And how do you make a rheostat so that it isn't a potential potentiometer? Leave off the third terminal?
Admittedly, a purpose-designed rheostat will be able to take a lot more current through the wiper than a purpose designed potentiometer, but in the context of John Fields' remark, which had to apply to printed circuit mounted twiddle pots, the difference is academic.
Grow up ...
On 18 Jul 2006 20:00:28 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org Gave us:
You grow up. Most potentiometers (even the high precision wirewound jobs) are sub-watt devices.
Most rheostats are multi-watt devices.
Got clue? It isn't about configuration, it IS about purpose.
Forget it. Bill is so brainwashed that he thinks he's right. It doesn't matter if every textbook and datasheet shows them properly, he'll insist that he's right. :(
Duh ! The only one brainwashed round here is clearly you, who thinks that the USA is beyond even reproach !
Graham
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:27:52 +0100, Eeyore Gave us:
Pullin' back some of those layers, and showing us some onion, eh?
Get a clue yourself - the sort of rheostat you use to control the precise time delay generate by a monostable (which is what John Fields was tallong about) isn't a multiwatt device, and the difference between a 2-terminal rheostat and a 3-terminal potentiometer *is* essentially configuration. John was being pedantic - but correct - when he used the term rheostat for what everybody else calls a twiddle pot.
The word rheostat, coined in 1843 by English physicist Sir Charles Wheatstone (1802-75) comes from the Greek. rheos "a flowing, stream" (from PIE base *sreu-, see rheum) + -stat "regulating device" and doesn't have any implied wattage.
Huh? What John Fields has pedantically and properly called rheostats are - in the context discussed - merely potentiometers with one connection either ignored or shorted to the wiper. Most people call them twiddle pots.
Where are the textbooks you fondly hope will show that I'm wrong in this contention?
And why encourage me towards the delusion that I'm always right by putting up such a lame counter-argument?
By definition a two terminal variable resistor is a Rheostat. A Three terminal variable resistor is a Potentiometer. Id doesn't matter whether you use two or three terminals. Yes, you can use it as a rheostat, but it is still a Potentiometer. The application of a component doesn't change what it is. Using an inductor, a capacitor, or even a diode to reduce the current flow in a circuit doesn't make it a resistor.
On 19 Jul 2006 02:37:02 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org Gave us:
All one has to do is clamp one end leg to the wiper, dumbass. It is, at that point, a "VR" or "variable resistor". A rheostat is typically used to regulate current. LARGE amounts of current. A variable resistor regulates small amounts of current. I would never call a VR that I incorporated into a low power circuit a "rheostat", even though the effect that takes place in such a configuration is defined as "rheostatic".
It is really personal preference. Just as some call an inductor a "choke" based on the application they have utilized the device in.
On 19 Jul 2006 02:37:02 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org Gave us:
However, HISTORICALLY, over DECADES, the device that got made and called a "rheostat" was nearly ALWAYS a high wattage device. Back then, there were no carbon film potentiometers OR rheostats.
It is simply a current regulator. Whereas a resistor with a tap is a voltage divider. If that tap is movable it is called what we have come to know as "potentiometer". The actual device is STILL a potentiometer, even if used in a rheostatic manner. Hence the reference designation moniker "VR" or "Variable Resistor".
On 19 Jul 2006 03:02:16 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org Gave us:
Most English dweebs, you mean. You are still Slow, man. Real slow.
Golly, you claim to know a lot about the typical military person and the typical way their lives are organized. Have you actually been there? You sound like a third hand gossip. I too have a DD214.
Jim's list of paying patents is world class, had some more just this year. Sounds pretty bleedin' edge to me. (I looked some up) You have been around this group long enough to have heard this.
And the question is reiterated, can you or can't you find a way to make the contacts? Can you or can't you do the work. If it is new and alien can you learn?
What the heck is the problem ?
I haven't played golf in ages but I've never thought of it as being something that was problematical to stomach ! It can be really good fun actually !
I'd rather like to get stuck in again actually. I find tennis more challenging though ( and I seem to be tolerably good at it ).
Graham
"John Fields" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
To keep getting what I get from the government, I have to apply for at least one job every week. At the moment I'm having no trouble finding at least one advertised job to apply for every week. That's a job that I could do, that I'd like to do, and for which I wouldn't have to travel too far every day. In good weeks I can find a couple of jobs to apply for, and apply for all of them.
From time to time jobs come up where they really ought to hire me, and I also ring up the contact people and pester them a bit - not that this has ever seemed to help.
If I followed the "What Colour is your Parachute" procedure and sorted out every potentially employer within an hour's commute, and cold called the lot of them, I might do better, but I sincerely doubt it. In general, the Dutch don't regard a 63-year-old who wants to work as a serious job-seeker, but as some kind of nut, and a cold-calling 63-year-old job seeker would really get them worried.
As for learning new and alien stuff - that is my meat and drink. The last job I had in the Netherlands - for Haffmans BV - mainly revolved around two projects, a battery powered conductivity meter and a machine for measuring the residual foam sticking to the sides of an empty beer glass. Neither had much to d with anything that I'd done before, and the conductivity meter project had to be rescued from engineers who didn't have a clue about measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions - I didn't either when I started, but I did have enough sense to spend an afternoon in the Nijmegen University Chemistry library reading up on the problem. The editor of the most useful book I found - one Bob Greef - had been an acquaintance of mine at Southampton University 1971-73, but I think I can write that off to coincidence.
"Eeyore" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
You've got to wack a little ball very hard and get it to go exactly where you want it to go. You can't allow yourself to tense up or get anxious, otherwises it will mess up your swing, and blow the whole deal.
I have enough trouble hitting a field hockey ball accurately and reliably whenever I've got time to think about it - there isn't anything wrong with my snap hits - and I really don't have the right personality for golf.
No, you can't slur the ball and shame it into the hole, can you?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required