On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:09:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 03:59:42 +0100, John Larkin <jla...@highlandsnipmetechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 22:01:19 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:36:47 +0100, John Larkin <jla...@highlandsnipmetechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 10:58:08 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:56:29 -0000, John Larkin <jla...@highlandsnipmetechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:06:43 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"Never seen one with dots.
<C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 03:04:07 -0000, John Larkin <jla...@highlandsnipmetechnology.com> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 01:23:17 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
<C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:13:19 -0000, John Larkin <jla...@highlandsnipmetechnology.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 09:45:26 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
<C...@nospam.com> wrote:
Can I put a diode BEFORE a step up transformer so I can use a lower voltage diode for half wave rectification?
Ah. Humor. Thanks for the laugh.
I thought current always flowed the same way in primary and secondary.... You know, phases and all that.
Assume a loaded bifilar transformer, both dots up, and draw the >>>>>>>> winding currents.
No idea what you mean by dots.
Dots are little round filled circles. They indicate winding polarity. >>>>>
How can I draw the winding currents? I thought they would be in the same direction, but you say not. And what if you wound one clockwise and one anticlockwise?
First hit from google:
https://circuitdigest.com/article/understanding-dot-convention-in-transformers
I see. Only time I've needed phase was when I wired some secondaries in series. I did so, checked if I'd added or subtracted voltage, then reversed the connections if necessary.
So If I wind two coils round a transformer core, does the current go the same way in each?
Depends on what they are connected to.
Why would that make a difference?Gosh, I was wrong, you DO have a sense of humor.
Can I put a diode BEFORE a step up transformer so I can use a lower voltage diode for half wave rectification?LINK SITUS SLOT GACOR IHOKIBET
Q. Why do mathematicians confuse Halloween and Christmas?
A. Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
The 12-bit PDP-8 and the 16-bit PDP-11 were both programmed in octal.
The 11's instruction set was easy to remember in octal.
Ken Olson said that Dec would never program a computer in hex. He said
some other silly things.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:31:05 -0700, John Larkin ><jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
Q. Why do mathematicians confuse Halloween and Christmas?
A. Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
The 12-bit PDP-8 and the 16-bit PDP-11 were both programmed in octal.
The 11's instruction set was easy to remember in octal.
The PDP-11 was a pure octal machine, even the memory management
registers were shifted by 6 bit (two octal digits).
It was easy to write small programs directly from the front panel
switches. The only nasty thing was to calculate the relative branch
offsets :-)
Ken Olson said that Dec would never program a computer in hex. He said
some other silly things.
In 1975 introduced VAX was a pure hex machine.
In the early days, the Intel documentation for the 8080 was octal,
which was very natural due to the instruction formats (8 regs etc.).
For some reason, Intel changed later on to hex for 8080/8085 which
made manual programming much harder. Apparently they understood that
the hardware architecture was so weird that they started to support
PL/M so that users did not have to program that awkward architecture
in assembly. Now the same legacy is in 8086/386 and partially even in
the 64 bit processor models.
86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
x86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:51:35 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
x86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:51:35 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
x86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
It was only supposed to be a stopgap until Intel got the iPAX 432 sorted.
I wonder how much money they poured down that rat hole before abandoning
it?
On 17 Nov 2023 00:23:45 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:51:35 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
x86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
It was only supposed to be a stopgap until Intel got the iPAX 432 sorted.
I wonder how much money they poured down that rat hole before abandoning >>it?
HP also tried a super-CISC computer. It failed too; it was pig slow.
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> writes:
On 17 Nov 2023 00:23:45 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:51:35 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
x86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
It was only supposed to be a stopgap until Intel got the iPAX 432 sorted. >>>I wonder how much money they poured down that rat hole before abandoning >>>it?
HP also tried a super-CISC computer. It failed too; it was pig slow.
And which was that?
The 1000, 2000 and 3000 series were quite successful in the day.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:45:49 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> writes:
On 17 Nov 2023 00:23:45 GMT, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:51:35 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
x86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
It was only supposed to be a stopgap until Intel got the iPAX 432 sorted. >>>I wonder how much money they poured down that rat hole before abandoning >>>it?
HP also tried a super-CISC computer. It failed too; it was pig slow.
And which was that?
The 1000, 2000 and 3000 series were quite successful in the day.The "Classic" CISC 3000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_3000
The RISC version was a different machine but kept the 3000 name.
There was a fad for hyper-CISC machines with opcodes like "eval",
which would execute an arbitrarily complex stack-based floating point expression. The reaction was the opposite extreme, RISC. Let the
compiler do the thinking, not the microcode.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:45:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> writes:
On 17 Nov 2023 00:23:45 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:51:35 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
x86 was a toad at birth and has only got worse.
It was only supposed to be a stopgap until Intel got the iPAX 432 sorted. >>>>I wonder how much money they poured down that rat hole before abandoning >>>>it?
HP also tried a super-CISC computer. It failed too; it was pig slow.
And which was that?
The 1000, 2000 and 3000 series were quite successful in the day.
The "Classic" CISC 3000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_3000
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 86:13:48 |
Calls: | 6,717 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,248 |
Messages: | 5,358,388 |
Posted today: | 1 |