aemeijers wrote:
krw wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:51:11 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
(snip)

Don't get too arrogant, unless you're Superman. FLNF
Don't worry. I don't want your job, dummy.
Sorry Superman, you couldn't handle it. FLNF
I already told you ,Darling Dufus, I don't do mops or work inside
septic tanks. In particular, I don't want your job where they go
together.
How nice for you, neither do I. Try harder.

But you have no choice. I understand; it's difficult for the mentally
infirm to find employment.

So what does FLNF stand for? Google was clueless.

--
aem sends, slightly curious....

Funny Little Nose Fart, it's the sound you make when you
laugh with your mouth closed. Then there is FLNFWSp, which
is Funny Little Nose Fart With Spray. It happens when you
see an intellectual post from krw and you have a mouthful
of your preferred beverage.

TDD

krw wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:53:18 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:35:31 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:51:14 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
My statement still stands. I've never seen a switching regulator
that ran at 1Mhz. Just because the chip is capable of 1Mhz does
not mean that that is the switching speed of the regulator. Most
of the design engineers I'm familiar with tend to be conservative.
Your opinion is not that important. Opinions are like tailpipes,
everyone has one, except for those like you who have theirs transposed
with their induction system. FLNF

TDD
While I don't condone is attitude, he is absolutely correct. MHz
switchers are common, have been in the field for years, and by the
demands for miniaturization are getting more common all the time. If you
don't believe me, pop open your PC, cell phone, PDA, etc and put a scope
on one of the DC-DC converters. Also with many of these chips, the
switching frequency is fixed and is not something the engineer has a
choice of. The duty cycle varies to regulate the output.

This is not something you'll find in the line operated power supply, but
applications like CPU core voltage which may have to supply less than 2V
at 50-80+ Amps (no, that's not a typo) from a 12V source where board
space is a valuable commodity, or applications needing extreme
miniaturization demand this sort of thing.
Thanks, I just looked at the products available from:

http://www.maxim-ic.com/

I've used their other products for years but I was not aware
of their switching regulator chips. The original discussion
concerned "SIMPLE" DC power supplies and some jerk chimed in
calling everyone stupid, etc.
Only because you (and DimBulb) *ARE* stupid, stupid.

BTW stupid, you don't get much simpler than a (part of a) chip,
inductor, capacitor, and two resistors.

My experience has been with the
switching power supplies in computers and test gear which is
what I thought the discussion was about.
Stupid, Sweet just said they're used in the core supplies of PCs.
Though I suppose actually reading what people write is a bit beyond
you.

I've never seen one
of those running at 1Mhz or more. A tiny regulator on a card
or motherboard running at 1Mhz or more is something new to me.
Heck, I learn something new everyday.
Engage brain before mouth, stupid.

Oh yea, I forgot, you talk out the other end. FLNF
You _are_ always wrong, just like ALwaysWrong. Are you related, just
lovers, or perhaps both?
When are you going to call me a Nazi? You just intimated that
I was a homosexual so go ahead, call me a Nazi.

You're clearly a Demonicrat. That's your style, stupid.

Oh man are you ever out in left field. You can't even spell
your insults. Besides, Republicans disgust me but Democrats
are special, they horrify me. Perhaps I should call you Dr.
Sung who's nickname was "Often Wrong". FLNF

TDD

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:43:23 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:52:52 -0700, James Sweet
wrote:

I want a citation that switchers are commonly running at and above
1MHz.

NONE of ours did.
I've never seen a switching power supply that ran at 1Mhz.

TDD
Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is
not in common use. Here's your citation, note that the article is dated
2002.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_r...release_id/586


"SMALLEST, 3V INPUT, 1MHz, 92% EFFICIENT DC-DC STEP-DOWN DELIVERS 10A"


So these are not off-line SMPS, but so what? They're still switchmode
power supplies by definition. TI and several others have similar parts.
It is very likely you have one right in front of you supplying the core
voltage to the CPU in your computer.

The chip we used was also capable of switching faster. Again, that
does NOT mean that a designer is going to operate at the max frequency
capability of a chip he is using... EVER!

Get a ****ing clue!
I'm assuming that running your design at a lower frequency would require
less RFI shielding. I've seen some designs that put out so much noise
that it interfered with everything else.

TDD

Our pot core transformers resonated very nicely at around 56kHz, and
that was regardless of how the windings were configured.

Did you have any RFI problems with your power supplies? Oh yea,
don't let krw know about your pot core transformers, he/she/it
will try to steal them and smoke them. FLNF

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
krw wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:51:11 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
(snip)

Don't get too arrogant, unless you're Superman. FLNF
Don't worry. I don't want your job, dummy.
Sorry Superman, you couldn't handle it. FLNF
I already told you ,Darling Dufus, I don't do mops or work inside
septic tanks. In particular, I don't want your job where they go
together.
How nice for you, neither do I. Try harder.

But you have no choice. I understand; it's difficult for the mentally
infirm to find employment.

So what does FLNF stand for? Google was clueless.

--
aem sends, slightly curious....

Funny Little Nose Fart, it's the sound you make when you
laugh with your mouth closed. Then there is FLNFWSp, which
is Funny Little Nose Fart With Spray. It happens when you
see an intellectual post from krw and you have a mouthful
of your preferred beverage.

TDD



Are you guys done with your little ****ing match yet?

James Sweet wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
krw wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:51:11 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
(snip)

Don't get too arrogant, unless you're Superman. FLNF
Don't worry. I don't want your job, dummy.
Sorry Superman, you couldn't handle it. FLNF
I already told you ,Darling Dufus, I don't do mops or work inside
septic tanks. In particular, I don't want your job where they go
together.
How nice for you, neither do I. Try harder.

But you have no choice. I understand; it's difficult for the mentally
infirm to find employment.

So what does FLNF stand for? Google was clueless.

--
aem sends, slightly curious....

Funny Little Nose Fart, it's the sound you make when you
laugh with your mouth closed. Then there is FLNFWSp, which
is Funny Little Nose Fart With Spray. It happens when you
see an intellectual post from krw and you have a mouthful
of your preferred beverage.

TDD



Are you guys done with your little ****ing match yet?

I hope so, it's getting boring and very predictable.
The guy is very much like another creep who pollutes
alt.2600 calling himself Hatter. At least the jerk
doesn't have a two page long pretentious sig.

TDD

On Oct 11, 12:30*pm, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV





wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:06*am, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:52:52 -0700, James Sweet
wrote:

* I want a citation that switchers are commonly running at and above
1MHz.

* NONE of ours did.

I've never seen a switching power supply that ran at 1Mhz.

TDD

Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is
not in common use. Here's your citation, note that the article is dated
2002.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_r...release_id/586

"SMALLEST, 3V INPUT, 1MHz, 92% EFFICIENT DC-DC STEP-DOWN DELIVERS 10A"

So these are not off-line SMPS, but so what? They're still switchmode
power supplies by definition. TI and several others have similar parts.
It is very likely you have one right in front of you supplying the core
voltage to the CPU in your computer.

* The chip we used was also capable of switching faster. *Again, that
does NOT mean that a designer is going to operate at the max frequency
capability of a chip he is using... EVER!

*Get a ****ing clue!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

YES WE SEE

YOU WEAR THE GOD DANGED CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER NOW

FAGGOT GET A LIFE OR LEAVE THIS ONE TO THOSE THAT CAN COPE

I AM PROTEUS

* I sure hope they kill your account soon.

* And when they do kill your account, which they will... * I hope they
also kill the ability for your IP address to load up another account so
that you can abuse this group. *You see... *I will stop your pathetic
abuse... *one way or the other, boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

KEEP DREAMING KILLJOY

YOU ARE THE ABUSIVE OVERBEARING ILLUSTRIOUS ONE

YOU MULTINYM FAGGOTY SORE LOSING TROLL

YOU STARTED THE **** THE **** ENDS WHEN YOU SHUT YOUR ANAL TROLLOPING
ABUSIVE ACCOUNT DOWN YOURSELF

I AM HERE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LIFESPAN OF THIS GROUP

I AM PROTEUS

Are you guys done with your little ****ing match yet?

I hope so, it's getting boring and very predictable.
The guy is very much like another creep who pollutes
alt.2600 calling himself Hatter. At least the jerk
doesn't have a two page long pretentious sig.

TDD


Add them to a blocked sender list (killfile) and call it good. Such is
the nature of usenet. My filter list for the EE group is bigger than
I've ever had anywhere else.

James Sweet wrote:


Are you guys done with your little ****ing match yet?

I hope so, it's getting boring and very predictable.
The guy is very much like another creep who pollutes
alt.2600 calling himself Hatter. At least the jerk
doesn't have a two page long pretentious sig.

TDD


Add them to a blocked sender list (killfile) and call it good. Such is
the nature of usenet. My filter list for the EE group is bigger than
I've ever had anywhere else.

I don't have many in my killfile. If the guy was posting
page after page of junk I would killfile him and never
see another post of his unless someone responded to his
nonsense. It can be entertaining in a sophomoric kind of
way until it gets boring.

TDD

On Sep 28, 10:52*am, "Bill" wrote:
How about getting rid of all those batteries in various devices in the home
and connecting the battery connections to one central battery?

That is to run separate wires when wiring a home and these would carry say
12 volts DC. There would be a central large battery and battery charger like
the type used in a computer UPS.

Then at each electronic gizmo which needs a battery, use a "battery
eliminator" along with a voltage regulator to supply it with the correct
voltage. And plug this into a nearby 12 volts DC "outlet".

This could provide battery power to smoke detectors, carbon monoxide
detectors, HVAC thermostat, security system, clocks, digital thermometers,
computer UPS, phone answering machine, etc.

Then only ONE battery to worry about...

A 9 volt battery eliminator picture...http://www.wirelessmicrocolorcam.com....php?pID=47&os...


This could have been a very interesting thread if it were not for the
few insecure nerds/geeks who think they have to prove something about
their engineering prowess, and just wind up looking like a person with
drastic insecurity issues.

I did however offer a marketable solution to your proposal, if you can
find it somewhere in this mess.

Few others of these supposedly "illustrious" engineers actually
offered anything worthwhile from what I can see.

Too bad.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV
wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:30*pm, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV





wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:06*am, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:52:52 -0700, James Sweet
wrote:

* I want a citation that switchers are commonly running at and above
1MHz.

* NONE of ours did.

I've never seen a switching power supply that ran at 1Mhz.

TDD

Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is
not in common use. Here's your citation, note that the article is dated
2002.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_r...release_id/586

"SMALLEST, 3V INPUT, 1MHz, 92% EFFICIENT DC-DC STEP-DOWN DELIVERS 10A"

So these are not off-line SMPS, but so what? They're still switchmode
power supplies by definition. TI and several others have similar parts.
It is very likely you have one right in front of you supplying the core
voltage to the CPU in your computer.

* The chip we used was also capable of switching faster. *Again, that
does NOT mean that a designer is going to operate at the max frequency
capability of a chip he is using... EVER!

*Get a ****ing clue!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

YES WE SEE

YOU WEAR THE GOD DANGED CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER NOW

FAGGOT GET A LIFE OR LEAVE THIS ONE TO THOSE THAT CAN COPE

I AM PROTEUS

* I sure hope they kill your account soon.

* And when they do kill your account, which they will... * I hope they
also kill the ability for your IP address to load up another account so
that you can abuse this group. *You see... *I will stop your pathetic
abuse... *one way or the other, boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

KEEP DREAMING KILLJOY

YOU ARE THE ABUSIVE OVERBEARING ILLUSTRIOUS ONE

YOU MULTINYM FAGGOTY SORE LOSING TROLL

YOU STARTED THE **** THE **** ENDS WHEN YOU SHUT YOUR ANAL TROLLOPING
ABUSIVE ACCOUNT DOWN YOURSELF

I AM HERE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LIFESPAN OF THIS GROUP

I AM PROTEUS


Don't be so sure. gmail is looking for a face lift, and getting rid of
abusers like you is on their to-do list.

Essentially, your days are numbered as an abuser of this group.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:49:42 -0700, James Sweet wrote:
Hmm, that triggered a memory. I used to have an AC/DC one from the '60s -
manual switch, and you could feed 12V DC in on the same power socket as
AC. I doubt something like that would pass H+S these days, never mind the
amount of people who'd try to feed it domestic AC with the switch on the
DC setting and fry the thing

That's actually a bit different. The AC/DC radios he refers to use a
transformerless power supply with the tube heaters wired in series.

For sure - it just stirred some braincells, that's all. The particular
radio I remembered was an early (ish) transistor design - I think it may
have been a Grundig, but I can't be certain now. The 12VDC ability was
just to allow it to be run from a car battery whilst camping - I seem to
recall my folks having a (black&white) TV that could run from a car
battery, too, but I don't recall if it had a manual voltage switch like
the radio did.

Just struck me as interesting that it was (in theory) so easy to plug in
to AC (via the same connector) with the voltage on the wrong setting and
presumably cook the thing!

The worst offenders for radios being plugged into the wrong voltage are
32V farm radios. The old 32VDC rural systems used the same plugs and
receptacles as the 110VAC systems standard elsewhere, so it's common for
someone unknowledgeable to plug a farm radio into a 120V receptacle and
blow all the tube heaters.

Well, I grew up in the UK, and it's been 240VAC as standard over there in
just about forever (well, near enough, Google tells me 1916) - although I
think some DC via private generation in big, isolated houses survived into
the 1920's. The historical picture in the US is a lot more diverse, it
seems (and more interesting because of it :-)

cheers

Jules

Well, I grew up in the UK, and it's been 240VAC as standard over there in
just about forever (well, near enough, Google tells me 1916) - although I
think some DC via private generation in big, isolated houses survived into
the 1920's. The historical picture in the US is a lot more diverse, it
seems (and more interesting because of it :-)

cheers

Jules



The differences, both historical and current are fascinating from either
perspective. I've had some extensive discussions with an EE friend over
in Manchester and we're both learning something new all the time.

I don't think I've ever asked if there were ever DC rural systems over
there. These were off-grid and typically had a bank of lead-acid cells
which were charged by gasoline or steam driven generators or windmills.
There were 32V versions of virtually every small appliance of the day.
Radios, fans, food mixers, etc. They made sense when farmhouses were
often miles from the next house and more miles to the nearest town.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
...


Well, I grew up in the UK, and it's been 240VAC as standard over there in
just about forever (well, near enough, Google tells me 1916) - although I
think some DC via private generation in big, isolated houses survived
into
the 1920's. The historical picture in the US is a lot more diverse, it
seems (and more interesting because of it :-)

cheers

Jules



The differences, both historical and current are fascinating from either
perspective. I've had some extensive discussions with an EE friend over in
Manchester and we're both learning something new all the time.

I don't think I've ever asked if there were ever DC rural systems over
there. These were off-grid and typically had a bank of lead-acid cells
which were charged by gasoline or steam driven generators or windmills.
There were 32V versions of virtually every small appliance of the day.
Radios, fans, food mixers, etc. They made sense when farmhouses were often
miles from the next house and more miles to the nearest town.

And most farmers were quite happy to tie to the grid when it became
possible - helping to build lines as well-- lots of rural electrification
co-operatives came into being in the late 40's. My father was involved
(from the utility side) with the the first one in Alberta, Canada, and the
farmers were more than welcoming. The old windcharger/battery systems worked
reasonably well for supplying lighting and small appliances but weren't
capable of handling the heavier loads around the farms.

--
Don Kelly

cross out to reply

On Oct 12, 3:35*pm, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV





wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:30*pm, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV

wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:06*am, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:52:52 -0700, James Sweet
wrote:

* I want a citation that switchers are commonly running at and above
1MHz.

* NONE of ours did.

I've never seen a switching power supply that ran at 1Mhz.

TDD

Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is
not in common use. Here's your citation, note that the article is dated
2002.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_r...release_id/586

"SMALLEST, 3V INPUT, 1MHz, 92% EFFICIENT DC-DC STEP-DOWN DELIVERS 10A"

So these are not off-line SMPS, but so what? They're still switchmode
power supplies by definition. TI and several others have similar parts.
It is very likely you have one right in front of you supplying the core
voltage to the CPU in your computer.

* The chip we used was also capable of switching faster. *Again, that
does NOT mean that a designer is going to operate at the max frequency
capability of a chip he is using... EVER!

*Get a ****ing clue!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

YES WE SEE

YOU WEAR THE GOD DANGED CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER NOW

FAGGOT GET A LIFE OR LEAVE THIS ONE TO THOSE THAT CAN COPE

I AM PROTEUS

* I sure hope they kill your account soon.

* And when they do kill your account, which they will... * I hope they
also kill the ability for your IP address to load up another account so
that you can abuse this group. *You see... *I will stop your pathetic
abuse... *one way or the other, boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

KEEP DREAMING KILLJOY

YOU ARE THE ABUSIVE OVERBEARING ILLUSTRIOUS ONE

YOU MULTINYM FAGGOTY SORE LOSING TROLL

YOU STARTED THE **** THE **** ENDS WHEN YOU SHUT YOUR ANAL TROLLOPING
ABUSIVE ACCOUNT DOWN YOURSELF

I AM HERE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LIFESPAN OF THIS GROUP

I AM PROTEUS

* Don't be so sure. *gmail is looking for a face lift, and getting rid of
abusers like you is on their to-do list.

* Essentially, your days are numbered as an abuser of this group.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

THAT IS SO LIKE YOU YOU LITTLE FAGGOTY ABUSER

YOU CALLING ANYONE IN HERE AN ABUSER IS LIKE THE TEA POT CALLING THE
KETTLE BLACK

FACE LIFT THAT YOU DUMB ASS QUEER

YOU SHOULD HAVE WENT TO GRIEF AND BEREAVMENT COUNCELING INSTEAD OF
VENTING YOUR HURT AND ANGER IN HERE ON MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP

THERE ARE NO IDIOTS RETARDS ****TYARDS OR STUPID PEOPLE IN HERE

THERE ARE ACTUAL PERSONS WITH LIFE LONG STORIES AND FEELINGS NOT TO
MENTION THEIR PROFESSIONAL ENTERPRENUERSHIP AND JUST HOMESTYLE
QUERRIES

SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GO TO COUNCELLING GO **** YOURSELF AND SHOVE
YOUR ANAL MISGUIDED
ADVICE AND ANALISYS UP YOPUR ANAL APERTURE

I AM PROTEUS

On Oct 11, 12:30*pm, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV





wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:06*am, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:52:52 -0700, James Sweet
wrote:

* I want a citation that switchers are commonly running at and above
1MHz.

* NONE of ours did.

I've never seen a switching power supply that ran at 1Mhz.

TDD

Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is
not in common use. Here's your citation, note that the article is dated
2002.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_r...release_id/586

"SMALLEST, 3V INPUT, 1MHz, 92% EFFICIENT DC-DC STEP-DOWN DELIVERS 10A"

So these are not off-line SMPS, but so what? They're still switchmode
power supplies by definition. TI and several others have similar parts.
It is very likely you have one right in front of you supplying the core
voltage to the CPU in your computer.

* The chip we used was also capable of switching faster. *Again, that
does NOT mean that a designer is going to operate at the max frequency
capability of a chip he is using... EVER!

*Get a ****ing clue!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

YES WE SEE

YOU WEAR THE GOD DANGED CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER NOW

FAGGOT GET A LIFE OR LEAVE THIS ONE TO THOSE THAT CAN COPE

I AM PROTEUS

* I sure hope they kill your account soon.

* And when they do kill your account, which they will... * I hope they
also kill the ability for your IP address to load up another account so
that you can abuse this group. *You see... *I will stop your pathetic
abuse... *one way or the other, boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

YOU LONESOME HOPELESS FAGGOT I AM NOT A BOY

LEAVE THIS PLACE AND STOP WHINING AFTER YOU ARE BESTED FOR YOUR INSULT
AND ABUSE IN THE SYSTEM


YOU HAVE BECOME A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN AND A SORE ANAL
RETENTIVE LOSER

I AM PROTEUS

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT), windcrest
wrote:

On Sep 28, 10:52*am, "Bill" wrote:
How about getting rid of all those batteries in various devices in the home
and connecting the battery connections to one central battery?

That is to run separate wires when wiring a home and these would carry say
12 volts DC. There would be a central large battery and battery charger like
the type used in a computer UPS.

Then at each electronic gizmo which needs a battery, use a "battery
eliminator" along with a voltage regulator to supply it with the correct
voltage. And plug this into a nearby 12 volts DC "outlet".

This could provide battery power to smoke detectors, carbon monoxide
detectors, HVAC thermostat, security system, clocks, digital thermometers,
computer UPS, phone answering machine, etc.

Then only ONE battery to worry about...

A 9 volt battery eliminator picture...http://www.wirelessmicrocolorcam.com....php?pID=47&os...


This could have been a very interesting thread if it were not for the
few insecure nerds/geeks who think they have to prove something about
their engineering prowess, and just wind up looking like a person with
drastic insecurity issues.

Mouthy, immature little ****tards like you are the dopes attempting to
foist stupidity as 'prowess'.

I did however offer a marketable solution to your proposal, if you can
find it somewhere in this mess.

Yet another retarded insult, veiled as assistance.

Few others of these supposedly "illustrious" engineers actually
offered anything worthwhile from what I can see.

Yes, but your opinion means very little. Less than that even.

Too bad.

Yes... wussified little ****ing punks like you are just that.

On Oct 11, 6:47*pm, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:43:23 -0500, The Daring Dufas





wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:52:52 -0700, James Sweet
wrote:

* I want a citation that switchers are commonly running at and above
1MHz.

* NONE of ours did.
I've never seen a switching power supply that ran at 1Mhz.

TDD

Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is
not in common use. Here's your citation, note that the article is dated
2002.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/view_press_r...release_id/586

"SMALLEST, 3V INPUT, 1MHz, 92% EFFICIENT DC-DC STEP-DOWN DELIVERS 10A"

So these are not off-line SMPS, but so what? They're still switchmode
power supplies by definition. TI and several others have similar parts.
It is very likely you have one right in front of you supplying the core
voltage to the CPU in your computer.

* The chip we used was also capable of switching faster. *Again, that
does NOT mean that a designer is going to operate at the max frequency
capability of a chip he is using... EVER!

*Get a ****ing clue!

I'm assuming that running your design at a lower frequency would require
less RFI shielding. I've seen some designs that put out so much noise
that it interfered with everything else.

TDD

* Our pot core transformers resonated very nicely at around 56kHz, and
that was regardless of how the windings were configured.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SO YOU ARE A POTHEAD AS WELL

GIVE IT UP BUTTMUNCH

WE DO NOT CARE

I AM PROTEUS

On Oct 13, 3:32*am, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT), windcrest





wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:52*am, "Bill" wrote:
How about getting rid of all those batteries in various devices in the home
and connecting the battery connections to one central battery?

That is to run separate wires when wiring a home and these would carry say
12 volts DC. There would be a central large battery and battery charger like
the type used in a computer UPS.

Then at each electronic gizmo which needs a battery, use a "battery
eliminator" along with a voltage regulator to supply it with the correct
voltage. And plug this into a nearby 12 volts DC "outlet".

This could provide battery power to smoke detectors, carbon monoxide
detectors, HVAC thermostat, security system, clocks, digital thermometers,
computer UPS, phone answering machine, etc.

Then only ONE battery to worry about...

A 9 volt battery eliminator picture...http://www.wirelessmicrocolorcam..co....php?pID=47&os...

This could have been a very interesting thread if it were not for the
few insecure nerds/geeks who think they have to prove something about
their engineering prowess, and just wind up looking like a person with
drastic insecurity issues.

* Mouthy, immature little ****tards like you are the dopes attempting to
foist stupidity as 'prowess'.



I did however offer a marketable solution to your proposal, if you can
find it somewhere in this mess.

* Yet another retarded insult, veiled as assistance.

Few others of these supposedly "illustrious" engineers actually
offered anything worthwhile from what I can see.

* Yes, but your opinion means very little. *Less than that even.

Too bad.

* Yes... wussified little ****ing punks like you are just that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

YOU KNOW YOU THINK YOU ARE ALL THAT

YOU COULD SUFFER AN ACCIDENT ON THE JOB AND THE PART THAT CONTROLS
YOUR INNEFFICIENT
CESSPOOL OF A BRAIN COULD BE PERMANENTLY DAMAGED
WITH ANY HOPE YOUR DIMINUTIVE ANALITICAL SIDE WILL BE INTACT AND YOU
WILL KNOW WITH ALL CERTAINTY JUST WHAT IT IS YOU HAVE DONE TO YOURE
FELLOW MAN


AS A METTER OF FACT SOME PEOPLE ARE COUNTING ON IT

WATCH YOUR STEP


I AM PROTEUS

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:35:40 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Well, I grew up in the UK, and it's been 240VAC as standard over there in
just about forever (well, near enough, Google tells me 1916) - although I
think some DC via private generation in big, isolated houses survived
into
the 1920's. The historical picture in the US is a lot more diverse, it
seems (and more interesting because of it :-)

The differences, both historical and current are fascinating from either
perspective. I've had some extensive discussions with an EE friend over in
Manchester and we're both learning something new all the time.

I don't think I've ever asked if there were ever DC rural systems over
there. These were off-grid and typically had a bank of lead-acid cells
which were charged by gasoline or steam driven generators or windmills.
There were 32V versions of virtually every small appliance of the day.
Radios, fans, food mixers, etc. They made sense when farmhouses were often
miles from the next house and more miles to the nearest town.

And most farmers were quite happy to tie to the grid when it became
possible - helping to build lines as well-- lots of rural electrification
co-operatives came into being in the late 40's.

Interesting stuff. I never knew they had any real off-grid networks; I'd
only ever heard of local generation supplying single dwellings. Shame
there doesn't seem to be much about all of this on the 'net.

The old windcharger/battery
systems worked reasonably well for supplying lighting and small
appliances but weren't capable of handling the heavier loads around the
farms.

Take out the 'old' and that probably still stands

cheers

Jules

On Oct 13, 7:16*am, Jules
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:35:40 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Well, I grew up in the UK, and it's been 240VAC as standard over there in
just about forever (well, near enough, Google tells me 1916) - although I
think some DC via private generation in big, isolated houses survived
into
the 1920's. The historical picture in the US is a lot more diverse, it
seems (and more interesting because of it :-)

The differences, both historical and current are fascinating from either
perspective. I've had some extensive discussions with an EE friend over in
Manchester and we're both learning something new all the time.

I don't think I've ever asked if there were ever DC rural systems over
there. These were off-grid and typically had a bank of lead-acid cells
which were charged by gasoline or steam driven generators or windmills..
There were 32V versions of virtually every small appliance of the day.
Radios, fans, food mixers, etc. They made sense when farmhouses were often
miles from the next house and *more miles to the nearest town.

And most *farmers were quite happy to tie to the grid when it became
possible - helping to build lines as well-- lots of rural electrification
co-operatives came into being in the late 40's.

Interesting stuff. I never knew they had any real off-grid networks; I'd
only ever heard of local generation supplying single dwellings. Shame
there doesn't seem to be much about all of this on the 'net.

The old windcharger/battery
systems worked reasonably well for supplying lighting and small
appliances but weren't capable of handling the heavier loads *around the
farms.

Take out the 'old' and that probably still stands

cheers

Jules- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Edison went to great political lengths to discourage AC, even publicly
electrocuting animals to show how AC causes heart failure where the
equivalent DC voltage would not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)

As you know the very nature of DC required multiple grids and an
endless supply of local generating plants, all of which Edison wanted
to provide.

My relatives have a farm in central IL with a generating windmill,
this farm only got on the grid after WW2. In the 1930's windmill
manufacturers in the US were producing about 100,000 windmills a year
for farms that had no access to electrical grids. It used storage
batteries. Funny how the wind circle is now being repeated.

"windcrest" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 7:16 am, Jules
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:35:40 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Well, I grew up in the UK, and it's been 240VAC as standard over there
in
just about forever (well, near enough, Google tells me 1916) -
although I
think some DC via private generation in big, isolated houses survived
into
the 1920's. The historical picture in the US is a lot more diverse, it
seems (and more interesting because of it :-)

The differences, both historical and current are fascinating from
either
perspective. I've had some extensive discussions with an EE friend over
in
Manchester and we're both learning something new all the time.

I don't think I've ever asked if there were ever DC rural systems over
there. These were off-grid and typically had a bank of lead-acid cells
which were charged by gasoline or steam driven generators or windmills.
There were 32V versions of virtually every small appliance of the day.
Radios, fans, food mixers, etc. They made sense when farmhouses were
often
miles from the next house and more miles to the nearest town.

And most farmers were quite happy to tie to the grid when it became
possible - helping to build lines as well-- lots of rural
electrification
co-operatives came into being in the late 40's.

Interesting stuff. I never knew they had any real off-grid networks; I'd
only ever heard of local generation supplying single dwellings. Shame
there doesn't seem to be much about all of this on the 'net.

The old windcharger/battery
systems worked reasonably well for supplying lighting and small
appliances but weren't capable of handling the heavier loads around the
farms.

Take out the 'old' and that probably still stands

cheers

Jules- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Edison went to great political lengths to discourage AC, even publicly
electrocuting animals to show how AC causes heart failure where the
equivalent DC voltage would not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)

As you know the very nature of DC required multiple grids and an
endless supply of local generating plants, all of which Edison wanted
to provide.

My relatives have a farm in central IL with a generating windmill,
this farm only got on the grid after WW2. In the 1930's windmill
manufacturers in the US were producing about 100,000 windmills a year
for farms that had no access to electrical grids. It used storage
batteries. Funny how the wind circle is now being repeated.



These farmers weren't on any off- grid network. Some had windchargers and
some may have had generators but many were still without electricity of any
sort. Windmills to pump water, kerosene lamps. and wood or coal for heating.
The co-operative effort was to get connected to the grid at a time when
there were few, if any, farms remote from towns that did have grid
connections. This meant building a local distribution system and the utility
providing the tie to the grid and operation of the system.
The first case was in a tightly connected Mennonite "colony" and later ones
were more general groups of farmers after the success of this one. In
general rural (and urban) population densities were (and still are) lower
than those in IL(about 1/10 the population in 5 times the area-admittedly
mostly concentrated in the lower half (prairie/parkland)of the province ).
--
Don Kelly

cross out to reply

SUCH KNOWLEDGE

WHAT A WASTE

I AM PROTEUS

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:59:28 -0700 (PDT), windcrest
wrote:

Edison went to great political lengths to discourage AC, even publicly
electrocuting animals to show how AC causes heart failure where the
equivalent DC voltage would not.


But he was wrong, and DC kills as well. Including the onset of
ventricular fibrillation.
-----
The sensitivity of humans and other mammals, with regard to frequency
happens to peak in the 50-60Hz range. Edison took advantage of this and
Tesla countered with high frequency, high voltage discharges, saying, in
effect, "this is AC, perfectly safe" Both lied (whether they knew it or
not and the not was shown much later) with profit as a motive. Other
hazards such as arcing at switches or poor contacts, worse with DC, were
ignored.
--
Don Kelly

cross out to reply

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:59:28 -0700 (PDT), windcrest
wrote:

Edison went to great political lengths to discourage AC, even publicly
electrocuting animals to show how AC causes heart failure where the
equivalent DC voltage would not.


But he was wrong, and DC kills as well. Including the onset of
ventricular fibrillation.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:07:49 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV
wrote:

SUCH KNOWLEDGE

Not within your skull.

WHAT A WASTE

Yes, you are very much, a waste.

I AM PROTEUS

You are retarded.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:51:24 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Other
hazards such as arcing at switches or poor contacts, worse with DC, were
ignored.

I recall the breakers at one site I was working at fed compressed air
through the breaker upon opening, just to extinguish any arc that may have
formed (that was a 400V DC setup) - I think that's typical on higher power
DC stuff. The breakers were about the size of a lunchbox.

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:51:24 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Other
hazards such as arcing at switches or poor contacts, worse with DC, were
ignored.

I recall the breakers at one site I was working at fed compressed air
through the breaker upon opening, just to extinguish any arc that may have
formed (that was a 400V DC setup) - I think that's typical on higher power
DC stuff. The breakers were about the size of a lunchbox.


Hi voltage AC breakers still do use compressed air in some. The 'blast'
is aimed between the arcing contacts to literally blow out the arc.

Lower voltage DC (up to 350VDC) that we used on submarines just used
blow-out coils to create a magnetic field that 'pushed' the
arc-conducting gases up into chutes lined with alternating metal and
insulating plates that would cool and stretch the arc.

But I've seen enough stuff that I know I haven't seen everything :-)

daestrom

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:30:15 -0400, daestrom wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:51:24 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Other
hazards such as arcing at switches or poor contacts, worse with DC, were
ignored.

I recall the breakers at one site I was working at fed compressed air
through the breaker upon opening, just to extinguish any arc that may have
formed (that was a 400V DC setup) - I think that's typical on higher power
DC stuff. The breakers were about the size of a lunchbox.


Hi voltage AC breakers still do use compressed air in some. The 'blast'
is aimed between the arcing contacts to literally blow out the arc.

Lower voltage DC (up to 350VDC) that we used on submarines just used
blow-out coils to create a magnetic field that 'pushed' the
arc-conducting gases up into chutes lined with alternating metal and
insulating plates that would cool and stretch the arc.

Interesting - not seen those before. 'ours' were WWII-vintage, and there
was compressed air in the same room as part of the air-start system for
the generators, so I suppose it was no big deal to route it to the
electrical switchboard too.

But I've seen enough stuff that I know I haven't seen everything :-)

:-) I'm sure there were all sorts of ways and means of extinguishing
arcs, though - some of which may have worked better than others!

It'd be interesting to know what larger power stations etc. did, too. Had
some friends in NZ with a smaller plant (2,500 kVA) but I've not talked to
them in quite a while, and I don't recall anything obviously resembling
breakers on the site, although I assume they were there somewhere!

cheers

Jules

"daestrom" wrote in message
...
Jules wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:51:24 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Other hazards such as arcing at switches or poor contacts, worse with
DC, were ignored.

I recall the breakers at one site I was working at fed compressed air
through the breaker upon opening, just to extinguish any arc that may
have
formed (that was a 400V DC setup) - I think that's typical on higher
power
DC stuff. The breakers were about the size of a lunchbox.


Hi voltage AC breakers still do use compressed air in some. The 'blast'
is aimed between the arcing contacts to literally blow out the arc.
-------------
High voltage air blast breakers for AC have been around since the late 40's.
They were/are modular with series sections and could then be extended to
higher voltage by adding sections. The contact opening in a section was
about 1 inch and 600psi air was driven through the arc, extending it towards
a vent but not actually interrupting the arc until the arc naturally
collapsed at current zero- then the arc products were blown out and the gap
filled with good dielectric (high pressure air). A two gap section was good
for 72KV and 2 of these in series for 161KV. Two gap sections could be
linked together and put on longer columns at higher voltages there was a
loud bang when they operated. The advantage of these breakers from Europe
was that they were smaller, lighter, faster and cheaper than the oil
breakers in use up to that time in North America.
There was a bit of a war of words going on in IEEE PAS regarding the
relative merits of bulk oil breakers and air blast breakers and air
breakers won out. Even the old circuit breakers at, say 15KV up whether
oil or air blast operated on the principle of removing arc products,
replacing them with good dielectric, when the current went through zero.
This principle is used for HV minimum oil and SF6 breakers (blast of oil or
SF6 through the gap).

Lower voltage DC (up to 350VDC) that we used on submarines just used
blow-out coils to create a magnetic field that 'pushed' the arc-conducting
gases up into chutes lined with alternating metal and insulating plates
that would cool and stretch the arc.

------------
At lower AC voltages- say 5-15KV such breakers are often used- You could
take one of these and derate it to about 400-500VDC and it would likely
work. That current zero every half cycle makes a big difference.


But I've seen enough stuff that I know I haven't seen everything :-)

daestrom

Me too

--
Don Kelly

cross out to reply

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:51:24 -0700, "Don Kelly"
wrote:


"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:59:28 -0700 (PDT), windcrest
wrote:

Edison went to great political lengths to discourage AC, even publicly
electrocuting animals to show how AC causes heart failure where the
equivalent DC voltage would not.


But he was wrong, and DC kills as well. Including the onset of
ventricular fibrillation.
-----
The sensitivity of humans and other mammals, with regard to frequency
happens to peak in the 50-60Hz range. Edison took advantage of this and
Tesla countered with high frequency, high voltage discharges, saying, in
effect, "this is AC, perfectly safe" Both lied (whether they knew it or
not and the not was shown much later) with profit as a motive. Other
hazards such as arcing at switches or poor contacts, worse with DC, were
ignored.


We need big, engine block sized solid state switches. :-)

THIS POST IS TOTAL TROLL BAIT

ANY FOOL REPOSPONDNNG TO AS ARCHIMEDES IS PATHEITC

BUT THE TRUE ID OF THE FOOL WILL BE DIVULGED ON THE NET AND THIS GROUP
AND HE WILL PAY FOR ALL THOSE HE HAS DAMAGED EITH HIS DEFAMING
COMMENTARIES AND FLAMING REMARKS ABOUT OTHERS

GO BACK TO YOUR HIGH SCHOOL GROUP FOOL

THOUGH YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A COWARD YOU WILL HAVE TO FACE THE PIPER
AND PAY FOR YOUR MISDDEDS AND ALL THE LOSE AND SHAME YOU'VE CAUSED
MEMBERS OF THE GROUP

YOU ARE A PICE OF HUMAN FILTH

YOUR SELF AGRANDIZING WEBPAGES WILL CRASH AND BURN DOWN ON YOU FOOL

WE ARE WATCHING YOU AND YOUR LONG TIME EVIL GAMES

YOU WILL BE BESTED BY ME EVERYTIME TROLL THERE IS NOTHING YOU CABN DO
AND I WILL SEE TO IT THAT YOU SUFFER THE CONSECUENCES OF YOUR FOOLISH
AND HURTFUL GAME

I AM PROTEUS

On Oct 13, 2:32*am, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT), windcrest





wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:52*am, "Bill" wrote:
How about getting rid of all those batteries in various devices in the home
and connecting the battery connections to one central battery?

That is to run separate wires when wiring a home and these would carry say
12 volts DC. There would be a central large battery and battery charger like
the type used in a computer UPS.

Then at each electronic gizmo which needs a battery, use a "battery
eliminator" along with a voltage regulator to supply it with the correct
voltage. And plug this into a nearby 12 volts DC "outlet".

This could provide battery power to smoke detectors, carbon monoxide
detectors, HVAC thermostat, security system, clocks, digital thermometers,
computer UPS, phone answering machine, etc.

Then only ONE battery to worry about...

A 9 volt battery eliminator picture...http://www.wirelessmicrocolorcam..co....php?pID=47&os...

This could have been a very interesting thread if it were not for the
few insecure nerds/geeks who think they have to prove something about
their engineering prowess, and just wind up looking like a person with
drastic insecurity issues.

* Mouthy, immature little ****tards like you are the dopes attempting to
foist stupidity as 'prowess'.



I did however offer a marketable solution to your proposal, if you can
find it somewhere in this mess.

* Yet another retarded insult, veiled as assistance.

Few others of these supposedly "illustrious" engineers actually
offered anything worthwhile from what I can see.

* Yes, but your opinion means very little. *Less than that even.

Too bad.

* Yes... wussified little ****ing punks like you are just that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hmmm, I was replying to the OP about a people here with insecurity
issues, not to you directly.

But apparently you feel a strong need to reply to my OP post, and act
overly-defensive because of those issues.

You must be a lot of fun at staff meetings.

Jules wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:30:15 -0400, daestrom wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:51:24 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
Other
hazards such as arcing at switches or poor contacts, worse with DC, were
ignored.
I recall the breakers at one site I was working at fed compressed air
through the breaker upon opening, just to extinguish any arc that may have
formed (that was a 400V DC setup) - I think that's typical on higher power
DC stuff. The breakers were about the size of a lunchbox.

Hi voltage AC breakers still do use compressed air in some. The 'blast'
is aimed between the arcing contacts to literally blow out the arc.

Lower voltage DC (up to 350VDC) that we used on submarines just used
blow-out coils to create a magnetic field that 'pushed' the
arc-conducting gases up into chutes lined with alternating metal and
insulating plates that would cool and stretch the arc.

Interesting - not seen those before. 'ours' were WWII-vintage, and there
was compressed air in the same room as part of the air-start system for
the generators, so I suppose it was no big deal to route it to the
electrical switchboard too.

But I've seen enough stuff that I know I haven't seen everything :-)

:-) I'm sure there were all sorts of ways and means of extinguishing
arcs, though - some of which may have worked better than others!

It'd be interesting to know what larger power stations etc. did, too. Had
some friends in NZ with a smaller plant (2,500 kVA) but I've not talked to
them in quite a while, and I don't recall anything obviously resembling
breakers on the site, although I assume they were there somewhere!


Another variant that I worked with was spring to open and the bottom
side of the mechanism pushed a plunger in a cylinder to make a 'gush' of
air that was directed from below the contacts, up between them into the
arc chute. Of course it was just a short burst of air, but the idea was
to blow the hot gases up into the chute where the plates would
separate and cool them.

daestrom

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV
wrote:


THIS POST IS TOTAL TROLL BAIT

No. Your post was nothing more than total group abuse. Nothing more.

ANY FOOL REPOSPONDNNG TO AS ARCHIMEDES IS PATHEITC


That is why only the intelligent response matter. That concept is
impossible for a retarded twit like you to grasp, however.


BUT THE TRUE ID OF THE FOOL WILL BE DIVULGED ON THE NET AND THIS GROUP

In your dreams, little boy.

AND HE WILL PAY FOR ALL THOSE HE HAS DAMAGED EITH HIS DEFAMING
COMMENTARIES AND FLAMING REMARKS ABOUT OTHERS

All of my remarks were 100% free of any temperatures above ambient.

GO BACK TO YOUR HIGH SCHOOL GROUP FOOL

To my knowledge, there are no "high school groups" in Usenet.


THOUGH YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A COWARD YOU WILL HAVE TO FACE THE PIPER
AND PAY FOR YOUR MISDDEDS AND ALL THE LOSE AND SHAME YOU'VE CAUSED
MEMBERS OF THE GROUP

If you were shamed, Roy, you deserved it 100%. Those are the cold,
hard facts, BOY!


YOU ARE A PICE OF HUMAN FILTH

You cannot spell, even when you are not all doped up, making you even
more retarded than your natural state.


YOUR SELF AGRANDIZING WEBPAGES WILL CRASH AND BURN DOWN ON YOU FOOL

I have exactly ZERO webpages. That makes you the fool, RoyTard.

WE ARE WATCHING YOU AND YOUR LONG TIME EVIL GAMES


I have already told you that you need to seek professional mental
health care for that multiple personality disorder that has a monkey on
your backs.

YOU WILL BE BESTED BY ME EVERYTIME

The world is still waiting for the first occasion.

TROLL THERE IS NOTHING YOU CABN DO

You mean, like what I am doing now... which is a gut wrenching laugh?!
Bwuahahahahahahaha!


AND I WILL SEE TO IT THAT YOU SUFFER THE CONSECUENCES OF YOUR FOOLISH
AND HURTFUL GAME


Keep posting threats, you retarded piece of ****, and gmail will be
killing you off yet again.


I AM PROTEUS

You are an absolute ****ing retard, Roy.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:26:40 -0700 (PDT), RickH
wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:32*am, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT), windcrest





wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:52*am, "Bill" wrote:
How about getting rid of all those batteries in various devices in the home
and connecting the battery connections to one central battery?

That is to run separate wires when wiring a home and these would carry say
12 volts DC. There would be a central large battery and battery charger like
the type used in a computer UPS.

Then at each electronic gizmo which needs a battery, use a "battery
eliminator" along with a voltage regulator to supply it with the correct
voltage. And plug this into a nearby 12 volts DC "outlet".

This could provide battery power to smoke detectors, carbon monoxide
detectors, HVAC thermostat, security system, clocks, digital thermometers,
computer UPS, phone answering machine, etc.

Then only ONE battery to worry about...

A 9 volt battery eliminator picture...http://www.wirelessmicrocolorcam.com....php?pID=47&os...

This could have been a very interesting thread if it were not for the
few insecure nerds/geeks who think they have to prove something about
their engineering prowess, and just wind up looking like a person with
drastic insecurity issues.

* Mouthy, immature little ****tards like you are the dopes attempting to
foist stupidity as 'prowess'.



I did however offer a marketable solution to your proposal, if you can
find it somewhere in this mess.

* Yet another retarded insult, veiled as assistance.

Few others of these supposedly "illustrious" engineers actually
offered anything worthwhile from what I can see.

* Yes, but your opinion means very little. *Less than that even.

Too bad.

* Yes... wussified little ****ing punks like you are just that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hmmm, I was replying to the OP about a people here with insecurity
issues, not to you directly.

But apparently you feel a strong need to reply to my OP post, and act
overly-defensive because of those issues.

You must be a lot of fun at staff meetings.


Only around retarded twits that think their observations about the
world are gold.

Sorry, chump... you are not, and your observations are pretty pathetic
as well.

You must be one of the ones at the meeting that was oblivious going in,
oblivious throughout the meeting, and oblivious upon termination of the
meeting. I spend a lot of time performing not only my work, but the work
that oblivious dopes like you think is a normal modus operandi.