Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed resolute.
Any advice for next time ? if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:29:12 AM UTC-4, N_Cook wrote:
Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed resolute.
Any advice for next time ? if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

I have successfuly used ChipQuik to free up the solder connections and then applying a bit of heat to the transistor itself with a little prying with a screwdriver. The heat helps loosen the epoxy a bit allowing the removal.

Dan

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed resolute.
Any advice for next time? if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

"In this case, the SMD was a one-ampere-capacity transistor.

"I wedged a scalpel tip (a needle point might work, too) under the device. I
then touched a soldering iron to the pins, expecting that unsoldering them
would allow the chip to pop loose. Apparently, though, the epoxy had been
applied to keep the transistor forever in place, rather than just long
enough for the initial soldering. I ended up breaking the transistor, while
the epoxy remained intact.

"Any advice for next time?"

I'm biting my tongue.


"if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot must have been under it as
traces splurged out all around the body."

I can only make the vaguest of guesses as to what Mr Cook was trying to get
at.

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:29:12 AM UTC-4, N_Cook wrote:
Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used
here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins
relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully
free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed
resolute.
Any advice for next time ? if relevant red colour and more than a
micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

I have successfuly used ChipQuik to free up the solder connections and
then applying a bit of heat to the transistor itself with a little prying
with a screwdriver. The heat helps loosen the epoxy a bit allowing the
removal.

Dan

Your mention of screwdriver - I'd forgotten about my jeweller's finest
screwdriver with the blade I'd ground angles, either side , to
give close to a point. Insert under and twist 1/4 of a turn. I'd only used
it under ICs before, where there is a bit more space , out to the pins.
Have
to check my drawer of ancillary "tools & kit" to check its still there and
more importantly remember to try it next time

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used
here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully
free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed resolute.
Any advice for next time? if relevant red colour and more than a
micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

"In this case, the SMD was a one-ampere-capacity transistor.

"I wedged a scalpel tip (a needle point might work, too) under the device.
I
then touched a soldering iron to the pins, expecting that unsoldering them
would allow the chip to pop loose. Apparently, though, the epoxy had been
applied to keep the transistor forever in place, rather than just long
enough for the initial soldering. I ended up breaking the transistor,
while
the epoxy remained intact.

"Any advice for next time?"

I'm biting my tongue.


"if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot must have been under it
as
traces splurged out all around the body."

I can only make the vaguest of guesses as to what Mr Cook was trying to
get
at.





Hey William, I've found something that I think is just for you.

Here it is:
http://teachempathy.com/self-empathy...being-retreat/

I'm sure they are lovely people, and you will have a whale of a time.


I'm guessing you were some kind of teacher, or Headmaster even, in your
darker, younger days.
Perhaps its time to let go of all that now, and embrace something a little
more worthwhile.



Namaste.

Hey William, I've found something that I think is just for you.
Here it is:
http://teachempathy.com/self-empathy...being-retreat/
I'm sure they are lovely people, and you will have a whale of a time.

I'm guessing you were some kind of teacher, or Headmaster even,
in your darker, younger days.
Perhaps its time to let go of all that now, and embrace something
a little more worthwhile.

I'm trying to help the guy. You're tolerating his lack of skill. Who's doing
"something ... worthwhile"?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Hey William, I've found something that I think is just for you.
Here it is:
http://teachempathy.com/self-empathy...being-retreat/
I'm sure they are lovely people, and you will have a whale of a time.

I'm guessing you were some kind of teacher, or Headmaster even,
in your darker, younger days.
Perhaps its time to let go of all that now, and embrace something
a little more worthwhile.

I'm trying to help the guy. You're tolerating his lack of skill. Who's
doing
"something ... worthwhile"?





William, you do not seem to have a clue about what it is to be somebody
other than yourself.

It's not too late to learn.


Gareth.

On Jun 28, 4:14*pm, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

...





Hey William, I've found something that I think is just for you.
Here it is:
http://teachempathy.com/self-empathy...being-retreat/
I'm sure they are lovely people, and you will have a whale of a time.

I'm guessing you were some kind of teacher, or Headmaster even,
in your darker, younger days.
Perhaps its time to let go of all that now, and embrace something
a little more worthwhile.

I'm trying to help the guy. You're tolerating his lack of skill. Who's
doing
"something ... worthwhile"?

William, you do not seem to have a clue about what it is to be somebody
other than yourself.

It's not too late to learn.

Gareth.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mr.Cooks original post was a little confusing, not like his normal
posts, and Mr Sommerweck is normally quite lucid, so he is not quite
as bad a person as you have implied.

"hr(bob) " wrote in message
...
On Jun 28, 4:14 pm, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

...





Hey William, I've found something that I think is just for you.
Here it is:
http://teachempathy.com/self-empathy...being-retreat/
I'm sure they are lovely people, and you will have a whale of a time.

I'm guessing you were some kind of teacher, or Headmaster even,
in your darker, younger days.
Perhaps its time to let go of all that now, and embrace something
a little more worthwhile.

I'm trying to help the guy. You're tolerating his lack of skill. Who's
doing
"something ... worthwhile"?

William, you do not seem to have a clue about what it is to be somebody
other than yourself.

It's not too late to learn.

Gareth.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mr.Cooks original post was a little confusing, not like his normal
posts, and Mr Sommerweck is normally quite lucid, so he is not quite
as bad a person as you have implied.




That may be so, but I am not basing my posts on this single thread.

Rather, it is based upon an observation of Mr. Sommerweck's recent history
of posting on Usenet.

And this thread is typical of such recent postings, and, IMHO, shows little
understanding of the Human Race.



Gareth.

On 6/28/2012 7:29 AM, N_Cook wrote:
Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed resolute.
Any advice for next time ? if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.



One watt is a lot of power to be dissipating without a heat sink. May I
suggest the epoxy is a heat conducting formula and was there to conduct
the heat to the circuit board material.

Current designs use a device with a metal back side soldered to a large
pad on the circuit board.

Paul

I'm trying to help the guy. You're tolerating his lack
of skill. Who's doing "something ... worthwhile"?

William, you do not seem to have a clue about what
it is to be somebody other than yourself.

You're absolutely right. If someone has a problem, they ought to work to
overcome it.

If you'd like to take this off line, I'd be happy to continue the
discussion, in a friendly, constructive manner.

Mr.Cooks original post was a little confusing, not like
his normal posts, and Mr Sommerweck is normally
quite lucid, so he is not quite as bad a person as you
have implied.

The issue is not whether I'm a bad person (I am), but whether anyone should
publicly criticize someone who writes so poorly. I think they should,
especially when a counter-example is provided.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I'm trying to help the guy. You're tolerating his lack
of skill. Who's doing "something ... worthwhile"?

William, you do not seem to have a clue about what
it is to be somebody other than yourself.

You're absolutely right. If someone has a problem, they ought to work to
overcome it.



William, you are still seeing them as being you.

They are not you, they are somebody else.

You have to try and imagine that possibility.



Gareth.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used
here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully
free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed resolute.
Any advice for next time? if relevant red colour and more than a
micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

"In this case, the SMD was a one-ampere-capacity transistor.

"I wedged a scalpel tip (a needle point might work, too) under the device.
I
then touched a soldering iron to the pins, expecting that unsoldering them
would allow the chip to pop loose. Apparently, though, the epoxy had been
applied to keep the transistor forever in place, rather than just long
enough for the initial soldering. I ended up breaking the transistor,
while
the epoxy remained intact.

"Any advice for next time?"

I'm biting my tongue.


Because what you really want to say is ... ??





"if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot must have been under it
as
traces splurged out all around the body."

I can only make the vaguest of guesses as to what Mr Cook was trying to
get
at.


Why are you having to guess at anything, William ? For once, I thought it
was quite clear that he was trying to remove the bloody thing from the board
to replace it with a new one. Obviously, you don't get involved too much
with surface mount reworks, as this is actually quite a common problem.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used
here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins
relieve
themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder until fully
free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed
resolute.
Any advice for next time? if relevant red colour and more than a
micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.


"In this case, the SMD was a one-ampere-capacity transistor.

"I wedged a scalpel tip (a needle point might work, too) under the
device. I
then touched a soldering iron to the pins, expecting that unsoldering
them
would allow the chip to pop loose. Apparently, though, the epoxy had been
applied to keep the transistor forever in place, rather than just long
enough for the initial soldering. I ended up breaking the transistor,
while
the epoxy remained intact.

"Any advice for next time?"

I'm biting my tongue.



Because what you really want to say is ... ??





"if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot must have been under
it as
traces splurged out all around the body."

I can only make the vaguest of guesses as to what Mr Cook was trying
to get
at.


Why are you having to guess at anything, William ? For once, I thought
it was quite clear that he was trying to remove the bloody thing from
the board to replace it with a new one. Obviously, you don't get
involved too much with surface mount reworks, as this is actually quite
a common problem.

Arfa


a little LN usually works

Jamie

"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:



"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used
here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins
relieve themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder
until fully free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed
resolute. Any advice for next time? if relevant red colour and more
than a micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

"In this case, the SMD was a one-ampere-capacity transistor.

"I wedged a scalpel tip (a needle point might work, too) under the
device. I
then touched a soldering iron to the pins, expecting that unsoldering
them would allow the chip to pop loose. Apparently, though, the epoxy
had been applied to keep the transistor forever in place, rather than
just long enough for the initial soldering. I ended up breaking the
transistor, while
the epoxy remained intact.

"Any advice for next time?"

I'm biting my tongue.


Because what you really want to say is ... ??





"if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot must have been
under it as
traces splurged out all around the body."

I can only make the vaguest of guesses as to what Mr Cook was trying
to get
at.


Why are you having to guess at anything, William ? For once, I thought
it was quite clear that he was trying to remove the bloody thing from
the board to replace it with a new one. Obviously, you don't get
involved too much with surface mount reworks, as this is actually
quite a common problem.

Arfa



I'm still trying to figure out why epoxy was used to hold a SMD on the
board? thermal-conductive epoxy?

I also can't see epoxy having that tight a grip on the PCB,that it wouldn't
break loose before the SMD package broke. must be some damn good epoxy,wish
I knew who makes it and where to get it!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Why are you having to guess at anything, William?

You were apply my final remark to the whole post, rather than to the text
that immediately preceded it. If you look at my rewrite, it's obvious that I
understood /exactly/ what I was trying to do.

I'm still trying to figure out why epoxy was used to
hold a SMD on the board? Thermal-conductive epoxy?

That must be it, because it would have been "overkill" simply to hold it in
place during the intial soldering.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:29:12 +0100, "N_Cook"
wrote:

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
(...)

I guess it's too much trouble to supply a usable clue as to what the
device looks like. If it has a plastic or metal back makes a big
difference here. Also, please make an effort to write in complete
sentences that do not require cryptographic decoding.

Nobody uses epoxy to mount SOT transistors in a production
environment. That's because it takes too long for it to set, and
because it crumbles nicely when hot and softens exposed to alcohols
and solvents. Single part epoxy has to be refridgerated in storage,
making use on the production line somewhat awkward. Two part mixes
hard quicker, but have a finite work time. Epoxies (and silicon
rubber compounds) are used to attach physically large components, but
not tiny SOT parts.

More common is cynoacrylate adhesives (aka super-glue) or attaching
components before soldering. If the back of the xsistor is metal, it
gets smeared with solder paste, which acts as a temporary glue, and
then gets reflowed when run through the hot air soldering machinery.
That solders the metal back of the SOT to the PCB.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jim Yanik wrote in message
4...
"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:



"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
If I've not used hot air then a scalpel tip or needle point, as used
here,
wedged under , soldering iron melt solder a touch leting the pins
relieve themselves away from the lands , repeat wedging/desolder
until fully free.
But this time the epoxy was more structural than just for placement.
I ended up breaking up the transistor body and the epoxy stayed
resolute. Any advice for next time? if relevant red colour and more
than a micro-dot
must have been under it as traces splurged out all around the body.

"In this case, the SMD was a one-ampere-capacity transistor.

"I wedged a scalpel tip (a needle point might work, too) under the
device. I
then touched a soldering iron to the pins, expecting that unsoldering
them would allow the chip to pop loose. Apparently, though, the epoxy
had been applied to keep the transistor forever in place, rather than
just long enough for the initial soldering. I ended up breaking the
transistor, while
the epoxy remained intact.

"Any advice for next time?"

I'm biting my tongue.


Because what you really want to say is ... ??





"if relevant red colour and more than a micro-dot must have been
under it as
traces splurged out all around the body."

I can only make the vaguest of guesses as to what Mr Cook was trying
to get
at.


Why are you having to guess at anything, William ? For once, I thought
it was quite clear that he was trying to remove the bloody thing from
the board to replace it with a new one. Obviously, you don't get
involved too much with surface mount reworks, as this is actually
quite a common problem.

Arfa



I'm still trying to figure out why epoxy was used to hold a SMD on the
board? thermal-conductive epoxy?

I also can't see epoxy having that tight a grip on the PCB,that it
wouldn't
break loose before the SMD package broke. must be some damn good
epoxy,wish
I knew who makes it and where to get it!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com


Belt and braces , to take the mechanical strain off the solder? To scrape
back the epoxy to a clean board , the action of a soldering iron tip on it,
was like the normal reaction of solder-iron heat to epoxy, goes powdery .
Perhaps its bright red as a warning

Jeff Liebermann wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:29:12 +0100, "N_Cook"
wrote:

Transistors , in this case 1-amp-continuous "size" whatever the SO
designation of that is.
(...)

I guess it's too much trouble to supply a usable clue as to what the
device looks like. If it has a plastic or metal back makes a big
difference here. Also, please make an effort to write in complete
sentences that do not require cryptographic decoding.

Nobody uses epoxy to mount SOT transistors in a production
environment. That's because it takes too long for it to set, and
because it crumbles nicely when hot and softens exposed to alcohols
and solvents. Single part epoxy has to be refridgerated in storage,
making use on the production line somewhat awkward. Two part mixes
hard quicker, but have a finite work time. Epoxies (and silicon
rubber compounds) are used to attach physically large components, but
not tiny SOT parts.

More common is cynoacrylate adhesives (aka super-glue) or attaching
components before soldering. If the back of the xsistor is metal, it
gets smeared with solder paste, which acts as a temporary glue, and
then gets reflowed when run through the hot air soldering machinery.
That solders the metal back of the SOT to the PCB.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS


The device was FZT949 (yes, revised, 5 or 6 amp rating/size) , the glue
cleared away with soldering iron tip , in the manner of epoxy , with no
smell of cyanoacrylate

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:58 +0100, "N_Cook"
wrote:

The device was FZT949 (yes, revised, 5 or 6 amp rating/size) ,
http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/FZT9489.pdf
SOT223 package.
http://www.diodes.com/_files/product_packages/sot223-3l.gif
Full spec dissipation requires 4 square inches of copper under the
device. Lower dissipation specs with less of a heat sink. The back
is the device is plastic. Most of the heat comes out the large solder
tab. There is a 1.6mm air gap under the plastic case to deal with
glues and to insure that the tab mechanically hits the copper head
sink area. There is almost no value in obtaining a thermal connection
to the epoxy case, so there would be no benefit to using a thermally
conductive epoxy glue.

the glue
cleared away with soldering iron tip , in the manner of epoxy , with no
smell of cyanoacrylate

Epoxy does not "clear away" when hit with a soldering iron. What it
does is crumble and burn leaving a charred mess. The heat conductive
variety will conduct enough heat to the PCB to also char the PCB. I
agree that if it didn't reek when you hit it with the soldering iron,
it's probably not cyanoacrylate adhesive. That leaves hot melt
adhesives and various acrylic glues. If it seemed to melt away at a
very low temperature, it's probably hot melt. If it took some effort,
and it simultaneously melted and charred slightly, it's acrylic.

Please specify what you mean by the "manner of epoxy"? Melt, char,
crumble, volatize, explode, etc?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Why are you having to guess at anything, William?

You were apply my final remark to the whole post, rather than to the text
that immediately preceded it. If you look at my rewrite, it's obvious that
I
understood /exactly/ what I was trying to do.




As ever, you've lost me there. Whether you were referring to the whole
post - which is what it read like from where I was sitting - or just the
preceding bit of text as you claim, I still don't get what you're trying to
guess about. If you're having to guess at anything, presumably, you don't
understand, and then cryptically, you say that you understood exactly. It
all seemed perfectly clear to me, and apparently, everyone else ??

Arfa

As ever, you've lost me there.

Yeah, everyone else got it. I understand why you misunderstood -- you
misread the context of the last statement.

I might say to all the professionals in this group -- how can you work and
respond to postings at the same time?

Jeff Liebermann wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:39:58 +0100, "N_Cook"
wrote:

The device was FZT949 (yes, revised, 5 or 6 amp rating/size) ,
http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/FZT9489.pdf
SOT223 package.
http://www.diodes.com/_files/product_packages/sot223-3l.gif
Full spec dissipation requires 4 square inches of copper under the
device. Lower dissipation specs with less of a heat sink. The back
is the device is plastic. Most of the heat comes out the large solder
tab. There is a 1.6mm air gap under the plastic case to deal with
glues and to insure that the tab mechanically hits the copper head
sink area. There is almost no value in obtaining a thermal connection
to the epoxy case, so there would be no benefit to using a thermally
conductive epoxy glue.

the glue
cleared away with soldering iron tip , in the manner of epoxy , with no
smell of cyanoacrylate

Epoxy does not "clear away" when hit with a soldering iron. What it
does is crumble and burn leaving a charred mess. The heat conductive
variety will conduct enough heat to the PCB to also char the PCB. I
agree that if it didn't reek when you hit it with the soldering iron,
it's probably not cyanoacrylate adhesive. That leaves hot melt
adhesives and various acrylic glues. If it seemed to melt away at a
very low temperature, it's probably hot melt. If it took some effort,
and it simultaneously melted and charred slightly, it's acrylic.

Please specify what you mean by the "manner of epoxy"? Melt, char,
crumble, volatize, explode, etc?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


Crumble without clumping or sticking and without a change of colour and no
observed smell given off.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
As ever, you've lost me there.

Yeah, everyone else got it. I understand why you misunderstood -- you
misread the context of the last statement.

I might say to all the professionals in this group -- how can you work and
respond to postings at the same time?


Well William, I expect that's for us to know, and you to "guess" at ...
:-)

Arfa

I might say to all the professionals in this group --
how can you work and respond to postings at the
same time?

Well, William, I expect that's for us to know, and you
to "guess" at ... :-)

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design". The writing quality
varies from barely acceptable to horrible. I have to guess at a lot of
things -- such as what the writer /thought/ he was writing about, or what a
particular sentence Really Means. I often refer to Wikipedia or search the
Web, but sometimes it's a guessing game.

Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't find the answer
anywhere.

On 30/06/2012 05:14, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I might say to all the professionals in this group --
how can you work and respond to postings at the
same time?

Well, William, I expect that's for us to know, and you
to "guess" at ... :-)

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design". The writing quality
varies from barely acceptable to horrible. I have to guess at a lot of
things -- such as what the writer /thought/ he was writing about, or what a
particular sentence Really Means. I often refer to Wikipedia or search the
Web, but sometimes it's a guessing game.

Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't find the answer
anywhere.


Intercontinental buttered crumpet

Ron

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:14:59 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find the articles to
generally quite acceptable.

The writing quality
varies from barely acceptable to horrible. I have to guess at a lot of
things -- such as what the writer /thought/ he was writing about, or what a
particular sentence Really Means. I often refer to Wikipedia or search the
Web, but sometimes it's a guessing game.

It's about the same everywhere, including usenet. The problem seems
to be lack of time, not lack of writing abilities. Most articles are
written to a deadline and look rushed. Often, the author doesn't seem
to care, as in product releases and promotional literature. Other
times, the author is so familiar with his subject, that he assumes
that the reader is also similarly familiar and leaves things out, such
as internal company acronyms. English as 2nd language authors tend to
directly transplant foreign language constructs into the article,
making reading difficult. Some people write exactly like they talk,
which creates a difficult to read article. The various publications
care more about advertising space than content, so articles get
butchered in order to make space. I've scribbled a few articles in
the distant past. I could almost recognize my original article buried
in the published version. However, those are minor compared to what
the magazines do to themselves. Authors are told to "not worry about
style" and just supply the facts and details. The magazine editors
will take care of making the article presentable. Permit me to offer
some praise and sympathy.

If only they would pay my time,
to write the docs in verse and rhyme.

Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't find the answer
anywhere.

Insulated Bridge Clip. They're used on Type 66 telephone blocks.
They're usually bright red and indicate either a "protected" circuit
or one that can't be detected with a common butt-in.

Like this, but covered with red vinyl insulation:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/390400364255


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find
the articles to generally quite acceptable.

Thank you. Did you like "Did you buffer the buffered buffer?". That was one
of my edits.

I'm not the only editor, of course. They have full-time writers and editors
who do a very good job.

snipped mostly accurate observations about bad writing

I've scribbled a few articles in the distant past. I could almost
recognize my original article buried in the published version.

That suggests the original had significant problems. (I don't /know/, of
course.) I have carte blanche to completely rewrite articles if I think it
necessary. Many go through an extremely heavy edit -- and sometimes major
rearrangement -- which the authors generally tolerate. (I would /like/ to
think they look at the edited piece and accept it as a significant
improvement. The late Bob Pease didn't. He told me my edits didn't
contribute anything. That's about what Beethoven said about Haydn.)

In some cases I'm asked not to disturb the original style too much. I just
finished editing a piece about the advantages of custom analog ASICs, for
the purpose of not only cutting costs, but avoiding counterfeit devices. The
author had a fun, engaging style, which I didn't have to alter in the
process of cleaning up his writing (mostly correcting grammar errors and
tersifying here and there). Indeed, my edits actually pushed the piece
/closer/ to the original style.

However, those are minor compared to what the magazines do
to themselves. Authors are told to "not worry about style" and
just supply the facts and details. The magazine editors will take
care of making the article presentable. Permit me to offer some
praise and sympathy.

There are articles so bad I feel my skull is about to explode. (In one case,
the article was so awful and required so much time that I asked for a bit
extra, which I got.) But I keep telling myself that, if engineers could
write, I wouldn't have this job.


Do any of you know what an IBC is? I didn't, and couldn't
find the answer anywhere.

Insulated Bridge Clip. They're used on Type 66 telephone blocks.
They're usually bright red and indicate either a "protected" circuit
or one that can't be detected with a common butt-in.
Like this, but covered with red vinyl insulation:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/390400364255

That's not it. Not anything like it. Though it /is/ used in telecom systems,
on the block diagram an IBC is some type of regulator/isolator.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:09:39 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find
the articles to generally quite acceptable.

Thank you. Did you like "Did you buffer the buffered buffer?". That was one
of my edits.

I haven't read it yet. I get my paper magazines 2nd hand, usually
after a 3-6 month delay. I'll get to it eventually.

I'm not the only editor, of course. They have full-time writers and editors
who do a very good job.

Does Penton seperate the technical editing from the
grammar/spelling/style/fit editing? I had quite a problem with that
when doing several book edits.

I've scribbled a few articles in the distant past. I could almost
recognize my original article buried in the published version.

That suggests the original had significant problems.

Maybe, although you'll never get me to admit that my work was lousy. I
think (not sure) that my problem was my article trampled on the
illusions of some of the magazine advertisers. While the advert and
copy groups are not even suppose to talk to each other, I noted that
most of the outright deletions were in this class. Also, there were
at least three different editors involved, each with their own agenda
and preferences, which may have contributed. Oddly, I left a red
herring (intentional error) in the copy, which made its way through to
the print version.

(I don't /know/, of
course.) I have carte blanche to completely rewrite articles if I think it
necessary. Many go through an extremely heavy edit -- and sometimes major
rearrangement -- which the authors generally tolerate. (I would /like/ to
think they look at the edited piece and accept it as a significant
improvement. The late Bob Pease didn't. He told me my edits didn't
contribute anything. That's about what Beethoven said about Haydn.)

Do the original authors even see the results of all this editing? I
didn't see anything until the final print version. However, times may
have changed.

If Bob Pease's column in EDN were any indication of his writing
skills, I would ignore his comments. It's a great collection of
disconnected anecdotes and trivia, but would not pass for much beyond
a grade skool paper. What editors do is make the content more
accessible to a wider range of audience. It's very difficult to write
something that is acceptable to both the experts and beginners in a
field. I like to read magazines about things I know little. Little
is over my head, but much is sufficiently esoteric to suggest that the
author is only addressing those with equal expertise. What the
magazine suggests is for authors to write to a reader that is an
expert in his particular field, but not necessarily an expert in the
article's topic. That works well.

In some cases I'm asked not to disturb the original style too much. I just
finished editing a piece about the advantages of custom analog ASICs, for
the purpose of not only cutting costs, but avoiding counterfeit devices. The
author had a fun, engaging style, which I didn't have to alter in the
process of cleaning up his writing (mostly correcting grammar errors and
tersifying here and there). Indeed, my edits actually pushed the piece
/closer/ to the original style.

Nice. However, I suspect that was written by someone involved in the
marketing or sales of ASIC's and not an engineer involved in design or
production.

There are articles so bad I feel my skull is about to explode. (In one case,
the article was so awful and required so much time that I asked for a bit
extra, which I got.) But I keep telling myself that, if engineers could
write, I wouldn't have this job.

True. Now, if you want to see really awful tech writing, I suggest
you look at original (un-edited) patent applications and original
business plans. I used to review these prior to application to the
USPTO and vulture capitalists. One would think that something this
important would deserve some careful editing, but that wasn't what I
saw. I've been told that first drafts of legislation has the same
problem, but I've never seen any.

That's not it. Not anything like it. Though it /is/ used in telecom systems,
on the block diagram an IBC is some type of regulator/isolator.

A little context is always helpful.
Next guess is "Intermediate Bus Converter".
http://electronicdesign.com/article/power/select-the-optimal-intermediate-bus-converter
Please send my consulting fee to the address below.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Does Penton seperate the technical editing from
the grammar/spelling/style/fit editing? I had quite
a problem with that when doing several book edits.

Not as far as I know. But my boss was surprised at how heavily I edited one
piece, as it had been past another editor previously.

Do the original authors even see the results of all
this editing? I didn't see anything until the final print
version. However, times may have changed.

Apparently they do. One didn't understand why I had so heavily edited his
work, and I had to justify it. The article was published as I had edited it.


If Bob Pease's column in EDN were any indication of
his writing skills, I would ignore his comments. It's a
great collection of disconnected anecdotes and trivia,
but would not pass for much beyond a grade skool paper.

Bob's writing was readable and understandable, but it certainly isn't what I
would consider first-rate technical writing.

What editors do is make the content more accessible
to a wider range of audience. It's very difficult to write
something that is acceptable to both the experts and
beginners in a field.

Bingo! I was just saying that to my boss. You want to write so that people
who are simply /curious/ about the material can read and understand it.
That's exactly what I do. Poorly written jargon discourages readership --
and thus subscribership.


I just finished a piece about the advantages of custom
analog ASICs, for the purpose of not only cutting costs.
but avoiding counterfeit devices.

Nice. However, I suspect that was written by someone
involved in the marketing or sales of ASIC's and not an
engineer involved in design or production.

No, he's a major engineer of such. His name is Frosthold, and I wanted to
add this to his bio: "He has two brothers, Fasoldt and Fafner Frosthold, who
design and build custom homes."


A little context is always helpful.
Next guess is "Intermediate Bus Converter".

http://electronicdesign.com/article/...intermediate-b
us-converter

That's it! Thanks! (I'll get my boss to add a cross-reference.)

By the way, it's rather wordy. It could stand another editing pass.

PS: I'm typing this on a Unicomp buckling-spring keyboard. It's the only way
to type.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:28:52 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

By the way, it's rather wordy. It could stand another editing pass.

One of the exercises that I survived in college was to reduce a
technical article down to its basics by either removing words or
rewriting them with a shorter equivalent. I became rather adept at
this exercise and later introduced various prospective tech writers to
the concept. It's often amazing how much verbage can be surgically
extracted from an article without affecting the meaning.

PS: I'm typing this on a Unicomp buckling-spring keyboard. It's the only way
to type.

http://www.pckeyboard.com
Bah... I constantly switch computah keyboards when I work on multiple
machines in my office, and when I use various machines at customers
locations. As long as the general layout is similar, it only takes me
a few seconds to adapt to a new keyboard. These vary from glass touch
screens (Android, iPad, etc), elastometric flat (industrial
controller), rubberized (restaurant kitchen), almost flat with minimal
travel (laptop), dome keys (cheap keyboard), X shaped wire (better
laptop keyboards), and antique teletype machines (brute force finger
exerciser). Keyboards that give me problems are laptops where the
keyboard layout is rearranged to provide room for the add keys which
are never used, and Apple "chiclet" keyboards, which jam on the sides
of the keys when dirty. If you're stuck on one keyboard style, I
suggest you try some others. You might learn to like them better.
http://www.ergocanada.com/ergo/keyboards/mechanical_vs_membrane_keyswitches.html

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

PS: I'm typing this on a Unicomp buckling-spring keyboard. It's the only
way to type.

http://www.pckeyboard.com
Bah... I constantly switch computah keyboards when I work on multiple
machines in my office, and when I use various machines at customers
locations. As long as the general layout is similar, it only takes me
a few seconds to adapt to a new keyboard. These vary from glass touch
screens (Android, iPad, etc), elastometric flat (industrial
controller), rubberized (restaurant kitchen), almost flat with minimal
travel (laptop), dome keys (cheap keyboard), X shaped wire (better
laptop keyboards), and antique teletype machines (brute force finger
exerciser). Keyboards that give me problems are laptops where the
keyboard layout is rearranged to provide room for the add keys which
are never used, and Apple "chiclet" keyboards, which jam on the sides
of the keys when dirty. If you're stuck on one keyboard style, I
suggest you try some others. You might learn to like them better.
http://www.ergocanada.com/ergo/keybo...ne_keyswitches
..html

I learned to type in high school on an Olympia manual. I typed at home on a
Smith-Corona electric. Both have excellent, though quite different,
keyboards.

In 1980, I was introduced to the pleasures of an IBM buckling-spring
keyboard. That was it. In the intervening 30+ years, nothing has ever come
remotely close. Tens of thousands of male typists will agree. It is in a
class by itself.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:55:23 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I learned to type in high school on an Olympia manual. I typed at home on a
Smith-Corona electric. Both have excellent, though quite different,
keyboards.

About the same. I learned typing in Jr High Skool. I had a
Smith-Corona electric portable, and used various others, including an
IBM something with it's bucking spring and clattering keys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling_spring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_Keyboard
http://www.clickykeyboards.com
I'll admit that I rather liked the way these keyboards worked.
However, I can go faster and type longer with current generations of
low-travel keyboards. I also didn't like the noise from the buckling
spring keyboards.

Don't forget the various mechanical teletype machines. A Model 33 was
standard issue for early time share and minicomputah i/o.

In 1980, I was introduced to the pleasures of an IBM buckling-spring
keyboard. That was it. In the intervening 30+ years, nothing has ever come
remotely close. Tens of thousands of male typists will agree. It is in a
class by itself.

Yeah, there nothing like 70 grams of force and 6 mm of travel for the
Model M, as opposed to about 20 grams and 2 mm of travel for todays
keyboard. Try a glass keyboard (iPad) with about 3 grams of force and
zero travel. Real men don't use wimpy keyboards.

Drivel: I play piano and synthesizer. It's much the same as computah
keyboards. The piano/organ/synthesizer keyboards all look similar,
but it doesn't take much in the way of tiny differences in key size
and key action to foul me up. It takes me a few minutes of fumbling
to get used to a new keyboard.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I'll admit that I rather liked the way these keyboards
worked. However, I can go faster and type longer with
current generations of low-travel keyboards.

As Captain Redbeard Rum (Tom Baker) says in the "Potato" episode of "The
Black Adder" -- "You have a woman's hands!"

Real men don't use wimpy keyboards.

Absolutely. For most men, a short-stroke keyboad -- the IBM's Selectric
being the notorious example -- is anathema. (It took 20 years of random
exposure to the Selectric for me to gain some degree of comfort with it.)

The Smith-Corona electric portables had a similarly long stroke that
appealed to make typists. When Consumer Reports tested typewriters 50 years
ago (I'm old, I'm old!), the panel strongly preferred the Olympia manual and
the Smith-Corona electric portable -- my preferences, exactly.

For those out there wondering what this is all about... The preference for
the IBM Model M and its ilk among male typists is /almost/ universal. It is
"Das Klavier". I used to work with Charles Frankston (Bob's brother) who was
also an M freak. He had a drawer full of them, and would sometimes wave one
in my face: "Look what I have, and you don't!"

Yeah, there's nothing like 70 grams force and 6 mm travel
for the Model M, as opposed to about 20 grams and 2 mm
today's keyboard. Try a glass keyboard (iPad) with about
3 grams of force and zero travel.

shivers

A short, easy throw does not a good keyboard make. The Model M's long stroke
and non-linear relationship between force and displacement provide
mechanical feedback that makes it posible to type faster and with fewer
errors. Most users notice this immediately.


Drivel: I play piano and synthesizer. It's much the same
as computah keyboards. The piano/organ/synthesizer
keyboards all look similar, but it doesn't take much in the
way of tiny differences in key size and key action to foul
me up. It takes me a few minutes of fumbling to get used
to a new keyboard.

I don't play a musical instrument. But I once compared a Steinway with the
Baldwin SD-10. The keyboard action was completely different. This might have
been what ultimately drove Baldwin out of business.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 05:30:55 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Yeah, there's nothing like 70 grams force and 6 mm travel
for the Model M, as opposed to about 20 grams and 2 mm
today's keyboard. Try a glass keyboard (iPad) with about
3 grams of force and zero travel.

shivers

Look at the trend in input devices. Pad computahs and cell phones are
driving the glass keyboard market. Meanwhile, Apple is pushing style
over function, producing unrepairable keyboards that look good, but
are difficult to use. There are even laptops with glass keyboards.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57332249-1/this-glass-keyboard-and-mouse-combo-is-cool-but-dont-drop-it-on-the-floor/
http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/iconia

A short, easy throw does not a good keyboard make.

I beg to differ. My definition is a bit different. I prefer anything
that has tactile feedback, which means that the pressure required is
lowered after passing a threshold. I also want a self centering key
top and a non-jamming key travel. I don't care how far my fingers
need to move in order to achieve this. Less travel is fine.

The Model M's long stroke
and non-linear relationship between force and displacement provide
mechanical feedback that makes it posible to type faster and with fewer
errors. Most users notice this immediately.

I haven't noticed. Back in the stone age of PC's, I purchased a
Northgate keyboard for about $150 in about 1990. It was hailed as the
ultimate typists keyboard by the magazines. Some of my customers also
bought them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northgate_Computers
The mechanism is basically the same as the Model M. I hated it. I'm
not a speedy typist (about 40 mistakes per minute) but this keyboard
made my typing worse. I finally gave up, sold the keyboard, and
switched to the cheap plastic clones, some of which worked just fine.

Drivel: I play piano and synthesizer. It's much the same
as computah keyboards. The piano/organ/synthesizer
keyboards all look similar, but it doesn't take much in the
way of tiny differences in key size and key action to foul
me up. It takes me a few minutes of fumbling to get used
to a new keyboard.

I don't play a musical instrument. But I once compared a Steinway with the
Baldwin SD-10. The keyboard action was completely different. This might have
been what ultimately drove Baldwin out of business.

There was considerable conglomeration in the piano biz. Samick is one
of the biggies, which has bought many of the smaller brands (including
about 1/3 of Steinway). A clue might be the cost of a good concert
piano is about the same as a new SUV. Sales are also declining for
mechanical pianos:
http://www.bluebookofpianos.com/uspiano.htm
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/08/09/piano-sales-decline-over-time/
http://elissamilne.wordpress.com/tag/the-decline-of-piano-study-in-the-us/

I learned to play on a Knabe (now part of Samick) baby grand. The
action was very slow and required considerable force. It was great
for practice because if I could play on the Knabe, I could play on
anything. One of my customers has a fairly new Steinway. It has a
rather heavy action, which I find difficult to play. However, it also
is the best sounding piano I've ever heard, which more than
compensates for the heavy action.
http://www.pianofinders.com/educational/touchweight.htm
My standard price for a computah service call usually includes 30
minutes of me banging on the Steinway.

Eventually, I discovered keyboard synthesizers. The actions varied
radically, ranging from extremely light, to heavy simulated piano
actions. I bought a Korg DSS-1, which was one of the lighter actions.
I can play about 1/3 faster (timed chromatic scale over 4 octaves) and
play better on the Korg as I can on a regular piano.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/Korg_DSS-1/
Heavy piano keyboard actions have their place, but they're not
superior or required. Same with computah keyboards.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I'm currently editing articles for "Electronic Design".

My compliments. I read the printed edition and find
the articles to generally quite acceptable.

Thank you. Did you like "Did you buffer the buffered buffer?". That was
one
of my edits.

I'm not the only editor, of course. They have full-time writers and
editors
who do a very good job.

snipped mostly accurate observations about bad writing

I've scribbled a few articles in the distant past. I could almost
recognize my original article buried in the published version.

That suggests the original had significant problems. (I don't /know/, of
course.) I have carte blanche to completely rewrite articles if I think it
necessary. Many go through an extremely heavy edit -- and sometimes major
rearrangement -- which the authors generally tolerate. (I would /like/ to
think they look at the edited piece and accept it as a significant
improvement. The late Bob Pease didn't. He told me my edits didn't
contribute anything. That's about what Beethoven said about Haydn.)

In some cases I'm asked not to disturb the original style too much. I just
finished editing a piece about the advantages of custom analog ASICs, for
the purpose of not only cutting costs, but avoiding counterfeit devices.
The
author had a fun, engaging style, which I didn't have to alter in the
process of cleaning up his writing (mostly correcting grammar errors and
tersifying here and there). Indeed, my edits actually pushed the piece
/closer/ to the original style.

However, those are minor compared to what the magazines do
to themselves. Authors are told to "not worry about style" and
just supply the facts and details. The magazine editors will take
care of making the article presentable. Permit me to offer some
praise and sympathy.

There are articles so bad I feel my skull is about to explode. (In one
case,
the article was so awful and required so much time that I asked for a bit
extra, which I got.) But I keep telling myself that, if engineers could
write, I wouldn't have this job.



Unfortunately, I think that the skill levels of many editors, don't match
those which you seem to possess. I think that many believe that just because
an article has been passed to them for 'editing', it must then be altered
and generally 'messed about' in order to justify the fact that it *has* been
passed to them, and that they have earned their fee. I have had articles
that I've written, totally mauled by an insensitive hand. Words and phrases
that I've chosen very carefully have been changed or removed, resulting in
(sometimes) a complete reversal of the intention of a whole paragraph, let
alone a sentence, indicating that the editor had no understanding of the
subject material, nor the people who were its targeted readers.

I have also had grammatically correct structures changed into ones that are
not, and correct spellings changed for wrong ones. By the same token, I
became very close to the editor of one magazine that I wrote for, and he
told me that my copy was a pleasure for him to work with, because the only
'editing' that he ever had to do to it, was an occasional slight precis-ing
of a paragraph to make the article fit the space available. This was always
done very carefully and sensitively so as to impact on the content as little
as possible.

I think that one of the main problems with the publishing industry in this
regard, is that these days editors tend to be self-employed contractors who
find themselves editing a great deal of very varied subject material, so
have to employ the same basic 'one size fits all' techniques to those works,
and that's where it can go wrong. In days gone by, an editor was an employee
of the magazine, and usually had a deep understanding of both the subject
matter and the people who would be reading it.

As a slight aside, you mention that some people write as they speak. Some of
the best technical publications that I have read, have been written in this
style. One that springs to mind was a booklet on repairing Bally pinball
tables, written by one of Bally's in house service team. It was written
exactly as one engineer would talk to another, and was both amusing and
practical. A perfect joy to read.

Arfa

Eventually, I discovered keyboard synthesizers. The actions varied
radically, ranging from extremely light, to heavy simulated piano
actions. I bought a Korg DSS-1, which was one of the lighter actions.
I can play about 1/3 faster (timed chromatic scale over 4 octaves) and
play better on the Korg as I can on a regular piano.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/Korg_DSS-1/
Heavy piano keyboard actions have their place, but they're not
superior or required. Same with computah keyboards.



Awww. And there was me thinking that link was gonna lead to somewhere we
could see you playing some bouncy ragtime numbah ... :-)

Arfa

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 17:46:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Awww. And there was me thinking that link was gonna lead to somewhere we
could see you playing some bouncy ragtime numbah ... :-)
Arfa

Yech. I can't do ragtime very well. Actually, I can't play anything
very well (mostly self-taught). Of course, it's not me as I prefer to
blame the instrument.

Some ancient and full of mistakes live MP3's of my elevator music,
cacophonous noises, and failed experiments. Caveat audiens (Let the
listener beware):
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/music/
Hmmm... 11 years ago and I haven't recorded anything since...
Yet another project.

I don't know why you would want to "see" me play. 3-5 minutes of my
banging on the synthesizer would certainly be rather boring. Well,
maybe a short YouTube video.... Yet another project.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558