Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[Cubdriver]

Well here I sit with egg on my face and feeling somewhat foolish after yesterday's childish temper tantrum.  The highly anticipated package has made it across the pond and is currently sitting in US Customs at JFK NY. So DHL's job is done. It wasn't put on a slow boat after all. So while JFK Customs is not exactly famous for rapid turnaround at least it's on this side of the Atlantic. Once they get around to passing it along USPS will deliver. And actually USPS has been pretty good lately with timely delivery. Hopefully early next week I'll finally have it.

But I'm not totally repentant. The DRL's will remain disconnected on the CR-V. 

You realize that you just waved a red cape under Murphy's nose and taunted him, right?     Let's hope he wasn't paying attention...

-Pat

[Peter_O]

Tranny, poti etc. are mostly just about economy of syllables imho. Just two of them instead of four or five.

If it's in the dictionary or wictionary or if it's not is not that important, as language is a living cultural asset and never would have changed without people using new words first. There is a difference to protocols which must be defined first before they can be used by machines. Language is for humans with creativity and fantasy who are able to interpret new words from the context. But if a word is new, everybody has a choice to use it too, or not. From that perspective, language is a very democratic thing and not a question of right or wrong, worst case by definition of a few people.

I understand 'tranny' but will not use it myself.   
I understand 'poti' and use it in the german world, not in the english. 
Make your choices.

[BU508A]

Dwagon, no, looks like I am not losing it. Check out Wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny_(disambiguation)

It confirms what I said, tranny is used for both transistors and transformers alike.

I don't see how I could possibly have invented something like this anyway... I get all my electronic "education" from EEVblog...

Yet another example of the nonsense dished out on Wikipedia.

Yes, people often forget that Wiki can be tweaked by well meaning, if less than knowledgeable folk.
There used to be a "Ham Radio Wiki" page, which amongst other stuff had a "basic electronics " section.

In a discussion of various configurations of rectifiers, it showed a bog standard bridge rectifier, but labelled it a Kratz" rectifier.
After much "Googling", I found no reference to a "Kratz" in the history of rectifier circuits, so amended it to say "bridge rectifier".

Thinking upon the possible names further, I found reference to Leo Graetz, who invented such a circuit in 1895.
Unfortunately, another pioneer, Karol Pollak had invented the same thing in 1895

Nonetheless, the term "Graetz rectifier" is still sometimes used, although "bridge rectifier" is much more common.

It seems the person vaguely recalled this, but mistook the name, hence the unknown "Kratz".

PS: the "Ham Radio Wiki" has now been taken over by a quite agressive commercial entity involved in selling radios to hams.

I think, the reason why you haven't found anything about "Kratz rectifier" is, that you've misspelled it.
The thing is called a "Graetz rectifier" or "Graetz bridge" - Wikipedia has an entry for that.

HTH

[BU508A]

Wow, didn't expect that the price for this device will be going this high!   

Rohde & Schwarz RDZ BN 341 ohmmeter

I hoped, I could snipe it, but when I saw, that the price was going over 400 Euro, I've decided to leave it alone.
It's a pity, would have been a nice add-on to my little R&S test gear collection.

And because those RDZ are rare as hens teeth, I've saved the pictures from the auction here.

[vk6zgo]

Dwagon, no, looks like I am not losing it. Check out Wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny_(disambiguation)

It confirms what I said, tranny is used for both transistors and transformers alike.

I don't see how I could possibly have invented something like this anyway... I get all my electronic "education" from EEVblog...

Yet another example of the nonsense dished out on Wikipedia.

Yes, people often forget that Wiki can be tweaked by well meaning, if less than knowledgeable folk.
There used to be a "Ham Radio Wiki" page, which amongst other stuff had a "basic electronics " section.

In a discussion of various configurations of rectifiers, it showed a bog standard bridge rectifier, but labelled it a Kratz" rectifier.
After much "Googling", I found no reference to a "Kratz" in the history of rectifier circuits, so amended it to say "bridge rectifier".

*
Thinking upon the possible names further, I found reference to Leo Graetz, who invented such a circuit in 1895.
Unfortunately, another pioneer, Karol Pollak had invented the same thing in 1895

Nonetheless, the term "Graetz rectifier" is still sometimes used, although "bridge rectifier" is much more common.

It seems the person vaguely recalled this, but mistook the name, hence the unknown "Kratz".

PS: the "Ham Radio Wiki" has now been taken over by a quite agressive commercial entity involved in selling radios to hams.

I think, the reason why you haven't found anything about "Kratz rectifier" is, that you've misspelled it.
The thing is called a "Graetz rectifier" or "Graetz bridge" - Wikipedia has an entry for that.

HTH

If you reread my post, you will see that is exactly what I said.*
I knew that the Graetz Radio company was big in earlier years, so thats why I changed my search to Graetz.

Actually there was a typo in that posting:- Leo Graetz invented his bridge rectifier in 1897 (not 1895), being unaware of Pollak's previous work .

[BU508A]

Yes, saw it after my posting.
Was low on coffee, distracted and shooted at the first trigger. 

[Vince]

...
...

Thinking upon the possible names further, I found reference to Leo Graetz, who invented such a circuit in 1895.
...
Nonetheless, the term "Graetz rectifier" is still sometimes used, although "bridge rectifier" is much more common.

At least in France here, I was always taught about Graetz bridges at school... "diode bridge"  is more modern to me, and not as good as it could potentially refer to absolutely any arrangement / configuration of diodes 

Alternately, we would say a "rectifier bridge". Still not as accurate as " Graetz", but at least it describes the purpose of the "bridge", so better than just saying "bridge" and let one's imagination go wild.

I guess I should not be adding more fuel to the fire, but, well, I needed something quick to do while the micro-wave oven is warming up my milk chocolate bowl ! 

[Specmaster]

Well here I sit with egg on my face and feeling somewhat foolish after yesterday's childish temper tantrum.  The highly anticipated package has made it across the pond and is currently sitting in US Customs at JFK NY. So DHL's job is done. It wasn't put on a slow boat after all. So while JFK Customs is not exactly famous for rapid turnaround at least it's on this side of the Atlantic. Once they get around to passing it along USPS will deliver. And actually USPS has been pretty good lately with timely delivery. Hopefully early next week I'll finally have it.

But I'm not totally repentant. The DRL's will remain disconnected on the CR-V. 

You realize that you just waved a red cape under Murphy's nose and taunted him, right?     Let's hope he wasn't paying attention...

-Pat

Too late, Murphy did notice and Murphy agrees with me that DRL's are infact an important safety factor and if a car is built with them then they should never be disabled. It not as if you have to pay through the nose to have these switched on, they are not massively power hungry items.  Remember, they are for the benefit of other road users and if someone can see you clearly because of them it might save your life in return  because the other person didn't pull out of a side turning right into your path causing a crash, what ever next, refusing to wear your seatbelt? 

Even if you don't care about your safety as a result of being easier to spot, consider the other person and help to protect them as well, geez. 

[Ice-Tea]

*giggles*

[med6753]

Too late, Murphy did notice and Murphy agrees with me that DRL's are infact an important safety factor and if a car is built with them then they should never be disabled. It not as if you have to pay through the nose to have these switched on, they are not massively power hungry items.  Remember, they are for the benefit of other road users and if someone can see you clearly because of them it might save your life in return  because the other person didn't pull out of a side turning right into your path causing a crash, what ever next, refusing to wear your seatbelt? 

Even if you don't care about your safety as a result of being easier to spot, consider the other person and help to protect them as well, geez. 

If someone can't see this blue blob of an SUV under normal daytime conditions I have to question whether they should be driving at all. And in cases of inclement weather or night time I have the intelligence to use appropriate exterior lighting as necessary. I don't need to rely on a computer to make that basic decision for me. And.....to help insure I am seen when lighting is required I installed these auxiliary driving lights.

[AVGresponding]

Yes, saw it after my posting.
Was low on coffee, distracted and shooted at the first trigger. 

This is how one ends up shooting one's own toes off...

[Specmaster]

Too late, Murphy did notice and Murphy agrees with me that DRL's are infact an important safety factor and if a car is built with them then they should never be disabled. It not as if you have to pay through the nose to have these switched on, they are not massively power hungry items.  Remember, they are for the benefit of other road users and if someone can see you clearly because of them it might save your life in return  because the other person didn't pull out of a side turning right into your path causing a crash, what ever next, refusing to wear your seatbelt? 

Even if you don't care about your safety as a result of being easier to spot, consider the other person and help to protect them as well, geez. 

If someone can't see this blue blob of an SUV under normal daytime conditions I have to question whether they should be driving at all. And in cases of inclement weather or night time I have the intelligence to use appropriate exterior lighting as necessary. I don't need to rely on a computer to make that basic decision for me. And.....to help insure I am seen when lighting is required I installed these auxiliary driving lights.

But you are still missing the point, DRL's have been proven to be a safety device that actually works and the life that they save, might well turn out to be yours. As I said, mine are left enabled, it costs me nothing, the same as the seatbelts, they cost me nothing to use but can save my life.

I used to be like you and thought that Volvo were stupid for having DRL's on their cars. For years and years, they were the only ones doing it. But as one gets older and then starts wearing glasses because the sight is not what it once was, and sometimes glasses get a bit foggy momentarily and vision drops as a result, cannot see you and your big blue (had to be blue didn't it Papa Smurf   ) CRV, pulls out in front of you and wham, you run into the side of the person...but had your DRL's been on, then they might have seen you and waited. Your pride and joy would not have had its body work smashed, you might not have been injured or worse, killed, and for what reason did you decide to disable your DRL's, I wonder? If the above actually were to happen, then perhaps with hindsight, you might have wished you had never disabled them.

My car has all the added protection built-in, I am more than capable of driving and controlling it without the add-ons like ESC, ABS and the like, but I'm not infallible, and I do value my life, so I leave them all enabled so that if I make a mistake, hopefully they will do their job and keep me safe. 

[med6753]

Seat belts? No argument. I have used them ever since I starting driving in 1969 and way before they were a requirement.

DRL's? Not convinced. Besides, if I use all your arguments for their use what do I do about the Civic that doesn't have them? Turn on the lights every time I take it out? Right.....



 

[TERRA Operative]

I drive with headlights on at all times. LED on a Hybrid means the extra visibility costs me practically nothing so I've got nothing to lose.
Always-on LED's, Driving lights, Head lights and LED parking lights (Mine illuminate above and below the headlight).

Damn car is like a Christmas tree. (Stock photo included)

[BU508A]

Ah, the famous cube-on-wheels. 

[TERRA Operative]

Nah, that's this car hahaha:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Cube

[Specmaster]

Seat belts? No argument. I have used them ever since I starting driving in 1969 and way before they were a requirement.

DRL's? Not convinced. Besides, if I use all your arguments for their use what do I do about the Civic that doesn't have them? Turn on the lights every time I take it out? Right.....



 

Wrong, if it hasn't got them fitted then it's fine, exactly the same as early cars never had seat belts and there has been no law passed making them compulsory retro fits either. In fact, many of the earlier cars do not have suitable mounting points anyway.

It's your car, and it's your life, all I'm saying is that to my mind, and I'm sure to many others, if you have them, then why not use them, it has no significant cost impact in doing so.

The chances of a multimeter blowing up in your hand while you're prodding the mains power supply in your home etc is very slim indeed, but would you do so with a cheap Harbour Freight meter or would you use your Fluke 87? 

I don't actually know if you have such a cheap nasty meter, but I'm sure that you catch my drift, I do know you have other lesser meters and I can't imagine that you'd use them in that fashion while you had a far more robust meter at hand?

[med6753]

Wrong, if it hasn't got them fitted then it's fine, exactly the same as early cars never had seat belts and there has been no law passed making them compulsory retro fits either. In fact, many of the earlier cars do not have suitable mounting points anyway.

It's your car, and it's your life, all I'm saying is that to my mind, and I'm sure to many others, if you have them, then why not use them, it has no significant cost impact in doing so.

The chances of a multimeter blowing up in your hand while you're prodding the mains power supply in your home etc is very slim indeed, but would you do so with a cheap Harbour Freight meter or would you use your Fluke 87? 

I don't actually know if you have such a cheap nasty meter, but I'm sure that you catch my drift, I do know you have other lesser meters and I can't imagine that you'd use them in that fashion while you had a far more robust meter at hand?

So lemme get this straight. If a car didn't come with DRL's it's OK. Drive it to your heart's content. But if you car DID come with DRL's and you disable them YOU ARE GOING TO KILL YOURSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE.      

[Specmaster]

Wrong, if it hasn't got them fitted then it's fine, exactly the same as early cars never had seat belts and there has been no law passed making them compulsory retro fits either. In fact, many of the earlier cars do not have suitable mounting points anyway.

It's your car, and it's your life, all I'm saying is that to my mind, and I'm sure to many others, if you have them, then why not use them, it has no significant cost impact in doing so.

The chances of a multimeter blowing up in your hand while you're prodding the mains power supply in your home etc is very slim indeed, but would you do so with a cheap Harbour Freight meter or would you use your Fluke 87? 

I don't actually know if you have such a cheap nasty meter, but I'm sure that you catch my drift, I do know you have other lesser meters and I can't imagine that you'd use them in that fashion while you had a far more robust meter at hand?

So lemme get this straight. If a car didn't come with DRL's it's OK. Drive it to your heart's content. But if you car DID come with DRL's and you disable them YOU ARE GOING TO KILL YOURSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE.      

No, I did not say that. It is not a slur on your driving ability at all to use them, have you not seen that there are safety benefits for all concerned in the use of DRL's, ESC's, ABS's and other modern safety devices on vehicles and that you only wear your seat belt because the law insist that you do?

We are concerned for your well-being as well as that of other road users   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

[BU508A]

Nah, that's this car hahaha:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Cube

Looks to me as a very close relative. 

[Specmaster]

Nah, that's this car hahaha:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Cube

Looks to me as a very close relative. 

True, but the Nissan Cube is almost a perfect cube, and hence its name 

[TERRA Operative]

Nah, that's this car hahaha:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Cube

Looks to me as a very close relative. 

Ooohhh, them's fightin' words!     

[Brumby]

I think some people in Oz are quite unaware of the existence of the rear fog light, & happily blind following drivers on clear nights, as they have never seen their car from the rear.

Yeah, I hate that.

[mnementh]

So lemme get this straight. If a car didn't come with DRL's it's OK. Drive it to your heart's content. But if you car DID come with DRL's and you disable them YOU ARE GOING TO KILL YOURSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE.      

I've stayed out of this because I didn't want to be a dick to a friend... but now this has just devolved into childish denial of reality, and somebody has to say it:   

No, that's not the point. The point is only a assh'o takes the time and effort to disable a safety device that is widely known to save lives, especially when theirs is one of the lives that might be saved.

And doubling down on utterly specious rationalizations for doing so is not fooling anybody here except yourself.   

mnem
*card-carrying assoholic*

[med6753]

Wrong, if it hasn't got them fitted then it's fine, exactly the same as early cars never had seat belts and there has been no law passed making them compulsory retro fits either. In fact, many of the earlier cars do not have suitable mounting points anyway.

It's your car, and it's your life, all I'm saying is that to my mind, and I'm sure to many others, if you have them, then why not use them, it has no significant cost impact in doing so.

The chances of a multimeter blowing up in your hand while you're prodding the mains power supply in your home etc is very slim indeed, but would you do so with a cheap Harbour Freight meter or would you use your Fluke 87? 

I don't actually know if you have such a cheap nasty meter, but I'm sure that you catch my drift, I do know you have other lesser meters and I can't imagine that you'd use them in that fashion while you had a far more robust meter at hand?

So lemme get this straight. If a car didn't come with DRL's it's OK. Drive it to your heart's content. But if you car DID come with DRL's and you disable them YOU ARE GOING TO KILL YOURSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE.      

No, I did not say that. It is not a slur on your driving ability at all to use them, have you not seen that there are safety benefits for all concerned in the use of DRL's, ESC's, ABS's and other modern safety devices on vehicles and that you only wear your seat belt because the law insist that you do?

We are concerned for your well-being as well as that of other road users   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

And you're not reading what I said. I said I have been wearing seat belts ever since I started driving in 1969 many, many years before it was the law.

Can we agree to disagree and end this.....Please.