Are TS555's really supposed to suck this much?
in [Design]
|
Prev: ZXSC400 LED driver problem
Next: calculate MTBF
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Jan 2010 12:22 On Jan 26, 5:00 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:31:43 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 25, 6:11 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:10:12 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Jan 25, 3:43 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> I don't think Bill is an idiot. I think he's a reasonably intelligent > >> >> person whose fatheaded personality neutralizes his ability to think.. > > >> >Actually, it isn't my fat-headed personality that neutralises my > >> >ability to think like John Larkin - it's all the scientific stuff I've > >> >learned about the world that he doesn't seem to have had the time to > >> >find out. > > >> --- > >> Like that the 555 is obsolete, > > >Most people see this an undeniable fact. You choose to differ. > > --- > And to offer undeniable proof of its continuing vitality. > > You, OTOH, continue to enlist imaginary legion in order to bolster your > untenable position. > --- > > >> and that you can extract energy from a conductor by winding a solenoid around its axis, > > >A delusion that you keep trying to foist on me - based on my > >preference for simpler explanation of Joel Koltner's joke. > > --- > Nonsense. > > Being bereft of humor you saw no joke but merely the statement you > didn't know was erroneous and chose to support at the time. He did go to the trouble of tagging it as a joke with a smiley. That you managed to miss the implications of that particular symbol speaks volumes about your reading disability. <snipped the rest of the rubbish> -- Bill Sloman,
From: Joel Koltner on 26 Jan 2010 12:51 "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in message news:33a0218d-1831-45b3-857e-4f5a9cff378b(a)a12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > The ADE651 bomb detector? More on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 -- amazing that people manage to pull off this sort of scam; the guy presently going to jail probably won't get more than few years, and perhaps figures it's worth it for the tens of millions of dollars he's made ---Joel
From: Greegor on 26 Jan 2010 14:09 BS > Why do you think I call him Jim-out BS > -of-touch-with-reality-Thompson? BS > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen Sloman, In the USA you would be considered to be "kook left" even by the mainstream left. I am not entirely convinced that you are not one of our US kook misfits who is so disaffected that they wish they lived near Amsterdam. Many of our US pot smoking burnout misfits dream of living in or near the drug Mecca of Amsterdam. I still wonder if you're not just one of those kooks claiming your fantasy on-line. (Possibly using a remailer located there) Your past intense excitement regarding US HEALTH CARE seemed to support this nagging suspicion. Your animus toward Jim also fits this outside hypothesis. Such disaffected misfits generally resent all other views and WISH that they could elevate the popularity of their own. Coincidentally, Ultraliberals within the US seem to have severely overestimated the popularity of their proposals. US citizens have TRILLIONS of indications as to which views are "out-of-touch-with-reality" and the backlash is only beginning. It seems that the Fabian Society and their "gradual socialism" might have hit a snag.
From: John Fields on 26 Jan 2010 15:07 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:22:21 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 26, 5:00�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> Nonsense. >> >> Being bereft of humor you saw no joke but merely the statement you >> didn't know was erroneous and chose to support at the time. > >He did go to the trouble of tagging it as a joke with a smiley. That >you managed to miss the implications of that particular symbol speaks >volumes about your reading disability. --- Being bereft of humor, you obviously missed the humorous reference being applied to the incongruity of stealing power from the power company, not to the method and the fallacy surrounding it. As a matter of fact, when I asked him if he knew why it would be impossible to steal it that way, he responded with an answer pertaining to the legality of it, not to the physics involved, which you were also in the dark about, cheater. JF
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Jan 2010 17:43
On Jan 26, 9:07 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:22:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jan 26, 5:00 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> Nonsense. > > >> Being bereft of humor you saw no joke but merely the statement you > >> didn't know was erroneous and chose to support at the time. > > >He did go to the trouble of tagging it as a joke with a smiley. That > >you managed to miss the implications of that particular symbol speaks > >volumes about your reading disability. > > --- > Being bereft of humor, you obviously missed the humorous reference being > applied to the incongruity of stealing power from the power company, not > to the method and the fallacy surrounding it. > > As a matter of fact, when I asked him if he knew why it would be > impossible to steal it that way, he responded with an answer pertaining > to the legality of it, not to the physics involved, which you were also > in the dark about, cheater. His actual answer "Because the federales would get you?" doesn't strike me as being a serious response about the legality of the action, but rather as a continuation of the joke. In fact you were in enough doubt about physics involved to set up your fatuous "experiment". Once again you have been projecting your own inadequacies, trying to conceal the fact that you made a fool of yourself by claiming that someone else - me in this instance - had revealed a comparable lack of insight, and presenting your own fumbling around as if it was some kind of lecture demonstration. It's funny, but irritating. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |