Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Nunya on 2 Aug 2010 20:06 On Aug 2, 4:59 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> > wrote: > > > > >On Aug 1, 12:15 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 1, 10:02 am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > >> > 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. > > >> I did not know that. Do you have a source for that knowledge? > > > Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. > > Wussmobile. > > John YARR Yet Another Retarded Response
From: Michael A. Terrell on 3 Aug 2010 02:38 Phil Hobbs wrote: > > George Herold wrote: > > On Jul 29, 11:46 am, Phil Hobbs > > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: > >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:10:41 +0100, John Devereux > >>> <j...(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: > >>>> John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes: > >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:38:51 +0300 (EEST), Okkim Atnarivik > >>>>> <Okkim.Atnari...(a)twentyfout.fi.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote: > >>>>>> : Do thermals matter to you? Latching relays are fabulous. As analog > >>>>>> : switches, no semiconductor comes close. We recently measured the wiper > >>>>>> Interestingly, in the LHe temperature OptoMOS switches can be closed > >>>>>> but not opened. Switch-off relies on the charge leaking away from the > >>>>>> MOSFET gate, and this leak obviously freezes. > >>>>> Maybe you're just not waiting long enough. A 2N7002 will keep itself > >>>>> on or off, gate floating, for days. A cryo temps, that might extend to > >>>>> a few million years. I'm impressed that they work at all. > >>>>> Possibly they use a silicon resisor for the pulldown, and the > >>>>> resistance goes way, way up when it's cold. So it might turn off in a > >>>>> few weeks. > >>>>> Optomos SSRs are great signal switches too. I recently blew up a bunch > >>>>> of Clare parts, to find their voltage:current destruct limits. The > >>>>> datasheets are horrible about that. > >>>> Yes, pathetic for something clearly intended as an I/O component. I got > >>>> no answer from them either about it. > >>>> [...] > >>> I have some crude point-of-destruction SOAR graphs if you're > >>> interested, on their CPC1008N part. After blowing a bunch up, I > >>> learned that you can look at waveforms and pretty accurately > >>> anticipate second breakdown (or whatever makes them fail) just before > >>> it happens. Plotting graphs is much faster when you don't have to > >>> replace the part every data point, like the civil engineering students > >>> breaking concrete beams. > >>> John > >> It's amazing that they remain civil--I mean, War between the States, sorry. > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Phil Hobbs > >> > >> (Recently saw the Confederate Correct-orrr episode of Rocky & Bullwinkle > >> again. Brilliant.) > > > > What? Phil I thought your nose was always in a book, not pointed at > > the TV? > > > > George H. > > > > I don't watch TV or movies normally, but I'm not ideological about it. > (Of course the last movie I watched was in 1987, but that's because > there haven't been any good ones lately.) > > My winsome #1 daughter (who grew up with no TV in the house, courtesy of > her cruel and inhuman father) bought the Nth season of Rocky & > Bullwinkle on DVD, and I happened to pass by the room she was watching > it in. I always did like the Confederate Corrector episode. (And #2 > daughter is winsome too, in case she's reading this.) > > My kids also keep me in good reading material--on Sunday, when I was > getting ready to go on my monthly trip to NM, the same daughter gave me > a book on the Trojan War to read on the airplane, and my son gave me his > favourite Hemingway. > > So yeah, I read a lot, and I've been doing more normal circuit design in > the past year than I have in a looong time. Fun. :) So tell us: What does a 'Hemming' weigh? ;-)
From: JosephKK on 3 Aug 2010 05:48 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:17:25 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:07:13 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:20:25 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>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? >> >>I am not conflating them, the article _you_ cited above does. Your >>shame is that you do not understand that. BTW i notice you are >>backpedaling. And finally how about you look at just how much they >>have been cleaned up over the last 50 years? > >The article is short and plainly written. It's not hard to understand. >The good news there is that climate geeks are finally onto something >real, and thet we can do something about without decimating >civilization. That's a welcome burst of sanity. Still no answer to my questions, and lots of new red herrings. > >I still see lots of trucks and ships belching black diesel fumes. Now you are adding a PREVIOUSLY unlisted vehicle class. >And >China and India are building unfiltered coal power plants. Completely off point. Moreover out of any US's laws reach, so how is us regulations supposed to reduce India's and China's emmissions? > >John >
From: JosephKK on 3 Aug 2010 05:52 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:59:12 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> >wrote: > >>On Aug 1, 12:15�pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On Aug 1, 10:02�am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> I did not know that. �Do you have a source for that knowledge? >> >> Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. > >Wussmobile. > >John Gosh John, that is a personal attack disguised as a proper response.
From: John Larkin on 3 Aug 2010 09:48
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:52:06 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:59:12 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> >>wrote: >> >>>On Aug 1, 12:15�pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Aug 1, 10:02�am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > 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. >>>> >>>> I did not know that. �Do you have a source for that knowledge? >>> >>> Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. >> >>Wussmobile. >> >>John > >Gosh John, that is a personal attack disguised as a proper response. You're reading a lot into one word. John |