Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
in [Design]
|
From: m II on 14 Jul 2010 18:12 UpMyAssandROTATE Archie LiverCupper wrote: > If I had an actual sperm count, I'd like women more. As if we care about your feeble excuse for existence. Why do you need 90+ identities on Usenet when normal people get by with ONE? mike
From: m II on 14 Jul 2010 18:16 John Larkin wrote: >> I think your capacity to make valid assessments of another human is a >> scary proposition. > > > Be afraid. Be very afraid. No fear. He figures if the surgeons could remove that 'item' last September, they can do it again. In the mean time, he takes the constipation like a MAN. mike
From: krw on 14 Jul 2010 20:03 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:46:18 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:07:23 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:53:20 -0700, UpYerNose >><UpYerNose(a)witarubbahose.org> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:16:57 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >>> >>>> Anyone with 90+ Usenet identities has >>>>ISSUES. Let us pray.. >>> >>> >>> Actually, anyone that has issues with the number of nyms another person >>>uses, has issues. >> >>Anyone who won't use his real name, and pretends to all sorts of >>superhero identities, is both juvenile and cowardly. >> >>John > >Some superheroes are are more useful than others: > >http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF136-Super_League.jpg > AlwaysWrong couldn't even get the coffee right.
From: krw on 14 Jul 2010 20:04 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:19:55 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:37:40 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:38:39 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:27:00 -0500, "George Jefferson" >>><phreon111(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>>news:e0to36lpbf1d46kur9ar3gf0k8eqbs2p7p(a)4ax.com... >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I would but you'd probably still the idea. It wouldn't do any good because >>>>it wouldn't shut you up... you'd say the same thing to the next guy. Your >>>>just looking for someone that has a smaller penis than you so you can point >>>>and make fun of. If someone has a bigger one than you then you just move on >>>>to the next guy. >>>> >>>>Your not an engineer because engineers don't play such games. Your a con >>>>that parades around as an engineer. Oh wait... I shouldn't go that far. You >>>>are an engineer, a social engineer(and your not even good at that). >>> >>>That's a lot of words to say "no." >> >>s/no/I can't/ >> >>Nymbecile isn't an engineer and hasn't designed anything more important than >>nyms, his life product. > >Is George J another nym for AlwaysWrong? Didn't seem like. Different headers but if not another one of nymbecile's nyms, it's close enough to be a Siamese twin.
From: Jim Thompson on 14 Jul 2010 20:52
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:52:48 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: >Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:25:33 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:07:40 +0100, John Devereux >>><john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:05:34 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk> >>>>> wrote: > >[...] > >>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>But in normal electronics usage, we would say that the battery or >>>>capacitor was charged by the solar cell! "Charge separation" or "pair >>>>generation" - there *is no* physical net charge in reality. Yet we >>>>always talk of the "charge of a capacitor" or "charging a battery". It >>>>is what this whole thread has been about (and I believe it is this usage >>>>that Larkin had in mind). >>> >>>Of course. This is an electronics design group, not a >>>retired-physics-teacher debating society. We can measure the charge >>>that we pump into a capacitor and measure what we get out. We can >>>watch a resistor charge a capacitor at a mathematically predictable >>>rate. Statements like "there is no net charge on the capacitor" that's >>>got 100 volts across it don't help a lot in real life. >>> >>>John >> >> John Larkin _still_ can't answer where the charge came from... must >> have been immaculate conception :-) > >Of course he can. It depends on how you want to use the word. It is >either > >1) zero > >Technically accurate but useless. > >or > >2) The current through the capacitor produces a charge >separation. Electrons pile up on one plate and are depleted on the >other, producing a potential difference. > >*Normally* referred to as "charging the capacitor". We *normally* say >the "charge" in the capacitor is Q = CV = integral of the current. > >Or do we have to stop saying that here now? > >"C1 experiences a charge separation due to the current through R3. This >charge separation / electron-hole pair production process produces a >potential difference equal to that between the non-inverting input and >the zero reference. The comparator switches. The current through R3 then >acts to reverse the charge separation process until..." Neither is correct! Wheee! I'm finding out who can and who can't analyze this :-( ...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% |