Driver to drive?

[Don Klipstein]

In article <ctlvv4pjcjubn7c4j35m9p0dkmmlfseo5f@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:

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

In article <49FF72C5.5B08D62F@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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.

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_timeseries.png

Try the 1930's. Oh, wait, that's not on the graph. Gee, I wonder why?

There was no satellite monitoring of sea ice coverage before 1979.

If you know of a dataset on sea ice coverage of the Arctic and Antarctic
going back before 1979, can you post a link?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[CBFalconer]

legg wrote:

"BartC" <bartc@freeuk.com> wrote:

.... snip ...

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.

You have all missed the obvious. The rabbit teases the agent, who
spends his time running mightily to be on the same pond side as the
rabbit. This leads to mutual exhaustion and death by shriveling.
Now the only problem is "who shrivels first". Since the agent
travels 4 times as far, and does not have the benefit of cooling in
the pond, nor easily available drinking water, I contend the agent
shrivels first.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <54ovv41udhfdku861epmhbg0tje7a7thma@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:

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

Chilling sharply for about 20 years as of 1970?

All three major indices of global surface temperature trend show the
world to have warmed slightly during that time stretch. Kenneth Watt must
have been out to lunch.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

<SNIP other statements of global cooling and possible coming ice age
dating back to early and mid 1970's>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

legg wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark-T
MarkTanner50@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

At least it makes more 'sense' than the duck and the fox.
There's no reason for the duck to leave the pond.

The only problem I see with the elaborate solution is the assumption
that the obviously ill 'killer' rabbit will react in any way to the
presence of suits around the pond's periphery. After all, a rabbit
with any sense wouldn't be in the middle of a pond in the first place.

RL

In real life, the rabbit leaps from the pond and slaughters all
concerned with his "big, nasty teeth," despite Tim the Enchanters'
best efforts to warn them.

Unless of course the agent is armed with a holy hand grenade. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <i24005t5s9quuuj39kbfs1tvmh0mj494uo@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:

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:

<SNIP what is mostly 1970-1975 claims of global cooling and possibility
of soon-to-come ice age>

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 how the RSS determination of lower troposphere temperature from MSU
satellite data appears to me. I see:

* warming merely slowing after what the AMO favors to have been a high
point in 2004-2005,

* Slight following spike of the weak 2006-2007 El Nino,

* Following dip from the late-2007 to mid-2008 La Nina, greatest in 20
years,

* Huge spike from the 1998 El Nino, greatest on record, much greater than
the 1982-1983 one which was then considered to be the greatest in decades.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/
SC_RSS_compare_TS_channel_TLT_Land_and_Sea.png

(My newsreader forces me to split URLs longer than 80 characters)

UAH's determination of lower troposphere temperature variations from MSU
satellite data are in the following text file, which appears to me to say
the same story:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

Not to mention error correction shows 1998 was not the
"hottest year on record." That record is still held by the 1930's.

Can you provide a link? I suspect you are latching onto something for
a single country or a continent-size region of the globe.

HadCRUT-3, GISS and NCDC have 1998 and 2005 beating the roughly-1940
previous global peak by a blowout:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

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

It did not reverse according to all of the major indices of global
temperature that went that far back - the post-1950 warming that actually
existed accelerated.

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

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Bob Larter]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2009 19:45:23 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 18:19:27 -0700 (PDT), jcdrisc@melbpc.org.au wrote:

As a regular reader of the electronics postings I am heartily sick of
all the
advertising for clothing, shoes and vanity items. I recall in the old
days these would be
deleted by a moderator. I can only assume Google's advertising
policies are a bit out of control. We have a situation where the
majority of the group is polluted by this garbage.
I would hope something is done.
I have Agent set up with a lot of filters, for sex/clothing/money
schemes, things like that. Maybe 5 per cent of the posts that I see
are spam. I do see Agent announcing that it will fetch, say, 200
headers, and then just see a few new posts. It must filter most of
them.

Does googlegroups even have filters?

No.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 23:22:38 GMT, the renowned Charlie E.
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 16:05:01 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 19:05:43 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:06:26 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
elucify@gmail.com> wrote in

'swhy I like I2C so much -- wiring up discrete chip select logic (not
to mention bus lines) is a PITA.

Yes, i2c is cool, I was one of the early adaptors...

I once drove myself nuts trying to find an I2C "standard" - the best I can
figure is, you make up your own!

Cheers!
Rich

You're probably thinking of SPI. I2C is well defined.

Well, I spent two months trying to talk to a I2C color sensor, before
finally giving up on it! Found one major bug in the PIC I2C
libraries, and the sensor kept giving nonsense data back...

Charlie

Hey, I didn't say everyone implements the standard* perfectly.

The PIC series has a long-standing hardware bug in slave mode.
Libraries are often imperfect.

Master mode is usually not a problem, and starting with bit-banged
master mode usually works. Hardware devices such as I2C SEEPROMs are
done properly, IME. Not surprisingly, NXP (nee Philips) micros are
quite solid in I2C support.

SPI, OTOH, is a dog's breakfast.

* http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/literature/9398/39340011.pdf


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

 

[Bob Larter]

Rich Grise wrote:

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.

Point.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

whit3rd wrote:

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)

That's enough to dimly light up a really high efficiency LED.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 11:26:39 -0500, "marcodbeast" <its@casual.com>
wrote:

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

mirror bark bark bark bark

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <u63005p12ee2mr3t6ub74ubkvuu5n73fgs@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:

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:

<SNIP all in this stretch otherwise getting 3-plus quotation symbols>

(referring to melting of Antartica's thick ice sheet

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.

I see noise in predictions of how ice mass in Antarctica's thick ice
sheet fares as a result of global warming, until global warming achieves
global surface temperature probably at least 5, maybe as much as 8 degrees
C/K of warming from 1961-1990 average. (Polar regions would warm much
more due to having positive feedback from surface albedo change, and the
tropics would warm somewhat less.)

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

Claims that rate of temperature increase in Greenland was 50% more in
the 1920-1930 stretch than in the 1995-2005 stretch.

Was the difference due to shortage of temperature measurement points
in the older time period, disproportionately short in regions of
Greenland where temperature is more stable until global temperature gets
to about 2-3 degrees C above 1961-1990 average?
Is any actual modern stability due to melting away of thin year-round
snow/ice cover, causing local positive feedback of global warming to
decrease until temperature rise does damage to ground coverage by the
thick ice sheet?
What was the average temperature after the 1920-1930 warmup, and what
was it in areas well-measured during 1920-1930 after the 1995-2005 warmup?
I suspect that digging into that would find the 1995-2005 warmup to have
been an addition to past warming including the claimed-faster 1920-1930
warmup.

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.

As shown by links that I posted recently in this thread, all 3 of the
major indices of global surface temperature show the world to have been in
a warming trend in the 1970's, and a slight warming trend in the 1960's
and 1950's. The world merely had a cyclical uptick in temperature
(probably related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) peaking around
1940, and that peak had its smoothed global temperature exceeded by that
of every year from 1979 onwards. The individual-year spike of 1944 was
first exceeded in 1981, most-recently-past-exceeded before 1850 and
probably before the "Little Ice Age", and the most recent year to fail to
exceed the 1944 spike was 1992.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

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?

1878 was peak of a cyclical warming (first exceeded in 1941, last
year to fail to exceed the 1878 peak was 1986). 1910 was center of a cold
spell that I see being cyclical, with the next cyclical dip
should-have-been 1970's - when global temperature was actually warming to
levels only previously exceeded since 1850 during the rougly-1940-centered
cyclical peak.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

<SNIP a stretch otherwise getting 2-4 quotation symbols on every line>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 12:03:02 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net>
wrote:

On May 5, 3:47 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."

oh noes! time magazines isn't the world's best science journal!

No one said they were.

if
that's true, then how can anyone believe the IPCC?

I don't blindly 'believe' anybody. I listen to the merits of the
arguments made.

if you want a real laugh, find the names of the scientists time cites
who warn about impending global cooling! what crackpots, haw haw!
then look up what they say about AGW; yep, they still are sticking
with their "it's cooling, there's no agw" story. well, i guess they
were wrong then, but correct now, eh?

Now you're showing how you decide what to 'believe': whether they
agree with you and if you perceive they don't you invent attacks even
though you have no idea what the people think.

Many of the original 'global cooling' proponents are now 'global
warming' proponents.

Ok, lets do your "find the names of the scientists time cites." Cited
in the Monday, Jun. 24, 1974 Times "Another Ice Age?" article was
George J. Kukla.

Take this October 19, 1981 NY Times "EVIDENCE IS FOUND OF WARMING
TREND" article

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-trend.html?sec=technology&spon=&pagewanted=all

Well, shazzam, "The new study was conducted by George J. Kukla.."

Another was Kenneth Hare.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC913676


So much for your knee jerk character assassinations.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <4A0007F2.34217ACA@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

<SNIP to this point>

Fretting over one year to the next is INSANE.

Then what would you call a 13 week uptick from maybe matching lowest on
record for date of year (with the record roughly-matched or
possibly-broken-by-a-small-margin established probably in 2006 or 2007) to
a bit short of the 1979-2000 average?

Can you translate that into plain English for me ?

If you need me to put it more bluntly, then:

Over a mere 13 week period from late January to about end of April 2009,
Arctic sea ice coverage went from close to record low for the date to
slightly short of 1979-2000 average.

In comparison to 1979-2000 Arctic sea ice coverage as a function
of what day of the year is the independent variable, what occurred from
about 14 weeks ago to about 1 week ago was movement from close to
record-low to only slightly short of 1979-2000 average.

This is upticking from close to record low for late January to
only slightly below 1979-2000 average for late April in 13 weeks.

==============================

2009's April arctic sea ice coverage had most recent prior year to
exceed being 2001, though 2003 got close. The most recent year to fail to
exceed 2009 for April arctic sea ice coverage since this dataset started
in 1979 was 1989.

http://www.nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090504_Figure3.png

That should show well the trend of Arctic sea ice coverage for the month
of April for every year from 1979 to 2009, and lowest in that stretch was
2007.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 22:49:25 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <ctlvv4pjcjubn7c4j35m9p0dkmmlfseo5f@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 23:41:47 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <49FF72C5.5B08D62F@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@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.

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_timeseries.png

Try the 1930's. Oh, wait, that's not on the graph. Gee, I wonder why?

There was no satellite monitoring of sea ice coverage before 1979.

That may be terribly unfortunate but it doesn't make cherry picked
data suddenly valid.

I could, for example, point out there weren't satellites monitoring
temp during the last ice age either but that doesn't mean it's
'cooler' now than then. Or that it's now 'warmer' than the Eocene
Optimum.

"Record lows," or highs, mean nothing when 'the record' is
insufficient.

If you know of a dataset on sea ice coverage of the Arctic and Antarctic
going back before 1979, can you post a link?

No offense intended but, as the saying goes, "not my job," because I'm
not announcing 'the answer has arrived', debate over, case closed.

I'm simply pointing out the data is misleading, at best, and the
conclusions demonstrably invalid. To wit, if we use 'linear analysis'
backwards, instead of the hysterical forward direction, we come to the
equally fallacious conclusion the earth must have been one huge ball
of ice in the recent past, even though we know for a fact it was not.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Tim Williams]

On May 5, 5:37 pm, mj <eluc...@gmail.com> wrote:

When enough reflected light had come back
from the scene (that is, when the sense cap had charged to a certain
point), a comparator would trigger another charged cap to apply a
negative-going spike to the SCR, shutting off the flash immediately
and maintaining the remaining charge on the cap. So you got just
enough light for good exposure, but charge recovery time was greatly
improved because the flash cap only partially discharged.

The original design wasn't mine, but I understood how it worked at the
time. Alas not well enough that I could repeat the idea. Maybe some
day. So a big fat cap and an array of SCRs could probably do it, but
not by me.

They do that with IGBTs nowadays. In fact, I have some parts to a
Canon S1 IS laying right here. The unusually small 220uF 330V
electrolytic is wired to a circuit board with some fairly small parts,
including a small ferrite transformer, something SOT-223, an axial
diode shaped like a six amp axial rectifier but a good four times
smaller, and on the back side, an array of ceramic capacitors, a
diode, SOT-8 and I'm not sure what else (where'd I leave that
screwdriver...). The SOT-8 is the IGBT, rated for something like
400V, 8A average, 150A peak. It drops 1V at 8A, I don't think I'd
even like to put that much on the thing.
http://www.iele.polsl.pl/elenota/Toshiba/en_gt8g132_20030219_datasheet.pdf

Tim

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <fhh005p2iq4itdvh7cgj168nisvr8gr21a@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

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.

No, sum of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is below long term trend:

Arctic has "long term trend" (probably since 1979) of losing 500,000
square kilometers per decade, and antarctic has same "long term trend" of
gaining 100,000 square kilometers per decade.

That means the world has "same long term trend" of losing 400,000 square
kilometers per decade.

<SNIP a stretch otherwise getting 2 quotation symbols pwer line>

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

When is the warming due to start?

That is .09 degree warmer than some post-1979 baseline, according to the
least-warming-showing of the "Big 5" indices of global temperature trends,
in a dip that may turn out to be merely 1 month long.

I suspect you got this from:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

and I post the link because I see it confirming more than refuting the
..128 degree/decade (K/C, not F) "probably slope of best-fit-straight-line"
(my words) reported in:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

I do see fair chance that .128 degree/decade is a bit overweighted by
minimizing "RMS deviation" from a straight line giving overweighting to
the 1998 El Nino and the 1884 La Nina. As an alternative, I give fair
chance that minimizing "average deviation from straight line" reduces the
slope to about .11 degree K/C per decade - which may tell the 1979 to
March 2009 history more accurately.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[William Hughes]

On May 5, 9:16 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
legg wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark-T
MarkTanne...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

At least it makes more 'sense' than the duck and the fox.
There's no reason for the duck to leave the pond.

The only problem I see with the elaborate solution is the assumption
that the obviously ill 'killer' rabbit will react in any way to the
presence of suits around the pond's periphery. After all, a rabbit
with any sense wouldn't be in the middle of a pond in the first place.

RL

In real life, the rabbit leaps from the pond and slaughters all
concerned with his "big, nasty teeth," despite Tim the Enchanters'
best efforts to warn them.

Unless of course the agent is armed with a holy hand grenade. ;^)

And can count to three.

- William Hughes

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <cuZLl.9772$im1.333@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
castlebravo242@att.net wrote:

"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.

It appears to me that Rat Shack most recently sold trigger transformers
sometime in the 1980's. My memory is that they did not sell such in the
mid 1990's or ever since.

Maybe still available as "special order item" RSU-11996667, maybe was as
recently as mid-late 1990's or 2001 or so, but the search box in their
website can't find for me anything RSU-11996667 now.

Mouser Electronics appears to me to be a source of these at least as
recently as late 1990's. Electronic Goldmine sold them at least as
recently as mid or late 1990's.

I have a web page on xenon strobe parts suppliers, which may be out of
date due to latest update as of this posting being in 2001:

http://members.misty.com/don/flashsrc.html

I also mention how to build one, should you be unable to get one or hack
a usable one out of something that is cheap and has one:

http://members.misty.com/don/trigcoil.html

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[whit3rd]

On May 5, 3:05 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[About using a flyback coil to store energy for an LED
pulse generator for stroboscope use... }

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.
snip

Could you expand a little on this?  I have some very vague things in
mind, but I'm falling short and could use a few pointers to consider.


 I'm assuming for a moment that the Ron is about 3
ohms or so with a Vfwd of 3.3V.  That suggests a dI=(3V-2V)/3 ohms or
(1/3)A.  The dt is 200us.  So the dI/dt, or V/L, is a little more than
1500.  With a mean V of about 2.5V, this is on the order of 1.5mH.
Once the 200us has expired, it would be desirable to ramp up the lost
(1/3)A of dI.  But over the much longer period of something on the
order of as long as 50ms (the OP mentioned 20Hz.)  This suggests a V
across the L of about 10mV

Yep, that'd be awkward, allright. With higher frequency input, you
still
want full charging of the inductor, so lets only allow 10ms (this
would
let the constructor reproduce 60 Hz and below, which is a useful
range).
To get a 1.5 mH inductor up to 0.3A with 5V (less a bit for a switch,
and for sense resistor and coil resistance), takes

t = L (0.3A)/(4.5V) = 0.1 ms

meaning that 1.5 mH is about one hundred times too small. It also
means that the turnoff transient at the regulated +5V supply is 300
mA.

Neither is good, so instead, use ten times as many turns on the
primary winding (the 5V one) as on the secondary winding (the 1.5 mH
one that drives the LED). Just as a car spark coil goes from 12V
on the primary (with -300V spike at points opening), while the HV
winding
generates 30 kV, so the doubly-wound core will have the
low-slew 5V side that ramps up, and the high-slew LED side that
quickly dumps the energy into that LED. The 'blocking diode' in
series
with the LED will have to hold off about 50V during charging.

Ten times the turns means instead of 1.5 mH, the primary winding has
N**2 * 1.5 mH,
or 150 mH inductance, and takes 0.030A instead of 0.300A at full
charge,
so the transient when it turns off is only 30 mA. I'd still prefer to
run this
off a filtered unregulated supply if that's available.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:28:53 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On May 5, 3:05 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[About using a flyback coil to store energy for an LED
pulse generator for stroboscope use... }

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.
snip

Could you expand a little on this?  I have some very vague things in
mind, but I'm falling short and could use a few pointers to consider.


 I'm assuming for a moment that the Ron is about 3
ohms or so with a Vfwd of 3.3V.  That suggests a dI=(3V-2V)/3 ohms or
(1/3)A.  The dt is 200us.  So the dI/dt, or V/L, is a little more than
1500.  With a mean V of about 2.5V, this is on the order of 1.5mH.
Once the 200us has expired, it would be desirable to ramp up the lost
(1/3)A of dI.  But over the much longer period of something on the
order of as long as 50ms (the OP mentioned 20Hz.)  This suggests a V
across the L of about 10mV

Yep, that'd be awkward, allright. With higher frequency input, you
still
want full charging of the inductor, so lets only allow 10ms (this
would
let the constructor reproduce 60 Hz and below, which is a useful
range).
To get a 1.5 mH inductor up to 0.3A with 5V (less a bit for a switch,
and for sense resistor and coil resistance), takes

t = L (0.3A)/(4.5V) = 0.1 ms

meaning that 1.5 mH is about one hundred times too small. It also
means that the turnoff transient at the regulated +5V supply is 300
mA.

Neither is good, so instead, use ten times as many turns on the
primary winding (the 5V one) as on the secondary winding (the 1.5 mH
one that drives the LED). Just as a car spark coil goes from 12V
on the primary (with -300V spike at points opening), while the HV
winding
generates 30 kV, so the doubly-wound core will have the
low-slew 5V side that ramps up, and the high-slew LED side that
quickly dumps the energy into that LED. The 'blocking diode' in
series
with the LED will have to hold off about 50V during charging.

Ten times the turns means instead of 1.5 mH, the primary winding has
N**2 * 1.5 mH,
or 150 mH inductance, and takes 0.030A instead of 0.300A at full
charge,
so the transient when it turns off is only 30 mA. I'd still prefer to
run this
off a filtered unregulated supply if that's available.

Thanks. This ties in the with the "impedance matching" comment
nicely. I think I see the picture, but I need to sit down a bit and
drill it into my brain some more so that it stays put. But the basic
intuition feels 'right', for now.

Appreciated,
Jon