A question about coil winding

In ability to back up your claim noted.

Late at night, by candle light, snipped-for-privacy@nevis.com penned this immortal opus:

How do you tally the membership? AFAIK newsservers don't keep a count on subscribed groups on a user basis.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Late at night, by candle light, John Fields penned this immortal opus:

I've unsubscribed a couple of groups that due to trolls and attrition ended up equal parts inanities and spam. The really knowledgeable people got fed up and left.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Late at night, by candle light, "Mike Warren" penned this immortal opus:

Can't see how that adds up. Says nothing about subscribers around the world. There's no such thing as membership in a group, only subscriptions, and those can't be tallied unless you access every newsserver in the world and add up which groups get their header downloaded by how many. Do a read-up on how usenet actually works.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

No but Goggle does.....

Google can only tally what Google can see, which ain't the Usenet.

Don't get off track. It doesn't really matter how many people have thrown their name into a pot, it's how much participation actually exists. And the statistics exist.

And it's a pretty dismal commentary when a questi> >XanaNews Statistic for sci.electronics.basics. =A011/01/2010 12:20:42 PM

--
Don't like it?  Take a hike.

After all, it's not like we'd be any worse off without you.

 
JF

If you only had a CLUE about that you would be surprised. Google INDEXES and ARCHIVES ALL Usenet posts, plus a LOT More, in and around the WWW. Just where do you think the SPAMMERS DataMine all their eMail and Address's from???

You're right. You've done a good job of making things bad, I doubt anyone could make it much worse.

On Jan 12, 10:06=A0am, John Fields wrote: it's not like we'd be any worse off without you.

Hey, clueless! ALL (decent) NNTP hosts see every article. You can collect the *same* information from any one. What a moron.

Late at night, by candle light, You penned this immortal opus:

They've done that long before google came around. You really have no clue to how nntp actually works.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

--- Made things bad???

All I've done is point out to you that, on USENET, bottom posting is preferable to top posting and that your incessant use of the evil top posting method is frowned upon by most of USENET and even advised against by Google Groups, that bastion for the clueless and thorn in the side of USENET.

You, on the other hand, are part of the problem and have decided to fight tooth and nail against changing your posting style to one that is used by easily 90% of the rest of us because you think it's more important to be inflammatory and keep playing your little troll games.

A good example is the IKYABWAI nonsense with which you started this post.

I really have no need to waste any more of my precious time replying to your inane prattle, so unless you can come up with something intersting, goodbye.

JF

Well many people disagree and this is indicated quite loudly in many places with eText/eComm systems.

BTW: I never start a book at the bottom or last page so you'll have to grow some before you get out of the 1980s.

Usenet is dead because most ISP's no longer offer it for free, and technology has moved on with new shiny toys that take no brains at all to use.

Josepi wrote:

See what you started?

LOL

Next thing ya' know the Usenet collapse will all be your fault. ROFLMAO

This is what makes Usenet a thing of the past.. the trolls = people bored.

Well Michael?

Now do you believe me that these bottom posting OCD idiots are only here for the troll subject? Look at the contradictions in this idiot's post! Take the hook out of your mouth and stop feeding this troll, POS. Read the third paragragh he blathered and think how it applies to his troll. He has confused the whole thread with his posting style and exemplifies the whole top-posting point quite well. He probably has never posted on topic yet.

Ignore the jerk. He won't convince anybody, especially thinking people, with his contradictory tactics.

It's just an off-topic troll. This is why Usenet is failng mostly. The ISPs are tired of the legal implications resulting from these immature people.

flame harder, boys...LOL

All I've done is point out to you that, on USENET, bottom posting is preferable to top posting and that your incessant use of the evil top posting method is frowned upon by most of USENET and even advised against by Google Groups, that bastion for the clueless and thorn in the side of USENET.

****"You, on the other hand, are part of the problem and have decided to fight tooth and nail against changing your posting style to one that is used by easily 90% of the rest of us because you think it's more important to be inflammatory and keep playing your little troll games."***

A good example is the IKYABWAI nonsense with which you started this post.

I really have no need to waste any more of my precious time replying to your inane prattle, so unless you can come up with something intersting, goodbye.

JF JF

Well done!

Do you have a lot of this multi-strand wire to use for a cheap price?

I think it would make the winding too complicated. Instead of many turns you will have days of soldering connections to get all the strands in series. That's a huge lump you may not have room for.

Preparing to wind a motor coil or more. Need some info to consider a shortcut. Putting aside the issue of current handling capacity, does anyone have awareness of whether a multistrand wire made of smaller magnet wires can serve instead of a single wire with the same number of windings?

< trolling snipped> < trolling snipped> < trolling snipped> < insulting snipped>

--

> JF

No but the font you use does!

LOL

I have been posting to alt.energy.homepower since 1998, there used to be in excess of 100 post a day here at one point...Telling the truth does not make one a troll.

What the hell are you on about now? Nobody has a clue what you are referring to.