Silly question, AC power plugs

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:30:54 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


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
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

---
If a plug rated for 15A is plugged into 240V mains, then with a 16 ohm
resistor connected across the plug the resistor will dissipate 3600
watts.

Now unplug the plug from the 240V mains and plug it into 120V mains.
The dissipation will fall to 900 watts.

Isn't 3600 watts 4 times greater than 900 watts?

Which has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand, but you knew that. You're
just trying move the goal posts to hide your stupidity.

That's like trying to hide a mountain.

He just keeps showing us how stupid he's determined to be. You have to
kind of admire that sort of dedication.

AlwaysWrong comes to mind.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:05:24 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:46:28 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
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
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.

---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

As for math I've posted, you must not have read a lot of my stuff, but
there was a post only a few days ago which showed a non-Ohms law way
to get the product of two input frequencies as an output

The one about multiplying two sine waves, where you got the math
wrong? Sure, I remember that one.

---
My way had to do with multiplying frequencies, not with multiplying
sine waves; Bill Sloman was responsible for that, as you earlier
noted.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:54:16 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:24:18 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:



When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.


---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

Yeah, a cattle prod normally gets any one to say and do as you please!

jamie


---
And yet you demur?

Ha, really. Your use of "demur" does not impress me nor does it fit in
the context of the statement I made.

---
Do you know what "demur" means?
---

Before visiting the "WORD" buffets, you may want to know the
ingredients before ingestation.

---
"ingestion".

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:30:54 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


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
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

---
If a plug rated for 15A is plugged into 240V mains, then with a 16 ohm
resistor connected across the plug the resistor will dissipate 3600
watts.

Now unplug the plug from the 240V mains and plug it into 120V mains.
The dissipation will fall to 900 watts.

Isn't 3600 watts 4 times greater than 900 watts?

Which has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand, but you knew that. You're
just trying move the goal posts to hide your stupidity.

That's like trying to hide a mountain.

---
I've explained it to the best of my ability, so if you still don't
understand it I either have poor teaching skills or you all are
uneducable.

Or, more likely, you're miffed at having missed such an easy concept
and are now the lynch mob out for revenge.
---

He just keeps showing us how stupid he's determined to be. You have to
kind of admire that sort of dedication.

---
Likewise.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:52:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:30:54 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


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
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

---
If a plug rated for 15A is plugged into 240V mains, then with a 16 ohm
resistor connected across the plug the resistor will dissipate 3600
watts.

Now unplug the plug from the 240V mains and plug it into 120V mains.
The dissipation will fall to 900 watts.

Isn't 3600 watts 4 times greater than 900 watts?

Which has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand, but you knew that. You're
just trying move the goal posts to hide your stupidity.

That's like trying to hide a mountain.

He just keeps showing us how stupid he's determined to be. You have to
kind of admire that sort of dedication.

AlwaysWrong comes to mind.

---
Another favorite target of the lynch mob.

--
JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ian Field wrote:

Our substandard crap was better than drilling brass receptacles into the
wooden skirting board and looping the bare mains wires round little glass
beads nailed to the joists in the attic.

What are you blathering about, now? Bare wire & glass beads? Who
used that? The original wiring in the US was tar & cloth insulated
copper. Surface mount outlets & switches were molded bakelite, and
light sockets were ceramic. Knob & tube was used to wire existing
buildings and new construction, until Romex came along. Some areas
required metal conduit for all wiring. Is the UK education system that
backwards, or are you just stupid?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:51:19 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:05:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:46:28 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
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
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.

---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

As for math I've posted, you must not have read a lot of my stuff, but
there was a post only a few days ago which showed a non-Ohms law way
to get the product of two input frequencies as an output

The one about multiplying two sine waves, where you got the math
wrong? Sure, I remember that one.

---
My way had to do with multiplying frequencies,

Another silly hairball

not with multiplying

sine waves;

You argued that, if sinewaves F1 and F2 are multiplied, there will be
F1 and F2 components in the product. Wrong.

Since this is not your area of expertise, you might try not making
statements like this, or doing a little research first.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:32:41 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news6idnexcas3PfyTSnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Ian Field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dqGdnfXFl41TAyrSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Roger wrote:

fungus wrote:

They also thought to put on/off switches
on all the wall sockets - incredibly useful.

No, the Australian-New Zealand system is the best. The wall sockets
are all switched.


Who needs that? Is everything you plug in so low grade that you have
to turn off the outlet between uses? All I see is that it lowers the
reliability of every outlet by adding more parts. Rube Goldberg would
be proud of those outlets.

The reliabilityy is pretty good - unlike the previous unswitched round
pin
outlets that were a disaster that frequently didn't wait to happen!


Then you went from substandard crap, to over engineered.


Our substandard crap was better than drilling brass receptacles into the
wooden skirting board and looping the bare mains wires round little glass
beads nailed to the joists in the attic.

Our previous house had knob-and-tube wiring, with insulated wire,
inside the walls and attic, and conventional 2-prong (no ground)
outlets. It was built in 1892, with gas lighting, and probably
elictrified before 1900. It wasn't bad for the original purpose,
lighting, but not up to running serious appliances. I rewired most of
it with Romex.

Exposed wiring like you describe was probably older. Edison started
the first power distribution system around 1882.

A lot of stuff was pioneered in the USA, and as a consequence started
with primitive or no standards. Later-generation stuff could take
advantage of our experience. You see similar effects in, say,
mechanical and structural things that originated in the UK. Your
substandard crap had the advantage of being invented after our
substandard crap.

The British wiring and outlets are somewhat safer and more reliable
than ours, but more expensive and much klunkier. Our stuff works.

 

[Ian Field]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2belr79vtl32eunldpnfnf2idunekeoj7o@4ax.com...

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:42:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3imkr7pjl1cr5c5smohnjc6db9kk097ph9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy
plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load
power.

---
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
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it
out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say
15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it
can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional
people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

In addition, I often provide schematics and simulations and, on
occasion, actually build a prototype to prove, without a doubt, that
the design is sound.

You, on the other hand, seem to content yourself by sitting on the
sidelines hurling insults

Only at tossers who deserve it.

---
And why are you a fit judge to determine who's a tosser and who isn't
and whether they "deserve" to be insulted?

Insulted?! - pointed out more like.

 

[Ian Field]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6aclr7lk6mg2kc4dn2ugkjd7d7ou0d42ap@4ax.com...

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy
plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load
power.

---
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
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it
out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say
15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it
can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional
people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.

---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over

A novel called; "1984" featured a ministry just like you.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:18:16 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:51:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:05:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:46:28 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
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
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.

---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

As for math I've posted, you must not have read a lot of my stuff, but
there was a post only a few days ago which showed a non-Ohms law way
to get the product of two input frequencies as an output

The one about multiplying two sine waves, where you got the math
wrong? Sure, I remember that one.

---
My way had to do with multiplying frequencies,

Another silly hairball

---
Not at all, since it was just a conceptual sketch outlining one way to
accomplish what the OP asked for, while you offered nothing.
---

not with multiplying sine waves;

You argued that, if sinewaves F1 and F2 are multiplied, there will be
F1 and F2 components in the product. Wrong.

---
Right.
---

Since this is not your area of expertise, you might try not making
statements like this, or doing a little research first.

---
Well, it's not _exactly_ out of my area of expertise, I just made a
mistake.

However, your suggestion is appreciated.

--
JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:06:21 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:30:54 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


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
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

---
If a plug rated for 15A is plugged into 240V mains, then with a 16 ohm
resistor connected across the plug the resistor will dissipate 3600
watts.

Now unplug the plug from the 240V mains and plug it into 120V mains.
The dissipation will fall to 900 watts.

Isn't 3600 watts 4 times greater than 900 watts?

Which has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand, but you knew that. You're
just trying move the goal posts to hide your stupidity.

That's like trying to hide a mountain.

---
I've explained it to the best of my ability, so if you still don't
understand it I either have poor teaching skills or you all are
uneducable.

Or, more likely, you're miffed at having missed such an easy concept
and are now the lynch mob out for revenge.
---

He just keeps showing us how stupid he's determined to be. You have to
kind of admire that sort of dedication.

---
Likewise.

A simple situation was posited, by you, where the correct answer was
"2". Your answer was "4."

So you invented a completely different situation in which the correct
answer was indeed 4, and pretended that's what the question was. I
call that stupid.

Using a 120 volt outlet on a 240 volt circuit isn't too bright either.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:59:31 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2belr79vtl32eunldpnfnf2idunekeoj7o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:42:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3imkr7pjl1cr5c5smohnjc6db9kk097ph9@4ax.com...

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

In addition, I often provide schematics and simulations and, on
occasion, actually build a prototype to prove, without a doubt, that
the design is sound.

You, on the other hand, seem to content yourself by sitting on the
sidelines hurling insults

Only at tossers who deserve it.

---
And why are you a fit judge to determine who's a tosser and who isn't
and whether they "deserve" to be insulted?


Insulted?! - pointed out more like.

---
That hardly answers the question.

--
JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:16:10 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:18:16 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:51:19 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:05:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:46:28 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
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
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.

---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

As for math I've posted, you must not have read a lot of my stuff, but
there was a post only a few days ago which showed a non-Ohms law way
to get the product of two input frequencies as an output

The one about multiplying two sine waves, where you got the math
wrong? Sure, I remember that one.

---
My way had to do with multiplying frequencies,

Another silly hairball

---
Not at all, since it was just a conceptual sketch outlining one way to
accomplish what the OP asked for, while you offered nothing.
---



not with multiplying sine waves;

You argued that, if sinewaves F1 and F2 are multiplied, there will be
F1 and F2 components in the product. Wrong.

---
Right.
---

Since this is not your area of expertise, you might try not making
statements like this, or doing a little research first.

---
Well, it's not _exactly_ out of my area of expertise, I just made a
mistake.

However, your suggestion is appreciated.

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.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:02:00 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

A novel called; "1984" featured a ministry just like you.

---
news:sqdnr7diiq9lvnvrarj0noh9p7i0qq8sa6@4ax.com

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:22:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:06:21 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:30:54 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


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
mains without changing plugs.

A simple situation was posited, by you, where the correct answer was
"2". Your answer was "4."

---
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.

Oh well...
---

So you invented a completely different situation in which the correct
answer was indeed 4, and pretended that's what the question was.
call that stupid.

---
If that were true it would be more aptly labeled "Larkinese".
---

Using a 120 volt outlet on a 240 volt circuit isn't too bright either.

---
Depends on who's doing it and why.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

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?

--
JF

 

[Ian Field]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:nsbnr7ps5nmd11bl6kg71rboglbnhknpsj@4ax.com...

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:59:31 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2belr79vtl32eunldpnfnf2idunekeoj7o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:42:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3imkr7pjl1cr5c5smohnjc6db9kk097ph9@4ax.com...


---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

In addition, I often provide schematics and simulations and, on
occasion, actually build a prototype to prove, without a doubt, that
the design is sound.

You, on the other hand, seem to content yourself by sitting on the
sidelines hurling insults

Only at tossers who deserve it.

---
And why are you a fit judge to determine who's a tosser and who isn't
and whether they "deserve" to be insulted?


Insulted?! - pointed out more like.

---
That hardly answers the question.

--
JF

It was neccessary to correct your error first.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:45:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:nsbnr7ps5nmd11bl6kg71rboglbnhknpsj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:59:31 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2belr79vtl32eunldpnfnf2idunekeoj7o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:42:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3imkr7pjl1cr5c5smohnjc6db9kk097ph9@4ax.com...


---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

In addition, I often provide schematics and simulations and, on
occasion, actually build a prototype to prove, without a doubt, that
the design is sound.

You, on the other hand, seem to content yourself by sitting on the
sidelines hurling insults

Only at tossers who deserve it.

---
And why are you a fit judge to determine who's a tosser and who isn't
and whether they "deserve" to be insulted?


Insulted?! - pointed out more like.

---
That hardly answers the question.

--
JF


It was neccessary to correct your error first.

---
Goodbye, mini-troll.

--
JF

 

[Fred Abse]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:04:09 -0700, fungus wrote:

When you have two devices with transformers the difference between what
each device considers "0V" can be huge depending on which way around you
plug them into the mains.

Care to explain how, with diagrams?

In Europe you have no idea how much power can be drawn from any given
socket. Plug in a heater on the "wrong" side of the room and you can be
plunged into darkness because it was on the same circuit breaker as the
lighting.

In what European countries is it legal to feed both sockets and lighting
circuits from the same breaker?

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)