Hide your sulphuric acid...

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a
silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and
a few.
Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".
Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2
rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.
It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn\'t remotely true.
Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there\'s a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don\'t like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don\'t pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN (they idiot who stole Bill Sloman\'s identity), what is \"stupidly macho\" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France\'s nuclear-generated power after they \"stupidly\" shut down their own reactors.

What is \"stupid\" is relying on intermittent power that requires 100% fossil (like everybody\'s favorite source: COAL) or nuclear backup, or your perpetually loved blackouts. This is EXACTLY what happened this year to the UK:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/10/13/europes-energy-crisis-underscores-the-dangers-of-the-proposed-clean-electricity-performance-program/?sh=4909964c473a

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Note: an LM317 is not an LDO. A lot of people have taken to using
\"LDO\" for most any linear reg.

But do all LDO\'s use a PNP or PMOS and the converse?


--
Defund the Thought Police

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Note: an LM317 is not an LDO. A lot of people have taken to using
\"LDO\" for most any linear reg.

But do all LDO\'s use a PNP or PMOS and the converse?


--
Defund the Thought Police

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a
silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and
a few.
Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".
Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2
rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.
It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn\'t remotely true.
Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there\'s a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don\'t like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don\'t pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN (they idiot who stole Bill Sloman\'s identity), what is \"stupidly macho\" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France\'s nuclear-generated power after they \"stupidly\" shut down their own reactors.

What is \"stupid\" is relying on intermittent power that requires 100% fossil (like everybody\'s favorite source: COAL) or nuclear backup, or your perpetually loved blackouts. This is EXACTLY what happened this year to the UK:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/10/13/europes-energy-crisis-underscores-the-dangers-of-the-proposed-clean-electricity-performance-program/?sh=4909964c473a

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:34:42 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 11/15/2021 3:25 PM, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 11:48:33 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 11/11/2021 7:52 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The Singing Sergeants, Lee Greenwood, and Home Free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0fxy8rHo8
Today marks 100 years since the dedication of the Tomb of The Unknown
Soldier.


And it was the first Veterans day in 20 years \"without a war\" THAT\'s a
\"big lie\":

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/biden-veterans-day.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics/us-pakistan-afghanistan-airspace/index.html

They just call them \"operations\" now...

Wars are declared, but you wouldn\'t know that. An Operation is not a war.

No, there isn\'t a word that captures the concept of \"Just blowing up
random people around the world because someone thinks they\'re up to no
good and missing the intended target regularly, anyway\" adequately, I
agree. Thug life?

You would have defended Hitler as \'Just a misunderstood paper hanger.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:34:42 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 11/15/2021 3:25 PM, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 11:48:33 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 11/11/2021 7:52 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The Singing Sergeants, Lee Greenwood, and Home Free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0fxy8rHo8
Today marks 100 years since the dedication of the Tomb of The Unknown
Soldier.


And it was the first Veterans day in 20 years \"without a war\" THAT\'s a
\"big lie\":

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/biden-veterans-day.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics/us-pakistan-afghanistan-airspace/index.html

They just call them \"operations\" now...

Wars are declared, but you wouldn\'t know that. An Operation is not a war.

No, there isn\'t a word that captures the concept of \"Just blowing up
random people around the world because someone thinks they\'re up to no
good and missing the intended target regularly, anyway\" adequately, I
agree. Thug life?

You would have defended Hitler as \'Just a misunderstood paper hanger.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:33:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 5:49:42 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-8, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2021-11-17, Tom Seim <sei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey SNIPPERMAN, you are SO SELF-CONCIOUS that you have to, in your warped mind, convince yourself that your LIES really aren\'t somehow lies. News Flash: you are a FUCKING LIAR - that is what you do to in an effort to compensate for your deep inferiority complex to make yourself appear more important. You probably were bullied as a child, so now you act out as the bully. You need psycho therapy, a LOT of psycho therapy!
What\'s your problem?
Were there not enough opportunities for you to be wrong today?

If he believes it he\'s not lying.

Your claims that he\'s lying would themselves be lies, if you understood
the meaning of the the word, and basic logic, but based on your past
performance here that seems doubtful.

Hey Jasen, so if I call someone like Sloman out for posting lies then I am a liar. Got it.

Since I\'m not posting lies, this it perfectly correct, but since Tom Seim likes to think that I am, he\'s not going to admit it - or even realise that he is wrong. He\'s much too silly to realise that he can get stuff wrong..

Yeah, Sloman, you ARE posting lies - lots of them.

But none that you can be bothered to cite.

So, if I called Sloman out for telling the truth then I would STILL be a liar. Got it. According to you, no matter what I say I am a liar. GOT IT!

No. You are posting falsehoods, but since you are much too silly to realise that your claims are merely self-serving nonsense, you aren\'t a liar - merely a self-deceiving fool. Since you post loads of Trump\'s lying political propaganda, you are a rather dangerous and destructive fool, but much too silly to be held responsible for any damage you do.

That\'s yet ANOTHER lie, Sloman.

Actually, you\'ve just made my point for me. You don\'t like what I posted, and think that this lets you label it as lie. In fact all you have done is to reinforce my point. which is that you are a deluded idiot who doesn\'t realise quite how far out of touch with reality he is.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:34:42 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 11/15/2021 3:25 PM, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 11:48:33 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 11/11/2021 7:52 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The Singing Sergeants, Lee Greenwood, and Home Free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0fxy8rHo8
Today marks 100 years since the dedication of the Tomb of The Unknown
Soldier.


And it was the first Veterans day in 20 years \"without a war\" THAT\'s a
\"big lie\":

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/biden-veterans-day.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics/us-pakistan-afghanistan-airspace/index.html

They just call them \"operations\" now...

Wars are declared, but you wouldn\'t know that. An Operation is not a war.

No, there isn\'t a word that captures the concept of \"Just blowing up
random people around the world because someone thinks they\'re up to no
good and missing the intended target regularly, anyway\" adequately, I
agree. Thug life?

You would have defended Hitler as \'Just a misunderstood paper hanger.

 

[server]

Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fd3f7f83-c566-4646-a345-c85fa5887fbcn@googlegroups.com:

You can\'t tell the difference between a live round and a dummy by
just looking at it in a cylinder: it has to be removed from the
cylinder and shaken.

Absolutely not true, putz boy. Dummy rounds have struck primers.
Live rounds do not. In a single action revolver, such as was the case
here, detection is easy, because looking at the rear of each cartridge
is easy WITHOUT ANY of your claimed \"removal from the cylinder\"
horseshit.

\"Cowboys\" always checked their load level by looking at the REAR of
the cylinder, NOT EVER the front.

You could not be more stupid if you tried.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:33:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 5:49:42 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-8, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2021-11-17, Tom Seim <sei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey SNIPPERMAN, you are SO SELF-CONCIOUS that you have to, in your warped mind, convince yourself that your LIES really aren\'t somehow lies. News Flash: you are a FUCKING LIAR - that is what you do to in an effort to compensate for your deep inferiority complex to make yourself appear more important. You probably were bullied as a child, so now you act out as the bully. You need psycho therapy, a LOT of psycho therapy!
What\'s your problem?
Were there not enough opportunities for you to be wrong today?

If he believes it he\'s not lying.

Your claims that he\'s lying would themselves be lies, if you understood
the meaning of the the word, and basic logic, but based on your past
performance here that seems doubtful.

Hey Jasen, so if I call someone like Sloman out for posting lies then I am a liar. Got it.

Since I\'m not posting lies, this it perfectly correct, but since Tom Seim likes to think that I am, he\'s not going to admit it - or even realise that he is wrong. He\'s much too silly to realise that he can get stuff wrong..

Yeah, Sloman, you ARE posting lies - lots of them.

But none that you can be bothered to cite.

So, if I called Sloman out for telling the truth then I would STILL be a liar. Got it. According to you, no matter what I say I am a liar. GOT IT!

No. You are posting falsehoods, but since you are much too silly to realise that your claims are merely self-serving nonsense, you aren\'t a liar - merely a self-deceiving fool. Since you post loads of Trump\'s lying political propaganda, you are a rather dangerous and destructive fool, but much too silly to be held responsible for any damage you do.

That\'s yet ANOTHER lie, Sloman.

Actually, you\'ve just made my point for me. You don\'t like what I posted, and think that this lets you label it as lie. In fact all you have done is to reinforce my point. which is that you are a deluded idiot who doesn\'t realise quite how far out of touch with reality he is.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fd3f7f83-c566-4646-a345-c85fa5887fbcn@googlegroups.com:

You can\'t tell the difference between a live round and a dummy by
just looking at it in a cylinder: it has to be removed from the
cylinder and shaken.

Absolutely not true, putz boy. Dummy rounds have struck primers.
Live rounds do not. In a single action revolver, such as was the case
here, detection is easy, because looking at the rear of each cartridge
is easy WITHOUT ANY of your claimed \"removal from the cylinder\"
horseshit.

\"Cowboys\" always checked their load level by looking at the REAR of
the cylinder, NOT EVER the front.

You could not be more stupid if you tried.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:00:25 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsph9$dj6$2@dont-email.me>.

ddI59TLzFz+9

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:00:25 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsph9$dj6$2@dont-email.me>.

ddI59TLzFz+9

 

[server]

Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fd3f7f83-c566-4646-a345-c85fa5887fbcn@googlegroups.com:

You can\'t tell the difference between a live round and a dummy by
just looking at it in a cylinder: it has to be removed from the
cylinder and shaken.

Absolutely not true, putz boy. Dummy rounds have struck primers.
Live rounds do not. In a single action revolver, such as was the case
here, detection is easy, because looking at the rear of each cartridge
is easy WITHOUT ANY of your claimed \"removal from the cylinder\"
horseshit.

\"Cowboys\" always checked their load level by looking at the REAR of
the cylinder, NOT EVER the front.

You could not be more stupid if you tried.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:00:25 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsph9$dj6$2@dont-email.me>.

ddI59TLzFz+9

 

[Peter]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 15:12:58 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
===================


Given a 12-bit DAC making a 500 Hz sine wave at 100K samples/second,
it will look perfect on a scope, with no filter.

** Not on good analog one, with a sharp trace.

I\'d expect that if the sine wave fits on the screen, you wouldn\'t see
the stairsteps.

How many spot diameters fit on one screen? Surely not 4000.

Indeed - the 12 bits is plenty. But I won\'t have 4k samples per cycle.
So there will be steps larger steps than 4k/cycle.

I can see that removing the steps is not difficult, because of the
huge \"oversampling\". They will need to be removed however, as far as
possible, for EMC reasons.

 

[Peter]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 15:12:58 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
===================


Given a 12-bit DAC making a 500 Hz sine wave at 100K samples/second,
it will look perfect on a scope, with no filter.

** Not on good analog one, with a sharp trace.

I\'d expect that if the sine wave fits on the screen, you wouldn\'t see
the stairsteps.

How many spot diameters fit on one screen? Surely not 4000.

Indeed - the 12 bits is plenty. But I won\'t have 4k samples per cycle.
So there will be steps larger steps than 4k/cycle.

I can see that removing the steps is not difficult, because of the
huge \"oversampling\". They will need to be removed however, as far as
possible, for EMC reasons.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:03:37 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smspn9$dj6$3@dont-email.me>.

Q+OzOgvJ5ZGu

 

[Peter]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 15:12:58 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
===================


Given a 12-bit DAC making a 500 Hz sine wave at 100K samples/second,
it will look perfect on a scope, with no filter.

** Not on good analog one, with a sharp trace.

I\'d expect that if the sine wave fits on the screen, you wouldn\'t see
the stairsteps.

How many spot diameters fit on one screen? Surely not 4000.

Indeed - the 12 bits is plenty. But I won\'t have 4k samples per cycle.
So there will be steps larger steps than 4k/cycle.

I can see that removing the steps is not difficult, because of the
huge \"oversampling\". They will need to be removed however, as far as
possible, for EMC reasons.

 

[Peter]

What you want is a linear phase low pass filter. Williams and Taylor are a full bottle on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Filter-Handbook-McGraw-Hill-Handbooks/dp/0071471715

This means that you get a smooth and monotonic transition between voltage steps. It doesn\'t roll off the high frequency content of the step edge all that fast - a higher order linear phase filter will do that better, but you need more precise reactance values to keep close enough to linear phase.

The two amplifier version of the Sallen-Keys 2-pole low pass filter lets you use the same value of capacitance in both the capacitors, and you can use E92 resistors to get very close to the linear-phase characteristic.

Do you mean the one here
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/filter/second-order-filters.html
but two of them cascaded?