Re: 12 LED resistance circuit help


"John Fields" <jfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tkuq611cnt2ro09gbnr38lt29jo4tme6al@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:26:48 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
> <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.
>
> ---
> No it's not. The point was that a 0.6mA was a typo and the relay
> would have clicked in whether that typo was there or not. Or do you
> think there's some sort of entanglement between a typo and a physical
> circuit which will keep it from working?

The point had nothing to do with whether it worked or not. The point
was your mistake, or "trypo" as you like to call them.

> ---
>
> >Just like the fact that it wouldn't have worked anyway.
>
> ---
> You say that now like you knew it then, but the _fact_ is had Fred not
> found it you'd still be just as in the dark now as you were then.

I never bothered to look that close. Obviously Fred is well aware that
you often post non-working circuits.

> ---
>
> >> 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?
>
> ---
> If you think that's bragging, then I think you need a course in
> remedial English comprehension. It's a flame, boy. The clue should
> have been the "your whining" part.

It might be different if I was actually looking for errors in the
schematic, but I simply wasn't. I just noticed the glaring "trypo" in
the text.

> ---
>
> >LMAO I'm not the one
> >touting myself as a "professional circuit designer".
>
> ---
> No doubt because if you tried it you'd be laughed off the planet.

Do you think that I have no other skills, or is circuit design all that
is important?

> >I'm in it for the hobby and I've never pretended any different.
>
> ---
> Good move on your part since the pretense would easily be found out.

Kinda like the pretense where you come off as a civil human being?

> ---
>
> >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.
>
> ---
> "Even" you? My, my, you _are_ a pretentious little prick, arent you?

Actually, I meant that in a gullable sort of way. I've got your number
now though.

> Most of us who have been around these technical newsgroups for any
> length of time realize that unless it's explicitly stated that the
> circuit has been tested or simulated, it hasn't. I see you have yet
> to learn that. For the most part, most of the stuff we post is off
> the top of our heads and is usually either right on or pretty close to
> it, because it's stuff we do every day to make a living. However we
> _do_ make errors from time to time, and some sharp individual will
> usually catch the error and provide feedback. Luckily, Fred Bloggs
> was there to catch mine and to graciously provide a solution.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in little more than
> assuaging the effects that "current hogging" incident had your ego.

Actually, I've been getting a kick out of watching you blow your top.
:-)

> ---
>
> >I will certainly view your schematics from the proper perspective
> >from now on.
>
> ---
> Yes, you should. Consider them documents from which you can learn how
> to catch mistakes. However, I suspect that you'll miss even the most
> glaring of technical errors and report back, scathingly, on all the
> typos you find, LOL!

I seriously doubt that I'll be reporting back much of anything about any
of your circuits. I do suspect that I will be hearing from you more
often in the future though.

> ---
>
>
> >> >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.
>
> ---
> Well, duhhh...
>
> If you can't write properly, how can you expect people not to
> misunderstand you?

My comments in the original post were rhetorical, haven't you figured
that out yet?

> ---
>
> >Secondly I was being sarcastic, you
> >should have been able to tell that from the entire context of my
post.
>
> ---
> So, when you can't defend yourself technically you slip into sarcasm?

What's to defend, I admitted my little faux pa.

> ---
>
> >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.
>
> ---
> If you want to find out how really stupid that statement is I suggest
> you go to Google groups and read through my last 10,000 posts then,
> once you're done, report back here with what you've learned.

I didn't have to read 10,000 of them to figure out that you often go off
like this. Four letter words, invectives and ad-hominem attacks seem to
be a part of your regular forte.

> ---
>
> >Or did you already forget about the photocell and resistor
> >fiasco in your unending love/hate relationship with Larry?
>
> ---
> I'd hardly call that a fiasco; more like a disagreement, and it
> started like this:
>
> "
> R1 = 6.2k
> R2 = 400 -> 15M
> R3 = 620
>
>
>
> R1 (R2 + R3)
> Rt = --------------
> R1 + R2 + R3
>
>
>
> 6200 (400 + 620)
> Rt1 = ------------------ = 875.9 ohms
> 6200 + 400 + 620
>
>
>
> 6200 (15e6 + 620)
> Rt2 = ------------------- = 6197.4 ohms
> 6200 + 15e6 + 620
>
>
> 875.9 ohms to 6197.4 ohms isn't 1k to 5k.
> "
>
>
> 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. :-)
>
> ---
> Bull***. You figured that since I called you on that
> "curent-hogging" stupidity you'd try to throw a little barb to get
> even.
> ---
>
> > It certainly woke you up didn't it. :-D
>
> ---
> I stay awake.
> ---
>
> >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 have no idea what you're talking about.

> >I certainly didn't cuss you out over it though.
>
> ---
> That's because you had nothing to do any "cussing out" about and
> because you're a ***.

Really? Do ya think so?

> ---
>
> >> So, on top of everything else, you're either a liar or you have
> >> selective memory lapse problems.
> >
> >Where did I lie?
>
> ---
> You said: "I didn't feel the need to jump in and make a scene though."
>
> After you said: "Hey Fields, are you ever going to acknowledge/correct
> your mistake in S.E.D about max collector current on the 2N4401?
> sheez...."
>
> If you can't see that as making a scene, then saying that you didn't
> feel the need to, then you're even stupider than I thought.

As I said before, I didn't see a need to make a scene when I first saw
your mistake in SED. After that, when you posted your little trick
setup question in SEB, I felt a bit different. And then after Watson's
snide little remark about attrocious advice, I posted my little
sarcastic rant. And now here we are. Is that timeline really so hard
to grasp?

> >> >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.
>
> ---
> So, you admit your reply was confrontational, and yet you said that
> you didn't feel a need to make a scene. You just can't keep your
> facts straight, can you?

See above.

> >> >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?
>
> ---
> And, in view of the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and
> a stupid one at that, I maintain that you actually meant 'current
> hogging' and decided that 'power hogging' would be a nice little
> phrase to switch to to get you out of a jam.

As I originally posted in reply to your little trick query:

<quote>
Perhaps "dissipate more power" would have been more appropriate than
"hog more current".
</quote>

So as we can all plainly see, 'current hogging' is your own little
fabrication of terminology that I never used.

> ---
> .
> .
> .
> >> >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.
>
> ---
> Yup, I thought so. You're the stereotypical petulant little puke who,
> when she starts running out of ammunition starts whining about how I
> should run _my_ business and how I should run _my_ life.

If you think I'm running low on ammo, just keep posting. ;-) I could
care less how you run your business _or_ your life. That is until you
wish to horn into my life with your petulent, pedantic crap.

> ---
>
> >> >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 were plain enough, the bobbing and weaving part was about the
> transfer to the "power hogging" ploy, the intent of which was to make
> it seem like you knew what you were talking about, but merely used the
> wrong choice of words to describe what you meant. What I'm saying is

Do you think that you've somehow proved that I didn't know the
difference?

> that I think you were being intellectually dishonest in that there is
> no use of "power hogging" in the context into which you cast it.
> "Power hogging, in all the cases I've been able to find refers to one
> device, alone or in parallel with others connected to a common power
> supply, which draws what seems to be an inordinate amount of power
> from the supply.

Again, like as stated earlier. I was originally going to say "juice"
not current and not power. Again, I wish that I had just so I could see
how you could have twisted that around. Is juice power, or is it
current or maybe even energy? Again, my original intent was not to use
the word power either, even though it would have been the "most correct"
term. Hard to believe that set you onto a personal crusade to prove me
a liar.

> ---
>
> >> >> >> 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?
>
> ---
> Again, the context of your "prompt" was goading and your attitude was
> clearly confrontational, yielding a richly deserved insulting reply.

What type of reply do you think you deserve at this point in our
relationship?

> ---
>
> >> >> >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.
>
> ---
> Really? Then be my guest and tell us all about it...

Why do I think that no matter what I posted you would ridicule it?

> ---
>
> >I think you know that too or you'd be filling your posts with
> >links to all my past errors.
>
> ---
> I can't imagine what makes you think you're important enough that I
> should give a *** about your past errors.

As you have so aptly demonstrated, you would leave no stone unturned in
order to crucify me.

> I know nothing about you which precedes your "current hogging" faux
> pas, and I'm _certainly_ not interested in the genealogy of the huge
> family of errors I'm sure you've procreated over the years.

Too funny.

> >> >> >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.
>
> ---
> Awww... poor baby's playing the passive-aggressive "If you're smarter
> than me then why pick on me?" card.

I never said that I thought you were smarter than me. Only that you
knew more about electronics. Don't flatter yourself, there is a
difference.

> I don't feel a need to dominate the NG, sweetie, but what I do like to
> do is bring down self-important little bull*** artists like you, just

Self important bull*** artist? That's got to be the most serious case
of projection I've ever seen. Do you see me waving my credentials
around? Do I have a sig line making bodacious claims?

> for fun. And as far as being an expert goes, I could be a complete
> moron and you'd still have to consider me an expert.

That's not far from how I see things right now.

> BTW, what happened with running those numbers to see whether the power
> dissipation spec of an LED with Vf max in series with an LED with Vf
> min and If running through _both_ of them would be exceeded?

I don't know, what happened? How about you pick your own experiments,
and I'll pick mine.

> ---
> .
> .
> .
>
> >> 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.


> If you'd pull that narcissistic little head out of your ass you might
> come to the realization that you're not the arbiter of who's deserving
> of what, and you might find that I am, in fact, civil. That doesn't

Really, and I'm supposed to be convinced by that statement? ROTFL I
think I'll continue to decide for myself who I respect.

> mean that when a disingenuous little twat like you wanders in here and
> starts playing games that she's not going to be called on it.

Yeah, you're real civil.

.

Loading