About Us

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:25:22 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:19:18 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:12:36 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:54:56 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:54:10 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

On Monday, July 28, 2014 5:39:02 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Monday, July 28, 2014 1:50:38 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

On Monday, July 28, 2014 2:18:40 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:02:29 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 8:06:17 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

[..]

Cliques suck and they're for the weak.

Ahh, the Cobra-Kai Solid Modeling Dojo method. Sweep the leg!

Where did you say your mechanic got those brake parts from?

Still too much of a ****ing pussy to ask him?

I don't give a damn where he got the parts. If you'd read my question, you'd see that I asked about the customary markup. Why in the world you care about this is anyone's guess.

Of course you don't give a damn. If you found out where your mechanic got the brake parts, and if they were expensive OEM brake parts like I suspect they were, it makes you look a complete ****ing idiot.

There is a reason you're an anonymous posting pussy.

Go back to elementary school and learn to read, moron.

You continue to ignore the question and try and dance around it. Once again here is the question that you refuse to answer:

Where did your mechanic get the brake parts for the job you had done on your wife's car?

John, if it's really that important for you to know, give Marc a call at

New Bridge Garage 69 New Bridge Rd Bergenfield NJ 07621 (201) 439-9901.

That's your job, ****tard. You were very concerned you had been ripped off. I and others tried to help you but very similar to iggy you failed to provide the needed information. Without knowing what kind of brake parts were used it's impossible to determine if you were ripped off or not. You continue to refuse to provide the needed information and continue to run away from doing your ****ing job.

No, I asked what the customary markup is. Period. Let it drop, slick.

There is no real "customary markup" for automotive repair. Everyone does their own thing, despite what you might be told.

You're trying to slide on a technicality instead of learning how to manage an automotive repair job.

You're both lazy and a weasel and I've already covered why you're a pussy. I was born late at night but it wasn't last night.

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

rangerssuck fired this volley in
:

Since you said "accrosst," I now feel the need to punch YOUR lights
out ;-)

You won't need to. They'll go out when the cells start shorting "across".

Lloyd

amdx[_3_]

On 7/29/2014 12:19 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
rangerssuck fired this volley in
:

pon a time, I had a boss who insisted that if you put 1 million 1.5V
cells in series and measured the voltage across (actually, he
pronounced it 'acrosst'

Actually... That might work for a while with ZERO load. They made some
monstrous 'piles' in the 1800s to experiment with high voltages (not that
high, I'm sure).

You most certainly would get something other than 1.5V (if that's what
you meant to write).

But, if the voltmeter imposed almost any load, the mismatches in internal
resistance of the cells would quickly ensure that you got something
"other than 1.5 million volts acrosst 'em", as cells began to short out
under their mis-matched imposed voltage.

That's why we use resistor ladders cap-to-cap across series capacitors in
a high-voltage circuit. They're not just for the 'bleed' function. We
even called them "equalizer resistors".

(sorry, I just had to say "acrosst"! G)

LLoyd

I've had this want to build a Zamboni Pile or Dulac pile since the
first time I saw an article.
I see most reference a glass cover, I wonder if pvc would have a high
enough resistivity to keep from discharging it. I would think so.

http://amasci.com/emotor/duluc.html

http://ppp.unipv.it/Collana/Pages/Li.../cap5/5new.pdf

I've found a couple videos, looks like crystal polystyrene works.

Mikek

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

amdx fired this volley in news:lr8qdm$49a$1@dont-
email.me:

I've found a couple videos, looks like crystal polystyrene works.

Yeah. Very chemically-pure polystyrene is a very good insulator.

PVC as you can generally buy it has fillers. Those fillers are variously
conductive, more or less.

Stick with the styrene, or polyester (Mylar) if you can.

But glass isn't very expensive, and can present very high breakdown
voltages in thin sections. Delicate, though...

Lloyd

[email protected]

On Monday, July 28, 2014 8:32:56 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/28/2014 2:09 PM, wrote:

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:20:35 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 7/27/2014 3:50 PM, wrote:

wrote:

... authority that says high voltage is safer than ...

Senile lloyd wants to know how high voltage is safer than low. Anyway, you apparently you never took the hospital electrician's
I think if you could just get a good understanding

of ohms law, you would see immediately were you are mistaken.

If I was mistaken, you'd point it out immediately. Something you aren't doing.

Lloyd asked a specific question that didn't involved numbers or any real

parameters, so I gave an answer that technically answered his question.

You know that. That's why you didn't immediately rush to state any supposed "mistake" that I may have made.

I looked back on the thread, looks like Lloyds specific question was,

"Still waiting for any cite from any authority that says high voltage

from line service is safer than lower voltage.

and your answer,

"Senile lloyd wants to know how high voltage is safer than low. Anyway,

you apparently you never took the hospital electrician's advice of

referring you to the NEC manual.

A taser is 50,000 volts. That's high. The amperage there isn't a factor.

A stun gun is 900,000 volts. That outta tell you right there that

voltage isn't what harms. It's low voltage with higher amps that is harmful.

First Lloyd specifically said in his post, "high voltage from line

service" Line service is very important to the safety question because

it is low impedance, and has no problem supplying the current that will

damage a heart.

If you change the question you can answer any way you want, but it

doesn't give you understanding.

Which is also irrelevant. All I did was answer his question.

When I got into this thread I was trying help you understand and prevent

others from getting incorrect information.

Don't you think you'd do good then by IMMEDIATELY telling us what's incorrect instead of windbagging it?

I responded when I saw the post.

And you started to include concepts that wouldn't have addressed an answer to Lloyd's question which concerned only high voltage. Not impedance, not capacitance, not how to bend IMC pipe, not what Xfl is equal to, not how to bend rebar, not what the VARs were, or whatever irrelevant stuff you are taking every advantage of to try to teach us in your endless drawn-out manner so as to take up as much of other people's time as possible.

Just respond to safety issues of certain alternating current high vs low voltage circuitry.

I would hate to confuse you with terms that aren't in your NEC

manual, like output impedance and current limited or short pulses or the

fact that a stun gun has electrodes that are about 2 inches apart, so

the current has little chance to go to the heart.

What's worse is perhaps the terms you list above actually are addressed in an NEC edition, but by different terminology.

Why is that worse?

Because I consider claims that a topic isn't in a reference manual when they could actually be worse. Is that bad?

Here is a page that suggests stun guns are limited to 3 ma or 4 ma and

most are limited to 1 ma to 2 milliamps.

Amperage wasn't in Lloyd's question. That's just the problem with his question. You have to pay attention, amdx.

Amperage is implicit in his question, without current there is no safety

issue. Your lack of understanding of electricity makes it very difficult

to have any type of conversation.

My lack of understanding compared to who's? Your's? What does that tell you?

If the voltage is not high enough it won't push enough current to damage

the heart.

That's your opinion.

Police tasers use darts which actually pierce the skin that reduce the

resistance of the circuit through the body so the voltage does not need

to be as high to deliver the same current as if it was on the outside of

the skin.

How do you reconcile the fact that a car battery can deliver 600 amps

but you can hold on to the terminals and survive?

I don't claim knowledge of auto electrical. I think Larry Jacques did, though. Go ask him.

I don't know why DCV lead terminals can melt while you're holding them.

It's not just DCV leads, it is also ACV leads. The melt because they

get hot from the friction of electrons through the wire. (a lot of

electrons)

Answer: It's because the voltage is low, and will not cause a current

large enough to cause harm. If you raise it to say 40 or 50 volts you

might be able to start to feel it tingle. If the voltage gets much

higher, you are going to want to get loose. The bottom line is the

current is dependent on the resistance between your skin and the

electrode you touch and the voltage.

Yes and there is never an absence of resistance.

In normal room temperature situations that is correct.

What is the idea you are making with that statement?

There is always resistance in circuitry.

Trust me. In three years of electrical and 1 year of HVAC school, you

hear stuff like E=IR and P=IE

But "in my book" non-auto electricians don't normally mix with auto electricians.

I don't care who mixes with whom, we're just discussing high school

electricity and people in both of your categories use that.

I don't know if it's just high school level or not.

[email protected]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:25:19 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:20:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

wrote:

In case someone out there is naive enough to believe anything

morongulah posts,

Most of us have him -=plonked=- already. BIG HINT

I'm a fast reader with a good memory and I don't need artificial help

to remember who is a sociopathic hate agitator or just a dumb loser. I

mostly ignore them unless their pernicious lies demand to be exposed

and refuted.

And after that, are you gonna bitch and whine about how many years you've been in rec.aviation.military?

(like anyone gives a hell)

amdx[_3_]

On 7/29/2014 2:53 PM, wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2014 8:32:56 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/28/2014 2:09 PM, wrote:

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:20:35 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 7/27/2014 3:50 PM, wrote:

wrote:

... authority that says high voltage is safer than ...

Senile lloyd wants to know how high voltage is safer than low. Anyway, you apparently you never took the hospital electrician's
I think if you could just get a good understanding

of ohms law, you would see immediately were you are mistaken.

If I was mistaken, you'd point it out immediately. Something you aren't doing.

Lloyd asked a specific question that didn't involved numbers or any real

parameters, so I gave an answer that technically answered his question.

You know that. That's why you didn't immediately rush to state any supposed "mistake" that I may have made.

I looked back on the thread, looks like Lloyds specific question was,

"Still waiting for any cite from any authority that says high voltage

from line service is safer than lower voltage.

and your answer,

"Senile lloyd wants to know how high voltage is safer than low. Anyway,

you apparently you never took the hospital electrician's advice of

referring you to the NEC manual.

A taser is 50,000 volts. That's high. The amperage there isn't a factor.

A stun gun is 900,000 volts. That outta tell you right there that

voltage isn't what harms. It's low voltage with higher amps that is harmful.

First Lloyd specifically said in his post, "high voltage from line

service" Line service is very important to the safety question because

it is low impedance, and has no problem supplying the current that will

damage a heart.

If you change the question you can answer any way you want, but it

doesn't give you understanding.

Which is also irrelevant. All I did was answer his question.

When I got into this thread I was trying help you understand and prevent

others from getting incorrect information.

Don't you think you'd do good then by IMMEDIATELY telling us what's incorrect instead of windbagging it?

I responded when I saw the post.

And you started to include concepts that wouldn't have addressed an answer to Lloyd's question which concerned only high voltage. Not impedance, not capacitance, not how to bend IMC pipe, not what Xfl is equal to, not how to bend rebar, not what the VARs were, or whatever irrelevant stuff you are taking every advantage of to try to teach us in your endless drawn-out manner so as to take up as much of other people's time as possible.

Just respond to safety issues of certain alternating current high vs low voltage circuitry.

I would hate to confuse you with terms that aren't in your NEC

manual, like output impedance and current limited or short pulses or the

fact that a stun gun has electrodes that are about 2 inches apart, so

the current has little chance to go to the heart.

What's worse is perhaps the terms you list above actually are addressed in an NEC edition, but by different terminology.

Why is that worse?

Because I consider claims that a topic isn't in a reference manual when they could actually be worse. Is that bad?

Here is a page that suggests stun guns are limited to 3 ma or 4 ma and

most are limited to 1 ma to 2 milliamps.

Amperage wasn't in Lloyd's question. That's just the problem with his question. You have to pay attention, amdx.

Amperage is implicit in his question, without current there is no safety

issue. Your lack of understanding of electricity makes it very difficult

to have any type of conversation.

My lack of understanding compared to who's? Your's? What does that tell you?

If the voltage is not high enough it won't push enough current to damage

the heart.

That's your opinion.

Police tasers use darts which actually pierce the skin that reduce the

resistance of the circuit through the body so the voltage does not need

to be as high to deliver the same current as if it was on the outside of

the skin.

How do you reconcile the fact that a car battery can deliver 600 amps

but you can hold on to the terminals and survive?

I don't claim knowledge of auto electrical. I think Larry Jacques did, though. Go ask him.

I don't know why DCV lead terminals can melt while you're holding them.

It's not just DCV leads, it is also ACV leads. The melt because they

get hot from the friction of electrons through the wire. (a lot of

electrons)

Answer: It's because the voltage is low, and will not cause a current

large enough to cause harm. If you raise it to say 40 or 50 volts you

might be able to start to feel it tingle. If the voltage gets much

higher, you are going to want to get loose. The bottom line is the

current is dependent on the resistance between your skin and the

electrode you touch and the voltage.

Yes and there is never an absence of resistance.

In normal room temperature situations that is correct.

What is the idea you are making with that statement?

There is always resistance in circuitry.

Trust me. In three years of electrical and 1 year of HVAC school, you

hear stuff like E=IR and P=IE

But "in my book" non-auto electricians don't normally mix with auto electricians.

I don't care who mixes with whom, we're just discussing high school

electricity and people in both of your categories use that.

I don't know if it's just high school level or not.

It was in my 11th grade basic electricity book.

I found this site covering basic electricity.
You might find it helpful.
I suggest you start with chapter 2, but if you want to get right to the
heart of the matter go to chapter 3 and see the section titled,
"Ohm's Law (Again)" it actually says,
"It's not voltage that kills, its current!"
You can read it and use the information to make an argument against me.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/index.html

Mikek

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

amdx fired this volley in news:lr90uf$m35$1@dont-
email.me:

"Ohm's Law (Again)" it actually says,
"It's not voltage that kills, its current!"
You can read it and use the information to make an argument against me.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/index.html

Mikek

But, but, but.... Mike! Then lower voltage MUST be more dangerous
because it "has more current".

I mean... your household 120VAC service only 'has' 200 amps, but a 12V
auto battery 'has' 600 amps!

So, by inference, high voltage must 'have' less current -- right?

G
LLoyd

Jim Wilkins[_2_]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
amdx fired this volley in
news:lr90uf$m35$1@dont-
email.me:

"Ohm's Law (Again)" it actually says,
"It's not voltage that kills, its current!"
You can read it and use the information to make an argument against
me.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/index.html

Mikek

But, but, but.... Mike! Then lower voltage MUST be more dangerous
because it "has more current".

I mean... your household 120VAC service only 'has' 200 amps, but a
12V
auto battery 'has' 600 amps!

So, by inference, high voltage must 'have' less current -- right?

G
LLoyd

Consumer devices that use exposed high voltage limit the current to
low levels, so to someone who can't tell cause from effect high
voltage can be misconstrued as being safer than line voltage.
-jsw

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr96t1$vtm
:

Consumer devices that use exposed high voltage limit the current to
low levels, so to someone who can't tell cause from effect high
voltage can be misconstrued as being safer than line voltage.
-jsw

Please, Jim. I'm not dumb. But I'm not a smartass, either.

I am a professional (an EE, actually) skilled in pointing out the
obvious, and I speak fluent sarcasm.

Nobody quoting the NEC as his reference can be confused with the "average
consumer". This was a person who claims to fully understand electricity
and all of its hazards.

Since this has gone around and around, I must assume that I failed to
state my question properly. So, here goes another attempt:

To whomever it is who believes to the contrary: Please cite an
authoritative document that states clearly that higher voltage LINE
service - directly from the pole OR through non-GFCI breakers - is safer
against fatal hazard (any kind of fatality will do) than lower-voltage
LINE service similarly connected.

I do have a copy of the 2008 NEC, so that would be a good one to cite.

Don't divert the conversation to tasers or Tesla coils, or other
silliness. Just give me a clear cite about the narrow subject at hand,
and publish the exact wording here, so that we can be certain you have
not misconstrued the meaning; or just lied.

Don't redact or concatenate the text -- give the whole of the text that
says it. Allow us to look it up and confirm your exact wording, or deny
your lie/claim.

Don't cite numbers of consumers killed by 120VAC home service vs. high-
voltage professionals killed by their higher-voltage lines; that's a
matter of education and general public stupidity, not 'safety'. Cite
only that text in an official, authoritative document that says that high
voltage LINE service is safer than lower-voltage LINE service.

I await your meandering, incomprehensible, paranoic, and mostly insane
responses.

LLoyd

amdx[_3_]

On 7/29/2014 3:52 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
amdx fired this volley in news:lr90uf$m35$1@dont-
email.me:

"Ohm's Law (Again)" it actually says,
"It's not voltage that kills, its current!"
You can read it and use the information to make an argument against me.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/index.html

Mikek

But, but, but.... Mike! Then lower voltage MUST be more dangerous
because it "has more current".

I mean... your household 120VAC service only 'has' 200 amps, but a 12V
auto battery 'has' 600 amps!

So, by inference, high voltage must 'have' less current -- right?

G
LLoyd

Now Lloyd, I think you should go read that section of chapter 3
titled, "Ohm's Law (Again)" G

I think it covers the topic under discussion very well.

It says,
"However, electric current doesn't just occur on its own: there must
be voltage available to motivate electrons to flow through a victim. A
person's body also presents resistance to current, which must be taken
into account.

Taking Ohm's Law for voltage, current, and resistance, and expressing it
in terms of current for a given voltage and resistance, we have this
equation:
I=E/R Current=Voltage/Resistance

The amount of current through a body is equal to the amount of voltage
applied between two points on that body, divided by the electrical
resistance offered by the body between those two points."

And then,
"Obviously, the more voltage available to cause electrons to flow, the
easier they will flow through any given amount of resistance."

Oh man look at this:

"Hence, the danger of high voltage: high voltage means potential for
large amounts of current through your body, which will injure or kill
you. Conversely, the more resistance a body offers to current, the
slower electrons will flow for any given amount of voltage. Just how
much voltage is dangerous depends on how much total resistance is in the
circuit to oppose the flow of electrons."

Mikek

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

amdx fired this volley in news:lr992c$dd8$1@dont-
email.me:

Oh man look at this:

"Hence, the danger of high voltage: high voltage means potential for
large amounts of current through your body, which will injure or kill
you. Conversely, the more resistance a body offers to current, the
slower electrons will flow for any given amount of voltage. Just how
much voltage is dangerous depends on how much total resistance is in
the
circuit to oppose the flow of electrons."

Mikek

AMAZING! I never knew that breaking such a small, simple law could kill
you!

Well... not until I was 11, and at 13 built my first phonograph amplifier
from scratch-parts (my _own_ design). General-Class ham operator by 16,
and if you recall those days, you actually had to know some electronics
to pass the written!

G

Lloyd

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:56:22 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr96t1$vtm

:

Consumer devices that use exposed high voltage limit the current to

low levels, so to someone who can't tell cause from effect high

voltage can be misconstrued as being safer than line voltage.

-jsw

Please, Jim. I'm not dumb. But I'm not a smartass, either.

I am a professional (an EE, actually) skilled in pointing out the

obvious, and I speak fluent sarcasm.

Nobody quoting the NEC as his reference can be confused with the "average

consumer". This was a person who claims to fully understand electricity

and all of its hazards.

Since this has gone around and around, I must assume that I failed to

state my question properly. So, here goes another attempt:

To whomever it is who believes to the contrary: Please cite an

authoritative document that states clearly that higher voltage LINE

service - directly from the pole OR through non-GFCI breakers - is safer

against fatal hazard (any kind of fatality will do) than lower-voltage

LINE service similarly connected.

I do have a copy of the 2008 NEC, so that would be a good one to cite.

Don't divert the conversation to tasers or Tesla coils, or other

silliness. Just give me a clear cite about the narrow subject at hand,

and publish the exact wording here, so that we can be certain you have

not misconstrued the meaning; or just lied.

Don't redact or concatenate the text -- give the whole of the text that

says it. Allow us to look it up and confirm your exact wording, or deny

your lie/claim.

Don't cite numbers of consumers killed by 120VAC home service vs. high-

voltage professionals killed by their higher-voltage lines; that's a

matter of education and general public stupidity, not 'safety'. Cite

only that text in an official, authoritative document that says that high

voltage LINE service is safer than lower-voltage LINE service.

I await your meandering, incomprehensible, paranoic, and mostly insane

responses.

LLoyd

Am I missing something? If Loud is an EE (I take that to mean an Electrical Engineer) why is this not listed on his LinkedIn profile?

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lloyd-s...rgh/39/460/a69

Here is the only thing listed for Loud's education:

"University of Central Florida

Bachelor of Science in business management, Business Administration and Management, General"

If someone is really an Electrical Engineer why in the world would they leave that off their LinkedIn profile?

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

Am I missing something? If Loud is an EE (I take that to mean an
Electrical Engineer) why is this not listed on his LinkedIn profile?

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lloyd-s...rgh/39/460/a69

Here is the only thing listed for Loud's education:

"University of Central Florida

Bachelor of Science in business management, Business Administration
and Management, General"

If someone is really an Electrical Engineer why in the world would
they leave that off their LinkedIn profile?

If you smell a rat, likely there is a rat.

Jon, I deliberatly un-blocked you, because I just HAD to see what you'd
respond with. It was worth the irritation!

I can prove I was (now retired) an EE. I won't take the trouble to prove
it to you here because anyone can verify it themselves. With your
prodigious "web powers", it should be a snap. Or, is LinkedIn your only
web resource?

But -- can you answer my question? It's simple. Just answer. Or are
you again just diverting the question so that you don't look even more
foolish? It's pretty simple, even for a moron. It would take a "sub-
moron" not to understand.

Answer in the context presented, or shut the **** up.

(Still not blocking you for the meanwhile...)

Lloyd

amdx[_3_]

On 7/29/2014 6:09 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
amdx fired this volley in news:lr992c$dd8$1@dont-
email.me:

Oh man look at this:

"Hence, the danger of high voltage: high voltage means potential for
large amounts of current through your body, which will injure or kill
you. Conversely, the more resistance a body offers to current, the
slower electrons will flow for any given amount of voltage. Just how
much voltage is dangerous depends on how much total resistance is in
the
circuit to oppose the flow of electrons."

Mikek

AMAZING! I never knew that breaking such a small, simple law could kill
you!

Well... not until I was 11, and at 13 built my first phonograph amplifier
from scratch-parts (my _own_ design). General-Class ham operator by 16,
and if you recall those days, you actually had to know some electronics
to pass the written!

G

Lloyd

I hope we have supplied enough information often enough that mogulah
will think, maybe these guys are onto something. I don't think there is
anymore that can be said. You can lead a horse to water...
Mikek

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:09:21 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
amdx fired this volley in news:lr992c$dd8$1@dont-

email.me:

Oh man look at this:

"Hence, the danger of high voltage: high voltage means potential for

large amounts of current through your body, which will injure or kill

you. Conversely, the more resistance a body offers to current, the

slower electrons will flow for any given amount of voltage. Just how

much voltage is dangerous depends on how much total resistance is in

the

circuit to oppose the flow of electrons."

Mikek

AMAZING! I never knew that breaking such a small, simple law could kill

you!

Well... not until I was 11, and at 13 built my first phonograph amplifier

from scratch-parts (my _own_ design). General-Class ham operator by 16,

and if you recall those days, you actually had to know some electronics

to pass the written!

G

Lloyd

What a blow hard Loud is. I got my General class Amateur radio license when I was a teenager as well. You say you would like proof of this? No problem.. Unlike a liar and a bull****er like Loud, I always back up what I have to say with proof:

http://hamcall.net/call/WA1ZVS%3A1983

There was indeed a written test that was administered by the FCC. Why, Loud can't remember that is beyond me. Let me guess, Loud can't remember his call sign either. There was also a Morse code requirement. I took my General class license test at the FCC Boston office.

The major problem with Amateur radio was that other than doing work for Mars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...y_Radio_System

contesting, DXing and collecting foreign QSL cards, I found it to be boring as hell. It was mostly old, wheezy, buzzards talking about the weather. I probably would have enjoyed myself more if I had a lot of money or my parents were rich and they owned a big piece of land so I could have put up the antenna farm I wanted. My first rig was a Griefkit HW 101 that I built. I then sold that and got a Kenwood TS-520. Finally, I purchased a used Signal/One CX7B which was a major improvement over the other two transceivers I mentioned. I would have loved to have had an Alpha amp but didn't have the money.

None of this made me an expert in electronics. At best it gave me a very basic understanding of electronics. I passed both my Novice and my General license tests the first time. I skipped Technician class. I never did get my Advanced or Amateur Extra class license because I had become bored out of my ****ing mind within two years of being involved. I also found contest groups back them to be made up of clique idiots. I hated cliques back then as much as I hate them now.

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:31:49 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:

Am I missing something? If Loud is an EE (I take that to mean an

Electrical Engineer) why is this not listed on his LinkedIn profile?

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lloyd-s...rgh/39/460/a69

Here is the only thing listed for Loud's education:

"University of Central Florida

Bachelor of Science in business management, Business Administration

and Management, General"

If someone is really an Electrical Engineer why in the world would

they leave that off their LinkedIn profile?

If you smell a rat, likely there is a rat.

Jon, I deliberatly un-blocked you, because I just HAD to see what you'd

respond with. It was worth the irritation!

I can prove I was (now retired) an EE. I won't take the trouble to prove

it to you here because anyone can verify it themselves. With your

prodigious "web powers", it should be a snap. Or, is LinkedIn your only

web resource?

But -- can you answer my question? It's simple. Just answer. Or are

you again just diverting the question so that you don't look even more

foolish? It's pretty simple, even for a moron. It would take a "sub-

moron" not to understand.

Answer in the context presented, or shut the **** up.

(Still not blocking you for the meanwhile...)

Lloyd

I don't give a ****, Loud. You're a liar and I've now shown you to be a liar many times over.

Now sit down and shut the **** up before I make you look like even more of a fool than I already have.

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

There was indeed a written test that was administered by the FCC. Why,
Loud can't remember that is beyond me. Let me guess, Loud can't
remember his call sign either

AH! Now I finally understand! You can't READ!

I said "it took some electronics knowleged to PASS THE WRITTEN". How
does that imply that there was no written test? (well, to anyone who can
read, I mean)

Yes, there was a code requirement. You'd have never passed it with your
thrice-recycled late 1983 call sign! It was 13WPM in the 1960s. Hard-
key. No 'bugs' for the test, and no electronic keyers, either.

Hell, you didn't even have to pass the real FCC written! YOU cribbed,
and got three of your like-minded friends to lie for you, and say you
passed! below--
-----------------
"In 1983 the FCC announced a fundamental change to the licensing process.
The FCC would no longer conduct examinations. Instead, teams of volunteer
examiners (VEs) would conduct all amateur radio exams. Instead of single
amateurs giving the test for Novice and Technician, all amateur license
exams except Novice would be administered by teams of at least three VEs.
But this was a minor change compared to the fact that the test questions
would no longer be secret. Instead, the question pools would be
maintained by volunteer examiner coordinators (VECs) overseen by the FCC.
The "Bash books" of the '70s became official and legal."
-----------------

Yeah... I can remember my call-sign. You could look it up, if you were
the web-maven you claim to be.

But more importantly, you're still evading the question, because you
CANNOT answer it honestly. All you have to do to disprove THAT is to
answer the question. That seems to be what you demand of everyone else,
so why can't you do it? Are you as feeble as you seem?

Lloyd

Jim Wilkins[_2_]

"amdx" wrote in message
...

I hope we have supplied enough information often enough that
mogulah
will think, maybe these guys are onto something. I don't think there
is anymore that can be said. You can lead a horse to water...
Mikek

I'm more concerned that some silent lurker might read all this and
underestimate the dangers of high voltage.

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr9cbu$vdg$1
@dont-email.me:

I'm more concerned that some silent lurker might read all this and
underestimate the dangers of high voltage.

Exactly, Jim. That's why, at least for the cogent and non-insane among
us, I hope our protestations have some effect.

Banquer and his "clique of insanity" (All him under various aliases) have
twisted the truth to the point where someone might get killed believing
them.

Lloyd

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:56:16 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:

There was indeed a written test that was administered by the FCC. Why,

Loud can't remember that is beyond me. Let me guess, Loud can't

remember his call sign either

AH! Now I finally understand! You can't READ!

I said "it took some electronics knowleged to PASS THE WRITTEN". How

does that imply that there was no written test? (well, to anyone who can

read, I mean)

Yes, there was a code requirement. You'd have never passed it with your

thrice-recycled late 1983 call sign! It was 13WPM in the 1960s. Hard-

key. No 'bugs' for the test, and no electronic keyers, either.

Hell, you didn't even have to pass the real FCC written! YOU cribbed,

and got three of your like-minded friends to lie for you, and say you

passed! below--

-----------------

"In 1983 the FCC announced a fundamental change to the licensing process.

The FCC would no longer conduct examinations. Instead, teams of volunteer

examiners (VEs) would conduct all amateur radio exams. Instead of single

amateurs giving the test for Novice and Technician, all amateur license

exams except Novice would be administered by teams of at least three VEs.

But this was a minor change compared to the fact that the test questions

would no longer be secret. Instead, the question pools would be

maintained by volunteer examiner coordinators (VECs) overseen by the FCC.

The "Bash books" of the '70s became official and legal."

-----------------

Yeah... I can remember my call-sign. You could look it up, if you were

the web-maven you claim to be.

But more importantly, you're still evading the question, because you

CANNOT answer it honestly. All you have to do to disprove THAT is to

answer the question. That seems to be what you demand of everyone else,

so why can't you do it? Are you as feeble as you seem?

Lloyd

I did pass it you ****ing moron. If you didn't pass it back then you couldn't get your Novice license or your General license.

Now sit down and STFU because you keep making yourself look like the lying idiot you truly are.

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

If you didn't pass it back then you couldn't get your Novice license
or your General license.

Ah... but I did pass it, on the first try! Code, written, everything...
and given by a very grim FCC inspector!

YOU on the other hand only had to convince three friends to lie for you
and SAY you passed! (only thing that confuses me is how you found three
friends...)

ANSWER THE QUESTION, Jon. Or don't you have an answer? Was it ALL lies,
all along? Did you lie just to hear yourself lie? Did you lie when you
'cited' the NEC code?

C'mon... ANSWER the QUESTION!

We're all waiting for your educated analysis of the NEC. And yes, I
wasn't kidding... I DO have a copy.

ANSWER The QUESTION you feeble bitch.

LLoyd

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:56:16 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:

There was indeed a written test that was administered by the FCC. Why,

Loud can't remember that is beyond me. Let me guess, Loud can't

remember his call sign either

AH! Now I finally understand! You can't READ!

I said "it took some electronics knowleged to PASS THE WRITTEN". How

does that imply that there was no written test? (well, to anyone who can

read, I mean)

Yes, there was a code requirement. You'd have never passed it with your

thrice-recycled late 1983 call sign! It was 13WPM in the 1960s. Hard-

key. No 'bugs' for the test, and no electronic keyers, either.

Hell, you didn't even have to pass the real FCC written! YOU cribbed,

and got three of your like-minded friends to lie for you, and say you

passed! below--

-----------------

"In 1983 the FCC announced a fundamental change to the licensing process.

The FCC would no longer conduct examinations. Instead, teams of volunteer

examiners (VEs) would conduct all amateur radio exams. Instead of single

amateurs giving the test for Novice and Technician, all amateur license

exams except Novice would be administered by teams of at least three VEs.

But this was a minor change compared to the fact that the test questions

would no longer be secret. Instead, the question pools would be

maintained by volunteer examiner coordinators (VECs) overseen by the FCC.

The "Bash books" of the '70s became official and legal."

-----------------

Yeah... I can remember my call-sign. You could look it up, if you were

the web-maven you claim to be.

But more importantly, you're still evading the question, because you

CANNOT answer it honestly. All you have to do to disprove THAT is to

answer the question. That seems to be what you demand of everyone else,

so why can't you do it? Are you as feeble as you seem?

Lloyd

It's truly amazing how stupid you are and how much you lie, Loud. I was born in 1961. I said I got my amateur radio license(both Novice and General class)when I was a teenager. Was I a teenager in 1983? Do the ****ing math **** head.

I found a link to show what my call sign was and that I had an amateur radio license. That doesn't mean I got my Amateur radio license (Novice and then General)in 1983 you ****ing moron.

Are you sure someone didn't shove an M80 up your ass and light it because it sure seems like it at times. My G_d are you ****ing stupid at times.

Jim Wilkins[_2_]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...

Banquer and his "clique of insanity" (All him under various aliases)
...

Lloyd

I'm not convinced of that. They all play the toxic zero-sum self
esteem game but otherwise differ in M.O. and focus.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-zero-sum-game
http://www.take-your-power.com/impor...lf-esteem.html
"It's as if life is a zero sum game: every achievement that raises one
person's self-esteem diminishes another's .."

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr9dim$6fh$1
@dont-email.me:

I'm not convinced of that. They all play the toxic zero-sum self
esteem game but otherwise differ in M.O. and focus.

Yeah, but he seems 'different'. I've never 'met' (web or face) anyone
whose ONLY endeavor in life is to try -ineffectually- to belittle others.
Jon is unique in that respect. He has NOTHING of any redeeming
qualities... all bad/evil, incompetent, insane... whatever you'd like to
call them.

Lloyd

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

jon_banquer

diverted the subject away from the QUESTION again.

What do you want to bet that Banquer injures himself tonight in his mad
thrashing and screaming around his basement apartment, as he shouts,
bangs his head and fists, and screams again and again,

"I COULD HAVE ANSWERED, if that damned LOUD hadn't asked the real
question! I could have... I really could have... doesn't ANYONE care that
I COULD HAVE?"

Oh... and then there's the sound of that rotted plum hitting the pavement
again --- PLONK!

LLoyd

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:12:15 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:

If you didn't pass it back then you couldn't get your Novice license

or your General license.

Ah... but I did pass it, on the first try! Code, written, everything...

and given by a very grim FCC inspector!

YOU on the other hand only had to convince three friends to lie for you

and SAY you passed! (only thing that confuses me is how you found three

friends...)

ANSWER THE QUESTION, Jon. Or don't you have an answer? Was it ALL lies,

all along? Did you lie just to hear yourself lie? Did you lie when you

'cited' the NEC code?

C'mon... ANSWER the QUESTION!

We're all waiting for your educated analysis of the NEC. And yes, I

wasn't kidding... I DO have a copy.

ANSWER The QUESTION you feeble bitch.

LLoyd

You're clearly losing what little you have left for a mind, Loud. I've never mentioned or "cited" the NEC code and once again you can't show proof that I have. That's the problem with lying like you lie, Loud. It gets hard to remember all the lies you tell and then you get confused. Try my approach and never lie, then you never have to worry about covering your tracks.

This yet another case where I've nailed you for lying.

You're far too stupid to own me, Loud. The FACT is that I pull your strings.. I'm your puppet master. I do with you whatever I see fit. Now get back on your knees and do what you do best... blow Mark Wieber.

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:32:55 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer

diverted the subject away from the QUESTION again.

What do you want to bet that Banquer injures himself tonight in his mad

thrashing and screaming around his basement apartment, as he shouts,

bangs his head and fists, and screams again and again,

"I COULD HAVE ANSWERED, if that damned LOUD hadn't asked the real

question! I could have... I really could have... doesn't ANYONE care that

I COULD HAVE?"

Oh... and then there's the sound of that rotted plum hitting the pavement

again --- PLONK!

LLoyd

Anyone care to wager on how soon it will be before I suddenly emerge *yet again* from Loud's kill file? :)

When you lie like Loud does and pretend others have no skills (because you don't have those skills) you go down like Loud goes down... hard.

Michael A. Terrell

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr9dim$6fh$1
@dont-email.me:

I'm not convinced of that. They all play the toxic zero-sum self
esteem game but otherwise differ in M.O. and focus.

Yeah, but he seems 'different'. I've never 'met' (web or face) anyone
whose ONLY endeavor in life is to try -ineffectually- to belittle others.
Jon is unique in that respect. He has NOTHING of any redeeming
qualities... all bad/evil, incompetent, insane... whatever you'd like to
call them.

Take a look at news:alt.engineering.electrical. One idiot, with over
100 sock puppets destroyed the group. He also infested the
sci.electronics.* family of newsgroups

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Ignoramus7156

On 2014-07-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:20:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

In case someone out there is naive enough to believe anything
morongulah posts,

Most of us have him -=plonked=- already. BIG HINT

I'm a fast reader with a good memory and I don't need artificial help
to remember who is a sociopathic hate agitator or just a dumb loser. I
mostly ignore them unless their pernicious lies demand to be exposed
and refuted.

I use my killfile as a time saving feature.

i

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh[_3_]

"Michael A. Terrell" fired this volley in
m:

Take a look at news:alt.engineering.electrical. One idiot, with
over
100 sock puppets destroyed the group. He also infested the
sci.electronics.* family of newsgroups

Quite likely it's the same sock puppet of a man who's trying to destroy
this group -- our own little Jonnie Boi. He knows no pleasure except
trying, impotently, to ruin things for his emotional superiors, and no
real competence to do anything but try; with the same methods, the same
phrases, the same inane insults, over, and over, and over again. He's a
piteous little manequin. Not merely a 'sock puppet'; far less.

Lloyd

jon_banquer[_2_]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:03:39 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" fired this volley in

m:

Take a look at news:alt.engineering.electrical. One idiot, with

over

100 sock puppets destroyed the group. He also infested the

sci.electronics.* family of newsgroups

Quite likely it's the same sock puppet of a man who's trying to destroy

this group -- our own little Jonnie Boi. He knows no pleasure except

trying, impotently, to ruin things for his emotional superiors, and no

real competence to do anything but try; with the same methods, the same

phrases, the same inane insults, over, and over, and over again. He's a

piteous little manequin. Not merely a 'sock puppet'; far less.

Lloyd

Nice to see I have pushed many Mark Wieber clique of idiots members to new levels of paranoia. When you're as dumb as Mark Wieber clique of idiot members are, anyone who stands up to their bull**** must be one of my sock puppets. I love it! :)

Here you go losers. My gift to you:

http://youtu.be/ZD6bQ3DQSLA

David Lesher

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com writes:

Ig, we're not talking about what you want to accomplish, per se.
We're talking about HOW you go about accomplishing it.

If they are vacuum-varnished transformers (almost certain), and the
laminations are interleaved (very likely), you are NOT going to just
"pull apart" the laminations, no matter how big your press.

Now do not go saying that, or Iggy will buy "Herman the German"s
brother the press.......
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Larry Jaques[_4_]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:11:43 -0500, Ignoramus7156
wrote:

On 2014-07-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:20:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

In case someone out there is naive enough to believe anything
morongulah posts,

Most of us have him -=plonked=- already. BIG HINT

I'm a fast reader with a good memory and I don't need artificial help
to remember who is a sociopathic hate agitator or just a dumb loser. I
mostly ignore them unless their pernicious lies demand to be exposed
and refuted.

I use my killfile as a time saving feature.

We call it "plonking". But it's totally ineffective when someone
replies to the troll's post, since we haven't plonked the replier.
Makes me want to reach out across the Web and Gibbs-slap 'em upside
the back of the haid.

--
Aim for success, not perfection. Never give up your right
to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to
learn new things and move forward with your life.
-- Dr. David M. Burns

Jim Wilkins[_2_]

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:11:43 -0500, Ignoramus7156
wrote:

On 2014-07-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in
message
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:20:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

In case someone out there is naive enough to believe anything
morongulah posts,

Most of us have him -=plonked=- already. BIG HINT

I'm a fast reader with a good memory and I don't need artificial
help
to remember who is a sociopathic hate agitator or just a dumb
loser. I
mostly ignore them unless their pernicious lies demand to be
exposed
and refuted.

I use my killfile as a time saving feature.

We call it "plonking". But it's totally ineffective when someone
replies to the troll's post, since we haven't plonked the replier.
Makes me want to reach out across the Web and Gibbs-slap 'em upside
the back of the haid.

Makes me want to stop reading and click on the next posting. Is that
too much for you?
-jsw

[email protected]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:56:22 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr96t1$vtm

:

Consumer devices that use exposed high voltage limit the current to

low levels, so to someone who can't tell cause from effect high

voltage can be misconstrued as being safer than line voltage.

-jsw

Please, Jim. I'm not dumb.

Well, you aren't deaf and dumb, so you can hear and talk. Right?

But I'm not a smartass, either.

Great! So now we know you aren't a dumbass, either.

I am a professional (an EE, actually) skilled in pointing out the

Whoa! You? Lloyd? You have a degree in electrical engineering?

obvious, and I speak fluent sarcasm.

Nobody quoting the NEC as his reference can be confused with the "average

consumer".

Outside of electrical contracting, I imagine.

This was a person who claims to fully understand electricity
and all of its hazards.

I didn't claim that, no way. I'm not even a licensed electrician.

Since this has gone around and around, I must assume that I failed to

state my question properly.

Why would it matter, no business is on the line. Is it?

So, here goes another attempt:

To whomever it is who believes to the contrary: Please cite an

authoritative document that states clearly that higher voltage LINE

service - directly from the pole OR through non-GFCI breakers - is safer

against fatal hazard (any kind of fatality will do) than lower-voltage

LINE service similarly connected.

You're probably going to hate the response, but the answer is still the same.
(and I know amdx is now going to run back in wanting to teach about every irrelevancy in the world that he can - outside of solely same-service AC high/low voltage, so let's now see what he has to babble on and on about)

I do have a copy of the 2008 NEC, so that would be a good one to cite.

I just go by NEC quotes from search engines. My actual paper and print NEC book is too far away from me most of the time.

Don't divert the conversation to tasers or Tesla coils, or other

silliness.

But its true. A stun-gun, or even a taser is, in fact, hooked up to its AC battery charging circuitry most of the time, right? That technically qualifies as the answer to your question right there - much, much higher "safer" AC voltage.

Precisely what you asked for. (whether amdx wants to play "professor" and add or "teach us" irrelevant info to that or not, notice he hasn't dare tried to deny it)

Just give me a clear cite about the narrow subject at hand,

-- http://www.defensemaster.com/Air_Tas...ry_charger.htm

and publish the exact wording here, so that we can be certain you have

not misconstrued the meaning; or just lied.

I don't know where you'd get the assumption that people who've worked around electrical construction would "lie" to you, but if you are that interested, then you can read it yourself, or even call and ask yourself. I'm not interested in windbagging it for you.

[email protected]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:00:27 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/29/2014 3:52 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

amdx fired this volley in news:lr90uf$m35$1@dont-

email.me:

"Ohm's Law (Again)" it actually says,

"It's not voltage that kills, its current!"

You can read it and use the information to make an argument against me.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/index.html

Mikek

But, but, but.... Mike! Then lower voltage MUST be more dangerous

because it "has more current".

I mean... your household 120VAC service only 'has' 200 amps, but a 12V

auto battery 'has' 600 amps!

So, by inference, high voltage must 'have' less current -- right?

G

LLoyd

Now Lloyd, I think you should go read that section of chapter 3

titled, "Ohm's Law (Again)" G

amdx, you just don't get it. Lloyd never said he was a licensed electrician, so why "should" he read that? Just ask an electrician.

[email protected]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:16:10 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:56:22 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr96t1$vtm

:

Consumer devices that use exposed high voltage limit the current to

low levels, so to someone who can't tell cause from effect high

voltage can be misconstrued as being safer than line voltage.

-jsw

Please, Jim. I'm not dumb. But I'm not a smartass, either.

I am a professional (an EE, actually) skilled in pointing out the

obvious, and I speak fluent sarcasm.

Nobody quoting the NEC as his reference can be confused with the "average

consumer". This was a person who claims to fully understand electricity

and all of its hazards.

Since this has gone around and around, I must assume that I failed to

state my question properly. So, here goes another attempt:

To whomever it is who believes to the contrary: Please cite an

authoritative document that states clearly that higher voltage LINE

service - directly from the pole OR through non-GFCI breakers - is safer

against fatal hazard (any kind of fatality will do) than lower-voltage

LINE service similarly connected.

I do have a copy of the 2008 NEC, so that would be a good one to cite.

Don't divert the conversation to tasers or Tesla coils, or other

silliness. Just give me a clear cite about the narrow subject at hand,

and publish the exact wording here, so that we can be certain you have

not misconstrued the meaning; or just lied.

Don't redact or concatenate the text -- give the whole of the text that

says it. Allow us to look it up and confirm your exact wording, or deny

your lie/claim.

Don't cite numbers of consumers killed by 120VAC home service vs. high-

voltage professionals killed by their higher-voltage lines; that's a

matter of education and general public stupidity, not 'safety'. Cite

only that text in an official, authoritative document that says that high

voltage LINE service is safer than lower-voltage LINE service.

I await your meandering, incomprehensible, paranoic, and mostly insane

responses.

LLoyd

Am I missing something? If Loud is an EE (I take that to mean
an Electrical Engineer) why is this not listed on his LinkedIn profile?

That caught me off guard, too jon. I said to myself: "Wow, how can such a hostile character have a degree in anything - ANYTHING !!). But Business? In fireworks? or factory work? OK, that's good. But now an EE degree? Is he a member of the IEEE? Now, I've taken 3 years of a 5 year journeyman's electrician program. But I'm none of that.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lloyd-s...rgh/39/460/a69

Here is the only thing listed for Loud's education:

"University of Central Florida

Bachelor of Science in business management, Business Administration and Management, General"

If someone is really an Electrical Engineer why in the world would they leave that off their LinkedIn profile?

Great question. And he is rampaging on and on about "lying" and what people claim.

[email protected]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:40:32 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/29/2014 6:09 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

amdx fired this volley in news:lr992c$dd8$1@dont-

email.me:

Oh man look at this:

"Hence, the danger of high voltage: high voltage means potential for

large amounts of current through your body, which will injure or kill

you. Conversely, the more resistance a body offers to current, the

slower electrons will flow for any given amount of voltage. Just how

much voltage is dangerous depends on how much total resistance is in

the

circuit to oppose the flow of electrons."

Mikek

AMAZING! I never knew that breaking such a small, simple law could kill

you!

Well... not until I was 11, and at 13 built my first phonograph amplifier

from scratch-parts (my _own_ design). General-Class ham operator by 16,

and if you recall those days, you actually had to know some electronics

to pass the written!

G

Lloyd

I hope we have supplied enough information often enough that mogulah

will think, maybe these guys are onto something.

If so, if I am missing something, then how about you spell it out ... TEXTBOOK for me.

[email protected]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:57:29 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"amdx" wrote in message

...

I hope we have supplied enough information often enough that

mogulah

will think, maybe these guys are onto something. I don't think there

is anymore that can be said. You can lead a horse to water...

I'm more concerned that some silent lurker might read all this and

underestimate the dangers of high voltage.

They'll know who's at fault if they didn't read further... where they'd then see the NEC part of the discussion and look further into the NEC.

People aren't stupid.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hot Transformer	Fred McKenzie	Electronics Repair	36	August 11th 14 07:18 PM
Campingaz Easy Clic & Easy Clic Plus	Dave Liquorice[_3_]	UK diy	4	December 17th 11 10:11 PM
Using 3ph transformer as single pahse transformer	stanley baer	Metalworking	5	November 9th 05 05:10 AM
Transformer	Michele Smith	Electronics Repair	1	April 16th 05 12:53 PM
Transformer help	Ted	Metalworking	9	January 28th 05 03:32 AM

Menu

About Us