Transformer insulateing tape?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Capacitor discharge probes
Next: makes no sense to me
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Jun 2010 23:12 On Jun 23, 7:58 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > The 555 may still be used > >- by people who haven't yet learned that there are now better ways of > >tackling the kind of job that it was developed to look after - but it > >is still totally obsolete. > > --- > With millions of pieces in stock, in all imaginable packages, all > around the world, and with no manufacturer offering "lifetime buys" or > notices of discontinuance, it seems your claims of obsolescence > haven't been heard at high enough levels to matter. The part is still manufactured and dsitributed, but as a legacy part There are lots of old designs that use it which don't - individually - sell in bigh enough volumes to justify the cost of redesign, though they may justify the smaller cost of a relayout for smaller packages. Legacy parts are obsolete, even if the leacy market keeps them commercially viable. There are a few lazy and stupid engineers still designing it into new products, because they've never bothered to find out the more modern solutions, and there are also quite a few hobbyists who just copy elements out of old designs without trying to understand the technology involved. > As far as "better ways" goes, how would you know? Granting your self-serving delusions, there's no way you'd believe the explanation. > The last time you put anything on paper, here, for a 555 substitute > was an expensive analog monstrosity which, If I recall correctly, was > truly obsolete at the time and, as far as replacing the device with a > microcontroller goes, you don't have any first-hand experience with > modern microcontrollers and are just parrotting the currently popular > party line. Your memory is as bad as your grasp of reality. I did suggest the old RCA CD4047 as a viable alternative. It is a digital part (in so far as any monostable/astable is digital) and still in stock at Farnell as dip parts from Fairchild, TI and NXP, and as an soic part from NXP. You don't need a modern microcontroller to put together a clock-based timer - programmable logic parts are rather more useful if you want to control a couple of operations at the same time, but that might be a little too complicated for you. And could you point to an exposition of the currently popular party line that I'm supposed to be parrotting? I'm not aware of any such document, but I'd quite like to see one if such a document actually exists. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Fields on 25 Jun 2010 00:21 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:41:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 24, 7:07�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:02:27 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> . >> . >> . >> >> >So you can't point to any goal post that I've actually moved. >> >> --- >> He may not be able to, but I certainly can, case in point being the >> thread where you didn't realize that a solenoid wrapped around a >> conductor carrying AC current won't act as a transformer, remember? > >That is what you remember. It is pity that you never did understand >what I actually said. --- OK, I'll bite... What did you actually say? --- >> Instead of leaving the goalposts where they were and admitting to your >> ignorance, heaven forbid, you moved them by trying to make it seem >> like the OP was joking and that you knew it all along, when clearly he >> wasn't and you didn't, cheater. > >You do seem to need to "understand" reality in a way that lets you >preserve your self-image as someone who knows what they are talking >about. --- Reality??? Did I not present photographs of the experiment showing the equipment layout and readings obtained with various currents in the "primary" and near zero voltage and current readings in the solenoid wrapped around the current carrying conductor? --- >Pity about that. --- So I don't know what I'm talking about? Replicate the experiment and come back with your own findings.
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Jun 2010 05:51 On Jun 25, 6:21 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:41:29 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 24, 7:07 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:02:27 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >So you can't point to any goal post that I've actually moved. > > >> --- > >> He may not be able to, but I certainly can, case in point being the > >> thread where you didn't realize that a solenoid wrapped around a > >> conductor carrying AC current won't act as a transformer, remember? > > >That is what you remember. It is pity that you never did understand > >what I actually said. > > --- > OK, I'll bite... > > What did you actually say? > --- You were never able to get the point back then. Why should I waste my time making a second attempt at getting the same idea past your congitive defects? > >> Instead of leaving the goalposts where they were and admitting to your > >> ignorance, heaven forbid, you moved them by trying to make it seem > >> like the OP was joking and that you knew it all along, when clearly he > >> wasn't and you didn't, cheater. > > >You do seem to need to "understand" reality in a way that lets you > >preserve your self-image as someone who knows what they are talking > >about. > > --- > Reality??? > > Did I not present photographs of the experiment showing the equipment > layout and readings obtained with various currents in the "primary" > and near zero voltage and current readings in the solenoid wrapped > around the current carrying conductor? > > --- You did. None of it contracted the point I'd been trying to make, which you seemed to be incapable of comprehending. > >Pity about that. > > --- > So I don't know what I'm talking about? > > Replicate the experiment and come back with your own findings. The experiment showed pretty much what the rest of us would have predicted, and actually confirmed the point I'd made - as you would have understood if you'd correctly processed the words I'd originally posted. You didn't know what I had been talking about, and - having managed to concoct your own bizarre idea of what I might have meant - went off on some tangent based on what you would have liked me to have implied. IIRR the whole thing hinged on what you thought I should have said if I'd meant what I believed I'd meant - there was a joke in there somewhere which you hadn't noticed. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Fields on 25 Jun 2010 12:25 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:51:54 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 25, 6:21�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:41:29 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jun 24, 7:07�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:02:27 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >So you can't point to any goal post that I've actually moved. >> >> >> --- >> >> He may not be able to, but I certainly can, case in point being the >> >> thread where you didn't realize that a solenoid wrapped around a >> >> conductor carrying AC current won't act as a transformer, remember? >> >> >That is what you remember. It is pity that you never did understand >> >what I actually said. >> >> --- >> OK, I'll bite... >> >> What did you actually say? >> --- > >You were never able to get the point back then. --- That's because there was no point, only some doddering old nitwit trying to talk himself out of a situation he'd gotten himself into because of his ignorance. --- >Why should I waste my >time making a second attempt at getting the same idea past your >congitive defects? --- JF 1, BS 0. --- >> >> Instead of leaving the goalposts where they were and admitting to your >> >> ignorance, heaven forbid, you moved them by trying to make it seem >> >> like the OP was joking and that you knew it all along, when clearly he >> >> wasn't and you didn't, cheater. >> >> >You do seem to need to "understand" reality in a way that lets you >> >preserve your self-image as someone who knows what they are talking >> >about. >> >> --- >> Reality??? >> >> Did I not present photographs of the experiment showing the equipment >> layout and readings obtained with various currents in the "primary" >> and near zero voltage and current readings in the solenoid wrapped >> around the current carrying conductor? >> >> --- > >You did. None of it contracted the point I'd been trying to make, >which you seemed to be incapable of comprehending. --- I think it interesting that someone who doesn't know the difference between 'contracted' and 'contradicted' feels competent to judge comprehension. --- >> >Pity about that. >> >> --- >> So I don't know what I'm talking about? >> >> Replicate the experiment and come back with your own findings. > >The experiment showed pretty much what the rest of us would have >predicted, and actually confirmed the point I'd made - as you would >have understood if you'd correctly processed the words I'd originally >posted. > >You didn't know what I had been talking about, and - having managed to >concoct your own bizarre idea of what I might have meant - went off on >some tangent based on what you would have liked me to have implied. > >IIRR the whole thing hinged on what you thought I should have said if >I'd meant what I believed I'd meant - there was a joke in there >somewhere which you hadn't noticed. --- The _fact_ of the matter, no matter how you squirm and try to get off the hook, liar, is that you originally thought power could be transferred from a single AC carrying conductor by using a solenoid wrapped around it as the secondary of a transformer. No particular shame in that, but for someone like you, who professes to know everything about everything, a devastating chink in your armor which you must, somehow, get everyone to believe wasn't there in the first place.
From: Pieyed Piper on 25 Jun 2010 12:47
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:25:24 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >I think it interesting that someone who doesn't know the difference >between 'contracted' and 'contradicted' feels competent to judge >comprehension. Almost sig material for some... :-) |