- Convert a 45 RPM record to Metric - 21 Updates
- SMD capacitors - 3 Updates
- Cutting Plexiglass (Perspex) - 1 Update
| oldschool@tubes.com: Aug 31 12:00PM -0400 The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's by everyone who had them. If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead? I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the answer..... (Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong). |
| Taxed and Spent <nospamplease@nonospam.com>: Aug 31 10:07AM -0700 > I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the > answer..... > (Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong). I think they would be 4.5 drpm. |
| Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>: Aug 31 05:50PM On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, oldschool wrote: > by everyone who had them. > If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be > called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead? No difference at all. -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition. |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Aug 31 10:55AM -0700 Revolutions per minute remain revolutions per minute in the old or new currency. Minutes and revolutions are neither metric nor SAE, nor Whitworth for that matter. all of them would count turns per time period the same. There are also 45 rpm records of several diameters, to further confuse the issue for you. But, each one revolves on the platter forty-five (45) turns per minute (60 seconds). Note that in common use, RCA-base records were called 78s. Even though Edison discs were, most typically, 84s. LPs (33.3) were sometimes called "33s" but mostly LPs. I suspect that those who were victims of your discussions were not so much uncertain of the answer as unable to formulate said answer in a way you could understand. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| Taxed and Spent <nospamplease@nonospam.com>: Aug 31 10:59AM -0700 > I suspect that those who were victims of your discussions were not so much uncertain of the answer as unable to formulate said answer in a way you could understand. > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA I stand by my answer: 4.5 drpm. Surely you have heard of Decca records! :) |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Aug 31 01:15PM -0400 On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:59:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent >I stand by my answer: 4.5 drpm. Surely you have heard of Decca records! >:) What does the "d" stand for? Is it "D"ecca? |
| dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt): Aug 31 11:30AM -0700 In article <oo9ih4$ct8$1@dont-email.me>, >I stand by my answer: 4.5 drpm. Surely you have heard of Decca records! Owww. May vile vinyl vengeance visit itself upon you. :-) |
| rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Aug 31 02:33PM -0400 > I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the > answer..... > (Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong). 0.75 rps of course! I think I would call them 3/4 rips for short. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid>: Aug 31 07:38PM +0100 > I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the > answer..... > (Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong). 0.75 revs per second if you want to be completely non-SI about it? https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html -- Adrian C |
| Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid>: Aug 31 07:40PM +0100 On 31/08/17 19:38, Adrian Caspersz wrote: > 0.75 revs per second if you want to be completely non-SI about it? > https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html er, non-non-SI ... -- Adrian C |
| rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Aug 31 02:42PM -0400 Adrian Caspersz wrote on 8/31/2017 2:38 PM: >> (Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong). > 0.75 revs per second if you want to be completely non-SI about it? > https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html Depending on your usage of the info it might be 0.75*(2pi) or 4.712388980385 radians per second. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Robert Roland <fake@ddress.no>: Aug 31 08:59PM +0200 >If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be >called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead? The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units. I think we are stuck with it. Switching to a new system would be essentially insurmountable. In the SI unit system, however, the unit for angular velocity is radians per second. 45 RPM is a touch over 4.7 radians per second. -- RoRo |
| Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com>: Aug 31 02:55PM -0500 In article <oo9fh3$17a$1@dont-email.me>, > > answer..... > > (Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong). > I think they would be 4.5 drpm. The French for a time tried decimal time where there were 10 hours in a day and 100 minutes in an hour. So in decimal minutes, or dm, it would be 64.8 rpdm or 6.48 drpdm. |
| Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>: Sep 01 06:28AM +1000 On 1/09/2017 4:59 AM, Robert Roland wrote: >> If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be >> called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead? > The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units. **Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball? BTW: The "metric part of the world" is 95% of the world. A pitifully insignificant 5% holds out against the inevitable. I > think we are stuck with it. Switching to a new system would be > essentially insurmountable. **RPM? > In the SI unit system, however, the unit for angular velocity is > radians per second. 45 RPM is a touch over 4.7 radians per second. **Rotating media is so last century. The number of users is utterly insignificant. I am, however, one of them. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
| "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net>: Aug 31 04:50PM -0400 On 08/31/2017 02:42 PM, rickman wrote: >> https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html > Depending on your usage of the info it might be 0.75*(2pi) or > 4.712388980385 radians per second. Radians/sec. was the unit I assumed it would be, but I didn't bother with the calculation Perce |
| "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net>: Aug 31 04:52PM -0400 > But, each one revolves on the platter forty-five (45) turns per minute (60 seconds). > Note that in common use, RCA-base records were called 78s. Even though Edison discs were, most typically, 84s. LPs (33.3) were sometimes called "33s" but mostly LPs. > I suspect that those who were victims of your discussions were not so much uncertain of the answer as unable to formulate said answer in a way you could understand. Many decades ago, my father bought at an auction a wind-up gramophone with a collection of records, some of which were old Columbia 80-rpm discs. Perce |
| dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt): Aug 31 02:48PM -0700 In article <f0rb02Fnk97U1@mid.individual.net>, >> 4.712388980385 radians per second. >Radians/sec. was the unit I assumed it would be, but I didn't bother >with the calculation I prefer furlongs per fortnight (measured at the outer edge, of course). Since records can vary in diameter, this would require having at least one reliable reference standard for the industry to work from. Like the classic metric standards for length and weight, it should be of a stable, noncorroding metal, kept in an inert atmosphere in either Paris or Greenwich. Gives new meaning to the term "platinum record", doesn't it? |
| Look165 <look165@numericable.fr>: Sep 01 01:14AM +0200 Go and masturbate. |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Aug 31 05:52PM -0700 On Thursday, 31 August 2017 19:33:44 UTC+1, rickman wrote: > > answer..... > > (Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong). > 0.75 rps of course! I think I would call them 3/4 rips for short. Nearly, the second being the standard unit of time. They would be 0.75Hz. NT |
| rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Aug 31 09:27PM -0400 Dave Platt wrote on 8/31/2017 5:48 PM: > stable, noncorroding metal, kept in an inert atmosphere in either > Paris or Greenwich. > Gives new meaning to the term "platinum record", doesn't it? lol -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Aug 31 09:29PM -0400 Trevor Wilson wrote on 8/31/2017 4:28 PM: > **Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball? > BTW: The "metric part of the world" is 95% of the world. A pitifully > insignificant 5% holds out against the inevitable. You talkin' 'bout US? -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Aug 31 01:11PM -0400 In article <oo9b8b$hvt$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says... > I've never seen polarized caps that weren't marked. I've never seen > polarized caps that relied solely on the reel orientation to indicate > polarity. Here is a link to a px of some SMD capacitors. The two on the right have that little tit I mentioned. It could be mistaken by someone like me that has never seen one as just some excess solder when it was made. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7wJcih38lRAMl9MRk1sdnA3ajA There probably are not any that are not marked in some way. I was just guessing at the reel thing. As mentioned it is a hobby now and upto a short while ago I had not messed with any of the SMD. There have been lots of advances and changes in the components over the years. Just more to learn. I still have trouble with the values of some components being packaged in a small package. Just hope I am not sounding like some of the other older people on here with the SMDs. |
| rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Aug 31 01:42PM -0400 Ralph Mowery wrote on 8/31/2017 1:11 PM: > have that little tit I mentioned. It could be mistaken by someone like > me that has never seen one as just some excess solder when it was made. > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7wJcih38lRAMl9MRk1sdnA3ajA Ok, these are un-encapsulated tantalum caps and that pin is a part of the device internal connections. They are the same part as the yellow ones to the left (and maybe the black ones too, but not the round ones which are electrolytic), but without the plastic coating to make them smaller. Yes, the point might look like excess solder, but if you use a part without looking at the data sheet you are screwing up. > changes in the components over the years. Just more to learn. I still > have trouble with the values of some components being packaged in a > small package. Trouble? You mean you have trouble accepting the small sizes? > Just hope I am not sounding like some of the other older people on here > with the SMDs. Only a little... ;) Wanting to learn new stuff is what is setting you apart. It is hard to go with new ideas when you've been doing the same thing for a long time, especially when the eyesight makes it hard. But it's not impossible. I have essential tremor but I still make stuff from time to time. When it's work I let an assembly house deal with it. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Aug 31 04:31PM -0400 In article <oo9hia$9nf$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says... > > have trouble with the values of some components being packaged in a > > small package. > Trouble? You mean you have trouble accepting the small sizes? Not really trouble, but just have not worked with the SMD enough to learn all the small details. Like learning that they can make a capacitor of over 1 uF the size of fly poop and not big enough to have any markings on them. The first computers I dealt with had the memory chips that would thake 8 chips to make about 1 K of memory, maybe not even that much. Just the memory board alone for 8 K of memory was larger than several of the smart phones now. Now they over 100 GB of memory in the space of one of those chips. I can accept them, just have not seen enough of them to know they are in use. I just have to keep up with the times. Like the cars. I remember changing oil from 30 W to 20 W and back when the temperature changed from summer to winter, and change every 3000 miles, or was it less. Then came the 10W 40 types and no change was needed for summer to winter and 5000 or 7500 mile change.. Just bought a new car and the recommendation is 0 w 20 and only change at 10 K miles. They give 2 years free maintence. Going by the book, that is only 2 oil changes the way I drive. Nothing else to be done but look it over. |
| Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>: Aug 31 02:24PM -0500 Dave M wrote: > Anyone have experience in accurately cutting 1/8" thick acrylic Plexiglas > (Perspex) for LED displays? Real Plexiglas normally cannot be sheared. it can be scored with a special knife and snapped off like glass cutting. It can also be machined with a router or mill. Just be sure the cutter is super sharp and keep the tool moving fast. Cutting slowly leads to heat build up and melting. > filters. > Also thought about hot wire cutting. That's quite possible, relatively > safe (just have to keep fingers off the hot wire). I do NOT think you can hot wire-cut acrylic. It will make a LOT of fumes and cut very slow. Acrylic has a pretty high melting point. > Also thought about cutting on a drill press or milling machine. Again, a > bit dangerous due to the small size of the work. Clamping would be > tricky. Just rectangles? Why would clamping be tricky? If making a lot, you clamp a sheet by the edges, and rout out the pieces, leaving a little space between parts. My scheme, if really setting up to make a bunch, would be to set up a fence on the table saw and cut a bunch of strips the length of the Plexi sheets to match one of your dimensions. Then, stacking a bunch of these strips, cut the other dimension. That would make a lot of parts quickly. If you need highly accurate dimensions, then the mill is the way to go. Jon |
| 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