From: nuny on
On Jul 12, 4:48 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:57:28 -0700, John Larkin
>
>
>
> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:36:07 -0600, m II <c...(a)in.the.hat> wrote:
>
> >>John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>> Clip, belt, magazine, doesn't matter: any name, or its German
> >>> equivalent, would be equally effective.
>
> >>Ah..the old 'nomenclature' defense! <g>
>
> >>bismarck mike
>
> >For people who like guns and electronics, read "The Deadly Fuse" by
> >Baldwin.
>
> About the WW-II artillery proximity fuse, I presume.

I thought that was in A. C. Clarke's intro to _Venus Equilateral_.


Mark L. Fergerson
From: John Larkin on
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:50:52 -0500, "George Jefferson"
<phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1gsn36lhlos6n2664ku1ka0t8keuojuok1(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:54:02 -0500, John Fields
>> <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Good grief, you *don't* understand this stuff.
>>>>
>>>>You, like AlwaysWrong, are certainly smart enough to learn the basics
>>>>of electrical circuit math, but for some emotional reason you have
>>>>chosen not to. I see that a lot in techs. They compensate by attacking
>>>>people who can do the arithmetic, calling them eggheads or
>>>>"inexperienced" or argue over definitions and third-order effects to
>>>>obscure the fact that there *are* calculable answers.
>>>
>>>---
>>>Typical Larkinese.
>>>
>>>I usually show my work, while you, on the other hand, are the one who
>>>always waits until close to the end of the thread to start
>>>"explaining" what everyone's already laid out, pretending that it was
>>>your answer in the first place and issuing gratuitous slurs in order
>>>to try to demean your detractors.
>>
>> I have to grant the truthfulness of this to you JF.
>
>Larkin has some need to prove he is intelligent. Generally people that are
>like this are not intelligent and hence the reason Fields is correct. How
>else can Larkin "prove" he is intelligent if he is not. He can't come up
>with the right answer so he waits until someone else does then pretends it
>was his so he can claim that he is intelligent. He has to do this repeatedly
>to keep proving he is intelligent because he does things that are not
>intelligent(because that is what he really is).
>
>
>
>

Show us some electronics you've designed.

John

From: Jim Thompson on
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:11:51 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:50:52 -0500, "George Jefferson"
><phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1gsn36lhlos6n2664ku1ka0t8keuojuok1(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:54:02 -0500, John Fields
>>> <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Good grief, you *don't* understand this stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>You, like AlwaysWrong, are certainly smart enough to learn the basics
>>>>>of electrical circuit math, but for some emotional reason you have
>>>>>chosen not to. I see that a lot in techs. They compensate by attacking
>>>>>people who can do the arithmetic, calling them eggheads or
>>>>>"inexperienced" or argue over definitions and third-order effects to
>>>>>obscure the fact that there *are* calculable answers.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>Typical Larkinese.
>>>>
>>>>I usually show my work, while you, on the other hand, are the one who
>>>>always waits until close to the end of the thread to start
>>>>"explaining" what everyone's already laid out, pretending that it was
>>>>your answer in the first place and issuing gratuitous slurs in order
>>>>to try to demean your detractors.
>>>
>>> I have to grant the truthfulness of this to you JF.
>>
>>Larkin has some need to prove he is intelligent. Generally people that are
>>like this are not intelligent and hence the reason Fields is correct. How
>>else can Larkin "prove" he is intelligent if he is not. He can't come up
>>with the right answer so he waits until someone else does then pretends it
>>was his so he can claim that he is intelligent. He has to do this repeatedly
>>to keep proving he is intelligent because he does things that are not
>>intelligent(because that is what he really is).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Show us some electronics you've designed.
>
>John

Show us some charge ;-)

...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 |

Obama isn't going to raise your taxes...it's Bush' fault: Not re-
newing the Bush tax cuts will increase the bottom tier rate by 50%
From: Jim Thompson on
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:53:46 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:05:34 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>> In the next few days, when I have time, I will issue a mathematical
>>> proof that Larkin is totally wrong. Watch for it ;-)
>>>
>>> Why haven't Win Hill and Phil Hobbs come to Larkin's defense?
>>>
>>> Bwahahahaha!
>>
>>I'm no Phil Hobbs, but isn't all this argument because we are conflating
>>two different usages of "charge"?
>>
>>The "charge" on a capacitor, as somone pointed out already, is really
>>charge *separation* (dilectric polarization). The Q=CV refers to a
>>*separation* of charge, not an absolute quantity. The "absolute" charge
>>- the total number of electrons minus the number of protons - is
>>normally low or zero. Unless your whole circuit picks up an
>>electrostatic charge from somewhere else. It is this "absolute" charge
>>which is conserved, the "Q=CV" "charge" of normal electronics is
>>not. Take a solar cell charging a battery for one obvious example. As
>>Larkin would say, where did the charge come from? Photons don't carry
>>charge!
>
>Gosh, in all the semiconductor physics i have seen it is "pair
>generation". No net charge change involved.

Sonnova gun! Who would have thunked it ?:-)

...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 |

Obama isn't going to raise your taxes...it's Bush' fault: Not re-
newing the Bush tax cuts will increase the bottom tier rate by 50%
From: Jim Thompson on
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:09:08 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:33:05 -0700, UltimatePatriot wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:49:03 -0700, Fred Abse
>> <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>The link I quoted explains the difference.
>>>
>>>
>> Ding!
>>
>> Good way to get killed.
>
>Many GIs found that out the hard way.
>
>>
>> Always count your shots and stop short of the last one, and reload
>> *without* the telltale fling-and-ring.
>
>Keep a few expended clips in your pocket, fire off seven, rapid, throw
>a clip at a rock - Ping!. Tojo takes the opportunity to break cover and
>move, and you put the last one in him. ;-)

"Tojo"? Are you THAT old ?:-)

...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 |

Obama isn't going to raise your taxes...it's Bush' fault: Not re-
newing the Bush tax cuts will increase the bottom tier rate by 50%