Hooking up transistors in LTSpice

Same here :-)

Sorry to debunk that myth. Here is the example for the 2011 model of your truck:

Quote "The Environmental Protection Agency rates the four-cylinder Frontier at 19 miles per gallon in the city and 23 mpg on highways with the manual transmission and two-wheel drive. With an automatic, the EPA rates the Frontier at 17 mpg on city streets, 22 mpg cruising highways."

As I said, rougly between 5% and 10%.

BTW, those ratings aren't very good. My vehicle of similar size but with SUV body on top (the Mitsubishi Montero Sport is based on the MightMax truck chassis) was listed at 25mpg highway and that what I get. Actually

28mpg with non-californicated gas ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

In the US not much seems to be enforced for trucks. In fact, one product design for that market I was working on was shelved because of this. So you regularly see trucks spewing enormous black plumes into the air. The worst are schoolbuses where I tend to keep at least 10ft distance when at a red light.

In Europe trucks don't spew out soot plumes. Except maybe very old ones in the south, from the 50's. But I believe the quality of the Diesel itself is also better and it costs a lot more. Even back in the 80's when I was driving a 7.5-ton in Europe I occasionally looked back, could see the exhaust pipe in the mirror. Not a speck of soot when downshifting on a hill, and that truck was loaded to the brim.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Mine is 2001, and I get about 27MPG highway at 75MPH. (I don't have a city number, because I drive it so rarely.) EPA ratings are so bad as to be downright laughable.

Consumer Reports also parrots your 5% to 10% number, but they support Obamacare, so you know their reliability (*)

(*) I got even with those bastards... prior to their announced support of Obamacare I had a subscription and was a contributor to their "foundation". Cost them $279.95 per year.

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Nothing of the sort. It's the fuel (sulfur content, IIRC). I think recent EPA regulations address that. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Sure it is. It's in the engine and filter technology.

That, too.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Around here there used to be two grades of diesel, one for semis (forbidden to be used in cars), and one for cars (so-called sweet diesel).

But trucks must now use the good (and $$$$4/gal) stuff. Diesel here is now more than premium grade gasoline by about 20¢ a gallon. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I think that caution is true of good designers I've worked with. They add an external part for that with specifications they feel have been well validated. I was being cheap here for a one-off.

No idea. Sounds very 'generic' to me.

No. I did the work. It's for my wife. I used the $4.30 (delivered) Launchpad from TI for the USB connection and cables and since it comes with two cpus, I used those, as well. It also comes with the connector parts needed to add vector board for a daughter card above it, too. The only additional costs are some resistors, one cap, and a DB25 connector (male.) Everything else comes in the kit from TI. The DB25 is the only significant additional cost. The vector board is a tiny piece taken from a large sheet.

I've posted a query up on the Mailstation group, which is largely 'inactive' but does have the occasional post to it.

Yeah. But as I've said before, I absolutely LOVE this work. I love electronics, I love programming, I love physics, I love mathematics. I'd do all of that for free, just for the right to do interesting projects and work with interesting people, if it weren't the fact that some actually pay money. Hard work on any or all of these is a passion of mine and it lifts my life, never takes it down.

My wife (and oldest son) use ONLY automatics. I also prefer a stick shift.

Yup. Though I have to admit that _some_ of the automatics are getting a lot nicer than they once were on that score -- at least, when used by those who really don't know how to drive economically.

I do a lot of math _and_ I also at least can read German, if not produce it well. I also can read _some_ Chinese (which I absolutely LOVE learning, by the way.)

Yes. That's called hyperbole and opinion. It's not a scientific statement, if you hadn't noticed.

I was addressing myself to prayer having an effect on shared experiences of the natural world. Please don't change the topic. And I was agreeing with Einstein's, "To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress." In the sense here that Einstein was ALSO talking about a "personal God interfering with natural events."

Notice that I was staying squarely ON-TOPIC here. And that you've now brought this over to archaeologists, which has little or nothing to do with what I thought we were talking about before.

Changing the subject is fine. But then it's not a rebuttal to what I was saying, either.

I've no doubt that there are well-led groups of Christians. But I've been working actively in my area and I'm very close friends with one retired preacher (Methodist) who has been placed in Churches in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon much of her life. She feels about the same way I do in terms of percentages and is very frustrated with leadership (as I am) within the Churches. But I also work closely with the local Catholic diocese, too, and an x-nun who is highly placed in the administration there. We also have the same discussions and she also admits serious problems in leadership.

If you are interested in the specific stories of what is going on, and the percentages out here of people I happen to work with, I'd be happy to do that off-line. (Inappropriate here, not because I wouldn't mind going public with all that.)

I spend 300-500 hours a year doing this. It's not entirely comprehensive, I'll admit. And there is a lot of the world I don't experience. But it's still substantial. And I've achieved my opinion over the last 25 years doing this. So it's not entirely uninformed, either.

That will have to happen over this next year. Problem is, I need to put 'best foot forward' and I am still working through some of the crucial details. If I lead with something where I haven't done my due diligence, then it may be far less easy quickly clarifying the vision for others. I still have some work to do, in other words. The usual stuff with any business planning.

People are people. If you look for the clay feet in everyone, you will do nothing and listen to no one. We all make mistakes in judgment and have flaws. And I'm not reading the article, because it frankly isn't worth debating.

The science remains. I know, because I've done the calculations entirely on my own. I'm okay with vector calculus, differentials and partials, boundary value problems, Laplace, and so on. And a lot of this isn't nearly something requiring that, anyway. I once posted here some very basic slab-model equations for anyone here to show me they can develop a basic radiation model of Earth (I mean, in this sense, a 1st year college student simplification that provides a 1D model of the atmosphere.) No one here even bothered to try. Frankly, I think far too many get far too rusty in their abilities doing even the most basic stuff in the most ordinary of differential equations, let alone dealing with more complex combinations of ODEs and PDEs. Anyway, I've applied myself directly. Depended on no one else's opinions. And I've no doubt, now. About at least some of it.

People do what people do. So? Doesn't injur the equations I've personally worked out.

Understood. I have studied theology at University for 24 credit hours worth (two years.) Some of that was in tracking down source materials, weighing their provenances, and in translations. In my lay opinion on the New Testament, it all boils down to the Sermon. That is the core teaching, the center of what Jesus was trying to pass along. Everything else is extra, but not the core message. And I can count maybe three or four Christians I know personally who actually take it seriously.

It is frightening to take it seriously. That message was a direct, personal message to each. It's not hand-waving. And it asks a LOT of each of us. More than most of us are willing to seriously consider. Most particularly, remember the words between Jesus and a young, rich man in Matthew 24? He then spoke to his disciples when he sent the young man away, downtrodden, and made a point about the experience with them. What Jesus was asking, isn't for society or for someone else. The Sermon was for each and every person and it means YOU and it means NOW. It's direct. It's not some parable.

Many of the early Christians, those prior to Constantine's arrival anyway in the early to mid 320's, understood this message and acted personally as though it was for each of them, which it was.

Such Christians are essentially long dead and no one today "remembers" the real message here. It is beautiful and it is lost.

Hehe. As I said before, you have my enduring respect.

Jo

Sorry, I was thinking of Matthew 19:24 when I wrote that. I mean, obviously, Matthew 19!

Jon

You mean a Democrat can steal you blind faster than you can stick a needle in a camel's butt ;-) ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Check out the NCP30x series from Moto ... ahm ... ON Semi next time.

Ok, that usually drops the wages to minimum wage minus minimum wage :-)

We just needed some Vector board at a client. That stuff has become expensive.

Hmm, I don't even know where that group is.

[...]

Yes, like the guy who drove his Volkswagen bus at max rpm, where the governor came on. In rat-tat-tat mode.

I've read about this. But AFAIK it won't help when you do hardcore math crunches a couple times a day or write one letter in Swahili. They meant people who must permanently switch between languages, many times a day. I do that but after seeing all those people there and learning about their history I am not all that sure. Although I have to say, the number of bilingual Mexicans or South Americans in those places is remarkably low. But that can be related to relatively intact family structure where they try to keep grandpa at home as long a possible.

Ok, I don't understand hyperbole too well. If a sentence is written like a statement I usually take it as one :-)

Ok, I see that very differently. If prayer answers happen in an area where enough scientific knowledge has not established itself yet that does not at all mean unworthy to me. When people pray for a hopelessly sick patient and doctors later say "I can't believe he lived through this" some folks brush it off. I don't. In the same way that I believe that the miracles described in the bible actually happened. God is not bound by what scientists think is worthy.

The reason is this: Miracles, prayer answers and so on are described in the bible. Now in answer to that many peole, especially scientists, call it "just a story book". So I pointed to some proof that it isn't. It's not off topic, sometimes we need to look at the surroundings. Outside the box, just like we have to in engineering. Along the lines of "if we know this part is true because they just dug it up, isn't it likely that this other thing also happened?"

Question: What did she personally try to change that situation?

Ok, here I won't ask that question because trying to change things there could be like kicking a giant oak tree ;-)

She could have become a Lutheran :-))

Jon, I know that, have seen some not so nice developments myself. But that doesn't mean we can lump the whole Christian community into the same pot. IMHO one has to be watchful and when a church body where one is member veers precariously from scripture, try to change that (like Martin Luther did). If not possible one shall leave and find a bible-based congregation.

I know many people who have formed firm opinions over the years, and often for good reason. Unfortunately many have also lost the openness and flexibility to, for example, listen to a few sermons by our pastor who clearly falls into the category of honest leaders. Heck, they could have even done it on the web.

That's your call. Our neighborhood saw that differently. Blatant hypocrisy by so many at the same time has consequences.

Correct, Matthew 19:24 is not part of a parable but a command. The message is repeated many times in the bible ("Don't store up treasures on earth"). It's a balancing act, as the bible also tell us about not supporting idleness. Unfortunately many people including Christians err on the side of selfishness and "treasures on earth" mean too much to them.

It is by far not the only obligation that is difficult. Another command is one of the prayers we shall use (The Lord's Prayer) and the most difficult part in it: "as we forgive those who trespass against us". Yeah, easy to forgive a little transgression, but what about this guy who did ...?

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Yeah. I know. I'm careful and reuse pieces from other projects when I can. Too bad. It's very nice to use.

On Yahoo: snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

Well, I'm not sure how you could imagine I was making an absolute claim about the universe over agreeing with one man's view. When I say, "He's entirely right on this point," English usage would have you interpret that the same as my saying, "I agree with him 100%." And not that somehow I'm privy to a god-like perspective upon which I know all things and can assure you that Einstein is "entirely right." It doesn't seem rational to imagine I was thinking I had that kind of superior viewpoint.

Oh, well. Anyway, I agree with him. So there! :P

My happiness is worthy and important to me. Yet scientific knowledge has not established itself there, yet. You've got some slippery thinking going on here when you read words from Einstein. His point isn't about the worthiness of religious belief. I'm not sure how you could read it to imply that.

Einstein is discussing the religious idea of a personal God who interferes with natural events. Physics studies this. That's job one in physics. And if such interference cannot be found through experimental result, and if then those in religion can only continue to support that claim by claiming it only happens where science isn't looking at the time, then that behavior of "taking refuge where science hasn't yet set foot" is what is unworthy _of_ religion. Not that religion is unworthy. Don't you see the semantic differences here? They are quite distinct to me.

Let's take the subject away from your turf of Christian belief and make this less personal. Maybe you can see better when it's not personal. Let's talk about the current predictions of the Higgs boson. That won't tarnish your Christian beliefs if I make a point there. So maybe that's a safe way to present Einstein's point about unworthiness that you can grasp and then go back to the context in which it was made with better understanding.

So. The Higgs boson is some, up till now hypothetical, massive elementary particle said to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. Right? But we haven't actually got any experimental evidence for it (so far.) The predicted energy of it is a bit uncertain and may be beyond the Large Hadron Collider, though maybe not. Now, let's say that after the LHC has run for a while, no Higgs is found. So the scientists say, "Well, that is just because its energy is still higher. We need to make even BIGGER colliders. Then we will see it." So they build bigger ones. Nothing. Still bigger. Nothing. So they say, "Well, it must be at still higher energies." At some point, this kind of "refuge" gets a bit worn out, don't you think? And unworthy of science. Perhaps they are just wrong and they should consider that possibility. Right?

A belief that must always be hidden away, isn't worthy. That doesn't mean religion isn't. It most certainly can be. It _may_ mean that religion needs to "give up" that which conflicts with a shared reality, though. And yes, since some religions make ABSOLUTE CLAIMS that are IMMUNE to evidence, this may be hard for them to do. But Einstein is saying that they may have to consider it. Because hiding a belief in increasingly remote and dark, unlit areas simply because the belief MUST be retained NO MATTER WHAT evidence appears or lack of support their may be... is unworthy.

Science has shown that kings are just the same as the rest of us. We are all humans and kings are not gods. Science has lit many areas. But there is far, far more ignorance than knowledge. And many dark areas, unlit, where beliefs can retreat to, if challenged.

Einstein was lamenting the "personal God" because it is the one belief that will forever be in direct, unavoidable conflict with physics. It says there is a force that acts in the world. Physics studies forces. That's its job. Actually, it studies objects and events in time and space. But forces are a necessary consequence of that study. There are many other important things that religion may say to us as humans that will never, ever cross paths with physics. But when religion starts making claims about forces acting in our shared reality, then and exactly then, religion is making a physical claim about the world and that will lead inevitably to continual retreat as physics continues to make progress in its study. And if religious beliefs are seen in retreat from science and in conflict with science, then it will serve religion quite poorly, because science is about prediction and it does that job very, very well in the small areas where it is well understood.

The absence of shared evidence is a glaring hole that demands an explanation when talking about a personal God that affects the world and therefore must yield what physicists would observe as a "force." (Events are interpreted as resulting from "forces.")

Give Einstein's writing a thorough read. He says it better than I do:

Of course you don't. But it may be just you being selective about the evidence you notice and don't notice. Bias, in other words. Not saying it is. Just pointing out the fact that you need to be aware that it might be and to keep a tentativeness in mind when you think that.

The bible isn't an object. It's a very odd collection of fragments and quite different from one collection to another, in fact. Have you ever compared the Catholic Bible to yours? (I keep about a dozen different versions/translations always at hand and yes, I read them.) Do you know, for example, that the earliest fragment of the New Testament that still survives is kept at Magdalen College on Oxford in England and consists of just a few sentence parts around chapter 26, if I recall? And that they are dated (by a variety of techniques) to about 125-150 AD?

I think the earliest existing "whole" bible comes from maybe

400 AD, Codex Sinaiticus, I think? (Though I cannot speak to its provenances and it's dating is still a matter of some debate, but the absolute earliest it might be dated would be very close to 400 AD.)

And there are gospels, for example, not included in any of these but uncovered now.

There is enough difference around so that I can't even be sure exactly what you think actually happened when you read _your_ biblical text but don't read the other sources. And we are just talking New Testament here. It's gets more interesting including the rest.

Suffice it that it means little to me that you take it literally. I don't know two people, who taking it literally, take it the same exact way. When I dig, I always find out that they disagree on some things even though they say they both take things literally.

Oh, well. Different discussion. We are off track, anyway.

It still wasn't a rebuttal. I was talking about the lack of affirming evidence that prayer changes shared reality. Archeology is about the past, frankly, and no matter what it finds won't show that prayer changes our shared reality today. Not sure why you brought it up. It makes no sense to imagine it refutes my claim.

And there are countless events in all manner of fictional stories that are also "proven correct." The castle is where the story places it, for example. Etc. So what? That doesn't show that prayer changes shared reality. It's really non-sequitur to even bring up archaeology when discussing prayer changing our shared reality.

The only thing I can imagine here is that you are following an invalid line of logic that says since the bible says prayer does change things and since the bible is at least verifiable in some spots (for example, there exists a place called Jerusalem), then it must be that prayer is one of those things also true, even if not verifiable by alternate sources. It's invalid reasoning on its face, if so. And you should know it without me telling you so.

To put a name here, Linda. Oh my gosh, yes. To her detriment. Long stories there. One parish literally ran her out of town. I think she and I see eye to eye on far too many things. She gave me a book to read on Calvinism, which I'm enjoying now.

Dorothy? Nah. She is now a rather highly placed person in the diocese and I hope she is doing what she can. I know some things, but she is probably doing more than I know about. I hope we will work on some projects yet in the future, too.

I'm not lumping. I'm just saying that in general Christians are about like everyone at large and no better or worse. If you disagree with this, have at it. But I'll need some convincing.

You miss my point once again. I'm merely saying that my opinion is an educated one. Which is to say that it at least has _some_ basis in experience and fact. It does not mean it is a comprehensive one. I never meant to say that. Few of us can ever claim a comprehensive view. However, it's also not an entirely ignorant one, either.

You seen so focused upon the force of public opinion upon natural reality, as though the facts of the world around us care. Sharing public opinion may make you feel like one with a crowd, or popular. But nature cares not the least about our opinions or the way we vote. It's one of its endearing qualities for me about natural, shared reality, in fact. It's ever consistent and does not ebb and flow to public wants or desires.

You reminded me of Galileo's comment within The Assayer. In the following snippet, Galileo is responding to Grassi (writing under the pseudonym of 'Sarsi') and the adherence to the idea that the Earth is surrounded by a sphere of fire and that when objects rise up into the sky they get close to this sphere and can burst into fire in response:

"... But it is wrong to say, as Sarsi does, that Guiducci and I would laugh and joke at the experiences adduced by Aristotle. We merely do not believe that a cold arrow shot from a bow can take fire in the air; rather, we think that if an arrow were shot when afire, it would cool down more quickly than it would if it were held still. This is not derision; it is simply the statement of our opinion.

"Sarsi goes on to say that since this experience of Aristotle's has failed to convince us, many other great men also have written things of the same sort. To this I reply that if in order to refute Aristotle's statement we are obliged to represent that no other men have believed it, then nobody on earth can ever refute it, since nothing can make those who have believed it not believe it. But it is news to me that any man would actually put the testimony of writers ahead of what experience shows him. To adduce more witnesses serves no purpose, Sarsi, for we have never denied that such things have been written and believed. We did say they are false, but so far as authority is concerned yours alone is as effective as an army's in rendering the events true or false. You take your stand on the authority of many poets against our experiments. I reply that if those poets could be present at our experiments they would change their views, and without disgrace they could say they had been writing hyperbolically -- or even admit they had been wrong.

"Well, if we cannot have the presence of your poets (who, as I say, would yield to experience), we do have at hand archers and catapultists, and you may see for yourself whether citing your authorities to them can strengthen their arms to such an extent that the arrows they shoot and the lead balls they hurl will take fire and melt in the air. In that way you will be able to find out just how much force human authority has upon the facts of Nature, which remains deaf and inexorable to our wishes. You say there is no longer an Acestes or a Mezentius or other mighty paladin? I shall be content to have you shoot an arrow not with a simple longbow, but with the stoutest steel crossbow, or use a catapult drawn by levers and windlasses that could not be managed by thirty of your ancient heroes. Shoot ten arrows, or a hundred, and if it ever happens that on one of them the feathers so much as slightly tan -- let alone its shaft taking fire or its steel tip melting -- I shall not only concede the argument but forfeit your respect, which I regard so highly..."

Nature doesn't care a whit about human opinion, wish, fantasy, or authority -- it does what it does, consistently.

When I want to know what the New Testament is about, I look to the words of Jesus himself. And that is in his walk, speaking in parables with his disciples, and with the Sermon. He was trying to get across the core ideas before "leaving" and so he focused on the important things then and there.

Sounds like a pacifist, eh? Fancy that.

Jon

What really shot up in price is the version with ground plane. It's the only type of perf board I use.

When you send an email to that address, where does it go? Where can you see the whole group?

Well, Einstein claims a rather extreme view. So I seem to have to understood you correctly then after all, that you think his is completely correct in his assertion. Which rather surprises me. But ok. I think he isn't right on that one.

I don't agree with him. So there :-)

So, in your eyes, what does he then mean by this? "But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal".

If find it odd that he relates to Christianity as a doctrine living in the dark. It doesn't live in the dark.

I see that. But it is only really supportable by someone who believes that what the bible reports is largely or at least partially wrong. I happen not to belong to that group.

Worn out yes, but they have a point. The chances that it exists are lower but not zero. We just don't know (yet).

You said it, "in the small areas where it is well understood". What if God looks at our attempts to find out everything there is to find out, and just chuckles? Just like I chuckle when I read an old mechanical engineering book that says something like that the ether waves are a miraculous thing and until now not researched in any useful way. And today I earn my income in part from those miraculous waves.

Unfortunately some of his conclusions are not quite right. Quote "That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work".

That is not the case. God has given us free will. Meaning we are free to screw up or not to. And unfortunately Adam did mess up, and on top of it tried to blame it all on his female companion. That was most definitely not God's work.

Sure, I am aware that it can also have purely medical reasons. But often that is so highly unlikely that even the docs don't believe that.

There are major differences, of course. Even between KJV and NIV (which I use) there are. That is why it is so important that a pastor can go back to Hebrew and Aramaic if any doubts come up. And they do come up. Our pastor regularly goes back to the old language sources.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Not literally. For example, if you believe in the new testament then old testament punishments such as stoning are not to be condoned. Unfortunately many religions that do not recognize Jesus don't see it that way and folks stone people (mostly women). Very sad. As Jesus said "Let him who has no sin cast the first stone" and they all dropped their rocks and walked away. It would be good for all of us to think about that sometimes, regarding prison sentences, capital punishment and all that.

But we can't always talk about dry tech stuff :-)

Ok, I see that we will likely never agree on this one, maybe we should just let it be.

[...]

Ok, I don't know why they did that but a similar story was told by Christian friends we had over for dinner yesterday. A pastor was ran off by his parish. A congregation being Christian does not mean that it is without sin, hypocrisy or unfairness.

Good. So she seems to have overcome or solved at least some of the leadership issues.

You'd have to meet lots of people in our congregation to become convinced ;-)

And no, I am not saying Christians are better people by default. They do have a better starting position to work at it though. If they are willing.

Ok. However, an educated opinion also requires continuing education, doesn't it? I just mentioned one opportunity that is often ignored or refused. 15 years ago I was in a phase where I barely went to church. Sick of all the fire and brimstone sermons. Ok, this was in another country. So I thought "That's just how it is". Until I was nudged to try one more time and boy was that a difference to the old fire and brimstone.

They didn't think about re-entry after you manage to shoot the arrow into an orbit :-)

Naturally it doesn't. All I wanted to say is this: Those guys have an agenda. They believe that they have evidence that this agenda needs to be pushed, and soon. Never mind what I or others think about it. So they came there to show and convince the world. Am I correct? Yet they behaved like the total hypocrites, behaving exactly the way they told the world not to behave, belching CO2 up to wazoo. Sorry, I find that despicable.

[...]

On a personal level, absolutely. But that does not mean that drastic action, and even some level of brute force, wouldn't sometimes be needed. Even Jesus himself did so when he threw over the tables of the money changers and sellers of sacrifical animals. That part reads almost like the makings of a good old saloon fight.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Joerg, Where are you buying that? Part number? Thanks!

[snip] ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Newark has it in stock. Almost $30 now :-(

Newark P/N: 46F1193 Manufacturer P/N: 8007

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Do you use a pad cutter to cut away where you DON'T need ground plane? ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Nope, I don't even keep a pad cutter. I want the ground plane intact everywhere. Each hole metallization has a clearance to the ground plane so you can build up circuits just like you are used to on perf board. If you need a pin grounded just a bit of solder will do that. Where that's no so convenient such as under DIP sockets you can run a snippet of wire from the other side up through the next hole, bend over, cut short and tack it onto the plane.

That way you can build gigeehoitz stuff on perf board.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Neato! Looks like it's worth the price, then?

Them thar' gigeehoitz stuff hurtz ;-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

If I recount all the perf board lash-ups I had to take from others and completely rebuild using GND-plane Vero or Vector, I'd say it's worth the price time 50 or something like that. You can also get bigger boards but those cost north of $100.

Seriously, some stuff just won't work reliably without a ground plane. or only sometimes when the sun shines and the creek don't rise.

:-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

I've always been fond of ground planes. You'll recall the PCB breadboard I made up (before simulators) to verify chip designs...

I'm working a chip design right now that will have as much as 650mA in the ground :-( I'm getting around that issue with multiple pads down-bonded to the package paddle (whole backside of the package is a giant ground "pin" ;-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.