On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:17:24 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:27:37 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:55:21 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:47:47 -0500, Jamie
et wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:32:15 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

Aren't you even beginning to be annoyed by the pilot fish who feeds on
your waste and considers you to be his source of chum?


What a weird, foul old hen you are.

John

flattering will get you no where John!

Jamie

He's still obsessed with excrement, too. He mentions it a lot more
than he mentions electronics. Yuk.

---
If I was obsessed with poop I'd reply to _all_ of your posts but, as
it is, I generally prefer to steer away from the threads you infect
and provide useful solutions for querants with problems.

OK, address the alternator question.

---
No, thank you.

--
JF

"Bill Palmer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:09:37 -0800 John Larkin
wrote in Message id:
:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:28:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
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
and shows his work, although he's certainly critical about me showing
mine.

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.

I've given JL ample opportunity to answer the TECHNICAL question... he
won't/can't.

You've killfiled me, you incredible moron. Of course you can't see
what I post.

Incredible moron!

Perhaps JT has one of Highly-Evolved Super-Special Kill Filters that only
allow technical stuff though?


Perhaps he's just a pompous ass.

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:27:37 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:55:21 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:47:47 -0500, Jamie
et wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:32:15 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

Aren't you even beginning to be annoyed by the pilot fish who feeds on
your waste and considers you to be his source of chum?


What a weird, foul old hen you are.

John

flattering will get you no where John!

Jamie

He's still obsessed with excrement, too. He mentions it a lot more
than he mentions electronics. Yuk.

---
If I was obsessed with poop I'd reply to _all_ of your posts but, as
it is, I generally prefer to steer away from the threads you infect
and provide useful solutions for querants with problems.

OK, address the alternator question.


As I've KFd JF it wouldn't be any help to me, in any case I'd be wary of
mischief if he did reply.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:14:51 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:17:24 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:27:37 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:55:21 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:47:47 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter. net wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:32:15 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

Aren't you even beginning to be annoyed by the pilot fish who feeds on
your waste and considers you to be his source of chum?


What a weird, foul old hen you are.

John

flattering will get you no where John!

Jamie

He's still obsessed with excrement, too. He mentions it a lot more
than he mentions electronics. Yuk.

---
If I was obsessed with poop I'd reply to _all_ of your posts but, as
it is, I generally prefer to steer away from the threads you infect
and provide useful solutions for querants with problems.

OK, address the alternator question.

---
No, thank you.

Larkin will never address the "alternator" problem himself. Notice
how he artfully redirected the problem to you without offering one
iota of technical discussion. I really don't know why anyone pays him
any attention at all.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:08:02 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:09:37 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:28:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


I've given JL ample opportunity to answer the TECHNICAL question... he
won't/can't.

You've killfiled me, you incredible moron. Of course you can't see
what I post.

Incredible moron!

---
Speaking of incredulity, it should be obvious, even to you, that since
he's responding to your posts he's either unfiltered you or is reading
them from unfiltered sources.


Apparently he has killfiled me but hangs on my every word by reading
other peoples' replies to my posts. Which means he sees only some of
my posts. He won't "respond to my posts" directly, but debates me by
referring to me in the third person.

Face it: he's an idiot. And he seems to have forgotten any
electromagnetics that MIT ever taught him. Obviously Tulane had better
instructors.

I sure wish he'd tell us about those magnetic mosfets he uses.

John

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
m 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.


---

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. This isn't
Facebook or some daytime soap opera.

---

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.

Check your work and you won't have to be corrected.

---

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. And I do some things better than he
does. 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.

John

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:39:28 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:27:37 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:55:21 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:47:47 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter. net wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:32:15 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

Aren't you even beginning to be annoyed by the pilot fish who feeds on
your waste and considers you to be his source of chum?


What a weird, foul old hen you are.

John

flattering will get you no where John!

Jamie

He's still obsessed with excrement, too. He mentions it a lot more
than he mentions electronics. Yuk.

---
If I was obsessed with poop I'd reply to _all_ of your posts but, as
it is, I generally prefer to steer away from the threads you infect
and provide useful solutions for querants with problems.

OK, address the alternator question.


As I've KFd JF it wouldn't be any help to me, in any case I'd be wary of
mischief if he did reply.


You're missing nothing.

John

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:16:34 -0500, Bill Palmer
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:09:37 -0800 John Larkin
wrote in Message id:
:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:28:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
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
and shows his work, although he's certainly critical about me showing
mine.

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.

I've given JL ample opportunity to answer the TECHNICAL question... he
won't/can't.

You've killfiled me, you incredible moron. Of course you can't see
what I post.

Incredible moron!

Perhaps JT has one of Highly-Evolved Super-Special Kill Filters that only
allow technical stuff though?

Ha! Bet you didn't consider THAT one!

Or he has a Highly-Evolved Super-Special Kill Filter that only allows
personal little-old-lady my-o-my he-said-she-said whining and clucking
stuff through.

Ha! Bet you didn't consider THAT one!

John

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

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 08:34:54 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:28:05 -0800, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:06:24 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Well! Alternators _are_ current sources, but not for the reason Larkin
claims... no surprise ;-)

Are you referring to current limiting due to opposing flux cancellation?

No. An alternator is a transformer, just that the primary is
rotating. What do transformers transform? What is the mechanism?

...Jim Thompson

I would disagree. A transformer transforms electrical energy at one
voltage/current/impedance, into electrical energy at another
voltage/current/
impedance (or the same in the case of a 1:1 ratio transformer).

An alternator converts mechanical energy into electrical energy. It
requires
no source of electrical energy, if permanent magnet excitation is used. If
electromagnetic excitation is used, the energy consumed by the excitation
goes entirely in I-squared-R losses, and does not appear at the output.

The generated electrical energy comes entirely from the supplied
mechanical energy.

If the load current has harmonic components, it may be that they can be
reflected into the excitation windings, but that is a separate issue.

The discussion here is about permanent magnet alternators, where there can
be no ambiguity.

There are two possibilities for current limiting in a permanent magnet
alternator. Firstly when the volts per hertz of the generated EMF equals
the volts per hertz of the effective series inductance. Secondly, when
the opposing flux due to the generated current equals the flux provided
by the permanent magnet field.

To my mind the inevitable clearance gap between the armature poles and the
magnet/field winding poles must make some difference to a transformer with
its alternating magnetic field in a closed core.

Regarding the Sturmey Archer 'dynamo', the magnet is pretty crappy which
probably contributes to even more difference.

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:14:27 -0800, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:55:41 +0000, Ian Field wrote:


To my mind the inevitable clearance gap between the armature poles and the
magnet/field winding poles must make some difference to a transformer with
its alternating magnetic field in a closed core.

It will have the effect of increasing the reluctance, hence reducing the
flux in the core, hence the EMF per rad sec ^-1.

I recall, on a trip to the Hoover Dam power station, being told that by
reducing the alternator air gaps from (IIRC) 3/4" to 3/8", facilitated by
better bearings, they had got another 20% capacity.


Regarding the Sturmey Archer 'dynamo', the magnet is pretty crappy which
probably contributes to even more difference.

For 1936 magnet technology, it was pretty good. The Japanese, and Philips
Gloeilampfabrieken had a stranglehold on permanent magnet alloys, and a
lot of effort was being expended in catching up. Good job that the USA and
GB did make headway, before Holland was overrun, and Pearl Harbor. Of
course, the Japanese patents became void.

You can get Sturmey-Archer hubs with modern magnet materials,
improving the output. But, for Ian, his best bet would be FET
switching for the rectification. If he were clever he could even make
them regulating rectifiers ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Fred Abse" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:55:41 +0000, Ian Field wrote:


To my mind the inevitable clearance gap between the armature poles and
the
magnet/field winding poles must make some difference to a transformer
with
its alternating magnetic field in a closed core.

It will have the effect of increasing the reluctance, hence reducing the
flux in the core, hence the EMF per rad sec ^-1.

I recall, on a trip to the Hoover Dam power station, being told that by
reducing the alternator air gaps from (IIRC) 3/4" to 3/8", facilitated by
better bearings, they had got another 20% capacity.


Regarding the Sturmey Archer 'dynamo', the magnet is pretty crappy which
probably contributes to even more difference.

For 1936 magnet technology, it was pretty good.

My googling efforts have turned up some snippets of info, such as the SA
'dynamo' magnet demagnetises almost instantly if the armature is removed
without shuffling in a keeper (guess how I already knew this!) and that the
magnet also gradually loses its strength over time even if left undisturbed.

The wheel I found at the back of the garage had a 1975 stamped hub which
showed fairly strong cogging when rotated, whether this means they adopted
beter magnet alloys as they became available I don't know.

It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

--
JF

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

Bwahahahaha!

(If it "keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set
charged OK", why the post in the first place?)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

There you go again.

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

There you go again.

John


Pretty infantile even for him!

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:00:22 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

There you go again.

John


Pretty infantile even for him!


He's obsessed with all things penile.

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:00:22 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
. ..
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged
OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

There you go again.

John


Pretty infantile even for him!


He's obsessed with all things penile.

John

Not much electronics though, even philthy knows his electronics.

There's not much electronics coming from JF's direction but he's swiftly
catching up with philthy on the hurling insults (general insanity) front.

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:50:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

There you go again.

John

---
Cluck, cluck, cluck.

--
JF

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:47:38 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:00:22 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0000, "Ian Field"
wrote:


It keeps the 1.2mAh SLA for my front & rear LED lighting set charged OK.

---
1.2mAh???

Must be about the size of your dick!

There you go again.

John


Pretty infantile even for him!


He's obsessed with all things penile.

John

---
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

--
JF