|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:33:09 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:35:52 -0500, John Fields Gave us: I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but your commentary is unimportant. You shock no one. You are droll, at best. Ha! You think your commentary is important? --- Perhaps not, but at least it's accurate. --- You don't even know how to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly. --- Really? A clock _crystal_ usually carries the reference designator "Y" followed by a numerical identifier. If you're referring to "U"1 on the schematic I recently posted to abse, it would have been apparent to anyone who knows how to read a schematic that U1 is a clock _oscillator_ carrying the common "U" (Unit) reference designation. Not only was its output connected to the clock input of a counter, (that should have been a clue, since a clock _crystal_ would have been surrounded by its supporting components) but its operating frequency "32768Hz" was written on the schematic in a location that could only have associated it with U1. So what it basically boils down to is that _you_, dear boy, can't tell the difference between a crystal and a clock oscillator. --- We can only hope that one day you receive a *real* "great shock", you self important idiot. --- That day will come when you post something that isn't banal, so it looks like your hopes are dashed from the start. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
TokaMundo wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:35:52 -0500, John Fields Gave us: I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but your commentary is unimportant. You shock no one. You are droll, at best. Ha! You think your commentary is important? You don't even know how to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly. We can only hope that one day you receive a *real* "great shock", you self important idiot. And you are too damn stupid to recognize the component as a oscillator module. The "U" designator is used this way by a lot of manufacturers since it is not a crystal, and at the design level it is just another chip. PLONK! -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
I have peeked in upon this thread from time to time from ints inception. It
seems so out of the EE mainstream that it is breeding mosquitos. Bill |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:29:10 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:42:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" Gave us: And you are too damn stupid to recognize the component as a oscillator module. The "U" designator is used this way by a lot of manufacturers since it is not a crystal, and at the design level it is just another chip. PLONK! If the retarded twit can critique someone else's spelling, he can handle being called on not designating the crystal (and yes it's a crystal) correctly. --- Oh, my, the little ****'s got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged as too ****ing stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of pique! No, you stupid ****, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal _oscillator_. If it was a crystal it would look something like this: +-------------------- | | | OSC IN OSC OUT +---+----------+----- | | +---[R1]---+ | | | [R2] | | +---[Y1]---+ | | [C1] [C2] | | GND GND Where Y1 would be the crystal, as I explained in an earlier post. But you don't want to hear about that, do you? No, you'd rather yell and scream and stamp your little feet over nothing. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:26:13 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:41:36 -0500, John Fields Gave us: So what it basically boils down to is that _you_, dear boy, can't tell the difference between a crystal and a clock oscillator. No. It "boils down" to the fact that YOU do not know how to designate components on a schematic. They ARE supposed to be easily interpreted, not your "I don't give a crap, as long as my moniker is at the bottom of this page that I earlier claimed was a mere repost of a "someone else's schematic"". Do you always wear blinders? --- Hey, asshole, I'm not the one having problems figuring out the difference between a crystal and a crystal oscillator, and _you_ seem to be the one with a serious tunnel vision problem which excludes the possibility of your being wrong. Plus, you're just as full of **** about the "someone else's schematic" as you are about all the rest of the crap you post. You must be _really_ stupid if you think you're going to pull that one off, but if you want to try, let's see the message ID of the post you're referring to, OK? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
ehsjr wrote:
wrote: ehsjr wrote: wrote: The L and the C don't care about your DC offset, so you must still think of the signal as AC in order to understand their behavior. They don't care that the overall signal doesn't reverse polarity, they only care that derivative of voltage with respect to time is non-zero. Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by the DC component. Ed That's about the same as pointing out that some capacitors are polarity sensitive, and will effectively be a short if the polarity is wrong. It's true, but does not enter into the problem at this point. What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real world (and one I had overlooked). However, what you have actually said is not true. An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not saturate. You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't. To me it is obvious that by L and C, he meant the inductance and the capacitance, not the specific inductor or capacitor. If he'd have meant a specific device, he have had to specify a few parameters as to just what kind of a device, no? way the *component* represented by C and the *component* represented by L react. It is in your context that I used the term L. Now, apparently, you have changed the context to exclude consideration of the component (which will sometimes lead to incorrect analysis) and to restrict the term to have it refer to the property only. Therefore, we did not refer to the same thing with the term L. Exactly, except I don't think he changed the context. What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance "1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux. 2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction." A circuit element, not a component device. snip If asked to solve a problem with an inductance, you treat it as such. If asked to solve a problem with an inductor, you have to consider the broader properties of that device, of which inductance is only one, and not necesssarily a constant one. I don't know where you came up with the above "rules" or whatever you want to call them. If, in solving a problem with an inductance, (specifically in this case, the effects of DC on an R,L,C load impedance) no consideration is given to saturation, the solution can be erroneous. But saturation has nothing to do with the inductance. After the right inductance is calculated, then a specific device has to be chosen, and *that* is when saturation has to be considered. So do physical size, mounting style, insulation, and perhaps other parameters too, none of which are related to the original "inductance" problem. Very specifically for the op's question, the possibility of saturation *must* be considered, even though the question did not include the word inductor. I think those rules, or whatever you call them, are not correct. Could be! I don't remember the OP's question... :-) -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:38 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:26:47 -0500, John Fields Gave us: --- Oh, my, the little ****'s got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged as too ****ing stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of pique! No, you stupid ****, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal _oscillator_. Oh boy... now it appears we got a misogynist on our hands here. You're an easy read, John boy. --- I endeavor to keep it simple for your sake. --- If it was a crystal it would look something like this: +-------------------- | | | OSC IN OSC OUT +---+----------+----- | | +---[R1]---+ | | | [R2] | | +---[Y1]---+ | | [C1] [C2] | | GND GND Where Y1 would be the crystal, as I explained in an earlier post. Didn't need an explanation then... don't need one now. --- Now that you've been shown the magic trick you claim you knew it all along? Typical of the likes of you. --- You need to explain your bent mentality though. --- You mean likening you to a thoroughly disgusting, spoiled, female brat? No explanation is necessary, it's all self-evident. All I did was draw the parallel, _you_ supply the evidence. --- But you don't want to hear about that, do you? You are retarded, spell checker boy. You just can't take what you dish out. --- I can't take what I dish out? LOL, you ****ing idiot, what you're fumbling around trying to come up with is: "You can dish it out but you can't take it." but, of course, with your substandard command of the language you blurt out gibberish. --- No, you'd rather yell and scream and stamp your little feet over nothing. Like you do over trivialities like spelling. --- If it's trivial, then even you should have no problem with it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. --- Grow the **** up, dipass. --- Blow me. --- Go seek psychiatric help for that misogyny thing. Hope that word isn't to big for your lame ass. ^^ too --- Rather that concern yourself with the big words, you ought to make sure you get the little ones right first. See above. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:12:10 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:35:16 -0500, John Fields Gave us: Plus, you're just as full of **** about the "someone else's schematic" as you are about all the rest of the crap you post. You must be _really_ stupid if you think you're going to pull that one off, but if you want to try, let's see the message ID of the post you're referring to, OK? Your original post, dip****. The title of the post. It says (from sed for bounty hunter). Then, you again refer to the "OP" in another post. --- Had you bothered to get off of your fat, lazy ass and checked the origin of the thread you might have discovered that it started on sed where the OP asked for a five minute timer. Since sed is a text-only newsgroup I advised the OP that I'd have a solution for him which I'd post to abse, (where binaries are allowed to be posted) then when I posted, I used the same subject as in sed in order to keep some continuity, but indicated that the _thread_ came from sed. Not the _post_, pinhead, the thread. The clue should have been that since the post had a binary attached to it, it _couldn't_ have come from sed --- Make up your mind. Is it yours or someone else's. --- Maybe now that I've spelled it out for you you can figure it out. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:38 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:26:47 -0500, John Fields Gave us: --- Oh, my, the little ****'s got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged as too ****ing stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of pique! No, you stupid ****, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal _oscillator_. Oh boy... now it appears we got a misogynist on our hands here. You're an easy read, John boy. Hmmm...I often wondered if there was a parallel word for mysogynist, a female who hates males because they are male. Is there such a word? Tom |
"Tom MacIntyre" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:38 GMT, TokaMundo wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:26:47 -0500, John Fields Gave us: --- Oh, my, the little ****'s got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged as too ****ing stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of pique! No, you stupid ****, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal _oscillator_. Oh boy... now it appears we got a misogynist on our hands here. You're an easy read, John boy. Hmmm...I often wondered if there was a parallel word for mysogynist, a female who hates males because they are male. Is there such a word? Tom "Woman" (just kidding) |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:53:52 -0500, John Fields
wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:12:10 GMT, TokaMundo wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:35:16 -0500, John Fields Gave us: Plus, you're just as full of **** about the "someone else's schematic" as you are about all the rest of the crap you post. You must be _really_ stupid if you think you're going to pull that one off, but if you want to try, let's see the message ID of the post you're referring to, OK? Your original post, dip****. The title of the post. It says (from sed for bounty hunter). Then, you again refer to the "OP" in another post. --- Had you bothered to get off of your fat, lazy ass and checked the origin of the thread you might have discovered that it started on sed where the OP asked for a five minute timer. Since sed is a text-only newsgroup I advised the OP that I'd have a solution for him which I'd post to abse, (where binaries are allowed to be posted) then when I posted, I used the same subject as in sed in order to keep some continuity, but indicated that the _thread_ came from sed. Not the _post_, pinhead, the thread. The clue should have been that since the post had a binary attached to it, it _couldn't_ have come from sed --- Make up your mind. Is it yours or someone else's. --- Maybe now that I've spelled it out for you you can figure it out. 339 posts so far (including this one) and zero content... just the usual infantile squabbling. John |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:49:43 -0500, "operator jay"
wrote: "Tom MacIntyre" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:38 GMT, TokaMundo wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:26:47 -0500, John Fields Gave us: --- Oh, my, the little ****'s got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged as too ****ing stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of pique! No, you stupid ****, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal _oscillator_. Oh boy... now it appears we got a misogynist on our hands here. You're an easy read, John boy. Hmmm...I often wondered if there was a parallel word for mysogynist, a female who hates males because they are male. Is there such a word? Tom "Woman" (just kidding) That was my own (meant in fun) answer also... :-) Tom |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:38:32 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote: On 6/17/05 3:59 PM, in article , "John Fields" wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:45:27 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: John Fields wrote: I'm not talking about what _I_ want to read, ... In fact, that's all you *ever* talk about. And "nashing" of teeth??? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Perfect example! --- Learn to use the language and its subtleties properly if you want to be considered learned or, at the very least, competent in American English. The omission of the 'g' at the beginning of 'nashing' is inexcusable and marks you as a churl. This type of discussion is pointless and harmful. I've known brilliant people, some at Bell Labs, who had difficulty spelling. Some Engineers and Scientists had excellent command of the language (both English and English!), but weren't as "swift" as the ones with language usage or spelling problems. It's the luck of the draw either way. It's quite difficult sometimes, but lets all try to be a bit nicer. Awaiting flames..... Don Some people can't spell, and some people can't be nice. Luck of the draw, as you point out. Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like asshole and idiot and churl. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter. John |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:58:38 -0700, John Larkin
wrote: Some people can't spell, and some people can't be nice. Luck of the draw, as you point out. Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like asshole and idiot and churl. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter. --- But a lot more confusing. Yours would read like this: "Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like and and. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter." ;) -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:58:38 -0700, John Larkin wrote: Some people can't spell, and some people can't be nice. Luck of the draw, as you point out. Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like asshole and idiot and churl. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter. --- But a lot more confusing. Yours would read like this: "Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like and and. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter." ;) -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer It could just replace the missing words with an equal number of underscores so you can fill in the blanks. ;-) -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:26:12 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:37:29 -0500, John Fields Gave us: You mean likening you to a thoroughly disgusting, spoiled, female brat? Men who hate men that hate women should come find your lame ass. --- Typical of your type of coward. When one of you lot runs out of steam he starts advocating physical retaliation when he knows he's been bested intellectually and has nowhere else to go. --- You are a mere misogynistic *******, at best. You strike one as a jerk that ****ed up a marriage, and blames it on the woman, and women in general. You are a sad case, dip****. --- My dear wife would disagree with you and, more than likely, give you a good talking to and send you on your way with your tail between your legs for intimating such a thing. So, on your way, Lassie. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:13:41 GMT, the renowned Tom MacIntyre
wrote: Hmmm...I often wondered if there was a parallel word for mysogynist, a female who hates males because they are male. Is there such a word? Tom Not a common word, but there is "misandrist". Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:30:31 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:37:29 -0500, John Fields Gave us: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:38 GMT, TokaMundo wrote: On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:26:47 -0500, John Fields Gave us: Grow the **** up, dipass. --- Blow me. --- Grow the **** up, retard. Go seek psychiatric help for that misogyny thing. Hope that word isn't to big for your lame ass. ^^ too Rather that concern yourself with the big words, you ought to make sure you get the little ones right first. See above. Note that you STILL likely don't know the meaning of the word cited. --- Well, since I know the meanings of _all_ of the words in your little diatribe, the likelihood of your being right is vanishingly small. Also, even though you wrote it, you obviously don't know the meaning of _cite_, since you didn't. LOL, the more you write the farther your foot goes down your throat! --- I rest my case. The misogynistic idiot just got trivial... again. Oh... that's right, he never was anything BUT trivial. --- Even though my arguments may seem to be trivial, arguing against your badly thought out and clumsily written (I notice you finally fixed the "myso" error) trash is actually quite difficult in that you need to be apprised of your fox paws and errors, but in a way which won't strain your brain cell beyond its elastic limit and leave you permanently flaccid. The difficulty lies in that in order to reach you intellectually I have to become Escherichia coli - like in my responses and that _does_ exact a toll while I'm in that mode. I'm sure you've felt something akin to that when trying to rise above your quiescent e.coliness in order to try to respond to a post which I couldn't quite get down to your level, but Hey!, every man's reach should exceed his grasp, no? Oh, but wait... That should be "every person's..." in order to satisfy your need to be PC re. your gyn problem, no? And, what's that "I rest my case" crap? Something you heard shortly before being led out of the courtroom in chains? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:35:58 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:08:52 -0500, John Fields Gave us: But a lot more confusing. Yours would read like this: "Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like and and. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter." ;) You could be a bit more retarded, but I do not see how. --- If you don't see how, and you set yourself up as the arbiting authority, then you can't, logically, make the inference. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:35:58 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:08:52 -0500, John Fields Gave us: But a lot more confusing. Yours would read like this: "Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like and and. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter." ;) You could be a bit more retarded, but I do not see how. Actually, he was being a bit clever, but you choose to criticize anyway, just because it's him posting, I have to assume. Tom |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:31:35 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:35:58 GMT, TokaMundo wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:08:52 -0500, John Fields Gave us: But a lot more confusing. Yours would read like this: "Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like and and. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter." ;) You could be a bit more retarded, but I do not see how. Actually, he was being a bit clever, but you choose to criticize anyway, just because it's him posting, I have to assume. Tom BTW...I did mean for that to be choose (present tense), not chose (past tense). :-) Tom |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:34:04 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:01:48 -0500, John Fields Gave us: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:26:12 GMT, TokaMundo wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:37:29 -0500, John Fields Gave us: You mean likening you to a thoroughly disgusting, spoiled, female brat? Men who hate men that hate women should come find your lame ass. Typical of your type of coward. Your powers of assessment are as retarded and ****ed up as your misogynistic bull**** remarks. When one of you lot runs out of steam he starts advocating physical retaliation when he knows he's been bested intellectually and has nowhere else to go. Your lame ass couldn't best a fresh turd. You are a mere misogynistic *******, at best. You strike one as a jerk that ****ed up a marriage, and blames it on the woman, and women in general. You are a sad case, dip****. My dear wife would disagree with you and, more than likely, give you a good talking to and send you on your way with your tail between your legs for intimating such a thing. As if her old fart twit **** ass could order anyone around. She has to be at least twice as ****ing stupid as you are. Does she know that you are a misogynistic ****tard? So, on your way, Lassie. As if your old twit **** ass could order anyone around. --- Well, I guess it's finally time to let you know that I own you. I set the hook and I've been reeling you in and giving you some line on occasion, playing you to make you think you've got some choice in the matter, but you don't. Get used to it. I post and you're compelled to try to one-up me with filth which you're used to spewing on the maroons you've been ass-ociating with over the past few years, but it won't work. It can't, and the pitiful part is that you don't even know why it can't. Here's a clue; take a look at your last responses. There's nothing imaginative about them, they're merely gut-level responses to my more-or-less carefully crafted flames which have been roasting you ever since you got back on the street and you decided to show your ass back here. Interestingly, most of your replies reek of feces, so I think a fair assumption would be that you spent a lot of time with a dick up your ass over the past few years. Or perhaps you were the pitcher? No big difference... Or, I could be totally wrong and you could be the best thing that ever happened. If that's true, how about posting your plan? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
ehsjr wrote:
wrote: You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the way the *component* represented by C and the *component* represented by L react. The only components which can be represented by a single parameter L or C are ideal components, which will always have exactly that value. They can't saturate, because their value is mathematically constant. Though you probably can't buy them at digi-key ;-) Compents that you can buy cannot be represented by a single constant parameter, though you may be able to approximate them as such for a useful range of operation. What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance "1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux. 2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction." Not sure about this, but can the air-core inductor you just descrived saturate? Or is it primarily a funtion of a core material like iron or ferrite saturating? |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:45:57 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:10:43 -0500, John Fields Gave us: Even though my arguments may seem to be trivial, arguing against your badly thought out and clumsily written (I notice you finally fixed the "myso" error) trash is actually quite difficult in that you need to be apprised of your fox paws and errors, but in a way which won't strain your brain cell beyond its elastic limit and leave you permanently flaccid. The difficulty lies in that in order to reach you intellectually I have to become Escherichia coli - like in my responses and that _does_ exact a toll while I'm in that mode. I'm sure you've felt something akin to that when trying to rise above your quiescent e.coliness in order to try to respond to a post which I couldn't quite get down to your level, but Hey!, every man's reach should exceed his grasp, no? Oh, but wait... That should be "every person's..." in order to satisfy your need to be PC re. your gyn problem, no? You are an idiot. You jump on others for spelling like a wussified little school marm, yet you choose to not spell several of your written "words". You are a true idiot, and I caught you. That is about all there is to it. --- You seem to find fault with my characterization of your behavior as that of a spoiled female brat, yet your use of "wussified" casts apersions on women since since "wussi" is a cowardly aspersion to "pussy", something with which you obviously have no experience and which you need to address if you want to have anything to do with the future. As for the rest of it, about the only thing you could catch is a cold, dumbass, and not being able to spell isn't your only problem. Specifically, in the thread where pure inductance was being compared to the inductance of an inductor, it took you a couple of takes to understand what was going on and, even then, you had to pretend that it was you who was in charge with your "you're right" ****. --- And, what's that "I rest my case" crap? Unfamiliar with everyday colloquialisms now as well? I am not surprised. --- Everyday colloquialisms? Sounds to me like you were trying to retire the subject because it was becoming increasingly more difficult for you to support it Something you heard shortly before being led out of the courtroom in chains? Wrong again, asswipe. **** off and die now, little boy. You are proof that numerical age does not a man make. --- And your claim to be able to reach manhood is??? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:14:42 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote in Msg. The way to get ni-cad to boil at room temperature is simply reduce the pressure to something significantly below its vapor pressure. We did it knowingly with gold too once, and that was nothing short of beautiful as far as the results went. The entire inside of the bell jar was very faintly plated with gold. That particular experiment was testing the voltage breakdown of ceramic wafers, so in addition to the gold plating there was the bluish white glow from a high voltage arc too. Really great visual effects! What you did here wasn't evaporating gold at room temperature. By creating a vacuum discharge you sputtered the gold off the surface (by ion impact), and it was this sputtered gold that covered the inside of the jar. robert |
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote in Msg. I appreciate corrections to what would obviously have to be the correct parameters. Clearly at 70 some degrees C cadmium will out-gas if the pressure is down to 10^-8 Torr. What matters is the Cd partial pressure at the surface. Since the Cd partial pressure in air in normal conditions is likely to be a lot lower than 10e-8 torr, Cd will always outgas at the same rate -- no matter what the surrounding air pressure is. Of course if you seal a piece of Cd in a small glass container, the surrounding volume will slowly saturate with Cd vapor, and when it is saturated the outgassing will stop (or, more accurately, it will be exactly compensated by re-condensation). The point was about apparently solid things simply vaporizing without being raised to some significantly high temperature, because *pressure* is just as significant. Partial vapor pressure, yes. And the results can come as an expensive surprise too. No. robert |
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:31:33 GMT, TokaMundo
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:05:46 -0500, John Fields Gave us: Or, I could be totally wrong and you could be the best thing that ever happened. If that's true, how about posting your plan? I plan to ignore you. That will be the best thing in these groups. The next best thing would be if everyone else ignored you as well. --- Ahhh... I'll be looking forward to your silence, as I'm sure 'most everyone here will be too. Put the plan into practice, if you can, you weak-willed nothing. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:35:58 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:08:52 -0500, John Fields Gave us: But a lot more confusing. Yours would read like this: "Too bad newsreaders don't include a nice-checker. The simplest implementation would just be a reverse spell-checker, that deleted words like and and. Some people's posts would get a *lot* shorter." ;) You could be a bit more retarded, but I do not see how. I generally watch threads; when I see two names alternate on a really deep one, I know I can just scroll down, shift-rightclick, "mark as read". When someone new chimes in, I usually check to see what they have to say, and if maybe something interesting came up in the **** contest; same if somebody I respect chimes in - that usually means that the thread has taken an interesting enough turn for me to bother to read the posts. And when three of the posts by the new guy are nothing but what I see here, I just very quietly click "Articles - Plonk Author". It makes the thread-checking a little less tedious. ;-) Cheers! Rich |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 06:42:29 -0700, cs_posting wrote:
ehsjr wrote: wrote: The L and the C don't care about your DC offset, so you must still think of the signal as AC in order to understand their behavior. They don't care that the overall signal doesn't reverse polarity, they only care that derivative of voltage with respect to time is non-zero. Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by the DC component. What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real world (and one I had overlooked). However, what you have actually said is not true. An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not saturate. Rather it will behave in accordance with the simple mathematical model of inductance. The real-world magnetic device chosen to play the role of an inductor can saturate, and it's something we might need to think about. However the propensity towards saturation would need to be specified by additional parameters beyond a simple constant value of L. While we're at it, we should put in parasitic resistance, temperature dependence, possible effects of external fields, and probably some other things that I'm not thinking about. If asked to solve a problem with an inductance, you treat it as such. If asked to solve a problem with an inductor, you have to consider the broader properties of that device, of which inductance is only one, and not necesssarily a constant one. I remember learning this very thing at a bench in USAF electronics tech school. We did the numbers on paper, and then hooked up a real circuit and all of the phases were off from what we were expecting from the numbers because we had neglected the inductor's own resistance. Once we put that back into our equations, of course, it all came out right. :-) Cheers! Rich |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:09:52 -0700, cs_posting wrote:
ehsjr wrote: wrote: You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the way the *component* represented by C and the *component* represented by L react. The only components which can be represented by a single parameter L or C are ideal components, which will always have exactly that value. They can't saturate, because their value is mathematically constant. Though you probably can't buy them at digi-key ;-) Compents that you can buy cannot be represented by a single constant parameter, though you may be able to approximate them as such for a useful range of operation. What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance "1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux. 2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction." Not sure about this, but can the air-core inductor you just descrived saturate? Or is it primarily a funtion of a core material like iron or ferrite saturating? "... A third, classical definition of saturation is that total magnetic saturation occurs when all of the magnetic domains are aligned and the permeability relative to that of air becomes one. For pipeline steels, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this occurs at very high field levels (above 1000 Oersted) and is impractical for flux leakage in-line inspection applications...." From http://www.battelle.org/pipetechnolo...meability.html the second hit at: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ma...+saturation%22 So, I'm guessing, No and Yes. ;-) Cheers! Rich |
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
ehsjr wrote: wrote: ehsjr wrote: wrote: The L and the C don't care about your DC offset, so you must still think of the signal as AC in order to understand their behavior. They don't care that the overall signal doesn't reverse polarity, they only care that derivative of voltage with respect to time is non-zero. Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by the DC component. Ed That's about the same as pointing out that some capacitors are polarity sensitive, and will effectively be a short if the polarity is wrong. It's true, but does not enter into the problem at this point. What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real world (and one I had overlooked). However, what you have actually said is not true. An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not saturate. You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't. Behavior refers to the way the component performs. Inductance as a property - see the definition, #1 - does not perform or saturate. Inductance as a component - see the definition, #2 - performs, and can saturate. snip What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance "1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux. 2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction." A circuit element, not a component device. Try reading the definition, where it says "typically a conducting coil". What circuit element do you have in mind that is not a component but in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction? snip But saturation has nothing to do with the inductance. Huh? The inductance of a coil lowers as the current through it drives it into saturation. snip After the right inductance is calculated, then a specific device has to be chosen, and *that* is when saturation has to be considered. So do physical size, mounting style, insulation, and perhaps other parameters too, none of which are related to the original "inductance" problem. Very specifically for the op's question, the possibility of saturation *must* be considered, even though the question did not include the word inductor. I think those rules, or whatever you call them, are not correct. Could be! I don't remember the OP's question... :-) Maybe you should re-read it. Ed |
wrote:
ehsjr wrote: wrote: You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the way the *component* represented by C and the *component* represented by L react. The only components which can be represented by a single parameter L or C are ideal components, which will always have exactly that value. They can't saturate, because their value is mathematically constant. Though you probably can't buy them at digi-key ;-) Compents that you can buy cannot be represented by a single constant parameter, though you may be able to approximate them as such for a useful range of operation. The discussion has nothing to do with ideal components. L - inductance - definition 1 (the property) - exists in the world L - inductance - definition 2 (the circuit element, typically a coil) can exist in an electronic circuit. L - inductance - the value we use in circuit analysis - can change in some cases, as DC current through the component having the property L increases until the component is saturated. What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance "1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux. 2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction." Not sure about this, but can the air-core inductor you just descrived saturate? I can't take credit for describin it - I just pasted in the definition. The definition does not specify that the coil has no core, so it could be one with a core or one without a core. Or is it primarily a funtion of a core material like iron or ferrite saturating? I assume that is correct. Saturation, as far as I know, is not a factor with an air-core inductor. I can't say an air-core inductor will *never* saturate - I don't know. Ed |
ehsjr wrote:
What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real world (and one I had overlooked). However, what you have actually said is not true. An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not saturate. You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't. Behavior refers to the way the component performs. Inductance as a property - see the definition, #1 - does not perform or saturate. Inductance as a component - see the definition, #2 - performs, and can saturate. snip Since Floyd was referring to a definition of inductance as a property not as a circuit element, his statement is indeed correct. Introducing *another* alternative definition doesn't change what the statement was actually referring to. It just complicates things by having to introduce another word for the property of inductance to distinguish it from a circuit element sometimes referred to as "inductance". Your trying to win an argument by slight of hand, i.e. changing word meanings on the fly. What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance "1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux. 2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction." My view is that the dictionary is misleading. This seems to be a case where English has been replaced by common, but poor use of it. While I agree, that the phrases such as "the circuit contains a capacitor and an inductance" are used, I have always considered this to be sloppy English. A little search on "definition of inductance" came up with http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inductance%20unit http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Inductance http://www.wordreference.com/definition/inductance http://www.allwords.com/word-inductance.html None of which refer to inductance as a circuit element. Sure, some other references have the two definitions, but its still poor style by my book. One needs to distinguish between the circuit element itself (inductor) and its properties (inductance). Using the same word for both, is confusing. My view is that dictionaries just get confused up when they try to include technical terms. If you look in just about any technical/physics reference, inductance is defined simply as a *property* of a component named an inductor. Like, if we say "there is a capacitance in the circuit", when we are referring to the capacitor itself, it just sounds like the person is an amateur. Its almost as bad as "current flow". So, as far as making oneself clearly understood in electrical engineering, one should, restrict to terms such as capacitors having capacitance and inductors having inductance. This discussion itself is proof enogh why this should be the case. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Kevin Aylward wrote:
ehsjr wrote: What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real world (and one I had overlooked). However, what you have actually said is not true. An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not saturate. You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't. Behavior refers to the way the component performs. Inductance as a property - see the definition, #1 - does not perform or saturate. Inductance as a component - see the definition, #2 - performs, and can saturate. snip Since Floyd was referring to a definition of inductance as a property not as a circuit element, his statement is indeed correct. Introducing *another* alternative definition doesn't change what the statement was actually referring to. It just complicates things by having to introduce another word for the property of inductance to distinguish it from a circuit element sometimes referred to as "inductance". Your trying to win an argument by slight of hand, i.e. changing word meanings on the fly. Had you not written the above, my response would be this paragraph: Agreed - it is sloppy English (as you mention at the bottom of your post) to use definitions that indicate that "inductance" is both a property and a circuit element and to use the word "inductance" to mean both simultaneously. It would be better to state that one was talking about the component (if that's what he was talking about) or the property, if that was what he meant. As to trying to win the argument by slight of hand - and changing the meaning of the word on the fly, what a crock! I posted the definition "inductance" the first time I used it in this discussion, and have been consistent throughout in using it with reference to which part of the definition applied. I don't give a s*** about winning an argument, but I will not brook people telling me I meant something I did not. You are mistaken about this: " Introducing *another* alternative definition". There was no other definition posted in this discussion, prior to my post. I posted the first, and *only* definition (prior to your post) in this discussion, and have consistently talked about the component. And I stated why I was talking about the component. The poster to whom I responded initially attributed "behavior" to L. Inductance as a property doesn't "behave", it simply exists. It is the component that possesses the property of inductance that "behaves". And if you want to talk about slight of hand, and changing the meaning of words thereby, how about the first url you posted below for the definition of "inductance"? It defines "inductance unit" not "inductance". If you use that site to define "inductance", you will see that it defines it as both a property and a circuit element. Let me state clearly that in my opinion it was not slight of hand on your part. I believe it was an honest mistake. And I'll attribute your apparent opinion that an "electrical device" in the definition found at the third url site you posted does not count as a "circuit element" to another mistake. That definition starts with: "inductance A noun 1 inductor, inductance an electrical device that introduces inductance into a circuit " If I misunderstand your opinion, and you do think that an electrical device fits as a "circuit element" as used in the definition of inductance I posted, then your statement further down in your post "None of which refer to inductance as a circuit element" is misleading. It would be easy to call that "slight of hand". I would rather think of those as mistakes with an innocent motive. All this misses the point, which was the analysis of an R,L,C load impedance in the presence of both a DC voltage and an AC signal. The answer given seemed to indicate that you analyze the circuit for AC and for DC separately. If you don't consider saturation, your analysis could be wrong. Neither the AC signal by itself, nor the DC voltage by itself, might cause a current at or over the saturation point, if there is one. But combined, the possibility exists that saturation might occur. The DC voltage alone might cause a current at or over Isat, while the AC signal might result in currents below Isat. The point being that when analyzing the circuit in the presence of an AC signal, you must at the same time consider the DC voltage. Separate analysis could result in the wrong answer. Ed What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per the definition for inductance. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance "1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux. 2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction." My view is that the dictionary is misleading. This seems to be a case where English has been replaced by common, but poor use of it. While I agree, that the phrases such as "the circuit contains a capacitor and an inductance" are used, I have always considered this to be sloppy English. A little search on "definition of inductance" came up with http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inductance%20unit http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Inductance http://www.wordreference.com/definition/inductance http://www.allwords.com/word-inductance.html None of which refer to inductance as a circuit element. Sure, some other references have the two definitions, but its still poor style by my book. One needs to distinguish between the circuit element itself (inductor) and its properties (inductance). Using the same word for both, is confusing. My view is that dictionaries just get confused up when they try to include technical terms. If you look in just about any technical/physics reference, inductance is defined simply as a *property* of a component named an inductor. Like, if we say "there is a capacitance in the circuit", when we are referring to the capacitor itself, it just sounds like the person is an amateur. Its almost as bad as "current flow". So, as far as making oneself clearly understood in electrical engineering, one should, restrict to terms such as capacitors having capacitance and inductors having inductance. This discussion itself is proof enogh why this should be the case. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
ehsjr wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: All this misses the point, which was the analysis of an R,L,C load impedance in the presence of both a DC voltage and an AC signal. The answer given seemed to indicate that you analyze the circuit for AC and for DC separately. One does. However, this doesn't meant that one completely ignores DC conditions on component parameter values. The issue here is one of the context of the claim. If you don't consider saturation, your analysis could be wrong. Neither the AC signal by itself, nor the DC voltage by itself, might cause a current at or over the saturation point, if there is one. But combined, the possibility exists that saturation might occur. The DC voltage alone might cause a current at or over Isat, while the AC signal might result in currents below Isat. The point being that when analyzing the circuit in the presence of an AC signal, you must at the same time consider the DC voltage. Separate analysis could result in the wrong answer. But, this is out of context. When someone says that they are analysing AC and DC separately, they don't *really* mean that they are completely oblivious and are ignoring the fact that, e.g. an inductor might saturate if it has a DC current through it. They simple mean that, for the ac analysis the dc level is not relevant and take it as already read that such analyses is performed with the *correct* value of inductance for the inductor. You are trying to claim that "ignoring DC for AC analyses" means ignoring *all* aspects associated with the DC conditions on AC. This is simply not a reasonable inference against those that understand electrical design and analysis. People use phrasing that is usually commonly understood. For example, one might use the same phrasing for a transistor stage. That is, "ignore the DC conditions and calculate AC separately". Of course, *literally* this would be nonsense. One must use the DC conditions to calculate, say gm, ro and the input resistance that one uses for the AC calculations, as such parameters also depend on DC collector current and voltage. However, once the DC operation conditions have determined the small signal values, the DC values themselves can be completly ignored. That is, DC itself has no effect on a small signal AC analysis, it only has effect on the parameters used in such an analysis. So, the phrase "no effect" us being used in two different contexts. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Like, if we say "there is a capacitance in the circuit", when we are referring to the capacitor itself, it just sounds like the person is an amateur. Its almost as bad as "current flow". So, as far as making oneself clearly understood in electrical engineering, one should, restrict to terms such as capacitors having capacitance and inductors having inductance. This discussion itself is proof enogh why this should be the case. But what if the "capacitance" present is actually a property of something other than a part sold as a "capacitor"? |
ehsjr wrote:
The discussion has nothing to do with ideal components. Actually, in the end, Laplace-transform (impedance methods) circuit analysis is calculated based on ideal components, the only ones whose behaviour follows practically simple mathematical rules. The question is simply how much effort we need to make to represent any real components we are using by sufficiently detailed, situation-adjusted models made up of varied ideal components. How do you calculate the impedance of an inductor that can saturate in a way that reflects this? The answer is that you can't, you can only calculate an effective impedance under known saturation conditions - which is to say that your junk box inductor is represented by an ideal inductor of a value which depends on the degree of saturation (and other ideal components if we need to model series resistance, distributed capacitance between turns, etc) The magic words in circuit analysis are "linear time invarient". If you have something that isn't, you either do a lot of messy calculations (probably only practical numerically), or you figure out the steady state conditions of its operation and devise a small signal linear time invarient model reasonably accurate in that regime. |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:34:34 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
But, this is out of context. When someone says that they are analysing AC and DC separately, they don't *really* mean that they are completely oblivious and are ignoring the fact that, e.g. an inductor might saturate if it has a DC current through it. They simple mean that, for the ac analysis the dc level is not relevant and take it as already read that such analyses is performed with the *correct* value of inductance for the inductor. But, since it's a test question, and "saturation flux density" wasn't given as a parameter, I believe it's safe to surmise that the teacher meant for the elements to be treated as ideal components. Thanks, Rich |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 05:30:08 -0700, cs_posting wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: Like, if we say "there is a capacitance in the circuit", when we are referring to the capacitor itself, it just sounds like the person is an amateur. Its almost as bad as "current flow". So, as far as making oneself clearly understood in electrical engineering, one should, restrict to terms such as capacitors having capacitance and inductors having inductance. This discussion itself is proof enogh why this should be the case. But what if the "capacitance" present is actually a property of something other than a part sold as a "capacitor"? It usually is. ;-) Cheers! Rich |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter