Driver to drive?

[Sum Ting Wong]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 01:33:23 -0400, Ben Bradley
<ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 01:14:47 +0100, Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:17:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

How about hiring some bots to perform a DoS attack on Google ?

DoS-ing Google is probably an impossibility. Even generating enough
extra traffic to make a visible blip on their traffic graph would be hard
enough.

Perhaps a big enough botnet (since you're already doing something
illegal) would get their attention.

But perhaps one could make a physical protest at Google
headquarters carrying signs that say "Google's Usenet Interface
SUCKS!"

Reminds me of Deja News, and when it went out of business ... many
months later, Google both Deja's archives, and finally put them online
(was it over a year the archives were inaccessible? It was a dark
period for Usenetians, regardless), and people were happy it was back,
though I'm not sure Google's interace ever worked as well as Deja's
did. Then newsgroup acces got (intentionally!) conflagrated with
Google's own discussion crap "Google Groups" and everything went all
to hell.

Interesting and weird. Your perspective is not the same as mine.

Usenet (our text forum)IS what "Google Groups" is (claims to be).
Usenet has been around even long before your precious deja. as have the
groups. Are Google Groups users creating new dot alt groups? I doubt it.

There is no "goggle discussion crap". There are WebTard idiots that
"found out" about "google groups", and next to none of them have any clue
that it is Usenet, or that they are invaders therein, with their zero
grasp of conventions that have been in place for decades in the groups.
So we get stupid posters posting in stupid ways.

It's like Elementary School kids... EVERY DAY!

Goddamned whole world is filling up with punk ass gang boy retards that
do not know a goddamned thing about a goddamned thing.

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 02:30:53 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On May 5, 2:44 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Raveninghorde wrote:

The antartic ice  is above long term trend:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly....

  Antarctic sea ice area is indeed above long term trend of since
observations began, but to a lesser extent in square kilometers than
Arctic sea ice has been running low over the past few years.  The world
has experienced a loss of sea ice.

Sea Ice is an irrelevance. It merely shows mild warming of the oceans
which we know about anyway. It won't flood anywhere since it occupies no
more space when melted.

  The issue here is that sea ice loss is an indicator of warming, and also
a positive feedback mechanism for warming.

  I am very well aware that melting of ice floating on the sea does not
change sea level.  The big problem of sea level increase would come from
warming progressing to causing significant melting of the thick ice sheets
over land area of Greenland and Antarctica.

Not going to happen EVER in Antarctica unless temps rise by 40+ C.

It has happened in the geological past for much lower temperature
rises than 40C.
The ice doesn't have to melt in situ - it can slide off the landmass
and drift off towards the Equator, where it does happen to be warm
enough to melt ice, even today, and this does seem to be underway at
the moment

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060302180504.htm

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment,
completed in 2001, predicted the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass
in the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming
climate. But the new study signals a reduction in the continent's
total ice mass, with the bulk of loss occurring in the West Antarctic
ice sheet, said Velicogna

So, you have evidence to the opposite of Global Warming.

Greenland's thick ice sheet
may not melt much until/unless global surface temperature gets to warmer
levels achieved in the previous interglacial period, 2-3 degrees C/K above
1961-1990 average.

The satellites are saying the total mass of Greenland ice is stable.

Not true.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html

Which would be nothing new.except for the rate of warming in
1920-1930 being about 50% higher, so this one is milder.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml

You know, the 1920-1930's 'global warming' scare that preceded the
subsequent re-ice over and 1970's coming ice age scare that preceded
the current cyclical rewarming and new 'global warming' scare.

All of which followed the 1895 predictions of icing over again since
they had just come out of the mini ice age, warmed up, but it was
getting cold again.

Notice a pattern?

Antarctica's thick ice sheet will need more to melt,
but probably did not exist the last time global surface temperature was
about 22 degrees C.

I wonder how the Earth has survived these billions of years.

You could be better informed if you did read a little more on the
subject. Of course you'd need to learn enough to recognise - and
devalue - the kind of denialist web-site that Exxon-Mobil used to
fund, and that does seem to asking more than your feeble brain can
manage.

 

[BartC]

"Mark-T" <MarkTanner50@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25a14f19-b336-44b6-bc75-e3d20b4432a7@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

DId anyone here see the problem presented in
the Science section of NY Times last week?
Quite startling, to see something so sophisticated
in a 'general readership' publication.

Is it solvable without a calculus of variations approach?

It's possible they only expected the readership to be aware of 2-pi-r and to
assume the rabbit will swim direct towards the shore away from the agent. In
that case the general reader can say the rabbit cannot escape. Which was my
first thought..

I don't like these spiraling paths and looked at the probability of escaping
if the rabbit swam in a straight line, invisibly under water.

But I only made that odds of 50% of escaping, if the rabbit avoided the
point on the shore +/- 50 degrees opposite the agent. Not so good. And that
assumes the agent will start running around the pond.

--
bart

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 4 May 2009 18:59:52 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Tim Williams
<tmoranwms@gmail.com> wrote in
<0fcf4fd4-e1e9-48c3-9fd8-6b578acaa2d5@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:

On May 4, 11:07 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
555 timer could do it, but I have a load of those 12Fsomething PICs, and
no 555s, so why not use the PIC?

*NO* 555's!? How is that possible? Don't they like... give you a
lifetime supply with your degree or something? (Maybe they
should! )

I do not see what people have against PICs, programmable logic, you see
people here make huge complex circuits with 7400 series or even CD400 ser=
ies,
or whatever, as solutions to some question.
Was it you who did a z80 setup to just display some 7 segment data while
a PIC<-- could do it faster cheaper and better?

'Twas I. But I have a load of those Z084something Z80s, and no PICs,
so why not use the Z80? ;-)

Yes Z80 was, and is, a very nice processor to program,
and also simple to use from a hardware POV, with it's own I/O
chips..
I still have the old Z80 system I designed in the eighties, with my own CP/M clone
OS, but I think the EPROMs are dead, if some museum wants it, fine with me,
email me.

My other excuse is, this is actually my first fairly large
breadboarded digital project (no, I haven't already breadboarded an
IBM compatible or anything!). So I have the double excuse of
experience to use this.

Doing the Z80 thing got me into a big multi million project at that time.
The educational value far exceeds the cost of the parts

As far as PLDs and such, they're fairly nice. I've used a MAX7k CPLD
before (just for pissy labwork stuff- VHDL 7 segment decoder and that
sort of thing), and it's certainly as programmable as it's supposed to
be. Looked it up on Digikey though- still going for 50 bucks each.
I'm not entirely sure just how much can fit inside a CPLD (I know it
has a good 60-some odd I/O pins, and a fairly good combinational logic
capacity, but not many flip-flops in this one), but for any of the
logic purposes I've developed so far, I can't at all imagine using one
instead of maybe 10-20 logic chips at a tenth the price. There's just
no comparison there. (No size / placement costs in homebrew,
remember!)

Tim

Yes, for the hobbyist, maybe these days, even to avoid soldering very fine
pitch packages... if you like experimenting with digital design get
a FPGA board, less then 100$ will get you one.
No more breadboarding 150 TTL chips or so together....
You can then use that FPGA board for all sorts of things, I have one,
added FLASH, ADC, DA, LCD display, card reader, some other stuff...
You can use it as scope, video processor, frequency counter, anything you
want without much soldering.... simply by reprograming the FPGA.
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/2h/alles2.jpg
Now the 'breadboard' is just added to the digital logic via a more home brew
friendly header....

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 02:53:49 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On May 5, 9:47 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was debunked in the 1970's. That's why they
changed the name to "Climate Change".

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Earth Day 1970

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder
for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in
the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into
an ice age."

 Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

The Cooling World, Newsweek, 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Another Ice Age?, Time Magazine 1974

 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six-to
eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of
particulate matter particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise
the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our
calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as
3.5[degrees]K [3.5[degrees]C]. Such a large decrease in the average
surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few
years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

--Science, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide : Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate," July 9, 1971

Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a
global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.

--Fortune, "Ominous Changes in the World's Weather," February 1974

Don't laugh too hard. I give it maybe 10 years before we're back in
the 'global cooling' scare.

But if you want a *real* laugh, follow the Times further back in the
past because it hasn't reversed just twice.

In the 1930's Tmes cautioned "the earth is steadily growing warmer."

Oh no. (Btw, Greenland warming was 50% FASTER and just as 'hot' in the
1920-1930 warming period as the one that's creating all the hype this
time around).

But that was after the Times Feb. 24, 1895 article, "Geologists Think
the World May Be Frozen Up Again."

The difference between current scientific opinion and the pre-1975
opinions that made it into the newpapers is a great deal of scientific
data,

There's certainly been a lot more data but some things haven't changed
one whit. And one of those constants is a perpetual predilection to
believe whatever the current 'disaster prediction' is.

quite a lot of it collectd from satellites in orbit.

Which show global temps flattened and then declined for the past
decade. Not to mention error correction shows 1998 was not the
"hottest year on record." That record is still held by the 1930's.

Manu Loa was collecting CO2 data from 1959, but it took a few years
befor they had accumulated enough data to be able to be confident that
CO2 was rising steadily from year to year.

No, what happened is the 'anti-technology' 'anti-humanity' fanatics
changed their mind on which conjecture to promote. It was aerosols and
light 'dimming' agents when things looked like cooling but when the
temperature trend reversed they needed something else,

You want to claim that, oh, NOW you 'know' but they were JUST as
adamant back then that all their doom and gloom predictions were
:undeniable? and "unavoidable," and that 3/4 of the planet would be
starving in 2000, if not earlier, Making it to 2000 was the 'rosy'
outlook.

Frankly, I have yet to see so much as a 'Climate Change Theory'
proposed. All that comes out are speculations.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

 

On May 5, 2:44 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Raveninghorde wrote:

The antartic ice  is above long term trend:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly....

  Antarctic sea ice area is indeed above long term trend of since
observations began, but to a lesser extent in square kilometers than
Arctic sea ice has been running low over the past few years.  The world
has experienced a loss of sea ice.

Sea Ice is an irrelevance. It merely shows mild warming of the oceans
which we know about anyway. It won't flood anywhere since it occupies no
more space when melted.

  The issue here is that sea ice loss is an indicator of warming, and also
a positive feedback mechanism for warming.

  I am very well aware that melting of ice floating on the sea does not
change sea level.  The big problem of sea level increase would come from
warming progressing to causing significant melting of the thick ice sheets
over land area of Greenland and Antarctica.

Not going to happen EVER in Antarctica unless temps rise by 40+ C.

It has happened in the geological past for much lower temperature
rises than 40C.
The ice doesn't have to melt in situ - it can slide off the landmass
and drift off towards the Equator, where it does happen to be warm
enough to melt ice, even today, and this does seem to be underway at
the moment

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060302180504.htm

Greenland's thick ice sheet
may not melt much until/unless global surface temperature gets to warmer
levels achieved in the previous interglacial period, 2-3 degrees C/K above
1961-1990 average.

The satellites are saying the total mass of Greenland ice is stable.

Not true.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html

Antarctica's thick ice sheet will need more to melt,
but probably did not exist the last time global surface temperature was
about 22 degrees C.

I wonder how the Earth has survived these billions of years.

You could be better informed if you did read a little more on the
subject. Of course you'd need to learn enough to recognise - and
devalue - the kind of denialist web-site that Exxon-Mobil used to
fund, and that does seem to asking more than your feeble brain can
manage.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On May 5, 2:05 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 23:41:47 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <49FF72C5.5B08D...@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote

In the mean time the Arctic, Greenland and  the Antarctic keep melting
and ice breaking up. Explain that. Me thinks you are "out to lunch."

No, the Arctic ice is recovering, can't say much about the others but
these things happen normally all the time. Temps go up and down without
human
intervention. AGW is treating the planet as if it should be in stasis.

Graham

Wrong! The arctic sea ice recovered slightly from the 2006 minimum but as of
April 2009,  it was less in area than 1979-2000 average.

Picking numbers at random again. The current trend is that the Arctic ice is
thickening.

 It is not thickening - it is at an extreme of thinness, notably with
much more than usual of its coverage being by thin first-year ice.

 The area coverage compared to 1979-2000 average did indeed make a major
uptick in the past few months, almost up to the 1979-2000 average.  And
last time it was lowest compared to 1979-2000 average for a specific time
of year may be as recently as late January 2009.

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseri....

SNIP

- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)

Yes, though I wouldn't call it "up tick."  It's just that the seasonal
loss of surface area is a bit slow, so far.  They note: "Compared to
previous Aprils, April 2009 is near the middle of the distribution
(10th lowest of 31 years). The linear trend indicates that for the
month of April, ice extent is declining by 2.8% per decade, an average
of 42,400 square kilometers (16,400 square miles) of ice per year."

Fretting over one year to the next is INSANE.

But that's what you do. And you get it wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On May 5, 11:24 am, Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

Not only does he produce nonsense, he repeats it when he should know
better.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

He's in good company with you then Bill

Not really. He produces opinions, I cite facts.

You - like Rich - don't understand the difference between an opinion
advanced in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and one that has been
generated by your ill-informed intuitions, so it isn't all that
surprising that this distinction escapes you.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On May 5, 9:47 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was debunked in the 1970's. That's why they
changed the name to "Climate Change".

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Earth Day 1970

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder
for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in
the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into
an ice age."

 Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

The Cooling World, Newsweek, 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Another Ice Age?, Time Magazine 1974

 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six-to
eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of
particulate matter particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise
the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our
calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as
3.5[degrees]K [3.5[degrees]C]. Such a large decrease in the average
surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few
years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

--Science, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide : Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate," July 9, 1971

Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a
global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.

--Fortune, "Ominous Changes in the World's Weather," February 1974

Don't laugh too hard. I give it maybe 10 years before we're back in
the 'global cooling' scare.

But if you want a *real* laugh, follow the Times further back in the
past because it hasn't reversed just twice.

In the 1930's Tmes cautioned "the earth is steadily growing warmer."

Oh no. (Btw, Greenland warming was 50% FASTER and just as 'hot' in the
1920-1930 warming period as the one that's creating all the hype this
time around).

But that was after the Times Feb. 24, 1895 article, "Geologists Think
the World May Be Frozen Up Again."

The difference between current scientific opinion and the pre-1975
opinions that made it into the newpapers is a great deal of scientific
data, quite a lot of it collectd from satellites in orbit.

Manu Loa was collecting CO2 data from 1959, but it took a few years
befor they had accumulated enough data to be able to be confident that
CO2 was rising steadily from year to year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[ingvald44]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 10:25:42 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-05-03, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
RFI-EMI-GUY wrote:
In my house attic, I have several 4 inch white PVC vent stacks which are
simply white PVC drain pipe extending from the wall headers through the
attic and the roof. On the roof, these are covered with lead flashing to
prevent water from getting inside the house. I have been doing a lot of
work in the attic, and have noticed that these pipes "glow" quite
noticeably as a result of the sunlight outside. As this often happens
when the sun is at the horizon and thus at an angle below which direct
coupling into the pipe would be possible, I am very curious as to the
reason that the visible infrared portion is so much more visible than
white light spectrum. Has anyone else noticed this? What is going on?

White PVC sticking out the roof? 4"? Wow. White PVC usually becomes
rotten from UV pretty quickly. If it isn't painted it begins to turn
brown within 2-3 years in our area. After some more years you can
sometimes crumble it by hand.
if it's loaded with TiO it'll last several decades exposed.

Wouldn't that be TiO2?

Thanks,
Rich

anatase or rutile?

 

BartC writes:

"Mark-T" <MarkTanner50@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25a14f19-b336-44b6-bc75-e3d20b4432a7@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
DId anyone here see the problem presented in
the Science section of NY Times last week?
Quite startling, to see something so sophisticated
in a 'general readership' publication.

Is it solvable without a calculus of variations approach?

It's possible they only expected the readership to be aware of 2-pi-r and to
assume the rabbit will swim direct towards the shore away from the agent. In
that case the general reader can say the rabbit cannot escape. Which was my
first thought..

I don't like these spiraling paths and looked at the probability of escaping
if the rabbit swam in a straight line, invisibly under water.

But I only made that odds of 50% of escaping, if the rabbit avoided the
point on the shore +/- 50 degrees opposite the agent. Not so good. And that
assumes the agent will start running around the pond.

There is an interesting book on this stuff:

"Chases and escapes: The Mathematics of Pursuit and Evasion," Paul
J. Nahin, Princeton University Press, 2007, ISBN-13:
978-0-691-12514-S, ISBN-10: 0-691-12514-7.

Pp. 78 references "Houghton's Problem: A circular Pursuit That Is
Solvable in Closed Form."

So, there, 8^).

John

--

John Conover, conover@email.rahul.net, http://www.johncon.com/

 

[legg]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 11:00:27 -0700 (PDT), James Rollins
<james.rollines@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 8:47 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On May 3, 4:09 pm, James Rollins <james.rolli...@gmail.com> wrote:

In my never ending quest for a cheap and simple high voltage
regulation I have come up with a simple dual capacitor mode. This is
similar to a Buck circuit without the inductor.

http://i41.tinypic.com/68zl03.jpg

That circuit is about as efficient as a linear regulator.

No so. A linear regulator must drop the full voltage difference. The
capacitor resistors are only there to reduce the charging rate on the
capacitor so that the fet switching times are within spec. Ideally no
capacitor resistance would be needed and the capacitors would charge
up to the programmed voltage instantaneously and the switches would
cut the capacitor off at the programmed voltage. The capacitor
resistors are not analogous to the bjt in a linear regulator. In they
behave very differently in what they are doing. The bjt acts as a
current controlled resistance while the capacitor resistors are only
reducing the charging times and effect the duty cycle. It's a
different story for large loads but in this case for loads larger than
100kohms they are not even close to being the same.

You seem to be running some kind of pSpice, so why not use it properly
to audit the local component losses or efficiency?

There was another thread you might have been interested in, but it
seems to have vanished from the 'record'. Started by J.Slaughter on
Jan18 of this year under the heading 'tranformerless transformers', a
search for TPS60503 seems to get some results.

Perhaps another reader can post a reference; I have only partial
contents of this thread archived locally.

RL

 

[legg]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 10:09:04 GMT, "BartC" <bartc@freeuk.com> wrote:

"Mark-T" <MarkTanner50@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25a14f19-b336-44b6-bc75-e3d20b4432a7@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
DId anyone here see the problem presented in
the Science section of NY Times last week?
Quite startling, to see something so sophisticated
in a 'general readership' publication.

Is it solvable without a calculus of variations approach?

It's possible they only expected the readership to be aware of 2-pi-r and to
assume the rabbit will swim direct towards the shore away from the agent. In
that case the general reader can say the rabbit cannot escape. Which was my
first thought..

I don't like these spiraling paths and looked at the probability of escaping
if the rabbit swam in a straight line, invisibly under water.

The cartoonist Sam Gross might suggest that the rabbit expire,
escaping to bunny heaven. That's what the befuddled scientist's
laboratory mice did, in one published work.

RL

 

[William Hughes]

On May 5, 4:32 am, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:

On 2009-05-05, riverman <myronb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The 'feinting' move would only work while the rabbit is extremely
close to the center.

It works everywhere, as you later post:

I think the rabbit could make use of this to follow a sinusoidal
pattern to the shore, always jogging back across the 'opposite radius'
to the position of the agent, causing the agent to reverse course.

Yes, this is exactly why the "aim point" strategy fails.

It is not clear what the "aim point" is. If it is defined as the
intersection
of the tangent of the rabbit's path with the circle, then if the agent
always runs toward the aim point then the rabbit can escape
(even if the agent is very fast). But this
assumes a stupid agent (e.g. if the rabbit is close to shore it can
make the agent run away from it by swimming slowly toward the center).
If the agent chooses a simpler strategy, run in the direction that
decreases
the angular separation (if the angular separation is 0, do not move;
if the angular separation is 180 degrees, run clockwise)
then the rabbit cannot cause the agent to reverse
direction if the rabbit is more than 1/4 of the radius from the
center.
Indeed this second strategy is easily seen to be optimal for the
agent.

- William Hughes

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net>
wrote:

On May 4, 1:29 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

The antartic ice  is above long term trend:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and the arctic ice is below long term trend
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And put the two together and global ice is above long term trend.

"Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which
wouldn't be happening if global warming were real.

Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to
disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global
warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe.
We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little
data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East
Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the
evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some
recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the
gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated
that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer
climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the
most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to
receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say,
from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below
freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in
the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on
the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice
annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount
compared to changes in the Antarctic -- around three orders of
magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential
mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many
times over by Greenland's melting."
http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-ice-is-growing

Current UAH anomaly for April is 0.09C. No sign of AGW.

When is the warming due to start?


SNIP

 

[Nobody]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 11:00:27 -0700, James Rollins wrote:

In my never ending quest for a cheap and simple high voltage
regulation I have come up with a simple dual capacitor mode. This is
similar to a Buck circuit without the inductor.

http://i41.tinypic.com/68zl03.jpg

That circuit is about as efficient as a linear regulator.

No so. A linear regulator must drop the full voltage difference. The
capacitor resistors are only there to reduce the charging rate on the
capacitor so that the fet switching times are within spec. Ideally no
capacitor resistance would be needed and the capacitors would charge
up to the programmed voltage instantaneously and the switches would
cut the capacitor off at the programmed voltage. The capacitor
resistors are not analogous to the bjt in a linear regulator. In they
behave very differently in what they are doing. The bjt acts as a
current controlled resistance while the capacitor resistors are only
reducing the charging times and effect the duty cycle. It's a
different story for large loads but in this case for loads larger than
100kohms they are not even close to being the same.

The energy lost in charging a capacitor through a resistor doesn't depend
upon the resistor's value. It doesn't matter whether the resistor is
1kOhm or 1Ohm or 1millioOhm or 1microOhm.

If you let current flow from one capacitor to another through a purely
resistive path (zero inductance), the energy/power loss is proportional to
the difference in voltages, and independent of the resistance.

If you want better efficiency than a linear circuit and don't want to use an
inductor, use a switched capacitor topology, charging capacitors in series
and discharging in parallel (for step-down, conversely for step-up), e.g.:

Version 4
SHEET 1 1176 680
WIRE -160 -96 -224 -96
WIRE -16 -96 -80 -96
WIRE 128 -96 64 -96
WIRE 304 -96 128 -96
WIRE 544 -96 384 -96
WIRE 656 -96 544 -96
WIRE 800 -96 736 -96
WIRE 960 -96 880 -96
WIRE 1056 -96 960 -96
WIRE 1088 -96 1056 -96
WIRE 0 -32 0 -48
WIRE 48 -32 48 -48
WIRE 544 -32 544 -96
WIRE 672 -32 672 -48
WIRE 720 -32 720 -48
WIRE 128 -16 128 -96
WIRE 496 -16 480 -16
WIRE 496 32 480 32
WIRE 480 48 480 32
WIRE -224 80 -224 -96
WIRE -512 96 -512 48
WIRE 960 96 960 -96
WIRE 1088 96 1088 -96
WIRE 128 128 128 48
WIRE 304 128 128 128
WIRE 544 128 544 48
WIRE 544 128 384 128
WIRE 544 176 544 128
WIRE 128 192 128 128
WIRE 320 192 320 176
WIRE 368 192 368 176
WIRE -512 208 -512 176
WIRE 80 208 64 208
WIRE 80 256 64 256
WIRE 64 272 64 256
WIRE -224 368 -224 160
WIRE 128 368 128 272
WIRE 128 368 -224 368
WIRE 544 368 544 240
WIRE 544 368 128 368
WIRE 960 368 960 160
WIRE 960 368 544 368
WIRE 1088 368 1088 176
WIRE 1088 368 960 368
WIRE -224 400 -224 368
FLAG -224 400 0
FLAG 64 272 0
FLAG 320 192 0
FLAG 480 48 0
FLAG 64 208 osc
IOPIN 64 208 In
FLAG 368 192 osc
IOPIN 368 192 In
FLAG 480 -16 osc
IOPIN 480 -16 In
FLAG -512 208 0
FLAG -512 48 osc
IOPIN -512 48 In
FLAG 0 -32 0
FLAG 48 -32 osc
IOPIN 48 -32 In
FLAG 1056 -96 out
FLAG 720 -32 0
FLAG 672 -32 osc
IOPIN 672 -32 In
SYMBOL cap 112 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 100ľF
SYMBOL cap 528 176 R0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 100ľF
SYMBOL sw 128 176 R0
SYMATTR InstName S1
SYMBOL sw 288 128 R270
SYMATTR InstName S2
SYMBOL voltage -224 64 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 12V
SYMBOL res -176 -80 R270
WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0
WINDOW 3 0 56 VBottom 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1R
SYMBOL res 1072 80 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 100R
SYMBOL sw 544 -48 R0
SYMATTR InstName S3
SYMBOL voltage -512 80 R0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value PULSE(-1 1 10us 1us 1us 5us 10us)
SYMBOL sw -32 -96 R270
SYMATTR InstName S4
SYMBOL res 784 -80 R270
WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0
WINDOW 3 0 56 VBottom 0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 1R
SYMBOL cap 944 96 R0
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 100ľF
SYMBOL res 288 -80 R270
WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0
WINDOW 3 0 56 VBottom 0
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 1R
SYMBOL sw 640 -96 R270
SYMATTR InstName S5
TEXT -584 424 Left 0 !.tran 10ms
TEXT 184 -240 Left 0 !.model SW SW()

 

"whit3rd" <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:324c661d-0b94-405c-b943-01e70f7351ed@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 9:21 pm, mj <eluc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm looking for ideas on how to make an LED flash so brightly at a low
duty cycle

Since the LED is only on 0.4% of the time, max, it still simply isn't
very bright. The strobe works--I can see the frozen image on the
spinning disk--but the light is simply anemic.

So, I'm wondering if anyone here knows how to design a circuit that
can dump an amp and a half through an LED for, say, 200 microseconds
at a time or less, at 20-50 Hz.

Firstly, I'd put a trickle through the LED at all times (maybe half a
milliamp)
so the storage capacitance doesn't have to be reloaded each flash.
Then, with a blocking diode, connect to a flyback switched inductor.
The current in the inductor builds, when it reaches Ipeak you
turn off the input, and the current continues to flow through the
only other connection, the LED with its blocking diode now forward
biased.

Taps on the inductor will allow impedance matching to both the
charging supply and the LED. It's just about the same kind of
circuit as an old auto ignition.

That's how the old flashlamp strobes worked; of course, the dynamic
range of a discharge lamp allows lower duty cycles, at really
large peak currents.

I think you can get flash tube and a trigger transformer at radio shack for
a couple of dollars.

Bob

 

[marcodbeast]

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 23:50:39 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



flipper wrote:

"marcodbeast" <its@casual.com> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

Success!

See...

http://analog-innovations.com/SED/TROLLFEEDER.jpg

Had to resort to NewsProxy until Agent gets a "References:"
filter.

Will now just add, to Agent...

999 Delete: Subject:TROLLFEEDER

Then I won't even see the "TROLLFEEDER" tag.

Someone tell NymNuts, it _is_ universal, presently covering
NymNuts, Eeyore and Slowman follow-ups.

So, as far as I'm concerned, these "folks" don't exist anymore
;-)

...Jim Thompson

JimBob Brainlees Fart's head finally exploded.

It has been quite enjoyable watching him sink deeper and deeper
into his stupidity based seclusion desires.

Have fun being a net recluse. That has to be one of the most
retarded acts ever performed.

I have to agree with you.

The USA claims to be so in favour of 'free speech' yet it's the
Americans here who don't want to hear views that are contrary to
their own.

That's how they retain their cockeyed worldview. The right wing
lie aquariums (Fox, CNS, Newsmax, WND, etc.) their keepers built
for them have one universal feature - they're designed from the
bottom up to make them think that any other info sources, where
they might hear actual facts, are out to get them. There is
literally no right wing k00khaus that doesn't expend quite a bit
of effort demonizing what they call the Mainstream Media, can't
have the dupes finding out they are in a fantasy world. =)

Congratulations on the near perfect emulation of a dog barking at
his own reflection.

DOPE !

A "dope" is someone who makes rash assumptions and then fantasizes
them into an alternate reality, like you just did.

"At any rate, during the 'Social Security Privatization' debate a
gaggle of Congressional Democrats came trotting down the steps to a
press microphone and announced they had 'discovered' the 'hidden
secret' to the President's plan. You see, when you take your up to 3%
out of the SS trust fund and invest it in your 'private' account then
you get the interest from the private account but... but... but...
here's the 'secret' the President won't tell you... you do NOT get
interest from the SS trust fund you took the money out of!!!

My jaw dropped. No kidding? You don't get interest from an account you
don't have the money in? That's the 'secret'? Naw, I couldn't have
heard that right. But, fortunately, each and every one of them got
their turn at the mic telling the same story.

Now, I have to either think each and every one of them are certifiable
idiots, eeehhh could beeee, or that they knew darn good and well
they were babbling nonsense but babbled it anyway because, hey, if it
works...."

You write that liefest, did you? lol

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:34:45 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:55:37 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Sun, 03 May 2009 21:21:54 -0700, mj wrote:

I'm looking for ideas on how to make an LED flash so brightly at a low
duty cycle that it's reasonably bright--maybe even close to what it
would be if it were on DC.

Must be finals week again.

Not yet. It's the beginning of May, for gosh sake. Finals week is
probably towards the beginning of June.

OK, then - mid-terms. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 16:07:55 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

I do not see what people have against PICs,

Bank Switching is Evil.

Hope This Helps!
Rich