sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>: Aug 18 12:01PM -0700 On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 8:20:56 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > and produced a rather wide black horizontal scorch line across his > clean white shirt.   > Yes, grease is good, but not in the current flow.   There's formulations of grease that don't do that, of course; silicone takes high temperature, and some greases are intended for electrical conduction in thin films (they 'break down' at millivolts, and don't even get hot). <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.185/.f> I've used this grease on rotating connections, at 40A it's just like a solid wire connection.

avagadro7@gmail.com: Aug 18 01:28PM -0700 On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:20:56 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com > Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558   ????????????????????   HUERISM ? Brandt returns ...   but the spelling is prob from the laytest spell checker: GoogleFool   this is the 3rd or 5th time around for dialectics     the dialectic grease conducts electricity...smear some on your audio fuse....but does not conduct iconic transfers to and from dissimilar metals inhibiting serious corrosion.   Prob a Coaled Rechoirrment for the standard hose box main junkshuns.

Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 18 11:30AM -0500 On 8/18/2015 8:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:   > Don't even know how many red shirts I have now... but I'm thinking that > the people who see me every day think I'm disturbed-but-harmless - > wearing the same clothes all the time.   Around here people wear neon colors when their biking. I don't think I've seen anyone wearing black shorts with a red shirt yet.   -- Maggie

SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 18 12:52PM -0500 On 8/18/2015 11:37 AM, Muggles wrote: > that no matter how hard the man thought it was to lead, we always had it > tougher because we had to do everything going backwards and in heels > plus we had to trust the man knew HOW to lead!   True that!!   I love Fred Astaire, but Ginger Rogers did all the work :)

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 06:43PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:24:29 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just replaced > the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related accidents and > deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?   That might be one answer to the conundrum, that drunk driving enforcement and cultural changes *exactly* canceled out the skyrocketing cellphone ownership figures.   However, for it to have exactly canceled the rates, both the timing of drunk driving changes and the timing of cellphone changes have to agree, in addition to the rates of each have to exactly cancel each other out.   I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 06:46PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:37:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:   > messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter > of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that > includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.   If a quarter of all crashes are "related to cellphone use", then why aren't accident rates going up by a quarter?

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 06:51PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:45:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > means that estimation is the only issue with the data. The disclaimer > does not say that. It points out that the data are estimated and then > it says that year to year comparisons should be made with caution.   I think you have a problem with large numbers.   If the accident rates, given the tens of thousands of accidents yearly, aren't changing, then it would take a stupendously stupifyingly coincidental alignment of the stars to then make the accident rates exactly cancel out the *entire effect* of millions upon millions of cellphones being owned (and presumably used) by almost every person of driving age in the United States.   That your *entire argument* is based on refuting yearly accident rate figures based on a minor estimation detail, is unbelievable.   Do you realize how MANY cellphones there are owned by people in the USA?   If those cellphones were being used, while driving, and if they were causing accidents, no amount of fudging of the data would show what the data actually shows.   There is a paradox, to be sure, but the answer is never going to be found in the puny numbers associated with *estimation errors* that you want it to.   You're grasping at straws if you truly feel that the *estimation errors* exactly cancel out the absolutely stupendous effect we presume cellphone ownership to have on accident rates, in both timing and in number.   It's just not possible,and, it's a bit scary that you believe it is. Does anyone else believe that the answer to the paradox is simply that estimation errors have skyrocketed, and then plateaued at exactly the same rate as cellphone ownership has?

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 06:51PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:45:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > Here's a concept, go fuck yourself.   :)

Don Y <this@is.not.me.com>: Aug 18 11:56AM -0700 On 8/18/2015 6:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > weeks apart - the common thread being that I was wearing dark clothing - > I have worn nothing but red shirts. Black shorts because that's the > only color that works for cycling.   Bicycling, here, is a hazardous activity -- despite being a "bike friendly" community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once* in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many crazy drivers!   > Don't even know how many red shirts I have now... but I'm thinking that > the people who see me every day think I'm disturbed-but-harmless - > wearing the same clothes all the time.   A neighbor once "threatened" to buy me a red shirt -- just because she always saw me in black/navy or white. I'm not fond of bright colors (and particularly hate *green*!) Given that I have complete control over my appearance, I figure I should wear what I'm "happiest" with! (if clothes can be said to make you "happy")   I've always adopted the "many of the same" approach. E.g., when I used to wear dress shirts/slacks, I would have three or four of the same shirt hanging side by side in the closet. So, it was not uncommon to see me in the same "outfit" on successive days. Or, several times in a week.   Of course, it was typically the women who would notice such things (I think all men check is whether or not you have clothes *on*!). One lady commented once and I made a point of bringing in a handfull of hangers with identical shirts hung on each: "Oh! I see..."   [Unfortunately, dark colors are bad for things like mosquitos; they are *drawn* to darker colors]

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Aug 18 11:57AM -0700 On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote: > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> > wrote:   Sadly, those distracted driving accidents that do occur are not always solo. Were they always solo - then such accidents are merely a reasonable method to cull the herd. Those stupid enough to text and drive deserve exactly what they get, full stop. It is the non-deserving collateral damage that is the sad part of it all.   And, anyone proven to be the cause of an accident due to texting - no matter how inconsequential the damage should be banned from driving more-or-less forever. Or, allowed to drive only mopeds or scooters, and marked with special tags (license plates).   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 18 03:14PM -0400 On 8/18/2015 2:46 PM, ceg wrote: >> includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.   > If a quarter of all crashes are "related to cellphone use", then > why aren't accident rates going up by a quarter?   Why would they? With automatic braking, lane detection, backup cameras and the like other rates may be going down. You have to look at all the numbers. Don't forget MADD too.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:07PM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:19:05 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:     > I saw it. I trust them. I think they take too much pride in their > actual considerable skills and are having too much fun to fudge their > projects.   I haven't seen that episode, but I love the Mythbusters. I agree that they probably don't "fudge" their data, but, I'm sure the *producers* choose the most *interesting* data, and not necessarily the most accurate results.   Still, I don't disbelieve that driving while using a cellphone is distracting.   I just can't find any data that supports that the accident rate in the USA is skyrocketing concomitantly with cellphone ownership rates.   So, while many individually contrived experiments easily show distraction, why is it that there are no combined purely factual reports that prove it's actually contributing to the accident rate in the USA?     >> If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?   > Perhaps the smarter non-users are getting better at avoiding the > assholes on the phone -- a survival characteristic.   Maybe. But if that were the case, wouldn't there have been an initial spike in the accident rate, and then a tailing off of that spike as we learned to avoid cellphone users?   No such spike in the accident rate seems to exist. > down. Both times my response was "I'm on my way, see you in a few > minutes." I don't use my phone for anything but messages like that and > really don't understand how people can be constantly chattering.   Wow. I use my cellphone every day, all day while driving. I must make maybe a half dozen calls alone on my hour-long commute, and, on a long drive, I'm on the phone almost the entire time. My problem is *power*, as the phone heats up when GPS and phone calls are simultaneous.   Meanwhile, on long trips, the three kids in the back each have their phones blaring some game or video (they never seem to find their headpieces when we leave for long trips).   And, of course, the wife has to have her music playing on her iPod.   Meanwhile, I have had only one accident in my entire life, and that was when someone rear ended me when I was in college, and it was partly my fault because I decided to turnright without using a turn signal, but braked hard for a yellow light (because the road suddenly came up and I had not realized it was my turn).   That accident was clearly my fault, but the other guy got a ticket, and when they called me into court, I told them exactly what happened, and, they STILL upheld the other guy's ticket (which I thought was kind of odd).   Anyway, I am shocked that you use the phone so little, as I use it basically 100% of the time when I'm in my car.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:10PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:16:33 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > I also pointed out several times now that the census data that CEG posted > clearly says that it's "estimated and should be used with caution for > year to year comparison".   No amount of *estimation* error is going to cancel out the huge rates predicted by the reports.   Did you see the poster who showed a report of 25% greater accident rates?   Do you really believe that the "estimation errors" are exactly 1/4 of the huge numbers, and then, that these estimation errors only occur during the exact time frame when cellphone ownership rates skyrocketed?   And then, these very same "estimation errors" tailed off suddenly, and precipitously, exactly when cellphone ownership rates tailed off?

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:12PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:16:33 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > I and others have pointed out that the campaign that has dramatically > lowered drunk driving has occurred over roughly the same period that > cell phone usage grew dramatically.   I responded to that post of yours which assumes that the drunk-driving campaign exactly cancels out the skyrocketing cellphone ownership effect on accident rates, in both timing and in number.   It's far-fetched to believe that both the timing and the size of the drunk-driving campaign results *exactly* cancel out that of the cellphone driving effect, but it is one possible answer to the conundrum.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:14PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:30:24 -0500, ChairMan wrote:   > I know how many accidents I've avoided due to someone on a phone. I can > usually spot them by their driving. But your right, no amount of facts will > solve his "paradox"   This is perhaps the sixth possible answer to the enigma.   If I understand your argument, it's that the laws on cellphone use while driving have been 100% effective in preventing cellphone use while driving, and that these laws are so effective as to cancel out totally the skyrocketing accident rates predicted by the studies.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:24PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:11:23 -0400, micky wrote:   > No let's not, since you don't have good data on accidents.   Do you have *better* data than what I provided in the OP?   I've been asking for better accident rate data since this thread started.   I'm not afraid of better data (you may be, but I am not).   > No more so than accidents.   You are missing a screw if you think that a second-order issue such as injuries and fatalities will be simpler than a first-order issue such as accidents (which are the cause of those injuries and fatalities).   Are you seriously arguing that the injuries and fatalities would have happened *without* the accident happening first?   > objection doesn't apply to deaths either, because the same people lying > dead on the highway or dead at the hospital within a day or two, 99% of > the time would still be alive were it not for the accident.   The fact you used "lying" instead of "laying" tells me you are intelligent; so I find it hard to believe you actually believe that a second-order issue such as injuries and fatalities can possibly provide the answer to the conundrum when the first order issue itself doesn't provide that answer.     > You're just clouding an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.   The paradox is so clear that the only ones 'clouded' by it are those with an agenda that isn't supported by the data.   It's very clear: 1. Most of us (me included) believe that the skyrocketing ownership of cellphones in the USA must mean a concomitant skyrocketing *use* of those cellphones while driving; which itself, should indicate a concomitant increase of driving-while-distracted cases.   2. Most of us (me included) have seen the scary studies which show that the use of a cellphone while driving is distracting, and, most of us (me included) conclude that driving while distracted should be increasing the accident rate in the USA.   3. Yet, the best data shown here indicates that the accident rate in the USA is not going up (in fact, it's going down).   Most of us would say that this is a paradox. So far, six answers have been provided to satisfy that paradox.   > Deaths and injuries are directly though not necessarily linearly > proportional to accidents.   You can't be serious if you want to use fatalities and injuries as your justification while wholly ignoring the accidents that *caused* those fatalities and injuries.   Fatalities and injuries have ten times the factors that the accidents have - so - if accidents are too complex for you to handle details about to support your arguments - there is no way fatalities and injuries will support your argument.   The only person who would leap over accident rates to go to fatalities and injuries, is a person who has cherry picked some data which isn't supported by the accident rate, and wants to stick with that cherry-picked data come hell or high water, to support a bogus argument.   As I said many times, anyone with reliable accident rate data is welcome to post it - as this thread is about accident rates, pure and simple.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:28PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:37:07 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:   > have left it behind along side the four lane highway. The > phone wasn't damaged, and I didn't get in a wreck. That's > a paradox, too.   If a skyrocketing number of cellphone owners were to lay their phones on the highway, as you did, would you expect the number of crushed cellphones lying on the roadway to suddenly skyrocket accordingly, concomitant with the huge numbers of cellphones now lying on the roadway?   Wouldn't the timing and number of the cellphone crush rate correspond to the number of cellphones laid onto the highway?   If they don't - that would be a paradox to be resolved as this one is.

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>: Aug 18 02:28PM -0500 On 8/18/2015 2:24 PM, ceg wrote:   > As I said many times, anyone with reliable accident rate data > is welcome to post it - as this thread is about accident rates, > pure and simple.   You may be right. It's entirely possible that the texting idiots with a coffee in the other hand merely scare the crap out of us cyclists and don't actually connect all that often, despite some spectacular lane drift episodes.   -- Andrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 18 03:23PM -0500 On 8/18/2015 1:43 PM, ceg wrote:   > I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet > another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident > rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.   Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.   http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-research-studies.aspx

Reinhard Zwirner <reinhard.zwirner@t-online.de>: Aug 18 10:11PM +0200 Hi,   The ADC of this multimeter consists of the chipset of which I'm searching for FEJ 271(B). Unfortunately, the manual/schematic which can be downloaded from Elektrotanya is incomplete: the ADC section is missing. Can someone of you help me finding/getting the complete manual/schematic? Many TIA!   Best regards   Reinhard

Reinhard Zwirner <reinhard.zwirner@t-online.de>: Aug 18 10:05PM +0200 Hi,   there was an early ADC chipset manufactured by Mullard consisting of FEY101, FEJ271 and 74141 ic's. While FEY101 is still available FEJ271B seems to be unobtainium. Can someone here help me to get one or two pieces? Many thanks in advance for your help.   Best regards   Reinhard

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:30PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:53:29 -0700, sms wrote:   > had never used, was RG59. The first three trucks they sent were > unprepared to do a new drop. Finally I used a tree trimmer to cut down > the RG59 so there was no old dr   That brings up a good question which I didn't know the answer to.   Being a cheapskate, I bought my coax cable from the Goodwill for a buck.   I know there are different impedances for coax cable, but I didn't know what letting to look for on the Goodwill coax cables.   So, the one I bought said "CATV" but I don't know if that's the right cable.   Is it?

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:33PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:28:22 -0600, Tony Hwang wrote:   > To check speed one has to use same server at busiest time of the day > like 10 in the morning. I use Oookla speedtest.net. I you have a router > and use QoS, it'll affect speed, bit less than what it should be.   We should probably list the various servers. I'll make a start, but this is just from memory.   1. speedtest.net 2. speedtest.comcast.net 3. speakeasy.net/speedtest 4. ?

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 07:38PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:28:22 -0600, Tony Hwang wrote:   > To check speed one has to use same server at busiest time of the day > like 10 in the morning. I use Oookla speedtest.net. I you have a router > and use QoS, it'll affect speed, bit less than what it should be.   I wonder if Jeff knows whether it's best to use the speed test supplied by the ISP, since that's most likely to follow the same pipes?   That is, if I'm using AT&T, wouldn't the most accurate speed test be one that AT&T supplies, which uses AT&T pipes?   Likewise, for comcast?

Smarty <nobody@nobody.com>: Aug 18 05:23PM Two physicians walk into a bar.....

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.