1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Prefered resistor range
  4. Page 3

Prefered resistor range

Here's the deal , retard. If tables "...are used...for certain limited arbitrary data and to correct for those few results that do not agree with the publish tables when computed algorithmically" which is your bullsh_t way of saying WHEN THE "ALGORITHM" FAILS, then you don't have much of an algorithm, do you sh_t-for-brains. For someone who pretends to such a high standard of excellence, you sure are one mediocre and second rate piece of trash. But you go ahead and sit on your little self-styled pedestal of superiority- the more you open your ignorant, pompous, mouth, the more we can point out your pedestal is a pile of pig sh_t.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs
Loading thread data ...

I am not saying that a complete change from a formula based computation to table lookups would be an improvement. In general, I try to use tables for values that are inherently arbitrary. For example, the allowed values for tolerance might be 1%, 5%, and 10%. There is no real reason, apart from people favoring numbers related to how many digits they find on their hands, for those numbers to be used. Now imagine that series of numbers generated by, say, a quadratic formula given inputs {1,2,3}, probably with rounding, to produce that same set of values. Some people would see it and say "Neat!" Other people may notice it took 3 input numbers to get 3 output numbers. Still others wonder how it will fare when a new value is added to the series, say 0.5% (woops, gotta revise the polynomial and the rounding scheme) or 20% (probably just requires a cubic in lieu of the quadratic).

I'm not sure that's true if the code space needed for computing the transcendental functions is charged against your "space". It could be close, but I imagine you may be right if an FPU or uncharged (DLL) library handles the serious arithmetic.

[snip] 
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
Reply to
Larry Brasfield

Actually they are not "odd values" at all- but your perspective is very telling. As I have stated before, to the point of becoming tedious, your narcissism is so pronounced that you once again declare the whole world defective when it fails to live up to your ego centric fiction.

Nah- an approach which although highly sophisticated compared to your Perl kluge, is still too pedestrian to be truly successful.

It took me about 60 minutes of sheer joy to break that code- I will not reveal it yet- having too much fun reading the conjectures. Right now we have Brasfield, Woodgate, and the Phantom in the race. Phantom is leading, but Woodgate is starting to heat things up. Brasfield comes in dead last because he thinks he knows everything and is content to stay with his little Perl kluge, whereas Phantom and Woodgate are in the numerical explore phase, actively searching for answers and recognizing inconsistencies- good for them.

eh- shut- the-f-up...snip the rest of your garbage.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

what the hell are you using for your calculations - an abacus?

I concede it would be a pain on a calculator, but thats about it

Although I confess I do most of this manually, without even a calculator :]

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

Ludicrous amounts of computing power is a truly wonderful thing. It just pisses me off when its used to animate a stupid puppy in a search utility, thats too f****ng stupid to let me select a particular directory within which to search. Thankfully I have Ztree.

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

JS is much like C/C++ and so is PHP which IMO, is the preferred CGI scripting language. Python isn't a bad language, either. I never did like perl, but reading about perl did at least open my eyes to how malformed queries can cause commands to be executed as root. IIRC, the backtick " ` " in a perl script tells the perl executable to execute a system command and if it's slipped into a query properly and there's no input validation, you're screwed.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
Reply to
Active8

Cool trick. Thanks... ;)

--
Regards,
   Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
     - Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
        on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
Reply to
Robert Monsen

John,

Did you post this? If so, my news service missed it. Would you be so kind as to post it again?

Thanks.

--
James T. White
Reply to
James T. White

I guess Fred isn't going to give us the answer. I was hoping. :-)

Reply to
The Phantom

Fred posted something clever on this a few weeks back. It looked like it might have nearly replicated the process that was used to create the values long ago, when folks used published logarithm tables with 4 or 5 decimal digits of precision to do arithmetic. (Of course, his post speaks for itself; I say this only to suggest it is worth a look.)

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.
Reply to
Larry Brasfield

The Phantom wrote: >> It took me about 60 minutes of sheer joy to break that code- I will >> not reveal it yet- having too much fun reading the conjectures. >> Right now we have Brasfield, Woodgate, and the Phantom in the race. >> Phantom is leading, but Woodgate is starting to heat things up. >> Brasfield comes in dead last because he thinks he knows everything >> and is content to stay with his little Perl kluge, whereas Phantom >> and Woodgate are in the numerical explore phase, actively searching >> for answers and recognizing inconsistencies- good for them. >>

I did post it under "E96 series computation", E192 and E48 left as exercise for the student:

For the **E96** series the basic calculation is something like this, where Log's are base 10, and R is input value normalized to 100

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.