A question about coil winding
Michael B
shortcut. Putting aside the issue of current handling capacity, does
anyone have awareness of whether a multstrand wire made of smaller
magnet wires can serve instead of a single wire with the same number
of windings?
It would mean handling a less fragile wire set, and keep from having
to set up a coil winding jig.
amdx
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:75063ce5-6b82-45bc...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
3- ten turn coils in parallel is not the same as 1- thirty turn coil.
If that is your question.
But if your just trying to substitute stranded wire for solid wire of the
same gage, then thirty turns is thirty turns.
I think you have an insulation problem though.
Mike
Martin Riddle
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:75063ce5-6b82-45bc...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Shouldn�t be a problem its called multifilar , What voltages are
involved?
Cheers
Michael B
On Dec 1, 9:04 pm, "Martin Riddle" <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael B" <baugh...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Martin Riddle
upon the number of layers (volts perlayer) you should be fine. Just don�t
use random winding ( it takes up more space ). Multifilar may make
layered winding more of a challenge.
As for a winding Jig, build one. You'll be glad you did. I did a 6
phase motor on a hand built jig, and it made the job so much easier.
Rosenburg's book is good reading on the subject of AC motors if that�s
what your doing, but lacks the design side of things.
Cheers
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8ecefebb-d342-4efe...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Josepi
Multi strand wire does not have any insulation between the strands and you
would only have one turn for one turn.
When winding motors, a sample wire is usually inserted and formed into the
lamination space. The sample turn is taken out and measured onto a winding
form, for size. Wind the winding with as many turns as needed and then tape
the turns together loosely but enough to keep it neat, usually ate the ends
out of the laminations. Insulate the steel with hytex or fishpaper,
insulting materials to protect the wire insulation for the sharp corners and
then thread the winding you have made into the lamination slots. Bend the
ends over to take up the least space and make sure the windings are
protected and taped into place. Dive wooden or synthetic wedges into the
lamination ends to stop vibrations.
When all winding are in place put the whole thing in a oven and heat for a
few hours, dip in insulating varnish or high temp paint and bake some more
to harden and hold everything in place. Clean laminations and wire ends and
connect series and parallel desired windings.
Use high temperature coated wire, formel or hmmm.... forget the other high
temp names of insulation materials for wire enamels.
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:75063ce5-6b82-45bc...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Riddle
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
news:salRm.82516$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
The OP said "whether a multstrand wire made of smaller
magnet wires ..."
Cheers
Michael B
Anybody have any experience with an Ed Gray motor?
Uses high voltage to give an electromagnetic capacitive discharge
pulse. Has the prospect of maintaining less battery inventory and
weight for some applications. Instead of running an ICE at 30%
efficiency for a generator, this could possibly serve similar function
as a motor for the generator.
But instead of multiple windings in a motor frame, I see it needing
to be done in a different fashion. So I'm seeking others that are or
have walked this path before.
amdx
Thanks for the responses.
Anybody have any experience with an Ed Gray motor?
Uses high voltage to give an electromagnetic capacitive discharge
pulse. Has the prospect of maintaining less battery inventory and
weight for some applications. Instead of running an ICE at 30%
efficiency for a generator, this could possibly serve similar function
as a motor for the generator.
But instead of multiple windings in a motor frame, I see it needing
to be done in a different fashion. So I'm seeking others that are or
have walked this path before.
Eureka! you found it, try >alt.energy.over-unity<
Martin Riddle
"amdx" <am...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:2dd0e$4b16611e$18ec6dd7$17...@KNOLOGY.NET...
Did Obama change the Laws of Physics already?
Cheers
Jim Wilkins
developers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines
As an itinerant (wayward?) prototype builder I have to be especially
careful of them.
jsw
Michael B
I don't recall even making a suggestion of it being an
over-unity device, and I suggest that anybody wanting
to pursue that path find somewhere else to do it.
Maybe over at alt.energy.wishful-thinking.
I was in biomedical electronics before becoming a
nurse, and I didn't win my slots in a raffle. But I am
very deficient in motor and generator technogy, and I
seeking legitimate answers, not someone seeking to
hide their ignorant with misplaced derision.
Michael B
to give good speed control, because I need to avoid random
winding.
amdx
> > Eureka! you found it, try >alt.energy.over-unity<
>I don't recall even making a suggestion of it being an
>over-unity device, and I suggest that anybody wanting
>to pursue that path find somewhere else to do it.
>Maybe over at alt.energy.wishful-thinking.
>I was in biomedical electronics before becoming a
>nurse, and I didn't win my slots in a raffle. But I am
>very deficient in motor and generator technogy, and I
>seeking legitimate answers, not someone seeking to
>hide their ignorant with misplaced derision.
I searched Ed Gray Motor and the first thing I found said this,
"During the 1970's, based on this discovery, Mr. Gray developed an
80 hp electric automobile engine that kept its batteries charged
continuously."
That makes me think over-unity.
Mike
Martin Riddle
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:486b2346-81df-4fdd...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Over-unity and back-fed breakers get the adrenaline flowing here.....
Cheers
Michael B
And if pigs do manage to fly, step outta the
way of the poop.
Maybe he did manage to keep the battery
charged, all I'm looking for is a motor that
can be used instead of an ICE generator
motor, and if the power of the collapsing
field or whatever can be used to give something
back to the battery, so be it. I am an inspector,
and I only believe what I see. I see a way of
potentially (couldn't resist that) getting good
power without use of high current requirements,
I'm willing to take a shot at it. An inverter and
a voltage multiplier are cheap, with 1N4007 diodes
only costing 9 cents each online. I'm not about
to go for the kind of machining that was in the
device for his patent when there could be a different
way to get there. But I refuse to participate in the
wild-eyed slobbering after an over-unity device, all
I'm seeing is a device that appears to have satisfied
some people that the battery power was not depleted
in the fashion they had expected.
I'm just seeking to get questions answered about the
coils, which had thousands of turns of #36 or 40 wire,
and some rather interesting claims about the device.
Not to be believed unless personally observed and
independently verified.
amdx
> I searched Ed Gray Motor and the first thing I found said this,
> "During the 1970's, based on this discovery, Mr. Gray developed an
> 80 hp electric automobile engine that kept its batteries charged
> continuously."
> That makes me think over-unity.
> Mike
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5d5ea042-89d3-4253...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I'm not sure where your headed, but some of the permenant magnet motors
are hitting over 90% efficiency. If you give up a little for bearing
friction and
a little more for wire heating there is not much room left for improvement.
I don't recall seeing efficiency numbers for generators/alternators but I
suspect
they are very high also, especially when you can optimise at the desired
rpm.
I never thought I would say this, (sense top posting is better for the
way I read
groups). Please bottom post, now that I have given in to the convention. :-)
Mike
PS. 1hp = 746 watts voltage x amperage = watts I question how mant amps
you will get through thousands of turns of #36 or #40 wire.
(I did build an electrostatic motor once, kinda cool, ran on 10,000 volts.)
I gave it to a local Junior Museum and they discarded it, if I would have
known that, I would have kept it.
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> ...all I'm looking for is a motor that
> can be used instead of an ICE generator
> motor, and if the power of the collapsing
> field or whatever can be used to give something
> > Mike-
No harm in playing with ideas, you did however hit a hot button.
You can go much further if you have a small metal lathe and milling
machine, even a Sherline, and an oscilloscope and some lab power
supplies. Don't trust digital voltmeters unless they measure RMS. To
measure electrical energy accurately you need a current probe for the
scope, AC will do initially but DC is much better and necessary for
conclusive data.
There's a perverse joy in watching an inventor's face when he first
measures the pitiful results from his brainchild.
Pay me in advance, please.
jsw
Josepi
Is the term "multstrand" not a typo?
"Martin Riddle" <marti...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hf4q6l$c16$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Josepi
"Martin Riddle" <marti...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hf7ad6$f8f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Martin Riddle
coating
I do not think the OP implied non-insulated wire.
Cheers
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
news:OsnSm.41184$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
Michael B
> "Magnet Wire" implies it is enameled or has some other insulating
> coating
>
> I do not think the OP implied non-insulated wire.
Thanks for noting that. A coil of multistrand uninsulated wire would
be essentially a single turn, certainly not very functional.
Jim Wilkins
http://www.mwswire.com/mfilar.htm
There isn't much benefit and considerable practical difficulty with
winding more than one strand at a time. A single wire can be packed
tightly enough to resist the magnetic force between adjacent wires,
but a looser winding may vibrate like a cheap fluorescent light
ballast.
If you can't set up a winding jig how to do you expect to build a
balanced, low friction motor?
jsw
harry
Apart from a winding jig (important I agree) you need a "paying on
device" to ensure the wire is laid on parallel and close. Especially
if contemplating lots of turns. This really hard to construct.
In days of yore, motors had salient poles, which were relatively easy
to wind the coils for. However, it leads to inefficient distribution
of the magnetic flux. The coils for a distributed winding are a much
harder job.
harry
The days of making revolutionary discoveries in your garden shed have
long passed. These days it takes $M & a team of scientists to make
even a small advance. Maybe you shoould contemplate knitting or kite
flying.
Also, these discoveries are made by standing on the shoulders of one's
predecessors in the field. ie, before you start out, you need to
know everything there is to be known on the subject. You won't find
that here though there is considerable joint knowledge and experience.
You need to start out from one of the leading colleges or
universities.
You CAN of course just bugger about for your own fun. Lots of us here
do just that.
daestrom
Sometimes when rewinding an old motor, we would find that more than one
'strand' was used in making the original coil. For example, they may
have taken two #14 and one #16 AWG wire together and wound the coil with
all three at the same time. Naturally, we would have to duplicate this
with the new coils we wound for replacing them.
We mounted spools of the appropriate 'magnet wire' (enamel insulated
wire) together and fed all three into the coil block and then wound the
correct number of turns.
This gives you more current capability, without having to use the much
stiffer lower-gauge wire. Of course with the random wound coils, it
took up more room. Nevertheless, we did run across it from time to time.
We called such windings 'two in hand' or 'three in hand' as the case may be.
As long as the individual strands are insulated so that you don't end up
with 'shorted turns', I don't see why you can't do that. Of course
there's a limit to how much wire you can cram into the slot and how many
turns you can get...
daestrom
Jim Wilkins
> On Dec 2, 12:13 pm, Michael B <baugh...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The days of making revolutionary discoveries in your garden shed have
> long passed. These days it takes $M & a team of scientists to make
> even a small advance.
Advanced degree candidates have to do original research. They hunt
through all the obscure corners of science to find a subject, and in
the process explore the oddities and fill in the details. Believe me
they would love to disprove existing theory and instantly become
famous.
> Also, these discoveries are made by standing on the shoulders of one's
> predecessors in the field. ie, before you start out, you need to
> know everything there is to be known on the subject.
In this case check the shoulders of James Clerk Maxwell and Oliver
Heaviside. See if you can understand either of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
http://rlv.zcache.com/and_god_said_maxwells_equations_tshirt-p235628270699537542q6vb_400.jpg
> You CAN of course just bugger about for your own fun. Lots of us here
> do just that.
Or if you have the skill you can build projects for a Ph.D candidate.
That is a fast way to learn a lot.
jsw
Josepi
insulated and where would something like that be used.
Wire implies only one conductor, stranded or single. Cable can be
multiconductor.
Next, tell us how this multiconductor wire could be made into multiple
turns.
"Martin Riddle" <marti...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hfe557$sa5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Josepi
I don't believe the OP meant that usage you suggest as he always refers to a
singular word usage "wire".
The OP needs to clarify with his new found information and education.
"Preparing to wind a motor coil or more. Need some info to consider a
shortcut. Putting aside the issue of current handling capacity, does
anyone have awareness of whether a multstrand wire made of smaller
magnet wires can serve instead of a single wire with the same number
of windings?
It would mean handling a less fragile wire set, and keep from having
to set up a coil winding jig."
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hfels...@news5.newsguy.com...
Jim Wilkins
> Perhaps you could give an example of multistrand wire where each strand is
> insulated and where would something like that be used.
Again I say "http://www.mwswire.com/mfilar.htm"
amdx
http://www.mwswire.com/litzmain.htm
Example; 175 strands of #40 wire.
Number Of
Strands Individual Strand Size
(AWG) Circular Mils
Nominal Nearest AWG Equivalent
(Based on Circular Mils) DC Resistance - Nominal
(ohms / kft @ 20�C)
175 40 1681.75 18 6.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LITZ Wire Type
Nom. Mean O.D.
(Inches)
Feet per Pound
Pounds per 1000 ft.
Unserved Single Polyurethane 0.054 183 5.46
Unserved Heavy Polyurethane 0.058 179 5.59
Served Single Nylon-Single Polyurethane 0.056 180 5.56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Of
Strands Individual Strand Size
(AWG) Circular Mils
Nominal Nearest AWG Equivalent
(Based on Circular Mils) DC Resistance - Nominal
(ohms / kft @ 20�C)
60 36 1500 18.5 6.91
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LITZ Wire Type
Nom. Mean O.D.
(Inches)
Feet per Pound
Pounds per 1000 ft.
Unserved Single Polyurethane 0.05 212 4.72
Unserved Heavy Polyurethane 0.054 208 4.81
Served Single Nylon-Single Polyurethane 0.052 208 4.81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Of
Strands Individual Strand Size
(AWG) Circular Mils
Nominal Nearest AWG Equivalent
(Based on Circular Mils) DC Resistance - Nominal
(ohms / kft @ 20�C)
150 40 1441.5 18.5 7.19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LITZ Wire Type
Nom. Mean O.D.
(Inches)
Feet per Pound
Pounds per 1000 ft.
Unserved Single Polyurethane 0.05 213 4.7
Unserved Heavy Polyurethane 0.054 209 4.79
Served Single Nylon-Single Polyurethane 0.052 209 4.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Of
Strands Individual Strand Size
(AWG) Circular Mils
Nominal Nearest AWG Equivalent
(Based on Circular Mils) DC Resistance - Nominal
(ohms / kft @ 20�C)
175 41 1372 18.5 7.56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LITZ Wire Type
Nom. Mean O.D.
(Inches)
Feet per Pound
Pounds per 1000 ft.
Unserved Single Polyurethane 0.047 231 4.33
Unserved Heavy Polyurethane 0.052 227 4.41
Served Single Nylon-Single Polyurethane 0.05 226 4.42
amdx
>> is insulated and where would something like that be used.
Ahh! the page didn't copy and paste well, but you can probably figure it
out.
Josepi
I can't see where four or two strands would save any work though. Too manny
splices would be a lot of work inside a motor bell. I can see a complex iron
warpping scheme may work quite well with this cable. Thermal conduction may
be a boon.
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cdf47dce-2467-4e6b...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Josepi
LOL
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a5a6570-a733-48dc...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Michael B
trying to use #36 wire. It needs such tender care to keep
from breaking it. And to carefully lay it down alongside
the prior turn to keep from wasting space.
But suppose there are 6 of the #36 wires all snugly
combined as insulated wires, easily wound onto a coil
form with minimal wasted space. And a single
connection at each end, with all the wires pretinned.
Also keeps there from being a higher voltage differential
from coil portions.
Now the question is, if you have 6 wires in that combo,
and you wind it so that you have 500 turns, does the
magnet see it as 3,000 turns? And if not, why not?
Josepi
insulate them. These would consist of five conductors being connected from
the inner most layer to the outermost layer. You could also have a voltage
jumping problem through your insulation as the voltage at one end will be
connected to wiring in your non-sheathed cable, that is connected to the
other end of the potential difference. You appear to aware of this problem
already.
In transformers this can be done with interlayer insulation paper or
materials. In free form coil winding the outer layer has many layers of
turns between the inner layer at the other end of the voltage supply. It
isn't always perfect but the inter-turn insulation has to be good enough to
insulate against voltage punchthough at the highest voltage difference used.
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5dde5d18-dc7f-498c...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
m II
> Yes, you have 500 x 6 = 3000 turns but you have to make five splices and
> insulate them. These would consist of five conductors being connected from
> the inner most layer to the outermost layer.
No. That is not the case. There are two splices, each of six parallel
wires, one splice at each end of the bundle. The inner and outer layers
would not be connected to each other. They would be feeding either
another coil or the output/input lines.
> In transformers this can be done with interlayer insulation paper or
> materials. In free form coil winding the outer layer has many layers of
> turns between the inner layer at the other end of the voltage supply. It
> isn't always perfect but the inter-turn insulation has to be good enough to
> insulate against voltage punchthough at the highest voltage difference used.
No. The varnish, glyptal, conformal etc. has only to be of sufficient
dielectric strength to resist the potential difference of the adjacent
wire. Look at a Tesla coil.
If the coating on the wire is good for 120 volts to ground, it is good
for 240 volts between two strands. Even the voltage between two layers
would be the line to line voltage divided by the number of layers. That
is far less than the 'highest voltage'.
In something low voltage, like a home made windmill, the relative
potential differences are so low as to be negligible.
mike
--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/
Densa International©
For the OTHER two percent.
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.
For solutions which may work for you, please check:
Michael B
> No. That is not the case. There are two splices, each of six parallel
> wires, one splice at each end of the bundle. The inner and outer layers
> would not be connected to each other. They would be feeding either
> another coil or the output/input lines.
You appear to understand the question. Thank you for
your response.
Multiple windings are needed for the flux density, but
this is high voltage, low current, allowing minimal wire
size, but the risk is with punchthrough. I'm considering
varnish and fishpaper. But i need to know that the multiple
windings combined at the beginning and end will yield
the effect of the total number of windings placed, without
being diminished by the shunting at the ends.
Jim Wilkins
> Suppose your jig is not very sophisticated, and you're
> trying to use #36 wire. It needs such tender care to keep
> from breaking it. And to carefully lay it down alongside
> the prior turn to keep from wasting space.
I would assemble the motor shaft and bearings and use it as the coil
winder. #36 wire isn't that bad, try a headband magnifier and enough
drag on the coil and the spool it feeds from that you can let go of
the wire. You can practice with fishline to avoid kinking the wire.
There's a good reason why clever experimenters have done the job the
same way for the last 100 years.
Then again not everyone has the patience and skill to be a lab tech,
many good engineers included. Job security for me.
If you wind the wires in parallel and then connect them in series
Josepi got it right, the outer end of each wire has to connect to the
inner start of the next, so the current flows in the same direction
through all of them.
If each individual winding has say 100V across it then the voltages at
the inner ends of your 6 wires will be 0V, 100V, 200V, 300V, 400V, and
500V. The 0V wire will be beside the 500V wire on the next turn 012345|
012345|012345 or at least cross it in the next layer.
jsw
m II
> Multiple windings are needed for the flux density, but
> this is high voltage, low current, allowing minimal wire
> size, but the risk is with punchthrough.
> I'm considering
> varnish and fishpaper. But i need to know that the multiple
> windings combined at the beginning and end will yield
> the effect of the total number of windings placed, without
> being diminished by the shunting at the ends.
I haven't given this much thought, so please take these 'insights' with
a grain of salt.
In common usage, I've only seen a need for paralleled windings in low
voltage permanent magnet powered windmill alternators and dual voltage
motors, where they series/parallel them to suit low/high line voltage.
There is relatively little power produced in a windmill, so any waste
from resistance is to be avoided. The paralleled wires reduce the
voltage drop by a ratio equal to the number of paralleled conductors.
It's actually the square of the current reduction in percent.
Here is the problem. When you double up on a wire, you will be halving
the length. Your amperage capacity will double, but the generated
voltage measured at the ends of the winding will be halved. Put another
way, only half the generated current is being carried in each of a
paralleled pair. the I^2 losses are now 1/4 of what they were. Same
rules for a motor.
Each wrap of wire in a coil adds to the voltage being produced. Think of
the instantaneous voltages at one point of the winding 'leg' as series
batteries. 100 wraps = 100 tiny batteries in series.
If you parallel the windings, you now have two runs of half length. The
physical space won't let you put more copper into the form regardless
of how you parallel them.
Now, you have the equivalent of two sets of 50 tiny batteries in series
being paralleled with each other. The voltage is halved, but there is
now more copper carrying whatever current there is.
A motor behaves in the same manner.
Is there some way of wiring this thing in a three phase 'Wye' or 'Star'
pattern? That alone will reduce the voltage across each phase winding by
a factor of root 3, (1.7 something). That's almost the same as doubling
the insulation value of the coating.
Another thing to keep in mind is the 'ampere turns' value. That
determines how much magnetism will be produced. The amount of extra
current you can push through parallel wires will probably be offset by
the reduced length. A good motor design is probably pushing way over
eighty percent efficiency. A good transformer is probably running 95+
efficiency. That is more from good magnetic design, not winding magic.
Another thought: Is it possible to spray Glyptal of Conformal on the top
of each winding layer as the coils are being wound?
A thing with higher voltage transformers also comes to mind. The
input/output connections on the tanks (X1, H1 etc) are placed so that
the LEAST amount of potential difference is created between them.
Out of curiosity, what voltages would you be looking at? Really high
voltages have the benefit of reducing line current at a given power
transfer rate. That reduces I^2 R looses on transmission lines.
I don't know what benefits you are looking for in a very high voltage
motor. They may not be enough to offset the problems.
As for the terminations of these parallel windings, I'd *guess* a wire
with an ampacity of around twenty percent more than the sum of the
individual wires would be more than good.
Please provide a bit more information regarding horsepower, voltage and
amperage ratings. My curiosity is piqued. If this is a 'secret' project
I will understand.
Jim Wilkins
> Michael B wrote:
> > Multiple windings are needed for the flux density, but
> > this is high voltage, low current, allowing minimal wire
> > size, but the risk is with punchthrough.
>
> I don't know what benefits you are looking for in a very high voltage
> motor. They may not be enough to offset the problems.
> Please provide a bit more information regarding horsepower, voltage and
> amperage ratings. My curiosity is piqued. If this is a 'secret' project
> I will understand.
>
> mike
The Ed Grey motor:
http://keelynet.com/evgray/evgray.htm
Notice the 3500V capacitors and spark plug wire leads.
In addition to ampere turns you can consider turns per volt to
estimate the size and practicality of a design. More explanation here:
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/transfor.htm
He gives 10, I've seen 1 in an arc welder.
jsw
Michael B
thank you. I'm in the process of making a winding jig. And
probably using #30 wire.
The Ed Gray motor had multiple coils in rotor and stator,
and used high voltage, low current. And the electromagnetic
flux density apparently got very high very quickly, with a
capacitive discharge format.
Now the problem I see with the design is that the best push
is lost, because when stator coil is lined up with rotor coil,
the repulsion is the product of one against the other, or timed
so that they have missed each other. The Ed Gray motor had
its coil laminations machined so that there was a 16 degree
angle to help with the push getting good direction.
I think the kick of one such coil working against another is
a good notion, but I would rather see more direct push for
the jolt. So I am seeking to wind a couple of coils onto
transformer bodies, after taking them apart, stripping them
of their windings, winding a new coil on a form and slipping
it back on to the transformer body after varnishing each
lamination to return it to being able to reduce eddy currents.
How to use the mutual repulsion kick? Something like a
paddlewheel, or with more than two electromagnets, more
like the individual cylinders firing in an ICE. If it can be
quick enough, a momentary contact would be enough for
the "rotor" coil to kick before it disconnects. And the
transformer body, formed in epoxy, could move like the
piston in an ICE, turning a crank.
Plenty of issues, like source, and bearings, and guides,
and a bunch more, but the first thing is to see what kind
of real world power is available. Starting small, with a
small transformer, avoiding the temptation of going with
something big like a microwave transformer body.
And the juice should be easy to come by with a voltage
multiplier, with 1N4007's only costing about 10 cents
each in quantity. But right now I have a microwave
transformer, and the diodes they use in the ovens
arranged as a full wave bridge.
There are plans for the Gray "Fuelless Motor", with
a commentary about the Gray claim about it not
depleting the batteries, but the design includes a
generator. All I'm wanting is to see if the Gray
Motor could be used as an electric vehicle motor,
with speed control being simple input voltage
control, and see if there are advantages for homebuilt
motors.
On Dec 6, 4:55 pm, m II <C...@in.the.hat> wrote:
m II
> I'm in the process of making a winding jig. And
> probably using #30 wire.
(snipped)
Your experiment is probably the best way to find things out. Even if it
fails, there will be something to be learned.
Please post the results, either way.
mike
amdx
Your comments about the winding was well atriculated,
thank you. I'm in the process of making a winding jig. And
probably using #30 wire.
Just be sure to make at least one side of your jig movable
(removable) or you will never get it off the jig.
Depending on your jig, it's nice to lay several strips of tape, adhesive
side up on the jig, so when your finished winding you can wrap the
wires to stablize them before removing from jig. (string also works).
Mike
Michael B
figuring on varnishing (and maybe fishpapering) from
layer to layer. That should stabilize windings nicely.
These things are gonna be moving.
Jim Wilkins
You can wind a bobbinless, free-standing coil by hand by zig-zaging
the wire from side to side, each turn pressed against and held at the
ends by the previous one.
http://www.lakefish.net/images/product_photos/rope_11.jpg
It isn't as hard as it looks at first and you can hold it together
with tape flaps that you lift as you go around. Some of the filter
coils in old radios were wound this way, often several windings spaced
along a core tube. Double stick tape will hold the first turn in
place. At each end you jump the wire over the previous one so the new
wire is always on the same side.
It isn't the fastest way, but it requires nothing but fingers, the
wire and a core, such as cardboard wrapped around a dowel, that you
can pull out afterwards.
jsw
Michael B
> You can wind a bobbinless, free-standing coil by hand by zig-zaging
> the wire from side to side, each turn pressed against and held at the
> ends by the previous one.http://www.lakefish.net/images/product_photos/rope_11.jpg
> It isn't as hard as it looks at first and you can hold it together
> with tape flaps that you lift as you go around. Some of the filter
> coils in old radios were wound this way, often several windings spaced
> along a core tube. Double stick tape will hold the first turn in
> place. At each end you jump the wire over the previous one so the new
> wire is always on the same side.
That is indeed tantalizing. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
amdx
.A good reminder, likely borne of experience. But I'm
>figuring on varnishing (and maybe fishpapering) from
>layer to layer. That should stabilize windings nicely.
>These things are gonna be moving.
I haven't a clue about your form, but I don't know how
you put it in a motor after it's varnished.
Mike
daestrom
> Perhaps for the starting winding or a motor/gen set configuration?
>
Actually no, these were three-phase low-voltage motors (<600V). The two
or three conductors were normal 'magnet wire' (single strand, insulated
with varnish). The conductors would be joined together at the end
before connecting to other coils when making up the end connections. So
'externally' it just looked like an X turn coil with a cross-section
equal to the sum of the individual conductors.
> I don't believe the OP meant that usage you suggest as he always refers to a
> singular word usage "wire".
You may be reading more into the OP's exact wording then they meant.
Not everyone is so exact in their interpretation of 'wire'.
>
> The OP needs to clarify with his new found information and education.
>
> "Preparing to wind a motor coil or more. Need some info to consider a
> shortcut. Putting aside the issue of current handling capacity, does
> anyone have awareness of whether a multstrand wire made of smaller
> magnet wires can serve instead of a single wire with the same number
> of windings?
He seems to be asking about what I mentioned previously, taking a couple
of individual, single-strand magnet wires and combining them at the time
of winding to create a multiple-conductor cable/wire to wind the coils with.
> It would mean handling a less fragile wire set, and keep from having
> to set up a coil winding jig."
>
I don't know why they think a multi-strand wire would be 'less fragile',
that part doesn't make sense.
But as I said before, we did use two or three parallel strands of 'wire'
to make coils of higher current capacity using smaller individual strands.
daestrom
Josepi
core to hold things tight from vibration and conduct the heat away from the
wire.
"amdx" <am...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:7df59$4b1dcbc4$18ec6dd7$50...@KNOLOGY.NET...
m II
> You don't put it in after it is varnished. You varnish the windings in the
> core to hold things tight from vibration and conduct the heat away from the
> wire.
When you are winding coils, you most certainly can brush or spray the
Glyptal on each layer before starting the next one. Take it slow and you
won't even get your fingers covered like I did.
Secondarily, I am not aware of ANY varnish type coatings that help to
carry heat away from the wire. Every coating I am aware of acts as an
insulation to some degree. Some web sites talk of 'special resins' with
certain fillers which help in heat conductivity. I don't know anything
about them.
Centrifugal force may be a bigger danger than vibration. Now, having
said that, there MAY be a particular RPM where a resonance is set up in
the coils. Thee should be a way of testing for that before any sort of
mass production takes place.
Josepi
there.
Varnishing the coils before placement is not really possible as the coils
become stiff and still need to be bent into place in the laminations.
Trouble is wih varnishing after is the clean up of the laminations becomes a
pain. Lots of fishpaper /Hytex lamination covers and wedges usually locks
the windings down enough without varnish but the varnish glues it all
together so vibration doesn't result in a flying piece of paper inside.
"m II" <C...@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:4b29...@news.x-privat.org...
The real Edmond H. Wollmann
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message news:XirWm.107088$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
> there.
...I've Never heard of it! I heard "Heat Dissipation!" You dipshit were born here, how can you let an alien beat you huh?
harry
<EHWollm...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in messagenews:XirWm.107088$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
> > The heat disapation is not a big feature of the varnish but nevertheless, is
> > there.
>
> Where is John Fools and John Lackin? You fools like to complain about my English...heehee....Now look at the guy above^ He said: "heat disapation".
>
> ...I've Never heard of it! I heard "Heat Dissipation!" You dipshit were born here, how can you let an alien beat you huh?
They're only poor Yanks. They spell lots of word wrongly in America.
Josepi
Since you are an alien English wizard, when is a singular noun used with a
plural verb in a sentence?
Better troll, next time. Glass house?
"The real Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:LMydnY2mMvCSDLHW...@posted.toastnet...
John Fields
---
Should be 'words', actually.
JF
Bob Eld
"The real Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:LMydnY2mMvCSDLHW...@posted.toastnet...
>
Sew wat ar u, the speling Natzie. Watz it two ya! Dyd u hav trubel
undorstadn wat waz sed?
Her is a notr on for yu, yu can tke ot evry thrd leter or so an stil mak
sens o it. Englsh is vry redndant contanin far mor letrs than necesry for
comunicatin.
Josepi
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hgji34$k8h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
m II
> Should be 'words', actually.
Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
amdx
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:b3fqi5ltit4esi8u3...@4ax.com...
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs4/grammarlogs546.htm
"Both wrong and wrongly are adverbs. As a general rule, use wrongly when the
adverb appears before the verb it modifies, but use wrong when the adverb
appears after the verb it modifies. "The German shepherd was wrongly awarded
Best of Show." "He guessed wrong."
Mike :-)
Hmm, should that be double quotation marks at the end of the quote? ;-)
John Fields
>!!dias ylecin
---
.etairporppa erehw tsop enilni ro tsop mottob esaelP
Thanks,
JF
Michael B
But ya know, you don't have to pick through the shit to find
the corn with top posting.
Did you?
John Fields
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> Should be 'words', actually.
>
>
>Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
---
Huh?
Here's the quote:
"They're only poor Yanks. They spell lots of word wrongly in America."
The preposition is "in" and it introduces the noun "America".
Then, the prepositional phrase 'in America' acts as an adverb,
describing where the words were wrongly spelled.
My quarrel was with the plural adjective "lots" being used to modify the
singular noun "word", which has nothing to do with the preposition or
the prepositional phrase.
Here:
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/preposit.html
JF
John Fields
<EHWol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"m II" <C...@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:4b2d...@news.x-privat.org...
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> Should be 'words', actually.
>
>
>>Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
>> mike
>
>
>
>Nop! He's good at copy and past some funky formulas off his Electronic workbench!...heeheee....
---
"Nop", I suspect, describes your life.
JF
John Fields
---
Yup, and at the beginning too. :-)
JF
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>You imply that top posting is a backwards communication.
---
I don't have to imply; it is.
---
>But ya know, you don't have to pick through the shit to find
>the corn with top posting.
---
Sure you do; when you top post and someone starts reading the thread
chronologically, the shit is right at the top followed by the corn.
Apparently, being an eminently stupid and inconsiderate Google Grouper,
you don't even realize that this is USENET and that you've accessed it
through Google's web-based interface.
In addition, you've obviously not even taken the time to read Google's
posting guidelines, which are sound.
From:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250
"Summarize what you're following up.
When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
JF
JF
krw
I prefer long quotes to be separated and offset.
>---
>Yup, and at the beginning too. :-)
The opening quotation was there but had no match to close the
quotation.
John Fields
---
Yeah, you're right.
JF
John Larkin
There's some Usenet law to the effect that posts which complain about
spelling or grammar errors always contain errors of their own.
Still true.
Do you know anything about electronics? Tell us.
John
Michael B
Do I still have time to report the shoe sales posts as
spam before they get to me?
Oh, I see that the guidelines use the word "please". That
means "It would be very nice if you would do this". Okay,
I've been reminded.
Now, do you perhaps need a lesson on how to killfile me?
Wouldn't be the first, won't be the last.
On Dec 20, 12:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
> cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
> typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
> Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
> Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
> Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
> post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
> comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
> And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
> they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
On Dec 20, 12:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>How long will it be before the Grammar Police get here?
---
They're here already.
---
>Do I still have time to report the shoe sales posts as
>spam before they get to me?
---
Ah, I see you _do_ consider some types of posts as being objectionable,
so you _should_ be capable of recognizing that many consider top posting
in USENET to be not only objectionable, but extremely bad form.
Why?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=USENET+top-posting&rlz=1W1GFRC_en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
---
>Oh, I see that the guidelines use the word "please". That
>means "It would be very nice if you would do this". Okay,
>I've been reminded.
---
Since a few of the reasons for bottom posting and trimming were given,
and "please" was used to ask you, politely, to follow the conventions
that most of us have found helpful in eliminating confusion and saving
time, your recalcitrance at posting, using those conventions, is
telling.
Specifically, since you obviously have no intention of being
accommodating and making life a little easier for all of us, you brand
yourself as being a narcissistic little creep who wants Rome to do as he
does.
---
>Now, do you perhaps need a lesson on how to killfile me?
>Wouldn't be the first, won't be the last.
---
I'm sure.
With an attitude like yours there are likely many more who have filtered
you out of their lives than not; probably the way you prefer it...
JF
Josepi
a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.
Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.
The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
This thread is prime example of this.
BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
You're not that important.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:pb5vi5dc8u6da53jc...@4ax.com...
> JF
> JF
Josepi
I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
read by me or most others.
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:e50ti5po0e659s8vk...@4ax.com...
Josepi
form and is not free standing, the same as you need to wind a coil.
Bobbinless, sure.
The zig-zag is not recommended for enamel insulated wire as it puts a lot of
mechanical stress on wire insulation crossing each other, the resultant is
bulky, not as flexible and cannot be formed into the laminations after
winding.
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a5c02b18-e7eb-452f...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
That is indeed tantalizing. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
On Dec 7, 7:59 pm, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
You can wind a bobbinless, free-standing coil by hand by zig-zaging
the wire from side to side, each turn pressed against and held at the
ends by the previous
one.http://www.lakefish.net/images/product_photos/rope_11.jpg
It isn't as hard as it looks at first and you can hold it together
with tape flaps that you lift as you go around. Some of the filter
coils in old radios were wound this way, often several windings spaced
along a core tube. Double stick tape will hold the first turn in
place. At each end you jump the wire over the previous one so the new
wire is always on the same side.
Jim Wilkins
>
> The zig-zag is not recommended for enamel insulated wire as it puts a lot of
> mechanical stress on wire insulation crossing each other, the resultant is
> bulky, not as flexible and cannot be formed into the laminations after
> winding.
>
> You can wind a bobbinless, free-standing coil by hand by zig-zaging
I'd wind the coil on a 2-piece removeable hardwood bobbin on the South
Bend metal lathe in back gear, but that didn't seem like a realistic
suggestion to the OP.
jsw
Josepi
"Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ybudndZDC5qJD63W...@posted.toastnet...
Ok, then your brain works slow, not slowly. Is that ok grammar according to
your suggestion ?
Walk slow, Don't walk slowly ok?
Josepi
still a winding form or jig.
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbba7127-00c3-4320...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Jim Wilkins
> I doubt anybody can wind a coil in the air, even if it is their hand. It is
> still a winding form or jig.
I used a piece of cardboard rolled into a tube, which could be
squeezed smaller to remove the finished coil.
You can make a close-wound flat spiral of wire completely freehand by
holding it between your finger and thumb at the point where the wire
enters the spiral and working around a little at a time. I learned
that from a sidewalk jewelry maker in Heidelberg. It goes better if
you pull the tinned solid copper wire hard enough to permanently
stretch it a little. This removes the kinks and leaves it very
straight and somewhat work-hardened.
jsw
John Fields
>Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.
---
So, by top posting, you're admitting that's your favorite method of
trolling _and_ that you're unoriginal?
---
>I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
>read by me or most others.
---
"Polls???
"Most others"???
JF
John Fields
>Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
>a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
>about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
>at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.
---
My "bwoser"???
Geez, where do these creeps come from?
---
>Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.
---
Certainly not I, since with the earliest post at the top and the most
recent at the bottom, the chronological order of responses is
maintained and anyone joining the thread at any time merely has to read
from the top down (as we do when we're reading a book, a magazine
article, a newspaper, etc.) to follow the thread.
Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.
So far I haven't seen any evidence justifying your position.
---
>The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
>This thread is prime example of this.
---
On the contrary, clearly over 99% of us bottom post (and inline post
when it's appropriate) because it makes sense, while I think the
remaining 1% top post in order to get attention or just because you're
troublemakers with a "You can't tell me what to do" attitude.
---
>BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
>You're not that important.
---
If that were true, then you should follow your own advice and stop
posting altogether.
JF
Michael B
will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
all your other trolldom utterances.
I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
particularly surprised.
Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
ignored.
On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
> Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
Josepi
scrolling to the bottom and then reading backwards to find the top of their
statements.
Just look at a thread where epople haven't trimmed and the big inserted
lexical levels are hard to pick out and the outside lexical levels are
useless as nobody can count that many right carets to figure out who said
it. The result? People read the previous posts to know who said what,
confusion results in fights from people disagreeing with the wrong people
and just general mass confusion of information, especially with the browsers
meant to download binary files, mainly.
Look at this beautiful format. This is the way every browser I have seen so
far is designed to work. It is always a favourite troll post of the lazy
trolls when losing an argument. "Your format is wrong" makes a good
distraction from the real issue.
Now read very closely in the attached reference posts I may have interlaced
a comment, somewhere...LOL
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
daestrom
As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly
language?
daestrom
daestrom
> Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
> a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
> about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
> at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.
>
> Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.
>
> The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
> This thread is prime example of this.
>
> BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
> You're not that important.
>
Actually, by reading this thread with a 'news-reader' such as what I'm
using, John's posts and headers make nice, chronological sense. Each
one seems to be in direct reply to the message it is linked to.
Perhaps if you weren't using a bwoser [sic] it would look better for
you. By using a web-based news reader, you're at the mercy of how that
web server reads the headers and such. Most likely it is your web-based
news service that has mad a mess of things.
daestrom
daestrom
> Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.
>
> I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
> read by me or most others.
>
How arrogant of you to presume to speak for 'most others'.
You certainly don't speak for me.
daestrom
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 7:55�pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
>> say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
>> thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
>> what you were talking about.
>Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
>will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
>all your other trolldom utterances.
> I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
>relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
>particularly surprised.
---
While the original topic was coil winding, this part of the thread has
gone off-topic and diverged to the point where what's being discussed is
the efficacy of bottom and in-line posting VS top posting.
Consequently, since my comments address top, in-line, and bottom posting
they are relevant.
---
>Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
>ignored.
---
Isn't comfort and lack of confusion in communications what we should all
strive for?
I've relocated your post so that it follows my earlier one in order that
you might see how much more natural the flow is, chronologically, using
bottom posting.
Just think (if you can) how much easier someone coming across this post
for the first time would find it to understand, reading it from the top
down instead of having to jump about trying to stitch together seemingly
unrelated pieces of quiltwork.
JF
John Fields
>I must say I do like the way the browsers were designed to top post. I hate
>scrolling to the bottom and then reading backwards to find the top of their
>statements.
---
Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be
bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they
start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that
was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the
(generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before.
In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the
first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go
to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse
the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were
located at the top of the stack.
Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect
chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?
---
>Just look at a thread where epople haven't trimmed and the big inserted
>lexical levels are hard to pick out and the outside lexical levels are
>useless as nobody can count that many right carets to figure out who said
>it. The result? People read the previous posts to know who said what,
>confusion results in fights from people disagreeing with the wrong people
>and just general mass confusion of information, especially with the browsers
>meant to download binary files, mainly.
---
Troll, huh?
---
>Look at this beautiful format. This is the way every browser I have seen so
>far is designed to work. It is always a favourite troll post of the lazy
>trolls when losing an argument. "Your format is wrong" makes a good
>distraction from the real issue.
---
My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
---
>Now read very closely in the attached reference posts I may have interlaced
>a comment, somewhere...LOL
---
You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in
trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.
Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.
---
>"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
>will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
>all your other trolldom utterances.
> I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
>relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
>particularly surprised.
>Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
>ignored.
>
> On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>wrote:
>Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
>say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
>thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
>what you were talking about.
---
Ugh...
If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you
consider this to be beautiful, as well:
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=38
JF
John Fields
Josepi
assemblers got cheaper. Always use one before a CLI.
808x I wouldn't want to see the code for that POS. Not assembler friendly.
LOL
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hgtc1...@news5.newsguy.com...
As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly
language?
daestrom
John Fields wrote:
"Nop", I suspect, describes your life.
JF JF JF
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:31 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
Josepi
If you have no logical arguments left try insulting everybody.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cbm4j5lbu33a2rr3k...@4ax.com...
Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be
bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they
start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that
was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the
(generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before.
In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the
first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go
to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse
the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were
located at the top of the stack.
Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect
chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?
Troll, huh?
My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in
trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.
Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.
---
Ugh...
Josepi
Your bottom posting troll was a good distraction for entertainment purposes
only.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:i2i4j5586m4djuorl...@4ax.com...
JF JF JF
Josepi
the three browsers I have experienced.
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hgtci...@news5.newsguy.com...
Josepi
Learning to troll, are we?
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hgtcn...@news5.newsguy.com...
krw
>Now you consider yourself "most".
Show us the numbers or admit your lie.
>Learning to troll, are we?
Do you *always* refer to yourself in the plural?
Michael A. Terrell
krw wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:21:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>
> >Now you consider yourself "most".
>
> Show us the numbers or admit your lie.
>
> >Learning to troll, are we?
>
> Do you *always* refer to yourself in the plural?
Morons usually do. :(
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
John Fields
>Good thing it was easy to follow for you.
---
Following an asshole's trail isn't difficult, all one has to do is
follow the scent of shit.
---
>If you have no logical arguments left try insulting everybody.
---
No need to, and even if I had no logical arguments left, why would I
take a page from your book and try to use it to my advantage by
insulting everyone?
Do you think that because you're at your wit's end and have nowhere to
hide that I have no logic left with which to flail you?
If you do, you're severely mistaken and I'll be glad to drag your dick
in the dirt for as long as it takes to get you to understand what a
pathetic little piece of shit you really are.
Here: take some more rope...
JF