Silly question, AC power plugs

[Jamie]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2012-05-24, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On 24 May 2012 11:16:42 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:


On 2012-05-22, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:22:47 -0700, John Larkin
---
Here's what I wrote, with the earlier "120V" omission included:

"A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and
a length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
120V mains without changing plugs."

I thought that it would be obvious to anyone schooled in the art that
under the conditions I outlined the load resistance would remain
constant, but such turned out not to be the case.

The path you took to that conclusion is obvious, but it's obviously wrong.

---
It's not obviously wrong to me, so why don't you show the proof?
---


P=VI

The plug's current rating is 15A doubling the voltage from 120V to 240V
can only double the available power from 1800W to 3600W


The load doesn't determine the power available, the supply does that.

---
You must have missed the implied: ..."four times the power available
to the load"...
---


Amount of power available to the load? what does that mean?


Would't it be easier (and safer) to just reduce the load resistance by a
factor of 10 and get 10 times more power from the outlet.

---
Apples and oranges.


makes about as much sense as using a 3600W heater at half voltage.

And wonders why he is having a hard time mingling with the group lately.

People must remember, this is a place where many get out of work, get
relaxed, get their pee shooters all loaded up and sign in on message
groups with their goggles set on supper sensitive detect mode with a pee
in the breach, lungs fully expanded!

When one gets spotted, moving out of place, a shooter exhales and
launches their pee/pees. Every one else notices and joins in on shooting
at this target, just to make sure it goes down. After all, no one wants
to be singled out for collaborating with the enemy, that wouldn't work
out so good!

In the end, you end up with one big pile of Pee soup, with said
target under it. Then come along the vultures, crows and rodents to
clean up the rotten mess. The target crawls away and takes another crack
at it, at some later date, after their wounds have healed. But this
time, they have gone out and got a pee shooter of their own. So in
instead of being an easy target, they can at least try to shoot back,
or, join the others in their joyous adventures in crushing the enemy!



Jamie

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:57:46 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:22:45 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:19:14 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:51:52 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 22:35:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:35:32 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:28:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:24:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:49:48 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:30:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:30:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


You have said that you're not an engineer, and that your electronics
is self-taught. Unless you forced yourself to learn the math, that
puts you at a disadvantage when discussing theory.

One good thing about EE school is that we were forced to learn the
theory and do the math. And we were taught to be careful and check our
work before turning it in. A lot of engineering is about avoiding
risk, and the more complex a system, the more careful you have to be
if it's ever going to work. One reason we can build a very complex
laser controller, and get it to work first-rev, is that we check the
hell out of our stuff before we etch boards. It's a lot of grunt work,
but it pays off.

---
You never miss a chance to spout platitudes and pat yourself on the
back, do you?

There's nothing glorious about grunt-level checking your work. I can
see why you don't do it.

Because he's incapable of checking anything more complicated than a 555?
...even a 240V plug?

I think he's used to doing simple stuff, like 555s and 4000-series
hairball async logic. If it's just a few chips, you can take some
risks and eventually get it to work most of the time. If you've got an
8-layer board with, say, 500 parts, and simulation isn't feasible, and
you allow a 1% risk of messing any one up, let's see, the chance of it
working is 0.99^500, which is under 1%. It might work on the third or
fourth board spin, maybe.

The three boards I've designed this year (for the new PPoE) are all over 1000
components (1000, 1200, and 1500). We'll see how well I did on the first in a
few days (our CM has made a mess of assembly).


That's always scary, the first board.

Indeed.

Do all the parts fit?

Don't know yet. We haven't gotten in back from the CM. I found out this
morning that they're asking about reference designators that don't exist and
parts that are clearly marked as OPEN.

Do the power supplies come up?

Can the uP run code?

Does the FPGA configure?

No FPGAs on this one. I only have one minor CPLD on these.

That's just for starters, but those are milestones.

We always assemble the first articles in-house. That way, we can talk
to the assemblers if any problems come up.

Our only manufacturing capability is in Mexico. We're specifically trying to
avoid using them.

I have toyed with the idea of sending all our PCB assembly to Mexico
or China or Arizona or some other bleak place where labor is cheap.
Assembling electronics in downtown San Francisco is insane. But the
quality would suffer, and so would my people. But I can sure see why
manufacturing, and entire companies, are fleeing the USA and
California in particular.

Up until 2008 they manufactured everything right here (a Japanese company
building electronics in the USA, go figure). When the bottom fell out, they
packed up the entire manufacturing operation and moved it to Mexico. The moved
the prototype line, too, and merged it with manufacturing. If we want to
build a prototype (we build 25 to 50 systems as prototypes) we have to
interrupt the manufacturing line and it can be a six or eight week wait. It's
better, all around, if we keep the work locally. Unfortunately, we didn't
realize the CM was going to ship the work to their parent company in Texas.


If I have to, I can do 2 or 3-day turn on a multilayer PCB, and have
the board assembled and inspected the same day the bare board arrives.
Considering how expensive engineering is, and how valuable
time-to-market is, rapid prototyping is sure worth it.

At the PPoE, the PHBs would insist on keeping to the schedule, even if it
meant releasing a board long before the design was ready. Then they'd pay for
a one-day turn at two board houses, just in case one had a problem. They had
their own pick-n-place but it was still an absurd waste of time and money.

It's amazing how many PHBs skimp on engineering support: prototyping,
equipment, computers, software, books.

Indeed. They aren't skimping where I am now. Our budget is incredible.

BTW, I got the first board back this afternoon. The "always on" linear
regulator was getting *hot* and it was being dragged down to ~1.2V (should be
3.3V) while drawing about half an amp. Turns out the micro's (AVR) boot flash
was installed backwards. After fixing that, and installing a test jumper (no
code for the AVR yet), all the supplies came up, including two two-phase
(2MHz) switching regulators. Time to declare victory and leave for the long
weekend. ;-)

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 00:17:47 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:57:46 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:22:45 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:19:14 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:51:52 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 22:35:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:35:32 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:28:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:24:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:49:48 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:30:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:30:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


You have said that you're not an engineer, and that your electronics
is self-taught. Unless you forced yourself to learn the math, that
puts you at a disadvantage when discussing theory.

One good thing about EE school is that we were forced to learn the
theory and do the math. And we were taught to be careful and check our
work before turning it in. A lot of engineering is about avoiding
risk, and the more complex a system, the more careful you have to be
if it's ever going to work. One reason we can build a very complex
laser controller, and get it to work first-rev, is that we check the
hell out of our stuff before we etch boards. It's a lot of grunt work,
but it pays off.

---
You never miss a chance to spout platitudes and pat yourself on the
back, do you?

There's nothing glorious about grunt-level checking your work. I can
see why you don't do it.

Because he's incapable of checking anything more complicated than a 555?
...even a 240V plug?

I think he's used to doing simple stuff, like 555s and 4000-series
hairball async logic. If it's just a few chips, you can take some
risks and eventually get it to work most of the time. If you've got an
8-layer board with, say, 500 parts, and simulation isn't feasible, and
you allow a 1% risk of messing any one up, let's see, the chance of it
working is 0.99^500, which is under 1%. It might work on the third or
fourth board spin, maybe.

The three boards I've designed this year (for the new PPoE) are all over 1000
components (1000, 1200, and 1500). We'll see how well I did on the first in a
few days (our CM has made a mess of assembly).


That's always scary, the first board.

Indeed.

Do all the parts fit?

Don't know yet. We haven't gotten in back from the CM. I found out this
morning that they're asking about reference designators that don't exist and
parts that are clearly marked as OPEN.

Do the power supplies come up?

Can the uP run code?

Does the FPGA configure?

No FPGAs on this one. I only have one minor CPLD on these.

That's just for starters, but those are milestones.

We always assemble the first articles in-house. That way, we can talk
to the assemblers if any problems come up.

Our only manufacturing capability is in Mexico. We're specifically trying to
avoid using them.

I have toyed with the idea of sending all our PCB assembly to Mexico
or China or Arizona or some other bleak place where labor is cheap.
Assembling electronics in downtown San Francisco is insane. But the
quality would suffer, and so would my people. But I can sure see why
manufacturing, and entire companies, are fleeing the USA and
California in particular.

Up until 2008 they manufactured everything right here (a Japanese company
building electronics in the USA, go figure). When the bottom fell out, they
packed up the entire manufacturing operation and moved it to Mexico. The moved
the prototype line, too, and merged it with manufacturing. If we want to
build a prototype (we build 25 to 50 systems as prototypes) we have to
interrupt the manufacturing line and it can be a six or eight week wait. It's
better, all around, if we keep the work locally. Unfortunately, we didn't
realize the CM was going to ship the work to their parent company in Texas.


If I have to, I can do 2 or 3-day turn on a multilayer PCB, and have
the board assembled and inspected the same day the bare board arrives.
Considering how expensive engineering is, and how valuable
time-to-market is, rapid prototyping is sure worth it.

At the PPoE, the PHBs would insist on keeping to the schedule, even if it
meant releasing a board long before the design was ready. Then they'd pay for
a one-day turn at two board houses, just in case one had a problem. They had
their own pick-n-place but it was still an absurd waste of time and money.

It's amazing how many PHBs skimp on engineering support: prototyping,
equipment, computers, software, books.

Indeed. They aren't skimping where I am now. Our budget is incredible.

BTW, I got the first board back this afternoon. The "always on" linear
regulator was getting *hot* and it was being dragged down to ~1.2V (should be
3.3V) while drawing about half an amp. Turns out the micro's (AVR) boot flash
was installed backwards. After fixing that, and installing a test jumper (no
code for the AVR yet), all the supplies came up, including two two-phase
(2MHz) switching regulators. Time to declare victory and leave for the long
weekend. ;-)

Exactly! Nothing to worry about, at least until Tuesday.

I hate it when a power supply is down and you don't know where the
current is going. I want to be able to *see* the current. A thermal
imager is the next best thing.

How about a scanning flux-gate magnetometer that does a computer plot
of currents all over the board?

 

[Ian Field]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jf00s75blcsstotijilij5bjojjalvao14@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:18:40 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tcdtr71d4qqf3hfec9n1r026330cartdak@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:19:26 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e88tr75itfk5gh6fsn8nj5n5jo6o3jbd9k@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:47:08 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:313tr7psmf3d5d261ke6otn17bc4klt95b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:27:20 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:37:06 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:28:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:24:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:49:48 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:30:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:30:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


You have said that you're not an engineer, and that your
electronics
is self-taught. Unless you forced yourself to learn the math,
that
puts you at a disadvantage when discussing theory.

One good thing about EE school is that we were forced to learn
the
theory and do the math. And we were taught to be careful and
check
our
work before turning it in. A lot of engineering is about
avoiding
risk, and the more complex a system, the more careful you have
to
be
if it's ever going to work. One reason we can build a very
complex
laser controller, and get it to work first-rev, is that we
check
the
hell out of our stuff before we etch boards. It's a lot of
grunt
work,
but it pays off.

---
You never miss a chance to spout platitudes and pat yourself on
the
back, do you?

There's nothing glorious about grunt-level checking your work. I
can
see why you don't do it.

Because he's incapable of checking anything more complicated than
a
555?
...even a 240V plug?

I think he's used to doing simple stuff, like 555s and 4000-series
hairball async logic. If it's just a few chips, you can take some
risks and eventually get it to work most of the time. If you've
got
an
8-layer board with, say, 500 parts, and simulation isn't feasible,
and
you allow a 1% risk of messing any one up, let's see, the chance
of
it
working is 0.99^500, which is under 1%. It might work on the third
or
fourth board spin, maybe.

---
While I've posted a lot more stuff here than you have - pro bono
and
without a lot of fanfare -

And usually wrong the first few times.

---
Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what?

The work gets done, if there are any errors they get fixed, and the
querant goes away happy.


.........well, laughing a lot anyway.

---
On his way to the bank.


You charge for the crap you spout here?!

---
If you think it's crap, then clearly you're in the dark.

But, no.

The querents get to determine whether the solutions I propose work, or
not, and then charge whatever the market will bear for their
implementation and/or sale.

I'm only in the loop at the design end and I divulge the secrets for
free.

You, on the other hand, are a talentless hack who aspires to that
forever elusive adequacy.

--
JF

Doesn't take much to show you up as a fraud then does it.

---
It takes evidence.

Got some you haven't dreamed up, pipsqueak?

Don't need any - you've pissed off so many people, I can sit back and watch
the fun.

 

[Jamie]

Ian Field wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jf00s75blcsstotijilij5bjojjalvao14@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:18:40 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tcdtr71d4qqf3hfec9n1r026330cartdak@4ax.com...

On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:19:26 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e88tr75itfk5gh6fsn8nj5n5jo6o3jbd9k@4ax.com...

On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:47:08 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:313tr7psmf3d5d261ke6otn17bc4klt95b@4ax.com...

On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:27:20 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:


On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:37:06 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:28:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:


On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:24:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:49:48 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:


On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:30:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:30:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



You have said that you're not an engineer, and that your
electronics
is self-taught. Unless you forced yourself to learn the math,
that
puts you at a disadvantage when discussing theory.

One good thing about EE school is that we were forced to learn
the
theory and do the math. And we were taught to be careful and
check
our
work before turning it in. A lot of engineering is about
avoiding
risk, and the more complex a system, the more careful you have
to
be
if it's ever going to work. One reason we can build a very
complex
laser controller, and get it to work first-rev, is that we
check
the
hell out of our stuff before we etch boards. It's a lot of
grunt
work,
but it pays off.

---
You never miss a chance to spout platitudes and pat yourself on
the
back, do you?

There's nothing glorious about grunt-level checking your work. I
can
see why you don't do it.

Because he's incapable of checking anything more complicated than
a
555?
...even a 240V plug?

I think he's used to doing simple stuff, like 555s and 4000-series
hairball async logic. If it's just a few chips, you can take some
risks and eventually get it to work most of the time. If you've
got
an
8-layer board with, say, 500 parts, and simulation isn't feasible,
and
you allow a 1% risk of messing any one up, let's see, the chance
of
it
working is 0.99^500, which is under 1%. It might work on the third
or
fourth board spin, maybe.

---
While I've posted a lot more stuff here than you have - pro bono
and
without a lot of fanfare -

And usually wrong the first few times.

---
Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what?

The work gets done, if there are any errors they get fixed, and the
querant goes away happy.


.........well, laughing a lot anyway.

---
On his way to the bank.


You charge for the crap you spout here?!

---
If you think it's crap, then clearly you're in the dark.

But, no.

The querents get to determine whether the solutions I propose work, or
not, and then charge whatever the market will bear for their
implementation and/or sale.

I'm only in the loop at the design end and I divulge the secrets for
free.

You, on the other hand, are a talentless hack who aspires to that
forever elusive adequacy.

--
JF

Doesn't take much to show you up as a fraud then does it.

---
It takes evidence.

Got some you haven't dreamed up, pipsqueak?



Don't need any - you've pissed off so many people, I can sit back and watch
the fun.


You know the old saying about being Pissed on verses pissed off?

Jamie

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:59:55 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:13:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:27:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:08:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:41:54 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:59:27 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


Accusing anyone of being racist, without cause, is despicable. He's no better
than Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton.

---
You don't read for content, do you?

Here's the "dialog" leading up to the accusation:

----------------------------------------------------
KRW: AlwaysWrong comes to mind.

JF: Another favorite target of the lynch mob.

KRW: With good reason.

JF: Sounds like: "We'll give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em in the
morning."

----------
Note that my likening Prongy's relentlessly cruel antagonists to a
lynch mob wasn't questioned by KRW, but rather agreed to with his
"With good reason." comment.

"Relentlessly cruel"? You must be an idiot if you believe that.

---
I'd be an idiot if I _didn't_ believe that since it's as plain as day
that you and the rest of the lynch mob derive great pleasure from
ridiculing him instead of pointing out his errors in a way that would
help, instead of hurt.

Like you (and there are a lot of similarities), AlwaysWrong is immune to the
facts.

---
The point I'm making - and which you keep avoiding - is that you
enjoy being cruel, so why don't you address that issue instead of
skirting it?

Because you lie, I'm obligated to answer? You _are_ an old, senile, prune.

---

He is relentless and his presence is cruel.

---
In what way?

Look in a mirror and you'll get a small glimpse.

---
Grade school dodges?

Fact.

Your true colors are starting to show.

Good! You can leave anytime now.

---

---

You've joined him.

---
No, but we're both islands.

Desert.

---
But connected to the mainland through the cloud.

Not a drop of water (or thought) in decades.

---

---
snipped irrelevance...

Snip yourself

---
What do you mean?

Go away.

---
This isn't as much fun for you as you thought it would be, huh?

Question asked and answered. Not as much fun as you thought it would be, huh?

---

BTW, what's with the stupid posting style. It's a waste of lines.

JF: Don't those white sheets and pointy hats get uncomfortable
sometimes?

KRW: You must be Obama. Anything you don't like is "racist".

----------
Note that the "white sheets and pointy hats" was referring to the
often worn garb of a lynch mob, and since Prongy's race wasn't
mentioned, the race issue wasn't brought up until KRW likened me to
Obama.
----------

Liar. It's *clearly* a reference to the KKK, which you draw the moral
equivalence.

---
The KKK _is_ a lynch mob, so your admission to being a member of a
lynch mob _is_ morally equivalent to being a member of the KKK.

Balloney. The KKK is an obvious (counter) racial slur.

---
Show where race was brought up.

Wow! You really *are* stupid! You're trying to extricate yourself from
Obamanite tactics. It's not going to work. You've already brought in the
race card and had it shoved in your face, for everyone to see. You are
despicable.

---

As such, you are no better than Sharpton, Jackson, or Obama.
You're despicable.

---
You wallow in self-serving fantasy.

No, calling you out for what your are. Don't try to backpedal, it's already
clear to everyone here.

---

Of course you'll squeal that the KKK is much worse than your gang, but
the goal of both is the same; to silence those whom they don't like.

Unfortunately, you won't listen either.

---
What?

Exactly.

---

You are despicable, and no better than Sharpton, Jackson, or
Obama. ...a race baiter.

Your goal post movement isn't going unnoticed.

---
Interesting that you draw attention to what isn't happening, pretend
it is, then damn it and turn a deaf ear to the tune in play.

No, that's your MO.

---
Seems yours is parroting.

You're *are* stupid.

---

You're trying to draw attention to your complete lack of
knowledge about simple electricity.

---
"Look at me, I'm a dunce!"???

Indeed you are. A racist dunce.

That makes no sense, but then...

....nothing else you say is, either.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:30:20 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hm0vr718o2nscots4n9r9r2o2i7qvfslpp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:13:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:27:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:08:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:41:54 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:59:27 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


Accusing anyone of being racist, without cause, is despicable. He's
no better
than Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton.

---
You don't read for content, do you?

Here's the "dialog" leading up to the accusation:

----------------------------------------------------
KRW: AlwaysWrong comes to mind.

JF: Another favorite target of the lynch mob.

KRW: With good reason.

JF: Sounds like: "We'll give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em in the
morning."

----------
Note that my likening Prongy's relentlessly cruel antagonists to a
lynch mob wasn't questioned by KRW, but rather agreed to with his
"With good reason." comment.

"Relentlessly cruel"? You must be an idiot if you believe that.

---
I'd be an idiot if I _didn't_ believe that since it's as plain as day
that you and the rest of the lynch mob derive great pleasure from
ridiculing him instead of pointing out his errors in a way that would
help, instead of hurt.

Like you (and there are a lot of similarities), AlwaysWrong is immune to
the
facts.

---
The point I'm making - and which you keep avoiding - is that you
enjoy being cruel,

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

We can only hope.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:00:06 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:17:16 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 07:43:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On 24 May 2012 11:16:42 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2012-05-22, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:22:47 -0700, John Larkin
---
Here's what I wrote, with the earlier "120V" omission included:

"A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and
a length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
120V mains without changing plugs."

I thought that it would be obvious to anyone schooled in the art that
under the conditions I outlined the load resistance would remain
constant, but such turned out not to be the case.

The path you took to that conclusion is obvious, but it's obviously wrong.

---
It's not obviously wrong to me, so why don't you show the proof?

A dozen people have but you're impervious to facts.

---
Saying that a dozen people have isn't the same as proving it yourself.

Why repeat what everyone, including myself, has already said? You're wrong
and rather than admit it, you weasel, attempt to move goal posts, and change
the subject, even accuse others of being racist (the real racist's tactics).

Do you demur because of your inability to provide the proof?

I already have. You can't read, or think. You'll forever think you're right;
more evidence if Alzheimer's.

---

The load doesn't determine the power available, the supply does that.

---
You must have missed the implied: ..."four times the power available
to the load"...

Which is *wrong*. There is only two times the power AVAILABLE TO THE LOAD.
The current carrying capability of the circuit has not increased.

---
Connect 240V across a 16 ohm load. How much power will the load
dissipate?

Absolutely irrelevant. You're attempting to move the goal posts, again.

Now disconnect the 240V supply and replace it with 120V. How much
power will the load now dissipate?

Notice that since the resistance of the load hasn't changed, the
current into the load has been halved, with the result being that the
power available to the load has been quartered.

Good God, you're stupid!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:24:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2012 00:17:47 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:57:46 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:22:45 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:19:14 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:51:52 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 22:35:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:35:32 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:28:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:24:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:49:48 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:30:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:30:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


You have said that you're not an engineer, and that your electronics
is self-taught. Unless you forced yourself to learn the math, that
puts you at a disadvantage when discussing theory.

One good thing about EE school is that we were forced to learn the
theory and do the math. And we were taught to be careful and check our
work before turning it in. A lot of engineering is about avoiding
risk, and the more complex a system, the more careful you have to be
if it's ever going to work. One reason we can build a very complex
laser controller, and get it to work first-rev, is that we check the
hell out of our stuff before we etch boards. It's a lot of grunt work,
but it pays off.

---
You never miss a chance to spout platitudes and pat yourself on the
back, do you?

There's nothing glorious about grunt-level checking your work. I can
see why you don't do it.

Because he's incapable of checking anything more complicated than a 555?
...even a 240V plug?

I think he's used to doing simple stuff, like 555s and 4000-series
hairball async logic. If it's just a few chips, you can take some
risks and eventually get it to work most of the time. If you've got an
8-layer board with, say, 500 parts, and simulation isn't feasible, and
you allow a 1% risk of messing any one up, let's see, the chance of it
working is 0.99^500, which is under 1%. It might work on the third or
fourth board spin, maybe.

The three boards I've designed this year (for the new PPoE) are all over 1000
components (1000, 1200, and 1500). We'll see how well I did on the first in a
few days (our CM has made a mess of assembly).


That's always scary, the first board.

Indeed.

Do all the parts fit?

Don't know yet. We haven't gotten in back from the CM. I found out this
morning that they're asking about reference designators that don't exist and
parts that are clearly marked as OPEN.

Do the power supplies come up?

Can the uP run code?

Does the FPGA configure?

No FPGAs on this one. I only have one minor CPLD on these.

That's just for starters, but those are milestones.

We always assemble the first articles in-house. That way, we can talk
to the assemblers if any problems come up.

Our only manufacturing capability is in Mexico. We're specifically trying to
avoid using them.

I have toyed with the idea of sending all our PCB assembly to Mexico
or China or Arizona or some other bleak place where labor is cheap.
Assembling electronics in downtown San Francisco is insane. But the
quality would suffer, and so would my people. But I can sure see why
manufacturing, and entire companies, are fleeing the USA and
California in particular.

Up until 2008 they manufactured everything right here (a Japanese company
building electronics in the USA, go figure). When the bottom fell out, they
packed up the entire manufacturing operation and moved it to Mexico. The moved
the prototype line, too, and merged it with manufacturing. If we want to
build a prototype (we build 25 to 50 systems as prototypes) we have to
interrupt the manufacturing line and it can be a six or eight week wait. It's
better, all around, if we keep the work locally. Unfortunately, we didn't
realize the CM was going to ship the work to their parent company in Texas.


If I have to, I can do 2 or 3-day turn on a multilayer PCB, and have
the board assembled and inspected the same day the bare board arrives.
Considering how expensive engineering is, and how valuable
time-to-market is, rapid prototyping is sure worth it.

At the PPoE, the PHBs would insist on keeping to the schedule, even if it
meant releasing a board long before the design was ready. Then they'd pay for
a one-day turn at two board houses, just in case one had a problem. They had
their own pick-n-place but it was still an absurd waste of time and money.

It's amazing how many PHBs skimp on engineering support: prototyping,
equipment, computers, software, books.

Indeed. They aren't skimping where I am now. Our budget is incredible.

BTW, I got the first board back this afternoon. The "always on" linear
regulator was getting *hot* and it was being dragged down to ~1.2V (should be
3.3V) while drawing about half an amp. Turns out the micro's (AVR) boot flash
was installed backwards. After fixing that, and installing a test jumper (no
code for the AVR yet), all the supplies came up, including two two-phase
(2MHz) switching regulators. Time to declare victory and leave for the long
weekend. ;-)

Exactly! Nothing to worry about, at least until Tuesday.

I didn't want to even power it up until Tuesday. We'd just gotten back from a
nice lunch with the Intesil FAE and it was time for a nap (and I had some
simulations to run to tidy up next board's BOM). The junior engineer wanted
to play and found the finger-burner. "Crap! Now I'll worry all weekend."

I hate it when a power supply is down and you don't know where the
current is going. I want to be able to *see* the current. A thermal
imager is the next best thing.

We have one somewhere but the place is a ghost-town on the Friday afternoon
before a holiday. Fortunately, there wasn't much the always-on rail was
supplying - a bunch of pull-ups, some diagnostic LEDs (no-pops on the final
BOM), and the AVR. There were a few series components to remove most of it in
pieces to help isolate the fault. I always worry about plane shorts, though.

How about a scanning flux-gate magnetometer that does a computer plot
of currents all over the board?

That gives me a slightly different idea. We have an EMI scanner, basically a
table that the DUT sits on, with a sniffer probe in an X-Y table, connected to
a spectrum analyzer. It's normally used to isolate "hot" EMI areas, but if I
pulled off some supply filter caps, I should be able to follow the current.

 

[Ian Field]

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:g262s7ha8ekh1ncfkq1pdjvjvirqikae62@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 May 2012 08:59:55 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:13:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:27:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:08:56 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:41:54 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:59:27 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


Accusing anyone of being racist, without cause, is despicable. He's
no better
than Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton.

---
You don't read for content, do you?

Here's the "dialog" leading up to the accusation:

----------------------------------------------------
KRW: AlwaysWrong comes to mind.

JF: Another favorite target of the lynch mob.

KRW: With good reason.

JF: Sounds like: "We'll give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em in the
morning."

----------
Note that my likening Prongy's relentlessly cruel antagonists to a
lynch mob wasn't questioned by KRW, but rather agreed to with his
"With good reason." comment.

"Relentlessly cruel"? You must be an idiot if you believe that.

---
I'd be an idiot if I _didn't_ believe that since it's as plain as day
that you and the rest of the lynch mob derive great pleasure from
ridiculing him instead of pointing out his errors in a way that would
help, instead of hurt.

Like you (and there are a lot of similarities), AlwaysWrong is immune to
the
facts.

---
The point I'm making - and which you keep avoiding - is that you
enjoy being cruel, so why don't you address that issue instead of
skirting it?

You _are_ an old, senile, prune.

So that's why he keeps forgetting it was *HIM* started on about buttfucking.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:40:53 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jf00s75blcsstotijilij5bjojjalvao14@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:18:40 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tcdtr71d4qqf3hfec9n1r026330cartdak@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:19:26 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e88tr75itfk5gh6fsn8nj5n5jo6o3jbd9k@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:47:08 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:313tr7psmf3d5d261ke6otn17bc4klt95b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:27:20 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:37:06 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:28:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:24:50 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:49:48 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:30:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:30:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


You have said that you're not an engineer, and that your
electronics
is self-taught. Unless you forced yourself to learn the math,
that
puts you at a disadvantage when discussing theory.

One good thing about EE school is that we were forced to learn
the
theory and do the math. And we were taught to be careful and
check
our
work before turning it in. A lot of engineering is about
avoiding
risk, and the more complex a system, the more careful you have
to
be
if it's ever going to work. One reason we can build a very
complex
laser controller, and get it to work first-rev, is that we
check
the
hell out of our stuff before we etch boards. It's a lot of
grunt
work,
but it pays off.

---
You never miss a chance to spout platitudes and pat yourself on
the
back, do you?

There's nothing glorious about grunt-level checking your work. I
can
see why you don't do it.

Because he's incapable of checking anything more complicated than
a
555?
...even a 240V plug?

I think he's used to doing simple stuff, like 555s and 4000-series
hairball async logic. If it's just a few chips, you can take some
risks and eventually get it to work most of the time. If you've
got
an
8-layer board with, say, 500 parts, and simulation isn't feasible,
and
you allow a 1% risk of messing any one up, let's see, the chance
of
it
working is 0.99^500, which is under 1%. It might work on the third
or
fourth board spin, maybe.

---
While I've posted a lot more stuff here than you have - pro bono
and
without a lot of fanfare -

And usually wrong the first few times.

---
Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what?

The work gets done, if there are any errors they get fixed, and the
querant goes away happy.


.........well, laughing a lot anyway.

---
On his way to the bank.


You charge for the crap you spout here?!

---
If you think it's crap, then clearly you're in the dark.

But, no.

The querents get to determine whether the solutions I propose work, or
not, and then charge whatever the market will bear for their
implementation and/or sale.

I'm only in the loop at the design end and I divulge the secrets for
free.

You, on the other hand, are a talentless hack who aspires to that
forever elusive adequacy.

--
JF

Doesn't take much to show you up as a fraud then does it.

---
It takes evidence.

Got some you haven't dreamed up, pipsqueak?


Don't need any - you've pissed off so many people, I can sit back and watch
the fun.

---
That's a non sequitur and, as usual, you post no evidence to support
your fraudulent claim.

Instead, you attempt to sidestep the issue by changing the subject.

"you've pissed off so many people" boils down to about only four in
this thread - with one apparently succumbing to reason - because I've
proved, accurately and unapologetically that, despite their
caterwauling to the contrary, they were wrong.

That hardly brands me as a fraud, and belies your statement that anger
exhibited by an adversary arises solely as a result of his target's
fraudulent behavior, when it could just as easily have arisen from
having the adversary's balloon being pricked.

Apologies to John Larkin, whose delicate sensitivities don't like
those kinds of references to be made pubic.

--
JF