Tube vs. Solid State Preamp
in [Design]
|
Prev: How do you call
Next: Internet via Cellular
From: Jim Thompson on 6 Apr 2010 19:49 On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:31:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:18:26 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:05:44 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:58:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 05:29:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:21:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:53:30 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>>> I once repaired a TV set that had motorized tuning. Amazing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not really amazing... I've seen quite a few ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What might really amaze you... the 1968 Philco-Ford car radio... the >>>>>>>>>>> search-tuning version... was all motor-driven inductor slugs... I >>>>>>>>>>> know, I worked on the design :-) >>>>>>>>>> Yet the Lincoln used a Delco 'Wobnderbar' radio that year. >>>>>>>>> Cars manufacture back in those days was an interesting game. High end >>>>>>>>> cars had all the experiments... the idea being: rich folk will >>>>>>>>> tolerate field failures if you kiss up to 'em and give 'em a loaner... >>>>>>>>> no maintenance costs whatever :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Interesting aside... you should have seen the brouhaha when >>>>>>>>> wife-of-upper-Ford-management goes into a car wash in Dearborn, >>>>>>>>> "rolling door locks" went off during the roll, the hand washers >>>>>>>>> couldn't open the doors and the car behind crashed into m'lady's fancy >>>>>>>>> Lincoln "toy" :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everything innovative I ever did in automotive went into Lincoln's, >>>>>>>>> Cadillac's and Chrysler 300D's first. >>>>>>>> Did you ever see Caddilac's 'Automatic Headlight Dimmer'? ;-) >>>>>>> You mean the big "tear-drop-on-its-side" thingy that sat on a stalk on >>>>>>> the dash? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I redid the electronics for that (GM Guidelamp Division)... adding >>>>>>> various delay functions and "fast-dim" if you topped a hill into the >>>>>>> face of another car. CdS sensor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scared the Paradise Valley cops by testing that in the dips of >>>>>>> McDonald drive ;-) >>>>>> Yes, that wierd sensor that looked like a prop from a 'b' Sci-fi >>>>>> movie. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only units I saw were all tube, and built in the '50s. No one >>>>>> would even attempt to repair them, so you could get them from junked >>>>>> caddys for free. I had at least one complete system, and thought it was >>>>>> funny that it had about as may parts as the AM radio, and wasted so much >>>>>> current. :( >>>>> Does any car company offer an automatic headlight dimmer anymore? >>>> My wife's car has automatic headlights; just as dumb. >>> >>> The real problem with many of those is that they do not turn on the rear >>> lights. My office has a nice view and there is a road going straight up >>> a slope in the distance. At night I can regularly see many cars with the >>> headlights on and no rear lights. The driver doesn't notice because he >>> sees that the headlights are on. The perfect recipe for a rear-ender. >> >> American-made cars? I've not seen a car like that, at least in recent >> years. GM used to do it to avoid a wire to the alternator regulator. >> Alternator output was initiated due to a slightly magnetized rotor... >> thus you needed a minimum load... they chose the headlights and called >> it a safety feature ;-) >> > >I think it's mostly US cars but sometimes it's hard to tell because of >the distance. Once at a traffic light I got out and told the driver, who >then turned a little knobs and, tada, tail lights came on. IIRC it was a >Chrysler. > >It's really scary when they tow a trailer, big black boat, no tail >lights. You can watch it on that hill because it's tempting to "gun it" >there if you have the proper car. Kid in low-rider Honda turns onto >Meder Road, floors it, enjoys the throaty exhaust, here comes that big >black trailer with no lights, screeeeech ..... > > >> I never touch the light switch on the Q45... it does it all >> automagically. Annoying only in that it will turn on the lights in a >> drive-thru :-( >> > >I prefer everything to be manual. Well, maybe except for the >mixture/ignition although in some areas of the world like Spain or >Portugal it came in handy when we could adjust that. Maybe the quality >of gasoline is better there now. Most better fuel injection systems handle altitude and octane rating automatically... ping sensor backs off the advance and pulls the mix back to slightly rich of stoichiometric. When we last had a gasoline "shortage" I ran the Q45 on Regular... no problem at all, not even a noticeable loss of pep away from a light. ...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 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Joerg on 6 Apr 2010 20:33 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:31:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > [...] >> I prefer everything to be manual. Well, maybe except for the >> mixture/ignition although in some areas of the world like Spain or >> Portugal it came in handy when we could adjust that. Maybe the quality >> of gasoline is better there now. > > Most better fuel injection systems handle altitude and octane rating > automatically... ping sensor backs off the advance and pulls the mix > back to slightly rich of stoichiometric. > > When we last had a gasoline "shortage" I ran the Q45 on Regular... no > problem at all, not even a noticeable loss of pep away from a light. > Yes, my car does that as well. Maybe it would cope with the situation although back in the late 70's and early 80's the gas there was so extremely bad that even an old VW Beetle with a regular 1200cc engine needed serious adjustments after crossing the border. And those cars were known to be happy with really bad swill, low compression and all. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 20:55 On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:31:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:18:26 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:05:44 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:58:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 05:29:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:21:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:53:30 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>>> I once repaired a TV set that had motorized tuning. Amazing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not really amazing... I've seen quite a few ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What might really amaze you... the 1968 Philco-Ford car radio... the >>>>>>>>>>> search-tuning version... was all motor-driven inductor slugs... I >>>>>>>>>>> know, I worked on the design :-) >>>>>>>>>> Yet the Lincoln used a Delco 'Wobnderbar' radio that year. >>>>>>>>> Cars manufacture back in those days was an interesting game. High end >>>>>>>>> cars had all the experiments... the idea being: rich folk will >>>>>>>>> tolerate field failures if you kiss up to 'em and give 'em a loaner... >>>>>>>>> no maintenance costs whatever :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Interesting aside... you should have seen the brouhaha when >>>>>>>>> wife-of-upper-Ford-management goes into a car wash in Dearborn, >>>>>>>>> "rolling door locks" went off during the roll, the hand washers >>>>>>>>> couldn't open the doors and the car behind crashed into m'lady's fancy >>>>>>>>> Lincoln "toy" :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everything innovative I ever did in automotive went into Lincoln's, >>>>>>>>> Cadillac's and Chrysler 300D's first. >>>>>>>> Did you ever see Caddilac's 'Automatic Headlight Dimmer'? ;-) >>>>>>> You mean the big "tear-drop-on-its-side" thingy that sat on a stalk on >>>>>>> the dash? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I redid the electronics for that (GM Guidelamp Division)... adding >>>>>>> various delay functions and "fast-dim" if you topped a hill into the >>>>>>> face of another car. CdS sensor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scared the Paradise Valley cops by testing that in the dips of >>>>>>> McDonald drive ;-) >>>>>> Yes, that wierd sensor that looked like a prop from a 'b' Sci-fi >>>>>> movie. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only units I saw were all tube, and built in the '50s. No one >>>>>> would even attempt to repair them, so you could get them from junked >>>>>> caddys for free. I had at least one complete system, and thought it was >>>>>> funny that it had about as may parts as the AM radio, and wasted so much >>>>>> current. :( >>>>> Does any car company offer an automatic headlight dimmer anymore? >>>> My wife's car has automatic headlights; just as dumb. >>> >>> The real problem with many of those is that they do not turn on the rear >>> lights. My office has a nice view and there is a road going straight up >>> a slope in the distance. At night I can regularly see many cars with the >>> headlights on and no rear lights. The driver doesn't notice because he >>> sees that the headlights are on. The perfect recipe for a rear-ender. >> >> American-made cars? I've not seen a car like that, at least in recent >> years. GM used to do it to avoid a wire to the alternator regulator. >> Alternator output was initiated due to a slightly magnetized rotor... >> thus you needed a minimum load... they chose the headlights and called >> it a safety feature ;-) >> > >I think it's mostly US cars but sometimes it's hard to tell because of >the distance. Once at a traffic light I got out and told the driver, who >then turned a little knobs and, tada, tail lights came on. IIRC it was a >Chrysler. Perhaps they were using the "running lights"? I rented a Ford in CA some years back and couldn't understand why people were flashing their lights at me. Everything looked fine to me (I could see my lights on the road ahead) but evidently I didn't have my headlights on. When it got darker I could tell there was something wrong. Maybe it's a CA thing. None of my Fords have had similar. >It's really scary when they tow a trailer, big black boat, no tail >lights. You can watch it on that hill because it's tempting to "gun it" >there if you have the proper car. Kid in low-rider Honda turns onto >Meder Road, floors it, enjoys the throaty exhaust, here comes that big >black trailer with no lights, screeeeech ..... > > >> I never touch the light switch on the Q45... it does it all >> automagically. Annoying only in that it will turn on the lights in a >> drive-thru :-( >> > >I prefer everything to be manual. Well, maybe except for the >mixture/ignition although in some areas of the world like Spain or >Portugal it came in handy when we could adjust that. Maybe the quality >of gasoline is better there now.
From: Joerg on 6 Apr 2010 21:09 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:31:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:18:26 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: [...] >>>>> My wife's car has automatic headlights; just as dumb. >>>> The real problem with many of those is that they do not turn on the rear >>>> lights. My office has a nice view and there is a road going straight up >>>> a slope in the distance. At night I can regularly see many cars with the >>>> headlights on and no rear lights. The driver doesn't notice because he >>>> sees that the headlights are on. The perfect recipe for a rear-ender. >>> American-made cars? I've not seen a car like that, at least in recent >>> years. GM used to do it to avoid a wire to the alternator regulator. >>> Alternator output was initiated due to a slightly magnetized rotor... >>> thus you needed a minimum load... they chose the headlights and called >>> it a safety feature ;-) >>> >> I think it's mostly US cars but sometimes it's hard to tell because of >> the distance. Once at a traffic light I got out and told the driver, who >> then turned a little knobs and, tada, tail lights came on. IIRC it was a >> Chrysler. > > Perhaps they were using the "running lights"? I rented a Ford in CA some > years back and couldn't understand why people were flashing their lights at > me. Everything looked fine to me (I could see my lights on the road ahead) > but evidently I didn't have my headlights on. When it got darker I could tell > there was something wrong. Maybe it's a CA thing. None of my Fords have had > similar. > Could have been. But that's stupid if a supposedly safety-enhancing feature does the opposite. Why don't they just turn the tail lights on with the daytime running lights? [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 21:31
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:09:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:31:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:18:26 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > >[...] > >>>>>> My wife's car has automatic headlights; just as dumb. >>>>> The real problem with many of those is that they do not turn on the rear >>>>> lights. My office has a nice view and there is a road going straight up >>>>> a slope in the distance. At night I can regularly see many cars with the >>>>> headlights on and no rear lights. The driver doesn't notice because he >>>>> sees that the headlights are on. The perfect recipe for a rear-ender. >>>> American-made cars? I've not seen a car like that, at least in recent >>>> years. GM used to do it to avoid a wire to the alternator regulator. >>>> Alternator output was initiated due to a slightly magnetized rotor... >>>> thus you needed a minimum load... they chose the headlights and called >>>> it a safety feature ;-) >>>> >>> I think it's mostly US cars but sometimes it's hard to tell because of >>> the distance. Once at a traffic light I got out and told the driver, who >>> then turned a little knobs and, tada, tail lights came on. IIRC it was a >>> Chrysler. >> >> Perhaps they were using the "running lights"? I rented a Ford in CA some >> years back and couldn't understand why people were flashing their lights at >> me. Everything looked fine to me (I could see my lights on the road ahead) >> but evidently I didn't have my headlights on. When it got darker I could tell >> there was something wrong. Maybe it's a CA thing. None of my Fords have had >> similar. >> > >Could have been. But that's stupid if a supposedly safety-enhancing >feature does the opposite. Why don't they just turn the tail lights on >with the daytime running lights? Horrors! Think of all the electricity wasted. |