magnetic field

[Harry Conover]

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote in message news:<ps2ghvkf9c7eeq3coiavtimmv0o48onc25@4ax.com>...

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:14:54 GMT, "loqk" <loqk@hotmail.com> wrote:

does anyone have a design for a cct that shorts ring current and is switched
by the pc?
this would be _very_ handy when combined with caller id software as the
phone will not ring until the software has decided the caller is not
blacklisted.

I posted a question about a Radio Device awhile back... it simply had
a full-wave rectifier between TELCO and the Phone to prevent ringing.

Jim, I know this sounds like a dumb question which it probably is, but
if you don't want the ring, why not just turn off the ringer?

Harry C.

 

[Larry Hatch]

The Data Wraith wrote:

Hi all,

I am a new ( well sort of ) electronics enthusiast and I would like to start
getting into the design and building of my own circuits. I would like to
first construct them on my computer and test them there as well. Or
something similar?

Is there any software, specifically freeware, out there wich can run under
Windows 2000?

Thanks to everybody who choses to reply.
TDW


I like EagleCAD. There is a free version, and it will do schematic and

PCB layout. VERY easy to work.

I to found only circuit maker to be of any value. Pain to use but seems
pretty good. The WorkBench or whatever it was call. I could not get a
trial version they claimed they had, called them, one person said they
would EMAIL it. Never showed, I called again basically, buy it, no
demo. That was when I found circuit maker.

It is sad, the $2500 ones, if they limited it for hobby type and made a
$99 price tag. would probably sell a lot of them.

Good luck. If you do any AVR work, see bastoc.com and download
RVKBASIC, free.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 18 Jul 2003 21:52:09 -0700, hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote in message news:<ps2ghvkf9c7eeq3coiavtimmv0o48onc25@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:14:54 GMT, "loqk" <loqk@hotmail.com> wrote:

does anyone have a design for a cct that shorts ring current and is switched
by the pc?
this would be _very_ handy when combined with caller id software as the
phone will not ring until the software has decided the caller is not
blacklisted.

I posted a question about a Radio Device awhile back... it simply had
a full-wave rectifier between TELCO and the Phone to prevent ringing.

Jim, I know this sounds like a dumb question which it probably is, but
if you don't want the ring, why not just turn off the ringer?

Harry C.

This is a "whole-house" call screener. It's still a work in progress,
but calls (CID) are matched against a list and then allowed to ring
thru as appropriate. Since CID only occurs between the first and
second ring we (my oldest son and I) are trying to find a *cheap* way
to replicate the CID and insert it between the second and third ring:

<internal ringing blocked>
<ring>
<CID> ---> read by PC, if OK...
<internal ringing unblocked>
<insert CID here> ...by PC
<ring>
<answer a phone>

...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 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

 

[A E]

Jim Thompson wrote:

This is a "whole-house" call screener. It's still a work in progress,
but calls (CID) are matched against a list and then allowed to ring
thru as appropriate. Since CID only occurs between the first and
second ring we (my oldest son and I) are trying to find a *cheap* way
to replicate the CID and insert it between the second and third ring:

internal ringing blocked
ring
CID> ---> read by PC, if OK...
internal ringing unblocked
insert CID here> ...by PC
ring
answer a phone

How does a modem do it? Lots of modems have CID in them. And since they hook up to serial ports, I can't think of a
cheaper way to do it. Get an external 14.4 modem, hook it up to a PIC/AVR/mainframe (don't want to start a flame war),
send the AT codes to enable CID, and have the PIC enable a relay at the point where your phone line enters the house.
Of course, the modem needs to be between the line entry and the relay...
Supra made a great external 14.4 modem with CID. 5$ on eBay???
I can picture a blob of circuitry hanging off the 14.4's DB-25 and powered by the wall wart.

 

[Harry Conover]

Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun' <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19822e04edbc63a0989ac8@news.inreach.net>...

In article <3f178254_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, loqk@hotmail.com
mentioned...
does anyone have a design for a cct that shorts ring current and is switched
by the pc?
this would be _very_ handy when combined with caller id software as the
phone will not ring until the software has decided the caller is not
blacklisted.

If you short the ringer current, the phone line will go off hook, and
the ringing will stop. Then you have to fake the ringing sound to the
far end so they think that the line is still ringing.

So why don't you just get a box that does this for you? You can buy a
card to go into the PC from such companies as Dialogic.

Indeed. I have a little $50 box called a ComShare 450 that does this
for me, while also routing fax calls to the fax machine, data calls to
the computer, and voice calls to my answering machine and telephones.
If I'm on-line with my computer, anyone that picks up a phone gets
only a series of warning beeps indicating that the line is already in
use.

I've had it for about 10 years, and it has proven itself to be among
the best $50 investments I've ever made.

Harry C.

 

[Gary Tait]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:44:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
<Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:32:08 -0400, A E <aeisenhut@videotron.ca
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


This is a "whole-house" call screener. It's still a work in progress,
but calls (CID) are matched against a list and then allowed to ring
thru as appropriate.
[snip]
How does a modem do it? Lots of modems have CID in them.
[snip]

The modem needs to support CID/Bell 202.

A modem *reads* CID, which is trivial. I need to *source* CID between
the second and third rings.

...Jim Thompson

CID (in the USA, I know parts of Europe use DTMF) uses the Bell 202
standard, so if you can find an AFSK ,modualtor, and re-create the bit
stream, you can replicate it.

 

[Keith Buck]

Hi,
I was once asked to design a similar circuit using a caller ID chip. it
worked fine, so I added a digitised voice chip to answer the phone witout it
ringing and send a message to say that the owner did not want unidentified
callers. The point being that answering in this way did not disturb the
owner but the caller lost money.

"loqk" <loqk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f178254_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

does anyone have a design for a cct that shorts ring current and is
switched
by the pc?
this would be _very_ handy when combined with caller id software as the
phone will not ring until the software has decided the caller is not
blacklisted.

 

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <ps2ghvkf9c7eeq3coiavtimmv0o48onc25@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:
-On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:14:54 GMT, "loqk" <loqk@hotmail.com> wrote:
-
->does anyone have a design for a cct that shorts ring current and is switched
->by the pc?
->this would be _very_ handy when combined with caller id software as the
->phone will not ring until the software has decided the caller is not
->blacklisted.
-
-I posted a question about a Radio Device awhile back... it simply had
-a full-wave rectifier between TELCO and the Phone to prevent ringing.

I tested it. Works like a champ. However that isn't the hard problem as the
OP has pointed out.

-
-This could be implemented with a relay instead of a slide switch to
-allow PC control.
-
-The Caller-ID mechanism *must* be on the TELCO side... I tried it
-after and the CID data can not be seen.

Exactly the problem. All the phones in the house have CID devices and you
want to pass the CID info to them. However you don't want the phone to ring
until the call has been whitelisted. I wonder if phones will accept CIS info
without the first ring? Then maybe the CID info can be passed though while
the ring is filtered.

Not exactly an easy problem.

BAJ

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 20 Jul 2003 16:37:19 -0400, byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
wrote:

In article <ps2ghvkf9c7eeq3coiavtimmv0o48onc25@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:
-On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:14:54 GMT, "loqk" <loqk@hotmail.com> wrote:
-
->does anyone have a design for a cct that shorts ring current and is switched
->by the pc?
->this would be _very_ handy when combined with caller id software as the
->phone will not ring until the software has decided the caller is not
->blacklisted.
-
-I posted a question about a Radio Device awhile back... it simply had
-a full-wave rectifier between TELCO and the Phone to prevent ringing.

I tested it. Works like a champ. However that isn't the hard problem as the
OP has pointed out.

-
-This could be implemented with a relay instead of a slide switch to
-allow PC control.
-
-The Caller-ID mechanism *must* be on the TELCO side... I tried it
-after and the CID data can not be seen.

Exactly the problem. All the phones in the house have CID devices and you
want to pass the CID info to them. However you don't want the phone to ring
until the call has been whitelisted. I wonder if phones will accept CIS info
without the first ring? Then maybe the CID info can be passed though while
the ring is filtered.

Not exactly an easy problem.

BAJ

My testing seems to indicate that a ringing voltage is what initiates
the CID circuit, no ring, no displayed CID :-(

Thus my plan to allow the second ring (and subsequent rings) for a
validated CID and (somehow) then playback the CID between ring 2 and
ring 3.

...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 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Jim Thompson" wrote ...

My testing seems to indicate that a ringing voltage is
what initiates the CID circuit, no ring, no displayed CID :-(

Thus my plan to allow the second ring (and subsequent
rings) for a validated CID and (somehow) then playback
the CID between ring 2 and ring 3.

Why? Block ALL ringing (including the first one if necessary for
initiating CID detection.) Then enable ringing if from a validated
CID.

Already established that the circuit must be directly on the line
BEFORE any interruption method for the house phones. So it has
access to all the ring cycles including the first one.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:03:50 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote ...
My testing seems to indicate that a ringing voltage is
what initiates the CID circuit, no ring, no displayed CID :-(

Thus my plan to allow the second ring (and subsequent
rings) for a validated CID and (somehow) then playback
the CID between ring 2 and ring 3.

Why? Block ALL ringing (including the first one if necessary for
initiating CID detection.) Then enable ringing if from a validated
CID.

Already established that the circuit must be directly on the line
BEFORE any interruption method for the house phones. So it has
access to all the ring cycles including the first one.

Your missing the point... I *do* block ALL ringing unless a validated
source. But one ring and the CID have already passed without being
sent to the phones. There is no more CID after the one between Ring1
and Ring2. So if you want the phones to show the CID you must
replicate it and insert between Ring2 and Ring3.

...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 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Jim Thompson" wrote ...

Your missing the point... I *do* block ALL ringing unless a validated
source. But one ring and the CID have already passed without being
sent to the phones. There is no more CID after the one between Ring1
and Ring2. So if you want the phones to show the CID you must
replicate it and insert between Ring2 and Ring3.

Ahhh. Didn't realize that you wanted the phones also to display CID.
Presumed (wrongly) that only the device needs to know CID to
make the decision whether to pass the incoming call.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:40:33 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote ...
Your missing the point... I *do* block ALL ringing unless a validated
source. But one ring and the CID have already passed without being
sent to the phones. There is no more CID after the one between Ring1
and Ring2. So if you want the phones to show the CID you must
replicate it and insert between Ring2 and Ring3.

Ahhh. Didn't realize that you wanted the phones also to display CID.
Presumed (wrongly) that only the device needs to know CID to
make the decision whether to pass the incoming call.

Yep, I'm picky, I still want the choice to still not answer when I see
who it is ;-)

...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 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

 

[Jon Elson]

M. Jakeman wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:28:31 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III"
aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com> wrote:




They do nothing.



That's sad! Thanks for the reply, anyway..


Would you really want to LIVE in a house that was filled with a

mysterious electromagnetic field that drives an insect's nervous
system wild? I'd be real cautious of using such a product if it
really DID work! I also don't like ultrasonic alarm systems. Some
of the ones in stores emit enough energy that I can sense them, in
some way. I'd sure hate to be exposed to that for hours on end.
So, I'd at least want to try out any ultrasonic system before I paid
for it.

Jon

 

[Boris Mohar]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:22:39 GMT, harp999@excite.com (M. Jakeman) wrote:

Those plug-in bug repellers - anyone reading this tried them?
I gather they create some sort of force field generated by the house's
wiring that interferes with bugs' nervous system.
How well do they work? In particular, do they keep spiders out of the

They don't other than keeping them out of wall outlets thy are plugged
into.

--

Regards,

Boris Mohar
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/
Aurora, Ontario

 

[Sir Charles W. Shults III]

Hey, News2020 has been doing it for years, to hear it told.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

 

[Jean-Michel Friedt]

I was wondering if anyone here would know why I saw several battery powered
atomic clocks (which you can buy at Brookstones/Sharper Image/Sams Club,
etc) all in one place that had different times?

I'm sorry I don't know the places you mention (I assume these are well
known American retailers I am not familiar with) but I assume you are
not talking of atomic clock but clocks synchronized periodically by
radio signal on an HF emitter which is itself connected to an atomic
clock.

Having spent a couple of years now trying to synchronize two
microcontrollers
on the GPS time references (1 PPS signal), I would love to see battery
powered atomic clock at a reasonable price, but I don't believe such
toys are available yet.

I always thought they updated themselves at least daily and they would not
be different by more than a second, if that. I forget now, but they were
VERY different. 20 seconds, at least.

Of course my previous comments do not answer your question. Unless these
clocks rely on the radio signal to stay tuned and use an awfully
bad crystal resonator, which I could not understand why (the resonator
driving the clock of my PC has an offset of 35 ppm), and drift
over one day, I can only think of the solution that due to storage in
a window in a large city with large buildings, these particular clocks
were unable to read the synchronization radio signal ... which doesn't
really
make sense at sub-MHz frequencies.

Jean-Michel

 

[Michael]

Screaminet News wrote:

Sorry if this is not the proper newsgroup for this question.

I was wondering if anyone here would know why I saw several battery powered
atomic clocks (which you can buy at Brookstones/Sharper Image/Sams Club,
etc) all in one place that had different times?

I always thought they updated themselves at least daily and they would not
be different by more than a second, if that. I forget now, but they were
VERY different. 20 seconds, at least.

They can't all be right, so what good are they?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Ted

Several possibilities for the different times. First, understand that
none of these clocks displays NIST time in real time; they are, at
heart, stand-along clocks, i.e. with their own oscillators. So after a
clock sets itself from NIST, the time it displays - from that point
until it sets itself the next time - is its own internally incremented
time. If the clock cannot set itself again for "a long time", the time
it displays will show drift with respect to NIST.

Some (most?) of these clocks are programmed to set themselves only once
per day, usually at night because NIST propagation is best during
darkness. So in a location of marginal NIST reception a clock could go
for days or weeks without being able to set itself.

Every clock, even clocks of the same model, are at least sightly
different from one another. Their oscillators - their heartbeat - run
at slightly different rates, and each one drifts at its own rate.

Add all of this up and you should see that what you observe is perfectly
understandable.

What is such a clock good for? If its oscillator is pretty stable and
accurate and if its receiver picks up NIST often, it's good as a clock
that doesn't need human intervention for the "spring ahead; fall back"
foolishness. I have three commercially available WWVB "radio clocks"
(two different models) and have designed and built two WWV clocks. I
love 'em all.
(By the way, I live in New York, USA, and both WWV and WWVB come in just
fine here.)

 

[Michael]

Forgot to add: if any of the clocks you saw displayed similar minutes
and seconds but were hours apart, they might have been set for different
time zones.

 

[Harry Conover]

"hannibal" <zghorbel@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kh%Sa.11931$ST5.431919152@news.nnrp.ca>...

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2545798595&rd=1

$10 shipping (in Canada)?

Lots of luck guy!

Harry C.