text:
On Jan 1, 10:24 pm, Jack Linthicum <[email]>
wrote:

I don't think you have correctly understood their paper. I understand
that they accept the 1628-1600 date for the eruption. But they
emphasize that the "large tsunami" occurred certainly LATER (around
1400 BC following the C14 datation). In fact, as the pieces of wood,
bones, etc. carried by the tsunami may have been older, 1400 BC is a
"post quem date". Following J.Faucounau's thesis, the "large tsunami"
would have been created c. 1205 BC by the "Second Theran Collapse". (A
"First Collapse" had occurred at the time of the eruption, but was
very limited. If you can read French, see the book "Les Peuples de la
Mer et leur Histoire" for the arguments supporting this thesis).

grapheus


author: Jack Linthicum

subject: Re: Santorini(?) tsunami deposists Crete

text:
On Jan 2, 10:41 am, grapheus <[email]> wrote:

May I ask who supports this second collapse thesis? I mean besides you
and J. Faucounau?


author: grapheus

text:
On Jan 2, 4:57 pm, Jack Linthicum <[email]> wrote:

I'm not a specialist of this problem, but I know that J.Faucounau has
been invited by some of them to participate to conferences on the
subject.
If you are a specialist, why not judging by yourself the value of the
thesis instead of relying on the STUPIDITIES one may find on
WIKIPEDIA ?..

This is just BALONEY. The only thing which is correct is that I am a
Luxembourger friend of J.F.
It seems to me that you don't know that when a small group of 3 or 4
so-called "Wiki-Administrators" is trying to IMPOSE some view on
Wikipedia, their opinion becomes God's words !...

grapheus


text:
On Jan 2, 11:56 am, grapheus <[email]> wrote:

But are there others than you two who subscribe to this?


text:
On Jan 2, 7:21 pm, Jack Linthicum <[email]> wrote:

Of course. But don't ask me names. As I wrote, contrarily to J.F., I'm
not a specialist in Geological matters. My sole aim in this Group is
to make known very interesting and scientific theories which, for
diverse motives, have not been correctly publicized.
If you don't like it, like some "WIKI-Administrators",  I don't care.
Future will say who was right or wrong...

grapheus


text:
On Jan 2, 2:31 pm, grapheus <[email]> wrote:

Hand waving is okay at parties, in a sci.newsgroup nice solid
references are better. The group is already under siege by one hand
waver.


author: Samra

text:
On Jan 2, 10:41 am, grapheus <[email]> wrote:

I'm unclear about this second collapse theory. Was it associated with
another eruption in 1205 BC or was it a non-eruption event. The
Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program doesn't indicate an eruption at
that time.

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0102-04=&volpage=erupt

Samra


text:
On Jan 2, 8:51 pm, Jack Linthicum <[email]> wrote:

I gave you the reference of a book, published by a serious scientific
editor. You have prefered to trust what is written in WIKIPEDIA
instead of looking at it.  I wonder who is the hand waver...
Anyway, this is your problem. Not mine.

grapheus


text:
On Jan 2, 9:48 pm, Samra <[email]> wrote:

Following J.Faucounau's thesis and geological arguments, it was only a
collapse, without any eruption.

So, it seems to me that they are confirming the theory.

Best regards

grapheus


text:
On Jan 2, 3:51 pm, grapheus <[email]> wrote:

One note, based on conjecture, that really puts me in the position of
trust.


text:
On Jan 2, 9:58 pm, Jack Linthicum <[email]> wrote:

"Conjecture" ?.. LOL

grapheus


author: Cory Albrecht

text:
grapheus wrote, on 2008/01/03 11:37:

And what stupidities would those be? Please, give me detailed examples
of my idiocy. :-)

And you know how that I would have relied on Wikipedia as an authority
rather than a gateway to the real sources? You know how that I would
have ignored the early 17th century equivalents to Google Scholar for
searching, Icarus, The Astrophysical Journal, IAU Colloquia, CAPJ and
other peer-reviewed journals?

No comment whom I was actually commenting on, eh? Like a creationist,
you're avoiding reality and continuing to harp on the same debunked
arguments.

Dude, yet again, I'm basing my opinions of *you* off of your *own*
writing. *You* are acting like an obsessed fanboi, frothing at the mouth
because he thinks I've offended his hero, when I never even commented on
that hero.


author: Alan Crozier

text:
"grapheus" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Jan 4, 7:55 am, "Inger E" <[email]> wrote:
meddelandetnews:[email]
oups.com...
"grapheus" <[email]> skrev i
meddelandetnews:[email]
ups.
<[email]>
wrote:
the
upheaval
disastrous
evidence
puzzling
period,
deposits are
deposit,
provided
that
not
wind
Geological,
Santorini
Palaikastro
attempted,
initial
amplitude
to
are in
time
closer
understand
(around
wood,
is a
tsunami"
Collapse".
was
de la
thesis).
besides you
advocated
process.
of
Faucounau's."
way.
<http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=grapheus+Faucounau..
.>
"Thiering
the
serve
many
from a
Christmas
time)./Inger E

:Dear Inger,
:
:I've transmitted your message and have in return a message to transmit
:to you : "Many thanks and Best Wishes for a Very Happy New Year !"

Inger has mentioned some articles by Faucounau about the Viking Age. I
can't find any online reference to these. Can you tell me what they are
about, where they were published, how I can get hold of them and useful
information like that?

Alan
(who has actually read a couple of books by JF)


text:
grapheus wrote, on 2008/01/03 02:16:

I guessed you missed that "come across as". IOW, I was reading your own
words that you have posted. If you want to call your own net.scribblings
as "the stupidities that have been written on the NET", then that is
fine by me. :-)

No, I would have evaluated Galileo's data impartially. However, I was
evaluating *your writings*, not Faucounau's. You know, that "Grapheus
comes across as" bit you missed above.

I made no comment on my opinion of Faucounau nor his works.

Hey, I never made and claims about my own stupidities or lack thereof.
My credibility isn't the issue here. :-)


author: Inger E

text:
"grapheus" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
On Jan 3, 2:40 am, Cory Albrecht <[email]> wrote:

And ANOTHER guy BLINDLY TRUSTING the stupidities that have been
written on the NET than trying to make his own opinion by READING the
original works !...
I'm sure that if Galileo's theories had been "discussed" on the NET,
Cory Albrecht would have considered him also as "an hybrid of
obsession and kookiness"... Well, it is easier to googling than
reading some 50 papers and books, mostly in French... And Cory
Albrecht is so busy writing stupidities on the NET...
`
grapheus

IEJ: What I can't understand is the obsession by some here to use Wikipedia,
a non relible and non-previewed 'dictionary' when the text there serve their
purpose, but to pick on others who only use Wikipedia as one out of many
sources when it doesn't./Inger E


text:
"grapheus" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
On Jan 3, 8:30 am, "Inger E" <[email]> wrote:
meddelandetnews:[email].
com...
have
(A
<http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=grapheus+Faucounau...>
Wikipedia,
their

Dear Inger,

Wikipedia was at the beginning A GREAT IDEA, but it has become a NON-
RELIABLE source when, instead of blocking an ARTICLE when there was
two conflicting views (so was opened the search for a compromise in
the "Discussion part", in accordance with the WIKI-principles), it has
been accepted to block a REDACTOR. This has opened the door to the
possibility to IMPOSE ANY OPINION as "the Truth". The only condition
was for THIS opinion to be "defended" by 3 or 4 guys acting like a
pack of wolves. And this occurred very rapidly, with convenient
alliances between "WIKI-Administrators" : "You will help me imposing
MY theory as the Truth, and I will help you to impose YOURs!".. So
that, WIKIPEDIA is now a NON-RELIABLE source...

Happy New Year to you !
Regards
grapheus

IEJ: Happy New Year to you too, please give our mutal friend a hug from a
chilly windy Gothenburg and tell him I reread his articles during Christmas
time. (His books I read over and over again when ever I have time)./Inger E


text:
Jack Linthicum wrote, on 2008/01/02 10:57:

Googling "grapheus Foucaunau" is illuminating, in a sad sort of way.
<http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=grapheus+Faucounau&btnG=Google+Search&meta=>

Grapheus comes across (to me, anyways) as a hybrid of David's "Thiering
Pesher" obsession and J.P. Turcaud's general kookiness.


text:
"Jack Linthicum" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
evidence
puzzling
are
that
Palaikastro
initial

Jack,
first time I heard of the 'second collapse' scenario as possible was some
years ago when a now gone Prof emeritus of Geology had it in an open lecture
here in Gothenburg. Second time I heard it was in a TV documentary sent two
years ago. So there must be more than one more than JF and Graphus out
there.....

Inger E


text:
grapheus wrote, on 2008/01/02 14:31:

Is it just me, or does grapheus come across similarly to J.P. Turcaud,
proponent of the ever laughable "Universal Pressure Law"?


text:
"Cory Albrecht" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
"Thiering
net.scribblings

Cory,
JF isn't a hero of Grapheus but instead an old friend of Grapheus as well as
an old friend of mine. JF isn't young any more and not always well. That is
to say he feels he is too old to participate in discussion as many Elderly
feel but he is still crystal sharp as you should have known had you read any
of his books or at least one or two of his early articles (some articles
dealing with Viking Age are more in contact with reality from contemporary
sources than most English written articles). But of course one need to be
able to read French in order to take JF-s reasoning into full account.
Contrary to what most believe here JF-s full crededentials are far more than
told. If you read the French text you would have understood that by reading
even if you as most here haven't a clue about them.

Of course there is a problem when most who do read French aren't familiar
with French tradition from the past of how to present a 'case'. But that's a
reader's problem not a scholary problem.

Inger E


text:
Inger E wrote, on 2008/01/03 02:30:

Wikipedia is quick and easy. It's also a good portal to the real & valid
sources, which are referenced in many articles.


text:
Inger E wrote, on 2008/01/04 02:12:

See this part? It's the one everybody keeps missing:

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Whether or not I have a clue about Faucounau's work is irrelevant
because I never once commented upon it here in this thread. The subject
of discussion is Grapheus and his/her online writings.

This is all very nice of you, Inger, to support a friend, but completely
irrelevant to the case at hand.

You, like Grapheus, seem to have missed the fact that I did not comment
upon either Faucounau or his works. Nor are his credentials relevant in
this subthread because I never once said anything about his credentials.

You seem to have missed that I limited myself to commenting upon
Grapheus's on-line actions and *only* Grapheus's.

Since I never once commented about Faucounau, don't you think it's  a
little bit odd for Grapheus to get all in a froth about how I dissed
Faucounau's ideas?


text:
"Cory Albrecht" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
Wikipedia,
their

Well quick and easy BUT definitely more non-valid and non-real sources than
any other Encyclopedia I ever seen AND worse than our Swedish
'Nationalencyclopedia' which now and then give non-valid information.
Wikipedia can give valid information, but too often the sources befind the
information aren't valid so the sitution occurs that non-valid information
in sources been interpreted giving a valid-view which isn't at all
acceptable from Theories of Science. Can happen but not acceptable at all.

Inger E


text:
"Cory Albrecht" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
the
own
thereof.
mouth
on
well as
is
Elderly
any
contemporary
be
than
reading
familiar
that's a

I believed and still believe that you try to diss Grapheus way of presenting
a defense of Faucounau's ideas. As I wrote you better read Faucounau's ideas
in French before you try to say anything regarding Grapheus way of defending
them. JF is more found of snail-mail than computer-mail. Might have to do
with age you know. Hadn't I studied to become a system-programmer and thus
studied computer-science in early 1970's I with my 58 years today might have
been on the wrong side looking in on those who loved our present form of
mail-system :-)

Inger E


author: Ted Byers

subject: help needed to heal some sick plants

text:
I have been asked to help my sister restore some plants to some
semblance of health.  My sisters have such brown thumbs, they can even
kill plastic plants.  :-)

But I am a zoologist, not a botanist.

The plants that are not very happy include Paperwhites, Hyacynths,
Amaryllus, and a Poinsettia.  The bulbs seem to wilt regardless of how
much water they get (some may have been overwatered, and some have
been neglected, and so have probably not received enough water).

Can someone tell me what these plants really need to thrive?  I
suspect that part of the problem is that they were forced, in order to
produce blooms near christmas time.  They are magnificant plants, and
so I'd like to rescue them if at all possible.

Perhaps useful would be a recommendation for a few good books on the
care of indoor and outdoor plants (I have just moved into a house with
a yard for the first time in several decades and so would like to try
my hand at gardening, rasing both ornamentals and vegetables, and
moving some plants, like the bulbs mentioned above, outside during the
summer and back inside during the winter: this is in southern Ontario,
just north of Toronto).  Yes, I know I can get a list of many books
from a search on Chapters.ca or Amazon.com, but the question would be
which of these would be of the most value.  Myself, I would prefer
books intended more for professionals than those for the general
public.

Thanks,

Ted


author: Iris Cohen

subject: Re: help needed to heal some sick plants

text:
<< The plants that are not very happy include Paperwhites, Hyacinths,
Amaryllis, and a Poinsettia. >>
The paperwhites are done with. Throw them out. Keep the hyacinths as cool as
possible, slightly damp but not wet, and plant them outdoors as soon as you can
work outside. Sorry, I don't remember the directions for Amaryllis. Poinsettia
can be kept alive, but is extremely difficult to rebloom. It is probably not
worth the trouble for a beginner.

<< Perhaps useful would be a recommendation for a few good books on the
care of indoor and outdoor plants >>
The best all round book I have found for outdoor gardening is the Sunset
National Garden Book, which includes southern Canada. I'm sorry I can't
recommend a book on indoor gardening. Most of the ones I have looked at say
very little. The main value of a comprehensive book on indoor gardening is to
give you details about a particular species.

Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
 "It is forbidden to live in a town which has no greenery." Jerusalem Talmud,
Kiddushin 4:12.


text:
PS. Actually you are in the wrong group. For instructions on the Amaryllis, go
to rec.gardens.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
 "It is forbidden to live in a town which has no greenery." Jerusalem Talmud,
Kiddushin 4:12.


author: Una Smith

text:
Ted,

Iris is right, this newsgroup is about botany and your questions are
about horticulture.  Rec.gardens is the better group for horticulture.

That said, if the paperwhites were started in soil, and bloomed back
in December, they should be dying back about now.  Are they green and
flabby, or are they starting to become dry and dead at the tips of
the leaves?  The former is a sign of illness;  discard the plants.
The latter is normal.  If the latter, start reducing water until they
are all dry and then take them out of the soil and put them in a cool
dry place until it's time to start them again.  If they were started
in water, they're probably exhausted and may not be worth keeping.

I suggest you visit the gardening section of a local public library.
The plants you name are all old standards, and as a rule older books
on plant growing have far  more information than newer ones (which
are heavy on gorgeous photos and light on useful data).

	Una Smith

Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS K-710, Los Alamos, NM  87545


subject: Thanks Iris and Una: Re: help needed to heal some sick plants

text:
[email] (Una Smith) wrote in message news:<a604qa$lev$[email]>...
Hi Una,

Thanks to you and Iris.

I didn't know rec.gardens existed, but as a scientist by training and
profession, I subscribed to most of the sci.* hierarchy.  And I
assumed that botanists would know the most about growing plants.

Ah, OK.  So that part at least is normal.  Their leaves have started
to dry, dying from the tips downward.  Thanks. They were indeed
started in soil, and bloomed in December.

I assume that once thoroughly dry, placing them in the frig would be
OK.  Right?  The basement is cool, but rather damp.

The only problem with that is that it assumes that the local library
has a collection worth examining.  The library here leaves everything
to be desired: I develop computer software for a living and my
collection of programming and software engineering is several times
larger than that in the local library, and my collection is not all
that large.  If I were still in Toronto, I'd be visiting the
University of Toronto Science and Medicine Library, and perhaps
consulting with some of the grad students I found in the botany
department's library.  But out were I am, the only real options are to
spend a fortune to drive down to Toronto to use one of the
universities' libraries, or to buy some books online from chapters.ca
or amazon.com.

Thanks again,

Ted


text:
Ted Byers <[email]> wrote:

It is a common assumption, but very mistaken.  I have 10 years of
training in botany and none in horticulture;  the field is not taught
at any of the universities I attended.

Re paperwhites,

The fridge is okay, but I'd probably stick paperwhites in the basement.
Keep them away from direct contact with dampness (floor, walls) and
they will be fine.  I've seen many old hands at keeping bulbs put them
in the basement, in a cloth bag or a basket suspended from the ceiling
or joists.  That ensures the bulbs will stay dry.

Una Smith wrote:

I am not assuming anything here, except that you may be pleasantly
surprised.  Unlike computers, growing plants have been popular for a
very long time, and I have found old book gems in otherwise feeble
public libraries.  Most horticulture books I own I bought at used
book shops.  Shops run by libraries that like to sell off their old
books are an especially good place to find good horticulture books.

	Una Smith

Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS K-710, Los Alamos, NM  87545


author: bozo

subject: Re: What is wrong with you Joey jimenez aka "Colon Jake"?

text:
On Jun 1, 12:43 am, "Colonel Jake" <[email]> wrote:

You were so close, Jake, what happened!
I gave you something to recite, you did it, and then you bailed on me.
I was hoping you'd follow through and kill yourself too.
But following two sets of directions back-to-back is beyond you.
What's the problem? Don't you have anything sharp?
Like a knife, a sword, an icepick or MAYBE a saw to cut your head off?
I gave you something to recite and like a champ you ran with it.
But not because you were following directions but because accidents
happen.
You're still dumb as ever.
What am I gonna do with you.
Come visit you on 86th and draw you a picture?
Can't you kill your own damn self!

-BdN-


author: Colonel Jake

text:
Bozo de Niro <[email]> of alt.comedy.standup
<[email]>
<(http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Bozo_DeNiro)>
:
:
: You were so close, Jake, what happened!
: I gave you something to recite, you did it, and then you
: bailed on me.
:

Thats where you? (Bozo),
"Are wrong!!! (teh following poast, is an followup) ---->

<>
<> ----- Original Message -----
<> From: "Colonel Jake" <[email]>
<> Newsgroups:
<> alt.comedy.standup,
<> alt.life.sucks,
<> alt.usenet.kooks,
<> sci.psychology.psychotherapy,
<> ba.broadcast,
<> rec.arts.sf.tv,soc.culture.jewish,
<> alt.revisionism,
<> rec.arts.sf.written,
<> soc.men
<>
<> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:18 PM
<>
<> Subject:
<> "Anyone know this guy"
<> "Bozo de Niro of alt.comedy.standup - went to CLoWN College
<> with him!!!..."
<>
<> Colonel Jake <[email]>
<> <gvvrm9$pni$[email]>
<> <news:gvvrm9$pni$[email]>
<> :
<> :
<> : Bozo de Niro <[email]> of alt.comedy.standup
<[email]>
<> : <(http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Bozo_DeNiro)>
<> : >
<> : >
<> : > Very good, Jake.
<> : > At least you can follow simple directions.
<> : > Now just one more step,
<> : > Kill yourself.
<> : > Do it!
<> : > Do it right NOW!
<> : > I'm waiting.
<> : >
<> :
<> : I see you have? (Bozo),
<> : "Gotten' more?!?!?!,...., civil!!!..."
<> :
<> : I thought for certain there?,
<> : "I was gonna' have to call you?!?!?!,....,
<> : BoZoHoLE DE NIRo!!!..."
<> :
<> : --
<> :
<> : Colonel Jake
<> :
<> : ï¿½,.,ï¿½
<> : :And then some...
<> : `^'^ï¿½
<> :
<> : *USENET WARNING*
<> : - Teh following GoOgle poast is one that Bozo De Niro of
<> : - alt.comedy.standup made a couple of years back when he
<> : - was having an 'boy-on-boy' relationship with Kirk J0hnson.
<> : - (teh encyclopediadramatica link Bozo poasted, has
<> : - sexual content)
<> :
<> : Bozo's Goatse Lover
<> :
<> : <compliments of teh, Bozo de Niro of alt.comedy.standup>
<> : <->
<> : <-> ----- Original Message -----
<> : <-> From: "Bozo" <[email]>
<> : <-> Newsgroups: alt.comedy.standup
<> : <-> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2007 9:07 AM
<> : <-> Subject: Anyone know this guy,
<> : <-> I went to Clown College with him
<> : <->
<> : <-> Bozo de Niro <[email]> of alt.comedy.standup
<> : <-> <[email]>
<> : <-> <(http://tinyurl.com/goatse-bozo)>
<> : <-> <(http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Bozo_DeNiro)>
<> : <-> :
<> : <-> :
<> : <-> : (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Goatse)
<> : <-> :
<> : <->
<> : </compliments of teh, Bozo de Niro of alt.comedy.standup>
<> :
<> : >
<> : > -BdN- a.k.a. Bozo de Niro of alt.comedy.standup<SLAP>
<> :
<> : <and triple BITCH KoOK-SLAPPED>
<> : <SLAP>
<> : <SLAP>
<> : <and SLAPPED>
<> :
<> : > AUK's der'Clueless Newbie of the Month, Nov 08
<> : > AUK's der'Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, Apr 07
<> : > (http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Bozo_DeNiro)
<> : >
<> :
<> : <An Official Alt.Usenet.KoOks Award Description>
<> : <>
<> : <> -Monthly Core Award-
<> : <>
<> : <> Achieved by Bozo de Niro of alt.comedy.standup
<> : <>
<> : <> Clueless Newbie of the Month
<> : <>
<> : <> The Clueless Newbie of the Month (CNotM) is pretty much
<> : <> the same sort of thing as the KotM, but honors
<> : <> spectacular cluelessness on Usenet rather than Kookery.
<> : <> Actually being a newbie is not a strict requirement for
<> : <> eligibility; but the type of cluelessness being
<> : <> recognized needs to be of the sort typical of newbies. If
<> : <> someone has been on the net for some time and still acts
<> : <> like a newbie, they're eligible.
<> : <>
<> : <> ---
<> : <>
<> : <> -Ko0K Combat Award-
<> : <>
<> : <> Achieved by Bozo de Niro of alt.comedy.standup
<> : <>
<> : <> Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart
<> : <>
<> : <> In proud remembrance of the children's toy who sacrificed
<> : <> his life in Iraq for the cause of freedom, this award is
<> : <> given to net.kooks whose attempts at Kooky Kombat go
<> : <> spectacularly wrong. Use of grenades made of solid rubber
<> : <> is one possible sign of worthiness for this honour.
<> : <>
<> : </An Official Alt.Usenet.KoOks Award Description>
<> :
<> : <from Teh BoOk of Colonel Jake'ster>
<> :
<> : Colonel Jake 1:1 - "If ye eyeballs offend ye?!?!?!,....,
<> : ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` then pluck them little FUCKERS out!!!..."
<> :
<>

but since you're such an?!?!?!,....,
'SToOPID-EVIL-AZZ-FUCKING-KoOK-CLoWN-MoTHERFUCKER?!?!?!,' ....,
teh rest of your drivvel?!?!?! (is SNECKED (DUMBFUCK))..."


author: Sweetness

text:
"bozo" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Jun 1, 12:43 am, "Colonel Jake" <[email]> wrote:

You were so close, Jake, what happened!
I gave you something to recite, you did it, and then you bailed on me.
I was hoping you'd follow through and kill yourself too.
But following two sets of directions back-to-back is beyond you.
What's the problem? Don't you have anything sharp?
Like a knife, a sword, an icepick or MAYBE a saw to cut your head off?
I gave you something to recite and like a champ you ran with it.
But not because you were following directions but because accidents
happen.
You're still dumb as ever.
What am I gonna do with you.
Come visit you on 86th and draw you a picture?
Can't you kill your own damn self!

-BdN-

Well, arent you just the prize of the century.
Do you often go around telling folks you've outted ta kill themselves
?


author: Archimedes Plutonium

subject: Earwax buildup and nose-picking in terms of Evolution

text:
Matthew Montchalin wrote:

    Archimedes Plutonium may have written:
    |I never had athletes foot fungus in all of my life. But I have had
    |the worrisome problem of keeping the ear wax at a tolerable buildup

    |level.

    Okay.

    |Did the Iceman of Otzi Austrian Alps have any earwax or hearing
    |problem??

    Well, that is an interesting question.  We know that the Iceman
    thawed and refroze a handful of times.  He lost his hair during
    that time.  But wax is a substance that lasts longer than skin,
    and yet - of course - the Iceman's skin is well preserved.  My
    best bet is that what little wax he produced was relevant to his
    immediate survival.  (Shall we ponder why so many modern Euro
    males have subcutaneous oil-producing glands that produce
    sebaceous oils and waxes - also known as sebum - and these glands
    are notoriously prone to inflammation and infection by the acne
    bacterium?)

Of the 5 senses, a person is extremely vulnerable to earwax problems.
What I mean is that earwax buildup takes special skill and modern
amenities to
remove without damaging the sense organ. So as we go back in time, loss
of
hearing by early humans must have been a weakpoint in the survival of
many. I
suspect the average lifespan of early humans was around 30 years but in
those
30 years loss of hearing due to earwax and attempts to remove it by
forcing
sticks into the ear must have been painful

I remember seeing on a Viking program of a archaeology dig in Ireland
where a
silver ear wax remover implement was discovered. Apparently by the metal
age
humans were routinely sticking metal into their ears to remove earwax.

I see earwax, unlike the other four senses, as posing a threat to early
man in
that by the age of 20 or 30 his/her hearing would go.

Now a question: An evolutionary question that a medical doctor must
answer.
Question: is picking the nose an evolutionary demand or does the lung
nasal
system
want us to never pick the nose in that the nose cleans itself? Can a
human live a
full life without ever picking the nose or will he/she quickly die? This
relates to
the earwax problem. Perhaps it is not a problem at all and that the
buildup of
earwax will self-clean out of the ear after months of discomfort.

I do not know, let us see if the medical science community can tell us
what is
kosher about earwax and nose-picking.


author: Uncle Al

subject: Re: Earwax buildup and nose-picking in terms of Evolution

text:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[nothing]

Archimedes Plutonium <[email]>
[email]
[email]
(Usenet kill engine)


author: Matthew Montchalin

text:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
|Matthew Montchalin wrote:
|Of the 5 senses, a person is extremely vulnerable to earwax problems.

A problem with any of the 5 senses is a serious one.

|What I mean is that earwax buildup takes special skill and modern
|amenities to remove without damaging the sense organ. So as we go back
|in time, loss of hearing by early humans must have been a weakpoint in
|the survival of many.

Why, certainly.  And the same thing can be said about loss of sight
(blindness), or loss of taste or smell (people eat stuff that poisons
them and kills them), or far worse, loss of touch (leprosy).

Although the loss of a sense is serious, you haven't provided me with
any statistical information to indicate that earwax is a problem with
most humans.  A good many of us have absolutely no wax buildup, and I
can make that statement from personal observation.


text:
|Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
||Of the 5 senses, a person is extremely vulnerable to earwax problems.

Some Vitamin 'A' derivatives are useful in regulating the body's oil
and wax production.  Have you asked your doctor about the topical
application of Retin A on or in your ears to get them to dry out?


author: Steve Short

text:
I have quite often heard the saying: 'mind your own beeswax" (e.g. a common
saying of 'Hawkeye' in MASH). But in my 52 years on this planet (well mostly
on it - allowing for a hazy period between about 1964 and 1972 I couldn't
swear to), I have not yet heard of 'mind your own earwax'!!
I think I shall now email Ruby Waks (Wax?) and suggest a new topic for her
tele-docos!
I am sure the previous posters could 'wax eloquent' on the subject for her
:) :) :) ;)
Now who in this group knows (nose?) a lot about the arcane pleasures of
manual exploration/cleaning of the nasal organ??


subject: Strange piece of stuff?  Bone? comming out of....

text:
Hello,  I posted a few weeks ago about a white spot on the gum side of molar
#31.  I don`t have wisdom teeth. Site was very tender...the gum not the tooth.
I did go to the dentist and he said it was because I was grinding my teeth and
he fixed me up with a night guard.  The spot did get better but never went
away.  It also was slightly raised.....little bump.  Tonight,  just a few
minutes ago,  I felt with my tounge a sharp edge there.  I went and got a
flashlight and tweezers and pulled out a piece of ??  looks like bone.  Bout
1/8" long by about 1/32" deep. Is totally white but jagged.  Looks like bone to
me. Maybe calcium deposit.  After I pulled it out the gum bled for a bit then
stopped.  I saved the little peice of whatever it is to show my dentist.  I
have an appt. next week.  Very strange.
Anyone ever heard of something like this?
Thanks Dan.


author: StovePipe

subject: Re: Strange piece of stuff?  Bone? comming out of....

text:
Mason121 <[email]> wrote:

My bets would be an errant chicken bone or a piece of calculus (tarter).
JMO
SP


text:
Went to the dentist today for a full checkup and cleaning.  Dentist said that
my lower jaw bone has lots of extra bony growths.
Said that some people have these and some have none. Said that when eating
sometime earlier I might have disloged a piece of this extra bone. Thus it lost
it`s blood supply.  Then the body just expelled it.  Makes sense to me since I
couldn`t believe I could get a piece of bone form like a chicken down into the
gum without feeling the pain when it happenned.
Dan.


author: Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

text:
On 17 Aug 2004 04:52:24 GMT, [email] (Mason121) wrote:

Torus mandibularis ,,,,, interesting but of no consequence.

Joel

He is wrong there.

Too bad dentists are not trained in basic sciences ... or so it seems!


text:
So my dentist was wrong.  No one knows what this, it, really was. Oh well
doesn`t really matter now.  The problem is now gone, done, over. Thanks for all
of your inputs.
Dan.


text:
On 18 Aug 2004 04:53:13 GMT, [email] (Mason121) wrote:

Okay, if its gone then it is not torus mandibularis. If it were a
spicule of bone that extruded after an extraction, that's a common
occurrence.

Joel


text:
Hi Joel,  My dentist did mention that a piece of bone extruded after an
extraction was normal.  I never had a tooth extracted at that tooth site....but
yet after a couple of weeks of gum soreness, and that little white spot, a
piece of bone did extrude out of the gum.  I know I said in my last post it was
gone and over but.....now this morning I noticed another white spot on the gum
just below where the other was. The gum is yet again very tender at that spot.
Should I go see a oral surgeon instead of a regular dentist?  This is starting
to freak me out.
Dan.


text:
On 19 Aug 2004 04:43:22 GMT, [email] (Mason121) wrote:

I know what it is ...... it is the remanants of a baby tooth! YUP this
happens.

Joel


author: Patty

text:
I had a strange experience with this last summer. I started having severe
left jaw pain in July and because I have RA, I mostly ignored it. Mid July, the
pain became very localized...felt like I was trying to cut a tooth (I was 45 at
the time LOL). Never had a toothache in my life, but, finally thought maybe
this is what a toothache feels like and saw my dentist. He did an exam, took an
x-ray and saw nothing wrong, except for some minor redness of the gum. About a
week later, the pain became severe and I'd developed a white rough spot on the
side of my gums where my wisdom tooth used to be. Dentist took a look again and
said the bone was exposed, so I needed to see a periodontist right away. He
couldn't figure out why I'd all of a sudden developed gum disease. I saw a
wonderful periodontist that week and what she found surprised her. She said I
had no gum disease and that this 'thing' was very loose and she was just going
to yank it out if I could tolerate it. She had no idea what it was until she
had it in her hand. It was a
1/2" piece of wisdom tooth root. My wisdom teeth had been extracted 20 years
before. Apparently, this piece of root had been trying to work it's way out for
a long time...like a splinter trying to come to the surface. The second it was
out, I had total relief. Both periodontist and dentist said they'd never seen
anything like it before...at least not 20 years after the fact.
-------------
Hoping your hills are never too steep!
Be well, Patty


text:
On 19 Aug 2004 13:52:28 GMT, [email] (Patty ) wrote:

He needs new glasses ......

See above about glasses ......

Or are mostly downhill.

Joel


author: Steve Derry

subject: Columbia rolled out to pad 2/10/94

text:
Bruce Buckingham
407/867-2468                                      Feb. 10, 1994

KSC RELEASE NO. 11 - 94

COLUMBIA ROLLED OUT TO PAD 39B

     Rollout of the Space Shuttle Columbia from the Vehicle
Assembly Building to Launch Pad 39B occurred today with first
motion beginning at 3:15 a.m. Columbia, slated for mission STS-62
will be making its 16th flight into space.

     The Space Shuttle vehicle, atop its mobile launcher
platform, was carried to the launch pad by the crawler
transporter. The 4.2-mile trip to pad 39B took over six hours to
complete.

     Columbia was transferred from the Orbiter Processing
Facility to the VAB on Feb. 3. While there, it was stacked with
the solid rocket boosters and external tank on mobile launcher
platform 1 in VAB high bay 1. Following mating operations, the
vehicle underwent a series of interface tests to verify all
electrical and mechanical systems.

     Launch of Columbia is currently targeted for 8:54 a.m. EST
March 3, on a two-week mission. On board in the payload bay will
be the United States Microgravity Laboratory (USMP) on its second
flight and the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology
(OAST-2) payload.

     The STS-62 Flight Readiness Review is scheduled to occur at
KSC next week on Feb. 16. At that time a firm launch date is
expected to be announced. Also next week, the 5 member crew for
mission STS-62 is scheduled to arrive at KSC for the standard
terminal countdown demonstration test.

     Crew for mission STS-62 are: Commander John H. Casper, Pilot
Andrew M. Allen, and Mission Specialists Pierre J. Thuot,
Charles D. (Sam) Gemar, and Marsha Ivins.


author: David Cornutt

subject: Re: Columbia rolled out to pad 2/10/94

text:
[email] (Steve Derry) writes:

Finally!  *MY* mission! :-)

We've done one internal sim for USMP at the Huntsville Operations
Support Center, and two joint integrated sims with the MCC and
the OAST folks.  We've got one more, which is scheduled for next
Monday.  We're also supporting an Orbiter integrated verification
test after USMP-2 gets loaded in the payload bay.  Our schedule
currently shows 3/22 for that.


subject: Re: Columbia rolled out to pad 2/10/94

text:
[email] (me, quite embarassed) writes:

                                    ^^^^^^^^^^

Oops, that's United States Microgravity *Payload*.  The
United States Microgravity Laboratory is something else.
You'd think by now I'd know what my mission is.  Been
spending too much time trying to get all those Ethernet
taps approved. :-)


author: Laurie Forbes

subject: AB PLC Programming

text:
Hello All:

I have aquired an AB SLC 5.01 PLC and am interested in learning its
programming.  I would appreciate any pointers on where best to obtain
documentation and, how to access programming software.

I am hoping this device can be programmed (with ladder logic?) via a
PC.  The only port on the PLC appears to be a phone jack - is it used
for program downloading?

Thanks in advance for any assistance..........

Laurie Forbes


author: Roger N

subject: Re: AB PLC Programming

text:
"Laurie Forbes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You can download the manuals for free from Allen Bradley.  The "phone jack"
is probably where you plug in the 1747-PIC adapter.  Watch eBay for the
1747-PIC and programming software, someone that has upgraded to RS Logix
might be selling some of their older software.

There are less expensive alternatives, Mitsubishi was selling some PLC's on
eBay with the software.  You can buy the programming cable from them for
$199 or perhaps $130 through a dealer.  Or, you can build the programming
cable, just a MAX232 for voltage level conversion and then a couple of
differential line drivers for the RS-422/485.  I have a schematic of the
cable if you want to go the Mitsubishi route.

Another alternative is Automation Direct, they have a $99 PLC and $99
programming software.
http://www.automationdirect.com


author: Dana Raymond

subject: Re: AB PLC Programming

text:
Start here: http://www.ab.com/manuals/

Dana Frank Raymond

"Laurie Forbes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: AB PLC Programming

text:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:51:41 GMT, "Dana Raymond"
<[email]> wrote:

Thanks for the info but it appears that no inexpensive programming s/w
is available so my PLC is going to have to sit a while longer.  Anyone
want to buy it :)

Laurie Forbes


author: Jack

subject: Question about free range chickens

text:
We have about 10 free range chickens around our house in the country.
Our chickens are more of a hobby but we do enjoy having them supply us
with eggs and we really enjoy seeing them run around the yard.  There
is only one problem with letting them run loose.  They hop up on our
front porch and on our back deck and poop.  They even jump up on the
back of the porch chairs.  How can we stop them from this?    I have a
squirt bottle of water at both the front and back decks and, when we
see them, we squirt the daylights out of them .  Of course they don't
like the water and make a mad rush to get off.  However, they never
seem to learn and keep doing this.  I have thought of getting more
aggressive and peppering their behinds with a bb gun but my wife
thinks it will hurt them and won't let me do it .  Also, I have
thought of putting amonia of cheyenne pepper in the water, but, here
again, my wife thinks I will hurt them.  What can we do to stop this
behavior?


author: Jack Crenshaw

subject: Re: Question about free range chickens

text:
Jack wrote:

Are you serious?  This is not a spam?  It's a serious question?

Every once in awhile, someone comes along with a post like yours. They
have moved into a rural or forest area, partly to enjoy the sights and
sounds of nature. Then they complain because they don't like the way
nature is behaving. They want it _FIXED_ ... usually yesterday. They
threaten pain or death to Nature's creatures, if they don't obey their
orders.

News flash: Living animals poop. You do it, I do it, chickens do it,
worms do it (in which case we don't call it worm poop, but fertile soil).

Your agenda seems to be to have the chickens supply you with eggs and a
pleasing, bucolic sort of view from your porch. But that is not the
chickens' agenda. Theirs is to eat, sleep, poop, and make more chickens.
Get used to it. You are _NOT_ going to be able to explain to them that
you are in charge.

In your situation, you have a few options:

1) Take the chairs off the porch
2) Hook up a water hose with spray nozzle at each porch. Not to squirt
the chickens, but to wash the poop away
3) Build a coop for the chickens
4) Build a coop for yourselves (translation: screen in your porches)
5) Give the chickens to someone who will love them, and get yourself a
poodle.

There's a name for the other remidies -- BB guns and ammonia water --
you suggest. It's called cruelty to animals, and you can be prosecuted
and sent to jail for it.

As well you should be.

Jack


author: A _L_ P

subject: Re: Question about free range chickens

text:
Jack wrote:

You can't.  Look at it from the chickens' point of view.  90% of the
time *at least* they can go on your porch and deck and chairs and there
is no human to chase them away.  People buy lottery tickets with
infinitely worse odds of success.  Once in a blue moon a human comes
along and makes a fuss, but hey, thinks the chicken, we all make a fuss
occasionally, look at Fluffybum, she makes a terrible fuss if anyone
tries to go into the nest box when she's there but she gets over it.

Put netting around your deck or around your chickens.  Shooting them is
plain dumb.  It WILL hurt and it won't teach them.  Poisons and eye or
skin irritants are plain ugly, are you taking Guantanamo Bay as your
role model?  Torture is SO not right for any decent human being to
inflict on another creature.

Kill them cleanly or look after them well, those are the two choices.
Poop is a small price for the pleasure most of us get from our chickens
and other critters, including baby children.

Live with the poop or make fences.

A L P


author: Sally Thompson

subject: Re: Question about free range chickens

text:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:13:41 +0100, A _L_ P wrote
(in article <[email]>):

I'm not one normally to make "me too" responses, but I just wanted to say I
couldn't agree with you more, A L P.  If you want chickens just for the eggs,
leave them in a run.  If you want them to part of your lives, and part of
your garden, live with it.  Our four (two of whom do /big/ poops) have taken
to hanging around the top picnic table, very often one on each chair and one
on the table.  Sure, we'll have to scrub it before we use it, but the hen
party picture which I took is well worth it.

I love to see my hens around the garden, and when I have to leave them shut
in their run if we are out for a significant length of time, I can't wait to
rush to let them out when we return.  They give us endless amusement, and I
don't expect them to be house-trained.

I did rather wonder if the OP was a deliberate flame, it seemed so
unreasonable.

Sorry, rant over!


author: Jill

subject: Re: Question about free range chickens

text:
Sally Thompson wrote:

except many types of birds cannot cope with being enclosed ;)

The compromise is to use something like electric netting to create a more
controlled area, away from the house, but still giving the birds lots of
space.
I do not like hens enclosed permanently in small runs outside, its giving
them lots of stimulation of what is around them, but no gratification - mega
frustration. Its worse than being inside, where at least the stimulation
level is lower. Short periods of time, is fine.
The other option, if the area is big enough is to locate their house further
away from the human house, that way the human house is not so accesible to
them.
But if not then its a decorative railing or fence for your deck, as ALP
suggests.


author: Gene Douglas

subject: Re: Nancy Alvarado apparently an Immoral, Depraved Liar.

text:
Actually, upon re-reading this, I think Brad said the same thing I did.
His syntax was a little hard to read, and I misunderstood what he was
trying to say.

 Gene Douglas wrote:
quoted
well
the
a
(or
inappropriate
that
the
you
(with


author: Bob

subject: fireplace log starter

text:
I removed the cheapo log set that was in my fireplace and disconnected the
aluminum connection hose/tubing from the black pipe.
What can I use for a starter?I was thinking about just getting some black
pipe connectors and running a length of pipe with holes drilled in it under
the grate.Anybody got any ideas?Thanks for your input.
Bob


author: Jamie Arnold

subject: Re: fireplace log starter

text:
You mean like this?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20564&item=2084084040

On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:37:01 GMT, "Bob" <[email]> wrote:


author: Eastburn

subject: Re: fireplace log starter

text:
That is the basic idea - with a valve that adjusts the air flow as
the gas comes through the pipe.  Take a good look at the www page -
The professional ones are not very expensive at the hardware store.

Martin


author: jkherp

subject: Praying mantis

text:
Hey I was just wanting to know one thing about praying mantises and
that is do they have to mate in order for the egg cases to be fertile
and hatch.  I have heard that they dont need to mate but then I have
also heard that they do need to mate so that the eggs will be fertile
and hatch.  Im sure somebody out there can help me with this.

          jordan


author: Michael Boese

subject: Re: Praying mantis

text:
Hi!
it depends on specie whether they have to mate or reproduce parthenogenetic
(virgin birth).

---------------------------------------------------
Regards
Michael Villy Boese
Denmark
---------------------------------------------------


subject: Re: Praying mantis

text:
Last year I had two types of mantises and they were both females one
of them was a chinese mantis and the other was a carolina mantis.
Both of them produced 2 egg cases each and they had not mated.  None
of the egg cases ever hatched and I had read on a couple sites that
chinese mantises dont need to mate in order to have fertile eggs.

           Thanks for responding.


author: wnl

subject: Re: Praying mantis

text:
"jkherp" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

hmm.. asexual reproduction..in mantisies? interesting..  :: scratches chin
::


author: Mikhail Zeleny

subject: Deconstruction Deconstructed (was re: Paul de Man)

text:
Andy Lowry <[email]> wrote:

Do that.  I would be happy to discuss Vickers' alleged cluelessness
in some detail, as I would any objections to Meyer Abrams' take on
the same subject in _Doing Things with Texts_.  My present interest
in de Man is insufficient to motivate an unassisted close reading of
his own writings, but if somebody wants to send me a beat-up copy of
his _Allegories of Reading_, I could be persuaded to change my mind.

Get real.  It is a critical commonplace that such impingement takes
place.  We naturally read _A Farewell to Arms_ through the historical
experience of WWI, particularly as lived by Ernest Hemingway.  To read
it otherwise requires an argument to the effect that the meaning of
literary texts is somehow autonomous, in the sense of being independent
of the circumstances of their production.  While the roots of all such
arguments are to be found in the head of Gorgias, its modern expression
is due to Marcel Proust's ad hominem polemic contre Sainte-Beuve, which
I already rebutted in this thread.  Not much else than an ad hominem
rebuttal is called for, because the Gorgian argument is essentially an
ad hominem one, sustaining the irrationalist conviction that an effect
not only can be, but ought to be understood in isolation from its cause.
But there is nothing else but causes available for our understanding of
any phenomena in nature, as there is nothing else but reasons available
for our understanding of any concepts therein.  To dirempt causes from
reasons in the manner of Proust or de Man is to subvert the possibility
of understanding.  In each case, this misological subversion can be
plausibly understood as a shameful attempt to hide details of personal
life, because repudiation of impartial reason can be undertaken only
from the standpoint of private interest.

I don't think anyone can accuse Dewey of not having read Kant -- maybe
not having read him too well, but read him all the same.  Nor is it a
priori nonsensical to read Kant as a precursor of Nazism; in general,
this form of reading instantiates the familiar figurative hermeneutics
of type and anti-type, originated in the Christian biblical criticism.
As any historical act, meaning can only be understood in retrospect,
and knowledge of its consequences is no less valuable to the project
of understanding than the knowledge of its causes.  As you ought to
have said, such appeals to history can be dangerous only if and when
they turn out to be excuses for not reading texts in the first place;
for example, "reading" Kant as a precursor of Nazism without having
read Kant.

Because I think that anything is a matter for serious discussion,
After all, seriousness is an attitude that need not reflect the
nature of its object, as witness the methodology of `pataphysics.
If you wish to discuss de Man's doctrines, which are an exemplary
subject for `pataphysical research, the citations are furnished
are as good a place to start as any.

See below.

No more so than is customary in this medium.

A year ago, Mario Taboada suggested in this venue a public thread
on Derrida's _De la grammatologie_, in order to give everyone "an
opportunity to discuss *specific* points, both of content and style,
with a specific book in mind -- rather than the generalized pro and
con posts that do not really say much about Derrida."  I seconded
Mario's suggestion and recommended as supplementary texts Plato's
_Sophist_, _Theaetetus_, and _Statesman_; _La logique ou l'art de
penser_ of Port-Royal; Frege's "Ueber Sinn und Bedeutung"; as well
as Guthrie's History of Greek Philosophy, Edwards' Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, and Peters' lexicon of Greek Philosophical Terms.  Once
again I leave it to someone else to recommend the odium of Heidegger.

Starting with the first chapter, "la fin du livre et le commencement
de l'ï¿½criture", my first text is Derrida's argument that in due course
leads to his key assertion that "en derniï¿½re instance, la diffï¿½rence
entre le signifiï¿½ et le signifiant _n'est rien_":

	L'ï¿½vidence rassurante dans laquelle a dï¿½ s'organiser et doit
	vivre encore la tradition occidentale serait donc celle-ci:
	l'ordre du signifiï¿½ n'est jamais contemporain, est au mieux
	l'envers ou le parallï¿½le subtilement dï¿½calï¿½ -- le temps d'un
	souffle -- de l'ordre du signifiant.  Et le signe doit ï¿½tre
	l'unitï¿½ d'une hï¿½tï¿½rogï¿½nï¿½itï¿½, puisque le signifiï¿½ (sens ou
	chose, noï¿½me ou rï¿½alitï¿½) n'est pas en soi un signifiant, une
	_trace_: en tout cas n'est pas constituï¿½ dans son sens par son
	rapport ï¿½ la trace possible.  L'essence formelle du signifiï¿½
	est la _prï¿½sence_, et le privilï¿½ge de sa proximitï¿½ au logos
	comme _phonï¿½_ est le privilï¿½ge de la prï¿½sence.  Rï¿½ponse
	inï¿½luctable dï¿½s lorsqu'on se demande "qu'est-ce que le signe?",
	c'est-ï¿½ dire lorsqu'on soumet le signe ï¿½ la question de
	l'essence, au "ti esti".  L'"essence formelle" du signe ne
	peut ï¿½tre dï¿½terminï¿½e qu'ï¿½ partir de la prï¿½sence.  On ne peut
	contourner cette rï¿½ponse, sauf ï¿½ recuser la forme mï¿½me de la
	question et commencer ï¿½ penser que le signe [est] cette
	[chose] mal nommï¿½e, la seule, qui ï¿½chappe ï¿½ la question
	institutrice de la philosophie: "Qu'est-ce que...?"

I translate:

	The reassuring evidence wherein the Western tradition had to
	organize itself and must continue to live even now, would
	therefore be as follows: The order of the signified is never
	contemporaneous, is at best the inverse or the parallel subtly
	displaced -- displaced by the time of a breath -- from the
	order of the signifier.  And the sign must be the unity of a
	heterogeneity, since the signified (sense or thing, noema or
	reality) is not in itself a signifier, a _trace_: at any rate
	is not constituted in its sense by its relation to a possible
	trace.  The formal essence of the signified is the _presence_,
	and the privilege of its proximity to the logos as _phone_ is
	the privilege of the presence.  This is the inevitable response
	as soon as one inquires: "What is the sign?", that is to say,
	when one submits the sign to the question of theessence, to
	the "ti esti".  The "formal essence" of the sign cannnot be
	determined, except in terms of the presence.  One cannot avoid
	this response, except by recusing the very form of the question
	and beginning to think that the sign [is] that ill-named [thing],
	the only one, that escapes the founding question of philosophy:
	"What is...?"

So let us take a concrete example: the string of physical tokens
(phonemes or graphemes) `y', `o', `n', `d', `e', `r', ` ', `p', `u',
`p', `p', and `y' as our signifier, the concept of yonder puppy as
our signified, and yonder puppy as our thing.  Now, what Derrida is
claiming cannot be true of the Platonic stratification of meaning.
For Plato, unlike the concrete event that comprises the signifier,
the abstract object that is the signified exists outside of the
spatiotemporal realm, and hence can be neither identified with nor
explained in terms of physical or mental states or events, which
are characterized by ubiety and duration.  For the same reason, the
kind of palpable presence manifested by phonemes or graphemes that
comprise the signifier, cannot be imputed to the signified, which
is present only in so far as it is grasped by the intellect of a
party in intra- or interlocution.  And for the same reason, it is
unintelligible to talk about some displacement in the sense of a
temporal gap between "the order of the signifier" and "the order
of the signified".  For the former relation is physical, being
exemplified by the temporal succession of phonemes and the spatial
succession of graphemes, whereas the latter one is logical, being
characterized by the relation of implication or the one of logical
containment such as the one that obtains between the concept of
yonder puppy and the concepts of there and of now, and of a young
domesticated carnivorous mammal Canis familiaris, as well as the
conceptual associations of conceited or inexperienced youth or
man's best friend.  And since the two orders in question are
clearly incommensurable, the signified can be said to precede the
signifier only in the ontological sense, as being a necessary
component in signification.	 Which is Plato's point in the first
place.

Let us suppose to the contrary that, as Derrida sets himself up to
conclude, the string of tokens `y', `o', `n', `d', `e', `r', ` ',
`p', `u', `p', `p', and `y' nowise differs from its associated
concept of yonder puppy.  To square this view with the canonical
definition of a sign as "aliquid stat pro aliquo" or something
standing for something else, Derrida's denial of difference has
to be taken in kind rather than in in degree, for otherwise no
signifier could signify anything strictly distinct from itself.
So a charitable interpretation of Derrida's claim would be that
the signifier does not differ from the signified in kind: as long
as the physical realm has not been "put under erasure", if the
former is physical, so must be the latter.  One problem with this
view is that it fails to leave any room for the origins of language,
either generally, as a historically evolved capacity of thitherto
inarticulate beings to designate things and convey their properties
and relations to each other and themselves, or in particular, as a
revolutionary innovation precipitated by an instance of thitherto
unconventional and unaccounted for linguistic practice.

Put yourself in the shoes of Stï¿½phane Mallarmï¿½ agonizing over a
novel, thitherto unexpressed meaning of the word "ptyx", formerly
used in ancient and modern Greek to designate a seashell:

	Ses purs ongles trï¿½s haut dï¿½diant leur onyx,
	L'Angoisse, ce minuit, soutient, lampadophore,
	Maint rï¿½ve vespï¿½ral brï¿½lï¿½ par le Phï¿½nix
	Que ne recueille pas de cinï¿½raire amphore

	Sur les crï¿½dences, au salon vide: nul ptyx
	Aboli bibelot d'inanitï¿½ sonore,
	(Car le Maï¿½tre est allï¿½ puiser des pleurs au Styx
	Avec ce seul objet dont le Nï¿½ant s'honore.)

	Mais proche la croisï¿½e au nord vacante, un or
	Agonise selon peut-ï¿½tre le dï¿½cor
	Des licornes ruant du feu contre une nixe,

	Elle, dï¿½funte nue en le miroir, encor
	Que, dans l'oubli fermï¿½ par le cadre, se fixe
	De scintillations sitï¿½t le septuor.

In awkward but faithful terms, the second quatrain means
approximately as follows:

	Her pure nails very high dedicating their onyx,
	Anxiety, this midnight, sustains, lamp-bearing,
	Many a vesperal dream burnt by the Phoenix
	That are not collected by a cinerary [sepulchral] urn.

	On the credenzas [sideboards] in the empty salon: no ptyx
	Abrogated trinket of resonant inanity
	Because the Master went to draw tears from Styx
	With that unique object wherein Nothingness takes pride.

	But near the crossing to the vacant north, a gold
	Agonizes, perhaps, according to the decor
	Of unicorns breathing fire at a water-nymph,

	She, defunct naked in the mirror, again
	Whom in the lapse of memory enclosed by the frame, fixes
	Of scintillations as soon as the septuor [seven-part composition].

By apposition, a ptyx is an abrogated trinket of resonant inanity,
whereas the absent ptyx in question, having been carried away by
the Master to be used for drawing tears from Styx, is that unique
object wherein Nothingness takes pride.  (Incidentally, the second
line refers to the word itself as well as the thing it is intended
thenceforth to designate, since the sonnet is described by its
author as auto-allegorical: the frame, also the outer part of the
sonnet, namely the first quatrain and the second tercet, determines
the meaning of the septuor, a seven-part composition, in the present
case a well-known constellation and the middle part (second quatrain
plus first tercet) of the sonnet; and constellations, as every
schoolchild knows, are among the few things that exist in the eyes
of the beholder only.)  The point relevant to our discussion is that
Mallarmï¿½'s linguistic innovation, forced upon him purely by the
paucity of the French vocabulary in supplying masculine rhymes in
ix/yx, is inexplicable by any linguistic events anterior thereto.

Put yourself in the shoes of the first man called upon to designate
yonder puppy by a proper name, prior to the discovery of any other
linguistic device.  (It should go without saying that this scenario
is compatible with any other choice of the hypothetical object of
the original dubbing.)  Thus instead of your customary inarticulate
grunts, you muster the word "Fido".  From the hypothesis, your word
is the very first signifier in the human history, and therefore a
sign, that is something standing for something else, namely the
signified concept of Fido.  Again, from the hypothesis, there are
no other signifiers around as yet.  In what sense could the formal
essence of the signified be the "presence", and the privilege of its
proximity to the logos as _phone_, or concrete significant speech,
be the privilege of the presence?  In so far as your circumstances
defer all possible explanations of your signification to the future,
the signified of "Fido" is absent, contrary to what Derrida claims.
Indeed, consider that if the signifier "Fido" does not stand for a
contemporaneous and therefore transcendent "something else" that it
signifies, but merely serves as a proxy for other signifiers, be
they preceding or succeeding, in our scenario they can only be the
latter.  So now suppose that shortly after your dramatic discovery
of language, your tongue is scorched as you enjoy the deliverances
of your prior discovery of fire, and no human successor of yours
ever has the wherewithal to recover your accomplishment.  It follows
that your one and only significant deployment of the name "Fido" was
meaningless, contrary to the initial hypothesis.  Thus Derrida stands
refuted.

cordially,
mikhail [email] a.k.a. [email]
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy
"Nous donnons la mort et savons la subir."

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


subject: Re: Deconstruction Deconstructed

text:
Silke's failure to cross the pons asinorum of my argument against
Derrida has prompted me to spell out some points that I previously
took to be obvious.  I remain puzzled by her attempt to re-title her
misguided cavils as ``Deconstruction Reconstructed'' -- presumably, if
deconstruction is a Good Thing, so is its application to itself.  I am
taking the opportunity to complement my analysis with a discussion of
another putative key point in the deconstructionist lore, purloined
from contemporary logic and published in _La dissimulation_.  Herewith
is the latest iteration of Deconstruction Deconstructed.  Pardon my TeX.

A year ago, Mario Taboada suggested in this venue a public thread on
Derrida's _De la grammatologie_, in order to give everyone ``an
opportunity to discuss *specific* points, both of content and style,
with a specific book in mind -- rather than the generalized pro and
con posts that do not really say much about Derrida.''  I seconded
Mario's suggestion and recommended as supplementary texts Plato's
_Sophist_, _Theaetetus_, and _Statesman_; _La logique ou l'art de
penser_ of Port-Royal; Frege's ``\"Uber Sinn und Bedeutung''; as well
as Guthrie's History of Greek Philosophy, Edwards' Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, and Peters' lexicon of Greek Philosophical Terms.  Once
again I leave it to someone else to recommend the odium of Heidegger.

Starting with the first chapter, ``la fin du livre et le commencement
de l'\'ecriture'', my first text is Derrida's argument that in due course
leads to his key assertion that ``en derni\`ere instance, la diff\'erence
entre le signifi\'e et le signifiant {\it n'est rien}'':

        L'\'evidence rassurante dans laquelle a d\^u s'organiser et
        doit vivre encore la tradition occidentale serait donc
        celle-ci: l'ordre du signifi\'e n'est jamais contemporain, est
        au mieux l'envers ou le parall\`ele subtilement d\'ecal\'e --
        le temps d'un souffle -- de l'ordre du signifiant.  Et le
        signe doit \^etre l'unit\'e d'une h\'et\'erog\'en\'eit\'e,
        puisque le signifi\'e (sens ou chose, no\`eme ou r\'ealit\'e)
        n'est pas en soi un signifiant, une {\it trace}: en tout cas
        n'est pas constitu\'e dans son sens par son rapport \`a la
        trace possible.  L'essence formelle du signifi\'e est la {\it
        pr\'esence}, et le privil\`ege de sa proximit\'e au logos
        comme {\it phon\`e} est le privil\`ege de la pr\'esence.
        R\'eponse in\'eluctable d\`es lorsqu'on se demande ``qu'est-ce
        que le signe?'', c'est-\`a dire lorsqu'on soumet le signe \`a
        la question de l'essence, au ``ti esti''.  L'``essence
        formelle'' du signe ne peut \^etre d\'etermin\'ee qu'\`a
        partir de la pr\'esence.  On ne peut contourner cette
        r\'eponse, sauf \`a recuser la forme m\^eme de la question et
        commencer \`a penser que le signe [est] cette [chose] mal
        nomm\'ee, la seule, qui \'echappe \`a la question institutrice
        de la philosophie: ``Qu'est-ce que...?''

I translate:

        The reassuring evidence wherein the Western tradition had to
        organize itself and must continue to live even now, would
        therefore be as follows: The order of the signified is never
        contemporaneous, is at best the inverse or the parallel subtly
        displaced -- displaced by the time of a breath -- from the
        order of the signifier.  And the sign must be the unity of a
        heterogeneity, since the signified (sense or thing, noema or
        reality) is not in itself a signifier, a {\it trace}: at any
        rate is not constituted in its sense by its relation to a
        possible trace.  The formal essence of the signified is the
        {\it presence}, and the privilege of its proximity to the
        logos as {\it phone} is the privilege of the presence.  This
        is the inevitable response as soon as one inquires: ``What is
        the sign?'', that is to say, when one submits the sign to the
        question of theessence, to the ``ti esti''.  The ``formal
        essence'' of the sign cannnot be determined, except in terms
        of the presence.  One cannot avoid this response, except by
        recusing the very form of the question and beginning to think
        that the sign [is] that ill-named [thing], the only one, that
        escapes the founding question of philosophy: ``What is...?''

So let us take a concrete example: the string of physical tokens
(phonemes or graphemes) `y', `o', `n', `d', `e', `r', ` ', `p', `u',
`p', `p', and `y' as our signifier, the concept of yonder puppy as our
signified, and yonder puppy as our thing.  Now, what Derrida is
claiming cannot be true of the Platonic stratification of meaning.
For Plato, unlike the concrete event that comprises the signifier, the
abstract object that is the signified exists outside of the concrete
spatiotemporal realm, and hence can be neither identified with nor
explained in terms of physical or mental states or events, which are
characterized by ubiety and duration.  Nor can a Platonic sign be
``the unity of a heterogeneity'', since the totality of such unities
would comprise an additional fourth realm, straddling the first realm
of the concretely material and the third realm of the abstractly
universal; and to impute this conception to Plato is to accuse him of
innumeracy.  Moreover, the unity of sign, as postulated by Derrida
following Saussure, is of the type that unites the number two with a
pair of kidneys; and while this unification is intelligible on the
Aristotelian view of {\it universalia} such as numbers or concepts
{\it in rebus}, ontologically on par with things such as kidneys, or
pigment traces on flat surfaces, or vibratory disturbances in the
pressure and density of a fluid or gaseous medium, it makes no sense
on the Platonic views of {\it universalia ante rem}, existing prior to
and independently of their realization by particular objects or
events.  For similar reasons, the kind of palpable presence manifested
by phonemes or graphemes that comprise the signifier, cannot be
imputed to the signified, which is present only in so far as it makes
an impression in the second realm of thought by being grasped by the
intellect of a party in intra- or interlocution; the presence is that
of the thought in understanding, but neither presence nor absence is
predicable of the concept being understood: thus, though diamonds are
forever and thoughts of diamonds fleeting, the concept of diamond
exists outside of space and time.  And for similar reasons, it is
unintelligible to talk about displacement in the sense of a temporal
gap between ``the order of the signifier'' and ``the order of the
signified''.  For the former relation is physical, being exemplified
by the temporal succession of phonemes and the spatial succession of
graphemes that exemplify its relata, whereas the latter one is
logical, being characterized by the relation of implication that
obtains between the concept of being the positive root of the equation
$x^2=4$ and the concept of being the number two, or the one of logical
containment such as the one that obtains between the concept of yonder
puppy and the concepts of there and of now, and of a young
domesticated carnivorous mammal Canis familiaris, as well as the
conceptual associations of conceited or inexperienced youth or man's
best friend.  And since the two orders in question are clearly
incommensurable, the signified can be said to precede the signifier
only in the ontological sense, as being a necessary component in
signification.  Which is Plato's point in the first place.

For the purpose of a {\it reductio ad absurdum}, let us suppose to the
contrary that, as Derrida sets himself up to conclude in due course,
the string of tokens `y', `o', `n', `d', `e', `r', ` ', `p', `u', `p',
`p', and `y' nowise differs from its associated concept of yonder
puppy.  To square this view with the canonical definition of a sign as
``aliquid stat pro aliquo'' or something standing for something else,
a signifier for the signified, Derrida's denial of difference has to
be taken in kind rather than in in degree, for otherwise no signifier
could signify anything strictly distinct from itself.  So a charitable
interpretation of Derrida's claim would be that the signifier does not
differ from the signified in kind: as long as the physical realm has
not been ``put under erasure'', if the former is physical, so must be
the latter.  One problem with this view is that it fails to leave any
room for the origins of language, either generally, as a historically
evolved capacity of thitherto inarticulate beings to designate things
and convey their properties and relations to each other and
themselves, or in particular, as a revolutionary innovation
precipitated by an instance of thitherto unconventional and
unaccounted for linguistic practice.

Put yourself in the shoes of St\'ephane Mallarm\'e agonizing over a
novel, thitherto unexpressed meaning of the word ``ptyx'', formerly
used in ancient and modern Greek to designate a seashell:

        Ses purs ongles tr\`es haut d\'ediant leur onyx,
        L'Angoisse, ce minuit, soutient, lampadophore,
        Maint r\^eve vesp\'eral br\^ul\'e par le Ph\'enix
        Que ne recueille pas de cin\'eraire amphore

        Sur les cr\'edences, au salon vide: nul ptyx
        Aboli bibelot d'inanit\'e sonore,
        (Car le Ma\^{\i}tre est all\'e puiser des pleurs au Styx
        Avec ce seul objet dont le N\'eant s'honore.)

        Mais proche la crois\'ee au nord vacante, un or
        Agonise selon peut-\^etre le d\'ecor
        Des licornes ruant du feu contre une nixe,

        Elle, d\'efunte nue en le miroir, encor
        Que, dans l'oubli ferm\'e par le cadre, se fixe
        De scintillations sit\^ot le septuor.

In awkward but faithful terms, the sonnet translates as follows:

        Her pure nails very high dedicating their onyx,
        Anxiety, this midnight, sustains, lamp-bearing,
        Many a vesperal dream burnt by the Phoenix
        That are not collected by a cinerary [sepulchral] urn.

        On the credenzas [sideboards] in the empty salon: no ptyx
        Abrogated trinket of resonant inanity
        Because the Master went to draw tears from Styx
        With that unique object wherein Nothingness takes pride.

        But near the crossing to the vacant north, a gold
        Agonizes, perhaps, according to the decor
        Of unicorns breathing fire at a water-nymph,

        She, defunct naked in the mirror, again
        Whom in the lapse of memory enclosed by the frame, fixes
        Of scintillations as soon as the septuor [seven-part composition].

By apposition, a ptyx is an abrogated trinket of resonant inanity,
whereas the absent ptyx in question, having been carried away by the
Master to be used for drawing tears from Styx, is that unique object
wherein Nothingness takes pride.  (Incidentally, the second line
refers to the word itself as well as the thing it is intended
thenceforth to designate, since the sonnet is described by its author
as auto-allegorical: the frame, also the outer part of the sonnet,
namely the first quatrain and the second tercet, determines the
meaning of the septuor, a seven-part composition, in the present case
a well-known constellation and the middle part (second quatrain plus
first tercet) of the sonnet; and constellations, as every schoolchild
knows, are among the few things that exist in the eyes of the beholder
only.)  The point relevant to our discussion is that Mallarm\'e's
linguistic innovation, forced upon him purely by the paucity of the
French vocabulary in supplying masculine rhymes in ix/yx, is
inexplicable by any linguistic events anterior thereto.

Put yourself in the shoes of the first man called upon to designate
yonder puppy by a proper name, prior to the discovery of any other
linguistic device.  (It should go without saying that this scenario is
compatible with any other choice of the hypothetical object of the
original dubbing.)  Thus instead of your customary inarticulate
grunts, you muster the word ``Fido''.  From the hypothesis, your word
is the very first signifier in the human history, and therefore a
sign, that is something standing for something else, namely the
signified concept of Fido.  Again, from the hypothesis, there are no
other signifiers around as yet.  In what sense could the formal
essence of the signified be the ``presence'', and the privilege of its
proximity to the logos as {\it phone}, or concrete significant speech,
be the privilege of the presence?  In so far as your circumstances
defer all possible explanations of your signification to the future,
the signified of ``Fido'' is absent, contrary to what Derrida claims.
Indeed, consider that if the signifier ``Fido'' does not stand for a
contemporaneous and therefore transcendent ``something else'' that it
signifies, but merely serves as a proxy for other signifiers, be they
preceding or succeeding, in our scenario they can only be the latter.
So now suppose that shortly after your dramatic discovery of language,
your tongue is scorched as you enjoy the deliverances of your prior
discovery of fire, and no human successor of yours ever has the
wherewithal to recover your accomplishment.  It follows that your one
and only significant deployment of the name ``Fido'' was meaningless,
contrary to the initial hypothesis.  Thus Derrida stands refuted.

Let us consider another example of deconstructionist legerdemain, this
time purporting to rest on the prestige of XXth century mathematics.
In his own reading of Mallarm\'e, Derrida purports that textual
allusion is undecidable, by analogy with G\"odel's propositions
obtainable by diagonalization in any recursively axiomatized formal
system capable of representing its own syntax, e.g. by means of
arithmetizing it:

        Une proposition ind\'ecidable, G\"odel en a d\'emontr\'e la
        possibilit\'e en 1931, est une proposition qui, \'etant
        donn\'e un syst\`eme d'axiomes qui domine une multiplicit\'e,
        n'est ni une cons\'equence analytique ou d\'eductive des
        axiomes, ni en contradiction avec eux, ni vraie ni fausse au
        regard de ces axiomes.  {\it Tertium datur}, sans synth\'ese.

I translate:

        An undecidable proposition, whereof Goedel demonstrated the
        possibility in 1931, is a proposition that, given an axiomatic
        system that determines a multiplicity, is neither an analytic
        or deductive consequence of the axioms not in contradiction
        with them, neither true nor false with respect to these
        axioms.  {\it Tertium datur}, without synthesis.

This passage, which is put to prominent use in Arkady Plotnitsky's
heroic attempt to integrate Derrida into the fringes of contemporary
science by way of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, is exemplary of
that paragon of deconstructionist argumentation, the transition from
the blandly uncontroversial to the egregiously unsupportable, subtly
displaced -- displaced by the space of a comma.  To say that G\"odel's
fixpoint proposition ``is neither an analytic or deductive consequence
of the axioms not in contradiction with them'' is to state no more
than the incontrovertible, as proven in his First Incompleteness
theorem of 1931; to continue that it is ``neither true nor false with
respect to these axioms'' falsifies not only the facts of the matter,
but also G\"odel's own interpretation thereof.  For unlike the
syntactical facts of deductive consequence or contradiction, which are
{\it ex hypothesi} fully representable in the axiomatic system in
question, and hence internal thereto, by Tarski's 1929 theorem, the
semantical facts of truth or falsehood cannot be so represented, and
hence are transcendent of sheer syntax.  Indeed, a semantical
consideration that admits of distinguishing between truth and
falsehood, {\it ipso facto} distinguishes between true and false
G\"odelian fixpoint propositions, those that assert the consistency of
the axiomatic system whose coding generates them (or equivalently,
assert their own unprovability), and those that assert the
derivability of a contradiction within it.  Thus G\"odel himself
spells out in connection with an example of the former, $[R(q);q]$,
that ``From the remark that $[R(q);q]$ says about itself that it is
not provable it follows at once that $[R(q);q]$ is true, for
$[R(q);q]$ {\it is} indeed unprovable (being undecidable).  Thus, the
proposition that is undecidable {\it in the system PM} still was
decided by metamathematical considerations.''  Considerations of this
sort are, of course, precisely the forms of reasoning whose very
possibility is gainsaid by Derrida's denial of the difference between
the signifier and the signified.  And likewise his deployment of
undecidability against the phallogocentric binary opposition between
truth and falsehood runs counter to the mathematical content of
G\"odel's concept.

cordially,
mikhail [email] a.k.a. [email]
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


author: CLMCeal

subject: Re: The Engineering Software Exchange Newsletter

text:
Thank you.  I would like to be on your subscrition list.

___________
Daniel Dickson
CLM Systems, Inc.
Tampa, FL


author: Dave Ryman

subject: Help needed with Resistors

text:
Hi,
   I'm new to this group.

    	I did some (very) basic electronics at school, but need to step
down a DC voltage, and am getting a little unsure if I have things right.

    	I'm stepping 6v (4xAAA batteries) down to 5.2v. I intend to use a
potential divider with 2 120R resistors on the +ve side (in parallel) and
a 390R resistor on the 0v side. This, I calculate, will give me 5.2v on
the output.

    	The device being powered may draw upto 320mA. First question: Am I
right in assuming that 2W resistors will be ok for this?

    	Second question: I found some helpful stuff on the net. One circuit
is for a loaded PD circuit. Am I right in assuming that my device will
put an impedance of 1.6R across the output of my PD and therefore change
the voltage? Or is this irrelevant since the load is after the supply of
the correct voltage?


author: Walter Harley

subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
"Dave Ryman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns93D1863DD394Ddaverymanhotmail@130.133.1.4...

Hey, Dave, the other responses to your question have been on target, but it
sounds like there are still a few things that could be made more clear.

1. Batteries are not ideal components.  Their voltage varies significantly
depending on how much current is being drawn and how exhausted they are (and
on many other factors as well).  A nominal 1.5v battery might be 1.55v, or
it might be 0.8v, or less.

2. In addition to any resistances you use for dividers, you need to take
into account that the battery has internal resistance -  higher for a small
battery like a AAA, and higher as the battery approaches end of life - and
the load also has resistance.  These resistances may not be constant, and
may be hard to calculate or measure, but they are for real and they will
affect your calculations.

3. Diodes have a nominal voltage drop of around 0.7v, but it is more at
higher current and less at lower current.

4. A decent voltmeter draws essentially no current from the circuit it is
measuring.

5. Ohm's Law is your friend.  Voltage dropped across a resistance equals
current times resistance.  However, many components (such as diodes and
batteries) have different resistances depending on how much current is
passing through them, which makes the calculation more difficult.  For DC,
power dissipated equals current times voltage.

By the way, whether you use a diode or a resistor or something else to drop
the voltage, if there's voltage across it and current going through it at
the same time, it's going to dissipate power and heat up.  If you really
want to drop 0.8v at 325mA, that's about a quarter of a watt, which will be
too much for a small diode.  Make sure your diode is rated for at least
twice the needed power, to be safe.


author: A E

subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
Dave Ryman wrote:

Only with no load, for a few minutes, as the battery voltage goes down, because
of the load of the resistors.

No.

Yes.

No, you will need resistors ten times smaller than your load to make a divider
that gives a voltage close to what you want, in other words, practically a short
circuit.

A resistive voltage divider is the absolute worst way to achieve your goal.
The divider itself is a load to the batteries and will draw current even without
anything connected.
The usual way to get a lower voltage from a higher one is to use a regulator.
A regulator drops some voltage regardless of the load current going through it,
within limits.
But you have an dropout, or difference between your input and output voltage of
only .8 volts, barely enough to get a linear LDO (low drop out) regulator to
work, and leaves you with little to no headroom as the voltage drops.
You have several choices:
1) You will need a switcher of some sort.
2) Find out if your 5.2V device will care at all if connected to 6V.
3) Use a diode in series with your batteries. A regular silicon rectifier drops
about 0.7v at 10mA and stays fairly constant at 0.7V even as the current
increases. So you put one in series with the batteries and you get 5.3V roughly.
But the drop of the diode stays constant as your battery voltage drops, so now
you need to know if your device will work with less than 5.2V, which is why
regulators exist.

I recommend you calculate how the load will change the voltage on your divider,
just slap your 1.6 ohm in parallel with your 390, and recalculate your voltage.
Fun, huh? :)


subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
"Walter Harley" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Thanks very much - I am more than a little inexperienced in electronics,
knowing more-or-less what I remember from school.

Many answers on this newsgroup has helped expand my understanding, and
I've done a bit of reading up on the net.

I now realise that batteries offer a voltage during their life which is
about as consistent as a bus timetable. I also realise that there are
problems introduced by the resistance of the device connected.

I've gone for a Voltage-regulator solution, using a VR with low dropout-
voltage (since I'm only dropping about 1 volt from the supply provided by
the batteries). This, I believe, should do the job. My only concern is
how much heat will be generated by the VR, and whether current will be
drawn by the VR when the device is not connected. I am hoping that a few
holes in the case will allow heat to escape, and I guess removing the
batteries when not in use will prevent the second problem (if it is a
problem at all).


subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
A E <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Thanks. This concurs with the man in the electronics shop I went into
today. The battery holder I'm using (used to be an emergency battery
holder for a mobile phone) already has such a diode connection, so life
is suddenly much easier.

Thanks again


subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
"Dave Ryman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns93D4ECD2FA27Cdaverymanhotmail@130.133.1.4...

You can calculate the heating.  The power dissipated is V * I, so
approximately 1v * 325mA (by your numbers) which equals .325W, that is,
about a third of a watt.  The regulator device's datasheet will specify a
couple of "thermal resistance" numbers measured in degrees celsius per watt,
typically one for "junction to case" and one for "junction to ambient".  If
you subtract one from the other, you'll get a measure of how much the
resistance from case to ambient in free air is.  So, let's say that there's
1.5 C/W from junction to case, and 100 C/W from case to ambient (I'm making
these numbers up).  Then, at .325W, the case is going to be 32.5 degrees C
hotter than ambient, and the junction (inside of the device) will be about
.5 degree hotter than that.  If ambient is 25C, the case will be 57C.

Be aware that junction to ambient is usually rated for free air, not a tiny
sealed enclosure.

If you mount to a heat sink, then the heat sink will be rated for some
thermal resistance, and the connection between the device and the heat sink
will be rated, and so forth.  The resistances add; it's sort of like Ohm's
Law again, with electrical power filling the role of thermal current, and
temperature filling the role of thermal voltage.  That is, T = P*R.

Much more intuitively: a third of a watt in a physically small device with
no heat sink is generally going to make it hot to the touch after a few
minutes of operation, but not so hot as to melt plastic.

  -walter


subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
"Walter Harley" <[email]> wrote in
news:bha1mh$ksl$0@216.39.172.65:

Thanks very much to everyone who helped me out on this - The case is now
wired up (with air-holes drilled either side of the circuitry), and
supplies a constant 4.8v. We've tested it on the Gameboy Advance SP, and
it charges it's internal battery up from part-charged in a few minutes.
In case you're wondering, Sony don't do external batteries or anything
for the SP yet.

:-))


subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
A E <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Well, I've tried it....

Four 1.5v AAA Batteries give me a reading of 6.5v. With the diode added,
it actually stays exactly the same: 6.5v, sometimes drops to 6.4.

I didn't realise batteries produced such a varying voltage - each one is
producing just over 1.6v.

So is a Voltage regulator the way to go? I have no idea about these
devices, how they behave or how I wire them up. I have seen voltage
regulators on the net described as "5v" - If I wire these to a 6.0 ->
6.5v supply, do I get a steady 5v out the other end?

Some help would be greatly appreciated.


author: K Wind

subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
"Dave Ryman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns93D2101F92F9Ddaverymanhotmail@130.133.1.4...

Do you have the batteries connected to what you plan on powering? It doesn't
sound like it. If not, you will have the same voltage reading on both sides
of the diode.

Ken


subject: Voltage regulator (was "Help needed with Resistors")

text:
Dave Ryman <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns93D2101F92F9Ddaverymanhotmail@130.133.1.4:

I think I have it sorted. I am thinking of using the LM2940CT regulator
to provide me a voltage of 5v +/- 0.15v from a 6v +/- 0.5v source (ie:
4x AAA batteries).

The circuit I'm planning on is:
http://www.maplin.co.uk/media/largeimages/8063i0.jpg

The only thing I'm not certain about is the heat generated by the
regulator: I'll be drawing a maximum of 320mA, and am unsure about
heatsink requirements.


author: Boris Mohar

subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
On 9 Aug 2003 00:35:04 GMT, Dave Ryman <[email]>
wrote:

 You just stuck a diode in series with the battery and measured the other
end if the diode (cathode) without hooking up the load?  Read this

http://people.deas.harvard.edu/~jones/es154/lectures/lecture_2/diode_characteristics/diode_characteristics.html


subject: Re: Help needed with Resistors

text:
"K Wind" <[email]> wrote in
news:PLlZa.69551$[email]:

Thanks for your help - I realise that now!


author: Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'

subject: Re: Voltage regulator (was "Help needed with Resistors")

text:
In article <Xns93D219283A32Adaverymanhotmail@130.133.1.4>,
[email] mentioned...

Umm, if the pic gets any smaller, it's going to disappear!

You had better think about getting some bigger batteries, too!  329 mA
is an awful lot even for AA cells.  In fact, with that much current,
the voltage may drop to the point where the regulator won't work.
When you use batteries, you have to decide at what point you consider
the batteries depleted or discharged.  Some equipment considers this
to be 1V per cell, so your AAAs would be putting out only 4V at that
point.


text:
Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun' <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

The power supply is being used to effectively charge the lithium battery
in the equipment - in the same way as an emergency backup for a mobile
phone. I do not believe that the batteries need to "live" very long to
do this: It is a messy fix for a friend who is unable to use a mains
charger where they are.

I used to use the same process for emergency charging my Nokia mobile: I
got a few full charges out of one set of AAAs (alkaline).


text:
In article <Xns93D2EB4D5802Adaverymanhotmail@130.133.1.4>,
[email] mentioned...

In that case, here's an interesting circuit.  You can use the circuit
on the right of the picture to charge the batt by replacing the LED
with the cells.  The T2 transistor has to be low Vce(sat), so a 2SD965
or NTE 11 will work best, but a BC639 or BC337 will work okay, you
just won't get as much current.

http://www.belza.cz/ledlight/ledm.htm