You must be American, right? Come on - at least put a smiley if you're being facetious. (and if you're not being facetious in that statement - well, God help you!;-)
Likewise, all transistors can be abstractly considered as networks of diodes. This is why they are inherently binary devices, and why computers "think" in binary. So much for Wikipedia. I guess transistors don't amplify when biased in the so-called "linear region".
And that six-transistor radio I listened to as a young boy must have been receiving digital signals in 1965.
Look what the computer age has done: analog has been forgotten, even by bright minds. But luckily not by everyone. The brightest minds still are aware that even the fastest digital 'gates' are fundamentally analog. Actually, especially the fastest....
But repositories of common knowledge are being filled with well-intentioned, but less-than-half-baked treatises and misinformation.
Transistors are IN NO WAY networks of diodes. Yes, some (bipolars) have a p-n junction, but there is no way that diode theory explains amplification. And don't get me started in fets (junction or insulated-gate). No diodes in those (except the packaged-in protection diodes in some). The jfets can be used to rectify, but that's not their nature. I'm assuming some CS major wrote that wiki about something they didn't understand. Please don't be offended - that's not a stab at CS majors, but it was obviously someone "web-active" and had some (but inadequate) exposure to electronics.
(Disclaimer - I didn't read this wiki, so I'm taking for granted that moosesocks has lifted it from a wiki verbatim)
Ugh.
And to the GP - there is a fundamental difference between passive and active components.
Okay, so assuming the cost and size of a "properly sensitive gyroscope" were not a problem (I'll assume you meant accelerometers anyway, which are small and cheap).....
I don't want my cellphone linked with everyone else on the train (or bus, or even everyone else's in the car).
Perhaps this is silly, beyond a rather niche application, where it would be pretty cool. Does everything have to be universal?
As so many others pointed out, you absolutely don't want to pump that open (and unclean) water through the system.
Keep a closed system, with an simple reservoir / filling system. Pure water, with watter-wetter, or maybe even some safe antifreeze.
But the important thing here is, you don't need the pool! Liquid heat transfer is awesome, due to the efficeincy of heat transfer, but overkill. You can easily get along with a long buried copper pipe around the yard(it doesn't even have to be below the frost line if you use some type of antifreeze - no need for automotive stuff either). For that mattter, a decent length of copper coil on a transfer plate (aluminum for instance) exposed on a wall would be fine for even several gaming computers. And a radiator just outside the domicile (or in the basement, etc) with or whithout a cooling fan is usually overkill. We're talking about 500W/system, not 100HP!
I understand the desire to plumb in the pool water, since it's there, but this is clearly a case when doing it "better" would be easier.
Well, I can't say I've ever seen what you describe (every one I've come across requires that you supply your own coin).
I suppose it's possible that those 'foreign' coins were left behind by tourists who discovered thay'd been carrying them, but didn't want a souvinir of a 'domestic' attraction on a 'foreign' coin?
seems to be an unlikely orchestration of individual behaviour, but then it fits the data.....
Apparently smugness isn't just an American affliction -
You may be partially reight, but you need to be put in you place a little - No SBA dollars were minted after 1999. And only one color was ever produced for circulation. In 2000, the US Mint struck the Sacagawea dollar coin in a gold color.
Re:Article taken from Wikipedia???
on
Crypto Snake Oil
·
· Score: 1
Similar ? They're exactly the same - to the punctuation!
You're missing the fact that in your example, the tire does not deflect. In fact, you finger does, and so it bears the weight based on you finger's pressure.
Unless the tire deflects, it's not performing it's critical function (it may as well be a rigid wheel).
Just to return to reality - in the article cited, the vehicle was a VW beetle. At 32psi (or whatever it was - 40psi?), it exerts no greater force on the thumb drive than any (loaded) vehicle with the same tire pressure. It wouldn't matter if it was a Hummer, an 18 wheeler, a Cadillac, or a Yugo. Once deflected, 40psi is 40psi.
Before anyone rebuts me about the math - obviously I didn't account for the fact that most Tvs aren't on 24 hours a day.
And many people won't notice the fading unless they look at a non-faded TV side-by-side.
So, ignore fading if you like. I can't. But at the moment if someone wer to hold a gun to my head and force me to buy a large-format TV, it would be LCD.
You have a much smarter approach than me. I completely agree with you, I just have a tough time making small decisions.
As a result, although I'm one of the first to be aware of new things (mp3, TiVo, thumbdrives, etc.), I'm often one of the last to personally own an example.
An excerpt: "LCD's luminance is controlled by the luminosity of the backlight / edgelight. The backlights in LCD monitors are almost always CCFL (cold cathode florescent lamps). The life of the backlight is determined by how long it takes until the lamp reaches half of its original luminance. Similar to CRTs phosphors in CCFL's age and their efficiency declines. LCD's don't suffer from flicker, or image burn just a few years ago that time was about 30,000 hours. Newer lamp technology has increased that time to 60,000 hours to reach half brightness."
That puts it at 3.5 to 7 years (if you accept the manufacturer's claims). What he doesn't address is that the CCFL will fade unevenly which is most obvious in large panels.
Good for you. What's "OK"? Will a TV you pay $2500 for be "OK" when the brightness of the screen is inconsistent, with a $1000 BlueRay DVD player as a source?
I've got a Samsung 170MP 17" LCD monitor/TV that is uneven as hell, I've got a Thinkpad T42 that's already faded in the corners, and I'm using a Dell 2001FP that's noticeably dimmer and uneven compared to the one-year-newer Dell 2001FP next to it (dual-head card, and they've been swapped as a test).
I could go on with what I've seen, including 3 large-format LCD TVs, but they're not mine, I don't have the model numbers etc.
They do fade. It may not bother you. Yet. But a 17" panel is very different from a 42" panel.
I agree it CAN be done, but don't forget that to replace it will not require both a manufacturer (of the backlight), a cooperative TV manufacturer, and most likely a competant installer.
#1 - The backlight manufacturer wants to profit from the market. The backlight manufacturer may be the most motivated in this scenario. It's possible that the TV manufacturer may be the middleman, but that's going to drive the price up even more.
#2 - The TV manufacturer will need to design the panel to be easily disassembled. This doesn't come for free. Extra parts, hinges, snaps, fasteners, stiffeners, connectors - whatever. It's almost never going to be as cheap as an integrated part.
#3 - The consumer may be able to install the backlight, but more likely (due to the size and fragility), the consumer will have to have a competant installer do it. Most likely as a hou$e-call.
I don't think it's overly cynical though. If it's Sony,or LG, or Proton, or anybody - the company must do what's best for the bottom line (it's a legal obligation to the shareholders of publicly held companies, and the main objective for privately held companies). And what's best for the bottom line, is often not what the educated consumer would prefer. But it does tend to keep the economy rolling. It keeps the money in the air - where more of it can be snatched up by the powerful (and idustrious) few.
I wouldn't hold my breath - manufacturers always prefer that you replace the whole appliance, unless they can reap both higher gross and higher margins from replacements.
Replacing the CCFL backlight is not cheap for a laptop - how can it be cheap enough for a 42' or bigger screen?
Even if it was easy to swap out, the margin must be high for the manufacturer to benefit, so the savings would not be passed on to the customer.
I suppose I don't like to see judgement until all the evidence is in, and I think it's very difficult to get a balanced view on anything noawadays - including things that seem very straightfroward.
I have a Sony CRT-based HDTV, and I really would love a flat-panel big screen. I think right now I'd favor LCD, but that preference is partly based on hearsay about Plasma (supposedly high power and supposedly short life), not direct experience.
I have had direct experience with LCD, and I love it - except for the uneven fading of the CCFL backlights (maybe LED would improve this?), and the poor image quality when viewing non-native resolutions (which is improving with newer technology, and is mainly a problem only with PCs or SDTV).
I haven't really warmed up to DLP - poor off-angle viewing and relatively dim image - but I can see the economy in it.
So, I'm torn - each have strengths and weaknesses, but I'd hate to see one drop out simply because some information wasn't brought up.
I imagine if people knew that Betamax was capable of better image quality without breaking backward-compatibiltiy, it might have trumped VHS (okay, there was also the closed-source problem, and the legendary porn industry influence).
And when they do, they're prohibitively expensive to replace. Since so many of these are new, they won't fade for about two years - if Plasma is still around, you may see the tide change....
No, the pressure in the tire IS the pressure of the tire against the pavement(except in the theoretical case of a tire that is not deflected).
Without getting into the math of it all - which the GP and others covered well enough, think about it this way:
You described a unicylce with a 200lb/5sqin contact patch, and accurately stated it exerts 40psi against the ground.
Now, if you add weight to it - the tire flattens out - creating a larger contact patch - and maintains the 40psi. If you add pressure - (with constant weight) - the tire's contact patch reduces - due to the higher pressure in the tire.
You see it every time you inflate your tires, you just aren't accepting the GP's scientific explanation. (don't worry - lot's of people have trouble accepting it at first).
No - you misunderstood - *I* am not suggesting that the RoHS law is good or bad - I'm simply pointing out to the OP that RoHS doesn't outlaw fire retardents, it only outlaws *some* fire retardents.
"where I come from" is just as cost-sensitive. Successful business (esp in manufacturing) is largely about using the cheapest solution that's still effective. Not all costs are material.
So, I don't know where you assumed that my explanation of the way these regulations come about can IN ANY WAY be interpreted as my endorsement of them. No, I'm not from academia. But I did attend.
Slashdot Mirror
(earth = 6k years old, right?),
You must be American, right?
Come on - at least put a smiley if you're being facetious.
(and if you're not being facetious in that statement - well, God help you!;-)
Yeah - that would be great - available "soon".
I, for one, would greatly like to see a bible written 400 BCE. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.
The Old Testament fits that description, written between the 12th and 2nd century BCE.
And that six-transistor radio I listened to as a young boy must have been receiving digital signals in 1965.
Look what the computer age has done: analog has been forgotten, even by bright minds.
But luckily not by everyone. The brightest minds still are aware that even the fastest digital 'gates' are fundamentally analog. Actually, especially the fastest....
But repositories of common knowledge are being filled with well-intentioned, but less-than-half-baked treatises and misinformation.
Transistors are IN NO WAY networks of diodes. Yes, some (bipolars) have a p-n junction, but there is no way that diode theory explains amplification. And don't get me started in fets (junction or insulated-gate). No diodes in those (except the packaged-in protection diodes in some). The jfets can be used to rectify, but that's not their nature.
I'm assuming some CS major wrote that wiki about something they didn't understand. Please don't be offended - that's not a stab at CS majors, but it was obviously someone "web-active" and had some (but inadequate) exposure to electronics.
(Disclaimer - I didn't read this wiki, so I'm taking for granted that moosesocks has lifted it from a wiki verbatim)
Ugh.
And to the GP - there is a fundamental difference between passive and active components.
It's good news, since there's no charging stations along my commute across the country.....
nonplussed
Okay, so assuming the cost and size of a "properly sensitive gyroscope" were not a problem (I'll assume you meant accelerometers anyway, which are small and cheap).....
I don't want my cellphone linked with everyone else on the train (or bus, or even everyone else's in the car).
Perhaps this is silly, beyond a rather niche application, where it would be pretty cool. Does everything have to be universal?
As so many others pointed out, you absolutely don't want to pump that open (and unclean) water through the system.
Keep a closed system, with an simple reservoir / filling system. Pure water, with watter-wetter, or maybe even some safe antifreeze.
But the important thing here is, you don't need the pool! Liquid heat transfer is awesome, due to the efficeincy of heat transfer, but overkill.
You can easily get along with a long buried copper pipe around the yard(it doesn't even have to be below the frost line if you use some type of antifreeze - no need for automotive stuff either).
For that mattter, a decent length of copper coil on a transfer plate (aluminum for instance) exposed on a wall would be fine for even several gaming computers.
And a radiator just outside the domicile (or in the basement, etc) with or whithout a cooling fan is usually overkill.
We're talking about 500W/system, not 100HP!
I understand the desire to plumb in the pool water, since it's there, but this is clearly a case when doing it "better" would be easier.
- in my opinion.
Well, I can't say I've ever seen what you describe (every one I've come across requires that you supply your own coin).
I suppose it's possible that those 'foreign' coins were left behind by tourists who discovered thay'd been carrying them, but didn't want a souvinir of a 'domestic' attraction on a 'foreign' coin?
seems to be an unlikely orchestration of individual behaviour, but then it fits the data.....
Apparently smugness isn't just an American affliction -
You may be partially reight, but you need to be put in you place a little -
No SBA dollars were minted after 1999. And only one color was ever produced for circulation.
In 2000, the US Mint struck the Sacagawea dollar coin in a gold color.
Similar ? They're exactly the same - to the punctuation!
You're missing the fact that in your example, the tire does not deflect. In fact, you finger does, and so it bears the weight based on you finger's pressure.
o ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=15939260#159393 66
In all real loaded circumstances, the tire deflects (as Anonymous Coward correctly points out to you in :
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194476&thresh
Unless the tire deflects, it's not performing it's critical function (it may as well be a rigid wheel).
Just to return to reality - in the article cited, the vehicle was a VW beetle. At 32psi (or whatever it was - 40psi?), it exerts no greater force on the thumb drive than any (loaded) vehicle with the same tire pressure. It wouldn't matter if it was a Hummer, an 18 wheeler, a Cadillac, or a Yugo. Once deflected, 40psi is 40psi.
The contact pressure IS the pressure in the tire.
Before anyone rebuts me about the math - obviously I didn't account for the fact that most Tvs aren't on 24 hours a day.
And many people won't notice the fading unless they look at a non-faded TV side-by-side.
So, ignore fading if you like. I can't. But at the moment if someone wer to hold a gun to my head and force me to buy a large-format TV, it would be LCD.
But it's not like LCD has no flaws.
You have a much smarter approach than me. I completely agree with you, I just have a tough time making small decisions.
As a result, although I'm one of the first to be aware of new things (mp3, TiVo, thumbdrives, etc.), I'm often one of the last to personally own an example.
Kind of sucks.
But I do break the rule once in a while.
Yes. I have some LCD panels, and my work and friends have large-panel LCD Tvs.
t echportal/images/pdf/hdtvdisplay.pdf#search=%22LCD %20backlight%20fade%22
- tale-of-tape.html
So, not in a way that I can convey here.
But you can check it out for yourself. Google may help. If you look into the subject at all you'll see it's no secret.
Here's a pdf from Dishnetwork:
http://tech.dishnetwork.com/departmental_content/
It lists the Pros/Cons of the different technologies. It says:
"Direct View LCD"
"Cons"
"Expensive, pixels viewable with large screens, picture can fade over time, slow pixel response time can cause motion blurs."
Here's another view from Planar's Ali Gard:
http://blog.planar.com/embedded/2006/01/crts-lcds
An excerpt:
"LCD's luminance is controlled by the luminosity of the backlight / edgelight. The backlights in LCD monitors are almost always CCFL (cold cathode florescent lamps). The life of the backlight is determined by how long it takes until the lamp reaches half of its original luminance. Similar to CRTs phosphors in CCFL's age and their efficiency declines. LCD's don't suffer from flicker, or image burn just a few years ago that time was about 30,000 hours. Newer lamp technology has increased that time to 60,000 hours to reach half brightness."
That puts it at 3.5 to 7 years (if you accept the manufacturer's claims). What he doesn't address is that the CCFL will fade unevenly which is most obvious in large panels.
Good for you. What's "OK"? Will a TV you pay $2500 for be "OK" when the brightness of the screen is inconsistent, with a $1000 BlueRay DVD player as a source?
I've got a Samsung 170MP 17" LCD monitor/TV that is uneven as hell, I've got a Thinkpad T42 that's already faded in the corners, and I'm using a Dell 2001FP that's noticeably dimmer and uneven compared to the one-year-newer Dell 2001FP next to it (dual-head card, and they've been swapped as a test).
I could go on with what I've seen, including 3 large-format LCD TVs, but they're not mine, I don't have the model numbers etc.
They do fade. It may not bother you. Yet. But a 17" panel is very different from a 42" panel.
You may be right - we won't know for a while.
I agree it CAN be done, but don't forget that to replace it will not require both a manufacturer (of the backlight), a cooperative TV manufacturer, and most likely a competant installer.
#1 - The backlight manufacturer wants to profit from the market. The backlight manufacturer may be the most motivated in this scenario. It's possible that the TV manufacturer may be the middleman, but that's going to drive the price up even more.
#2 - The TV manufacturer will need to design the panel to be easily disassembled. This doesn't come for free. Extra parts, hinges, snaps, fasteners, stiffeners, connectors - whatever. It's almost never going to be as cheap as an integrated part.
#3 - The consumer may be able to install the backlight, but more likely (due to the size and fragility), the consumer will have to have a competant installer do it. Most likely as a hou$e-call.
I'm being overly cynical, and maybe I'm wrong...
I don't think it's overly cynical though. If it's Sony,or LG, or Proton, or anybody - the company must do what's best for the bottom line (it's a legal obligation to the shareholders of publicly held companies, and the main objective for privately held companies).
And what's best for the bottom line, is often not what the educated consumer would prefer. But it does tend to keep the economy rolling. It keeps the money in the air - where more of it can be snatched up by the powerful (and idustrious) few.
I wouldn't hold my breath - manufacturers always prefer that you replace the whole appliance, unless they can reap both higher gross and higher margins from replacements.
Replacing the CCFL backlight is not cheap for a laptop - how can it be cheap enough for a 42' or bigger screen?
Even if it was easy to swap out, the margin must be high for the manufacturer to benefit, so the savings would not be passed on to the customer.
let's hope I'm mistaken....
I suppose I don't like to see judgement until all the evidence is in, and I think it's very difficult to get a balanced view on anything noawadays - including things that seem very straightfroward.
I have a Sony CRT-based HDTV, and I really would love a flat-panel big screen. I think right now I'd favor LCD, but that preference is partly based on hearsay about Plasma (supposedly high power and supposedly short life), not direct experience.
I have had direct experience with LCD, and I love it - except for the uneven fading of the CCFL backlights (maybe LED would improve this?), and the poor image quality when viewing non-native resolutions (which is improving with newer technology, and is mainly a problem only with PCs or SDTV).
I haven't really warmed up to DLP - poor off-angle viewing and relatively dim image - but I can see the economy in it.
So, I'm torn - each have strengths and weaknesses, but I'd hate to see one drop out simply because some information wasn't brought up.
I imagine if people knew that Betamax was capable of better image quality without breaking backward-compatibiltiy, it might have trumped VHS (okay, there was also the closed-source problem, and the legendary porn industry influence).
And when they do, they're prohibitively expensive to replace.
Since so many of these are new, they won't fade for about two years - if Plasma is still around, you may see the tide change....
No, the pressure in the tire IS the pressure of the tire against the pavement(except in the theoretical case of a tire that is not deflected).
Without getting into the math of it all - which the GP and others covered well enough, think about it this way:
You described a unicylce with a 200lb/5sqin contact patch, and accurately stated it exerts 40psi against the ground.
Now, if you add weight to it - the tire flattens out - creating a larger contact patch - and maintains the 40psi.
If you add pressure - (with constant weight) - the tire's contact patch reduces - due to the higher pressure in the tire.
You see it every time you inflate your tires, you just aren't accepting the GP's scientific explanation. (don't worry - lot's of people have trouble accepting it at first).
I don't think the parent post even implied any judgement about whether the effect of the law was good or bad.
I think you're post indicates you're looking for an argument though, to the level that you're reading what's not there.
You're my HERO !
No - you misunderstood - *I* am not suggesting that the RoHS law is good or bad - I'm simply pointing out to the OP that RoHS doesn't outlaw fire retardents, it only outlaws *some* fire retardents.
"where I come from" is just as cost-sensitive. Successful business (esp in manufacturing) is largely about using the cheapest solution that's still effective. Not all costs are material.
So, I don't know where you assumed that my explanation of the way these regulations come about can IN ANY WAY be interpreted as my endorsement of them. No, I'm not from academia. But I did attend.