"Tony" wrote in message

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:35:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1094259452k@trad
In article
writes:

Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers
lie about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1%
resistors with bad tempcos?

I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's
Australian for temperature coefficient) for a device that will
always be used at room temperature.

Not to mention the fact that if the components of an attenuator are
kept in reasonbly close thermal contact with each other, their
ratio, which sets the attenuation, will remain the same, even if
their values change with temperature.

That's very true, and certainly for the mic attenuator and many other
applications, tempcos would not be an issue. But my comment was
directed at Mike's assertion that 0.1% resistors were simply selected
from 1% production, which I still don't believe to be true.

I agree - AFAIK 0.1% resistors are cut from nicer *cloth*, figuratively
speaking.

"Tony" wrote in message

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:35:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1094259452k@trad
In article
writes:

Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers
lie about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1%
resistors with bad tempcos?

I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's
Australian for temperature coefficient) for a device that will
always be used at room temperature.

Not to mention the fact that if the components of an attenuator are
kept in reasonbly close thermal contact with each other, their
ratio, which sets the attenuation, will remain the same, even if
their values change with temperature.

That's very true, and certainly for the mic attenuator and many other
applications, tempcos would not be an issue. But my comment was
directed at Mike's assertion that 0.1% resistors were simply selected
from 1% production, which I still don't believe to be true.

I agree - AFAIK 0.1% resistors are cut from nicer *cloth*, figuratively
speaking.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message



You are right - it certainly isn't true. If it were, all resistors
other than the very best would have a bimodal distribution - a hole in
the middle where the best ones had been removed. They don't.

Typically resistor tolerance describes the width of the three-sigma
level of distribution, and that distribution tends to be normal. In
other words, resistors are "made" to the appropriate tolerance.

You've obviously never bought any parts from Digi-Key!

;-)

"Don Pearce" wrote in message



You are right - it certainly isn't true. If it were, all resistors
other than the very best would have a bimodal distribution - a hole in
the middle where the best ones had been removed. They don't.

Typically resistor tolerance describes the width of the three-sigma
level of distribution, and that distribution tends to be normal. In
other words, resistors are "made" to the appropriate tolerance.

You've obviously never bought any parts from Digi-Key!

;-)

In article writes:

First, it is about materials, of course it is, and that is one of the
major factors for the resistor manufacturers to figure the proper mic
of materials to meet some given specifications. That does include both
abolute value, and temperature drift, and by the way, the aging is
already included in the tolerance, at least for the resistors I use.

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise? That is, if you want a low TC, might you have to accept a
resistor made of a material, or of a construction method that
generates more noise than one with a higher (but still acceptable) TC?

Let me point out that I my sugestion to invest the couple of bucks was
reasonable, and I even pointed out you could buy them at Mouser or
Digikey. Those outlets will deal in small quantities, while the big
part houses will mostly not.

I agree, as long as you're not compromising something more important.
Never having studied components to that level, I don't know if this is
a consideration, but I know enough to ask the question.

An array with resistors on a substrate would certainly be a good
approach to keep whatever you started out with tracking together.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

First, it is about materials, of course it is, and that is one of the
major factors for the resistor manufacturers to figure the proper mic
of materials to meet some given specifications. That does include both
abolute value, and temperature drift, and by the way, the aging is
already included in the tolerance, at least for the resistors I use.

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise? That is, if you want a low TC, might you have to accept a
resistor made of a material, or of a construction method that
generates more noise than one with a higher (but still acceptable) TC?

Let me point out that I my sugestion to invest the couple of bucks was
reasonable, and I even pointed out you could buy them at Mouser or
Digikey. Those outlets will deal in small quantities, while the big
part houses will mostly not.

I agree, as long as you're not compromising something more important.
Never having studied components to that level, I don't know if this is
a consideration, but I know enough to ask the question.

An array with resistors on a substrate would certainly be a good
approach to keep whatever you started out with tracking together.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise? That is, if you want a low TC, might you have to accept a
resistor made of a material, or of a construction method that
generates more noise than one with a higher (but still acceptable) TC?

None that I know of.

Excess noise ( over and above thermal ) is material related for sure but I'm unaware of any
tempco/noise correlation.

An array with resistors on a substrate would certainly be a good
approach to keep whatever you started out with tracking together.

Neve used this approach for the custom gain setting R packs that they have used for balanced
line ins.

Graham

Mike Rivers wrote:

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise? That is, if you want a low TC, might you have to accept a
resistor made of a material, or of a construction method that
generates more noise than one with a higher (but still acceptable) TC?

None that I know of.

Excess noise ( over and above thermal ) is material related for sure but I'm unaware of any
tempco/noise correlation.

An array with resistors on a substrate would certainly be a good
approach to keep whatever you started out with tracking together.

Neve used this approach for the custom gain setting R packs that they have used for balanced
line ins.

Graham

"Mike Rivers"


Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise?


** Resistors of all types have exactly the same thermal self noise level.

If they did not, then one with more thermal noise could deliver power to
one with less and defy the principle of conservation of energy.

NB: The ****wit, featherless, context snipping, lying parrot will fall
right of his perch trying to work this one out.

Squawk ..... squawk ... squawk .....




............. Phil

"Mike Rivers"


Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise?


** Resistors of all types have exactly the same thermal self noise level.

If they did not, then one with more thermal noise could deliver power to
one with less and defy the principle of conservation of energy.

NB: The ****wit, featherless, context snipping, lying parrot will fall
right of his perch trying to work this one out.

Squawk ..... squawk ... squawk .....




............. Phil

In article writes:

I asked:

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise?

And Phil Allison answered:

** Resistors of all types have exactly the same thermal self noise level.

Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise? Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature? What about leads? What about lead attachment? What
about substrate material?

Once again, Phil has reduced the question to something the size of his
brain - a molecule - so he can come up with an answer which in itself
is correct but is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If you want to talk about something different, start a new thread. But
there's no need to regurgitate information that, while valid, is an
incomplete answer to a question. And particularly to do so in an
arrogant and insulting manner.

Now can you answer my question, or do you simply not know any more
than basic physcs but want to flaunt it anyway?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I asked:

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise?

And Phil Allison answered:

** Resistors of all types have exactly the same thermal self noise level.

Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise? Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature? What about leads? What about lead attachment? What
about substrate material?

Once again, Phil has reduced the question to something the size of his
brain - a molecule - so he can come up with an answer which in itself
is correct but is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If you want to talk about something different, start a new thread. But
there's no need to regurgitate information that, while valid, is an
incomplete answer to a question. And particularly to do so in an
arrogant and insulting manner.

Now can you answer my question, or do you simply not know any more
than basic physcs but want to flaunt it anyway?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison

I asked:

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise?

And Phil Allison answered:

** Resistors of all types have exactly the same thermal self noise
level.

Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise?


** More ****wit parrot ****e:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.



Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature?


** Not in the quiescent condition.


Once again, Phil has reduced the question..


** That was no question - that was another ****wit parrot RED HERRING
!!!

Same parrot's trick he always uses to change the subject.



If you want to talk about something different, start a new thread.


** Like Mike Rivers never does himself.

He just snips the old context out of site and slips in a new one.


But there's no need to regurgitate information that, while valid, is an
incomplete answer to a question.


** More putrid ****wit parrot ****e.


And particularly to do so in an
arrogant and insulting manner.

" ** NB: The ****wit, featherless, context snipping, lying parrot will
fall
right of his perch trying to work this one out.

Squawk ..... squawk ... squawk ..... "


Where is the insult ????

I just posted the facts.





............. Phil

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison

I asked:

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise?

And Phil Allison answered:

** Resistors of all types have exactly the same thermal self noise
level.

Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise?


** More ****wit parrot ****e:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.



Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature?


** Not in the quiescent condition.


Once again, Phil has reduced the question..


** That was no question - that was another ****wit parrot RED HERRING
!!!

Same parrot's trick he always uses to change the subject.



If you want to talk about something different, start a new thread.


** Like Mike Rivers never does himself.

He just snips the old context out of site and slips in a new one.


But there's no need to regurgitate information that, while valid, is an
incomplete answer to a question.


** More putrid ****wit parrot ****e.


And particularly to do so in an
arrogant and insulting manner.

" ** NB: The ****wit, featherless, context snipping, lying parrot will
fall
right of his perch trying to work this one out.

Squawk ..... squawk ... squawk ..... "


Where is the insult ????

I just posted the facts.





............. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....

I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.

I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.


Graham

Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....

I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.

I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.


Graham

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....


** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.



I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.



** The context here is a resistive attenuator for mic signals - so
"quiescent" means ( in context) with no voltage applied.

Just you watch while some *******head parrot** or **incontinent bear**
pretends that some other context was intended.


I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.


** Told ya .....



............. Phil

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....


** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.



I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.



** The context here is a resistive attenuator for mic signals - so
"quiescent" means ( in context) with no voltage applied.

Just you watch while some *******head parrot** or **incontinent bear**
pretends that some other context was intended.


I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.


** Told ya .....



............. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....

** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.

LOL ! I used to get told off for humming ( in that way ) by one of my old
colleagues.


I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.

** The context here is a resistive attenuator for mic signals - so
"quiescent" means ( in context) with no voltage applied.

Ahhh..... but what is the point of an attenuator if there is no voltage (
current ) present ? QED. No voltage means no need for attenuator !

It's acknowledged that a DC 'bias' on resistors causes excess noise. (
don't mean phantom power here - just in general ) .

Agreed ?

Excess noise due to DC current is widely quoted and easily measured in uV/V
.. ( AC noise / DC bias Voltage ). Note - the noise mechanism is current but
it's easier to measure Volts as the variable.


Now - what is AC but 'moving DC' ?

Therefore an AC current ( the signal ) *will* create excess noise in
resistors. Maybe not much - but it's there.


Just you watch while some *******head parrot** or **incontinent bear**
pretends that some other context was intended.

I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.

** Told ya .....

Uhuh - it's so though isn't it ?

Gotcha ! ;-)


Graham

Phil Allison wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....

** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.

LOL ! I used to get told off for humming ( in that way ) by one of my old
colleagues.


I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.

** The context here is a resistive attenuator for mic signals - so
"quiescent" means ( in context) with no voltage applied.

Ahhh..... but what is the point of an attenuator if there is no voltage (
current ) present ? QED. No voltage means no need for attenuator !

It's acknowledged that a DC 'bias' on resistors causes excess noise. (
don't mean phantom power here - just in general ) .

Agreed ?

Excess noise due to DC current is widely quoted and easily measured in uV/V
.. ( AC noise / DC bias Voltage ). Note - the noise mechanism is current but
it's easier to measure Volts as the variable.


Now - what is AC but 'moving DC' ?

Therefore an AC current ( the signal ) *will* create excess noise in
resistors. Maybe not much - but it's there.


Just you watch while some *******head parrot** or **incontinent bear**
pretends that some other context was intended.

I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.

** Told ya .....

Uhuh - it's so though isn't it ?

Gotcha ! ;-)


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.

....


I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.


It means "without solder".

Pooh Bear wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.

....


I suspect an Assilon debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.


It means "without solder".

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:14:53 -0700, S O'Neill
wrote:

'quiescent'


It means "without solder".

Whoah! I was afraid it had some disturbing sexual meaning about
having lead in your pencil.

Chris Hornbeck

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:14:53 -0700, S O'Neill
wrote:

'quiescent'


It means "without solder".

Whoah! I was afraid it had some disturbing sexual meaning about
having lead in your pencil.

Chris Hornbeck

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....

** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.

LOL ! I used to get told off for humming ( in that way ) by one of my old
colleagues.

I suspect an Allison debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.

** The context here is a resistive attenuator for mic signals - so
"quiescent" means ( in context) with no voltage applied.

Ahhh.....


** Pooh just let a big one go ............ phew it stinks !!


but what is the point of an attenuator if there is no voltage (
current ) present ? QED. No voltage means no need for attenuator !


** He says - again ignoring the context.



Therefore an AC current ( the signal ) *will* create excess noise in
resistors. Maybe not much - but it's there.



** Pedantic twaddle - plus still ignores the context "quiescent".



Just you watch while some *******head parrot** or **incontinent bear**
pretends that some other context was intended.

I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.

** Told ya .....

Uhuh - it's so though isn't it ?


** What is so ??

That Excreta Bear is posturing pommy prick is in no doubt.




.............. Phil

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

Hmmmm....

** Resistors are hum free as well - in the quiescent state.

LOL ! I used to get told off for humming ( in that way ) by one of my old
colleagues.

I suspect an Allison debate shortly about what 'quiescent' is.

** The context here is a resistive attenuator for mic signals - so
"quiescent" means ( in context) with no voltage applied.

Ahhh.....


** Pooh just let a big one go ............ phew it stinks !!


but what is the point of an attenuator if there is no voltage (
current ) present ? QED. No voltage means no need for attenuator !


** He says - again ignoring the context.



Therefore an AC current ( the signal ) *will* create excess noise in
resistors. Maybe not much - but it's there.



** Pedantic twaddle - plus still ignores the context "quiescent".



Just you watch while some *******head parrot** or **incontinent bear**
pretends that some other context was intended.

I'm sure he's heard of excess noise caused by current flow.

** Told ya .....

Uhuh - it's so though isn't it ?


** What is so ??

That Excreta Bear is posturing pommy prick is in no doubt.




.............. Phil

In article writes:

Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise?


** More ****wit parrot ****e:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Not entirely. This was your assumption (incorrect) or declaration
(exactly) just so you could give a correct answer to a question you
chose not to answer.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

I'll go along with that, but what about other sources of noise in a
component, which has more than just pure resistance?

Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature?


** Not in the quiescent condition.

Again, you're obscuring application with pure theory. A resistor
connected to nothing is of no use to anyone but a pedantic who wants
to calculate its theoretical noise. To a circuit designer, "quiescent"
can (and often does) mean "in the circuit, with known terminations,
powered up, but with no input signal"

Where is the insult ????

The way you stated facts with no concern for how those facts relate to
the subject.

Folks, we have to feed Phil's ego here now and then. He serves a very
useful purpose. He shows the multitude of physics teachers (those who
can't do . . . ) who read this newsgroup that there is at least one
participant here who respects their work and bases all he knows on
nothing but theory, ignoring any practical applications (like resistors with
no current flowing through them.

If we don't feed him material for his comedy act, he'll leave here, and
we woudln't want that now, would we? It's a tough job, but somebody's
got to do it. I'm holding my end up, and I appreciate that Phil has such
respect for pure science that he insults anyone who chooses to consider
certain principles to be negligible (though by no means insignificant)
when compared to what happens in the real world.

Thanks for your indulgence, and you're all free to put Phil Allison in your
kill file.

***** Quark! Quark! Polly wan'a quark ******

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise?


** More ****wit parrot ****e:

Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Not entirely. This was your assumption (incorrect) or declaration
(exactly) just so you could give a correct answer to a question you
chose not to answer.

Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

I'll go along with that, but what about other sources of noise in a
component, which has more than just pure resistance?

Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature?


** Not in the quiescent condition.

Again, you're obscuring application with pure theory. A resistor
connected to nothing is of no use to anyone but a pedantic who wants
to calculate its theoretical noise. To a circuit designer, "quiescent"
can (and often does) mean "in the circuit, with known terminations,
powered up, but with no input signal"

Where is the insult ????

The way you stated facts with no concern for how those facts relate to
the subject.

Folks, we have to feed Phil's ego here now and then. He serves a very
useful purpose. He shows the multitude of physics teachers (those who
can't do . . . ) who read this newsgroup that there is at least one
participant here who respects their work and bases all he knows on
nothing but theory, ignoring any practical applications (like resistors with
no current flowing through them.

If we don't feed him material for his comedy act, he'll leave here, and
we woudln't want that now, would we? It's a tough job, but somebody's
got to do it. I'm holding my end up, and I appreciate that Phil has such
respect for pure science that he insults anyone who chooses to consider
certain principles to be negligible (though by no means insignificant)
when compared to what happens in the real world.

Thanks for your indulgence, and you're all free to put Phil Allison in your
kill file.

***** Quark! Quark! Polly wan'a quark ******

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" = the biggest, stinking charlatan on this NG


Phil Allison


Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise?


Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Not entirely.


** More ****wit parrot ****e.


Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

I'll go along with that, but what about other sources of noise in a
component, which has more than just pure resistance?


** More ****wit parrot ****.



Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature?



** More ****wit parrot ****.



** Not in the quiescent condition.


Again, you're obscuring application with pure theory.


** More ****wit parrot **** - quiescent was * YOUR * word.


A resistor connected to nothing is of no use to anyone but a pedantic who
wants
to calculate its theoretical noise. To a circuit designer, "quiescent"
can (and often does) mean "in the circuit, with known terminations,
powered up, but with no input signal".


** So ??????.


Where is the insult ????

The way you stated facts with no concern for how those facts relate to
the subject.


** More ****wit parrot ****.



Folks, we have to feed Phil's ego here now and then.


** No need to feed the ****wit parrot anything - except a nice dose of
arsenic.

Squawk ... squawk ..... squawk ....... puke ....puke ....fart
fart ....





............... Phil

"Mike Rivers" = the biggest, stinking charlatan on this NG


Phil Allison


Did you see anything in my question about thermal noise?


Quiescent noise of a resistor = its thermal noise.

Not entirely.


** More ****wit parrot ****e.


Thermal noise depends on the resistance value alone.

I'll go along with that, but what about other sources of noise in a
component, which has more than just pure resistance?


** More ****wit parrot ****.



Do you think
there are no other sources of noise from a resistor other than what
results from molecules moving around at different rates depending on
the temperature?



** More ****wit parrot ****.



** Not in the quiescent condition.


Again, you're obscuring application with pure theory.


** More ****wit parrot **** - quiescent was * YOUR * word.


A resistor connected to nothing is of no use to anyone but a pedantic who
wants
to calculate its theoretical noise. To a circuit designer, "quiescent"
can (and often does) mean "in the circuit, with known terminations,
powered up, but with no input signal".


** So ??????.


Where is the insult ????

The way you stated facts with no concern for how those facts relate to
the subject.


** More ****wit parrot ****.



Folks, we have to feed Phil's ego here now and then.


** No need to feed the ****wit parrot anything - except a nice dose of
arsenic.

Squawk ... squawk ..... squawk ....... puke ....puke ....fart
fart ....





............... Phil

Ya know, if absolutely No One responded to "Phil", and everyone killfiled it,
it basically would cease to exist.

In case it hasn't occurred to you, "Phil" is actually just a computer virus
or fuzzy logic bot planted on this newsgroup by some techo guys in a lab in
Cambridge with a weird sense of humor.

Let's try a test to see what happens if we eliminate input to the bot and
ignore its output. I'm guessing its internal feedback circuits will mount to
such a high current that it may just go Poof!

How Rod Serling-esque!

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Ya know, if absolutely No One responded to "Phil", and everyone killfiled it,
it basically would cease to exist.

In case it hasn't occurred to you, "Phil" is actually just a computer virus
or fuzzy logic bot planted on this newsgroup by some techo guys in a lab in
Cambridge with a weird sense of humor.

Let's try a test to see what happens if we eliminate input to the bot and
ignore its output. I'm guessing its internal feedback circuits will mount to
such a high current that it may just go Poof!

How Rod Serling-esque!

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"Ty Ford"


** What do you do Mr Ford ?

Are you not a festering pimple on the arse of the audio industry who
operates an illegal marketing scam ?

Do you not pretend to be a technical reviewer and independent advice giver
when you are nothing of the sort ?

Do you not spread, via the net, the very misinformation that makers dare
not use in their published advertisements for fear of legal action ?

Do you not prey on the irrational beliefs and fears of the gullible to make
a living ?

Are you not a professional charlatan ?????


No wonder you want rid of anyone like me.




........... Phil

"Ty Ford"


** What do you do Mr Ford ?

Are you not a festering pimple on the arse of the audio industry who
operates an illegal marketing scam ?

Do you not pretend to be a technical reviewer and independent advice giver
when you are nothing of the sort ?

Do you not spread, via the net, the very misinformation that makers dare
not use in their published advertisements for fear of legal action ?

Do you not prey on the irrational beliefs and fears of the gullible to make
a living ?

Are you not a professional charlatan ?????


No wonder you want rid of anyone like me.




........... Phil

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:14:53 -0700, S O'Neill
wrote:

'quiescent'

It means "without solder".

Whoah! I was afraid it had some disturbing sexual meaning about
having lead in your pencil.

Uhhh ? Ohhh.... maybe I get it. The girls at a local school used to call
a friend of mine 'pencil' for a certain physical attribute.

Well.... you know that environmental legislation is moving towards 'lead
free solder' ?

Maybe we'll see lead free pencils soon ? ;-)


Graham

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:14:53 -0700, S O'Neill
wrote:

'quiescent'

It means "without solder".

Whoah! I was afraid it had some disturbing sexual meaning about
having lead in your pencil.

Uhhh ? Ohhh.... maybe I get it. The girls at a local school used to call
a friend of mine 'pencil' for a certain physical attribute.

Well.... you know that environmental legislation is moving towards 'lead
free solder' ?

Maybe we'll see lead free pencils soon ? ;-)


Graham

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:20:59 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Whoah! I was afraid it had some disturbing sexual meaning about
having lead in your pencil.

Uhhh ? Ohhh.... maybe I get it.

Would have been a lot funnier if I'd gotten it right. Should
read "putting lead in your pencil". Sorry.

Chris Hornbeck

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:20:59 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Whoah! I was afraid it had some disturbing sexual meaning about
having lead in your pencil.

Uhhh ? Ohhh.... maybe I get it.

Would have been a lot funnier if I'd gotten it right. Should
read "putting lead in your pencil". Sorry.

Chris Hornbeck

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:12:26 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

Ya know, if absolutely No One responded to "Phil", and everyone killfiled it,
it basically would cease to exist.

Easy for you to say. You got a nickname; all I get is "Hornbeck".
Kind of a funny name I guess, but not at all the same thing as a
nickname. But I refuse to respond to the AI until I get a nickname.
And another shrubbery.


In case it hasn't occurred to you, "Phil" is actually just a computer virus
or fuzzy logic bot planted on this newsgroup by some techo guys in a lab in
Cambridge with a weird sense of humor.

You're starting to scare me now.


How Rod Serling-esque!

Or even Bruce Sterling or William Gibson. Now you're really
scaring me.

Chris Hornbeck

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:12:26 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

Ya know, if absolutely No One responded to "Phil", and everyone killfiled it,
it basically would cease to exist.

Easy for you to say. You got a nickname; all I get is "Hornbeck".
Kind of a funny name I guess, but not at all the same thing as a
nickname. But I refuse to respond to the AI until I get a nickname.
And another shrubbery.


In case it hasn't occurred to you, "Phil" is actually just a computer virus
or fuzzy logic bot planted on this newsgroup by some techo guys in a lab in
Cambridge with a weird sense of humor.

You're starting to scare me now.


How Rod Serling-esque!

Or even Bruce Sterling or William Gibson. Now you're really
scaring me.

Chris Hornbeck