Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Jul 2010 17:47 On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:00:22 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:32:42 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:20:01 -0500, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>>>>I said that charges can >>>>>>generate force, many times now, including just above. >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>Sure, _now_ you say it because you realized you were wrong at first >>>>>and now you're trying to spin it as though you never said otherwise >>>>>and the error never existed. >>>>>--- >>>>> >>>>>I said that chargs IS NOT force, and that a coulomb is not a measure >>>>>of force. >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>The former is true, but not the latter, in the same sense that an >>>>>ampere _can_ be used as a measure of length. >>>> >>>>AlwaysWrong has another new friend! >>> >>>--- >>>I'd sit down and have a beer or shoot a game of pool with him anytime, >>>so it's not a new friendship, and an ampere _can_ be used as a measure >>>of length in a similar way that charge can be used as a measure of >>>force. >>> >>>I outlined the procedure for current in an earlier post, to which you >>>replied, but couldn't refute, so your gratuitous attempt at casting me >>>in an unfavorable light by associating me with one whom you've labeled >>>"untouchable" was, obviously, just more smoke and mirrors behind which >>>you always try to hide. >> >>Amperes are not meters. > >--- >Of course not, but amperes can be used to determine length, as I've >outlined previously, as charge can be used to measure force. > >You continue to rail against the procedure, even though the procedure >is simplicity itself, and if you were a real scientist, instead of >being an egomaniac, you'd say: "OK, you're right." I don't rail against using the resistance of wire to measure some length, at least if accuracy isn't too important. I rail against measuring length in amps. The unit of length is meters. > >But you can't. > >Do you remember from a few years ago when we were talking about using >a comparator for a VCO by connecting its output to its - input through >a resistor, connecting a cap from its - input to ground and using a >variable voltage on its + input to change its output frequency? > >When, against your complaints, I showed that hysteresis wasn't needed >because of the delay through the comparator, your response was >silence. I don't remember that. Please cite. John
From: JosephKK on 1 Aug 2010 04:10 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:09:12 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:52:24 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:08:00 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:00:52 -0700, >>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:24 -0500, John Fields >>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:06:50 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>>>>><gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>(I'm just tired of the snipping back and forth... I should have just >>>>>>>kept my mouth shut and moved on.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>George H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>> >>>>>>Just try injecting technical riffs - braininstorming in public - into >>>>>>the hen-clucking OT personal rants. Not only does that steer us back >>>>>>on topic, it annoys the hell out of some people who really deserve >>>>>>being annoyed. >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>Like this one?: >>>>> >>>>>I am so sick of grey, white, black, silver, and repulsive >>>>>pearl-colored cars. You can drive for blocks around here and see >>>>>nothing but asphalt-colored cars. When I saw that true-red Audi for >>>>>sale, I had to have it. >>>>> >>>>>That Mercedes is a decent shade of red, sort of arterial blood color. >>>>>I've started to see a few new cars on the street that are actual >>>>>colors, not just midnight blue or mud red, but *colors*. Maybe things >>>>>are turning around. >>>>> >>>>>Those Germans sure know how to make cars. 0-60 in 3.7 seconds isn't >>>>>bad at all. That's 0.75 Gs, if I did the math right. >>>>> >>>>>John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>or this one?: >>>>> >>>>>Nobody is going to do anything serious about CO2. And maybe we >>>>>shouldn't anyhow. >>>>> >>>>>This is serious >>>>> >>>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/28/MN5H1EK6BV.DTL >>>>> >>>>>and we *can* do something about it. >>>>> >>>>>John >>>> >>>>Given the well known issues with getting realistic data from SPICE >>>>which has well calibrated and tested models, do you really want to >>>>trust anybody making climate predictions with models whose very theory >>>>is suspect as well? Particularly when there is no track record of >>>>model testability or calibratability? Don't have an answer for the questions, do you? >>> >>>Particulates aren't "climate predictions." They are soot that is real, >>>can be measured, causes health problems, and melts ice. And could be >>>reduced a lot, soon, if diesels, coal fired power plants, and things >>>like aluminum smelters were cleaned up. >>> >>>John >>> >>Do you ever answer a question straight? The climate predictions were >>in the link, a little above, that you provided. And they are the >>supposed motivators for the recommended action. Maybe you are just a >>knee-jerk liberal. > >Hey, inhale all the diesel fumes you like. Enjoy. > >John Yet another evasion. What a slimy escapist twit.
From: Jim Thompson on 1 Aug 2010 11:01 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:09:12 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:52:24 -0700, >>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:08:00 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:00:52 -0700, >>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:24 -0500, John Fields >>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:06:50 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>>>>>><gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>(I'm just tired of the snipping back and forth... I should have just >>>>>>>>kept my mouth shut and moved on.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>George H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just try injecting technical riffs - braininstorming in public - into >>>>>>>the hen-clucking OT personal rants. Not only does that steer us back >>>>>>>on topic, it annoys the hell out of some people who really deserve >>>>>>>being annoyed. >>>>>> >>>>>>--- >>>>>>Like this one?: >>>>>> >>>>>>I am so sick of grey, white, black, silver, and repulsive >>>>>>pearl-colored cars. You can drive for blocks around here and see >>>>>>nothing but asphalt-colored cars. When I saw that true-red Audi for >>>>>>sale, I had to have it. >>>>>> >>>>>>That Mercedes is a decent shade of red, sort of arterial blood color. >>>>>>I've started to see a few new cars on the street that are actual >>>>>>colors, not just midnight blue or mud red, but *colors*. Maybe things >>>>>>are turning around. >>>>>> >>>>>>Those Germans sure know how to make cars. 0-60 in 3.7 seconds isn't >>>>>>bad at all. That's 0.75 Gs, if I did the math right. >>>>>> >>>>>>John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>or this one?: >>>>>> >>>>>>Nobody is going to do anything serious about CO2. And maybe we >>>>>>shouldn't anyhow. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is serious >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/28/MN5H1EK6BV.DTL >>>>>> >>>>>>and we *can* do something about it. >>>>>> >>>>>>John >>>>> >>>>>Given the well known issues with getting realistic data from SPICE >>>>>which has well calibrated and tested models, do you really want to >>>>>trust anybody making climate predictions with models whose very theory >>>>>is suspect as well? Particularly when there is no track record of >>>>>model testability or calibratability? > >Don't have an answer for the questions, do you? >>>> >>>>Particulates aren't "climate predictions." They are soot that is real, >>>>can be measured, causes health problems, and melts ice. And could be >>>>reduced a lot, soon, if diesels, coal fired power plants, and things >>>>like aluminum smelters were cleaned up. >>>> >>>>John >>>> >>>Do you ever answer a question straight? The climate predictions were >>>in the link, a little above, that you provided. And they are the >>>supposed motivators for the recommended action. Maybe you are just a >>>knee-jerk liberal. >> >>Hey, inhale all the diesel fumes you like. Enjoy. >> >>John > >Yet another evasion. What a slimy escapist twit. What have I been saying right along ?:-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel.
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2010 11:20 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:09:12 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:52:24 -0700, >>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:08:00 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:00:52 -0700, >>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:24 -0500, John Fields >>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:06:50 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>>>>>><gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>(I'm just tired of the snipping back and forth... I should have just >>>>>>>>kept my mouth shut and moved on.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>George H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just try injecting technical riffs - braininstorming in public - into >>>>>>>the hen-clucking OT personal rants. Not only does that steer us back >>>>>>>on topic, it annoys the hell out of some people who really deserve >>>>>>>being annoyed. >>>>>> >>>>>>--- >>>>>>Like this one?: >>>>>> >>>>>>I am so sick of grey, white, black, silver, and repulsive >>>>>>pearl-colored cars. You can drive for blocks around here and see >>>>>>nothing but asphalt-colored cars. When I saw that true-red Audi for >>>>>>sale, I had to have it. >>>>>> >>>>>>That Mercedes is a decent shade of red, sort of arterial blood color. >>>>>>I've started to see a few new cars on the street that are actual >>>>>>colors, not just midnight blue or mud red, but *colors*. Maybe things >>>>>>are turning around. >>>>>> >>>>>>Those Germans sure know how to make cars. 0-60 in 3.7 seconds isn't >>>>>>bad at all. That's 0.75 Gs, if I did the math right. >>>>>> >>>>>>John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>or this one?: >>>>>> >>>>>>Nobody is going to do anything serious about CO2. And maybe we >>>>>>shouldn't anyhow. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is serious >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/28/MN5H1EK6BV.DTL >>>>>> >>>>>>and we *can* do something about it. >>>>>> >>>>>>John >>>>> >>>>>Given the well known issues with getting realistic data from SPICE >>>>>which has well calibrated and tested models, do you really want to >>>>>trust anybody making climate predictions with models whose very theory >>>>>is suspect as well? Particularly when there is no track record of >>>>>model testability or calibratability? > >Don't have an answer for the questions, do you? >>>> >>>>Particulates aren't "climate predictions." They are soot that is real, >>>>can be measured, causes health problems, and melts ice. And could be >>>>reduced a lot, soon, if diesels, coal fired power plants, and things >>>>like aluminum smelters were cleaned up. >>>> >>>>John >>>> >>>Do you ever answer a question straight? The climate predictions were >>>in the link, a little above, that you provided. And they are the >>>supposed motivators for the recommended action. Maybe you are just a >>>knee-jerk liberal. >> >>Hey, inhale all the diesel fumes you like. Enjoy. >> >>John > >Yet another evasion. What a slimy escapist twit. You are making no sense. Combustion particulates are definite health hazards and do cause ice melts, probably more than conjectured AGW. They would be relatively easy to reduce... just filter diesels, coal plants, ships, smelters, namely the main industrial sources. One can debate the validity of climate models, but black crud in the air is real. Why are you confusing climate simulation with diesel fumes? Luckily, I live a few miles from the Pacific beaches, and the prevailing wind is from the west, so we get relatively little particulates compared to most places further inland. But we do get some from Chinese power plants and ships. Micron-sized particulates are a significant cause of disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Health_effects What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. John
From: Nunya on 1 Aug 2010 13:02
On Aug 1, 8:20 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, > What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give > to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to > strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some > filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. > > John A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, idiot. The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended in our atmosphere, idiot! A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current mass use. |