Driver to drive?

[AZ Nomad]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:02:56 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:51:59 -0500, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:47:02 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:39:19 -0500, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:10:19 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:36:23 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:09:54 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:16:24 -0500, AZ Nomad

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:50:32 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
"When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve
on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most
substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances
that are attenuated... The Complete Lives system justifies preference
to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than
instrumental value."

http://www.sodahead.com/question/532683/rahms-brother-dr-ezekiel-emanuel-the-death-czar-obama-health-policy-advisor-announced-a-new-stystem-for-selecting-who-in-the-population-should-be-killeda-federal-system-for-withdrawing-care-from-those-chosen-for-death---do-you-care/

Obama's health program... Hitler Care

You're a loon.

Be nice. Otherwise, when you get ill, you'll be declared "surplus"

Please spread your RW lies somewhere else.

Lies? Just wait. You'll see the effects when the chickens come home to
roost.

Pointless scare mongering.
;


The only way socialism can present the illusion of "working" is at
gunpoint.

That hasn't been the experience of other western countries. Denying health care
while problems are cheap so that people end up in the emergency room costing
thousands of times more is a piss poor solution.

But the solution to that is NOT ALL that is in the bill. How can you
be so ignorant? I'll bet that you HAVE NOT READ the bill. I have.
it's downright scary :-(

Don't talk to me about ignorant. You're the fool spreading lies
dreamed up by Palin's press crew.

Poxy hell. Read the damned thing (HR 3200) what insane horror!!
Terror in the first 50 pages. Or maybe you hate productive people so
much.

No, what I dislike is medical corporations reaping insane profits while
anybody who doesn't own their own hospital gets denied basic care.

 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:51:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:23:33 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:27:05 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:04:26 -0400, ingvald44 <noone@nowhere.com
wrote:

Paul Keinanen wrote:

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.


That's interesting. How would you strike an arc on series wired arc
lamps? Seems near impossible...?

When powered down, the electrodes touch each other.

When power is applied to the chain, the nominal loop current will flow
through the electromagnet and electrodes. The magnets starts pulling
the electrodes apart and when the electrodes in one lamp are separated
from each other, the loop is broken and the full generator open
circuit voltage (apparently 1-2 kV) is across the electrodes.
Apparently the inductance in the electromagnets also help create large
voltages peaks across the electrode gap, when the loop current is
interrupted, further helping in striking the arc.

When the arc and electrodes reaches normal operational temperatures,
the voltage drop across the arc is reduced, thus more voltage is
available across the other lamps to start them. I have no idea how
long it takes, before a string of 20 arc lamps will achieve a stable
condition.

Paul

It has been a long time since i have read such crazy irresponsible
trash.

Are you saying that the above is untrue?

I have worked a few projects that were a conversion from
series lighting (6.6 A, 4800 V) to 240 V systems. Worker safety was a
part of the issue. The odd thing is that at each lighting standard
there was a transformer, to make the normal voltage for the
lamp/ballast. The cost of the transformers seems to have added to
impetus of the conversion.

You don't know the functions of the transformer?

Incidentally, DC arc lamps didn't use transformers.

John
Didn't? Couldn't.

 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:10:45 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:23:33 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:

It has been a long time since i have read such crazy irresponsible
trash. I have worked a few projects that were a conversion from
series lighting (6.6 A, 4800 V) to 240 V systems. Worker safety was a
part of the issue. The odd thing is that at each lighting standard
there was a transformer, to make the normal voltage for the
lamp/ballast. The cost of the transformers seems to have added to
impetus of the conversion.

YMMV

The discussion was about ARC LAMPS. There are no fucking ballasts.

Try reading the thread next time.
You are an absolutely clueless idiot.

ALL vapour lamps - murcury, sodium, or whatever are ARC lamps - and
they all use ballasts.
The common FLOURESCENT lamp is an ARC lamp - and it too requires a
ballast. Virtually all arc lamps with the exception of the open carbon
arc lamps REQUIRE ballasts - and even some carbon arc lamps, when run
on AC, used ballasts.

 

[Don T]

"Archimedes' Dipstick" <OneMinesculeLever@ShortSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:hnvj85hl6k09leo2vbsb50muvvauusoeuh@4ax.com...

Folks as dumb as him have embarrassments that fly right over their
head, while they look at you like a learning disabled kid would.

Want to match 'dumb' in a refereed, timed, session? Your choice of place,
my choice of subject matter? Or the standard SAT will suffice. I haven't
taken the SAT since 1968 so it should be a fair judge of 'dumb'. I let my
'68 score stand, you take the SAT. Be sure to study. My score allowed me to
enroll and graduate with my Baccalaureate Degree without ever having to
formally consult with an advisor. School rules in those days.

BTW. Have you found your fulcrum? Without the fulcrum a lever is utterly
useless. Much like you.

--


Don Thompson

Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe

It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:14:21 -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



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.

Call me skeptic, put up some links. You too krw.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:54:47 -0500, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:13:08 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:01:49 -0500, AZ Nomad

There's no need to get too anal over it. It isn't like you're going
to be running thousands of gallons of water through a battery.

The difference between "genuine DI water" and water run through a
simple filter isn't enough to matter. If you can't taste the
difference, the battery won't care either.

Not true. It depends very much on the particular unwanted dissolved
contaminants. Dissolved arsenic just happens to be a good example.
Standard water softeners won't remove As, or most transition metals.
Bottom line, reverse osmosis it the easiest process for basic purified
(but not quite deionized) water in the presence of high metals (other
than alkaline earth [column 2A] "hard water") concentrations.

You really have tons of arsenic in your drinking water, enough to
kill a car battery? I'd hate to live in your region.

I do not have the misfortune to live there. But the location is
called Weed, Ca. There are signs all over the place warning that the
water is not drinkable.

Can you provide a single example of drinking water having enough arsenic
to kill a car battery and not send thousands to the emergency
room? I think you're talking out of your ass.

It has resulted in many trips to the hospital, not necessarily
emergency room. Chronic type stuff.

I use reverse osmosis myself, I don't bother with "geniune DI water" (what
a crock). However, I think any filtering will be more than enough and in
fact, I don't buy the theory that plain drinking water isn't fine.

Then why do you do what you do? Reverse osmosis filtering. Oh, by
the way, premier chemistry labs and semiconductor fabs have some of
the purist water around.

It isn't like you're running thousands of gallons through a battery and
the contiminents will be left behind and build up. In the lifetime of a car
battery, less than two gallons of water will be added.

 

[AZ Nomad]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:16:27 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

I use reverse osmosis myself, I don't bother with "geniune DI water" (what
a crock). However, I think any filtering will be more than enough and in
fact, I don't buy the theory that plain drinking water isn't fine.

Then why do you do what you do?

Unlike my car's battery, I go through more than 2 gallons of water every 5
years. Phoenix water is filthy so I have the purifier. I doubt it makes any
difference to the battery, but it is as easy to pour as tap water. I
sure as hell won't go out of my way for "genuine DI water".


Reverse osmosis filtering. Oh, by

the way, premier chemistry labs and semiconductor fabs have some of
the purist water around.
Irrelevent

It isn't like you're running thousands of gallons through a battery and
the contiminents will be left behind and build up. In the lifetime of a car
battery, less than two gallons of water will be added.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:19:11 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2qaj85hf5cimqihaqmo1rrhofj1jbbk84j@4ax.com...
Reminds of when as a kid i saw an amplifier rated at 100 W that was 2"
by 5" BY 8". Then i saw that the rating was PMPO. But that was 40
years ago. A lot of such ratings today are "marketing magic" of the
same kind

Wow, I didn't know they used PMPO that long ago. That's hardly out of the
tube age. I thought marketing was just discovering "watts RMS" back then!

Why are you jerking us around, never mind, you are just a jerk.

Not to be picky or anything, but who uses an output transformer any
more?

Just to be sure, we've been talking about the switching supply's output
transformer. But actual audio outputs? Those went out of style in the
*early* 60s.

Naw, not until the 1970's

Last beast I saw with real iron must be my dad's Mcintosh something power
amplifier -- good for over 300 real watts into any kind of load you want.
He bought it in the 70s. They put autotransformers at the end, so the
amplifier always drives around 3 ohms, and you can connect anything from 2
to 32 ohms.

One might theorize this is the reason why Mcintosh hardware sounds "so good"
(in the tubophile sense) -- the only fundamental difference between your
average tube and SS amps is the output transformer.

Transformer? Who do you think you are.

High output units? Who can dissipate hundreds of watts inside a
dashboard?

Well, those 1kW+ amps are fairly hunky, and they have a lot of aluminum to
hold in the heat from peak loads (class B giving ~60% efficiency, that's
easily 1.6kW input and 600W dissipated). Definitely not continuous duty,
last one I saw used fullpack TO-3P outputs. Hardly 50W capacity in one of
those. There were 8 of them, not quite enough for all that dissipation,
especially after ten or twenty seconds when the chassis starts getting
really hot.

But that's more of a floor-of-the-trunk environment, too. I don't know if
they make in-dash radios over 50W (being the 12V bridged into 4 ohm rating).

Tim

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:42:39 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

ALL vapour lamps - murcury, sodium, or whatever are ARC lamps - and
they all use ballasts.

OK you fucking ditz. The discussion was about open element CARBON ROD
ARC LAMPS.

NOT FUCKING GLASS ENCAPSULATED modern day jobs!

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:23:56 -0600, "Don T" <-painter-@louvre.org> wrote:

Want to match 'dumb' in a refereed, timed, session? Your choice of place,
my choice of subject matter? Or the standard SAT will suffice. I haven't
taken the SAT since 1968 so it should be a fair judge of 'dumb'. I let my
'68 score stand, you take the SAT.

I'll let my '78 score stand.

Fuck you.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:23:56 -0600, "Don T" <-painter-@louvre.org> wrote:

BTW. Have you found your fulcrum? Without the fulcrum a lever is utterly
useless. Much like you.

Learn that stupidity in 68 as well?

Dumbass. A lever is the entire device. It includes the fulcrum.
Otherwise it is just a stick. Like you... a stick in the mud.
You are a fool-crumb.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:15:07 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:19:11 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2qaj85hf5cimqihaqmo1rrhofj1jbbk84j@4ax.com...
Reminds of when as a kid i saw an amplifier rated at 100 W that was 2"
by 5" BY 8". Then i saw that the rating was PMPO. But that was 40
years ago. A lot of such ratings today are "marketing magic" of the
same kind

Wow, I didn't know they used PMPO that long ago. That's hardly out of the
tube age. I thought marketing was just discovering "watts RMS" back then!

Why are you jerking us around, never mind, you are just a jerk.

Not to be picky or anything, but who uses an output transformer any
more?

Just to be sure, we've been talking about the switching supply's output
transformer. But actual audio outputs? Those went out of style in the
*early* 60s.

Naw, not until the 1970's

Last beast I saw with real iron must be my dad's Mcintosh something power
amplifier -- good for over 300 real watts into any kind of load you want.
He bought it in the 70s. They put autotransformers at the end, so the
amplifier always drives around 3 ohms, and you can connect anything from 2
to 32 ohms.

One might theorize this is the reason why Mcintosh hardware sounds "so good"
(in the tubophile sense) -- the only fundamental difference between your
average tube and SS amps is the output transformer.

Transformer? Who do you think you are.

High output units? Who can dissipate hundreds of watts inside a
dashboard?

Well, those 1kW+ amps are fairly hunky, and they have a lot of aluminum to
hold in the heat from peak loads (class B giving ~60% efficiency, that's
easily 1.6kW input and 600W dissipated). Definitely not continuous duty,
last one I saw used fullpack TO-3P outputs. Hardly 50W capacity in one of
those. There were 8 of them, not quite enough for all that dissipation,
especially after ten or twenty seconds when the chassis starts getting
really hot.

But that's more of a floor-of-the-trunk environment, too. I don't know if
they make in-dash radios over 50W (being the 12V bridged into 4 ohm rating).

Tim

12V bridged into 4 Ohms is only 18 Watts ;-)

I built such an amplifier set for my '77 280Z. With a bridge each for
left and right, it's quite nice! I used a Panasonic AM/FM tuner as
the front-end.

...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 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Jim Thompson wrote:

12V bridged into 4 Ohms is only 18 Watts ;-)

The 12V is actually 14.5V, and the ICs typically go within 1V from the
rails. So "12V BTL @ 4 Ohm" is about 19.5W of the undistorted sine wave.
They usually specify the power at 10% THD, which makes the nice looking
number of 25W.

I built such an amplifier set for my '77 280Z. With a bridge each for
left and right, it's quite nice! I used a Panasonic AM/FM tuner as
the front-end.

The problem with the boosted rails is that it is very difficult to pass
the conducted EMI requirement for the OEM market while keeping the cost
and size reasonable. I made the amp with R-R output; it makes 100W into
1 Ohm

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:07:14 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


12V bridged into 4 Ohms is only 18 Watts ;-)

The 12V is actually 14.5V, and the ICs typically go within 1V from the
rails. So "12V BTL @ 4 Ohm" is about 19.5W of the undistorted sine wave.
They usually specify the power at 10% THD, which makes the nice looking
number of 25W.

I specify my stuff at "real" power, sitting still, car not running.
Besides, in AZ, car running, temperatures as they are, "12V" is
usually only about 13.3V.

I was driving a pair of 6" x 9" ovals

BTW, Distortion of approximately 0.003% ;-)

I built such an amplifier set for my '77 280Z. With a bridge each for
left and right, it's quite nice! I used a Panasonic AM/FM tuner as
the front-end.

The problem with the boosted rails is that it is very difficult to pass
the conducted EMI requirement for the OEM market while keeping the cost
and size reasonable. I made the amp with R-R output; it makes 100W into
1 Ohm

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

I didn't boost, I bridged ;-)

...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 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:51:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:23:33 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:27:05 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:04:26 -0400, ingvald44 <noone@nowhere.com
wrote:

Paul Keinanen wrote:

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.


That's interesting. How would you strike an arc on series wired arc
lamps? Seems near impossible...?

When powered down, the electrodes touch each other.

When power is applied to the chain, the nominal loop current will flow
through the electromagnet and electrodes. The magnets starts pulling
the electrodes apart and when the electrodes in one lamp are separated
from each other, the loop is broken and the full generator open
circuit voltage (apparently 1-2 kV) is across the electrodes.
Apparently the inductance in the electromagnets also help create large
voltages peaks across the electrode gap, when the loop current is
interrupted, further helping in striking the arc.

When the arc and electrodes reaches normal operational temperatures,
the voltage drop across the arc is reduced, thus more voltage is
available across the other lamps to start them. I have no idea how
long it takes, before a string of 20 arc lamps will achieve a stable
condition.

Paul

It has been a long time since i have read such crazy irresponsible
trash.

Are you saying that the above is untrue?

And daft.

I have worked a few projects that were a conversion from
series lighting (6.6 A, 4800 V) to 240 V systems. Worker safety was a
part of the issue. The odd thing is that at each lighting standard
there was a transformer, to make the normal voltage for the
lamp/ballast. The cost of the transformers seems to have added to
impetus of the conversion.

You don't know the functions of the transformer?

Maybe you can find things to do with them that i have not seen yet,

then again maybe not.

Incidentally, DC arc lamps didn't use transformers.

John

DC does not go through transformers normally. And the fancy
regulators to run arc lamps on DC can be expensive.

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:07:14 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:



12V bridged into 4 Ohms is only 18 Watts ;-)

The 12V is actually 14.5V, and the ICs typically go within 1V from the
rails. So "12V BTL @ 4 Ohm" is about 19.5W of the undistorted sine wave.
They usually specify the power at 10% THD, which makes the nice looking
number of 25W.


I specify my stuff at "real" power, sitting still, car not running.
Besides, in AZ, car running, temperatures as they are, "12V" is
usually only about 13.3V.

I was driving a pair of 6" x 9" ovals

BTW, Distortion of approximately 0.003% ;-)

At what frequency?
Besides, this number probably indicates the deep feedback; every
audiophile knows that the feedback is very bad

Do you know of any special reason why they don't make the R-R ICs for
the audio amplifiers?



Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 17, 10:43 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:14:21 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET



kensm...@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

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.

Call me skeptic, put up some links.  You too krw.

Look at the next article to the one you replied to so see one site.

If you google on it you can find the same sort of graphs for
unemployment. In the later 1930s the US saw reasonable growth in both
the employment and the GDP. The trouble was that a 6% increase from
0.1 is 0.106. When the starting point is as bad as it was in 1933, 6%
growth still seems really bad.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:28:20 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:51:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:23:33 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:27:05 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:04:26 -0400, ingvald44 <noone@nowhere.com
wrote:

Paul Keinanen wrote:

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.


That's interesting. How would you strike an arc on series wired arc
lamps? Seems near impossible...?

When powered down, the electrodes touch each other.

When power is applied to the chain, the nominal loop current will flow
through the electromagnet and electrodes. The magnets starts pulling
the electrodes apart and when the electrodes in one lamp are separated
from each other, the loop is broken and the full generator open
circuit voltage (apparently 1-2 kV) is across the electrodes.
Apparently the inductance in the electromagnets also help create large
voltages peaks across the electrode gap, when the loop current is
interrupted, further helping in striking the arc.

When the arc and electrodes reaches normal operational temperatures,
the voltage drop across the arc is reduced, thus more voltage is
available across the other lamps to start them. I have no idea how
long it takes, before a string of 20 arc lamps will achieve a stable
condition.

Paul

It has been a long time since i have read such crazy irresponsible
trash.

Are you saying that the above is untrue?

And daft.

So how would you design a series-string arc lighting system, using
19th century technology?

I have worked a few projects that were a conversion from
series lighting (6.6 A, 4800 V) to 240 V systems. Worker safety was a
part of the issue. The odd thing is that at each lighting standard
there was a transformer, to make the normal voltage for the
lamp/ballast. The cost of the transformers seems to have added to
impetus of the conversion.

You don't know the functions of the transformer?

Maybe you can find things to do with them that i have not seen yet,
then again maybe not.

Among other things, I suspect the transformer saturates when its lamp
burns out, keeping the rest of the string alive.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:29:52 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:07:14 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:



12V bridged into 4 Ohms is only 18 Watts ;-)

The 12V is actually 14.5V, and the ICs typically go within 1V from the
rails. So "12V BTL @ 4 Ohm" is about 19.5W of the undistorted sine wave.
They usually specify the power at 10% THD, which makes the nice looking
number of 25W.


I specify my stuff at "real" power, sitting still, car not running.
Besides, in AZ, car running, temperatures as they are, "12V" is
usually only about 13.3V.

I was driving a pair of 6" x 9" ovals

BTW, Distortion of approximately 0.003% ;-)

At what frequency?
Besides, this number probably indicates the deep feedback; every
audiophile knows that the feedback is very bad

Except it wasn't. I have _the_perfect_ AB bias scheme that I disclose
to no one, so don't ask. (It was really the Monster Cables that made
the difference ;-)

Do you know of any special reason why they don't make the R-R ICs for
the audio amplifiers?

I have no idea. Haven't been involved in audio since around '85, when
I was designing sub-bass systems for discos ;-)

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

...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 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:44:19 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Yanik wrote:

sugar does not dissolve in gasoline.


It does disolve in the water that condenses and settles to the bottom
of the tank. I've seen over an inch in a couple old tanks I had to
replace. Also, if you fill up right after a station gets their
delivery, it stirs up the water in their tank, and gets pumped into your
tank.

I thought the "additive of choice" was moth balls ?

If you want to blow it up. Water & sugar in the fuel line will
either plug the filter with gelled sugar and sediment, or scorch the
rings & valves.


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