Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
did you miss the relevant group part too? Perhaps it is posted in a relevantOn Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:11:02 +0100 "Alan Smith" <alan@hidden.email> wrote
in Message id: <d8n6kd$ok0$2@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>:
"none" <none@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:cppta1hb59q4febm44o5gok2g01a1hd38r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:23:46 -0400 "rainbow" <rain.bowwwwt.net> wrote in
Message id: <B5SdnQlIPYGWLjDfRVn-rA@rogers.com>:
God is an almighty spirit, who cannot be seen, but knows all things
about us.
Proof please, or shut the fuck up.
If he has proof then by all means post it- but in a relevant group, you
can
go there to read it since you are so interested and giving encouragment.
He can't post any proof, hence his shutting up.
He can't post any proof, hence his shutting up."none" <none@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:cppta1hb59q4febm44o5gok2g01a1hd38r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:23:46 -0400 "rainbow" <rain.bowwwwt.net> wrote in
Message id: <B5SdnQlIPYGWLjDfRVn-rA@rogers.com>:
God is an almighty spirit, who cannot be seen, but knows all things
about us.
Proof please, or shut the fuck up.
If he has proof then by all means post it- but in a relevant group, you can
go there to read it since you are so interested and giving encouragment.
No, but there's an awesome graph - did I mention something that IOn Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:55:51 GMT, the renowned Pig Bladder
pigbladder@neodruid.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:52:15 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, the renowned John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without some
mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil" at 0C too.
---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.
Good one, John!
Lame.
Approx. 10^3 Pa.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html ;^j
Do you happen to know what the triple-point of water is?
Confining comments to the topic makes newsgoups work better.John Fields wrote...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.
The answer of course is: not much.
Hmmm...
Same as the answer to: "What does Floyd L. Davidson know about
anything?".
liquid at the applied pressure and temperature is equal to the appliedHe appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.
I believe that the "boiling point" is when the partial pressure of the
"tutorials" to "the Phantom", but the "tutorials" quote (in "theOn 6/15/05 7:23 AM, in article 3ccc5$42b037cc$4304c63c$490@DIALUPUSA.NET,
"Bud" <remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote:
Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.
Bud--
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net
wrote:
He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.
John
The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."
Shame on you, Bud.
Don
Reading back through the thread I can see how John attributed the
I see what happened.Don Bowey wrote:
On 6/15/05 7:23 AM, in article 3ccc5$42b037cc$4304c63c$490@DIALUPUSA.NET,
"Bud" <remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote:
Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.
Bud--
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net
wrote:
He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.
John
The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."
Shame on you, Bud.
Don
Reading back through the thread I can see how John attributed the
"tutorials" to "the Phantom", but the "tutorials" quote (in "the
Phantom" post) was lifted from a post by Don Lancaster. I used square
brackets as they are commonly used.
---(and the "lame" crack came about by your accolade of "Good one, J..."
for merely expressing an invitation to do a web search that took me
all of about four seconds. Sorry, I just didn't think that it was
that great big a deal for a guy to say, "put your money where your
mouth is." I since have, and nobody seems to have noticed that I've
stumbled on a site that tells not only about the ten states of ice,
but also, get this:
---<q>---
Enthalpy of Vaporization [61]
45.054 kJ mol-1 (0°C), 40.657 kJ mol-1 (100°C)
Enthalpy of Fusion
6.0095 kJ mol-1 (0°C, 101.325 kPa) [60]
6.354 kJ mol-1 (81.6°C, 2150 MPa, ice VI) [535]
Enthalpy of Sublimation
51.06 kJ mol-1 (0°C)
---</q>---
from amongst parameters that I didn't even know there were, at
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data.html .)
Wait a minute! There's a picture of the triple-point!
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data.html#d
Kewl! "(273.16 K "exactly ...) The triple point is the temperature and
pressure at which three phases (here liquid water, hexagonal ice, and
water vapor) coexist at equilibrium, and will transform phase with
suitable but tiny changes in temperature or pressure."
So, now, I guess I do! :-D
*Look* at the statement:John Fields wrote...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.
The answer of course is: not much.
Hmmm...
Same as the answer to: "What does Floyd L. Davidson know about
anything?".
He appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.
I didn't do any thrashing - I went right for the answer:On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:04:03 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
So, now, I guess I do! :-D
---
But only because Spehro laid that "triple point" clue on you. Had he not,
you'd still be thrashing around wondering what the hell was going on, so
instead of playing netcop and faulting him for daring to post "accolades"
to which you object, (that is, not posting in accordance with your wishes)
I think a nice "Thank you, Spehro!" is in order.
According to the graph at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html , approx.On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:37:49 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
snip
I am simply
going by memory of my old Physics classes, and I have no idea what
pressure would be required to allow water to boil at 0 C. I think other
substances have boiled at lower temperatures than that at STP though.
Yes. Liquefied gases, in particular, do that, and I'm anxiously awaiting
Floyd Davidson's response which will nail down the pressure required to
allow water to boil at 0°C.
well, tapping on the neck board to get the picture back indicates to me
you've got a tube going bad, or bad solder joints on the neck board.
considering the amount of high voltage floating around there, i'd
suggest you fix that first.
Either what I wrote did not come out how I intended, or you disagree thatOn Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:11:02 -0500, "operator jay" <none@none.none
wrote:
"Don Kelly" <dhky@peeshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0x6se.2355$El.2246@pd7tw1no...
In any case, what you have to do in analysis is to treat each frequency
separately, including the 0 frequency term.
What's the big deal.??
Anybody who doesn't like it, feel free to bang out the de's.
Like I said before, Don, the big deal is people with nothing better to
do than start internet arguments, all the while ignoring all the bits
of knowledge that spill out during the course of same. Case in point.
Huh? The issue is not whether water can be a gas at 0C, rather can itWinfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:
John Fields wrote...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.
The answer of course is: not much.
Hmmm...
Same as the answer to: "What does Floyd L. Davidson know about
anything?".
He appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.
*Look* at the statement:
Water can "boil" at 0C too.
It is *correct*, as you've all been very hasty to demonstrate.
It is not so precise as to say "at 0.010C", but certainly that
value is well within the normal meaning of "0C" (what, -.5 to
+.5 C!).
What? Evaporation only occurs between the liquid and gas phases. IAnd while sublimation might happen at that temperature too, as might
just simple evaporation, the fact that it doesn't break into a full
nucleate boiling state does *not* make what was stated wrong either.
Squirming? Try reading the phase diagram that has been put right in frontBut all of your squirming and name calling clearly does identify each of
you! I don't need to call any of you names, because *you* are providing
everyone who reads these articles with all they need to know, whether
someone actually puts a label on it or not.
If course when *you* provide so many handy labels, you'll have to expect
readers to use exactly those when they think of you.
the tuner problem. It certainly does sound like a bad tuner but I'd"BongBoy" <dewdude@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118962426.559586.99130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
well, tapping on the neck board to get the picture back indicates to me
you've got a tube going bad, or bad solder joints on the neck board.
considering the amount of high voltage floating around there, i'd
suggest you fix that first.
A bad tube won't make snow, but I suppose there might be some strange
arrangement where power for the tuner routes through the neck board. More
likely the tapping is just jarring a loose connection inside the tuner, this
should be easy to fix by just resoldering the bad one.
He was talking about tapping the neck board solving a blank raster, not
Google fpound me two pages that might be useful to you:What happens now is that the VCR's basket (loading mechanism) will load
a tape all of the way down onto the transport, but as the transport
tries to engage you can hear it bind (lock) up (there's a clunk when it
locks up and the loading motor bogs down as it spins agains the taught
belt). I can see everything on the transport start to move (like maybe
1/32 of an inch) then stop. After the the motor strains against the
locked up transport for about 4 seconds, the machine shuts off. If I
leave the tape in and turn the machine back on it immediately tries to
load the tape (which it won't because the transport locks up) and then
shuts-off after about 4 seconds). So I removed the tape and turned the
machine on (without a tape in the basket), but the VCR "thinks" there
is a tape there and still tries to load a tape then shuts off after
four seconds.
I tried to locate a mode switch, but I cannot seem to find one on this
transport. there is an optical position sensor mounted on the side of
the basket, but I am not used to seeing a mode switch there (is that
the mode switch on this machine?).
My NAD 3125 may need new caps (it is 20 years old). All original caps
look fine, and are ELNA brand, either RE or CE series. I cannot find
ELNA online, although I may check a local store. I've been told
Panasonic FC series are good. Are they a suitable replacement for the
originals? They are "low impedance" - is this the important criteria
for audio? ELNA appears to be well respected in the audio world from a
bit of searching I've done, so I don't want to lose any of the
original NAD sound by using the wrong caps.
The one problem my amp has (see earlier post) seems to be isolated to
the left channel infrasonic filter section. Assuming I can resolve this
be replacing the caps in that section, should I just quit there?
Many people have said to just replace all caps on a 20 year old amp,
but the Panasonic spec sheets show that 20-30 years is a reasonable
lifespan for caps at near room temps. The 1000-2000 hrs ratings seem to
be at the max operating temps. Replacing all the caps seems like a
fair bit of trouble, especially if the result is a possible loss of
sound quality if the new caps are inferior to the originals, in terms
of audio quality. Any insight is appreciated!
I have no problem reading. OTOH, you have a problem with high schoolkeith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:08:59 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Winfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:
John Fields wrote...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.
The answer of course is: not much.
Hmmm...
Same as the answer to: "What does Floyd L. Davidson know about
anything?".
He appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.
*Look* at the statement:
Water can "boil" at 0C too.
It is *correct*, as you've all been very hasty to demonstrate.
It is not so precise as to say "at 0.010C", but certainly that
value is well within the normal meaning of "0C" (what, -.5 to
+.5 C!).
Huh? The issue is not whether water can be a gas at 0C, rather can it
*boil*. Since there is nowhere in the phase diagram that the water and
gas phase touch each other at 0C, my guess is that it cannot boil at
0C, at *any* pressure. It's only a guess though. ;-)
Did you even look at the charts? Did you read the many posts,
all of which agreed that at 0.01C, water can be a solid, a liquid,
or a gas.
Since what was specified was "0C", *not* 0.00C, arguing that 0.01
is different than 0C is silly. As noted, 0C covers anything from
-0.5 to +0.5C, because no decimal precison was specified.
And while sublimation might happen at that temperature too, as might
just simple evaporation, the fact that it doesn't break into a full
nucleate boiling state does *not* make what was stated wrong either.
What? Evaporation only occurs between the liquid and gas phases. I
suppose you're proposing that it somehow "tunnels" through the solid phase
at 0C? Me thinks you need to go back to high school physics.
Since at 0C it can be *any* of those... what's your point?
you! I don't need to call any of you names, because *you* are providing
everyone who reads these articles with all they need to know, whether
someone actually puts a label on it or not.
Squirming? Try reading the phase diagram that has been put right in front
of your nose. Water cannot "boil" at 0C. ...not possible.
If course when *you* provide so many handy labels, you'll have to expect
readers to use exactly those when they think of you.
"Handy" labels like "gas", "liquid", "solid", "boil", "melt", and
"sublimate"? I guess you have a point. We're being *so* judgemental.
...hurt your feelings?
Learn to read. People cannot understand the statement
'Water can "boil" at 0C too.' have a problem with the English
language. I you are going to claim you speak English as a second
language, I'll listen, otherwise not.
Correct physics is pedantic? Nice try, but perhaps you want to look atAll this pedantic nashing of teeth for people who can't even read common
English syntax is amazing.
---Winfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:
John Fields wrote...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.
The answer of course is: not much.
Hmmm...
Same as the answer to: "What does Floyd L. Davidson know about
anything?".
He appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.
*Look* at the statement:
Water can "boil" at 0C too.
It is *correct*, as you've all been very hasty to demonstrate.
It is not so precise as to say "at 0.010C", but certainly that
value is well within the normal meaning of "0C" (what, -.5 to
+.5 C!).
---And while sublimation might happen at that temperature too, as
might just simple evaporation, the fact that it doesn't break
into a full nucleate boiling state does *not* make what was
stated wrong either.
---But all of your squirming and name calling clearly does identify
each of you! I don't need to call any of you names, because *you*
are providing everyone who reads these articles with all they need
to know, whether someone actually puts a label on it or not.
---If course when *you* provide so many handy labels, you'll have to
expect readers to use exactly those when they think of you.
---Learn to read. People cannot understand the statement
'Water can "boil" at 0C too.' have a problem with the English
language. I you are going to claim you speak English as a second
language, I'll listen, otherwise not.
All this pedantic nashing of teeth for people who can't even read
common English syntax is amazing.
Panasonic FC capacitors are electrolytics. The high-value electrolytics youMy NAD 3125 may need new caps (it is 20 years old). All original caps
look fine, and are ELNA brand, either RE or CE series. I cannot find
ELNA online, although I may check a local store. I've been told
Panasonic FC series are good. Are they a suitable replacement for the
originals? They are "low impedance" - is this the important criteria
for audio? ELNA appears to be well respected in the audio world from a
bit of searching I've done, so I don't want to lose any of the
original NAD sound by using the wrong caps.
The one problem my amp has (see earlier post) seems to be isolated to
the left channel infrasonic filter section. Assuming I can resolve this
be replacing the caps in that section, should I just quit there?
Many people have said to just replace all caps on a 20 year old amp,
but the Panasonic spec sheets show that 20-30 years is a reasonable
lifespan for caps at near room temps. The 1000-2000 hrs ratings seem to
be at the max operating temps. Replacing all the caps seems like a
fair bit of trouble, especially if the result is a possible loss of
sound quality if the new caps are inferior to the originals, in terms
of audio quality. Any insight is appreciated!