Re: 12 LED resistance circuit help


"John Fields" <jfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> ---
> Oh, so now you're an authority on the OP?

Only so far as what he posted. I thought he made his skill level fairly
clear.

> Whether it was obvious to him or not wouldn't have made a particle of
> difference as long as he used a 2N4401, as was shown on the schematic.

That's completely beside the point. Just like the fact that it wouldn't
have worked anyway.

> What I think is interesting is that for all your whining about a typo
> you had a chance to catch a much more serious _technical_ error, yet
> you didn't.

And you think that is something to brag about? LMAO I'm not the one
touting myself as a "professional circuit designer". I'm in it for the
hobby and I've never pretended any different. Perhaps you should have
told the OP that your circuit was untested and unsimulated, because even
I made the mistake of figuring that you actually posted stuff that you
knew would work. I will certainly view your schematics from the proper
perspective from now on.

> >I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though.
>
> ---
> You say that now, but earlier you felt that:
>
> "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct your mistake in
> S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
> sheez...."
>
> was better than, say, "BTW, John, you stated in sed that the maximum
> collector current for a 2N4401 is 0.6mA. I believe that should be
> 0.6A." ?

First off the sheez part wasn't addressed to you. You might have
deduced that from the punctuation. Secondly I was being sarcastic, you
should have been able to tell that from the entire context of my post.
At any rate, you are the one setting the precident around here of
jumping down someones throat when you don't like the accuracy of their
posts. Or did you already forget about the photocell and resistor
fiasco in your unending love/hate relationship with Larry? BTW, I don't
think my comment was all that bad, certainly not an FU or anything like
that. I noticed that Mike pointed out your error and you didn't
respond. I thought you might like to know about it. :-) It certainly
woke you up didn't it. :-D

At any rate, the sole reason that I even mentioned you was because you
had already made your attempt at setting me up. Given your typical
behavior lately, I knew what was coming next. I figured my way of
pointing out your mistake was just beating you to the punch. Obviously
I was correct, since you are now so pissed over it.

I certainly didn't cuss you out over it though.

> So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
> selective memory lapse problems.

Where did I lie?

> >I figured you'd catch it or someone else would.
>
> ---
> Someone else did. Non-confrontationally, BTW

That was his choice. Like you, I reserve the right to respond when and
how I want.

> >No biggy.
>
> ---
> One would think...
> ---
>
> >Certainly not
> >like the sacrilege of misappropriating the word "current" in S.E.B, I
> >see.
>
> ---
> It wasn't the word 'current', it was the phrase 'current hogging'.

And?

> >> >> article. Big fucking deal.
> >> >
> >> >As a matter of fact, it is a BFD now. You wrongly cussed me out,
now
> >> >you should apologize. Or do you think you are above that?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> What I think is that you're trying to mitigate your error by
saying,
> >> "See, everybody makes the same kinds of mistakes I do.", and
there's
> >> no reason for me to apologize to you for flaming you about that.
> >
> >I don't want an apology for pointing out my mistakes, I want one for
> >cussing me out after I pointed out your mistake.
>
> ---
> Had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
> acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, *** you.
> And you'll get no apology. Don't like it, sue me.

No need to sue, you are doing enough damage to your business and
reputation all by yourself.

> >I admit my mistake yet again, when will it be enough for you?
>
> ---
> Your first admission was sufficient for me, but you seem to feel a
> need to keep admitting it, ad nauseam, so the question really should
> be: When will it be enough for _you_?

You accused me of weaving and bobbing, so I figured that I hadn't been
plain enough for you.

> >> >> You, on the other hand, are bobbing and weaving and ducking
around
> >> >> saying that what you meant by current hogging (a commonly
accepted
> >> >> technical term) was "power hogging", or some such other nonsense
> >and
> >> >> trying to excuse your error by saying that I'm in the same boat
> >that
> >> >> you're in, LOL.
> >> >
> >> >I admitted that current was the wrong word, WTF do you want me to
do?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> I dont care _what_ you do.
> >
> >I guess that's only as long as I don't say "current" when I really
mean
> >"power".
>
> ---
> You misunderstand me. "I don't care what you do" means precisely
> that. Make mistakes, don't make mistakes, it makes no difference to


> me. Choosing to comment one way or the other is my prerogative and is
> not based on caring about what you do, it's based on fixing the error.

Then, why did my comment upset you? I was only prompting you to fix
your error. I didn't call you any names, or use an cuss words so why
did you find it so upsetting?

> >> >Do you really think that I don't know the difference between
current
> >and
> >> >power, or that the current thru all components in a series circuit
is
> >> >the same?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> You do now...
> >
> >I think I knew it 25 or 30 years ago.
>
> ---
> Yes, well, if you don't use it you lose it.

I think I can still tell the difference between current, power and
energy. I think you know that too or you'd be filling your posts with
links to all my past errors.

> >> >I really didn't expect the pedant police to jump all over it.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> *** happens...
> >> ---
> >>
> >> >Next time I'll be more careful.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Good.
> >
> >whatever
>
> ---
> Weak.

Not half as weak as someone that feels a need to dominate a basics
newsgroup just cuz they're an expert in the field.

> >> >The simple fact remains that one LED WILL DISIPATE MORE POWER THAN
> >THE
> >> >OTHER DUE TO DIFFERING Vf's. RIGHT???
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Right.
> >> ---
> >
> >At least we can agree on something.
> >
> >> >THE END RESULT IS EXACTLY THE
> >> >SAME AS IF ONE DEVICE HOGGED MORE CURRENT, RIGHT???
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Wrong. That's the same as saying that getting from point A to point
B
> >> via a road that doesn't exist is the same as getting from point A
to
> >> point B via road that does exist.
> >
> >Your falacious analogy aside, the end result is a smoked part. The
same
> >as when you put too much current thru it. I defy you to tell the
> >difference in a post-mortem exam.
>
> ---
> You just can't let it go, can you?
>
> Fact is, in a post-mortem exam the second LED would be very closely
> examined and could yield some clues as to what happened to the toasted
> LED. For instance, if the LED failed open and the second LED's Vf,
> If, and light output were in spec once it was fired up again, then the
> failure of the first LED could have been a wire bond failure or who
> knows what else at a current substantially _below_ Ifmax.
>
> Just for grins, why don't you work out the power dissipation of each
> of two LEDs in series, one with Vfmin and the other with Vfmax with
> nominal If going through both of them and see if that causes the high
> Vf LED to dissipate more than its maximum rated power?
> ---
>
> >> >I have admitted my
> >> >error numerous times now. Now, what is your problem?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> I have no problem.
> >> ---
> >
> >Other than your inability to apologize for cussing someone out and
> >calling them names.
>
> ---
> On the contrary, I'm perfectly capable of apologizing when it's
> warranted.
> ---
>
> >
> >> >I'm not saying that you're in the same boat as me, I am saying
that
> >you
> >> >make mistakes too. What I'd like to know is:
> >> >
> >> >Would you rather have someone point it out nicely, or would you
> >rather
> >> >them try to trip you up so that you can dig yourself in deeper?
Let
> >me
> >> >know so that I may properly appease you in the future.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Neither my appeasement nor your sarcasm is necessary. Besides, I
> >> don't know why you're so offended by what you thought was a trick
> >> question since, trick question or not, it certainly woke you up
> >> quickly enough!
> >> ---
> >
> >Too bad you didn't "wake up" to your "trypo" until after cussing me
out.
>
> ---
> Again, had you chosen to point it out in a civil manner I would have
> acknowledged in kind but, since you chose not to, *** you.

Perhaps if you acted a little more civil around here, I would be
inclined to be nicer to you. As it stands, you certainly are
demonstrating that you deserve far less courtesy than I've shown you.

> >> >BTW, I feel that a microcontroller would be a simpler, cheaper,
more
> >> >reliable (iow better) solution to the problem of resetting the
> >network
> >> >appliances on a regular basis. What do you think?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Is that a trick question?
> >
> >no
>
> ---
> HC4066, about 50 cents, cap about a dime, resistors about a nickle,
> diodes about a nickle so, for a one off, that's about $0.70.
>
> PCB, transistor, relay is a wash for either system.
>
> A one off for a micro is gonna cost you the micro, a programmer, a
> learning curve and programming and debugging time.
>
> You figure it out.
>
> --
> John Fields
> Professional Circuit Designer

.