Driver to drive?

[Mycelium]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:43:04 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Something like trying to teach a pig how to sing...

JF

Is that before or after the attempt to put lipstick on it?

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Joerg wrote:

Jamie wrote:
Joerg wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-07-31, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

All in flux at this point. Low tens of mH, about an ohm, total
on-time msecs to hours, flyback diode yes but must play tricks for
faster ramp-down (nasty ...), cannot heatsink, would melt plastic.


can you do a two windining coil relay? or is quantity too low?


No, they'd have me flogged if I suggested that

Anyhow, I am pretty much done. Discrete transistor-level solution,
the usual. Meaning the prototype experiments will be fun, SC75
packages, 0402 or maybe even 0201. Drop a part and you'll never find
it back. So here I am, my eyes getting older and the parts on my
designs becoming smaller and smaller.

That's where I envy guys like Jim. Their IC mask geometries are also
becoming smaller but on the screen it always remains the same, or
they can even buy a larger monitor when getting older. They never
have to solder the stuff.

That is why I got a 47x boom microscope.


I have one of those 20x Veho USB microscopes. But for work at clients I
still have to get some software loaded that can turn its big LEDs off so
the fan of the laptop doesn't always come on. It's one of those almost
mil-spec laptops and its fan can literally blow SC75 transistor off the
table.


I have no problem seeing the components


And easy on the coffee

Nah, just make a little ski jump air deflector out of a coffee can lid
(droop it with a heat gun to make it bend). Stick it under the edge lf
the laptop when needed, roll it up in your briefcase when not needed.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Mycelium]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:12:55 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:47:56 -0700, Mycelium
mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:41 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:05:42 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The 6 amp motor means it draws 6 amps from the mains. It does not mean
ANYTHING as far as how much power it produces, other than that it
cannot produce more than 690 watts at 115 volts

Have you returned to constant current power distribution with 6 A
circuits ?

Arc lamps in the 1880's were specified by the number of amperes
(typically 6 A for street lighting). All lamps were series connected
and you could operate 20-25 of these in series from a 6 A DC generator
producing a 1000-1500 V DC loaded voltage. Thus, the voltage drop
across each arc lamp was about 55 V on average.

And, like the series Xmas lights of yore, when one goes out, they all
go out.



Not if it fails shorted.

Except a fillament virtually can NOT fail shorted.

Except that I was referring to arc lamps.

Also, there is no 'virtually' about it. Short of an impact that jams
both input leads together, an incandescent lamp can NEVER "fail" shorted.

In fact, a good way to 'fix' one is with a swift thud while under power.
If it hits the lead, it will re-weld itself back on, and that usually
(certainly) will not last as long as a properly cinched filament. It
will usually get you a few more hours out of the bulb, but I have seen
them go on for years after a re-attachment.

The bulb has to
besigned to be "failsafe",

It has nothing to do with design. The ONLY failure mode IS an open
filament, and that is the only place such a bulb ever fails short of the
encapsulation being breached. That is just the physics of it by default.

so if the filament does not heat the bulb
shorts

You're nuts.

A light bulb is, by default, a very low resistance device. Any shorting
of its internals or the device which it is mounted in would trip the
branch circuit protection. If not, the mount is suspect of total
non-compliance.

The bulb is specifically designed to couple as little heat as possible
to the base it sits in. That is why you never see a dense epoxy holding
the base on the bulb. It is always "airy" baked material of very low
density and therefore low thermal conductivity.

IF the filament feeder leads were to be shorted (broken bulb under
power)(happens a lot with old style garage shop lights), they would NOT
heat the base, the short would cause a breaker to trip immediately.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:49:56 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And
Deliver@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:58:50 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:19:42 -0400, daestrom wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:

If all you are going to do is make shit up, you should stay out of a
discussion where you tout yourself as knowing about it.

Back at ya. Go look at the pulley ratio on an old engine (say '40s or
'50s) with a DC generator, then go look at a modern auto. Until you've
done that, just shut up and blow away...


The only way to get rid of trolls like that is to filter them.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

There hasn't been a single person in Usenet in the last ten years (well
a couple actually)that even knows what a troll really is.

Including you.

You are all just like the pissy little 11 year olds on all the games
servers every time a new game comes out that the adults like.

Any negative remarks gets a cry baby pussy child response, and the
person that made the remark is suddenly "spamming" or "trolling".

You are all about as retarded as any one group of people can be. You
are all so fucking full of yourselves that you cannot even see the shit
smear you decorate your faces with each night when you step into the cess
pool that is Usenet.

There are exceptions. John Fields still remembers what makes up a real
man. There are others. I do not claim to be at that level, but that
knowledge and admission alone places me way above many of you bat's
turds.

I have an excuse though. With all the shit I have been through in the
last two decades, the really stupid fucks here are lucky that I was never
one of those guys that went off on someone. You are lucky that I AM a
nice guy, despite what you fuckheads spew from day to day.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Well... It is too fucking late for that in Usenet. Everybody lied and
threw in a stone, and then couldn't figure out why there were being
popped in the head by a stone.

You are nothing but a bitter twisted bore that cannot "keep a civil
tongue in your mouth" (unprofane fingers on your keyboard). Your type
has been despised on Usenet ever since there was Usenet. I have been
on Usenet since 1983 and there were all kinds present then as well.
You are nothing new, unique, interesting, worthwhile, or anything
good; nothing but a waste of time. Do Usenet a favor and
self-destruct.

 

[David Lesher]

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

True. But what I was thinking was it defaults to powering up with the
loads off. It immediately reports in, and is told to wait xxx seconds
before turning on the unspecial loads. Only after a few more minutes
would the HVAC and water heater be brought on.

What crap, it would only have whole house/apartment/residential unit
on/off. Appliances with that kind of smart are still a ways off.

At least around here, the utilities now offer load-shedding
discounts. Sign up, they put a 150 Mhz controlled box in the
control/power feed into your HVAC and/or electric water heater.

It would be trivial to put some local X-10's or other technology
controlled device at the main breaker panel instead.

They'll want power control for another reason, I bet -- to turn off
delinquent accounts.=20

Why do you spew the most unrealistic crap here?

Why, clearly just to annoy you...

Utility workers hate to go on disconnect calls; they get threatened,
assaulted and worse. Further assuming the homeowner pays up, then
there's a 2nd visit for the restoral.




--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

 

[BillyPilgrim]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:30:21 -0400, "Oppie" <Oppie@SayNoToSpam.som> wrote:

Granted that I'm a fan of Kurt Vonnegut but that smacks of his "Harrison
Burgeron"
Showtime made it into a movie
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-175006468841636088

Oppie

Give me a button, and I'll push it!

 

[OutsideObserver]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:44:19 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You are nothing new, unique, interesting, worthwhile, or anything
good;

Did I ever claim to be such? You are daft!

nothing but a waste of time.

Yet you pay.

Do Usenet a favor and
self-destruct.

Folks like you that spew words like that are the ones that should
succumb to something... like a brain clot that disables you completely
and leaves you speechless so that you cannot tell anyone that you are in
extreme pain. Your family should be cursed with the pain of having to
feed and dress you, etc.

You're crawlin' and you shant get up... boy. (in so many ways)

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-08-04, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 4, 9:03 am, Bill <a...@a.a> wrote:

Does anyone know of an IC that generates linearly regulated +5 V (+50
mA), 0 V and -5 V (-50 mA) from an unregulated 12...18 V single supply
input?

If you need split supplies, DON'T accept a single unregulated supply
as input power. The common (ground) node has to sink OR source
up to (in this case) 50 mA, and that limits you to power op amps
which will be kinda pricey.

I'd use a current mirror to bias two Zeners, myself; 50 mA/5V is
only a quarter watt (the whole circuit will waste less than 1W).

.-----------+--------+---+--[78L05]---- +5
----- | | | |
--- [3K3] | | |
| | |/ === |
----- |------| | |
--- | bc547|> | |
: 18V | | | |
: | +---+----+------- 0v
----- 1N914 V | | |
--- T bc557|< | |
| |------| === |
| [3K3] |\ | |
| | | | |
`-----------+--------+---+--[79L05]--- -5

well almost, it needs about 15V to work.


(-)--33R--------------.
12-18 5v1 5v1 |
(+)--+--Z<--+--Z<--+--'
| | |
+5.1V 0V -5.1V

works but will run hot with 18V supply.

the same thing but with a better current source
(and optinally better shunt regulators) could work, but is still not
a single chip.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:21:06 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Aug 14, 4:51 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:31:02 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET



kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Aug 14, 12:40 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:27:42 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I think its that bit about the genral welfare.

And "promoting the general Welfare" is why the founders immediately
enacted a raft of social safety net & handout programs.  Like
guaranteed
retirement, school lunches, medical care, and programs for the poor.

This is sarcasm, right?

It was Roosevelt who turned the Crash of '29 into the Great Depression
with all his socialist handout programs.

So Roosevelt was so powerful that his policies could have effect
before he got into office.  Wow that I didn't know!

Yep, more proof that you loopy lefties can't read.

Roosevelt was not in power until 1933.

Duh! When was the great depression?

His policies didn't have much
effect before 1934. Take a look at an employment graph for the era
some time. You too are arguing that his policies were effective
before he came into office.

Proving, once again, that loopy lefties are clueless.

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 15, 2:50 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2009-08-04, whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 4, 9:03 am, Bill <a...@a.a> wrote:

Does anyone know of an IC that generates linearly regulated +5 V (+50
mA), 0 V and -5 V (-50 mA) from an unregulated 12...18 V single supply
input?

If you need split supplies, DON'T accept a single unregulated supply
as input power.  The common (ground) node has to sink OR source
up to (in this case) 50 mA, and that limits you to power op amps
which will be kinda pricey.

I'd use a current mirror to bias two Zeners, myself; 50 mA/5V is
only a quarter watt (the whole circuit will waste less than 1W).

    .-----------+--------+---+--[78L05]---- +5
  -----         |        |   |    |
   ---        [3K3]      |   |    |
    |           |      |/   ===   |
  -----         |------|     |    |
   ---          | bc547|>    |    |
    : 18V       |        |   |    |
    :           |        +---+----+------- 0v
  -----   1N914 V        |   |    |
   ---          T bc557|<    |    |
    |           |------|    ===   |
    |         [3K3]    |\    |    |
    |           |        |   |    |
    `-----------+--------+---+--[79L05]--- -5

  well almost, it needs about 15V to work.

  (-)--33R--------------.
 12-18    5v1   5v1     |
  (+)--+--Z<--+--Z<--+--'
       |      |      |
     +5.1V    0V    -5.1V

  works but will run hot with 18V supply.

 the same thing but with a better current source
 (and optinally better shunt regulators) could work, but is still not
 a single chip.

How about using a LT1207 or some other dual power op-amp?
It would have lower losses when unloaded. You would still need a
reference external to the op-amp package.

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 14, 2:16 pm, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:17:41 GMT, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net
wrote:

I can guess - one of the filament supports is springy - when the filament
opens, that support springs back, contacting another electrode, shorting
the bulb - but wouldn't that be kinda expensive?

That's not how they work. It's generally a wire-wound shunt across the
filament supports that has enough oxide that it breaks down well below
line voltage (when the lamp fails) but not at the operating voltage of
the lamp (a few volts). Costs next to nothing to wind a few turns of
wire around the filament supports.

I have seen one that was part of the socket. There was a pair of flat
metal springs pressing against each other. Between them was a sheet
of some material. It was explained that if the voltage went above
some amount the material would breakdown and the springs would be
shorted together. When the bulb was changed, a new sheet of material
was put between the springs.

It seemed like a good design because it kept the function away from
the bulb and in a place that was protected.

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 14, 4:51 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:31:02 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET



kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Aug 14, 12:40 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:27:42 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I think its that bit about the genral welfare.

And "promoting the general Welfare" is why the founders immediately
enacted a raft of social safety net & handout programs.  Like
guaranteed
retirement, school lunches, medical care, and programs for the poor.

This is sarcasm, right?

It was Roosevelt who turned the Crash of '29 into the Great Depression
with all his socialist handout programs.

So Roosevelt was so powerful that his policies could have effect
before he got into office.  Wow that I didn't know!

Yep, more proof that you loopy lefties can't read.

Roosevelt was not in power until 1933. His policies didn't have much
effect before 1934. Take a look at an employment graph for the era
some time. You too are arguing that his policies were effective
before he came into office.

 

[OutsideObserver]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 7:49 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:25:36 -0700,





"JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:46:36 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@notcoldmail.com> wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote:
Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415

Insane.
My car is a VW Golf >10 years old and would qualify under the similar UK
scheme.
It does an *average* of 56mpg, and tops out at 75mpg at 55mph.

Quite. It's a disgrace that will take very efficient cars off the market.

Unless you can affors a NEW car will keep that 'clunker'. Pure political
insanity.

Graham

Perhaps it is part of the package to "save" the car companies and the
banks.

And sell even more people loans they can't afford

Cash-for-clunkers = poor tax. Cars that used to go for <=$1,000 now
can't be had for less than $4,500.

Suggested slogans: "Happily taxing those who can afford it least." or
"Your loss is the UAW's gain!"

You make zero sense.

They are GIVING $4500 for a clunker that gets destroyed. NONE of the
NEW cars they are required to subsequently buy are at a $4500 price tag,
and NONE of them were previously only worth $1000.

You got lost on what this cash for clunkers thing is all about.

 

[Jamie]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-08-04, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 4, 9:03Â am, Bill <a...@a.a> wrote:


Does anyone know of an IC that generates linearly regulated +5 V (+50
mA), 0 V and -5 V (-50 mA) from an unregulated 12...18 V single supply
input?

If you need split supplies, DON'T accept a single unregulated supply
as input power. The common (ground) node has to sink OR source
up to (in this case) 50 mA, and that limits you to power op amps
which will be kinda pricey.

I'd use a current mirror to bias two Zeners, myself; 50 mA/5V is
only a quarter watt (the whole circuit will waste less than 1W).



.-----------+--------+---+--[78L05]---- +5
----- | | | |
--- [3K3] | | |
| | |/ === |
----- |------| | |
--- | bc547|> | |
: 18V | | | |
: | +---+----+------- 0v
----- 1N914 V | | |
--- T bc557|< | |
| |------| === |
| [3K3] |\ | |
| | | | |
`-----------+--------+---+--[79L05]--- -5

well almost, it needs about 15V to work.


(-)--33R--------------.
12-18 5v1 5v1 |
(+)--+--Z<--+--Z<--+--'
| | |
+5.1V 0V -5.1V

works but will run hot with 18V supply.

the same thing but with a better current source
(and optinally better shunt regulators) could work, but is still not
a single chip.



guess that's fine as long as the -/+ source never comes in contact with

the 0 volt line!

 

[krw]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:42:58 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And
Deliver@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 7:49 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:25:36 -0700,





"JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:46:36 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@notcoldmail.com> wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote:
Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415

Insane.
My car is a VW Golf >10 years old and would qualify under the similar UK
scheme.
It does an *average* of 56mpg, and tops out at 75mpg at 55mph.

Quite. It's a disgrace that will take very efficient cars off the market.

Unless you can affors a NEW car will keep that 'clunker'. Pure political
insanity.

Graham

Perhaps it is part of the package to "save" the car companies and the
banks.

And sell even more people loans they can't afford

Cash-for-clunkers = poor tax. Cars that used to go for <=$1,000 now
can't be had for less than $4,500.

Suggested slogans: "Happily taxing those who can afford it least." or
"Your loss is the UAW's gain!"

You make zero sense.

They are GIVING $4500 for a clunker that gets destroyed. NONE of the
NEW cars they are required to subsequently buy are at a $4500 price tag,
and NONE of them were previously only worth $1000.

Leaving that car unavailable for the person who actually knows that he
can't afford a new car.

You got lost on what this cash for clunkers thing is all about.

You're lost about what the free market is all about.

 

On Aug 14, 3:40 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_...@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:27:42 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:00 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:

I think its that bit about the genral welfare.

And "promoting the general Welfare" is why the founders immediately
enacted a raft of social safety net & handout programs.  Like
guaranteed
retirement, school lunches, medical care, and programs for the poor.

This is sarcasm, right?

Today's alternate reading of "promoting the general welfare" is that
the
Founders wanted us all to be on welfare. That's dumb.

It was Roosevelt who turned the Crash of '29 into the Great Depression
with all his socialist handout programs.

The Obamanation is just driving the last nail into the coffin.

The last railroad spike, if he can. He's already the most disastrous
president
we've ever had, borrowing our way to "prosperity."

But he may yet be stopped, for the simple reason that...

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other
people's
money." -- Margaret Thatcher

And, quite a few ordinary Americans are beginning to wonder just how
everyone gets richer by Obama borrowing massively--they just finished
trying that themselves, and it didn't work.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Aug 14, 7:49 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:25:36 -0700,





"JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:46:36 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@notcoldmail.com> wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote:
Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415

Insane.
My car is a VW Golf >10 years old and would qualify under the similar UK
scheme.
It does an *average* of 56mpg, and tops out at 75mpg at 55mph.

Quite. It's a disgrace that will take very efficient cars off the market.

Unless you can affors a NEW car will keep that 'clunker'. Pure political
insanity.

Graham

Perhaps it is part of the package to "save" the car companies and the
banks.

And sell even more people loans they can't afford

Cash-for-clunkers = poor tax. Cars that used to go for <=$1,000 now
can't be had for less than $4,500.

Suggested slogans: "Happily taxing those who can afford it least." or
"Your loss is the UAW's gain!"

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Steve Ackman]

In <80bc85h49kph6d97ptf7nnuq0dnca23lro@4ax.com>, on Fri, 14 Aug 2009
20:44:19 -0700, JosephKK, quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:

...
You are nothing new, unique, interesting, worthwhile, or anything
good; nothing but a waste of time. Do Usenet a favor and
self-destruct.

It's a simple matter.

%BOS
[alt.energy.homepower]
Score: =-9999
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.197.140.80
%EOS

--
☯☯
Unlimited webspace - Unlimited bandwidth
http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?74713

 

[OutsideObserver]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:56:37 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

You're lost about what the free market is all about.

You have no clue what I know about.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:37:47 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And
Deliver@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:56:37 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


You're lost about what the free market is all about.

You have no clue what I know about.

How wrong you are. You've revealed plenty about yourself, here.