OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[john jardine]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:Qx$BKACn2TTBFwWe@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that john jardine
john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote (in <ciig2o$u95$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.u
k&gt about 'Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Sun, 19
Sep 2004:
I remember having to recite Shakespeare as part of the English syllabus.
Thought at the time it was shite.
Still do

You are at least consistent in that you apply the same critical insight
to Shakespeare as to Kevin Aylward.

But you are wrong about Shakespeare -it's his ideas and dramatic
presentation that are outstanding, not his grammar and spelling. Many of
the ideas are **difficult** ones, especially in Lear and Hamlet. Those
in 'Merchant of Venice' are a bit simpler, but consider, is the play as
a whole anti-Semitic or anti something else?

It would be wrong to deduce from that anything about the merits of
Kevin's texts, but one can conclude something about your critical
judgement.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Unfair!. Like must be compared to like. Critical judgement lies purely in
the eye of the beholder. Each case on it's own terms. Look at the miles of
'criticism' shelving down at Waterstones. Not one of those books will be in
wholly in agreement with the next book on the shelf. Critics may agree on
one occasion, be in a nasty spat the next.

Remember, these are only my personal *opinions*. A good friend so enjoys
the subject that she will read Shakespeare whilst doing the washing up. My
sister even teaches this stuff to kids.
My natural objection is that Shakespeare is presented as a 'wholesome'
subject by exactly the self same group of people who will spend my taxes
stuffing galleries with 'modern art'. Who will build an Imperial 'war'
museum in Manchester that contains no weapons. Who will give rapturous
praise to literature that no one reads. Who by dint of a single private
meeting can cause television to be infested with expletives.
I'm objecting to crass elitism. I'm objecting to being told by self
electing, self serving 'authorities', that accessible is bad, inaccessible
is good. I'm objecting to being 'trained' in my thinking by obscure groups
of people who expect a natural obsequience and respect from me.

Over the years I've developed quite a taste for opera and (subtitled!)
foreign films, yet I wouldn't dream of forcing them onto a curriculum. Why
should Shakespeare be any different?. These things are entertainments only.

The kids in school nowadays have enough learn without spending time being
indoctrinated into a world of cultural snobbery that only a few can ever
benefit from.
regards
john

 

[CBFalconer]

Tony Williams wrote:

mrsoft99 <mrsoft99@yahoo.com> wrote:

We are running some led billboard displays using a multi-drop
2-wire RS485 network. The cable length is 50 feet; the baud rate
is 2400 baud.

It is better to use 3-wire for differential comms so that the
receivers have at least some idea of the common mode voltage.
Also a low-pass filter on the input of each receiver can be
useful in avoiding difficulties with line-ringings, (from a
line that is being driven too hard), or stray interference.

RS485 lines.
A B 0V
| | |
| | | 2k _
+--|--|----/\/\---+----| \
| | | | | \
| | | 2.2nF === |Rx >--
| | | | | /
| +--|----/\/\---+----|_/|
| | | 2k |
| | | |
| | +----/\/\-----------+---0v
| | | 100R
\|/ | \|/
More receivers, as above.

2400 bits/sec is 417uS per bit.

2+2k*2.2nF is an 8.8uS RC time constant, which will get to 99.9%
of where it is supposed to go in about 44uS, or about 10% of
each bit-width.

The 100R resistor connecting each receiver 0v to the line 0V is
there to limit the current in case of earth loops. In fact if
there is any voltage across any 100R (when not transmitting)
then you know that you probably have an earth loop problem.

That 100 ohms could function as a fuse. Grounds can have massive
differences, think start-up currents into elevator motors and the
ilk. The fault there is the connection to 0v, assuming that is
connected to local ground. Any long wire can have large voltages
inductively induced by nearby equipment.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <c1ntk0ld2783fgsf0no1qa29bsnubdh5ce@4ax.com&gt
about '[OT]: For 'tis the sport to have the enginer hoist with his owne
petar', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

It wouldn't hurt to inject a bit of Shakespeare into everyday life.

I won Ł5 when it was almost real money in a company competition to find
apt Shakespearean quotes. I think I submitted 101, about 90 more than
the next man.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Tony Williams]

In article <b2defa30.0409200425.4dd95763@posting.google.com>,
Harshana <harshana@sumuthu.lk> wrote:

I have a beam light of 160W running on 12V DC power. I want this
to be reduced to around 100W (reduce light).

Incandescent bulbs are very non-linear devices.
Here are some useful sums for reference.

1.43 3.3
Pv ( Vv ) lmv ( Vv )
---- = (----) and ----- =(----)
Pnom (Vnom) lmnom (Vnom)

Pnom, Vnom, lmnom, are the nominal values for
Power, Voltage, and luminous flux (lumens).

Pv, Vv, and lmv, are what happens at other voltages.

You can see that to obtain a ratio of 100W/160W
requires a Vv of about 0.72x12V, or about 8.64V.

However, a 12V bulb running at 8.64V will have a
luminous flux that is about 34% of nominal (and will
have a pronounced shift towards red).

100W and 8.64V is a current of about 11.6A, which is
not that far below the normal 13.3A at 12V.

I made a switching cct with a 555, oscilating around
600~700Hz, and choping the supply with a C3055 transistor
[snip]

Keep the 555, but perhaps use a MOSFET instead, noting
that it will require to efficiently sink that 11.6A.
Note also that (say) a 0.1ohm MOSFET will have an On
voltage drop of about 1.16V and this must be accounted
for when setting the 555 duty cycle for an average
Vv across the bulb of 8.6V.

--
Tony Williams.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote (in
arotk0lusttosahv000kfi3iunqk2bl 30i@4ax.com&gt about '[OT]: Ping
Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

Please don't start old Kev off on string theory, FFS!

He wouldn't be able to answer the simplest question; the one about the
length. (;-)

Yes I would. Its twice its half.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Tam/WB2TT]

"CFoley1064" <cfoley1064@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040920095836.08579.00000759@mb-m12.aol.com...

Subject: 160W to 100W convertor
From: harshana@sumuthu.lk (Harshana)
Date: 9/20/2004 7:25 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <b2defa30.0409200425.4dd95763@posting.google.com

Hi all,

I have a beam light of 160W running on 12V DC power. I want this to be
reduced to around 100W (reduce light). I made a switching cct with a
555, oscilating around 600~700Hz, and choping the supply with a C3055
transistor (just on and off driven by 555 followed by a D400).It
worked for about 5 minutes and went off. I found that 3055 has died
due to too much heat. Another solution is to have a 6V 90W bulb in
series with the beam. Can anyone suggest me a simple cct to do this.
Note that I can't have a huge heat sink.

Harshana


Good morning, Harshana. All 555 questions are customarily posted on
s.e.b.

You had a good idea in modulating the transistor to reduce power. The
problem
is that transistors are current-driven devices, and at 13 amps the 2N3055
will
typically only have a current gain of 20 to 50.

It gets worse than that. Minimum beta at 10A is only 5. Curve shows typical
at 10A of around 12. 10A is as high as the curves go. If you have your heart
set on the 555, use a low Rds FET. If not, how about an adjustable 50W power
resistor.

Tam

That means your poor 555 would
have to supply anywhere between 0.26A and 0.65A to do the job. In
addition, if
you're using a transistor as a switch, you'll want to at least triple the
nominal base current to get hard saturation, which isn't even near what a
555
can do. Your poor 2N3055 probably had half the voltage across it when it
was
on, leading to overheating and early expiration.

If you drive a darlington transistor with your 555, you'll have a current
gain
of around 500, which puts you in the range of what a 555 can do. Note
that,
since a darlington has 1V from collector to emitter when saturated, you'll
have
to provide a heat sink that can dissipate 13 watts max. But your easiest
solution is to replace the transistor, and this will work.

A TO-3 darlington which might work for you is the 2N6284. It has a
guaranteed
minimum current gain of 750 at 10A, and can stand off 100V. Try something
like
this (view in fixed font or M$ Notepad):


VCC
+
|
12V |
+ .-.
| ( X )
| '-'
.----o----. |
| | |
| | 330 |
| |3 ___ |/
| Outo---|___|-o---|2N6284
| | | |
| 555 | .-. |
| | 2.2K| | |
| | | | |
| | '-' |
| | | |
| | === ===
'----o----' GND GND
|
|
===
GND
created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.24.140803 Beta www.tech-chat.de

Good Luck
Chris

 

[AntronX]

Here some options I would recommend:
1: Find an old grandpa with a HAM radio setup and old high power HF
amplifier. Pull a wire across your yard (dipole) and hook it up to the
antenna tuner and the amp. Then let the old man ragchew with his buddies on
the air while he is overdriving the hell out the amp. This will produce very
high rf and interference, will get picked up in this stereo speaker wires
and will make the loudest noize possible. The best part this is LEGAL and it
will jam his radio alltogether making it unusable even listening to a CD...
If someone shows up complaining about the interference, you say that we
got the amateur radio licence (that's why you need the grandpa) and thell
them to get the hell out!!! Then there is nothing that FCC can do either...

2: Wait before he turns the volume up as high as possible and then take
your transmitter and feed it with very high level of 30-60 Hz sine wave.
This will most likely blow his low frequency speakers out leaving him with
no stereo to listen to...

PS: Don't take all the blames from these fuckin "legal" people to personal.
Just think that they have no life...

Have Fun...
AntronX

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <null@example.net
wrote (in <Ciy3d.2240$Co1.2108@trnddc02&gt about 'Ping Kevin Aylward -
re your "scientific paper"', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

Can you cite a peer-reviewed source for this conjecture?

It's just a way of stating 'survival of the fittest', in its proper
interpretation. I don't see it as something to challenge Kevin on.

Random mutations in genes may be advantageous, and those that are,
survive in the population because the possessors tend to reproduce
more successfully.

Kevin extends that to memes, but I think he is citing Dawkins there
(although he doesn't agree with Dawkins 100%). It seems reasonable,
but it is, IMHO, philosophy, not science, because it's really not
testable, except perhaps statistically.

I agree. Although in principle one can argue as I have done that, for
example, memes undergoing a Darwinian process account for fashion, the
reality is that it is not testable in a scientific manner. It is simply
too complicated to do all of the details. There is no way of separating
out all the contributing effects. In this way, it is philosophy. The
arguments make sense, but are not provable in the real world due to its
complexity.

However, proof sufficient for my purpose is if I can attract a few more
females using the knowledge gained from the theory.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us with the following:

I distinguished between replicators and replicant.

There you go again, comparing plurals with singulars.

This actually seems to be a first.

If it's a first because it is wrong.

Oh, in what exact way?

You need a *lot* of whatever
does the perplicating, and unless some government agency has been
giving away unlimited numbers of free replicators for the last few
billion years, those large numbers of replicators are the result of
replication - in other words relicators are replicants.
^^^^^^^^^

Indeed. Some Replicators can be Replicants as well, but not all are.
What part of:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/definitions.html

*********

Definition - a trait is a Replicant and is any entity that can be
copied.
Definition - a Replicator is any physical machine that can copy traits.
....
....
A Replicator can be anything whatsoever, it can be a collection of
billions of little Replicators if need be. If it can copy traits, it is
a Replicator. End of story. Therefore there is no limit as to what a
Replicator can do.
********

did you not understand?

In addition, how do you propose to be taken seriously with spelling
howlers like this?

Also see Phenotype and Genotype in any good dictionary.

As should be clear from my definitions paper, I am adequately
knowledgeable in such matters.

As I have said many times, I am way a head of you dudes. At least you
did appreciate one point about Replicators. There may be hope for you
yet.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <9kE3d.39543$U04.7562@fe1.news.bl
ueyonder.co.uk&gt about 'Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific
paper"', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

Definition - a trait is a Replicant and is any entity that can be
copied. Definition - a Replicator is any physical machine that can copy
traits.

Definition - a gene trait Replicant is a physical trait of its
Replicator.

Definition - a meme trait is a virtual trait of a physical Replicator.

Simple enough for you?

Actually, no, it isn't. You do need to work on those, at the *technical*
level. Writing definitions rigorously can be quite difficult.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Guy Macon]

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

No chance of that. We have a few unknowns, e.g. Clarence and
Guy making all this noise, cos they found new toys...

Another Kevin Aylward Ad Hominem.

Google says that my first post to sci.electronics.design was on Feb 14, 2000.
Google says that my first post to Usenet was on Aug 21, 1995.
Google says that they have archived 14,200 Usenet posts by me.

Google says that your first post to sci.electronics.design was on Nov 22, 1999.
Google says that your first post to Usenet was on Apr 21, 1994.
Google says that they have archived 9,410 Usenet posts by you.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:21:39 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Not al all. There is one claim on one paragraph. No one has brought
to me any other paragraphs that are unclear.


And, nothing personal, but I seem to not be the only person who's
noticed.


You not the only person who has formed an opinion on the basis of one
paragraph.

It is not only a lack of clarity - it is your lack of understanding of
- say - quantum mechanics that is the problem.

Oh?

Here we go with a few
quotes:

"No Two places at Once

It is often stated that Quantum Mechanics implies that a particle can
be in two places at the same time. This is false, and at no time has
any experiment ever been performed that detected co-incidence of the
same particle in two different positions at once.

The reason for this erroneous notion, is again, due to the non
existing collapse of the wave function."

Nowhere in quantum mechanics is there a claim that a particle can be
in two places at once - all you get is a probability field that makes
no claims about position, until you make a measurement and force a
collapse into a location - and that is always just one location.

I can point you to 10,000s of web sites on QM making such a claim. For
example, http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/comp/comp.html

This is typical of the bogus argument to claim that photons take two
paths simultaneously.
Q.E.D

Next quote:

"The collapse of the wave function or reduction of the state vector is
simple not required in the correct ensemble interpretation, nor is it
supported experimentally. No experiment has ever measured an object in
two states simultaneously. Objects have only ever been measured in an
eigen state, so to postulate that they do is unsupportable
metaphysics. Objects only exist in eigen states, it is just not known
which one they are in prior to a measurement. There is arguably,
little place in physics for notions that cannot, in principle, be
measured."

Duh! Of course no experiment ever placed an object in two states
simultaneously - the observation forces a single state. Have you not
read the books?

Of course, and that is why those that claim such a thing are wrong.

If objects only existed in Eigen states, but we didn't know what they
were until we measured them, then the two slit experiment applied to
individual photons would yield two bunches of hits, in line with the
slits.

No it doesn't. This is only true if you use a classical argument.
Particles don't obey classical mechanics. For example,
http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/Poster/post/postE.html

Note the trajectories.

It doesn't - there is interference.

Yes.

Next quote:

"Schrödinger Cat was introduced to prove that one interpretation of
the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was false. It
achieved this, yet many simply failed to notice. The fact that a cat
can not be both dead and alive at the same time was simple ignored.
The reason for this was that the mathematics worked, irrespective of
the fact that the metaphysical interpretation to the mathematics was
false. However, the mathematics simply does not require this
metaphysical add on. "

You've misunderstood - this was always an allegory.

Not according to 10,000s of web sites. Find me a site that don't take
the cat as proof of dual states.

The idea was to
consider the condition of the cat to be included within the wave
function of the system inside the box. Obviously an object of that
size collapses the wave function as quickly as any observer, and the
cat is indeed either dead or alive in any real-world scenario. Imagine
a putative cat made of a single electron, and you have a better idea
of what the story is all about.

Will that do for now?

Nope.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Fred Bartoli]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> a écrit dans
le message de news:5t2uk01na99de1dg6d2aak27p1gedckq8n@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:53:42 +0200, "Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:

Probably a question for JT or KA.

I've to prepare a meeting with the customer and also a competitor, and of
course I want to disqualify the competitor and his solution.
I know he did some real mistakes, but the customer not being very aware
of
some orders of magnitude, I need some real figures to put on the table
and
argue against doing like they do.

So, what techno are the R-2R resistors of 12b/16b CMOS (current) DACs.
What is some realistic tempco for these. Being matched, and at the same
temperature, resistors tempco don't necessary need to be zero. So ?

Most of these DACs use nichrome or some similar metal film on silicon,
so I'd guess the resistors are in the 50 PPM/k range. I sometimes use
these DACs for current output (and don't use the internal feedback
resistor) and they work pretty well, but I haven't quantified the TCs.

Yes, I remembered nichrome just after posting and have done some googling.
I've found tempcos ranging from 360ppm (yes) downto almost 0, depending on
the expension tempco of the substrate, geometry, and some controled
annealing that changes the tempco depending on the baking temperature ( <
http://www.imo.luc.ac.be/research_activities/ecr/nicr_resistors.html > ).
There's also the switches Rdson dependency I forgot.

This would be easy to measure... just an ohmmeter across the feedback
resistor in the right direction, a can of freeze spray...

Yes, of course but I know that they used a still not available DAC. I didn't
even succeed to find the ref through google.
It should be an SPI quad 16b current DAC, refed DAC8814, available mid
november. Anyone heard of this one ?

And all the DACs I've at hand are voltage DACs with no access to the
network.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote (in <2r8rj6F16ujfbU1@uni-berlin.de&gt about 'Ping
Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

QM non demolition measurement.

Pardon? Could you please be a little less cryptic?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com>
wrote (in <10kudvkdpqpf118@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Simple enough for you?

No. You were asked "What, in one declarative sentence or maybe two,
is your definition of a meme?" and failed to do what was asked.

I must conclude that you are either incapable of following simple
instructions or are unwilling to clearly define "meme."



A meme is, AIUI, a replicating idea, concept or pattern of thought. But

I have not read Dawkins, so that may not be quite right.

Is it a type of qualia? I don't know.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:35:30 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:21:39 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Not al all. There is one claim on one paragraph. No one has brought
to me any other paragraphs that are unclear.


And, nothing personal, but I seem to not be the only person who's
noticed.


You not the only person who has formed an opinion on the basis of one
paragraph.

It is not only a lack of clarity - it is your lack of understanding of
- say - quantum mechanics that is the problem.

Oh?

Here we go with a few
quotes:

"No Two places at Once

It is often stated that Quantum Mechanics implies that a particle can
be in two places at the same time. This is false, and at no time has
any experiment ever been performed that detected co-incidence of the
same particle in two different positions at once.

The reason for this erroneous notion, is again, due to the non
existing collapse of the wave function."

Nowhere in quantum mechanics is there a claim that a particle can be
in two places at once - all you get is a probability field that makes
no claims about position, until you make a measurement and force a
collapse into a location - and that is always just one location.

I can point you to 10,000s of web sites on QM making such a claim. For
example, http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/comp/comp.html

This is typical of the bogus argument to claim that photons take two
paths simultaneously.
Q.E.D

Listen carefully. PHOTONS DO NOT TAKE PATHS. They do not take one
path, they do not take two paths. They are not objects. They are a
state of probability that is resolved only on the collapse of the wave
function that describes that probability on detection. Why do you
insist on this big-world analogy for fundamental particles?

Next quote:

"The collapse of the wave function or reduction of the state vector is
simple not required in the correct ensemble interpretation, nor is it
supported experimentally. No experiment has ever measured an object in
two states simultaneously. Objects have only ever been measured in an
eigen state, so to postulate that they do is unsupportable
metaphysics. Objects only exist in eigen states, it is just not known
which one they are in prior to a measurement. There is arguably,
little place in physics for notions that cannot, in principle, be
measured."

Duh! Of course no experiment ever placed an object in two states
simultaneously - the observation forces a single state. Have you not
read the books?

Of course, and that is why those that claim such a thing are wrong.

No, silly, that is why they are right. It fits the experimental data.

If objects only existed in Eigen states, but we didn't know what they
were until we measured them, then the two slit experiment applied to
individual photons would yield two bunches of hits, in line with the
slits.

No it doesn't. This is only true if you use a classical argument.
Particles don't obey classical mechanics. For example,
http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/Poster/post/postE.html

Note the trajectories.

It doesn't - there is interference.

Yes.

And you can't get interference from individual particles. You do get

interference from collapsing a probability at a point.

Next quote:

"Schrödinger Cat was introduced to prove that one interpretation of
the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was false. It
achieved this, yet many simply failed to notice. The fact that a cat
can not be both dead and alive at the same time was simple ignored.
The reason for this was that the mathematics worked, irrespective of
the fact that the metaphysical interpretation to the mathematics was
false. However, the mathematics simply does not require this
metaphysical add on. "

You've misunderstood - this was always an allegory.

Not according to 10,000s of web sites. Find me a site that don't take
the cat as proof of dual states.

!0,000s of web sites are, of course, right - particularly if they are

like yours...

The idea was to
consider the condition of the cat to be included within the wave
function of the system inside the box. Obviously an object of that
size collapses the wave function as quickly as any observer, and the
cat is indeed either dead or alive in any real-world scenario. Imagine
a putative cat made of a single electron, and you have a better idea
of what the story is all about.

Will that do for now?

Nope.

Shame on you.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Rich Grise wrote:

You're not under attack here.

Yes I am.

See that pot over there, Kev? What color is it? How about that
Kettle? Really? The *same* color?

Not al all. There is one claim on one paragraph. No one has brought
to me any other paragraphs that are unclear.

Given the fact that you brought out the flamethrower when someone
dared to criticize one paragraph, why would they bother with any
others?

The original *top level* posting was specifically designed as a personal
attack. Why else would someone instigate a post such as this? Be honest.
You seriously believe it was criticism based on the content, rather than
the person who wrote it? Like, I'm buttoned up the back dude.

And, nothing personal, but I seem to not be the only person who's
noticed.

You not the only person who has formed an opinion on the basis of one
paragraph.

My opinion was based on reading as far as I could before coming to
the conclusion that your web page is incomprehensible.

Its incomprehensible to you as your language skills are somewhat
lacking. I suggest you take a class.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence <No@No.Com> wrote (in
ucE3d.17739$QJ3.8752@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'triumph and
tragedy, almost', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:HdDEBnGWouTBFwHz@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlog DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in
pultk05pk3d7ha56dfcmkil6q2vlutu3ba@4ax.com&gt about 'triumph and
tragedy, almost', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:

I know you're joking, but 'orangutan' actually comes from Malay
'orang' (man) and 'hutan' (forest). The forest-men are not easy to
find in the jungle.

How dull! (;-). Actually, I think 'orang' is 'old man', and most of
us here are orang, however childishly we behave from time to time.
--
"Speak for yourself John" Longfellow


The line is 'Why don't you speak for yourself, John?' You have almost
Aylwarded it by abridgement and incorrect punctuation. (;-)

Well, at least I don't have an infectious disease named after me.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[scada]

"zerang shah" <ninjak@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:4d6c559c.0409201426.59f49fb5@posting.google.com...

Hello,

I have a circuit that connects to the phone line. As long as the
circuit is connected, it seizes the line to get a dial tone. I added a
manual toggle switch across the ring line so that I can leave the
device connected and recieve calls, then switch it on when I need it.
My circuit looks like this:

/
/
RING(from telephone line) ---------/ -----------------------
CIRCUIT
TOGGLE SWITCH


Everything here works fine, when I close the switch everything
functions correctly, and when I open the switch I can still make and
recieve phone calls.

Now, instead of using a manual toggle switch, I'd like to be able to
close the line electronically some how. I could use a transistor -
except the voltage range of the telephone line is something like 48v,
and I'd be opening/closing the switch with just 5v. I don't think any
transistor can function under those tolerances.

So here's what I need: A way to close and open the line electronically
by the presence or lack of presence of +5v. Any ideas??

A 5VDC Relay driven by a NPN transistor, common emitter would give the
needed isolation.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Monday 20 September 2004 10:16 am, AntronX did deign to grace us with the
following:

Here some options I would recommend:
1: Find an old grandpa with a HAM radio setup and old high power HF
amplifier. Pull a wire across your yard (dipole) and hook it up to the
antenna tuner and the amp. Then let the old man ragchew with his buddies
on
the air while he is overdriving the hell out the amp. This will produce
very high rf and interference, will get picked up in this stereo speaker
wires and will make the loudest noize possible. The best part this is
LEGAL and it will jam his radio alltogether making it unusable even
listening to a CD... If someone shows up complaining about the
interference, you say that we got the amateur radio licence (that's why
you need the grandpa) and thell them to get the hell out!!! Then there is
nothing that FCC can do either...

Where in _hell_ did you ever get this idea? If you think revoke your
ham license and throw you in jail is nothing...

2: Wait till he turns the volume the loudest and take your transmitter and
feed it with very high level of 30-60 Hz sine wave. This will blow his
speakers out, leaving him with no stereo to listen to... : ) : ) : )

Just making more noise just doubles the noise for everybody, including
yourself. Notwithstanding you'd be sinking below their level,
classiness-wise.

PS: Don't take the blames of these fuckin "legal" people to personal. Just
think that they have no life...

Speaking of having no life!

Talk to the people - they might not even know you can hear it - they might
have hearing loss, from listening to it too loud. If so, you could offer
to build them a visible level meter that lights a red light when it's
too loud.

Who knows? They might be grateful!

Good Luck!
Rich