Driver to drive?

[James Arthur]

Tim Williams wrote:

On May 11, 1:10 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
They offer a range of E-cores, toroids, in a variety of materials.

I assumed you'd want a mess of ferrite E-cores in mat'l #77--you'll
have to stack 'em to get to 10kVA.

https://www.amidoncorp.com/items/65

#77 is starting to look like the material of choice. Or something
similar, like 75 or 78.

The largest E-core Amidon offers is rated for "about 200W", which
suggests I'd need roughly 50 of them for the 10kW level I'm interested
in.

On an indirectly linked page, I discovered the data:
https://www.amidoncorp.com/specs/2-40.pdf

This says the largest core has a winding window of 2 * 0.593 x 0.375
inch (using an E-E arrangement). A stack of 50 would be 50 * 0.605 =
30" thick, which is certainly possible, but would stick out one side
of my chassis. On the plus side, I would certainly be able to push
all the voltage through one turn. A single piece of 3/8" tubing would
fit without too much trouble, though leakage inductance to the primary
wouldn't be great (though it doesn't need to be). Evidently, A_L
would be 5.3 * 50 = 265uH/T^2, which would be fairly "ideal". But it
seems like an awful lot of overkill, not to mention way too expensive
($312 for 50 E-cores? no thanks).

Where does cross sectional area fit into this, anyway? Isn't that
absorbed into A_L? So, as long as I am given A_L, I can calculate
inductance and saturation at will? And saturation only involves path
length, right? -- by amperes per meter, they mean *A/m*, not A.m/m^2
(like how resistivity is actually ohm.m^2/m)?

Ok, so, this is Usenet, right? If I've made an error, surely there
would have been fifty people in the first hour telling me what an
idiot I am -- since this has not happened, I can only assume my
calculations are correct??? Then why do I calculate that a moderately
sized toroid (like the FT-290-W) will suffice, whereas others have
suggested that I need something approximately as thick as my ankle?

Tim

No it's not safe to conclude your calcs are right--I didn't
check them.

Here's Terry Given's take on a similar app, complete with
worked out examples and wisdom of the ages:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_thread/thread/74808f35486301d9/6ae3c6dec198792a?hl=en

HTH,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 8 May 2009 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT), lynchaj <lynchaj@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On May 8, 4:50 pm, Dangerous Bill <wrp0...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 6, 5:10 pm, lynchaj <lync...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi!  I don't know if there are any S-100 enthusiasts who are on SED
but on the chance you are here...

Very retro. And nostalgic, too. I understand there are still Commodore
64 groups around, too.

Within the last twelve months, I actually threw out an eight socket
S-100 backplane, an S-100 specifications manual, and a handful of
breadboard PCBs. Gone forever.

I cut my teeth on S-100 about 1978, helping a technician in my group
assemble memory and !/O boards when I needed a break from the
paperwork. They used more power than an arc welder, but they worked.

Dangerous Bill

Hi Bill! If you find any more stuff like that please contact me.
Especially wire wrap supplies or parts. I use them all the time and
it breaks my heart to see them tossed in the garbage. I will use them
or find someone who will appreciate them.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch

I still have some wirewrap kit. Ain't ready to let go yet. Actually
used it a few years ago.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:uWONl.471$5F2.230@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

Mr. Obama's pushing for more ethanol too. That destroys oil.

In the way that MORE oil is consumed to produce it than the ethanol
replaces - ;-)

 

[DJ Delorie]

"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> writes:

I still have some wirewrap kit. Ain't ready to let go yet. Actually
used it a few years ago.

I still have my wirewrap tools and wire, and use them on nearly every
project. Wire wrap wire makes good vias and ECO wire

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:32:01 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:50:14 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:06:41 -0500, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:


I'll do you even better. Data shows the world has been in a warming
trend since it exited the LIA.

I suppose that's why it's no longer the LIA. You know, cold... ice
age.... warmer... not ice age.
Geez, quit getting technical. I hate it when people get technical.

John


Hehe. Yeah, I've been accused of that before

At the risk of even further technical confusion, AGW proponents often
claim a desire to "save the planet."

Well, if that's what they want then they're working in the wrong
direction because we are currently on the cold, cold, depleted CO2,
side of the planetary life range.

If you look over the past 500 million years, only 1 or 2C lower, and
150 or so ppm less CO2, is associated with large scale gaciation and
mass extinctions with 10C to 12C warmer, and 1600ppm more CO2, being
the periods of flourishing life and maximum bio diversity.

Or, to put it bluntly, we're only 1C to 2C of cooling, and a smidgen
less CO2, away from a planetary catastrophe exceeding even biblical
proportions but we're quite a ways down from being hot enough for the
historical 'life giving' bio diversity planet lovers so often speak
of.


This program suggests--and finds geologic evidence to support--
that a comet hit plunged the earth into a deep freeze, causing
the last great extinction.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/clovis/

"NARRATOR: Thirteen-thousand years ago, the Earth's climate was not
unlike ours today. But then, suddenly, it changed radically. It was
mysteriously thrown back into the Ice Age, and some of the greatest
animals that have ever lived vanished:[...]"

Well, that's a bummer, isn't it?

Hard to believe that one will get much traction, though, because it
can't be blamed on man.

You know we killed them off. You just know it.

Bastards.

Maybe we should start a strategic CO2 reserve, just in case...

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bob Larter]

Andrew Holme wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:2qs605p8i72pijv7anhuhbvo5fh7omltem@4ax.com...
http://www.kentech.co.uk/index.html?/&2
John
http://www.kentech.co.uk/index.html?/mission.html&2

Oh, that's good.

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

 

[Soundhaspriority]

On May 12, 12:29 am, Rupert <foodste...@linkline.com> wrote:

On May 11, 4:18 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Oleg Kaizerman" <kaize...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:gua41c$idn$1@localhost.localdomain...

Maybe it would help if you used your real name, and not one stolen from
another person perhaps?
and what about U?

Brian L. McCarty went from being a successful sound mixer in LA, working
with Jeff Wexler, to a client of the Australian mental health care system.\

Jeff Wexler. WTF happened to him? He seems to have fallen off the face
of the earth after never getting his MacFOH FFT RTA off the ground. A
lot of people bought the beta with the promise of a fully working
product being shipped in the near future. It looked promising. That
was several years ago. Emails not returned, web site dead, money
wasted. Lame.

Rupert

I hadn't realized the extent of alleged criminal activity by Jeff
Wexler, as well. Perhaps that's how Bwian got his ideas as everyone
is aware that Jeff has been a "role model" for many audio techs in
Hollywood. I'd be interested in finding out more about Jeff's
ripoffs, and how I can assist you in getting what's rightfully
yours.

I have a method.


http://robertmorein.blogspot.com/


"I don't really have a replacement career, it's a very gnawing thing."

Robert Morein
Dresher, PA
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 12 May 2009 01:26:28 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On May 11, 6:10 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On May 11, 2:56 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 05:37:11 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On May 11, 4:32 am, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The data present there reflects real measurements, not models. The
most plausible explanation of the increase - an increasing greenhouse
effect driven by rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere - does
rely on layered models of the atmosphere to describe what's going on,
but that's what physics is about.
=============================

Funny, how temperature does not correlate with changes in hydrocarbon use.

- How much CO2 was generated by humanity in 1920 vs 1980? Temperature slope.
- What is the reason of the temeprature drop between 1940 and 1970 despite
rising use of hydrocarbon?

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/06/06/solarvsco2.jpg

The usual explanation is sulphur dioxide pollution from burning high-
sulphur oil, which also caused acid rain. Once we went over to
scrubbing the SO2 out of the chimney stacks of dirty-oil fired power
stations, acid rain went away, and with it the aerosols high in the
atmosphere which had been raising the earth's albedo and cooling the
planet.

Some people have also pointed the finger at the North Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, which seems to have been in a cooling phase
back then, and may be in another such cooling phase at the moment.

A slightly longer temperature sequence puts your - cherry-picked -
data in context

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

where one can see that the 1940 to 1980 feature is just a wiggle in a
longer term rising trend.

And up to date data that puts your cherry picked data in context:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html-Hide quoted text -

An extra year or two of data changes the message?

"The lady dost protest too much, methinks."

It does seem to take a lot of protest to register on your impermeable
self-satisfaction.

You said "A slightly longer temperature sequence puts your -
cherry-picked - data in context." And link to a graph from 1880 to
about 2005, 125 years.

If I remember rightly, the curve I was objecting to

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/06/06/solarvsco2.jpg

Which goes from 1870 to 2000, a 130 years. You clearly objected to the
graph running out too soon. I provided a graph from 1850 to 2008, 158
years which is clearly a better timescale.

And distinctly different data. The problem with your graph which
purports to associate Artic air temperatures with solar activity was
that it got the more recent Arctic air temperatures wrong, and the
authors were forced to correct it.

Your graph is chosen because it peaks at the end.

My graph was chosen because it comes from the Wikipedia article on
global warming, and can be expected to have been corrected by anybody
who detected it to be in error. Your experience of a pulling a duff
graph fron denialist web-site should have alerted you to the
advantages of this approach.

No Wikipedia contributor has bothered to keep the graph up to date.
Therefore the data is duff and shows Wikipedia is not a reliable
source on this topic.


SNIP paranoid rant.

 

[Fred Bartoli]

Tim Williams a écrit :

On May 11, 3:56 pm, Fred_Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Rich Grise a écrit :

On Sun, 10 May 2009 12:06:59 -0700, Tim Williams wrote:
Question the first: where to find transformer (or inductor) cores?
http://www.google.com/
At least you didn't suggested a PIC!

Damn, I like that. You'll, or no wait, Jan will have to send me
some PICs. Then I can put them across this transformer's secondary
and see what happens. >:-D

Tim

Well, it's just the kind of treatment PICs deserve, but no, I won't buy
some to send you one.


OTOH I'm trying some interesting things with the AD uCs (AD702x), those
mainly because AD knows how to make ADCs and DACs, but the other
peripherals are somewhat limited in their possibilities and they could
have looked at the Atmel's AVRs and got some inspiration.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 11 May 2009 15:31:04 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Tim
Williams <tmoranwms@gmail.com> wrote in
<59340910-db27-4c28-bb97-25ea96685831@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>:

On May 11, 3:56 pm, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Rich Grise a écrit :

On Sun, 10 May 2009 12:06:59 -0700, Tim Williams wrote:

Question the first: where to find transformer (or inductor) cores?

http://www.google.com/

At least you didn't suggested a PIC!

Damn, I like that. You'll, or no wait, Jan will have to send me
some PICs. Then I can put them across this transformer's secondary
and see what happens. >:-D

Tim

Yea, I thought about melting some PICs together to do the one turn loop thing,
_LONG_ before you did.
But I rather leave melting PICs to religious anti PIC fanatics
I like my PICs, keep good care of them usually.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 11 May 2009 18:47:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Tim
Williams <tmoranwms@gmail.com> wrote in
<3ede64a9-4574-49ac-a10d-66ca5c908c56@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Getting a transformer wound feels like a huge waste of resources,
seeing as I just need the core (whichever size it has to be).

I have seen put stacks of ringcores on top of each other for RF work.
You could make a tower of the largest ringcores you can get?

Have not tried myself though... YMMV.

 

On May 11, 6:10 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On May 11, 2:56 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 05:37:11 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On May 11, 4:32 am, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The data present there reflects real measurements, not models. The
most plausible explanation of the increase - an increasing greenhouse
effect driven by rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere - does
rely on layered models of the atmosphere to describe what's going on,
but that's what physics is about.
============================
Funny, how temperature does not correlate with changes in hydrocarbon use.

- How much CO2 was generated by humanity in 1920 vs 1980? Temperature slope.
- What is the reason of the temeprature drop between 1940 and 1970 despite
rising use of hydrocarbon?

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/06/06/solarvsco2.jpg

The usual explanation is sulphur dioxide pollution from burning high-
sulphur oil, which also caused acid rain. Once we went over to
scrubbing the SO2 out of the chimney stacks of dirty-oil fired power
stations, acid rain went away, and with it the aerosols high in the
atmosphere which had been raising the earth's albedo and cooling the
planet.

Some people have also pointed the finger at the North Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, which seems to have been in a cooling phase
back then, and may be in another such cooling phase at the moment.

A slightly longer temperature sequence puts your - cherry-picked -
data in context

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

where one can see that the 1940 to 1980 feature is just a wiggle in a
longer term rising trend.

And up to date data that puts your cherry picked data in context:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html-Hide quoted text -

An extra year or two of data changes the message?

"The lady dost protest too much, methinks."

It does seem to take a lot of protest to register on your impermeable
self-satisfaction.

You said "A slightly longer temperature sequence puts your -
cherry-picked - data in context." And link to a graph from 1880 to
about 2005, 125 years.

If I remember rightly, the curve I was objecting to

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/06/06/solarvsco2.jpg

Which goes from 1870 to 2000, a 130 years. You clearly objected to the
graph running out too soon. I provided a graph from 1850 to 2008, 158
years which is clearly a better timescale.

And distinctly different data. The problem with your graph which
purports to associate Artic air temperatures with solar activity was
that it got the more recent Arctic air temperatures wrong, and the
authors were forced to correct it.

Your graph is chosen because it peaks at the end.

My graph was chosen because it comes from the Wikipedia article on
global warming, and can be expected to have been corrected by anybody
who detected it to be in error. Your experience of a pulling a duff
graph fron denialist web-site should have alerted you to the
advantages of this approach.

You are ranting to
hide the fact that the more recent data in the met office graph
clearly shows that the peak was smaller and earlier and the trend is
now down.

As I've said before, so what. The main point of the curve was to show
that the temperature record is noisy. There have been similar periods
of short term decline in the past - the decline from the 1940 peak was
significant and relatively prolonged - and your getting excited about
the current decline just demonstrates that you don't know how to look
at noisy data.

I keep pulling you up on this because you are using old data to hide
the fact that the earth has been cooling for 6 years and continues to
do so.

You like to believe that my choice of data is influenced by the
content. If you bothered reading what I wrote you'd be aware that it
is dictated by a desire to get hold of data that can be relied on - a
concept that is clearly foreign to you, but one that you really should
try and get your head around.

I'm happy to accept that the earth has been cooling for the past six
years. I've less confident that it is continuing to do so, not having
access to your private crystal ball.

If the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is driving the current
cooling, it may go on for a while yet, but there's really not enough
evidence around to justify any kind of plausible prediction.

If someone is kind enough to point out that I have unwittingly used
wrong data I stop using it.

False. The graph showing Artic air temperatures and solar activity is
the same rubbish you posted in January.

You on the other hand continue to proove
you are a blustering idiot by refusing to accept when you are in
error.

You don't seem to have noticed that - for the purposes of my argument
- the Wikipedia and the Hadley Centre graphs tell exactly the same
story, namely that global temperatures go up and down in the short
term, where - in this context - a decade or two can be a short term -
while showing a longer term rising trend over the century and a bit
for which we have more or less reliable data.

I don't accuse you of blustering - which implies a concious effort to
deceive - but merely of being too careless and stupid to make a useful
contribution to the debate.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.karoshi.dk>
wrote in news:7Mydne1Xusjnm5TXnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@giganews.com:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:uWONl.471$5F2.230@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

Mr. Obama's pushing for more ethanol too. That destroys oil.

In the way that MORE oil is consumed to produce it than the ethanol
replaces - ;-)

it also raises food prices,depletes the soil,uses a lot of water,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[James]

On May 10, 5:20 pm, Nemo <z...@nospam.nospam.nospam.nospam.co.uk>
wrote:

I am power my device
with a 3 volt CR1216.  This is about a 20maH battery.  There is not
much power to spare.

You should certainly avoi LEDs. I once used a much larger coin cell,
CR2012 I think, to power an instrument. It was the largest coin cell I
could find which was dual-sourced, and was based on LiMnO2 chemistry.
All went well at first, but then we found that it could not power our
piezo alarm sounder and very efficient alarm LED's for very long.
Basically these cells may be rated at 200mAhr or whatever - but if you
take more than about 20mA (I forget exactly how much current we were
using) their internal resistance rises within a few minutes.

We had to move to a larger, cylindrical battery. Could you use something
like a CR2 size cell?
--
Nemo

Nemo,
I am using a CR1216 and I have found similar things with this
battery. I am driving a micro and the internal resistance is large
enough that there is a lot of noise on the battery line. I pull about
2ma and I think that this is quite a bit for this battery.
James

 

[James]

On May 8, 7:02 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:

On May 8, 11:46 pm, James <jsk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

I am looking to backlight a small LCD.  It is about watch size, about
0.5 square inches.  I would like to use an EL backlight because it
looks like they are more efficient then LED.  I am power my device
with a 3 volt CR1216.  This is about a 20maH battery.  There is not
much power to spare.

Is anyone familiar with who manufactures EL drivers for a small
display like this one?

It is very difficult to make EL backlight cost effective in such a
small size.  If you want efficiency, you can drive a watch size OLED
screen for approximately 5mA full screen.  A typical display could be
20% to 50% or 1mA to 2.5mA effective.

I wonder if the watch manufactures do their own drivers or if they are
using someone driver IC?

Which manufacturer?  There are standard driver ICs for both LCD and
OLED displays.

I will take a look at OLED backlights. It would be great if I could
get the backlight done for under 5ma. I was under the impression that
OLED's were primarily used for higher resolution displays. I am using
a cheap 4 digit 7 segment LCD display. One reason that I am
interested in an EL backlight is that I did not want to add much
thickness.

I have looked at supertex for EL drivers and I was asking if there are
other EL driver manufactures that I should look at? What about OLED
drivers, is there a leading manufacture?

Thanks,
James

 

[Eeyore]

Raveninghorde wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 01:26:28 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On May 11, 6:10 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On May 11, 2:56 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 05:37:11 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On May 11, 4:32 am, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The data present there reflects real measurements, not models. The
most plausible explanation of the increase - an increasing greenhouse
effect driven by rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere - does
rely on layered models of the atmosphere to describe what's going on,
but that's what physics is about.
=============================

Funny, how temperature does not correlate with changes in hydrocarbon use.

- How much CO2 was generated by humanity in 1920 vs 1980? Temperature slope.
- What is the reason of the temeprature drop between 1940 and 1970 despite
rising use of hydrocarbon?

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/06/06/solarvsco2.jpg

The usual explanation is sulphur dioxide pollution from burning high-
sulphur oil, which also caused acid rain. Once we went over to
scrubbing the SO2 out of the chimney stacks of dirty-oil fired power
stations, acid rain went away, and with it the aerosols high in the
atmosphere which had been raising the earth's albedo and cooling the
planet.

Some people have also pointed the finger at the North Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, which seems to have been in a cooling phase
back then, and may be in another such cooling phase at the moment.

A slightly longer temperature sequence puts your - cherry-picked -
data in context

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

where one can see that the 1940 to 1980 feature is just a wiggle in a
longer term rising trend.

And up to date data that puts your cherry picked data in context:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html-Hide quoted text -

An extra year or two of data changes the message?

"The lady dost protest too much, methinks."

It does seem to take a lot of protest to register on your impermeable
self-satisfaction.

You said "A slightly longer temperature sequence puts your -
cherry-picked - data in context." And link to a graph from 1880 to
about 2005, 125 years.

If I remember rightly, the curve I was objecting to

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/06/06/solarvsco2.jpg

Which goes from 1870 to 2000, a 130 years. You clearly objected to the
graph running out too soon. I provided a graph from 1850 to 2008, 158
years which is clearly a better timescale.

And distinctly different data. The problem with your graph which
purports to associate Artic air temperatures with solar activity was
that it got the more recent Arctic air temperatures wrong, and the
authors were forced to correct it.

Your graph is chosen because it peaks at the end.

My graph was chosen because it comes from the Wikipedia article on
global warming, and can be expected to have been corrected by anybody
who detected it to be in error. Your experience of a pulling a duff
graph fron denialist web-site should have alerted you to the
advantages of this approach.

No Wikipedia contributor has bothered to keep the graph up to date.
Therefore the data is duff and shows Wikipedia is not a reliable
source on this topic.

Indeed I have heard that one senior Wikipedia editor is so pro-AGW that he will protect duff
data.

Graham

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Xns9C0952DCCFAB5jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87...

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.karoshi.dk
wrote in news:7Mydne1Xusjnm5TXnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@giganews.com:


"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:uWONl.471$5F2.230@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

Mr. Obama's pushing for more ethanol too. That destroys oil.

In the way that MORE oil is consumed to produce it than the ethanol
replaces - ;-)




it also raises food prices,depletes the soil,uses a lot of water,too.

Yeah, Well:

According to "experts" the GREATEST THREAT TO MANKIND EVER (==Wall Street
Earnings) is apparently Deflation.

Anything that pushes up costs and makes us plebians work harder for less is
therfore GOOD for the Eekonomy, Innit - so Obama will support it!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[langwadt@fonz.dk]

On 12 Maj, 12:05, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 11 May 2009 18:47:16 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Tim
Williams <tmoran...@gmail.com> wrote in
3ede64a9-4574-49ac-a10d-66ca5c908...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Getting a transformer wound feels like a huge waste of resources,
seeing as I just need the core (whichever size it has to be).

I have seen put stacks of ringcores on top of each other for RF work.
You could make a tower of the largest ringcores you can get?

Have not tried myself though... YMMV.

I was thinking about something like that, - bend copperpipe in a U
shape, stack
toroids on each leg, thread primary through the cores.

I guess if you wanted to make it fancy you could make two plastic
plugs to fit inside
the stacks to keep the pipe in the center and arrange the primary
turns nicely around it.

-Lasse

 

[James Arthur]

Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"James Arthur" skrev i meddelelsen
news:uWONl.471$5F2.230@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

Mr. Obama's pushing for more ethanol too. That destroys oil.

In the way that MORE oil is consumed to produce it than the ethanol
replaces - ;-)

Yes, that's what I meant.

Pollutes the air, uses topsoil and water, raises the price of food and
gas, wastes oil, increases our dependence, and discourages the
development of better alternatives (since they'd have to compete with a
subsidized product).

It's pretty much a win-win all around.

And as usual, not much different from our experience with other
government interventions in the market, prejudging outcomes.
They're good like that.

Big Brother is very wise, and very careful with our money.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Mon, 11 May 2009 13:37:57 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:54:14 GMT, "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie"

And what a telescope platform!

As the space station should be. But we could fund thousands of
sub-arc-second terrestrial telescopes for less money.

I remember seeing the Apollo landing live on TV, when people were
bitching about the high cost: "Why don't they spend that money on
Earth, where you could feed people and educate them and [all that
Utopian pie-in-the-sky...]"

Well, haven't "we" been doing just that for about 40 years? Where has it
got us?

Thanks,
Rich