Driver to drive?

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:56:33 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

If you continue to feed the troll you will continue to be fed shit in
return.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Postings via gmail, yahoo, hotmail, aioe, uar or googlegroups, and
troll feeders, are now automatically kill-filed using Agent v5.0

To be white-listed, send request via the E-mail icon on my website

 

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:21:17 -0700, Mycelium
<mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

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

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:47:56 -0700, Mycelium wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
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.

You must be very young. I remember, oh, about a half-century ago, laying
the Xmas tree lights out on the floor, and if the string didn't light,
we'd take a known good bulb and go down the string swapping out bulbs,
one at a time; if the string didn't light, we'd take the bulb we just
removed from its socket and swap it out with the next one, and so on.
When the string lights up, you'd throw away the bulb that you just
removed/replaced.

NO! You said "and like the Xmas lights..." which means that you were
talking about arc lamps in series. THAT is what my comment is about.

Are you drunk, or do you just have a problem remembering what YOU
wrote?

I know how light bulbs fucking work. There is no such thing as such a
bulb "failing shorted" so you fail yet again on common sense as well.


So, while using your BRAIN, re-read what I wrote, which is CLREALY
referencing ARC LAMPS.


Nowadays, they apparently do have low-V bulbs that are designed to fail
short; I'm danged if I know how they accomplish it.

They are not incandescents.

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?

Again, use your common sense. and NO, I know of NO light bulbs that
fail shorted.

Thanks,
Rich
Then you don't know much about decorative series string lighting

technology.

 

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:28:42 -0700, Mycelium
<mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

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.

We are talking SERIES STRING lighting and they do in fact exist - not
only that they are very common. And they work as described.

It's time you read the thread, and thought it out before you answer.

The answer was in response to this : And, like the series Xmas lights
of yore, when one goes out, they all go out.

 

[OutsideObserver]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:56:33 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

Wrong again.

 

[OutsideObserver]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:02:02 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:56:33 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

If you continue to feed the troll you will continue to be fed shit in
return.

...Jim Thompson

Jim Thompson's favorite soap opera, starring himself:

As The Retard Churns...

 

[Mycelium]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:03:02 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:21:17 -0700, Mycelium
mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

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

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:47:56 -0700, Mycelium wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
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.

You must be very young. I remember, oh, about a half-century ago, laying
the Xmas tree lights out on the floor, and if the string didn't light,
we'd take a known good bulb and go down the string swapping out bulbs,
one at a time; if the string didn't light, we'd take the bulb we just
removed from its socket and swap it out with the next one, and so on.
When the string lights up, you'd throw away the bulb that you just
removed/replaced.

NO! You said "and like the Xmas lights..." which means that you were
talking about arc lamps in series. THAT is what my comment is about.

Are you drunk, or do you just have a problem remembering what YOU
wrote?

I know how light bulbs fucking work. There is no such thing as such a
bulb "failing shorted" so you fail yet again on common sense as well.


So, while using your BRAIN, re-read what I wrote, which is CLREALY
referencing ARC LAMPS.


Nowadays, they apparently do have low-V bulbs that are designed to fail
short; I'm danged if I know how they accomplish it.

They are not incandescents.

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?

Again, use your common sense. and NO, I know of NO light bulbs that
fail shorted.

Thanks,
Rich
Then you don't know much about decorative series string lighting
technology.

You're nuts.

 

[Mycelium]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:06:37 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The answer was in response to this : And, like the series Xmas lights
of yore, when one goes out, they all go out.

YES, ditz, and THAT very remark was made in reference to our discussion
about carbon arc lamps in series!

And my response to that remark was ALSO about carbon arc lamps in
series, and anyone that actually lived back then knows it.

 

[Daniel Who Wants to Know]

"Mycelium" <mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote in
message news:qete85583q6jb3dmqj7dli0dtdleblgovi@4ax.com...

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:03:02 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


Then you don't know much about decorative series string lighting
technology.


You're nuts.

Have a look at this image:
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2143119/Christmas-light-main_Full.jpg

Just above the bead of glass that stabilizes the electrodes/filament
supports you will see a few turns of silver wire wrapped around the
supports. This is the wire that causes the bulb to fail shorted. Under
normal operation only the bulb's nominal operating voltage is present
(2.5V-12V AC depending on the number of bulbs in the string) which is not
enough to burn through the oxide layer. Once the filament breaks the full
line/mains voltage is suddenly put across the bulb and the oxide layer is
penetrated causing the silver wire to short to the supports which makes the
bulb unit itself a short circuit. The result is that the rest of the bulbs
in the string stay on and get slightly brighter because of the slightly
increased voltage across each of them. The raised voltage also shortens the
life of the rest so they end up burning out in a cascade effect until either
A: they all burn out and short which blows the 3 amp fuse in the plug, or B:
the set gets jarred or shaken which knocks loose some of the shorts which
then don't reshort because the line voltage is distributed across all of the
opens and is not high enough across any given one to cause the bulb to
reshort.

Both outcomes result in a dead string of lights so it is best to change a
burned out bulb as quickly as possible to extend the life of the set.

 

[Fred Bartoli]

Archimedes' Lever a écrit :

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:08:12 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

....

and diamond is pretty dense.

That's what makes you our nice jewel...

--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:13:20 -0700, Mycelium
<mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:06:37 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


The answer was in response to this : And, like the series Xmas lights
of yore, when one goes out, they all go out.


YES, ditz, and THAT very remark was made in reference to our discussion
about carbon arc lamps in series!

And my response to that remark was ALSO about carbon arc lamps in
series, and anyone that actually lived back then knows it.

You are talking Brockie Pel style arclamps from the late 1800s - I
know they were common particularly on the right side of the pond into
the 1900s. They were 50 volt units run 10 or 12 in a string on 500 or
600 volt DC circuits.

And if a carbon arc lamp did not light it also was designed to "fail
shorted"

 

[krw]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:01 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:21:06 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET



kensm...@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.

The great depression was caused by stuff that happened in the 1920s.

Wrong. The crash was caused by stuff that happened in the '20s. It
only became a depression because of the actions all throughout the
'30s.

It started with the crash of 1929.

*Started*, perhaps. That wasn't the real cause of the *depression*.

Things continued to get worse
until 1934 when they started to improve.

Bullshit. They didn't improve until the '40s. There was an uptick in
'34, which was quickly killed.

Once again proving that your claim is that Roosevelt's policies
effected things before he was in office.

No, you're the one rewriting history, as is typical of leftists.

You are still arguing that

Yes, you're clearly showing how incredibly stupid the average leftist
loon is.

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 15, 9:01 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:21:06 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET



kensm...@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.

The great depression was caused by stuff that happened in the 1920s.
It started with the crash of 1929. Things continued to get worse
until 1934 when they started to improve.

Once again proving that your claim is that Roosevelt's policies
effected things before he was in office.

You are still arguing that

 

[Mycelium]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:53:46 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

And if a carbon arc lamp did not light it also was designed to "fail
shorted"

Not ALSO, you ditz. THAT is what I was referring to, and NO, they do
NOT fail shorted, also or otherwise, by design.

The one I had had a fixed rod positioner, and if the lamp extinguished,
they did not spring together!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Fred Bartoli wrote:

Archimedes' Lever a écrit :
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:08:12 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

...
and diamond is pretty dense.

That's what makes you our nice jewel...

He's a real 'Diamond in the roughage'.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 16, 8:11 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET



kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Aug 15, 9:01 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:21:06 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET

kensm...@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.

The great depression was caused by stuff that happened in the 1920s.

Wrong.  The crash was caused by stuff that happened in the '20s.  It
only became a depression because of the actions all throughout the
'30s.

Wrong! Look at the actual numbers for money supply or GDP and
remember that cause happens and then effect. The great depression was
caused by thins that happened before Roosevelt came into office.
These folks who want to rewrite history just to try to make it appear
that the folks who inherited the mess and fixed it were to blame are
piling nonsense upon nonsense.

It started with the crash of 1929.  

*Started*, perhaps.  That wasn't the real cause of the *depression*.

The cause was the stuff that lead to the crash. The crash of 1029 was
the first major event in the effects chain. Remember it is cause then
effect. Look earlier to see the cause of the crash.

Things continued to get worse
until 1934 when they started to improve.

Bullshit.  They didn't improve until the '40s.  There was an uptick in
'34, which was quickly killed.

Go back and look at the actual GDP numbers etc. There was improvement
in each year except for the 1937-1938 years where they attempted to
cut back on the stimulus to quickly. Stop spouting such nonsense and
read a little on the subject.

Folks on the right have to work at being so thunderingly ignorant
because they just can't stand the idea that their pet theories are
proven incorrect in the real world.

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 16, 8:11 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET

To save you looking up the graph:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

You can find it many places. The history is out there if you look.

 

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:43:25 -0700, Mycelium
<mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:53:46 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


And if a carbon arc lamp did not light it also was designed to "fail
shorted"

Not ALSO, you ditz. THAT is what I was referring to, and NO, they do
NOT fail shorted, also or otherwise, by design.

The one I had had a fixed rod positioner, and if the lamp extinguished,
they did not spring together!

Well the Brockie Pel's which WERE series connected DID fail shorted.
In the Brockie Pell system that is the way they worked, and I was only
speeking of the Brockie Pell - which was used in Bristol among other
places.

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:13:14 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:43:25 -0700, Mycelium
mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:53:46 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


And if a carbon arc lamp did not light it also was designed to "fail
shorted"

Not ALSO, you ditz. THAT is what I was referring to, and NO, they do
NOT fail shorted, also or otherwise, by design.

The one I had had a fixed rod positioner, and if the lamp extinguished,
they did not spring together!


Well the Brockie Pel's which WERE series connected DID fail shorted.
In the Brockie Pell system that is the way they worked, and I was only
speeking of the Brockie Pell - which was used in Bristol among other
places.

Also the quite common Thomson-Houston system had an auxiliary solenoid
directly across the arc, slamming the electrodes together if the arc
was estinguished and also provided continuity to the current loop.

Paul

 

[TralfamadoranJetPilot]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:18:52 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net>
wrote:

On Aug 16, 8:11 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET


To save you looking up the graph:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

You can find it many places. The history is out there if you look.

See the bump in '37?

What this tells me is that the US is too much a loner in the current
fight.

ALL of our allies need to be doing more to put an end to the conflicts
that are affecting our economies.

We also need to take a stronger stance on North Korea and Iran's
attempts to become armed with nuclear devices or the technology to make
them.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:32:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred Bartoli wrote:

Archimedes' Lever a écrit :
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:08:12 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

...
and diamond is pretty dense.

That's what makes you our nice jewel...


He's a real 'Diamond in the roughage'.

If you had diamonds in your roughage, you'd be dead from the
lacerations by now.

After all, we can't have that brain you sit on being denied its blood
supply.