Maker Pro
Maker Pro

DC Wave Questions

R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Up the paddle without a creek? ;-}

From "Channeling Class":
"...You will know how to interpret the information in my energy because
it will show up as a pattern in your imagination.

"Channeling, like all other inner phenomena happens in the imagination.
This is the faculty humans use to access the inner planes, spiritual
worlds, divine reality or whatever you wish to call what is beyond the
external, material world. We'll make use of the imagination to establish
contact with each other, and to carry out the channeling process. You can
think of the imagination as a permeable membrane located right at the
water line in the metaphor of the iceberg in the introduction to this
class. Being between the two major parts of the mind, it is shared by
both.

"New ideas, insights, creative inspiration and intuition all begin in the
unconscious mind. As these kinds of impressions, including the energy you
will be interpreting, rise to awareness, they pass through the
imagination. The conscious, aware mind perceives these impressions as
representations in the imagination. Sometimes the impressions are
represented visually as images or pictures, sometimes auditorily as
sounds or words, and sometimes sensorially as feelings or energy."
-- http://www.godchannel.com/chanclass1.html

So, don't knock the imagination. ;-D
 
R

Rich The Newsgroup Wacko

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
[in response to someone else whom ehsjr has failed to attribute]
Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)

Up the paddle without a creek? ;-}

That's another interesting question - is there really a "hole" in
the donut, or are you buying a hole, with donut around it?

The hole was there first, you know. ;-p
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"A nubile female virtually never experiences difficulty in finding
willing sexual partners, and in a natural habitat nubile females are
probably always married. The basic female "strategy" is to obtain the
best possible husband, to be fertilized by the fittest available male
(always, of course, taking risk into account), and to maximize the
returns on sexual favors bestowed: to be sexually aroused by the sight of
males would promote random matings, thus undermining all of these aims,
and would also waste time and energy that could be spent in economically
significant activities and in nurturing children. A female's reproductive
success would be seriously compromised by the propensity to be sexually
aroused by the sight of males."
-- Donald Symons, "The Evolution of Human Sexuality", attempting to
explain the lack of female interest in pornography.

[And you wondered why "Diamonds are a girl's best friend?"]
 
P

Pig Bladder

Jan 1, 1970
0
So, you miserable, troublemaking piece of shit, you've decided to take
on John Larkin?

Big mistake.

There's no way you can even begin to think about getting close to his
track record, let alone even get into the stadium, so why don't you
just quit before you embarrass yourself by not even being able to
leave the starting blocks?

Was the topic "Olympic-Grade Trollfeeding?"

John Fields, you won that one by a landslide some time ago.
 
D

Don Kelly

Jan 1, 1970
0
Kitchen Man said:
Floyd L. Davidson said:
It is not changing polarity. I would hesitate to call it alternating
current. On the "dc sine wave" issue, I wouldn't even get into that
debate.
To me the terms involved are open to too many interpretations. As
evidenced
in this thread, I suppose.

Where *do* you get this requirement for changing polarity? We
don't call it "Alternating Polarity", we call it "Alternating
Current". If the current is being altered, it's AC. You keep
talking about AP, and it isn't the same.

'Alternating' is not the same as 'altering'. "Alternating current" is an
electrical current where the magnitude and *direction* [emphasis added]
varies cyclically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current

One may 'alter' the magnitude of a DC current without it becoming
'alternating current'

The problem with that definition is that it is unnecessarily limiting.
You can find other sources where the definition reads "magnitude *or*
direction," the latter which I believe to be more correct. If the
signal is steady state, then the current that changes magnitude but
never direction is simply an AC signal with a DC component greater in
positive amplitude than the negative peak of the AC component.

--
Al Brennan

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9,
then you would have a key to the universe." Nicola Tesla

In any case, what you have to do in analysis is to treat each frequency
separately, including the 0 frequency term.
What's the big deal.??
 
O

operator jay

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don Kelly said:
In any case, what you have to do in analysis is to treat each frequency
separately, including the 0 frequency term.
What's the big deal.??

Anybody who doesn't like it, feel free to bang out the de's.

j
 
L

Larry Brasfield

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not true, unless 0.01+ oC counts as "0C" or "boil" has
some novel meaning other than a liquid to vapor phase
transition occuring within the liquid due to applied heat.

[Stuff on latent heat zapped.]
Are you saying that it could happen at 0.01C but not at 0.00C,
because you see something in that chart which says water is liquid
at 0.01C and not at 0.00C?

I said "near 0.01 oC", not "at". At temperatures above
the triple point (at 0.01 oC), a liquid/vapor phase change
exists. Below that, there is no such phase change, so
there is no possibility of boiling, which requires a liquid.
Precisely at the triple point, I'm not sure it is meaningful
to speak of boiling because the triple point exists under
equilibrium conditions and boiling is not an equilibrium.
(Boiling is a catastrophic process.)
I don't see that in the chart at all. The chart does not have
sufficient resolution. It doesn't discuss that in the text
either.

The table of triple points shows, in its first row, that triple
point often referred to as "the triple point". (That is the one
now used to define 0.01 oC on the Centrigrade temperature
scale.) This triple point, between the liquid, Ih (hexagonal
ice-one) and vapor phases, represents the lowest pressure
at which an Ih/liquid phase transition exists, as can be seen
from the graph. It is clear from the graph that the vapor
phase boundary slope is continuous as it passes thru that
triple point, and has positive slope. So, clearly, where it
passes thru 0 oC has to be below that triple point.
Did you mean something else?

Nope.
 
K

Ken Taylor

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich The Newsgroup Wacko said:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
[in response to someone else whom ehsjr has failed to attribute]
Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can come
up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do anything, be
everywhere at once, knows everything etc...

Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)

Up the paddle without a creek? ;-}

That's another interesting question - is there really a "hole" in
the donut, or are you buying a hole, with donut around it?

The hole was there first, you know. ;-p

Not in my donut - there was no hole till the donut was made - I was there
and I saw it enter the mixture.

Ken
 
S

Steve

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's another interesting question - is there really a "hole" in
the donut, or are you buying a hole, with donut around it?

The hole was there first, you know. ;-p

You've been robbed... over this side of the pond we don't have holes,
we fill the bit that you throw away with jam ;-)

- Steve
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Fields wrote...
Hmmm...

Same as the answer to: "What does Floyd L. Davidson know about
anything?".

He appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.
 
K

Kitchen Man

Jan 1, 1970
0
Anybody who doesn't like it, feel free to bang out the de's.

Like I said before, Don, the big deal is people with nothing better to
do than start internet arguments, all the while ignoring all the bits
of knowledge that spill out during the course of same. Case in point.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do you happen to know what the triple-point of water is?

No, but there's an awesome graph - did I mention something that I
called "the Annoying Point" - in either another branch here or another
thread that had also degenerated to a virtually amusing point. ;-)
Oh, as a matter of fact, I'm almost sure that it's in another response
to this very John F. x Floyd L.D. pissfest.

Anyways, if you go to the URL above, and just scroll down to below
the first paragraph, which is a page in a teeny tiny monitor; there's
a couple of awesome graphics. There are a whole bunch of points that
could be construed as "The Triple Point", like, at 10^3 Pa - One
kilopascal? at 273ish K, where water can freeze and boil simultaneously.

And if you look up in the "increasing pressure" direction, you'll see a
kind of "crowded" or "busy" area. There's an enlargement of that area -
where the "Triple- Point" _could_ be construed to be that little
blue area labeled "III". But that _couldn't_ be the triple point, because
there's no steam!

So, yeah, I have no idea what the triple-point of water is, other than
that I'd heard where "the three states" all come together.

So, OK - I'm guessing about 273ish K at about one kilopascal. ;-)

(and the "lame" crack came about by your accolade of "Good one, J..."
for merely expressing an invitation to do a web search that took me
all of about four seconds. Sorry, I just didn't think that it was
that great big a deal for a guy to say, "put your money where your
mouth is." I since have, and nobody seems to have noticed that I've
stumbled on a site that tells not only about the ten states of ice,
but also, get this:
---<q>---
Enthalpy of Vaporization [61]
45.054 kJ mol-1 (0°C), 40.657 kJ mol-1 (100°C)

Enthalpy of Fusion
6.0095 kJ mol-1 (0°C, 101.325 kPa) [60]
6.354 kJ mol-1 (81.6°C, 2150 MPa, ice VI) [535]

Enthalpy of Sublimation
51.06 kJ mol-1 (0°C)
---</q>---
from amongst parameters that I didn't even know there were, at
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data.html .)

Wait a minute! There's a picture of the triple-point!
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data.html#d

Kewl! "(273.16 K "exactly ...) The triple point is the temperature and
pressure at which three phases (here liquid water, hexagonal ice, and
water vapor) coexist at equilibrium, and will transform phase with
suitable but tiny changes in temperature or pressure."

So, now, I guess I do! :-D

Thanks!
Rich
 
B

Bud

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield said:
John Fields wrote...

Confining comments to the topic makes newsgoups work better.
He appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.
I believe that the "boiling point" is when the partial pressure of the
liquid at the applied pressure and temperature is equal to the applied
pressure. "Boiling" may be entirely apporpriate.

Bud--
 
B

Bud

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don said:
Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John said:
He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

Don
Reading back through the thread I can see how John attributed the
"tutorials" to "the Phantom", but the "tutorials" quote (in "the
Phantom" post) was lifted from a post by Don Lancaster. I used square
brackets as they are commonly used.

Bud--
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don said:
Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

Don
Reading back through the thread I can see how John attributed the
"tutorials" to "the Phantom", but the "tutorials" quote (in "the
Phantom" post) was lifted from a post by Don Lancaster. I used square
brackets as they are commonly used.

Bud--


OK, my final position:

Whoever said that DC cannot exist, shouldn't authoring tutorials.

and

Whoever posts stuff typed by others, without the > thingie first, is
likely to confuse folks.


John
 
D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don said:
Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

Don
Reading back through the thread I can see how John attributed the
"tutorials" to "the Phantom", but the "tutorials" quote (in "the
Phantom" post) was lifted from a post by Don Lancaster. I used square
brackets as they are commonly used.

I see what happened.

In retrospect it is clear the "tutorial quote" came from one of Don
Lancaster's posts. However, when the Phantom used it in his post, much of
Don Lancaster's post was not attributed to him (Don): As with the Phantom's
post, there were no attribution carrot(s) so it appeared to be part of the
Phantom's post.

Subsequent posts were targeting what incorrectly appeared to be Phantom's
tutorials.

All that aside, always in for a penny in for a pound, I now conclude that my
remark was aimed at Don Lancaster's comment on DC.

Take your best shots.

Don (B)
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
(and the "lame" crack came about by your accolade of "Good one, J..."
for merely expressing an invitation to do a web search that took me
all of about four seconds. Sorry, I just didn't think that it was
that great big a deal for a guy to say, "put your money where your
mouth is." I since have, and nobody seems to have noticed that I've
stumbled on a site that tells not only about the ten states of ice,
but also, get this:
---<q>---
Enthalpy of Vaporization [61]
45.054 kJ mol-1 (0°C), 40.657 kJ mol-1 (100°C)

Enthalpy of Fusion
6.0095 kJ mol-1 (0°C, 101.325 kPa) [60]
6.354 kJ mol-1 (81.6°C, 2150 MPa, ice VI) [535]

Enthalpy of Sublimation
51.06 kJ mol-1 (0°C)
---</q>---
from amongst parameters that I didn't even know there were, at
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data.html .)

Wait a minute! There's a picture of the triple-point!
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data.html#d

Kewl! "(273.16 K "exactly ...) The triple point is the temperature and
pressure at which three phases (here liquid water, hexagonal ice, and
water vapor) coexist at equilibrium, and will transform phase with
suitable but tiny changes in temperature or pressure."

So, now, I guess I do! :-D

---
But only because Spehro laid that "triple point" clue on you. Had he
not, you'd still be thrashing around wondering what the hell was going
on, so instead of playing netcop and faulting him for daring to post
"accolades" to which you object, (that is, not posting in accordance
with your wishes) I think a nice "Thank you, Spehro!" is in order.
 
F

Floyd L. Davidson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield Hill said:
John Fields wrote...

He appears to be confusing sublimation and evaporation with boiling.

*Look* at the statement:

Water can "boil" at 0C too.

It is *correct*, as you've all been very hasty to demonstrate.
It is not so precise as to say "at 0.010C", but certainly that
value is well within the normal meaning of "0C" (what, -.5 to
+.5 C!).

And while sublimation might happen at that temperature too, as
might just simple evaporation, the fact that it doesn't break
into a full nucleate boiling state does *not* make what was
stated wrong either.

But all of your squirming and name calling clearly does identify
each of you! I don't need to call any of you names, because *you*
are providing everyone who reads these articles with all they need
to know, whether someone actually puts a label on it or not.

If course when *you* provide so many handy labels, you'll have to
expect readers to use exactly those when they think of you.
 
Top