Resurrecting a jpeg?

David news Dec 2019 09:56:35 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 19/12/2019 07:54, Diesel wrote:
[snip]

Hmm...

//In other words, raiding a member, taking all of his/her gear
and processing it will provide you nothing of value to be used
against the individual or the group itself. Likewise if you
somehow managed to locate and breach (at least you thought you
did) one of our network
entry points. You'd quickly be discovered and at no time would
you have any 'real' access to anything of value. OTH, I do hope
you took necessary precautions to protect yourself from, heh,
unwanted, large amounts of bandwidth capable retaliation, full
on, blackhat style.//

*** end snippit

Is the full text of what I wrote. Explain, in your own words,
how that is in any way a threat of ANY kind, David?

Will these words suffice?

"Dustin is actually threatening repercussions to Commander
Kinsey if he persists with his investigations into HHI. Solid
confirmation that Dustin is still in cahoots with real-life
Black Hat Hackers and is still a danger to everyone."

Why do you lie so poorly David? Anyone can see that I wasn't
threatening the troll of many nyms or anyone else in particular.
One can also see that you tried to ever so carefully, take a
section of what I wrote OUT OF CONTEXT to give it a different
meaning. I don't believe the troll of many nyms really fell for
it though, because they already replied to the post which has the
entire paragraph you lifted a few sentences from.

Message-ID: op.0cuojo2kwdg98l@glass

So again, David, in full context as I wrote, without your
snipping efforts, how is it a threat to anyone? One would have to
either physically raid an HHI members house, And/or discover one
of our network access points and commit criminal computer
trespass to break into it. One cannot complain about a reprisal
when said person is breaking the law by physical or virtual
criminal trespass and attempted unauthorized access to someone
elses gear.

If anything, the individual trying to do this should expect if
they get caught they're going to be dealt with in a very harsh
and most unpleasant manner; they're trying to do something they
shouldn't be doing to someone elses equipment, after all.

When are you going to stop thinking that I'm a fool, Dustin?

When you demonstrate that you aren't. Obviously.

I didn't 'lie' about anything.

Explain how what I wrote in full context is or was in any way a threat
to CK or anyone else in particular, then. You selectively snipped a
piece of what I wrote and falsely accused me of threatening CK or the
troll of many nyms. You went a step further though and wrote this:

"Dustin is actually threatening repercussions to Commander
Kinsey if he persists with his investigations into HHI. Solid
confirmation that Dustin is still in cahoots with real-life
Black Hat Hackers and is still a danger to everyone."

*** end snippit

which isn't true on a good snowy day in hell. So, you certainly did,
knowingly, LIE, David. It's one thing you can be relied on for doing on
a near daily basis, infact. Lying. Not something to be proud of, but,
that's never concerned you before.

[snip]

I'm inclined to agree with you on this. Paul and myself have had
a pleasant discussion or two; but I wasn't using this nym at the
time. I actually took some offense when he judged me prematurely
and brushed me off as a troll. G If I'd been using my normal
posting nym, he wouldn't have done me like that.

How many pseudonyms do you have?

You already know them, David. Your question serves no useful purpose in
relation to what I wrote above. Paul is, laughingly, mistaken
concerning me; but I really don't mind. I questioned his 'expertise'
concerning troubleshooting 101 and he took great offense to it; i'm
okay with that. Bull****ters tend to get offended quickly when someone
like me comes along and questions them, much more so if I'm the first
one to do that and not accept their input blindly as others do.

I upset the 'flow' with my comments concerning a particular component.
Pooh even had to backtrack a bit and admit some of them do have support
components external to the memory chip. And recently, I read a post
where Paul himself admits others (not him) have had success recovering
data and/or repairing USB memory sticks. I'm one of the people who's
done that, I wrote from 1st hand knowledge on the subject, I didn't
guess about it or make assumptions as Paul and pooh both did. When Paul
suggested jumping the gun with troubleshooting and going right for jtag
probing, I commented that you'd be wasting your time if you didn't
first verify the chip is getting the power it's expecting AND nothing
external to the chip is being shorted. If something is being shorted
and/or it's not getting the power it's expecting on the proper
pins/traces, you can jtag probe until the earth ends; you aren't going
to get anything of value.

What did Paul do when I wrote that? Jumped all over me, pooh joined in
calling me a ******; followed up with another post admitting some of
them do have external components to the memory chip; like I ****ing
wrote, initially. I don't guess at this **** David, I do this stuff for
a living. I pay my bills with the money I earn fixing things for
people. I don't mail them off to some company in china, I do the
repairs in the shop, myself.

They both went on to claim that external components are the exception,
not the norm. That actually depends on the manufacturer and the
model/make of the stick. They'd know this, if they actually had 1st
hand experience making such repairs, instead of making assumptions as
they both did.

Then we have the apple apologist nospam who automatically labels anyone
who writes something that doesn't praise Apple as an Apple hater. As
with paul, they proceed to make demands as if usenet is some job
evaluation and I've got to prove myself for the position. Prove myself
to who? For ****s sake, nospam claimed my driver circuit is covered in
introductory classes; when I stated the various principles and concepts
involved, the individual dismissed it as nothing more than buzzwords;
that I had no clue what I was writing about, and an introductory to
electronics class student could build the circuit too.

Except, that, well, according to two instructors (imaginary local
college these aren't, it's trivial even for you to locate the specific
names of them) who teach said electronics classes, my circuit isn't for
those level students; the material isn't covered that early in class;
they wouldn't have a working understanding of what the circuit is
doing. And despite nospams initial claims, the circuit is dangerous to
be playing with if it's driving a transformer if you don't understand
how it works and what you're doing.

So, I'll make this easier for you. My circuit is using freewheeling
diodes to reduce the chances of the fet being destroyed by the inductor
(the coil in this case) - I'm using a DC based power source, an
inductor behaves differently when it's fed this vs AC. When you try and
break the connection, the inductor fights for it, and draws a large
amount of current trying to maintain that connection.

On a mechanical switch you can see this by the arcing when the contacts
open, and eventual failure of the switch when the arcing burns the
contacts up or pits them enough to where they can no longer make a good
connection. Like the points ignition system for older cars. Your points
burned up over time due to the arcing they sustained each and every
time they disconnected the power source from your ignition coil.

The coil fires when power is cut away, NOT when it's delivered. It does
this because an electromagnetic field in the primary coil is induced
when you apply power. The coil needs a moment or two to 'charge up' and
hold it. When you go to disconnect the power, that's when the field
collapses on the primary coil, sending a rush of power to the secondary
coil which thanks to the windings ratio, greatly increases the voltage
from what you fed into it. The coil in my video takes the 12 volts (it
actually prefers 9) and ramps it to around 15-20kv or so.
Unfortunately, not all of the power goes to the secondary, some comes
back from the primary, but it's reversed polarity and is hundreds if
not a few thousand volts higher than what you put into it, depending on
the coil. A snubber circuit is typically used to protect the fet and/or
the support driving components. Or, in some cases as with my circuit, a
freewheeling diode setup is used to protect the fet with additional
components in use to protect the support components.

If you use a snubber, it has to be tuned to the frequencies you expect
to run and it increases the power needed for your circuit to function
properly. You're using additional components, introducing more failure
points in your ciruit, and now, requiring a little more power to
compensate.

One such easy peasy snubber circuit you can use is as follows:

coming from the negative line to my fet, you pull the diodes I used,
first. You then do this:

take a diode (BYQ28E) or better, put both positive ends on the negative
side coming from the coil to the fet. Take the single negative end
(this particular diode is two diodes with a common cathode) and feed
that to a 100k resistor that's parallel with a .01uf capacitor rated at
2kv or more. Come off the other side of that and tie that into the
source side of the mosfet (the ground pin). Walla, you have a snubber
circuit. Now, you have the power issue I mentioned.

More adjustment and tuning is now required to get the coil to 'spark';
you killed off the back emf that was helping to drive it with the
snubber. Oopsie. Now, you have to compensate for that, higher
frequencies, different duty cycle, and/or higher voltage to the coil.
Nothings for free.

Some circuits use capacitors paralled to the coil; these cause the coil
to ring. By that I mean, the voltage spike is used to charge up the
capacitor(s) and those feed back into the coil - which helps to
initiate and sustain the arc; this process would continue forever if
various laws of physics and inperfections with the material didn't come
into play.

Since they do, the coil and the cap eventually 'lose' it and are unable
to sustain each other. Another fresh pulse is required to keep the show
going. A ringing circuit requires less 'tuning' because, as I said,
it's not soley relying on your circuit to turn on/off the coil, it's
taking advantage of the inductors need to fight instead. Mine doesn't.
It needs some back emf as it is, or it won't generate a spark you can
see.

If the pulse is too short, the coil doesn't get the time it needs to
charge up and you see no spark. Even though, enough juice was sent to
give you a nasty shock if you touched the output side of the coil, not
enough is present to arc open air.

buzzwords, introductory to electronics classes material, my ****ing
ass.

Now, as I said, my circuit isn't perfect. I'm not using a snubber;
despite forking a working one over to you in this very post. I also ran
some signal wires in parallel to my high voltage side wires that are
tied to the fet, the coil, and ground. You shouldn't do that, it
generates unwanted noise and interference for one, and can cause high
voltage to come across your signal wires using the same principles you
can observe in real life with high voltage power wires, or lower
voltage ones in your home if your phone wires are run parallel with
your power wires; you hear a hum or unwanted static on the phone.

For a lineman, the 'dead' wire is alive if it's too close in parallel
to one carrying juice. IE: you can have the wire literally disconnected
on both ends, but it's still going to be hot if it's close enough in
parallel to one that is. No, it's not carrying the same amperage or
voltage as the wire that really is being fed power, but it's got more
than enough high voltage present to kill the poor line man who touches
it.

The 555 is being protected by the diode you see on the negative pin.
there shouldn't be enough high voltage left from the diode suppression
on the fet to exceed the 1000 volts on that diode, which would force
the diode to allow the voltage to pass through; otherwise, it would
block it as normal; since it's like a water valve that only lets the
water' flow in one direction.

When generating a fixed arc, as in my first videos, the diodes on the
fet did their job, the additional diode on the 555 wasn't necessary.
OTH, when the arc was asked to climb the ladder, the additional diode
became necessary to protect the 555. As I said, I've shared more than
one driver circuit schematic. I don't know which one, if any, nospam
actually looked at for the purpose of criticizing.

I'm using the mov on the jacobs ladder in lieu of a snubber circuit to
clamp down on my power rail; mostly to protect the power supply. If I
put the mov instead of the diodes on the fet instead, it clamps way too
soon and you get no spark. Because, I'm not ringing it with capacitors
and my MOV is a small one; it clamps around 18volts or so. So, as soon
as it sees the back emf, it crushes it, crushing my open air spark
along with it.

There's also a particular diode in my circuit that gets hot fast,
depending on duty cycle and frequency; it's really not upto the task
being asked of it in those situations. The entire circuit runs cool to
the touch, even after several minutes on some freq/duty cycles though;
It's a coil saturation issue.

I know damn well how my circuit works, why it works, the flaws it has,
and how to correct them. When you see my singing arc video, you'll see
further improvements to my circuit. And my circuit is original too,
it's not something I copied from someone else. The last time I built
one of these was when I was a young teenager, and, I didn't keep my
hand written notes about it with me; I've moved more than once since
then. And my circuit back then wasn't tunable like this one was, it was
fixed freq/duty cycle/amplitude. Wasn't even using a 555, was using
transistors to generate the signal via oscillation. The 555 not only
reduces the amount of components needed to do this, but gives you
greater control over the process. You could opt to use an SG3525
instead of the 555, but the pinout and configuration is different.
You would gain more precise control over the circuit though and have
more options available, right from the chip, without having to use
additional external components as you do with the 555.

You of all people I'm sure have noticed that if I bother writing
something, I fully anticipate having to back it up, and I take great
pleasure in doing so. You've seen me take this approach with doubters
before. Not only do I correct them, I make them eat heaping piles of
crow for their trouble. I make no exceptions, I spare no one. If you're
going to post what amounts to horse **** and state xxx years of
expertise in the field, when I KNOW you're wrong AND can prove it, I'm
going to do so; I don't care who you are or what reputation you have
that you feel i've challenged or otherwise upset.

Some people are too quick to judge a book by it's cover. I used
to take pleasure in taking advantage of those kinds of people.
You see, David, they tend to be on the greedy side too; and very
self serving. If you have social engineering in mind, these are
two traits you can play to your advantage, so long as you know
how.

I don't understand why you want *TO TAKE ADVANTAGE* of people.

I do understand why you're intentionally misquoting me, and being
dishonest as you do so. It's your slimeball nature. What I actually
wrote is above, but i'll repost it here too:

"I used to take pleasure in taking advantage of those kinds of people."

This is another recent example of your intentional, dishonesty.

He's most certainly mistaken about *ME*!

If he called you out as a stalking troll, or a drunkard, or a liar, he
wasn't mistaken.

My techie friend actually thinks you are quite clever - although a
bit 'messy' with your practical work. You would have benefited a
great deal from the practical training given to Royal Navy
Artificers.

I doubt you have any friends, techie or otherwise; based on the way in
which you treat people.

As well as your missing knob, I also noticed the dirt/dust on your
soldering iron stand. We were all taught that "Cleanliness is next
to Godliness"! Perhaps you should start practising both?!!!

I told you, some years ago, my new residence is a dust bowl. I could
wipe it clean today, within a day or two, it'll have dust on it again.

I have to change the hvac filters more often than some other home
owners, due to the excessive amount of dust which is my driveway, my
yard, and surrounding property. You've continually got the wrong
address on me, each and every single time you've tried to dox me. You
really suck at that stuff.

A little dust on the stand isn't hurting anything. I keep my tools in
excellent condition at all times, David. I rely on them for a living,
you understand. I tin my iron often during use, and always do a fresh
tin before shutdown.

I suspect this summer I'm going to do something about the lab's dust
situation though; additional filtration most likely; I'm tired of
having to do monthly dust cleanings on my computers. I like seeing high
runtimes, and I lose that each time I have to shut one down for
cleaning. Also, since it's a network, I lose a 'piece' of it if a
system is down.

Nospam should pay attention to what I tell him.

In this particular case, I agree with you. I'm also confident
that the individual isn't going to take your advice. Much to my
advantage, wouldn't you say, David?

Yes. Absolutely! :-)

David, he claimed I was apple bashing in a specific thread, when I
asked them to provide MIDs or other examples, they didn't provide ANY
from the thread they made the accusation in; instead of admitting they
made a mistake, they tried to state they weren't talking about that
thread specifically, despite the fact they were, it was clearly
written.

Anyone who can't accept simple mistakes like that isn't someone who's
going to admit when they are wrong, at any point in time. So any
'discussion' with them is going to go nowhere.

Another side note, You'll have noticed, I posted sometime ago,

From: Diesel
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Nospam: let's discuss
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:18:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaJ8pDlxi8

This is a technical video, what you might call Apple bashing. I'd like
to know what, specifically, if anything, on that video he's said that
you believe is a lie, or otherwise, not true.

*** end snippit

It actually is a detailed technical video, showing you clear cases of
Apple design ****ups and what it does for you, the consumer of said
product. It's been nearly a month now, no response to it.

Understand what I mean now, about nospams inability to own up to
mistakes, simple or otherwise?


--
See side panel for exciting recipe ideas.

Diesel
pi76YTg36l1H3fPr8nu
81aZFHfLqB2vB56ft19k Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:06:55 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0cuo93qpwdg98l@glass Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:52:41 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 08:02:51 -0000, Diesel
wrote:

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0csw4et5wdg98l@glass Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:46:52 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

That's piracy and I like it.

Rapists like sex, they get sex for free, they like it.

I understand your point but I'd wager that Commander Kinsey
has never raped anyone ....
.... nor written malicious code designed to cause
harm.

David, switch hands and find another horse. There isn't even
dust left. the malicious code you whine about is twenty years
old.

Yeah yeah, you're a different person now, we've heard it all
before.

Ayep. If you can find some malicious code I wrote that's newer
than irok, feel free to share it or a link pointing to it.
Otherwise, deal with the fact that I'm not the same person I was
then. I've changed for what I believe to be the better, whether
you believe it or not.


Hmmmm, in your previous post you wrote:
"OTH, I do hope you took necessary precautions to protect
yourself from, heh, unwanted, large amounts of bandwidth capable
retaliation, full on, blackhat style." So that would be a direct
threat of hacking.

Actually, no, it's not a threat. Especially when left in full
context:

//In other words, raiding a member, taking all of his/her gear and
processing it will provide you nothing of value to be used against
the individual or the group itself. Likewise if you somehow
managed to locate and breach (at least you thought you did) one of
our network entry points.

You'd quickly be discovered and at no time would you
have any 'real' access to anything of value. OTH, I do hope you
took necessary precautions to protect yourself from, heh,
unwanted, large amounts of bandwidth capable retaliation, full on,
blackhat style.//

*** end snippit

Do you have intentions of seeking out HHI networks and attempting
to gain unauthorized access? If not, then you have nothing to
worry about concerning any blackhat retaliation. if you do, then I
wouldn't call it a threat of hacking, It would be a clear case of
self defense; you came without an invite to **** with our stuff,
so we ****ed you two ways from sunday for your trouble. If you
don't want to get serious burns, don't jump into a raging fire.
It's pretty simple.

Something you er.... don't do or condone anymore?

I do condone education. I don't think anyone should drop out or
otherwise ****off, as you've clearly done during classtime. Your
reading comprehension is terrible.


BUMP.


--
Cats are excellent at domesticating people...

In article , Diesel
wrote:


I'm inclined to agree with you on this. Paul and myself have had
a pleasant discussion or two; but I wasn't using this nym at the
time. I actually took some offense when he judged me prematurely
and brushed me off as a troll. G If I'd been using my normal
posting nym, he wouldn't have done me like that.

How many pseudonyms do you have?

You already know them, David. Your question serves no useful purpose in
relation to what I wrote above. Paul is, laughingly, mistaken
concerning me; but I really don't mind. I questioned his 'expertise'
concerning troubleshooting 101 and he took great offense to it; i'm
okay with that. Bull****ters tend to get offended quickly when someone
like me comes along and questions them, much more so if I'm the first
one to do that and not accept their input blindly as others do.

you have that entirely backwards.

paul and others weren't swallowing your bull**** and called you on it.

I upset the 'flow' with my comments concerning a particular component.
Pooh even had to backtrack a bit and admit some of them do have support
components external to the memory chip.

he didn't backtrack.

And recently, I read a post
where Paul himself admits others (not him) have had success recovering
data and/or repairing USB memory sticks. I'm one of the people who's
done that, I wrote from 1st hand knowledge on the subject, I didn't
guess about it or make assumptions as Paul and pooh both did. When Paul
suggested jumping the gun with troubleshooting and going right for jtag
probing, I commented that you'd be wasting your time if you didn't
first verify the chip is getting the power it's expecting AND nothing
external to the chip is being shorted. If something is being shorted
and/or it's not getting the power it's expecting on the proper
pins/traces, you can jtag probe until the earth ends; you aren't going
to get anything of value.

What did Paul do when I wrote that? Jumped all over me, pooh joined in
calling me a ******; followed up with another post admitting some of
them do have external components to the memory chip; like I ****ing
wrote, initially. I don't guess at this **** David, I do this stuff for
a living. I pay my bills with the money I earn fixing things for
people. I don't mail them off to some company in china, I do the
repairs in the shop, myself.

They both went on to claim that external components are the exception,
not the norm. That actually depends on the manufacturer and the
model/make of the stick. They'd know this, if they actually had 1st
hand experience making such repairs, instead of making assumptions as
they both did.

that doesn't disprove their claim.

Then we have the apple apologist nospam who automatically labels anyone
who writes something that doesn't praise Apple as an Apple hater. As
with paul, they proceed to make demands as if usenet is some job
evaluation and I've got to prove myself for the position. Prove myself
to who? For ****s sake, nospam claimed my driver circuit is covered in
introductory classes; when I stated the various principles and concepts
involved, the individual dismissed it as nothing more than buzzwords;
that I had no clue what I was writing about,

when you say things like dissipating trailing capacitance, it's quite
clear that you do not have any idea whatsoever what you're writing
about. it's just a bunch of buzzwords strung together to form a
sentence.

and an introductory to
electronics class student could build the circuit too.

building is the easy part.

*designing* is the hard part, and not only can intro class students do
*both*, but they can do so with significantly fewer components and
without any of the mistakes you made, and most importantly, they
understand how it all works. they can also design and build far more
complex circuits, and fairly early on too.

Except, that, well, according to two instructors (imaginary local
college these aren't, it's trivial even for you to locate the specific
names of them) who teach said electronics classes, my circuit isn't for
those level students; the material isn't covered that early in class;
they wouldn't have a working understanding of what the circuit is
doing.

further avoidance, and you're also contradicting what you previously
said, plus whatever class they're supposedly teaching is fluff.

And despite nospams initial claims, the circuit is dangerous to
be playing with if it's driving a transformer if you don't understand
how it works and what you're doing.

i never said anything one way or the other about the danger.

So, I'll make this easier for you. My circuit is using freewheeling
diodes to reduce the chances of the fet being destroyed by the inductor
(the coil in this case) - I'm using a DC based power source, an
inductor behaves differently when it's fed this vs AC. When you try and
break the connection, the inductor fights for it, and draws a large
amount of current trying to maintain that connection.

further evidence you don't understand how it works.

On a mechanical switch you can see this by the arcing when the contacts
open, and eventual failure of the switch when the arcing burns the
contacts up or pits them enough to where they can no longer make a good
connection. Like the points ignition system for older cars. Your points
burned up over time due to the arcing they sustained each and every
time they disconnected the power source from your ignition coil.

not relevant.

The coil fires when power is cut away, NOT when it's delivered. It does
this because an electromagnetic field in the primary coil is induced
when you apply power. The coil needs a moment or two to 'charge up' and
hold it. When you go to disconnect the power, that's when the field
collapses on the primary coil, sending a rush of power to the secondary
coil which thanks to the windings ratio, greatly increases the voltage
from what you fed into it. The coil in my video takes the 12 volts (it
actually prefers 9) and ramps it to around 15-20kv or so.
Unfortunately, not all of the power goes to the secondary, some comes
back from the primary, but it's reversed polarity and is hundreds if
not a few thousand volts higher than what you put into it, depending on
the coil. A snubber circuit is typically used to protect the fet and/or
the support driving components. Or, in some cases as with my circuit, a
freewheeling diode setup is used to protect the fet with additional
components in use to protect the support components.

If you use a snubber, it has to be tuned to the frequencies you expect
to run and it increases the power needed for your circuit to function
properly. You're using additional components, introducing more failure
points in your ciruit, and now, requiring a little more power to
compensate.

One such easy peasy snubber circuit you can use is as follows:

coming from the negative line to my fet, you pull the diodes I used,
first. You then do this:

take a diode (BYQ28E) or better, put both positive ends on the negative
side coming from the coil to the fet. Take the single negative end
(this particular diode is two diodes with a common cathode) and feed
that to a 100k resistor that's parallel with a .01uf capacitor rated at
2kv or more. Come off the other side of that and tie that into the
source side of the mosfet (the ground pin). Walla, you have a snubber
circuit. Now, you have the power issue I mentioned.

More adjustment and tuning is now required to get the coil to 'spark';
you killed off the back emf that was helping to drive it with the
snubber. Oopsie. Now, you have to compensate for that, higher
frequencies, different duty cycle, and/or higher voltage to the coil.
Nothings for free.

Some circuits use capacitors paralled to the coil; these cause the coil
to ring. By that I mean, the voltage spike is used to charge up the
capacitor(s) and those feed back into the coil - which helps to
initiate and sustain the arc; this process would continue forever if
various laws of physics and inperfections with the material didn't come
into play.

Since they do, the coil and the cap eventually 'lose' it and are unable
to sustain each other. Another fresh pulse is required to keep the show
going. A ringing circuit requires less 'tuning' because, as I said,
it's not soley relying on your circuit to turn on/off the coil, it's
taking advantage of the inductors need to fight instead. Mine doesn't.
It needs some back emf as it is, or it won't generate a spark you can
see.

If the pulse is too short, the coil doesn't get the time it needs to
charge up and you see no spark. Even though, enough juice was sent to
give you a nasty shock if you touched the output side of the coil, not
enough is present to arc open air.

a lot of words that says very little.

buzzwords, introductory to electronics classes material, my ****ing
ass.

yes, buzzwords.

you use terms improperly or even make up new ones that don't actually
exist and write many paragraphs to try to explain basic concepts (and
not entirely correctly either).

it might sound good on the surface, but to those who actually do
understand what's going on, they can see right through it.

Now, as I said, my circuit isn't perfect.

yet you keep citing it as proof of knowing what you're doing.

I'm not using a snubber;
despite forking a working one over to you in this very post. I also ran
some signal wires in parallel to my high voltage side wires that are
tied to the fet, the coil, and ground. You shouldn't do that, it
generates unwanted noise and interference for one, and can cause high
voltage to come across your signal wires using the same principles you
can observe in real life with high voltage power wires, or lower
voltage ones in your home if your phone wires are run parallel with
your power wires; you hear a hum or unwanted static on the phone.

For a lineman, the 'dead' wire is alive if it's too close in parallel
to one carrying juice. IE: you can have the wire literally disconnected
on both ends, but it's still going to be hot if it's close enough in
parallel to one that is. No, it's not carrying the same amperage or
voltage as the wire that really is being fed power, but it's got more
than enough high voltage present to kill the poor line man who touches
it.

The 555 is being protected by the diode you see on the negative pin.
there shouldn't be enough high voltage left from the diode suppression
on the fet to exceed the 1000 volts on that diode, which would force
the diode to allow the voltage to pass through; otherwise, it would
block it as normal; since it's like a water valve that only lets the
water' flow in one direction.

further evidence that you don't know anywhere near as much as you might
think you do.

When generating a fixed arc, as in my first videos, the diodes on the
fet did their job, the additional diode on the 555 wasn't necessary.
OTH, when the arc was asked to climb the ladder, the additional diode
became necessary to protect the 555. As I said, I've shared more than
one driver circuit schematic. I don't know which one, if any, nospam
actually looked at for the purpose of criticizing.

coildriver1.jpg and jacobsladder.jpg, from your youtube channel.

both of them are riddled with all sorts of problems and demonstrate a
lack of understanding about very basic concepts.

I'm using the mov on the jacobs ladder in lieu of a snubber circuit to
clamp down on my power rail; mostly to protect the power supply. If I
put the mov instead of the diodes on the fet instead, it clamps way too
soon and you get no spark. Because, I'm not ringing it with capacitors
and my MOV is a small one; it clamps around 18volts or so. So, as soon
as it sees the back emf, it crushes it, crushing my open air spark
along with it.

there is no mov in your schematic nor is one appropriate for this
particular circuit.

There's also a particular diode in my circuit that gets hot fast,
depending on duty cycle and frequency; it's really not upto the task
being asked of it in those situations. The entire circuit runs cool to
the touch, even after several minutes on some freq/duty cycles though;
It's a coil saturation issue.

I know damn well how my circuit works, why it works, the flaws it has,
and how to correct them.

if that were true, your explanation above would be very different.

furthermore, if you are aware of the flaws and how to correct them, why
haven't you done so and posted the revised circuit?

When you see my singing arc video, you'll see
further improvements to my circuit. And my circuit is original too,
it's not something I copied from someone else.

not entirely.

The last time I built
one of these was when I was a young teenager, and, I didn't keep my
hand written notes about it with me; I've moved more than once since
then. And my circuit back then wasn't tunable like this one was, it was
fixed freq/duty cycle/amplitude. Wasn't even using a 555, was using
transistors to generate the signal via oscillation. The 555 not only
reduces the amount of components needed to do this, but gives you
greater control over the process.

a 555 is not needed for what you call tunable (another incorrect use of
terminology) and actually *adds* to the number of components, assuming
the other design is a good one, which from your description, was not
the case.

You could opt to use an SG3525
instead of the 555, but the pinout and configuration is different.

so what? are you confused by pinouts?

You would gain more precise control over the circuit though and have
more options available, right from the chip, without having to use
additional external components as you do with the 555.

not really.

You of all people I'm sure have noticed that if I bother writing
something, I fully anticipate having to back it up, and I take great
pleasure in doing so. You've seen me take this approach with doubters
before. Not only do I correct them, I make them eat heaping piles of
crow for their trouble. I make no exceptions, I spare no one. If you're
going to post what amounts to horse **** and state xxx years of
expertise in the field, when I KNOW you're wrong AND can prove it, I'm
going to do so; I don't care who you are or what reputation you have
that you feel i've challenged or otherwise upset.

yet you have failed to do so.

all you've done is bloviate with as many buzzwords as possible.

the best one is dissipating trailing capacitance, which is one of the
most hilarious things i've ever heard.

you've been repeatedly asked to explain all sorts of things as well as
provide the relevant formulas and theory, and each time, you have
avoided answering.

in other words, you are posting horse**** and your own posts prove it.




Another side note, You'll have noticed, I posted sometime ago,

From: Diesel
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Nospam: let's discuss
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:18:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaJ8pDlxi8

This is a technical video, what you might call Apple bashing. I'd like
to know what, specifically, if anything, on that video he's said that
you believe is a lie, or otherwise, not true.

*** end snippit

It actually is a detailed technical video, showing you clear cases of
Apple design ****ups and what it does for you, the consumer of said
product. It's been nearly a month now, no response to it.

Understand what I mean now, about nospams inability to own up to
mistakes, simple or otherwise?

i refuted that hate video with nearly thirty links.

nospam
Sun, 29 Dec 2019
18:15:13 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

In article , Diesel
wrote:


I'm inclined to agree with you on this. Paul and myself have
had a pleasant discussion or two; but I wasn't using this nym
at the time. I actually took some offense when he judged me
prematurely and brushed me off as a troll. G If I'd been
using my normal posting nym, he wouldn't have done me like
that.

How many pseudonyms do you have?

You already know them, David. Your question serves no useful
purpose in relation to what I wrote above. Paul is, laughingly,
mistaken concerning me; but I really don't mind. I questioned his
'expertise' concerning troubleshooting 101 and he took great
offense to it; i'm okay with that. Bull****ters tend to get
offended quickly when someone like me comes along and questions
them, much more so if I'm the first one to do that and not accept
their input blindly as others do.

you have that entirely backwards.

paul and others weren't swallowing your bull**** and called you on
it.

No, I don't. Paul and pooh incorrectly assumed the usb memory sticks
didn't have external components. That you'd always, and only would
find a chip, all by its lonesome on the pcb. They are wrong. He did
take great offense to my statement, and various other people asked
him about his issue he took with me for it. The thread is available
for anyone to review if they should like to do so. You can't dismiss
what took place as you've tried here.

I upset the 'flow' with my comments concerning a particular
component. Pooh even had to backtrack a bit and admit some of
them do have support components external to the memory chip.

he didn't backtrack.

Heh, yes he did. First, he called me a ****** and claimed external
components didn't exist on them. Then, after he learned otherwise, he
corrected himself. That's backtracking. And like you, he suffers
from the inability to admit when he's wrong, too.

And recently, I read a post
where Paul himself admits others (not him) have had success
recovering data and/or repairing USB memory sticks. I'm one of
the people who's done that, I wrote from 1st hand knowledge on
the subject, I didn't guess about it or make assumptions as Paul
and pooh both did. When Paul suggested jumping the gun with
troubleshooting and going right for jtag probing, I commented
that you'd be wasting your time if you didn't first verify the
chip is getting the power it's expecting AND nothing external to
the chip is being shorted. If something is being shorted and/or
it's not getting the power it's expecting on the proper
pins/traces, you can jtag probe until the earth ends; you aren't
going to get anything of value.

What did Paul do when I wrote that? Jumped all over me, pooh
joined in calling me a ******; followed up with another post
admitting some of them do have external components to the memory
chip; like I ****ing wrote, initially. I don't guess at this ****
David, I do this stuff for a living. I pay my bills with the
money I earn fixing things for people. I don't mail them off to
some company in china, I do the repairs in the shop, myself.

They both went on to claim that external components are the
exception, not the norm. That actually depends on the
manufacturer and the model/make of the stick. They'd know this,
if they actually had 1st hand experience making such repairs,
instead of making assumptions as they both did.

that doesn't disprove their claim.

Actually, it does. Several people, including myself, knew that some
of them do have external components, and, we've had success
retrieving the data. Paul nor Pooh does. And until I brought it up,
neither of them knew some of the devices infact, do have external
components. That was something 'new' to them, but old news to me.

Then we have the apple apologist nospam who automatically labels
anyone who writes something that doesn't praise Apple as an Apple
hater. As with paul, they proceed to make demands as if usenet is
some job evaluation and I've got to prove myself for the
position. Prove myself to who? For ****s sake, nospam claimed my
driver circuit is covered in introductory classes; when I stated
the various principles and concepts involved, the individual
dismissed it as nothing more than buzzwords; that I had no clue
what I was writing about,

when you say things like dissipating trailing capacitance, it's
quite clear that you do not have any idea whatsoever what you're
writing about. it's just a bunch of buzzwords strung together to
form a sentence.

When you continue to show that you think a mosfet is like a normal
transistor, it greatly amuses me. I doubt i'm the only one who gets a
kick out of your attack, either.

and an introductory to
electronics class student could build the circuit too.

building is the easy part.

Sure it is.

*designing* is the hard part, and not only can intro class
students do *both*, but they can do so with significantly fewer
components and without any of the mistakes you made, and most
importantly, they understand how it all works. they can also
design and build far more complex circuits, and fairly early on
too.

ROFL!

Except, that, well, according to two instructors (imaginary local
college these aren't, it's trivial even for you to locate the
specific names of them) who teach said electronics classes, my
circuit isn't for those level students; the material isn't
covered that early in class; they wouldn't have a working
understanding of what the circuit is doing.

further avoidance, and you're also contradicting what you
previously said, plus whatever class they're supposedly teaching
is fluff.

And despite nospams initial claims, the circuit is dangerous to
be playing with if it's driving a transformer if you don't
understand how it works and what you're doing.

i never said anything one way or the other about the danger.

ROFL!, Yes, you dismissed my initial warning as nonsense.

So, I'll make this easier for you. My circuit is using
freewheeling diodes to reduce the chances of the fet being
destroyed by the inductor (the coil in this case) - I'm using a
DC based power source, an inductor behaves differently when it's
fed this vs AC. When you try and break the connection, the
inductor fights for it, and draws a large amount of current
trying to maintain that connection.

further evidence you don't understand how it works.

Did I lose you at freewheeling? Do you need a moment to google the
term? What specifically are you claiming is wrong in what I wrote?

On a mechanical switch you can see this by the arcing when the
contacts open, and eventual failure of the switch when the arcing
burns the contacts up or pits them enough to where they can no
longer make a good connection. Like the points ignition system
for older cars. Your points burned up over time due to the arcing
they sustained each and every time they disconnected the power
source from your ignition coil.

not relevant.

Yes, it is.

The coil fires when power is cut away, NOT when it's delivered.
It does this because an electromagnetic field in the primary coil
is induced when you apply power. The coil needs a moment or two
to 'charge up' and hold it. When you go to disconnect the power,
that's when the field collapses on the primary coil, sending a
rush of power to the secondary coil which thanks to the windings
ratio, greatly increases the voltage from what you fed into it.
The coil in my video takes the 12 volts (it actually prefers 9)
and ramps it to around 15-20kv or so. Unfortunately, not all of
the power goes to the secondary, some comes back from the
primary, but it's reversed polarity and is hundreds if not a few
thousand volts higher than what you put into it, depending on
the coil. A snubber circuit is typically used to protect the fet
and/or the support driving components. Or, in some cases as with
my circuit, a freewheeling diode setup is used to protect the fet
with additional components in use to protect the support
components.

If you use a snubber, it has to be tuned to the frequencies you
expect to run and it increases the power needed for your circuit
to function properly. You're using additional components,
introducing more failure points in your ciruit, and now,
requiring a little more power to compensate.

One such easy peasy snubber circuit you can use is as follows:

coming from the negative line to my fet, you pull the diodes I
used, first. You then do this:

take a diode (BYQ28E) or better, put both positive ends on the
negative side coming from the coil to the fet. Take the single
negative end (this particular diode is two diodes with a common
cathode) and feed that to a 100k resistor that's parallel with a
.01uf capacitor rated at 2kv or more. Come off the other side of
that and tie that into the source side of the mosfet (the ground
pin). Walla, you have a snubber circuit. Now, you have the power
issue I mentioned.

More adjustment and tuning is now required to get the coil to
'spark'; you killed off the back emf that was helping to drive it
with the snubber. Oopsie. Now, you have to compensate for that,
higher frequencies, different duty cycle, and/or higher voltage
to the coil. Nothings for free.

Some circuits use capacitors paralled to the coil; these cause
the coil to ring. By that I mean, the voltage spike is used to
charge up the capacitor(s) and those feed back into the coil -
which helps to initiate and sustain the arc; this process would
continue forever if various laws of physics and inperfections
with the material didn't come into play.

Since they do, the coil and the cap eventually 'lose' it and are
unable to sustain each other. Another fresh pulse is required to
keep the show going. A ringing circuit requires less 'tuning'
because, as I said, it's not soley relying on your circuit to
turn on/off the coil, it's taking advantage of the inductors need
to fight instead. Mine doesn't. It needs some back emf as it is,
or it won't generate a spark you can see.

If the pulse is too short, the coil doesn't get the time it needs
to charge up and you see no spark. Even though, enough juice was
sent to give you a nasty shock if you touched the output side of
the coil, not enough is present to arc open air.

a lot of words that says very little.

Excuse me? You asked if even understood how the coil worked; I
clearly do. I explained the process in nauseating detail above.

You've complained about my circuit several times, I just provided you
a specific (David, but whoever reads it gets the same info) component
list and parts configuration for a working snubber; I also explained
why I wasn't already using it, AND, the required changes to be made
if one we're so inclined to make use of it.

And you wish to dismiss specific details, that you inferred I didn't
understand as alot of words that says very little? Are you high?

You're the one who's lost here, aren't you? Was I too technical?

buzzwords, introductory to electronics classes material, my
****ing ass.

yes, buzzwords.

So, you are high then?

it might sound good on the surface, but to those who actually do
understand what's going on, they can see right through it.

What specifically then, is wrong in what I've written? Provide,
SPECIFICS.

Now, as I said, my circuit isn't perfect.

yet you keep citing it as proof of knowing what you're doing.

No, I didn't.

When generating a fixed arc, as in my first videos, the diodes on
the fet did their job, the additional diode on the 555 wasn't
necessary. OTH, when the arc was asked to climb the ladder, the
additional diode became necessary to protect the 555. As I said,
I've shared more than one driver circuit schematic. I don't know
which one, if any, nospam actually looked at for the purpose of
criticizing.

coildriver1.jpg and jacobsladder.jpg, from your youtube channel.

both of them are riddled with all sorts of problems and
demonstrate a lack of understanding about very basic concepts.

Problems you've neglected to mention, and a lack of understanding
you've neglected to try and attack me with. Interesting. Do you have
anything specific you can take issue with?

Do note the video playtimes; they haven't been edited or otherwise
dicked around with. Each circuit is running for more than a few
seconds without any problems or difficulties, if that's what you're
trying to imply.

All sorts of problems, etc, should cause a circuit failure in a very
short period of time; yet, for some silly reason, they aren't failing
in those videos. What's the deal, nospam?

I'm using the mov on the jacobs ladder in lieu of a snubber
circuit to clamp down on my power rail; mostly to protect the
power supply. If I put the mov instead of the diodes on the fet
instead, it clamps way too soon and you get no spark. Because,
I'm not ringing it with capacitors and my MOV is a small one; it
clamps around 18volts or so. So, as soon as it sees the back emf,
it crushes it, crushing my open air spark along with it.

there is no mov in your schematic nor is one appropriate for this
particular circuit.

Nospam, there's a mov on the jacobsladder schematic. It's all the way
to the left, sideways; even includes a specific manufacturer part
number if one would like to get the same one I used.

Perhaps, you've been doing a bit more than bull****ting about your
actual knowledge here?

There's also a particular diode in my circuit that gets hot fast,
depending on duty cycle and frequency; it's really not upto the
task being asked of it in those situations. The entire circuit
runs cool to the touch, even after several minutes on some
freq/duty cycles though; It's a coil saturation issue.

I know damn well how my circuit works, why it works, the flaws it
has, and how to correct them.

if that were true, your explanation above would be very different.

I strongly suspect any/all explanations I provide will not be
accepted by you. I also suspect and have confirmed so far, that
when/if I do bother answering any of your inquiries with specific
details; your response is going to be something very close to this
one:

"a lot of words that says very little." - That's the response you
provided when I clearly indicated that I do know how the coil works,
and WHEN it actually generates the spark. You previously indicated I
wouldn't know this information and like a typical power tripping
usenet ******, demanded I prove otherwise. I did, and then some. Your
reponse was left above.

I didn't see any value in accepting your challenges previously, but,
I humoured your wiseass remark about the coil and explained in detail
how it worked. I'm pretty sure I lost you after the first or second
sentence, based on your full quote and single line reply to it:

"a lot of words that says very little."

I certainly see no value in continuing. You can't keep up as it is.
You're like David Brooks - wanting others to do things for you.
There's nothing for me to gain by complying with that. I don't wish
to assist another David Brooks if I can avoid it.

When you see my singing arc video, you'll see
further improvements to my circuit. And my circuit is original
too, it's not something I copied from someone else.

not entirely.

You're reaching if you're going to claim my circuit isn't original
because it's using one of the well known configurations for using the
555 in a-stable mode. I understand though, when you're this
desperate, anything will do.

The last time I built
one of these was when I was a young teenager, and, I didn't keep
my hand written notes about it with me; I've moved more than once
since then. And my circuit back then wasn't tunable like this one
was, it was fixed freq/duty cycle/amplitude. Wasn't even using a
555, was using transistors to generate the signal via
oscillation. The 555 not only reduces the amount of components
needed to do this, but gives you greater control over the
process.

a 555 is not needed for what you call tunable (another incorrect
use of terminology) and actually *adds* to the number of
components, assuming the other design is a good one, which from
your description, was not the case.

Would you prefer the term, adjustable? When dialing in a radio
station, do people commonly refer to that as adjusting the frequency,
or tuning the station in? Well?

You could opt to use an SG3525
instead of the 555, but the pinout and configuration is
different.

so what? are you confused by pinouts?

Nope.

You would gain more precise control over the circuit though and
have more options available, right from the chip, without having
to use additional external components as you do with the 555.

not really.

Yep, really. Pull the data sheets for both ICs and review for
yourself. The sg3525 gives you more flexibility and more control.

yet you have failed to do so.

all you've done is bloviate with as many buzzwords as possible.

Your trolling needs a new routine. You can't have it both ways.
Either you want technical discussion, or laymens discussion.

the best one is dissipating trailing capacitance, which is one of
the most hilarious things i've ever heard.

https://reibot.org/2011/09/06/a-begi...to-the-mosfet/

So, you didn't learn anything about mosfets then. You just assume
they're like any other transistor...Well, they aren't. My comment is
related, specifically, to a mosfet! If you don't drain that stored
energy, your mosfet will NOT FULLY OPEN/CLOSE as you expect.

you've been repeatedly asked to explain all sorts of things as
well as provide the relevant formulas and theory, and each time,
you have avoided answering.

I have nothing to gain or lose by complying with your childish
'prove it or you don't know it' usenet trolling. I already tested
this thery with the reply I wrote to David Brooks explaining when and
how the coil fires. You wrote a single reply:

You clearly couldn't dispute, specifically, anything I wrote, so you
responded with this single line instead:

"a lot of words that says very little."

I've been waiting for awhile now for your explanation for claiming
that I'm a Apple hater, but, I think Hell as better chance of
freezing over before you provide a satisfactory answer to that claim.

Why would I want to spend any more time on this?

in other words, you are posting horse**** and your own posts prove
it.

lame attack, and nonsense.

Another side note, You'll have noticed, I posted sometime ago,

From: Diesel
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Nospam: let's discuss
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:18:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaJ8pDlxi8

This is a technical video, what you might call Apple bashing. I'd
like to know what, specifically, if anything, on that video he's
said that you believe is a lie, or otherwise, not true.

*** end snippit

It actually is a detailed technical video, showing you clear
cases of Apple design ****ups and what it does for you, the
consumer of said product. It's been nearly a month now, no
response to it.

Understand what I mean now, about nospams inability to own up to
mistakes, simple or otherwise?

i refuted that hate video with nearly thirty links.

I only see that post in the thread. Any particular reason you can't
refute the post itself? And something more than repeated commentary
from various pro apple urls will do, thanks.

If it's too hard to cite specific examples and provide solid urls to
backup your statements, just say so. I don't really care that much
about this. I'm not an Apple hater, nor am I am Apple loving zealot,
like yourself.

--
What if the purpose of intelligent life is only to get all that
carbon back into the ecosystem?

In article N8OZ,
says...
And like you, he suffers
from the inability to admit when he's wrong, too.

Nobody is perfect.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0c4f7govwdg98l@glass Sat, 21 Dec 2019 00:12:42 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:26 -0000, Diesel
wrote:
I wasn't aware hpavc was country specific...Whatever your
eleven years experience actually is, it's NOT what I'd
consider I.T to be, based on your posts...You seem to be
seriously lacking in even basic information for the
experience you claimed to have in the field of I.T.

I have IT support experience, not teenage hacking into other
people's networks experience.

You have the equivalent of help desk and cable pulling
experience is what you have. The stuff that's usually reserved
for non paid high school kids and/or non paid newbie interns.
An entry level position. What a kid interested in computers
might do for a summer to get a better idea of the types of work
involved in the field and some hands on experience. Those who
take it seriously tend to move beyond that and go into more
specific aspects of it.

Like hacking into things?

That's certainly an available option, and those skills can come
in quite handy. Take for example users who forget the password to
their own local account and/or the administrator account. Prior
to 'hacking' the windows registry hive via reverse engineering -
it was reinstall windows time. One no longer has to bother. One
can easily boot the machine off another disc, access the SAM hive
and nullify any previously set password on whatever account they
like. While visiting, one can also promote a normal user account
to that of an administrator; without having to get permission
from Windows, or be logged in with an administrator account.

Or alternatively you can just hack into other folk's computers,
because that's what people like you love to do.

Oh, are you some kind of expert on what 'people like me' love to do?
What are people like me, exactly?

I prefer the productive side of computing.

Spending eleven years pulling cable and answering phones at a
helpdesk

Who mentioned "helpdesk"?

ROFL, Okay, I'll play along. What did you do, besides cable runs
during your eleven year stint for which there was no opportunity for
advancement for you, due to the sheer amount of people qualified for
the position, nothing whatsoever to do with you being another sheep
in the herd, no different from the others. Please, do, enlighten me.

is not what I'd call a productive use of your time. You
should have graduated beyond that within a few months to a higher
paying position with more responsibility and things to do.

What's this obsession with ladder climbing?

That's not climbing the ladder, yet. That's just getting a decent
paycheck. I said nothing about trading in the work gear for a suit
and tie. I simply said, better pay, more technical work, more things
to do. You're a short sighted individual, eh?

In fairness, I wouldn't have promoted you either. I probably
wouldn't have hired you in the first place though. I've known
greenhorns who have more general I.T knowledge than what you've
demonstrated.

I know what I need to know.

And that attitude, asshat, is why you didn't progress anywhere in
eleven years of I.T.

Your obsession with knowing everything is quite odd.

It's not possible to know everything, but, I see absolutely no harm
in learning as much as you possibly can about anything and everything
which interests in you in any realistic way.

You really do come across as someone who hasn't grown up yet.

If you thought I gave a **** what you think of me, or how I
act, think again.

I knew people like you about 20 years ago.

No, you didn't. People like me wouldn't have spent more than a
few minutes talking to you before they decided you should just
**** off and leave them be. I didn't have time for stupid
twenty years ago. I don't have time for it now.

Liar, you've replied to about 150 of my posts.

Speaking to you via usenet isn't the same as speaking to you in
person.

It requires as much effort.

So, you aren't playing with us by faking a reading comprehension
issue then? You're actually what I'd call, a 'slow' person instead?

You claimed that you knew people, personally, like me. You
never did know anyone else like me. You don't even know what a
Grayhat Hacker is, despite having been corresponding with me via
usenet for a period of time now.

Oh no, I don't know your silly little terminology, which is
probably restricted to Murkah anyways, yeehah!

Since the terminology technically, predates me, along with the entire
field/all aspects related to it, you can't really call it my silly
little terminology. And, you can't really excuse the fact you didn't
know it that easily, not when you previously claimed to have eleven
years of experience in I.T.

As I wrote previously, I've known greenhorns who have more actual
knowledge and experience than you've shown in the entire time I've
seen you on usenet, using a variety of nyms. Newbies, without eleven
years experience under their belts who already have more knowledge
than you do, with eleven years experience. How is that even possible?

You're my age, right?

I have no idea how old you are. I don't care. It's none of my
business.

You're middle aged then?

If my age is that important to you, I'm sure David can either
email you a copy of a screenshot he took, or share the contents
on usenet. Just ask him.

WTF is your problem? I didn't ask your ****ing penis size.

I don't swing that way.

You're not actually a teenager?

Your math skills seem to be as bad as your I.T knowledge.

I was right wasn't I? Mathematically (not mentally), you're
past teenage years.

Are you really that slow? Irok is nearly twenty years old, and it
was the last (not the first) virus I wrote. This is a press
release about the first virus I wrote, 22 years ago..

Once an arsehole criminal, always an arsehole criminal.

In order to be a criminal, first, I'd have to be charged, second, I'd
have to be convicted. Since neither has taken place, I can't very
well be a criminal. I certainly don't deny I can be an arsehole,
though. it comes easy.

Because you come across as one.

Ok. Again, do you really think your opinion matters to me?
Would you like to know what my opinion of how you come across
actually is?

I would imagine anyone in the UK flies over your little Yankee
head.

You aren't making any sense...

QED.

Not only aren't you making any sense, you're not doing the scottish
any favors by representing them on usenet, either. I do hope the
majority of your kind isn't as demonstrably, as ignorant as you've
shown yourself to be.


--
Peace through superior firepower.

Alfred Molon
Mon, 30 Dec 2019
18:33:46 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

In article N8OZ,
says...
And like you, he suffers
from the inability to admit when he's wrong, too.

Nobody is perfect.

[g]


--
Instead of using a loom, we've going to wind all the yarn into balls
and adopt an infinite number of kittens.

In article N8OZ,
Diesel wrote:


You already know them, David. Your question serves no useful
purpose in relation to what I wrote above. Paul is, laughingly,
mistaken concerning me; but I really don't mind. I questioned his
'expertise' concerning troubleshooting 101 and he took great
offense to it; i'm okay with that. Bull****ters tend to get
offended quickly when someone like me comes along and questions
them, much more so if I'm the first one to do that and not accept
their input blindly as others do.

you have that entirely backwards.

paul and others weren't swallowing your bull**** and called you on
it.

No, I don't. Paul and pooh incorrectly assumed the usb memory sticks
didn't have external components. That you'd always, and only would
find a chip, all by its lonesome on the pcb. They are wrong.

pooh took an sd card apart and found *only* a chip:

In article , p-0''0-h the
cat (coder) wrote:
I suspect there are no discrete components whatsoever inside a 1TB SD
card. Out of interest I broke open an 8GB SD card yesterday and all it
contained was a single slab of plastic about a quarter of the size of
the outer with the external connectors visible on the surface and a row
of connections just like in the youtube video I posted which I assume
are used for testing and QC. However, I won't be breaking open £250's
worth of 1TB card to prove the point. If there's nothing to fix inside
an 8GB card I suspect the days of discrete components to repair died
long ago.

while there might be some sd cards that still have additional
components, the number of such cards is quite small and shrinking, for
reasons that are obvious to anyone with any experience in the industry.

He did
take great offense to my statement, and various other people asked
him about his issue he took with me for it. The thread is available
for anyone to review if they should like to do so. You can't dismiss
what took place as you've tried here.

i'm not trying to dismiss anything.

in fact, it's the *opposite*. i'm introducing it as evidence to show
that you're full of ****.

elsewhere in that thread, you were called on your ridiculous claim that
a resistor is a voltage regulator, which you then tried to weasel out
of by saying that being used in 'regulation circuitry' is what makes it
a regulator. not surprisingly, that didn't fly either.

In article , Diesel
wrote:

Show me the regulator

Sure.

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/resistor

A resistor is an electrical component that limits or regulates the
flow of electrical current in an electronic circuit. Resistors can
also be used to provide a specific voltage for an active device such
as a transistor.
*** end definition of a resistor.

Look to the upper left and right hand side of the picture visible
with your link. Can you read the silk screen printing? You may need
to zoom in. The r(number) is a resistor, and the c(number) is a
capacitor. It has more than one of both. And these are quite common
in regulation circuitry.

that is best summed up by paul's response:

In article , Paul
wrote:
A resistor regulates **** all.

the rest of his post is well over your head, which is why you ignored
it, and instead gave a nonsensical diversion response about replacing
resistors with wires to somehow prove that a resistor is a regulator,
which of course it is not.

In article
XnsAAA7B646731A7HT1@wv8i7hFro8pr3vkKQYMKY96kqueTl 3Y7brMcY5Hw4.XbfNb89k6
, Diesel wrote:

A resistor regulates **** all.

If that's the case, you shouldn't have any problems removing all
greater than 0ohm resistors from everything electronic in your house,
replacing all of them with jumper wires. Let us know how the device
works after your modifications, ok?

anyone who thinks a resistor is a voltage regulator is simply ignorant
of the most basic concepts of circuit theory.

And recently, I read a post
where Paul himself admits others (not him) have had success
recovering data and/or repairing USB memory sticks. I'm one of
the people who's done that, I wrote from 1st hand knowledge on
the subject, I didn't guess about it or make assumptions as Paul
and pooh both did. When Paul suggested jumping the gun with
troubleshooting and going right for jtag probing, I commented
that you'd be wasting your time if you didn't first verify the
chip is getting the power it's expecting AND nothing external to
the chip is being shorted. If something is being shorted and/or
it's not getting the power it's expecting on the proper
pins/traces, you can jtag probe until the earth ends; you aren't
going to get anything of value.

What did Paul do when I wrote that? Jumped all over me, pooh
joined in calling me a ******; followed up with another post
admitting some of them do have external components to the memory
chip; like I ****ing wrote, initially. I don't guess at this ****
David, I do this stuff for a living. I pay my bills with the
money I earn fixing things for people. I don't mail them off to
some company in china, I do the repairs in the shop, myself.

They both went on to claim that external components are the
exception, not the norm. That actually depends on the
manufacturer and the model/make of the stick. They'd know this,
if they actually had 1st hand experience making such repairs,
instead of making assumptions as they both did.

that doesn't disprove their claim.

Actually, it does. Several people, including myself, knew that some
of them do have external components, and, we've had success
retrieving the data.

actually, it doesn't. a few might, but not many do, and it's wildly
misleading and very disingenuous to claim that it's the norm and if
they do exist, that replacing any of them will always fix whatever
problem there is.

in pooh's case above, there were no additional components, so nothing
to replace.

Paul nor Pooh does. And until I brought it up,
neither of them knew some of the devices infact, do have external
components. That was something 'new' to them, but old news to me.

you're assuming again.

they are no doubt well aware that some devices do.

Then we have the apple apologist nospam who automatically labels
anyone who writes something that doesn't praise Apple as an Apple
hater. As with paul, they proceed to make demands as if usenet is
some job evaluation and I've got to prove myself for the
position. Prove myself to who? For ****s sake, nospam claimed my
driver circuit is covered in introductory classes; when I stated
the various principles and concepts involved, the individual
dismissed it as nothing more than buzzwords; that I had no clue
what I was writing about,

when you say things like dissipating trailing capacitance, it's
quite clear that you do not have any idea whatsoever what you're
writing about. it's just a bunch of buzzwords strung together to
form a sentence.

When you continue to show that you think a mosfet is like a normal
transistor, it greatly amuses me. I doubt i'm the only one who gets a
kick out of your attack, either.

do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you simply a
compulsive liar?

the paragraph above does *not* mention mosfet whatsoever, nor have i
said anywhere that a mosfet is like a normal transistor.

you are once again lying about what was said in an attempt to move the
goalposts and avoid admitting that trailing capacitance is meaningless
twaddle.

and an introductory to
electronics class student could build the circuit too.

building is the easy part.

Sure it is.

it very definitely is.

*designing* is the hard part, and not only can intro class
students do *both*, but they can do so with significantly fewer
components and without any of the mistakes you made, and most
importantly, they understand how it all works. they can also
design and build far more complex circuits, and fairly early on
too.

ROFL!

what part do you find funny?

i've taken such classes and can assure you every bit of it is true, and
that you would never pass such a course.

if you disagree with any of it, then explain why. otherwise, you look
like a bigger fool than you already do.

Except, that, well, according to two instructors (imaginary local
college these aren't, it's trivial even for you to locate the
specific names of them) who teach said electronics classes, my
circuit isn't for those level students; the material isn't
covered that early in class; they wouldn't have a working
understanding of what the circuit is doing.

further avoidance, and you're also contradicting what you
previously said, plus whatever class they're supposedly teaching
is fluff.

And despite nospams initial claims, the circuit is dangerous to
be playing with if it's driving a transformer if you don't
understand how it works and what you're doing.

i never said anything one way or the other about the danger.

ROFL!, Yes, you dismissed my initial warning as nonsense.

another one of your lies.

So, I'll make this easier for you. My circuit is using
freewheeling diodes to reduce the chances of the fet being
destroyed by the inductor (the coil in this case) - I'm using a
DC based power source, an inductor behaves differently when it's
fed this vs AC. When you try and break the connection, the
inductor fights for it, and draws a large amount of current
trying to maintain that connection.

further evidence you don't understand how it works.

Did I lose you at freewheeling? Do you need a moment to google the
term? What specifically are you claiming is wrong in what I wrote?

get off your high horse.

On a mechanical switch you can see this by the arcing when the
contacts open, and eventual failure of the switch when the arcing
burns the contacts up or pits them enough to where they can no
longer make a good connection. Like the points ignition system
for older cars. Your points burned up over time due to the arcing
they sustained each and every time they disconnected the power
source from your ignition coil.

not relevant.

Yes, it is.

nope. arcing points is irrelevant to the design and operation of a
solid state circuit that does not have any points.

The coil fires when power is cut away, NOT when it's delivered.
It does this because an electromagnetic field in the primary coil
is induced when you apply power. The coil needs a moment or two
to 'charge up' and hold it. When you go to disconnect the power,
that's when the field collapses on the primary coil, sending a
rush of power to the secondary coil which thanks to the windings
ratio, greatly increases the voltage from what you fed into it.
The coil in my video takes the 12 volts (it actually prefers 9)
and ramps it to around 15-20kv or so. Unfortunately, not all of
the power goes to the secondary, some comes back from the
primary, but it's reversed polarity and is hundreds if not a few
thousand volts higher than what you put into it, depending on
the coil. A snubber circuit is typically used to protect the fet
and/or the support driving components. Or, in some cases as with
my circuit, a freewheeling diode setup is used to protect the fet
with additional components in use to protect the support
components.

If you use a snubber, it has to be tuned to the frequencies you
expect to run and it increases the power needed for your circuit
to function properly. You're using additional components,
introducing more failure points in your ciruit, and now,
requiring a little more power to compensate.

One such easy peasy snubber circuit you can use is as follows:

coming from the negative line to my fet, you pull the diodes I
used, first. You then do this:

take a diode (BYQ28E) or better, put both positive ends on the
negative side coming from the coil to the fet. Take the single
negative end (this particular diode is two diodes with a common
cathode) and feed that to a 100k resistor that's parallel with a
.01uf capacitor rated at 2kv or more. Come off the other side of
that and tie that into the source side of the mosfet (the ground
pin). Walla, you have a snubber circuit. Now, you have the power
issue I mentioned.

More adjustment and tuning is now required to get the coil to
'spark'; you killed off the back emf that was helping to drive it
with the snubber. Oopsie. Now, you have to compensate for that,
higher frequencies, different duty cycle, and/or higher voltage
to the coil. Nothings for free.

Some circuits use capacitors paralled to the coil; these cause
the coil to ring. By that I mean, the voltage spike is used to
charge up the capacitor(s) and those feed back into the coil -
which helps to initiate and sustain the arc; this process would
continue forever if various laws of physics and inperfections
with the material didn't come into play.

Since they do, the coil and the cap eventually 'lose' it and are
unable to sustain each other. Another fresh pulse is required to
keep the show going. A ringing circuit requires less 'tuning'
because, as I said, it's not soley relying on your circuit to
turn on/off the coil, it's taking advantage of the inductors need
to fight instead. Mine doesn't. It needs some back emf as it is,
or it won't generate a spark you can see.

If the pulse is too short, the coil doesn't get the time it needs
to charge up and you see no spark. Even though, enough juice was
sent to give you a nasty shock if you touched the output side of
the coil, not enough is present to arc open air.

a lot of words that says very little.

Excuse me? You asked if even understood how the coil worked; I
clearly do. I explained the process in nauseating detail above.

there is very little detail above, certainly nothing that even
approaches nauseating.

for that, i'd expect to see a full analysis with formulas, values,
graphs, etc.

you're also overly fixated on that one single circuit which can only
mean a very limited knowledge of anything else.

You've complained about my circuit several times, I just provided you
a specific (David, but whoever reads it gets the same info) component
list and parts configuration for a working snubber; I also explained
why I wasn't already using it, AND, the required changes to be made
if one we're so inclined to make use of it.

And you wish to dismiss specific details, that you inferred I didn't
understand as alot of words that says very little? Are you high?

You're the one who's lost here, aren't you? Was I too technical?

you're making assumptions again and you weren't the least bit
technical.

buzzwords, introductory to electronics classes material, my
****ing ass.

yes, buzzwords.

So, you are high then?

yet another diversion attempt.

it might sound good on the surface, but to those who actually do
understand what's going on, they can see right through it.

What specifically then, is wrong in what I've written? Provide,
SPECIFICS.

it's fluff.

Now, as I said, my circuit isn't perfect.

yet you keep citing it as proof of knowing what you're doing.

No, I didn't.

yes you did, even going so far to claim it had been reviewed by
mythical instructors from an unnamed school, who said it was too
advanced for newbies, yet somehow, these instructors failed to notice
that it's full of problems even newbies would never do.

When generating a fixed arc, as in my first videos, the diodes on
the fet did their job, the additional diode on the 555 wasn't
necessary. OTH, when the arc was asked to climb the ladder, the
additional diode became necessary to protect the 555. As I said,
I've shared more than one driver circuit schematic. I don't know
which one, if any, nospam actually looked at for the purpose of
criticizing.

coildriver1.jpg and jacobsladder.jpg, from your youtube channel.

both of them are riddled with all sorts of problems and
demonstrate a lack of understanding about very basic concepts.

Problems you've neglected to mention, and a lack of understanding
you've neglected to try and attack me with. Interesting. Do you have
anything specific you can take issue with?

you claim to know about all of the problems and how to correct them,
yet you haven't done so. why is that?

you've said elsewhere that you take pleasure in backing up what you
say, so start doing exactly that by explaining what you believe the
problems are, what the necessary corrections should be and the
reasoning behind it.

or are you going to continue to waffle and not answer, as usual?

one issue i will point out is you did not label any of the components
as is normally done, making it difficult to list the other problems.

Do note the video playtimes; they haven't been edited or otherwise
dicked around with. Each circuit is running for more than a few
seconds without any problems or difficulties, if that's what you're
trying to imply.

All sorts of problems, etc, should cause a circuit failure in a very
short period of time; yet, for some silly reason, they aren't failing
in those videos. What's the deal, nospam?

running for more than a few seconds is meaningless. not all problems
result in an instant failure. you're just playing games and trying to
move the goalposts once again.

I'm using the mov on the jacobs ladder in lieu of a snubber
circuit to clamp down on my power rail; mostly to protect the
power supply. If I put the mov instead of the diodes on the fet
instead, it clamps way too soon and you get no spark. Because,
I'm not ringing it with capacitors and my MOV is a small one; it
clamps around 18volts or so. So, as soon as it sees the back emf,
it crushes it, crushing my open air spark along with it.

there is no mov in your schematic nor is one appropriate for this
particular circuit.

Nospam, there's a mov on the jacobsladder schematic. It's all the way
to the left, sideways; even includes a specific manufacturer part
number if one would like to get the same one I used.

there is no mov in either of these schematics, linked from your videos:
https://ibb.co/TtGK6BX
https://ibb.co/x7fC8R5

is there another schematic you had in mind, or are you bull****ting
again?

Perhaps, you've been doing a bit more than bull****ting about your
actual knowledge here?

nope. the only person bull****ting would be you.

There's also a particular diode in my circuit that gets hot fast,
depending on duty cycle and frequency; it's really not upto the
task being asked of it in those situations. The entire circuit
runs cool to the touch, even after several minutes on some
freq/duty cycles though; It's a coil saturation issue.

I know damn well how my circuit works, why it works, the flaws it
has, and how to correct them.

if that were true, your explanation above would be very different.

I strongly suspect any/all explanations I provide will not be
accepted by you.

more waffling, as expected.

I also suspect and have confirmed so far, that
when/if I do bother answering any of your inquiries with specific
details; your response is going to be something very close to this
one:

"a lot of words that says very little." - That's the response you
provided when I clearly indicated that I do know how the coil works,
and WHEN it actually generates the spark. You previously indicated I
wouldn't know this information and like a typical power tripping
usenet ******, demanded I prove otherwise. I did, and then some. Your
reponse was left above.

I didn't see any value in accepting your challenges previously, but,
I humoured your wiseass remark about the coil and explained in detail
how it worked. I'm pretty sure I lost you after the first or second
sentence, based on your full quote and single line reply to it:

"a lot of words that says very little."

I certainly see no value in continuing. You can't keep up as it is.
You're like David Brooks - wanting others to do things for you.
There's nothing for me to gain by complying with that. I don't wish
to assist another David Brooks if I can avoid it.

of course you don't see any value in continuing, because then it would
become even more apparent just how little you actually know. you're
just blowing smoke.

When you see my singing arc video, you'll see
further improvements to my circuit. And my circuit is original
too, it's not something I copied from someone else.

not entirely.

You're reaching if you're going to claim my circuit isn't original
because it's using one of the well known configurations for using the
555 in a-stable mode. I understand though, when you're this
desperate, anything will do.

no reaching required when there's the same circuit from more than a
decade ago, including the uncommon 6k8 label of one resistor while the
rest are ohms, exactly the same as in yours, as well as sharing one of
the many problems.

that cannot be explained by mere coincidence. it's a smoking gun.

http://chemelec.com/Projects/Car-Coil/Car-Coil-1.png

the additional components in yours does not improve upon the original
and actually makes it worse in a number of ways. maybe you can guess
what some of those are.

The last time I built
one of these was when I was a young teenager, and, I didn't keep
my hand written notes about it with me; I've moved more than once
since then. And my circuit back then wasn't tunable like this one
was, it was fixed freq/duty cycle/amplitude. Wasn't even using a
555, was using transistors to generate the signal via
oscillation. The 555 not only reduces the amount of components
needed to do this, but gives you greater control over the
process.

a 555 is not needed for what you call tunable (another incorrect
use of terminology) and actually *adds* to the number of
components, assuming the other design is a good one, which from
your description, was not the case.

Would you prefer the term, adjustable?

adjustable is a better term for what you described.

When dialing in a radio
station, do people commonly refer to that as adjusting the frequency,
or tuning the station in? Well?

clearly you don't understand the difference.

You could opt to use an SG3525
instead of the 555, but the pinout and configuration is
different.

so what? are you confused by pinouts?

Nope.

then why bring it up?

You would gain more precise control over the circuit though and
have more options available, right from the chip, without having
to use additional external components as you do with the 555.

not really.

Yep, really. Pull the data sheets for both ICs and review for
yourself. The sg3525 gives you more flexibility and more control.

what it offers is not needed for what you're trying to do. a 555 is
already overkill, although easy to use.

yet you have failed to do so.

all you've done is bloviate with as many buzzwords as possible.

Your trolling needs a new routine. You can't have it both ways.
Either you want technical discussion, or laymens discussion.

you haven't even begun to get technical. just a bunch of words, many of
which you don't fully understand.

the best one is dissipating trailing capacitance, which is one of
the most hilarious things i've ever heard.

https://reibot.org/2011/09/06/a-begi...to-the-mosfet/

it's never a good idea to cite something that the author claims he
doesn't fully understand.

from the comments:
https://reibot.org/2011/09/06/a-begi...sfet/#comment-
925
I wrote that guide before taking a class on transistorsŠ lol i really
need to re-write it.

a bigger problem is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with what i
wrote above.

yet another failed attempt at goalpost movement.

So, you didn't learn anything about mosfets then. You just assume
they're like any other transistor...Well, they aren't. My comment is
related, specifically, to a mosfet! If you don't drain that stored
energy, your mosfet will NOT FULLY OPEN/CLOSE as you expect.

as noted above, the comment to which i refer did *not* mention mosfets
or any other type of transistor.

here it is one more time:
In article
XnsAB131095CA0D0HT1@cKVMR3y6caP2ONi7jjA8ZU6K0crb1 FzfVp05u.pYcBD.t5orRC8
uL33v150o4, Diesel wrote:
Pull down resistors can save more important circuits further up the
food chain. it's one of the reasons you'd opt to include them. The
other, off the top of my head is to remove any trailing capacitance on
the circuit that you aren't wanting to let dissipate on it's own.

as usual, it's another failed attempt to move the goalposts, this time
by claiming it's about draining stored energy, which further proves you
don't understand much.

and nowhere did i assume mosfets were like any other transistor. that's
just more of your fabricated bull****.

you've been repeatedly asked to explain all sorts of things as
well as provide the relevant formulas and theory, and each time,
you have avoided answering.

I have nothing to gain or lose by complying with your childish
'prove it or you don't know it' usenet trolling. I already tested
this thery with the reply I wrote to David Brooks explaining when and
how the coil fires. You wrote a single reply:

You clearly couldn't dispute, specifically, anything I wrote, so you
responded with this single line instead:

"a lot of words that says very little."

you're avoiding the topic and trying to move the goalposts yet again.

you claim you can back up what you say, but when asked to do so, you
refuse.

start by explaining dissipating trailing capacitance or admit it's
nothing more than meaningless twaddle.

I've been waiting for awhile now for your explanation for claiming
that I'm a Apple hater, but, I think Hell as better chance of
freezing over before you provide a satisfactory answer to that claim.

that was also explained on numerous occasions over the past several
years, and by more than just me.

Why would I want to spend any more time on this?

because you said you 'take great pleasure' in backing up what you say:
You of all people I'm sure have noticed that if I bother writing
something, I fully anticipate having to back it up, and I take great
pleasure in doing so. You've seen me take this approach with doubters

you have yet to do that, regardless of whatever pleasure it might bring.

in other words, you are posting horse**** and your own posts prove
it.

lame attack, and nonsense.

quite clearly true.

Another side note, You'll have noticed, I posted sometime ago,

From: Diesel
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Nospam: let's discuss
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:18:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaJ8pDlxi8

This is a technical video, what you might call Apple bashing. I'd
like to know what, specifically, if anything, on that video he's
said that you believe is a lie, or otherwise, not true.

*** end snippit

It actually is a detailed technical video, showing you clear
cases of Apple design ****ups and what it does for you, the
consumer of said product. It's been nearly a month now, no
response to it.

Understand what I mean now, about nospams inability to own up to
mistakes, simple or otherwise?

i refuted that hate video with nearly thirty links.

I only see that post in the thread. Any particular reason you can't
refute the post itself? And something more than repeated commentary
from various pro apple urls will do, thanks.

you are once again lying.

not only did you see the post with the nearly thirty links, but you
*responded* to it, but only after having snipped everything that proved
you wrong. another smoking gun.

also, claiming a url is 'pro apple' is exactly what a hater would do.

you're basically saying is that any website that writes about apple is
automatically bogus, without even looking at the content.

either what is stated is true or it is not. if not, then refute it with
verifiable facts.

If it's too hard to cite specific examples and provide solid urls to
backup your statements, just say so. I don't really care that much
about this. I'm not an Apple hater, nor am I am Apple loving zealot,
like yourself.

you definitely are an apple hater, dismissive of actual facts and only
believes the anti-apple myths.

Char Jackson
Wed, 01 Jan 2020
18:15:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 08:10:45 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0c4f7govwdg98l@glass Sat, 21 Dec 2019 00:12:42 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:54:26 -0000, Diesel
wrote:
I wasn't aware hpavc was country specific...Whatever your
eleven years experience actually is, it's NOT what I'd
consider I.T to be, based on your posts...You seem to be
seriously lacking in even basic information for the
experience you claimed to have in the field of I.T.

I have IT support experience, not teenage hacking into other
people's networks experience.

You have the equivalent of help desk and cable pulling
experience is what you have. The stuff that's usually
reserved for non paid high school kids and/or non paid newbie
interns. An entry level position. What a kid interested in
computers might do for a summer to get a better idea of the
types of work involved in the field and some hands on
experience. Those who take it seriously tend to move beyond
that and go into more specific aspects of it.

Like hacking into things?

That's certainly an available option, and those skills can come
in quite handy. Take for example users who forget the password
to their own local account and/or the administrator account.
Prior to 'hacking' the windows registry hive via reverse
engineering - it was reinstall windows time. One no longer has
to bother. One can easily boot the machine off another disc,
access the SAM hive and nullify any previously set password on
whatever account they like. While visiting, one can also
promote a normal user account to that of an administrator;
without having to get permission from Windows, or be logged in
with an administrator account.

Or alternatively you can just hack into other folk's computers,
because that's what people like you love to do.

Oh, are you some kind of expert on what 'people like me' love to
do? What are people like me, exactly?

I prefer the productive side of computing.

Spending eleven years pulling cable and answering phones at a
helpdesk

Who mentioned "helpdesk"?

ROFL, Okay, I'll play along. What did you do, besides cable runs
during your eleven year stint for which there was no opportunity
for advancement for you, due to the sheer amount of people
qualified for the position, nothing whatsoever to do with you
being another sheep in the herd, no different from the others.
Please, do, enlighten me.

is not what I'd call a productive use of your time. You
should have graduated beyond that within a few months to a
higher paying position with more responsibility and things to
do.

What's this obsession with ladder climbing?

That's not climbing the ladder, yet. That's just getting a decent
paycheck. I said nothing about trading in the work gear for a suit
and tie. I simply said, better pay, more technical work, more
things to do. You're a short sighted individual, eh?

In fairness, I wouldn't have promoted you either. I probably
wouldn't have hired you in the first place though. I've known
greenhorns who have more general I.T knowledge than what you've
demonstrated.

I know what I need to know.

And that attitude, asshat, is why you didn't progress anywhere in
eleven years of I.T.

Your obsession with knowing everything is quite odd.

It's not possible to know everything, but, I see absolutely no
harm in learning as much as you possibly can about anything and
everything which interests in you in any realistic way.

You really do come across as someone who hasn't grown up
yet.

If you thought I gave a **** what you think of me, or how I
act, think again.

I knew people like you about 20 years ago.

No, you didn't. People like me wouldn't have spent more than
a few minutes talking to you before they decided you should
just **** off and leave them be. I didn't have time for
stupid twenty years ago. I don't have time for it now.

Liar, you've replied to about 150 of my posts.

Speaking to you via usenet isn't the same as speaking to you in
person.

It requires as much effort.

So, you aren't playing with us by faking a reading comprehension
issue then? You're actually what I'd call, a 'slow' person
instead?

You claimed that you knew people, personally, like me. You
never did know anyone else like me. You don't even know what a
Grayhat Hacker is, despite having been corresponding with me
via usenet for a period of time now.

Oh no, I don't know your silly little terminology, which is
probably restricted to Murkah anyways, yeehah!

Since the terminology technically, predates me, along with the
entire field/all aspects related to it, you can't really call it
my silly little terminology. And, you can't really excuse the fact
you didn't know it that easily, not when you previously claimed to
have eleven years of experience in I.T.

As I wrote previously, I've known greenhorns who have more actual
knowledge and experience than you've shown in the entire time I've
seen you on usenet, using a variety of nyms. Newbies, without
eleven years experience under their belts who already have more
knowledge than you do, with eleven years experience. How is that
even possible?

You're my age, right?

I have no idea how old you are. I don't care. It's none of my
business.

You're middle aged then?

If my age is that important to you, I'm sure David can either
email you a copy of a screenshot he took, or share the contents
on usenet. Just ask him.

WTF is your problem? I didn't ask your ****ing penis size.

I don't swing that way.

You're not actually a teenager?

Your math skills seem to be as bad as your I.T knowledge.

I was right wasn't I? Mathematically (not mentally), you're
past teenage years.

Are you really that slow? Irok is nearly twenty years old, and
it was the last (not the first) virus I wrote. This is a press
release about the first virus I wrote, 22 years ago..

Once an arsehole criminal, always an arsehole criminal.

In order to be a criminal, first, I'd have to be charged, second,
I'd have to be convicted. Since neither has taken place, I can't
very well be a criminal. I certainly don't deny I can be an
arsehole, though. it comes easy.

Because you come across as one.

Ok. Again, do you really think your opinion matters to me?
Would you like to know what my opinion of how you come across
actually is?

I would imagine anyone in the UK flies over your little Yankee
head.

You aren't making any sense...

QED.

Not only aren't you making any sense, you're not doing the
scottish any favors by representing them on usenet, either. I do
hope the majority of your kind isn't as demonstrably, as ignorant
as you've shown yourself to be.

Gee whiz, you call him ignorant just because he doesn't know how
toilets work, how thermometers work, how microwave ovens work, how
driving through water works, or basically anything about I.T after
supposedly working in the field for 11 years? You bully!

;-)

Oh wait, I've got another complaint.


--
It's amazing how long it takes to finish something you're not working
on.

nospam
Thu, 02 Jan 2020
03:55:49 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

In article
N8OZ, Diesel
wrote:
[snip]

[more snippage]

When you continue to show that you think a mosfet is like a
normal transistor, it greatly amuses me. I doubt i'm the only one
who gets a kick out of your attack, either.

do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you simply a
compulsive liar?

Neither.

the paragraph above does *not* mention mosfet whatsoever, nor have
i said anywhere that a mosfet is like a normal transistor.

My circuit has been using a mosfet for the actual switching since
the first version and my comment concerning the capacitance issue is
directly related to that component. My schematics have been
available for your review as well as others for awhile now. There's
no ****ing way you could have possibly mistook what I was writing
about for anything else. You were trolling from the get go.

So, I'll make this easier for you. My circuit is using
freewheeling diodes to reduce the chances of the fet being
destroyed by the inductor (the coil in this case) - I'm using
a DC based power source, an inductor behaves differently when
it's fed this vs AC. When you try and break the connection,
the inductor fights for it, and draws a large amount of
current trying to maintain that connection.

further evidence you don't understand how it works.

Did I lose you at freewheeling? Do you need a moment to google
the term? What specifically are you claiming is wrong in what I
wrote?

get off your high horse.

My high horse? You said I was writing what amounts to bull****. You
claimed I probably didn't even know how the coil worked, let alone
when the actual spark was taking place. Is freewheeling another
buzzword you were about to accuse me of using? Or, did you google it
and find that what I did in my circuit is pretty common? It's used
on relays and motors, too. For the same reason. It's to help to
protect your solid state 'switch'

On a mechanical switch you can see this by the arcing when the
contacts open, and eventual failure of the switch when the
arcing burns the contacts up or pits them enough to where they
can no longer make a good connection. Like the points ignition
system for older cars. Your points burned up over time due to
the arcing they sustained each and every time they
disconnected the power source from your ignition coil.

not relevant.

Yes, it is.

nope. arcing points is irrelevant to the design and operation of a
solid state circuit that does not have any points.

I disagree. The solid state circuit has no points in a physical
sense, but the issues the mechanical switch was dealing with don't
just go away. Instead of pitting from the arcing, you wind up
killing the 'solid state' switch, if you don't do something about
the excessive current draw and unwanted backemf which results when
you disconnect a DC power source from an inductor.

You know all of this though, right? It was all covered in those
introductory classes. *laugh*

The coil fires when power is cut away, NOT when it's
delivered. It does this because an electromagnetic field in
the primary coil is induced when you apply power. The coil
needs a moment or two to 'charge up' and hold it. When you go
to disconnect the power, that's when the field collapses on
the primary coil, sending a rush of power to the secondary
coil which thanks to the windings ratio, greatly increases the
voltage from what you fed into it. The coil in my video takes
the 12 volts (it actually prefers 9) and ramps it to around
15-20kv or so. Unfortunately, not all of the power goes to the
secondary, some comes back from the primary, but it's reversed
polarity and is hundreds if not a few thousand volts higher
than what you put into it, depending on the coil. A snubber
circuit is typically used to protect the fet and/or the
support driving components. Or, in some cases as with my
circuit, a freewheeling diode setup is used to protect the fet
with additional components in use to protect the support
components.

If you use a snubber, it has to be tuned to the frequencies
you expect to run and it increases the power needed for your
circuit to function properly. You're using additional
components, introducing more failure points in your ciruit,
and now, requiring a little more power to compensate.

One such easy peasy snubber circuit you can use is as follows:

coming from the negative line to my fet, you pull the diodes I
used, first. You then do this:

take a diode (BYQ28E) or better, put both positive ends on the
negative side coming from the coil to the fet. Take the single
negative end (this particular diode is two diodes with a
common cathode) and feed that to a 100k resistor that's
parallel with a .01uf capacitor rated at 2kv or more. Come off
the other side of that and tie that into the source side of
the mosfet (the ground pin). Walla, you have a snubber
circuit. Now, you have the power issue I mentioned.

More adjustment and tuning is now required to get the coil to
'spark'; you killed off the back emf that was helping to drive
it with the snubber. Oopsie. Now, you have to compensate for
that, higher frequencies, different duty cycle, and/or higher
voltage to the coil. Nothings for free.

Some circuits use capacitors paralled to the coil; these cause
the coil to ring. By that I mean, the voltage spike is used to
charge up the capacitor(s) and those feed back into the coil -
which helps to initiate and sustain the arc; this process
would continue forever if various laws of physics and
inperfections with the material didn't come into play.

Since they do, the coil and the cap eventually 'lose' it and
are unable to sustain each other. Another fresh pulse is
required to keep the show going. A ringing circuit requires
less 'tuning' because, as I said, it's not soley relying on
your circuit to turn on/off the coil, it's taking advantage of
the inductors need to fight instead. Mine doesn't. It needs
some back emf as it is, or it won't generate a spark you can
see.

If the pulse is too short, the coil doesn't get the time it
needs to charge up and you see no spark. Even though, enough
juice was sent to give you a nasty shock if you touched the
output side of the coil, not enough is present to arc open
air.

a lot of words that says very little.

Excuse me? You asked if even understood how the coil worked; I
clearly do. I explained the process in nauseating detail above.

there is very little detail above, certainly nothing that even
approaches nauseating.

for that, i'd expect to see a full analysis with formulas, values,
graphs, etc.

You have high expectations for an anonymous individual on usenet who
offers nothing of value if one does as you demand. What's worse, you
don't even acknowledge when someone is correct, after you expressed
previous doubt....FYI, There's nothing to lose by not complying with
your demands either.

you're also overly fixated on that one single circuit which can
only mean a very limited knowledge of anything else.

You make alot of crazy assumptions...

it might sound good on the surface, but to those who actually
do understand what's going on, they can see right through it.

What specifically then, is wrong in what I've written? Provide,
SPECIFICS.

it's fluff.

So, nothing is specifically wrong in what I wrote...And this is the
best admission of that I can expect to see from you.

one issue i will point out is you did not label any of the
components as is normally done, making it difficult to list the
other problems.

I call bull**** on this.

Do note the video playtimes; they haven't been edited or
otherwise dicked around with. Each circuit is running for more
than a few seconds without any problems or difficulties, if
that's what you're trying to imply.

All sorts of problems, etc, should cause a circuit failure in a
very short period of time; yet, for some silly reason, they
aren't failing in those videos. What's the deal, nospam?

running for more than a few seconds is meaningless. not all
problems result in an instant failure. you're just playing games
and trying to move the goalposts once again.

Not all problems would, I agree. However, you've stated multiple
times now that my circuit has all kinds of problems, not one or even
a few, but all kinds. The SLA battery can run the circuit for almost
two hours, before it's too low and requires charger time. I've run
the battery down now, seven or eight times.

Granted, my circuit was never intended to run 24/7 non stop, but,
with proper cooling in place for it and the coil, I don't see why it
couldn't.

I'm using the mov on the jacobs ladder in lieu of a snubber
circuit to clamp down on my power rail; mostly to protect the
power supply. If I put the mov instead of the diodes on the
fet instead, it clamps way too soon and you get no spark.
Because, I'm not ringing it with capacitors and my MOV is a
small one; it clamps around 18volts or so. So, as soon as it
sees the back emf, it crushes it, crushing my open air spark
along with it.

there is no mov in your schematic nor is one appropriate for
this particular circuit.

Nospam, there's a mov on the jacobsladder schematic. It's all the
way to the left, sideways; even includes a specific manufacturer
part number if one would like to get the same one I used.

there is no mov in either of these schematics, linked from your
videos: https://ibb.co/TtGK6BX
https://ibb.co/x7fC8R5

is there another schematic you had in mind, or are you
bull****ting again?

No bull****ting on my part. And no other schematic required. There's
a mov clearly visible on the left hand side on the second url you
shared. It includes a part number too.

I also suspect and have confirmed so far, that
when/if I do bother answering any of your inquiries with specific
details; your response is going to be something very close to
this one:

"a lot of words that says very little." - That's the response you
provided when I clearly indicated that I do know how the coil
works, and WHEN it actually generates the spark. You previously
indicated I wouldn't know this information and like a typical
power tripping usenet ******, demanded I prove otherwise. I did,
and then some. Your reponse was left above.

I didn't see any value in accepting your challenges previously,
but, I humoured your wiseass remark about the coil and explained
in detail how it worked. I'm pretty sure I lost you after the
first or second sentence, based on your full quote and single
line reply to it:

"a lot of words that says very little."

I certainly see no value in continuing. You can't keep up as it
is. You're like David Brooks - wanting others to do things for
you. There's nothing for me to gain by complying with that. I
don't wish to assist another David Brooks if I can avoid it.

of course you don't see any value in continuing, because then it
would become even more apparent just how little you actually know.
you're just blowing smoke.

Hmm. Re-read what I wrote, if it didn't make sense the first time around.

And this latest reply from you, doesn't help your cause:

"get off your high horse." - I'm not the one on a high horse...

You're reaching if you're going to claim my circuit isn't
original because it's using one of the well known configurations
for using the 555 in a-stable mode. I understand though, when
you're this desperate, anything will do.

no reaching required when there's the same circuit from more than
a decade ago, including the uncommon 6k8 label of one resistor
while the rest are ohms, exactly the same as in yours, as well as
sharing one of the many problems.

that cannot be explained by mere coincidence. it's a smoking gun.

http://chemelec.com/Projects/Car-Coil/Car-Coil-1.png

the additional components in yours does not improve upon the
original and actually makes it worse in a number of ways. maybe
you can guess what some of those are.

ROFL!

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=555+igniti...circuit&ia=web

So, either we all stole the same things from each other, or, due to
a limited amount of possible configurations to turn something off
and on fast with a 555, we all basically built the same circuits;
with variations in components.

So much for the smoking gun.

Mext you'll wanna claim anyone who's built push pull amps using a
555 and npn/pnp transistors also stole the design from someone else.
Impossible for them to have come up with it on their own. According
to you, that is.

Yep, really. Pull the data sheets for both ICs and review for
yourself. The sg3525 gives you more flexibility and more control.

what it offers is not needed for what you're trying to do. a 555
is already overkill, although easy to use.

The point is, that I expressed previously, is that the SG3235 gives
you more flexibility and control, as I said. It doesn't matter that
it's more overkill than a 555 already is for driving a single coil.

So, you didn't learn anything about mosfets then. You just assume
they're like any other transistor...Well, they aren't. My comment
is related, specifically, to a mosfet! If you don't drain that
stored energy, your mosfet will NOT FULLY OPEN/CLOSE as you
expect.

as noted above, the comment to which i refer did *not* mention
mosfets or any other type of transistor.

MY comment referred to the mosfet, the MOSFET i'm using in my circuit.

you've been repeatedly asked to explain all sorts of things as
well as provide the relevant formulas and theory, and each
time, you have avoided answering.

I have nothing to gain or lose by complying with your childish
'prove it or you don't know it' usenet trolling. I already tested
this thery with the reply I wrote to David Brooks explaining when
and how the coil fires. You wrote a single reply:

You clearly couldn't dispute, specifically, anything I wrote, so
you responded with this single line instead:

"a lot of words that says very little."

you're avoiding the topic and trying to move the goalposts yet
again.

Nope. You didn't dispute a single word of it. Infact, you recently
suggested I get off my high horse because I asked if I'd lost you at
freewheeling diode...*shrug*

you claim you can back up what you say, but when asked to do so,
you refuse.

Not true. I have. You've cherry picked replies and refused to
acknowledge when you've been in error.

start by explaining dissipating trailing capacitance or admit it's
nothing more than meaningless twaddle.

ROFL! And here you go again, making demands as if you have some
authority over me to do so. Amusing.

I've been waiting for awhile now for your explanation for
claiming that I'm a Apple hater, but, I think Hell as better
chance of freezing over before you provide a satisfactory answer
to that claim.

that was also explained on numerous occasions over the past
several years, and by more than just me.

several years? More than just you? You can provide MIDs to support
both of those claims right? I'd like to see them.

I only see that post in the thread. Any particular reason you
can't refute the post itself? And something more than repeated
commentary from various pro apple urls will do, thanks.

you are once again lying.

No, I'm not. There's ONE post in the thread on ES. I seriously doubt
ES has had issues propogating replies to it.

Let's double check with google:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...op/gHlZRL8HXJE

Google shows the same thing I see on ES. ONE post, the one I created.

not only did you see the post with the nearly thirty links, but
you *responded* to it, but only after having snipped everything
that proved you wrong. another smoking gun.

You're very quick to rattle off liar and other such nonsense, all
the while moving goalposts yourself. Your reply was ever so
conveniently, not included in that thread where it should have been.
Was there a specific reason for that?

If it's too hard to cite specific examples and provide solid urls
to backup your statements, just say so. I don't really care that
much about this. I'm not an Apple hater, nor am I am Apple loving
zealot, like yourself.

you definitely are an apple hater, dismissive of actual facts and
only believes the anti-apple myths.

I stand corrected. You aren't just an apple loving zealot with
issues, you're an apple apologist who can't see the forest from the
trees.




--
It's better to be the Hunter than the Hunted.