Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 07:36 In article <45BF7751.10381EE3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> I thought MP wrote that he made the skins. >> > >> >Who physically knocks the metal into shape is irrelevant. I've designed >> >plenty of metalwork myself. The designer doesn't usually go into the workshop >> to >> >physically make it but he is responsible for whether it does the required >> job. >> > >> >What exactly do you mean by skins anyway. Another attempt to confuse the >> >issue ? >> >> Skins is the lingo to describe the outside of the boxes. > >There's far more to a case than the outer panels. I worked in the computer biz. > > >> >> >It's about good design you see and good design need not be expensive. >> >> >> >> No matter how you slice it, thick skins packaging computer innards >> >> costs money. >> > >> >What is "thick skins packaging" ? The thickness of the material isn't the >> > issue btw. >> >> I thought thickening was one of ways to enclose EMFs. > >No. Avoiding holes is though. I didn't think that thin plastic kept EMF contained. IIR the guys talking, the key was good alignment of the gun. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 07:38 In article <45C0A612.4B14CE39(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>Now implement the production line that is so perfect all leaks >> >>>>can't get out. >> >>> >> >>>It shouldn't be the job of the production line. >> >> >> >> Think about it. The production line has to be designed so >> >> that the process doesn't leave any seam untoned. >> > >> >OP's designs never see line level production. >> >> Possibly. It's not clear since he talks like a tech. Most >> in this working category don't know how the rest of the >> company works. > >Good Lord ! > >You're startlingly ignorant of modern manufacturing. Some but I know modern etchings aren't done by hand anymore. It needs a clean building. One of these days, I'll watch one being built. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 07:39 In article <87ps8vne3z.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Possibly. It's not clear since he talks like a tech. Most >> >> in this working category don't know how the rest of the >> >> company works. >> > >> > Good Lord ! >> > >> > You're startlingly ignorant of modern manufacturing. >> >> Three excess words there. > >I don't think anyone could ever call BAH startlingly modern. > >;-) It's a feature. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 07:42 In article <45C0A6D4.C09823ED(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Compliance testing is routine these days. >> >> >> >> Not really. >> > >> >Yes it is. Most developed countries now require EMC compliance on all >> >electrical and electronic products. It's a modestly large business. >> > >> >> I have to unplug my stove to listen to AM radio. >> > >> >Then your stove is very likely non-compliant with modern standards. >> >> It is a new stove. > >Then there's something seriously amiss. Right. I figured out the bug in thier emissions testings procedures. I posted the bug yesterday. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Now implement the production line that is so perfect all leaks >> >> >> can't get out. >> >> > >> >> >It shouldn't be the job of the production line. >> >> >> >> Think about it. The production line has to be designed so >> >> that the process doesn't leave any seam untoned. >> > >> >Good design means good design for production too. There >> >should be no 'fiddly >> >bits' requiring excessive labour to 'fettle'. >> >> This all costs oodles of money. > >No it doesn't. > > >> To recover those costs, each >> system has to have an inflated price that will pay for all costs >> plus some. > >It costs almost nothing to design something well. Oh, son. You have a lot to learn. >In fact it can cost less than >designing something badly. > >The methods required for good EMC performance are mostly simply 'good practice'. Now consider that the procedures used to test are flawed. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 07:46
In article <qse2s21bddotci9j2so36irb5kuds4rmcn(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Jan 07 14:06:51 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <kmrvr2172te9al1coe976aud3bb3s82j30(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Tue, 30 Jan 07 15:34:36 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>>>Compliance testing is routine these days. >>>> >>>>Not really. I have to unplug my stove to listen to AM radio. >>> >>> >>> What exactly do you attribute that to? >>> >>>Hint: >>> >>> It isn't your radio, and it isn't the stove. >>> >>> If you want to learn something, just ask. >> >>1. Turn radio on to an AM station. >>2. Plug in stove. >>3. All radio AM stations have interference; most stations can >>no longer be heard. >>4. Unplug stove. AM station interference clears up immediately. >> >>Experiment is 100% reproducible. > > I never said it wasn't. The question is how much of what is taking >place are you actually able to properly observe? What do mean, "how much"? What part of cannot hear any broadcast did you not understand? The only station that does come through the noise is a 50K Watt station in Boston. > >> I don't need error bars. > > But you ARE error bars. > > And you think the culprit is? > > I'll clue you. One thing is the AM band on the radio. Very >susceptible to AC wiring, and AC driven appliances. > > The other IS your house wiring. The stove should not "do" what it >is doing, so I suspect your house wiring. Particularly since you >don't even have any burners running on the stove. It isn't the burners. It is the computer board in the stove that is bad. > > If you want good AM reception, you need a good loop antenna. That >will keep the reception constant. Otherwise you have a serious issue >with your house wiring. I dismissed the wiring because no other object plugged does this. > > We're talking femtowatts here. You can modify reception by merely >standing differently on the AM band. > > Since you were unaware of how manufacturing works, I can't expect >you to know electronics. The old stove didn't mask all broadcasts. /BAH |