Power Supply Rectification and Smoothing

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:16:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

My main problem of ignorance (I've plenty of these now is how
smooth a current these motor speed controllers demand.

The controllers won't 'demand' ANYTHING.

That's a figure of speech here, Graham. It means "require".

They don't REQUIRE anything like 'smooth current' either !

So they also don't REQUIRE a voltage of more than 31.5?
They won't work properly if they don't get their requirements.

(actually you mean VOLTAGE)

No, I mean current, as in electric current. The generic term, not the
specific term of rate of flow of electric charge. Voltage is a
characteristic of electric current.
"There's an electric current flowing in that wire!"

You have some very woolly deas.

How do you know that these controllers (as in "it's just a motor")
don't require all manner of stringent parameters? Like more than 31.5
volts?

What's not woolly about your woolly concept of IEC motor nameplate
labelling? And so arrogant about it, to boot. jack

 

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:22:18 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You did say they were PWM types, yes ?

Yes

All they do is switch the circuit on and
off at a high speed.

Yes, so I believe. And the control of the frequency of this switching
is critical to the speed control function of the thing. Perhaps ripple
might upset this control?

NO.

Apologies if I don't set much store by this assertion. I am none the
wiser for it.

They simply 'don't care' about the voltage you supply as
long as it's not above their specified rating.

And you apparently don't know that they cut out if the input drops
below 31.5V.

Since it's the first time you've mentioned it ............

But don't you claim to know all about these things? They all have low
voltage cutout to protect the batteries.
You appear to have jumped in foot first (the other one is in your
mouth) in calculating the ripple to go below this cutout point.
Who's the grade one IDIOT???

That's half a volt above the residual ripple you
calculated for. Perhaps you owe the guy who you classed as a grade one
IDIOT an apology?

3 FARAD caps aren't going to solve that one. It's still a stupid idea.

No-one sugested it would solve it. Only you seem to have come up with
that imaginary solution. The calculation came up with that ginormous
figure. Get over it, and apologise!

Furthermore, ripple is only one reason the supply voltage drops. You'll also get
good old-fashioned resistive loading of the circuit which'll cause the voltage to
droop.

Fine, understood, but so what? Does this mean you should engineer
failure into it from the getgo?

If there's an undervoltage cut-out at 31.5V and the suggested operational voltage
is 36V then I'll wager it's actually designed to run from 3 x 12V lead acid
batteries

That's what I said, way back. Did you miss it with your exquisite
comprehension? Or even 6 x 6V batteries which I use, or even 12 cells
which some have used.

which have a 'true' voltage more like 12.6V. So, look at furnishing a
37.2 volt (or higher) supply when off-load.

Of course, all that goes without saying. And your concept of the
voltage that leadacids produce is quite woolly.

jack

 

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:23:56 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:32:03 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

that the guy (familiar with the speed controllers that you apparently are not) is
a grade one
IDIOT for calculating the required smoothing capacitance for a lesser
ripple than you

Anyone suggesting that a THREE FARAD smoothing cap is suitable for this application
is a MENTAL DEFECTIVE, for multiple reasons it would clearly be a waste of time to
attempt to explain to your gullible and addled brain.

Code for "you can't"? Snaaaaarfff

Your snide and uneducated remarks in support of utter IDIOTS are getting tiring. I've
wasted more than enough time on you now.

Ever heard of the phrase 'pearls before swine' ?

I didn't see much of my supporting your idiocy.
I tried to expose it, as you suggested.
I have been merely asking questions about opinions that differed from
each other. Your response was to classify all as IDIOTS (have you met
my 4-year-old granddaughter by any chance?)

Now to classify your moronic ignorance wrt, inter alia, IEC and motor
labelling as "pearls" is almost hilarious if it weren't so sad.

jack

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:


On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:27:33 -0500, me <me@here.net> wrote:


You have been given good advice, if you don't like it then don't use it.

Good advice from whom? I've had different advice from different
so-called experts, and one of these has patently stated several
clangers, and has called those who differ from his advice to be either
IDIOTS, or to be taken out and SHOT.


That's because they gave very BAD or incompetent advice.



This particular one keeps
insisting that his advice is the only one to follow.


That's because I'm actually providing good advice.

You could ask a guy down the pub too and see if you prefer his advice I suppose.
Should I care any more ?

Graham

I didn't know you had a conscience?

--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:16:14 +0900, spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:56:41 GMT, Ross Herbert
rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

What you don't seem to understand is that the amplitude of a mains
spike will be reduced by the turns ratio of the transformer at the
secondary. In your case about 6.5 times reduction.

But let's see, its energy content will remain about the same, and
according to most experts in this area that I've read, electrolytic
cap life is reduced by spikes, especially when the rated voltage is
so close to the actual working voltage. (50V caps for a 36V supply)
Now, I don't know how much effect mains spikes will have on the
lifespan of caps in my application, but I have had variable advice,
and am merely trying to clarify this.

Energy content of spikes on the secondary side is a non-issue.
Consider the filter caps as if they were a 36V lead acid battery. This
load would constitute the best output filter with the lowest internal
resistance possible. As far as spikes in the secondary are concerned
the battery is a dead short and the only place they can then be
dissipated is in the secondary winding and the transformer leakage
capacitance. Forget about spikes for your motor run application.

There are several things you have to consider though. The first is the
ability of your transformer to supply a relatively constant secondary
voltage at the nominal current requirement without excessive core
temperature rise together with a relatively small output voltage rise
when lightly loaded. Since you are winding the secondary to produce a
nominal 36Vdc at 18A, and if the transformer has poor load regulation,
it might produce around 45Vrms when lightly loaded. These are tests
you should run to determine the load regulation capability of your
transformer before you start selecting capacitors.

At 45Vrms this means the filtered voltage across the electrolytic caps
will be around 63Vdc when lightly loaded, and as such, you would then
require 100Vdc rated electro caps. A well designed transformer will
have good load regulation capability and a quite small voltage
variation between lightly loaded and fully loaded conditions and you
could then use 50Vdc rated caps. A transformer having this capability
for your application will be quite large and very heavy. Since your
transformer is a rehash of a microwave oven unit it is not likely to
have good load regulation.

While it is true that electrolytic caps may present significanly
higher impedance to sharp rising transient spikes than a lead acid
battery, the fact that you have quite a few electro's in parallel will
reduce the capacitor impedance to a very low value. If you are
concerned about it then connect a couple of polypropylene caps (AC
motor start is fine) in parallel with the electro's to present a lower
impedance path for the spikes.

Next thing, the impedance of your capacitor smoothed DC supply will
be
so low that any transient spike induced in the secondary will not
appear across the output capacitor since it looks like a short
circuit
to the transient.

Of course, but adding spike energy to the cap - my concern at this
point.

The impedance of the secondary winding will be far
greater than that of the capacitor filter itself and thus the
transient voltage spike will be dissipated in the winding via
leakage

capacitance etc.

That's interesting, thanks. So a lot of the spike energy is
dissipated in heating up the secondary winding of the transformer
(not that there is likely to be that much energy there) and of
course, my secondary windings are way more robust than delicate
electrolytic caps as I'm using 41 0.32 30A rated flex.

Spikes are generally of such small time duration and the thermal
inertia of the transformer is so large, that the increase in
temperature due to this factor will be almost nil.

What is the 30A flex jacket material made of and what is the
temperature rating of the material? 30A PVC insulated flex generally
has a 75C rating and the insulation is quite thick. It is not a good
material for winding a secondary since adjacent turns are separated by
twice the jacket thickness and magnetic efficiency will consequently
be lower than it should be. Operating the transformer at temperatures
over 75C will soften the jacket and possibly compromise insulation
among other things. Ambient temp must be considered here as well.

My main problem of ignorance (I've plenty of these now is how
smooth a current these motor speed controllers demand. I really don't
want to suck it and see. I once knew of an EE who has built many, and
modified the Chinese and other controllers. He's not on the group he
used to be but I think I have his website somewhere. I'll try to find
him and ask. He's usually terribly helpful.

The main purpose of the DC supply is to provide the required field
current and I doubt that it needs to be perfectly ripple free. Once
the motor is spinning the inertia of the armature will overcome any
minor variations due to DC ripple effect. Without knowing the method
of speed control used in your application I can't be specific.
However, if using PWM or other chopper type speed control then I doubt
that the smoothness of the DC supply will be critical at all.

I've also got a couple of good quality brushless 24V 400W motors with
built in brushless controllers. He rebuilds these to reverse the
rotation. I will ask him about these too. Cheers, jack

 

[Eeyore]

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Robustness in this context is the ability (strength) to withstand
ripple.

You're talking out of your arse.

There is no such thing.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

If you could use 100V caps or 50V caps for this application at the
same price, which would you choose, and why?

50V because they would be smaller and lighter. For any givens series of capacitors
from a given vendor, size is determined by the combintion of Capacitance and Voltage
rating, the so-called 'CV product'. 100V caps would be twice as large and have no
benefit. They would of course for this very reason be more costly, so your idea that
they could be the same price falls at the first hurdle.

They would last exactly the same lifespan?

Yes.

I sure as hell can't trust your advice. Sorry, jack

That's because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Graham

 

[Daniel Mandic]

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

I didn't see much of my supporting your idiocy.
I tried to expose it, as you suggested.
I have been merely asking questions about opinions that differed from

I I I i, I,

C'mon stop some minutes...

Now to classify your moronic ignorance wrt, inter alia, IEC and motor
labelling as "pearls" is almost hilarious if it weren't so sad.

)) Graham?

You are talking about you, indeed.

jack

Yeah, jack. Learn some moronic tricks and get educated in being an
utter moron.

Why not writing Latin with Eyeore?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:20:43 GMT, Ross Herbert
<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:16:14 +0900, spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:56:41 GMT, Ross Herbert
rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

What you don't seem to understand is that the amplitude of a mains
spike will be reduced by the turns ratio of the transformer at the
secondary. In your case about 6.5 times reduction.

But let's see, its energy content will remain about the same, and
according to most experts in this area that I've read, electrolytic
cap life is reduced by spikes, especially when the rated voltage is
so close to the actual working voltage. (50V caps for a 36V supply)
Now, I don't know how much effect mains spikes will have on the
lifespan of caps in my application, but I have had variable advice,
and am merely trying to clarify this.

Energy content of spikes on the secondary side is a non-issue.
Consider the filter caps as if they were a 36V lead acid battery. This
load would constitute the best output filter with the lowest internal
resistance possible. As far as spikes in the secondary are concerned
the battery is a dead short and the only place they can then be
dissipated is in the secondary winding and the transformer leakage
capacitance. Forget about spikes for your motor run application.

Thanks Ross. Makes sense. Did you see my question I posed about
turning the mains off and then on quickly with the transformer core
still magnetised, and the phase angle at switchon such that the
transformer goes "boing"?

There are several things you have to consider though. The first is the
ability of your transformer to supply a relatively constant secondary
voltage at the nominal current requirement without excessive core
temperature rise together with a relatively small output voltage rise
when lightly loaded. Since you are winding the secondary to produce a
nominal 36Vdc at 18A, and if the transformer has poor load regulation,
it might produce around 45Vrms when lightly loaded. These are tests
you should run to determine the load regulation capability of your
transformer before you start selecting capacitors.

To avoid the need of caps, and keep the voltage stable, what about
another suggestion I've had to build "a simple series pass regulator
using a 36V zener like a 1N5936 and a 60A NPN transistor like a
MJ14002. it would be tons cheaper than the humongous capacitors you
would need. Since these need a couple of volts headroom, wind the
transformer to provide a slightly higher voltage say 32V or so. Also
the transistor must be put on a largish heatsink."

Or even "to parallel the outputs of 5 or 6 LM338K 3 terminal
regulators. Since the max output is 32V you would have to float the
regulators above ground using a 3.9V zener like a 1n4730.
Again you would need a big heatsink."

At 45Vrms this means the filtered voltage across the electrolytic caps
will be around 63Vdc when lightly loaded, and as such, you would then
require 100Vdc rated electro caps. A well designed transformer will
have good load regulation capability and a quite small voltage
variation between lightly loaded and fully loaded conditions and you
could then use 50Vdc rated caps. A transformer having this capability
for your application will be quite large and very heavy. Since your
transformer is a rehash of a microwave oven unit it is not likely to
have good load regulation.

This one weighs 11 lb, and some others weigh up to 15. Have you a ball
park figure for a reasonably stable load regulation?
I've just played with the first tranny I came across, but I have an
older much heavier microwave oven to junk. Is bigger the better a
reasonable maxim? The problem is, the price difference between an old
microwave and a large bought one is horrendous

While it is true that electrolytic caps may present significanly
higher impedance to sharp rising transient spikes than a lead acid
battery, the fact that you have quite a few electro's in parallel will
reduce the capacitor impedance to a very low value. If you are
concerned about it then connect a couple of polypropylene caps (AC
motor start is fine) in parallel with the electro's to present a lower
impedance path for the spikes.

I was only concerened that the margin of error for 50V caps was a bit
fine, especially when a poor tranny might raise that considerably when
lightly loaded. Unfortunately, only the 50V ones are offered at this
cheap price, and so running more in series pairs seemed to be a
compromise. With the balancing resistors, of course.

I mean, I can get 2 dozen of these for around $US18 . Cheapest
capacitance I can find. Even three 12V leadacids would cost much more
and last for much less a time.

Next thing, the impedance of your capacitor smoothed DC supply will
be
so low that any transient spike induced in the secondary will not
appear across the output capacitor since it looks like a short
circuit
to the transient.

Of course, but adding spike energy to the cap - my concern at this
point.

The impedance of the secondary winding will be far
greater than that of the capacitor filter itself and thus the
transient voltage spike will be dissipated in the winding via
leakage

capacitance etc.

That's interesting, thanks. So a lot of the spike energy is
dissipated in heating up the secondary winding of the transformer
(not that there is likely to be that much energy there) and of
course, my secondary windings are way more robust than delicate
electrolytic caps as I'm using 41 0.32 30A rated flex.

Spikes are generally of such small time duration and the thermal
inertia of the transformer is so large, that the increase in
temperature due to this factor will be almost nil.

Yes, it was only the 50V caps I was worried about.
Well, more correctly, some folk had raised worries about.

What is the 30A flex jacket material made of and what is the
temperature rating of the material? 30A PVC insulated flex generally
has a 75C rating and the insulation is quite thick. It is not a good
material for winding a secondary since adjacent turns are separated by
twice the jacket thickness and magnetic efficiency will consequently
be lower than it should be. Operating the transformer at temperatures
over 75C will soften the jacket and possibly compromise insulation
among other things. Ambient temp must be considered here as well.

This stuff is automotive, I think. It has quite a thin PVC sheath. Its
overall diameter is a whisker over 3mm. Drawn to scale, I can fit at
least 54 turns in the transformers secondary window.
I intend to have a fan blowing continuously over the whole shebang,
caps, transformer, bridge rectifier and motor, and I will monitor the
temps of everything to begin with to make sure that nothing is getting
too hot.

My main problem of ignorance (I've plenty of these now is how
smooth a current these motor speed controllers demand. I really don't
want to suck it and see. I once knew of an EE who has built many, and
modified the Chinese and other controllers. He's not on the group he
used to be but I think I have his website somewhere. I'll try to find
him and ask. He's usually terribly helpful.

The main purpose of the DC supply is to provide the required field
current and I doubt that it needs to be perfectly ripple free. Once
the motor is spinning the inertia of the armature will overcome any
minor variations due to DC ripple effect. Without knowing the method
of speed control used in your application I can't be specific.
However, if using PWM or other chopper type speed control then I doubt
that the smoothness of the DC supply will be critical at all.

Thanks for that, Ross. The speed controller is described by my
friendly ee who has experience with them on his bike, as:

"they have big input caps on the supply voltage in the controller, and
the circuit after that can be thought of as a buck switching supply.
All the logic and control runs from a low voltage (14.4v in
Crystalyte) that is internally regulated, so as long as your ripple
does not drop below that or go above the voltage ratings of the fets
or caps, you should be fine."

I've also got a couple of good quality brushless 24V 400W motors with
built in brushless controllers. He rebuilds these to reverse the
rotation. I will ask him about these too.

I've posed the question and await the reply.
These are beautiful machines - black, finned, machined aluminium with
just two heavy power leads emerging and a small control loom for a pot
or a Hall effect twist grip "throttle".
These are too nice for a lathe, best for my trike

jack

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:57:20 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Robustness in this context is the ability (strength) to withstand
ripple.

You're talking out of your arse.

There is no such thing.

As what? Ability (strength) to withstand something?
English is not your first language, perhaps?

jack

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:58:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

If you could use 100V caps or 50V caps for this application at the
same price, which would you choose, and why?

50V because they would be smaller and lighter. For any givens series of capacitors
from a given vendor, size is determined by the combintion of Capacitance and Voltage
rating, the so-called 'CV product'. 100V caps would be twice as large and have no
benefit. They would of course for this very reason be more costly, so your idea that
they could be the same price falls at the first hurdle.

They would last exactly the same lifespan?

Yes.


I sure as hell can't trust your advice. Sorry, jack

That's because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Well I apparently know more about NEMA and IEC standards than you do.
And you don't even seem to realise your own arrogant ignorance.

jack

quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wrote:

BTW, he has given me
alternative ways to smooth the PS output as his calculations for the
required smoothness come out with a 3F capacitor which will be
expensive. jack

You responded:
He's a grade one IDIOT if he's talking about 3F capacitors. I'd take
any advice of his with more than a pinch of salt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now is that temperate, reasonable, rational advice that you are
giving? I think not! Pearls? Snaaarf!
------------------------------------

------------------------------------
Sorry to bring you back to things you might like to forget, but you
never responded to this post which I have cleaned up for clarity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:

If it says '500W' I'd expect it to mean 500W input power.
I wrote:
Well you would disagree with NEMA.
You wrote:
Can you explain what you mean by that ? NEMA has no real relevance in this matter.
I wrote:
NEMA are in charge of electric motor labelling standards, I thought.
You wrote:
You thought WRONG.
NEMA is merely a US trade assocation and it's 'standards' or recomendations have no authority
worldwide. Look for *** IEC ** standards instead.
IEC = International Electrotechnical Commission and all your Oz electrical standards are based
on IEC ones, not some stupid US trade association like NEMA.
snip irrelevancy

I wrote:

So you don't like NEMA?
You wrote:
It's not a case of whether I like it or not. It has no authority or relevance outside the borders
of the USA.
I wrote:
Sorry to disagree, but my old man used to sell electric motors to
mining concerns, and NEMA was relevant to him.
NEMA is very important to all users of American motors. And I think
you wil find there is quiite a lot in the rest of the world.
I wrote:
I thought it was fairly relevant to US
electric motor manufacturers and suppliers. Is it significantly
different from IEC recommendations?
You wrote:
Most US regs have typically been rather different to International ones, although UL is now
harmonising somewhat with IEC.
I wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me
I wrote:
So could you please quote me where IEC advocate that an XkW motor is
a motor that needs an input of XkW and is not a motor that supplies X
kW of mechanical power for the task required? jack
You wrote:
You'd have to look for yourself but I do know that wherever the IEC rates power in all the
standards I know it rates by INPUT power.
I wrote:
But you can't quote anything? How do you know this then?
Perhaps you should read
http://www.pdhonline.org/courses/e156/e156content.pdf
and especially the bottom of page 20.
Seems you know less than you think you know
You wrote:
It wouldn't be a bad thing to know what the input power is for sure.
I wrote:
Of course not, as it would'nt the voltage, the weight, the fixing
dimensions, the rpm, and so on, but a 1kW motor puts out one kilowatt.
It's so that mechanical engineers can specify that they want a 50kW
motor here and a 35kW motor there to drive things that need that
amount of power. What good is a figure that is only useful to the
installation sparkies so they can install the right size starters and
breakers.
I guess you have been sucked in by the great American advertising
machine which will always choose the biggest number available to flog
their merchandise. "Truth? What in tarnation do you mean, Boy?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:57:20 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Robustness in this context is the ability (strength) to withstand
ripple.

You're talking out of your arse.

There is no such thing.

No such thing as robustness? What color is the sky on your planet?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:57:20 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Robustness in this context is the ability (strength) to withstand
ripple.

You're talking out of your arse.

There is no such thing.

No such thing as robustness? What color is the sky on your planet?

" the ability (strength) to withstand ripple."

" Withstand ripple" ! ? Are you being deliberately dense ? How do you specify
your circuits' ability to "withstand ripple" ? They guy has a fixation over a
little bit of ripple on a motor supply and thinks it's going to blow things up
or whatever

It's a damn joke.!

Graham

 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:20:02 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:57:20 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

Robustness in this context is the ability (strength) to withstand
ripple.

You're talking out of your arse.

There is no such thing.

No such thing as robustness? What color is the sky on your planet?

" the ability (strength) to withstand ripple."

" Withstand ripple" ! ? Are you being deliberately dense ? How do you specify
your circuits' ability to "withstand ripple" ?

No, but some things do not tolerate ripple, I guess you just can't
help your denseness. How's your study of those IEC standards going?

They guy has a fixation over a
little bit of ripple on a motor supply and thinks it's going to blow things up
or whatever

No, I'm trying to get a definitive answer on the amount of ripple that
a BDC motor speed controller can tolerate, or put another way, the
robustness of these controllers wrt ripple from a full wave rectifier.
I do know they are very sensitive to over and under voltage.

You obviously have no idea about these controllers, as you habitually
confuse them with motors, as indeed you have again here.

What might help your reading deficit in future is to run your finger
under the text and sound out the letters. Wash your hands first so you
don't cover your screen with chicken grease, and careful you don't
dribble on your keyboard. Get mommy to tie your bib on, perhaps.

It's a damn joke.!

No, your reading skills are actually quite pathetic.

Fancy calling someone you don't know a "grade one IDIOT" for
calculating correctly the capacitance required for a specified ripple
reduction, just because you chose a different reduction (that proved
to be inappropriate when you learned a little more about these
controllers).

You show by your own intemperate arrogance that you indeed are the
"grade one IDIOT" whose "advice should be taken with a grain of salt."

jack

 

[Daniel Mandic]

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

You show by your own intemperate arrogance that you indeed are the
"grade one IDIOT" whose "advice should be taken with a grain of salt."

jack

ah


Your'e hiding information as he does.

And then you wish to attack him, by not answering your questions where
he should have been taken in.





Eyeore blows you away. Give up, before it's too late. (you are
stapling, you have been already caught out. Don't make normality over
that, Moron.)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Eeyore]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

You show by your own intemperate arrogance that you indeed are the
"grade one IDIOT" whose "advice should be taken with a grain of salt."

jack

ah

Your'e hiding information as he does.

And then you wish to attack him, by not answering your questions where
he should have been taken in.



Eyeore blows you away. Give up, before it's too late. (you are
stapling, you have been already caught out. Don't make normality over
that, Moron.)

What really annoys me Daniel is that I was doing my best to provide good info
and this guy insisted on preferring the bad info because it seems he prefers
'folk wisdom' to science.

You simply can't help some people.

Graham

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

What really annoys me Daniel is that I was doing my best to provide
good info and this guy insisted on preferring the bad info because it
seems he prefers 'folk wisdom' to science.

Hi Graham!


I saw.

You are correct as that. I would like to play a game of Snooker with
you.

You simply can't help some people.

Graham

sigh

"There's no fool like an old fool. [prov.]"



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:42:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Daniel Mandic wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

You show by your own intemperate arrogance that you indeed are the
"grade one IDIOT" whose "advice should be taken with a grain of salt."

jack

ah

Your'e hiding information as he does.

And then you wish to attack him, by not answering your questions where
he should have been taken in.



Eyeore blows you away. Give up, before it's too late. (you are
stapling, you have been already caught out. Don't make normality over
that, Moron.)

What really annoys me Daniel is that I was doing my best to provide good info
and this guy insisted on preferring the bad info because it seems he prefers
'folk wisdom' to science.

You simply can't help some people.

Graham

I preferred nothing.
Run your finger under the words again.

I called you on your bullshit and errors and slanging everyone who you
thought disagreed with you.

Things such as your dead wrong assertions about the IEC/NEMA motor
labelling standards, and your woeful ignorance of BDC motor speed
controllers.

And your intemperate outbursts against, for example, the guy who said
the 50V caps were too low. Had you not realised that my transformer,
when lightly loaded, could creep up to 60V or so? Huh?
Who should be taken out and SHOT? Huh?

Face it, you are an arrogant bullshitartist whose advice is
unreliable.

jack

 

On 19 Oct 2007 09:47:50 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:

You show by your own intemperate arrogance that you indeed are the
"grade one IDIOT" whose "advice should be taken with a grain of salt."

jack


ah


Your'e hiding information as he does.

And then you wish to attack him, by not answering your questions where
he should have been taken in.





Eyeore blows you away. Give up, before it's too late. (you are
stapling, you have been already caught out. Don't make normality over
that, Moron.)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Huh? That's the second message that makes no sense.
What are you trying to say?

jack

 

On 19 Oct 2007 11:23:18 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

What really annoys me Daniel is that I was doing my best to provide
good info and this guy insisted on preferring the bad info because it
seems he prefers 'folk wisdom' to science.

Hi Graham!


I saw.

You are correct as that. I would like to play a game of Snooker with
you.

You simply can't help some people.

Graham


sigh

"There's no fool like an old fool. [prov.]"



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

Three?

jack