magnetic field

[WEBPA]

"Boris Mohar" <borism_-void-_@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:7s65o0pu9kbs472tp7gvfha64cq0mk73uu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:59:14 GMT, "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be
wrote:


"Karl-Hugo Weesberg" <netspider4@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:7666ed5f.0410281959.18542571@posting.google.com...
I need to build it to escape this boring planet before I die of boredom.

So what do I need for a trans-dimensional gateway?

Two worm holes and a lot of energy.


Must rub two trolls together first.

This idiot without imagination has been posing these kinds of witless
idioticies under different aliases all over the usenet. Ok, maybe he is
not

Assuming it is a 9-year-old: The best way to open a very real
trans-dimensional gateway is to open and read a text book or two: Start with
math; move on to physics, geology, philosophy. History and political science is
OK, but avoid any such text printed after 1960. Do this and your boredom will
be ended permanently.
webpa

 

[Tim Williams]

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:M7Wdncw8zto-VhfcRVn-2g@rcn.net...

Why wouldn't one use it to read the news?

Don't ask me, I'm not one of the freaks who require Agent or whatever
standalone reader.

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[E. Rosten]

JeffM wrote:

I never had anything capable of delivering 200A when I was a kid
Ed Rosten


Betcha did.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=cold-cranking-amps+-CCA+-CD+-CDs

I didn't have any car batteries... I couldn't afford them on my pocket
money. Besides, despite being pretty alright about me messing around
permenantly with that kind of stuff, I expect my parents wouldn't have
liked the idea quite so much of me having basically a very large bucket
of acid in my room.



-Ed


--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)

/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage

 

[Chuck Harris]

Tim Williams wrote:

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:M7Wdncw8zto-VhfcRVn-2g@rcn.net...

Why wouldn't one use it to read the news?


Don't ask me, I'm not one of the freaks who require Agent or whatever
standalone reader.

?????

You just complained about someone using mozilla to read the news.

-Chuck Harris

 

[CWatters]

"dragon" <devodragon29@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:57ca3ef8.0411041557.3dd74ceb@posting.google.com...

Does anyone know where I would be able to get IEC Graphical symbols
for electronics? IEC wants a few hundred bucks, but all I want is to
identify the warning symbols.

perhaps this site?...

http://www.symbols.com

I used there search engine...
http://www.symbols.com/graphicsearch.html
to find the earth symbol...
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/04/0448.html

 

[Tim Williams]

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0411042326.77d77729@posting.google.com...

A guy who adds attachments to newsgroup posts.

Hmm, I musta forgot to attach it. LOL. Well I'm reading on ABSE, so
quictcherbitchin... (in fact, Charter won't let me post attachments to
non-binaries anyway).
http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/Images/OElink.jpg

It's known that MSIE is more forgiving of badly-written HTML,
which makes it an interesting tool--if you're a coder who writes buggy
HTML;
it's bad if you're Joe Average and want a secure Web browser.)

Security is the funniest thing, since I've passed more (namely, all) tests
that several proprietary browsers some friends of mine use, failed!

This is why you can delete every shortcut to MSIE
and still be stuck having an insecure browser open up.
There are other hard-wired associations as well, but that's another rant.

Not an issue if you use IE. :^)

AFAIK, IE can be removed from all Windows, if with some difficulty. I have
no need nor want to try.

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[Clarence]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7objd.4452$op3.170282@news.xtra.co.nz...

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:07:29 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:
"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j93qo0potq5la8jb5tb56o5olsh8c5gu4j@4ax.com...

snip

Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom

That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!

If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!


blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars? I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....

So beat him up and chain him in the basement? You can I suppose justify any
cruel treatment, You are full of it!

Nuts, you are so irrational it is not possible to have an exchange of ideas.
But anyone who would beat their kids should be publicly shamed!

You clearly have nothing of value to say, and no shame!

<snipped unnecessary verbiage>

 

[Terry Given]

Clarence wrote:

<unsnip>
OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:gUbjd.4466$op3.170619@news.xtra.co.nz...
unsnip
OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to discussion)
from playing chicken in traffic.
Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets killed?

Plonk!

I take it that means you have no answer. Hardly surprising.

Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:05:34 -0800, the renowned Tim Wescott
tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:


Corporal punishment, applied in a consistent and loving manner, is not
IMO physical abuse. _Any_ discipline that's applied in a way that a
child can't predict, that's too severe, or that doesn't give the kid
room to grow, will screw the kid up -- possibly for life (but I'm not so
ready to believe that it'll pop out as psychosis).

Agreed. I think raising kids should involve a minimal number of
meaningful rules (aka boundaries), that are consistently and fairly
enforced.

And I think judicial systems should work in much the same way - ban only
that which causes real harm, but enforce that which is banned
consistently. IMO courts should determine the facts in a case, and a
(state-)nation-wide sentencing tribunal (made up of say n of m high
court judges on rotation) should determine the sentence - thereby
ensuring that similar crimes receive similar sentences, and that
sentences are appropriate.

So unless the spanking that you're referring to leaves permanent flat
spots on their behinds its just discipline, not abuse.


Cultures where spanking is rare produce kids that are no less screwed
up, IMHO.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Agreed.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Clarence wrote:


So beat him up and chain him in the basement? You can I suppose justify any
cruel treatment, You are full of it!

I didnt justify anything, I merely posed a real scenario and asked a
question. YOU suggested beating & chaining in a basement.


Nuts, you are so irrational it is not possible to have an exchange of ideas.
But anyone who would beat their kids should be publicly shamed!

and yet you are. Hmm.


You clearly have nothing of value to say, and no shame!

OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

Cheers
Terry (who has yet to smack his 9-year old daughter)

-----------------------
Simple, you bloody fucking idiot, you disabuse yourself of the notion
that a 4 year old is not amenable to discussion! Being
their child he was probably so physically abused by age 4 that
his reaction was due to disordered emotional functioning. But
even so, the ONLY hope he has of recovering from their abuse is
to be treated properly by DECENT care-givers, so you will need
to spend time with him, watch him, talk to him, and make him know
that you care what he wants, and that he can and should communicate
it. No child does anything merely to be annoying, that is something
only adult-level humans do!

-Steve

Hi Cunt Face, (you may have gathered I'm not that keen on your random
insults, but if you think its OK, I guess I might as well join in the fun)

this is (however) a lot better than clarence's blinding silence

Although the glimpse I got into this kids family life wasnt exactly
comprehensive, we can make a binary assumption: that the parents either
did, or did not, regularly hit their kid.

According to them they did not - this was apparently the last straw, mum
was at her wits end, the little shit just smashed a window to escape
after being locked in his room (they had put an external lock on his
door). IIRC apparently he had been busted playing chicken half a dozen
times or so in the last few days, and the punishment comprised
ever-escalating levels of restraint, not walloping, which apparently
they did not believe in. Their plaintive response was simply "what else
can we do" (clearly bars on the window would be a good start. best not
to think about fires . After the article, a plague of social workers,
psychologits (typo intentional) etc. descended on the household.

Actually, you've got me thinking, and if this (non-violent) scenario
really was the case, then the likelihood is that the problem arose due
to their poor implementation of (albeit non-physical) discipline. Its
something you see ALL THE TIME with parents:
- the kid does something,
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
:
:
:
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
(often here the adult has a screaming fit)
- the adult gives up, and lets the kid continue.

Voila, you just taught your kid to ignore what you say.

Alternatively, take the pessimists route and assume they did hit him
regularly - in which case the problem is probably entirely
self-inflicted as per your thoughts, and your proposed suggestion would
probably work.

actually that reminded me of a pommie documentary I saw on really
naughty kids, and without exception the problem was piss-weak parents.
The resident psychologit basically equipped the parents with some balls,
and 6 months later the problems had all but disappeared. I recall one
kid that just wouldnt go to be (and I mean not get in the bed) so mum &
dad tag-teamed and stayed up for about 3 hours reading and playing with
the kid, all the while pleading and cajoling. Parents shouldnt ask kids,
they should tell them (but only when its meaningful)

On the whole I dont think it is necessary to hit kids - certainly not on
a regular basis. Nevertheless I can think of occasions when it may be
necessary. I have never hit my daughter (shes 9.5) nor do I think I will
ever need to. Instead I have always explained to her the consequences
her actions will bring (and then followed through, which is IMO the hard
part) and given her the choice - alter the behaviour or take the
punishment. Without fail now she alters the behaviour.

Come to think of it though, when Kate was about 12 months old I burned
her hand to teach her "hot" - I placed her hand on the oven door (after
measuring it at about 60C) for about 2 seconds whilst saying "HOT" (60C
is unpleasantly hot but thats all). Incredibly effective - Kate never
touched the stove, the fireplace or any hot drink. Within a couple of
months her vocabulary had advanced to the point where she would warn us
of the hot things (stove, fireplace, coffee etc).

Reminds me of the time I taught her about caffeine, she was 5 and wanted
a glass of coke at night-time. When I said no she asked why not, so I
explained about caffeine keeping you awake. And pretty much ever since
have been told off for drinking coke (or coffee) at night time -
"daaaad, you shouldnt drink that, it'll keep you awake"

I was beaten fairly regularly as a kid (I had a smart mouth, stupid
parents and a stubborn streak a mile wide), and all it really achieved
was to piss me off, and make me more determined to piss them off in
return - fuck you I wont do what you tell me. As an adult I think it has
made me a bit paranoid, in that I am constantly aware of who and what is
around me at all times, always looking for the attack (thats come in
handy a couple of times . Mind you I approach driving the same way (Im
a motorcyclist) and thats been REALLY helpful.

Cheers
Terry

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Terry Given wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Simple, you bloody fucking idiot, you disabuse yourself of the notion
that a 4 year old is not amenable to discussion! Being
their child he was probably so physically abused by age 4 that
his reaction was due to disordered emotional functioning. But
even so, the ONLY hope he has of recovering from their abuse is
to be treated properly by DECENT care-givers, so you will need
to spend time with him, watch him, talk to him, and make him know
that you care what he wants, and that he can and should communicate
it. No child does anything merely to be annoying, that is something
only adult-level humans do!

-Steve

Hi Cunt Face, (you may have gathered I'm not that keen on your random
insults, but if you think its OK, I guess I might as well join in the fun)
this is (however) a lot better than clarence's blinding silence
-----------------

Not very apt, but whatever.
Better than abyssmal politeness.

Although the glimpse I got into this kids family life wasnt exactly
comprehensive, we can make a binary assumption: that the parents either
did, or did not, regularly hit their kid.

According to them they did not - this was apparently the last straw, mum
was at her wits end, the little shit just smashed a window to escape
after being locked in his room (they had put an external lock on his
door). IIRC apparently he had been busted playing chicken half a dozen
times or so in the last few days, and the punishment comprised
ever-escalating levels of restraint, not walloping, which apparently
they did not believe in. Their plaintive response was simply "what else
can we do" (clearly bars on the window would be a good start. best not
to think about fires . After the article, a plague of social workers,
psychologits (typo intentional) etc. descended on the household.

Actually, you've got me thinking, and if this (non-violent) scenario
really was the case, then the likelihood is that the problem arose due
to their poor implementation of (albeit non-physical) discipline. Its
something you see ALL THE TIME with parents:
- the kid does something,
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
---------------------------

Ordering people around makes them ignore you for an ass.
Not surprising. It does NOT, however, reach the level
of parenting.

- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
(often here the adult has a screaming fit)
- the adult gives up, and lets the kid continue.

Voila, you just taught your kid to ignore what you say.
----------------------

So if it took all that work to teach them to ignore you,
then why did they ignore you so well the first time, idiot!??
You see, such lines of reasoning actually aren't!

This means that the alternatives are NOT 1) hitting, and 2) ignoring.
This means that those are NEITHER ONE any good.

Alternatively, take the pessimists route and assume they did hit him
regularly - in which case the problem is probably entirely
self-inflicted as per your thoughts, and your proposed suggestion would
probably work.
-------------------------------

Kill them anyway, just for being so bloody stupid.

actually that reminded me of a pommie documentary I saw on really
naughty kids, and without exception the problem was piss-weak parents.
-----------------------

That's what is always alleged, but in reality upon close examination
that never turns out to be true. In most cases where parents have kids
who misbehave in public, it was found that this was because in private
the parents were beating the shit out of them, pinching, thunking them
in the head, twisting their ears, and generally torturing them, and
it was ACTUALLY that in PUBLIC was the ONLY place the kids felt safe
from their parents ongoing severely dishonoring abuse, which the kids
figured out the parents were sensible enough to be afraid to do in
public!! This is proving to explain this so well that evaluation of
parental behavior that is clandestined is gaining favor.

The resident psychologit basically equipped the parents with some balls,
and 6 months later the problems had all but disappeared.
--------------------

Beware of what you see on TV, it is usually driven by the writers
and the fringe loonie X-spurts they hunted up to match their script,
and not on science. TV is driven by current pop agendas.

I recall one
kid that just wouldnt go to be (and I mean not get in the bed) so mum &
dad tag-teamed and stayed up for about 3 hours reading and playing with
the kid, all the while pleading and cajoling. Parents shouldnt ask kids,
they should tell them (but only when its meaningful)
---------------------------------

We had no trouble with our kids at bedtime, we simply never forced
them to go to bed, and they became entirely self-regulating at age
two or three. They fell asleep and learned that it was more comfortable
to do that in bed. Parents who force bedtimes have teens that
pathologically want to stay up all night every night their first
year of college and then wonder why they flunked/dropped out!!

On the whole I dont think it is necessary to hit kids - certainly not on
a regular basis. Nevertheless I can think of occasions when it may be
necessary. I have never hit my daughter (shes 9.5) nor do I think I will
ever need to. Instead I have always explained to her the consequences
her actions will bring (and then followed through, which is IMO the hard
part) and given her the choice - alter the behaviour or take the
punishment. Without fail now she alters the behaviour.
----------------------

In other words you threaten to get your way. Children hate their
parents who do that. They spend far less time around them in later
life and rank their relationships as distant.

Come to think of it though, when Kate was about 12 months old I burned
her hand to teach her "hot" - I placed her hand on the oven door (after
measuring it at about 60C) for about 2 seconds whilst saying "HOT" (60C
is unpleasantly hot but thats all). Incredibly effective - Kate never
touched the stove, the fireplace or any hot drink. Within a couple of
months her vocabulary had advanced to the point where she would warn us
of the hot things (stove, fireplace, coffee etc).
-------------------------------------

Insane. Vicious. Deluded.

Reminds me of the time I taught her about caffeine, she was 5 and wanted
a glass of coke at night-time. When I said no she asked why not, so I
explained about caffeine keeping you awake. And pretty much ever since
have been told off for drinking coke (or coffee) at night time -
"daaaad, you shouldnt drink that, it'll keep you awake"
--------------------------------

Mostly a myth, caffiene can do both, make you agitated to keep you
awake, or cause your sleep progress to be enhanced, new info.
It doesn't prevent sleep, just alters the phases of sleep to prevent
the nod-off signal.

I was beaten fairly regularly as a kid (I had a smart mouth, stupid
parents and a stubborn streak a mile wide), and all it really achieved
was to piss me off, and make me more determined to piss them off in
return - fuck you I wont do what you tell me. As an adult I think it has
made me a bit paranoid, in that I am constantly aware of who and what is
around me at all times, always looking for the attack (thats come in
handy a couple of times . Mind you I approach driving the same way (Im
a motorcyclist) and thats been REALLY helpful.

Cheers
Terry
----------------------------

You contain the seeds of your own recovery from abuse.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Terry Given wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Clarence wrote:


[]

OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to discussion)

from playing chicken in traffic.


Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets killed?

Terry

-----------
Those are NOT the only two options, you bloody fucking moron.

-Steve

Hi Steve,

I am not a "bloody fucking moron" as you so eloquently put it. The key
aspect of the paragraph is "how would YOU prevent..."

In other words:
"OK mister, so you want to stop the parent from smacking in this
instance. what do you suggest they do instead"
------------------

First, don't hit. Don't try to be so fucking lazy as that.

Listen, get down there and make their ideas as important to you as
yours are. If you don't want that job, don't have kids, because
that's the job!

and no suggestion has been forthcoming. This leads me to conclude
Clarence is a member of the (m)Oral Minority - the naysayers who would
forcibly rule out a course of action (in this case smacking) without
concerning themselves what might replace it.

Cheers
Terry
---------------------

I think you simply grossed him out. Some courses of action should
simply be prohibited on penalty of death, they need nothing to
replace them that you won't automatically discover once you're
terrified to do the WRONG thing.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:rvnjd.4708$op3.178679@news.xtra.co.nz...

R. Steve Walz wrote:

[snip]

Having read your posts on this thread, I am inclined to agree with
your
own character assessment - you are dangerously unstable.

Welcome to the club.

 

[CWatters]

"Robert" <Robert@robertmail.com> wrote in message
news:JPrjd.125$km5.92751@news20.bellglobal.com...

I need to simplify, ideally, 3 wire multiplex would be best.

How about 3 wires....

1) 0V/screen
2) Composite video from camera
3) Multiplexed data

2 and 3 go in opposite directions.

3 could be bidirectional

Google "1 wire signaling" to do 3) perhaps?
Hint.. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/1-Wire

If you want to be clever synchronise the data to the video to reduce noise
on the video signal.

 

[Terry Given]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:17:40 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Had my father hit me even once, I'd have turned from everything and
become a criminal set lifelong on revenge against anyone who got in
my way. Know ye that you are blessed with a world in which my father
was a sensible man, or I'd have killed or maimed several of you and
yours by now! Seriously!

So the only reason you are not a homicidal axe-wielding maniac is
because your father never once smacked you, but a single spank would
drive you over the edge.

Having read your posts on this thread, I am inclined to agree with your
own character assessment - you are dangerously unstable.


So is the F-16, if the attitude control computer breaks. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Only for increased bandwidth. But I betcha a single slap wont make it
flip out

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

JeffM wrote:

The HTML editor (Composer) is handy for touching up pages for

printing.

What I really love are the plug-ins,
especially DownloadWith, FlashBlock, and AdBlock.
Seamonkey:
http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/showlist.php?numpg=50&os=windows&version=1.7&submit=Update
FireFox:
http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions
JeffM

I never download any software, and I try not to upgrade things

either...

I have PC people who get things working for me, then I leave them the
hell alone.
Terry Given


If you print Web pages, I highly recommend AdBlock.
Since I started using it,
pages load much more quickly on a slow connection
and display more compactly because (unlike the native Image Manager,
which leaves blank spaces where the images should be
--and wastes time and bandwidth downloading them) AdBlock closes up
the gaps.
I hardly ever have to edit a page any more to get a nice printout.

Since 99.99% of Macromedia stuff on sites is junk (ads and stuff
that doesn't need to be animated, in a proprietary format--or even
there),
FlashBlock saves me from having to try to read stuff
with some flashing crap beside it.
It leaves me the option of actually seeing a Flash presentation,
**if I choose**.

I havent got that flash stuff enabled. As you say, its mostly crap.

I just wish I had a switch to block HTML emails

Cheers
Terry

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:51:03 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:09:47 +1300, Terry Given wrote:


The resident psychologit basically equipped the parents with some balls,

^^^

No Freudian slips here, nope. Nosiree, nuh-uh!

;^j


Ya must have missed the bit erarlier:

"After the article, a plague of social workers, psychologits (typo
intentional) etc."

so no, no freudian slips at all. I once got caned for seeing a
psychologit at school. Its a pretty funny story really. It was one of
those stupid essay contest things, write an essay starting with "the
last laugh" - 5th form IIRC. So I did, and made it 3,000 words of blood
and gore - revenge extraordinaire. I came 3rd or 4th in the essay
contest (well written, just bloodthirsty) but the school was disturbed.
They got my parents in and explained their concerns, and my folks just
laughed at them, saying something along the lines of "this is the
reaction he was aiming for" - which of course it was (hey, I met all of
their criteria). So the school duly made me see a psychologit, who
proceeded to give me a Rorschach test. My response to every "what do you
see here" question was "A Rorschach blot".

"It looks like the time Daddy was playing doggy with Mummy."

after about 5 minutes of this
the psychologit flipped his lid, ranted and raved at the top of his
voice for a while, and stormed off to get help. Whereupon the deputy
principle (you know him, he was my 6th form english teacher) caned me -
for truthfully answering a question

Cheers
Terry

;^j
Rich

 

[exxos]

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:ykvjd.3577$_J2.721@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

I've got six NiMH rechargeable AA batteries, all the same brand and rated
capacity, a one-hour charger, and a flashlight that takes two AA
batteries.

I wanted to see how long the light would last on a fully charged pair of
batteries, so I charged up a pair, put them in, and turned it on. I got
5 hours of good light, and another hour of feeble light.

Next pair: *one* hour.

Third pair: 5 hours.

Now for the interesting part. When I put the bad pair in the charger
(which
is one of the chargers that does each battery individually), one of them
finishes very quickly (five minutes, tops). This is repeatable (i.e.,
that
pair has a short life in the flashlight again, and one finishes charging
quickly again).

It seems to me I should be able to deduce something from this, such as
that
one of the short lasting pair is defective...but I'm not sure *which* one.

Let's call the one that finishes charging quickly battery X, and the other
battery Y. I don't know enough about how these things work to tell the
following two scenarios apart:

1. Battery X is defective. It somehow makes Y provide all the energy,
and the light stops when Y is discharged. X hasn't provided much
energy, so recharges quickly.

2. Battery Y is defective. It rapidly discharges, then acts as a high
resistence, stopping the light. X recharges rapidly because it hasn't
been asked to provide much energy.

I'll now try each of these batteries with one from one of the good pairs.
Presumably, one of X and Y will play nicely with batteries from the other
pairs, and one will not, and that one that doesn't is the defective
battery.
However, I'm curious...should I be able to tell just from what I see at
the
charger which of X and Y is the bad battery?

If one finishes in 5 mins its pretty safe to say thats the problem batt.

Chris

--
--Tim Smith

 

[CWatters]

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:ykvjd.3577$_J2.721@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

1. Battery X is defective. It somehow makes Y provide all the energy,
and the light stops when Y is discharged. X hasn't provided much
energy, so recharges quickly.

2. Battery Y is defective. It rapidly discharges, then acts as a high
resistence, stopping the light. X recharges rapidly because it hasn't
been asked to provide much energy.

Nothing so complicated.

One battery has reduced capacity - so it only lasts a little while AND is
fully charged quickly.

 

[Joerg]

Hi Dan,

Look at the X-10 stuff. You can do almost anything with it. The basic
kits mostly contain the controller that can be set to perform a certain
dim and brighten sequence. If you have to record other things such as
snoring levels etc. you might want to control it from a PC which can
also be done through that powerline interface. The software comes with
it or can be downloaded.

The dimmable modules are called 'lamp module'. They retail around
$10-$15 a pop. The whole setup probably won't even cost you $100.

Just don't use X-10 for any critical tasks because the old X-10 AM
protocol is not very reliable, expecially not over long distances or
across phases.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com