sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 19 07:37AM -0500 On 8/18/2015 11:01 PM, ceg wrote:   > Lots of good reading there, so thanks for the links. > It will take me a while to go through it, but for others, here's the > list of "stuff" that is on that page.   YW

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 01:06PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:   > It didn't take much work.   It will take me a while to go through the links before I can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 01:56PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it, > you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't > see you here again until 2017.   I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.   I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.   Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files, that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given just the titles).   Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow, (magically perhaps?) your point.   Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your "scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).   Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous: "Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers handheld cell phone use"   This one also may apply to the problem at hand: "Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"   This one should be directly related, if it contains good data: "Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions"   Likewise with this one: "Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"   Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not): "The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"   And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year, this one may contain related data: "2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"   Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct information about the paradox. That you don't see that, and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing anything that affects people's lives.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 01:58PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:38:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:   > Drunk driving did not go down at a rate of 50% per year at the same > time that Cell phone use was going up for 50% a year.   That's a key part of the paradox.   The only explanations given, other than there is no net effect on accident rates, is some preposterous alignment of the stars.

SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 19 09:03AM -0500 On 8/19/2015 8:06 AM, ceg wrote:   > It will take me a while to go through the links before I > can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where > the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.   There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes I find it hard to believe.

Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 19 09:38AM -0500 On 8/19/2015 1:15 AM, ceg wrote:   > Unfortunately, you can't hike off trail in these mountains without running > into poison oak by the hundreds of yards. It's just part of nature.   > Maybe that's why I don't run into anyone texting-while-hiking out here?   So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?   -- Maggie

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 03:44PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:03:50 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:   > of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be > problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes > I find it hard to believe.   I think the biggest problem is that the so-called answers are so simple, that it's shocking that they don't actually make any logical sense.   For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up, but it's not going up.   It's sort of like the common misconception of cold weather *causing* the common cold. While cold weather can't possibly affect the causation of the common cold, people *do* get sicker in the winter (but it's because they are indoors more - not because the weather is colder).   So, at least, in that example of the common cold, you can *see* a correlation of sickness (e.g., "flu season") with the weather (even though it's a second-order effect).   Yet, with the cellphone common conception, we can't see either a first order nor a second order effect. That's the paradox.   Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumbshits who have absolutely no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 03:49PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > I suggested looking at actual studies many times. > SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said > it just took a simple Google search.   I think you consistently fail to comprehend that the *more* you show *studies* that purport to indicate the dangers of cellphone driving, the *LARGER* the paradox looms, since there is no evidence whatsoever in the governments' own statistics, of an increased rate of accidents in the USA concomitant with the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates.   You can't just invalidate the most accurate statistics on the topic just because you don't like (or understand) the logic.   If all these scare-tactics articles are actually correct, then the paradox looms larger than ever, because the accident rate simply has not risen. Period.   So, the *answer* to the conundrum is still open as to why, and the articles are expected to help answer why - but the articles can't possibly change the answer on the accident rates (because that is a fact).   You may as well propose that the sun revolves around the earth, just because it seems to you that it does.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 03:58PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:   > So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?   I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist, so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.   In fact, I could write an entire book on how to handle poison oak (having researched Epstein, et al, who are the eminent scientific urushiol experts in the bay area).   I've probably read every single reference found in the first ten or twenty pages of Google search results on poison oak, and much of what people say is pure hogwash.   And, knowing chemistry and biology and physiology, I do a whole host of things, both preemptive and retroactive, to ameliorate the risk.   As just a sampling, I don't shower before hiking, I sometimes pack on bentonite driller's clay, I always wear cotton or leather long sleeves and long gloves, I hose down my tools and boots and wash all my clothes, I wash with Dawn dish detergent (long hot water showers, despite what people say about opening the pores), I wipe with rubbing alcohol, tinged with a drop or three of bleach, and I scrub latent spots with a mix of surfactant and toothpaste (abrasive) on a toothpaste brush. I don't have a supply of tiny surfactants such as non-oxyenol-9 (i.e., spermicide), which work even better than Dawn dish detergent though. And, after I shower up, I don't go back out into the poison oak fields unless I absolutely have to.   There's more to it, but, I do very well understand the immunology (it's a type IV cell mediated immunology, so nobody is immune, although some haven't gotten it yet - and it never gets better - it can only get worse, since that's how type IV CMI works. Everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the science involved.   I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach things.

Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 19 11:14AM -0500 On 8/19/2015 10:58 AM, ceg wrote: > understand the science involved.   > I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach > things.   I like your approach to things. If it were me I'd try to research all I could via google, but would probably be frustrated that everything I read really didn't work and I'd still end up getting the rash. You have a really practical approach, which I do appreciate.   -- Maggie

c4urs11 <c4urs11@domain.hidden>: Aug 19 12:55PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:06:29 +0200, Reinhard Zwirner wrote:     > <sob>, <weep>, <cry> ...   > Very disappointed   > Reinhard   Deeply sorry for having raised false hope... Was too beautiful to be true.   You are likely already aware of: http://www.sh-halbleiter.de/products/de/Halbleiter/FEJ271B.html   Polishing up your Portuguese may yield something here? http://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-670065303-ci-fej271b-dip-16-pinos-_JM   ANd how about the more radical approach here? http://www.dampfradioforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=17397&hilit=fej271&start=0   Cheers!

Reinhard Zwirner <reinhard.zwirner@t-online.de>: Aug 19 03:38PM +0200 c4urs11 schrieb:   [...] > You are likely already aware of: > http://www.sh-halbleiter.de/products/de/Halbleiter/FEJ271B.html   I've already asked - without success.   > Polishing up your Portuguese may yield something here? > http://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-670065303-ci-fej271b-dip-16-pinos-_JM   They seem to ship only to locations in the vendor's country: "Envios para todo o país".   > ANd how about the more radical approach here? > http://www.dampfradioforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=17397&hilit=fej271&start=0   I don't think I'm able to develop such a special spare part by myself. Additionally the 5 V supply couldn't deliver enough power for the CPLD and had to be modified. This isn't possible with my small Nixie DMM.   Many thanks again for your help.   Best regards   Reinhard

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 01:03PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:10:53 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Every time some company produces a decent modem, Motorola buys them.   :)

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 19 05:42AM -0700 On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:20:09 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:   >but that would be unsafe in electrical panels (and the intended uses include busbars). >It would decalibrate potentiometers, too. Because metallic particles would >constitute dissimilar metals in my mechanism, I didn't want to use such a grease.   If the stuff works as you describe, then it should change conductivity from a bad insulator to a marginal conductor when pressure is applied. That got my interest because I have an application for a cheap pressure sensing system, that will work with rollers and gears. In theory, I could monitor the conductivity between meshed gears, which would give me an indication of the applied pressure or changes in pressure.   However, I don't think it works the way you suggest[1]. The grease simply prevents surface oxidation and displaces electrolytes to reduce galavanic corrosion if the mating surfaces are dissimilar meatals. Doping it with conductive particles also helps reduce galvanic corrosion. When I read the vague and misleading promotional literature from that point of view, the claims seems to make sense.   On the other foot, there are specialized greases that allegedly work the way you describe. I found a hint at: <https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/1786018-215513373> but could not find any specifics. I'll dig more later. I also haven't had time to read through the patents yet but I'll get to it this weekend.     [1] increased pressure => thin film => increased conductivity   -- 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

c4urs11 <c4urs11@domain.hidden>: Aug 19 12:31PM On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:58:47 -0400, Bob wrote:     > Any ideas who might ?   > Thanks you very much, > Bob   A quick check on eBay returns 4 offerings. Two of them are "buy it now", with price tags of $40 and $50: eBay item numbers: 262002911301 resp. 161746751473   Cheers!

Smarty <nobody@nobody.com>: Aug 19 12:02AM -0400 On 8/18/2015 2:15 PM, John Robertson wrote: >> Two physicians walk into a bar.....   > Ah! A punny morning smile...   > John ;-#)#   Yup! (>;

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.