Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Electronics - Design Forum » 120 Degree Phase Shift Osc....

Author Message
...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:00 pm
 
On Nov 12, 12:36 pm, John Fields <jfie... at (no spam) austininstruments.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:11:10 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:01 am, John Fields <jfie... at (no spam) austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 05:42:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

To get the 3 waveforms spaced at 120 degrees I think you'd need three
generators, wouldn't you? A 120 delay line would take too many flip-
flops if implemented as a shift register.

---
5 only if you do it in hardware:

news:cpoqd65emr24k3771dp1cr36knp9bhdfvd at (no spam) 4ax.com

Sorry, I couldn't follow the link,

---
Yup, you can't access binary newsgroups from google groups
---

but, come to think of it you don't
need shift registers, just two extra 10-bit registers clocked at 120
intervals.

---
You don't need any of that stuff. ;)

Here:

Version 4
SHEET 1 1624 1476
[/quote]
<snip: LTSpice schematic>

That was fun! (3-phase squarewave digital generator, feeding 2-pole
filters for wave shaping.)

Whenever I play with these type circuits I always want to generate a
3x squarewave and subtract it from the fundamental to cancel the 3rd
harmonic, easing filtering.

The 2nd impulse is to integrate the waveform into a triangle wave,
then round off the peaks with diodes (LEDs are nice), then filter.

Those always start getting messy, so that's when I drag out the
weighted resistor-DACs and counters or shift registers to smooth out
the steps.

By then you've gotten tired of all the parts and go back to the
original...It's the circle of life.

[quote]---
The 1000 ohm resistors are the relay coils.

Not perfect sine waves, but not bad either; check the FFT.
[/quote]
It's probably more than pure enough. Thanks for posting it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
 
Fred Abse...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:21 pm
 
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:24:07 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

[quote]PS:How many UKzies does it take to change light bulb?
[/quote]
Three.


One to hold the bulb, and two to turn the ladder :-)

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)
 
Michael A. Terrell...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:35 pm
 
Fred Abse wrote:
[quote]
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:24:07 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PS:How many UKzies does it take to change light bulb?

Three.

One to hold the bulb, and two to turn the ladder Smile
[/quote]

I thought they banned ladders in the UK? No need for one, after they
banned decent lightbulbs. :-)


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
 
Bill Sloman...
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 5:42 pm
 
On Nov 15, 2:50 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:20:20 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 14, 6:30 pm, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:30:33 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 12, 12:20 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:53:12 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 5:29 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:38:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 1:07 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:10:15 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo.... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 9, 12:25 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:29:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:15:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSloman
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
4f5be394-d3e3-4615-b612-e39756d17... at (no spam) x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 8:51 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:43:07 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSlom> >> >> >> >> >> >>an
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
59fa816a-7d82-466a-8c25-4eae5e5b7... at (no spam) f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 6:13 am, dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 11:51 pm, John Larkin

jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:07:27 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:52 am, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:51:37 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:03:53 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

The one you claim I said "couldn't be done" without ever bothering to
try and find a quote of my saying anything of the sort. Since I was
actually saying something rather less absurd, your unwillingness to be
specific is understandable.

You did say it couldn't be done with a micro.  That was your assertion until
you had to eat your words (disgusting thought).  You continue to lie about it.
[/quote]
That was never my assertion. You keep on claiming that I said that,
but you've never produced a quote where I said anything of the sort,
and I can only imagine that it is delusion generated by your failing
memory and defective understanding.

[quote]Since the OP is unlikely to want to go out and buy a twenty year old
chip from a dealer who specialises in legacy parts, one wonders what
you might have thought that you were contributing to the debate.

You really are stupid, Slowman.  I didn't suggest a 20-year-old chip to the OP
(some sort of ARM would likely have been my current choice).  I told *YOU* it
could have been done that way 20 years ago.  *YOU* asked by what chip.  What a
moron.
[/quote]
Since the only data sheet that I have found - without any help from
you - was fourteen years old, not twenty, and - you tell me - from the
wrong manufacturer, you haven't got to first base on making that
point. If you can't point us to a data sheet to tell us what your
favourite chip - whatever it was - could do back then, your claim is
no more intrinsically credible than your fatuous claim that I said
that Mark Weaver's job couldn't be done by a micro. Since you've got
that totally wrong, your opinion about what a twenty-year-old micro
might - or might not - do, can't be remotely credible until you can
back it up with a real data sheet for a specific micro, manufacturered
by a specific manufacturer.

You are a posturing windbag, and no amount of calling me "stupid" on
the basis of something you imagine I said is going to make you look
any more credible.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
krw at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz...
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:15 pm
 
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 19:42:25 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman at (no spam) ieee.org>
wrote:

[quote]On Nov 15, 2:50 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:20:20 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 14, 6:30 pm, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:30:33 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 12, 12:20 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:53:12 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 5:29 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:38:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 1:07 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:10:15 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 9, 12:25 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:29:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:15:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSloman
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
4f5be394-d3e3-4615-b612-e39756d17... at (no spam) x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 8:51 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:43:07 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSlom=
an
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
59fa816a-7d82-466a-8c25-4eae5e5b7... at (no spam) f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 6:13 am, dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 11:51 pm, John Larkin

jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:07:27 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:52 am, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:51:37 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:03:53 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

The one you claim I said "couldn't be done" without ever bothering to
try and find a quote of my saying anything of the sort. Since I was
actually saying something rather less absurd, your unwillingness to be
specific is understandable.

You did say it couldn't be done with a micro.  That was your assertion until
you had to eat your words (disgusting thought).  You continue to lie about it.

That was never my assertion. You keep on claiming that I said that,
but you've never produced a quote where I said anything of the sort,
and I can only imagine that it is delusion generated by your failing
memory and defective understanding.
[/quote]
You're such a liar, Slowman.

[quote]Since the OP is unlikely to want to go out and buy a twenty year old
chip from a dealer who specialises in legacy parts, one wonders what
you might have thought that you were contributing to the debate.

You really are stupid, Slowman.  I didn't suggest a 20-year-old chip to the OP
(some sort of ARM would likely have been my current choice).  I told *YOU* it
could have been done that way 20 years ago.  *YOU* asked by what chip.  What a
moron.

Since the only data sheet that I have found - without any help from
you - was fourteen years old, not twenty, and - you tell me - from the
wrong manufacturer, you haven't got to first base on making that
point. If you can't point us to a data sheet to tell us what your
favourite chip - whatever it was - could do back then, your claim is
no more intrinsically credible than your fatuous claim that I said
that Mark Weaver's job couldn't be done by a micro. Since you've got
that totally wrong, your opinion about what a twenty-year-old micro
might - or might not - do, can't be remotely credible until you can
back it up with a real data sheet for a specific micro, manufacturered
by a specific manufacturer.
[/quote]
I found it in about 10 seconds. I can't help it if you're so incompetent that
you can't even do a simple web search. Acutally, I didn't think the datasheet
would be on the web, but it is.

[quote]You are a posturing windbag, and no amount of calling me "stupid" on
the basis of something you imagine I said is going to make you look
any more credible.
[/quote]
You're projecting again, Slowman. Yes, you *are* stupid. You work hard to
prove it every day.
 
Bill Sloman...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:18 am
 
On Nov 15, 5:15 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 19:42:25 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:



On Nov 15, 2:50 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:20:20 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 14, 6:30 pm, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:30:33 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 12, 12:20 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:53:12 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 5:29 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:38:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo.... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 1:07 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:10:15 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 9, 12:25 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:29:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:15:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSloman
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
4f5be394-d3e3-4615-b612-e39756d17... at (no spam) x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 8:51 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:43:07 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSlom> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>an
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
59fa816a-7d82-466a-8c25-4eae5e5b7... at (no spam) f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 6:13 am, dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 11:51 pm, John Larkin

jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:07:27 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:52 am, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:51:37 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:03:53 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

The one you claim I said "couldn't be done" without ever bothering to
try and find a quote of my saying anything of the sort. Since I was
actually saying something rather less absurd, your unwillingness to be
specific is understandable.

You did say it couldn't be done with a micro. That was your assertion until
you had to eat your words (disgusting thought). You continue to lie about it.

That was never my assertion. You keep on claiming that I said that,
but you've never produced a quote where I said anything of the sort,
and I can only imagine that it is delusion generated by your failing
memory and defective understanding.

You're such a liar, Slowman.
[/quote]
So prove it, or admit that it is you who are lying.

[quote]Since the OP is unlikely to want to go out and buy a twenty year old
chip from a dealer who specialises in legacy parts, one wonders what
you might have thought that you were contributing to the debate.

You really are stupid, Slowman. I didn't suggest a 20-year-old chip to the OP
(some sort of ARM would likely have been my current choice). I told *YOU* it
could have been done that way 20 years ago. *YOU* asked by what chip. What a
moron.

Since the only data sheet that I have found - without any help from
you - was fourteen years old, not twenty, and - you tell me - from the
wrong manufacturer, you haven't got to first base on making that
point. If you can't point us to a data sheet to tell us what your
favourite chip - whatever it was - could do back then, your claim is
no more intrinsically credible than your fatuous claim that I said
that Mark Weaver's job couldn't be done by a micro. Since you've got
that totally wrong, your opinion about what a twenty-year-old micro
might - or might not - do, can't be remotely credible until you can
back it up with a real data sheet for a specific micro, manufacturered
by a specific manufacturer.

I found it in about 10 seconds.  I can't help it if you're so incompetent that
you can't even do a simple web search.  Acutally, I didn't think the datasheet
would be on the web, but it is.
[/quote]
But of course you haven't posted the URL. Consequently, I happen to
think that you are a liar, who could find his backside with both
hands.

<snip>

=Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Bill Sloman...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:24 am
 
On Nov 15, 7:16 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]"k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

You're projecting again, Slowman.  Yes, you *are* stupid.  You work hard to
prove it every day.

   He probably thinks the Signetics 'Write Only Memory' was a real
component.

   http://www.national.com/rap/files/datasheet.pdf
[/quote]
I can't say that I've ever been tempted to design them into anything
that I was thinking about building. There does seem to be a market
though - krw's memory would be constructed exclusively with these
devices or their biological equivalent.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Bill Sloman...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:38 am
 
On Nov 14, 2:00 am, dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Nov 12, 12:36 pm, John Fields <jfie... at (no spam) austininstruments.com
wrote:



On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:11:10 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:01 am, John Fields <jfie... at (no spam) austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 05:42:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

To get the 3 waveforms spaced at 120 degrees I think you'd need three
generators, wouldn't you? A 120 delay line would take too many flip-
flops if implemented as a shift register.

---
5 only if you do it in hardware:

news:cpoqd65emr24k3771dp1cr36knp9bhdfvd at (no spam) 4ax.com

Sorry, I couldn't follow the link,

---
Yup, you can't access binary newsgroups from google groups
---

but, come to think of it you don't
need shift registers, just two extra 10-bit registers clocked at 120
intervals.

---
You don't need any of that stuff. ;)

Here:

Version 4
SHEET 1 1624 1476

snip: LTSpice schematic

That was fun! (3-phase squarewave digital generator, feeding 2-pole
filters for wave shaping.)

Whenever I play with these type circuits I always want to generate a
3x squarewave and subtract it from the fundamental to cancel the 3rd
harmonic, easing filtering.
[/quote]
Actually, that is the "synthetic sine wave" where you generate a three
level approximation to a sine wave

---- ----
-- -- -- --
----

This is easy enough with an H-bridge driver, and seems to be popular
with people generating 50Hz and 60Hz approximations to mains power. It
should have no third harmonic content at all.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Michael A. Terrell...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:16 am
 
"krw at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
[quote]
You're projecting again, Slowman. Yes, you *are* stupid. You work hard to
prove it every day.
[/quote]

He probably thinks the Signetics 'Write Only Memory' was a real
component.

http://www.national.com/rap/files/datasheet.pdf


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
 
John Fields...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:11 am
 
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:54:26 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[quote]On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:00:11 -0600, John Fields
jfields at (no spam) austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:21:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


All the (non-semiconductor) variable resistors we have in stock have
three leads, and we call them "pots." Nobody in our shop uses the term
"rheostat."

---
So what?

Nobody else does either, unless they're talking specifically about a
rheostat or a rheostat-wired pot in a technical discussion.
---

To me, a rheostat is a huge wirewound thing, like theatre lighting
used to use before the SCR (or the Variac) was invented.

---
You don't get around much, do you?

Ohmite's Model C has a case diameter of 0.515" and length of 5/8":

http://www.ohmite.com/catalog/pdf/rheostats_wirewound.pdf
---

We don't use
them in our electronic instruments. We don't even use "rheostats" as
dummy loads... we have nice Kikusui electronic load boxes for that.

---
What you call them doesn't matter, the fact remains that if you have a
pot wired like a rheostat in _any_ of your equipment it's a rheostat.


To you, I suppose. It's just a word.
[/quote]
---
You suppose correctly, but it's not just a word, it's a word which
describes the way in which the device is used, so it's also a word
describing fact.

That is: a pot, if it's wired like a rheostat, is a rheostat no matter
what you choose to call it.
---

[quote]If we connect to two pins of a 4mm surface-mount pot, we still call it a pot.
[/quote]
---
Depends on which two pins you're talking about, but if you mean one of
the end pins and the arm, which of course you do, as do we all, that
since that's what it has come to be called in the vernacular.

However, it's still, technically, a rheostat.
---

[quote]As someone said, what you call them doesn't matter.
[/quote]
---
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

---
JF
 
krw at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:36 pm
 
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:18:55 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman at (no spam) ieee.org>
wrote:

[quote]On Nov 15, 5:15 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 19:42:25 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:



On Nov 15, 2:50 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:20:20 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 14, 6:30 pm, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:30:33 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 12, 12:20 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:53:12 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 5:29 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:38:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 11, 1:07 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:10:15 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org
wrote:

On Nov 9, 12:25 am, "k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k... at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:29:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:15:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSloman
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
4f5be394-d3e3-4615-b612-e39756d17... at (no spam) x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 8:51 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:43:07 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBillSlom=
an
bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote in
59fa816a-7d82-466a-8c25-4eae5e5b7... at (no spam) f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 7, 6:13 am, dagmargoodb... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 11:51 pm, John Larkin

jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:07:27 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:52 am, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:51:37 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, John Larkin
jjlar... at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:03:53 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

The one you claim I said "couldn't be done" without ever bothering to
try and find a quote of my saying anything of the sort. Since I was
actually saying something rather less absurd, your unwillingness to be
specific is understandable.

You did say it couldn't be done with a micro. That was your assertion until
you had to eat your words (disgusting thought). You continue to lie about it.

That was never my assertion. You keep on claiming that I said that,
but you've never produced a quote where I said anything of the sort,
and I can only imagine that it is delusion generated by your failing
memory and defective understanding.

You're such a liar, Slowman.

So prove it, or admit that it is you who are lying.
[/quote]
No thanks. Because you're dishonest is no reason for me to spend time serving
you.

[quote]Since the OP is unlikely to want to go out and buy a twenty year old
chip from a dealer who specialises in legacy parts, one wonders what
you might have thought that you were contributing to the debate.

You really are stupid, Slowman. I didn't suggest a 20-year-old chip to the OP
(some sort of ARM would likely have been my current choice). I told *YOU* it
could have been done that way 20 years ago. *YOU* asked by what chip. What a
moron.

Since the only data sheet that I have found - without any help from
you - was fourteen years old, not twenty, and - you tell me - from the
wrong manufacturer, you haven't got to first base on making that
point. If you can't point us to a data sheet to tell us what your
favourite chip - whatever it was - could do back then, your claim is
no more intrinsically credible than your fatuous claim that I said
that Mark Weaver's job couldn't be done by a micro. Since you've got
that totally wrong, your opinion about what a twenty-year-old micro
might - or might not - do, can't be remotely credible until you can
back it up with a real data sheet for a specific micro, manufacturered
by a specific manufacturer.

I found it in about 10 seconds.  I can't help it if you're so incompetent that
you can't even do a simple web search.  Acutally, I didn't think the datasheet
would be on the web, but it is.

But of course you haven't posted the URL. Consequently, I happen to
think that you are a liar, who could find his backside with both
hands.
[/quote]
Good god, man! You're that stupid? You have *everything* needed to find the
datasheet in about ten seconds, and can't get there? I guess the question is
answered.

Here, stupid:
http://www.keil.com/dd/docs/datashts/intel/8xc51fx_ds.pdf
 
 
Page 14 of 14    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:01 pm