On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:34:13 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:23:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:01:09 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:37:41 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 08:18:22 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

[snip]

So, say something new about alternators.

---
Just to give you something to feed on?

I don't think so.

I'll say something new...

Perhaps Larkin would be happy to address Ian's question, "What I was
wondering was whether its possible to get more energy into the battery
by letting the generator output voltage stretch its legs so to speak
and convert the excessive voltage down with a buck converter"?

How about it, JL? Address the original question with your wisdom.
Dazzle us with your brilliance. We're waiting.

...Jim Thompson

We're still waiting, though it's no surprise... push the question back
to technical details only, and Larkin enters "silent mode" :-)

---
Indeed.

I can't recall a single instance where he boasts about his circuits

Right, I don't boast about circuits. I do like to discuss them.

and shows his work,

How about this? It sort of evolved in some recent SED discussions.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/ESM_power.pdf

and the board is

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/ESM_pcb.gif


I post all sorts of schematics, from goofy concepts to sections of
actual in-production products, like this one. And you mostly whine.

although he's certainly critical about me showing
mine.

Only when you get them wrong.



Something about that posting the math and working through the problem
is something I shouldn't be doing in order to prove that what I'm
talking about is right, mathematically, while out of the other side of
his mouth he extols the virtues of the inexactness of qualitative
exposition where _his_ "work" is concerned.
---

He'll not be heard of again in regard to this topic... except perhaps
he may toss a few snarky "old hens" or "cluck-clucks" our way.

---
That sure seems to be his wont - name-calling - when he's faced with
having to reply to anything where he has to admit to error or which
makes him feel uncomfortable because he can see it leading to where he
dare not go.
---

But he'll have no technical answer, for he has no clue.

---
Be fair.

John's a smart guy, but considers himself to be above the hoi polloi,
(anyone who isn't Phil Hobbs, whom he knows he can never rise above)

"Rise above" is meaningless. Phil and I do different things.

so he must use any subterfuge available in order to make it seem like
those who question his "edicts" are wrong.

Edicts? You talk like I'm plotting to become the Emperor of Usenet.
That's silly.

John