[OT} Al Qaida announces 18K new terrorists

[Activ8]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:20:06 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

Activ8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> says...

Guy Macon wrote:


I asked you a direct question, and you didn't answer. Let me ask
again: If you don't like off topic political posts, why on earth
are you reading a post with the title "Re: [OT] Al Qaida announces
18K new terrorists"? I am very interested in your answer to this.

Why do you assume she read it?

Her newsreader (Mozilla 4.8 [en] Windows NT 5.0) displays subject lines.

That's what I assumed. Read this carefully:

"If she didn't read it, it's likely that the subject line alone was
enough to elicit a response.

Why do you assume she read it?"

IOW, why do you assume she read the *body* of the post when the
*subject line* is more than enough to show that the post is OT?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Guy Macon]

Activ8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> says...

why do you assume she read the *body* of the post when the
*subject line* is more than enough to show that the post is OT?

I know she read the question because she quoted it:

Path: ...cox.net!p01!okepread04.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <40B50F7A.BDDFEC37@nospam.com>
From: Julie <julie@nospam.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: [OT] Al Qaida announces 18K new terrorists
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:43:22 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.108.95.144

Guy Macon wrote:

Julie <julie@nospam.com> says...

If enough started speaking up about the off topic political
trash that polluted this forum, we could all enjoy this forum
for its topical content.

If you don't like off topic political posts, why on earth are you
reading a post with the title "Re: [OT] Al Qaida announces 18K new
terrorists"? You need to take responsibility for your decisions
about what you read rather than trying to control what other people
post about.

[snip]

 

[Rich Grise]

"Julie" <julie@nospam.com> wrote in message

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
But maybe the people who tend to give the answers would find it a less
interesting place to spend their spare moments and cease to provide
that service. As primarily a consumer rather than a provider of ideas,
expertise and answers, that should be more your immediate concern.
Ends justify the means?

No, silly. The wackos provide entertainment for the gurus, thereby
keeping the gurus around.

Well, yeah, I guess it's true, but the way you say it makes it sound
like it's a bad thing. I've reiterated the same snivel to others -
they usually announce in the subject line whether it's an electronics
question - if checking headers is too much bother, then, oh well.

Like I read once in some inspirational pamphlet, and quoted to a
bus driver who was bitching about traffic, trying to hook the
passengers into his little fantasy world - "Whaddaya thinka that,
buddy?" - I said, "Well, I guess I could yell and scream and jump
up and down and wave my arms around, and I figure the traffic will
probably pretty much keep doing what it's doing." He didn't like
hearing that, but I felt a nice warm-piss-in-the-suit feeling. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Guy Macon]

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

they usually announce in the subject line whether it's
an electronics question

Uh-huh. Suuuuure they do....

Why here is a fine example from this very thread!

**** START QUOTE ****

Path: ...extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
From: Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: [OT] Al Qaida announces 18K new terrorists
Date: 26 May 2004 09:48:29 -0700
Organization: Rowland Institute
Message-ID: <c92hot02dhl@drn.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-911.newsdawg.com


Terry Given wrote...

... so time constant = RgCg where Rg = 470R, Cg = 40pF Tau = 19ns.

Don't assume Cg so directly controls the rise/fall time. Keep in
mind that only a portion of the gate charge is expended during the
time the drain is swinging, so the turn-on risetime will be much
faster than you calculate using Ciss. Instead use the gate-charge
curves. The turn-off falltime can be faster as well, although this
depends somewhat on the FET's gate construction, and the internal
resistance of the distant gate runners. Although most of the FET's
cells will turn off quickly, they all have to turn off fully before
the FET drain voltage can fully traverse its swing.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

**** END QUOTE ****

Yup! Nuttin 'bout no 'lectronses heeyar! Nosireebob! Jus sum
Good 'Ol Al Ki-Day talk! Yu-uns who wanna talk eelecktawns
'jus move rite ulong! (burp)

 

[Activ8]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:42:42 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

Activ8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> says...

why do you assume she read the *body* of the post when the
*subject line* is more than enough to show that the post is OT?

I know she read the question because she quoted it:

Uh, BS, Guy. You don't *know* squat. I just replied to you from the
headers pane without looking at the article body. I just highlighted
the header, clicked on :followup", and what do you know? Everything
in your post was automatically quoted for me.

I checked the post. She didn't even snip anything including the
signature which shows up quoted 'cause Rocky didn't use a hyphen.

snip header that Guy quoted

<snip the rest for that matter>
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Guy Macon]

YYSSW

 

[Terry Given]

Dang. Im gonner hafta tell uncle dad 'n sister mom 'bout this here oooze-net
thang.

Terry

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Terry Given wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0405260153.7e152863@posting.google.com...

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:<CaVsc.10216$XI4.368622@news.xtra.co.nz>...

"Julie" <julie@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40B3E38C.666B52A8@nospam.com...

Rolavine wrote:

snip

I have yet to see you post anything about electronics. Care to start?

How

can I turn an LM339 output from open-collector to active pull-up (V+ =

30V)

without using more than 6mA when sinking, AND get a rise time of 20ns?

How you looked at using the LM339 output to turn on the gate of a
small P-channel MOSFET, perhaps via a cascode NPN with its base tied
to the +5V rail (if there is one). 6mA isn't much, and for a 2.5V
threshold means a 470R load resistor.

If you want 20nsec, the gate capacitance has to be less than 40pF,
which is why you'd need a *small* P-channel MOSFET, and not too much
Miller capacitance either. A PNP-bipolar transistor could be faster,
but it depends on the load you want to pull up.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


Gidday Mate, (thought a bit of antipodean twang would be ok

I was kinda hoping Julie would post something about electronics - AFAIK all
she has posted is complaints about [OT] posts.

Turn OFF is not so good that way - the 470R alone discharges the p-FET gate.
And of course at turn-on the cascode NPN will have to suck down on R//C,
slowing turn-ON. hang on a minute - current driving parallel RC = dual of
voltage driving series RC, so time constant = RgCg where Rg = 470R, Cg =
40pF Tau = 19ns. In practice I would want more margin on Vt, so would
probably use a 680R resistor. In other words its not that easy (that also
inverts, which I could live with - but where does the other edge come from)

how about a pullup current source, and an npn-pnp emitter follower

Q=it=CV so 6mA, 30V, 20ns C = 6mA*20ns/30V = 2mA*2ns/1V = 4pF (not 40pF).
Ouch, thats an ask.

Cheers
Terry

That last equation is the time to charge C to a full 30V-and not 3V. And
you will never get tr/tf near 20ns with a simple buffer- the LM339
output will never slew that fast- you will need some high gain or
positive feedback in there somewhere. Your question is incomplete
without a specification of loading R/C and Voh/Vol anyway.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:42:05 -0700, the renowned Julie
julie@nospam.com> wrote:


Well, you noticed. If enough started speaking up about the off topic political
trash that polluted this forum, we could all enjoy this forum for its topical
content.


But maybe the people who tend to give the answers would find it a less
interesting place to spend their spare moments and cease to provide
that service.

You can't be serious- the political posts have betrayed so much
objectionable information about certain people as to have done permanent
damage. A case in point is that anti-American traitor with the Harvard
association- it is well known that the Bin Laden family and other
wealthy Saudi Arabian benefactors have bought into Harvard with generous
endowments in return for favorable public relations propaganda- and this
scheme evidently has worked its magic on that bunch of corrupt vermin.

 

[Guy Macon]

Terry Given <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> says...

Dang. Im gonner hafta tell uncle dad 'n sister mom 'bout this here oooze-net
thang.

Ayup.

 

[Terry Given]

 

[Terry Given]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40B5E0B7.1070909@nospam.com...

Terry Given wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0405260153.7e152863@posting.google.com...

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:<CaVsc.10216$XI4.368622@news.xtra.co.nz>...

"Julie" <julie@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40B3E38C.666B52A8@nospam.com...

Rolavine wrote:

snip

I have yet to see you post anything about electronics. Care to start?

How

can I turn an LM339 output from open-collector to active pull-up (V+ =

30V)

without using more than 6mA when sinking, AND get a rise time of 20ns?

How you looked at using the LM339 output to turn on the gate of a
small P-channel MOSFET, perhaps via a cascode NPN with its base tied
to the +5V rail (if there is one). 6mA isn't much, and for a 2.5V
threshold means a 470R load resistor.

If you want 20nsec, the gate capacitance has to be less than 40pF,
which is why you'd need a *small* P-channel MOSFET, and not too much
Miller capacitance either. A PNP-bipolar transistor could be faster,
but it depends on the load you want to pull up.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


Gidday Mate, (thought a bit of antipodean twang would be ok

I was kinda hoping Julie would post something about electronics - AFAIK
all
she has posted is complaints about [OT] posts.

Turn OFF is not so good that way - the 470R alone discharges the p-FET
gate.
And of course at turn-on the cascode NPN will have to suck down on R//C,
slowing turn-ON. hang on a minute - current driving parallel RC = dual
of
voltage driving series RC, so time constant = RgCg where Rg = 470R, Cg =
40pF Tau = 19ns. In practice I would want more margin on Vt, so would
probably use a 680R resistor. In other words its not that easy (that
also
inverts, which I could live with - but where does the other edge come
from)

how about a pullup current source, and an npn-pnp emitter follower

Q=it=CV so 6mA, 30V, 20ns C = 6mA*20ns/30V = 2mA*2ns/1V = 4pF (not
40pF).
Ouch, thats an ask.

Cheers
Terry




That last equation is the time to charge C to a full 30V-and not 3V. And
you will never get tr/tf near 20ns with a simple buffer- the LM339
output will never slew that fast- you will need some high gain or
positive feedback in there somewhere. Your question is incomplete
without a specification of loading R/C and Voh/Vol anyway.

why yes it is. which is of course explained by the "how about a pullup
current source, and an npn-pnp emitter follower" bit.

I spec'd Vcc = 30V (actually +/- 15V). I'll be driving a couple of
emitter-follower stages, prior to driving a big FET. IME npn-pnp emitter
follower stages work well for this task, and the output edges are governed
almost exclusively by the input edges. Hence I want the LM339 to have some
sort of active pullup. an LM339 will pull down quite quickly as long as you
dont load it too much - they are all guaranteed to sink 6mA min. but do
about 20mA typ. Its the pull-up thats the problem. I can live with the 300ns
delay (or at least compensate for it
The output RC loading is a few ohms and about 200nF, but that looks a lot
smaller when there are some emitter followers between it and the LM339 (say
FZT851/951 and FMMT491A/591A).

If you can point me to a device with a similar supply range but push-pull
(or whatever, just not open-collector) output, I could just use that but
LM339 is CHEAP.

Cheers
Terry