On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:11:17 -0500, bud-- put
finger to keyboard and composed:
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
put finger to keyboard and composed:
w_tom wrote:
The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.
I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day,
and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone
who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to
verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has
transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me
that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals.
For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts,
and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple
MOV works.
My guess is that he was once quite sharp but is rather impaired now.
Some of his comments are very good. The comments you refer to on
aus.electronics were amazingly (and I think uncharacteristically) bad.
He sometimes totally misunderstands what people say (in addition to
making things up). He has a fetish for tower antennas - ham? worked in
broadcast?
I think he gets away with a lot of what he says because of the nature
of the subject. I confess that I know next to nothing about it myself,
but I do know how to read a datasheet and I understand basic circuit
theory. And being an engineer, I like to quantify observations and
assertions with numbers and examples wherever possible.
He uses google-groups to search - favorites are surge, lightning and
power supply. Always certain, sometimes right.
I've encountered him in PSU debates and once again I have mixed
thoughts about him. He doesn't appear to have an intimate knowledge of
the inner workings of PSUs, or any electronic device for that matter.
Instead he seems to be a specification junkie. That said, he has
corrected me on at least one occasion that I can recall, and of course
I'm grateful for that.
Someone posted not too long ago (I have no idea if it is accurate but
hey - this is the usenet):
IP address: 71.224.156.198
Reverse DNS: c-71-224-156-198.hsd1.pa.comcast.net.
Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
ASN: 33287
ASN Name: DNEO-OSP4
IP range connectivity: 2
Registrar (per ASN): ARIN
Country (per IP registrar): US [United States]
Country Currency: USD [United States Dollars]
Country IP Range: 71.128.0.0 to 71.255.255.255
Country fraud profile: Normal
City (per outside source): Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
Country (per outside source): US [United States]
Private (internal) IP? No
That's very interesting!
There is an edit in Wikipedia's Varistor article by someone posting
from 71.224.191.77 on 13 January 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...did=9972 4060
The changes reflect what w_tom has been saying at aus.electronics
recently, and the writing style is remarkably similar.
For example, the article states that "less energy is absorbed by a
varistor ... as varistor energy rating is increased." This is
something that I demonstrated to be essentially insignificant (a 20mm
MOV absorbs only about 5% less energy than a 7mm MOV when clamping the
same 1000A surge).
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.