On 2008-08-01 17:04:58 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48933092@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-01 16:18:52 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Completely imaginary. do keep up there at the back ;-)

Tee hee. A class answer that, except that it's wrong :~). The
reactance,
a certain number of ohms, is a real value. It's the reactive component
of
the impedance that's purely imaginary. IOW in Z = R + jX the value of X
is real.

Just give the answer you dreamers

Graham

Ah, but you see, we aren't scratching around in the dirt any longer and
have moved on to greater things.

By 1980 I had figured out that sitting around designing electronics,
although interesting and fun, was not going to offer the advancement and
reward that I was looking for.

As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test and proved you
are just flapping your gums with bull if you cannot answer that simple
electronics question.

Don't be silly. You have missed the point entirely. Whoosh.....


The air of BS was strongly in the air, but just had to
be sure. God I couldn't have made it any simpler.

I don't suppose that your abilities would have permitted it.


Anything less and we would
have been at 1st year and ohms law!

I imagined that that was your approximate range.

On 2008-08-01 17:07:22 +0100, Conor said:

In article 489331ae@qaanaaq, Andy Hall says...

Considering the amount of times it's been done, if it were to be
possible, surely it would have by now?

My point was that if one buys properly designed equipment such as
charging leads, filters etc. then yes. If it's an unknown piece of
junk from China, it may not be trustworthy.

But virtually everything electronic we have comes from there. Hell,
even the power brick for my Compaq is made in China.

Of course. That's why I used the term *unknown* junk.

If one buys a laptop and an adaptor from a reputable manufacturer then
while it may have been manufactured in China, or possibly even designed
there, one can have a come back to the manufacturer if something goes
wrong.

If I buy a Hoo Flung Dung super special adaptor of questionable
parentage but low price, I would not expect that level of support.

Moreover, if I have relatively expensive equipment, I am not going to
risk wrecking it by the use of inadequately designed accessories.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48933092@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-01 16:18:52 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Completely imaginary. do keep up there at the back ;-)

Tee hee. A class answer that, except that it's wrong :~). The
reactance,
a certain number of ohms, is a real value. It's the reactive component
of
the impedance that's purely imaginary. IOW in Z = R + jX the value of X
is real.

Just give the answer you dreamers

Graham

Ah, but you see, we aren't scratching around in the dirt any longer and
have moved on to greater things.

By 1980 I had figured out that sitting around designing electronics,
although interesting and fun, was not going to offer the advancement and
reward that I was looking for.

I had this sort of rubbish in a pub once. The pub bore was propping up the
bar and I got dragged into his conversation while waiting for my pint. I
must have inadvertently said a few technical terms and in reply he started
spouting complete bull**** back at me, liberally peppered with terms he had
heard like AM, FM, Antenna, Ohms, Volts etc. I can only presume that as he
was a bull ****ter, he presumed everyone else was too and that he would get
away with such nonsense. There is only one solution to those people. Turn
around and leave them to it.

Of course you could reply with the actual answer and surprise me.

Graham

On 2008-08-01 17:35:28 +0100, "Graham" said:
I
must have inadvertently said a few technical terms and in reply he started
spouting complete bull**** back at me, liberally peppered with terms he had
heard like AM, FM, Antenna, Ohms, Volts etc.

Did you understand them?


I can only presume that as he
was a bull ****ter, he presumed everyone else was too and that he would get
away with such nonsense. There is only one solution to those people. Turn
around and leave them to it.

I completely agree and always do.


Of course you could reply with the actual answer and surprise me.


I could but would you understand?

In article ,
Graham wrote:
By 1980 I had figured out that sitting around designing electronics,
although interesting and fun, was not going to offer the advancement
and reward that I was looking for.

As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test

Err, no. Read what I wrote again more carefully. And stop trying to make
silly points.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Jul 28, 6:46*pm, Lobster wrote:
My family have a fair number of electrical devices ranging from mobile
phones to electronic games to fridges, all of which lend themselves to
being able to be powered or charged on the road by a 12V cigarette
lighter adapter.

My question is, how safe are these adapters in terms of risking possible
damage to the device in question? *I read about 'surges' in power from
the car; if so, is it down to circuitry built in to the device in
question to protect itself from that? *Or should such protection be
built into the actual adapter?

Is it risky to buy a 'cheapo' aftermarket adapter in place of the device
manufacturer - might that be a more dangerous proposition than buying an
'original' item? *If so, how can you tell what's safe, other than by
spending as much cash as possible? *Can an existing adapter be tested
for this?

Thanks
David

For some reason this thread has brought out the stupid in people.
Maybe its the recent weather. The subject is a known deal and has been
for decades. All car manufacturers specify all electronic kit aboard
cars to meet the spike levels that may be encountered, both +ve and -
ve. Anyone that wants to find more about it can ask in
sci.electronics.basics where real engineers are often happy to
explain.

I've said it before and will say it again: if you ask about
electronics in uk.d-i-y the noise will swamp the signal.


NT

In article
,
wrote:
For some reason this thread has brought out the stupid in people.
Maybe its the recent weather. The subject is a known deal and has been
for decades. All car manufacturers specify all electronic kit aboard
cars to meet the spike levels that may be encountered, both +ve and -
ve.

As presumably do those supplying leads for their devices to be used in
cars - like mobile phones, games etc. Anything else is a nonsense.

'Although we supply a lead which plugs into your fag lighter please be
aware use of it may cause irrevocable damage to our product'

Anyone that wants to find more about it can ask in
sci.electronics.basics where real engineers are often happy to
explain.

It's a moderated group, then? The only sci.electronics group I've read is
has a dreadful sig/noise figure.


I've said it before and will say it again: if you ask about
electronics in uk.d-i-y the noise will swamp the signal.

Same as any group, really. Unless moderated. It's called life.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graham wrote:
By 1980 I had figured out that sitting around designing electronics,
although interesting and fun, was not going to offer the advancement
and reward that I was looking for.

As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test

Err, no. Read what I wrote again more carefully. And stop trying to make
silly points.


I wrote this:
looking for the info or grabbing an op amp. Prove me wrong. Tell my
roughly how to go about designing the phase locked loop logic. Its very
easy. Just the basics. Go on...

And you wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. ;-)

I read that as meaning you didn't expect them to prove me wrong. Can't think
what else you were implying. Was cetainly not trying to mis quote you.

Graham

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:18:52 +0100, Graham wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graham wrote:
By 1980 I had figured out that sitting around designing electronics,
although interesting and fun, was not going to offer the advancement
and reward that I was looking for.

As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test

Err, no. Read what I wrote again more carefully. And stop trying to make
silly points.


I wrote this:
looking for the info or grabbing an op amp. Prove me wrong. Tell my
roughly how to go about designing the phase locked loop logic. Its very
easy. Just the basics. Go on...

And you wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. ;-)

I read that as meaning you didn't expect them to prove me wrong. Can't
think
what else you were implying. Was cetainly not trying to mis quote you.

Graham




Well the concept & the implementation are widely spaced in quite a few
applications, the wikipedia entry provides a reasaonably sensible
explanation of the basics, but PLLs have sod all to do with power line
spike suppresion. ( Not that I doubt that DP knows how they work)

"Duncan Wood" wrote in message
newsp.ue747hj7haghkf@lucy...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:18:52 +0100, Graham wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graham wrote:
By 1980 I had figured out that sitting around designing electronics,
although interesting and fun, was not going to offer the advancement
and reward that I was looking for.

As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test

Err, no. Read what I wrote again more carefully. And stop trying to make
silly points.


I wrote this:
looking for the info or grabbing an op amp. Prove me wrong. Tell my
roughly how to go about designing the phase locked loop logic. Its very
easy. Just the basics. Go on...

And you wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. ;-)

I read that as meaning you didn't expect them to prove me wrong. Can't
think
what else you were implying. Was cetainly not trying to mis quote you.

Graham




Well the concept & the implementation are widely spaced in quite a few
applications, the wikipedia entry provides a reasaonably sensible
explanation of the basics, but PLLs have sod all to do with power line
spike suppresion. ( Not that I doubt that DP knows how they work)

Serious cross purposes here. I obviously was not questioning for a second
anything DP said, knows or has done. I don't doubt for a second his
technical knowledge and it was not in question. I thought the posts earlier
were perfectly clear on both sides, but there must be some ambiguity there I
cannot see.
Graham

In article ,
Graham wrote:
As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test

Err, no. Read what I wrote again more carefully. And stop trying to
make silly points.


I wrote this:
looking for the info or grabbing an op amp. Prove me wrong. Tell my
roughly how to go about designing the phase locked loop logic. Its
very easy. Just the basics. Go on...

And you wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. ;-)

I read that as meaning you didn't expect them to prove me wrong. Can't
think what else you were implying. Was cetainly not trying to mis quote
you.

You missed out the salient point - you wrote:-

'I bet you couldn't even draw a ...'

To which I replied

'I wouldn't bet on it'.

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd realise
Andy wasn't bull****ting.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graham wrote:
As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test

Err, no. Read what I wrote again more carefully. And stop trying to
make silly points.


I wrote this:
looking for the info or grabbing an op amp. Prove me wrong. Tell my
roughly how to go about designing the phase locked loop logic. Its
very easy. Just the basics. Go on...

And you wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. ;-)

I read that as meaning you didn't expect them to prove me wrong. Can't
think what else you were implying. Was cetainly not trying to mis quote
you.

You missed out the salient point - you wrote:-

'I bet you couldn't even draw a ...'

To which I replied

'I wouldn't bet on it'.

Which I took to mean I bet he won't be able to do it, as in don't hold your
breath. Both interpretations are understandable as it was fairly
monosyllabic.

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd realise
Andy wasn't bull****ting.

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a 470uf
cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of text, that is
all.

Graham

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graham wrote:
As Dave Plowman and myself predicted, You Failed This Test

Err, no. Read what I wrote again more carefully. And stop trying to
make silly points.


I wrote this:
looking for the info or grabbing an op amp. Prove me wrong. Tell my
roughly how to go about designing the phase locked loop logic. Its
very easy. Just the basics. Go on...

And you wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. ;-)

I read that as meaning you didn't expect them to prove me wrong. Can't
think what else you were implying. Was cetainly not trying to mis quote
you.

You missed out the salient point - you wrote:-

'I bet you couldn't even draw a ...'

To which I replied

'I wouldn't bet on it'.

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd realise
Andy wasn't bull****ting.

Just thought I'd add uk.diy to my ng's and have a look at the is very
knowelable Andy to see what we were talking about. Turns out all the
questions he anawers are about ELECTRICAL problems. He is an ELECTRICIAN.
For god sake, no wonder my question is not being answered. Its bulbs,
switches and regulations. HUH! Basic or what. No wonder he can't answer my
simple ELECTRONICS question. He is a sparks!

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48933092@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-01 16:18:52 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Completely imaginary. do keep up there at the back ;-)

Tee hee. A class answer that, except that it's wrong :~). The
reactance,
a certain number of ohms, is a real value. It's the reactive component
of
the impedance that's purely imaginary. IOW in Z = R + jX the value of X
is real.

Just give the answer you dreamers

Graham

Ah, but you see, we aren't scratching around in the dirt any longer and
have moved on to greater things.

By 1980 I had figured out that sitting around designing electronics,
although interesting and fun, was not going to offer the advancement and
reward that I was looking for.

You assume a great deal. I don't work in electronics anymore. Last related
job was broadcast engineering in late 80's, but no actual hands on
engineering anymore, beyond knowing how to set up equipment. As you rightly
say, electronic engineers don't get paid very well. I worked that out in
1979, that is why I moved on and got a a job at ITN when I saw the money
they paid.

BTW, I had a quick peek at uk.diy and seems you are an electrician by trade.
Just a simple sparkes. No wonder you can't answer my simple question. What
is the reactance of a 470uF capacitor at 50Hz.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48933f1b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-01 17:35:28 +0100, "Graham" said:
I
must have inadvertently said a few technical terms and in reply he
started
spouting complete bull**** back at me, liberally peppered with terms he
had
heard like AM, FM, Antenna, Ohms, Volts etc.

Did you understand them?


I can only presume that as he
was a bull ****ter, he presumed everyone else was too and that he would
get
away with such nonsense. There is only one solution to those people. Turn
around and leave them to it.

I completely agree and always do.


Of course you could reply with the actual answer and surprise me.


I could but would you understand?

Look at this childish response. Do I undestand them indeed!!! What a cheap
and desperate reply.

Why on earth would I ask the question if I didn't know the answer. You will
not make me give it to you or even tell you the units its in. Its up to you
to prove you are not the bull ****ter I have sniffed out. After seeing this
dumb reply, I have come to the conclusion you are rather dim as well as a
bull merchant. They often go hand in hand. I'd love you to ask me something
about electronics, but you obviously don't know anything. Any other takers?

Graham

In article ,
Graham wrote:
You missed out the salient point - you wrote:-

'I bet you couldn't even draw a ...'

To which I replied

'I wouldn't bet on it'.

Which I took to mean I bet he won't be able to do it, as in don't hold
your breath. Both interpretations are understandable as it was fairly
monosyllabic.

Ok. But you're not in any doubt now?

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd
realise Andy wasn't bull****ting.

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a
470uf cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of
text, that is all.

When anyone asks a 'trick' question the natural reaction is to ignore it.
Now it's obvious no one is going to rise to the bait perhaps you'd give
*your* answer and put yourself on the firing line...

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:16:53 +0100, "Graham" wrote:


Why on earth would I ask the question if I didn't know the answer.

Perhaps you need the answer for your homework.

--
Frank Erskine

On 2008-08-02 07:44:52 +0100, "Graham" said:

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a 470uf
cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of text, that is
all.

Graham

You did get an answer. All you have to do is to enter the numbers
into the formula using your calculator. Some calculators even have pi
on a key so that you don't need to remember that.

The first time I did this was with a slide rule. Nowadays I would
probably just drop the numbers into a javascript application on a web
site.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graham wrote:
You missed out the salient point - you wrote:-

'I bet you couldn't even draw a ...'

To which I replied

'I wouldn't bet on it'.

Which I took to mean I bet he won't be able to do it, as in don't hold
your breath. Both interpretations are understandable as it was fairly
monosyllabic.

Ok. But you're not in any doubt now?

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd
realise Andy wasn't bull****ting.

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a
470uf cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of
text, that is all.

When anyone asks a 'trick' question the natural reaction is to ignore it.
Now it's obvious no one is going to rise to the bait perhaps you'd give
*your* answer and put yourself on the firing line...

****ing arse holes, are you guy really that ridiculous, that you think this
is a trick question? Go and ask somewhere that knows if you don't. Its
really very straight forward. I am certainly not going to give the answer
until somwone shows some understanding here, but one thing is sure, you guys
are not the people you pretend to be as it should have been forth coming
immediately.

JEz!!!

In article ,
Graham wrote:
And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd
realise Andy wasn't bull****ting.

Just thought I'd add uk.diy to my ng's and have a look at the is very
knowelable Andy to see what we were talking about. Turns out all the
questions he anawers are about ELECTRICAL problems. He is an
ELECTRICIAN. For god sake, no wonder my question is not being answered.
Its bulbs, switches and regulations. HUH! Basic or what. No wonder he
can't answer my simple ELECTRONICS question. He is a sparks!

Oh - I see. Only electrics. And that's a surprise on a diy group?

BTW, you really are showing your ignorance if you think electrics
regulations are simple. And showing a remarkable arrogance by poo pooing
one trade or profession against another. Common only to those who have
know real knowledge of either.

I've lived long enough to respect skills in *any* job. That happens when
you DIY. And if you were to check my posts here you'd not get a clue as to
my paid job.

And FWIW, I'm not sure what Andy does for a living. It's irrelevant
anyway.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48940d56@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 07:44:52 +0100, "Graham" said:

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a 470uf
cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of text, that
is
all.

Graham

You did get an answer. All you have to do is to enter the numbers into
the formula using your calculator. Some calculators even have pi on a
key so that you don't need to remember that.

The first time I did this was with a slide rule. Nowadays I would
probably just drop the numbers into a javascript application on a web
site.

I am asking YOU bull****ter man for the actual answer, not the question or
formular which I already know. Anyway, you have the formular slightly wrong
if I read your notation correctly. Carry on talking down to me with silly
comments about finding pi, it won't change my opinon until I see the proof
of the pudding in your answer. If you really understand, then do all you say
and provide it. You don't need java script, a simple scientific calculator
will do. At a push, its not impossible to do in your head with the right
values and I am not very good at maths.

Graham

On 2008-08-02 07:57:07 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd realise
Andy wasn't bull****ting.

Just thought I'd add uk.diy to my ng's and have a look at the is very
knowelable Andy to see what we were talking about. Turns out all the
questions he anawers are about ELECTRICAL problems. He is an ELECTRICIAN.

Wrong.

If somebody asks a question about an electrical issue that I can
answer, I may well do so. This does not mean that I would claim to
know all that there is to know about electrical installation work.


For god sake, no wonder my question is not being answered. Its bulbs,
switches and regulations. HUH! Basic or what. No wonder he can't answer my
simple ELECTRONICS question. He is a sparks!


Wrong again. You are making incorrect assumptions based on goodness
knows what, but certainly not reality.

You are running the same "logic" that suggests that because a cow is a
quadruped then all quadrupeds must be cows.

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:16:53 +0100, "Graham" wrote:


Why on earth would I ask the question if I didn't know the answer.

Perhaps you need the answer for your homework.

Yawn. Another empty brain. A "Frank" must be a person of a certain age. This
one obviously thinks that age has some superiority. I'm 50 mate so no spring
chick myself.

I am really getting more and more disillusioned with humanity. If you don't
know then say so. If you asked me an electronics question and I didn't know
about that area, I'd say so or go and find out about it. What I wouldn't do
is pretend or make wise remarks. Its so silly. How can any of us learn
anything if we don't have an open and honest mind. Saying "i don't know" is
the first step to understanding. Anything else if fooling ourselves.

Graham

In article 48940d56@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
The first time I did this was with a slide rule. Nowadays I would
probably just drop the numbers into a javascript application on a web
site.

This is a favourite of mine:-

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...n/homepage.htm

Scroll down for links to all sorts of calculators.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-08-02 08:16:53 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48933f1b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-01 17:35:28 +0100, "Graham" said:
I
must have inadvertently said a few technical terms and in reply he
started
spouting complete bull**** back at me, liberally peppered with terms he
had
heard like AM, FM, Antenna, Ohms, Volts etc.

Did you understand them?


I can only presume that as he
was a bull ****ter, he presumed everyone else was too and that he would
get
away with such nonsense. There is only one solution to those people. Turn
around and leave them to it.

I completely agree and always do.


Of course you could reply with the actual answer and surprise me.


I could but would you understand?

Look at this childish response. Do I undestand them indeed!!! What a cheap
and desperate reply.

The framing of the question was the childish aspect. Naturally, I gave
you an answer to match.



Why on earth would I ask the question if I didn't know the answer.

You tell me.

You will
not make me give it to you or even tell you the units its in.

Do you imagine that I care one iota about that?




Its up to you
to prove you are not the bull ****ter I have sniffed out.

No it isn't. The reality is that you have made a fool of yourself
by not researching and considering the issues properly and are now
attempting to recover that by getting into aspects that are not
particularly relevant to the topic.




After seeing this
dumb reply, I have come to the conclusion you are rather dim as well as a
bull merchant.

I see. Presumably, this was using the same processes that led you to
ask irrelevant questions in the first place. Note that I did not
include the word "thought" in that sentence because I don't suspect
that you applied any.


They often go hand in hand. I'd love you to ask me something
about electronics, but you obviously don't know anything.

I'm sure that you would.

Perhaps you would like to tell us about the six most significant
aspects in terms of component selection and design for a high end valve
based audio amplifier giving reasons for each.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graham wrote:
And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd
realise Andy wasn't bull****ting.

Just thought I'd add uk.diy to my ng's and have a look at the is very
knowelable Andy to see what we were talking about. Turns out all the
questions he anawers are about ELECTRICAL problems. He is an
ELECTRICIAN. For god sake, no wonder my question is not being answered.
Its bulbs, switches and regulations. HUH! Basic or what. No wonder he
can't answer my simple ELECTRONICS question. He is a sparks!

Oh - I see. Only electrics. And that's a surprise on a diy group?

Blame the cross poster that started this not me.

BTW, you really are showing your ignorance if you think electrics
regulations are simple.

No not simple, but not technical. More like law than engineering.

And showing a remarkable arrogance by poo pooing

Not arrogant, but a few (Andy I think) were pretending to know something and
it appeared he was just flapping his gums. I react that way to bull ****ters
and am still waiting to be proved wrong by getting an answer to my very
basic electronics question that he shoud easily know if he has the knowledge
he was pretending to have.

one trade or profession against another. Common only to those who have
know real knowledge of either.

I've lived long enough to respect skills in *any* job. That happens when
you DIY. And if you were to check my posts here you'd not get a clue as to
my paid job.

And FWIW, I'm not sure what Andy does for a living. It's irrelevant
anyway.

I think its very relavent given he what he has been saying.

Graham

In article ,
Graham wrote:
I am really getting more and more disillusioned with humanity. If you
don't know then say so. If you asked me an electronics question and I
didn't know about that area, I'd say so or go and find out about it.
What I wouldn't do is pretend or make wise remarks. Its so silly. How
can any of us learn anything if we don't have an open and honest mind.
Saying "i don't know" is the first step to understanding. Anything else
if fooling ourselves.

Well, I say again, give the answer to your question. We could all do with
a laugh on such a miserable day.

--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-08-02 08:07:12 +0100, "Graham" said:

You assume a great deal.

I never assume anything. Very dangerous. As they say, "assume"
makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".


I don't work in electronics anymore. Last related
job was broadcast engineering in late 80's, but no actual hands on
engineering anymore, beyond knowing how to set up equipment.

OK.



As you rightly
say, electronic engineers don't get paid very well. I worked that out in
1979, that is why I moved on and got a a job at ITN when I saw the money
they paid.

Do they still?


BTW, I had a quick peek at uk.diy and seems you are an electrician by trade.

Really? I have never worked in a trade in my life, let alone as an
electrician.

Just a simple sparkes.

I see. Just how many articles did you read in order to "deduce" that?

Did you actually ever *learn* how to research and deduce properly, or
was this not part of your training syllabus?

On 2008-08-02 08:24:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Graham wrote:
You missed out the salient point - you wrote:-

'I bet you couldn't even draw a ...'

To which I replied

'I wouldn't bet on it'.

Which I took to mean I bet he won't be able to do it, as in don't hold
your breath. Both interpretations are understandable as it was fairly
monosyllabic.

Ok. But you're not in any doubt now?

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd
realise Andy wasn't bull****ting.

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a
470uf cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of
text, that is all.

When anyone asks a 'trick' question the natural reaction is to ignore it.
Now it's obvious no one is going to rise to the bait perhaps you'd give
*your* answer and put yourself on the firing line...

This should be good :-)

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48940f45@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 07:57:07 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd
realise
Andy wasn't bull****ting.

Just thought I'd add uk.diy to my ng's and have a look at the is very
knowelable Andy to see what we were talking about. Turns out all the
questions he anawers are about ELECTRICAL problems. He is an ELECTRICIAN.

Wrong.

If somebody asks a question about an electrical issue that I can answer, I
may well do so. This does not mean that I would claim to know all that
there is to know about electrical installation work.


For god sake, no wonder my question is not being answered. Its bulbs,
switches and regulations. HUH! Basic or what. No wonder he can't answer
my
simple ELECTRONICS question. He is a sparks!


Wrong again. You are making incorrect assumptions based on goodness
knows what, but certainly not reality.

Reasonable assumption with the way you were answering the electrical reg in
such detail.

You are running the same "logic" that suggests that because a cow is a
quadruped then all quadrupeds must be cows.

No, its was an assumption.

Anyway, enough of the distrations.

So what is the answer then. To recap. What is the reactance of a 470uF cap
at 50Hz?

On 2008-08-02 08:33:58 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

When anyone asks a 'trick' question the natural reaction is to ignore it.
Now it's obvious no one is going to rise to the bait perhaps you'd give
*your* answer and put yourself on the firing line...

****ing arse holes, are you guy really that ridiculous, that you think this
is a trick question? Go and ask somewhere that knows if you don't. Its
really very straight forward. I am certainly not going to give the answer
until somwone shows some understanding here, but one thing is sure, you guys
are not the people you pretend to be as it should have been forth coming
immediately.

JEz!!!

ROTFL....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:489412b9@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 08:24:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Graham wrote:
You missed out the salient point - you wrote:-

'I bet you couldn't even draw a ...'

To which I replied

'I wouldn't bet on it'.

Which I took to mean I bet he won't be able to do it, as in don't hold
your breath. Both interpretations are understandable as it was fairly
monosyllabic.

Ok. But you're not in any doubt now?

And if you'd been hanging around here for any length of time you'd
realise Andy wasn't bull****ting.

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a
470uf cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of
text, that is all.

When anyone asks a 'trick' question the natural reaction is to ignore it.
Now it's obvious no one is going to rise to the bait perhaps you'd give
*your* answer and put yourself on the firing line...

This should be good :-)

I'm stunned you guys think its a trick question. QED, I've proved my point
that you have no idea what the answer is.
Graham

On 2008-08-02 08:38:12 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48940d56@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 07:44:52 +0100, "Graham" said:

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a 470uf
cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of text, that
is
all.

Graham

You did get an answer. All you have to do is to enter the numbers into
the formula using your calculator. Some calculators even have pi on a
key so that you don't need to remember that.

The first time I did this was with a slide rule. Nowadays I would
probably just drop the numbers into a javascript application on a web
site.

I am asking YOU bull****ter man for the actual answer, not the question or
formular which I already know. Anyway, you have the formular slightly wrong
if I read your notation correctly.

You don't, but I wouldn't worry about it.



Carry on talking down to me with silly
comments about finding pi, it won't change my opinon until I see the proof
of the pudding in your answer.

Do you imagine that I care?


If you really understand, then do all you say
and provide it. You don't need java script, a simple scientific calculator
will do. At a push, its not impossible to do in your head with the right
values and I am not very good at maths.

Obviously.

The point was that one could pick up a calculator and press a few
buttons or one could enter the values directly into a couple of text
boxes on a web site and get the answer with fewer key strokes.

It's known as economy of effort. A good engineering principle.

On 2008-08-02 08:47:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 48940d56@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
The first time I did this was with a slide rule. Nowadays I would
probably just drop the numbers into a javascript application on a web
site.

This is a favourite of mine:-

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...n/homepage.htm

Scroll down for links to all sorts of calculators.

Ah yes, very good.

It even has Ohm's Law for Graham.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article 48940d56@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
The first time I did this was with a slide rule. Nowadays I would
probably just drop the numbers into a javascript application on a web
site.

This is a favourite of mine:-

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...n/homepage.htm

Scroll down for links to all sorts of calculators.

Brilliant, we are getting close at last. But looks like its taking a web
search and 3rd party tools to get the answer. This won't be as good as I
thought, but we are getting close. I really want to see the answer. I
honestly do. I would have been really happy to get an instant reply when
this first started giving the answer, but sadly it didn't happen. It would
be nice to see the full answer showing the calculation to show its
understood, but the bare answer will do.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894115d@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 08:16:53 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48933f1b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-01 17:35:28 +0100, "Graham" said:
I
must have inadvertently said a few technical terms and in reply he
started
spouting complete bull**** back at me, liberally peppered with terms he
had
heard like AM, FM, Antenna, Ohms, Volts etc.

Did you understand them?


I can only presume that as he
was a bull ****ter, he presumed everyone else was too and that he would
get
away with such nonsense. There is only one solution to those people.
Turn
around and leave them to it.

I completely agree and always do.


Of course you could reply with the actual answer and surprise me.


I could but would you understand?

Look at this childish response. Do I undestand them indeed!!! What a
cheap
and desperate reply.

The framing of the question was the childish aspect. Naturally, I gave
you an answer to match.

Silly bar room banter!!




Why on earth would I ask the question if I didn't know the answer.

You tell me.


How about the answer to the reactance of a 470uF cap at 50Hz clever cloggs.
Its so easy now that Dave has found the online calculator.



You will
not make me give it to you or even tell you the units its in.

Do you imagine that I care one iota about that?


Its so simple. You pretended to know more than you do and I smelt the bull
and wanted you to prove me wrong, but you have failed.

Its up to you
to prove you are not the bull ****ter I have sniffed out.

No it isn't. The reality is that you have made a fool of yourself by
not researching and considering the issues properly and are now attempting
to recover that by getting into aspects that are not particularly relevant
to the topic.


Oh dear, carry on avoiding the simple technical question. It won't go away.
I would never cover anything. If I don't know, I'll ask and be very happy to
be enlighened.


After seeing this
dumb reply, I have come to the conclusion you are rather dim as well as a
bull merchant.

I see. Presumably, this was using the same processes that led you to ask
irrelevant questions in the first place. Note that I did not include
the word "thought" in that sentence because I don't suspect that you
applied any.


Cheap underbelly shots and not very good one's at that. I don't dislike you
or want to make you look dumb, I don't care a toss about you. I don't know
you, how can I? However, I thought you would be a bit brighter than just
firing cheap shots. Th equestion may not be related to the thread, but it
was one chosen at random to "out" someone bull ****ting they knew far more
than they did. I've had this so many times in my life. Lots of folk these
days think they know about electronics just because they know a few bits and
bobs, but they do not.


They often go hand in hand. I'd love you to ask me something
about electronics, but you obviously don't know anything.

I'm sure that you would.

Perhaps you would like to tell us about the six most significant aspects
in terms of component selection and design for a high end valve based
audio amplifier giving reasons for each.

Bit long winded, I don't want to write a paper on it as certainly no expert,
but feel free to ask other questions with less "essay length answers".

Off the top of my head:

1. Regulated preamp supply. Around 150 Volts using an OA2 or similar.
2. Obviously the standard KT88 power amp outputs.
3. Screening around the ECC82 preamp valves.
4. Seperate grid bias.
5. Keep the mains transformer and smoothing chokes away from preamp side of
chassis.

Plenty of other stuff I am sure. I am no expert but did built a few valve
transmitters in the seventies, so have a rough idea how to get started. Feel
free to pick holes in this. I am not an expert and anything you can add will
add to my knowlege too. Not that I have planes to build any valve stuff.

On 2008-08-02 08:51:42 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message


BTW, you really are showing your ignorance if you think electrics
regulations are simple.

No not simple, but not technical. More like law than engineering.

And showing a remarkable arrogance by poo pooing

Not arrogant, but a few (Andy I think) were pretending to know something and
it appeared he was just flapping his gums.

Appearances can be deceptive, but it would appear to me that the boot
is on the other foot here.



I react that way to bull ****ters
and am still waiting to be proved wrong by getting an answer to my very
basic electronics question that he shoud easily know if he has the knowledge
he was pretending to have.


All of which has scant relevance to the subject matter of the thread.

The issue with that is simple enough and is whether or not the designer
of an adaptor accessory will have done a proper design taking into
account all of the factors that can happen in the relatively
electrically agressive environment of a vehicle or whether he is
producing something for a price for a manufacturer who is not going to
take responsibility if something goes wrong.


Cost, risk, product and reputation are by far the more important things
that should be taken into account in the design and production of a
product.

Ergo, taking this example; if I have (for example) a notebook computer
costing £1500 and the choice of buying a vendor supplied adaptor for
£50 or a cheap and nasty unknown one for £10, it's pretty obvious
which one is the sensible choice.




one trade or profession against another. Common only to those who have
know real knowledge of either.

I've lived long enough to respect skills in *any* job. That happens when
you DIY. And if you were to check my posts here you'd not get a clue as to
my paid job.

And FWIW, I'm not sure what Andy does for a living. It's irrelevant
anyway.

I think its very relavent given he what he has been saying.


Dave is correct. It is irrelevant. I've had technical and
commercial career roles across a very broad range of technologies and
disciplines and have educated myself in many others. The important
point is knowing how and where to find information, to be able to
verify it and finally to apply it. It would be impossible to do
that by narrow focus and filling one's head with formulae and junk
that's only relevant to an immediate technology.

To take your (irrelevant) point about capacitors, the issue should not
be about remembering formulae related to their use in circuits but to
begin by looking at whether or not a capacitor is going to be involved
in the solution. Cars generally don't have 50Hz electrical systems
unless one has an inverter for producing 50Hz mains supply.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48941289@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 08:07:12 +0100, "Graham" said:

You assume a great deal.

I never assume anything. Very dangerous. As they say, "assume" makes
an "ass" out of "u" and "me".


I don't work in electronics anymore. Last related
job was broadcast engineering in late 80's, but no actual hands on
engineering anymore, beyond knowing how to set up equipment.

OK.



As you rightly
say, electronic engineers don't get paid very well. I worked that out in
1979, that is why I moved on and got a a job at ITN when I saw the money
they paid.

Do they still?


BTW, I had a quick peek at uk.diy and seems you are an electrician by
trade.

Really? I have never worked in a trade in my life, let alone as an
electrician.

Just a simple sparkes.

I see. Just how many articles did you read in order to "deduce" that?

Two. It was an assumption. I am more than happy to be told I was wrong, but
it seemed a reasonable guess with all the splurge about electrical regs.

Did you actually ever *learn* how to research and deduce properly, or was
this not part of your training syllabus?

Whats a training syllabus miss? I don't think we had anything called that
in my day.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48941392@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 08:38:12 +0100, "Graham" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48940d56@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 07:44:52 +0100, "Graham" said:

So why can't he or anyone answer my simple question. Reactance of a
470uf
cap at 50Hz? All I want is the simple answer 7 characters of text, that
is
all.

Graham

You did get an answer. All you have to do is to enter the numbers into
the formula using your calculator. Some calculators even have pi on a
key so that you don't need to remember that.

The first time I did this was with a slide rule. Nowadays I would
probably just drop the numbers into a javascript application on a web
site.

I am asking YOU bull****ter man for the actual answer, not the question
or
formular which I already know. Anyway, you have the formular slightly
wrong
if I read your notation correctly.

You don't, but I wouldn't worry about it.



Carry on talking down to me with silly
comments about finding pi, it won't change my opinon until I see the
proof
of the pudding in your answer.

Do you imagine that I care?


If you really understand, then do all you say
and provide it. You don't need java script, a simple scientific
calculator
will do. At a push, its not impossible to do in your head with the right
values and I am not very good at maths.

Obviously.

The point was that one could pick up a calculator and press a few buttons
or one could enter the values directly into a couple of text boxes on a
web site and get the answer with fewer key strokes.

It's known as economy of effort. A good engineering principle.


DO IT THEN and then this will be over.

On 2008-08-02 08:54:34 +0100, "Graham" said:


For god sake, no wonder my question is not being answered. Its bulbs,
switches and regulations. HUH! Basic or what. No wonder he can't answer
my
simple ELECTRONICS question. He is a sparks!


Wrong again. You are making incorrect assumptions based on goodness
knows what, but certainly not reality.

Reasonable assumption with the way you were answering the electrical reg in
such detail.

No it isn't. Assumptions are a dangerous thing. You are limiting
the scope of your thinking to believing that because somebody provides
a knowledgable answer on a topic that they must have been "trained" in
it or do it for a living. This is almost as dangerous as the
assumption that because somebody has been on a training course and has
a certificate, that they are competent to answer questions or do a job
of work.

When I interview people for some jobs, I am looking for those who are
adaptable to new technologies and are self starting, showing
initiative. These are usually people with degrees from one of the
original universities. For other jobs I am looking for people who
have had some kind of vocational education. In neither case do I
hire people with certificated "qualifications" from trade organisations
or from manufacturers. The electronics industry is bad enough for
that, the IT and networking industry even worse.





You are running the same "logic" that suggests that because a cow is a
quadruped then all quadrupeds must be cows.

No, its was an assumption.

Apparently


Anyway, enough of the distrations.

So why do you persist in them?


So what is the answer then. To recap. What is the reactance of a 470uF cap
at 50Hz?

Use one of the web sites with answers and formulae for this. The
learning experience will do you good. My consulting rates are very
high.