OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

You really are an utter imbecile.

CD? Or BS?

We have the heat on now. A bit of AGW would make my wife happy.

CD. He shares your ignorant notions about anthropogenic global warming, so you may not have noticed.

We've already got about 1.5C of anthropogenic global warming, and the side-effects are starting to get obvious. She may enjoy the extra warmth, but there are other consequences.

Follow the thread, stupid.

Gosh, I can remember when SED had intelligent people who could discuss electronic design.

Same here. It's bloody cold, this summer! So much for 'global warming' LOL.

And you can remember back to when you were one of them - not that you were all that intelligent even then, nor all that interested in actual discussion.

Global warming is about the average temperature of the surface of the whole planet.

It's not incompatible with specific areas being unseasonably cold.

That tends to be driven by ocean currents moving around. The example that everybody knows about is the El Nino / La Nina alternation, but the Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation is bigger (if slower).

So place an CO2 observatory next to a still active volcano?

Not all that "next to" and the volcano isn't all that active, and it would be easy enough to edit out anomolous observations if the crater were ever to emit a blench of CO2, which is doesn't seem to have.

Cape Grim, on the north west tip of Tasmania (some sixty miles from where I grew up) is in an entirely volcano-free area and seems to report much the same CO2 levels - though the southern hemisphere has quite a bit less seasonal variation.

As an objection to the choice of site, it doesn't have a lot of merit.

If it bothers you that much, stop cross-posting to uk.d-i-y.

John Larkin's contributions to his "Re: another fast one-shot thread" included this impressive example of "discussion" about the emitter coupled monostable circuit that I'd posted as .asc file.

"> It's really a slow diffamp, not a one-shot. > It will make a nice clean 1 second output, given a 1 second trigger input."

My response wasn't as helpful as it might have been

"It isn't. John could have tried to simulate his "one second trigger input", if he could have worked out what he meant by that.

And it is hard to make a really slow differential amplifier out of a BFR92 long-tailed pair."

When I went to the trouble of simulating the circuit with wider trigger pulse - which he hadn't bothered to do - I could see exactly what he meant.

The emitter coupled monostable is a great pulse stretcher, but it no use if the input pulse is wider than output pulse you want to generate - it then just makes a pulse that is a little wider than the input pulse.

The usual application for pulse stretchers is in circuits that get very narrow input pulses.

Ghiggino, K.P., Phillips, D., and Sloman, A.W. "Nanosecond pulse stretcher",Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, 12, 686-687 (1979).

stretched a narrow light pulse - about 1nsec wide - coming out of a pulsed laser to 10nsec which was wide enough to rigger the hardware we were using , back in 1978.

I didn't go into any of that because the emitter-coupled monostable is a classic circuit that has been around forever, and I didn't imagine that this was worth spelling out - and spelling it out takes work.

There are ways around this problem - you can run your input pulse through a delay line, and compare two successive taps on the delay. If the taps on the delay are closer together than the desired output pulse width, the emitter coupled monostable will react to the differential output to give you the output pulse width that you want.

It's essentially differentiating the signal, which is to say it amplifies high frequency noise, which can shown up other problems.

A proper discussion might have teased all that out.

John's decidedly dismissive contribution wasn't a good way to initiate that kind of discussion.