Substituting electrolytic capacitor.

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dave.H" wrote:

Another stupid question, but would I be able to use two .01 capacitors
in parallel with the electrolytic? I can't seem to find any .2 caps.

Use 0.22

0.2 isn't a standard value (except from some ancient US suppliers).

---
You're full of shit, again, Graham.

Look on Digi-Key's website and you'll find lots of 0.2ľF from non-US
manufacturers.
0.2 and 0.5 uF (among other non 'E' range values) are a purely American
inspiration.

You can of course get ANY value made to order.

Graham
 
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:30:39 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dave.H" wrote:

Another stupid question, but would I be able to use two .01 capacitors
in parallel with the electrolytic? I can't seem to find any .2 caps.

Use 0.22

0.2 isn't a standard value (except from some ancient US suppliers).

---
You're full of shit, again, Graham.

Look on Digi-Key's website and you'll find lots of 0.2ľF from non-US
manufacturers.

0.2 and 0.5 uF (among other non 'E' range values) are a purely American
inspiration.
---
And what's wrong with that?

Even though, silly boy, no one was talking about '5' being a
standard value, while '2' _is_ a standard value in the E24 range.
---

You can of course get ANY value made to order.
---
Geez, Graham, I'm _astounded_ by your amazing grasp of the obvious!


--
JF
 
On 18 Nov 2007 06:56:23 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

You're full of shit, again, Graham.

Keep quiet! John Chesterfiled fields ;-)
---
Are you still here, you annoying twit?


--
JF
 
John Fields wrote:

On 18 Nov 2007 06:56:23 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

You're full of shit, again, Graham.

Keep quiet! John Chesterfiled fields ;-)

---
Are you still here, you annoying twit?
hmmm, you talk again about yourself....

Yes, you are right, you annoy!



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
On 18 Nov 2007 17:17:50 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On 18 Nov 2007 06:56:23 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

You're full of shit, again, Graham.

Keep quiet! John Chesterfiled fields ;-)

---
Are you still here, you annoying twit?

hmmm, you talk again about yourself....

Yes, you are right, you annoy!
---
You pretend to be clever, but in your intellectually impoverished
state you seem to think that merely echoing an earlier comment
supercedes the original author's light.

The moon proclaiming to be the sun, for example.


--
JF
 
John Fields wrote:

John Fields wrote:

You're full of shit, again, Graham.

Keep quiet! John Chesterfiled fields ;-)

---
Are you still here, you annoying twit?

hmmm, you talk again about yourself....

Yes, you are right, you annoy!

---
You pretend to be clever, but in your intellectually impoverished
state you seem to think that merely echoing an earlier comment
supercedes the original author's light.

The moon proclaiming to be the sun, for example.

Hi John!


No, but I don't let anyone attack Eyeore, that's all.

He can defend himself more, than only by neatly sorted linguistic
outflowings 'here'. So, I can't understand... (flaming him with so rude
words... Challenge!!!)



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
On 20 Nov 2007 10:33:10 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

John Fields wrote:

You're full of shit, again, Graham.

Keep quiet! John Chesterfiled fields ;-)

---
Are you still here, you annoying twit?

hmmm, you talk again about yourself....

Yes, you are right, you annoy!

---
You pretend to be clever, but in your intellectually impoverished
state you seem to think that merely echoing an earlier comment
supercedes the original author's light.

The moon proclaiming to be the sun, for example.


Hi John!


No, but I don't let anyone attack Eyeore, that's all.
---
You can't stop anyone from attacking anyone else, you can only whine
about it after the fact.
---

He can defend himself more, than only by neatly sorted linguistic
outflowings 'here'. So, I can't understand... (flaming him with so rude
words... Challenge!!!)
---
Here...:

http://www.rosettastone.com/


--
JF
 
John Fields wrote:

He can defend himself more, than only by neatly sorted linguistic
outflowings 'here'. So, I can't understand... (flaming him with so
rude words... Challenge!!!)

---
Here...:

http://www.rosettastone.com/

hmmmmm, there is more than one language there!

I am confused..... what have you meant!?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
On 20 Nov 2007 14:15:20 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

He can defend himself more, than only by neatly sorted linguistic
outflowings 'here'. So, I can't understand... (flaming him with so
rude words... Challenge!!!)

---
Here...:

http://www.rosettastone.com/


hmmmmm, there is more than one language there!

I am confused..... what have you meant!?
---
Get unconfused. This is an English language forum, ergo learn proper
English.


--
JF
 
John Fields wrote:

---
Get unconfused. This is an English language forum, ergo learn proper
English.
how fine that Eyeore likes to conversate with me :)

His stunning, aristocratic (I beg my pardon), hightech, modern and deep
(I think he knows the old stuff, too) English, is far better than
yours. That is what counts! I am not in the question!

I am just the Cleric some steps in front of him, to catch you, before
making any steps you will regret. :)=


Go measure your English skills and deeper knowledge to that specific
language with him. I am a poor victim against your knowledge to
English, indeed.



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
On 20 Nov 2007 21:14:29 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
Get unconfused. This is an English language forum, ergo learn proper
English.



how fine that Eyeore likes to conversate with me :)
---
Well, it seems like a match made in heaven. Congratulations! I hope
you'll both be very happy.
---


His stunning, aristocratic (I beg my pardon), hightech, modern and deep
(I think he knows the old stuff, too) English, is far better than
yours. That is what counts!
---
LOL, you can barely string words together to form a coherent English
sentence and all of a sudden you're a professor of English???
---

I am not in the question!
---
Nor are you in the answer.
---

I am just the Cleric some steps in front of him, to catch you, before
making any steps you will regret. :)=
---
So, if I choose to disagree vehemently with Graham and you're there
as his shield, you'd block the message on religious grounds and keep
Graham from reading it because you think I might later regret
retaliation?

Think again. Graham's not as stupid as you give him credit for, nor
is God.
---

Go measure your English skills and deeper knowledge to that specific
language with him.
---
Thank you very much, but we've already had many interesting
contrapuntal discourses without the benefit of your permission,
Your Assholiness.
---

I am a poor victim against your knowledge to English, indeed.
--- ^^
of

Indeed, but there's no need to be.

If you want to communicate in a meaningful way with persons whose
native language is English, then it behooves you to learn English.

While I can't speak for the collective, I'm sure most of us would
gladly help you with your understanding of nuance if you'd only take
the trouble to learn some basic grammar.


--
JF
 
John Fields wrote:

On 20 Nov 2007 21:14:29 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
Get unconfused. This is an English language forum, ergo learn
proper >> English.



how fine that Eyeore likes to conversate with me :)

---
Well, it seems like a match made in heaven. Congratulations! I hope
you'll both be very happy.
---


His stunning, aristocratic (I beg my pardon), hightech, modern and
deep (I think he knows the old stuff, too) English, is far better
than yours. That is what counts!

---
LOL, you can barely string words together to form a coherent English
sentence and all of a sudden you're a professor of English???
---

I am not in the question!

---
Nor are you in the answer.
---

I am just the Cleric some steps in front of him, to catch you,
before making any steps you will regret. :)=

---
So, if I choose to disagree vehemently with Graham and you're there
as his shield, you'd block the message on religious grounds and keep
Graham from reading it because you think I might later regret
retaliation?

Think again. Graham's not as stupid as you give him credit for, nor
is God.
---

Go measure your English skills and deeper knowledge to that specific
language with him.

---
Thank you very much, but we've already had many interesting
contrapuntal discourses without the benefit of your permission,
Your Assholiness.
---

I am a poor victim against your knowledge to English, indeed.
--- ^^
of

Indeed, but there's no need to be.

If you want to communicate in a meaningful way with persons whose
native language is English, then it behooves you to learn English.

While I can't speak for the collective, I'm sure most of us would
gladly help you with your understanding of nuance if you'd only take
the trouble to learn some basic grammar.


:-|?


You speak outofyourself, at least four times.

Stop it :), whom do you want to attract!?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: only the overwhelming is to be overspoken
 
On 21 Nov 2007 00:52:45 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On 20 Nov 2007 21:14:29 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
Get unconfused. This is an English language forum, ergo learn
proper >> English.



how fine that Eyeore likes to conversate with me :)

---
Well, it seems like a match made in heaven. Congratulations! I hope
you'll both be very happy.
---


His stunning, aristocratic (I beg my pardon), hightech, modern and
deep (I think he knows the old stuff, too) English, is far better
than yours. That is what counts!

---
LOL, you can barely string words together to form a coherent English
sentence and all of a sudden you're a professor of English???
---

I am not in the question!

---
Nor are you in the answer.
---

I am just the Cleric some steps in front of him, to catch you,
before making any steps you will regret. :)=

---
So, if I choose to disagree vehemently with Graham and you're there
as his shield, you'd block the message on religious grounds and keep
Graham from reading it because you think I might later regret
retaliation?

Think again. Graham's not as stupid as you give him credit for, nor
is God.
---

Go measure your English skills and deeper knowledge to that specific
language with him.

---
Thank you very much, but we've already had many interesting
contrapuntal discourses without the benefit of your permission,
Your Assholiness.
---

I am a poor victim against your knowledge to English, indeed.
--- ^^
of

Indeed, but there's no need to be.

If you want to communicate in a meaningful way with persons whose
native language is English, then it behooves you to learn English.

While I can't speak for the collective, I'm sure most of us would
gladly help you with your understanding of nuance if you'd only take
the trouble to learn some basic grammar.



:-|?
---
:-|??
---

You speak outofyourself, at least four times.
---
And you'd erect limits? So much for your concept of free speech and
self determination.
---

---
Why should I?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and, other than recruiting
cannon fodder, why would you want to attract those who have
succumbed to the lies inherent to your cause?

That's easy. You want the world to respond, unconditionally, to your
beck and call since you seem to think that you know how to fix
everything and you want to be queen of the world.

Unfortunately, you don't.

But, I could be wrong.

If you had your own way and could stifle your critics, how would you
do it?
---


P.S.: only the overwhelming is to be overspoken
---
Wrong.

The smallest underwhelming error also needs to be corrected.


--
JF
 
John Fields wrote:

---
:-|??
---
?

---
And you'd erect limits? So much for your concept of free speech and
self determination.
---
Ah.... now you speak American. My dear, I've heard that so often and
you (at least fifty percent of all in US) are the last which would do
so as they say ;-)

Stop it :)

---
Why should I?
Hmmm, that could be also analyzed but I am too lazy now.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and, other than recruiting
cannon fodder, why would you want to attract those who have
succumbed to the lies inherent to your cause?
Yeah ;) completely right. Someone who steals has to be careful, because
it will surely happen the same to him/her/them. (higher right -real
right, etc.)

That's easy. You want the world to respond, unconditionally, to your
beck and call since you seem to think that you know how to fix
everything and you want to be queen of the world.
Hmmm, that could be also analyzed but I am too lazy now.

Unfortunately, you don't.
You see! Again! (makes it four :))

But, I could be wrong.
Let your five at home!!!!

If you had your own way and could stifle your critics, how would you
do it?
Ask a jewish expert!?

Wrong.

The smallest underwhelming error also needs to be corrected.
In your genetic structure.

Not even that. We should close the whole universe according to your
suggestion, because THAT was just due a small imprecision.
You don't know that????

;-)



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: you're a contra-type, forget it!
 
On 21 Nov 2007 11:29:04 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
:-|??
---

?

---
And you'd erect limits? So much for your concept of free speech and
self determination.
---

Ah.... now you speak American. My dear, I've heard that so often and
you (at least fifty percent of all in US) are the last which would do
so as they say ;-)
---
Really?

I'm perfectly willing to let you have your say, while you're the one
who says "Stop it."
---

Stop it :)

---
Why should I?

Hmmm, that could be also analyzed but I am too lazy now.
---
LOL, you cast inability as sloth.
---

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and, other than recruiting
cannon fodder, why would you want to attract those who have
succumbed to the lies inherent to your cause?

Yeah ;) completely right. Someone who steals has to be careful, because
it will surely happen the same to him/her/them. (higher right -real
right, etc.)
---
Be careful, then.
---

That's easy. You want the world to respond, unconditionally, to your
beck and call since you seem to think that you know how to fix
everything and you want to be queen of the world.

Hmmm, that could be also analyzed but I am too lazy now.
---
LOL, you cast inability as sloth, again.
---

Unfortunately, you don't.

You see! Again! (makes it four :))
---
???
---

But, I could be wrong.

Let your five at home!!!!
---
???
---

If you had your own way and could stifle your critics, how would you
do it?

Ask a jewish expert!?
---
???
---

Wrong.

Wrong.

The smallest underwhelming error also needs to be corrected.

In your genetic structure.

Not even that. We should close the whole universe according to your
suggestion, because THAT was just due a small imprecision.
---
So, according to you, God made a mistake?


--
JF
 
John Fields wrote:

---
So, according to you, God made a mistake?

sigh

This trainer from 'Full Metal Jacket' also spoke about God. You do not
really believe him, do you?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: Hint: you can describe such things with math! But you could never
let it happen, even you could/can describe it by math ;). That's God!
Are we? :)

P.P.S.: God IS the mistake ;). Just remember how often ppl do
mistakes... yes!?
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top