A question about coil winding
in [Basics]
|
Prev: component tester, transistors and diodes / LEDs
Next: Discharging a lithium-ion battery, what is the third wire for?
From: Michael B on 8 Jan 2010 23:45 Preparing to wind a motor coil or more. Need some info to consider a shortcut. Putting aside the issue of current handling capacity, does anyone have awareness of whether a multistrand wire made of smaller magnet wires can serve instead of a single wire with the same number of windings? On Jan 8, 9:00 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > --- > Please... > > Holding down a scroll key to get to the beginning of a top-posted series > of articles is at least 50% less efficacious than having the oldest > article on top since once you've read the stack and gotten to the bottom > you can type your article there instead of having to scroll back to the > top to do it. > > You're right about one thing though, and that's that groups which orient > themselves as if they were email and either pretend or are stupid enough > to think that everyone knows what went before should probably stick to > the email format instead of burdening themselves with learning how to > post properly. > > Even Google Groups, that bastion for the clueless states, from: > > http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250 > > "Summarize what you're following up. > > When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing > article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the > cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start > typing your message, please STOP and do two things first. > Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant. > Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there. > Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your > post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your > comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article. > And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does, > they'll get the gist of what you're talking about." > > So, you see, even though you pretend to fight valiantly, tooth and nail, > to defend your untenable position, in truth you're reduced yourself to > nothing more than a laughingstock low-grade troll since even the lowest > common denominator is apprised of proper usenetiquette, which you choose > to flaunt for the sole purpose of attracting unwarranted attention by > tilting at windmills and fomenting trouble. > --- > > >Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an > >enormous number of specific-interest > >groups, more being formed all the time. > >That would suggest top posting being > >more appropriate, > > --- > As well as being a red herring, that statement is false since bottom and > in-line posting, when appropriate, is the posting style of choice for > anyone who reads from left to right and from top to bottom. > > Just think about how you're reading this sentence; are you starting from > the eroteme and reading back back? > > I don't think so, ergo: "as above, so below". > --- > > >along with ignoring > >self-appointed net-cops that want to try > >to force a practice they know to be > >archaic and clumsy. > > --- > I'd say that applied more to you than to me since I'm merely defending > Google Groups' sage advice while (unless you're trying to troll, which > is more likely) you're trying to tear down a practice which serves > USENET in good stead and replace it with an onerous non-solution to a > non-problem. > > Key phrase here is: "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." while what you > seem to be saying is: "If it works, break it so I can have my way." > > Amazing what you creeps try to get away with, yes? > > JF
From: Michael B on 9 Jan 2010 19:30 If you get around to any roses-sniffing, here's a comment that was in alt.home.repair that might be relevant to your assertion that >90 % prefer bottom-posting. > Gets me, too. Ths group's the worst one I've ever seen > for it, and I don't know why that should be. I don't ever KF > people, but if I don't see some of their new content in a > message without having to scroll, I don't bother reading it. On Jan 8, 9:38 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:33:50 -0500, "Josepi" <J...(a)invaliid.con> wrote: > >Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to > >see if I missed anything... > > >and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are > >all in order. > > >I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of > >the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not > >mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday > >for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like > >Usenet. > > >I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the > >curser at the top. > > --- > That's done as a courtesy to those who are reading the thread for the > first time as it allows them to read the thread using what most of us > accept as conventional chronology. > > I suppose you regard it as an unfair intelligence test since you seem to > have so much trouble navigating the thread by moving the "curser" to the > salient part of the thread or to the most recent article. > > >There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom > >but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the > >signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this > >method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC....LOL > > --- > "Even the signatures lines are handled by deleting them."??? > > Poor baby, you really _don't_ know how to use a proper newsreader, do > you? > --- > > >This should have them cringing in their boots. > > --- > > >I used the words "browser", > >"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like > >to cling onto...LOL > > --- > Sounds like that puts you squarely in the camp you so loudly denounce, > since you and the rest of your little junta want to saddle everyone with > top posting just to satisfy your bloated egos. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_euKhE7rw0&feature=related > --- > > >Have a good one. > > --- > I already do. > > JF
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Jan 2010 23:23 nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the > next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the > groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to > 1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post. > When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days > between new posts its days are numbered. Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all over!!!" -- Greed is the root of all eBay.
From: nospam on 9 Jan 2010 23:38 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > >> Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the >> next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the >> groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to >> 1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post. >> When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days >> between new posts its days are numbered. > > Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a > sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start > banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all > over!!!" > Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were even two years ago?
From: Sjouke Burry on 10 Jan 2010 00:46
nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: >> >>> Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the >>> next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the >>> groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to >>> 1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post. >>> When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days >>> between new posts its days are numbered. >> Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a >> sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start >> banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all >> over!!!" >> > > > Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't > believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were > even two years ago? You start blathering on a group where there direct disproof of your opinion. Daily a batch of messages, and only when people like you come around, trolling , things get ugly. So improve the group and vanish..... |