On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:37:03 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:50:11 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:53:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:



On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:23:30 PM UTC-4, 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.



You are wrong about that, jon pushes people in here to better their accomplishments.



You know you these other kooks in here, can't deny that.



I push people to think for themselves and to be independent thinkers.

This is what I was taught and what I know is expected in better CNC

machining job shops. In good machining job shops, no one is going

to hold your hand and babysit you. This applies to other trades as well.



You do realize that people like Loud are deniers, right?



jon, that's Tea Party lock, stock and barrel. Destroy the environment and everything else with it in the criminal Ronald Reagan tradition.



Folks in here do DEFINITELY mimic groups from the farthest reaches of the right. I remember one of the 24 hour news programs reporting that most Tea Party supporters are "well off" and anti-union.



People in here say things that you could only hear from prison inmates. Really, if half of the people in here were worse than that, it would be very easy to believe, too.



Loud, Terry Coombs, etc. are so dumb that they think you and I are

the same person.



For some reason, cons have that mindset. I don't even care to know why, either.

By the way, the big bad anti-union dastardly right-wing overlord BEFORE the Koch Brothers just keeled-over last week or so - yaaaayyy !!



GUESS WHAT - Scaife died JULY THE FOURTH !!! HA !! HA !! HA !!HAAAAAAA ! ! ! !



(is that a sting for anti-union folks or what !! - WOW !! That one HAD to hurt !!



Anyway, here - read a little about it:



"Decades before David H. and Charles G. Koch bankrolled right-wing causes, Mr. Scaife and Joseph Coors, the beer magnate, were the leading financiers of the conservative crusade of the 1970s and '80s ..."



-- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/us...t-82.html?_r=0

Break up the big Wall Street banks, enact real campaign finance reform and America gets better. If we continue to do nothing we will see another financial meltdown that will make the last one look very mild.

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
...
Anyway --- the meniion of them coming into the market in the
late 1960s says that it is almost certainly a silicon diode. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

I think I remember diode, thermistor and flasher versions. I didn't
like that they made the hot base of the bulb protrude above the
socket.
-jsw

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 12:59:46 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

Break up the big Wall Street banks, enact real campaign finance
reform and America gets better. If we continue to do nothing we
will see another financial meltdown that will make the last one
look very mild.

Not just banks, but here should be a limit on any company's value, say 2 billion or 3 billion or some agreed-upon amount, because the higher the figure, the more the cartel or monopolizing affect.

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:42:54 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/30/2014 9:32 AM, wrote:

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:56:22 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

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



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)



You example still doesn't work.





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.

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

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)



Deny what?





Did you notice the link shows the charger is a wall wart that contains a

stepdown transformer to lower the voltage to a safe level of around 12

volts to charge the battery in the stun gun.



Could you tell me what irrelevant information I posted.



It is starting to be fun watching you protect your ego by deflecting

everything away from the idea that you posted, which was 277 volts is

safer than 120 volts . These are both line voltages and have plenty of

current.

I think I understand how you concluded that incorrect idea.

For my example I'll us a 120 watt light bulb.

At 12 volts the bulb would draw 10 amps.

At 120 volts the bulb would draw 1 amp.

It may not legally be supposed to:

"What You Should Know About the 2014 Light Bulb Ban

By Will Greenwald
December 14, 2013 11:00am EST

2014 will see the phasing out of 40W and 60W incandescent light bulbs. This is what you need to know. "

-- http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428279,00.asp
======================================

Looks like we've gotta switch the the 26 watt 120 Volt types, now.

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:10:17 PM UTC, wrote:



Not just banks, but here should be a limit on any company's value, say 2 billion or 3 billion or some agreed-upon amount, because the higher the figure, the more the cartel or monopolizing affect.

So you want to penalize companies that are successful? We ought to be able to force all U.S companies to be mediocre and help the foreign companies like Samsung.


Dan

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:28:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:10:17 PM UTC, wrote:

Not just banks, but here should be a limit on any company's value, say 2 billion or 3 billion or some agreed-upon amount, because the higher the figure, the more the cartel or monopolizing affect.


So you want to penalize companies that are successful?

After 2002, successful companies were penalized by the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican congress. Why not now ??