Driver to drive?

Robert Baer · Jul 22, 2012

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:41:03 -0700 (PDT), trojancowboy@gmail.com
wrote:

Help!Why did car radios use 262.5 kc IF's?Can't get a straight answer!

Some idiot playing games (again). The thread was from 1998.
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_thread/thread/b99773bf53894e5a/0204fb66d6742287

Interesting.

What was that bit about base and collector, when the subject implied
tube daze?
I quote from part of a response:
"Now, if you have a permeability-tuned mixer stage (whether or not there
is an RF stage before it), with the IF at 455kHz, it tends to go
seriously unstable when tuned to the lower frequency end of the MF band
(520 kHz?), because base and collector circuits are tuned to near-enough
the same frequency. The use of a 262 kHz IF prevents this. I suppose 262
kHz was chosen to minimise problems (whistles) due to image reception
and IF harmonics."

MrTallyman · Jul 22, 2012

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:51:01 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com>
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:41:03 -0700 (PDT), trojancowboy@gmail.com
wrote:

Help!Why did car radios use 262.5 kc IF's?Can't get a straight answer!

Some idiot playing games (again). The thread was from 1998.
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_thread/thread/b99773bf53894e5a/0204fb66d6742287

Interesting.
What was that bit about base and collector, when the subject implied
tube daze?
I quote from part of a response:
"Now, if you have a permeability-tuned mixer stage (whether or not there
is an RF stage before it), with the IF at 455kHz, it tends to go
seriously unstable when tuned to the lower frequency end of the MF band
(520 kHz?), because base and collector circuits are tuned to near-enough
the same frequency. The use of a 262 kHz IF prevents this. I suppose 262
kHz was chosen to minimise problems (whistles) due to image reception
and IF harmonics."

Ding! We have a winner!

Jul 23, 2012

hi,
I am looking for the schematic or how to wire the AC in on the board I can figure out the rest,,,
As far as rfi If you have noise on your ac line then yes,I have used a ac conditioner out of a computer power supply,couldn't tell much difference,motors,light dimmers,stuff like that will dirty the supply line,a capacitor and a resistor on the secondary of you transformer helps alot Goole snubbers for power supplies 47uf@2xvoltage and 47 ohm resistor across the secondary is a starting point, also diyaudio.com
Gene

Jul 28, 2012

On Saturday, 4 October 2008 09:02:09 UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:

ONLY 18 +
http://pornmoviez.110mb.com
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
youtube. com
dog sex video
girl fucking a dog
sex with a dog
horse sex porn
dog sex tube
hard throat fucking
old men fucking young girls
dog on girl sex
fuck dog

GetErDun · Aug 1, 2012

responding to
http://www.electrondepot.com/embedded/simple-data-bus-over-dc-power-wires-16986-.htm
GetErDun wrote:

Hello,
You could also look into a company called Yamar (
http://www.yamar.com/sig60.php/ ) who makes chips that communicate over
the DC power lines using the LIN bus. Soon there will be modules that can
implement 250K CAN bus. They are not very expensive. You can follow the
electric car charging standard. Once this is final then I imagine more
suppliers will be making parts. If you want data and power then look into
a company called PowerByProxy out of NZ. This is more expensive.
http://www.powerbyproxi.com/

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

John Fields · Aug 1, 2012

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:39:54 -0500, GetErDun
<steve.dixon_at_hill-rom_dot_com@foo.com> wrote:

responding to
http://www.electrondepot.com/embedded/simple-data-bus-over-dc-power-wires-16986-.htm
GetErDun wrote:

Hello,
You could also look into a company called Yamar (
http://www.yamar.com/sig60.php/ ) who makes chips that communicate over
the DC power lines using the LIN bus. Soon there will be modules that can
implement 250K CAN bus. They are not very expensive. You can follow the
electric car charging standard. Once this is final then I imagine more
suppliers will be making parts. If you want data and power then look into
a company called PowerByProxy out of NZ. This is more expensive.
http://www.powerbyproxi.com/

---
Geez, you're only about 8 years too late!

--
JF

Aug 9, 2012

On Saturday, November 30, 2002 5:43:30 PM UTC-3, bill wrote:

If a solid sphere of diameter D has a resistance of 1 ohm (as measured
across the diameter), what will be the resistance of a sphere with
diameter 2D? We use the same meter and probes for both measurements,
so the contact area should be the same, yes?

I've seen other posts on this subject where all sorts of nuances
affecting the measurement are postulated, but how 'bout skipping all
that, make reasonable assumption about the contact area, the meter and
its leads, and give an answer within 10%.

I'm in an arguement with my brother about this and we do not agree.
Seems like there should be a simple way to compute an approximation
for this.

Thanks, Bill

See http://independent.academia.edu/Csoliverez/Papers/1848699/The_Notion_of_Electrical_Resistance_by_Soliverez

whit3rd · Aug 9, 2012

On Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:39:57 PM UTC-8, analog wrote:

Phantom, John Woodgate wrote:
...
With point contacts at the ends of diameters, the resistance of
the larger sphere is twice that of the first.

My best guess for the sphere would be that doubling all aspects of the
sphere (including the size of the end contacts) would result in half
the resistance...

Just to be clear: in two-dimensional (sheet) resistance calculations,
where doubling the size doesn't change the thickness dimension, resistance
scales with distance to the zero power (i.e. double all distances, and
the resistance is the same). That case leads to 'ohms-per-square'
constants, because all squares have the same resistance irrespective of
size.

In three dimensions, doubling the size (like doubling the diameter of a sphere)
results in resistance scaling with distance to the minus one power (twice
the radius, half the resistance).

And if you have some oddity at the contacts that isn't also scaled accurately
there will be problems. If there are 'point' contacts, those problems include
infinite resistances.

Fred Abse · Aug 9, 2012

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:17:23 -0700, csoliverez wrote:

On Saturday, November 30, 2002 5:43:30 PM UTC-3, bill wrote:

Another googledroid resuscitating ten-year-old threads.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

Michael A. Terrell · Aug 9, 2012

whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:39:57 PM UTC-8, analog wrote:
Phantom, John Woodgate wrote:
...
With point contacts at the ends of diameters, the resistance of
the larger sphere is twice that of the first.

My best guess for the sphere would be that doubling all aspects of the
sphere (including the size of the end contacts) would result in half
the resistance...

Just to be clear: in two-dimensional (sheet) resistance calculations,
where doubling the size doesn't change the thickness dimension, resistance
scales with distance to the zero power (i.e. double all distances, and
the resistance is the same). That case leads to 'ohms-per-square'
constants, because all squares have the same resistance irrespective of
size.

In three dimensions, doubling the size (like doubling the diameter of a sphere)
results in resistance scaling with distance to the minus one power (twice
the radius, half the resistance).

And if you have some oddity at the contacts that isn't also scaled accurately
there will be problems. If there are 'point' contacts, those problems include
infinite resistances.

Why are you replying to a message from 2002?

Jim Thompson · Aug 9, 2012

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:39:57 PM UTC-8, analog wrote:
Phantom, John Woodgate wrote:
...
With point contacts at the ends of diameters, the resistance of
the larger sphere is twice that of the first.

My best guess for the sphere would be that doubling all aspects of the
sphere (including the size of the end contacts) would result in half
the resistance...

Just to be clear: in two-dimensional (sheet) resistance calculations,
where doubling the size doesn't change the thickness dimension, resistance
scales with distance to the zero power (i.e. double all distances, and
the resistance is the same). That case leads to 'ohms-per-square'
constants, because all squares have the same resistance irrespective of
size.

In three dimensions, doubling the size (like doubling the diameter of a sphere)
results in resistance scaling with distance to the minus one power (twice
the radius, half the resistance).

And if you have some oddity at the contacts that isn't also scaled accurately
there will be problems. If there are 'point' contacts, those problems include
infinite resistances.

Why are you replying to a message from 2002?

That's where "whit3rd" (I think it's more like "10th") left his brain

Phil Hobbs · Aug 9, 2012

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:39:57 PM UTC-8, analog wrote:
Phantom, John Woodgate wrote:
...
With point contacts at the ends of diameters, the resistance of
the larger sphere is twice that of the first.

My best guess for the sphere would be that doubling all aspects of the
sphere (including the size of the end contacts) would result in half
the resistance...

Just to be clear: in two-dimensional (sheet) resistance calculations,
where doubling the size doesn't change the thickness dimension, resistance
scales with distance to the zero power (i.e. double all distances, and
the resistance is the same). That case leads to 'ohms-per-square'
constants, because all squares have the same resistance irrespective of
size.

In three dimensions, doubling the size (like doubling the diameter of a sphere)
results in resistance scaling with distance to the minus one power (twice
the radius, half the resistance).

And if you have some oddity at the contacts that isn't also scaled accurately
there will be problems. If there are 'point' contacts, those problems include
infinite resistances.

Why are you replying to a message from 2002?

He probably misses Woodgate. I do too.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Jim Thompson · Aug 10, 2012

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:57:11 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:39:57 PM UTC-8, analog wrote:
Phantom, John Woodgate wrote:
...
With point contacts at the ends of diameters, the resistance of
the larger sphere is twice that of the first.

My best guess for the sphere would be that doubling all aspects of the
sphere (including the size of the end contacts) would result in half
the resistance...

Just to be clear: in two-dimensional (sheet) resistance calculations,
where doubling the size doesn't change the thickness dimension, resistance
scales with distance to the zero power (i.e. double all distances, and
the resistance is the same). That case leads to 'ohms-per-square'
constants, because all squares have the same resistance irrespective of
size.

In three dimensions, doubling the size (like doubling the diameter of a sphere)
results in resistance scaling with distance to the minus one power (twice
the radius, half the resistance).

And if you have some oddity at the contacts that isn't also scaled accurately
there will be problems. If there are 'point' contacts, those problems include
infinite resistances.

Why are you replying to a message from 2002?

He probably misses Woodgate. I do too.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Michael A. Terrell · Aug 10, 2012

Phil Hobbs wrote:

He probably misses Woodgate. I do too.

Definitely. I'd rather see John post than Sloman, or Allison.

Fred Abse · Aug 11, 2012

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:53:03 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

He probably misses Woodgate. I do too.

Definitely. I'd rather see John post than Sloman, or Allison.

I miss John, too.

Allison has useful input, despite his personality traits. I'd keep him.

Sloman, I'm not so sure about. If he learned to trim, rather than quoting
every jot and tittle, over and over, that might be a start. My cache used
to groan under the weight, before I set him to "Ignore".

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

Jim Thompson · Aug 11, 2012

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:01:01 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:53:03 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

He probably misses Woodgate. I do too.

Definitely. I'd rather see John post than Sloman, or Allison.

I miss John, too.

Allison has useful input, despite his personality traits. I'd keep him.

Sloman, I'm not so sure about. If he learned to trim, rather than quoting
every jot and tittle, over and over, that might be a start. My cache used
to groan under the weight, before I set him to "Ignore".

Slowman is direct delete... I never see his stuff. Any Larkin
response to Slowman vanishes as well. Others are also about to be
deleted for troll feeding Slowman.

Woodgate is regularly on the LTspice list. Subscribe and enjoy. I
post there a lot as well... they seem interested in real working
circuits there ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Fred Abse · Aug 11, 2012

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:17:08 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Woodgate is regularly on the LTspice list. Subscribe and enjoy. I post
there a lot as well... they seem interested in real working circuits there

They don't seem to want to know my browser, or OS, or something, there. I
tried a couple times to register, but each time, it claimed I hadn't got
cookies turned on, which I had.

If I need to "upgrade" in order to achieve their approval, I'll do
without. God only knows what Tim Berners-Lee must think of what the
corporate world has turned his brain child into.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

Jim Thompson · Aug 11, 2012

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:28:09 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:17:08 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Woodgate is regularly on the LTspice list. Subscribe and enjoy. I post
there a lot as well... they seem interested in real working circuits there

They don't seem to want to know my browser, or OS, or something, there. I
tried a couple times to register, but each time, it claimed I hadn't got
cookies turned on, which I had.

What browser and OS? Use Firefox and you can individually limit
security, cookies, and scripts to suit each URL.

If I need to "upgrade" in order to achieve their approval, I'll do
without. God only knows what Tim Berners-Lee must think of what the
corporate world has turned his brain child into.

Send an E-mail to Helmut Sennewald, helmutsennewaldcrap at yahoocrap
dot comcrap

(Delete the crap)

and ask to subscribe to the list. Ask for the E-mailed digests.

Then you won't need a browser.

Lots of really interesting circuits.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Fred Abse · Aug 11, 2012

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:38:17 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

What browser and OS?

A now-very-old Firefox, that I custom built for this OS (Linux, mostly
itself compiled from source).

Any Firefox upgrade puts me on a chase for newer libraries, which will
probably break lots of other handcrafted applications that I rely on more.
Could take months to settle it all down again. What I have does exactly
what I want, the way I want it done. Apart, that is, from
bells-and-whistles sites, that I don't inhabit, anyway.

It's a bit like your Q45. Why change, when you like what you've got?

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

SoothSayer · Aug 11, 2012

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:50:55 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:38:17 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

What browser and OS?

A now-very-old Firefox, that I custom built for this OS (Linux, mostly
itself compiled from source).

Any Firefox upgrade puts me on a chase for newer libraries, which will
probably break lots of other handcrafted applications that I rely on more.
Could take months to settle it all down again. What I have does exactly
what I want, the way I want it done. Apart, that is, from
bells-and-whistles sites, that I don't inhabit, anyway.

It's a bit like your Q45. Why change, when you like what you've got?

Boot up a Knoppix 7 live DVD

Enter knoppix64 at the boot prompt. Start installing your apps.
It will use your swap partition. Then install Knoppix itself if desired.

Pretty easy.

Driver to drive?

Robert Baer

Guest

MrTallyman

Guest

Guest

Guest

GetErDun

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Guest

whit3rd

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Phil Hobbs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

SoothSayer

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor