Re: relays
- From: John Fields <jfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:05:08 -0600
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:00:23 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:49:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:14:54 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
As I said before, if you divide energy by time you get power.
John
The principal foolishness of all this discussion was calling it "power
gain" in the first place.
I'm defining it as (load power) / (coil power) averaged over some
practical operating interval. You know, the thing that will matter in
an actual piece of equipment.
But I want to assure everyone that John Larkin never allows himself to
be wrong. So get over it.
...Jim Thompson
I'm wrong fairly often, but not about stuff as simple as this. When
designing really complex systems, especially in the conceptual stages,
it makes sense to be wrong now and then. In posting to Usenet about
simple stuff, it's easy to check your facts, or simply don't make
unqualified statements about stuff you don't understand.
---
Like latching relays having infinite gain?
JF
.
- References:
- Re: relays
- From: John Larkin
- Re: relays
- From: John Fields
- Re: relays
- From: John Larkin
- Re: relays
- From: John Fields
- Re: relays
- From: JosephKK
- Re: relays
- From: John Larkin
- Re: relays
- From: JosephKK
- Re: relays
- From: John Larkin
- Re: relays
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: relays
- From: John Larkin
- Re: relays
- Prev by Date: Re: relays
- Next by Date: Re: relays
- Previous by thread: Re: relays
- Next by thread: Re: relays
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|