"flipper" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:09:36 -0500, "Dave" wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 May 2008 08:59:52 -0500, "Dave" wrote:
"Andy Cap" wrote in message
3...
flipper wrote in
:
On 02 May 2008 08:02:15 GMT, Andy Cap wrote:
No source references.
There's a source reference for each and every one in the "Source"
section.
Quite right. I never read that far. My apologies then to the
book-maker,
I thought it was just the Nazir Matni guy that pasted toghether this
stuff.
Andy.
Well, I for one thank you very much for posting this stuff, whoever put
it
together. It's wonderful.
Dave
Btw, I did a google on those books and looked at some (reader)
reviews. Most of them commented on the lack of circuit descriptions,,
missing part values, "full of (circuit) errors" and (some) "circuits
didn't work."
The first two are not really fair complaints, because that's not what
the books are for, but keep it in mind. (In fact, he explains the lack
of text is to leave more room for circuits)
Who knows about the last two. After all, he didn't create the
circuits, just reprinted them from other sources. Write a letter to
National Semiconductor.
They're not 'circuit cookbooks'. They're more a collection of 'circuit
ideas'.
Hey Flipper,
The "circuit ideas" works for me. That is in fact what I am using them
for.
The first thing I ever built was a transistor tester from an article in
(June? 1976?) Popular Electronics that was full of errors which I sat
down
and figured out how to fix. Since then, I don't trust or expect
perfection
from any schematic or article. Hell, half the time you can't get some of
the parts they call for, and the rest of the time you want the circuit to
do
something slightly different anyway.
Yeah, that's what I use 'collections' for as well and I probably
wouldn't have thought to mention it before seeing those reviews where
they obviously expected 'cookbook' circuits.
BTW, any ideas on what all that stuff is following the files for Volume 6?
(Files 7/14 through 14/14.) Someone mentioned recovery files,
Right, they're recovery files.
If there's a 'part' missing/scrambled then the 'combine and decode'
file will be corrupt. Now, there's a couple of ways to deal with that
eventuality. One would be to request the missing/scrambled part to be
re-posted, and it used to be commonly done, but you can see that could
become a real PITA for the poster.
PAR (Parity ARchive) runs an error correcting algorithm across the
entire file (or file set) creating the PAR files which can then be
used to not only check the validity of the original file (or file set)
but reconstruct missing parts, with the degree of reconstruction
possible depending on how many PARs were created.
You need a PAR program, like smartpar or quickpar, to use (and create)
the PAR files.
Btw, the numbers in the PAR file name indicates how many 'parts' they
contain so, for example, if you have missing/corrupted parts the PAR
program will, after scanning them, say something like "x parts needed"
and you only need to download enough of the PARs to fill that need.
And you don't need to start at '1' and download in sequence. You could
download just any one, or combination of, PAR file(s) that has enough
parts.
The 'first' PAR file, the smallest one, has no 'parts' but is all
that's needed to do the scan so what I usually do is download all the
parts and the first, 'no parts', PAR to run a check and see if any
correction is needed before wasting time downloading them all.
Might be worth mentioning there's another one, SFV (Simple File
Verification) that also needs it's own little program. It will verify
the integrity of a file set but has no correction capability and isn't
terribly useful anymore since PAR accomplished that, plus correction.
But some folks still post SFVs with the file set anyway.
RAR is a file (or file set) compressor similar to ZIP. They both can
break the archive into multiple files so you'd download all the RARs
(ZIPs), save them to disk, and then use WinRAR (or WinZIP if ZIP
files) to decode the entire archive. Or, if one or more of the RAR/ZIP
files were corrupt you'd download PARs to fix those so you have a
complete set to then be decoded by WinRAR/WinZIP.
but the six
volumes came through just fine with nothing more than a few half-hours
worth
of point and click, followed by the Combine and Decode function under the
Message menu.
Well, as I mentioned, if you do much downloading that'll get tiresome
real quick but a decent (binary) news reader will automatically
combine the messages into one for the message list and then just
clicking on that 'combined' message will download the whole ball of
wax while you're off doing something more amusing..
NZBs automate the process even more by being a 'one file' (the NZB
file) click for an entire file set. Like, say, a music collection
(album). So rather than having to select each song, and the PARs,
you'd just click on "Mr Bs Music Collection.nzb" and the whole thing
is downloaded while you're off doing something more amusing.
You need an NZB program to use those.
And I was honestly wondering if the Combine and Decode
function was what I needed to somehow use when you pointed me in that
direction.
I believe you.
Thanks again for that. Once you explained it it made perfect
sense.
Glad I could help.
Dave
Okay, so I will eventually need some different software, if I'm going to be
doing much downloading. Much to learn. Question, if you don't mind...
alt.binaries.e-book.technical there are some new files just posted, and
among them is a three part file for a world map of time zones that is
apparently a pdf when decoded (it has some information at the beginning of
each of the three posts indicating start, length and the fact that it is a
pdf, among other stuff) that the combine/decode function apparently doesn't
know how to handle. Any idea on how I can decode this three-part file? It
is in the same format as other stuff around it, all posted by Ikeaboy, if
you are interested in seeing what I am talking about. I would love some
help with dealing with this type of file too, if you don't mind. And if
not, I'll understand.
Thought I would ask though.
Thanks again,
Dave