MessageView 421F schematic

[The Pig Bladder from Uran]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:34:03 +0100, Sjouke Burry wrote:

Martin Griffith wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:13:28 GMT, in sci.electronics.design The Pig
Bladder from Uranus <pb@example.net> wrote:

But seriously, how many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin? >:-

There are several answers. It really depends if the angles are latching
or non-latching

WRONG ANSWER!!

As long as they have matching spin state, they act as one angel
independent of their count.

My answer was "All of them". ;-)

Thanks for Playing!

Cheers!
Pig Bladder

 

[krw]

In article <o2j3i4tpkjs5f2u23g2i8ac4gpvqr01atr@4ax.com>,
mart_in_medina@yah00.es says...

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:13:28 GMT, in sci.electronics.design The Pig
Bladder from Uranus <pb@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:47:24 -0600, krw wrote:
quiasmox@yeeha.com says...

But seriously, how many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin? >:-

Thanks!
Rich

There are several answers. It really depends if the angles are
latching or non-latching

http://www.headofapin.net/

No, the answer to that question is 180. Any more and they fall off
the edge.

--
Keith

 

[Phil Hobbs]

krw wrote:

In article <o2j3i4tpkjs5f2u23g2i8ac4gpvqr01atr@4ax.com>,
mart_in_medina@yah00.es says...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:13:28 GMT, in sci.electronics.design The Pig
Bladder from Uranus <pb@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:47:24 -0600, krw wrote:
quiasmox@yeeha.com says...
But seriously, how many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin? >:-

Thanks!
Rich
There are several answers. It really depends if the angles are
latching or non-latching

http://www.headofapin.net/

No, the answer to that question is 180. Any more and they fall off
the edge.

Not to spoil anybody's fun, but the original question that the Schoolmen
were debating was whether an angel--a pure spirit--occupied any space.
The question was not whether it was 1 or 180, but whether it was a
finite or infinite number.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

 

[ItsASecretDummy]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:22:30 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <o2j3i4tpkjs5f2u23g2i8ac4gpvqr01atr@4ax.com>,
mart_in_medina@yah00.es says...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:13:28 GMT, in sci.electronics.design The Pig
Bladder from Uranus <pb@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:47:24 -0600, krw wrote:
quiasmox@yeeha.com says...

But seriously, how many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin? >:-

Thanks!
Rich

There are several answers. It really depends if the angles are
latching or non-latching

http://www.headofapin.net/

No, the answer to that question is 180. Any more and they fall off
the edge.

The angels or the angles?

 

[krw]

In article <49221C4E.5070808@electrooptical.net>,
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...

krw wrote:
In article <o2j3i4tpkjs5f2u23g2i8ac4gpvqr01atr@4ax.com>,
mart_in_medina@yah00.es says...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:13:28 GMT, in sci.electronics.design The Pig
Bladder from Uranus <pb@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:47:24 -0600, krw wrote:
quiasmox@yeeha.com says...
But seriously, how many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin? >:-

Thanks!
Rich
There are several answers. It really depends if the angles are
latching or non-latching

http://www.headofapin.net/

No, the answer to that question is 180. Any more and they fall off
the edge.


Not to spoil anybody's fun, but the original question that the Schoolmen
were debating was whether an angel--a pure spirit--occupied any space.
The question was not whether it was 1 or 180, but whether it was a
finite or infinite number.

The question morphed a bit along the way.

--
Keith

 

[Phil Hobbs]

krw wrote:

In article <49221C4E.5070808@electrooptical.net>,
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...

Not to spoil anybody's fun, but the original question that the Schoolmen
were debating was whether an angel--a pure spirit--occupied any space.
The question was not whether it was 1 or 180, but whether it was a
finite or infinite number.

The question morphed a bit along the way.

The medieval equivalent of Usenet, obviously.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-11-17, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:32:03 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:

Nah. Or at least, not just that. Pull (and hold) sufficient vacuum on a
container with water in it, and the water will indeed boil away at low
temperature. Granted, you'll get any dissolved air out of it during the
process, but that'll only be part of what goes on.

I once saw a demo on Mr. Wizard where they had water freezing and boiling
simultaneously.

a triple-point aparatus, - that's a good temperature reference for
your thermocouple 0.01C

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-11-17, The Pig Bladder from Uranus <pb@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:47:24 -0600, krw wrote:
quiasmox@yeeha.com says...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:35:30 GMT, Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:19:32 GMT) it happened Rich Grise

And what's all the shouting about?

I AM GLAD YOU ASKED THAT. SIMPLE:
CAPS HAVE ONE BIT LESS SET, SO IT SAVES ON ENERGY.

It doesn't matter if they're set or reset. If you're perfectly
consistent, you might save kTlog(2) per character-instance, but only
when the messages are erased. So you might as well use all lower-case,
if you're really shiftless.

it "matters" more than that. lower case letters, numbers, most
punctuation and <sp> all have bit-5 (little-endian) set. the <SP> is
"important" because it exists between words. since it takes "more" power
to change states, a "significant" power savings can be had by using all
lower case.

But seriously, how many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin? >:-

All angels can dance on the head of a pin, devils get the other end!

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:24:45 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:54:15 GMT, the renowned Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:42:56 +0000) it happened IanM
Invalid@totally.invalid> wrote in <gfmmvv$1ap7$1@energise.enta.net>:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:17:11 +0000, the renowned Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Don Bruder wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I used to 'calibrate' thermocouples by putting them in boiling water.

100C/212F = nice cup of rolling-boil water at 1 standard atmosphere

Might not have been *PERFECT*, but it was at least reasonably close
enough for the stuff we were doing.

And that's normally good enough ! Best ignore the change in boiling point vs atm
pressure. ;~)


A bit of knowledge can be dangerous...

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/chang/boiling/index.htm

Which is why I reccomended condensing steam on a metal block. Avoids
all sorts of problems with superheat. Once you've done that, might as
well use the same block in melting ice for consistancy.

I JUST USED TO HOLD THE SENSOR IN MY HAND AND SET FOR 37.5°C.

Got a fever? Hands tend to be pretty cool compared to internal body
temperature, more so on some people than others.

You'd do much better by sticking it umm.. somewhere more ummm..
consistent in temperature...


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Drug-store medical thermometers are very accurate within their range.
Along with melting ice, they provide an excellent pair of cal points.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:37:18 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

krw wrote:
mart_in_medina@yah00.es says...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:13:28 GMT, in sci.electronics.design The Pig
Bladder from Uranus <pb@example.net> wrote:

But seriously, how many angels _can_ dance on the head of a pin? >:-

There are several answers. It really depends if the angles are
latching or non-latching

http://www.headofapin.net/

No, the answer to that question is 180. Any more and they fall off the
edge.

Not to spoil anybody's fun, but the original question that the Schoolmen
were debating was whether an angel--a pure spirit--occupied any space.
The question was not whether it was 1 or 180, but whether it was a
finite or infinite number.

Do an infinite number of angels even exist? (they obviously don't take

up any space, being imaginary and all.)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bob Myers]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2008.11.18.17.58.55.803674@example.net...

Not to spoil anybody's fun, but the original question that the Schoolmen
were debating was whether an angel--a pure spirit--occupied any space.
The question was not whether it was 1 or 180, but whether it was a
finite or infinite number.

Do an infinite number of angels even exist? (they obviously don't take
up any space, being imaginary and all.)

But if you don't take up any space, in what sense could
you be said to be "dancing"?

A more important question is where they're keeping the
infinite number of monkeys with typewriters. Those
obviously DO exist; I submit to you, as evidence - the
net.

Bob M.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Myers wrote:

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2008.11.18.17.58.55.803674@example.net...
Not to spoil anybody's fun, but the original question that the
Schoolmen were debating was whether an angel--a pure spirit--occupied
any space. The question was not whether it was 1 or 180, but whether it
was a finite or infinite number.

Do an infinite number of angels even exist? (they obviously don't take
up any space, being imaginary and all.)

But if you don't take up any space, in what sense could you be said to be
"dancing"?

A more important question is where they're keeping the infinite number of
monkeys with typewriters. Those obviously DO exist; I submit to you, as
evidence - the net.

Well, duh - obviously, that's where the monkeys are! Just look around. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Don Bruder]

In article <pan.2008.11.18.22.27.03.83148@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Myers wrote:
"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2008.11.18.17.58.55.803674@example.net...
Not to spoil anybody's fun, but the original question that the
Schoolmen were debating was whether an angel--a pure spirit--occupied
any space. The question was not whether it was 1 or 180, but whether it
was a finite or infinite number.

Do an infinite number of angels even exist? (they obviously don't take
up any space, being imaginary and all.)

But if you don't take up any space, in what sense could you be said to be
"dancing"?

A more important question is where they're keeping the infinite number of
monkeys with typewriters. Those obviously DO exist; I submit to you, as
evidence - the net.

Well, duh - obviously, that's where the monkeys are! Just look around. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Every third poster on Usenet is actually a monkey. Look left. Look
right. Don't see a monkey? Where's that leave you?

--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don Bruder wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Well, duh - obviously, that's where the monkeys are! Just look around. ;-)

Every third poster on Usenet is actually a monkey. Look left. Look
right. Don't see a monkey? Where's that leave you?

With banana peels all over his floor?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[pol]

An IR thermometer will not be very accurate on lower as body temps due
to the radiation measured.


An IR is good for above 50 F or 25 C
Calibration is best done close to the temps really measured.
And yes boiling and freezing water is very accurate and the method
with the black body is best.




On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:02:54 -0600, ratman <endlr@execpc.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:56:50 GMT, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,


I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

 

[GregS]

In article <o09bi41istpllobpvqheb32e8qj7er0r6c@4ax.com>, pol <shooter@home.nl> wrote:

An IR thermometer will not be very accurate on lower as body temps due
to the radiation measured.


An IR is good for above 50 F or 25 C
Calibration is best done close to the temps really measured.
And yes boiling and freezing water is very accurate and the method
with the black body is best.

I noticed that my typical Fluke IR thermometer only works at room
temperature. I took it outside last winter, and after the unit starts
to cool, forget it.

greg

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:02:54 -0600, ratman <endlr@execpc.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:56:50 GMT, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,


I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

 

[Peter Hucker]

Have I got really rubbish thermometers? I've tried measuring body temperature both in my mouth and under my arm, and it's never more than about 30C.


On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:55:40 -0000, pol <shooter@home.nl> wrote:

An IR thermometer will not be very accurate on lower as body temps due
to the radiation measured.


An IR is good for above 50 F or 25 C
Calibration is best done close to the temps really measured.
And yes boiling and freezing water is very accurate and the method
with the black body is best.




On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:02:54 -0600, ratman <endlr@execpc.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:56:50 GMT, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,


I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Basketball analyst: "He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn't like it. In fact you can see it all over their faces."

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:55:40 +0100, pol <shooter@home.nl> wrote:

An IR thermometer will not be very accurate on lower as body temps due
to the radiation measured.

Anything above absolute zero emits InfraRed radiation.

IR thermometers are calibrated for a very small temperature window,
compared to the span of what is available. From low temps to high temps,
many models are available. Many operate at a specific wavelength due to
spectral windows on their transducers that make the unit very application
specific.

A good IR thermometer,correctly factory calibrated, should be left
alone, and will remain deadly accurate for years. If one thinks one's
reading is off the mark, think about emissivity factor. Do not ever
blame your instrument. Operator error is often (nearly always)the case.
Calibrated thermo-couples are always nice to have around to verify your
IR Thermometer reading capability.

That is, if one buys a reputable instrument to begin with.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:44:51 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
wrote:

In article <o09bi41istpllobpvqheb32e8qj7er0r6c@4ax.com>, pol <shooter@home.nl> wrote:
An IR thermometer will not be very accurate on lower as body temps due
to the radiation measured.


An IR is good for above 50 F or 25 C
Calibration is best done close to the temps really measured.
And yes boiling and freezing water is very accurate and the method
with the black body is best.



I noticed that my typical Fluke IR thermometer only works at room
temperature. I took it outside last winter, and after the unit starts
to cool, forget it.

Now, if you examine the spec Fluke published, you should find a range
of operation, under which it is meant to give a calibrated reading.

The device (IR Transducer) that does the reading (likely a resistor
bolometer) is perfectly capable of reading lower, but the electronics it
feeds only got designed to work in a specific voltage window, so there
will be no read out below a certain threshold. It has to do with Fluke's
circuitry and calibrated window of operation. The transducer itself is
capable of far more, I guarantee it. Just don't point it at the Sun.

 

[Bungalow Bill]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:24:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

Have I got really rubbish thermometers? I've tried measuring body temperature both in my mouth and under my arm, and it's never more than about 30C.

I never thought that I would ever get to say this to anyone and really
mean it.

STICK IT UP YER ASS! :-] Hehehehe!