12 LED resistance circuit help
Brilla
nine volt battery. I've managed to dig up enough information about
most things, so I know I'll have to wire them in parallel. But the
resistance I should be using still confuses me.
Should I have one (or more) resistors at the beginning of the circuit?
Or one before each LED in the circuit?
The LEDs I'm using have a 3.6v voltage drop, and they are supposed to
get 20mA I beleive.
So that's 12 LEDs off a 9v battery.
I have a bunch of 27 Ohm resistors because that's what I (probably
mistakenly) calculated I should have before each LED. But I have no
idea what i'm doing. So if anyone can help me out on what resistors I
should use and where I should put them that would be greatly
appreciated!
Thanks,
Steve
John Bokma
> Hi, I want to make a simple LED circuit with 12 LEDs running off a
> nine volt battery. I've managed to dig up enough information about
> most things, so I know I'll have to wire them in parallel. But the
> resistance I should be using still confuses me.
> Should I have one (or more) resistors at the beginning of the circuit?
> Or one before each LED in the circuit?
>
> The LEDs I'm using have a 3.6v voltage drop, and they are supposed to
> get 20mA I beleive.
> So that's 12 LEDs off a 9v battery.
http://johnbokma.com/pet/scorpion/detection-using-uv-leds.html
9V, 3.6V drop ->
9V - ( 2 x 3.6 V ) = 1.8 V
so you want to have 1.8V over your resistor.
the 2 LEDs in series use 20mA ->
1.8V
----
20 mA = 90 Ohm
With 12 LEDs, you need 6 resistors. And the total current should be
around 6 x 20 mA = 120 mA.
Note that I did this calculation, later checked it with a voltage meter,
and yet already 2 exotic LEDs died on me. I think it's a bad badge.
(Unless someone can point out my errors).
--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
Anthony Fremont
"John Bokma" wrote:
<snipped exactly what I was going to post>
> Note that I did this calculation, later checked it with a voltage
meter,
> and yet already 2 exotic LEDs died on me. I think it's a bad badge.
> (Unless someone can point out my errors).
I came up with the same calculation as you. If LEDs are dieing, then
20mA may be a bit too much current. Since there are two LEDs in series,
one may hog more current than the other resulting in its demise. You
might consider not driving them so hard. There is probably a relatively
insignificant brightness difference between 10mA and 20mA anyway.
Ban
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Tom Biasi
"Brilla" <Bri...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:f178a263.05042...@posting.google.com...
Sounds like you want the leds to be powered individually. You need a 270 ohm
resister to limit the current to 20 mA.
Each led should get its own resister and then wire the led/resister units in
parallel.
1/4 watt resisters will be fine.
When you put leds in series they will pass the same current but one my have
a larger voltage drop, consequently dissipate more power, because of a
variance of their characteristics.
Regards,
Tom
petrus bitbyter
"Brilla" <Bri...@mts.net> schreef in bericht
news:f178a263.05042...@posting.google.com...
Well,
The resistor voltage will be 9-3.6=5.4V. Using Ohms law the resistor should
be R=5.4/20=270 Ohm. So 27 Ohm is way too low. Using the right resistors
will require your battery to provide 240mA. You will need a pretty big
battery to light your LEDs for even some minutes. Maybe to 4,5V batteries in
series will do.
Most of the energy from the battery is dissipated in the resistors. Really a
waste. You can try to use two LEDs in series. The resistor will be reduced
to (9-2*3.6)/20=90 Ohm. Power efficiency is much better this way. However,
practical 9V batteries tend to loose some voltage pretty fast when in use.
So the current through your LEDs will decrease accordingly.
To make a real good battery powered LED-light you need to go electronic. But
that's a different story.
petrus bitbyter
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>"John Bokma" wrote:
>
><snipped exactly what I was going to post>
>
>> Note that I did this calculation, later checked it with a voltage
>meter,
>> and yet already 2 exotic LEDs died on me. I think it's a bad badge.
>> (Unless someone can point out my errors).
>
>I came up with the same calculation as you. If LEDs are dieing, then
>20mA may be a bit too much current. Since there are two LEDs in series,
>one may hog more current than the other resulting in its demise.
---
So, you're saying that because the LEDs may not be identical one may
be drawing more current than the other?
---
>You
>might consider not driving them so hard. There is probably a relatively
>insignificant brightness difference between 10mA and 20mA anyway.
--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
Anthony Fremont
"John Fields" wrote
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 05:13:57 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> >I came up with the same calculation as you. If LEDs are dieing, then
> >20mA may be a bit too much current. Since there are two LEDs in
series,
> >one may hog more current than the other resulting in its demise.
>
> ---
> So, you're saying that because the LEDs may not be identical one may
> be drawing more current than the other?
Perhaps "dissipate more power" would have been more appropriate than
"hog more current".
John Bokma
>
> "John Bokma" wrote:
>
> <snipped exactly what I was going to post>
>
>> Note that I did this calculation, later checked it with a voltage
> meter,
>> and yet already 2 exotic LEDs died on me. I think it's a bad badge.
>> (Unless someone can point out my errors).
>
> I came up with the same calculation as you. If LEDs are dieing, then
> 20mA may be a bit too much current. Since there are two LEDs in
> series, one may hog more current than the other resulting in its
> demise.
And where does it store that extra current?
> You
> might consider not driving them so hard. There is probably a
> relatively insignificant brightness difference between 10mA and 20mA
> anyway.
In my case: 30 mA is max, so feeding them 22 mA shouldn't be that bad.
Moreover, the LED died when the circuit at
http://johnbokma.com/pet/scorpion/detection-using-uv-leds.html
was connected to 9V, or maybe even 7V (less then 12V anyway).
John Bokma
Since they are in series, yes. And this is possible if the voltage *over*
the LED differs (which it very likely does). However the current should
stay 20 mA, and due to the resistor, one LED can only have a higher voltage
if another LED has less. The current will stay the same though.
It's like you can hog water in an open tube, it has to go somewhere.
dB
In a series circuit the current is equal through each component.
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vcuk611q8nljblh2q...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 05:13:57 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Bokma" wrote:
> >
> ><snipped exactly what I was going to post>
> >
> >> Note that I did this calculation, later checked it with a voltage
> >meter,
> >> and yet already 2 exotic LEDs died on me. I think it's a bad badge.
> >> (Unless someone can point out my errors).
> >
> >I came up with the same calculation as you. If LEDs are dieing, then
> >20mA may be a bit too much current. Since there are two LEDs in
series,
> >one may hog more current than the other resulting in its demise.
>
> ---
> So, you're saying that because the LEDs may not be identical one may
> be drawing more current than the other?
> ---
Heh. Some advice handed out in the NG is really atrocious, ain't it?
Lord Garth
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOS...@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:116m36r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> news:vcuk611q8nljblh2q...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 05:13:57 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> > <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"John Bokma" wrote:
> > >
> > ><snipped exactly what I was going to post>
> > >
> > >> Note that I did this calculation, later checked it with a voltage
> > >meter,
> > >> and yet already 2 exotic LEDs died on me. I think it's a bad badge.
> > >> (Unless someone can point out my errors).
> > >
> > >I came up with the same calculation as you. If LEDs are dieing, then
> > >20mA may be a bit too much current. Since there are two LEDs in
> series,
> > >one may hog more current than the other resulting in its demise.
> >
> > ---
> > So, you're saying that because the LEDs may not be identical one may
> > be drawing more current than the other?
> > ---
>
> Heh. Some advice handed out in the NG is really atrocious, ain't it?
>
I found an author of an article published in Electronics Now commenting
about the voltage through the circuit...
John Bokma
> I found an author of an article published in Electronics Now
> commenting about the voltage through the circuit...
Batteries in toy racing cars?
dB
> and due to the resistor, one LED can only have a higher voltage
> if another LED has less.
"Due to the resistor"? What a strange thing to say.
The resistor limits the current, it has no direct effect on the
voltage developed across each l.e.d. The actual value across each
l.e.d. varies from device to device at any current. The data sheets
give a "typical" Vf and sometimes a max figure.
Roger Johansson
> The resistor limits the current, it has no direct effect on the
> voltage developed across each l.e.d. The actual value across each
> l.e.d. varies from device to device at any current. The data sheets
> give a "typical" Vf and sometimes a max figure.
In this case we should not trust the value, 3.6V, which was
given earlier. That should be checked with a voltmeter in reality.
If these LEDs have a lower voltage that would explain why some suddenly
die.
Send 10mA through a LED and measure the voltage over it, and the
voltage over the resistor.
Do the math and find out how much current is passing the resistor, and
the LED.
--
Roger J.
Anthony Fremont
> Heh. Some advice handed out in the NG is really atrocious, ain't it?
I guess the restatement I made is not good enough. Should I start
another thread and offer a formal apology to the world for making such a
heinous mis-statement about current vs. dissipation? Maybe I could help
make amends by belittling others, nit-picking posts and posting a bunch
of OT crap?
Lets see if we can't get on to the road to recovery now. Speaking of
good advice, why are you trying to get a poster to use non-rechargeable
alkaline batteries when he clearly expressed a preference for
rechargeable? Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
sheez....
Anthony Fremont
"dB" <dmb0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1757808.05042...@posting.google.com...
> John Bokma <postm...@castleamber.com> wrote
>
> > and due to the resistor, one LED can only have a higher voltage
> > if another LED has less.
>
> "Due to the resistor"? What a strange thing to say.
>
> The resistor limits the current, it has no direct effect on the
> voltage developed across each l.e.d. The actual value across each
Vf _is_ dependant upon current. At extremely low currents, Vf will be
significantly lower than the nominal value. As current increases, so
will Vf. The curve is steep, but it is not vertical.
> l.e.d. varies from device to device at any current. The data sheets
> give a "typical" Vf and sometimes a max figure.
If it is a detailed datasheet it will also specify a test condition
clause giving the current associated with the stated Vf. Like this one
for example:
http://www.epitex.com/Catalog_PDF/08_Point_source_LED/L590CE-34F.PDF
The datasheet sometimes specifies a minimum Vf as well. The max Vf can
be as much as double the min Vf. Like Ripley says, believe it or not.
;-)
Anthony Fremont
Yeah, I know. I messed up, I should have said power, so sue me. ;-)
dB
>
> Vf _is_ dependant upon current.
I neither said nor implied that it wasn't.
> At extremely low currents, Vf will be
> significantly lower than the nominal value. As current increases, so
> will Vf. The curve is steep, but it is not vertical.
Yes, the curve is in an article on my site. (I can suck eggs.)
You seem to have misundersood my post which was regarding the
ambiguous sentence "However the current should
stay 20 mA, and due to the resistor, one LED can only have a higher
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOS...@dslextreme.com>
>wrote in message
>
>> Heh. Some advice handed out in the NG is really atrocious, ain't it?
>
>I guess the restatement I made is not good enough. Should I start
>another thread and offer a formal apology to the world for making such a
>heinous mis-statement about current vs. dissipation?
---
Current VS dissipation isn't where you erred, you stated that
current-hogging was taking place in a series circuit, where currents
are everywhere the same and hogging _can't take place.
---
>Maybe I could help
>make amends by belittling others, nit-picking posts and posting a bunch
>of OT crap?
---
That seems a little extreme. Usually all that's required is an "oops"
or an "aaarrghhh!" or a simple admission of error.
---
>Lets see if we can't get on to the road to recovery now. Speaking of
>good advice, why are you trying to get a poster to use non-rechargeable
>alkaline batteries when he clearly expressed a preference for
>rechargeable? Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
>your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
>sheez....
---
Fuck you, pinhead. Go to:
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/2N%2F2N4401.pdf
and read the absolute maximum rating for collector current, then
report back with what you find along with a reference to the article,
OK?
Anthony Fremont
> >
> > Vf _is_ dependant upon current.
>
> I neither said nor implied that it wasn't.
I guess I misunderstood you when you said:
"The actual value across each l.e.d. varies from device to device at any
current."
> > At extremely low currents, Vf will be
Anthony Fremont
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:12:33 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover""
<NOS...@dslextreme.com>
> >wrote in message
> >
> >> Heh. Some advice handed out in the NG is really atrocious, ain't
it?
> >
> >I guess the restatement I made is not good enough. Should I start
> >another thread and offer a formal apology to the world for making
such a
> >heinous mis-statement about current vs. dissipation?
>
> ---
> Current VS dissipation isn't where you erred, you stated that
> current-hogging was taking place in a series circuit, where currents
> are everywhere the same and hogging _can't take place.
> ---
I know, that's why I said, "that I should have said power instead of
current". I was going to say "hogging the juice" but changed it to the
incorrect word of current (instead of power) and I really wish that I
had stuck with juice.
> >Maybe I could help
> >make amends by belittling others, nit-picking posts and posting a
bunch
> >of OT crap?
>
> ---
> That seems a little extreme. Usually all that's required is an "oops"
> or an "aaarrghhh!" or a simple admission of error.
I would have, if you'd have just pointed out my mistake like dB did.
Instead, for some twisted reason, you try to set me up with a little
trick question.
> ---
>
> >Lets see if we can't get on to the road to recovery now. Speaking of
> >good advice, why are you trying to get a poster to use
non-rechargeable
> >alkaline batteries when he clearly expressed a preference for
> >rechargeable? Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
> >your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
> >sheez....
>
> ---
> Fuck you, pinhead. Go to:
>
> http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/2N%2F2N4401.pdf
>
> and read the absolute maximum rating for collector current, then
> report back with what you find along with a reference to the article,
> OK?
OK, Mr. "professional circuit designer", I already did that and that's
why I know you made a mistake. You incorrectly stated that the max
current was ".6mA", IOW 600uA. The correct number is 600mA or .6A, but
it is certainly not .6mA. I realize that's only three orders of
magnitude off, so perhaps that's close enough for you, but it's not for
me. Now awaiting your apology (for leaping to conclusions and then
cussing me out) and your admission of error.
I hope this link works:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/96bd1581c0bf581d/07d336d4a9dce9b2?q=2n4401+author:john+author:fields&rnum=2&hl=en#07d336d4a9dce9b2
Now.......wasn't that allot more productive than just pointing out the
mistake? Not.
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
---
Sure, I made a trypo, which is clearly evident from the context of the
article. Big fucking deal.
You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking around
saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly accepted
technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense and
trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat that
you're in, LOL.
Anthony Fremont
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> Sure, I made a trypo, which is clearly evident from the context of the
Clearly evident, are you trying to be funny? There is nothing "clearly
evident" about 0.6mA REALLY meaning 600mA.
> article. Big fucking deal.
As a matter of fact, it is a BFD now. You wrongly cussed me out, now
you should apologize. Or do you think you are above that?
> You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking around
> saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly accepted
> technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense and
> trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat that
> you're in, LOL.
I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to do?
Do you really think that I don't know the difference between current and
power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit is
the same? I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
Next time I'll be more careful.
The simple fact remains that one LED WILL DISIPATE MORE POWER THAN THE
OTHER DUE TO DIFFERING Vf's. RIGHT??? THE END RESULT IS EXACTLY THE
SAME AS IF ONE DEVICE HOGGED MORE CURRENT, RIGHT??? I have admitted my
error numerous times now. Now, what is your problem?
I'm not saying that you're in the same boat as me, I am saying that you
make mistakes too. What I'd like to know is:
Would you rather have someone point it out nicely, or would you rather
them try to trip you up so that you can dig yourself in deeper? Let me
know so that I may properly appease you in the future.
BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the network
appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>
>> Sure, I made a trypo, which is clearly evident from the context of the
>
>Clearly evident, are you trying to be funny? There is nothing "clearly
>evident" about 0.6mA REALLY meaning 600mA.
---
Well, had you noticed that earlier on in the article I referred to
being able to run a relay with a 100mA coil, and had you noticed that
that relay was in series with the collector-to-emitter junction of the
transistor, it should have been obvious that, in the absence of
current-hogging, that 100mA also had to pass through the transistor's
collector-to-emitter junction in order to cause the relay to function.
Also, I don't think there are any commonly available mechanical relays
with will operate with coil currents on the order of 60渙, so it
should have been more or less obvious that it was a trypo. Especially
when you consider that just removing the mu fixes everything.
---
>> article. Big fucking deal.
>
>As a matter of fact, it is a BFD now. You wrongly cussed me out, now
>you should apologize. Or do you think you are above that?
---
What I think is that you're trying to mitigate your error by saying,
"See, everybody makes the same kinds of mistakes I do.", and there's
no reason for me to apologize to you for flaming you about that.
---
>> You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking around
>> saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly accepted
>> technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense and
>> trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat that
>> you're in, LOL.
>
>I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to do?
---
I dont care _what_ you do.
---
>Do you really think that I don't know the difference between current and
>power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit is
>the same?
---
You do now...
---
>I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
---
Shit happens...
---
>Next time I'll be more careful.
---
Good.
---
>The simple fact remains that one LED WILL DISIPATE MORE POWER THAN THE
>OTHER DUE TO DIFFERING Vf's. RIGHT???
---
Right.
---
>THE END RESULT IS EXACTLY THE
>SAME AS IF ONE DEVICE HOGGED MORE CURRENT, RIGHT???
---
Wrong. That's the same as saying that getting from point A to point B
via a road that doesn't exist is the same as getting from point A to
point B via road that does exist.
---
>I have admitted my
>error numerous times now. Now, what is your problem?
---
I have no problem.
---
>I'm not saying that you're in the same boat as me, I am saying that you
>make mistakes too. What I'd like to know is:
>
>Would you rather have someone point it out nicely, or would you rather
>them try to trip you up so that you can dig yourself in deeper? Let me
>know so that I may properly appease you in the future.
---
Neither my appeasement nor your sarcasm is necessary. Besides, I
don't know why you're so offended by what you thought was a trick
question since, trick question or not, it certainly woke you up
quickly enough!
---
>BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
>reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the network
>appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?
---
Is that a trick question?
John Fields
<jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:12:30 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
><sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Sure, I made a trypo, which is clearly evident from the context of the
>>
>>Clearly evident, are you trying to be funny? There is nothing "clearly
>>evident" about 0.6mA REALLY meaning 600mA.
>
>---
>Well, had you noticed that earlier on in the article I referred to
>being able to run a relay with a 100mA coil, and had you noticed that
>that relay was in series with the collector-to-emitter junction of the
>transistor, it should have been obvious that, in the absence of
>current-hogging, that 100mA also had to pass through the transistor's
>collector-to-emitter junction in order to cause the relay to function.
>Also, I don't think there are any commonly available mechanical relays
>with will operate with coil currents on the order of 60渙, so it
^^
Oops... 600
Anthony Fremont
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:12:30 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Sure, I made a trypo, which is clearly evident from the context of
the
> >
> >Clearly evident, are you trying to be funny? There is nothing
"clearly
> >evident" about 0.6mA REALLY meaning 600mA.
>
> ---
> Well, had you noticed that earlier on in the article I referred to
> being able to run a relay with a 100mA coil, and had you noticed that
> that relay was in series with the collector-to-emitter junction of the
> transistor, it should have been obvious that, in the absence of
> current-hogging, that 100mA also had to pass through the transistor's
> collector-to-emitter junction in order to cause the relay to function.
> Also, I don't think there are any commonly available mechanical relays
> with will operate with coil currents on the order of 60渙, so it
> should have been more or less obvious that it was a trypo. Especially
> when you consider that just removing the mu fixes everything.
It was obvious to me for all the reasons you mention, that's why I went
and looked at the datasheet yesterday to see. However, it might not
have been obvious to the OP (and it likely wasn't) given his post and
his nym. I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though. I
figured you'd catch it or someone else would. No biggy. Certainly not
like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in S.E.B, I
see.
> >> article. Big fucking deal.
> >
> >As a matter of fact, it is a BFD now. You wrongly cussed me out, now
> >you should apologize. Or do you think you are above that?
>
> ---
> What I think is that you're trying to mitigate your error by saying,
> "See, everybody makes the same kinds of mistakes I do.", and there's
> no reason for me to apologize to you for flaming you about that.
I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one for
cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake. I admit my mistake yet
again, when will it be enough for you?
> >> You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking around
> >> saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly accepted
> >> technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense
and
> >> trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat
that
> >> you're in, LOL.
> >
> >I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to do?
>
> ---
> I dont care _what_ you do.
I guess that's only as long as I don't say "current" when I really mean
"power".
> >Do you really think that I don't know the difference between current
and
> >power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit is
> >the same?
>
> ---
> You do now...
I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.
> >I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
>
> ---
> Shit happens...
> ---
>
> >Next time I'll be more careful.
>
> ---
> Good.
whatever
> >The simple fact remains that one LED WILL DISIPATE MORE POWER THAN
THE
> >OTHER DUE TO DIFFERING Vf's. RIGHT???
>
> ---
> Right.
> ---
At least we can agree on something.
> >THE END RESULT IS EXACTLY THE
> >SAME AS IF ONE DEVICE HOGGED MORE CURRENT, RIGHT???
>
> ---
> Wrong. That's the same as saying that getting from point A to point B
> via a road that doesn't exist is the same as getting from point A to
> point B via road that does exist.
Your falacious analogy aside, the end result is a smoked part. The same
as when you put too much current thru it. I defy you to tell the
difference in a post-mortem exam.
> >I have admitted my
> >error numerous times now. Now, what is your problem?
>
> ---
> I have no problem.
> ---
Other than your inability to apologize for cussing someone out and
calling them names.
> >I'm not saying that you're in the same boat as me, I am saying that
you
> >make mistakes too. What I'd like to know is:
> >
> >Would you rather have someone point it out nicely, or would you
rather
> >them try to trip you up so that you can dig yourself in deeper? Let
me
> >know so that I may properly appease you in the future.
>
> ---
> Neither my appeasement nor your sarcasm is necessary. Besides, I
> don't know why you're so offended by what you thought was a trick
> question since, trick question or not, it certainly woke you up
> quickly enough!
> ---
Too bad you didn't "wake up" to your "trypo" until after cussing me out.
> >BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
> >reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the
network
> >appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?
>
> ---
> Is that a trick question?
no
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
---
Oh, so now you're an authority on the OP?
Whether it was obvious to him or not wouldn't have made a particle of
difference as long as he used a 2N4401, as was shown on the schematic.
What I think is interesting is that for all your whining about a typo
you had a chance to catch a much more serious _technical_ error, yet
you didn't.
---
>I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though.
---
You say that now, but earlier you felt that:
"Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct your mistake in
S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
sheez...."
was better than, say, "BTW, John, you stated in sed that the maximum
collector current for a 2N4401 is 0.6mA. I believe that should be
0.6A." ?
So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
selective memory lapse problems.
---
>I figured you'd catch it or someone else would.
---
Someone else did. Non-confrontationally, BTW.
---
>No biggy.
---
One would think...
---
>Certainly not
>like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in S.E.B, I
>see.
---
It wasn't the word 'current', it was the phrase 'current hogging'.
---
>> >> article. Big fucking deal.
>> >
>> >As a matter of fact, it is a BFD now. You wrongly cussed me out, now
>> >you should apologize. Or do you think you are above that?
>>
>> ---
>> What I think is that you're trying to mitigate your error by saying,
>> "See, everybody makes the same kinds of mistakes I do.", and there's
>> no reason for me to apologize to you for flaming you about that.
>
>I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one for
>cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake.
---
Had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
And you'll get no apology. Don't like it, sue me.
---
>I admit my mistake yet again, when will it be enough for you?
---
Your first admission was sufficient for me, but you seem to feel a
need to keep admitting it, ad nauseam, so the question really should
be: When will it be enough for _you_?
---
>> >> You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking around
>> >> saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly accepted
>> >> technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense
>and
>> >> trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat
>that
>> >> you're in, LOL.
>> >
>> >I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to do?
>>
>> ---
>> I dont care _what_ you do.
>
>I guess that's only as long as I don't say "current" when I really mean
>"power".
---
You misunderstand me. "I don't care what you do" means precisely
that. Make mistakes, don't make mistakes, it makes no difference to
me. Choosing to comment one way or the other is my prerogative and is
not based on caring about what you do, it's based on fixing the error.
---
>> >Do you really think that I don't know the difference between current
>and
>> >power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit is
>> >the same?
>>
>> ---
>> You do now...
>
>I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.
---
Yes, well, if you don't use it you lose it.
---
>> >I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
>>
>> ---
>> Shit happens...
>> ---
>>
>> >Next time I'll be more careful.
>>
>> ---
>> Good.
>
>whatever
---
Weak.
---
>> >The simple fact remains that one LED WILL DISIPATE MORE POWER THAN
>THE
>> >OTHER DUE TO DIFFERING Vf's. RIGHT???
>>
>> ---
>> Right.
>> ---
>
>At least we can agree on something.
>
>> >THE END RESULT IS EXACTLY THE
>> >SAME AS IF ONE DEVICE HOGGED MORE CURRENT, RIGHT???
>>
>> ---
>> Wrong. That's the same as saying that getting from point A to point B
>> via a road that doesn't exist is the same as getting from point A to
>> point B via road that does exist.
>
>Your falacious analogy aside, the end result is a smoked part. The same
>as when you put too much current thru it. I defy you to tell the
>difference in a post-mortem exam.
---
You just can't let it go, can you?
Fact is, in a post-mortem exam the second LED would be very closely
examined and could yield some clues as to what happened to the toasted
LED. For instance, if the LED failed open and the second LED's Vf,
If, and light output were in spec once it was fired up again, then the
failure of the first LED could have been a wire bond failure or who
knows what else at a current substantially _below_ Ifmax.
Just for grins, why don't you work out the power dissipation of each
of two LEDs in series, one with Vfmin and the other with Vfmax with
nominal If going through both of them and see if that causes the high
Vf LED to dissipate more than its maximum rated power?
---
>> >I have admitted my
>> >error numerous times now. Now, what is your problem?
>>
>> ---
>> I have no problem.
>> ---
>
>Other than your inability to apologize for cussing someone out and
>calling them names.
---
On the contrary, I'm perfectly capable of apologizing when it's
warranted.
---
>
>> >I'm not saying that you're in the same boat as me, I am saying that
>you
>> >make mistakes too. What I'd like to know is:
>> >
>> >Would you rather have someone point it out nicely, or would you
>rather
>> >them try to trip you up so that you can dig yourself in deeper? Let
>me
>> >know so that I may properly appease you in the future.
>>
>> ---
>> Neither my appeasement nor your sarcasm is necessary. Besides, I
>> don't know why you're so offended by what you thought was a trick
>> question since, trick question or not, it certainly woke you up
>> quickly enough!
>> ---
>
>Too bad you didn't "wake up" to your "trypo" until after cussing me out.
---
Again, had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
---
>> >BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
>> >reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the
>network
>> >appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?
>>
>> ---
>> Is that a trick question?
>
>no
---
HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a nickle,
diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.
PCB, transistor, relay is a wash for either system.
A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
learning curve and programming and debugging time.
You figure it out.
Anthony Fremont
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
<snipped a bunch more side-stepping and invective/ad-hominem crap>
> ---
> HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a nickle,
> diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.
Didn't you have a pot in your design?
> PCB, transistor, relay is a wash for either system.
Probably wouldn't need a transistor to drive the relay as long as
5V@25mA will do it. Why not a nice SSR instead?
> A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
> learning curve and programming and debugging time.
How come the full cost of a programmer and the micro's entire learning
curve gets factored in every time a micro is mentioned as a solution?
It's a one time cost, just like the rest of anyones test equipment or
education. I spent less than $75.00 on my programming hardware and the
dev tools were free from Microchip. My scope cost me more than $400
fifteen years ago and it was used then. Nobody worries about the
thousands of dollars needed for the rest of the stuff you need to
effectively tinker in electronics, just the $50 for the programmer like
it's some kind of major show-stopper. IME, debugging time for this
project would be virtually non-existent and the end result would be more
useful since it would have a much greater dynamic range on the time
constant.
> You figure it out.
Your cost may be a little less assuming a PIC 12Fxxx (~1.20 single qty),
but a 4 bit micro would change that. Outside of the minor cost
difference, I still feel that the micro offers far more potential for a
better end result.
Lord Garth
"Anthony Fremont" <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:X2Xae.25888$AE6....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> > A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
> > learning curve and programming and debugging time.
>
> How come the full cost of a programmer and the micro's entire learning
> curve gets factored in every time a micro is mentioned as a solution?
> It's a one time cost, just like the rest of anyones test equipment or
> education. I spent less than $75.00 on my programming hardware and the
> dev tools were free from Microchip. My scope cost me more than $400
> fifteen years ago and it was used then. Nobody worries about the
> thousands of dollars needed for the rest of the stuff you need to
> effectively tinker in electronics, just the $50 for the programmer like
> it's some kind of major show-stopper. IME, debugging time for this
> project would be virtually non-existent and the end result would be more
> useful since it would have a much greater dynamic range on the time
> constant.
>
As was mentioned here long ago, and is still true, "Use a PIC" is much too
generic of a 'solution'. It doesn't teach much about electronic hardware
and of those that suggest a PIC as a solution, maybe one has followed
through
with schematics AND source code.
Look at the PIC question today, the OP asks why the software he DL doesn't
see the programmer he built. He links a page but we don't have a clue if he
etched a PCB of space wired the thing. He has not gotten back with any
updates. It's typical.
Anthony Fremont
"Lord Garth" <LGa...@Tantalus.net> wrote in message
news:1vXae.459$m85...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
I know that I have provided PIC code for more than one person on usenet.
Whenever I suggest using a PIC to someone, you can consider it a given
that I intend to help them with their code and circuitry if they choose
to try it.
> Look at the PIC question today, the OP asks why the software he DL
doesn't
> see the programmer he built. He links a page but we don't have a clue
if he
> etched a PCB of space wired the thing. He has not gotten back with
any
> updates. It's typical.
Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it doesn't
work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie posts
regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his problem has
nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.
Lord Garth
I'm not anti PIC, my burner handles many devices including PIC. I feel
that if it can replace between 6 to 10 ICs or if you need one of their
more advanced features like PIC with USB, then it's okay. I'd have to
admit that their Harvard architecture is odd compared to von Neumann
architecture. I understand the efficiency, it's reminiscent of AOS vs. RPN.
The versions and capabilities are many that one is easily overwhelmed by
the variety. That's one reason why I would like to see a Z-80 running a
TCP/IP stack. It would show that a '70's device still has uses.
Anthony Fremont
"Lord Garth" <LGa...@Tantalus.net> wrote in message news:byYae.498
> I wrote:
> > Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it
doesn't
> > work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie posts
> > regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his problem
has
> > nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.
> >
>
> I'm not anti PIC, my burner handles many devices including PIC. I
feel
> that if it can replace between 6 to 10 ICs or if you need one of their
6 to 10? That sounds like you may be just a tad bit resistant to using
them. ;-)
> more advanced features like PIC with USB, then it's okay. I'd have to
> admit that their Harvard architecture is odd compared to von Neumann
> architecture. I understand the efficiency, it's reminiscent of AOS
vs. RPN.
Coming from an assembly programming background (on Von Neumann stuff of
course), it was a bit strange to me at first too. PICs, however, are a
godsend for me. They let me build the kind of stuff that I always
wanted to do, without having to dedicate my life to hardware design.
I've also been able to get projects working that I could never have done
the "traditional" way.
> The versions and capabilities are many that one is easily overwhelmed
by
> the variety. That's one reason why I would like to see a Z-80 running
a
> TCP/IP stack. It would show that a '70's device still has uses.
I believe the Rabbit might interest you then. I haven't played with
them, but AIUI they are very much like the Z-80 instruction set and they
come with a TCP/IP stack. They're too expensive for me though.
Lord Garth
I thought the Rabbit was too expensive as well. I have a similar product
I bought from Sparkofun, it was about $60. Under the RJ-45 is a 20MHz
processor. It outputs in parallel but I've not yet taken the time to work
with
it.
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>
><snipped a bunch more side-stepping and invective/ad-hominem crap>
---
Translation: "The sonofabitch nailed me, so I'll just shout one more
insult and pretend he didn't. And now for something completely
different..."
---
>> ---
>> HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a nickle,
>> diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.
>
>Didn't you have a pot in your design?
---
Yeah, but it was a nicety. For the cost-conscious, and if the period
isn't all that critical, 510k +/- 5% will be just fine.
---
>> PCB, transistor, relay is a wash for either system.
>
>Probably wouldn't need a transistor to drive the relay as long as
>5V@25mA will do it. Why not a nice SSR instead?
---
Oh, I don't know... Maybe because that's not what the OP of the thread
in sed you referenced asked for?
---
>> A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
>> learning curve and programming and debugging time.
>
>How come the full cost of a programmer and the micro's entire learning
>curve gets factored in every time a micro is mentioned as a solution?
---
Because if you haven't bought/built one and you haven't been through
the process, then you'll have to buy/build one and go through the
process if you want to play.
---
>It's a one time cost, just like the rest of anyones test equipment or
>education.
---
Yes, of course, but it's a one-time cost and an ongoing effort which
will will be unwarranted if the goal at hand is to build a one-off
widget with a total cost of, say, $10 or less.
---
>I spent less than $75.00 on my programming hardware and the
>dev tools were free from Microchip. My scope cost me more than $400
>fifteen years ago and it was used then. Nobody worries about the
>thousands of dollars needed for the rest of the stuff you need to
>effectively tinker in electronics, just the $50 for the programmer like
>it's some kind of major show-stopper.
---
The keyword there is 'tinker'. If that's _your_ bent, then fine.
Spend away. Understand however, that that's not _everyone's_ cup of
tea and that some folks only want a simple, inexpensive, easily
realizable solution for a problem peculiar to them. Asking them to
spend _anything_ on hardware which is going to gather dust after the
project is finished is, at best, stupid. As is asking them to spend
time learning how to use it, and to acquire the software skills
necessary to bring the "project" to completion.
---
>IME, debugging time for this
>project would be virtually non-existent and the end result would be more
>useful since it would have a much greater dynamic range on the time
>constant.
---
If you think the OP was wrong in asking for what he wanted, then why
don't you get your ass over to sed and tell him about it instead of
sitting here playing self - aggrandising games and kvetching about
every goddam thing under the sun?
Hint: He doesn't _want_ to be able to change the timing, he just
wants something that'll give him a contact closure, repeatedly, every
hour or so.
---
>> You figure it out.
>
>Your cost may be a little less assuming a PIC 12Fxxx (~1.20 single qty),
>but a 4 bit micro would change that.
---
YAFI, LOL! Suggest away, and don't forget to include the cost of the
programmer and the dev tools, and the time required to learn how to
use them and to learn the instruction set.
---
>Outside of the minor cost
>difference, I still feel that the micro offers far more potential for a
>better end result.
---
"Minor cost difference"? You're either trying to sneak some shit in
there or you can't do, or haven't done, the arithmetic, so I'll do it
for you: Since the transistor, the base resistor, the clamp diode,
the relay and the PCB are a wash, what's left is $1.20 for your
suggested PIC way VS about $0.63 for my way.
That comes to:
$1.20
-$0.63
------
$0.57
which is about 1/2 as expensive as your way. "Minor cost difference"?
I think not.
Hmmm... Where did I read this:
"BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the network
appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?"
1. Cheaper? I've just proven that it's not cheaper in onesies, and I
doubt that with that huge cost differential it could be made cheaper
in volume.
2. Simpler? Since the æ¹£ way would require a large investment in time
in order to climb the learning curve, that can hardly be considered a
simpler solution for a one-off.
3. More reliable? I don't have a good handle on the reliability of
either way, so if you have some numbers to back up your position, post
them.
4. What do I think? I think you're full of shit.
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it doesn't
>work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie posts
>regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his problem has
>nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.
---
To whom and to what are you referring, specifically?
Anthony Fremont
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> ---
> Oh, so now you're an authority on the OP?
Only so far as what he posted. I thought he made his skill level fairly
clear.
> Whether it was obvious to him or not wouldn't have made a particle of
> difference as long as he used a 2N4401, as was shown on the schematic.
That's completely beside the point. Just like the fact that it wouldn't
have worked anyway.
> What I think is interesting is that for all your whining about a typo
> you had a chance to catch a much more serious _technical_ error, yet
> you didn't.
And you think that is something to brag about? LMAO I'm not the one
touting myself as a "professional circuit designer". I'm in it for the
hobby and I've never pretended any different. Perhaps you should have
told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because even
I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that you
knew would work. I will certainly view your schematics from the proper
perspective from now on.
> >I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though.
>
> ---
> You say that now, but earlier you felt that:
>
> "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct your mistake in
> S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
> sheez...."
>
> was better than, say, "BTW, John, you stated in sed that the maximum
> collector current for a 2N4401 is 0.6mA. I believe that should be
> 0.6A." ?
First off the sheez part wasn't addressed to you. You might have
deduced that from the punctuation. Secondly I was being sarcastic, you
should have been able to tell that from the entire context of my post.
At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of their
posts. Or did you already forget about the photocell and resistor
fiasco in your unending love/hate relationship with Larry? BTW, I don't
think my comment was all that bad, certainly not an FU or anything like
that. I noticed that Mike pointed out your error and you didn't
respond. I thought you might like to know about it. :-) It certainly
woke you up didn't it. :-D
At any rate, the sole reason that I even mentioned you was because you
had already made your attempt at setting me up. Given your typical
behavior lately, I knew what was coming next. I figured my way of
pointing out your mistake was just beating you to the punch. Obviously
I was correct, since you are now so pissed over it.
I certainly didn't cuss you out over it though.
> So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
> selective memory lapse problems.
Where did I lie?
> >I figured you'd catch it or someone else would.
>
> ---
> Someone else did. Non-confrontationally, BTW
That was his choice. Like you, I reserve the right to respond when and
how I want.
> >No biggy.
>
> ---
> One would think...
> ---
>
> >Certainly not
> >like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in S.E.B, I
> >see.
>
> ---
> It wasn't the word 'current', it was the phrase 'current hogging'.
And?
> >> >> article. Big fucking deal.
> >> >
> >> >As a matter of fact, it is a BFD now. You wrongly cussed me out,
now
> >> >you should apologize. Or do you think you are above that?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> What I think is that you're trying to mitigate your error by
saying,
> >> "See, everybody makes the same kinds of mistakes I do.", and
there's
> >> no reason for me to apologize to you for flaming you about that.
> >
> >I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one for
> >cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake.
>
> ---
> Had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
> acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
> And you'll get no apology. Don't like it, sue me.
No need to sue, you are doing enough damage to your business and
reputation all by yourself.
> >I admit my mistake yet again, when will it be enough for you?
>
> ---
> Your first admission was sufficient for me, but you seem to feel a
> need to keep admitting it, ad nauseam, so the question really should
> be: When will it be enough for _you_?
You accused me of weaving and bobbing, so I figured that I hadn't been
plain enough for you.
> >> >> You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking
around
> >> >> saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly
accepted
> >> >> technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense
> >and
> >> >> trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat
> >that
> >> >> you're in, LOL.
> >> >
> >> >I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to
do?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> I dont care _what_ you do.
> >
> >I guess that's only as long as I don't say "current" when I really
mean
> >"power".
>
> ---
> You misunderstand me. "I don't care what you do" means precisely
> that. Make mistakes, don't make mistakes, it makes no difference to
> me. Choosing to comment one way or the other is my prerogative and is
> not based on caring about what you do, it's based on fixing the error.
Then, why did my comment upset you? I was only prompting you to fix
your error. I didn't call you any names, or use an cuss words so why
did you find it so upsetting?
> >> >Do you really think that I don't know the difference between
current
> >and
> >> >power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit
is
> >> >the same?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> You do now...
> >
> >I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.
>
> ---
> Yes, well, if you don't use it you lose it.
I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
energy. I think you know that too or you'd be filling your posts with
links to all my past errors.
> >> >I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Shit happens...
> >> ---
> >>
> >> >Next time I'll be more careful.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Good.
> >
> >whatever
>
> ---
> Weak.
Not half as weak as someone that feels a need to dominate a basics
newsgroup just cuz they're an expert in the field.
Perhaps if you acted a little more civil around here, I would be
inclined to be nicer to you. As it stands, you certainly are
demonstrating that you deserve far less courtesy than I've shown you.
Anthony Fremont
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:43:35 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >
> ><snipped a bunch more side-stepping and invective/ad-hominem crap>
>
> ---
> Translation: "The sonofabitch nailed me, so I'll just shout one more
> insult and pretend he didn't. And now for something completely
> different..."
However you wish to see it John, though I didn't use any cuss words.
> >> ---
> >> HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a nickle,
> >> diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.
> >
> >Didn't you have a pot in your design?
>
> ---
> Yeah, but it was a nicety. For the cost-conscious, and if the period
> isn't all that critical, 510k +/- 5% will be just fine.
I'd go with jumpers on a micro. They're cheap and highly configurable.
> >> PCB, transistor, relay is a wash for either system.
> >
> >Probably wouldn't need a transistor to drive the relay as long as
> >5V@25mA will do it. Why not a nice SSR instead?
>
> ---
> Oh, I don't know... Maybe because that's not what the OP of the thread
> in sed you referenced asked for?
An SSR doesn't qualify as a relay?
> >> A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
> >> learning curve and programming and debugging time.
> >
> >How come the full cost of a programmer and the micro's entire
learning
> >curve gets factored in every time a micro is mentioned as a solution?
>
> ---
> Because if you haven't bought/built one and you haven't been through
> the process, then you'll have to buy/build one and go through the
> process if you want to play.
> ---
The same goes for test equipment, soldering stuff etc.... It's just one
more tool that you need, nothing more. A good PIC programmer is less
than $100. Compared to the $150 I spent on my audio frequency generator
that I almost never use, it's a great investment.
> >It's a one time cost, just like the rest of anyones test equipment or
> >education.
>
> ---
> Yes, of course, but it's a one-time cost and an ongoing effort which
> will will be unwarranted if the goal at hand is to build a one-off
> widget with a total cost of, say, $10 or less.
But it would be worth buying a DMM, a soldering iron, solder, etching
stuff etc.....?
> >I spent less than $75.00 on my programming hardware and the
> >dev tools were free from Microchip. My scope cost me more than $400
> >fifteen years ago and it was used then. Nobody worries about the
> >thousands of dollars needed for the rest of the stuff you need to
> >effectively tinker in electronics, just the $50 for the programmer
like
> >it's some kind of major show-stopper.
>
> ---
> The keyword there is 'tinker'. If that's _your_ bent, then fine.
> Spend away. Understand however, that that's not _everyone's_ cup of
> tea and that some folks only want a simple, inexpensive, easily
> realizable solution for a problem peculiar to them. Asking them to
Well, I guess that I see PIC chips like you see 74xx's
> spend _anything_ on hardware which is going to gather dust after the
> project is finished is, at best, stupid. As is asking them to spend
> time learning how to use it, and to acquire the software skills
> necessary to bring the "project" to completion.
Burning yet another straw man, you really are a fire bug. I don't
recall asking anyone to spend money on equipement to be used once. As I
"self agrandised" before, if I was adamently suggesting a PIC to
someone, I'd be offering some help to go with it. You can make of that
what you wish.
> >IME, debugging time for this
> >project would be virtually non-existent and the end result would be
more
> >useful since it would have a much greater dynamic range on the time
> >constant.
>
> ---
> If you think the OP was wrong in asking for what he wanted, then why
> don't you get your ass over to sed and tell him about it instead of
> sitting here playing self - aggrandising games and kvetching about
> every goddam thing under the sun?
Er um, because I don't want to. You really ought to stop trying to
control things around here. Ordering people around on usenet is not
likely to win you many friends.
> Hint: He doesn't _want_ to be able to change the timing, he just
> wants something that'll give him a contact closure, repeatedly, every
> hour or so.
> ---
>
> >> You figure it out.
> >
> >Your cost may be a little less assuming a PIC 12Fxxx (~1.20 single
qty),
> >but a 4 bit micro would change that.
>
> ---
> YAFI, LOL! Suggest away, and don't forget to include the cost of the
> programmer and the dev tools, and the time required to learn how to
> use them and to learn the instruction set.
Programmers and dev tools don't count. We've already covered this.
They are in the same category as all other dev tools and electronics
equipment you own.
> >Outside of the minor cost
> >difference, I still feel that the micro offers far more potential for
a
> >better end result.
>
> ---
> "Minor cost difference"? You're either trying to sneak some shit in
> there or you can't do, or haven't done, the arithmetic, so I'll do it
> for you: Since the transistor, the base resistor, the clamp diode,
> the relay and the PCB are a wash, what's left is $1.20 for your
> suggested PIC way VS about $0.63 for my way.
>
> That comes to:
>
>
> $1.20
> -$0.63
> ------
> $0.57
>
> which is about 1/2 as expensive as your way. "Minor cost difference"?
> I think not.
It's certainly not half as expensive when you factor in a board and the
rest of the common parts. The difference quickly shrinks to ~10% or
less, now doesn't it? It's really not very attractive watching an
engineer play games with numbers like he's doing Enron's books.
> Hmmm... Where did I read this:
>
> "BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
> reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the network
> appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?"
>
> 1. Cheaper? I've just proven that it's not cheaper in onesies, and I
> doubt that with that huge cost differential it could be made cheaper
> in volume.
Admittedly for one off, it's pretty hard to be cheaper using an 8-bit
micro. A 4-bit proc would do the job, and it would be cheaper. BTW,
your quoted prices were a bit low as shown on Digikey, so things aren't
as bad as you wish to make it seem. Of course your price was 70 cents
yesterday and now it's only 63 cents, so why am I not surprised?
According to Digikey, the fairchild 4060 is 77 cents in single qty, the
ST part is 55 cents each.
> 2. Simpler? Since the æ¹£ way would require a large investment in time
> in order to climb the learning curve, that can hardly be considered a
> simpler solution for a one-off.
What about the electronics learing curve? It's only about 1000 times
larger, be for real. That's the same old tired mantra formerly sung by
"professional tube circuit designers" when whining about having to learn
yucky old transistor theory.
Anthony Fremont
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:07:01 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it
doesn't
> >work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie posts
> >regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his problem
has
> >nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.
>
> ---
> To whom and to what are you referring, specifically?
Odd how that is hard to tell now that you've snipped away the context.
Hmm. :-/
If you must know, we were talking about another thread. The OP of that
thread built a cheesy programmer circuit and substituted the one and
only IC that it contains with a different number _and_ family.
Therefore, it's really not too surprising that he can't get it to work.
The second sentence (as delineated by a capital letter and a period)
refers to the other thread. The OP posted no useful information in his
post. It was, therefore, typical of many newbie posts in that it went
something like, "I built xxxx and it doesn't work, why?" You know.
The final sentence points out that the OP didn't have a PIC problem yet,
just a programmer problem since it couldn't be detected by the
programming software. This was, in fact, going to be the least of his
problems since he'd need some way to put his new PIC chips into LVP mode
before being able to program them.
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:0qbq61hssppqvddmo...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:07:01 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
>> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it
>doesn't
>> >work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie posts
>> >regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his problem
>has
>> >nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.
>>
>> ---
>> To whom and to what are you referring, specifically?
>
>Odd how that is hard to tell now that you've snipped away the context.
>Hmm. :-/
---
Snipped away context, my ass. You're the one going around reading
stuff in one thread, commenting on it in another, and expecting
everyone to know what you're talking about.
---
>If you must know, we were talking about another thread. The OP of that
>thread built a cheesy programmer circuit and substituted the one and
>only IC that it contains with a different number _and_ family.
>Therefore, it's really not too surprising that he can't get it to work.
>
>The second sentence (as delineated by a capital letter and a period)
>refers to the other thread. The OP posted no useful information in his
>post.
---
Perhaps he's emulating _your_ style...
---
>It was, therefore, typical of many newbie posts in that it went
>something like, "I built xxxx and it doesn't work, why?" You know.
>
>The final sentence points out that the OP didn't have a PIC problem yet,
>just a programmer problem since it couldn't be detected by the
>programming software. This was, in fact, going to be the least of his
>problems since he'd need some way to put his new PIC chips into LVP mode
>before being able to program them.
Anthony Fremont
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:03:47 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >news:0qbq61hssppqvddmo...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:07:01 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> >> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Given the circuit he chose to build, I'm not surprised that it
> >doesn't
> >> >work. I would agree that it's "typical" of a good many newbie
posts
> >> >regardless of whether they're using a PIC. At any rate, his
problem
> >has
> >> >nothing to do with a PIC chip, yet.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> To whom and to what are you referring, specifically?
> >
> >Odd how that is hard to tell now that you've snipped away the
context.
> >Hmm. :-/
>
> ---
> Snipped away context, my ass. You're the one going around reading
> stuff in one thread, commenting on it in another, and expecting
> everyone to know what you're talking about.
What a hoot. Lord Garth brought the other thread up, not me. I didn't
know that was not allowed anyhow. Is this another of your personal
rules of engagement?
> >If you must know, we were talking about another thread. The OP of
that
> >thread built a cheesy programmer circuit and substituted the one and
> >only IC that it contains with a different number _and_ family.
> >Therefore, it's really not too surprising that he can't get it to
work.
What, no smart comments proving me wrong?
> >The second sentence (as delineated by a capital letter and a period)
> >refers to the other thread. The OP posted no useful information in
his
> >post.
>
> ---
> Perhaps he's emulating _your_ style...
> ---
I think (outside of this thread) that most of the posts I've made here
contained some kind of useful information pertaining to the thread.
Perhaps you could point us to some of my "empty" posts? Would you like
for me to do the same for you?
> >It was, therefore, typical of many newbie posts in that it went
> >something like, "I built xxxx and it doesn't work, why?" You know.
> >
> >The final sentence points out that the OP didn't have a PIC problem
yet,
> >just a programmer problem since it couldn't be detected by the
> >programming software. This was, in fact, going to be the least of
his
> >problems since he'd need some way to put his new PIC chips into LVP
mode
> >before being able to program them.
Nothing to criticize again? I must be losing my edge.
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>
>> ---
>> Oh, so now you're an authority on the OP?
>
>Only so far as what he posted. I thought he made his skill level fairly
>clear.
>
>> Whether it was obvious to him or not wouldn't have made a particle of
>> difference as long as he used a 2N4401, as was shown on the schematic.
>
>That's completely beside the point.
---
No it's not. The point was that a 0.6mA was a typo and the relay
would have clicked in whether that typo was there or not. Or do you
think there's some sort of entanglement between a typo and a physical
circuit which will keep it from working?
---
>Just like the fact that it wouldn't have worked anyway.
---
You say that now like you knew it then, but the _fact_ is had Fred not
found it you'd still be just as in the dark now as you were then.
---
>> What I think is interesting is that for all your whining about a typo
>> you had a chance to catch a much more serious _technical_ error, yet
>> you didn't.
>
>And you think that is something to brag about?
---
If you think that's bragging, then I think you need a course in
remedial English comprehension. It's a flame, boy. The clue should
have been the "your whining" part.
---
>LMAO I'm not the one
>touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".
---
No doubt because if you tried it you'd be laughed off the planet.
---
>I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.
---
Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found out.
---
>Perhaps you should have
>told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because even
>I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that you
>knew would work.
---
"Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent you?
Most of us who have been around these technical newsgroups for any
length of time realize that unless it's explicitly stated that the
circuit has been tested or simulated, it hasn't. I see you have yet
to learn that. For the most part, most of the stuff we post is off
the top of our heads and is usually either right on or pretty close to
it, because it's stuff we do every day to make a living. However we
_do_ make errors from time to time, and some sharp individual will
usually catch the error and provide feedback. Luckily, Fred Bloggs
was there to catch mine and to graciously provide a solution.
You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.
---
>I will certainly view your schematics from the proper perspective
>from now on.
---
Yes, you should. Consider them documents from which you can learn how
to catch mistakes. However, I suspect that you'll miss even the most
glaring of technical errors and report back, scathingly, on all the
typos you find, LOL!
---
>> >I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though.
>>
>> ---
>> You say that now, but earlier you felt that:
>>
>> "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct your mistake in
>> S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
>> sheez...."
>>
>> was better than, say, "BTW, John, you stated in sed that the maximum
>> collector current for a 2N4401 is 0.6mA. I believe that should be
>> 0.6A." ?
>
>First off the sheez part wasn't addressed to you. You might have
>deduced that from the punctuation.
---
Well, duhhh...
If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
misunderstand you?
---
>Secondly I was being sarcastic, you
>should have been able to tell that from the entire context of my post.
---
So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into sarcasm?
---
>At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
>jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of their
>posts.
---
If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I suggest
you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.
---
>Or did you already forget about the photocell and resistor
>fiasco in your unending love/hate relationship with Larry?
---
I'd hardly call that a fiasco; more like a disagreement, and it
started like this:
"
R1 = 6.2k
R2 = 400 -> 15M
R3 = 620
R1 (R2 + R3)
Rt = --------------
R1 + R2 + R3
6200 (400 + 620)
Rt1 = ------------------ = 875.9 ohms
6200 + 400 + 620
6200 (15e6 + 620)
Rt2 = ------------------- = 6197.4 ohms
6200 + 15e6 + 620
875.9 ohms to 6197.4 ohms isn't 1k to 5k.
"
BTW, I don't think my comment was all that bad, certainly not an FU or
anything like that. I noticed that Mike pointed out your error and
you didn't respond. I thought you might like to know about it. :-)
---
Bullshit. You figured that since I called you on that
"curent-hogging" stupidity you'd try to throw a little barb to get
even.
---
> It certainly woke you up didn't it. :-D
---
I stay awake.
---
>At any rate, the sole reason that I even mentioned you was because you
>had already made your attempt at setting me up. Given your typical
>behavior lately, I knew what was coming next. I figured my way of
>pointing out your mistake was just beating you to the punch. Obviously
>I was correct, since you are now so pissed over it.
---
I have no idea what you're talking about.
---
>I certainly didn't cuss you out over it though.
---
That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
because you're a pussy.
---
>> So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
>> selective memory lapse problems.
>
>Where did I lie?
---
You said: "I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though."
After you said: "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
sheez...."
If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you didn't
feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.
---
>> >I figured you'd catch it or someone else would.
>>
>> ---
>> Someone else did. Non-confrontationally, BTW
>
>That was his choice. Like you, I reserve the right to respond when and
>how I want.
---
So, you admit your reply was confrontational, and yet you said that
you didn't feel a need to make a scene. You just can't keep your
facts straight, can you?
---
>> >No biggy.
>>
>> ---
>> One would think...
>> ---
>>
>> >Certainly not
>> >like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in S.E.B, I
>> >see.
>>
>> ---
>> It wasn't the word 'current', it was the phrase 'current hogging'.
>
>And?
---
And, in view of the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and
a stupid one at that, I maintain that you actually meant 'current
hogging' and decided that 'power hogging' would be a nice little
phrase to switch to to get you out of a jam.
---
.
.
.
>> >I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one for
>> >cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake.
>>
>> ---
>> Had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
>> acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
>> And you'll get no apology. Don't like it, sue me.
>
>No need to sue, you are doing enough damage to your business and
>reputation all by yourself.
---
Yup, I thought so. You're the stereotypical petulant little puke who,
when she starts running out of ammunition starts whining about how I
should run _my_ business and how I should run _my_ life.
---
>> >I admit my mistake yet again, when will it be enough for you?
>>
>> ---
>> Your first admission was sufficient for me, but you seem to feel a
>> need to keep admitting it, ad nauseam, so the question really should
>> be: When will it be enough for _you_?
>
>You accused me of weaving and bobbing, so I figured that I hadn't been
>plain enough for you.
---
You were plain enough, the bobbing and weaving part was about the
transfer to the "power hogging" ploy, the intent of which was to make
it seem like you knew what you were talking about, but merely used the
wrong choice of words to describe what you meant. What I'm saying is
that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there is
no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
"Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to one
device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common power
supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
from the supply.
---
>> >> >> You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking
>around
>> >> >> saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly
>accepted
>> >> >> technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense
>> >and
>> >> >> trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat
>> >that
>> >> >> you're in, LOL.
>> >> >
>> >> >I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to
>do?
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> I dont care _what_ you do.
>> >
>> >I guess that's only as long as I don't say "current" when I really
>mean
>> >"power".
>>
>> ---
>> You misunderstand me. "I don't care what you do" means precisely
>> that. Make mistakes, don't make mistakes, it makes no difference to
>
>
>> me. Choosing to comment one way or the other is my prerogative and is
>> not based on caring about what you do, it's based on fixing the error.
>
>Then, why did my comment upset you? I was only prompting you to fix
>your error. I didn't call you any names, or use an cuss words so why
>did you find it so upsetting?
---
Again, the context of your "prompt" was goading and your attitude was
clearly confrontational, yielding a richly deserved insulting reply.
---
>> >> >Do you really think that I don't know the difference between
>current
>> >and
>> >> >power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit
>is
>> >> >the same?
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> You do now...
>> >
>> >I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.
>>
>> ---
>> Yes, well, if you don't use it you lose it.
>
>I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
>energy.
---
Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...
---
>I think you know that too or you'd be filling your posts with
>links to all my past errors.
---
I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
should give a shit about your past errors.
I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the huge
family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.
---
>> >> >I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Shit happens...
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> >Next time I'll be more careful.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Good.
>> >
>> >whatever
>>
>> ---
>> Weak.
>
>Not half as weak as someone that feels a need to dominate a basics
>newsgroup just cuz they're an expert in the field.
---
Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're smarter
than me then why pick on me?" card.
I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like to
do is bring down self-important little bullshit artists like you, just
for fun. And as far as being an expert goes, I could be a complete
moron and you'd still have to consider me an expert.
BTW, what happened with running those numbers to see whether the power
dissipation spec of an LED with Vf max in series with an LED with Vf
min and If running through _both_ of them would be exceeded?
---
.
.
.
>> Again, had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
>> acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
>
>Perhaps if you acted a little more civil around here, I would be
>inclined to be nicer to you. As it stands, you certainly are
>demonstrating that you deserve far less courtesy than I've shown you.
---
If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you might
come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's deserving
of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That doesn't
mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here and
starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.
Anthony Fremont
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:26:48 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> ---
> >> Oh, so now you're an authority on the OP?
> >
> >Only so far as what he posted. I thought he made his skill level
fairly
> >clear.
> >
> >> Whether it was obvious to him or not wouldn't have made a particle
of
> >> difference as long as he used a 2N4401, as was shown on the
schematic.
> >
> >That's completely beside the point.
>
> ---
> No it's not. The point was that a 0.6mA was a typo and the relay
> would have clicked in whether that typo was there or not. Or do you
> think there's some sort of entanglement between a typo and a physical
> circuit which will keep it from working?
The point had nothing to do with whether it worked or not. The point
was your mistake, or "trypo" as you like to call them.
> ---
>
> >Just like the fact that it wouldn't have worked anyway.
>
> ---
> You say that now like you knew it then, but the _fact_ is had Fred not
> found it you'd still be just as in the dark now as you were then.
I never bothered to look that close. Obviously Fred is well aware that
you often post non-working circuits.
> ---
>
> >> What I think is interesting is that for all your whining about a
typo
> >> you had a chance to catch a much more serious _technical_ error,
yet
> >> you didn't.
> >
> >And you think that is something to brag about?
>
> ---
> If you think that's bragging, then I think you need a course in
> remedial English comprehension. It's a flame, boy. The clue should
> have been the "your whining" part.
It might be different if I was actually looking for errors in the
schematic, but I simply wasn't. I just noticed the glaring "trypo" in
the text.
> ---
>
> >LMAO I'm not the one
> >touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".
>
> ---
> No doubt because if you tried it you'd be laughed off the planet.
Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all that
is important?
> >I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.
>
> ---
> Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found out.
Kinda like the pretense where you come off as a civil human being?
> ---
>
> >Perhaps you should have
> >told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because
even
> >I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that
you
> >knew would work.
>
> ---
> "Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent you?
Actually, I meant that in a gullable sort of way. I've got your number
now though.
> Most of us who have been around these technical newsgroups for any
> length of time realize that unless it's explicitly stated that the
> circuit has been tested or simulated, it hasn't. I see you have yet
> to learn that. For the most part, most of the stuff we post is off
> the top of our heads and is usually either right on or pretty close to
> it, because it's stuff we do every day to make a living. However we
> _do_ make errors from time to time, and some sharp individual will
> usually catch the error and provide feedback. Luckily, Fred Bloggs
> was there to catch mine and to graciously provide a solution.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
> assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.
Actually, I've been getting a kick out of watching you blow your top.
:-)
> ---
>
> >I will certainly view your schematics from the proper perspective
> >from now on.
>
> ---
> Yes, you should. Consider them documents from which you can learn how
> to catch mistakes. However, I suspect that you'll miss even the most
> glaring of technical errors and report back, scathingly, on all the
> typos you find, LOL!
I seriously doubt that I'll be reporting back much of anything about any
of your circuits. I do suspect that I will be hearing from you more
often in the future though.
> ---
>
>
> >> >I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> You say that now, but earlier you felt that:
> >>
> >> "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct your mistake
in
> >> S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
> >> sheez...."
> >>
> >> was better than, say, "BTW, John, you stated in sed that the
maximum
> >> collector current for a 2N4401 is 0.6mA. I believe that should be
> >> 0.6A." ?
> >
> >First off the sheez part wasn't addressed to you. You might have
> >deduced that from the punctuation.
>
> ---
> Well, duhhh...
>
> If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
> misunderstand you?
My comments in the original post were rhetorical, haven't you figured
that out yet?
> ---
>
> >Secondly I was being sarcastic, you
> >should have been able to tell that from the entire context of my
post.
>
> ---
> So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into sarcasm?
What's to defend, I admitted my little faux pa.
> ---
>
> >At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
> >jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of
their
> >posts.
>
> ---
> If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I suggest
> you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
> once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.
I didn't have to read 10,000 of them to figure out that you often go off
like this. Four letter words, invectives and ad-hominem attacks seem to
be a part of your regular forte.
> >I certainly didn't cuss you out over it though.
>
> ---
> That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
> because you're a pussy.
Really? Do ya think so?
> ---
>
> >> So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
> >> selective memory lapse problems.
> >
> >Where did I lie?
>
> ---
> You said: "I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though."
>
> After you said: "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
> your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
> sheez...."
>
> If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you didn't
> feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.
As I said before, I didn't see a need to make a scene when I first saw
your mistake in SED. After that, when you posted your little trick
setup question in SEB, I felt a bit different. And then after Watson's
snide little remark about attrocious advice, I posted my little
sarcastic rant. And now here we are. Is that timeline really so hard
to grasp?
> >> >I figured you'd catch it or someone else would.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Someone else did. Non-confrontationally, BTW
> >
> >That was his choice. Like you, I reserve the right to respond when
and
> >how I want.
>
> ---
> So, you admit your reply was confrontational, and yet you said that
> you didn't feel a need to make a scene. You just can't keep your
> facts straight, can you?
See above.
> >> >No biggy.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> One would think...
> >> ---
> >>
> >> >Certainly not
> >> >like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in
S.E.B, I
> >> >see.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> It wasn't the word 'current', it was the phrase 'current hogging'.
> >
> >And?
>
> ---
> And, in view of the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and
> a stupid one at that, I maintain that you actually meant 'current
> hogging' and decided that 'power hogging' would be a nice little
> phrase to switch to to get you out of a jam.
As I originally posted in reply to your little trick query:
<quote>
Perhaps "dissipate more power" would have been more appropriate than
"hog more current".
</quote>
So as we can all plainly see, 'current hogging' is your own little
fabrication of terminology that I never used.
> ---
> .
> .
> .
> >> >I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one
for
> >> >cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
> >> acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
> >> And you'll get no apology. Don't like it, sue me.
> >
> >No need to sue, you are doing enough damage to your business and
> >reputation all by yourself.
>
> ---
> Yup, I thought so. You're the stereotypical petulant little puke who,
> when she starts running out of ammunition starts whining about how I
> should run _my_ business and how I should run _my_ life.
If you think I'm running low on ammo, just keep posting. ;-) I could
care less how you run your business _or_ your life. That is until you
wish to horn into my life with your petulent, pedantic crap.
> ---
>
> >> >I admit my mistake yet again, when will it be enough for you?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Your first admission was sufficient for me, but you seem to feel a
> >> need to keep admitting it, ad nauseam, so the question really
should
> >> be: When will it be enough for _you_?
> >
> >You accused me of weaving and bobbing, so I figured that I hadn't
been
> >plain enough for you.
>
> ---
> You were plain enough, the bobbing and weaving part was about the
> transfer to the "power hogging" ploy, the intent of which was to make
> it seem like you knew what you were talking about, but merely used the
> wrong choice of words to describe what you meant. What I'm saying is
Do you think that you've somehow proved that I didn't know the
difference?
> that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there is
> no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
> "Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to one
> device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common power
> supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
> from the supply.
Again, like as stated earlier. I was originally going to say "juice"
not current and not power. Again, I wish that I had just so I could see
how you could have twisted that around. Is juice power, or is it
current or maybe even energy? Again, my original intent was not to use
the word power either, even though it would have been the "most correct"
term. Hard to believe that set you onto a personal crusade to prove me
a liar.
What type of reply do you think you deserve at this point in our
relationship?
> ---
>
> >> >> >Do you really think that I don't know the difference between
> >current
> >> >and
> >> >> >power, or that the current thru all components in a series
circuit
> >is
> >> >> >the same?
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> You do now...
> >> >
> >> >I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Yes, well, if you don't use it you lose it.
> >
> >I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
> >energy.
>
> ---
> Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...
Why do I think that no matter what I posted you would ridicule it?
> ---
>
> >I think you know that too or you'd be filling your posts with
> >links to all my past errors.
>
> ---
> I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
> should give a shit about your past errors.
As you have so aptly demonstrated, you would leave no stone unturned in
order to crucify me.
> I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
> pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the huge
> family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.
Too funny.
> >> >> >I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> Shit happens...
> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >> >Next time I'll be more careful.
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> Good.
> >> >
> >> >whatever
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Weak.
> >
> >Not half as weak as someone that feels a need to dominate a basics
> >newsgroup just cuz they're an expert in the field.
>
> ---
> Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're smarter
> than me then why pick on me?" card.
I never said that I thought you were smarter than me. Only that you
knew more about electronics. Don't flatter yourself, there is a
difference.
> I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like to
> do is bring down self-important little bullshit artists like you, just
Self important bullshit artist? That's got to be the most serious case
of projection I've ever seen. Do you see me waving my credentials
around? Do I have a sig line making bodacious claims?
> for fun. And as far as being an expert goes, I could be a complete
> moron and you'd still have to consider me an expert.
That's not far from how I see things right now.
> BTW, what happened with running those numbers to see whether the power
> dissipation spec of an LED with Vf max in series with an LED with Vf
> min and If running through _both_ of them would be exceeded?
I don't know, what happened? How about you pick your own experiments,
and I'll pick mine.
> ---
> .
> .
> .
>
> >> Again, had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would
have
> >> acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, fuck you.
> >
> >Perhaps if you acted a little more civil around here, I would be
> >inclined to be nicer to you. As it stands, you certainly are
> >demonstrating that you deserve far less courtesy than I've shown you.
> If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you might
> come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's deserving
> of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That doesn't
Really, and I'm supposed to be convinced by that statement? ROTFL I
think I'll continue to decide for myself who I respect.
> mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here and
> starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.
Yeah, you're real civil.
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:fe8q61pdi7787n4c5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:43:35 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
>> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> ><snipped a bunch more side-stepping and invective/ad-hominem crap>
>>
>> ---
>> Translation: "The sonofabitch nailed me, so I'll just shout one more
>> insult and pretend he didn't. And now for something completely
>> different..."
>
>However you wish to see it John, though I didn't use any cuss words.
---
'Crap" is a cuss word, and besides, "The thought is the same as the
deed."
---
>> >> ---
>> >> HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a nickle,
>> >> diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.
>> >
>> >Didn't you have a pot in your design?
>>
>> ---
>> Yeah, but it was a nicety. For the cost-conscious, and if the period
>> isn't all that critical, 510k +/- 5% will be just fine.
>
>I'd go with jumpers on a micro. They're cheap and highly configurable.
---
Not as configurable as a delta R, and good luch with those jumpers on
an 8 pin chip.
---
>
>> >> PCB, transistor, relay is a wash for either system.
>> >
>> >Probably wouldn't need a transistor to drive the relay as long as
>> >5V@25mA will do it. Why not a nice SSR instead?
>>
>> ---
>> Oh, I don't know... Maybe because that's not what the OP of the thread
>> in sed you referenced asked for?
>
>An SSR doesn't qualify as a relay?
---
Not as a relay with mechanical contacts, but it doesn't matter. The OP
asked for something which could _drive_ a relay, which is what I gave
him. I showed a mechanical relay because that's what he said he was
going to use, but if he wanted to switch to an SSR, that would be up
to him.
---
>> >> A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
>> >> learning curve and programming and debugging time.
>> >
>> >How come the full cost of a programmer and the micro's entire
>learning
>> >curve gets factored in every time a micro is mentioned as a solution?
>>
>> ---
>> Because if you haven't bought/built one and you haven't been through
>> the process, then you'll have to buy/build one and go through the
>> process if you want to play.
>> ---
>
>The same goes for test equipment, soldering stuff etc.... It's just one
>more tool that you need, nothing more. A good PIC programmer is less
>than $100. Compared to the $150 I spent on my audio frequency generator
>that I almost never use, it's a great investment.
>
>> >It's a one time cost, just like the rest of anyones test equipment or
>> >education.
>>
>> ---
>> Yes, of course, but it's a one-time cost and an ongoing effort which
>> will will be unwarranted if the goal at hand is to build a one-off
>> widget with a total cost of, say, $10 or less.
>
>But it would be worth buying a DMM, a soldering iron, solder, etching
>stuff etc.....?
---
You'd need that stuff whichever way you decided to go, but you'd only
need the other stuff if you were going to implement the device using a
micro, so it would be stupid to go that way when the other way is so
simple.
---
>> >I spent less than $75.00 on my programming hardware and the
>> >dev tools were free from Microchip. My scope cost me more than $400
>> >fifteen years ago and it was used then. Nobody worries about the
>> >thousands of dollars needed for the rest of the stuff you need to
>> >effectively tinker in electronics, just the $50 for the programmer
>like
>> >it's some kind of major show-stopper.
>>
>> ---
>> The keyword there is 'tinker'. If that's _your_ bent, then fine.
>> Spend away. Understand however, that that's not _everyone's_ cup of
>> tea and that some folks only want a simple, inexpensive, easily
>> realizable solution for a problem peculiar to them. Asking them to
>
>Well, I guess that I see PIC chips like you see 74xx's
---
I doubt it. I work in both camps as well as in analog, and so far
you've demonstrated no skill with anything other than some alluded-to
ability to substitute programming for hardware you admittedly don't
understand and don't want to "take a lifetime to learn", or something
like that.
---
>
>> spend _anything_ on hardware which is going to gather dust after the
>> project is finished is, at best, stupid. As is asking them to spend
>> time learning how to use it, and to acquire the software skills
>> necessary to bring the "project" to completion.
>
>Burning yet another straw man, you really are a fire bug. I don't
>recall asking anyone to spend money on equipement to be used once.
---
It's not a straw man at all.
When you insist that using a æ¹£ is a better solution than using
"discrete" logic, then if that insistance bears fruit, the requirement
for the equipment necessary to implement your solution will become
de rigueur. If the breadth of the project is the yield of a single
unit with a cost basically down in the noise compared to the required
expenditure in time and money to complete the project, then doesn't it
seem stupid to you to do it that way when doing it in hardware would
be so much faster and less expensive?
---
> As I "self agrandised" before, if I was adamently suggesting a PIC to
>someone, I'd be offering some help to go with it. You can make of that
>what you wish.
---
From what you've offered so far, I would suggest that anyone who
decides to go that route find help elsewhere.
---
>> >IME, debugging time for this
>> >project would be virtually non-existent and the end result would be
>more
>> >useful since it would have a much greater dynamic range on the time
>> >constant.
>>
>> ---
>> If you think the OP was wrong in asking for what he wanted, then why
>> don't you get your ass over to sed and tell him about it instead of
>> sitting here playing self - aggrandising games and kvetching about
>> every goddam thing under the sun?
>
>Er um, because I don't want to. You really ought to stop trying to
>control things around here. Ordering people around on usenet is not
>likely to win you many friends.
---
Er um, because you're a chickenshit and you know that if you do you're
going to wind up getting your ass handed to you. Again.
You really ought to follow your own advice, hypocrite. You telling me
to stop trying to control things around here is you trying to control
me. Friends I've got. Insignificant gadflies like you I don't need.
---
>> Hint: He doesn't _want_ to be able to change the timing, he just
>> wants something that'll give him a contact closure, repeatedly, every
>> hour or so.
>> ---
>>
>> >> You figure it out.
>> >
>> >Your cost may be a little less assuming a PIC 12Fxxx (~1.20 single
>qty),
>> >but a 4 bit micro would change that.
>>
>> ---
>> YAFI, LOL! Suggest away, and don't forget to include the cost of the
>> programmer and the dev tools, and the time required to learn how to
>> use them and to learn the instruction set.
>
>Programmers and dev tools don't count. We've already covered this.
>They are in the same category as all other dev tools and electronics
>equipment you own.
---
Other than your just being obstinate, I fail to see why, (without
even going into the learning curve part of it) you think that paying
money for dev tools which will only be used once is better than not
having to pay for the dev tools, yet winding up with exactly what you
want anyway.
---
>> >Outside of the minor cost
>> >difference, I still feel that the micro offers far more potential for
>a
>> >better end result.
>>
>> ---
>> "Minor cost difference"? You're either trying to sneak some shit in
>> there or you can't do, or haven't done, the arithmetic, so I'll do it
>> for you: Since the transistor, the base resistor, the clamp diode,
>> the relay and the PCB are a wash, what's left is $1.20 for your
>> suggested PIC way VS about $0.63 for my way.
>>
>> That comes to:
>>
>>
>> $1.20
>> -$0.63
>> ------
>> $0.57
>>
>> which is about 1/2 as expensive as your way. "Minor cost difference"?
>> I think not.
>
>It's certainly not half as expensive when you factor in a board and the
>rest of the common parts. The difference quickly shrinks to ~10% or
>less, now doesn't it?
---
That's a good point but, bottom line, you still save about 50 cents if
you don't do it with a micro and you don't have to learn how to do it
and buy all the stuff to do it with if you're not going to do it
again.
---
>
>> Hmmm... Where did I read this:
>>
>> "BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper, more
>> reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the network
>> appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?"
>>
>> 1. Cheaper? I've just proven that it's not cheaper in onesies, and I
>> doubt that with that huge cost differential it could be made cheaper
>> in volume.
>
>Admittedly for one off, it's pretty hard to be cheaper using an 8-bit
>micro. A 4-bit proc would do the job, and it would be cheaper. BTW,
>your quoted prices were a bit low as shown on Digikey, so things aren't
>as bad as you wish to make it seem. Of course your price was 70 cents
>yesterday and now it's only 63 cents, so why am I not surprised?
---
Because you're stupid?
---
>According to Digikey, the fairchild 4060 is 77 cents in single qty, the
>ST part is 55 cents each.
>
>> 2. Simpler? Since the æ¹£ way would require a large investment in time
>> in order to climb the learning curve, that can hardly be considered a
>> simpler solution for a one-off.
>
>What about the electronics learing curve? It's only about 1000 times
>larger, be for real. That's the same old tired mantra formerly sung by
>"professional tube circuit designers" when whining about having to learn
>yucky old transistor theory.
---
Dumbass, the OP over on SED wasn't interested in spending a great deal
of time and some bucks on learning how to design a æ¹£ timer; what he
wanted was something quick and easy which he could solder up, probably
on a piece of perfboard, which would do what he wanted. That's what
he got, and I got private email from him thanking me for the circuit
and letting me know that he'd let me know how it worked out. Rest
assured that I'll post the good news when I hear it.
Now, do you have any comments on whether it'll work or not? Why don't
you build one and find out? It'll only cost you five bucks or so and
we'll learn whether you know how to solder or not. Or wire-wrap. Or
whether you're just plain ol' fulla shit.
Anthony Fremont
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:11:58 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >news:fe8q61pdi7787n4c5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:43:35 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> >> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> ><snipped a bunch more side-stepping and invective/ad-hominem crap>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Translation: "The sonofabitch nailed me, so I'll just shout one
more
> >> insult and pretend he didn't. And now for something completely
> >> different..."
> >
> >However you wish to see it John, though I didn't use any cuss words.
>
> ---
> 'Crap" is a cuss word, and besides, "The thought is the same as the
> deed."
> ---
Crap is just a tad less ugly than FU, don't you think?
> >> >> ---
> >> >> HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a
nickle,
> >> >> diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.
> >> >
> >> >Didn't you have a pot in your design?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Yeah, but it was a nicety. For the cost-conscious, and if the
period
> >> isn't all that critical, 510k +/- 5% will be just fine.
> >
> >I'd go with jumpers on a micro. They're cheap and highly
configurable.
>
> ---
> Not as configurable as a delta R, and good luch with those jumpers on
> an 8 pin chip.
8 pins makes it trickier with just 6 for i/o, but not impossible. 1 pin
to drive the relay leaves 5 jumpers and that still gives me an easy 32
steps to be used however I wish.
For a one off, one-time project either way would be stupid from a cost
vs. return viewpoint.
> >> >I spent less than $75.00 on my programming hardware and the
> >> >dev tools were free from Microchip. My scope cost me more than
$400
> >> >fifteen years ago and it was used then. Nobody worries about the
> >> >thousands of dollars needed for the rest of the stuff you need to
> >> >effectively tinker in electronics, just the $50 for the programmer
> >like
> >> >it's some kind of major show-stopper.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> The keyword there is 'tinker'. If that's _your_ bent, then fine.
> >> Spend away. Understand however, that that's not _everyone's_ cup
of
> >> tea and that some folks only want a simple, inexpensive, easily
> >> realizable solution for a problem peculiar to them. Asking them to
> >
> >Well, I guess that I see PIC chips like you see 74xx's
>
> ---
> I doubt it. I work in both camps as well as in analog, and so far
> you've demonstrated no skill with anything other than some alluded-to
> ability to substitute programming for hardware you admittedly don't
> understand and don't want to "take a lifetime to learn", or something
> like that.
That's a real twisted interpretation of what I said there John. You
might be surprised by what I've been able to glom together over here.
I've even used a few transistors, op-amps and other icky analog stuff.
I'd like to see you search a Dallas 1-wire bus using a bunch of 74xx's.
The projects that I've built are a wee bit more complicated than the
project at hand. They would have been quite difficult to do without a
micro. I'm not saying that they couldn't be done, but they'd have been
real tough even by your standards I think.
I don't make a habit of bragging, but you make me feel obliged to put
forth some kind of evidence of ability. Therefore here are some of my
completed/working projects that I did:
I did an ultrasonic range finder w/lcd display. No biggy, but I used an
op-amp and comparator. A pendulum clock beat analyzer w/lcd of course
w/more analog stuff. Gives ratio of tick/tock beats/min etc.. An IR
controlled temp sensor display that reported readings from various
sensors strewn accros a 1-wire bus onto a graphical LCD screen. This
uses cool looking OCR numbers created from picking apart MS Paint bitmap
files (one of my cooler hacks, I think). All I had for the display was
a datasheet.
I also did a phone line powered Caller-ID display with a software modem
(that was probably the busiest PIC program I ever wrote with multiple
ISR handlers). That worked ok, but it was never quite perfect (in the
pure sense of the word). Since I don't have a DSO or logic analyzer I
could figure out what the problem was. I chalked it up to eronious zero
cross detects from 60HZ common mode noise on the phone line. Working
with phone line powered stuff is a real pain since you can't ground
anything. It was >99.9% correct, but that ain't good enough when one
bit error wrenches it up in a major way.
My recent ultra low-power project is a temperature data logger that
takes samples every 30 seconds and writes them to a 24C512. There is a
DS1307 RTC and an LM34. The sleep current is <5uA and the average
current is <200uA. I didn't think that was too shabby given the I2C
parts, the LM34, the RTC, the Vref for the ADC and the fact that it woke
up every second to see if it was time yet. You may think otherwise. It
also has a serial interface to pull the info out of the eeproms and to
set the clock/sample rate etc...
I have done many other projects as well, though many of them were never
committed to a permanent circuit board. Since the software is the key
part, they can be easily reproduced if needed. Most were built just to
see if I could "make it work", or to try communicating with some new
protocol (I2C, 1-Wire, SPI etc...) or to utilize some internal feature
of a PIC (CCP, ADC, UART, PWM, etc)
On a side note, I also did build my own 8052 BASIC computer using an
ATMEL 89c52, a surplus latch and 32K SRAM chip. Of course I flashed the
chip myself using the freely available image. I used a 373 as I didn't
know about the 573 latch. Lots of jumpers but it fits on a smallish
radio shack experimenter type circuit board. :-( Pretty neat when the
welcome message first came out. ;-)
Feel free to demand any sort of proof you need to back up these claims.
I have plenty of source code to show you and I could probably even take
a few pictures if necessary.
> >> spend _anything_ on hardware which is going to gather dust after
the
> >> project is finished is, at best, stupid. As is asking them to
spend
> >> time learning how to use it, and to acquire the software skills
> >> necessary to bring the "project" to completion.
> >
> >Burning yet another straw man, you really are a fire bug. I don't
> >recall asking anyone to spend money on equipement to be used once.
>
> ---
> It's not a straw man at all.
> When you insist that using a æ¹£ is a better solution than using
> "discrete" logic, then if that insistance bears fruit, the requirement
> for the equipment necessary to implement your solution will become
> de rigueur. If the breadth of the project is the yield of a single
> unit with a cost basically down in the noise compared to the required
> expenditure in time and money to complete the project, then doesn't it
> seem stupid to you to do it that way when doing it in hardware would
> be so much faster and less expensive?
As I already said about this, yes it would be stupid to learn an
unecessary procedure for a one-off project. But then it would be stupid
to undertake the project under those conditions anyway (single unit,
super low cost). You can hardly justify the expense for any toolset
under those conditions. You seem to view the micro learning as a per
job expense, and I see it as a per life expense. As weve covered
before, the only dollar cost in PIC development is in the programmer
(and maybe the software that runs it). The rest of the devtools kit is
free. So all I see is a $75 expense and some hours to learn about
it(which a hobbiest, that's all it's about). Perhaps I am prejudiced
since I have 25 years of "professional software design" experience. ;-)
> > As I "self agrandised" before, if I was adamently suggesting a PIC
to
> >someone, I'd be offering some help to go with it. You can make of
that
> >what you wish.
>
> ---
> From what you've offered so far, I would suggest that anyone who
> decides to go that route find help elsewhere.
You haven't seen any of my work, so what qualifies you to judge it? But
that's what prejudice is all about, isn't it?
> >> >IME, debugging time for this
> >> >project would be virtually non-existent and the end result would
be
> >more
> >> >useful since it would have a much greater dynamic range on the
time
> >> >constant.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> If you think the OP was wrong in asking for what he wanted, then
why
> >> don't you get your ass over to sed and tell him about it instead of
> >> sitting here playing self - aggrandising games and kvetching about
> >> every goddam thing under the sun?
> >
> >Er um, because I don't want to. You really ought to stop trying to
> >control things around here. Ordering people around on usenet is not
> >likely to win you many friends.
>
> ---
> Er um, because you're a chickenshit and you know that if you do you're
> going to wind up getting your ass handed to you. Again.
How so, if I code it up and flash the chips for him? Who's going to
"hand me my ass" then?
> You really ought to follow your own advice, hypocrite. You telling me
> to stop trying to control things around here is you trying to control
> me. Friends I've got. Insignificant gadflies like you I don't need.
Only making an observation, carry on as you see fit. Or is that me
telling you what to do again?
> >> Hint: He doesn't _want_ to be able to change the timing, he just
> >> wants something that'll give him a contact closure, repeatedly,
every
> >> hour or so.
> >> ---
> >>
> >> >> You figure it out.
> >> >
> >> >Your cost may be a little less assuming a PIC 12Fxxx (~1.20 single
> >qty),
> >> >but a 4 bit micro would change that.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> YAFI, LOL! Suggest away, and don't forget to include the cost of
the
> >> programmer and the dev tools, and the time required to learn how to
> >> use them and to learn the instruction set.
> >
> >Programmers and dev tools don't count. We've already covered this.
> >They are in the same category as all other dev tools and electronics
> >equipment you own.
>
> ---
> Other than your just being obstinate, I fail to see why, (without
> even going into the learning curve part of it) you think that paying
> money for dev tools which will only be used once is better than not
> having to pay for the dev tools, yet winding up with exactly what you
> want anyway.
That was never my argument. That's the argument you keep making back
because that's all you think you hear from me. I wouldn't suggest
someone buy dev tools for a one time simple project like this. In fact
I wouldn't suggest that they buy much of anything as the cash outlay for
minimal equipment is still ridiculous for a project like this. I would
suggest they find someone that can do it for them and pay them.
How many people learn to program a PIC for one simple project and then
never use them again? That's got to be a fairly small number.
> ---
> >
> >> Hmmm... Where did I read this:
> >>
> >> "BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper,
more
> >> reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the
network
> >> appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?"
> >>
> >> 1. Cheaper? I've just proven that it's not cheaper in onesies, and
I
> >> doubt that with that huge cost differential it could be made
cheaper
> >> in volume.
> >
> >Admittedly for one off, it's pretty hard to be cheaper using an 8-bit
> >micro. A 4-bit proc would do the job, and it would be cheaper. BTW,
> >your quoted prices were a bit low as shown on Digikey, so things
aren't
> >as bad as you wish to make it seem. Of course your price was 70
cents
> >yesterday and now it's only 63 cents, so why am I not surprised?
>
> ---
> Because you're stupid?
Not too stupid to see that you put forth numbers massaged to further
your personal agenda.
> ---
>
> >According to Digikey, the fairchild 4060 is 77 cents in single qty,
the
> >ST part is 55 cents each.
You just called me stupid, yet you don't even bother to comment on this.
> >> 2. Simpler? Since the æ¹£ way would require a large investment in
time
> >> in order to climb the learning curve, that can hardly be considered
a
> >> simpler solution for a one-off.
> >
> >What about the electronics learing curve? It's only about 1000 times
> >larger, be for real. That's the same old tired mantra formerly sung
by
> >"professional tube circuit designers" when whining about having to
learn
> >yucky old transistor theory.
>
> ---
> Dumbass, the OP over on SED wasn't interested in spending a great deal
> of time and some bucks on learning how to design a æ¹£ timer; what he
> wanted was something quick and easy which he could solder up, probably
> on a piece of perfboard, which would do what he wanted. That's what
> he got, and I got private email from him thanking me for the circuit
> and letting me know that he'd let me know how it worked out. Rest
> assured that I'll post the good news when I hear it.
Yes, we will all be duly impressed that you successfully designed a
ripple counter to reset a router once an hour. Perhaps you can get
another patent.
> Now, do you have any comments on whether it'll work or not? Why don't
> you build one and find out? It'll only cost you five bucks or so and
> we'll learn whether you know how to solder or not. Or wire-wrap. Or
> whether you're just plain ol' fulla shit.
The soldering part was cute, but I'm not just out of school. I've
actually been soldering for a "little while" now. Never was really
interested in wire wrapping, to messy. I do allot of solderless
breadboard stuff though. They're great for knocking out PIC projects.
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>The point had nothing to do with whether it worked or not. The point
>was your mistake, or "trypo" as you like to call them.
---
I think I already admitted that but, just in case you missed it, here
ya go: I made a typographical error. Happy now?
---
>
>> ---
>>
>> >Just like the fact that it wouldn't have worked anyway.
>>
>> ---
>> You say that now like you knew it then, but the _fact_ is had Fred not
>> found it you'd still be just as in the dark now as you were then.
>
>I never bothered to look that close. Obviously Fred is well aware that
>you often post non-working circuits.
---
Well, since this _is_ an electronics group, I post circuits. Some
have technical errors in them, some don't. They usually get fixed.
The point is, _I_ post circuits. You, OTOH, critique typos when
someone catches you in a technical error.
---
>It might be different if I was actually looking for errors in the
>schematic, but I simply wasn't. I just noticed the glaring "trypo" in
>the text.
---
More's the pity.
---
>> >LMAO I'm not the one
>> >touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".
---
Perhaps that's because you aren't.
It's what I do for a living, so that makes it my profession. So I put
what I do in my .sig, what's wrong with that?
Interestingly, the fact that I do seems to thoroughly irk you since
you've mentioned it in a derogatory way more than once. Perhaps it's
because I choose to include "Professional" and you think that I should
be more humble and merely post "Circuit designer"? Perhaps you need
to get over yourself and come to the realization that not everyone is
going to accede to your whims as to what does and what doesn't
constitute proper behavior.
---
>Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all that
>is important?
---
What skills you may have, other than in electronics, are of very
little interest to me since, in these groups, what's important is
electronics and the ability to communicate. In seb, it's also
important to be able to render technical criticism
non-confrontationally in order to not scare off the newbies.
---
>> >I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.
>>
>> ---
>> Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found out.
>
>Kinda like the pretense where you come off as a civil human being?
---
I generally respond to civility with civility and to non-civility with
non-civility, and I very seldom make a non-preemptive strike.
---
>> >Perhaps you should have
>> >told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because
>even
>> >I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that
>you
>> >knew would work.
>>
>> ---
>> "Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent you?
>
>Actually, I meant that in a gullable sort of way. I've got your number
>now though.
---
Did you know that 'gullable' isn't in the dictionary?
---
>> You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
>> assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.
>
>Actually, I've been getting a kick out of watching you blow your top.
>:-)
---
Just a ruse to get you to bite, and now that the hook is set I own
you!
---
>I seriously doubt that I'll be reporting back much of anything about any
>of your circuits.
---
As do I. After all, it takes a modicum of acumen to do much more than
discover a typo in a technical article.
---
>I do suspect that I will be hearing from you more often in the future though.
---
Perhaps.
I will say one thing now, though, and that is that after having
checked your posting history last night I found that you do seem to
know what you're talking about, technically, most of the time, so I
apologize for any inaccurate broad-brush slurs I may have made
earlier.
However, as far as the PIC VS "discrete" logic thing goes, you're
still all wet. :-)
---
>> Well, duhhh...
>>
>> If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
>> misunderstand you?
>
>My comments in the original post were rhetorical, haven't you figured
>that out yet?
---
Nope. Would you mind going back and dredging up those comments and
explaining what made them rhetorical?
---
>> ---
>> So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into sarcasm?
>
>What's to defend, I admitted my little faux pa.
---
Then what was the reason for the sarcasm? Surely you realized it
would lead to no good.
---
>> >At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
^^^^^^^^^
precedent
>> >jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of
^^^^^^^^
someone's
>their posts.
>> ---
>> If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I suggest
>> you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
>> once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.
>
>I didn't have to read 10,000 of them to figure out that you often go off
>like this. Four letter words, invectives and ad-hominem attacks seem to
>be a part of your regular forte.
---
Ahhh, you only read the juicy stuff. Try the tech, you might enjoy
it.
---
>> ---
>> That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
>> because you're a pussy.
>
>Really? Do ya think so?
---
Wellll... yeah.
After all, you say "WTF" so you can pretend that that's not saying
"What The Fuck", which is a pussy trait because pussies dont like the
"F" word, and you say that you don't use "cuss words" when the
acronym embodies the 'cuss words' you know the reader will expand
mentally to yield the 'cuss words' you want to wield, but can't.
So, your saying that you don't use 'cuss words' is a lie and lying is
another pussy trait.
---
>> If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you didn't
>> feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.
>
>As I said before, I didn't see a need to make a scene when I first saw
>your mistake in SED. After that, when you posted your little trick
>setup question in SEB, I felt a bit different. And then after Watson's
>snide little remark about attrocious advice, I posted my little
^^^^^^^^^^
atrocious
>sarcastic rant. And now here we are. Is that timeline really so hard
>to grasp?
---
Certainly not, but it's not about a timeline, it's about changing
streams in mid-horse. What you said earlier, unconditionally, was that
you didn't feel it was necessary to make a scene, while what you're
saying now is that you're now attaching conditions which made it OK to
make a scene. Can't you see that that's an ex post facto violation of
the first statement by the second?
"Please, Mommy, Oh, pleeeease make him give me back my marbles...
---
>> So, you admit your reply was confrontational, and yet you said that
>> you didn't feel a need to make a scene. You just can't keep your
>> facts straight, can you?
>
>See above.
---
See reply, above, to "See above"
---
>> And, in view of the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and
>> a stupid one at that, I maintain that you actually meant 'current
>> hogging' and decided that 'power hogging' would be a nice little
>> phrase to switch to to get you out of a jam.
>
>As I originally posted in reply to your little trick query:
>
><quote>
>Perhaps "dissipate more power" would have been more appropriate than
>"hog more current".
></quote>
>
>So as we can all plainly see, 'current hogging' is your own little
>fabrication of terminology that I never used.
---
Not at all, just a substitution used to tighten up of the sloppy
construct, which included my substitution of 'power hogging' for your
"dissipate more power".
---
>> ---
>> Yup, I thought so. You're the stereotypical petulant little puke who,
>> when she starts running out of ammunition starts whining about how I
>> should run _my_ business and how I should run _my_ life.
>
>If you think I'm running low on ammo, just keep posting. ;-) I could
>care less how you run your business _or_ your life. That is until you
>wish to horn into my life with your petulent, pedantic crap.
^^^^^^^^ ^
petulant cuss word
---
I don't consider B-Bs much of a threat, but I _am_ tiring of your
uninspired banter, so unless you can pick up the pace I'm outta here.
---
>> You were plain enough, the bobbing and weaving part was about the
>> transfer to the "power hogging" ploy, the intent of which was to make
>> it seem like you knew what you were talking about, but merely used the
>> wrong choice of words to describe what you meant. What I'm saying is
>
>Do you think that you've somehow proved that I didn't know the
>difference?
---
No. _You_ proved it with:
"Since there are two LEDs in series, one may hog more current than the
other resulting in its demise."
I merely asked a question designed to determine whether you did, in
fact, know the difference, but you took affrontery and refused to
answer it directly.
---
>> that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there is
>> no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
>> "Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to one
>> device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common power
>> supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
>> from the supply.
>
>Again, like as stated earlier. I was originally going to say "juice"
>not current and not power. Again, I wish that I had just so I could see
>how you could have twisted that around.
---
Perhaps that's what you should have done. "Juice" is vague enough to
have covered all your bases and is a cutesy colloquialism, so I
probably would have just ignored it.
---
>Is juice power, or is it current or maybe even energy?
>Again, my original intent was not to use the word power either,
>even though it would have been the "most correct" term.
>Hard to believe that set you onto a personal crusade to prove me
>a liar.
---
You've supplied the proof, I merely pointed out the incidents.
---
>> Again, the context of your "prompt" was goading and your attitude was
>> clearly confrontational, yielding a richly deserved insulting reply.
>
>What type of reply do you think you deserve at this point in our
>relationship?
>
>> >I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
>> >energy.
>>
>> ---
>> Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...
>
>Why do I think that no matter what I posted you would ridicule it?
---
That's not ridicule. I really don't think you know the difference and
I'm challenging you to provide proof that you do.
---
>> I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
>> should give a shit about your past errors.
>
>As you have so aptly demonstrated, you would leave no stone unturned in
>order to crucify me.
---
Oh, Gawd... Now you're casting yourself in the role of Christ and I'm
pounding in the nails. Get over yourself.
---
>> I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
>> pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the huge
>> family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.
>
>Too funny.
---
Thanks. :-)
---
>> ---
>> Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're smarter
>> than me then why pick on me?" card.
>
>I never said that I thought you were smarter than me. Only that you
>knew more about electronics. Don't flatter yourself, there is a
>difference.
---
Not so far.
---
>> I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like to
>> do is bring down self-important little bullshit artists like you, just
>
>Self important bullshit artist? That's got to be the most serious case
>of projection I've ever seen. Do you see me waving my credentials
>around? Do I have a sig line making bodacious claims?
---
Nope, but then, you've got nothing to make bodacious claims about.
---
>> for fun. And as far as being an expert goes, I could be a complete
>> moron and you'd still have to consider me an expert.
>
>That's not far from how I see things right now.
---
Ah, a double entendre; how delicious! Intended?
---
>> BTW, what happened with running those numbers to see whether the power
>> dissipation spec of an LED with Vf max in series with an LED with Vf
>> min and If running through _both_ of them would be exceeded?
>
>I don't know, what happened? How about you pick your own experiments,
>and I'll pick mine.
---
Awww... baby demurs. And here I thought I was going to get to see
some good stuff.
OK, _I'll_ do it.
Here's the circuit:
E1
|
[R1]
|
+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND
Unfortunately, the data sheet at the link you provided:
http://www.epitex.com/Catalog_PDF/08_Point_source_LED/L590CE-34F.PDF
doesn't show Vf min, and I couldn't find any Vf min for white LEDs so,
since you said that Vf can vary 2:1, looking at a Vf max of 4.0V for a
"typical" white LED at 20mA yields a Vf min of 2.0V. Also, 100mW
seems to be a pretty typical max dissipation, so if we redraw the
circuit with that in mind, and with LEDs with equal low Vf's we'll
get:
9.0V-+---->E1
|
[R1]
|
4.0V-+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
2.0V-+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND
The choice of 9V for E1 is based on the assumption that E1 will be
regulated and will give 1V of headroom if DS1 and DS2 are both at Vf
max.
Now, since the current in a series circuit is everywhere the same,
solving for R1 with 20mA of LED current yields:
(E1-E2) 5V
R1 = --------- = ------- = 250 ohms
It 0.02A
and the LEDs will each be dissipating:
P = IE = 0.02A * 2V = 0.04W
so everything will be fine.
Now, though, let's select a high Vf LED for DS1 and see what happens.
Here's the circuit now:
9.0V-+---->E1
|
[250]
|
6.0V-+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
2.0V-+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND
Since we now have a 3V drop across R1 the current will fall to:
E 3V
I = --- = ------ = 0.012A
R 250R
and the power being dissipated by DS1 will be:
P = 0.012A * 4V = 0.048W
So, if the LED is rated for 100mW max, it will be dissipating 48mW
and everything will still be fine, except the light output will
suffer.
If we have two Vf max LEDs in the circuit it'll look like this:
9.0V-+---->E1
|
[250]
|
8.0V-+---->E2
|
[DS1]
|
4.0V-+---->E3
|
[DS2]
|
GND
and the current in the circuit will fall to:
1V
I = ------ = 0.004A
250R
So, while everything will still be fine from a power dissipation
viewpoint, the light output from the LEDs will be greatly degraded.
Although it would be possible to fiddle with supply voltages and
series resistances in order to come up with a solution which would
allow a greater light output without overdriving the LEDs regardless
of the Vf spread, It would be more practical, IMO, to drive them with
a constant current.
---
>> If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you might
>> come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's deserving
>> of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That doesn't
>
>Really, and I'm supposed to be convinced by that statement? ROTFL I
>think I'll continue to decide for myself who I respect.
---
Spoken like a true narcissist. It's 'whom', BTW.
---
>> mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here and
>> starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.
>
>Yeah, you're real civil.
---
We've already covered that.
Anthony Fremont
Well duh, that would be the appropriate thing to do wouldn't it?
> It's what I do for a living, so that makes it my profession. So I put
> what I do in my .sig, what's wrong with that?
>
> Interestingly, the fact that I do seems to thoroughly irk you since
> you've mentioned it in a derogatory way more than once. Perhaps it's
> because I choose to include "Professional" and you think that I should
> be more humble and merely post "Circuit designer"? Perhaps you need
> to get over yourself and come to the realization that not everyone is
> going to accede to your whims as to what does and what doesn't
> constitute proper behavior.
Did I say that somewhere? Since you mentioned it, don't you find the
word professional to be tiny bit redundant? Why do you feel a need to
tell the world that you really do get paid?
> >Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all
that
> >is important?
>
> ---
> What skills you may have, other than in electronics, are of very
> little interest to me since, in these groups, what's important is
Translation: Yes, you probably do know a bunch of stuff that I don't
know, but since I don't know it, it's not relevant.
> electronics and the ability to communicate. In seb, it's also
Have I not communicated well enough?
> important to be able to render technical criticism
> non-confrontationally in order to not scare off the newbies.
Have you _ever_ seen me be confrontational to a newbie?
> ---
>
> >> >I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found
out.
> >
> >Kinda like the pretense where you come off as a civil human being?
>
> ---
> I generally respond to civility with civility and to non-civility with
> non-civility, and I very seldom make a non-preemptive strike.
You probably meant preemptive (without the non).
> ---
>
> >> >Perhaps you should have
> >> >told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated,
because
> >even
> >> >I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that
> >you
> >> >knew would work.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> "Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent
you?
> >
> >Actually, I meant that in a gullable sort of way. I've got your
number
> >now though.
>
> ---
> Did you know that 'gullable' isn't in the dictionary?
Oh man, you're not going to start tossing spelling flames are you? How
lame.
> ---
>
> >> You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
> >> assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.
> >
> >Actually, I've been getting a kick out of watching you blow your top.
> >:-)
>
> ---
> Just a ruse to get you to bite, and now that the hook is set I own
> you!
ROTFLMAO, oh yeah I'm definitely hooked.
> ---
>
>
> >I seriously doubt that I'll be reporting back much of anything about
any
> >of your circuits.
>
> ---
> As do I. After all, it takes a modicum of acumen to do much more than
> discover a typo in a technical article.
Modicum and acumen in the same sentence. No wonder it took you all
night to respond.
> ---
>
> >I do suspect that I will be hearing from you more often in the future
though.
>
> ---
> Perhaps.
>
> I will say one thing now, though, and that is that after having
> checked your posting history last night I found that you do seem to
> know what you're talking about, technically, most of the time, so I
> apologize for any inaccurate broad-brush slurs I may have made
> earlier.
>
> However, as far as the PIC VS "discrete" logic thing goes, you're
> still all wet. :-)
> ---
OMG, I can't believe it. That must have been really hard. Maybe we can
coexist then.
> >> Well, duhhh...
> >>
> >> If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
> >> misunderstand you?
> >
> >My comments in the original post were rhetorical, haven't you figured
> >that out yet?
>
> ---
> Nope. Would you mind going back and dredging up those comments and
> explaining what made them rhetorical?
OK, here we go:
First I said, "Maybe I could help make amends by belittling others,
nit-picking posts and posting a bunch
of OT crap?". Then I said, "Lets see if we can't get on to the road to
recovery now." That's all kinda the setup up indicating that sarcastic
and rhetorical remarks may follow. And then they did. I jibed Watson
since he tossed the first punch and you for what amounts to several
reasons (mainly your setup question when I've never slapped at you
before, I knew what you were trying to do and it torqued me off,
finally I've frankly found you to be a bit offensive lately and without
cause to other people namely Larry). So while it may not have been
entirely rhetorical, I really didn't expect this outcome.
> ---
>
>
> >> ---
> >> So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into
sarcasm?
> >
> >What's to defend, I admitted my little faux pa.
>
> ---
> Then what was the reason for the sarcasm? Surely you realized it
> would lead to no good.
> ---
>
>
> >> >At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
> ^^^^^^^^^
> precedent
>
> >> >jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of
> ^^^^^^^^
> someone's
> >their posts.
Why are spell checking my old posts now?
> >> ---
> >> If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I
suggest
> >> you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
> >> once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.
> >
> >I didn't have to read 10,000 of them to figure out that you often go
off
> >like this. Four letter words, invectives and ad-hominem attacks seem
to
> >be a part of your regular forte.
>
> ---
> Ahhh, you only read the juicy stuff. Try the tech, you might enjoy
> it.
I've read some of it and you have your good side.
> ---
>
>
> >> ---
> >> That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
> >> because you're a pussy.
> >
> >Really? Do ya think so?
>
> ---
> Wellll... yeah.
>
> After all, you say "WTF" so you can pretend that that's not saying
> "What The Fuck", which is a pussy trait because pussies dont like the
> "F" word, and you say that you don't use "cuss words" when the
Actually I use the "F" word plenty well, I just tend to not spell it out
in usenet articles. Just trying to consider the children. ;-)
> acronym embodies the 'cuss words' you know the reader will expand
> mentally to yield the 'cuss words' you want to wield, but can't.
> So, your saying that you don't use 'cuss words' is a lie and lying is
> another pussy trait.
Interesting extrapolation you made there.
> ---
>
>
> >> If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you
didn't
> >> feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.
> >
> >As I said before, I didn't see a need to make a scene when I first
saw
> >your mistake in SED. After that, when you posted your little trick
> >setup question in SEB, I felt a bit different. And then after
Watson's
> >snide little remark about attrocious advice, I posted my little
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> atrocious
> >sarcastic rant. And now here we are. Is that timeline really so
hard
> >to grasp?
>
> ---
> Certainly not, but it's not about a timeline, it's about changing
> streams in mid-horse. What you said earlier, unconditionally, was that
> you didn't feel it was necessary to make a scene, while what you're
At the time that is how I felt. And then you changed all that when you
tried to bust my chops on current vs. power or "current hogging" as you
like to call it. So, you prompted the horse change, not me.
Yes, it's all about what serves your agenda best, isn't it?
And I thought by saying "dissipate more power" that I made it perfectly
clear that I knew what you were hinting at. How direct does something
need to be before you can see it?
> ---
>
> >> that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there
is
> >> no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
> >> "Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to
one
> >> device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common
power
> >> supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
> >> from the supply.
> >
> >Again, like as stated earlier. I was originally going to say "juice"
> >not current and not power. Again, I wish that I had just so I could
see
> >how you could have twisted that around.
>
> ---
> Perhaps that's what you should have done. "Juice" is vague enough to
> have covered all your bases and is a cutesy colloquialism, so I
> probably would have just ignored it.
See, I knew I should have used it.
> ---
>
> >Is juice power, or is it current or maybe even energy?
> >Again, my original intent was not to use the word power either,
> >even though it would have been the "most correct" term.
> >Hard to believe that set you onto a personal crusade to prove me
> >a liar.
>
> ---
> You've supplied the proof, I merely pointed out the incidents.
> ---
>
>
> >> Again, the context of your "prompt" was goading and your attitude
was
> >> clearly confrontational, yielding a richly deserved insulting
reply.
> >
> >What type of reply do you think you deserve at this point in our
> >relationship?
> >
>
> >> >I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
> >> >energy.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...
> >
> >Why do I think that no matter what I posted you would ridicule it?
>
> ---
> That's not ridicule. I really don't think you know the difference and
> I'm challenging you to provide proof that you do.
Do you really think that? I doubt that you do.
In my own simple minded terms, current is the rate of electron flow. X
electrons in Y amount of time. Power is just putting some voltage
behind it so that we have the rate that work is being done, energy is
just putting a time constraint on how much total power is available to
do work (i.e. a 12V 8AH battery contains 96WH of energy). Is that good
enough or do you want joules, coulombs and other textbook what not?
> ---
>
> >> I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
> >> should give a shit about your past errors.
> >
> >As you have so aptly demonstrated, you would leave no stone unturned
in
> >order to crucify me.
>
> ---
> Oh, Gawd... Now you're casting yourself in the role of Christ and I'm
> pounding in the nails. Get over yourself.
If that's how you feel, maybe you should listen to your conscience.
> ---
>
> >> I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
> >> pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the
huge
> >> family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.
> >
> >Too funny.
>
> ---
> Thanks. :-)
> ---
>
>
> >> ---
> >> Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're
smarter
> >> than me then why pick on me?" card.
> >
> >I never said that I thought you were smarter than me. Only that you
> >knew more about electronics. Don't flatter yourself, there is a
> >difference.
>
> ---
> Not so far.
;-)
> ---
>
> >> I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like
to
> >> do is bring down self-important little bullshit artists like you,
just
> >
> >Self important bullshit artist? That's got to be the most serious
case
> >of projection I've ever seen. Do you see me waving my credentials
> >around? Do I have a sig line making bodacious claims?
>
> ---
> Nope, but then, you've got nothing to make bodacious claims about.
See, there you go making prejudicial statements again. You have no
idea.
So there we have it, the OP has been proven wrong. His LED's could not
have possibly failed.
> ---
>
>
> >> If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you
might
> >> come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's
deserving
> >> of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That
doesn't
> >
> >Really, and I'm supposed to be convinced by that statement? ROTFL
I
> >think I'll continue to decide for myself who I respect.
>
> ---
> Spoken like a true narcissist. It's 'whom', BTW.
I was honestly going to say that, but I didn't want to seem pretentious.
LOL
> ---
>
> >> mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here
and
> >> starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.
> >
> >Yeah, you're real civil.
>
> ---
> We've already covered that.
Yes, I'd agree that we buried your civility a good while ago.
John Fields
<jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>---
>I generally respond to civility with civility and to non-civility with
>non-civility, and I very seldom make a non-preemptive strike.
^^^^
LOL, strike this....../
Rich Grise
> Anthony Fremont wrote:
>> You
>> might consider not driving them so hard. There is probably a
>> relatively insignificant brightness difference between 10mA and 20mA
>> anyway.
>
> In my case: 30 mA is max, so feeding them 22 mA shouldn't be that bad.
> Moreover, the LED died when the circuit at
> http://johnbokma.com/pet/scorpion/detection-using-uv-leds.html
>
> was connected to 9V, or maybe even 7V (less then 12V anyway).
If you really used that exact circuit, with three LEDs in series
in each leg, then you have not killed any LEDs - 9V is simply
not enough to make them conduct. With three LEDS with a forward
voltage of 3.6V each, that's 3.6 * 3, or 10.8V, before any
current will flow at all. It's probably somewhat lower, but
once the forward threshold voltage is reached, the current
increases exponentially, which is why you limit the current,
and let the voltage find its own value.
Try two in series with a 91R resistor, as others have suggested,
or use a 12V source, like on the website, and put three in series
with 60 ohms - 62 is the nearest 5% value, I think.
Good Luck!
Rich
John Fields
<sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >LMAO I'm not the one
>> >> >touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".
>>
>> ---
>> Perhaps that's because you aren't.
>
>Well duh, that would be the appropriate thing to do wouldn't it?
---
Precisely. My .sig reads 'Professional Circuit Designer' because
that's what I am. Your .sig, OTOH, reads... nothing???
---
>Did I say that somewhere? Since you mentioned it, don't you find the
>word professional to be tiny bit redundant?
---
Not at all. 'Circuit Designer" means one thing, Professional Circuit
Designer' means quite another. Perhaps you're miffed because you'd
feel ridiculous using 'Professional Hobbyist' as a .sig?
---
> Why do you feel a need to tell the world that you really do get paid?
---
Actually, it's more of an ad than anything else, and has brought in
some work from time to time, so it's important in that sense.
---
>> >Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all
>that
>> >is important?
>>
>> ---
>> What skills you may have, other than in electronics, are of very
>> little interest to me since, in these groups, what's important is
>
>Translation: Yes, you probably do know a bunch of stuff that I don't
>know, but since I don't know it, it's not relevant.
---
Interesting that you find it necessary to try to put words in my
mouth. Sounds like you're so unsure of yourself that you have to
manufacture situations in which parts of imaginary conversations fill
in the empty spaces.
---
>> electronics and the ability to communicate. In seb, it's also
>
>Have I not communicated well enough?
---
Obviously not well enough to put this matter to rest.
---
>Modicum and acumen in the same sentence. No wonder it took you all
>night to respond.
---
You were up all night just waiting for my response? How sweet!
---
>OMG, I can't believe it. That must have been really hard.
---
For you, maybe, but not for me. Like I said before, if an apology is
warranted i'll offer it.
---
>Maybe we can coexist then.
---
We'll see.
---
>> >My comments in the original post were rhetorical, haven't you figured
>> >that out yet?
>>
>> ---
>> Nope. Would you mind going back and dredging up those comments and
>> explaining what made them rhetorical?
>
>OK, here we go:
>
>First I said, "Maybe I could help make amends by belittling others,
>nit-picking posts and posting a bunch
>of OT crap?". Then I said, "Lets see if we can't get on to the road to
>recovery now." That's all kinda the setup up indicating that sarcastic
>and rhetorical remarks may follow. And then they did. I jibed Watson
>since he tossed the first punch and you for what amounts to several
>reasons (mainly your setup question when I've never slapped at you
>before, I knew what you were trying to do and it torqued me off,
>finally I've frankly found you to be a bit offensive lately and without
>cause to other people namely Larry). So while it may not have been
>entirely rhetorical, I really didn't expect this outcome.
---
None of it was rhetorical, in that 'rhetorical' is defined as language
used for mere style or effect or language marked by or tending to use
bombast.
What you were doing was using sarcasm and invective vituperatively in
order to retaliate for your feelings of having been belittled.
---
>> >> >At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>> precedent
>>
>> >> >jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of
>> ^^^^^^^^
>> someone's
>> >their posts.
>
>Why are spell checking my old posts now?
---
I'm not _just_ spell checking your posts, I'm correcting your improper
use of the language in order to allow you to communicate more
effectively.
And because I feel like it.
---
>Actually I use the "F" word plenty well, I just tend to not spell it out
>in usenet articles. Just trying to consider the children. ;-)
---
How sickeningly pompous. If you don't want to use 'fuck' when you
write, you don't have to blame it on the kids, just don't use it.
Besides, any "children" who hang out here have heard it all before
just in case you've been away from the planet for a while.
---
>> ---
>> Certainly not, but it's not about a timeline, it's about changing
>> streams in mid-horse. What you said earlier, unconditionally, was that
>> you didn't feel it was necessary to make a scene, while what you're
>
>At the time that is how I felt. And then you changed all that when you
>tried to bust my chops on current vs. power or "current hogging" as you
>like to call it. So, you prompted the horse change, not me.
---
SWYMMD? ROTFLMAO!!!
---
>> Not at all, just a substitution used to tighten up of the sloppy
>> construct, which included my substitution of 'power hogging' for your
>> "dissipate more power".
>
>Yes, it's all about what serves your agenda best, isn't it?
---
Of course. I should subjugate mine and hitch my wagon to your star?
---
>> I merely asked a question designed to determine whether you did, in
>> fact, know the difference, but you took affrontery and refused to
>> answer it directly.
>
>And I thought by saying "dissipate more power" that I made it perfectly
>clear that I knew what you were hinting at. How direct does something
>need to be before you can see it?
---
I'm not sure you remember, but I didn't comment on your answer until
you started with your diatribe after I had the _affrontery_ to hit you
with a "trick question" and Watson _dared_ to throw that little barb
at you, and you're _still_ not over it. For an 'old hand' on usenet
you sure have thin skin!
---
>> Nope, but then, you've got nothing to make bodacious claims about.
>
>See, there you go making prejudicial statements again. You have no
>idea.
---
Ok, then, let's hear about your bodacity.
---
---
But since there _was_ a failure, if LEDs with the range of Vf's you
said was possible were hooked up as shown and the supply voltage and
series resistance were as shown, it would have been impossible for an
overcurrent situation to cause one of the LEDs to fail, so _your_
analysis of the failure mode was in error!
In all fairness, though, I don't recall what the situation surrounding
the failure was or anything about the circuit other than that it was a
couple of LEDs hooked up in series with a current limiting resistor of
some kind and a power supply. If you can supply the details we can
get to the bottom of it.
---
>> We've already covered that.
>
>Yes, I'd agree that we buried your civility a good while ago.
---
Not bad...
John Bokma
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:29:02 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Anthony Fremont wrote:
>
>>> You
>>> might consider not driving them so hard. There is probably a
>>> relatively insignificant brightness difference between 10mA and 20mA
>>> anyway.
>>
>> In my case: 30 mA is max, so feeding them 22 mA shouldn't be that
>> bad. Moreover, the LED died when the circuit at
>> http://johnbokma.com/pet/scorpion/detection-using-uv-leds.html
>>
>> was connected to 9V, or maybe even 7V (less then 12V anyway).
>
> If you really used that exact circuit, with three LEDs in series
> in each leg, then you have not killed any LEDs - 9V is simply
> not enough to make them conduct. With three LEDS with a forward
> voltage of 3.6V each, that's 3.6 * 3, or 10.8V, before any
> current will flow at all. It's probably somewhat lower,
Yupm note that 3.6V is typical. And yes, the LEDs *do* burn on 7V, since
2V / LED = Vf min, which leaves 1V for the resistor, and hence: 1V/56
Ohm = 17.8 mA through each LED, which is well within range.
> but
> once the forward threshold voltage is reached, the current
> increases exponentially, which is why you limit the current,
> and let the voltage find its own value.
>
> Try two in series with a 91R resistor, as others have suggested,
Uhm I think you misread their posts, or I did, I am not the OP.
> or use a 12V source, like on the website,
It's mine, I did :-). Ok I will describe what exactly happened: the
first LED that died on me: when I heated it (I thought I didn't solder
it right, "cold connection" (no idea of the right English expression),
so I made the solder melt again: LED worked (and all 3 in a row worked).
When I added more LEDs (I was building the circuit), and tested again: 3
LEDs didn't work, so I used the solder iron again on the suspicious
part: it worked. After a few attempts I gave up, and replaced the LED.
When I had finished the circuit and had it running for quite some time
(on < 12V), one row started to flash on and off several times (quite
rapidly, like a tube light starting), and then went off all together.
Same problem. I did a burn in test of the circuit for quite some time (I
am not sure, guess 12V or close, for one hour), and no other LEDs showed
the same problem. So out of 50 LEDs, 2 gave problems. I wonder if this
is "normal", ie: it is the quality of the badge?
Moreover, I bought a multimeter, and will check the voltage over each
and every LED, etc.
> and put three in series
> with 60 ohms - 62 is the nearest 5% value, I think.
68 as far as I know. However, I consider 56 Ohm well within range, since
the max current is 30 mA.
--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
Anthony Fremont
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:05:10 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <sp...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >LMAO I'm not the one
> >> >> >touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Perhaps that's because you aren't.
> >
> >Well duh, that would be the appropriate thing to do wouldn't it?
>
> ---
> Precisely. My .sig reads 'Professional Circuit Designer' because
> that's what I am. Your .sig, OTOH, reads... nothing???
I guess that means my ego gets enough to eat without me feeding it.
> ---
>
> >Did I say that somewhere? Since you mentioned it, don't you find the
> >word professional to be tiny bit redundant?
>
> ---
> Not at all. 'Circuit Designer" means one thing, Professional Circuit
> Designer' means quite another. Perhaps you're miffed because you'd
> feel ridiculous using 'Professional Hobbyist' as a .sig?
Those words are mutually exclusive, so yes I'd be embarrassed to call
myself that.
> ---
>
> > Why do you feel a need to tell the world that you really do get
paid?
>
> ---
> Actually, it's more of an ad than anything else, and has brought in
> some work from time to time, so it's important in that sense.
> ---
>
> >> >Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all
> >that
> >> >is important?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> What skills you may have, other than in electronics, are of very
> >> little interest to me since, in these groups, what's important is
> >
> >Translation: Yes, you probably do know a bunch of stuff that I don't
> >know, but since I don't know it, it's not relevant.
>
> ---
> Interesting that you find it necessary to try to put words in my
> mouth. Sounds like you're so unsure of yourself that you have to
> manufacture situations in which parts of imaginary conversations fill
> in the empty spaces.
Pot, kettle black and all that.
> ---
>
> >> electronics and the ability to communicate. In seb, it's also
> >
> >Have I not communicated well enough?
>
> ---
> Obviously not well enough to put this matter to rest.
> ---
>
>
> >Modicum and acumen in the same sentence. No wonder it took you all
> >night to respond.
>
> ---
> You were up all night just waiting for my response? How sweet!
> ---
>
> >OMG, I can't believe it. That must have been really hard.
>
> ---
> For you, maybe, but not for me. Like I said before, if an apology is
> warranted i'll offer it.
I think we all could have appreciated you researching your case BEFORE
making it. Now you've gone and said all kinds of hateful, mean, and
ugly things to me just because I made one statement that really wasn't
all that bad.
And isn't that precisely what it did? Did you not feel personally
bombasted?
> What you were doing was using sarcasm and invective vituperatively in
There was absolutely no invective involved. I merely posed a question,
it could have been phrased nicer, but it was just a question
nonetheless. Perhaps you should rethink that statement.
> order to retaliate for your feelings of having been belittled.
> ---
>
>
>
> >> >> >At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here
of
> >> ^^^^^^^^^
> >> precedent
> >>
> >> >> >jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy
of
> >> ^^^^^^^^
> >> someone's
> >> >their posts.
> >
> >Why are spell checking my old posts now?
>
> ---
> I'm not _just_ spell checking your posts, I'm correcting your improper
> use of the language in order to allow you to communicate more
> effectively.
Perhaps I should just send you a box of characters then you can
completely construct the sentences for me. That way you'll always know
what I mean.
> And because I feel like it.
> ---
>
> >Actually I use the "F" word plenty well, I just tend to not spell it
out
> >in usenet articles. Just trying to consider the children. ;-)
>
> ---
> How sickeningly pompous. If you don't want to use 'fuck' when you
> write, you don't have to blame it on the kids, just don't use it.
The children thing was just a joke, didn't you see the winkey?
> Besides, any "children" who hang out here have heard it all before
> just in case you've been away from the planet for a while.
Yes, well that certainly justifies it, doesn't it?
Exactly, that's the whole problem. You posted your "trick" question and
Watson saw it for what it was and made his snide remark. That directly
makes you the proximate cause of this whole fiasco. ;-)
> at you, and you're _still_ not over it. For an 'old hand' on usenet
> you sure have thin skin!
No, just a good recollection of what happened when.
> ---
>
>
>
>
> >> Nope, but then, you've got nothing to make bodacious claims about.
> >
> >See, there you go making prejudicial statements again. You have no
> >idea.
>
> ---
> Ok, then, let's hear about your bodacity
I already did my bragging in another post that you have yet to respond
to.
Oh, obviously. Yes they died after a time, but it had nothing to do
with too much dissipation. We know that, because the datasheet is the
end-all authority on the reality of any situation and that all parts
meet specs. Well, I'm sure glad that's finally settled.
> In all fairness, though, I don't recall what the situation surrounding
> the failure was or anything about the circuit other than that it was a
> couple of LEDs hooked up in series with a current limiting resistor of
> some kind and a power supply. If you can supply the details we can
> get to the bottom of it.
You have access to the same material as me.