LT Spice question

Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 12:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2011 08:58 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:31:36 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>   wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> (Who just let three of his domain names lapse)
>>>>
>>>> So If I register electrooptical.net, how much will you pay me to
>>>> get it back?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice.  But that wasn't one of them.  I like to use private domains
>>> with one catchall mail account that funnels all mail going to that
>>> domain into a single account elsewhere.  That way I can give out
>>> unique email addresses to all those websites that insist on that,
>>> and then when one of those addresses shows up in a bit of spam, I
>>> know who sold it to them.
>>>
>>
>> You don't need many domains for that. Give them hobbs123@, ...
>> hobbs124@...,  hobbs125@, and so on. On my site I can pipe all
>> emails into one bucket. Should one go rogue on me I can dump it and
>> the sender will get an undeliverable message.
>>
>> Should they be clever and auto-extract your real email via the
>> domain use electrohobbstical.com or something for the "disposable"
>> email accounts and auto-forward from there.
> 
> I've been doing it for a decade or so--I register using things like
> ti@somejunkdomain.com.  Works great.
> 

Downside is that every new junksdomain.com costs registration fees. My
email accounts are free.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 20 Dec., 06:20, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> langw...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > On 19 Dec., 22:28, John Larkin
> > <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:42:04 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:39:35 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:19:11 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid=
>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Joerg a =E9crit :
> >>>>>>>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Joerg a =E9crit :
> >>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> [SPICE netlist]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get the most linear ramp at OUT, from +1 to +3=
 volts in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 16 ns. AD8014 was probably a bad choice, and the best feedba=
ck
> >>>>>>>>>>>> resistor value is way below the 1K that ADI suggests for a f=
ollower.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I had to use .lib instead of .include to make LT Spice happy=
. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> default pin order was ok.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If the opamp model is accurate (namely, it doesn't oscillate=
 with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 249 ohm resistor) it looks pretty good. My original circuit =
(R2=3D1K,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> L1=3D56n) was terrible. I'll try it in real life next.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't look bad at all. For snappier corners you have to pic=
k an amp
> >>>>>>>>>>> with a lot more bandwidth. Like this little dude:
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ths4303.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>> However, the AD8014 is a CFB and they really do not like this
> >>>>>>>>>>> configuration with just Rf and a cap from IN- to ground. Migh=
t put them
> >>>>>>>>>>> close to oscillation even if SPICE says they are ok.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ahem, CFB opamp, for the same FB resistor, do tolerate more pa=
rasitics
> >>>>>>>>>> than VFB opamps.
> >>>>>>>>>> Because the additional parasitic pole frequency is Rfb Cp for =
the VFB
> >>>>>>>>>> and is Rin Cp for the CFB opamp, with Rin being roughly betwee=
n 50R and
> >>>>>>>>>> 100R.
> >>>>>>>>>> What CFB opamps don't like much is parasitic inductance in ser=
ies with
> >>>>>>>>>> their minus input.
> >>>>>>>>>http://cds.linear.com/docs/Design%20Note/dn46fa.pdf
> >>>>>>>>> Quote "DO NOT PUT A SMALL CAPACITOR FROM THE INVERTING INPUT
> >>>>>>>>> OF A CURRENT FEEDBACK AMPLIFIER TO ANYWHERE"
> >>>>>>>> Don't clip the end of sentence please. So:
> >>>>>>>> "DO NOT PUT A SMALL CAPACITOR FROM THE INVERTING INPUT OF A CURR=
ENT
> >>>>>>>> FEEDBACK AMPLIFIER TO ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY NOT TO THE OUTPUT."
> >>>>>>>> Now the next sentence is somewhat incomplete.
> >>>>>>>> "The capacitor on the inverting input will cause peaking or
> >>>>>>>> oscillations." should be more like :
> >>>>>>>> "A capacitor between the inverting input and GND will cause peak=
ing
> >>>>>>>> while a capacitor between the inverting input and the output wil=
l cause
> >>>>>>>> oscillations."
> >>>>>>> In my experience both can cause oscillation.
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, they put it all in capital letters, and if LTC does that t=
hey have
> >>>>>>>>> their reasons :-)
> >>>>>>>> While if I'm saying that I do have mine :-)
> >>>>>>> As long as our wives are around only their reasons really count :=
-)
> >>>>>>>> See the netlist bellow.
> >>>>>>>> The pencil & =A0paper demonstration left as an exercise to the s=
tudent, to
> >>>>>>>> parrot some people here :-)
> >>>>>>> Ok, now move C1 across R1 instead of ground -> Total stability. A=
nd that
> >>>>>>> ain't happ'nin in real life. I do not trust behavioral models for=
 this
> >>>>>>> kind of stuff.
> >>>>>>> Does anyone have a SPICE model for a CFB amp that is 100%
> >>>>>>> down-to-the-bone tried and true and has zero behavioral elements =
in there?
> >>>>>> If there were one, full of transistors and caps and such, it would
> >>>>>> probably run very, very slowly.
> >>>>> Not in your case because you only want to look at one lone ramp. If=
 you
> >>>>> want to sim a switcher with start-up and all that in non-behavioral=
,
> >>>>> different thing. BTDT. I used that day to repair a deck post while =
the
> >>>>> sim was running inside.
> >>>>> Why are there no aluminum deck posts that don't rot?
> >>>> Why are there no wooden deck posts that don't rot?
> >>> They do, but the injected stuff rots screws and can poison animals if
> >>> they lick or crunch it. Small children are a concern as well.
> >>>> =A0 ... Why doesn't Home Depot sell stainless steel deck posts?
> >>> Touch to drill. Aluminum would be cheaper and good enough. There is a
> >>> large market but they fail to see it. Galvanized works well, too, it =
an
> >>> last decades.
> >>>>>> When I sim circuits, I generally use a VCVS to simulate an opamp, =
with
> >>>>>> an RC on the output if bandwidth matters. Runs fast!
> >>>>> But it'll tell lies :-)
> >>>> All Spice tells lies. A VCVS opamp works fine in situations where yo=
u
> >>>> know it works fine.
> >>> And you can switch 5kV with a 2N7002 because SPICE doesn't have a
> >>> *KABLAM* function :-)
> >> I posted a sim of a 1N4148 running happily at 100KV reverse bias.
>
> > for some reason diodes and mosfets in ltspice doesn't have the
> > parameter bv
> > set.
>
> > try this:
>
> > Version 4
> > SHEET 1 880 680
> > WIRE 112 32 48 32
> > WIRE 256 32 192 32
> > WIRE 48 80 48 32
> > WIRE 256 80 256 32
> > WIRE 256 160 256 144
> > FLAG 48 160 0
> > FLAG 256 160 0
> > SYMBOL voltage 48 64 R0
> > WINDOW 3 -266 54 Left 0
> > WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
> > WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
> > SYMATTR InstName V1
> > SYMATTR Value SINE(0 150 1 0 0 0 1)
> > SYMBOL diode 272 144 R180
> > WINDOW 0 24 72 Left 0
> > WINDOW 3 -196 32 Left 0
> > SYMATTR InstName D1
> > SYMATTR Value MMSD4148_bv
> > SYMBOL res 208 16 R90
> > WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
> > WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
> > SYMATTR InstName R1
> > SYMATTR Value 1k
> > TEXT 304 152 Left 0 !.model mmsd4148_bv ako: mmsd4148 bv=3D100
> > TEXT -218 -4 Left 0 !.tran .5
>
> > -Lasse
>
> =A0 =A0It does; try .MODEL DMOD1 D (BV=3D100) or equivalent.

it has the option but it is not set, and that is what I did I
just did it by adding it to an existing model

-Lasse

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:42:04 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:39:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>

[...]

>>>> Why are there no aluminum deck posts that don't rot?
>>> Why are there no wooden deck posts that don't rot? 
>>
>> They do, but the injected stuff rots screws and can poison animals if
>> they lick or crunch it. Small children are a concern as well.
> 
> Nah, that stuff's been gone for a decade or two.  The newer stuff isn't as
> good but isn't nearly as toxic (not that the AS stuff was anyway).  If you use
> sheetrock screws, sure they'll rot off.  OTOH, if you use lumber rated for
> *GROUND CONTACT* and stainless screws it'll last decades.  
> 

We are guide dog members so we puppy-sit sometimes. Can't have any wood
with toxic stuff in it within "gnawing distance".


>>>   ... Why doesn't Home Depot sell stainless steel deck posts?
>>>
>> Touch to drill. Aluminum would be cheaper and good enough. There is a
>> large market but they fail to see it. Galvanized works well, too, it an
>> last decades.
> 
> Aluminum would be enough of a PITA.  Just use decent lumber and it'll probably
> outlast Kalifornica.  ;-)
> 

I found that anything I ever built out of aluminum as a kid, including
some outdoor antenna stuff, will most likely even outlast me.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 12/20/2011 01:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 12:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2011 08:58 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:31:36 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>    wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>>>>> (Who just let three of his domain names lapse)
>>>>>
>>>>> So If I register electrooptical.net, how much will you pay me to
>>>>> get it back?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice.  But that wasn't one of them.  I like to use private domains
>>>> with one catchall mail account that funnels all mail going to that
>>>> domain into a single account elsewhere.  That way I can give out
>>>> unique email addresses to all those websites that insist on that,
>>>> and then when one of those addresses shows up in a bit of spam, I
>>>> know who sold it to them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't need many domains for that. Give them hobbs123@, ...
>>> hobbs124@...,  hobbs125@, and so on. On my site I can pipe all
>>> emails into one bucket. Should one go rogue on me I can dump it and
>>> the sender will get an undeliverable message.
>>>
>>> Should they be clever and auto-extract your real email via the
>>> domain use electrohobbstical.com or something for the "disposable"
>>> email accounts and auto-forward from there.
>>
>> I've been doing it for a decade or so--I register using things like
>> ti@somejunkdomain.com.  Works great.
>>
>
> Downside is that every new junksdomain.com costs registration fees. My
> email accounts are free.

I don't use one domain per login, of course.  That would be a huge pain, 
and completely unnecessary.  With a catchall, I can use as many 
apparently unique email addresses as I like, and only one or two junk 
domains.  The three I let expire were initially amusing .info ones that 
I registered for a buck last year and wound up not using.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:35:17 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

> I don't use one domain per login, of course.  That would be a huge pain, 
> and completely unnecessary.  With a catchall, I can use as many 
> apparently unique email addresses as I like, and only one or two junk 
> domains.  The three I let expire were initially amusing .info ones that 
> I registered for a buck last year and wound up not using.

You're using linux. Why not get your ISP, (or get another who will)
to deliver mail with SMTP to your sendmail, then set up as many aliases as
you like. If one gets spammed, just kill that alias, and any more will
just bounce, and you'll never see it. 

Then set your email program to point to localhost, and you're done.

I know sendmail is a bitch to configure, but I'm sure you can do it ;-)

-- 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

On 12/20/2011 04:32 PM, Fred Abse wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:35:17 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
>> I don't use one domain per login, of course.  That would be a huge pain,
>> and completely unnecessary.  With a catchall, I can use as many
>> apparently unique email addresses as I like, and only one or two junk
>> domains.  The three I let expire were initially amusing .info ones that
>> I registered for a buck last year and wound up not using.
>
> You're using linux. Why not get your ISP, (or get another who will)
> to deliver mail with SMTP to your sendmail, then set up as many aliases as
> you like. If one gets spammed, just kill that alias, and any more will
> just bounce, and you'll never see it.
>
> Then set your email program to point to localhost, and you're done.
>
> I know sendmail is a bitch to configure, but I'm sure you can do it ;-)
>

I don't run sendmail--it's a security nightmare.  My servers only expose 
SSH, and on nonstandard ports.

My method is very convenient, because all I need is one domain with a 
catchall email account that forwards to a hidden real email address. 
Then when I have to register on some website, I just make up an email 
account name on the spot, e.g. avnet@smyjunkdomain.com, and any 
resulting spam will be labelled with the perp's name.  No admin overhead 
at all.  If I were to get a lot of spam from some particular place, I 
can filter that alias on the mail host.  It's only happened a few times 
in 15 or so years, which isn't bad.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:22:16 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:42:04 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:39:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> Why are there no aluminum deck posts that don't rot?
>>>> Why are there no wooden deck posts that don't rot? 
>>>
>>> They do, but the injected stuff rots screws and can poison animals if
>>> they lick or crunch it. Small children are a concern as well.
>> 
>> Nah, that stuff's been gone for a decade or two.  The newer stuff isn't as
>> good but isn't nearly as toxic (not that the AS stuff was anyway).  If you use
>> sheetrock screws, sure they'll rot off.  OTOH, if you use lumber rated for
>> *GROUND CONTACT* and stainless screws it'll last decades.  
>> 
>
>We are guide dog members so we puppy-sit sometimes. Can't have any wood
>with toxic stuff in it within "gnawing distance".

The stuff in use today is not toxic.  Much (copper).

>>>>   ... Why doesn't Home Depot sell stainless steel deck posts?
>>>>
>>> Touch to drill. Aluminum would be cheaper and good enough. There is a
>>> large market but they fail to see it. Galvanized works well, too, it an
>>> last decades.
>> 
>> Aluminum would be enough of a PITA.  Just use decent lumber and it'll probably
>> outlast Kalifornica.  ;-)
>> 
>
>I found that anything I ever built out of aluminum as a kid, including
>some outdoor antenna stuff, will most likely even outlast me.

If you're no longer there when it goes "phut" what's the difference?

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:39:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 08:58 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:31:36 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2011 05:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:23:08 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>>>> <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>   wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:37:01 -0800,
>>>>>>>> Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:26:28 -0800,
>>>>>>>>>> Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:53:26 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:21:17 -0800, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the AD8014 Spice model from Analog Devices, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have LT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The model file AD8014.cir starts with...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD8014  SPICE model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *      Node assignments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *                        non-inverting input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *                        |  inverting input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *                        |  |  positive supply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *                        |  |  |   negative supply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *                        |  |  |   |  output
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *                        |  |  |   |  |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SUBCKT AD8014                  1  2  99  50 28
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, how do I draw an LT Spice schematic, with the usual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opamp symbol,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and plug this model into it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm having a small problem with my ramp circuit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Ramp.JPG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it would be more convenient, just now, to tweak it by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of soldering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, yes, I should know this, but I don't use Spice often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember all the mechanics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of which, we have more ideas and stuff to do than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and energy. It would be great to have someone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do Spice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setups and simulations and parts research and maybe a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breadboarding for us occasionally, for pay of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The AD8014 Spice model is crap... pure behavioral.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it doesn't behave right!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's just the problem with behavioral models. Even some LT
>>>>>>>>>>> parts which
>>>>>>>>>>> are nearly all behavioral with some secret hooks don't. I
>>>>>>>>>>> found numerous
>>>>>>>>>>> discrepancies, some rather serious. Synchronizable switchers
>>>>>>>>>>> that didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> synchronize correctly, a comparator where I discovered a real
>>>>>>>>>>> bug in the
>>>>>>>>>>> silicon, things like that.
>>>>>>>>>> At the LT Spice seminar a few months ago, they warned about
>>>>>>>>>> synchronous
>>>>>>>>>> switchers.  The netlists include warnings that the models don't
>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>> synchronization.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be kind of nice if their jig schematics contained a
>>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>>> about that.
>>>>>>>> You don't read the Surgeon General's warning on all the models
>>>>>>>> you use?  ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's the problem I've found using Spice.  Its utility is
>>>>>>>>>> severely
>>>>>>>>>> compromised by lousy models.  I guess I was spoiled by good
>>>>>>>>>> models.  ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ones in bikinis? :-)
>>>>>>>> Nah, they've been bad for my health for>40 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not to diss LTSpice or the models, one just has to not
>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>> too much.
>>>>>>>>>> Like correct operation?  ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It can be an issue. For example, a comparator had an
>>>>>>>>> undocumented flaw
>>>>>>>>> after power-up. I was the guy who found out, and only after
>>>>>>>>> layouts and
>>>>>>>>> prototype build :-(
>>>>>>>> Someone has to find those sorts of problems.  It's one reason I
>>>>>>>> don't like to
>>>>>>>> do my own verification.  Bad assumptions often get passed from
>>>>>>>> design right
>>>>>>>> through to the customer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, more often, through to hundreds of customers, who each trip over
>>>>>>> the same bug at great expense. And the parts or datasheets aren't
>>>>>>> fixed for years or decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need an ICBUGS.COM web site, where we post the gotchas we find.
>>>>>>> Except the name is already claimed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about icbloopers.com, icgoofs.com or cattywompuschips.com?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      We should call it 'joergwazhere.org' ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> chipbugs.com is available.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>
>>>> (Who just let three of his domain names lapse)
>>>
>>> So If I register electrooptical.net, how much will you pay me to get
>>> it back?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>> 
>> Nice.  But that wasn't one of them.  I like to use private domains with
>> one catchall mail account that funnels all mail going to that domain
>> into a single account elsewhere.  That way I can give out unique email
>> addresses to all those websites that insist on that, and then when one
>> of those addresses shows up in a bit of spam, I know who sold it to them.
>> 
>
>You don't need many domains for that. Give them hobbs123@, ...
>hobbs124@...,  hobbs125@, and so on. On my site I can pipe all emails
>into one bucket. Should one go rogue on me I can dump it and the sender
>will get an undeliverable message.

My brother did the equivalent with snailmail forty years ago.  His middle
initial is 'A'.  For every subscription he had, he bumped it by one.  When he
got junk mail he knew who to blame.

>Should they be clever and auto-extract your real email via the domain
>use electrohobbstical.com or something for the "disposable" email
>accounts and auto-forward from there.

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:22:16 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:42:04 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:39:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> Why are there no aluminum deck posts that don't rot?
>>>>> Why are there no wooden deck posts that don't rot? 
>>>> They do, but the injected stuff rots screws and can poison animals if
>>>> they lick or crunch it. Small children are a concern as well.
>>> Nah, that stuff's been gone for a decade or two.  The newer stuff isn't as
>>> good but isn't nearly as toxic (not that the AS stuff was anyway).  If you use
>>> sheetrock screws, sure they'll rot off.  OTOH, if you use lumber rated for
>>> *GROUND CONTACT* and stainless screws it'll last decades.  
>>>
>> We are guide dog members so we puppy-sit sometimes. Can't have any wood
>> with toxic stuff in it within "gnawing distance".
> 
> The stuff in use today is not toxic.  Much (copper).
> 

Then why are there the serious sounding warning labels about arsenic and
so on?


>>>>>   ... Why doesn't Home Depot sell stainless steel deck posts?
>>>>>
>>>> Touch to drill. Aluminum would be cheaper and good enough. There is a
>>>> large market but they fail to see it. Galvanized works well, too, it an
>>>> last decades.
>>> Aluminum would be enough of a PITA.  Just use decent lumber and it'll probably
>>> outlast Kalifornica.  ;-)
>>>
>> I found that anything I ever built out of aluminum as a kid, including
>> some outdoor antenna stuff, will most likely even outlast me.
> 
> If you're no longer there when it goes "phut" what's the difference?


It'll ding the legacy and posthumous reputation :-)

Also, I am planning on being there another few decades. Of course, I am
not the deciding authority about that ...

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:35:25 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:22:16 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:42:04 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:39:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> Why are there no aluminum deck posts that don't rot?
>>>>>> Why are there no wooden deck posts that don't rot? 
>>>>> They do, but the injected stuff rots screws and can poison animals if
>>>>> they lick or crunch it. Small children are a concern as well.
>>>> Nah, that stuff's been gone for a decade or two.  The newer stuff isn't as
>>>> good but isn't nearly as toxic (not that the AS stuff was anyway).  If you use
>>>> sheetrock screws, sure they'll rot off.  OTOH, if you use lumber rated for
>>>> *GROUND CONTACT* and stainless screws it'll last decades.  
>>>>
>>> We are guide dog members so we puppy-sit sometimes. Can't have any wood
>>> with toxic stuff in it within "gnawing distance".
>> 
>> The stuff in use today is not toxic.  Much (copper).
>> 
>
>Then why are there the serious sounding warning labels about arsenic and
>so on?
>
>
>>>>>>   ... Why doesn't Home Depot sell stainless steel deck posts?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Touch to drill. Aluminum would be cheaper and good enough. There is a
>>>>> large market but they fail to see it. Galvanized works well, too, it an
>>>>> last decades.
>>>> Aluminum would be enough of a PITA.  Just use decent lumber and it'll probably
>>>> outlast Kalifornica.  ;-)
>>>>
>>> I found that anything I ever built out of aluminum as a kid, including
>>> some outdoor antenna stuff, will most likely even outlast me.
>> 
>> If you're no longer there when it goes "phut" what's the difference?
>
>
>It'll ding the legacy and posthumous reputation :-)

Oh, and they won't think a real nutcase put in aluminum deck posts? ;-)

>Also, I am planning on being there another few decades. Of course, I am
>not the deciding authority about that ...

Better study Spanish.