EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:32:38 -0800, Tim Wescott
<tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:

Harry Dellamano wrote:

Winner may bring a
Hibachi if your outdoor grill is too small for four people.

Jim grills _people_? I knew he's got a rep as a conservative, but this
is way beyond "conservative"!

I have a 4-burner grill, plus a smoker big enough to handle a human,
whole ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

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

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Terry,

Any CircuitMaker users have any thoughts on this
puzzle please? I've been running the simple CMOS
astable at

http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/TestCursors.CKT

I know the 1k resistor is far too low (330k would be
good), but that's not the point of my post.

At certain settings of Step Time (= Max Step), the
waveform is not identical from one cycle to the next.

One such critical value is 1 ms. With that chosen,
successive Lows differ significantly in length. I've
illustrated the 1 ms result here:

http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/CM-StepTimePuzzle1.gif

You can clearly see the variation in successive cycles.
I measured about 4.3 ms versus 5.4 ms, while the Highs remain
identical at 5.0 ms.

So, depending on which choice of cycle I happen to make, I
get a different frequency: 97 Hz versus 104 Hz. Yet at 990 us
(i.e. only a tiny difference), I get a *consistent* waveform
and hence a consistent frequency measurement (97 Hz). But at
Step = 100 us, I also get a consistent frequency, but now
it's 114 Hz.

Any insights appreciated please.

The problem is basically two fold. CircuitMaker doesn't
implement predictors in its digital logic and it also doesn't
use tolerances specificed in time. You can only address the
issue by stipulating a smaller timestep which usually will
compute the same circuit more accurately.

LTspice can use both prediction and temporal tolerances,
but only temporal tolerances are readily available to
most users. Below is a schematic that illustrates the
use of temporal tolerances to the behavioral gates.

--Mike

--- snip.asc ---
Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE 32 208 48 208
WIRE 48 208 48 224
WIRE 48 224 96 224
WIRE -32 240 -64 240
WIRE -64 240 -64 48
WIRE -64 48 -16 48
WIRE 224 48 304 48
WIRE 48 48 96 48
WIRE 304 48 304 192
WIRE 304 224 240 224
WIRE 240 192 304 192
WIRE 304 192 304 224
WIRE 96 48 96 96
WIRE 96 176 96 224
WIRE 96 224 176 224
WIRE 96 48 144 48
WIRE 304 224 304 240
WIRE 304 304 304 336
WIRE 48 224 48 240
WIRE 48 240 32 240
FLAG 304 336 0
SYMBOL digital\\or 0 160 M0
WINDOW 0 -42 28 Right 0
WINDOW 3 5 113 Left 0
WINDOW 123 5 141 Left 0
WINDOW 39 5 169 Left 0
WINDOW 40 5 197 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName A1
SYMATTR Value Td=50n
SYMATTR Value2 Trise=50n
SYMATTR SpiceLine tripdt=1n
SYMATTR SpiceLine2 Vhigh=10
SYMBOL res 240 32 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res 80 192 M180
WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0
WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 330K
SYMBOL cap 48 32 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 82n
SYMBOL cap 288 240 R0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 10p
SYMBOL digital\\or 208 144 M0
WINDOW 0 -42 27 Right 0
WINDOW 3 3 107 Left 0
WINDOW 123 -8 137 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 163 Left 0
WINDOW 40 -1 195 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName A2
SYMATTR Value Td=50n
SYMATTR Value2 Trise=50n
SYMATTR SpiceLine tripdt=1n
SYMATTR SpiceLine2 Vhigh=10
TEXT 296 360 Left 0 !.tran 10 uic

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Jim,

I'm looking for a TL081/TL084 Model that accurately
models power supply current.

The models on TI's site are deadly INACCURATE :-(

That vender opamp models don't steer current from
the supplies deals with their Boyle model ancestry.

I would recommend using LTspice's Universal Opamp
model. It properly steers current from the supplies.
You specify Avol, GBW, slew rate, current limit,
phase margin, switch saturation voltage(how close
the output gets to the rails), offset voltage,
equiv. input voltage and current noise densities
and corner frequencies for the particular opamp.

LTspice's Universal Opamp model does tend to be
better than many of dedicated PSpice-style opamp
models that get supplied by vendors based on the
Boyle model.

I guess I need to finish refining my model ;-)

I've added a lot of bells and whistles, but not
yet the power-supply/load coupling.

The documentation on LTspice's Universal Opamp
model can be found in the schematic installed as

../examples/Educational/UniversalOpamp.asc

These models were recently updated in response
to extensive field testing.

They use a transconductance with a hyperbolic
tangent transfer function into the dominate
pole to model GBW and slew and also give some
onset of slew rate limited distortion as you
approach the slew limit. The same symbol can
model four different models each with increasing
complexity. If you forego the phi margin specification,
then level 2 is enough. It does Avol, GBW, slew rate,
current limit, switch saturation voltage, offset
voltage, equiv. input voltage and current noise
densities and corner frequencies with a single
internal node -- a technology otherwise unmatched
in circuit simulation.

--Mike

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:39:37 +0000, Terry Pinnell
<terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

Any CircuitMaker users have any thoughts on this puzzle please?
I've been running the simple CMOS astable at
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/TestCursors.CKT

I know the 1k resistor is far too low (330k would be good), but that's
not the point of my post.

At certain settings of Step Time (= Max Step), the waveform is not
identical from one cycle to the next.

One such critical value is 1 ms. With that chosen, successive Lows
differ significantly in length. I've illustrated the 1 ms result here:
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/CM-StepTimePuzzle1.gif

You can clearly see the variation in successive cycles. I measured
about 4.3 ms versus 5.4 ms, while the Highs remain identical at 5.0
ms.

So, depending on which choice of cycle I happen to make, I get a
different frequency: 97 Hz versus 104 Hz. Yet at 990 us (i.e. only a
tiny difference), I get a *consistent* waveform and hence a consistent
frequency measurement (97 Hz). But at Step = 100 us, I also get a
consistent frequency, but now it's 114 Hz.

Any insights appreciated please.

Consistant isn't the same as accurate.

Timesteps are usually set to a small fraction of the time any circuit
event is expected to take, like 1/100 or 1/1000 or something. You
can't expect to accurately simulate a 5 ms period when time is
quantized to 1 ms. Try 1 us maybe.

My rule is to make the time step as small as possible consistant with
simulation time. When in doubt, change the step time maybe 2:1 in
either direction; if the sim changes visibly, your steps are too
coarse by 10:1 at least.

What's a bummer is to have a circuit with a very high Q or widely
varying time constants; small dt and slow elements make for hour-long
transient runs.

John

 

[Terry Pinnell]

"Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org> wrote:

Terry,

Any CircuitMaker users have any thoughts on this
puzzle please? I've been running the simple CMOS
astable at

http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/TestCursors.CKT

I know the 1k resistor is far too low (330k would be
good), but that's not the point of my post.

At certain settings of Step Time (= Max Step), the
waveform is not identical from one cycle to the next.

One such critical value is 1 ms. With that chosen,
successive Lows differ significantly in length. I've
illustrated the 1 ms result here:

http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/CM-StepTimePuzzle1.gif

You can clearly see the variation in successive cycles.
I measured about 4.3 ms versus 5.4 ms, while the Highs remain
identical at 5.0 ms.

So, depending on which choice of cycle I happen to make, I
get a different frequency: 97 Hz versus 104 Hz. Yet at 990 us
(i.e. only a tiny difference), I get a *consistent* waveform
and hence a consistent frequency measurement (97 Hz). But at
Step = 100 us, I also get a consistent frequency, but now
it's 114 Hz.

Any insights appreciated please.

The problem is basically two fold. CircuitMaker doesn't
implement predictors in its digital logic and it also doesn't
use tolerances specificed in time. You can only address the
issue by stipulating a smaller timestep which usually will
compute the same circuit more accurately.

LTspice can use both prediction and temporal tolerances,
but only temporal tolerances are readily available to
most users. Below is a schematic that illustrates the
use of temporal tolerances to the behavioral gates.

--Mike

--- snip.asc ---
Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE 32 208 48 208
WIRE 48 208 48 224
WIRE 48 224 96 224
WIRE -32 240 -64 240
WIRE -64 240 -64 48
WIRE -64 48 -16 48
WIRE 224 48 304 48
WIRE 48 48 96 48
WIRE 304 48 304 192
WIRE 304 224 240 224
WIRE 240 192 304 192
WIRE 304 192 304 224
WIRE 96 48 96 96
WIRE 96 176 96 224
WIRE 96 224 176 224
WIRE 96 48 144 48
WIRE 304 224 304 240
WIRE 304 304 304 336
WIRE 48 224 48 240
WIRE 48 240 32 240
FLAG 304 336 0
SYMBOL digital\\or 0 160 M0
WINDOW 0 -42 28 Right 0
WINDOW 3 5 113 Left 0
WINDOW 123 5 141 Left 0
WINDOW 39 5 169 Left 0
WINDOW 40 5 197 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName A1
SYMATTR Value Td=50n
SYMATTR Value2 Trise=50n
SYMATTR SpiceLine tripdt=1n
SYMATTR SpiceLine2 Vhigh=10
SYMBOL res 240 32 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res 80 192 M180
WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0
WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 330K
SYMBOL cap 48 32 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 82n
SYMBOL cap 288 240 R0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 10p
SYMBOL digital\\or 208 144 M0
WINDOW 0 -42 27 Right 0
WINDOW 3 3 107 Left 0
WINDOW 123 -8 137 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 163 Left 0
WINDOW 40 -1 195 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName A2
SYMATTR Value Td=50n
SYMATTR Value2 Trise=50n
SYMATTR SpiceLine tripdt=1n
SYMATTR SpiceLine2 Vhigh=10
TEXT 296 360 Left 0 !.tran 10 uic

Thanks Mike. I'll play with that tomorrow.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Charles W. Johson Jr.]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:alrmq0hadt16ktu3u6km007kp0m4ust8s8@4ax.com...

Please suggest circuitry and power MOSFETs to do the following:

Control voltage > +100mV, turn on P-channel device to +24V (1 Amp *)

Control voltage < -100mV, turn on N-channel device to -24V (1 Amp *)

-100mV <= Control voltage <= +100mV, both MOSFETS OFF.

Speed required <= 1uS (Voltage *)

Thanks!

(*) Load is 20ohm in series with 2.5mH

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

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

What should be happenning between 100mv and -100mv?

Charles

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:50:30 GMT, the renowned Active8
<reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:44:17 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Dan Rather's career is like a bare foot sliding thru a warm cow patty.

Over quick as sh*t cut with a club? Shit through a goose? It don't
matter none, cuz I don't watchum... buss o k cuz he's an asshole.

Isn't he about a decade (or two in the best of worlds) past retirement
age anyhow?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Tom Seim]

Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<BDD0B90B.E4D0%jono_1@bellsouth.net>...

in article 2ghmq0tdaco9lq8doa54j00voalv4j4v34@4ax.com, Jim Thompson at
thegreatone@example.com wrote on 11/29/04 10:54 AM:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:51:46 -0500, Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net
wrote:

in article 9hgmq053hrj8qmhsrgp1lc4gsjhfob9u8m@4ax.com, Jim Thompson at
thegreatone@example.com wrote on 11/29/04 10:44 AM:

Dan Rather's career is like a bare foot sliding thru a warm cow patty.

...Jim Thompson


That's a bit rustic, don't ya think?

As a country boy I've BTDT... wipe your foot on the grass, but you
still have it between your toes ;-)

Say, what were you doing standing behind those animals?? (Sorry - couldn't
resist)

;-)

Toes, I thought you were talking about his teeth!

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:24:31 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:56:21 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Don't waste your money supporting the French enemy. Buy American or
Aussie !-)

Your money doesn't support the French anyway. At least, not
more than 70% of what it used to, ever since George "Economic
Disaster" Bush took over the dollar.

"So your $300 bribe from the Junta
is worth only $210 now. And it only
cost 1200 American lives. Happy?"



The price of the Euro is indeed a disaster... for Europe. I could
either let my products get cheaper in Europe and undercut my
competitors, or raise my European prices and make more money. But
wait... I don't have any European competitors! Guess I know what I'll
do...

Another black-is-white pundit heard from.

--Blair
"Who cares how Europe feels?"

Currency revaluations have an upside and a downside:

http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/11/30/cneu30.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2004/11/30/ixfrontcity.html


An high Euro will flood Europe with imports, kill exports, and destroy
domestic industry. That's a force toward equilibrium.

The exchange price of a currency is just a symptom of more fundamental
things going on. And if an exchange rate is driven by expectation or
by speculation, it will readjust itself pretty soon as the fundamental
forces prevail.

John

 

[Robert Monsen]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:24:31 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:


John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:56:21 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:


Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

Don't waste your money supporting the French enemy. Buy American or
Aussie !-)

Your money doesn't support the French anyway. At least, not
more than 70% of what it used to, ever since George "Economic
Disaster" Bush took over the dollar.

"So your $300 bribe from the Junta
is worth only $210 now. And it only
cost 1200 American lives. Happy?"



The price of the Euro is indeed a disaster... for Europe. I could
either let my products get cheaper in Europe and undercut my
competitors, or raise my European prices and make more money. But
wait... I don't have any European competitors! Guess I know what I'll
do...

Another black-is-white pundit heard from.

--Blair
"Who cares how Europe feels?"



Currency revaluations have an upside and a downside:

http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/11/30/cneu30.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2004/11/30/ixfrontcity.html


An high Euro will flood Europe with imports, kill exports, and destroy
domestic industry. That's a force toward equilibrium.

The exchange price of a currency is just a symptom of more fundamental
things going on. And if an exchange rate is driven by expectation or
by speculation, it will readjust itself pretty soon as the fundamental
forces prevail.

John

Well, the fundamental thing driving the flight of capital from the US is
the staggering national debt. That probably won't change in the next 4
years.

As far as good coming out of this situation, the fact that the yuan is
linked to the dollar is really bad for the US, because it means that any
trade advantages we might get out of a cheap dollar are killed by
exports from china, which are produced at a far lower cost. So, we get
the worst of all possible worlds, with our exports still not selling,
and our currency unattractive to speculators, thus causing the cost of
money to rise, leading to higher interest rates.

The Bushies tried to get china to unlink, perhaps forcasting this
eventuality. China knows who they daddy is, though.

When interest rates hit 20%, and we have double digit inflation, the
Bush administration may pay attention. They will probably respond with
another huge tax cut, perhaps this time repealing the capital gains tax.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:39:37 +0000, Terry Pinnell
terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

Any CircuitMaker users have any thoughts on this puzzle please?
I've been running the simple CMOS astable at
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/TestCursors.CKT

I know the 1k resistor is far too low (330k would be good), but that's
not the point of my post.

At certain settings of Step Time (= Max Step), the waveform is not
identical from one cycle to the next.

One such critical value is 1 ms. With that chosen, successive Lows
differ significantly in length. I've illustrated the 1 ms result here:
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/CM-StepTimePuzzle1.gif

You can clearly see the variation in successive cycles. I measured
about 4.3 ms versus 5.4 ms, while the Highs remain identical at 5.0
ms.

So, depending on which choice of cycle I happen to make, I get a
different frequency: 97 Hz versus 104 Hz. Yet at 990 us (i.e. only a
tiny difference), I get a *consistent* waveform and hence a consistent
frequency measurement (97 Hz). But at Step = 100 us, I also get a
consistent frequency, but now it's 114 Hz.

Any insights appreciated please.

Consistant isn't the same as accurate.

Yes, that was one of the points I was making. Obviously 97 and 114
can't both be accurate!

Timesteps are usually set to a small fraction of the time any circuit
event is expected to take, like 1/100 or 1/1000 or something. You
can't expect to accurately simulate a 5 ms period when time is
quantized to 1 ms. Try 1 us maybe.

This is an astable running at about 100 Hz, i.e a period of 10 ms.
Strangely, if I let CM use defaults, it sets Stop Time = 5.000uS and
Step Time = 20.00nS. Not a useful display! BTW, it always uses that
same ratio of 50:1. When I set manually, as I did in these tests, I
usually choose 500 or 1000. Your reply seems to reinforce my intuition
that 'shorter is better', So why does CM (and several other Spice
programs I've used) default to 50? And any idea why it comes up with
such an absurd default setting for a circuit with an RC of 33k/82nF?

Thanks, I agree 1 ms was too crude. I think I must have been
'comfortable' with it on the grounds that at 1000, the ratio 1s/1ms
was so much higher than CM's 50! And lost sight of the underlying
circuit. Using 1us prompted me to revise the Stop Time down from 1s to
50ms. (It was as high as 1s only because that astable was originally
part of a 4020/4060 counting circuit.) With Step Time = 1us the plot
looked consistent (which, unlike consistant, is accurate <g&gt, and
gave f ~ 115 Hz.

My rule is to make the time step as small as possible consistant with
simulation time. When in doubt, change the step time maybe 2:1 in
either direction; if the sim changes visibly, your steps are too
coarse by 10:1 at least.

I'd previously followed similar practice. Thanks for prompting me to
realise I'd lapsed, fro reasons above.

What's a bummer is to have a circuit with a very high Q or widely
varying time constants; small dt and slow elements make for hour-long
transient runs.

Do you think there's something of that sort happening here, and
causing CM to come up with a Stop time of 5us?

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:56:00 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:24:31 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:56:21 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Don't waste your money supporting the French enemy. Buy American or
Aussie !-)
Your money doesn't support the French anyway. At least, not more than
70% of what it used to, ever since George "Economic Disaster" Bush
took over the dollar.
The price of the Euro is indeed a disaster... for Europe. I could
either let my products get cheaper in Europe and undercut my
competitors, or raise my European prices and make more money. But
wait... I don't have any European competitors! Guess I know what I'll
do...
Another black-is-white pundit heard from.
Currency revaluations have an upside and a downside:
http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/11/30/cneu30.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2004/11/30/ixfrontcity.html
An high Euro will flood Europe with imports, kill exports, and destroy
domestic industry. That's a force toward equilibrium.
The exchange price of a currency is just a symptom of more fundamental
things going on. And if an exchange rate is driven by expectation or by
speculation, it will readjust itself pretty soon as the fundamental
forces prevail.

Well, the fundamental thing driving the flight of capital from the US is
the staggering national debt. That probably won't change in the next 4
years.

As far as good coming out of this situation, the fact that the yuan is
linked to the dollar is really bad for the US, because it means that any
trade advantages we might get out of a cheap dollar are killed by exports
from china, which are produced at a far lower cost. So, we get the worst
of all possible worlds, with our exports still not selling, and our
currency unattractive to speculators, thus causing the cost of money to
rise, leading to higher interest rates.

The Bushies tried to get china to unlink, perhaps forcasting this
eventuality. China knows who they daddy is, though.

When interest rates hit 20%, and we have double digit inflation, the Bush
administration may pay attention. They will probably respond with another
huge tax cut, perhaps this time repealing the capital gains tax.

What I wish could happen is that people would figure out that da gubmint
should stop spending money when they run out, like the taxpayers have to
do.

Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream - Uncle Sugardaddy has an infinite credit
line.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Chuck Harris]

Rich Grise wrote:

When interest rates hit 20%, and we have double digit inflation, the Bush
administration may pay attention. They will probably respond with another
huge tax cut, perhaps this time repealing the capital gains tax.


What I wish could happen is that people would figure out that da gubmint
should stop spending money when they run out, like the taxpayers have to
do.

Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream - Uncle Sugardaddy has an infinite credit
line.

Thanks,
Rich

That's pretty funny! I guess you don't own a house.

In-DUH-viduals carry far more debt than the US government ever has.

-Chuck

 

[BFoelsch]

I figured that out in 1968. Haven't watched him or CBS news since.

Of course, some people claim that a dried-out 1968 cow patty is valuable as
fertilizer. To me it's still an old glob of ..........................

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:9hgmq053hrj8qmhsrgp1lc4gsjhfob9u8m@4ax.com...

Dan Rather's career is like a bare foot sliding thru a warm cow patty.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

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

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote ...
And yes, Bush is responsible for the continuing decline in
the value of the dollar, as it is falling along with the
world's confidence that America will remain solvent, which
is compounded by the rate at which Bush is running up our
debt with no means of repaying it.

50 years of profilgate Democrat spending on entitlements
completely beyond the scope of the Federal government
put us in hock up to our ears.

Bullshit. And if you'd read this you'd know it's bullshit:

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

Before you say, "but Reagan had a Democrat congress
and Clinton had a GOP congress," remember that all 8
of Reagan's budget proposals were amended downward by
Congress, and Clinton sent the budget back to Congress
twice one year to get it balanced for the first time since
WW2. Growth of the budget with respect to GDP reflects
the attitude of the President.

History of debt relative to GDP since WW2:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Watch the debt grow as you figure out how to stop it:
http://zfacts.com/p/654.html

Federal spending on national
defense is precisely the reason the federal government
exists.

That's funny. The Constitution is a lot longer than it
needs to be to define the government for just that.

Hell, the preamble alone swamps your blinkered view of
government's purpose:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."

Maybe you go read the whole thing then come back and
try to pretend that you didn't just say that Article 1,
Section 8 is only two words long, too.

The only way to wean the congresscritters off the
crack cocaine of tax revenues and pork is to starve them
and hope the tax-n-spenders succumb and fade into ignomy.

So by spending $Trillions for nothing, you're "starving them"?

We can thank "The Great Society" and its like for artificially
diddling the economy for the subsequent excursions of the
semi-damped resonant system.

We can thank Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing propaganda
machine for people who think completely illogical thoughts
such as yours.

--Blair
"Or rather, we can jail him for
being a drug-addled hypocrite."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:09:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[snip]
For attaining the rest of your list might I suggest working for a
living ;-)

You might, but since I've been working for a living since
I was 13 years old, you'd be pissing into your own face.

Milk is now $4 a gallon, bread $3 a pound, and unless you
make my kind of money, you can forget steak exists.

I have a filet at least once per week, and eat out (non-fast food)
probably 5 times per week ;-)

I eat out about 10 times a week, but I'm eating 5 meals
a day right now for training purposes. My favorites are
Tomaso's, Z'Tejas, Charleston's, and Red Lobster (does
a great cajun trout if you tell them no oil). No it's
not cheap. But then neither am I.

BTW, filet is flavorless trash meat dolled up by
19th-century-grade marketing. You're being ripped off
because you don't know any more about beef than you do
about government or economics.

Learn how to cook a strip steak or why the GDP is not a
true indicator of the "health of the economy" and then we
can talk.

And yes, Bush is responsible for the continuing decline in
the value of the dollar, as it is falling along with the
world's confidence that America will remain solvent, which
is compounded by the rate at which Bush is running up our
debt with no means of repaying it.

Naaah! It's subtle, maybe too deep for you. Keep an eye out and
watch what happens to the European economy.

It becomes the world leader the way America always was when
the dollar was strong and other nations actually respected us.

--Blair
"Filet...sheesh."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:09:57 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:


Milk is now $4 a gallon, bread $3 a pound, and unless you
make my kind of money, you can forget steak exists.


Basic food is incredibly cheap in this country. One hour's minimum
wage will buy 10 pounds of jasmine rice, 30 pounds of russet potatoes,
15 pounds of beans, 24 hot dogs, or five Burger King basic burgers. Or
feed ten people my favorite breakfast, grits and eggs. Or buy two
bottles of very drinkable red wine. Sure, prime fillet and wild salmon
are expensive, but hardly necessary. The biggest nutritian problem
among the "poor" in America is obesity.

Because our government is sending cash to rich people instead
of spending it on making sure people get proper nourishment.

--Blair
"Have another Krispy Kreme."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Chuck Harris <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

And yes, Bush is responsible for the continuing decline in
the value of the dollar, as it is falling along with the
world's confidence that America will remain solvent, which
is compounded by the rate at which Bush is running up our
debt with no means of repaying it.

The Senate and House of Representatives write the bills, the
President either signs them into law, or doesn't, his choice.

Our budget, as always, was created and passed by congress.

You know less about it than you pretend.

The President proposes the budget. The congress then
either follows his proposal or amends it, with concomitant
political fallout.

Bush's proposals have never been close to decreasing the
deficit, much less the debt. And his right-wing thralls in
Congress are only too happy to vet whatever he sends them.

--Blair
"Collusion or cooperation; call
it what you want."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

An high Euro will flood Europe with imports, kill exports, and destroy
domestic industry. That's a force toward equilibrium.

"Flood" and "kill" are extreme words for what will happen.

Meanwhile, Europeans are now 30% wealthier than they were
a short time ago, without having to earn it.

Meanwhile, Americans are 30% poorer than they were a short
time ago, also without having earned it.

The exchange price of a currency is just a symptom of more fundamental
things going on. And if an exchange rate is driven by expectation or
by speculation, it will readjust itself pretty soon as the fundamental
forces prevail.

The currencies are moving because the Euro is being sought
in order to buy European goods and equity and the Dollar is
being shunned because the world no longer wants our stuff.

So before you see any reduction in European exports, you're
seeing a huge rise in European exports. The result will be
a level that peak and then settle higher than it was.

--Blair
"Is there no Republican who knows more
about economics than Ronald 'two-year
college' Reagan did?"

 

[Chuck Harris]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

Chuck Harris <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

And yes, Bush is responsible for the continuing decline in
the value of the dollar, as it is falling along with the
world's confidence that America will remain solvent, which
is compounded by the rate at which Bush is running up our
debt with no means of repaying it.

The Senate and House of Representatives write the bills, the
President either signs them into law, or doesn't, his choice.

Our budget, as always, was created and passed by congress.


You know less about it than you pretend.

The President proposes the budget. The congress then
either follows his proposal or amends it, with concomitant
political fallout.

Once the budget leaves the executive branch, congress does
whatever it wants to with it, from rejecting it, to completely
rewriting it. But then, you know that.

-Chuck