sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

"Danny D." <dannydiamico@gmail.com>: Oct 30 04:36PM dpb wrote, on Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:13:07 -0500:   > that point in the thread there didn't seem to be much of any real size > and was more concerned of potential on the root system with the load > than whether the tree itself was sufficient presuming it was.   I apologize that most of my pictures were from the uphill side (where the suspension bridge is currently forming), where those trees are puny in comparison to "General Sherman" (which is what we call the big one).   The only time I climbed down the 100 feet to General Sherman was when we were setting up the cables around it, and I was the gaffer who passed up tools and supplies.   So my only pictures of General Sherman are the ones I showed, which don't quite show the massive girth of the thing, especially at the bottom, because what you see above is already split in two.   > includes the justification that the angle will increase owing to the > tree flexure doesn't lend itself to thinking they're terribly big, > either. Just a "devil's advocate" position raising the question...   I agree with you, that when I first saw the angle stuff, I too wondered about bending a tree that much to make *any* difference. I'll forward your comments above on to the owner to see what he makes of that.   > least a reasonable approximation using simple-enough analyses as > outlined in the following (beginning at 7-30ff)--   > <http://isdl.cau.ac.kr/education.data/statics/ch7.pdf>   I will forward that "Chapter 7: Forces in Beams and Cables" PDF to the owner, who, while he isn't an engineer, he has multiple graduate degrees and can handle almost anything we throw at him (he was an early Google exec).

"Danny D." <dannydiamico@gmail.com>: Oct 30 04:20PM John Paquay wrote, on Thu, 30 Oct 2014 04:51:58 -0400:   > My knee jerk reaction to the original posting in this thread was not > "What's wrong with these kids?", but rather, "What's wrong with this > teacher?"   She's brand new to teaching, but, it turns out that classroom management is a standard problem in these multi-ethnic San Jose schools.   One teacher uses a bathroom plunger, as his bathroom pass.   > To me, the whole idea of using some (any) ginormous item as a hall pass > is stupid, demeaning, and completely counterproductive... not to > mention, an exercise in futility. What does this really accomplish?   What it (attempts to) accomplish is the reduce undue interruptions of the classroom environment.   We all know that the kids can go to the bathroom plenty of other times, but, all kids will take advantage of a "free pass" out of jail, if even for only 10 minutes (which they can synchronize with other friends, if they're clever).   What the pass does, first and foremost, is it discourages such intents. Also, it allows the teacher to continue teaching, uninterrupted, as the students just get up, grab the pass, and return, unannounced.   It also is very clear to everyone, what the purpose of the kid is, whether grabbing the pass or walking the hallways. It's also not something they can leave hidden in the hallway while they surreptitiously run a'muck about the hallways or outdoors to catch a smoke or whatever.   Likewise, it prevents multiple kids (from the same classroom anyway) leaving the room at any one time.   Furthermore, it's obvious to all whether the bathroom pass is in use or not. It's like the red sign on an airplane bathroom door showing it's in use, rather than what we have to do at a McDonalds, which is to jiggle the doorknob repeatedly to find out if someone is in there.   And, being so large (on purpose), the kids, who almost certainly don't like it, can't lose it easily.   At the very least, it's objectionable to carry (as you noted), which would further discourage the unnecessary potty breaks.   Rest assured, this teacher has at least one kid a day out of her 200, walk out on the class without excuse. She has kids banging on the table, and calling her a b*ch, and plenty of disciplinary problems, all of which are common through all the classes, as she told me most of these kids are being weeded out of the system through their behavior in *all* their classes.   I also find this behavior strange, as *my* kids have always had comments on their report cards of "very polite", "always helpful", "pitches in to volunteer every time I ask", and even once "raises hand to answer questions too often!".   Heh heh ... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree ...   > The good old days were certainly different, but they weren't necessarily > always that good. Still, if this is how our educators are now treating > our kids, what should we expect from the kids?   I think this teacher, who is brand new, is learning on the job. In California, they go through 3 semesters of graduate training, to obtain a preliminary teaching certificate, two semesters of which have on-the-job training of sorts.   Then, they're thrown to the wolves for 2 more years, until they get their preliminary teaching certificate cleared. At that point, they also get tenure (which is kind'a soon, if you ask me), and then they're bona-fide teachers.   The clearance process, apparently, starts with three weeks of training on "classroom management", which I found odd when I saw that it's the *first* thing they re-train the preliminary-credentialed teachers on.   > Clearly she is in the wrong profession, and a big chunk of wood is not > going to change that. Foolishness, yes. But it makes me a little sad for > the kids.   Out of 200 kids that she has, she estimated, to me, that about 10% are the ones using the bathroom pass constantly. The rest sit and listen.   You have to remember these are Algebra classes, where probably only a small percentage of the kids (maybe 1/3?) actually care to learn it. It's a required class for the rest, which they hope to never see again during the rest of their lives.   When is the last time you or I graphed a quadratic equation, for example? Could each of us solve a binomial equation to save our lives? (Building suspension bridges in the redwoods notwithstanding... :) https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7532/15647694115_c6aaeda78c_c.jpg

"David Farber" <farberbear.unspam@aol.com>: Oct 30 08:48AM -0700 junebug1701 wrote:   > It's probably a watchdog circuit. Used to indicate proper operation. > If it stops blinking, it means the processor is locked up. Perfectly > normal.   Thanks for that explanation. Everything seems to be working fine. I'll reassemble it and stop worrying about it. :-)   -- David Farber Los Osos, CA

RobertMacy <robert.a.macy@gmail.com>: Oct 30 06:21AM -0700 Actually, sharing with you all, but English, what can I say?     this started after the famous flooding here - covered in the national news. PROBLEM: outgoing calls: NO problem, clear voice line and dial up modem within 95% of 'normal' [seen slower rates before with damp weather] incoming calls: the ring sounded anemic, like a single tinkle, not to be repeated. Pick up phone, and someone was there?! albeit the connection sounded like old fashioned long distance.   FAILED SOLUTION: at first I thought telco must have a flooded building nearby so called telco supplier, Century Link, Operator said sounded like a crossed connection. she confirmed the possibility by saying outgoing wouldn't notice, but with incoming the office tries to connect to two lines. Put high priority on repair and someone was driving around here the next day. The technician probably checked a lot out first, then came to our building and left. Later I called in, the repair ticket said FINISHED determined to be inside our building, bill the customer $85 !!!????   And yes. the line worked after the technician's visit; BOTH ways ?! I know all he could do is disconnect, test, and reconnect.   Regarding THAT solution, I was livid to have the telco supply a potential scenario of responsibility, THEN turn around and bill me for 'fixing' it, claiming its me. Keep in mind the phone line now works. After a few calls to Century Link , and convincing them I was misled by their employees as to the source of the problem, and the fact that it now works with whatever their employee did; they reversed the charge. [I'm in Electronic Design and cannot even fathom a piece of electronic gear that could duplicate this effect, well not without some effort anyway.]   PROBLEM AGAIN yesterday, the problem came back with a vengeance! outgoing, no problems. Incoming, tinkle ring and poor voice connection. Called the Operator to 'test' the line with a ring back [hang up, listen for ring, no matter what pick up line within ten seconds to reconnect to Operator] This time the phone line was completely dead, no microphone feedback! About an 1 1/2 hour later, phone line worked again for outgoing. Tested incoming, and again a dead line ?! Wow this is strange. Checking around, within 1/2 hour, no dial tone, but would get that screaming tone as a precursor to "hang up your phone" ??!! Very weird.   SOLUTION Thought I'd 'pretend' problem was in our building, so removing the break out panel for the phone system to our whole building found the distribution bar for all the wired telephone outlets, thought I'd start to check AND! one of the wires for the incoming telephone cable coming into the bus LIFTED OUT OF ITS COMPRESSION SLOT!!! The wire oddly was dull showing a film of corrosion, pressed the wire back in and voila! Everything works again.   CONCLUSION Evidently, the connection had been slowly sliding out of the compression slot and the poor connection worked for the low current OFF HOOK status and the low current ON HOOK status when making an outgoing call. BUT, when confronted with that 90V ring tone, the higher impedance must have played havoc, because it even caused a poor voice connection.     I don't undertand the exact mechanism here, but I share for those of you who may have had weird problems.

jurb6006@gmail.com: Oct 30 08:42AM -0700 Had a siilar problem years ago. They used yto have to come and change my pair down the street as it had flooded plenty of times annd every tie it raind this would hapen. Only get one short ring and then nothing.   Whatevr corrosion was in there was obviously not linear. the lower voltages in off hok and tip were fine, but when that ring voltage came along it wpould tip and tell the coputer the phione had been picked up, but in this case didn;t stay shortd long enough to keep the call and not only did we not gt the call, we didn't even gt the CID so we could call people back. The line was also quite noisy.   I had had enough and basically whneever it hapened again I just told them to let me talk to a supervisor or someone who really knows what they're doig. there was no more disconnect the interface box and all that shit, they KNEW the trunk line was compromised. I told them not to even bother coming to the house, just go down on Denison avenus and change out pair again. Once they started cooperating it went very smooth. Of course a history of all this was on record which did help.   Sometimes these companies have people who answer the phone scripted and they can't do anything, so juust cut to the chase, tell them you want someone higher on the food chain.   I remember AOL and their bullshit like this. After while I just told them right off the bat that I am an advanced user. I have laready tried the first five thigs they were going to say and I checksd that and got that and all that.   Companies also ant that money and that is the way it is set up. It used to be you could trust them but no more. Have your shit together before you even call them. I think that apllies to any tech support anymore.   Another interesting thing about AOL, one tie I couldn't gt on and it turned out my passwords were invalid. I called and they said I had been hacked so they would give e some temp passwords to use, and to change them at mya earliest convienience. ALL SEVEN PASSWORDS that had never ever been stored on my PC. Ever, I simply do not do that.   I said "So what you're saying is that YOU got hacked". After a sall delay the reply came in the affirmative.   Moral of the story - they will never take the blame unless they absolutely have to. I wonder how many copies of McJunkffes and Noruselesston they sold because people thought they had been hacked when they hadn't.

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Oct 30 04:13PM On 30/10/2014 13:21, RobertMacy wrote: > played havoc, because it even caused a poor voice connection.   > I don't undertand the exact mechanism here, but I share for those of you > who may have had weird problems.   On the route between my landline and exchange is a railway bridge that carries phone lines. About 2 years ago they "lifted" it to allow larger container trains through. That or coincidence of crackly line, bad ring condition, at that time and after. Whenever it occured I dialled the 17070 UK BT test number to select ring back and that ring current always seemed to (temporarily ) cure the problem. Reading this reminded me no problems for some months or the last year perhaps

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Oct 30 04:06AM -0700 Ian Jackson wrote:   > area you would certainly increase the possibility of interference from > them. However, as I've said, I think it's unusual for the LO to be on > the low side (probably for exactly this reason).     ** A man who prefers his ignorant opinions to facts is a complete fool:   The 6AQ8 along with the 12AT7 were the most common tubes used for LOs in FM tuners from the early 1950s onwards.   http://www.r-type.org/exhib/aav0008.htm   They were invariably used as low side oscillators.   Were not several TV channels tucked right under the FM band back then ?   All FM tuners have "image rejection" and benefit from "capture effect".   The former ranges from -40dB to -80dB while the latter ranges from 1 to 3dB.   So any image signal would be at least 100 to 10,000 times weaker than a good signal on the FM band - and it took only a 40% amplitude difference to make the stronger signal *completely* swamp the FM discriminator.         .... Phil

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Oct 30 08:13AM -0400 amdx wrote: > station changed from Hip Hop to some other format, then the interference > went away. > Today I can't even find a semi local 94.3 MHz station.     Adjacent channel interference like that is caused by the IF bandwidth and the skirt. The IF transformers aren't brick wall, the amplitude drops away slowly outside the desired bandwidth. That allows a local station to be strong enough to cause problems. AFC can make it worse, by pulling the L.O. towards the stronger station.     -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>: Oct 30 06:39AM -0700 "micky" wrote in message news:fq435a9mkm4cv1lni8578gpekgtl93pn4r@4ax.com...   > From the miscellaneous drawer, that same expensive KLM radio > that gets 88.5 well all the way from DC got 88.1 well too, not > surprising since it's a Baltmore station and that's where I am.   I assume you mean KLH. KLM is an airline.   Sammy Davis Jr once did a print ad for KLH in which he said "I used to think KLH was an airline".

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>: Oct 30 06:45AM -0700 "Phil Allison" wrote in message news:1e547992-e524-4256-ae8a-ce0d67815bc8@googlegroups.com... William Sommerwerck wrote:     > ** Nonsense. > Long as a particular band has less width than double the IF frequency, > no in-band images will occur.   Did you actually read what I wrote? The second sentence says that.     In the third sentence, I said "If the LO were //below// the incoming signal..."   Do the math: 88.1 minus 10.7 plus 21.4 equals... what? 98.8?   I wasn't the one who brought up the point about having the LO below the incoming frequency.

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>: Oct 30 06:48AM -0700 "Phil Allison" wrote in message news:035d039d-5d91-45ad-98db-bf81a53d2d88@googlegroups.com...   > in FM tuners from the early 1950s onwards. > http://www.r-type.org/exhib/aav0008.htm > They were invariably used as low-side oscillators.   Fascinating. I never knew this.

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>: Oct 30 01:33PM In message <035d039d-5d91-45ad-98db-bf81a53d2d88@googlegroups.com>, Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> writes >in FM tuners from the early 1950s onwards.   >http://www.r-type.org/exhib/aav0008.htm   >They were invariably used as low side oscillators.   The fact that some what might now be considered 'highly desirable collectibles' had low-side LOs doesn't mean it became a standard.   >Were not several TV channels tucked right under the FM band back then ?   Not the present FM band. However, in the USA FM started life between 42 to 50MHz* but this was essentially experimental. After the war, it was allocated the present band (87.8–107.9 MHz). *Now the analogue TV IF range - which otherwise would have been Channel 1 - and hence TV starts at Channel 2. >good signal on the FM band - and it took only a 40% amplitude >difference to make the stronger signal *completely* swamp the FM >discriminator.   But that doesn't stop London Heathrow ATC (AM, of course) breaking through on 97.3MHz (at least on my kitchen radio)! -- Ian

amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Oct 30 10:30AM -0500 On 10/29/2014 9:09 PM, micky wrote: >> station changed from Hip Hop to some other format, then the interference >> went away.   > Not surprising. The Hip Hop people are a bunch of trouble-makers.   The station is part of a group, and their 94.5 was interfering with a station at 94.3 playing O'Reilly while their programing had Limbaugh on.   > one that will get 88.1, 88.5 and 101.1   >> Today I can't even find a semi local 94.3 MHz station.   > LOL   Tried my truck radio today, I got 94.3MHz, JOY FM a religious station. Covers the AL./FL. line near Dothan. Poor signal though. Mikek

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Oct 29 09:19PM -0400 >You can enhance inclusion by repeating a keyword three times. >Not the same as a + but definitely improving the results.   >Cheers!   I just had a good occasion to test this.   I wanted to find pump up the brakes and entering just that gave 7.2 meg hits with my exact phrase not first, fourth, or fifth. They didn't have the word up.   Using pump up up up the brakes I got 3.46 meg hits with all the words** in the first 7 hits, Stopped looking at that point. But by hit 6, they were not all in a row. Clearly better than the first method, above. **Not counting "the".   Using pump "up" the brakes I got 3.57 meg hits, no "up" in hit 1, 3, or 5. At least not in the excerpt.   Using "pump up the brakes" I got only 32,700 hits with the first 55 hits in a row with all 4 (four) words, and I got tired of counting at that point.   C4. using the word 3 times clearly helps, but Arfa has you beat.   Arfa, I tested quotes verus no quotes years ago but years after google started and I got the same results with quotes or without. But either I didn't choose the right search terms, or they've changed things. I think I didn't choose the right terms, although maybe when they got rid of + they improved "words". ??

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.