EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

magnetic field

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Others - magnetic field

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 206, 207, 208  Next

Skywise
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



serotone_at_hotmail.com (Adrian Pistritto) wrote in
news:8b41ac58.0306301824.307c3dbe_at_posting.google.com:

Quote:
I take it that was a substation behind a big fence...bit hard to tell
but what the hell are they doing running gas pipes that close to high
voltage? bit silly me thinks...

Are there any websites with this on there describing what exactly we
are looking at? I could only find the video on one site and didn't
explain what it was...


Snipola


I got the impression that it was an electrical fire probablt in a
transformer. After a while it appears that there was some sort of
woter spray, possibly an automatic fire system and that seemed
to initiate the explosion. My guess was that the fire was then
being fed by the oil from the ruptured transformer.

Brian

Richard Parris
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



"Bert Hickman" <bert.hickman_at_delete_this.aquila.net> wrote in message
news:3F01024A.7000706_at_delete_this.aquila.net...
Quote:
Adrian Pistritto wrote:
I take it that was a substation behind a big fence...bit hard to tell
but what the hell are they doing running gas pipes that close to high
voltage? bit silly me thinks...

Are there any websites with this on there describing what exactly we
are looking at? I could only find the video on one site and didn't
explain what it was...


Hi Adrian,

Here's a likely scenario:
This is a substation that was used to step down a relatively high power
transmission voltage to a lower voltage for local power distribution
within a community. It consisted of a rather large oil filled
transformer and associated switchgear. For some reason, the low voltage
side of the substation developed an arcing fault, probably to ground.
The arc could have even been initiated by a small animal, such as a
squirrel. The arc is like a huge welding arc that's several feet long,
and it's destroying any piece of equipment that lies in its path. For
some reason the substation's safety hardware fails to detect the
problem, so high voltage power remains on, continuing to wreak havoc
inside the substation. The fault current eventually overheats and fries
the substation's transformer which ultimately fails spectacularly.

The loud humming sound is from the low voltage arc and from 120 Hz
vibrations of the windings as tremendous repulsion forces act between
the primary and secondary (Lenz's Law). There are no gas pipes - what
you are seeing is superheated oil vapor venting from the overheated
transformer as a white mist, which then catches fire. This appears to be
followed by the a structural failure of the transformer's tank, allowing
burning oil to spill out of the burned out transformer. The big
blue-white flash and load explosion is from either a substation
expulsion fuse blowing (which sounds like a stick of dynamite going off)
or from a brief phase-to-phase short-circuit which caused an upstream
oil circuit breaker to open. This finally kills power to the now
devastated substation.


That's the impression that I got too. Rather nasty end to a transformer...


Quote:
Best regards,

-- Bert --
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by Ultrastrong Fields,
Lichtenberg Figures (electrical discharges in acrylic), & Scarce OOP
Technical Books. Stoneridge Engineering -- http://www.teslamania.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------


idlemuse
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0306290900.617c90be_at_posting.google.com>...
Quote:
ActualGeek <ActualGeek_at_no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-4CF873.01551929062003_at_corp.supernews.com>...
In article <7c584d27.0306281505.24150f8_at_posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Precious Pup <barking_at_wrongtree.org> wrote in message
news:<3EFC791A.2B38A0A1_at_wrongtree.org>...
Bill Sloman wrote:


Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

Go away, I wasn't talking to you.

You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
"dishonest".

Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
trailing in the dust.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Getting back on the point.

Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
it.

I've just been reading Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression
Economics" ISBN 0-14-028685-3 which fairly clearly indicates that
there is an information problem with modern more-or-less free market
capitalism, and that the people in the business of regulating the free
market economies of the world don't have enough information to be able
anticipate and smooth out the instabilities of the currency and
capital markets.

Krugman has been hoping for a return of depression economics for
decades. Any problem faced by the economy at large will be faced by
the regulators of the economy. There is hubris in pretending that you
know what the market is supposed to be doing, and Krugman just can't
shake that control fetish. Let the decentralized decisions of market
participants act on the information they have and regulate to the
least extent possible, and you might avoid a catastrophic unintended
consequence of regulations that affect all market participants.

Quote:

The information about the economy that these people are working with
is what is manifest on the stock and currency markets from day-to-day,
and what governements reveal about their current and expected incomes
and expenditures. Everything is denoted in terms of its monetary
value, and the purchase of a single 747 which took nearly a year to
build and is expected to keep flying for twenty to thirty years could
be equated with the sale of ten million Harry Potter books.

As a scheme, it works surprisingly well - better than anything else
that has been tried so far - but it is obviously sub-optimal.

It works surprisingly well because people make continual adjustments
every second of every day. Check the price of ten million Harry Potter
books the day after they are bought and compare it to the price of a
747 the day after it is bought. Interference in the incentives of the
market lead to perverse choices on the part of market participants,
who no longer can trust the information that prices were supposed to
be giving them.

Quote:

Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
make the decision.

I don't. What I said was that we can now collect a lot more
information than just the cash transfer for every transaction, and if
we could find a way of making this information available outside the
firms who collect the data for their own use, we should be able to
devise a *distributed* control system that ought to be more stable,
and could run a lot closer to full capacity.

The price, at least theoretically, contains all of the information you
might be interested in, doesn't it?

Quote:

Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
similar conditions.

Since I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economy this is
irrelevant, though a centrally planned economy with modern data
collection and processing ought to be more efficient than the system
that failed in the USSR. In so far as China, Japan and Korea have more
central planning than India, and grew their economies twice as fast
during the catch-up phase, some central planning would seem to be a
good idea.

That is a murky issue. I don't know that I'd hold up India as an
example of notably less government interference than most other
developing countries, it only has less government interference than it
used to have. Its reduction in regulation allowed it to grow at all,
which was not the case before. To compare across countries would be a
much larger task.
Quote:

Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.

Doubling over 20 years is a growth rate of 3.5% per year - respectable
for a third world economy catching-up, but half the rate achieved by
Japan, Korea and China during their catch-up phases. Neither Japan,
Korea nor China gave up central planning and government interference,
though this has been used more to direct capitalist investment than to
control it.

Japan, for example, flung open the export doors right out of the gate.
A good portion of their growth had to do with the extent to which they
adopted market friendly policies. We will never know exactly, of
course. Krugman would argue one way and P.T. Bauer would argue the
other looking at the same cases.
Quote:

They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
than all the socialist systems ever tried.

That depends what you mean by "socialist".

Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.

If so, why does it work so poorly in the U.S.A., where the poorest 30
or 40 million have been slipping back since Regan started dismantling
welfare?

It doesn't work poorly. It only works poorly if you discount
charitable giving from poverty alleviation, and if you discount that
the amount of goods available for redistribution is greater.
Quote:

The European version of the capitalist economy includes a rather
better welfare system, which pays off in better educated and
eventually more productive workers.

More productive? I would have to see those figures. You are telling me
that countries with near infinite unemployment benefits, mandatory 30
hour work weeks, mandatory breaks during the day for all laborers,
regulations that prevent anyone from firing incompetent labor, and
extremely high debt to GDP ratios have more productive labor forces?

Will Hutton's "The World We're In"
Quote:
ISBN 0-316-86081-6 reviews a great deal economic research on this and
other subjects, and paints a picture of the U.S.A. that doesn't fit
with what you were taught in civics in primary school (which is now
long out of date).

Lots of books paint pictures about the U.S. Not all pictures are
accurate. Europe has been waiting for us to grow up and become
civilized socialists with no respect for individual liberty for a long
time. We just as a culture have different ideas about what
constitutes progress. A state where everyone can wait in line for an
asprin with equal ability has some virtues, but so does a state where
some people can get brain surgery.

Quote:

Unsurprisingly, it is out of stock a www.amazon.com (but US dealers
will sell you an airmailed copy of the U.K. edition for $25.72).
www.amazon.co.uk have stocks of the paperback at eight U.K.pounds per
copy (about $12).

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


Ben Bradley
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



In sci.electronics.design, "Frank Bemelman"
<bemelmanx_at_euronet.nl.invalid> wrote:

Quote:
What if ISP's charges 1 cent for every email/usenet posting they
process? Wouldn't that put a hold on most spammers? I don't mind
paying 1 cent per email or posting.

This would work if all email went through the respective ISP's
servers. Almost all legitimate emails do. Most spammers abuse insecure
systems (usually in foreign countries such as Korea) which relay
emails for anyone (who knows a few technical details and how to find
these open servers), so spammers are already going around the ISP that
would be charging for email. They've been doing this "relay rape" for
years.
One problem with charging is if you charge for every recipient
message generated by your sending a message (which would be how it
would have to work to make spam pay its own way), mailing lists would
no longer be viable. I'm on a couple of lists with over 500
subscribers. A single post to such a list would then cost five
dollars.
Usenet operates differently, but probably has as many security
holes in it as email. Half the people on the Internet don't know what
Usenet or newsgroups are, and ISTR that only 20 percent of people
online ever read or post to newsgroups, so unless there's an easy fix
that gets implemented, I have less hope that anything can or will be
done to stop Usenet spam, and I'm not that hopeful about stopping
email spam.

Yet another link with antispam information:
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l
This site is down at the moment, but ISTR there was a mirror
somewhere. I just asked and will post the URL if I get it.

I subscribed to spam-l in 1997, thinking that the spam problem
would be essentially solved in a year or two. I was so naive...

Quote:
--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)


Bob Myers
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



"FEerguy9" <feerguy9_at_cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030630192304.18833.00002241_at_mb-m20.news.cs.com...
Quote:
Sure, and the cost will be how many dollars per mile?

I would guess about $0.05/mile. Smile

OK, and I'll guess $100.00/mile. Since they're
both just unsubstantiated guesses, mine's as likely to be
correct as yours is.

Now SHOW me I'm wrong....


Bob M.

Bob Myers
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



"FEerguy9" <feerguy9_at_cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030630200253.18833.00002245_at_mb-m20.news.cs.com...

Quote:
Nope, you're not even close. You've given no clue of any practical or
even
possible means of achieving what you propose, especially since it's
already
been pointed out that your notions of what
is basically ultrafine etching don't get you anywhere.

The general idea is still good.

Not until you show WHY you think it's still good.

Quote:
I can't help it if you don't understand this.

I can't help it if you have no vision.

Vision, I've got plenty of. What I also have, though, that
you seem to lack, is the ability to back up my statements
with evidence and reasoning.


Quote:
No, no, no no. I do not believe this to be irrelevant or ignorable - I
believe
this to be the central point of eer. Eer would collect and store ALL the
energy we wanted, from ANY source.

No, it wouldn't. Show me I'm wrong.


Quote:
But you're not even at the point of actually HAVING a valid opinion on
this,

Say YOU!

Yes, says me. Again, SHOW that I'm wrong.

Or here's an even better check on exactly how valid your
opinions are - simply answer the following question:

What are the DISadvantages of "EER"?

Think very carefully before responding with "there aren't
any!". Do you REALLY want to be claiming that there is such
a thing as a perfect system? To do so involves certain very
interesting contradictions, and will only demonstrate that you
don't understand what you're proposing very well at all. A
person who REALLY understands their proposal knows both
its good points and its bad points - so what are the bad points
in yours?



Quote:
so the above statement is irrelevant. Come back with an informed
opinion,
and we'll talk further.

You are just stupid.

Yup, that's me. Stupid, not to believe in crackpot "free
energy" ideas that violate the most basic concepts in physics.
But perhaps I can still be educated - it would be nice if
SOMEONE would come along and explain just how these
things are supposed to work, to achieve this energy utopia
of yours.


Quote:
Suppose we WOULD somehow manage to capture all of the solar energy
that
strikes the Earth, and that feeds a system that is so inefficient that
only
1% of that energy actually winds up as usable in the end. You would say
"no
problem - we have a big enough energy source that even that 1% is more
than
enough, and the energy we
put into the system at the start is so cheap that that 1% is still
practically 'free'!" That's fine - but what do you think happened to the
99%
that DIDN'T make it "out the end of the
pipe"?

Who CARES, actually!

You do - you just are so ignorant of anything relevant to this field that
you
don't realize it yet.

A long time ago, I realized that there was a blindness in here.

And yet you persist. You know, one of the more common
simple definitions of "insanity" is repeating the same action over
and over again, and hoping for a different outcome....



Quote:
Well, you could easily move "EER" into a different category than Mr.
Claus
through one simple step: show an example.

Eer is it's OWN category.

Yes - it's still nonsense, while at least Santa Claus is
charming, traditional nonsense.


Quote:
Until you do that, you're just blowing hot air. And come to think of it,
that's the only energy source you've REALLY contributed since you started
all
this nonsense.

It is the only one we NEED!

Hot air? Apparently....


Bob M.

Bob Myers
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



"Bill Bowden" <**76606.611__at_compuserve.com*> wrote in message
news:MN9Ma.30998$3o3.2258423_at_bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Quote:
Well, Bush would prefer Davis remain in office so he can win California
in 2004, so this whole thing may be a catch 22. Whoever holds the
governor's office in 2004 is bound to be thrown out,

Oh, come on, Bill - surely the good voters of California won't
turn around and through out Ahhhhnold just a year after they
put Gov. Terminator in office, will they?

Bob M.

Lee
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:37:34 +0000 (UTC), Ian Stirling
<root_at_mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
Lee <no_at_spam.invalid> wrote:
I have a 60 watt load (120v) that I want to power using a 12v
inverter.

Can someone tell me what Amp-hour battery I would need to power the
load for 2 hours?

60 watts / 12 V = 5A.

I need to keep the batter size/cost down and don't want a lot of extra
capacity.

5A*2h = 10Ah.
*1.5 (inefficiancies) = 15Ah.

The load is a set of powered speakers for PA use.
Thanks.

The load from the speakers is very unlikely to be a constant 60W.
The load (and hence life) will vary significantly depending on
what you'r using them for.

Where are you getting the "60W" from?

Thanks.

I got the "60W" from where the 120v power cord enters the powered
speaker... there is a label that says something like "120v / 60w"

Bill Sloman
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



jasligon_at_msn.com (idlemuse) wrote in message news:<82463628.0307010715.2b61548e_at_posting.google.com>...
Quote:
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0306290900.617c90be_at_posting.google.com>...
ActualGeek <ActualGeek_at_no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-4CF873.01551929062003_at_corp.supernews.com>...
In article <7c584d27.0306281505.24150f8_at_posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Precious Pup <barking_at_wrongtree.org> wrote in message
news:<3EFC791A.2B38A0A1_at_wrongtree.org>...
Bill Sloman wrote:


Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

Go away, I wasn't talking to you.

You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
"dishonest".

Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
trailing in the dust.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Getting back on the point.

Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
it.

I've just been reading Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression
Economics" ISBN 0-14-028685-3 which fairly clearly indicates that
there is an information problem with modern more-or-less free market
capitalism, and that the people in the business of regulating the free
market economies of the world don't have enough information to be able
anticipate and smooth out the instabilities of the currency and
capital markets.

Krugman has been hoping for a return of depression economics for
decades. Any problem faced by the economy at large will be faced by
the regulators of the economy. There is hubris in pretending that you
know what the market is supposed to be doing, and Krugman just can't
shake that control fetish. Let the decentralized decisions of market
participants act on the information they have and regulate to the
least extent possible, and you might avoid a catastrophic unintended
consequence of regulations that affect all market participants.

Go read your Keynes. The decentralised decisions of the market
participants is what makes pure free market economies unstable, and
Krugman identifies the "decentralised decisions" of the currency
speculators and the hedge funds as major contributors to the Asian
crashes of the late 1990's (which is what he was actually writing
about).

Quote:
The information about the economy that these people are working with
is what is manifest on the stock and currency markets from day-to-day,
and what governements reveal about their current and expected incomes
and expenditures. Everything is denoted in terms of its monetary
value, and the purchase of a single 747 which took nearly a year to
build and is expected to keep flying for twenty to thirty years could
be equated with the sale of ten million Harry Potter books.

As a scheme, it works surprisingly well - better than anything else
that has been tried so far - but it is obviously sub-optimal.

It works surprisingly well because people make continual adjustments
every second of every day. Check the price of ten million Harry Potter
books the day after they are bought and compare it to the price of a
747 the day after it is bought. Interference in the incentives of the
market lead to perverse choices on the part of market participants,
who no longer can trust the information that prices were supposed to
be giving them.

This is arrant "perfect free market" propaganda. Go read Keynes.

Quote:
Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
make the decision.

I don't. What I said was that we can now collect a lot more
information than just the cash transfer for every transaction, and if
we could find a way of making this information available outside the
firms who collect the data for their own use, we should be able to
devise a *distributed* control system that ought to be more stable,
and could run a lot closer to full capacity.

The price, at least theoretically, contains all of the information you
might be interested in, doesn't it?

No. Because the price reflects the pressures of the moment. If the
price of 747's goes through the floor, Boeing still has about a year's
production stacked up in the factory in various states of completion.
Harry Potter books can be reprinted and distributed a lot more
quickly.

The metal markets are unstable for the same sort of reason - is the
price of a metal creeps up, the owners of various more or less
marginal mines are persuaded to invest the money to pump out the
mine-shafts again and get the machinery running so they can extract
the relevant mineral, all of which takes time. When they finally start
shipping ore, the market is suddenly over-supplied, and the price
crashes.

Quote:
Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
similar conditions.

Since I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economy this is
irrelevant, though a centrally planned economy with modern data
collection and processing ought to be more efficient than the system
that failed in the USSR. In so far as China, Japan and Korea have more
central planning than India, and grew their economies twice as fast
during the catch-up phase, some central planning would seem to be a
good idea.

That is a murky issue. I don't know that I'd hold up India as an
example of notably less government interference than most other
developing countries, it only has less government interference than it
used to have. Its reduction in regulation allowed it to grow at all,
which was not the case before. To compare across countries would be a
much larger task.

Why do you think that it was "the reduction in regulation that allowed
it to grow at all"?

Quote:
Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.

Doubling over 20 years is a growth rate of 3.5% per year - respectable
for a third world economy catching-up, but half the rate achieved by
Japan, Korea and China during their catch-up phases. Neither Japan,
Korea nor China gave up central planning and government interference,
though this has been used more to direct capitalist investment than to
control it.

Japan, for example, flung open the export doors right out of the gate.
A good portion of their growth had to do with the extent to which they
adopted market friendly policies. We will never know exactly, of
course. Krugman would argue one way and P.T. Bauer would argue the
other looking at the same cases.

Japan is almost as good as the U.S.A. at using non-tariff barriers to
trade to protect the domestic market while exporting furiously. I
don't know exactly what you meant to say with "flung open the export
doors right out of the gate" but they certainly protected their
domestic market, and they still do.

Quote:
They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
than all the socialist systems ever tried.

That depends what you mean by "socialist".

Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.

If so, why does it work so poorly in the U.S.A., where the poorest 30
or 40 million have been slipping back since Regan started dismantling
welfare?

It doesn't work poorly. It only works poorly if you discount
charitable giving from poverty alleviation, and if you discount that
the amount of goods available for redistribution is greater.

In the U.S.A. the poor are getting poorer. Poverty is not being cured,
but made worse. Capitalism is *not* working as a cure for poverty in
the U.S.A.

Quote:
The European version of the capitalist economy includes a rather
better welfare system, which pays off in better educated and
eventually more productive workers.

More productive? I would have to see those figures.

Get hold of Will Hutton's book and track down the academic studies
that he references.

Quote:
You are telling me
that countries with near infinite unemployment benefits,

I've received unemployment benefit in the Netherlands. It wasn't
generous.

Quote:
mandatory 30 hour work weeks,

Until the end of May I was working a 40-hour week, which is perfectly
normal.
Some unions have negotiated 37 hour weeks. Mandatory thirty hour weeks
sound like the stuff of right-wing propaganda.

Quote:
mandatory breaks during the day for all laborers,

Half an hour for lunch? And you don't get paid for it.

Quote:
regulations that prevent anyone from firing incompetent labor,

They don't prevent you from firing incompetents, you just have to go
through a multi-stage procedure, and document each stage, and that
only if you managed to miss the incompetence in the first six months
of employment.

Quote:
and extremely high debt to GDP ratios have more productive labor forces?

Yep. Some of them do. Read the book. Chase up the references. Wash out
some of that propaganda that seems to fouling up your world-view.

Quote:
Will Hutton's "The World We're In"
ISBN 0-316-86081-6 reviews a great deal economic research on this and
other subjects, and paints a picture of the U.S.A. that doesn't fit
with what you were taught in civics in primary school (which is now
long out of date).

Lots of books paint pictures about the U.S. Not all pictures are
accurate.

This book has a twelve and a half page list of references cited, and
fourteen and a half pages of specific citations. Will Hutton knows the
published literature.

Quote:
Europe has been waiting for us to grow up and become
civilized socialists with no respect for individual liberty for a long
time.

Why do you think that European socialist have no respect for
individual liberty? Certain capitalist excesses are illegal, but in
most respects the Europeans are less picky than the U.S. about
behaviour that doesn't create immediate problems for other people. The
Netherlands is famously liberal about soft drugs and same sex
relationships - to name two areas where the U.S. has a number of
fatuous and unenforceable laws which demonstrate a singular lack of
respect for individual liberty.

Quote:
We just as a culture have different ideas about what
constitutes progress. A state where everyone can wait in line for an
asprin with equal ability has some virtues, but so does a state where
some people can get brain surgery.

If you've got money, you can buy exactly the same level of health care
in (Western) Europe as you can in the U.S. If you haven't got money,
you may have to wait a bit for your brain surgery (for non-emergency
operations), but it will be performed every bit as well. Averaged over
the population as a whole, (Western)European health care performs
better than the U.S. system, which fails the poor quite badly - and in
the sense of not catching up with infectious diseases as well as it
might, it also fails to protect the rich as well as more comprehensive
systems do.

Quote:
Unsurprisingly, Hutton's book is out of stock a www.amazon.com (but US
dealers will sell you an airmailed copy of the U.K. edition for $25.72).
www.amazon.co.uk have stocks of the paperback at eight U.K.pounds per
copy (about $12).

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



ActualGeek <ActualGeek_at_no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-AA7F29.01430729062003_at_corp.supernews.com>...
Quote:
In article <7c584d27.0306260958.589069db_at_posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

ActualGeek <ActualGeek_at_no.real.address> wrote in message
news:<ActualGeek-D67C63.23481325062003_at_corp.supernews.com>...
In article <3EF8E351.1857_at_armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew_at_armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

snip

But this is typical for americas education system-- they don't teach
the
difference... in fact, I think not knowing the difference is their
educational goal.
------------------
You're a shit and a liar.
-Steve

You and I both know that I am the one who has been honest here

Your claim to "honesty" just means that you have either a poor, or a
very selective memory.

... which
is why I'm calm, while you are tearing your hair out.

Got any evidence for this claim? It is a lot to read into a seven word
declarative sentence.

It doesn't have to be this way.

You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.


You are repeating my complaint against you back at me?

Which complaint? The main point that I was making above was that your
claim that Steve was "tearing his hair out" was not supported by any
evidence.

Quote:
Sorry, that just shows I was right in the first place (And you're not
very creative.)

I'm actually quite creative, but there isn't a lot to be said about
relentlessly superficial fatuities - even Steve doesn't find you worth
serious abuse.

Quote:
But then, if you had an argument in support of socialism (say, one that
doesn't involve pretending that walmart doesn't exist, or that
capitalism is failing in ways it isn't) you'd present it (we'd hope.)

Free market capitalism is failing to provide a stable business
environment, it doesn't provide full employment, and it doesn't seem
to be compatible with the sustainable exploitation of natural
resources.

Keynesian constrained-market capitalism did seem to keep the
instabilites of of the market under control, and did seem to be able
to get a lot closer to full employment. You probably think that Keynes
was a socialist - he wasn't, and voted with the liberals in the House
of Lords when he was made a lord.

The slightly socialist-tinged economies of western Europe aren't as
Keynesian as they ought to - the introduction of the euro gave the
bankers a lot too much power - but they do reasonably well. The
lip-service to socialism provides a mechanism for getting
sustainability via the market, by charging extra for the depletion of
a finite resoure, but it doesn't actually seem to be happening yet.

My basic arguement was that some - as yet unspecified - system which
had access to all the information we collect about the things we buy
and sell should be able to do better than the current system which is
controlled by just the aggregated cash prices on the days when things
are bought and sold.

I imagine that such a system would have to rely on distributed
control, rather than the central planning which used to be so popular
with socialist administrations, but I'm not doctriniare.

Quote:
Until you do, you have nothing.

Since I'm not arguing in support of socialism, you don't seem to
understand what the arguement is about. The "nothing" here seems to be
your failure to be able think outside the "capitalist versus
socialist" box.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

NightRunner
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



Hehehe :-)

It amazes me that a substation could put on such a show, really wild.
I have a whole new respect for high power electrical transmission. And
you know what, when I was a teenager I actually considered breaking
into one of those places to have a close look... Sheeeeesh!

- NR

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:11:57 GMT, Don Bruder <dakidd_at_sonic.net> was
reportedly seen on the White House lawn holding a large picket sign
and screeching the following:

Quote:
In article <2c2cf14c.0306261126.1597a8b2_at_posting.google.com>,
testing_h_at_yahoo.com (Andre) wrote:

http://205.243.100.155/frames/mpg/XfrmBlast1.mpg

:)

-A

Whoops? WHOOPS??? That'a ALL you can say is "Whoops"????




"The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical
model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a
universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go
to all the bother of existing?"

- Stephen Hawking

---------------------------------------
Our Website:
http://niter417.virtualave.net/

Message Boards Main:
http://niter417.virtualave.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl

Laser Discussion:
http://niter417.virtualave.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Lasers

Electronics Discussion:
http://niter417.virtualave.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=3

Winemaking Discussion:
http://niter417.virtualave.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=8

Our Webcam:
http://web.infoave.net/~missy1/cam/webcam.html

Tom Biasi
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



Well Dave,
You sound like you have a moderate amount of knowledge and I assume that you
tried to locate a schematic.
Draw the circuit from the pc board traces. Look at the holes where the
transistor was and draw a circuit as you follow the traces. Will your
"guessed" transistor fit this circuit?
Good Luck,
Tom

"Dave" <dbeane_at_genie.idt.net> wrote in message
news:bdrqq0$klc_at_library1.airnews.net...
Quote:
I hope this is the right group for the question I have to post. If not,
let
me know, and I will skeedaddle.

I am trying to repair a 20-year-old Uniden handheld CB transceiver, which
I
*think* has the finals blown. My neighbor picks up no signal when I
transmit to him from about 50 feet away, but my shortwave radio picks up
the
transmission from only a few feet away. I can't find my wattmeter as most
of my electronic stuff is still packed and in storage (we recently had to
abandon house for two months.) I do have my oscilloscope and DMM, plus a
few other odds and ends that never got packed. I *think* I have located
the
transistor that acts as the final amplifier and have removed it from the
circuit. It is a TO220 style, and the only markings on it are "2029C/1".
Am I safe in assuming that this is basically a 2SC2029, or some other
compatible? My only clues to the identity of this puppy are its physical
location on the board (near the antenna connection) and the fact that it
is
surrounded by several small (3/16" x 5/16") coils. I do*not* want to just
stick another transistor in there in its place and try to transmit, but I
am
not sure of where to start with my analysis (it's been a long time since
I've done anything quite like this.) Oh, one more thing, this CB has a
seven-inch long alluminum heatsink running the length of the PC board, and
this transistor and one IC (at the other end) are the only things on it
(in
other words, there are no other power transistors in the circuit).

Should I proceed with a 2SC2029 or an equivelant? What do others think?
I
value your opinions, and any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Dave
db5151_at_hotmail.com






Bill Bowden
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



FEerguy9 <feerguy9_at_cs.com> wrote in message

Quote:
I think he's talking about losses in terms of dollars and cents and damage
to
the environment.

No I am not.

There are no dollars and no cents in the ocean wind.


There is if you stop enough of it. What if you block enough
ocean wind to pervent the clouds from moving over the
land and we don't get any rain? Think of the lost revenue
to the ski resorts with no snow. And we would have to drink
imported bottled water 6 times a day. That's a lot of dollars
and cents.

Quote:

Labor and materials and maintenanc aren't free you know.
How do you compete with an oil well that delivers 10 times more
power at half the cost?

With a collection device that changes the very meaning of economics.

eer is not a collection device. It's an empty storage device that doesn't

contain much when filled.

-Bill

idlemuse
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0307011544.22327540_at_posting.google.com>...
Quote:
jasligon_at_msn.com (idlemuse) wrote in message news:<82463628.0307010715.2b61548e_at_posting.google.com>...
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0306290900.617c90be_at_posting.google.com>...
ActualGeek <ActualGeek_at_no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-4CF873.01551929062003_at_corp.supernews.com>...
In article <7c584d27.0306281505.24150f8_at_posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Precious Pup <barking_at_wrongtree.org> wrote in message
news:<3EFC791A.2B38A0A1_at_wrongtree.org>...
Bill Sloman wrote:


Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

Go away, I wasn't talking to you.

You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
"dishonest".

Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
trailing in the dust.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Getting back on the point.

Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
it.

I've just been reading Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression
Economics" ISBN 0-14-028685-3 which fairly clearly indicates that
there is an information problem with modern more-or-less free market
capitalism, and that the people in the business of regulating the free
market economies of the world don't have enough information to be able
anticipate and smooth out the instabilities of the currency and
capital markets.

Krugman has been hoping for a return of depression economics for
decades. Any problem faced by the economy at large will be faced by
the regulators of the economy. There is hubris in pretending that you
know what the market is supposed to be doing, and Krugman just can't
shake that control fetish. Let the decentralized decisions of market
participants act on the information they have and regulate to the
least extent possible, and you might avoid a catastrophic unintended
consequence of regulations that affect all market participants.

Go read your Keynes. The decentralised decisions of the market
participants is what makes pure free market economies unstable, and
Krugman identifies the "decentralised decisions" of the currency
speculators and the hedge funds as major contributors to the Asian
crashes of the late 1990's (which is what he was actually writing
about).


I've read Keynes. While it may come as a shock to many in your neck
of the woods, there are numerous perfectly respectable economists with
Nobel bona fides since Keynes who would tend to disagree. As a matter
of fact, Keynes, Galbraith, and their cheerleader Krugman are the
minority view holders these days.

I wonder what they would have to say about the state of Japan's
economy, which is the most Keynesian in existence. Protectionism leads
to inefficient companies that can't compete. Comparative advantage
works. Public spending projects result most often not in fantastic
growth, but in boondoggles that flush hard earned money down the
toilet.

Quote:
The information about the economy that these people are working with
is what is manifest on the stock and currency markets from day-to-day,
and what governements reveal about their current and expected incomes
and expenditures. Everything is denoted in terms of its monetary
value, and the purchase of a single 747 which took nearly a year to
build and is expected to keep flying for twenty to thirty years could
be equated with the sale of ten million Harry Potter books.

As a scheme, it works surprisingly well - better than anything else
that has been tried so far - but it is obviously sub-optimal.

It works surprisingly well because people make continual adjustments
every second of every day. Check the price of ten million Harry Potter
books the day after they are bought and compare it to the price of a
747 the day after it is bought. Interference in the incentives of the
market lead to perverse choices on the part of market participants,
who no longer can trust the information that prices were supposed to
be giving them.

This is arrant "perfect free market" propaganda. Go read Keynes.

Keynes was incorrect about the benevolent effects of interference. Go
read any of the monetarists, or any public choice economist, or any of
the Austrians to see why.

Quote:

Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
make the decision.

I don't. What I said was that we can now collect a lot more
information than just the cash transfer for every transaction, and if
we could find a way of making this information available outside the
firms who collect the data for their own use, we should be able to
devise a *distributed* control system that ought to be more stable,
and could run a lot closer to full capacity.

The price, at least theoretically, contains all of the information you
might be interested in, doesn't it?

No. Because the price reflects the pressures of the moment. If the
price of 747's goes through the floor, Boeing still has about a year's
production stacked up in the factory in various states of completion.
Harry Potter books can be reprinted and distributed a lot more
quickly.

This is less true than it used to be, as most production facilities
use 'just in time' tactics to minimize the amount of warehousing they
have to do. The question isn't whether the price as it currently
exists isn't distorted by inefficiencies, the question is whether the
price becomes more or less distorted when some self interested
political body tells everyone what the price 'should' be. To address
the problems you raise here, we should be focusing on a reduction of
interference with pricing signals and let technology and the self
interest of companies work to improve each of their contributions to
the price of a good.

Quote:

The metal markets are unstable for the same sort of reason - is the
price of a metal creeps up, the owners of various more or less
marginal mines are persuaded to invest the money to pump out the
mine-shafts again and get the machinery running so they can extract
the relevant mineral, all of which takes time. When they finally start
shipping ore, the market is suddenly over-supplied, and the price
crashes.

I'm surprised that companies haven't figured this out yet. I would
think that this would only occur when the price of metal shoots up
rather than when it creeps. What you are calling instability is the
market working to meet demand. It just isn't happening as quickly as
you would like for it to. Again I ask, why on earth would you prefer
for a bureaucrat to tell everyone what the price of metal should be?

Quote:

Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
similar conditions.

Since I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economy this is
irrelevant, though a centrally planned economy with modern data
collection and processing ought to be more efficient than the system
that failed in the USSR. In so far as China, Japan and Korea have more
central planning than India, and grew their economies twice as fast
during the catch-up phase, some central planning would seem to be a
good idea.

That is a murky issue. I don't know that I'd hold up India as an
example of notably less government interference than most other
developing countries, it only has less government interference than it
used to have. Its reduction in regulation allowed it to grow at all,
which was not the case before. To compare across countries would be a
much larger task.

Why do you think that it was "the reduction in regulation that allowed
it to grow at all"?

The central planning approach produced 0 growth. A few decades ago,
markets were liberalized to some small extent and growth occurred.
Coincidence, maybe?
Quote:

Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.

Doubling over 20 years is a growth rate of 3.5% per year - respectable
for a third world economy catching-up, but half the rate achieved by
Japan, Korea and China during their catch-up phases. Neither Japan,
Korea nor China gave up central planning and government interference,
though this has been used more to direct capitalist investment than to
control it.

Japan, for example, flung open the export doors right out of the gate.
A good portion of their growth had to do with the extent to which they
adopted market friendly policies. We will never know exactly, of
course. Krugman would argue one way and P.T. Bauer would argue the
other looking at the same cases.

Japan is almost as good as the U.S.A. at using non-tariff barriers to
trade to protect the domestic market while exporting furiously.

Japan is much, much better at protecting inefficient domestic
businesses than is the US. Of course, the more people who do this,
the less effective it is, even in the short run. Over the long run,
you have a bunch of crippled, uncompetitive companies.

I
Quote:
don't know exactly what you meant to say with "flung open the export
doors right out of the gate" but they certainly protected their
domestic market, and they still do.

I mean that the Japanese dedication to exporting their way to growth
worked, but their dedication to domestic protectionism didn't.
Quote:

They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
than all the socialist systems ever tried.

That depends what you mean by "socialist".

Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.

If so, why does it work so poorly in the U.S.A., where the poorest 30
or 40 million have been slipping back since Regan started dismantling
welfare?

It doesn't work poorly. It only works poorly if you discount
charitable giving from poverty alleviation, and if you discount that
the amount of goods available for redistribution is greater.

In the U.S.A. the poor are getting poorer. Poverty is not being cured,
but made worse. Capitalism is *not* working as a cure for poverty in
the U.S.A.

On what basis are you arguing that the poor are getting poorer?
Quote:

The European version of the capitalist economy includes a rather
better welfare system, which pays off in better educated and
eventually more productive workers.

More productive? I would have to see those figures.

Get hold of Will Hutton's book and track down the academic studies
that he references.

You are telling me
that countries with near infinite unemployment benefits,

I've received unemployment benefit in the Netherlands. It wasn't
generous.

Interesting. I met a guy in Canada from where I thought was the
Netherlands, though it might have been a Scandanavian country based on
your comments, whose friend was an engineer. He had decided to stop
working and fish. All he had to do was show up at an office every so
often, and he got benefits in proportion to what he had formerly
earned.

He hadn't held a job in 5 years and had no intention of doing so in
the future.

Quote:

mandatory 30 hour work weeks,

Until the end of May I was working a 40-hour week, which is perfectly
normal.
Some unions have negotiated 37 hour weeks. Mandatory thirty hour weeks
sound like the stuff of right-wing propaganda.

Talk to your pals in Italy.
Quote:

mandatory breaks during the day for all laborers,

Half an hour for lunch? And you don't get paid for it.

Talk you your pals in Germany, France, and Italy.
Quote:

regulations that prevent anyone from firing incompetent labor,

They don't prevent you from firing incompetents, you just have to go
through a multi-stage procedure, and document each stage, and that
only if you managed to miss the incompetence in the first six months
of employment.

News from Italy and France is that they had labor riots when companies
wanted to fire unproductive employees and the laws were going to be
changed to allow them to do so.

Quote:

and extremely high debt to GDP ratios have more productive labor forces?

Yep. Some of them do. Read the book. Chase up the references. Wash out
some of that propaganda that seems to fouling up your world-view.

Propaganda comes in all flavors. The left flavor is no more accurate.

Quote:

Will Hutton's "The World We're In"
ISBN 0-316-86081-6 reviews a great deal economic research on this and
other subjects, and paints a picture of the U.S.A. that doesn't fit
with what you were taught in civics in primary school (which is now
long out of date).

Lots of books paint pictures about the U.S. Not all pictures are
accurate.

This book has a twelve and a half page list of references cited, and
fourteen and a half pages of specific citations. Will Hutton knows the
published literature.

Europe has been waiting for us to grow up and become
civilized socialists with no respect for individual liberty for a long
time.

Why do you think that European socialist have no respect for
individual liberty? Certain capitalist excesses are illegal, but in
most respects the Europeans are less picky than the U.S. about
behaviour that doesn't create immediate problems for other people. The
Netherlands is famously liberal about soft drugs and same sex
relationships - to name two areas where the U.S. has a number of
fatuous and unenforceable laws which demonstrate a singular lack of
respect for individual liberty.

No disagreement about the drugs and sex, but those are not artifacts
of socialism or capitalism. A system which claims half of one's
productive life for 'the public good' has no respect for individual
liberty. It has no respect for who earned the money, it has no
respect for the decisions which might otherwise be made. Confiscation
of earned wealth is confiscation of the portion of one's life it took
to earn that wealth.
Quote:

We just as a culture have different ideas about what
constitutes progress. A state where everyone can wait in line for an
asprin with equal ability has some virtues, but so does a state where
some people can get brain surgery.

If you've got money, you can buy exactly the same level of health care
in (Western) Europe as you can in the U.S. If you haven't got money,
you may have to wait a bit for your brain surgery (for non-emergency
operations), but it will be performed every bit as well. Averaged over
the population as a whole, (Western)European health care performs
better than the U.S. system, which fails the poor quite badly - and in
the sense of not catching up with infectious diseases as well as it
might, it also fails to protect the rich as well as more comprehensive
systems do.

Odd. We didn't really have a SARS outbreak here, yet Canada did. How
many poor people can't go to the hospital here in the US? I'd just
like to be sure how badly the US system fails. Don't confuse
uninsured with not treated.

Quote:

Unsurprisingly, Hutton's book is out of stock a www.amazon.com (but US
dealers will sell you an airmailed copy of the U.K. edition for $25.72).
www.amazon.co.uk have stocks of the paperback at eight U.K.pounds per
copy (about $12).

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


A E
Guest

Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:44 am   



Bob Myers wrote:

Quote:

And yet you persist. You know, one of the more common
simple definitions of "insanity" is repeating the same action over
and over again, and hoping for a different outcome....

Yet you keep trying to educate him! Smile

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 206, 207, 208  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Others - magnetic field

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map