On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 08:35:20 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:02:55 -0600, John Fields
wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:07:54 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:
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
---
That's more like it!
Keep up the good work.
---
and the board is
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/ESM_pcb.gif
---
That's just boasting; it adds nothing to the discussion.
It's a picture of a PC board, it's not boasting. The Brat could boast,
getting all that stuff on six layers *and* getting the placement and
conduction cooling right.
Aren't the power pours pretty? I love this color graphic shapes
stuff... it's the way my brain is wired.
There's a lot of information in that image, for people who appreciate
that sort of thing.
---
But the information is irrelevant, since the schematic contains the
information relevant to abse.
Now, if someone had _asked_ you to post a picture of a PCB because of
whatever reason, then it would have been warranted.
As it is, you're just grandstanding.
---
I post all sorts of schematics, from goofy concepts to sections of
actual in-production products, like this one. And you mostly whine.
---
You call it whining because, of course, you try to trivialize any
criticism directed at you.
So stop all the clucking and talk about electronics.
---
You call it "clucking" because, of course, you try to trivialize any
criticism directed at you, and you're not interested in talking about
electronics as much as you're interested in using that invitation as a
ploy to gain an entrance whereby you can deliver what seems to be a
solicited soliloquy.
---
This isn't
Facebook or some daytime soap opera.
---
I agree, but your use of the venue seems to belie your claim.
---
although he's certainly critical about me showing
mine.
Only when you get them wrong.
---
You don't criticize, you gloat.
That's your neurotic hypersensitivity. When you got the attenuator
values wrong, I merely pointed it out.
---
But you didn't point out the correct values or offer any help in
resolving the problem, which you would have done were you interested
in discussing electronics, ergo you were gloating over my having made
an error and overjoyed at having me being cast adrift.
---
Check your work and you won't have to be corrected.
---
I wasn't corrected, I was merely apprised that I'd made an error,
and the reason I made the error wasn't because I didn't check _my_
work, it was because I didn't check my authoritative source's work.
I earlier scanned the source of the error and posted it, along with
the correct values of resistance for the attenuators, but received no
acknowledgement, from you, that the error had been corrected.
Typical for you, who likes to try to keep everyone's work but your own
in limbo (and then most of yours out of sight) and pretend that
nothing was resolved with your:
"Check your work and you won't have to be corrected."
What a cheater you are.
---
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.
---
While it's lacking in your other posts, the deference in your tone
when you communicate with him makes it easy to see that you consider
yourself to be his inferior.
What is this incredible status thing you have? I like Phil, and he can
do a lot of stuff that I can't.
---
Ergo, he's your superior.
---
And I do some things better than he does.
---
So, you know how to wire-wrap?
---
We have a heap of fun when we work on something together.
Have you read his book? It's amazing, a must-read even if you don't do
a lot of electro-optical stuff. I've given away six or eight copies by
now.
---
Send me one?
--
JF