanik

Guest

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Guest

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor