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

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


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
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.

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."

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. 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.

Ed

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