No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList
Thread
'The (AVR and ) COP800'
1997\07\04@005024
by
paulb
|
James wrote:
> You might also want to look at National COP800. They have
> some pretty interesting parts also.
If the COP881 is representative of that series, then most of us can
happily forget that one!
Reason? Well, the programming algorithms are **TOTALLY** unavailable,
released only to third-party manufacturers on pain on non-disclosure
agreement, blah, blah, blah, etc.
Why do you think PICs have become so popular all of a sudden? Two
reasons actually, one is that they have been made available in small
quantity (i.e., less than 1000 pcs), and the other is the 16C84 with
the ability to be programmed with a dead simple circuit using publically
available algorithms. The rest is history as they say. In fact, the
decision by MicroChip to publically release the programming data for
the other devices has arguably been a prerequisite for the popularity as
a series.
I submit that any other manufacturer fulfilling the same two criteria
would have enjoyed the same success (had they wanted to?). Motorola for
example has the MC68HC05K2 which is just as easy to program, but simply
not available in the same sense as the PICs.
I have a quantity of COP881CMHD-3 (Windowed EPROM) purchased second
hand, and they are since offered even cheaper (I won't offend you with
the price!). As useful as the proverbial teats on a bull (I presume
this translates OK?) because support=0.0 . Look at them you may, but
that's ALL I can do with them!
Cheers,
Paul B.
1997\07\04@234320
by
Sarunas Cepulis
|
Paul B. Webster wrote:
{Quote hidden}>
> James wrote:
>
> > You might also want to look at National COP800. They have
> > some pretty interesting parts also.
>
> If the COP881 is representative of that series, then most of us can
> happily forget that one!
>
> Reason? Well, the programming algorithms are **TOTALLY** unavailable,
> released only to third-party manufacturers on pain on non-disclosure
> agreement, blah, blah, blah, etc.
>
> Why do you think PICs have become so popular all of a sudden? Two
> reasons actually, one is that they have been made available in small
> quantity (i.e., less than 1000 pcs), and the other is the 16C84 with
> the ability to be programmed with a dead simple circuit using publically
> available algorithms. The rest is history as they say. In fact, the
> decision by MicroChip to publically release the programming data for
> the other devices has arguably been a prerequisite for the popularity as
> a series.
>
> I submit that any other manufacturer fulfilling the same two criteria
> would have enjoyed the same success (had they wanted to?). Motorola for
> example has the MC68HC05K2 which is just as easy to program, but simply
> not available in the same sense as the PICs.
>
> I have a quantity of COP881CMHD-3 (Windowed EPROM) purchased second
> hand, and they are since offered even cheaper (I won't offend you with
> the price!). As useful as the proverbial teats on a bull (I presume
> this translates OK?) because support=0.0 . Look at them you may, but
> that's ALL I can do with them!
>
> Cheers,
> Paul B.
Hi,
Small stop !!!
the ATMEL software is free on her website,just look for it.
(Windows application,thery good).
They can use simple Downloading (ISP) via centronix port(AVR).
COP devices is OTP, ATMEL is FLASH (about 1000 cycles of downloading)!?
Compare it with PIC16C84 $ PIC16C5xx ?
Best regards,
Saras.
'Fluid Measurement =>2800 pulses a liter.'
1998\01\11@093540
by
Tha Machine
Hello EveryBody,
I'm quite new to pic's, so dont blame me if a ask a stupid question. The
teatcher on school couldnt help me, because nobody ever used a PIC.
I have a 16c84 running a 4 Mhz, now I want to measure the fluid (beer) that
has been used. The meter has an accuracy of 3% and gives 2800 pulses each
liter. I planned to use this on the Timer Inttrupt (TMR0). Has anyone a
piece of VERY EASY code for thiz?
Many Thanks.
Greetz,
Radboud Verberne,
PE1RUH (QRV on 2 meter only).
THa MaCHiNe!
1998\01\11@100944
by
Tha Machine
----------
> Van: Tha Machine <spam_OUTmachineTakeThisOuT
dds.nl>
> Aan: Pic List <.....PICLISTKILLspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> Onderwerp: Fluid Measurement =>2800 pulses a liter.
> Datum: zondag 11 januari 1998 15:35
>
> Hello EveryBody,
>
> I'm quite new to pic's, so dont blame me if a ask a stupid question. The
> teatcher on school couldnt help me, because nobody ever used a PIC.
> I have a 16c84 running a 4 Mhz, now I want to measure the fluid (beer)
that
{Quote hidden}> has been used. The meter has an accuracy of 3% and gives 2800 pulses each
> liter. I planned to use this on the Timer Inttrupt (TMR0). Has anyone a
> piece of VERY EASY code for thiz?
>
> Many Thanks.
>
>
> Greetz,
>
> Radboud Verberne,
> PE1RUH (QRV on 2 meter only).
>
>
> THa MaCHiNe!
'pass out 800 number...get PAID WEEKLY! (so easy)'
1998\01\14@184708
by
ctc66
|
All you do is pass out an 800 number and GET PAID...
This is rediculously easy...
No selling required!
You can easily make thousands a week just passing out
the 800 number below with your code number. In a short
period of time, I have increased my income to $1500 dollars
a week, not bad for one month..This is the easiest money
that I've ever made.
The company does 100% of the selling for you, closes the deal,
and sends you $100 for every sale! You're paid weekly and
there is even a built in residual that goes with it. I have seen
a lot of programs, but nothing comes close to this.
If you can't make money here, Please go back to bed.
Sincerely,
Craig (Code: 48346)
Don't miss this opportunity! Call now!
1-800-811-2141 (8-10, Mon - Sat) (If busy, keep trying)
(In Canada call: 1-800-588-9786)
24 hour 3 minute overview: (619) 685-5505
Fax on Demand info: (281) 890-3370 doc.#264
This company has been in business for 2 years.
************************************************************
"By deleting your unwanted E-Mail you waste one key stroke, yet
by throwing away paper mail you waste a planet! SAVE OUR TREES
and support internet E-Mail instead of traditional mail!"
'Good MC68000 simulator'
1999\03\01@203722
by
Sean Breheny
Hi all,
I am working on a homework assignment in which I must simulate several
simple MC68k programs. I have a freeware simulator but it seems buggy (It
is getting confused about big endian vs. little endian!)
Does anyone have a suggestion for a freeware 68k sim?
If possible,please respond soon. I will be having trouble with this
assignment until I find such a simulator that works.
Thanks,
Sean
|
| Sean Breheny
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
| Electrical Engineering Student
\--------------=----------------
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
shb7KILLspamcornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174
'K8000/ADB_IO'
1999\03\23@100342
by
bmohnsen
What is the relationship between the K8000 computer interface board for
PC's or ADB_IO for the Mac and programming a microcontroller?
Bonnie
'[PIC] RTL8009 Ethernet'
2002\08\08@130725
by
Barry Gershenfeld
Okay, I tried to take this OT, but I guess it's too relevant. However
it's not about the 877 so at least the subject changes.
I was reminded of two other things...
>See if you can get it configured for 0x300, IRQ 3 or 5
>and see if it works, I think the ne2k driver should work.
You might have to (or be able to) bring the computer up under DOS
and run a program that configures or reloads the card. Then
restart with the power on and the ne driver will be happy
with it. I used to have to do this with my laptop to get
the card off of interrupt the mouse was using. Setup programs
for the MS side are all over the Web.
>Tried 'modprobe -v ne', then 'ifconfig x.x.x.x eth0' ? Also look at
>'dmesg|less'. All as root.
There is a not-well-advertisted switch to ifconfig, it's -a and it
will show you your ethernet cards whether they are "up" or not.
They still have to have the driver running, though, something
which you also want to use lsmod (list-modules) to check. And
you said it fails so we already know the result of that.
BTW, isn't it 'ifconfig eth0 x.x.x.x up' ?
Barry
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Harold M Hallikainen wrote:
> Drifiting off topic... Last weekend I decided to take an old ISA 486
> and move it from Windoze 3.11 to RH 7.3 The machine has a no name NE2000
> compatible card in it. It's based on the RTL8009. I can't find a Linux
> driver for it. No one has responded yet on news:comp.os.linux.help . I
> can't find anything in Google other than other people looking for the
> same thing. Anyone know of a driver for such a card?
--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
2002\08\08@162046
by
Peter L. Peres
|
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Barry Gershenfeld wrote:
{Quote hidden}>Okay, I tried to take this OT, but I guess it's too relevant. However
>it's not about the 877 so at least the subject changes.
>
>I was reminded of two other things...
>
>>See if you can get it configured for 0x300, IRQ 3 or 5
>>and see if it works, I think the ne2k driver should work.
>
>You might have to (or be able to) bring the computer up under DOS
>and run a program that configures or reloads the card. Then
>restart with the power on and the ne driver will be happy
>with it. I used to have to do this with my laptop to get
>the card off of interrupt the mouse was using. Setup programs
>for the MS side are all over the Web.
>
>>Tried 'modprobe -v ne', then 'ifconfig x.x.x.x eth0' ? Also look at
>>'dmesg|less'. All as root.
>
>There is a not-well-advertisted switch to ifconfig, it's -a and it
>will show you your ethernet cards whether they are "up" or not.
>They still have to have the driver running, though, something
>which you also want to use lsmod (list-modules) to check. And
>you said it fails so we already know the result of that.
>
>BTW, isn't it 'ifconfig eth0 x.x.x.x up' ?
up is implied if the line looks as above. Works on my systems at least.
if the card is not found (some messages in dmesg) then things look bad.
However at $7.50 to $9 a card (new) I would not lose too much sleep over
it. The father of ne is xxx8390 and there is a module called 8390.o that
implements this. It's the part that really talks to the chip. xxx8390 was
the original NE chip I think.
Peter
--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
2002\08\10@083950
by
Brandon Fosdick
|
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Harold M Hallikainen wrote:
>
> > Drifiting off topic... Last weekend I decided to take an old ISA 486
> > and move it from Windoze 3.11 to RH 7.3 The machine has a no name NE2000
> > compatible card in it. It's based on the RTL8009. I can't find a Linux
> > driver for it. No one has responded yet on news:comp.os.linux.help . I
> > can't find anything in Google other than other people looking for the
> > same thing. Anyone know of a driver for such a card?
I missed the original post...
Not that I'm trying to start another flame war, but I know for a fact that
FreeBSD has a driver for the NE2000 and it works just fine. I used one for
several years in an old 486 that was given a second life as a server. Go here
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.6R/hardware-i386.html#ETHERNET and scroll down
till you see it.
--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
2002\08\11@201857
by
Peter L. Peres
|
|
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Harold M Hallikainen wrote:
>>
>> > Drifiting off topic... Last weekend I decided to take an old ISA 486
>> > and move it from Windoze 3.11 to RH 7.3 The machine has a no name NE2000
>> > compatible card in it. It's based on the RTL8009. I can't find a Linux
>> > driver for it. No one has responded yet on news:comp.os.linux.help . I
>> > can't find anything in Google other than other people looking for the
>> > same thing. Anyone know of a driver for such a card?
>
>I missed the original post...
>
>Not that I'm trying to start another flame war, but I know for a fact that
>FreeBSD has a driver for the NE2000 and it works just fine. I used one for
>several years in an old 486 that was given a second life as a server. Go here
>http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.6R/hardware-i386.html#ETHERNET and scroll down
>till you see it.
This was the original post. The problem is, that the RTL8009 is not
supported directly.
Peter
--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
'[BUY]: Motherboard for Compaq 1800T'
2003\09\25@150934
by
Alexandre Souza
Dear Friends,
I'm on need of a motherboard for the Compaq 1800T notebook, model 18XL4. Does anyone
knows where can buy it? Even used? Nothing found on e-bay, of course.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/03
--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
2003\09\27@193437
by
John Ferrell
www.pcpartfinder.com/
I don't no what an 1800T is, but these people sold me a cable for my laptop
display a short while back...
Parts always cost too much though!
John Ferrell
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606
johnferrellspam_OUTearthlink.net
Dixie Competition Products
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190 W8CCW
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"
{Original Message removed}
'[AD]:any one need at24C02N? I have totally 1800.'
2004\07\26@082848
by
Paul Lee
2004\07\26@085212
by
Mike Harrison
2004\07\26@091249
by
Paul James E.
2004\07\26@095407
by
Paul Lee
2004\07\26@101321
by
John J. McDonough
'[OT] Flight 800'
2004\09\23@191050
by
Jack Smith
'[OT] TWA 800 & Airline Safety'
2004\09\24@041956
by
Nate Duehr
|
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> B) avoid setting in an air-conditioned plane on a hot day for better than 4
> hours (passengers WERE given the option to deplane and reschedule) because
> dead = dead and even if the airline is very safe, and no one is out to get
> me, accidents like this HAVE happened.
>
> C) redouble our efforts to make sure that more than sufficient venting is
> available in anything we design. Because dead = dead, we can learn from the
> past, and make it better. Without worry about whose fault it was.
I believe if you hunt a little further, you'll find there were some
concrete rules set by the FAA (other countries may or may not have
similar requirements -- something to think about when you're flying on a
non-U.S. carrier is that the rules are NOT the same for them...
countries like Australia have EXCELLENT aviation processes, some other
countries... <shudder>).
I believe one that came out of TWA 800 is that if any tanks are going to
be left empty on certain long-haul flights, they must now be pumped full
of an intert gas like nitrogen. But I'd have to go do some more
research -- pretty sure I saw that in passing during my aviation reading.
Many carriers flying 747's on trans-atlantic flights where the extra
fuel load was limiting and where the added weight penalty wasn't worth
it, were opting to leave that center tank empty, as it was the easiest
place to leave off fuel without having to be extra-cautious about fuel
loads and lateral trim due to uneven wing-tank loads.
Since TWA 800, I believe most carriers have adopted massive changes in
operational procedure on when and how long tanks can be operated empty
on almost all aircraft types since the TWA accident.
There were also Airworthiness Directives posted against various aircraft
for inspection and/or replacement of the types of wiring harnesses that
caused the spark.
Again, this is stuff I read "in passing", so someone who's done the
research can give better details -- but suffice it to say the NTSB's
recommendations are rarely are ignored on accidents like this one.
The only NTSB recommendations that seem to be pooh-poohed regularly are
the crew rest and turnaround time recommendations -- sleepy pilots are a
commonplace scene on most international flights nowadays, and the extra
effort required to keep the flight crew "safely" locked in the cockpit
for extended periods of time isn't helping that situation at all.
The commonplace practice of "standing overnights" used by most domestic
carriers to get around the eight-hour crew rest rules by having a flight
crew report very late in the day, fly the aircraft to an outstation,
sleep for less than four hours and then return in the morning, has been
a safety hazard for many many years. The total "duty day" still falls
within the maximum allowed (in most cases 12 hours), but the real human
beings in the cockpit are tired and worn out. It leads to all sorts of
mistakes.
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/acr_fatg.pdf
ASRS is probably the most interesting way to learn what's troubling
pilots, ground crew, and others in aviation from a safety perspective.
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
ASRS is a way for U.S. pilots to report flight safety events anonymously
and in return, a certain (not 100%) amount of removal of liability from
the event is given the pilot(s) turning in such a report. Some joke
that it's a "get out of jail free" type of thing, but it's not... if
there was a life-threatening safety issue where a pilot broke the rules,
the FAA will always find a way to get them. Which is good. Even if an
ASRS form was filed. But NASA realized that incidents happen out there
that would normally go completely unreported, and many years ago set up
the ASRS system to allow for some immunity from punishment for pilots
who want to help report problems with the overall system.
Most professional pilots who value their careers carry ASRS forms with
them and file immediately upon any type of incident taking place,
meaning that the data NASA gets from the program is excellent.
There's all sorts of interesting and/or scary data in that database,
depending on if you're a "cup is half full" or "cup is half empty" type
of personality. Good stuff.
Nate
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@051839
by
Lee Jones
|
> ASRS is probably the most interesting way to learn what's troubling
> pilots, ground crew, and others in aviation from a safety perspective.
>
> http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
ASRS is the Aviation Safety Reporting System. Excellent resource.
It's housed at the Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, CA (near
San Jose, south tip of San Francisco bay).
> ASRS is a way for U.S. pilots to report flight safety events anonymously
> and in return, a certain (not 100%) amount of removal of liability from
> the event is given the pilot(s) turning in such a report.
Not just pilots -- all flight crew including cabin attendants,
ground crew, and ATC (air traffic control) personnel.
> Most professional pilots who value their careers carry ASRS forms with
> them and file immediately upon any type of incident taking place,
> meaning that the data NASA gets from the program is excellent.
Non-professional pilots too.
Form includes contact information on strip at the top of the
page. When NASA's ASRS program office receives the report,
it date/time stamps the strip and returns it to the submitter.
You use that as your proof of timely filing if the FAA initiates
action on the incident.
Before returning the strip, NASA's ASRS program office sometimes
contacts the submitter to gather additional data and/or clarify
certain items in the report. The promise is that the final data
is stored with total anonymity.
ASRS houses the information in a data base that is available to
be searched and cross-referenced for research into safety, human
factors, etc.
They produce and publish a monthly bulletin called ASRS Callback.
It's 1 page legal size (8.5" x 14" double sided). It highlights
various safety issues with excerpts from submitted ASRS reports.
It covers whatever the editor thinks is important. I love it.
It's an excellent way to learn from someone else's mistake or who
got trapped by circumstance ... and lived to tell about it.
Lee Jones
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@061527
by
Howard Winter
Lee,
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:24:24 -0700, Lee Jones wrote:
> ASRS is the Aviation Safety Reporting System. Excellent resource.
Indeed - the CAA here has CHIRP (Confidential Human-factors Incident Reporting System). Highlights are
published every month, and make very good reading - unless you're a nervous passenger, of course! Seeing what
other people did wrong is a very good way to equip yourself not to do the same things.
"Pilot" magazine here has an item each month entitled "I learned about flying from that" which is a story of
something that went wrong, contributed by readers. I did wonder about writing in with my own story - my log
book shows "Heavy takeoff!" and the thing I learned is that when you are the pilot, you devote all the
brainpower it needs to do that job properly, and ignore any banter that's going on between passengers, however
interesting it is to join in. I *very* nearly put the aircraft into some crops (about 3' high) that were
growing beside the runway...
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@165901
by
Nate Duehr
|
|
Howard Winter wrote:
>Lee,
>
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:24:24 -0700, Lee Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>>ASRS is the Aviation Safety Reporting System. Excellent resource.
>>
>>
>
>Indeed - the CAA here has CHIRP (Confidential Human-factors Incident Reporting System). Highlights are
>published every month, and make very good reading - unless you're a nervous passenger, of course! Seeing what
>other people did wrong is a very good way to equip yourself not to do the same things.
>
>
Hopefully, yes!
>"Pilot" magazine here has an item each month entitled "I learned about flying from that" which is a story of
>something that went wrong, contributed by readers. I did wonder about writing in with my own story - my log
>book shows "Heavy takeoff!" and the thing I learned is that when you are the pilot, you devote all the
>brainpower it needs to do that job properly, and ignore any banter that's going on between passengers, however
>interesting it is to join in. I *very* nearly put the aircraft into some crops (about 3' high) that were
>growing beside the runway...
>
>
My personal "I learned from that" story is the day there were
thunderstorms building 20 miles or more away. My instructor and I were
doing what you guys call "circuits and bumps" heh... I love that
phrase... "touch and goes" over here.
Anyway, to make a long story short, as we're turning final I notice I'm
very high and fast and didn't expect to be, so I pull the power off
smoothly and apply carb heat. Instructor also sees the sight picture is
wrong and starts asking me to pull the power, which I've already done.
He reaches over and pulls on my wrist (my hand is already pulling on the
throttle) and confirms I'm already at idle.
We look over and see a flagpole near the end of the runway has a flag
pointed straight at us and fully extended... okay, wind came up and it's
"straight down the runway". (Straight down was the only accurate part
of that assumption... read on.)
I get the nose up and get us slowed up a bit more and kinda get the
aircraft to sink a bit in a nose-high attitude with lots of flaps and a
small slip to help get rid of all this altitude... and then it hits...
1000 FPM - 1500 FPM down and the airspeed indicator moving very quickly
toward the bottom peg, stall horn squeaks and I stuff the nose over to
keep her flying... and of course get rid of the cross-correction
immediately. And of course now I'm slowly (shouldn't have been slow...)
feeding the power back in. Now instructor is paying attention!
All of a sudden I see him have a flash of realization and the call comes
- "I've got the airplane, you stay on the controls, I want you to feel
what's happening here."
He holds the nose in a slightly high attitude and pushes the power all
the way up. At this point we're 300 feet in the air and headed down in
a real hurry, even with full power and 20 degress of flaps.
We arrived (I wouldn't call it a landing) at 1200 FPM down. Instructor
flew an attitude instead of a speed with that full-power setting,
knowing that the aircraft we were flying would "hang on the prop" fairly
well with plenty of air being blasted over the wing by the prop, or we'd
have hit a lot harder. Squiiiiish. Thank goodness for spring-steel
landing gear.
We look down to the other end of the runway and the windsock is sticking
straight out, pointed directly AWAY from us.
At this point, my brain is swimming, so we taxi off and watch as gusty
little dust devils and puffs of strong wind rock everything for another
minute or so and then calm returns with light breezes directly down the
runway again. Taxiing in was a challenge, big gusts rocking the aircraft.
What happened? Well... let's just say thank goodness my instructor also
flew for a major air carrier and had been through microburst training.
We flew directly into a 1500 FPM or stronger downdraft that was located
directly over the approach end of the runway. The windsock and the flag
just happened to be in the right places to "see" it. They're at
opposite ends of that particular runway, and they both stayed straight
out pointing OPPOSITE directions while we taxied in and after we parked
and just watched with awe.
It was like turning on a garden hose and pointing it at the ground...
the wind goes out in all directions away from it. So at first, you're
flying high and fast and the air is coming directly at you... as you
pass into the center you're in the downdraft and then on the opposite
side the airspeed and altitude all run out at the same time, which we
all know as pilots to be a "Bad Thing(TM)".
Flying through it during an approach in a jet (like the Delta flight in
Dallas) can be deadly because right at the time you need the power the
turbines are spun down -- you were high and fast and you pulled the
power and then you can't regain it quick enough in the middle of the
microburst. The microburst training I mentioned is, of course, now
standard for line crews -- deviations of airspeed greater than 20-30
knots on approach trigger an immediate reaction from the pilots to begin
thinking about microburst/windshear activity today.
But did I ever think I'd see it in a small aircraft? Nope. Sure was a
surprise.
So that day I learned a number of things, but probably the most
important ones were:
- Every approach is a new one, no matter how long you've been going
around the pattern. Pay attention to the conditions, the weather, and
of course, other aircraft.
- If the sight picture and what the aircraft are doing don't make
sense... ask why. If there's two pilots on board, ask why out loud.
The first time we actually communicated out loud that something was
wrong with the approach was when he made the "I've got it" call. That's
crappy cockpit resource management.
- Cessnas fly pretty well in nose-up full power conditions, even when
being pushed down hard by outside forces. (GRIN)
- If there's more than one windsock, look at ALL of them.
- Sometimes aggressive use of power and or pitch is REQUIRED. Don't be
lulled into always trying to fly "smooth". When the situation calls for
it... that throttle better go forward QUICKLY.
Nate
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@181246
by
Jim Korman
2004\09\24@184352
by
Bob J
Nate you are very lucky, I had some friends (one was a CFII) who were
killed in a Piper Warrior while in the vicinity of a thunderstorm,
cruising at 2000ft. The NTSB report was rather vague, but it cited
the likely cause as a microburst.
Regards,
Bob
built/flying RV-6
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@190217
by
Dave VanHorn
At 05:43 PM 9/24/2004, Bob J wrote:
>Nate you are very lucky, I had some friends (one was a CFII) who were
>killed in a Piper Warrior while in the vicinity of a thunderstorm,
>cruising at 2000ft. The NTSB report was rather vague, but it cited
>the likely cause as a microburst.
People don't really appreciate the force of these things.
During my Skywarn watches, I've been on the receiving end of them, which is one reason I drive an SUV. The extra weight helps a lot.
The winds are quite impressive, I've seen figures of >100MPH, and they can be accompanied by large hail and torrential rain.
I saw a grocery store that was destroyed by a downburst. The DB blew in one of the roll up doors, inflated the building, and blew out one of the exterior walls, collapsing that part of the building.
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@192129
by
Nate Duehr
Bob J wrote:
>Nate you are very lucky, I had some friends (one was a CFII) who were
>killed in a Piper Warrior while in the vicinity of a thunderstorm,
>cruising at 2000ft. The NTSB report was rather vague, but it cited
>the likely cause as a microburst.
>
>Regards,
>Bob
>built/flying RV-6
>
>
Yeah, we still talk about that one whenever I see my old instructor...
very very glad he had the training to recognize it.
I'm jealous of the RV-6!!! You dog!
Nate
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@193624
by
Nate Duehr
Jim Korman wrote:
> Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> YOU are a very lucky person! Most people don't live to tell
> about it. Sounds like you had a very good IP.
Yep, he is a very good stick and was a chief pilot for a flight school
for a few years. He's got an ability to read students and know right
where they're at on the learning curve and how to customize that day's
training to fill in their gaps, whatever they might be. Masterful,
really -- as I learned more I could watch him doing it to me. Student
not acting confident? Do some simple basic maneuvers and demand the
student nail them to within +-20 feet. Student does, instant confidence
boost. Stuff like that.
Continental has him driving the big'uns (757 / 767) nowadays.
Nate
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@193849
by
Nate Duehr
|
|
Dave VanHorn wrote:
>At 05:43 PM 9/24/2004, Bob J wrote:
>
>
>
>>Nate you are very lucky, I had some friends (one was a CFII) who were
>>killed in a Piper Warrior while in the vicinity of a thunderstorm,
>>cruising at 2000ft. The NTSB report was rather vague, but it cited
>>the likely cause as a microburst.
>>
>>
>
>People don't really appreciate the force of these things.
>During my Skywarn watches, I've been on the receiving end of them, which is one reason I drive an SUV. The extra weight helps a lot.
>The winds are quite impressive, I've seen figures of >100MPH, and they can be accompanied by large hail and torrential rain.
>
>
I haven't done any Skywarn stuff in years... my schedule doesn't line
up with sitting out on the plains watching thunderstorms in the
afternoon anymore. Kinda miss it.
I didn't know you were a ham Dave. Cool stuff. WY0X here.
>I saw a grocery store that was destroyed by a downburst. The DB blew in one of the roll up doors, inflated the building, and blew out one of the exterior walls, collapsing that part of the building.
>
That must have been impressive to watch.
Nate
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\24@195428
by
Dave VanHorn
>
>>I saw a grocery store that was destroyed by a downburst. The DB blew in one of the roll up doors, inflated the building, and blew out one of the exterior walls, collapsing that part of the building.
>That must have been impressive to watch.
>Nate
I wasn't there when it happened, but I bet it was.
I just make up the time in the evenings. :)
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\25@040346
by
Howard Winter
Nate,
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:35:50 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Continental has him driving the big'uns (757 / 767)
nowadays.
My flying-club's former CFI used to fly Merchantmen (big
4-turboprop freighters, based on the Vanguard, I think).
The flight deck was so big that each pilot had their own
throttles, because they wouldn't be able to reach a
single set in the middle. One of her colleagues used to
refer to 737s as "light twins"! :-)
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
2004\09\25@070327
by
Russell McMahon
> Flying through it during an approach in a jet (like the Delta flight in
> Dallas) can be deadly because right at the time you need the power the
> turbines are spun down
I recall an account of the situation when "wind shear" was first being
recognised after a commercial crash. The results from the flight recorder
was used to programme a simulator with equivalent conditions. Experienced
pilots were asked to fly a simulator approach and only told "save the
aircraft at all costs, land if you can". Thus warned that something
"unusual" was going to happen, but with no warning about what it was, about
80% crashed.
RM
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
'[OT] Airline Safety (was: TWA 800 and Airline Safe'
2004\09\25@150816
by
Nate Duehr
|
|
On Sep 25, 2004, at 4:55 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Flying through it during an approach in a jet (like the Delta flight
>> in Dallas) can be deadly because right at the time you need the power
>> the turbines are spun down
>
> I recall an account of the situation when "wind shear" was first being
> recognised after a commercial crash. The results from the flight
> recorder was used to programme a simulator with equivalent conditions.
> Experienced pilots were asked to fly a simulator approach and only
> told "save the aircraft at all costs, land if you can". Thus warned
> that something "unusual" was going to happen, but with no warning
> about what it was, about 80% crashed.
>
Hi Russell, I wondered if you'd jump in here. ;-) How's your flying
going?
That was the Delta crash - same one. The microburst that hit the
aircraft during final approach caused speed excursions in excess of 40
knots if I remember correctly. One of the major indications that this
is happening (without outside wind references) is major changes in
airspeed (and groundspeed if you have something like GPS on board)
during the approach with no changes in pitch or power (angle of
attack).
Crews now train to immediately engage TOGA (Takeoff-Go Around) if the
aircraft is equipped and execute a go-around during wind-shear events,
and most of the data that supports that procedural change can be tied
directly back to the Delta crash in Dallas.
The only solace for me is that statistically now that I've had it
happen once to me directly, I'm not statistically likely to have it
happen again. On the other hand, Dr. Fujita (his name is where the
name of the "F-scale" like "F-5 Tornado" comes from) did much of his
study for his insightful wind-shear, microburst, and severe weather
studies about 20 miles from my home in an open field. That open field
is less than a mile from where Denver International Airport sits today.
Gotta love bureaucrats - picked a lovely place for an airport! Oh,
that's also why DIA gets all of the high-tech wind-shear warning
gadgets very early in their test-cycles too! Modifications to
controller procedures now include required callouts on the tower's
arrival and departure frequencies of wind-shear events as measured by
those tools. You hear "Attention all aircraft: Wind Shear Alert in
progress. Wind at north airport boundary 350 @ 10, Mid-runway 270 @
15..." etc, quite often when listening to DIA's tower. The engineer
that created those tools for the controllers has probably saved a few
lives.
You guys are making me want to get away from this computer and go over
to APA for a little zooooomin'! (Keep it up! Heh!) I love flying
from an airport where the ATIS includes "Check Density Altitude" on hot
days! :-)
Speaking of TOGA, I was reading in ASRS about a number of incidents
where the TOGA switch was inadvertently toggled during taxi
operations... whoooooosh! Heh. Amazing how something designed to take
workload off the pilot like TOGA, where one just pushes a button and
proper takeoff power is set automagically, can also be a royal pain in
the hind-end when not wanted.
Hmmm... you guys have me wondering if any of the current crop of PC
flight sims can simulate a windshear or even cooler, a microburst
event. Probably not, but that'd be fun to code up the WX data to have
people try to shoot an approach in one in a light aircraft. Could be
used as an eye-opener for new instrument pilots.
Nate
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
'[EE][EE:] Problem on DAC (DAC0800) and PWM freq'
2004\09\29@055203
by
Pang
|
Sorry for the double [EE]. I have been away for a year
and so many changes has taken place. The new listinfo
does not mention on the colon, but i put in both in
case. Hopefully this third mail will get through.
{Quote hidden}> Hi all,
>
> I am attempting to encode audio signals using an
> internal ADC of an Atmel microcontroller and
> subsequently playback using either the PWM method or
> a
> DAC.
>
> I have tried using the PWM and the playback audio is
> acceptable with a sampling frequency (also PWM freq)
> of ~31KHz, 10 bit ADC. The output of the PWM is
> connected to a 5th order filter to remove the higher
> freq.
>
> Question
>
> 1. The PWM method produces a background noise
> similar
> to the sound of raining. Could this be due to the
> unclean filtering of the higher frequency generated
> from the PWM square wave ? It seems that the only
> way
> is to generate the PWM at a much higher frequency,
> so
> as to effectively reduce the noise through
> filtering.
> Can anyone recommend any chips or controller that
> can
> generate a symetric PWM (freq and phase correct) at
> a
> higher freq ?
> Or can anyone advice on a good filter that provide a
> cutoff at around 8KHz?
> Any advice is very much appreciated. The PWM freq of
> the Atmel uC are at the max although the ADC can
> goto
> at least 500KHz.
>
> 2. I have also recently tried using DAC to produce a
> much better playback quality. I have choosen DAC0800
> since it is the cheapest around. Unfortunately, the
> output is not what i expected. I wonder where i went
> wrong. The output resembles spikes of varying
> amplitude. The amplitude is very low, in the range
> of
> 10 mV. I connect the -V and +V to 0V and 5V
> respectively. For the DAC output, i connect to an
> inverting amplifier with the feedback resistor the
> same value as to the one connected to both the -Vref
> and +Vref. The +Vref is connected to 5V through the
> resistor and the –Vref to GND. The datasheet never
> mention on the possibility of positive range
> operation, but recommends that the -V be connected
> to
> -10V.
>
> Please advice,
> - If i can use 0V to 5V.
> - Any completed circuits based on DAC0800?
Currently i am reading up on DAC0830
>
> I hope for those who reply to include my email
> address as i have problems accessing now and then. y
apologies.
>
>
> Thanks and have a nice day.
>
> Pang
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
>
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
'[EE:] Problem on DAC (DAC0800) and PWM freq'
2004\09\29@090609
by
Mauricio Jancic
'[OT] TA800 explosion <- how to measure oil flow'
2004\11\30@042857
by
Russell McMahon
Subject line and tag changed.
> Not sure how likely an explosion would be (the TWA800 center fuel tank
> exploding was just a bunch of doggy poop.) After all the newer cars have
> their fuel pumps completely submerged inside gasoline with plenty of
> vapor trapped inside when the tanks no completely full.
AFAIK that was the carefully considered conclusion of the accident
investigation board (I read part of the report somewhere) and steps have
been taken in the industry to inert gas flood aircraft fuel tanks. Which
doesn't, of course, necessarily mean that that is what really happened.
I'd be interested if anyone had anything better than standard conspiracy
theory to offer. Conspiracy theory I can find with google ;-).
US missile seemed the best bet at the time, but who knows? (somebody
possibly).
RM
____________________________________________
2004\11\30@045949
by
Alan B. Pearce
>> Not sure how likely an explosion would be (the
>> TWA800 center fuel tank exploding was just a
>> bunch of doggy poop.) ...
>
>AFAIK that was the carefully considered conclusion
>of the accident investigation board ...
Yeah, I don't know what he means either. Having seen several TV programs
where very experienced investigators where able to show pretty conclusively
that was the place of the explosion, and the why of it happening, I am
wondering why he thinks it is doggy poop.
____________________________________________
2004\11\30@061301
by
hid Sheikh
|
|
>>AFAIK that was the carefully considered conclusion
>>of the accident investigation board ...
>Yeah, I don't know what he means either. Having seen
>several TV programs where very experienced
>investigators where able to show pretty conclusively
>that was the place of the explosion, and the why of
>it happening, I am wondering why he thinks it is
>doggy poop.
Yep, I've seen the same programs but am still not convinced that it was
the vapor/fuel in the center fuel tank that exploded. For one, the
flashpoint of kerosene is about 120 F. Now I am not sure if temperatures
of 120F are reached inside the tank or not. Even if they are with
limited oxygen supply inside the tank an explosion of a magnitude that
rips apart the tank and the plane *in my opinion* is unlikely.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories that are floating around
though. I think there were multiple events that took place that resulted
in an explosion. But it wasn't the center fuel tank that was the cause.
It may have ignited after it ruptured and after the plane started to
fall apart but not before. What really happened, we may never know. But
I for one don't agree with the official cause offered.
Shahid
____________________________________________
2004\11\30@065616
by
Alan B. Pearce
>Yep, I've seen the same programs but am still not
>convinced that it was the vapor/fuel in the center
>fuel tank that exploded. For one, the flashpoint
>of kerosene is about 120 F. Now I am not sure if
>temperatures of 120F are reached inside the tank
>or not. Even if they are with limited oxygen supply
>inside the tank an explosion of a magnitude that
>rips apart the tank and the plane *in my opinion*
>is unlikely.
OK, so you seem to have missed the following, which I gleaned from the
program.
1. the tank is in close proximity to air conditioning machinery, which puts
out a fair amount of heat.
2. the tank had a non-explosive air/fuel ratio on the ground, but as it rose
higher in altitude the venting combined with the heat from the
air-conditioning gear changed the air/fuel ratio to a point where it was a
potentially explosive mix.
3. the exposed wiring in tank going to the fuel sensor was not in the best
repair, insulation wise.
4. There was other wiring outside the tank, carrying high voltages which was
also not in the best repair, which shorted to the fuel sensor wiring,
creating an arc inside the tank which caused the explosion.
All this is quite possible. Then consider the size of the tank. My
understanding is that an adult can stand upright in it, and it goes
essentially the full width of the plane, so there is a fair explosive volume
right at a critical point in the aircraft superstructure. Anyone who has
seen the explosive force of a car fuel tank when someone tries to weld it
will testify about how much damage that will do, and this is some
considerable size larger.
____________________________________________
'[OT] TA800 explosion <- how to measure oil flow'
2004\12\05@204828
by
madscientist
|
it's doggy poop because there is credible evidence it was shot down by a
military missile. in fact award winning journalist lost their jobs over
the story, and reporters were removed from press conferences for even
asking if that was what happened. there's a convincing trail of cover
up indications, i.e. stories coming out from reputable sources and then
being denied away or just ignored and replaced with other "facts". i'd
say it's highly likely the plane was shot down accidentally. further,
suppose just for a minute that it was accidentally shot down by our own
military, do you honestly think for a minute that they'd admit to it and
not try to cover it up?
consider what happened on the navy boat when a big gun blew up and the
cover up than resulted. the bogus claims of homosexuality and alleged
sabotage when it's obvious that if a crewman wanted to blow up himself
and the boat the easiest way would be to just go down to one of the
powder magazines and light up a smoke! (rather than putting a "bomb" in
the gun) much easier and effective, not to mention obvious, than the
convoluted story the navy came up with. they were willing to crucify
dead, loyal, and innocent seamen rather than admit that a general
ordered something unsafe and forbidden (i.e. an "experiment" with a too
heavy projectile and too fast a powder--BOOM!) and that the powder was
also old and known to have gotten too hot repeatedly in storage. it was
human error, and arrogance that blew the gun up. but the navy worked
hard to blame any one else but those who were responsible. do you
honestly think there's a chance in hell that these same cowards would
ever admit that a military accident killed civilians? not likely, but
likely to happen eventually.
in the case of twa800 they were smart enough not to blame the victims,
if they had it might have actually been investigated by the press.
there's a whole site and book that talks about stories like this, and
the extraordinary pressure put on them to drop it and never mention it,
even offers of a year's pay as a "no show" consultant if they'd agree
not to talk about why they were fired. and many of these people are
award wining journalist of good standing, not fly by night idiots like heraldo.
our government (in the u.s.) has historically been capable of any evil
in the name of "national security", nasa irradiated pregnant women to
study the possible effects of radiation on pilots. it was done under
the claim of providing free pre-natal care but all of the women were
forced to wait for long periods of time, sitting on furniture that
concealed high level radiation sources! it's been released under the
freedom of information act (the one bush is trying so hard to shut
down...) and was mentioned on one of the network news programs, it got 2
sentences and then on to the news your' supposed to know. don't fool
yourself, they are capable of far, far worse, at least some of them.
"Alan B. Pearce" wrote:
{Quote hidden}>
> >> Not sure how likely an explosion would be (the
> >> TWA800 center fuel tank exploding was just a
> >> bunch of doggy poop.) ...
> >
> >AFAIK that was the carefully considered conclusion
> >of the accident investigation board ...
>
> Yeah, I don't know what he means either. Having seen several TV programs
> where very experienced investigators where able to show pretty conclusively
> that was the place of the explosion, and the why of it happening, I am
> wondering why he thinks it is doggy poop.
>
> ______________________________________________
'WinPic800 Hardware'
2005\10\27@220249
by
Robert Payne
Hi all,
I like WinPic800 and am trying it out with a Tait clone and a JDM clone.
WinPic800 will not see the JDM programmer on com2 no matter what
yet it works fine on com1.
Using ICprog the same programmer works fine on com1 and com2 so it
is not the com port.
Using the Tait clone on the printer port with the settings for a 40 pin chip
when I go to program it I get an annoying "glitch" of VPP on the bottom
half of the zif socket, ie vpp1 comes on momentarily with vpp2 and then
clears leaving only vpp2 on for programming.
Not sure that this will do my 40 pin chip any good !!!!
Again this does not happen on ICprog.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed this and if the WinPic800 people monitor
this? My Spanish is non existent unfortunately to leave a message on
their forum.
A final couple of questions, has anyone build the usblite interface to
go with this software
and does it work? Also has anyone programmed a 16F716 with this software?
Thanking you
Regards
Rob Payne
'[OT] FS: Original Intel 8008 Assembly Language Pro'
2006\02\16@161513
by
Bob Axtell
No pages missing, put together with original staples.
It is as pristine as any manual that is 31 years old.
Best offer in 10 days takes.
--Bob
--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
EraseMEattachengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer
2006\02\16@171941
by
Paul James E.
Bob,
I don't know what it is worth, and I don't want to insult you, but I'll
bid $10.00 USD. Do you (will you) take Paypal?
Regards,
Jim
{Quote hidden}
> --
2006\02\16@174611
by
Bob Axtell
Paypal is fine.
I've been told at least $50, but I am not greedy. Just cleaning up the
place.
--Bob
Paul James E. wrote:
{Quote hidden}>Bob,
>
> I don't know what it is worth, and I don't want to insult you, but I'll
> bid $10.00 USD. Do you (will you) take Paypal?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>>No pages missing, put together with original staples.
>>
>>It is as pristine as any manual that is 31 years old.
>>Best offer in 10 days takes.
>>
>>--Bob
>>
>>--
>>Note: To protect our network,
>>attachments must be sent to
>>
RemoveMEattachspam_OUTKILLspamengineer.cotse.net .
>>1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
>>
http://beam.to/azengineer
>>
>>--
2006\02\16@174844
by
James Newton, Host
2006\02\17@073533
by
Russell McMahon
You said best offer in 10 days.
I've referred your email to a friend who started out on 8008's and may
be interested.
> I've been told at least $50, but I am not greedy. Just cleaning up
> the
> place.
>>>No pages missing, put together with original staples.
>>>
>>>It is as pristine as any manual that is 31 years old.
>>>Best offer in 10 days takes.
2006\02\17@083103
by
Bob Axtell
Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}>You said best offer in 10 days.
>I've referred your email to a friend who started out on 8008's and may
>be interested.
>
>
>
>
>>I've been told at least $50, but I am not greedy. Just cleaning up
>>the
>>place.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>>No pages missing, put together with original staples.
>>>>
>>>>It is as pristine as any manual that is 31 years old.
>>>>Best offer in 10 days takes.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
Thanks, Russell.
--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
EraseMEattachspamspamBeGoneengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer
'winpic800 and propic2'
2006\04\29@072959
by
ramzi76
Hi All,
I'm new to PICs and I'm facing a problem programming the 16f84a PIC:
I built a paralel port programmer which is compatible with the ProPic2
hardware
I used the Winpic800 software, but when I read the PIC, I get at address 0
(program code) the value of the device ID (0x0560) and I can't program any
hex file since I must first write to the reset address (0x0)
I tried the 16f648a pic, and the problem was the same
Does anyone have any clues what is wrong??.
Regards,
Ramzi.
--
View this message in context: www.nabble.com/winpic800-and-propic2-t1528935.html#a4153271
Sent from the MicroControllers - PIC forum at Nabble.com.
2006\04\29@092828
by
Russell McMahon
|
> I'm new to PICs and I'm facing a problem programming the 16f84a PIC:
> I built a paralel port programmer which is compatible with the
> ProPic2
> hardware
Ramzi - don't read the following paragraph :-)
Eyes closed.
No peeking.
I'll leave others to answer this man's questions.
But, as some here tend to be blinded by the challenge of being the
first to count coup, I'd like to point out the four words at the start
of his message.
Be gentle. Philosophise about 16F84A's if you have to. Even comment on
information content of questions and the like if you feel you really
really must add a new scalp to your total before the sun sets. But
please note that this man is not only new to PICs but, as far as I can
tell, also new to this list. May this first post be not also his last,
but only the first of many as he rises to (also) become one of
Microchip's top consultants.
Ramzi may open his eyes again now.
Welcome to the list. Glad that you've started on the PIC road. There
are a large number of helpful people here who will be able to answer
your questions. A few get grumpy sometimes but even the grumpy ones
can be extremely helpful when they decide to be. So, if anyone seems a
bit rough on a beginner just assume that they are just winding up to
being really helpful on the next question :-).
Russell McMahon
2006\04\29@094837
by
Xiaofan Chen
On 4/29/06, ramzi76 <RemoveMEramzi76KILLspamieee.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to PICs and I'm facing a problem programming the 16f84a PIC:
> I built a paralel port programmer which is compatible with the ProPic2
> hardware
> I used the Winpic800 software, but when I read the PIC, I get at address 0
> (program code) the value of the device ID (0x0560) and I can't program any
> hex file since I must first write to the reset address (0x0)
> I tried the 16f648a pic, and the problem was the same
> Does anyone have any clues what is wrong??.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ramzi.
> --
> View this message in context: www.nabble.com/winpic800-and-propic2-t1528935.html#a4153271
> Sent from the MicroControllers - PIC forum at Nabble.com.
>
You can try to use some other programs like IC-Prog or WinPIC. You may
also want to check out your connections.
By the way, I still do not like Nabble.com. I guess it is better to
subscribe to PIClist directly. Anyway it seems the admin has no
problems with Nabble so I think it is up to you to decide.
'[PIC] Re: winpic800 and propic2'
2006\04\29@095405
by
David Segonds
|
Hi Ramzi,
> I'm new to PICs and I'm facing a problem programming the 16f84a PIC:
> I built a paralel port programmer which is compatible with the ProPic2
> hardware
> I used the Winpic800 software, but when I read the PIC, I get at address 0
> (program code) the value of the device ID (0x0560) and I can't program any
> hex file since I must first write to the reset address (0x0)
> I tried the 16f648a pic, and the problem was the same
> Does anyone have any clues what is wrong??.
I am also new to PICs. I have been using those for only a month with
little prior experience with electrical engineering. I started by
building my own programmer using a PCB found in a book ("El Cheapo"
programmer).
Using this home made programmer, I realized that it was difficult to
program a 16f84a and
it had the type of problems you are experiencing where I got all kind
of errors trying first to talk to the parallel ports as specific
drivers are needed and then I had to try to power and connect the
programmer in different order. With great difficulty, I was able to
make it work on Linux and Windows.
Then, I moved to the 16f628a because my programmer could theoretically
program it and I needed PWM to produce sound on a small speaker. It
was impossible for me to program that chip with my home made
programmer. The "El Cheapo" could program 16f628 but not 16f628a.
I am just letting you know all this to express the type of frustration
you may or have already encountered.
In the end, I purchased a USB programmer on EBay for $US 47 shipping
included and since then, I no longer have any problem programming
chips (Except the one I toasted by mistake by applying 9V or reversing
polarity).
The big lesson for me was two folds:
- Home made parallel programmer are crap and you can find good working
programmer supporting many chips out there.
- The 16f84a is 3 times more expensive than the 16f628a that has more features.
- Most books and information on the Internet is outdated and does not
take into account "new" things like USB and more modern chips
manufactured by Microchip.
I am aware that I did not address directly your problem but given
similar problems I was experiencing, I at least exposed my
solutions...
Sincerely,
David.
--
David Segonds
PGP: 1F7A3E7A Finger: 9949 521B 1B39 CE5A E193 FC49 866A 1255 1F7A 3E7A
2006\04\29@101317
by
olin piclist
David Segonds wrote:
> The big lesson for me was two folds:
>
> - Home made parallel programmer are crap and you can find good working
> programmer supporting many chips out there.
> - The 16f84a is 3 times more expensive than the 16f628a that has more
> features.
> - Most books and information on the Internet is outdated and does not
> take into account "new" things like USB and more modern chips
> manufactured by Microchip.
Right. All of which gets mentioned here regularly. The problem is that
most newbies don't know of or don't think of looking for resources like this
list and the Microchip forums.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
2006\04\29@102551
by
Picdude
|
|
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: "David Segonds" <davidSTOPspamspam_OUTsegonds.org>
>
> - Home made parallel programmer are crap and you can find good working
> programmer supporting many chips out there.
Have to disagree with this...
When I started with PICs a few years ago, I also built a few of the different parallel-port and seral-port programmers out there. Many are crap, but I've had excellent results with my homemade Tait programmer. So much so that I re-built it in a nicer-laid out PCB a year ago and still use it. The problem will be that they support a narrow range of PICs, and you'll have problems programming the F872A, F628A, etc as you noticed.
Ramzi, Whereas I'm not familiar with the ProPic2 or Winpic800, I noticed that most of these have a mode where you individually turn on/off each line (PGD, MCLR, etc) so that you can test it's functionality with a multimeter. Have you tried this? This will help you narrow down the parts of the system that has the problem -- the software, the drivers, the port settings, the programmer, the PIC, or perhaps some interconnect wiring.
Look at "icprog" software (http://www.ic-prog.com/) which I know has this test capability.
Also check the voltage at MCLR to make sure it is within the correct value.
Cheers,
-Neil.
2006\04\29@115525
by
Jan-Erik Soderholm
Picdude wrote :
> Many are crap, but I've had excellent results with my
> homemade Tait programmer....
> ...
> ... and you'll have problems programming the F872A,
> F628A, etc as you noticed.
Now, *not* beeing able to program the quite common
F628A, isn't that a rather significant "problem" ?
Generaly speaking...
Regards,
Jan-Erik.
2006\04\29@121451
by
Wouter van Ooijen
>> - Home made parallel programmer are crap
> Have to disagree with this...
I'll second that disagreement to some extent. Lots (most?) simple
programmer designs on the internet are not very relible, in the sense
that they work perfectly with one PC (presumably at least with the PC of
the designer), but fail utterly on another PC (or another PIC, or on
another continent, or due to some other variation in circumstances). But
for a lot of people they do work fine.
My advice to newbies: if you have little money and much time, do try
some of the simple programmer designs, some might work for you. If not,
or if you don't have the time, or if you have enough money, get yourself
an intelligent programmer. There are plenty to choose from (Wisp628,
Olins simple progger, various DIY kits, PICkit2, etc). If you have even
more money to spend do consider an ICD2.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
2006\04\29@131712
by
Picdude
|
|
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Jan-Erik Soderholm <spamBeGonejan-erik.soderholmSTOPspamEraseMEtelia.com>
> Now, *not* beeing able to program the quite common
> F628A, isn't that a rather significant "problem" ?
> Generaly speaking...
Not if you don't have a need for the F628A. I know newbies that will still use F84's because they get them cheap or free from others who have progressed to "oldbies". Then they want to use *exactly* what the magazine project says since they're most comfortable with that. And some just want to implement a magazine project and not have to see/change any code, so they will download a hex file and write it to the chip, without having to tweak the code to disable the comparators, etc. So this is why they start off with homebuilt programmers -- since they don't expect to be using it for much else.
BTW, I've seen places selling ready-built programmers that are just the same old serial and parallel programmer designs. Some claim to support the F628A IIRC.
Cheers,
-Neil.
2006\04\29@140733
by
Mauricio Giovagnini
|
Just to be fair, WinPic800 software works good with other programmers.
May be not with the one mentioned Propic2. Propic2 has many bugs I
experienced myself .
I bought the Propic2 ICSP to the developer itself, previous payment of a
big amount of money. Then I tested it with my PIC16F72 (which was
listed as one of the devices capable of being programmed with ICSP
Propic2). It didn't work. The developer told me that 'it should work
although i haven't tested it'. You can imagine my face and my mood....
He sent me a couple of patches that didn't worked. Im talking about a
simple pic on a protoboard, without anything else, not a pic on a board
with maybe some big loads. I was encouraged to use Propic2 because it
was fast.
I did this with the original software PropicXP!! not with another one.
Then i have to continue using my old PicstartPlus which is slow but I
could make it work as an ICSP programmer by just wiring the necessary
signals to my board.
Talking more about this topic, I really think the problems is the
Propic2 not WinPic800 software.
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
{Quote hidden}>>> - Home made parallel programmer are crap
>>>
>
>
>> Have to disagree with this...
>>
>
> I'll second that disagreement to some extent. Lots (most?) simple
> programmer designs on the internet are not very relible, in the sense
> that they work perfectly with one PC (presumably at least with the PC of
> the designer), but fail utterly on another PC (or another PIC, or on
> another continent, or due to some other variation in circumstances). But
> for a lot of people they do work fine.
>
> My advice to newbies: if you have little money and much time, do try
> some of the simple programmer designs, some might work for you. If not,
> or if you don't have the time, or if you have enough money, get yourself
> an intelligent programmer. There are plenty to choose from (Wisp628,
> Olins simple progger, various DIY kits, PICkit2, etc). If you have even
> more money to spend do consider an ICD2.
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica:
http://www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht:
http://www.voti.nl/hvu
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
2006\04\29@184724
by
Maarten Hofman
> I am also new to PICs. I have been using those for only a month with
> little prior experience with electrical engineering. I started by
> building my own programmer using a PCB found in a book ("El Cheapo"
> programmer).
>
> Using this home made programmer, I realized that it was difficult to
> program a 16f84a and
> it had the type of problems you are experiencing where I got all kind
> of errors trying first to talk to the parallel ports as specific
> drivers are needed and then I had to try to power and connect the
> programmer in different order. With great difficulty, I was able to
> make it work on Linux and Windows.
Note that Myke Predko (who designed the El Cheapo)'s website has many
updates to the design found in the book (after the book was released many
parallel ports changed in design, using lower voltages, and therefore
certain changes were necessary). I build it according to the latest version
(http://www.glitchbuster.com was kind enough to explain how to modify the
PCB to fit a newer version) and had no real problems hardware wise. Myke's
software is a bit outdated, but fortunately most software that currently
exists has good support for the El Cheapo, which means you can use it to
program a wide variety of PICs. The 16F628A, however, is not one of them (I
was able to program the 16F628, the 16F877 and the 16F88, though). The El
Cheapo also has some strengths compared to most other programmers: it has a
very solid programming voltage supply, which means that it can program most
C parts (OTP), which current programmers can't handle.
I would still recommend the PICkit 2 over the El Cheapo and the JDM
programmers you can get on eBay, but this doesn't mean the El Cheapo or the
JDM are "crap". In fact, if you have the PCB, it gives you a very good
starting point for the PICmicro. And even if it is useless otherwise, you
could still use the El Cheapo to create a bootloading 16F877, or program a
16F628 for the Wisp (I have never built a wisp, but from what I read on the
list, you need a programmed 16F628/16F628A/16F648A for it).
Greetings,
Maarten Hofman.
2006\04\29@205021
by
David Segonds
|
|
Maarten,
> I would still recommend the PICkit 2 over the El Cheapo and the JDM
> programmers you can get on eBay, but this doesn't mean the El Cheapo or the
> JDM are "crap".
It is clear that some took offense of my use of the word crap and I
now recognize that it was too strong of a word.
I am very grateful for Myke Predko and my hand-made El Cheapo
incorporate the latest modifications and works fine with 16f84a which
I used in the first two weeks. His book helped me get started along
with information found in the archive of this mailing list. I am sure
that I will go back to the book when it is time for me to explore
other PIC features.
Given my level of knowledge, which I admit is quite low, it took me a
few weeks to put together the El Cheapo and make it work. I was happy
to make it work on Linux and Windows. I took time and money to build
this first programmer. Certainly over $40. This was valuable
experience and I don't regret it.
Now, with more knowledge, I recognized that it would have been better
for me to buy a $40 programmer that not only would work with 16f84a
but with other models recommended in this list and that better fits my
project needs. This is a recommendation from a beginner to fellow
beginner with low budget in mind. This is only my humble opinion and
what I would have done if I have known better.
I am certainly willing to hear more from experienced engineers and I
am eager to see the type of advice that will be given to Ramzi. I am
going to learn from it.
Sincerely,
David.
--
David Segonds
PGP: 1F7A3E7A Finger: 9949 521B 1B39 CE5A E193 FC49 866A 1255 1F7A 3E7A
'[PIC] Re: winpic800 and propic2'
2006\05\02@204306
by
kravnus wolf
|
|
Does the parallel port guarantee the minimum voltage
for programming a PIC,12.5v?
john
--- Maarten Hofman <KILLspamcashimorspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}> > I am also new to PICs. I have been using those for
> only a month with
> > little prior experience with electrical
> engineering. I started by
> > building my own programmer using a PCB found in a
> book ("El Cheapo"
> > programmer).
> >
> > Using this home made programmer, I realized that
> it was difficult to
> > program a 16f84a and
> > it had the type of problems you are experiencing
> where I got all kind
> > of errors trying first to talk to the parallel
> ports as specific
> > drivers are needed and then I had to try to power
> and connect the
> > programmer in different order. With great
> difficulty, I was able to
> > make it work on Linux and Windows.
>
>
> Note that Myke Predko (who designed the El Cheapo)'s
> website has many
> updates to the design found in the book (after the
> book was released many
> parallel ports changed in design, using lower
> voltages, and therefore
> certain changes were necessary). I build it
> according to the latest version
> (
http://www.glitchbuster.com was kind enough to
> explain how to modify the
> PCB to fit a newer version) and had no real problems
> hardware wise. Myke's
> software is a bit outdated, but fortunately most
> software that currently
> exists has good support for the El Cheapo, which
> means you can use it to
> program a wide variety of PICs. The 16F628A,
> however, is not one of them (I
> was able to program the 16F628, the 16F877 and the
> 16F88, though). The El
> Cheapo also has some strengths compared to most
> other programmers: it has a
> very solid programming voltage supply, which means
> that it can program most
> C parts (OTP), which current programmers can't
> handle.
>
> I would still recommend the PICkit 2 over the El
> Cheapo and the JDM
> programmers you can get on eBay, but this doesn't
> mean the El Cheapo or the
> JDM are "crap". In fact, if you have the PCB, it
> gives you a very good
> starting point for the PICmicro. And even if it is
> useless otherwise, you
> could still use the El Cheapo to create a
> bootloading 16F877, or program a
> 16F628 for the Wisp (I have never built a wisp, but
> from what I read on the
> list, you need a programmed 16F628/16F628A/16F648A
> for it).
>
> Greetings,
> Maarten Hofman.
> --
2006\05\02@204306
by
kravnus wolf
|
|
Does the parallel port guarantee the minimum voltage
for programming a PIC,12.5v?
john
--- Maarten Hofman <EraseMEcashimorEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}> > I am also new to PICs. I have been using those for
> only a month with
> > little prior experience with electrical
> engineering. I started by
> > building my own programmer using a PCB found in a
> book ("El Cheapo"
> > programmer).
> >
> > Using this home made programmer, I realized that
> it was difficult to
> > program a 16f84a and
> > it had the type of problems you are experiencing
> where I got all kind
> > of errors trying first to talk to the parallel
> ports as specific
> > drivers are needed and then I had to try to power
> and connect the
> > programmer in different order. With great
> difficulty, I was able to
> > make it work on Linux and Windows.
>
>
> Note that Myke Predko (who designed the El Cheapo)'s
> website has many
> updates to the design found in the book (after the
> book was released many
> parallel ports changed in design, using lower
> voltages, and therefore
> certain changes were necessary). I build it
> according to the latest version
> (
http://www.glitchbuster.com was kind enough to
> explain how to modify the
> PCB to fit a newer version) and had no real problems
> hardware wise. Myke's
> software is a bit outdated, but fortunately most
> software that currently
> exists has good support for the El Cheapo, which
> means you can use it to
> program a wide variety of PICs. The 16F628A,
> however, is not one of them (I
> was able to program the 16F628, the 16F877 and the
> 16F88, though). The El
> Cheapo also has some strengths compared to most
> other programmers: it has a
> very solid programming voltage supply, which means
> that it can program most
> C parts (OTP), which current programmers can't
> handle.
>
> I would still recommend the PICkit 2 over the El
> Cheapo and the JDM
> programmers you can get on eBay, but this doesn't
> mean the El Cheapo or the
> JDM are "crap". In fact, if you have the PCB, it
> gives you a very good
> starting point for the PICmicro. And even if it is
> useless otherwise, you
> could still use the El Cheapo to create a
> bootloading 16F877, or program a
> 16F628 for the Wisp (I have never built a wisp, but
> from what I read on the
> list, you need a programmed 16F628/16F628A/16F648A
> for it).
>
> Greetings,
> Maarten Hofman.
> --
2006\05\02@221205
by
Maarten Hofman
> Does the parallel port guarantee the minimum voltage
> for programming a PIC,12.5v?
The El Cheapo has very clever power supply circuitry, and does not depend on
the parallel port for this power. It uses a walwart of 16V to supply its
current, which is regulated to 12V using a 7812 and artificially elevated
using two diodes to 13.4V, which suits the entire range of PICmicros it was
meant to program. See http://www.myke.com/elcheapo.htm for all details
(although, as said, it is probably not the wisest choice if you are going to
build a programmer).
Greetings,
Maarten Hofman.
2006\05\02@230424
by
kravnus wolf
Thanks Maarten. I will look back at how did elcheapo
elevated the voltage to 13.4v. If one has the
resources, building an ICD2 clone is a good solution
for home made programmers.
john
--- Maarten Hofman <@spam@cashimor@spam@spam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}> > Does the parallel port guarantee the minimum
> voltage
> > for programming a PIC,12.5v?
>
>
> The El Cheapo has very clever power supply
> circuitry, and does not depend on
> the parallel port for this power. It uses a walwart
> of 16V to supply its
> current, which is regulated to 12V using a 7812 and
> artificially elevated
> using two diodes to 13.4V, which suits the entire
> range of PICmicros it was
> meant to program. See
>
http://www.myke.com/elcheapo.htm for all details
> (although, as said, it is probably not the wisest
> choice if you are going to
> build a programmer).
>
> Greetings,
> Maarten Hofman.
> --
2006\05\03@064859
by
olin piclist
kravnus wolf wrote:
> Does the parallel port guarantee the minimum voltage
> for programming a PIC,12.5v?
I'm not really sure what you are asking. The logic signals making up a PC
"parallel port" are 0-5V. You also imply that 12.5V is a minimum voltage
for programming a PIC. This is true of some PICs but not others.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
2006\05\03@104459
by
kravnus wolf
--- Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistKILLspamembedinc.com> wrote:
> kravnus wolf wrote:
> > Does the parallel port guarantee the minimum
> voltage
> > for programming a PIC,12.5v?
>
> I'm not really sure what you are asking. The logic
> signals making up a PC
> "parallel port" are 0-5V. You also imply that 12.5V
Thanks for the clear up for the logic level for the
parallel port.
> is a minimum voltage
> for programming a PIC. This is true of some PICs
> but not others.
>
I was not aware of this....... Must be more prudent
in cross referencing more material. Most of my current
development is on PIC16F873A.
Thanks,
John
>
>
******************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.
> #1 PIC
> consultant in 2004 program year.
> http://www.embedinc.com/products
> --
2006\05\03@111627
by
Wouter van Ooijen
> > I'm not really sure what you are asking. The logic
> > signals making up a PC
> > "parallel port" are 0-5V.
IIRC one of the problems of using parallel ports is that
- the high level can be as low as 3.3V
- the pull-ups can be very weak
So if you interface a parallel port to a 5V circuit you'd better use
pull-ups and/or use an HCT (not HC) buffer.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
2006\05\03@113844
by
Byron A Jeff
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> kravnus wolf wrote:
> > Does the parallel port guarantee the minimum voltage
> > for programming a PIC,12.5v?
>
> I'm not really sure what you are asking. The logic signals making up a PC
> "parallel port" are 0-5V.
Generally not true anymore Olin. PC parallel ports are TTL and only require
a high signal of 2.4V. Most modern parallel ports output a high signal of
3.3V. This is one of the reasons that older parallel port programmers generally
do not work on current parallel ports.
This fact is the reason that I use HCT parts in my Trivial Programmers. They
level shift the 3.3V that the parallel ports output to nearly 5V, and well
above the 4V (@5V Vcc) threshold that the PIC requires.
> You also imply that 12.5V is a minimum voltage
> for programming a PIC. This is true of some PICs but not others.
Correct. I think (and I haven't checked datasheets recently) is that the only
guaranteed voltage is 13V for all PICs across the board. In addition if you
are programming a EPROM based part, you may also need a minimum of 50 mA of
current for Vpp.
BAJ
2006\05\03@120920
by
olin piclist
Byron A Jeff wrote:
> Generally not true anymore Olin. PC parallel ports are TTL and only
> require
> a high signal of 2.4V. Most modern parallel ports output a high signal
> of
> 3.3V.
Yeah, I haven't built a device that hooks to a parallel port in years.
These are clearly going the way of the dinosaur for good reason.
> Correct. I think (and I haven't checked datasheets recently) is that
> the only guaranteed voltage is 13V for all PICs across the board.
No, there is no single Vpp level that works for all PICs anymore. 13V used
to be good, but it is too high for many newer chips. Take a look at the
specs for the 18F2520 for example. I haven't looked at the programming
interface for the new J parts which only run at 3.3V, but I wouldn't be
surprised if they had a lower Vpp max limit too.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
'[OT] Viewing platform - 65 feet out, 3800 feet dow'
2006\05\14@230711
by
Russell McMahon
2006\05\14@232858
by
Peter Todd
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:58:59PM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/11/grand.canyon.skywalk/index.html
>
> The outer edge would make a very safe base jumping launch point for
> the 3800 foot drop, for selected values of safe.
>
> Or for a verrrry long bungy jump. (Cliff actually too close for that
> over any distance).
Some people are rather skeptical about that one:
http://jwz.livejournal.com/642700.html?thread=12243340#t12243340
I'm not sure what to think myself... Could very well be perfectly on
schedule all the same, the construction of something like that looks to
me to be more of a problem of planning, but we'll see.
All the same... I wanna visit! On my first trip to the CN Tower's glass
floor, in my grade 4 class, I did a big running jump smashing down onto
it. Horrified my teacher even if I only weighed 90 pounds back then...
--
.....petespam_OUTpetertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
2006\05\15@045952
by
Howard Winter
Russell,
On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:58:59 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/11/grand.canyon.skywalk/index.html
>
> The outer edge would make a very safe base jumping launch point for
> the 3800 foot drop, for selected values of safe.
>
> Or for a verrrry long bungy jump. (Cliff actually too close for that
> over any distance).
Of course it would also make a good suicide point (for selected values of good!). I don't think they will
have five-foot glass walls as the only thing surrounding it for very long!
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
2006\05\15@091046
by
Herbert Graf
|
|
part 1 1077 bytes content-type:text/plain (decoded 7bit)
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 09:59 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:
> Russell,
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:58:59 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/11/grand.canyon.skywalk/index.html
> >
> > The outer edge would make a very safe base jumping launch point for
> > the 3800 foot drop, for selected values of safe.
> >
> > Or for a verrrry long bungy jump. (Cliff actually too close for that
> > over any distance).
>
> Of course it would also make a good suicide point (for selected values of good!). I don't think they will
> have five-foot glass walls as the only thing surrounding it for very long!
Actually, if suicide is on a person's mind there is very little stopping
them at the regular observation points.
Unless things have changed in the last few years the only thing stopping
a person from going over the edge in many places is just a railing or
single chain, not even a fence. Oh, and a sign, one of which I've
attached.
TTYL
part 2 34220 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; name=sign.JPG (decode)
part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)
2006\05\15@161044
by
Howard Winter
Herbert,
On Mon, 15 May 2006 09:11:35 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
> Actually, if suicide is on a person's mind there is very little stopping
> them at the regular observation points.
>
> Unless things have changed in the last few years the only thing stopping
> a person from going over the edge in many places is just a railing or
> single chain, not even a fence. Oh, and a sign, one of which I've
> attached.
At Clifton Suspension Bridge, near Bristol, they acknowledge that it's been used for suicide for some time:
http://www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
2006\05\15@163030
by
Howard Winter
2006\05\15@164055
by
Nate Duehr
Herbert Graf wrote:
> Unless things have changed in the last few years the only thing stopping
> a person from going over the edge in many places is just a railing or
> single chain, not even a fence. Oh, and a sign, one of which I've
> attached.
>
> TTYL
I love the wording of the sign...
"MOST who die have gone beyond wall or rails."
Most? :-)
Nate
2006\05\15@172845
by
Herbert Graf
2006\05\15@172954
by
Herbert Graf
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 14:40 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > Unless things have changed in the last few years the only thing stopping
> > a person from going over the edge in many places is just a railing or
> > single chain, not even a fence. Oh, and a sign, one of which I've
> > attached.
> >
> > TTYL
>
> I love the wording of the sign...
>
> "MOST who die have gone beyond wall or rails."
>
> Most? :-)
Yes, I wondered about that too. Plus the wording is so "strong", I just
found it very interesting.
There was another sign that was quite graphic as to what happens if you
go down into the canyon without being prepared. Hopefully the frankness
gets the point across though. TTYL
2006\05\15@192115
by
Peter Todd
|
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:11:35AM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
> > Of course it would also make a good suicide point (for selected values of good!). I don't think they will
> > have five-foot glass walls as the only thing surrounding it for very long!
>
> Actually, if suicide is on a person's mind there is very little stopping
> them at the regular observation points.
>
> Unless things have changed in the last few years the only thing stopping
> a person from going over the edge in many places is just a railing or
> single chain, not even a fence. Oh, and a sign, one of which I've
> attached.
Heck, I was amazed last time I was in Sydney Australia when I noticed
that the cliffs on Bondi beach, right in the heart of Sydney, have a
walking path travelled by thousands each day that's just 20 feet away
from a 100ft drop. No fence or anything. Some kid running to catch a
ball or something would go over the edge in a second.
Meanwhile here in Canada the Bloor Viaduct bridge in toronto had a
masssive fence installed on it to make it damn near impossible to jump
off of... Cost millions and there are two equally high bridges just a
couple dozen feet away. At least it's Very beautifull public art mind
you.
--
TakeThisOuTpete.....TakeThisOuTpetertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
2006\05\15@202351
by
Jinx
> Meanwhile here in Canada the Bloor Viaduct bridge in toronto had a
> masssive fence installed on it to make it damn near impossible to jump
> off of... Cost millions and there are two equally high bridges just a
> couple dozen feet away. At least it's Very beautifull public art mind
> you.
Same in Auckland with Grafton Bridge. Yet people have killed
themselves jumping off other bridges (some quite low over the
motorway) in town. And there's a shopper's choice of high-rises
within emotionally-disorientated stumbling distance
2006\05\15@203115
by
Jinx
2006\05\15@213442
by
William Chops Westfield
>> www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/11/grand.canyon.skywalk/index.html
>>
Seeing how quickly "glass" gets dirty and/or scuffed, I would be
afraid this was doomed to failure :-( Nor would I want to be the
poor window-washer that got sent out to clean the outsides and bottom!
(I wonder if increased airport security has reached the point where
you could insist that people remove their shoes before walking out
on tourist attractions like this...)
BillW
2006\05\15@214253
by
Peter Todd
|
|
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:34:58PM -0700, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> >> www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/11/grand.canyon.skywalk/index.html
> >>
> Seeing how quickly "glass" gets dirty and/or scuffed, I would be
> afraid this was doomed to failure :-( Nor would I want to be the
> poor window-washer that got sent out to clean the outsides and bottom!
Well the CN Tower here in Toronto has had a glass floor just like that
for years now. Last time I was there, probably over 10 years ago... it
looked a little dirty, but fine. From what I've read they have a quarter
inch scuff plate that is replaced every few months and simply regularly
wash it down. No big deal, glass is very hard and relatively scratch
resistant.
> (I wonder if increased airport security has reached the point where
> you could insist that people remove their shoes before walking out
> on tourist attractions like this...)
Yeah... I wonder how it would fare from an ice pick attack?
Hell, a small concussion grenade might be just enough to shatter all the
glass, but then again, at that level of energy it's probably enough to
liquify anyone in it's way too...
Tempered glass is *tough* stuff.
--
TakeThisOuTpeteKILLspamspampetertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
2006\05\15@222548
by
David VanHorn
>
>
> (I wonder if increased airport security has reached the point where
> you could insist that people remove their shoes before walking out
> on tourist attractions like this...)
I don't know wether to be glad, or dissapointed, that the shoe bomber guy
didn't try it with explosive underwear. :)
2006\05\15@225841
by
Jinx
> I don't know wether to be glad, or dissapointed, that the shoe bomber
> guy didn't try it with explosive underwear. :)
"Would you like to finish my vindaloo Richard ?"
2006\05\16@042713
by
Russell McMahon
> There was another sign that was quite graphic as to what happens if
> you
> go down into the canyon without being prepared. Hopefully the
> frankness
> gets the point across though. TTYL
Picture of athletic young man.
Stands, day pack on back staring into far distance.
Sign reads.
"Most of the people who are rescued from the canyon look like
this".
And
"Do not attempt to walk to the river and back in one day".
... time warp ...
Close but not quite
Reality is even better.
It actually says -
http://others.servebeer.com/atw/GrandCanyonRescuee.jpg 111
KB
Russell McMahon
2006\05\16@045217
by
Russell McMahon
> Same in Auckland with Grafton Bridge. Yet people have killed
> themselves jumping off other bridges (some quite low over the
> motorway) in town. And there's a shopper's choice of high-rises
> within emotionally-disorientated stumbling distance
Grafton Bridge is the logical and most direct access route between the
central city and the main city hospital and is immediately adjacent to
the hospital and is visually obvious. . The hospital has a psychiatric
ward. The bridge is liable to be a major attraction to certain groups
of unfortunate people. The motorway which runs underneath it would
provide an equally effective source of death for those liable to be
thinking rationally enough to not want to kill themselves.
Arched bridge at 5B
http://www.nzpostcard.co.nz/html/beattie.htm
Work in progress circa 1910?
http://www.fclarchives.co.nz/images/archive/md/6236P-42.jpg
RM
2006\05\16@114646
by
Herbert Graf
|
|
part 1 948 bytes content-type:text/plain (decoded 7bit)
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 20:13 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}> > There was another sign that was quite graphic as to what happens if
> > you
> > go down into the canyon without being prepared. Hopefully the
> > frankness
> > gets the point across though. TTYL
>
> Picture of athletic young man.
> Stands, day pack on back staring into far distance.
> Sign reads.
>
> "Most of the people who are rescued from the canyon look like
> this".
>
> And
>
> "Do not attempt to walk to the river and back in one day".
>
> ... time warp ...
>
> Close but not quite
> Reality is even better.
>
> It actually says -
>
>
http://others.servebeer.com/atw/GrandCanyonRescuee.jpg 111
> KB
Hmm, never saw that sign. This was the sign I was talking about, and
again, a very frank sign...
part 2 26807 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; name=canyon.jpg (decode)
part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)
'[EE] Vintage 68000 vs Modern 68HC000'
2006\10\16@170018
by
Sean Schouten
Dear List,
Is there anyone here that can point me out what the exact differences are
between the original 68k processor (used in the old amiga & apple computers)
and the new embedded 68HC000 concerning everything and anything except the
pin-outs? I am interested to know because I am looking to replace a vintage
one with it's modern cousin.
All the information I can get on the subject is welcome as I am still in the
process of sifting through the shear amount of material google brings up on
anything to do with 68k.
Thanks!
Sean
2006\10\16@171817
by
Charles Craft
www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC68000&nodeId=0162468rH3YTLC61654622
http://tinyurl.com/yb6s5d
MC68000 : Low Cost 32-Bit Microprocessor
(Including HC000, HC001, EC000 and SEC000)
The industry's lowest cost 32-bit microprocessor, the MC68000 offers an excellent low cost entry point to the M68000 Family. The MC68HC000 is a CMOS version of the original MC68000. The MC68HC001 is also a CMOS version of the original MC68000 with 8-/16-bit selectable data bus. The MC68EC000 version provides a lower cost 68000 solution. The MC68SEC000 version provides a static, low power implementation consuming only 15.0mA in normal 3.3V operation and 0.5mA in static standby mode.
{Original Message removed}
2006\10\16@173343
by
Sean Schouten
On 10/16/06, Charles Craft <.....chuckseaRemoveMEmindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> The industry's lowest cost 32-bit microprocessor, the MC68000 offers an
> excellent low cost entry point to the M68000 Family. The MC68HC000 is a CMOS
> version of the original MC68000. The MC68HC001 is also a CMOS version of the
> original MC68000 with 8-/16-bit selectable data bus. The MC68EC000 version
> provides a lower cost 68000 solution. The MC68SEC000 version provides a
> static, low power implementation consuming only 15.0mA in normal 3.3Voperation and
> 0.5mA in static standby mode.
I vaguely remember some one mentioning something about the instruction set
and possibly even the timing beeing off? Could that be? I can't seem to find
a *changelog* concerning this processor anywhere.
Thanks,
Sean.
2006\10\16@191233
by
William Chops Westfield
On Oct 16, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Sean Schouten wrote:
> Is there anyone here that can point me out what the exact differences
> are between the original 68k processor and the new embedded 68HC000
> concerning everything and anything except the pin-outs?
I think an 68xx000 is still pretty much a 68000; the "new embedded"
chips you're thinking of are the "coldfire" processors which (very
sensibly) have completely different part numbers. If you look at the
32bit CPU guide here:
http://www.freescale.com/files/shared/doc/selector_guide/SG1001.pdf
It says the 68HC000 is completely compatible with the 68000, except
it has 1/10th the power consumption. The EC000 has 8/16 selectable
bus, and the SEC000 is static. No more 64bit DIPs, though.
In addition to the coldfire processors (MCF5xxx), there are also the
68xx3xx chips, which add peripherals for a more microcontroller-like
system.
> I am interested to know because I am looking to replace a
> vintage one with it's modern cousin.
I don't think there is much point in that. Did you have some
specific goal in mind?
BillW
2006\10\16@210308
by
Sean Schouten
First of all; thanks for all the added information. I think I know enough
just knowing that the 68HC000 should do the trick and is completely
compatible with the old-school 68k.
On 10/17/06, William Chops Westfield <RemoveMEwestfwspamBeGonemac.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think there is much point in that. Did you have some
> specific goal in mind?
>
Well, a friend has an old system that's kind of got a broken 68k, so he was
actually thinking of replacing it with a 68HC000 that he came across. But
because I heard something about the instruction set and probably even the
timings differing like you know, I wasn't quite sure about it.. I guess that
there is only one way to find out though... *evil grin*.
Thanks again!
Sean
'[EE] Altair 8800 available again...'
2006\11\21@094721
by
William Couture
Someone has re-created the Altair 8800 kit. Checkout the pictures!
http://www.altairkit.com/
Bill
--
Psst... Hey, you... Buddy... Want a kitten? straycatblues.petfinder.org
2006\11\21@104945
by
Tamas Rudnai
Hmm, makes me wonder if I can still switch on my Apple ][+ :-)
Tamas
On 11/21/06, William Couture <spamBeGonebcouture@spam@spam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
> Someone has re-created the Altair 8800 kit. Checkout the pictures!
>
> http://www.altairkit.com/
>
> Bill
>
> --
> Psst... Hey, you... Buddy... Want a kitten? straycatblues.petfinder.org
> -
2006\11\21@112043
by
Harold Hallikainen
|
> Hmm, makes me wonder if I can still switch on my Apple ][+ :-)
>
> Tamas
I've got an Apple ][ sitting on a top shelf here. It's been there for over
10 years... In the 1970s, a friend bought one of those Altair kits. One
thing I remember about it was his paper tape reader. He pulled the tape
through by hand. An opto sensor on the feed holes acted as a data strobe.
I thought that was pretty clever. On the Altair kit site, the write
answers a question about why the web page is so poor. He answers that it
was really hard to toggle in all that text. I remember using toggle
switches on the PDP-8 to key in a loader program, that then read another
loader from paper tape, that then read in the application. Lotsa fun!
The new construction of old technology is really pretty amazing. On this
page (http://www.w9gr.com/phasitron.html) is info about restoration of a
very old FM broadcast transmitter, and the complete construction of a
Phasitron FM exciter (1940s technology). Very nice work!
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
2006\11\21@171339
by
Peter P.
'[SX] Buy: Nokia n95/ Nokia 8800 sirocco/ Lrg sidek'
2007\03\26@080200
by
pacecommn/a
|
|
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, pacecomm wrote:PACETIDINGS COMMUNICATION
A Registered and Approved company
E-mail: PACETIDINGSCOMM@HOTMAIL.COM
PACETIDINGS_INC@YAHOO.COM
We deal with various types of Mobile phones, Laptops, Apple Ipods, Pocket PC, Video Games and many more, All our product are brand new,
1. Complete accessories(Well packed and sealed in original company box)
2. Unlocked / sim free.
3. Brand new (original manufacturer) box - no copies
4. All phones have english language asdefault
5. All material (software, manual) - car chargers - home chargers - usb
data cables -holsters/belt clips - wireless headsets(bluetooth) - leather and non-leather carrying cases - batteries.
If you are interested, forward your questions and enquires to us via
email with your order and shipping details. we give 1 year warranty for every product sold out to our costumers, our product are company class 1 tested and approved by global standard organization of wireless industries, Brand new merchandise with complete accessories, extra charger and battery.serious buyers should.
Contact us on:
E-mail: PACETIDINGSCOMM@HOTMAIL.COM
PACETIDINGS_INC@YAHOO.COM
NEW Nokia
New Nokia N95 $400usd
New Nokia N75 $300usd
New Nokia 5300 $200usd
New Nokia 7373 $200usd
New Nokia 7390 $280usd
New Nokia n93 $230usd
New Nokia n92 $190usd
New Nokia n91 $180usd
New Nokia n90 $150usd
New Nokia n72 $150usd
New Nokia n73 $160usd
New nokia n83 $170usd
New nokia n80 $165usd
New Nokia e73 $165usd
New Nokia n70 $160usd
New Nokia E61 $150usd
New Nokia 7200 $195usd
New Nokia 9300 $190usd
New Nokia 7250i $175usd
New Nokia 8800 $220usd
Nokia 8800 Sirocco $230usd
NEW Samsungs
New Samsung X830 $250USD
New Samsung P310 $255USD
New Samsung P900 $220usd
New Samsung D900 $300usd
New Samsung M500 $280usd
New Samsung C417 $250usd
New Samsung Q1 $200usd
New Samsung SGH-e910 $180usd
New Samsung p850 $200usd
New Samsung d500 $140usd
New Samsung e600 $180usd
New Samsung e800 $160usd
New Samsung sgh-d410 $270usd
New Samsung sgh-e700 $150usd
New Samsung sgh-e715 $170usd
New Samsung sgh-p100 $130usd
New Samsung sgh-p400 $100usd
New Samsung SGH-Z510 $150usd
New Samsung SGH-p300 $180usd
New Samsung SGH-i300 $185usd
New Samsung sgh-p408 $240usd
New Samsung sgh-p730 $150usd
New Samsung sgh-s300m $100usd
New Samsung x450 $100usd
New Samsung SCH-i730 $130usd
NEW Motorola
New Motorola K1 $180
New Motorola Razr maxx $230USD
New Motorola Razr v3xx $250USD
New Motorola pebl u6 $150usd
New Motorola a1200 $200usd
New Motorola a1010 $180usd
New Motorola a1000 $170usd
New Motorola a388c $170usd
New Motorola a760 $166usd
New Motorola a768 $170usd
New Motorola a768i $160usd
New Motorola a780 $170usd
New Motorola i860 $135usd
New Motorola Mpx 300 $150usd
New Motorola Mpx 220 $140usd
New Motorola V6 $150usd
New Motorola L7 $165usd
New Motorola e680 $200usd
New Motorola razor v3 $90usd
New Motorola v220 $170usd
New Motorola v80 with Bluetooth $260usd
New Motorola v872 $200usd
NEW Sony ericsson
New Sony Ericsson k790A $230usd
New Sony Ericsson p990 $200usd
New Sony Ericsson w900 $180usd
New Sony Ericsson Z525a $200usd
New Sony Ericsson W710i $190usd
New Sony Ericsson Z710i $200usd
New Sony Ericsson W300i $180usd
New Sony Ericsson K310 $180usd
New Sony Ericsson M600 $200usd
New Sony Ericsson j100 $240usd
New Sony ericsson k500i $130usd
New Sony Ericsson p800 $140usd
New Sony Ericsson p900 $150usd
New Sony Ericsson p910 $180usd
New Sony Ericsson z1010 $160usd
New Sony Ericsson z600 $130usd
New Sony Ericsson s700i $150usd
New Sony Ericsson s750i $180usd
New Sony Ericsson W800i $180usd
New Qtek
New Qtek s200 $100
New Qtek 9000 $130
New Qtek 8310 $200
New Qtek 8300 $210
New Qtek 9100 $240
New Qtek 8100 $250
New Qtek s110 $210
New Qtek s100 $200
New Qtek 9090 $210
New Qtek 8020 $200
New Qtek 8010 $180
New Qtek 2020i $240
New Qtek 2020 $250
New Qtek 8080 $130
New Qtek 8060 $160
New Qtek 1010 $150
New Qtek 7070 $250
NEW Sidekick
New LRG sidekick 3 special Edition $170usd
New Sidekick 3 $150usd
New Sidekick 2 $120usd
New Pink couture sidekick 2 $155usd
New Mr. Cartoon sidekick $150usd
NEW E-ten
New ETEN G500......$200usd
New Eten M500......$180usd
New ETEN M600......$200usd
NEW Nextel
New NEXTEL I930 ...$130USD
New NEXTEL I870....$120USD
New NEXTEL I860....$100USD
NEW Treo
New The Treo 700w...$190
New The Treo 650....$140
New The Treo 700p...$190
NEW Imate
New I-mate JAM 850...$140
New I-MATE K-JAM ...$270
New i-MATE JASJAR.....$200
NEW Blackberry
New Blackberry 8707v $250USD
New BlackBerry 8700r....$200
New Blackberry 8700c....$200
New Blackberry 8700g....$210
NEW Apple Ipod
New Apple iPod nano 4GB....$131.50us
New Apple iPod nano 2GB....$112.00us
New Apple 30 GB Video iPod....$140.50us
New Apple 60 GB Video iPod....$155.00us
New Apple 20 GB iPod : $126.00USD
New Apple 4 GB iPod Mini....$105.00USD
New Apple 6 GB iPod Mini...$114.00USD
New Apple 40 GB iPod photo....$110.00USD
New Apple 60 GB iPod photo....$130.00USD
New Apple 30 GB iPod Photo....$116.00
New Apple 512 MB iPod Shuffle MP3 Player....$94.00
Brand new Video Game
New Xbox 360 ...$200
New Psp (play station)..$145
New Ps2...$145
New Ps3...$205
PDA
New HP IPaq Pocket PC H4150 ========= $190
New Asus MyPal A716 ================= $175
New HP IPaq Pocket PC H4350 ========= $185
New Toshiba Pocket PC E405 ========== $120
New Sony Clie PEG-TH55 ============== $155
New Toshiba Pocket PC E800 ========== $220
New PalmOne Zire 72================== $120
New PalmOne Tungsten E ============== $90
New PalmOne Tungsten C ============== $140
New PalmOne Zire 31 ================= $65
New palm Treo 650=====================$240
LAPTOPS
New APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 15 INCH
DISPLAY........$700
New APPLE G5 POWERMAC 2.0GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER........$700
New APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 17 INCH
DISPLAY......$600
New SONY VAIO A217S 100GB512MB RAM XP HOME.........$500
New SONY VAIO B1VP 40GB HD 512MB RAM XP PRO..........$430
New SONY VAIO T370P/L 60GB HD 512MB RAM XP........$400
New SONY VAIO A417M 80GB HD 512MB RAM XP..........$650
New Dell Laptop 1100BX7ZT21...$450
New Dell Latitude C640 2.0GHz, 512MB, 40GB...$500
New Dell Inspiron Model 8500 Laptop..$400
New Dell Latitude D810...$900
New Dell Inspiron 6000 Notebook Computer..$600
New Dell Laptop,Wireless,Intel M,60GB HD,CD/DVD, XP,Pro...$560
New Toshiba Laptop P4M 1.8GHz 512MB 60GB CDRW/DVD GF4 WiFi ... $400
New Toshiba M45-S359 Laptop Computer (Refurbished)..$450
New Toshiba Satellite M45S359...$400
New Toshiba Satellite M105-S3001...$400
New Toshiba G25-AV513 Qosmio Laptop Computer (Refurbished)...$600
We sell in Bulk order, and in GOOD Discount prices,We make shipment through fedEx courier services and UPS, and they deliver within 2-3days home delivery,
Thanks
The Management.
E-mail: PACETIDINGSCOMM@HOTMAIL.COM
PACETIDINGS_INC@YAHOO.COM
---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=180862
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
'[EE] ADC08004LCN'
2007\07\31@101040
by
ELKEJBOUT Mustapha
hi list,
I am wondering if anyone have used this ADC. I am trying to convert a temp from LM35DZ and I got some problem for a while:
the LSB of the ADC doesn't give a stable value (I can't tell if it's 0 or 1) and also give a half of the value that is given by LM35DZ.
here are some info:
I use a R=100Kohm and C=15pF for clocking
Vref=2.5V from the pic16f628
the LM35DZ give a 0.34V (its vero hot here in Morocco)
what I got:
LSB=unreadable
MSB...LSB=0001001X ==> (2+16)*2.5/256=0.175V
it's a half of the real value.
any help would appreciated
best regards,
Mustapha ELKEJBOUT
---------------------------------------
"Every one has to do what he can do according to how it can be truly done"
For whom the bell tolls, Ernest Hemingway.
---------------------------------
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
2007\07\31@104648
by
Dario Greggio
ELKEJBOUT Mustapha wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone have used this ADC. I am trying to convert a temp from LM35DZ and I got some problem for a while:
> the LSB of the ADC doesn't give a stable value (I can't tell if it's 0 or 1) and also give a half of the value that is given by LM35DZ.
Hmmm, the LSB floating is IMO rather normal (some millivolt floating
around...)
The 2x value issue is more strange.
Are you sure (measured?) the VRef? Is it connected/configured properly?
--
Ciao, Dario
2007\07\31@105500
by
PAUL James
Mustapha,
I have used the ADC0804, but many many years ago. If you have a 2.5
volt reference going into the VREF/2 pin, it gets boosted inside to 5
volts. So the internal reference is actually 5 volts. This divided by
256 gives
You ~19.5 mv per step. Multiply this value by 18 steps that you have
gives you ~351.5 mv, which is very close to your measured output voltage
using a meter. If you're getting half of this value, maybe you're a/D
is bad.
About the LSB being unsteady may be caused by slight fluctuations is the
ref voltage supplied by the PIC.
Try connecting the VREF pin of the A/D to Vdd (5 volts). This is okay
to do as the part was designed to allow this type of connection. If you
get the same answer as beefore, then you probably have a bad A/D. If it
now gives you the correct answer, then don't use the VREF from the PIC.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Jim
{Original Message removed}
2007\07\31@111113
by
Alan B. Pearce
>Vref=2.5V from the pic16f628
? how do you get this vref from the 16F628 chip?
'[OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.ed'
2007\10\14@201222
by
Peter P.
2007\10\16@110640
by
Ed Browne
|
|
I don't do much PIC development anymore, but lurk on this list to see what
new energy technology is available, how to glean energy using solar or
Peltier, what the best battery chemistry is, or just to get an idea about
what the rest of the world thinks.
I've stayed out of the GW fray because there are far too many experts here,
but this one begs a little insight. If you do a little more research,
you'll find that this was one of the premises of a British Channel 4
docudrama, which challenged Al Gore's scare tactics. In his film he had
sloughed off the disparity by saying that the relationship between
temperature and CO2 is "complicated".
Experts for Channel 4 (Carl Wunsch) said that it was a result of the air
heating first, then warming the oceans. When the oceans are warmed they
begin giving up their stored CO2. Cold water stores more CO2 than warm
water and evidently the process takes about 800 years before a noticeable
effect. Presumably, some other mechanism kicked in to prevent thermal
runaway (plant growth?).
If you follow this logic and consider the fact that the current levels of
CO2 are higher than the 2 sigma levels derived from ice cores dating back
650,000 years, then there had to have been **one hell of a massive
temperature event 800 years ago**. Something that large would surely have
been recorded. It wasn't, and it wasn't because the current levels of CO2
are due to anthropogenic causes.
Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the past
to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels. According to
the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year. The US, Russia, and China
have the largest known coal resources. We see evidences that the world's
large oil fields are depleting more rapidly than is comfortable, so we can
reasonably expect more coal usage and eventually more nuclear. Energy needs
are not going down.
If at the same time, we decrease the natural CO2 removal mechanisms (trees,
tundra, etc), then levels will remain high. Of course, global dimming from
particulates slows down the effect, but also decreases evaporation rates, so
there are fewer clouds. And then there are the positive feedback mechanisms
of tundra decay producing methane and CO2, melting of reflective ices, and
hydrate releases, etc. Or other natural negative feedback mechanisms such
as volcanic ash or slowing or stopping the great ocean currents.
In other words, the equation is so complicated that anyone who claims to
know the "real" outcome is either a liar or uneducated. Looking for 95%
confidence levels is silly. We *have* changed our planet. We just don't
know how yet. Until we do, I think most people on this list agree that
prudence makes sense.
If you're sawing off the limb you're sitting on, stopping to consider the
outcome might be the smart thing to do.
Ed
<rant off>
-----Original Message-----
From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseMEmit.edu]On Behalf
Of Peter P.
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:12 PM
To: RemoveMEpiclistEraseMEspam_OUTmit.edu
Subject: [OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.edu source
Just happened to find this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/icecore.html
Peter P.
2007\10\16@115412
by
Michael Rigby-Jones
|
>-----Original Message-----
>From: @spam@piclist-bouncesRemoveMEEraseMEmit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bounces@spam@mit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Ed Browne
>Sent: 16 October 2007 16:06
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: RE: [OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.edu source
>
>
>Experts for Channel 4 (Carl Wunsch) said that it was a result
>of the air heating first, then warming the oceans. When the
>oceans are warmed they begin giving up their stored CO2. Cold
>water stores more CO2 than warm water and evidently the
>process takes about 800 years before a noticeable effect.
>Presumably, some other mechanism kicked in to prevent thermal
>runaway (plant growth?).
>
FWIW the Channel 4 program was widely regarded as being even more full of holes than Mr Gores political ramblings.
>If you follow this logic and consider the fact that the
>current levels of CO2 are higher than the 2 sigma levels
>derived from ice cores dating back 650,000 years, then there
>had to have been **one hell of a massive temperature event 800
>years ago**.
I'm not sure I understand why there would have had to be been a massive "temperature event" 800 years back? *If* the 800 year lag theory is correct, then surely all this means is that the temperature was rising 800 years ago, and we are now seeing the effects of that. It doesn't imply that the temperature suddenly jumped to some astounding value bfore falling back to normal.
I agree that man is likely having some effect on our climate, the question how significant it's contribution is compared to the natural climate cycles of the Earth, and wether running around shouting "carbon neutral" to anyone who will listen will actualy help anyone apart from those with a political/financial interest.
Regards
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
2007\10\16@132432
by
Ed Browne
|
|
>-----Original Message-----
>From: @spam@piclist-bouncesspam_OUT.....mit.edu [spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesEraseMEmit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Ed Browne
>Sent: 16 October 2007 16:06
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: RE: [OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.edu source
>
>
>Experts for Channel 4 (Carl Wunsch) said that it was a result
>of the air heating first, then warming the oceans. When the
>oceans are warmed they begin giving up their stored CO2. Cold
>water stores more CO2 than warm water and evidently the
>process takes about 800 years before a noticeable effect.
>Presumably, some other mechanism kicked in to prevent thermal
>runaway (plant growth?).
>
FWIW the Channel 4 program was widely regarded as being even more full of
holes than Mr Gores political ramblings.
>If you follow this logic and consider the fact that the
>current levels of CO2 are higher than the 2 sigma levels
>derived from ice cores dating back 650,000 years, then there
>had to have been **one hell of a massive temperature event 800
>years ago**.
I'm not sure I understand why there would have had to be been a massive
"temperature event" 800 years back? *If* the 800 year lag theory is
correct, then surely all this means is that the temperature was rising 800
years ago, and we are now seeing the effects of that. It doesn't imply that
the temperature suddenly jumped to some astounding value bfore falling back
to normal.
>>> If the lag theory is correct (despite the holes, Channel 4 made a
reasonable case for it) then there would have to have been a massive jump in
temperatures 800 years ago in order to justify the massive jumps in CO2 that
have occurred within the last century and continue to climb. The point is
that the current levels have literally jumped above the levels of CO2
trapped within ice cores dating back 650,000 years. Just like Carl Wunsch,
I'm making the assumption that the CO2 captured in the ice actually reflects
the levels existing at the time.
I agree that man is likely having some effect on our climate, the question
how significant it's contribution is compared to the natural climate cycles
of the Earth, and wether running around shouting "carbon neutral" to anyone
who will listen will actualy help anyone apart from those with a
political/financial interest.
>>>Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the
past to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels. According
to the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year. The US, Russia, and China
have the largest known coal resources. We see evidences that the world's
large oil fields are depleting more rapidly than is comfortable, so we can
reasonably expect more coal usage and eventually more nuclear. Energy needs
are not going down.
but I repeat myself.
Think about where coal, gas and oil come from. They come from dead plant
(primarily) and animal matter that has been cracked by the intense pressure
and heat of the earth to create the hydrocarbons that we burn. Oil is
formed where the matter is buried in still water; i.e.., it is an anaerobic
process so would require a shallow sea or a swamp. This process takes
millions of years. The material isn't broken into smaller components, so it
is taking the carbon that it drew from the atmosphere with it. Without
something to balance the O2 lost when hydrocarbons are burned, we alter the
relative percentages of the earth's gas mix. I work in O&G. My livelihood
depends upon your burning the oil that we find. There is considerable
science involved in finding oil, yet discoveries have been lagging
production for a while now. Reducing energy usage, hence carbon footprint,
makes sense for a lot of reasons.
BTW so many have maligned the efficacy of the climate models that I wanted
to say that I agree with you - they are flawed. The models predicting polar
ice melting have already been proven to be off by at least thirty years.
Ice has melted much faster than predicted. And it really doesn't matter
what the US and Europe do to slow CO2 because whatever China and India do,
with a combined population of 2.3 billion people, will determine what
happens to the rest of us. If they increase their per capita energy usage
to match ours, or about 17X, your use of a hybrid vehicle would be
insignificant. Does that mean that I should *not* decrease my carbon
footprint? Not if I want to set an example and be a world leader. Not if I
have kids.
This is why I lurk, rather than participate, because invariably I have to
explain or defend a statement. Time is precious.
2007\10\16@143924
by
James Newton
>Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the past
>to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels. According to
>the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year.
I would really like to see a reference for those figures. A quick google for
"Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year" did not return anything that
looked like a source.
--
James.
2007\10\16@145428
by
Chris Smolinski
> >Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the past
>>to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels. According to
>>the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year.
>
>I would really like to see a reference for those figures. A quick google for
>"Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year" did not return anything that
>looked like a source.
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html
Energy Information Administration
This page sez total US coal consumption
*decreased* 1% from 2005, to 1114.2 million short
tons.
1,161 tons is quoted, as the US coal *production* value, an increase of 2.6%
--
---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
2007\10\16@152635
by
Ed Browne
|
|
> >Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the
past
>>to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels. According to
>>the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year.
>
>I would really like to see a reference for those figures. A quick google
for
>"Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year" did not return anything that
>looked like a source.
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html
Energy Information Administration
This page sez total US coal consumption
*decreased* 1% from 2005, to 1114.2 million short
tons.
1,161 tons is quoted, as the US coal *production* value, an increase of 2.6%
>>>That's the correct reference. Electric utility usage of coal was down
1.1%, but overall production was up 2.6 percent to a new record.
to forestall request for the other link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6310869.stm
--
---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
2007\10\16@155138
by
Gerhard Fiedler
On 2007-10-16 13:06:13, Ed Browne wrote:
> In other words, the equation is so complicated that anyone who claims to
> know the "real" outcome is either a liar or uneducated. Looking for 95%
> confidence levels is silly.
Maybe -- but how silly is it then to talk about two-digit precision in
probability forecasts if the confidence levels of these forecasts are so
low? Somewhere the whole talk should make sense. Faking high-precision
results doesn't.
Gerhard
2007\10\16@164931
by
Ed Browne
|
|
On 2007-10-16 13:06:13, Ed Browne wrote:
> In other words, the equation is so complicated that anyone who claims to
> know the "real" outcome is either a liar or uneducated. Looking for 95%
> confidence levels is silly.
Maybe -- but how silly is it then to talk about two-digit precision in
probability forecasts if the confidence levels of these forecasts are so
low? Somewhere the whole talk should make sense. Faking high-precision
results doesn't.
>>> We totally agree, but logic and reason sometimes don't prevail. In
spite of our undying believe in the *truth* of statistics, we both know that
proper manipulations can provide enough doubt or support to sway people.
Regardless the actual science, some people need numbers to make their world
make sense. People on this newsgroup have complained that there are not
enough such numbers. They should give it up. Any numbers that you get for
GW will be best guesses and one Krakatoa will render them meaningless.
Here is a comment that I posted in another discussion of this matter some
time ago. My point in placing it here is that the IPCC gives some numbers
that show the variability of the climate. I would think them insane to use
double precision, but you can see that they didn't:
The IPCC report takes into account the Global Dimming effect from
particulates and their associated cloud formation.
Quote:
Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon,
black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a
total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an indirect
cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now
better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ,
satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modeling, but
remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also
influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}
The effect of Global Warming with deviations:
Quote:
The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane,
and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of increase
during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more
than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide
radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for
any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4}
for a total average heating of 2.5 - 0.5 -0.7 = 1.3Wm-2. If the deviations
in the numbers fall just right, particularly the cloud effect, particle
cooling can cancel or reverse the heating effect -0.9-1.8+2.07=-0.63Wm-2
So be aware when you ask for cleaner air that you may also contribute to
global warming. :-) A recent news article said that 25% of LA pollution was
drifting over from China -- probably from building 1 coal fired power plant
per week. That's phenomenal growth -- growth so fast that the IPCC models
and numbers are probably already out of date. So which will win,
particulate reflection of sunlight or the greenhouse effect? The IPCC
numbers suggest that either scenario is within the realm of possibility.
Both are manmade. Does that suggest that the way to control greenhouse
warming is to use particles in the upper atmosphere with known decay rates?
Why not? Maybe because we would really need to understand how climate works
before we muck it up any worse. ;-)
2007\10\17@004506
by
Russell McMahon
|
|
> Quote:
> The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide,
> methane,
> and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of
> increase
> during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented
> in more
> than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide
> radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest
> change for
> any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4}
Let me rephrase that in Science speak.
As 95% of it is in SS already changing the extra 5% back again seems
"very likely" to be worthwhile.
{Quote hidden}> Quote:
> The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide,
> methane,
> and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and there is no
> statistically significant indication that its rate of increase
> during the industrial
> era is unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1
> and SPM-2)
> although there are indications that there may be trends towards this
> being
> significant. The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20%
> from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for
> any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4}
The great thing about this new Science speak is that it gives
scientists a new freedom to say things that they would have been
stoned for until someone thought of this idea.
eg "There is no statistically significant indication that your giving
me $10,000 will be profitable for you, so, when can I expect your
check.
ie they can now make statements which USED to mean "fails" and present
them so that Joe Public thinks thy mean yes.
If I've got this wrong, by all means do point out my error.
Key assertion on my part:
Very likely = = = not statistically significant.
By IPCC definitions.
I do rather believe that the spirit of Deuteronomy 19:14 has been
broken and that the curse of Deuteronomy 27:17 applies.
Amen?*
Not to mention the metaphor of Deuteronomy 25:13 and 25:15.
Russell
* That that question is meant to be funny may require the correct
translation. ?
2007\10\17@015711
by
Ed Browne
|
|
The great thing about this new Science speak is that it gives
scientists a new freedom to say things that they would have been
stoned for until someone thought of this idea.
eg "There is no statistically significant indication that your giving
me $10,000 will be profitable for you, so, when can I expect your
check.
ie they can now make statements which USED to mean "fails" and present
them so that Joe Public thinks thy mean yes.
If I've got this wrong, by all means do point out my error.
Key assertion on my part:
Very likely = = = not statistically significant.
By IPCC definitions.
I do rather believe that the spirit of Deuteronomy 19:14 has been
broken and that the curse of Deuteronomy 27:17 applies.
Amen?*
Not to mention the metaphor of Deuteronomy 25:13 and 25:15.
Russell
>>> Well, yes, I do believe you've got it wrong. The point is that there is
uncertainty - a lot of it - but there is significant consensus in the
scientific community that there is cause for alarm. The effects of
greenhouse gases are well understood and calculable, but those of clouds and
manmade or natural particulates have tremendous deviations. Nevertheless,
the general trend is clearly towards warming. Even so, a major volcanic
eruption or a nuclear war would dramatically alter that trend and the
effects of long-term injection of soot into the upper atmosphere is not well
understood.
Even as we study the effects of GW - or perhaps because we are studying it -
we have uncovered the relationships between sunlight and evaporation,
between cloud particle size and IR reflections, uncovered mechanisms that
allow water to lubricate whole sheets of ice, and the relationship of man to
his environment. We have seen remarkably rapid loss of ice at the caps -
you can now sail over the North Pole - and industrialization in China with
unprecedented rapidity. As China and India seek to emulate the Western
standard of living, we shall see how much Man can affect his environment. I
do not mean to imply that China or any other country should be denied
industrialization, just that if it is done without thought about
sustainability or energy conservation, we will all be in trouble.
Russell, I really think you've violated some of your own standards for
rational, logical thought. This is bordering on nonsense, and I'm a great
fan, but it is. I have some idea what your point of the Bible verses is,
but I may be wrong, so I copied them below so that you can explain.
This is enough time wasted for me and I apologize for wasting other people's
time as well.
Deuteronomy 19:14
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time have
set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD
thy God giveth thee to possess it.
Deuteronomy 27:17
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. And all the people shall
say, Amen.
Deuteronomy 25:13
Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
Deuteronomy 25:15
But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure
shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD
thy God giveth thee.
2007\10\17@060118
by
Russell McMahon
|
|
Ken and maybe Rod may actually find this worth wading through.
Ed probably should too alas.
________________________
Russell said:
{Quote hidden}> The great thing about this new Science speak is that it gives
> scientists a new freedom to say things that they would have been
> stoned for until someone thought of this idea.
> eg "There is no statistically significant indication that your
> giving
> me $10,000 will be profitable for you, so, when can I expect your
> check.
> ie they can now make statements which USED to mean "fails" and
> present
> them so that Joe Public thinks thy mean yes.
> If I've got this wrong, by all means do point out my error.
> Key assertion on my part:
>
> Very likely = = = not statistically significant.
And Ed Browne, entirely reasonably, replied:
>>>> Well, yes, I do believe you've got it wrong. The point is that
>>>> there is
> uncertainty - a lot of it - but there is significant consensus in
> the
> scientific community that there is cause for alarm.
My apologies for not being totally clear about which aspect I was
referring to.
I am referring to the manner in which scientists are conveying their
findings to the piopulace at all levels (and are, apparently,
informing themselves)
Your reply is an excellent one for me to address on this matter
> The effects of greenhouse gases are well understood and calculable,
> but
> those of clouds and manmade or natural particulates have tremendous
> deviations. ...
I have no problem at all with the idea that people are measuring
things and seeing that things seem to be changing. I also have no
mandate for saying what is or isn't causing each effect or how much of
each effect. That's what the scientists are (or should be) trying to
find out.
I seek truth and I'm very pleased when people go about researching it
for me.
> Nevertheless, the general trend is clearly towards warming.
Seems likely. How long and how much and why is in need of research -
and research IS happening. Which brings us to my key issue.
... snip ... lots of good stuff on human expansion and possible
effects - no problems ...
but
> Russell, I really think you've violated some of your own standards
> for
> rational, logical thought. This is bordering on nonsense, and I'm a
> great
> fan, but it is. I have some idea what your point of the Bible
> verses is,
> but I may be wrong, so I copied them below so that you can explain.
Let's see if I can get you back on board :-)
First I'll address the entirely valid question of "what do you mean by
those references?".
> Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old
> time have
> set in thine inheritance, ...
> Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
> But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just
> measure
> shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land ...
Translation in this context:
DO NOT
- change the way you measure things without telling people that you
have or
- change or obfuscate what you mean when you say things or
- Find ways of saying things that look like they are trying to make
things clear but are really doing just the opposite.
Google said it well, even if they seem to be forgetting they said it a
little
Don't be evil.
SO:
Science has for a long long long time had a "hurdle level" of when a
measurement seemed liable to be accurately representing some fact.
Scientists knew about normal distributions, distribution tails,
standard deviations, runs, "coincidence" and all that stuff.
They KNEW that if you throw 12 coins at once repeatedly and count the
heads that sometime you'll get 12 heads, or 10 or 9. And they knew
that if this happened, by itself it had no meaning at all.
Scientists and statisticians looked at distributions and established
some rules.
They introduced a concept that they termed "statistical significance".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
They decide that there were levels or degrees of statistical
significance.
They measured them in terms of the number of standard deviations up
the tail.
The first distance up the tail that they would ever deign to even
think about thinking about giving the label "statistically
significant" was when 5% of the possible non results lay in the tail.
This was P=0.05. This REALLY meant something like
"We are confident that we can say that the result is a meaningful
one and doesn't represent an aberration or random fluctuation in the
data (BUT we really would have rather that it was a bit more
definitive than this - but we have to start somewhere and this is
often a reasonably good indication, so we'll start here)"
They followed that with the next level of P=0.01.
Because of the shape of the normal curve this is quite a lot Better
than P=0.05 - more than it may appear from the numbers. It's quite a
jump, and a scientific committee considering putting money into
something would be rather happier seeing P=0.01 on their investment.
Scientists seeing this would probably interpret it as meaning
something like
"The chances that we're not onto something here is so low that
I'll be able to sleep tonight without worrying about it".
After that we get to P=0.001 or whatever. P = 0.001 is liable to mean
something like
"What's the bookies phone number?, quick ..."
Obviously you can go back up the curve towards the centre, getting
more and more in the tail. After P=0.05 you "soon" arrive at P=0.1. To
the lay mind that may not seem too too far away. From 1 in 20 to 1 in
10.
BUT if you had EVER submitted a research paper, funding application,
thesis or whatever and said something like
"The results on which this whole shebang hinges were shown to be
statistically significant (P=0.1) ... "
you'd have found yourself out the door in the snow so fast you'd not
have had time to put you coat on.
Scientists KNEW that P=0.1 was just not good enough. They knew that
tossing coins, surfing .. er measuring waves, assessing diets in a
normally distributed population etc needed a hurdle rate that was
better than P=0.1
- Real Science has never ever in living memory used P=0.1 as an
indicator of statistical significance.
- Even P=0.05 is a bit in the grey, but it's a start.
NOW, back to "reality".
Chug through the IPCC and other, it seems, statements.
Note that they are commonly going "very likely" all over the place.
Even if we ignore the fact that the data will almost certainly have
been sanitised as much as possible, all outliers which don't fit the
desired result and which can be explained away have been explained
away. All tolerances which one may entirely legitimately swing have
been entirely legitimately swung etc. Accept all that as OK.
It's even OK of sorts of they do the following:
Say I have data of"
0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07
0.06 0.05 0.04
AND the guidelines say < 0.1 = "very likely"
(NOT <= 0.1 note)
THEN which of the data above would fit "very likely"
Properly it's obvious that only <= 0.09 would.
BUT we know that when measuring to 1 significant place then
0.15 > X >= 0.05 = 0.1
Note the inequalities and equalities carefully.
The temptation is to say that when they say < 0.1 they mean <= 0.1
And from there it's an quick shuffle to say that as < 0.15 = 0.1 to 1
significant digit then ANYTHING
in the range
0.15 > X > 0.05 = 0.1
can legitimately be quoted as "very likely"
NOW I am not saying that people are doing that, but I'd be immensely
surprised if they were not.
HOWEVER, one thing is clear.
When they say "very likely" they do NOT mean, EVER
<=0.05.
If they did they would have crossed the magic hurdle rate and would be
using the next term up and would have achieved statistical
significance by at least some standard measure, even if not a
stunningly convincing one.
BUT it is absolutely clear and certain from their own writ that the
results we see that are qualified by "very likely" are ones that in
the scientific not so past (and still if you are seeking funding for
something outside proving AGW climate change) would have seen you
outside in the snow with no coat.
BUT by changing the wording to "plain English that the common people
can understand" the Scientists have found a way of changing their own
rules, moving their own boundaries and, worst of all, as Feynman
notes, fooling themselves into thinking that they are still obeying
the same old rules of science and not lying to themselves.
They have "removed the landmarks".
They "have in their bag divers weights, a great and a small"
They have managed to not "have a perfect and just weight, a perfect
and just measure"
They are lying to YOU.
They are lying to themselves.
They have changed the rules without calling an international press
conference to explain it in plain english.
They have decided to shrug off the shackles of the old rules of
science that bound them and establish a new science that reads eg "P =
very likely".
When you have "very likely" under the tail of your normal curve you
can decide anything you want.
And they do.
I don't care how much consensus there is.
I don't care how many scientists have hunches about what they are
seeing and what they might measure in future if they massage the data
even more they may achieve a little more.
When they stop being scientists and don't tell you and don't tell me,
but you think they are fine fellows and you (plural) tend to think
that
> ... But Russell's obviously made
> up his mind, and no amounts of facts will change it.
when what I REALLY want is for Sci ... er scientists to either use the
same rules and bag of weights that they always have OR tell us all
plain and clear that they have decided to replot the normal curve,
reassess centuries of experience and introduce new nicer easier more
friendly levels of statistical significance.
If they change their rules but don't tell us then I'll keep standing
on the table and yelling.
__________
A rejoinder of sorts to all this is that "statistical significance" is
a dangerous tool and toy and that by itself and used poorly it can
lead you to some totally wrong and/or misleading conclusions. This is
true. BUT in the past scientists didn't therefore say that the tool
should be thrown out, but instead found ways to beat the analyses and
data to death to make sure they were not fooling themselves. They
largely didn't, except if they worked for Enron, change the whole
rules of reality and make up new terminology to make the problem go
away.
SO
That's why I don't think that I've violated my own standards, don't
think that I'm being irrational or not thinking logically, don't think
that this is bordering on nonsense and do think that the Bible verses
are entirely apposite.
If you've waded through to here I congratulate you, thank you and
invite comment of any sort. I don't have to be correct on all or any
of this, but I really really really can't see how I'm wrong. The
change in how science is done and the sleight of hand in communicating
to the public seems clear. By all means disabuse me of my errant
notions. I'd be sad to have wasted people's time if that happens, but
happy not to have to stand on the table yelling any longer.
Until then, "The emperor has no clothes on ..." :-)
Russell
2007\10\17@085201
by
Ed Browne
|
|
Hmmm. If I believed what you believe they said, then I would be upset too,
BUT I cannot find what you're talking about. Their definitions of value
uncertainties and structural uncertainties seems entirely reasonable to me.
Your dyslexic view of the probabilities has me confused. Here's what I
read; please give me a document and page number so that I can read yours:
______________________________________________________________
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf
Box TS.1: Treatment of Uncertainties in the Working Group I Assessment
The importance of consistent and transparent treatment of uncertainties is
clearly recognised by the IPCC in preparing its assessments of climate
change. The increasing attention given to formal treatments of uncertainty
in previous assessments is addressed in Section 1.6. To promote consistency
in the general treatment of uncertainty across all three Working Groups,
authors of the Fourth Assessment Report have been asked to follow a brief
set of guidance notes on determining and describing uncertainties in the
context of an assessment.2 This box summarises the way that Working Group I
has applied those guidelines and covers some aspects of the treatment of
uncertainty specific to material assessed here.
Uncertainties can be classified in several different ways according to their
origin. Two primary types are 'value uncertainties' and 'structural
uncertainties'. Value uncertainties arise from the incomplete determination
of particular values or results, for example, when data are inaccurate or
not fully representative of the phenomenon of interest. Structural
uncertainties arise from an incomplete understanding of the processes that
control particular values or results, for example, when the conceptual
framework or model used for analysis does not include all the relevant
processes or relationships. Value uncertainties are generally estimated
using statistical techniques and expressed probabilistically. Structural
uncertainties are generally described by giving the authors' collective
judgment of their confidence in the correctness of a result. In both cases,
estimating uncertainties is intrinsically about describing the limits to
knowledge and for this reason involves expert judgment about the state of
that knowledge. A different type of uncertainty arises in systems that are
either chaotic or not fully deterministic in nature and this also limits our
ability to project all aspects of climate change.
The scientific literature assessed here uses a variety of other generic ways
of categorising uncertainties. Uncertainties associated with 'random errors
' have the characteristic of decreasing as additional measurements are
accumulated, whereas those associated with 'systematic errors' do not. In
dealing with climate records, considerable attention has been given to the
identification of systematic errors or unintended biases arising from data
sampling issues and methods of analysing and combining data. Specialised
statistical methods based on quantitative analysis have been developed for
the detection and attribution of climate change and for producing
probabilistic projections of future climate parameters. These are summarised
in the relevant chapters.
The uncertainty guidance provided for the Fourth Assessment Report draws,
for the first time, a careful distinction between levels of confidence in
scientific understanding and the likelihoods of specific results. This
allows authors to express high confidence that an event is extremely
unlikely (e.g., rolling a dice twice and getting a six both times), as well
as high confidence that an event is about as likely as not (e.g., a tossed
coin coming up heads). Confidence and likelihood as used here are distinct
concepts but are often linked in practice. The standard terms used to
define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC
Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance
The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an
outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:
Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability
Extremely likely > 95% probability
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
More likely than not > 50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability
The terms 'extremely likely', 'extremely unlikely' and 'more likely than not
' as defined above have been added to those given in the IPCC Uncertainty
Guidance Note in order to provide a more specific assessment of aspects
including attribution and radiative forcing.
Unless noted otherwise, values given in this report are assessed best
estimates and their uncertainty ranges are 90% confidence intervals (i.e.,
there is an estimated 5% likelihood of the value being below the lower end
of the range or above the upper end of the range). Note that in some cases
the nature of the constraints on a value, or other information available,
may indicate an asymmetric distribution of the uncertainty range around a
best estimate. In such cases, the uncertainty range is given in square
brackets following the best estimate.
2007\10\17@093051
by
Russell McMahon
|
|
A second bite from a (slightly) different direction
> The great thing about this new Science speak is that it gives
> scientists a new freedom to say things that they would have been
> stoned for until someone thought of this idea.
> If I've got this wrong, by all means do point out my error.
>>>> Well, yes, I do believe you've got it wrong. The point is that
>>>> there is
> uncertainty - a lot of it - but there is significant consensus in
> the
> scientific community that there is cause for alarm.
No. That's not the point :-).
It's another point and an entirely good area to be looking at.
But what I was trying to say (and I apparently did it poorly :-( ) is
that they have not only changed the rules but are now acting as if the
new rules were always there.
> ... and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate
> of
> increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been
> unprecedented
> in more than 10,000 years ...
and it's surrounding material *feel to me* to have been written by a
scientist for scientists. If we lesser mortals come and look at it we
sort of feel that we are on hallowed ground as observers. Maybe.
BUT in the middle of the 'science speak' (radiative forcing and the
rest) we find "very likely".
Now, in the not at all distant past I feel (and maybe this is the Rip
van Winkle effect) that that term would not have been there at all.
The terms in the toolkit were, AFAIR things like " ... a statistically
significant ..." and " ... no statistically significant ..." with a P
value in brackets. I don't recall that in the dark ages they ever used
to say "tending towards significance" or similar but just maybe they
did. My wife deals with scientific reports all day every day (an
editor for a medical reports reports publishing company) and she says
that they now do use a term like 'tending towards significance' or
indications of significance. Whatever.
My point is (if I remember it :-) ) that in the past the passage above
would almost certainly NOT have been written at all as it appears now
BECAUSE he would have had to write " ... there was no statistical
significant indication that ...". As the whole point of what he is
saying is that the data tends to support a premise of a much larger
rate of occurrence of whatever than in kiloyonks. And he could not
have said that.
He would have had to say either that it didn't appear to be so OR that
there was perhaps some indication that the figures might support the
premise.
BUT now they have been given a whole gradation of terms to use which
can fit into the sentences they write and give a graded probability
curve right down to P=0.5 !
In fact !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They can now write with a straight face eg
> ... and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate
> of
> increase during the industrial era is more likely than not to have
> been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years ...
and actually MEAN between P=0.5 and P= 0.33
cf
IPCC speak table (courtesy some PICList poster) which the above
rapporteur was (presumably) using.
> Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence,
> Extremely likely> 95%,
> Very likely > 90%,
> Likely > 66%,
> More likely than not > 50%,
> Unlikely < 33%,
> Very unlikely < 10%,
> Extremely unlikely < 5%.
This is utter travesty.
P=0.5 is so close to the mean it matters not a whit.
P=0.33 is one standard deviation out.
The Azores butterfly could push any global warming indicator out to 1
SD from norm with a single wingflip.
I haven't yet SEEN any 'scientist' saying "more likely than not' in
such a context BUT it is as legitimate to do that as it is to say
"very likely".
50% < X <= 66% DOES NOT mean "more likely than not" in statistics. It
never has and it never never never will. It means far far far inside
the are of the normal curve where random variation let's this sort of
thing happen as of right and with no essential meaning at all.
And having > 66% (about 1 SD) is worse.
But when Joe/Josephine Sheeple hears a scientist say "it is likely
that ..." he/she THINKS they know what the scientist mean. They don't
know that nowadays when a scientist says "likely" they really mean
"random noise".
ALL of this is lies and moving of markers and unequal weights in the
weighing bag. It's just a matter of scale between "very likely" and
"more likely than not".
Do you think that something is broken.
I think it more likely than not that it is.
Russell
.
2007\10\17@093051
by
Russell McMahon
A (to me) stunning thought.
Tell someone of scientific bent that a hypothetical experiment
indicated that it was "likely" that some event passed some criteria or
other.
Then ask them how that answer would need to rate relative to the
criteria for statistical significance.
I hadn't thought of it that way but its stunning.
In the real past I'd say that if you'd asked a science spokesman to
produce a common english phrase for meeting P=0.05 they'd have thought
a while and would "quite probably" have offered "likely" as an
equivalent.
eg P=0.05 = = = "likely"
Nowadays P= 0.33 is "likely
Quite a shift.
R
> Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence,
> Extremely likely> 95%,
> Very likely > 90%,
> Likely > 66%,
> More likely than not > 50%,
> Unlikely < 33%,
> Very unlikely < 10%,
> Extremely unlikely < 5%.
2007\10\17@122754
by
Martin
FWIW the energy information administration is a great source for..
energy information
http://www.eia.doe.gov/
--
Martin K
James Newton wrote:
{Quote hidden}>> Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the past
>> to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels. According to
>> the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>> 2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year.
>>
>
> I would really like to see a reference for those figures. A quick google for
> "Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
> 2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year" did not return anything that
> looked like a source.
>
> --
> James.
>
>
2007\10\17@132018
by
Ed Browne
|
|
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) doesn't actually do the
science - merely reports it to policy makers. There are summaries and more
technical information, but it is all written to be used (eventually) by
politicians. Thus it seems reasonable to me to take a single scientific
data point and attach a lesser "feel good" confidence than one that has been
corroborated 16 times. Policy makers need to know if they might be dealing
with a wild point in the data or one that is solidly proven by peer review
and duplication - or if the result was arrived at from a multitude of
corroborating angles. Personally, I applaud the international community for
forging ahead despite our (US) corrupt and dishonest administration. Talk
about scientific dishonesty!
As for being on or off topic, the OP brought up the 800 year lag between
temperature and the CO2 curve and I presented what I consider to be a
relevant posit for why it doesn't apply to the current data, so you have,
indeed, missed the point again. As far as I know, no one has stated it the
way that I did, which to me at least, proves the disconnect between natural
CO2 and manmade; i.e., there would need to have been a massive temperature
event 800 years ago to cause the equivalent massive CO2 shift today. There
wasn't, so there is a different mechanism at work.
{Original Message removed}
2007\10\17@180911
by
Russell McMahon
|
|
> ... politicians. Thus it seems reasonable to me to take a single
> scientific
> data point and attach a lesser "feel good" confidence than one that
> has been
> corroborated 16 times. Policy makers need to know if they might be
> dealing
> with a wild point in the data or one that is solidly proven by peer
> review ...
I absolutely agree with what you are saying.
AND my concern is that is EXACTLY what is not happening due to the new
terminology.
If anyone can be bothered reading the following I hope that they will
see [tm] that the above intention is being undermined by the new
method of reducing probability ranges to words.
We seem to be talking somewhat at cross purposes, and through each
other, which is unfortunate but what tends to happen when two (or
more) people wish to be objective but have bees in their bonnets and
the bees are different :-). If it was the same bee they'd tend to be
more jointly targeted :-).
I am concerned at the shift in the way information is being conveyed
to the greater community - certainly including but not limited to
information to politicians.
I contend, and I feel more and more certain of my ground as I go
(danger Will Robinson ... ;-) ), that material that was once only able
to be reported as happenstance or worthy of noting as a guide to
future study is now being sold as apparent holy writ, by using
language which is apparently intended to clarify but is in fact
misleading people. And it is clear that it will mislead people if they
are not educated in the new terminology.
IPCC
"likely"
actually means
"is the sort of occurrence which happens all the time in
normally
distributed populations and for the purposes of scientific
study
is so close to average that no significance whatsoever should
be assigned to it".
To demonstrate without endless digging for precise wording that this
is happening
IPCC
>> Likely > 66%,
Websters third New International Dictionary 1961 (chosen because it is
the largest paper dictionary to hand - 2700A4 fine print pages)
p2117
Term: Statistically significant
Example of use: ... statistically significant correlation
between
vitamin deficiency and disease.
Explanation: Probably caused by something other than mere
chance.
In the layman's mind the terms "probably" and "likely" are, I think,
close enough to synonymous to allow this example to ring alarm bells
if it doesn't actually convince outright. If it did neither I'd
probably be concerned. (Or, likely be concerned).
Here, IPCC are using the word "likely" in contexts where in the past
scientists were meaning 'that's the sort of minor variation that
happens all the time in a randomly distributed population, move
along".
_____________
As to
> IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
> doesn't actually do the science ...
What they do do is provide guidelines to scientists as to how they
should present their results. They say that scientists "should" say eg
"likely" when they mean ">66%" and, as your cited example shows,
scientists have taken note of these guidelines and are using them.
So, while IPCC may not be doing the science they are managing to
manage how the results should be presented. "The hand that rocks the
cradle ..." as it were.
________________
And, finally (phew)
> ... CO2 and manmade; i.e., there would need to have been a massive
> temperature
> event 800 years ago to cause the equivalent massive CO2 shift today.
> There
> wasn't, so there is a different mechanism at work.
The whole point of conventional statistical treatment of scientific
results was to give formal process to analysing results that may
APPEAR to be well correlated examples of some effect or other. It was
(and is) obvious that human nature, hopefulness and normal
fluctuations in the data could produce results that appeared to even a
careful observer to have meaning above what was actually there. So the
concept of statistical significance was born. It's an arbitrary point
in the tail (or, a series of points) but they are founded on all past
experience. The first hurdle point at 0.05 has been long long ago set
as the lowest at which you can "risk" attributing causality etc to
even what may be an apparent avalanche of proof.
So eg
> " ... there would need to have been a ..."
is another way of saying
"the data appears to me to show".
But, the standard scientific tests say
" ... using the standard tests, the data does not show ...
(although there are indications that there may be something along
those lines happening)"
By supplying the toolkit of 'likely / very likely / extremely likely'
the IPCC has allowed a scientist to take what would used to have been
a rejected hunch and report it as a probable confirmation.
While I can understand that researchers might be glad to have this new
more continuously graded means of presenting their data, it has tilted
the playing field massively.
While I agree totally with your
{Quote hidden}> ... Thus it seems reasonable to me to take a single scientific
> data point and attach a lesser "feel good" confidence than one that
> has been
> corroborated 16 times. Policy makers need to know if they might be
> dealing
> with a wild point in the data or one that is solidly proven by peer
> review
> and duplication - or if the result was arrived at from a multitude
> of
> corroborating angles.
Words below in [...] have been added by me to make your summarised
quote still read as YOU intended it to after I have summarised it
What is in fact happening is that the long time honoured filter of, as
you put it -
> " ... corroborated 16 times ... [not] dealing with a wild point in
> the data
> ... [but] one that is solidly proven by peer review and
> duplication -
> [and that] the result was arrived at from a multitude of
> corroborating angles."
which is P <= 0.05
has been broken through by wordsmiths who now allow the impressive
enough "likely" and "very likely" to present results which DO NOT meet
the above tests. Just as the data in your example did not meet the
traditional tests.
And, scientists have taken up the "suggestions" and are using them (as
your example shows) to present data in a different light than the same
data would have been presented in the past.
Russell
2007\10\17@181507
by
Gerhard Fiedler
|
Russell McMahon wrote:
> IPCC speak table (courtesy some PICList poster) which the above
> rapporteur was (presumably) using.
>
>> Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence,
>> Extremely likely> 95%,
>> Very likely > 90%,
>> Likely > 66%,
>> More likely than not > 50%,
>> Unlikely < 33%,
>> Very unlikely < 10%,
>> Extremely unlikely < 5%.
>
> This is utter travesty.
> P=0.5 is so close to the mean it matters not a whit.
> P=0.33 is one standard deviation out.
Russell, I think you may be confusing probabilities with confidence levels
-- if I understand you correctly (and if I understand confidence levels
correctly :). Note that they also have a suggested wording for confidence
levels, which is different from the above.
For probabilities (not confidence levels), 50% does /not/ mean it's close
to the mean. If I can give a probability of 50% for rain this afternoon,
this is a meaningful data; the mean of rain or not (here at least) is quite
different, and even if it were not different, the prediction that this
afternoon the probability is close to the mean does add information.
There's nothing that says how the events these probabilities describe are
distributed and what the mean is. (In fact, these number are exactly what
the models are supposed to calculate.)
However, this probability doesn't yet say what the confidence level of such
a prediction is. And I think that's where things get interesting, as the
IPCC doesn't state a single confidence level with any of its probability
predictions.
Gerhard
2007\10\17@191203
by
Russell McMahon
> Russell, I think you may be confusing probabilities with
> confidence levels
> -- if I understand you correctly (and if I understand
> confidence levels
> correctly :). Note that they also have a suggested wording
> for confidence
> levels, which is different from the above.
I'll need to word and put all this far more tightly in due
course I can see :-)
How do you feel that the above applies when a scientist says
(as per the quoted example that this conversation is based
on) ?
" ... and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W
m-2, and
its rate of increase during the industrial era is
very likely to have
been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years ... "
Russell
2007\10\18@065248
by
Gerhard Fiedler
|
|
Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Russell, I think you may be confusing probabilities with confidence
>> levels -- if I understand you correctly (and if I understand confidence
>> levels correctly :). Note that they also have a suggested wording for
>> confidence levels, which is different from the above.
Maybe a clarification here. It seems to me that you assume models that
output "hard" data, with a given confidence that this data is correct. I
assumed models that output probabilities of events, with a given confidence
that these probabilities are correct. It depends on what you consider the
output data.
> How do you feel that the above applies when a scientist says (as per the
> quoted example that this conversation is based on) ?
>
> " ... and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate
> of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been
> unprecedented in more than 10,000 years ... "
For me, it's impossible to say whether this is a case of "very likely"
being a transcription of the results of applying a model to the data (in
which case the confidence data would be missing) or whether the "very
likely" is a transcription of the confidence level.
I wonder why they added the suggested terminology for confidence levels if
they don't use it.
Gerhard
2007\10\18@081930
by
Russell McMahon
|
|
Preamble: I believe that this issue is crucially
important to science as a whole. I believe that very very
naughty things are "very probably" being done and that
scientists are fooling not only the public but themselves.
How likely this is has only become increasingly clear as I
have rambled on over the last while and been abused in
various ways by a number of people. Abuse is oft enough the
fuel which keeps one at a lost cause until it's suddenly
won, so I sincerely thank those who have kept my nose to the
grindstone :-)
I believe that I can now, with quite a lot more checking to
avoid the errors that Gerhard has pointed out in my
assumption set, make a near waterproof case that both an
intelligent layman or dispassionate disinterested scientist
would acknowledge as wholly valid that
Science speak of the " ... likely / very likely ..." type
(absolutely regardless of the intentions in introducing it)
has done a vast disservice to the areas in which it is being
used and is misleading not only the general public and
politicians but also the scientists who are using it. I am
arrogant enough to believe that if this case is clearly and
competently made in the appropriate quarters then it will
cause a major change in how information is promulgated.
However, I may wake up at any moment ... :-)
___________________
{Quote hidden}> Maybe a clarification here. It seems to me that you assume
> models that
> output "hard" data, with a given confidence that this data
> is correct. I
> assumed models that output probabilities of events, with a
> given confidence
> that these probabilities are correct. It depends on what
> you consider the
> output data.
_________________________
I try to assume nothing - but I manage to do so all the time
:-). :-(.
Your point is understood. I'm not sure that it is one that
the person who wrote the paragraph under discussion gave
enough attention to. But, more work needed on that
'sometime".
BUT I have not done the dog with a bone shaking that this
needs yet. And it may be a wee while before I get to it as
work and other demands are very heavy here. Going on holiday
with my wife next week is a necessary demand (albeit a
pleasant one) and I'm playing at sole wedding photographer*
as soon as I get back (among the more high pressure tasks
around - blink and you miss it, get it wrong and there's no
coming back) and ...
{Quote hidden}>> How do you feel that the above applies when a scientist
>> says (as per the
>> quoted example that this conversation is based on) ?
>>
>> " ... and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W
>> m-2, and its rate
>> of increase during the industrial era is very likely to
>> have been
>> unprecedented in more than 10,000 years ... "
>
> For me, it's impossible to say whether this is a case of
> "very likely"
> being a transcription of the results of applying a model
> to the data (in
> which case the confidence data would be missing) or
> whether the "very
> likely" is a transcription of the confidence level.
To me it SEEMS clear what is being said.
In any past era the words "very likely" in that statement
would have been substituted with an indication of the P
value that had been determined for the result he is
suggesting. Here (if one accepts the translation from the
table I gave which may be a questionable one) then he is
saying P = 0.1 He certainly isn't saying anything more
probable than P=0.1 If he had been restricted to using a P
value (I suggest that) he would not have made the statement
at all because it would have been an admission in the one
sentence that what he was saying didn't stand up to
scientific scrutiny. But, by having access to the new
toolkit of likely/very likely/... (even if it's the wrong
toolkit for whatever reason :-) ) then he is able to make
statements which SOUND like they statistically support his
case while simultaneously demonstrating that by all past
standards the case fails.
ie
1. A layman will think that he has said something
precisely the opposite of what he has said
and
2. He feels he can say it meaningfully. ie he actually is
believing the false impression that he is giving the layman
as to the scientific rigour of his findings.
So - he isn't lying to the layman - rather he is misleading
both them and himself.
I ran his paragraph past a competent commentator and asked
what they thought it meant in formal terms. They did not
know what my point was in advance. They are
*vastly*experienced in areas of probabilistic treatment of
data but had not till then been exposed to the
.../likely/...
translations.
More on the Q&A anon, but they assumed he was indicating
statistical significance and were amazed when I said that I
believed it meant P=0.1 (or possible as high as 0.1(or, just
possibly) as high as 0.229 or so
as sqrt(90*66) = ~77.07 and 1-.770714 = 0.229286
So P = 0.229 = ~77.1% when quoted at one figure significance
is closer to 90% than 60% geometrically so can (perhaps) be
quoted as "very likely".
If so, then a one in 4 and a bit chance is "very likely".
As per the table I quoted (whatever it's meant to apply to
:-) ) we know that a 1 out of 3 chance is "likely".
In 1961 "probably" was " statistically significant" sez
Websters edition 3 = 95% or P=0.05 so we've come a long
way.
I think that it's probably fair to say that probably and
very likely are close enough to being synonymous OR that
very likely is more like "very probably", which makes my
case very very very well indeed, but it's extremely likely
that some people will try to defend an alternative position.
Russell
> I wonder why they added the suggested terminology for
> confidence levels if
> they don't use it.
For later study :-)
* Not my day job.
For "fun" occasionally.
I may be able to do without such panic inducing fun in
future.
2007\10\19@015714
by
Russell McMahon
Waiting eagerly here ...
Seriously.
Russell
'[EE] Nordic nRF8001 Bluetooth'
2011\03\05@120407
by
YES NOPE9
|
|
Has anyone worked with this chip ? I believe it is a Bluetooth to
SPI interface chip. It may support asynchronous serial .... I am not sure about that since I did not see a SPP profile listed.
$3 qty 1
I am not sure about the Bluetooth profiles it supports.
Bluetooth low energy stack •• All layers up to GATT included
incore software stack Link Layer Features
•• Slave role •• Control PDUs in the slave role •• 27 byte MTU •• Encryption
L2CAP •• 27 byte MTU •• Slave connection update •• Attribute Channel •• Security channel
General Access Profile (GAP) features •• Discoverable modes •• Dedicated bonding •• GAP attributes
Attribute Protocol •• Mandatory client protocol •• Mandatory server protocol
Security Manager •• Generation of keys for encryption •• Just works security
Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) •• Mandatory client profile features •• Mandatory server profile features
Direct Test Mode (DTM) •• DTM for RF qualification
Which of these protocols is a Bluetooth smart phone likely to support ?
I am looking for simple , cheap low speed bi-directional data transfer with a smart phone.
http://www.semiconductorstore.com/pdf/newsite/nordic/PB_nRF8001_v1_0.pdf
gus in denver 99gus
'[EE] Nordic nRF8001 Bluetooth'
2011\03\05@191743
by
Gordon
|
|
Hi Gus
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:04 PM, YES NOPE9 <yesspamBeGonenope9.com> wrote:
> Has anyone worked with this chip ? I believe it is a Bluetooth to
> SPI interface chip. It may support asynchronous serial .... I am not sure about that since I did not see a SPP profile listed.
> $3 qty 1
The Nordic device is a 'Single Mode' Bluetooth Low Energy chip. It is
designed for small low power sensors.
Bluetooth Low Energy is different to traditional Bluetooth, Although
they use same radio they are subtly different that Low Energy Devices
are not backwards compatible. Also Low Energy also has it's own set of
strimmed down profiles to match the lower data rate sensor style
applications of Low Energy. (So no SPP)
Single mode means it will only do BT Low Energy and Low Energy Profiles.
Dual Mode Devices (BT 4.0) will do both Legacy and Low Energy. However
phones with Dual mode BT chips are not likely to hit the shops until
end of Q3 - Q4.
> Which of these protocols is a Bluetooth smart phone likely to support ?
So none at the moment :(
> I am looking for simple , cheap low speed bi-directional data transfer with a smart phone.
Depends on the Phone. I'd say SPP is your best bet as most Phone OS
(except iPhone I think) will give you enough of an interface to BT to
get SPP. However that means module on the other side, this usually is
one with a CSR BC4 and external flash which pushes the price up.....
Sorry I can't be of more positive help with your end goal, Low energy
may do what you want but not yet.
Best regards,
Gordon
'[EE]:: Altair 8800 Replica - $279 assembled.'
2011\08\01@012335
by
RussellMc
They play a bit fast and loose with the term "replica" but it walks
like an Altair 8800 and talks like an Altair 8800 and even looks like
an Altair 8800. It has a hit more hidden under the hood than seems
totally seemly
$Us270 assembled. $US199 kit I think
http://www.brielcomputers.com/wordpress/?cat=11
Russel
2011\08\01@015707
by
PICdude
Wow, second timely post from you. I just got back from Trinidad yesterday (where I grew up), and brought this back... http://www.veisystems.com/stuff/T80M3-01.jpg . TRS-80 Model III maxed out to 48k, 2 DD drives, and a hi-res graphics card.
Plugged it in today and it literally smoked, so I have a repair project on my hands. But prob not for some time as I'm swamped with other things to do.
Cheers,
-Neil.
Quoting RussellMc <RemoveMEapptechnz@spam@spamBeGonegmail.com>:
{Quote hidden}> They play a bit fast and loose with the term "replica" but it walks
> like an Altair 8800 and talks like an Altair 8800 and even looks like
> an Altair 8800. It has a hit more hidden under the hood than seems
> totally seemly
>
> $Us270 assembled. $US199 kit I think
>
>
>
http://www.brielcomputers.com/wordpress/?cat=11
>
>
> Russell
>
'[EE] EPI-800 instrument system'
2012\01\18@020655
by
IVP
Hi all,
I've got a client with a light plane with the Vision Microsystems
EPI-800 instrument panel installed
http://www.visionmicrosystems.com/product/epi800specs.html
My understanding is that VM were taken over and old documentation
is not available
There's a minor problem with the tachometer that I'd be interested
to know if others have
The tachometer reading, which is in increments of 20rpm, isn't stable,
even though he can hear that the prop speed is. For example at 2500
rpm it flicks between 2480 and 2520
I've had it apart and find no electrical fault. The sensors are selected
in turn by CMOS 4096 switches, the selected signal is buffered and
scaled by an instrumentation amp, then digitised by an ADC0804. An
8051 sends this data out to the LCD controllers
A quick test with a signal generator shows that the display is stable
if the frequency is a multiple of 20 +/- 2Hz, so my guess is that the
8051's s/w isn't filtering as tightly as it could
My plan, if I have to, is to add a PIC to take the original signal and
buffer its frequency to rpm exactly divisible by 20. Fairly simple to
measure the time between prop signals and output the next highest
/20 frequency
My plan, if I don't have to, is tell him to just ignore it ;-)) I can see
how it would get to bother you though
But I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience with this now
quite old package
TIA
Joe
2012\01\18@072800
by
M.L.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:06 AM, IVP <.....joecolquitt@spam@EraseMEclear.net.nz> wrote:
> My plan, if I have to, is to add a PIC to take the original signal and
> buffer its frequency to rpm exactly divisible by 20. Fairly simple to
> measure the time between prop signals and output the next highest
> /20 frequency
It's a lot of effort, but:
You could replace the ADC0804 with a PIC and perform filtering in the
PIC firmware.
Option 2:
Cut the least significant bit wire which leaves the ADC0804
-- Martin K
2012\01\18@092148
by
Carl Denk
|
|
Have you tried contacting Vision? The organizations that got started catering to the homebuilt plane market were generally quite helpful.
http://www.visionmicrosystems.com/faq/faq_index.html
On 1/18/2012 2:06 AM, IVP wrote:
{Quote hidden}> Hi all,
>
> I've got a client with a light plane with the Vision Microsystems
> EPI-800 instrument panel installed
>
>
http://www.visionmicrosystems.com/product/epi800specs.html
>
> My understanding is that VM were taken over and old documentation
> is not available
>
> There's a minor problem with the tachometer that I'd be interested
> to know if others have
>
> The tachometer reading, which is in increments of 20rpm, isn't stable,
> even though he can hear that the prop speed is. For example at 2500
> rpm it flicks between 2480 and 2520
>
> I've had it apart and find no electrical fault. The sensors are selected
> in turn by CMOS 4096 switches, the selected signal is buffered and
> scaled by an instrumentation amp, then digitised by an ADC0804. An
> 8051 sends this data out to the LCD controllers
>
> A quick test with a signal generator shows that the display is stable
> if the frequency is a multiple of 20 +/- 2Hz, so my guess is that the
> 8051's s/w isn't filtering as tightly as it could
>
> My plan, if I have to, is to add a PIC to take the original signal and
> buffer its frequency to rpm exactly divisible by 20. Fairly simple to
> measure the time between prop signals and output the next highest
> /20 frequency
>
> My plan, if I don't have to, is tell him to just ignore it ;-)) I can see
> how it would get to bother you though
>
> But I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience with this now
> quite old package
>
> TIA
>
> Joe
>
>
>
2012\01\18@101356
by
Carl Denk
|
|
Several additional thoughts:
1: Have you checked the RPM with another tachometer?? There are accurate reflective tachometers out there, maybe the local aircraft mechanic might allow your use of it. +/- 20 RPM isn't much, probably might not notice with the ears.
2: Most of the piston aircraft after market tachometers that I have seen, are all digital, using a hall effect device, coil of wire around an ignition wire, etc. The analog were for oil, fuel, etc. pressures current and voltage.
3: Electrical noise is common in aircraft since they have (usually) magneto ignitions and generators or alternators, radio transmitters and strobe lights. Shielding, filtering are important using twisted pairs, shielded wire, toroids, capacitors. Wire shields must be grounded only one end, and not used as a conductor. DId this installation just start misbehaving, or is this an installation with no experience? I would look at the installation from an electronic designer's eyes. It hasn't been said, but I'm thinking this is a homebuilt aircraft, where the installation was not done by a certified avionic shop. Not saying that the builder is less than good, but as we all know (maybe) when working with small signals, there are many little "tricks", that might be overlooked. maybe a capacitor or toroid is needed. On our aircraft the power lead to the strobe lights dress location was very critical (I just stumbled on the fix). Even though the 8" long wire came directly from the battery with a relay in the circuit, it caused a ticking in the radio audio. Just moving the wire an inch solved the problem. Still amazing to me. I would check spark plug wires.
4: Check all connections and terminals for a dirty/loose connection. Wiggle everything.
5: Generating a signal on the bench, are you able to duplicate the issue to isolate the the panel unit? If this is an analog signal , what happens with a DMM on the plane to the circuit. If it's a digital signal, use the DMM frequency capability. The RPM might be off by a factor of 2 or 4, ??.
6: Check the unit's capacitors. Maybe add a power filter cap. The manufacturer may even have a fix or repair it at very minimal cost..
Give us more info. :)
On 1/18/2012 9:21 AM, Carl Denk wrote:
{Quote hidden}> Have you tried contacting Vision? The organizations that got started
> catering to the homebuilt plane market were generally quite helpful.
>
http://www.visionmicrosystems.com/faq/faq_index.html
>
> On 1/18/2012 2:06 AM, IVP wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've got a client with a light plane with the Vision Microsystems
>> EPI-800 instrument panel installed
>>
>> www.visionmicrosystems.com/product/epi800specs.html
>>
>> My understanding is that VM were taken over and old documentation
>> is not available
>>
>> There's a minor problem with the tachometer that I'd be interested
>> to know if others have
>>
>> The tachometer reading, which is in increments of 20rpm, isn't stable,
>> even though he can hear that the prop speed is. For example at 2500
>> rpm it flicks between 2480 and 2520
>>
>> I've had it apart and find no electrical fault. The sensors are selected
>> in turn by CMOS 4096 switches, the selected signal is buffered and
>> scaled by an instrumentation amp, then digitised by an ADC0804. An
>> 8051 sends this data out to the LCD controllers
>>
>> A quick test with a signal generator shows that the display is stable
>> if the frequency is a multiple of 20 +/- 2Hz, so my guess is that the
>> 8051's s/w isn't filtering as tightly as it could
>>
>> My plan, if I have to, is to add a PIC to take the original signal and
>> buffer its frequency to rpm exactly divisible by 20. Fairly simple to
>> measure the time between prop signals and output the next highest
>> /20 frequency
>>
>> My plan, if I don't have to, is tell him to just ignore it ;-)) I can see
>> how it would get to bother you though
>>
>> But I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience with this now
>> quite old package
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
2012\01\18@114424
by
John Coppens
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:06:47 +1300
IVP <.....joecolquittRemoveMEclear.net.nz> wrote:
> There's a minor problem with the tachometer that I'd be interested
> to know if others have
Note that, to measure RPM with a resolution of 20, you have to measure
at least 3 seconds, if the speed is actually taken from the axle.
If exactly 3 seconds are measured, the result will always be +/- 1, as
the number of transitions will randomly coincide with the 3 second gate.
To improve precision, you can either:
- enlarge the gate time, then divide. But then the response time will
be unreasonable - the time from changeing throttle to readout.
- Put in a processor which filters, but not simply filter the RPM, for
the same reason as previous. You have to measure the period instead.
- Put in a PLL (CD4046) which can filter in the feedback loop.
Note: I somewhat doubt that the RPM will pass through the ADC, unless
the RPM sensor is linear/analog.
Though I like precision too, 2500 +/- 20 looks quite precise to me.
Jumping LCD/LED displays are the curse of modern technology - nobody
cared when the old mechanical RPM needle was nearly 100 RPM wide...
Joh
2012\01\18@121432
by
Carl Denk
|
|
I think that the real complaint is the reading is not a steady RPM to the full resolution of the display. Could be not enough consecutive readings are used to calculate an average reading, but then, the more readings, the poorer the shown response to actual speed changes. It wouldn't surprise me that the single units digit of the display, or even 10's was driven as a "0" permanently) I still question whether the RPM isn't a full digital circuit. And then is there noise in the circuit. :) Perhaps better (and not trying to stop this thread here) forum might be in the homebuilt aircraft area.
On 1/18/2012 11:44 AM, John Coppens wrote:
{Quote hidden}> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:06:47 +1300
> IVP<
.....joecolquittSTOPspam@spam@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>> There's a minor problem with the tachometer that I'd be interested
>> to know if others have
>>
> Note that, to measure RPM with a resolution of 20, you have to measure
> at least 3 seconds, if the speed is actually taken from the axle.
>
> If exactly 3 seconds are measured, the result will always be +/- 1, as
> the number of transitions will randomly coincide with the 3 second gate.
>
> To improve precision, you can either:
>
> - enlarge the gate time, then divide. But then the response time will
> be unreasonable - the time from changeing throttle to readout.
>
> - Put in a processor which filters, but not simply filter the RPM, for
> the same reason as previous. You have to measure the period instead.
>
> - Put in a PLL (CD4046) which can filter in the feedback loop.
>
>
> Note: I somewhat doubt that the RPM will pass through the ADC, unless
> the RPM sensor is linear/analog.
>
> Though I like precision too, 2500 +/- 20 looks quite precise to me.
> Jumping LCD/LED displays are the curse of modern technology - nobody
> cared when the old mechanical RPM needle was nearly 100 RPM wide...
>
> John
>
2012\01\18@164727
by
IVP
Martin,
> You could replace the ADC0804 with a PIC and perform filtering in
> the PIC firmware
As John suggested, the prop sensor signal might not go through F-V
conversion, but be presented to the 8051 directly as digital. However,
I did trace the signal to one of the 4069 switch ICs. My goal for the
short time I had was to find out if a steady frequency gave a steady
display. Just for curiosity I did poke around in the circuit afterwards
I already have a PIC in there which I can add s/w to. His prop puts
out 2 pulses/rev, the VM expects 4, so mine doubles the frequency
> Option 2:
> Cut the least significant bit wire which leaves the ADC0804
I put it to him and he'd prefer not as there are other displays on the
cable. Given the age (1989) of it, the tolerances of components, and
the percentage error of 20rpm at 2500rpm, it's not that bad really.
And I was pleasantly surprised at the build quality too. Very nice
Carl,
> Have you tried contacting Vision? The organizations that got started
> catering to the homebuilt plane market were generally quite helpful.
> http://www.visionmicrosystems.com/faq/faq_index.html
Thanks, I did have a quick look initially but didn't really follow it up
> 5: Generating a signal on the bench, are you able to duplicate the issue
> to isolate the the panel unit?
Yes. If I feed it with 50Hz (transformer secondary) the display will
flicker more or less evenly between 740 and 760 rpm which leads me
to suspecting the 8051 s/w. At 100Hz input it is steady at 1500rpm,
ditto at 200Hz/3000rpm. Deviating from /20 gets it flickering
(It expects 4 pulses/rev, so 50Hz = 12.5rps = 750rpm)
> The RPM might be off by a factor of 2 or 4, ??
I'm fairly sure there's nothing wrong with the signal path
John,
> Note that, to measure RPM with a resolution of 20, you have to
> measure at least 3 seconds, if the speed is actually taken from the
> axle
My other contribution to his plane is the variable prop controller. I
count signal pulses and divide by time to get rpm, on a longer time
scale than this unit does
> - enlarge the gate time, then divide. But then the response time will
> be unreasonable - the time from changeing throttle to readout
Although a plane has generally more inertia than a car for example.
Most of the time is in cruise, not changing gear to go around corners
or laying rubber in front of Smokey ;-)
> Though I like precision too, 2500 +/- 20 looks quite precise to me
I believe the display is showing, as best it can, the true prop speed
on average
> Jumping LCD/LED displays are the curse of modern technology -
> nobody cared when the old mechanical RPM needle was nearly
> 100 RPM wide...
The owner has thought of a meter but finding one to match the others
might be a problem. The VM display has 100rpm graduations around
the circumference of the dial, which incidentally don't flicker on a 100
boundary when the centre digits do, leading to further speculation
about the s/w
Thanks for all the replies
Jo
2012\01\18@172040
by
Carl Denk
This might be one of the earlier versions of the software, with Vision having an update. Certainly should contact them. If one had access to the source code, would be easy to burn a fix. The last paragraph of Vision's FAQ's indicated the give excellent support.
> I believe the display is showing, as best it can, the true prop speed
> on average
>
'[OT]:: At last the Nikon D800 :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( '
2012\02\07@073723
by
RussellMc
After a long long wait Nikon have announced the eagerly anticipated d800.
Full frame DSLR in a dwarf';s body.
DPReview hands on preview
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/
Image thereof
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/images/intro.jpg
Alas it's got a 36 MP sensor and max basic speed of 4 fps.
(You can raise that to 6 fps with extra $ or subterfuge).
No mention is made in the DPReview preview of noise performance. But,
unless Nikon have worked some utter magix (always possible) the
existing 3.5 year old D700 will be a better high ISO machine.
Lokks like I may have to start watching D700 prices :-)
2012\02\07@232435
by
V G
|
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:36 AM, RussellMc <apptechnzEraseME@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> After a long long wait Nikon have announced the eagerly anticipated d800..
> Full frame DSLR in a dwarf';s body.
>
> DPReview hands on preview
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/
>
> Image thereof
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/images/intro.jpg
>
> Alas it's got a 36 MP sensor and max basic speed of 4 fps.
> (You can raise that to 6 fps with extra $ or subterfuge).
>
> No mention is made in the DPReview preview of noise performance. But,
> unless Nikon have worked some utter magix (always possible) the
> existing 3.5 year old D700 will be a better high ISO machine.
>
> Lokks like I may have to start watching D700 prices :-)
If it is one thing that I have learned from this list, it is that all of
you have accumulated a great deal of wealth, and don't think twice about
spending a few bucks on small things like chips, components, getting PCBs
made professionally, tools, etc.
So why watch D700 prices? The most it'll drop is, what, $200 or so? And I'm
sure you have WAY more than $200 lying around. If you really want it, BUY
IT NOW!
I know if I had as money as all of you do, I certainly wouldn't be so
frugal with respect to good quality items such as this camera
2012\02\08@002101
by
John Ferrell
|
Hopefully, you will have a class in Engineering Economics. It will answer questions that you have yet to discover!
On 2/7/2012 11:24 PM, V G wrote:
{Quote hidden}> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:36 AM, RussellMc<
RemoveMEapptechnzspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
>
>> After a long long wait Nikon have announced the eagerly anticipated d800.
>> Full frame DSLR in a dwarf';s body.
>>
>> DPReview hands on preview
>>
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/
>>
>> Image thereof
>> www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/images/intro.jpg
>>
>> Alas it's got a 36 MP sensor and max basic speed of 4 fps.
>> (You can raise that to 6 fps with extra $ or subterfuge).
>>
>> No mention is made in the DPReview preview of noise performance. But,
>> unless Nikon have worked some utter magix (always possible) the
>> existing 3.5 year old D700 will be a better high ISO machine.
>>
>> Lokks like I may have to start watching D700 prices :-)
>
> If it is one thing that I have learned from this list, it is that all of
> you have accumulated a great deal of wealth, and don't think twice about
> spending a few bucks on small things like chips, components, getting PCBs
> made professionally, tools, etc.
>
> So why watch D700 prices? The most it'll drop is, what, $200 or so? And I'm
> sure you have WAY more than $200 lying around. If you really want it, BUY
> IT NOW!
>
> I know if I had as money as all of you do, I certainly wouldn't be so
> frugal with respect to good quality items such as this camera.
-- John Ferrell W8CCW
Be thankful we're not getting all the
government we're paying for. - Will Rogers
2012\02\08@005736
by
RussellMc
>> Looks like I may have to start watching D700 prices :-)
> If it is one thing that I have learned from this list, it is that all of
> you have accumulated a great deal of wealth, and don't think twice about
> spending a few bucks on small things like chips, components, getting PCBs
> made professionally, tools, etc.
If that was really the one thing you had learned here then it would
be sad AND you would have been mislead. (Fortunately, I know from
observation that you have learned many other and more useful things as
well).
The income and wealth levels amongst list members are very varied, a
significant number here have low incomes and/or net wealth by your or
general western standards, and the ratio of discretionary or
disposable income to gross income can vary widely, either due to
choices people have made and/or to circumstances beyond their control.
Also, 'Owls are not what they seem' - how people appear here and the
reality of their lives can be substantially different, This may at one
extreme be because they create a false front or at the other because
they have not spelled out what goes with the territory that others
see. In my case I have travelled extensively in Asia in recent years
both on business and privately and had extensive involvement with
Asian manufacturing BUT my income levels have been modest by the
standards of many others who are in similar circumstances - largely
due to voluntary choices I have made. And my discretionary income is
voluntarily limited by choices made re priorities. I could buy a Nikon
D3s now (as Olin did recently - a superb camera and an excellent
choice) or a new D4 when available BUT doing so would be contrary to
my priorities.
The introduction of a new top end camera model that is intended to
replace an old one can have severe impact on prices of the old model.
D700 pricing COULD drop $1000 in the next year. And I'd much rather
have that $1000 to spend on eg a lens that giving it to a salesman.
(That's about the cost of an NZ-Hong Kong air fare special that was
advertised yesterday. In the case of the D800 which appears to be
likely to have grossly inferior high ISO performance wrt a D700, the
effect may not be as severe as in cases of clear replacement
And Nikon may yet come to their senses and offer a D700s with Olins
D3s sensor in it :-)..
Russell
>
> So why watch D700 prices? The most it'll drop is, what, $200 or so? And I'm
> sure you have WAY more than $200 lying around. If you really want it, BUY
> IT NOW!
>
> I know if I had as money as all of you do, I certainly wouldn't be so
> frugal with respect to good quality items such as this camera.
>
2012\02\08@011129
by
PICdude
Or perhaps being frugal on the higher-ticket items allows not putting in too much thought over the cost of the smaller things.
I grew up in a culture that haggles the price of everything, but over time I've found that since time is money, there is a threshold where I won't debate the price of small items.
Quoting V G <spamBeGonex.solarwind.xKILLspam@spam@gmail.com>:
{Quote hidden}> If it is one thing that I have learned from this list, it is that all of
> you have accumulated a great deal of wealth, and don't think twice about
> spending a few bucks on small things like chips, components, getting PCBs
> made professionally, tools, etc.
>
> So why watch D700 prices? The most it'll drop is, what, $200 or so? And I'm
> sure you have WAY more than $200 lying around. If you really want it, BUY
> IT NOW!
>
> I know if I had as money as all of you do, I certainly wouldn't be so
> frugal with respect to good quality items such as this camera.
2012\02\08@020311
by
V G
|
|
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:56 AM, RussellMc <apptechnzspam_OUT@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}> If that was really the one thing you had learned here then it would
> be sad AND you would have been mislead. (Fortunately, I know from
> observation that you have learned many other and more useful things as
> well).
>
> The income and wealth levels amongst list members are very varied, a
> significant number here have low incomes and/or net wealth by your or
> general western standards, and the ratio of discretionary or
> disposable income to gross income can vary widely, either due to
> choices people have made and/or to circumstances beyond their control.
>
> Also, 'Owls are not what they seem' - how people appear here and the
> reality of their lives can be substantially different, This may at one
> extreme be because they create a false front or at the other because
> they have not spelled out what goes with the territory that others
> see. In my case I have travelled extensively in Asia in recent years
> both on business and privately and had extensive involvement with
> Asian manufacturing BUT my income levels have been modest by the
> standards of many others who are in similar circumstances - largely
> due to voluntary choices I have made. And my discretionary income is
> voluntarily limited by choices made re priorities. I could buy a Nikon
> D3s now (as Olin did recently - a superb camera and an excellent
> choice) or a new D4 when available BUT doing so would be contrary to
> my priorities.
>
> The introduction of a new top end camera model that is intended to
> replace an old one can have severe impact on prices of the old model.
> D700 pricing COULD drop $1000 in the next year. And I'd much rather
> have that $1000 to spend on eg a lens that giving it to a salesman.
> (That's about the cost of an NZ-Hong Kong air fare special that was
> advertised yesterday. In the case of the D800 which appears to be
> likely to have grossly inferior high ISO performance wrt a D700, the
> effect may not be as severe as in cases of clear replacement
>
> And Nikon may yet come to their senses and offer a D700s with Olins
> D3s sensor in it :-)..
>
>
You keep mentioning "Olin" and "D3whatever" in the same sentence. Why
2012\02\08@040541
by
Lyle Hazelwood
xkcd.com/1014
2012\02\08@042025
by
IVP
> http://xkcd.com/1014/
Haha. So many worry about what's in the camera instead of what's in the viewfinder
2012\02\08@080529
by
RussellMc
>
> >> I could buy a Nikon
> >> D3s now (as Olin did recently - a superb camera and an excellent
> >> choice) or a new D4 when available BUT doing so would be contrary to
> >> my priorities.
>
> >> And Nikon may yet come to their senses and offer a D700s with Olins
> >> D3s sensor in it :-)..
>
> > You keep mentioning "Olin" and "D3whatever" in the same sentence. Why?
>
> I think it parses OK in std English - but you can never guarantee that
100% with me :-)
The top sports 35mm full frame DSLR in the world and probably the
"production" top sports camera in absolute terms is the Nikon D3S. It has
"ONLY " a 12 MP sensor but could probably take usable pictures at the
bottom of a deep well on the dark side of the Moon (transportation extra).
A D3s is very big, very heavy and very expensive (compared to almost any
other production 35mm DSLR).
Olin bought one a few months ago.
The new Nikon D4 MAY be slightly better noise wise. But may not.
A Nikon D3s meets my photographic needs precisely except for the big, heavy
and expensive parts.
Russel
2012\02\08@080913
by
M.L.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:02 AM, V G
>>
> You keep mentioning "Olin" and "D3whatever" in the same sentence. Why?
D3s:
http://www.adorama.com/INKD3S.html
It's a nice camera. Russell likes to talk about cameras.
-- Martin K
2012\02\08@081941
by
RussellMc
> ... Russell likes to talk about cameras.
Amongst other things :-)
2012\02\08@114551
by
Spehro Pefhany
At 08:19 AM 08/02/2012, you wrote:
> > ... Russell likes to talk about cameras.
>
>
>Amongst other things :-)
"Russell likes to talk"
Better? ;-)
P.S. Very interesting on the camera. Maybe time for an upgrade from my D300
soon- I'd like to see some in-depth reviews of the low-light-performance
compared to the D3S when downsampled to 12MP-ish resolution.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
spamBeGonespeff@spam@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
2012\02\08@121436
by
V G
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:04 AM, RussellMc <RemoveMEapptechnzEraseMEKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> I think it parses OK in std English - but you can never guarantee that
> 100% with me :-)
>
Yeah, I've noticed that.
> Olin bought one a few months ago.
>
I was asking more along the lines of what it had to do with Olin, but this
clears it up
2012\02\08@122501
by
RussellMc
> P.S. Very interesting on the camera. Maybe time for an upgrade from my D300
> soon- I'd like to see some in-depth reviews of the low-light-performance
> compared to the D3S when downsampled to 12MP-ish resolution.
If you care about low noise at high ISO, but a D700 while you still can.
I'm expecting an eg D700s to surface some time soon. Nikon cannot be
as stupid as they appear so far.
In good light at up to 640 ISO the D800 results are stunning. NO
sample photo I've found so far is at > 640 ISO.
The "truth" will pop up here soonish.
This is the "sports" part of the rankings which is what I mot care
about. Roughly ~= base on SNR (signal to noise ratio) at given ISO.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_sports
These have been adjusted for the effects of downsampling to an 8 MP
image for comparison ~= 12" x 8" print at 300 dpi.
You can take that at face value and trust them OR start the wading in here
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
I feel there is something wrong in subjective result in that more MP
seems to help a dog to rank better.
eg the Sony Alpha A850 and A900 are truly pathetic at high ISO.
Compared to a Canon 5D MkII they are terrible at say 6400 ISO. BUT
they rank better in measured terms than cameras which I believe do
better. Their scaling for SNR is 20 log (sqrt(MP ratio) gain by
descaling or = 3dB gain for 2:1 MP increase.
Russell McMaho
2012\02\08@140702
by
David
|
|
On 08/02/2012 17:24, RussellMc wrote:
> The "truth" will pop up here soonish.
> This is the "sports" part of the rankings which is what I mot care
> about. Roughly ~= base on SNR (signal to noise ratio) at given ISO.
>
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_sports
Interesting how the equivalent ISO "range" of cameras has increased
massively over the last ~10 years but the scores haven't actually
increased so much.
For example the Canon 1Ds, the sports DSLR of choice for many years,
still scores very well compared to cameras released 6 years later.
(Yes, I know these have been downsampled so it's not quite comparing
apples for apples).
> These have been adjusted for the effects of downsampling to an 8 MP
> image for comparison ~= 12" x 8" print at 300 dpi.
> You can take that at face value and trust them OR start the wading in here
>
> www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
>
> I feel there is something wrong in subjective result in that more MP
> seems to help a dog to rank better.
Comes straight back to the fact that one person can potentially create
amazing images with a pinhole camera and others couldn't take a decent
picture with a $5000 DSLR/lens. Hugely interesting if you're a camera
geek or doing science, not so much if you are taking pictures of sport.
Davi
2012\02\09@063557
by
RussellMc
> Comes straight back to the fact that one person can potentially create
> amazing images with a pinhole camera and others couldn't take a decent
> picture with a $5000 DSLR/lens.
That's often said and it's obviously got merit BUT a good photographer
can usually more easily be a great one with superb tools.
(ignore ascended masters who do better with pinhole cameras.)
BUT
> Hugely interesting if you're a camera
> geek or doing science, not so much if you are taking pictures of sport.
No. Not at all.
My aim is to be able to take hand hand reasonable quality photos in
almost any conceivable situation, and in a few others as well.
The Nikon D700 achieves this well enough. The D3s is slightly better.
The D800 doesn't and my new Sony A77 doesn't.
Sports photography often benefits from high shutter speed and small
aperture. High ISO is the necessary 3rd leg of the stool to achieve
this.
Bride and father in shadow at back of church in shadow. Photographer
at front of church. Being able to take reasonable quality hand held
photos without flash in such situations is my aim. A D700 about
achieves this.
Xian. Crowded bus. I missed the landmarks and the bus is now
travelling away from my place of residence, but I don't know that yet.
Lighting is street lights flickering through windows. I take a small
group photo IN the bus - me and a few others - strangers aka friends I
hadn't met that the camera allows me to "communicate" with as we sway
in the jostling crowded almost darkness. That was taken at 6400 ISO -
max available on an A700. The result is a noisy mess unsuitable for
any normal use. It's great ! Just what I expected. Went with the
situation. BUT a D700 would actually almost take an OK photo in that
situation. You can always force it to take noisier ones if you must
Russell
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012
, 2013 only
- Today
- New search...
