sci.electronics.repair - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest

sci.electronics.repair
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fender twin reverb - dog's breakfast
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/fc9c59a309df1d03?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 12:09 am
From: "N_Cook"

DewDude <dewdude@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:281fdad6-2466-465c-8a84-4586019bcb4b@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 12:01 pm, "N_Cook" <dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> you can play through a vib ip with no pedal sw and its fine, so not a
> V2.....onwards problem

What are the tubes designations for V1? It sounds like some sort of
cap problem? Have you tried shotgunning it and changing all the caps?

++++

I will get inside it today. Seems odd that varying the associated tone
controls has no effect on the whistle tone or level

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 3:35 am
From: Ron

On 04/10/2011 08:09, N_Cook wrote:
> DewDude<dewdude@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:281fdad6-2466-465c-8a84-4586019bcb4b@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 12:01 pm, "N_Cook"<dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>> you can play through a vib ip with no pedal sw and its fine, so not a
>> V2.....onwards problem
>
> What are the tubes designations for V1? It sounds like some sort of
> cap problem? Have you tried shotgunning it and changing all the caps?
>
> ++++
>
> I will get inside it today. Seems odd that varying the associated tone
> controls has no effect on the whistle tone or level
>
>
>
>
That should give you a clue...

Ron

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 3:49 am
From: "N_Cook"

Ron <ron@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:j7idne1ZfLDFfBfTnZ2dnUVZ7tidnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 04/10/2011 08:09, N_Cook wrote:
> > DewDude<dewdude@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
news:281fdad6-2466-465c-8a84-4586019bcb4b@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 3, 12:01 pm, "N_Cook"<dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> >> you can play through a vib ip with no pedal sw and its fine, so not a
> >> V2.....onwards problem
> >
> > What are the tubes designations for V1? It sounds like some sort of
> > cap problem? Have you tried shotgunning it and changing all the caps?
> >
> > ++++
> >
> > I will get inside it today. Seems odd that varying the associated tone
> > controls has no effect on the whistle tone or level
> >
> >
> >
> >
> That should give you a clue...
>
>
>
> Ron

Not to me . The HV side corner of the board , not the nearby cap wires, is
extremely microphonic. Only mV DC lowside of the .1 and .047 uF caps .
Removing the fixing screw through the whale-hide or whatever junk that
passed for circuit board then, does seem to stop the noises. Some thin FRPB
will go between the 2 bits of whale-hide and an insulated collar under a
longer screw will go back through there. Consistent 2 to 3 volts on DVM
probe around the edge of the whale hide normal ?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 4:48 am
From: "N_Cook"

The previous time I've come across this was with a Fender Concert and then I
put it down to someone previously soldering a component with the "active"
board in situ and had burnt part of the grounded whale-hide sheet
underneath. Placing some extra insulation cured that time also. So anyone
know precisely what the failure is . Presumably taking up humidity but what
next? salts in the material forming a conductive path in the core of the
material. I will try a megger on the material when I next get to the amp ,
no problem seen on external surfaces with a 30M DVM. And what is that stuff?
whale-hide? artificial leather ?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 6:23 am
From: "N_Cook"

Under 30x magnification and some lighting did not look fibrous or patterned
in any way. Nothing observable with a Megger and a couple of needles pushed
into the edge.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: rotel rcd 955ax
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/fce932e9c7ecf1c8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 4:05 am
From: leigh martin

hi I have just got my cd player and speakers out ( just 20 years old)
and had the idea of linking these to my new TV to increase the sound
quality and when I power up my CD it momentarily goes on and then
goes off, any thoughts?
thanks
Leigh

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 4:49 am
From: "N_Cook"

leigh martin <leigh.yzabelle.martin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52fd548d-20e8-4d19-b822-19683b50c485@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> hi I have just got my cd player and speakers out ( just 20 years old)
> and had the idea of linking these to my new TV to increase the sound
> quality and when I power up my CD it momentarily goes on and then
> goes off, any thoughts?
> thanks
> Leigh

what exactly "goes on " and off ?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 11:22 am
From: Kripton

On 2011-10-04 13:05:12 +0200, leigh martin
<leigh.yzabelle.martin@gmail.com> said:

> hi I have just got my cd player and speakers out ( just 20 years old)
> and had the idea of linking these to my new TV to increase the sound
> quality and when I power up my CD it momentarily goes on and then
> goes off, any thoughts?
> thanks
> Leigh

bad cap in the power supply... surely !
--
----------
Kripton

the ESR Repository @ http://kripton2035.free.fr/esr-repository.html
the Geiger Repository @ http://kripton2035.free.fr/geiger-repositor.html

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 1:03 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

leigh martin wrote:
> hi I have just got my cd player and speakers out ( just 20 years old)
> and had the idea of linking these to my new TV to increase the sound
> quality and when I power up my CD it momentarily goes on and then
> goes off, any thoughts?
> thanks
> Leigh

**What "goes on and then goes off"? The display? The transport? Is it
'skipping' when playing CDs? Your description of the fault is hopelessly
inadequate. The RCD955 uses a linear power supply, so it is unlikely that
the entire unit switches on and off.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

==============================================================================
TOPIC: carbon dioxide reduction question
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/62d314544c086f2a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 4:13 am
From: F Murtz

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> kreed wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> kreed wrote:
>>>> On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>>
>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
>>>>>>>>>>> <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good, thank you for confirming that.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> **You're most welcome.
>>>
>>>>>>>> For what ?
>>>
>>>>>>> **For this:
>>>
>>>>>>> "**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
>>>>>>> own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011
>>>
>>>> Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
>>>> is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
>>>> discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
>>>> corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .
>>>
>>> **Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
>>> you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
>>>>>> beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
>>>>>> generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
>>>>>> man-made.
>>>
>>>>>> It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
>>>>>> pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
>>>>>> process.
>>>
>>>>> **I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
>>>>> attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
>>>>> scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.
>>>
>>>> Thank you for your assistance Trevor.
>>>
>>> **Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
>>> ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
>>> basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
>>> this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
>>> of your depth discussing scientific matters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> For some reason, this idiot
>>>>> continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
>>>>> made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
>>>>> A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
>>>>> manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
>>>>> up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
>>>>> incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
>>>>> the atmosphere).
>>>
>>>> The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
>>>> drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
>>>> probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
>>>> is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
>>>> the first place.
>>>
>>> **Duh.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
>>>> "carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
>>>> or to my own bad health. (very important)
>>>
>>> **You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
>>> more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.
>>
>> HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.
>
> **A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
> Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.
>
> We are starting to see your true
>> "green fascism" personality shine through.
>>
>>
>> Religious Nutters ? LOL
>
> **Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
> Pell regularly deny science.
>
>>
>>
>> So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
>> then if that is the case ?
>
> **Strawman noted. And ignored.
>
>>
>> Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.
>
> **The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity with.
> You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the same
> book.
>
>

Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
or may not be experts.

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 8:21 am
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:13:11 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
> Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
>They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
>their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
>or may not be experts.

Only about 20% of the IPCC scientists have anything to do with climate
in their daytime jobs:
<http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/16/christyschlesinger-debate-part-ii/>
<http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/>
Of course, I'm not an expert on the subject of climate, so please feel
free to ignore me.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 12:21 pm
From: PlainBill@yawhoo.com

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:54:19 +1100, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
><trevor@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>kreed wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
>>>>>> <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> Good, thank you for confirming that.
>>>>
>>>> **You're most welcome.
>>>>
>>> For what ?
>>
>>**For this:
>>
>>"**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
>>the fermentation process." 10/2/2011
>
>I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic beverages,
>then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2 generated by the
>fermentation process is still essentially man-made.
>
>It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
>pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
>process.
>
>- Franc Zabkar
There is a significant difference. In most cases automobiles use
fossil fuels; thus they release carbon (as CO2) that was sequestered
for millenia. If I take a corn crop and ferment it into alcohol, feed
it to cattle, or plow it into the ground, the carbon (as CO2) was
removed from the atmosphere within the last 6 - 9 months. If the
alcohol is used to produce wiskey it will be out of the atmosphere for
less than a decade; the other uses return it to the atmosphere more
quickly. Even if I let the field go to weeds, the same process will
occur.

PlainBill

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 1:54 pm
From: whit3rd

On Saturday, October 1, 2011 6:03:31 PM UTC-7, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> > **BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
> > the fermentation process.
>
>
> Then why do breweries need huge tanks of Carbon Dioxide?

To control the process, of course. One doesn't want the yeast to
suffer from the waste product while it's fermenting, so you remove
that gas. Then you DO want the yeast to stop metabolizing at
the end of the process, so (maybe) you inject the CO2 back in.
Or, you liquefy it and sell it to the softdrink manufacturers.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 2:08 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

whit3rd wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 1, 2011 6:03:31 PM UTC-7, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > **BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
> > > the fermentation process.
> >
> >
> > Then why do breweries need huge tanks of Carbon Dioxide?
>
> To control the process, of course. One doesn't want the yeast to
> suffer from the waste product while it's fermenting, so you remove
> that gas. Then you DO want the yeast to stop metabolizing at
> the end of the process, so (maybe) you inject the CO2 back in.
> Or, you liquefy it and sell it to the softdrink manufacturers.

Sigh. They were trucking in liquid CO2, not hauling it off.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 7:07 pm
From: kreed

On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > kreed wrote:
> >> On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>> kreed wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Franc Zabkar wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>>>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
> >>>>>>> kreed wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
> >>>>>>>>>>> <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Good, thank you for confirming that.
>
> >>>>>>>>> **You're most welcome.
>
> >>>>>>>> For what ?
>
> >>>>>>> **For this:
>
> >>>>>>> "**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
> >>>>>>> own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011
>
> >>>> Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
> >>>> is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
> >>>> discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
> >>>> corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .
>
> >>> **Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
> >>> you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.
>
> >>>>>> I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
> >>>>>> beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
> >>>>>> generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
> >>>>>> man-made.
>
> >>>>>> It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
> >>>>>> pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
> >>>>>> process.
>
> >>>>> **I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
> >>>>> attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
> >>>>> scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.
>
> >>>> Thank you for your assistance Trevor.
>
> >>> **Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
> >>> ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
> >>> basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
> >>> this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
> >>> of your depth discussing scientific matters.
>
> >>>> For some reason, this idiot
> >>>>> continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
> >>>>> made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
> >>>>> A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
> >>>>> manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
> >>>>> up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
> >>>>> incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
> >>>>> the atmosphere).
>
> >>>> The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
> >>>> drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
> >>>> probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
> >>>> is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
> >>>> the first place.
>
> >>> **Duh.
>
> >>>> I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
> >>>> "carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
> >>>> or to my own bad health. (very important)
>
> >>> **You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
> >>> more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.
>
> >> HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.
>
> > **A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
> > Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.
>
> > We are starting to see your true
> >> "green fascism" personality shine through.
>
> >> Religious Nutters ? LOL
>
> > **Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
> > Pell regularly deny science.
>
> >> So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
> >> then if that is the case ?
>
> > **Strawman noted. And ignored.
>
> >> Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.
>
> > **The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity with.
> > You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the same
> > book.
>
> Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
> Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
> They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
> their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
> or may not be experts.

Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
then you must be :

- a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
Trevor),
- "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
- just an "idiot".

Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 7:34 pm
From: atec77

On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
> On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> kreed wrote:
>>>> On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good, thank you for confirming that.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **You're most welcome.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> For what ?
>>
>>>>>>>>> **For this:
>>
>>>>>>>>> "**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
>>>>>>>>> own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011
>>
>>>>>> Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
>>>>>> is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
>>>>>> discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
>>>>>> corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .
>>
>>>>> **Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
>>>>> you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.
>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
>>>>>>>> beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
>>>>>>>> generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
>>>>>>>> man-made.
>>
>>>>>>>> It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
>>>>>>>> pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
>>>>>>>> process.
>>
>>>>>>> **I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
>>>>>>> attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
>>>>>>> scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.
>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your assistance Trevor.
>>
>>>>> **Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
>>>>> ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
>>>>> basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
>>>>> this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
>>>>> of your depth discussing scientific matters.
>>
>>>>>> For some reason, this idiot
>>>>>>> continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
>>>>>>> made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
>>>>>>> A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
>>>>>>> manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
>>>>>>> up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
>>>>>>> incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
>>>>>>> the atmosphere).
>>
>>>>>> The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
>>>>>> drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
>>>>>> probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
>>>>>> is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
>>>>>> the first place.
>>
>>>>> **Duh.
>>
>>>>>> I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
>>>>>> "carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
>>>>>> or to my own bad health. (very important)
>>
>>>>> **You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
>>>>> more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.
>>
>>>> HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.
>>
>>> **A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
>>> Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.
>>
>>> We are starting to see your true
>>>> "green fascism" personality shine through.
>>
>>>> Religious Nutters ? LOL
>>
>>> **Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
>>> Pell regularly deny science.
>>
>>>> So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
>>>> then if that is the case ?
>>
>>> **Strawman noted. And ignored.
>>
>>>> Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.
>>
>>> **The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity with.
>>> You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the same
>>> book.
>>
>> Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
>> Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
>> They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
>> their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
>> or may not be experts.
>
>
> Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
> organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
> vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
> just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
> then you must be :
>
> - a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
> Trevor),
> - "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
> oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
> - just an "idiot".
>
>
> Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
> cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the
release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern
hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything
outside his limited trade training
B

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 11:40 pm
From: F Murtz

atec77 wrote:
> On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good, thank you for confirming that.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **You're most welcome.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For what ?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **For this:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
>>>>>>>>>> own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011
>>>
>>>>>>> Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
>>>>>>> is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
>>>>>>> discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
>>>>>>> corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .
>>>
>>>>>> **Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
>>>>>> you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
>>>>>>>>> beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
>>>>>>>>> generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
>>>>>>>>> man-made.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
>>>>>>>>> pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>
>>>>>>>> **I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
>>>>>>>> attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
>>>>>>>> scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.
>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your assistance Trevor.
>>>
>>>>>> **Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
>>>>>> ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
>>>>>> basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
>>>>>> this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
>>>>>> of your depth discussing scientific matters.
>>>
>>>>>>> For some reason, this idiot
>>>>>>>> continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
>>>>>>>> made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
>>>>>>>> A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
>>>>>>>> manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
>>>>>>>> up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
>>>>>>>> incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
>>>>>>>> the atmosphere).
>>>
>>>>>>> The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
>>>>>>> drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
>>>>>>> probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
>>>>>>> is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
>>>>>>> the first place.
>>>
>>>>>> **Duh.
>>>
>>>>>>> I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
>>>>>>> "carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
>>>>>>> or to my own bad health. (very important)
>>>
>>>>>> **You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
>>>>>> more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.
>>>
>>>>> HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.
>>>
>>>> **A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
>>>> Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.
>>>
>>>> We are starting to see your true
>>>>> "green fascism" personality shine through.
>>>
>>>>> Religious Nutters ? LOL
>>>
>>>> **Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and
>>>> George
>>>> Pell regularly deny science.
>>>
>>>>> So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
>>>>> then if that is the case ?
>>>
>>>> **Strawman noted. And ignored.
>>>
>>>>> Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.
>>>
>>>> **The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity
>>>> with.
>>>> You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the
>>>> same
>>>> book.
>>>
>>> Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
>>> Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
>>> They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
>>> their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
>>> or may not be experts.
>>
>>
>> Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
>> organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
>> vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
>> just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
>> then you must be :
>>
>> - a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
>> Trevor),
>> - "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
>> oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
>> - just an "idiot".
>>
>>
>> Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
>> cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
> I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the
> release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern
> hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything
> outside his limited trade training
> B
>

Trevor has an advantage over the rest of us as his partner works for the
CSIRO. So he probably gets his info first hand.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2011 12:20 am
From: kreed

On Oct 5, 4:40 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> atec77 wrote:
> > On 5/10/2011 12:07 PM, kreed wrote:
> >> On Oct 4, 9:13 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>> kreed wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 4, 10:59 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> kreed wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 4, 7:36 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Franc Zabkar wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:33:30 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>>>>>>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kreed wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, who where<no...@home.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT), kreed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, the brewing process generates CO2 ?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good, thank you for confirming that.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> **You're most welcome.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For what ?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> **For this:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> "**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their
> >>>>>>>>>> own CO2 via the fermentation process." 10/2/2011
>
> >>>>>>> Was clarifying since there was a difference of opinion there, and it
> >>>>>>> is always wise to take what Trevor says with a grain of salt when
> >>>>>>> discussing anything to do with carbon dioxide as he pulls out the
> >>>>>>> corporate "21st century religious ministry" called the IPCC .
>
> >>>>>> **Says the person who understands nothing about science. Time for
> >>>>>> you to go back to school. Your education is severely compromised.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't see the distinction. If we didn't brew alcoholic
> >>>>>>>>> beverages, then we wouldn't be creating CO2. Therefore, CO2
> >>>>>>>>> generated by the fermentation process is still essentially
> >>>>>>>>> man-made.
>
> >>>>>>>>> It's a bit like saying that it's not our driving that causes air
> >>>>>>>>> pollution, it's the natural consequence of the internal combustion
> >>>>>>>>> process.
>
> >>>>>>>> **I'm not attempting to make any such distinction. I am merely
> >>>>>>>> attempting to educate the monumentally ignorant, 'kreed', in some
> >>>>>>>> scientific facts. IE: That the fermentaion process creates CO2.
>
> >>>>>>> Thank you for your assistance Trevor.
>
> >>>>>> **Like I said: You're welcome. I posted the information two days
> >>>>>> ago. In any case, the release of CO2 during fermentation is very
> >>>>>> basic high school science stuff. The fact that you are unaware of
> >>>>>> this, very basic piece of chemistry, suggests that you are way out
> >>>>>> of your depth discussing scientific matters.
>
> >>>>>>> For some reason, this idiot
> >>>>>>>> continues to post unscientific nonsense. Earlier, the claim was
> >>>>>>>> made that carbonated drinks were a problem, because they used CO2.
> >>>>>>>> A completely different scenario, though the energy required for
> >>>>>>>> manufacture may create CO2. I also made the point that locking CO2
> >>>>>>>> up in soft drink containers is actually a good thing (though an
> >>>>>>>> incredibly wasteful, energy intensive method of removing CO2 from
> >>>>>>>> the atmosphere).
>
> >>>>>>> The CO2 comes out once you open the drinks though, or once it is
> >>>>>>> drunk, absorbed by and then expelled from the human body - and
> >>>>>>> probably a lot of CO2 (looking at if from a "warmist" point of view)
> >>>>>>> is emitted in the process of producing and transporting this CO2 in
> >>>>>>> the first place.
>
> >>>>>> **Duh.
>
> >>>>>>> I don't drink the shit, so Im not contributing to this form of
> >>>>>>> "carbon pollution" (unimportant), to corporate profits (important),
> >>>>>>> or to my own bad health. (very important)
>
> >>>>>> **You would not be missed. You ignorant religious nutters place far
> >>>>>> more importance on your own health than the rest of us do.
>
> >>>>> HMMM - very nasty comment Trevor.
>
> >>>> **A factual one. Nothing more, nothing less. No malice. Just the facts.
> >>>> Ignorant fools like you are rarely missed.
>
> >>>> We are starting to see your true
> >>>>> "green fascism" personality shine through.
>
> >>>>> Religious Nutters ? LOL
>
> >>>> **Religious fruitcakes like yourself, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and
> >>>> George
> >>>> Pell regularly deny science.
>
> >>>>> So I take it you are obsessed with vegetarian/veganism, and such shit
> >>>>> then if that is the case ?
>
> >>>> **Strawman noted. And ignored.
>
> >>>>> Enjoy those lentils then while you bash your IPCC bible.
>
> >>>> **The IPCC is a scientific body. Something you have no familiarity
> >>>> with.
> >>>> You, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George Pell are reading from the
> >>>> same
> >>>> book.
>
> >>> Why are you fixated on Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and George
> >>> Pell,No one uses them as authorities on the subject.
> >>> They are not experts on the subject.None of their dissertations are
> >>> their own research.every thing they say is gleaned from others who may
> >>> or may not be experts.
>
> >> Trevor has little on his side to substantiate anything, beyond
> >> organisations like the IPCC which is a joke, and a paid puppet to
> >> vested interests who will profit and benefit from the AGW scam, and
> >> just does the old "if you don't believe in their theories like I do,
> >> then you must be :
>
> >> - a "religious nut", (Abbot et al. are examples of this according to
> >> Trevor),
> >> - "paid by coal/oil industries" (even though it is documented that the
> >> oil industry is in full support of AGW theory )
> >> - just an "idiot".
>
> >> Trevor seems to be an example IMHO of those who get brainwashed by
> >> cults. His talks are like a scratched record, or a trained parrot.
> > I question the emergence of co2 as a concentrated issue considering the
> > release and concentration of methane and chlorine over the northern
> > hemisphere , not that twevy has one iota of a clue about anything
> > outside his limited trade training
> > B
>
> Trevor has an advantage over the rest of us as his partner works for the
> CSIRO. So he probably gets his info first hand.

mmm, now that is interesting. Explains a lot too.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2011 12:43 am
From: kreed

I wonder which one of these he is ?
http://menzieshouse.typepad.com/.a/6a012876778d82970c015434740b5b970c-500wi

==============================================================================
TOPIC: wholesale nike shox shoes,sneakers,trainers,factory promotion,offer
lowest price www.shoesbags4sale.com
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/b041d602956ef604?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 6:03 am
From: Maria

wholesale nike shox shoes,sneakers,trainers,factory promotion,offer
lowest price www.shoesbags4sale.com

Nike wholesale - Nike shoes wholesale.
www.shoesbags4sale.com
Nike shoes: Nike shox air force1 jordan TL NZ R4 Turbo Monster
shoes,Nike air max 95 360 97 2003 TN Plus shoes,Nike air jordan
shoes,Nike air dunk shoes.

We sale wholesale Nike shoes(Nike trainers,Nike sneakers,Nike
basketball shoes,Nike running shoes,Nike Men's shoes,Nike women's
shoes,Nike mens shoes,Nike womens shoes,nike cheap discount
shoes).
www.shoesbags4sale.com

Nike shox shoes wholesale(Nike shox tl-shox tl 3 III,Nike shox nz,Nike
shox r4,Nike shox r5,Nike shox turbo,nike shox monster,nike shox VC OZ
Ride shoes).

Nike air max shoes wholesale(Nike air max tn plus,Nike air max
360,Nike air max 95,Nike air max 97,Nike air max 2003,Nike air max
2004,Nike air max 90).

Nike shoes wholesale other sport shoes(retro nike air jordan 21 XXI 11
XI 13 20,nike air dunk low min high,Nike air rift,Nike air force 1
one). www.shoesbags4sale.com

China Nike factory sale and wholesale nike shoes to your nike shop &
nike store,Nike wholesale nike shoes to United States America and
England and United Kingdom and Europe at Nike Shoes.

Wholesale - Nike Air Dunk: www.shoesbags4sale.com
Nike Dunk,Nike Dunks,Nike Air Dunk,Nike Air Dunks,Nike Dunks Dunk
low,Nike Air Dunks Dunk High,Nike Dunk mid Shoes.

E-mail: deal3662011@hotmail.com Yahoo: deal366@yahoo.cn

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 6:03 am
From: Maria

wholesale nike shox shoes,sneakers,trainers,factory promotion,offer
lowest price www.shoesbags4sale.com

Nike shox shoes wholesale(Nike shox tl-shox tl 3 III,Nike shox nz,Nike
shox r4,Nike shox r5,Nike shox turbo,nike shox monster,nike shox VC OZ
Ride shoes).

Nike air max shoes wholesale(Nike air max tn plus,Nike air max
360,Nike air max 95,Nike air max 97,Nike air max 2003,Nike air max
2004,Nike air max 90).

Nike shoes wholesale other sport shoes(retro nike air jordan 21 XXI 11
XI 13 20,nike air dunk low min high,Nike air rift,Nike air force 1
one). www.shoesbags4sale.com

China Nike factory sale and wholesale nike shoes to your nike shop &
nike store,Nike wholesale nike shoes to United States America and
England and United Kingdom and Europe at Nike Shoes.

Wholesale - Nike Air Dunk: www.shoesbags4sale.com
Nike Dunk,Nike Dunks,Nike Air Dunk,Nike Air Dunks,Nike Dunks Dunk
low,Nike Air Dunks Dunk High,Nike Dunk mid Shoes.

E-mail: deal3662011@hotmail.com Yahoo: deal366@yahoo.cn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Calibrating a sound level pressure meter
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/21a5e0c259fd4f68?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 7:08 am
From: spamtrap1888

On Oct 3, 9:27 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 00:00:55 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 5:02 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 20:18:30 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>
> >> <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 1, 9:17 am, "N_Cook" <dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> nesesu <neil_sutcli...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:ba2271f0-894f-44c9-bd39-dc9938fba80f@dm9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Sep 27, 7:40 am, "N_Cook" <dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Other than the B battery test mark on the scale for running off the 1960s
> >> >> > B122
> >> >> > type 22.5V battery . But of course no standard for what the B equates to
> >> >> for
> >> >> > light load and less than 22.5V , seems to work adequately on 15V , I
> >> >> intend
> >> >> > using 2xPP3 , 18V
>
> >> >> With nominal batery voltage [22.5V] applied from a bench supply, where
> >> >> does the meter pointer fall relative to the 'battery' markings on the
> >> >> scale?
> >> >> If the pointer is in the 'good' area just above the minimum battery
> >> >> mark then the meter deflection is in the right ball park, not as far
> >> >> out as your first post would suggest.
> >> >> My B&K came with a calibrator source that fits over the mic and emits
> >> >> a tone of about 1kHz to tweak the calibration if needed.
>
> >> >> Neil S.
>
> >> >> ++++++
>
> >> >> I'll go with your suggestion and leave as I found ignoring the new
> >> >> suspension ribbon and a replaced intermittant B-E transistor
> >> >> Looks as though Dawe bought in these Sifam ribbon suspension meters , the
> >> >> original label saying 1.45V and mention of an external pcb. I suspect Dawe
> >> >> removed that pcb and the movement itself is 100mV. Battery test is simple
> >> >> chain of resistors , protect diode and rest switched out. So if 100mV fsd
> >> >> then for a new B122 battery 100 percent fsd would correxpond to 24.5V and
> >> >> the B marker correspond to 15.5V which seems reasonable. As the mic is
> >> >> capacitive , about 300 to 3KHz 3dB bandwidth , not electret, not worth
> >> >> going to any effort calibrating this SPL.
> >> >> B mark is 64 degrees of 90 degree arc of meter swing, 71 percent fsd
>
> >> >To measure SPL, A-weighted, it would have to cover 200 to 20000 Hz. No
> >> >acoustical standard covers 300 to 3000 Hz.
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting
>
> >> I am not all that comfortable with your declaration of NO standard covers
> >> 300 to 3000 Hz as that range is very commonly used in radio and telephony
> >> measurement.
>
> >> ?-(
>
> >If the only sound sources were telephone receivers, then a sound level
> >meter that covered only the voice channel range (originally limited by
> >the frequency response of the carbon granule "transmitter") would have
> >some value. But real sound sources cover more of the 20-20000 Hz audio
> >range.
>
> Whoosh much?

Troll much?

> No other cases ever occurred, and were measured?
>
> ?-)

Start here:

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 9:07 am
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg>
>>
>>> **I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
>>> and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
>>> sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
>>> temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
>>> caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
>>> that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
>>> closely. When one goes up, the other does too.
>>
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
>**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures. High
>temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When one rises, the
>other follows.

Maybe. If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their
respective values will increase until some other limit is reached. If
I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a
corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase
in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase
in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence,
that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various
mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have
been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature
from increasing each other without limits?

>> Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
>> the planet to look like Venus.
>
>**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is on Venus,
>for instance.

We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a
suitable substitute. Not all planets are created equal.

>Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
>CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an insignificant driver.

Agreed. The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models. My
confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and
significance are not quite a certain as yours.

Incidentally, in your cited graphs at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg>
the Description under the above image reinforces my point if you
present the URL in a different form:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg>

Digging under the raw data at:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html>
I find:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html>
"Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations
increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400
years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite
strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide
concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during
glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected
to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls
the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the
terrestrial biosphere."
Other articles, some by the original collectors of the data, show the
same conclusion.

The problem here is that the entire IPCC house of cards is based on
the single premise, that CO2 concentration causes global warming, and
not the other way around. Were this to be properly substantiated, a
large number of the various CO2 reduction schemes could be considered
futile.

If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing
global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high
temperatures should have been maintained. In other words, when CO2
stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high. That didn't
happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the
temperatures dropped.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic VCR AG1980 FO4
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4835407616cf07e9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 1:17 pm
From: klem kedidelhopper

This unit has a tape stuck inside. It will power up and then after
about 2 seconds shuts down and displays FO4. Does anyone know what
this code means and what is the fix for it? Thanks, Lenny

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Video - 12 Year-Old Boy Helps Stop Armed Robbery
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/fd55319a96b4d307?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 1:42 pm
From: "jfeng@my-deja.com"

Ddi he use a solderring iron, VOM, or oscilloscope? Is that why you
posted it in a group on electronics repair?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 23" Polaroid TLX-02311B shuts off after one sec
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/3017fcdafab39f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 4 2011 3:49 pm
From: Sidney

23" Polaroid TLX-02311B, year: Oct 2008 comes on for a moment to show
the "Polaroid" Splash screen, then goes out again. I checked C30=0.68
UF,100V Mylar and even replaced it but problem remains. Electrolytic
caps in power supply are not puffed, I don't have an ESR meter.

Both HV inverter X-fmrs and other x-fmrs seem to have normal
continuity, anyone have any common repair tips with part #'s?,
thanks.

Sidney® ™
Repairs TV's, VCR's, home/car audio out of my apartment
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada

http://web.archive.org/web/20040312120415/www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displayphoto?2002/12/22+126.raw+1019+Business+

http://web.archive.org/web/20040229023255/http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displaystory?2002/12/22+126.raw+Business

http://groups.google.com/group/hfx.forsale/browse_thread/thread/43940ce83231ab85/4e4c696fbf04837f?q=sidney+tv+repair&rnum=1#4e4c696fbf04837f

http://www.nesda-ohio.com/iwaynet/pubhtml/May02/May18.html
http://www.nesda-ohio.com/iwaynet/pubhtml/SonyAudMod.html
http://www.nesda-ohio.com/iwaynet/pubhtml/Oct02/Oct028.html
http://www.nesda-ohio.com/iwaynet/pubhtml/Oct02/Oct029.html

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.electronics.repair"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Electronics

sci.electronics.repair - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest

No Response to "sci.electronics.repair - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest"

Post a Comment

Blog Roll

Blog Archive