OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[Jim Thompson]

On 21 Sep 2004 01:48:49 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Popelish wrote...

I think you can also reduce the effective parallel capacitance across
any single resistor by running a grounded shield trace between its
pad. Perhaps you can make several various combinations of series
resistors and shielded resistors on a test board. to compare them.
Please post a report here. I have been simulating this sort of thing,
lately, also.

You'd better add the deleterious effect I mention to your simulation.
It's a killer.

See......

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Subject: RCR Trick for Transimpedance Amplifier (S.E.D) -
StrayCompensation.pdf
Message-ID: <mqn0l0lcfgt9k592febm9p66ebgtkn14ej@4ax.com>

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Guy Macon]

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

Heisenberg was wrong.

Care to explain why so many intelligent and well-educated people
think that Heisenberg was right?

I am *not* going to get into a long involved discussion on a
subject that I am not well-qualified to discuss. I merely note
that you have failed to convince the experts that Heisenberg
was wrong.

(I have no opinion as to whether the sources you reference are
also wrong or whether you have misinterpreted his results.)

I have a challenge for you. Wikipedia has an entry at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle and a related
discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uncertainty_principle

If your paper on Heisenberg is sound, you should have no trouble
convincing the maintainers of the Wikipedia page to say that
Heisenberg was wrong. They have far more expertise than I do, and
I will be happy to change my position and apologize to you for not
believing you if you can convince them.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu>
wrote (in <cipn3p$iu8$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu&gt about 'safe electronic
brain stimulator', on Tue, 21 Sep 2004:

There is a complex feedback
system within the cochlea, with the outer hair cells apparently having
motility and providing mechanical feedback to the basilar membrane,
indirectly boosting the sensitivity to the sensory inner hair cells.

The outer hair cells may have an inhibitory function. One effect of loss
or damage is to induce 'recruitment', where the ear tends to respond
linearly to sound pressures instead of logarithmically.
--
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

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Clarence wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2r9o71F14v2ouU3@uni-berlin.de...

Clarence wrote:


Never mind, None of this matters.
The paper isn't going anywhere, that doesn't matter either.

I haven't seen any paper yet.
Care to give me a URL?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Have you read the thread? I saw no one who really thought it was any
good, but No, I will not advertise for Kevin. It is a serious waste
of time, but keep looking on this thread if you must see it. (NO,
That makes it to attractive.

Just Repeat "I have free choice" a hundred times and forget it!


Once you can show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you have free will, you
views on it might some merit.

Prove to me that you are a conscious being and your view on free will might have
some merit.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Monday 20 September 2004 01:23 pm, John Woodgate did deign to grace us
with the following:


I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com
wrote (in <10kude6inriv0a2@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Mon, 20 Sep 2004:


I cannot answer because I cannot parse the statement. I can come up with
a half dozen possible interpretations for it. It is unclear.

You see ants, you see mosquitoes, you see rabbits, you see people,
because they replicate most. You do not see unicorns, griffins or
mermaids. You see more people with mouse-coloured hair than with red
hair, because it's a rather dominant trait in western Europe and much of
N America.

Of course, that trivialises the concept, but it's fundamentally what it
means, AFAICS.
--

I think everybody already knows why nobody around here can see the
Unicorns.

Because they've not taken enough acid?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Frank Miles]

In article <vmL3d.294$ZB3.170@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
colin <no.spam.for.me@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:TvmdnecW19wXJ9TcRVn-gg@comcast.com...
nope, still the same high pitched constant screaming noisy whistle...

So what happens if you put Guns 'n' Roses on your stereo at full
blast? Does that drown out the tinitus or is it still there? Just
curious...

It's always there, but you may not notice it with louder sounds around.
But, quiet is something you'll never have again.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR



i saw a program where they worked on the theory that in tinitus the brain is
atempting to fill in for hearing loss by predicting what sounds should be
being heard. By playing a similar sound to the patient the brain no longer
tried to do this and was suposed to be quite efective.

It's a bit more complicated than that. There is a complex feedback system
within the cochlea, with the outer hair cells apparently having motility
and providing mechanical feedback to the basilar membrane, indirectly
boosting the sensitivity to the sensory inner hair cells.

There is simple, direct physical proof of this energy-consuming mechanism:
in at least some cases tinnitus is audible to an external listener (or
microphone). Like most transducers, the cochlea apparently has some ability
to work in the reverse direction! This was first demonstrated ~15-20 years
ago IIRC. Of course it is quite possible that there are purely neural
mechanisms for tinnitus, since there are a variety of kinds of damage that
can be done to our auditory systems; and it may still be true that
overexcitation of the outer hair cells might be suppressed through clever
application of acoustic or electrical energy. So the strategy might work,
but the mechanism might be different than for a purely neural system.

-frank
--

 

[John Walton]

International Rectifier has a white-paper on characterizing MOSFET's --
kind of like comparing a Caterpillar D-9 to a bicycle -- but all of the
standardized measurement methods are described in detail.

If you have to measure nano, pico or femto -- Bob Pease had this interesting
article on the NatSemi website about a half-dozen years ago:

http://www.national.com/rap/Story/0,1562,5,00.html


"Paul Burridge" <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0th0l094c5c3f8mk0ikgcr4dp3uglb4umv@4ax.com...

Hi guys,

I saw in Malvino's Electronic Principles that it is stated that Idss
and gfs (the transconductance/gain) are easy to measure, whereas
Vgs(off) is not and that manufacturers calculate it from this formula
(hope I've remembered it right)

Vgs(off) = -2*Idss/gfs

I've just checked out this assertion by measuring Vgs - v - Id for a
bunch of assorted FETs and found that I could easily establish the
pinch off voltage to within about 0.1V either way. Contrary to what
the book says, I personally have found it a simple matter to measure
Vgs(off). So why do they make out it's a big deal?

p.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:32:33 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <O5idnW_IPMflAM3cRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Tam/WB2TT <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:

"5hinka" <anonim99@poczta.wp.pl> wrote in message
news:cipsaf$kdv$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
Hi
I have sinusoidal or triangle signal.
I need to measure peak to peak voltage.
How Can i do it?? I know that i should
use some op amps, resistor, diods,
but cannot find any design.
Could You help me??
Some links mayby??
Greetings
5hinka

A clamping circuit, followed by a rectifier. However you will have to take
into account the two diode drops.

Or, make an recifier with no drop.

See "FullWaveRectifier.pdf" on the SED/Schematics page of my website
for a starting point (note, there are four pages).

ISTR that I posted a version that was peak-to-peak on a.b.s.e, but I
can't locate it right now.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tuesday 21 September 2004 12:13 pm, Dirk Bruere at Neopax did deign to
grace us with the following:

The problem is simple.
Either ones choice is determined by initial conditions, in which case free
will is an illusion - or - there are truly random factors which make
prediction impossible even in theory. However, flipping a coin is not most
people's idea of free will either.

The MWI of QM may provide an alternative according to Deutsch in that we
make every possible choice.

Another alternative is that we are involved in a temporal feedback loop on
the QM scale which makes the system inherently unpredictable. Which is my
view of free will ie we get a brief look ahead in time sufficient to make
the whole choice thing non-linear and non-deterministic.

I can make it even simpler.

Take the 1 donkey/2 haystacks problem. Lead a donkey to 2 haystacks,
and turn him loose exactly between them. Put them, say, more than
one donkey-length apart.

Obviously there's no way to predict which haystack he will select,
or even sit there stubbornly! (if there weren't free will, how could
there be such a thing as stubbornness?)

Now, put yourself in the experiment. There's a room, with two
prizes of identical value, perfectly equal in every way, down to
the last atom, which is theoretically possible, except one's
to the right, and the other's to the left.

You enter the room. There's a chance you'll go right, a chance
you'll go left, a chance you'll turn around and walk out the door,
there's a chance you'll sing "Aida" just to piss off the
researcher -

The question is, do you, personally - the individual piece of
self-awareness that's reading this to you from the little scaffold
in your head just behind your ear - have any say in the matter?

I say you do, in spades. ;-)

You are, after all, driving your own bus.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tuesday 21 September 2004 06:46 am, John Woodgate did deign to grace us
with the following:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon <http@?.guymacon.com
wrote (in <10l00g536c9qg8d@news.supernews.com&gt about '[OT]: Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Tue, 21 Sep 2004:

I would hire Rich, because he would either not
agree to do what I ask or would agree and then would do what he agreed
to do. (Besides, everyone likes Rich.)

But what if he has another mystical experience when he should be working
to a deadline? You can be sure Kevin wouldn't have that problem. (;-)
--

Frankly, I'm pretty confident that the "mystical experience" would contain
the answer revealed to me in toto, giving me the rest of the time to loaf
until the deadline, when I turn it in. ;-) I'm not too terribly confident
about having that level of communication going that soon, however, so let me
reassure you that, in the interim, I really do have the power to pay
attention when need be.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Product developer wrote:
[...snip...]

It is a very sad situation that the future of the world hangs on a US
presidential election- and one characterized by some much good ole'
Texas deception and chicanery- the same kind that brought on the S&L
collapse and Enron scandals. You are pathetic little children with about
as much political depth as drunken hometown sports fans, and it is all
about your team winning the "game".
After listening to Kerry's latest platform and plans for Iraq, it is
more than clear that he has been thoroughly briefed, educated, and
indoctrinated by the heavyweights of US strategic and tactical military
thinking- the same people that Bush fired. You and some dimwits around
here could not hope to pick up on it, but Kerry's plans, terminology,
and planning emphasis reveal at least three well-known conservative
military general officers who have been working with him. Kerry is
America's last hope of turning the middle east crisis around, and it has
to happen soon.

 

[Guy Macon]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

You are, after all, driving your own bus.

Trams, trolleys and cable cars need drivers, but they can't decide to
turn left or right. (;-)

Excellent analogy. The Trolly driver can choose speed but not
direction. The Cable Car driver has only a binary control over
speed; go the speed of the cable or release and stop. The bus
driver can control speed and yaw, but not pitch or roll. IOW,
Free will does not imply freedom fro all constraints.

 

[Guy Macon]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Time is now regarded as a dimension, among a large number of others,
most of which we can't discern. But, while we can stay still or move
about in the three space dimensions, we seem to be travelling in the
time dimension at a rate that is not under our control.

Given the rotational and orbital velocity of the earth and the
rotational velocity of the Milky Way galaxy, we don't have a
whole lot of control over our position in the three spatial
dimensions, either.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Guy Moron wrote:

He already did. It is the mark of the crackpot; all the experts are
wrong,

Many, many accredited experts conclude that there is no free will. Go
and look up "consciousness explained" and other such matters.

How about starting here, http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

and going on from there.... oh, you twat...can.t forget the insults...
it gives my arguments much more weight.


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.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:09:46 +0100, the renowned Tim Mitchell
<timng@sabretechnology.co.uk> wrote:

In article <2t13l0ltkgff6p2plt3f4titpj5g2ie41t@4ax.com>, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:50:45 -0700, the renowned Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> says...

I'm sorry if I'm not interesting enough, or perhaps a "leech", or
maybe just not very political. I hope you all forgive me.

Yeah, bite the hand that feeds you; that's the way to do it!

That comment certainly took away *my* motivation to help him.

I'm sick of LED supply controllers anyway. They introduce new chips
for them every week, it seems, and the application notes are full of
them. Doesn't Luxeon suggest anything appropriate?

I don't know of many (any?) of the LED controller chips which will cater
for the Luxeon's 350mA. They all seem to be for mobile phone
backlighting.

Some 1/4-VGA color LCD displays are using LED backlighting these days.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[colin]

"Yannick" <yannick_de_wit@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:cc50d220.0409211631.6161eb5f@posting.google.com...

I was thinking of using the OPA695 current feedback amplifier for my
transimpedance amp. This amplifier is capable of delivering much more
gain over a much larger bandwidth... I also see the equi current noise
at the input is much larger then with the FET input opamps like the
OPA657 but if the signal is large enough (lets assume you have an
avalanche photodiode) isn't it better to use such a current feedback
amp in stead of a voltage feedback?

The reason why i am considering this is because i never will be able
to measure 300-500Mhz with the voltage feedback amps. I want higher
frequencies because this will give me far better distance resolution
with phase measurement due shorter wavelength.

Your resolution ultimatly depends on the resolution of your adc converter
asuming thats what ultimatly measures the phase, also any errors thermal
drift etc, and probably most importantly SNR, and how much filtering you do.
the signal strenght i get reflected back from the target various
enourmously, have you tried the signal strenght after relecting of a target
at your maximum range? i dont think its safe to assume your signal strenght
is large enough, this is the asumption i made at the start and found it to
be very wrong indeed. APDs are great for amplification, but you do get more
noise as you increase the amplification level (by increasing the bias
towards Vbr), upto a point where the noise sudenly increases tremendously.

Noise can be averaged out but it depdnds how long you are going to wait,
errors can be nuled out by calibration, as long as it doesnt drift too much
over the short term wich makes it a good idea to keep power disipation low
as posible.

If you use a much highr frequency, although you get more phase change per
distance you get a corespondingly lower SNR due to lower Zc so u dont
necesarily gain anything. of course using a large lense as possible for the
detector has a lot to offer indeed, as would be using a larger laser if this
was safe to do, but very expensive.

To get best noise performance of the input stage it wld be well to consider
an input amp that has a noise figure optimal for the impedance of the
detector+input capacitance. at higher frequencies this becomes quite low and
a bipolar input amp might be better, although input curent noise is higher,
input noise voltage becomes much more of an issue. input noise voltage
/input noise current = optimum input impedance for lowest noise.

But tbh i think i wld still strongly consider a discrete input stage such as
a DG mosfet or even low noise bipolar, as it potentialy has lower noise than
any op amp you are considering. At 500mhz a 10pf total capacitance has a zc
of under 50 ohms, so as someone already sugested even a 50ohm MMIC might be
wel worth considering, even with the opa695, it looks quite good on paper
with an optimum input impedance of 100ohms, especialy if you use this as
second stage of amplification.

A simple discrete first stage with no feedback or tuning would of course
have a frequency response with a simple slope but this could be corected by
a 2nd stage with response sloping the other way. this would be much simpler
and have less potential for many components introducing unforseen noise,
instability, emi pickup and maybe phase variance etc and give you more
choice of components and configurations to use. but its up to you to
evaluate all this in this aproach lol.

300-500mhz is quite high for the inexperienced, hard to see whats going on
as scope probes alter the circuit so considerably, and is pushing the limits
of many scopes anyway. If you already have it working at 20 mhz id see how
the rest of the circuit performs, then you can see what is the limiting
factor in your resolution.

At this high frequency it would be interesting to look into using multiple
striplines to provide a multiple tuned frequencies of the input stage, and
reduce the efects of the capacitance, posibly even a coax step up
transformer.

Colin =^.^=

 

[Roy McCammon]

John Popelish wrote:

Now we are getting somewhere. I have been trying to calculate the pad
to pad and pad to first buried layer capacitance for 0805 components.
I came up with almost a picofarad for the pad to buried layer (.012
deep) but haven't yet a clue for the pad to pad value (except that it
is less than this).

Hello John,
I think I might try this:
1. replace the pads with spheres of the same surface area.
lets call them 1 and 2
2. make the minimum separation of the spheres the same as
the minimum separation of the pads.
3. You now have a "circuit" with three capacitances.
C12 the coupling capacitance between the pads.
C10 the "self" capacitance of pad 1
C20 the "self" capacitance of pad 2
4. look up the formula for "self" capacitance of
a sphere in any text that covers electrostatics
(I'm pretty sure that Haliday and Resnick has it)
5. Haul a coulomb of charge from infinity and put it
on pad 2.
6. Haul an infinitesimal test charge (perhaps 1 fC) from
infinity to pad 1 and then to pad 2.
7. calculate the work moving the test charge from
infinity to pad 1 and the work from pad 1 to pad 2.
call that W01 and W12 respectively.
8. We know that the work done is proportional the
"voltage" difference so now know the "voltage"
at pad 1 and pad 2. Call that V1 and V2.
9. Use the formula for a capacitive voltage divider
and a little algebra to compute
C12/C20 = (V2-V1)/V2 = W12/W01 and solve for C12.
10. The number computed is an upper bound for the
coupling capacitance.
11. Change the separation so that the separation
on the outside of the spheres is the same as the
separation between the outer edges of the pads
12. repeat the calculations.
I can't prove it, but the capacitance computed
is probably a lower bound.

Note, you might be able to find the formula for the
coupling capacitance of two spheres, in which case
you can stop at step 2.





--
local optimization seldom leads to global optimization

my e-mail address is: <my first name> <my last name> AT mmm DOT com

 

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:05:32 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com
wrote (in <4153a76a.37011250@news.plus.net&gt about '[OT]: Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Wed, 22 Sep 2004:

No, it isn't a statement that is assumed to be true, it is a statement
that is so self-evidently true that nobody would feel a need to question
it.

Until the middle of the 19th century, everyone thought that Euclid's
Fifth was 'self-evidently true'. By NOT assuming that, useful advances
were made.

Not sure that this implies that axioms are not necessarily
self-evident truths.

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

 

[Genome]

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:10l2sol238int44@news.supernews.com...

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> says...

Anyway, your feedback record seems to indicate that you're really
a jolly nice, well-regarded chap. ;-)

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=jjlarkin

Not bad, but the sample size is small. I haven't had any negs in
the last 136 transactions either:


http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=www_dot_guymac

on_dot_com
Burridge mentions the percieved buying record.

Macon has to mention his percieved better one

Hmmm.

DNA

 

[CFoley1064]

Subject: Optocoupler substitute
From: erwin@artimpex.com (Erwin)
Date: 9/22/04 7:25 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <a9330620.0409220425.51a74749@posting.google.com

Hi,

I've got some blown up 740L6000 opto couplers which seem quite hard to
get locally. I'm looking for a replacement, can anyone point me in the
right direction (maybe an online replacement guide).

Thanks,

Erwin.

Hi, Erwin. Possibly that's because you're punching in 740(zero)L6000. Try
74O(as in Oscar)L6000. Newark, among others, has these in stock.

http://www.newarkinone.com/

Good luck
Chris