Driver to drive?

Aug 18, 2009

On Aug 15, 3:56 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:42:58 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And

Deli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

Right. I've a great friend on hard times, who was hoping to bootstrap
by
scoring a ride, with a max. of $1.5k. And there were plenty of
possibles,
surprisingly. I've been scoping 'em.

Emphasis on the "were." Then Obama got busy buying, destroying 'em,
and driving up the price.

Hope and change, snatched.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Michael · Aug 18, 2009

On Aug 3, 12:56 pm, "Martin Riddle" <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:

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

Cheers

Sodium silicate? How about just pouring water into the intake
manifold? Or putting salt water into the radiator. Is sodium
silicate a waste product the industry would like to dispose of?

Michael

Michael · Aug 18, 2009

On Aug 18, 1:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 3:56 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:42:58 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And

Deli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

Right. I've a great friend on hard times, who was hoping to bootstrap
by
scoring a ride, with a max. of $1.5k. And there were plenty of
possibles,
surprisingly. I've been scoping 'em.

Emphasis on the "were." Then Obama got busy buying, destroying 'em,
and driving up the price.

Hope and change, snatched.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Nothing on autotrader.com, craigslist, or on eBay cars?

I looked into the clunker thing, but realized I'd have to buy a new
car to qualify for the cash-4-clunkers thing. Unless I misunderstood
something...

Michael

Phil Hobbs · Aug 19, 2009

Fred Bartoli wrote:

Phil Hobbs a écrit :
Fred Bartoli wrote:
Phil Hobbs a écrit :
Fred Bartoli wrote:
Phil Hobbs a écrit :
What's everybody's favourite method for protecting analogue output
drivers? Say I have a nice beefy op amp driving a 50 ohm output
from +-15 V supplies. The output is series-terminated, so that
there are no cable reflection funnies from more or less
open-circuited patch cord connections. For small output signals,
it'll drive a 50 ohm load fine, but I really don't want to have to
deal with 4-5W of dissipation if somebody shorts the output and
leaves it like that.

My current best guess is a 100 mA I_trip polyfuse in each supply
lead, with a series resistor in the input to protect the op amp
from death when the polyfuse trips, and a Schottky diode to ground
to protect it from supply reversal. That's five parts per output
device, totalling probably $1 or thereabouts.

Alternatively I suppose I could put a single polyfuse in series
with the output, but with a heavy load, that would lead to weird
gradual degradation rather than a nice obvious and sudden refusal
to continue.

Any better suggestions?

Thanks

Phil Hobbs

If your BW requirements are not too high, and as you have a 50R
output that one is simple enough:

.----------- --------.
| \ ^ |
| --- |
| | |
| | |
| .--------+ |
| | |\ | |
| '-|-\ | ___ |
___ | | >---+--|___|--+-----
------|___|---+-----|+/ | |
| |/ | |
| | |
| | |
| --- |
'-----------/ ^--------'

You can divide the output drop in case you want more that 10-12mA
current...

Thanks. My main worry is preventing the big dissipation, rather
than supplying enough output current.

This is not a buffer!

It's robbing input voltage when the output current is above VBE/50R
threshold...

But this one has pb with stability since it's basically building a CR
feedback opamp looped without any FB resistance. Ooops...

Sorry, it wasn't clear which lines were connected and which not.

But the other post corrected the FB problem with a simpler circuit. Here
it is:

Huh... this one is calling for trouble (stability), but this simpler
one is OK:

Again you can tap the output resistor to have more than 10mA current.

Okay, since you all were good enough to provide suggestions, I did some
sims. The net:

1. Jamie's simple series resistor inside the FB loop:

.------------------.
| |\ |
'-|-\ ___ |
| >------|___|--+-----
-------------------|+/
|/
This has the advantage of keeping the gain constant at low frequencies,

but it can't hold a constant 50 ohm output impedance due to loop gain
rolloff, so it exhibits few-percent pulse top artifacts due to cable
reflections.

2. The diode trick suggested by Fred Bartoli:

BAV99

.--|<--.
| |
.---------+-->|--+-----.
snip> | |
| .--------. |
| | |\ | |
| '-|-\ | ___ |
___ | | >---+--|___|--+-----
------|___|---+-----|+/
|/
This is a very cute idea, but has a similar problem in situations

where there are significant (>0.5V) transients. Those turn on the
diodes during slew, which causes much nastier artifacts than in (1)--a
specially bad problem with longer cables, because they look like
transient heavy loads. Also, it requires a lowish driving impedance and
low capacitance diodes, or it can oscillate. (Spice claims that it can,
anyway.)

3. Modified version of (1), using a cap in parallel with the series
resistor, plus a series RC across the series terminator (mildly
reminiscent of a scope probe):

340pF 330 195pF
|\ .---C1C1----*-----R2R2--C2C2--.
0---------|+\ | | |
| >-*---R1R1----*-*------RTRT-----*--0
.--|-/ 220 | 51
| |/ |
| |
'---------------------'

As shown, with R1=220, C1=340p, R2=330, C2=195p, RT=51, U1= ADA4898-1,
it has almost perfect edges regardless of the load, right up until it
clips. Its three drawbacks are: (1) it has an irreducible -0.4% dip
when the open-circuit cable reflection arrives; (2) it's sensitive to
the exact component values (and obviously to the accuracy of the
macromodel); and (3) it current-limits on each large signal excursion
rather than waiting for a bit.

All of the above share the problem of being too eager to limit the
current. Joerg's cute 40-cent thermal cutout is a good alternative, but
is maybe a bit on the slow side--by the time a 60 C cutout trips, the
temperature gradients on the board have got big enough to be a serious
bother in my circuit, and will take tens of minutes to go away. The op
amp has current limiting already, it's over-temperature and excess
dissipation we're trying to avoid. We'd prefer to wait a millisecond or
two before turning down the juice.

It turns out that the champ so far is what I had in the first place, and
thought was too crude: 220 ohms in each supply lead, with a 10-uF
ceramic bypass, plus a 50-ohm series terminator in the output and a 1k
resistor on the + input to limit the current going into the protection
diodes when the supply droops.

That makes really nice pulses--the pulse response is essentially
unaltered from the unprotected case, so the pulse top artifacts are
below 0.1% from an open circuit reflection, and the output limiting
doesn't happen until the 10 uF cap droops by at least a few volts, so it
doesn't cause problems with low duty cycle transients.

In the words of the estimable Edith Ann: "And that's the truth, *pththth*."

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

Jim Thompson · Aug 19, 2009

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:30:56 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

[snip]

In the words of the estimable Edith Ann: "And that's the truth, *pththth*."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

krw · Aug 19, 2009

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:33:36 -0700 (PDT), Michael
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 18, 1:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 15, 3:56 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:42:58 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And

Deli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

Right. I've a great friend on hard times, who was hoping to bootstrap
by
scoring a ride, with a max. of $1.5k. And there were plenty of
possibles,
surprisingly. I've been scoping 'em.

Emphasis on the "were." Then Obama got busy buying, destroying 'em,
and driving up the price.

Hope and change, snatched.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Nothing on autotrader.com, craigslist, or on eBay cars?

I looked into the clunker thing, but realized I'd have to buy a new
car to qualify for the cash-4-clunkers thing. Unless I misunderstood
something...

Duh! Ya think?!

I looked at it, but my 2001 has a trade-in value of over $6K (and my
wife's car doesn't qualify), not that I'd go for it anyway. Both are
still quite reliable transportation.

krw · Aug 19, 2009

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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.

Wives tale. Enough may plug the filters, if it gets that far, but
sugar isn't soluble in gasoline.

ehsjr · Aug 19, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

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 ;-)

But, wait! Those are *audio* watts, and you're talking "regular"
watts. Audio watts are like regular watts on steroids, so you get
to use much bigger numbers.

Ed

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

Jim Thompson · Aug 19, 2009

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:32:18 GMT, ehsjr <ehsjr@NOSPAMverizon.net>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
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 ;-)

But, wait! Those are *audio* watts, and you're talking "regular"
watts. Audio watts are like regular watts on steroids, so you get
to use much bigger numbers.

Ed

[snicker]

JosephKK · Aug 19, 2009

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:01:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

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 ;-)

As far as i know they have been for many years. However doing a

rail-to-rail power amp for automotive use sounds challenging. You may
be up for it, but i am not.

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

...Jim Thompson

JosephKK · Aug 19, 2009

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:36:38 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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 wouldn't. Though the technology is well recorded. I am impressed

by the earlier engineers once again.

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

Sounds about right. I do know that they used short the output to
service the lighting.

Tim Williams · Aug 19, 2009

"ehsjr" <ehsjr@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:CCIim.2704$nh2.2542@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

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

But, wait! Those are *audio* watts, and you're talking "regular"
watts. Audio watts are like regular watts on steroids, so you get
to use much bigger numbers.

And besides, that's 36W square wave. It's still "RMS", so it can still be
sold as "watts RMS", eh? ;-)

Oh, and don't forget "Sears Watts"!

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Michael A. Terrell · Aug 19, 2009

krw wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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.

Wives tale. Enough may plug the filters, if it gets that far, but
sugar isn't soluble in gasoline.

Have you ever dropped an old gas tank? I had to replace one that had
over an inch of water in the bottom of the tank. Older vehicles that
weren't sealed allowed moist air into the tank as the gasoline was
used. Over a couple years, you could build up a fair amount of water.
Haven't you ever seen gasoline sold with 'Additives to prevent fuel line
freeze up' or a can you added to the gas tank?

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

krw · Aug 19, 2009

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:38:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:33 pm, Michael <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 1:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 3:56 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:42:58 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And

Deli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

Right. I've a great friend on hard times, who was hoping to bootstrap
by scoring a ride, with a max. of $1.5k. And there were plenty of
possibles, surprisingly. I've been scoping 'em.

Emphasis on the "were." Then Obama got busy buying, destroying 'em,
and driving up the price.

Hope and change, snatched.

Nothing on autotrader.com, craigslist, or on eBay cars?

Sure, there are cars everywhere, just not as many because
a lot of perfectly good ones are being destroyed.

....driving up the price on those that are left.

The needy are thus robbed of affordable transport.

Let's not forget cars that might otherwise be donated to charity.

Hey, I wonder how many green jobs that creates...?

Wanna guess? I wonder how many jobs it's going to create for lawyers,
trying to get the money out of Washington?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1

Great stimulus package.

Did you expect otherwise?

krw · Aug 19, 2009

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:33:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

krw wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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.

Wives tale. Enough may plug the filters, if it gets that far, but
sugar isn't soluble in gasoline.

Have you ever dropped an old gas tank? I had to replace one that had
over an inch of water in the bottom of the tank. Older vehicles that
weren't sealed allowed moist air into the tank as the gasoline was
used. Over a couple years, you could build up a fair amount of water.
Haven't you ever seen gasoline sold with 'Additives to prevent fuel line
freeze up' or a can you added to the gas tank?

The sugar will be with the water. If you have water accumulating in
the bottom of the tank the sugar isn't going anywhere either.

Aug 20, 2009

On Aug 18, 4:33 pm, Michael <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 18, 1:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 3:56 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:42:58 -0700, OutsideObserver <Stand And

Deli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

Right. I've a great friend on hard times, who was hoping to bootstrap
by scoring a ride, with a max. of $1.5k. And there were plenty of
possibles, surprisingly. I've been scoping 'em.

Emphasis on the "were." Then Obama got busy buying, destroying 'em,
and driving up the price.

Hope and change, snatched.

Nothing on autotrader.com, craigslist, or on eBay cars?

Sure, there are cars everywhere, just not as many because
a lot of perfectly good ones are being destroyed. The needy
are thus robbed of affordable transport.

Hey, I wonder how many green jobs that creates...?

Great stimulus package.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Michael A. Terrell · Aug 20, 2009

krw wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:33:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

krw wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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.

Wives tale. Enough may plug the filters, if it gets that far, but
sugar isn't soluble in gasoline.

Have you ever dropped an old gas tank? I had to replace one that had
over an inch of water in the bottom of the tank. Older vehicles that
weren't sealed allowed moist air into the tank as the gasoline was
used. Over a couple years, you could build up a fair amount of water.
Haven't you ever seen gasoline sold with 'Additives to prevent fuel line
freeze up' or a can you added to the gas tank?

The sugar will be with the water. If you have water accumulating in
the bottom of the tank the sugar isn't going anywhere either.

Add a little alcohol, and the water will mix with the gasoline.

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

krw · Aug 20, 2009

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:27:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

krw wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:33:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

krw wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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.

Wives tale. Enough may plug the filters, if it gets that far, but
sugar isn't soluble in gasoline.

Have you ever dropped an old gas tank? I had to replace one that had
over an inch of water in the bottom of the tank. Older vehicles that
weren't sealed allowed moist air into the tank as the gasoline was
used. Over a couple years, you could build up a fair amount of water.
Haven't you ever seen gasoline sold with 'Additives to prevent fuel line
freeze up' or a can you added to the gas tank?

The sugar will be with the water. If you have water accumulating in
the bottom of the tank the sugar isn't going anywhere either.

Add a little alcohol, and the water will mix with the gasoline.

Except that it doesn't.

John Larkin · Aug 20, 2009

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
<martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:

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

Cheers

And some unintended consequences:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009082010

Now imagine these bungling amateurs trying to do something important,
like running a health care system.

John

Richard the Dreaded Liber · Aug 20, 2009

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:34:19 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

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

And some unintended consequences:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009082010

Now imagine these bungling amateurs trying to do something important,
like running a health care system.

Well, aren't they doing great with the Post Office and the DMV?

;-)
Rich

Driver to drive?

Guest

Michael

Guest

Michael

Guest

Phil Hobbs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

krw

Guest

krw

Guest

ehsjr

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

JosephKK

Guest

JosephKK

Guest

Tim Williams

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

krw

Guest

krw

Guest

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

krw

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Richard the Dreaded Liber

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor