ferrite machining?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Heat effect on FR4?
Next: More PIC fun
From: BlindBaby on 12 Jun 2010 11:14 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote: > >Rather than annoying each other over syntax, it might be easier to >just acknowledge that even more demands are placed on the technical >writer in informal settings such as Usegroups. There will always be a >trade-off between brevity and understanding, Horseshit. Anyone with any NORMAL modicum of common sense, would have been able to discern that I referred to heat generated by the tooling. I did, after all, make that response to someone that made the statement that the grinding temp rise needed to be guarded against.
From: John Fields on 12 Jun 2010 11:45 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote: >With no dog in this fight, I have to agree with Sloman. >In technical writing, you cannot fault the reader for not >understanding what the writer intended. >The burden placed on the writer in these situations is exactly what >separates technical writing from poetry, for example. > >Rather than annoying each other over syntax, it might be easier to >just acknowledge that even more demands are placed on the technical >writer in informal settings such as Usegroups. There will always be a >trade-off between brevity and understanding, for all participants. >I'm sure if the author had the time and inclination, he could have >drafted something so succinct and clear, that nobody could >misinterpret his intent. But is that really practical in a forum like >this? Or it is just easier to call each other names? --- Nicely stated, thank you. :-) I agree with you that it's often impractical to remove all ambiguity in an effort to avoid misinterpretation by a reader. Having said that though, I believe it's encumbent on the reader (especially someone who pretends to intellectual superiority, like Sloman) to glean meaning from context, where possible, and reply appropriately. In this instance, I believe, he did not and either intentionally latched onto a meaning taken out of context, for the purpose of sowing discord, or else made an honest mistake by being ignorant of the differences between hard and soft ferrites. And, yes, it's always easier to name-call. ;)
From: John Fields on 12 Jun 2010 11:47 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:11:03 -0700, BlindBaby <BlindMelonChitlin(a)wellnevergetthatonethealbumcover.org> wrote: >On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:35:16 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >>That is, since the subject of the thread is "ferrite machining?", one >>with a modicum of sense would infer that the heat referred to was >>generated purely by mechanical means and that the Curie temperature of >>the material, at that point was immaterial. > > > Jeez, I wish I could expound facts the way you do. --- Thank you, that's very kind. :-)
From: BlindBaby on 12 Jun 2010 11:57 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:45:13 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >In this instance, I believe, he did not and either intentionally >latched onto a meaning taken out of context, for the purpose of sowing >discord, or else made an honest mistake by being ignorant of the >differences between hard and soft ferrites. > >And, yes, it's always easier to name-call. ;) I go with the sow discord effort. I do not afford him enough credence to have the brains to have actually been able to glean the glaringly obvious meaning that I was conveying. We'll yet see the other fellow coming back to describe how the individual magnetic cells of the ferrite medium will fuse together at the heat sites, yada, yada, yada... It would take a LOT of local heating to change enough of the medium that is in play during operation to make a difference to said operational characteristic. Grinding just doesn't apply that kind of heating, and the makers agree that grinding is the way these things are to be manipulated. Does a pot core with rounded corners take a performance hit over the cheap, easy mold, punched out jobs that have the sharp, squared corners, or is even that little bit of extra mass "in-play" magnetically speaking as a function of the whole pot core's characteristic functions? I say the rounded corner job is fine, if not even better. They cost more though, and are slightly weaker mechanically. The 'ceramic' guy might be back too. I said they were not ceramic(s). They are not. They are "ceramic like" in their manufacturing process. That is where it stops. Ceramics are not 'machinable'. Ferrites are.
From: Bill Sloman on 12 Jun 2010 11:59
On Jun 12, 4:35 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 12, 1:33 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:54:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >Learn to write in a way that doesn't make claims that you didn't > >> >intend. > > >> --- > >> Unnecessarily nasty when, in all fairness, the thread _is_ about > >> machining ferrite, and the heat he was referring to (which I think > >> most of the rest of us picked up on) could only have been caused by > >> the grinding operation. > > >Perhaps. But you snipped his " Learn to read, dumbfuck." which - to my > >mind - does justify a tolerably nasty clsong sentence. > > --- > His: "Learn to read, dumbfuck." had nothing technical to add to the > discussion, so I snipped it for that reason. You were complaining that part of my response was "unnecessarily nasty" which isn't any kind of technical point, and what you snipped was entirely germane to assessing the level of nastiness that might have been appropriate. > More to the point, if what you're saying is true, then faulting him > for _your_ misinterpretaion of his statement(s) is an error on your > part. > > That is, since the subject of the thread is "ferrite machining?", one > with a modicum of sense would infer that the heat referred to was > generated purely by mechanical means and that the Curie temperature of > the material, at that point was immaterial. And who did you consult to find out what someone with a modicum of sense would have thought? <snipped the rest of John Fields posing as someone with a modicum of sense> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |