EE and JScript Thread in Dogs NG
- From: "Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 01:09:53 -0400
There is a thread on rec.pets.dogs.behavior that has drifted from my
original intent to provide an on-line dog license application with fee
adjustments based on weight and aggression history:
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/DogLicenseJS.htm
Some comments were relevant to the discussion, but there are some who seem
to have a need to oppose and belittle everything I post, and one of the
regulars started a thread drift by criticizing my JScript code:
"Melinda Shore" <shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fba5ss$pit$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I went ahead and took a look at Paul's source code
(control-U in Firefox) and it just reinforced why an
education is a good idea. It was nicely formatted, which is
worth a lot (it makes it readable), but it was obviously
written by someone who hasn't learned basic control flow
constructs, how to handle data structures like arrays well,
and how to write a procedure. I may joke about too many
parameters, but if you're not going to have any you better
not be dinking with global variables. Stuff like "if then if
then if then if then if then" (hint: "switch") and overall
klutziness in control flow lead me to think that if Paul has
had a programming course it was Fortran IV 35-40 years ago.
This kind of stuff would not fly in a modern shop.
Screw the "switch" - the right thing is a for loop over the
array with an array of multipliers, if you *must* alert all
over the place (and you really mustn't) throw it in there,
too, although you're better off with an explanation at the
bottom of a results page.
in LOLCODE it would look like:
HOW DUZ I ComputeTotal
I HAS A TotalFee ITZ 0
[ snip ]
IM IN YR loop UPPIN YR i WILE (i < 5)
Form1.HumanBiteType[i].checked, O RLY?
YA RLY, VISIBLE "IM IN UR FORM, UPPIN UR FEES"
TotalFee R PRODUKT OF Form1.Weight.Value AN multiplier[i]
OIC
IM OUTTA YR loop
[ snip]
IF U SAY SO
You can learn basic programming stuff like this in an
introductory programming course pretty much anywhere.
And then Matt, who claims to be an EE, chimed in:
"Rocky" <3dogs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Fri999DE35CAA840australianshepherdca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm a hardware guy, though my EE degree was in communications
theory (hey, I like math). In the ten years before my
retirement I wrote a ton'o'code for microcontoller-based
products. I was able to structure code, forgo most globals,
and still write stuff which was maintainable by others. All
with extremely limited resources (512 bytes RAM, some flash,
some ROM).
Sometimes one needed to use shortcuts (reused code!) but that
was not the norm except in the most cost-conscious products,
of which I have no experience - I simply migrated to the next
best controller. The stuff I designed sold for the price of a
Kia.
I've looked at Paul's code (my self-taught html ain't much
better), but structure is structure and he doesn't have it.
FWIW, I had assumed Paul was an engineer because that's what
he called himself. I'm really disappointed that, in addition
to everything else, he also lied about his livelihood. I'm
not sure what the law is in the States, but in Canada,
mislabelling himself as an egineer would get him into serious
doo doo.
After more discussion, about the high current breaker test sets I design
and work on, I wrote the following:
High current at low voltage is fairly safe, although some effects can be
startling, like jumping wires, flying tools, and loud noises. High
voltage
is what can make your hair literally stand on end. I have not done so
much
with that.
Some good movies of electrical power system tests and failures with
impressive arcs can be found at:
http://electricsubstationsafety.com/photo5.html. I don't get involved
with
that sort of equipment directly, but that is the industry that uses test
equipment I have designed and built. I have known people who were injured
(and even killed) doing electrical testing. It is not something to be
trifled with.
To which Matt replied:
"Rocky" <3dogs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Fri999ED03E5A8CEaustralianshepherdca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@xxxxxxxxx> said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
Backwards.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
I followed with:
Certainly if the high current is going through your body, especially your
heart, it is not safe. Even 10 mA at 60 Hz into the heart can cause
fibrillation and death. But I'm talking about the current going through a
low impedance like a circuit breaker, which requires only about the same
voltage as a car battery. It takes a certain amount of voltage to deliver
a
dangerous current into the body, and it varies greatly depending on skin
resistance and location of the electrodes. Body resistance is typically
about 10 kOhms from one hand to the other, so 120 VAC would produce 12
mA.
However, the resistance can drop due to sweating, and the current can
quickly reach dangerous levels of 20-50 mA.
Higher voltages cause proportionally more current, so they are more
dangerous (unless greatly limited in current). Above 5000 volts, which is
technically the lower threshold of "high voltage", there is the
additional
danger that merely being close to the voltage source can cause it to arc
through the air, so you don't even need to touch it. Typical air
breakdown
is about 10 kV per inch. You also have electrostatic fields, which are
what
cause your hair to stand on end, and corona, which is a visible effect,
particularly on sharp pointed metallic objects. You can check the Wiki or
do more scholarly research to learn more. High voltage is not my area of
expertise. I know enough to stay the hell away from it. It is scary
enough
working with 480 or 600 VAC, which is technically "low voltage", but
capable of immense damage as can be seen in the 480 VAC blast on
http://electricsubstationsafety.com/photo5.html.
The low voltage that I consider safe is up to about 24 VAC. Telephone
circuits operate on 48 VDC, which is also considered safe, but it can
give
you a nasty shock. Being DC, and limited to about 20 mA, it is rarely
fatal, but the ring signal is about 100 VAC, which is enough to be
dangerous, although the 25 Hz is less likely than the "ideal" 50-60 Hz to
cause fibrillation.
Thus I refute your "backwards" comment. Make sure you know whereof you
speak. What you don't know *can* kill you!
Paul
Then, this response:
"Rocky" <3dogs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Fri999FD5B8DA2F5australianshepherdca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@xxxxxxxxx> said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
"Rocky" <3dogs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Fri999ED03E5A8CEaustralianshepherdca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@xxxxxxxxx> said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
Backwards.
Certainly if the high current is going through your body,
especially your heart, it is not safe. Even 10 mA at 60 Hz
into the heart can cause fibrillation and death. But I'm
talking about the current going through a low impedance
like a circuit breaker, which requires only about the same
voltage as a car battery.
You've gone all AC-DC. Do you know the difference?
It takes a certain amount of
voltage to deliver a dangerous current into the body,
How much? The correct answer is little to none. Norton
rules.
and
it varies greatly depending on skin resistance and location
of the electrodes.
Natch.
Dele elementary non-whitespace circuit theory.
Thus I refute your "backwards" comment. Make sure you know
whereof you speak. What you don't know *can* kill you!
You're wrong. Deal with it.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Then I replied:
Matt, it's hardly the best, but this reference might at least be easy for
you to comprehend, if you can handle the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock
And I looked into his weird reference to Norton, to which I replied (to
"Shelly" <scouvrette@xxxxxxxxx>, who only googled it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton's_theorem
So, did you understand what it said, or do you still have no concept? If
you have any idea what this means (which I learned in basic EE classes at
Hopkins in 1966, as Thevenin Equivalent), then please explain how this
justifies Matt's stupid quip. Otherwise, go back to something you can
perhaps discuss intelligently, such as dog behavior.
As I was saying, wtf does the calculation of an equivalent circuit have
to
do with the current and voltage required to cause a dangerous electrical
shock? The human body, at any instant, has a "Norton Equivalent" circuit,
but the important distinction of the portion of current flowing through
the
heart is lost when you lump all the parameters together. Anyone who fails
to understand this, and tries to misapply it as a measure of safety with
respect to human electrical shock, is negligent and irresponsible, and
has
no business being an electrical engineer. It was a truly scary revelation
by Diddy that Matt indeed represents himself as being of this profession.
Either he is incredibly incompetent, or he is attempting to be a troll by
deliberately posting misinformation.
Sorry for the long post, but I want to know what people here think of this.
Note that Matt says his EE degree was in Communications Theory, which may
not have required much understanding of electrical shock hazards. But his
criticism seems to involve a very basic misunderstanding of the concepts of
current and voltage, and it is disturbing that a degreed engineer could be
so wrong (IMHO).
I will invite him to post here, if he dares, as this discussion is much
more appropriate for electronics experts than dog trainers.
Paul
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Failure of Pics.
- Next by Date: Re: Gap, Creepage and Clearance for HF HV
- Previous by thread: (www. sgdtrade. com) cheap nike dunks
- Next by thread: Only 11 mm LED light box Display in China!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
