- The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents? - 22 Updates
- Crown schematic, anyone ? - 2 Updates
- What is that whiteish stuff on bad batteries (ruins stuff)? - 1 Update
| Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Aug 17 11:55AM -0500 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: > "Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in > texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional > road fatalities yearly in the United States." Well Jeff, you've provided the answer to the question, WHERE ARE THE ACCIDENTS? Now convince them it's not a "paradox." |
| "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com>: Aug 17 06:23PM +0100 "Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message news:9au3talcenv666ufuas4qbofqj7v7s6biv@4ax.com... On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:46:26 +0100, "Gareth Magennis" >long. >These statistics simply show that 1.5 of those passing cars contains a >driver on the phone, and that this number has not increased since 2003. One such study simply counted the number of people that drove by with BlueGoof headsets screwed into their ear and simply assumed that if they were wearing the headset, they must be talking while driving. A few of my friends wear theirs almost full time, because they don't want to fumble for the headset while moving. My guess(tm) is that the number of cellphone using drivers, in heavy traffic, is much higher. From cell phone provider logs and statistical summaries, it's known that cell phone use tends to follow traffic congestion patterns with peaks during the rush hour. I can see the increased "hash" in the 850/1900 MHz bands on my service monitor during rush hour. (My office is near a major freeway exchange). The assumption is that most of the calls come from drivers either on the freeways, or the nearby roads, both of what are typically barely moving. I wanted to do a time lapse video showing the effect, but my IFR-1500 currently has a very sick power supply. The problem is that in heavy traffic (rush hour), the traffic isn't moving very fast. The opportunity to do some real damage or produce a fatality is quite limited. At worst, a minor rear-end fender bender. The fatalities seem to be more on the open highways, uncrowded streets, and intersections, where traffic is light and moving at considerable speed. Counting cars in such situation will probably yield considerably less than the claimed 1.5% simply because there far fewer automobiles. Therefore, I would guess(tm) that the 1.5% is an average between congested traffic with high cell phone use, and light traffic with light cell phone use. If someone counted distracted cell phone drivers that are driving fast enough to do some real damage (e.g. >25 mph), methinks the percentages will be very low. Yet those are the ones that are going to kill innocent people or themselves. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com This from the UK Government survey https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406723/seatbelt-and-mobile-use-surveys-2014.pdf The mobile phone survey was carried out across 60 sites in England within four different areas (South East, Manchester, Newcastle/Durham and Norfolk) and 30 sites in Scotland. For the mobile phone survey , a mixture of sites with stationary and free flowing traffic were used. Roadside observation methods were used to collect the data with teams of staff visiting each site. For the mobile phone survey , observations were made of drivers of cars, vans, taxis, lorries, buses, minibuses and coaches. At moving sites, observations were made of the gender and mobile phone use of the driver, but due to the speed of the passing vehicles it was not possible to assess the age of drivers. Details of all the variables collected at the stationary and moving sites can be found in the methodology note. Surveys took place in both morning (07:30 to 12:00) and afternoon sessions (13:30 to 18:00) with a half hour observation period every hour in each session. Sites were surveyed in half day sessions 1 (either the morning or afternoon sessions). A number of sites were re-surveyed at the weekend so differences in mobile phone use or seat belt use between weekdays and weekends could be assessed. There are a number of limitations to the data collection method which are outlined in the methodology note. In 2014, 1.6 per cent of drivers in England and Scotland were observed using a hand- held mobile phone whilst driving. The majority of these drivers were using a phone in their hand rather than holding it to their ear ; 1.1 per cent of drivers in England and Scotland were observed holding a phone in their hand compared with 0.5 per cent observed holding the phone to their ear. This suggests that most mobile phone usage whilst driving was for the purposes of sending or receiving a text or using social media rather than making a call. Gareth. |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 12:52PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 6:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote: > time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling. > But, I have developed more skill at paying attention > to the road. I don't use the phone often while driving, and in the past had a blue tooth earphone that would answer a call automatically, so everything was hands free. Never had a problem with hands free and talking on the phone that way. The next phone I got had an awkward blue tooth device and I hated it, so chucked it and haven't used it. Rarely get a call while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back. -- Maggie |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 12:55PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 8:49 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > highly correlated with talking on a phone - and I see it on a daily > basis... My guesstimate is 3-5 times on an 80-mile round trip. Yesterday > it was 4. I've seen the same thing, too, but it also seems everyone is more aware of it, too. I steer clear of drivers like that, and it isn't just the people who are on their phones while driving. There are some nuts on the roads who like to drive fast and aggressive that scare me just as much. -- Maggie |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 12:57PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 8:54 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: >> of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or >> even play a radio while they drive. > Bingo!... I think we have an answer.... :D -- Maggie |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 01:03PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 10:08 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > he was also well practiced. I suppose if someone offered classes in > reactive driving responses while texting or talking, it might improve > the situation. q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time, and women more able to do 2+ things at one time? I've seen discussions where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability to multitask? -- Maggie |
| SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 17 01:35PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote: > while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call > them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it > rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back. Studies seem to indicate its the conversation, not the phone, that creates the biggest distraction. IOW, hands free does not make the conversation less distracting. |
| SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 17 01:42PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 1:35 PM, SeaNymph wrote: > Studies seem to indicate its the conversation, not the phone, that > creates the biggest distraction. IOW, hands free does not make the > conversation less distracting. This is an interesting place to get information. At the bottom is a link to a multitude of studies. http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-how-cell-phone-distracted-driving-affects-the-brain.aspx Additionally, there is much information about the myth of multi tasking. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 17 12:12PM -0700 >q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time, >and women more able to do 2+ things at one time? I have no opinion on the matter. Well, maybe a small one. I've seen women successfully juggling three or more children at one time with little obvious difficulty. I presume that skill could also be applied to driving. I can only handle one screaming brat at a time, and not very well at that. If true, the difference should appear in the distribution of distracted driving accidents and fatalities by sex. I'll dig (later) in the NHTSA data dumpster and see if I can find anything that provides this information. >where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without >skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability >to multitask? It's quite possibly true, but I have no experience in the matter. My marginally relevant experience is primarily in RF exposure from cell phones. -- 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 |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 02:27PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 2:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > distribution of distracted driving accidents and fatalities by sex. > I'll dig (later) in the NHTSA data dumpster and see if I can find > anything that provides this information. It would be interesting to see what sort of results you find. I'd guess that men would have more difficulty multitasking than women. The results might also trickle through to the level of difficulty each would have using a cell phone while driving. > It's quite possibly true, but I have no experience in the matter. My > marginally relevant experience is primarily in RF exposure from cell > phones. ahh OK. -- Maggie |
| "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>: Aug 17 04:23PM -0400 Per Muggles: >where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without >skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability >to multitask? Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to stalk something, kill it, and bring it home. OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior. At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look here, look there.... -- Pete Cresswell |
| "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>: Aug 17 04:35PM -0400 Per Ashton Crusher: >in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile >commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered >by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood. Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking. The official anti-tobacco spiel is all about cancer and other negative health effects... but I have to think that 90% of the people who got onboard with banning cigarette smoking in the workplace just wanted relief from the stink. I certainly did.... could care less if somebody chooses to addict them selves and ruin their health... I just wanted the stink to go away. With cell phones: Ok, the official talk is all about safety and that may or may not be all well and good... but I for one can get behind the idea of a ban just so I don't have to cope with people yakking on the phone while they wander back-and-forth over the line and back up traffic by cruising the hammer lane. -- Pete Cresswell |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 17 02:06PM -0700 On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to > find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look > here, look there.... I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific thing or things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation), and the browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find -- 99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but I have to go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I should have put on the list. That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I despise shopping for clothes. I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the car as 'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the phone I'll turn it on. If *I* want to use the phone... -- Cheers, Bev MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software. |
| Harry Hymen <harry.hymen@fallopian.tube>: Aug 17 10:17PM +0100 Sully Sullenberger can obviously talk, text, surf and drive an A320 safely down the Hudson blindfolded. The rest of you numbnutz, HANG UP AND DRIVE! You ain't got Sulleys skills. |
| Don Y <this@is.not.me.com>: Aug 17 02:21PM -0700 On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote: >> At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to >> find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look >> here, look there.... Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact! > 99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but I have to > go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I should > have put on the list. I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me *into* a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the HOUSE!). OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found" list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things; I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results! OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I could find for them! :> [Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! :> ] > That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I > despise shopping for clothes. I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts, socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or "deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up three of these, for me -- at <store>". It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide" what to wear, "today". |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 05:39PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to > find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look > here, look there.... LOL! yeah! We like to look. -- Maggie |
| John-Del <ohger1s@aol.com>: Aug 17 03:39PM -0700 On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote: > They don't seem to exist. > At least not in the United States. > Not by the federal government's own accident figures. You conveniently left out some important facts. "US Vehicle Miles Driven Have Sunk To A New Post-Crisis Low" Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/vehicle-miles-driven-2013-2#ixzz3j78zIZGG You also forgot to consider that cars stop faster than they used to, they turn better than they used to, they generally have better visibility as well as ABS, traction control, stability control, lane change warnings and even accident avoidance. In most areas, three and four-way stop signs are now controlled by traffic signals, yield signs don't exist (stop signs or traffic lights) and even basic intersections that used to be governed by stop signs are now full traffic lights. It now takes me almost 8 minutes longer to get home from the same commute I've been doing for 20 years with no more traffic. I now build up some speed, and bam- right into another red light. Most highways are being reconfigured to remove any left hand entrance or exit ramps. If anything, traffic accidents should have plummeted over the last 10 years, and they haven't. The only new variable is cell phones. I personally got rear ended by an idiot who was driving with her eyes in her lap (saw her hit me). In my town (Wolcott, CT), a guy waiting in line at a traffic light on a motorcycle was stuffed into the car in front of him by a girl texting. He lived three days. I've seen at least a half dozen near misses recently from people on cell phones. |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 05:48PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> here, look there.... > Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and > leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact! ya got me right in the heart! ack! > OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and > I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I > could find for them! :> When I go to Ace Hardware with my husband, I wonder around by myself looking at things, then eventually track him down somewhere in the hardware section looking for odd screws or bolts. I've learned a lot just by doing both over and over and over again every time he wants to go to Ace hardware. Now, I can find things for my own projects! HA! > [Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give > a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! :> ] I go in the back yard and there are garden hoses connected to other hoses going in various directions. "What's this hose for?" He says, "I need to water blah blah blah." "Why can't you use the main hose for that? He says, "I don't want to mess with dragging it all the way over HERE!" Ohhhhhh Kayyyyyyyyy! -- Maggie |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 17 08:03PM -0400 On 8/17/2015 12:11 AM, ceg wrote: > *must* be going up. > But they're not. > So, something is wrong in our logic. According to NBC new tonight they are. We are on track to be higher than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related. One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS. |
| Don Y <this@is.not.me.com>: Aug 17 05:05PM -0700 On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote: > On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote: [attrs elided] >> Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and >> leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact! > ya got me right in the heart! ack! It takes a fair bit of effort (IMO) to "go somewhere". E.g., a trip to the library (2.5 miles ea way) is 20 minutes -- not counting the time spent there. (the closest *large* Ace is across from the library). It is distressing to "waste" that time and not come home with <something> crossed of The List. There aren't that many "20 minutes" in a typical day! If I've got to drive clear across town (45 minutes) to the oriental grocer, you can bet I'll come back with a month's worth of <whatever>! Worse, yet, to have to go back *tomorrow* for some silly little item that was forgotten on today's trip! [A friend claims "Plumbing takes three trips" (TmReg); I've learned that she is basically correct. There's always one little fitting that you discover you need *after* you've come back from your FIRST trip. And, something else that you think of -- or manage to BREAK -- after your SECOND trip! As a result, I have a very conscious goal of trying to do plumbing jobs in *two* trips -- not yet ambitious enough to hope for *one*] |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 17 08:05PM -0400 On 8/16/2015 10:51 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: > SIGNIFICANT increase in accidents over the past 20 years as the use of > cell phones has exploded. Yet there isn't the slightest evidence of > that in the accident data. so says you and ceg. NBC new said different tonight. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 17 08:07PM -0400 On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote: > who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group > of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or > even play a radio while they drive. The problem arises when people from the second category think they are in the first. |
| "Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>: Aug 18 12:24AM +0100 "Phil Allison" <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in message news:34019e33-46d1-4b20-8995-8b73b1a44f6c@googlegroups.com... > ** It's exactly the same as the one I described as "rough as guts". > ... Phil The owner has decided to 'go for it' so the owner of the shop that it came in through has gone ahead and ordered in the replacement that was offered at 100 GBP. Should be here this week sometime. While we're on slave amps, anyone following this thread got the schematic for an Alto Mac 2.2 ? Very odd fault. Both channels work just fine for a while, then all of a sudden, one channel starts to indicate 'clip' with the level control just a gnat's bollock above zero. There seems to be a dual opamp involved in the clip detect circuit, but before going round in circles trying to see what's happening and why, it would be handy to have a schematic to see how the clip detect circuit is designed and what its inputs are. I'll put a new post up as well to catch anyone that's not following this discussion. Arfa |
| jurb6006@gmail.com: Aug 17 04:49PM -0700 Just start a new thread Arf. Itt is damn hard enough for peopple to keep track of shit without having two separate isssues in threads not specificallty named hat they should be named. If =you do, I won't rip you a new bollocks hole, we got Phil to take care of that. but seriously seriously here, I almost NEVER had an actual bad power traansformer almost in my life. I had one in a Zenith TV that started getting open connections. First was to the CRT filamentm whichg I fixed by wrapping a wire around the flyback core to get about 22 volts peak to peak which is about 6 volts RMS. Then another linee come loose and it was tjhe center tap for the +/- 24V or whatever fed the vertical, and was on th same wire as the return for the 130 volt lin. It sent the picture offf ceneter and the centering control of course did not work. ALL the currnet pulled by the 130 volt line was going through one of the vertical output transistors. this was another of the myriad of TVs that nobody else could fix. That was my specialty. But that sounds interesting. Question is, is it distorting ? There are a couple of different ways to implement a clipping detector. If it is actually detecting a ifference between the input and output of the power amp there are several possibilities. High frequency oscillation is possible. Loss of bias couldd do it. Start a thread, I am not going to fuck this all up. This thread is for this, make that thread for that. See you there. |
| avagadro7@gmail.com: Aug 17 03:56PM -0700 On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 10:32:17 AM UTC-4, Steven Bornfeld wrote: > > You want to let it soak in for a while, and using a wooden skewer or > > similar to dislodge any caked material is good... > Would urine work? Simple Green ? organic acids are in your tummy working at the Iowa state fair pork chops. The white stuff may harden to the point where it needs filing or grinding off if dissimilar materials are in contact within a salty environment. Battery and ground contact areas eg terminals, clamps, frame connection areas are coated with a thin film of https://www.google.com/search?q=non+corrosiding+silicone+grease&biw=1103&bih=620&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIjbapgZuxxwIViRk-Ch29zAcT#tbm=isch&q=dialectric+gease the grease conducts electricity but not ions in transfer: no white build up |
| 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. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment