EAGLE Netlist conversion

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comc
ast.net@?.?> wrote (in <MPG.1c49e9e851988e17989682@news.comcast.giganews
..com&gt about 'OT: Wild Weather', on Sat, 8 Jan 2005:

In article <wr4p8VBoj53BFwzX@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <hTEDd.52068$Cl3.49016@fed1read03&gt about 'OT: Wild Weather',
on Fri, 7 Jan 2005:
I thought British food was anything at all, boiled for three or four
hours. ;&gt

That can be still found if you want it, but it's rare now.


How can it be rare if it's boiled for 3 or four hours! ;-)

It hasn't been boiled yet!

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:26:06 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:08:14 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

Global warming means more water gets evaporated from the oceans,
which
in turns leads to wilder weather.

There are more specific effects, and one possible result of global
warming would be for the Gulf Stream to turn off, which might leave
most of northern Europe covered with glaciers (as it was in the
last
Ice Age).

Since the U.S.is the biggest single generator of greenhouse
gases,...

Except for volcanoes, forests, and cows.

Forests, volcanoes and cows have all been around for a while, and don't
seem to be likely to be the source of the current, relatively rapid,
increase in the average temperature of the surface of the planet.

And I would assert that there are those who believe that these trends in
temperature measurement are attributable to the buildup of cities around
the thermometers.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:10:08 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:04:42 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:42:57 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote (in <pan.2005.01.07.21.19.19.374711@example.net&gt about 'OT: Wild
Weather', on Fri, 7 Jan 2005:
The way I see it, there are global climactic changes,

We just had a climactic change to the coasts of the Indian Ocean.
Climatic changes tend to be slower.

D'oh! Got me!

---
Perhaps an antibiotic will alleviate that problem.

Which problem is that? An ability to typographically errorize?

Start judging me after you purge your post of typos, OK?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:03:07 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:

"Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:

"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:41dee5c8.1580411121@news.planet.nl...
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

See...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/Funnel.gif

I recently visited Auckland (New Zealand). Its now supposed to be
summer over there. I've had rain, hail, clouds and sunshine in one
day. According to a taxi driver its not uncommon to have all four
seasons in one day.

--
Geez, I'd settle for four seasons in a day! We're getting four seasons per
hour at present! It really sucks the big wiener down here at present. :-(

I'm glad I'm back at home. I expected New Zealand to be something like
Spain. Sunny, 30 degrees Celcius or so in the summer (get a bit of a
teint). But now I know why Abel Tasman called it New Zealand and
didn't set foot on the land.

I've just had an incongruous thought - There's a "New York" a "New Jersey",
a "New Mexico", and so on, but there's also an actual York, and an actual
Jersey, and an actual Mexico.

So, where in the world is the original Zealand?

Thanks,
Rich

 

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:26:06 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:


Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:08:14 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

Global warming means more water gets evaporated from the oceans,
which
in turns leads to wilder weather.

There are more specific effects, and one possible result of
global
warming would be for the Gulf Stream to turn off, which might
leave
most of northern Europe covered with glaciers (as it was in the
last
Ice Age).

Since the U.S.is the biggest single generator of greenhouse
gases,...

Except for volcanoes, forests, and cows.

Forests, volcanoes and cows have all been around for a while, and
don't
seem to be likely to be the source of the current, relatively
rapid,
increase in the average temperature of the surface of the planet.

And I would assert that there are those who believe that these trends
in
temperature measurement are attributable to the buildup of cities
around
the thermometers.

Well, half the population does have below-average intelligence.
------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

Clarence gets it wrong again.

The name of New Zealand appears to be dervied from that of Zeeland,
the most southerly of the seven provinces of the Netherlands.

Since it was dscovered by Abel Janszoon Tasman, a Dutchman, historians
tend to discount the possibility that it was named for the Danish
province with a similar - semantically identical - name.

http://history-nz.org/discovery1.html

Google is handy, but you need some background information to get the
best out of it.

-----------------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (in Gelderland, rather than Zeeland, but I was
born in Tasmania, also discovered by Abel Janszoon Tasman)

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:43:35 GMT, the renowned "Clarence_A"
<no@No.com> wrote:

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message

So, where in the world is the original Zealand?

The largest island of Denmark and the site of Copenhagen

Can't use Google?

Zeeland is a province of the Netherlands. That is the origin of the
name.


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

 

[YD]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:36:06 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Liberal
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:05:50 -0500, Mark Jones wrote:

~ Venus is an interesting place. They say it's Earth's sister planet,
albeit with "real" acid rain and much more CO2 in the atmosphere. It
boasts a 900°F surface temperature - yeeeow.

Well, if insolation on Earth, at 9.3E7 miles from the Sun, is 1 KW/m^2,
then how much energy is falling on Venus, at 6.72E7 miles? Isn't there
some kind of inverse square law or something?

I'm way too lazy to do the math, but it just seems logical that Venus'd be
hotter than Earth.

I make that ~1.93 kW/m^2. I guess the respective cross sections make a
bit of a difference in total insolation but now it's my turn to be too
lazy to look it up.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:32:06 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

Clarence gets it wrong again.

The name of New Zealand appears to be dervied from that of Zeeland,
the most southerly of the seven provinces of the Netherlands.

Since it was dscovered by Abel Janszoon Tasman, a Dutchman, historians
tend to discount the possibility that it was named for the Danish
province with a similar - semantically identical - name.

http://history-nz.org/discovery1.html

Google is handy, but you need some background information to get the
best out of it.

-----------------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (in Gelderland, rather than Zeeland, but I was
born in Tasmania, also discovered by Abel Janszoon Tasman)

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Nico Coesel]

"Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:5331u015s7ueej9equ1e1tmr01sj32dik7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:43:35 GMT, the renowned "Clarence_A"
no@No.com> wrote:


"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message

So, where in the world is the original Zealand?

The largest island of Denmark and the site of Copenhagen

Can't use Google?


Zeeland is a province of the Netherlands. That is the origin of the
name.


It must piss down rain there all the time too. Or maybe Tasman saw the
fjords and the glaciers and thought it was pretty neat.

I think neither. Zeeland is a province where 3 or 4 major rivers of
Europe end into the North sea. The province consists of several
islands like New Zealand does. I think that's why he named it that way
because that's the only thing which is resembling. Fjords, glaciers
and mountains can not be found in the Netherlands.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[Clarence_A]

"Don Klipstein" wrote

Jim Thompson wrote:
See...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/Funnel.gif

(I see as a result a somewhat photogenic thunderstorm scene
whose most
"tornadic" feature appears to be to be a non-tornadic feature
known as
a "tail cloud", and "tail clouds" are a non-tornado feature
supposedly
more common in thunderstorm scenes supposedly somewhat favorable
to
tornadoes!)
I put this into my favorite web browser, and wait things
out...
Meanwhile, I want to remind "the world" that most "arid" parts
of
Arizona USA are barely/hardly so, and a majority of the USA's
"desert
southwest" is barely "arid". Much of that little region of this
planet
gets enough rainfall so as to not be in some sand-dune region,
but
something a little more humid - the ground there evidences
evidence that
it rains there, even if a truly soaking rainfall almost deserves
a
holiday!
How about much of the "desert" portion of the USA not being
really arid
sand-covered desert, but a majority of the USA's "southwest"
desert area
has its surfrace being "desert pavement" - as in soil usually
dried and
cracked into a "cracked"/"crackled" soil-with-cracks, sometimes
with a
pattern that can approach being hexagonal! As opposed to being
swept or
buried in sand or sand-dunes!
How about a significant part of the USA's "desert southwest"
having a
mid-late summer humidity season that much of that region calls a
"monsoon"? How about the rainfall of an average July in Phoenix
being
almost a month's worth of rain in Philadelphia?! How about
Phoenix having > humidity in the month or two of "monsoon season"

being around 20,

sometimes approaching to around 30 percent at time of high
temperature
(mid-upper 90's degrees F or roughly 34-37 degrees C) - with
humidity
close to 30% at time of high temperature, higher at other times
of the
day and over 70% when nighttime temperature is near or over 79
degrees F
(26 degrees C)!
...Jim Thompson
- Don Klipastein (don@misty.com)

So from your exposition, it is clear you have never been in
Arizona?
So what are you going to remind us of that you are unaware of
except for a generalization from the internet? Where are you
anyway?

The Desert is described as a "Sonora Desert" and the area gets to
as much as 120 degrees 'F' or more in the shade in some summers.
Although the "Official" temperature taken in the airports nice
field of green is always less. I have seldom seen any "desert
pavement" since most of the native areas are a combination of
sand, soil, gravel and rock. The native plants are Cactus, sage,
Palo-Verde and Yucca. With a scattering of Tamarack, Creosote, and
other plants which require little water.

Summer dust storms often hide small tornados, and there are
frequent "Dust Devils" almost anytime. Small twisters which only
stir up the dust.

In the Winter there are tourists, (Snow Birds) in the summer not
as many!

Quote:
Average Weather
What can we say about Phoenix? It's a desert. It's steaming hot in
the summer. It's milder in the winter (highs in the 60s and 70s),
providing a great escape for true winter refugees. The
temperatures rise upwards of 115 degrees in the summer. Don't
worry about the humidity though, there is none. You don't really
sweat too much out in the desert, but don't let that fool you.
It's essential to drink plenty of water. Nearly every restaurant
and public area is air-conditioned during the summer so you'll
find a bit of refuge from the heat. Phoenix averages 300 sunny
days and 7 inches of precipitation annually.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:12:43 GMT, the renowned "Clarence_A"
<no@No.com> wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote
"Clarence_A" wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote
So, where in the world is the original Zealand?

The largest island of Denmark and the site of Copenhagen
snip

Zeeland is a province of the Netherlands. That is the origin of
the
name.

So your saying that Copenhagen is NOT on the Island of Zealand?

No, I'm saying that (if it is true) is irrelevant to the naming of the
country NZ.

Well if you insist on mis-spelling it, I suppose you may be right!
Since New Zealand is also an Island, I suspect it was the source
of the name in the Pacific.

You could try looking it up...

http://www.bartleby.com/67/1500.html

1642: "The first contact between Maoris and Europeans occurred when
the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman (See 1642–44) landed briefly in the
South Island and gave the country the name Nieuw Zeeland."

http://www.ultimatejourney.com/GuestNickPalmer.html

"Able Tazman in 1642 and named the land Nivew Zeeland after
the Netherland's Province of Zeeland."

http://delzur_research.tripod.com/nzresearch/naming_new_zealand.htm

On a Dutch globe-map of the mid-seventeenth century, the name
"Zeelandia Nova" - the Latin equivalent of the Dutch "Nieuw Zeeland"
and the English "New Zealand" - appears for the parts of New Zealand
discovered by Tasrnan. [i.e. W.J. Blaeu's 60 cm terrestrial globe -
revised by his son Joan Blaeu in 1648 - Brian Hooker.] Zealand is a
Dutch maritime province. We may see in these facts the emergence of
the designation Nieuw Zeeland and in due course of its English
equivalent as a name replacing the unsatisfactory Staten Land and
bestowed on New Zealand by analogy with the name Nieuw Holland for
Australia. A.S. [Andrew Sharp]

However:
http://www.nordpaul.de/kopen-en.html
Since 1167AD!

But there is also a Zeeland, and the names may be related.

Zeeland just means sea-land, so the existence of simlar names is not
really indication of any direct causal relationship. Whether the
Copenhagen one was "the original" could still be argued, of course, if
one was of that bent. ;-)


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

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:12:43 GMT, the renowned "Clarence_A"
<no@No.com> wrote:

So your saying that Copenhagen is NOT on the Island of Zealand?
Well if you insist on mis-spelling it, I suppose you may be right!

P.S. The city in Dänemark is "Křbenhavn" and it's on "Seeland". ;-)


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

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote (in
<1105279561.755186.107750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com&gt about 'OT: Wild
Weather', on Sun, 9 Jan 2005:

Clarence provides yet another example of his failure to UNDERSTAND what
he reads - he thinks I can't spell, presumably because "Zeeland" - which
is the Dutch spelling - differs from "Zealand", but has failed to note
that examples in the link are all given in Latin, and what he is
objecting to is normal transliteration.

It is also the case that the Danish island is 'Sjaelland' in Danish, and
is not pronounced like 'Ze(a)land', even though the meaning is 'sea
land'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:45:29 GMT, the renowned mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark
Zenier) wrote:

In article <l6WdnUD41LtTeEPcRVn-rQ@rcn.net>,
Chuck Harris <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:
Mark Jones wrote:
What doesn't make sense is the last few thousand years of the graph. It
clearly should have started going into a colder period, but instead the
global temperature has stayed almost constant. So what we perceive as
being "no change" in global warming might actually be a "big deal."

Disclaimer: I'm no climatologist.

If you are going to blame humans, that glitch better have started in the
last 100-200 years. 800 years ago, humans were insignificant producers of
greenhouse gasses.

No. The deviation from the expected trends started with large scale
rice cultivation in Asia about 4-6000 years ago. Rice paddies are good
sources of methane and CO2.

We still are, but we are making much more now than we
were prior to the industrial revolution. The active volcanoes are making
way more than we ever could.

Mt. St. Helens produces only as much S02 as the local coal fired
power plant did before they installed latest set of scrubbers.
(Western Washington coal is pretty nasty stuff, though).

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

On the plus side, the Arctic is probably going to become fully
navigable year-round in the next century or two, eventually removing
the need to rely on those big nuclear-powered Russian icebreakers to
get shipping through. Bypassing the Panama Canal will link Europe to
Asia much more closely (40% less distance). Assuming the latter isn't
washed into the sea, that is.


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

 

[Nico Coesel]

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:45:29 GMT, the renowned mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark
Zenier) wrote:

In article <l6WdnUD41LtTeEPcRVn-rQ@rcn.net>,
Chuck Harris <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:
Mark Jones wrote:
What doesn't make sense is the last few thousand years of the graph. It
clearly should have started going into a colder period, but instead the
global temperature has stayed almost constant. So what we perceive as
being "no change" in global warming might actually be a "big deal."

Disclaimer: I'm no climatologist.

If you are going to blame humans, that glitch better have started in the
last 100-200 years. 800 years ago, humans were insignificant producers of
greenhouse gasses.

No. The deviation from the expected trends started with large scale
rice cultivation in Asia about 4-6000 years ago. Rice paddies are good
sources of methane and CO2.

We still are, but we are making much more now than we
were prior to the industrial revolution. The active volcanoes are making
way more than we ever could.

Mt. St. Helens produces only as much S02 as the local coal fired
power plant did before they installed latest set of scrubbers.
(Western Washington coal is pretty nasty stuff, though).

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

On the plus side, the Arctic is probably going to become fully
navigable year-round in the next century or two, eventually removing
the need to rely on those big nuclear-powered Russian icebreakers to
get shipping through. Bypassing the Panama Canal will link Europe to
Asia much more closely (40% less distance). Assuming the latter isn't
washed into the sea, that is.

I've got a great idea to get rid of extra water: pump it on top of the
Himalaya mountains, it will stay there as ice. Problem solved.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 06:37:37 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <mipot0hf3h1944c0vap7rmb47flverlkp8@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson wrote:
See...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/Musings/Funnel.gif

(I see as a result a somewhat photogenic thunderstorm scene whose most
"tornadic" feature appears to be to be a non-tornadic feature known as
a "tail cloud", and "tail clouds" are a non-tornado feature supposedly
more common in thunderstorm scenes supposedly somewhat favorable to
tornadoes!)

I put this into my favorite web browser, and wait things out...

Meanwhile, I want to remind "the world" that most "arid" parts of
Arizona USA are barely/hardly so, and a majority of the USA's "desert
southwest" is barely "arid". Much of that little region of this planet
gets enough rainfall so as to not be in some sand-dune region, but
something a little more humid - the ground there evidences evidence that
it rains there, even if a truly soaking rainfall almost deserves a
holiday!

How about much of the "desert" portion of the USA not being really arid
sand-covered desert, but a majority of the USA's "southwest" desert area
has its surfrace being "desert pavement" - as in soil usually dried and
cracked into a "cracked"/"crackled" soil-with-cracks, sometimes with a
pattern that can approach being hexagonal! As opposed to being swept or
buried in sand or sand-dunes!

How about a significant part of the USA's "desert southwest" having a
mid-late summer humidity season that much of that region calls a
"monsoon"? How about the rainfall of an average July in Phoenix being
almost a month's worth of rain in Philadelphia?! How about Phoenix having
humidity in the month or two of "monsoon season" being around 20,
sometimes approaching to around 30 percent at time of high temperature
(mid-upper 90's degrees F or roughly 34-37 degrees C) - with humidity
close to 30% at time of high temperature, higher at other times of the
day and over 70% when nighttime temperature is near or over 79 degrees F
(26 degrees C)!

...Jim Thompson
--
- Don Klipastein (don@misty.com)

One of the definitions of the American West is that region of the
country which gets less than twenty inches of rainfall a year. That
would normally include San Francisco, but not this year: it looks like
it's going to rain forever. All those cute Spanish-style stucco houses
are now deep green on their north sides.

John

 

[CWatters]

"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:41e17b49.1749756256@news.planet.nl...

I've got a great idea to get rid of extra water: pump it on top of the
Himalaya mountains, it will stay there as ice. Problem solved.

Nice try but the ice there won't last long.. It's already melting....

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature2/

Quote: Glaciers in the Garhwal Himalaya in India are retreating so fast that
researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could
virtually disappear by 2035.

http://www.glims.org/News/

Quote: Tibet's glaciers heading for meltdown
10/5/2004 - An "ecological catastrophe" is developing in Tibet because of
global warming, and most glaciers in the region could have melted away by
2100 if no efficient measures are taken, Beijing state media said on
Tuesday.

Quote: Melting glaciers threaten Peru
10/9/2003 - Thousands of people in the Andes mountains of Peru are having
their lives affected in both a practical and cultural way by climate
change...

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:35:16 -0500, Mark Jones wrote:

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comc
ast.net@?.?> wrote (in <MPG.1c49e9e851988e17989682@news.comcast.giganews
.com&gt about 'OT: Wild Weather', on Sat, 8 Jan 2005:

In article <wr4p8VBoj53BFwzX@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <hTEDd.52068$Cl3.49016@fed1read03&gt about 'OT: Wild Weather',
on Fri, 7 Jan 2005:

I thought British food was anything at all, boiled for three or four
hours. ;&gt

That can be still found if you want it, but it's rare now.


How can it be rare if it's boiled for 3 or four hours! ;-)


It hasn't been boiled yet!


Peas, porridge hot...

Pease porridge cold,
Pease porridge in the pot,
Nine days old.

;-)
Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:32:46 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

Also, previous reports all showed the rise (which usually proceeds
an ICE age, was only .9 to 1 degree 'F' per decade! Very
inconsistent!

---
"Proceeds"?

Poor dumb shit, you can't even open your mouth without digging the
hole you're in deeper!


--
John Fields