Silly question, AC power plugs

[Ian Field]

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:bstpr7hhrmvss6lgsih54trr6ulqvoc94d@4ax.com...

On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:24:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rnior7td7ob0pbhpt4d77vubqr9eftj748@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:02:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:15:07 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:10:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:11:24 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:07:37 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

With good reason.

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


Good Lord, you're as stupid as DimBulb! I didn't know it was possible.

---
Ad hominem.

Fact. ...which you continually demonstrate.

---

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

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

---
Non sequitur.

Fact. You used the race card where there was no racial content at all.
That's
really despicable.


Is subhuman even a race?!

No matter the race, Fields is despicable.

Just another con artist - passing himself off as something he's not.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:44:10 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:24:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rnior7td7ob0pbhpt4d77vubqr9eftj748@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:02:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:15:07 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:10:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:11:24 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:07:37 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

With good reason.

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


Good Lord, you're as stupid as DimBulb! I didn't know it was possible.

---
Ad hominem.

Fact. ...which you continually demonstrate.

---

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

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

---
Non sequitur.

Fact. You used the race card where there was no racial content at all.
That's
really despicable.


Is subhuman even a race?!

No matter the race, Fields is despicable.

More like pitiful and annoying. He's too corny and lightweight to
qualify for "despicable."


--

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ian Field wrote:

Is subhuman even a race?!

Ask your parents.


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

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:19:39 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:04:08 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:15:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:25:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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
^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong!
120V mains without changing plugs."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong!

Speaking of uneducable...

---
A likely contender blindly jumps right in.

IKWYABWAI is about your speed.

---

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.

Utter nonsense.

---
I said: "Anyone skilled in the art" which, as you've demonstrated,
obviously excludes you.

Wrong again, AlwaysWrong Jr. You said "four times the power available", which
is FALSE. It might deliver four times the power to a small resistive load,
but there is *NOT* "four times the power available". Now go back and take
grade school electricity.

How else would what I posted have been true if that wasn't the case?

It was *NOT* true, moron.

---
Bosh.

It's so easy for the demons of the inquisition to make accusations and
so time-consuming to prove them false that I'd like to, at least, see
the math supporting the validity of your claim.

Can you post that, please?

The premise, as I've stated from the onset, is that a load be
connected across a voltage source and the power dissipated by the load
measured.

The argument is that if that load is disconnected from the original
source and connected across a voltage source with an output amplitude
half that of the first, the conclusion must be that the power
dissipated in the last instance was 1/4 of the power dissipated in the
first.
---

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".

No, it's a perfect Fields answer.

---
Ignoratio elenchi.

Good grief, you're a stupid shit!

---
Ad Hominem
---

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

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

No, it's stupid in all cases.

---
Fallacy of hasty generalization.

Wrong again, Jr.

---
Care to expound?
---

It's certainly not surprising that you'd think it acceptable.

---
Ad hominem

The truth sometimes hurts, idiot.

---
Indeed, and whether or not i'm an idiot, It seems you're in pain most
of the time.

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 19:27:06 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:19:39 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:04:08 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:15:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:25:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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
^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong!
120V mains without changing plugs."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong!

Speaking of uneducable...

---
A likely contender blindly jumps right in.

IKWYABWAI is about your speed.

---

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.

Utter nonsense.

---
I said: "Anyone skilled in the art" which, as you've demonstrated,
obviously excludes you.

Wrong again, AlwaysWrong Jr. You said "four times the power available", which
is FALSE. It might deliver four times the power to a small resistive load,
but there is *NOT* "four times the power available". Now go back and take
grade school electricity.

How else would what I posted have been true if that wasn't the case?

It was *NOT* true, moron.

---
Bosh.

You really are as dumb as DimBulb.

It's so easy for the demons of the inquisition to make accusations and
so time-consuming to prove them false that I'd like to, at least, see
the math supporting the validity of your claim.

We've been through this before. You didn't learn anything then and you're not
likely to now, either. The current is limited by the wiring and outlet. If
you double the voltage in a circuit it is only capable of TWICE the power, not
four times, as you continue to claim.

Can you post that, please?

I have corrected you several times, as have others. You're too dense to
learn, though.

The premise, as I've stated from the onset, is that a load be
connected across a voltage source and the power dissipated by the load
measured.

You're a liar. That is *NOT* what you claimed.

The argument is that if that load is disconnected from the original
source and connected across a voltage source with an output amplitude
half that of the first, the conclusion must be that the power
dissipated in the last instance was 1/4 of the power dissipated in the
first.

That is NOT what you claimed, liar.

---

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".

No, it's a perfect Fields answer.

---
Ignoratio elenchi.

Good grief, you're a stupid shit!

---
Ad Hominem

Fact. It's sad, but true.

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

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

No, it's stupid in all cases.

---
Fallacy of hasty generalization.

Wrong again, Jr.

---
Care to expound?

Give a counterexample, where it's safe.

---

It's certainly not surprising that you'd think it acceptable.

---
Ad hominem

The truth sometimes hurts, idiot.

---
Indeed, and whether or not i'm an idiot, It seems you're in pain most
of the time.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The fact is that as an "engineer", you suck. Dumb
as DimBulb.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

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).

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:59:15 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:bstpr7hhrmvss6lgsih54trr6ulqvoc94d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:24:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rnior7td7ob0pbhpt4d77vubqr9eftj748@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:02:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:15:07 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:10:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:11:24 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:07:37 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

With good reason.

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


Good Lord, you're as stupid as DimBulb! I didn't know it was possible.

---
Ad hominem.

Fact. ...which you continually demonstrate.

---

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

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

---
Non sequitur.

Fact. You used the race card where there was no racial content at all.
That's
really despicable.


Is subhuman even a race?!

No matter the race, Fields is despicable.

Just another con artist - passing himself off as something he's not.

He should find a new line of work. There isn't a big market for 555 circuit
designers.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 08:31:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:44:10 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:24:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rnior7td7ob0pbhpt4d77vubqr9eftj748@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:02:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:15:07 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:10:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:11:24 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:07:37 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

With good reason.

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


Good Lord, you're as stupid as DimBulb! I didn't know it was possible.

---
Ad hominem.

Fact. ...which you continually demonstrate.

---

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

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

---
Non sequitur.

Fact. You used the race card where there was no racial content at all.
That's
really despicable.


Is subhuman even a race?!

No matter the race, Fields is despicable.

More like pitiful and annoying. He's too corny and lightweight to
qualify for "despicable."

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

 

[John Larkin]

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.

Do all the parts fit?

Do the power supplies come up?

Can the uP run code?

Does the FPGA configure?

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.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:31:16 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:02:03 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:15:07 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:10:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:11:24 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:07:37 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

With good reason.

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


Good Lord, you're as stupid as DimBulb! I didn't know it was possible.

---
Ad hominem.

Fact. ...which you continually demonstrate.

---

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

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

---
Non sequitur.

Fact. You used the race card where there was no racial content at all. That's
really despicable.

---

Keep going, you're proving the point.

---
So, it's filtering down through that thick skull of yours and into
your hateful brain and you're finally "getting" it?

That you're a moron? I got that long ago.

Be still, my heart, there may yet be hope for the spiritually
disenfranchised.

Perhaps there is hope for the intellectually disenfranchised, too. You could
use some hope. What you have isn't working.

---

You're in line for an honorable mention, though.

---
I'll be waiting for ya.

Is that a threat?

---
Not at all, but I understand why you thought it might be since your
rhetoric is often hostile and, more often, hostile without reason.

Hostile? You're a dope, that's a statement of fact. No hostility at all.

Can you explain why?

You act like a dope? Nope, I guess that's what you are.

---
I can see why you "argue" the way you do, and it's simply because you
don't have the wit not to.

For example, consider your parting shot.

I wrote: "Not at all, but I understand why you thought it might be
since your rhetoric is often hostile and, more often, hostile without
reason. Can you explain why?"

You then separated the second statement from the first, inserted an
unfounded statement between the sentences, and replied to my second
sentence as if it (my second sentence) was querying your insertion.

That false re-ordering of time is typical of the subterfuge you use to
cause confusion and change the course of an argument when you feel the
noose tightening around your neck.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

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 - that worked and helped the querents, you
mostly pat yourself on the back, run your mouth about how great you
are, and try to convince everyone that their mistakes are monumental
while yours, regardless of their severity, are inconsequential.

The best one yet is your claim that your 8 layer boat anchor worked
perfectly, out of the box, because the cuts and jumpers didn't matter.

What a hoot!!!

And, speaking of complexity, what's the most complicated device you
designed and posted here in response to a querent's request?


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:19:06 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Ian Field wrote:

Is subhuman even a race?!


Ask your parents.

---
Good one, Michael!

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:32:54 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 19:27:06 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:19:39 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:04:08 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:15:26 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:25:05 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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
^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong!
120V mains without changing plugs."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong!

Speaking of uneducable...

---
A likely contender blindly jumps right in.

IKWYABWAI is about your speed.

---

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.

Utter nonsense.

---
I said: "Anyone skilled in the art" which, as you've demonstrated,
obviously excludes you.

Wrong again, AlwaysWrong Jr. You said "four times the power available", which
is FALSE. It might deliver four times the power to a small resistive load,
but there is *NOT* "four times the power available". Now go back and take
grade school electricity.

How else would what I posted have been true if that wasn't the case?

It was *NOT* true, moron.

---
Bosh.

You really are as dumb as DimBulb.

It's so easy for the demons of the inquisition to make accusations and
so time-consuming to prove them false that I'd like to, at least, see
the math supporting the validity of your claim.

We've been through this before. You didn't learn anything then and you're not
likely to now, either. The current is limited by the wiring and outlet. If
you double the voltage in a circuit it is only capable of TWICE the power, not
four times, as you continue to claim.

Can you post that, please?

I have corrected you several times, as have others. You're too dense to
learn, though.

The premise, as I've stated from the onset, is that a load be
connected across a voltage source and the power dissipated by the load
measured.

You're a liar. That is *NOT* what you claimed.

The argument is that if that load is disconnected from the original
source and connected across a voltage source with an output amplitude
half that of the first, the conclusion must be that the power
dissipated in the last instance was 1/4 of the power dissipated in the
first.

That is NOT what you claimed, liar.

---

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".

No, it's a perfect Fields answer.

---
Ignoratio elenchi.

Good grief, you're a stupid shit!

---
Ad Hominem

Fact. It's sad, but true.


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

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

No, it's stupid in all cases.

---
Fallacy of hasty generalization.

Wrong again, Jr.

---
Care to expound?

Give a counterexample, where it's safe.

---

It's certainly not surprising that you'd think it acceptable.

---
Ad hominem

The truth sometimes hurts, idiot.

---
Indeed, and whether or not i'm an idiot, It seems you're in pain most
of the time.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The fact is that as an "engineer", you suck. Dumb
as DimBulb.

---
Tsk, tsk, tsk...

So much invective.

So little substance.

--
JF

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-05-15, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

others have attempted to explain the stupidity of the above claim and
apparently failed.

a MEMA 5-15 socket id good for 15A
so at 120VAC there's 1800W available

double the voltage and there's 3600W available

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

 

[Jasen Betts]

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.

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

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.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

 

[John Fields]

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.

---
snipped irrelevance...
..
..
..
----------

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.
----------
..
..
..

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On 24 May 2012 11:08:25 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2012-05-15, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

others have attempted to explain the stupidity of the above claim and
apparently failed.

a MEMA 5-15 socket id good for 15A
so at 120VAC there's 1800W available

double the voltage and there's 3600W available

---
You're responding to my first post on that subject, which should have
been worded like 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
120V mains without changing plugs."

Can you parse that sentence successfully and determine under which
circumstances it would be true?

Hint:
<--15A-->
240AC>-----<<----+ 3600W
| /
[16R]
|
240AC>-----<<----+


<--7.5A-->
120AC>-----<<----+ 900W
| /
[16R]
|
120AC>-----<<----+


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

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?
---

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"...
---

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.

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

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. He is
relentless and his presence is cruel. You've joined him.

---
snipped irrelevance...

Snip yourself

.
.
----------

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

Your goal post movement isn't going unnoticed.

 

[Ian Field]

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:tvfsr7tsokt7r9j6r8sm9op3regb9qo408@4ax.com...

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. He is
relentless and his presence is cruel. You've joined him.
---
snipped irrelevance...

Snip yourself

JF should be sterilised in the best interests of human evolution.