sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Jul 24 01:15AM -0400 rbowman wrote on 7/22/2017 1:38 PM: > falls off gradually or if there is an efficiency sweet spot around 65-70. > Except for around the cities the interstate speed limit in this and some of > the adjoining states is 80. Drive 65 at your own risk.   Air resistance rises as the square of the speed. So faster is worse by more than the linear proportion. I find I notice the difference when I drive over 60. By 80 you are burning a *lot* more fuel than at 60, about 75% more to overcome air resistance. I don't know how tires impact the equation and of course since all these speeds are in top gear the entire drive train is turning 33% faster as well.   --   Rick C

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Jul 24 01:53AM -0400 Mad Roger wrote on 7/22/2017 7:42 PM: >> better.   > Does your tripmeter have a decimal place and digits after that decimal > place?   I've never seen a trip odometer that didn't have tenths of a mile.     >> My speedometer is mechanical and so has a separate calibration factor.   > The speedometer example was only brought in to point out that the vain hope > that averages result in better "accuracy" is patently false.   Only because averages don't impact the effect of limited accuracy, averaging mitigates the effect of limited precision. But both precision and accuracy impact the error in any one reading.       >> Of course it is. States inspect them at some point.   > You don't seem to understand what accuracy and precision even mean. > Haven't you taken even one science lab course?   I think you are missing something. What you replied do does not in any way indicate a limited understanding of precision and accuracy. But affect each measurement taken. An inspection measurement will require the combination of accuracy and precision in that measurement be within some limit. What do you expect them to do, take dozens of measurements? There are economic considerations, especially since this is about economics anyway. It is to prevent excess profits from being made by shortchanging the customers.     > and, in fact, you're exactly the mom-and-pop type person I was talking > about when I opened the thread.   > I understand you.   Not sure what that means. What I am doing by repeatedly topping off is to reach the point where the fuel in the filler neck is right at the nozzle so it won't run anymore, but rather cuts off immediately. This results in a very consistent fill level.     >> gallon burned so I don't need to worry about the gas warming up and running >> out of the tank. I believe this makes for very consistent fill ups.   > I'm sure you do believe that.   I think my consistent mileage measurements support my conclusions.     >> My MPG results pretty well show the consistency of my measures.   > I'm sure your MPG results support any theory you want them to support. > I believe you.   You seem to be doubting my results. Are you suggesting I am fudging my data?       >> I see less than 19 or even 19.5 MPG.   > I bet you see that decimal place even though it's not in the tripmeter > estimation nor in the filllevel estimation.   You seem obsessed with evaluating the resulting MPG measurement even though you can't put numbers on the accuracy of the parameters that impact the MPG errors. If you can't come up with numbers, your ideas are of no value. But that doesn't mean the errors in my MPG measurements aren't as they appear to be.   Actually, I do have numbers for the parameters. I know the mileage to a fraction of a mile (even though a tenth mile out of 400 is far more accurate than anything else involved) and I have no reason to doubt the pump giving me 20.0 gal when it says 20.0 gal. I don't fill up at the same pump each time so if some were off it would show up and I'd be able to identify which pumps were inaccurate.       >> I think the consistency of my MPG readings show how well each of these can >> be measured.   > I'm sure you do.   You keep saying this without indicating what you mean.     > are likely better than the otherwise astoundingly huge imprecision in the > fuel-fill level estimation and in the lesser inaccuracy of the tripmeter > estimation.   Lol! You see, I understand you because you're the type of person I had in mind when I made that comment.     >> Other than scale >> error which can be calibrated out the odometer will be very good.   > Define "very good" please.   Have done, 0.1 mile over 100 miles has been calibrated... actually, it was much better than 0.1 mile since I can interpolate the analog dial. I don't drive that stretch of road anymore, so I can't calibrate 100.0 miles continuously anymore or I would.     > calculate 19.5 miles per gallon and not something like 19.5 rounded up to > 20 and then the error taken into account such that it's more likely > anywhere between 19 and 21 mpg than it is 19.5 mpg.   Sorry, your sentence doesn't make sense to me. Can you construct it properly?     > say anything about what that "change" was.   > And, more importantly, neither can you. > Which is the entire point after all.   If what you say is true, why is it I have only seen 21 mpg a very, very few times in the 20 years I have been checking my mileage? If what you are saying is true, I should see a much wider variation in measurements than I see. As I have said, 95% of the time I get between 19.5 and 20.5 mpg or within a 4% range (+-2%). It's actually even tighter than that. It's more like 19.7 to 20.2 mpg but I can't say just how often.   --   Rick C

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jul 24 06:07AM -0700 KEEERIST!!!   Miles driven per gallon, kilometers driven per liter, furlongs realized per bale. Pretty basic. And within "R-E-A-L-I-S-T-I-C" tolerances, may be calculated using 2nd grade arithmetic.   However! There are various factors that will affect results:   Speed driven Distance driven Style of driving Type of vehicle Load on vehicle Condition of vehicle Terrain Type of tires Condition of tires Tire inflation Condition of bearings & CV joints (if any) Condition of suspension   So, we are able to make a snapshot of any given trip. And an average of several trips, that will give us a practical expectation of consumption based on our style in our car in its present condition. Not to be confused with an actual and accurate description of consumption - as that not only can, but *W*I*L*L* change with any change in the above parameters, and likely several others not enumerated.   We are discussing CARS as they are used EVERY DAY. We are not discussing neurosurgery, rocket science, disease vectors nor anything else other than very broad-brush stuff.   Per Deacon Mushrat, 2,619 1/2 can dance on the head of a pin - so that is now settled science.   Yikes!   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Jul 23 01:32PM -0400 On 07/22/2017 05:33 PM, Michael Black wrote:   > the problem. So something was changed there. But that's different from > playing MP3s, though for many people it did matter, since they put MP3s > on a CDRW disc and then played that.   CD-RWs required more sensitive optics on the part of the playback device, CD-Rs however once they were written with PCM audio data (_not_ mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material equivalent of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any CD player, even ones from the 1980s.

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Jul 23 01:35PM -0400 On 07/22/2017 05:14 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:   > My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no > problem.   > Gareth.   IIRC my 2002 Ford Taurus OEM CD player would play CD-Rs of mp3 files, but not CD-RWs.

"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 03:06PM +1200 Once upon a time on usenet bitrex wrote: > (_not_ mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material > equivalent of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any > CD player, even ones from the 1980s.   Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected) signal. This was common knowledge back when CDRs first became affordable and people would have trouble with their older players not playing them (or not playing them reliably). Back then some players started being sold as being CDR compatible but after a while it became taken for granted and the badging vanished.   CDRW discs are even less reflective than CDRs. -- Shaun.   "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 23 09:34PM -0700 ~misfit~ wrote:   ----------------------     > Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some > older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected) > signal.   ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as a normal CD.   They play perfectly in my 1982, Sony CDP101.       .... Phil

"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 09:40PM +1200 Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote: >> a good (reflected) signal.   > ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as > a normal CD.   Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting areas. In a CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits' whereas with a CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index. The result, done on a modern high-quality burner on a modern high quality blank and at a reasonable speed is close to a pressed CD w/r/t readability. However a lot of CDRs are burned too fast and / or are not top quality blanks resulting in a less-well defined change from reflective to non-reflective which can give some older readers problems. Especially when they were first on the market.   It's not so much of an issue these days as the quality of blanks has improved considerably and the price of good quality ones has come down. There used to be a large difference in price between the cheapest discs and the best discs and and a corresponding difference in readability. This could give some older players - especially those with lasers that were starting to weaken - issues reading CDRs.   > They play perfectly in my 1982, Sony CDP101.   My 1986 Philips CD 160 and my 1987 Sony CDP-17F will both read all of my newer CDRs but used to struggle with ones I burned in the early days when discs and burners weren't as good. I still have some of those CDrs and even though they've been looked after and are in good physical condition both of the older players struggle with them.   I don't have an older player any longer and will probably be getting rid of those two soon as them not having remotes and me having mobility issues makes it so I hardly use them these days anyway. -- Shaun.   "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 10:30PM +1200 Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote: >> a normal CD.   > Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting > areas. In a CD they're pressed into the refecting later   layer not later.   > and become > 'pits' whereas with a CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and > the pickup laser is 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.   I forgot to mention that this dye layer that is burned into a non-reflective bit when a CDR is burned is not as optically clear in its unburned state as the clear coat on a pressed CD which results in a lower index of reflection. That when combined with the following results in CDRs being harder to read than pressed CDs.   -- Shaun.   "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 24 04:30AM -0700 ~misfit~ wrote:   -------------------   > > ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as > > a normal CD.   > Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting areas.   ** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.     > In a > CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'   ** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.   The whole game is wavelength dependant.     > whereas with a > CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is 'burned' > changing it's reflectivity index.   ** The dye simply becomes opaque.   You are just making " facts " up as you go. A process called "confabulation".   A euphemism for bullshitting.         ..... Phil

"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 25 12:45AM +1200 Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:   >> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting >> areas.   > ** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.   I didn't think that you were going to split hairs.   >> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'   > ** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.   > The whole game is wavelength dependant.   Perhaps with blu-ray it is but not so much with CDs as the dark and light areas are large enough for any wavelength to read you moron.   >> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is >> 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.   > ** The dye simply becomes opaque.   Which is a fuckwit way of saying it's reflectivity index or ability to transmit light has changed.   > You are just making " facts " up as you go.   > A process called "confabulation".   > A euphemism for bullshitting.   I see you're back to your MO of trying to be so obnoxious as to scare others off so you can have the last say. Funny how it always happens in the evening when you're pisssed. You fucking cock-swallowing galah. -- Shaun.   "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 10:18PM +1200 Once upon a time on usenet David Farber wrote: > decommission the kitty door to the outside world. Now they can only > go out when we let them and then will only be let back in if they are > not bringing anything with them.   I think you might be better off junking the electric mouse and instead getting electric cats. It's cruel to expect real ones to do just what you want and nothing more. -- Shaun.   "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Jul 23 06:24PM -0500 On 7/22/2017 8:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:   > ** Wow - no part numbers or component values.   > How uninformative.   > .... Phil   I think Spehro came up with the answer.   "Appears to be an obsolete Mitsubishi MOSFET RD01MUS1   "APPLICATION For output stage of high power amplifiers in VHF/UHF Band mobile radio sets"   Unfortunately the datasheet fails to indicate how they mark the d*** thing: https://www.modelithics.com/models/Vendor/Mitsubishi/RD01MUS1.pdf     However this excellent product manual for the iCOM IC703 shows the code and package for the RD01MUS1 match (page 2). http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/IC703_sch.pdf   Product page (no datasheet link because it's obsolete..): http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/semiconductors/php/eTypeNoProfile.php?TYPENO=RD01MUS1&FOLDER=/product/highfrequency/siliconrf/discrete   They seem to be 'available' but from sketchy sources so who knows what you would actually get. sp. " I ordered 5 pieces from an Ebay source. Thanks, Mikek

"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Jul 23 10:22PM +0100 <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c51734e2-b8cb-411c-8aba-9658218c0fa2@googlegroups.com...   >> > Dan   >> a cleaning tape (cassette)   > is as much use as tits on a bull.   Abrasive to the head and doesn't shift anything off the roller.   Far better to open it and clean with a suitable solvent on a cotton bud.   The usual danger with muck build up, is the tape sticks to the capstan and winds around it. destroys the tape and doesn't do the deck much good either.

"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Jul 23 10:25PM +0100 <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e0a53591-65bd-48e9-8385-9b0f1d99fcf6@googlegroups.com...   > Alcohol & cotton bud. head & whatsit first, rubber roller last. Drying > properly is necessary. You can neglect it but sound quality will really > suffer.   And by the time you can get at it with a cotton bud - you can also see whether you did any good or not.

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.