The definition of a hypocrite, preaching what it does not believe in... -- bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > Subject: Re: PID Controller Design for Ventilator > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > References: <bf481c40-1e60-47b5-8f23-cc7ecf85cf74o@googlegroups.com> <Ku2_G.176842$575.70404@fx38.iad> <d2d879c1-cf13-42f8-9727-8ef27dc2dc65o@googlegroups.com> <rhbfv9$1uir$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0873449a-f166-4870-8f42-ab58457963a2o@googlegroups.com> <rhbpid$aim$1@gioia.aioe.org> <i4tijfpgmocd67d1b46sl6hmud35nurg74@4ax.com> <a679f353-5c4d-455c-b9ba-5d17a1b1a6f8o@googlegroups.com> > From: bitrex <user@example.net> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > In-Reply-To: <a679f353-5c4d-455c-b9ba-5d17a1b1a6f8o@googlegroups.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Lines: 56 > Message-ID: <7Uf_G.131804$GQ4.50601@fx02.iad> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@frugalusenet.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:35:31 UTC > Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com > Bytes: 3479 > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 15:35:31 -0400 > X-Received-Bytes: 3530 > X-Received-Body-CRC: 3064816523 > > On 8/16/2020 2:37 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >> s��ndag den 16. august 2020 kl. 20.03.34 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 17:14:42 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>> <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Aug 2020 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lasse >>>> Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote in >>>> <0873449a-f166-4870-8f42-ab58457963a2o@googlegroups.com>: >>>> >>>>> s=C3=B8ndag den 16. august 2020 kl. 16.31.14 UTC+2 skrev Jan Panteltje: >>>>>> On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Aug 2020 22:46:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Ricketty >>>>> C >>>>>> <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>> <d2d879c1-cf13-42f8-9727-8ef27dc2dc65o@googlegroups.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He shows the only difference between patient triggered and machine triggered >>>>>> >>>>>> waveforms is the negative pressure from the patient trying to draw air in >>>>>> >>>>>> at the very start of the cycle. His diagrams are pretty poor with no registration >>>>>> >>>>>> between the various points on different parameters, but he gets across >>>>>>> the main points. You can do a Google search to find other much better >>>>>>> diagrams. I don't think there are any new concepts to an engineer. >>>>>> >>>>>> No experience with these things >>>>>> but from _my_ life I know breathing is related to oxygen level in the blood. >>>>> >>>>> not >>>>> really, your breathing is mostly related to the amount of CO2 in your lungs >>>>> that's >>>>> why breathing something like pure nitrogen will kill you without you >>>>> even >>>>> noticing >>>> >>>> OK, measure that then! >>> >>> I we are going to have capital punishment, nitrogen sounds like the >>> way to do it to me. >>> >> >> there was a TV program about years ago, the hardliners did not like >> the idea of capital punishment being a quiet painless death possibly >> in euphoria >> > > A "Christian Nation" that regularly uses capital punishment is an odd > concept. > > In Singapore they just hang the condemned; it's quick and cheap and they > don't worry too much about whether when they violate some Abrahamic > commandment, which they don't have, that they should at least be nicer > about breaking it, so they may go about their business afterwards secure > in the knowledge they are still good Christians in the eyes of God. like > the first Commandment actually says "Thou shalt not kill, except if..." > >
PID Controller Design for Ventilator
Started by ●August 15, 2020
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
Never seen someone reply to its own posts on a regular basis, like this one... -- bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > Subject: Re: PID Controller Design for Ventilator > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > References: <bf481c40-1e60-47b5-8f23-cc7ecf85cf74o@googlegroups.com> <Ku2_G.176842$575.70404@fx38.iad> <d2d879c1-cf13-42f8-9727-8ef27dc2dc65o@googlegroups.com> <rhbfv9$1uir$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0873449a-f166-4870-8f42-ab58457963a2o@googlegroups.com> <rhbpid$aim$1@gioia.aioe.org> <i4tijfpgmocd67d1b46sl6hmud35nurg74@4ax.com> <a679f353-5c4d-455c-b9ba-5d17a1b1a6f8o@googlegroups.com> <7Uf_G.131804$GQ4.50601@fx02.iad> > From: bitrex <user@example.net> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > In-Reply-To: <7Uf_G.131804$GQ4.50601@fx02.iad> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Lines: 64 > Message-ID: <3Yf_G.76632$hc5.55499@fx28.iad> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@frugalusenet.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:39:43 UTC > Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com > Bytes: 3362 > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 15:39:42 -0400 > X-Received-Bytes: 3413 > X-Received-Body-CRC: 1349592838 > > On 8/16/2020 3:35 PM, bitrex wrote: >> On 8/16/2020 2:37 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>> s��ndag den 16. august 2020 kl. 20.03.34 UTC+2 skrev >>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 17:14:42 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>>> <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Aug 2020 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT)) it happened >>>>> Lasse >>>>> Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote in >>>>> <0873449a-f166-4870-8f42-ab58457963a2o@googlegroups.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> s=C3=B8ndag den 16. august 2020 kl. 16.31.14 UTC+2 skrev Jan >>>>>> Panteltje: >>>>>>> On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Aug 2020 22:46:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened >>>>>>> Ricketty >>>>>> C >>>>>>> <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>> <d2d879c1-cf13-42f8-9727-8ef27dc2dc65o@googlegroups.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He shows the only difference between patient triggered and >>>>>>>> machine triggered >>>>>>> >>>>>>> waveforms is the negative pressure from the patient trying to draw >>>>>>> air in >>>>>>> >>>>>>> at the very start of the cycle.�� His diagrams are pretty poor with >>>>>>> no registration >>>>>>> >>>>>>> between the various points on different parameters, but he gets >>>>>>> across >>>>>>>> the main points.�� You can do a Google search to find other much >>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>> diagrams.�� I don't think there are any new concepts to an engineer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No experience with these things >>>>>>> but from _my_ life I�� know breathing is related to oxygen level in >>>>>>> the blood. >>>>>> >>>>>> not >>>>>> really, your breathing is mostly related to the amount of CO2 in >>>>>> your lungs >>>>>> that's >>>>>> why breathing something like pure nitrogen will kill you without you >>>>>> even >>>>>> noticing >>>>> >>>>> OK, measure that then! >>>> >>>> I we are going to have capital punishment, nitrogen sounds like the >>>> way to do it to me. >>>> >>> >>> there was a TV program about years ago, the hardliners did not like >>> the idea of capital punishment being a quiet painless death possibly >>> in euphoria >>> >> >> A "Christian Nation" that regularly uses capital punishment is an odd >> concept. > > Certainly can't complain that anyone else is a "moral relativist" at > least, the book with the list in it says what it says. > >
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
On 8/16/2020 3:39 PM, John Doe wrote:> The definition of a hypocrite, preaching what it does not believe in... >You seem like the definition of God's gift. Well, that's what ya moms probably told you, at least.
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
On 8/16/2020 3:42 PM, John Doe wrote:> Never seen someone reply to its own posts on a regular basis, > like this one... >Never seen a man ride dicks so hard, as this one...on these nuts all the time. Must be your life's ambition.
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
bitrex wrote:> Jan Panteltje wrote: >> Ricketty C wrote:>>> He shows the only difference between patient triggered and >>> machine triggered waveforms is the negative pressure from the >>> patient trying to draw air in at the very start of the cycle. >>> His diagrams are pretty poor with no registration between the >>> various points on different parameters, but he gets across the >>> main points. You can do a Google search to find other much >>> better diagrams. I don't think there are any new concepts to an >>> engineer. >> >> No experience with these things but from _my_ life I know >> breathing is related to oxygen level in the blood. For example, >> when I try biking very fast I need deeper and more often >> breathing than when I am pressing buttons on a mouse or keyboard >> and sitting still. In the 'overall loop' one should measure >> oxygen level in the blood and based on that pump more or less >> air, there is where your loop is. Compare it to those funny >> thermostats mounted outside that control the heating inside I >> have seen those, never the correct temperature inside... Measure >> where you want it controlled, not somewhere else. I would not >> want to be on a machine that without the oxygen level feedback >> was just pumping me, could be vary dangerous. Very important with >> people with covid-19 related changing lung damage.> In supportive ventilation the patient triggers the inhale, the > autonomic nervous system is still working 100% and knows when to > take a breath. > > I don't think you'd do forced ventilation in a covid-19 illness > situation, that's for when the patient is in a coma or deeply > sedated or something.Or watching women's basketball.
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
bitrex wrote:> > In Singapore they just hang the condemned; it's quick and cheap and > they don't worry too much about whether when they violate some > Abrahamic commandment, which they don't have, that they should at > least be nicer about breaking it, so they may go about their business > afterwards secure in the knowledge they are still good Christians in > the eyes of God. like the first Commandment actually says "Thou shalt > not kill, except if..."What it actually says is thou shall not commit murder. The commandment against "false witness" is also misinterpreted as a commandment against lying in general.
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
On 8/15/2020 9:01 PM, Ricketty C wrote:> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 11:07:10 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote: >> On 8/15/2020 6:44 PM, Ricketty C wrote: >>> I understand the basics of PID design, but if you can't describe the >>> thing being controlled, how can you design the controller other than >>> trial and error? >>> >>> The "plant" is a motor on a tall reducing gear (~300:1) turning an arm >>> that presses on a bag producing an air flow with the loop controlled by >>> a pressure measurement. >> >> YOu (they) are controlling the current to a motor. The motor is driving a >> mechanism. The mechanism integrates the action of the motor. The mechanism >> pushes (?) air into the lungs via some sort of function that maps >> mechanism position to air volume "pushed". >> >> No idea what you are *measuring* -- and how it fits into the above. >> >> Presumably, what you are wanting to control is the RATE of air being >> pushed into the lungs (with possible clamps on the total volume expelled) >> >> But, you're only CONTROLLING the current to the motor. >> >> (Do you see all of the "transfer functions" that are involved in mapping >> the current to the "flow rate"?) >> >>> One issue I'm seeing discussed is a tradeoff on the PWM resolution vs. >>> frequency. Presently they are using 3.6 kHz with 8 bit PWM control. I >>> kinda wonder if a sigma-delta might be better, but that might require >>> some external logic. They seem to be shy of pushing the CPU too much >>> even after changing from an Arduino CPU at 20 MHz to an ARM CM4F at 80 >>> MHz. >>> >>> The big concern is the overshoot when ramping up the pressure between >>> exhale and inhale. In general, would it be better to simply jump the >>> pressure set point at once and let the PID controller do its thing, >>> optimizing the response time as best as possible controlling overshoot >>> -or- would it be better to run up the pressure set point over a period >>> of time which would seem to place less demand on the PID controller? >>> >>> The model of the lung seems to include a spring constant (I think of >>> this as a capacitor) in parallel with a dissipative element (a dashpot >>> or resistor in electronics). The motor is highly geared to a relatively >>> lightweight arm pushing on a bag with air passing through a tube of >>> relatively low restriction. So initially the dominate opposition to >>> flow will be the dissipation/resistor, i.e. proportional to the rate of >>> airflow. This in turn is proportional to the arm speed (although not >>> constant through the stroke due to the bag geometry). The arm speed is >>> what is controlled by the PWM (approximately). >>> >>> The lung model shows the dashpot and spring in parallel, but I'm not >>> sure that's appropriate. The response to air entering the lung will be >>> the sum of the airway resistance (dashpot) and the lung compliance >>> (spring) which would be a series combination to obtain the resulting air >>> pressure. Well, maybe that is right for the mechanical model, but in >>> the electrical equivalent if pressure is the same as voltage it would be >>> a series arrangement. >>> >>> Anyway, the lung would seem to be a capacitor and a resistor. So if >>> driven by a P only controller, is there any way it could ring? I was >>> shown data measured that showed huge ringing from an initial step >>> function in the set point. >>> >>> I watched some videos and it seems they use both pressure regulated and >>> flow regulated cycles. I expect to see similar results with either >>> method. >>> >>> Interesting >>> > > First, no, the current to the motor is not controlled, the voltage is > controlled.Gee, silly me! I'd have thought you'd have driven the mechanism with a FORCE necessary to overcome the losses in the mechanism and not exceed the patient's airway capability. Let the motor attain whatever SPEED it needs to use up that available current and do so at a rate limited by it's -- and the mechanism's - dynamics... without being hindered by the control loop's performance. [You do realize you'll have to ensure you don't command the motor to change speed faster than it/mechanism can support? Otherwise your analysis of the control system will fall apart]> I've already thought about the "transfer functions" which you seem to want > to make complex.Because they ALWAYS are when there's anything more than a "motorshaft with an encoder on it". Mechanisms and 'real world applications" invariably introduce lag. Lag leads to oscillation -- or, highly overdamped tuning.> They are rather simple at a first approximation. TheWhich means you're likely missing many of the "little things" that will conspire to make tuning harder and loop performance far from ideal. I.e., why have a loop if you don't expect to GAIN something from it? You have some capture delay for the sensed variable. If it's a flash converter, that can be near instantaneous. But, in practice, there's likely some signal conditioning in front that limits the sensor's response (adds delay). There's the location of the sensor wrt the actuator. (Also, wrt the actual field variable). You're inevitably measuring something that isn't the same (instantaneous) thing as what you are controlling/influencing. (And, isn't really the same as the field variable that you REALLY want to be dealing with!) There's some delay in bringing about the actuator's action. Some of this is related to the drive interface while some is inherent in the capabilities (limitations) of the actuator. The mechanism coupling the actuator to the process may have nonlinearities and delays (backlash in gearboxes is a common foe). There's a delay in the processing required to decide how to drive the actuator, "now". How each of these respond over their operating ranges and within a particular "cycle" need to be analyzed BEFORE you can dismiss them as being irrelevant (*if* you can dismiss them). Otherwise, you'll scratch your head wondering why the loop performs like crap.> motor PWM drive controls the force on the bag which to a first approximation > is the pressure in the bag. It will vary some through the stroke because of > the bag geometry, more at first, less after the initial portion. So I'll > say the pressure into a constant resistance to air flow is proportional to > the PWM drive. > > The lung (as I've said) is the pneumatic equivalent of an RC series > arrangement. Initially the counter force is all dissipative (air flow > resistance) and the effect of the capacitor (lung elastance) is minimal in > comparison. As the lung inflates the elastance becomes a larger factor.And the "lung" will vary from one individual to the next. Concentrate on the things you have control over, first -- the product's design. If there are variables in its performance, figure out how to compensate for them BEFORE you add the variable that is the "lung" (or, the provider operating the device!)> The only part that is at issue is the initial response to the step function > of the control variable. That would seem to be dominated by proportional > effects. > > I do see that there is little about my explanation that you understand. If > you have questions I would be happy to answer, but you seem to be > overwhelmed by it all.(sigh) True to form, you underestimate the complexity of the problem and dismiss folks who have experience solving similar problems because they say things that you don't want to hear (e.g., FDA approval process) or ask questions that you can't answer ("That's not important"). [The FDA process would have told you that you should PROVE those things to be unimportant -- instead of hand-waving them away in "first-order approximations".] Classic example of Dunning-Kruger Effect. If I said I've designed and implemented 50 PID loops, I'd probably be low by a factor of 5! And, yours is "trivial", by comparison! It's not interacting with 6 or 7 other loops, simultaneously. For example: Noticing a higher than desired ejection force for a tabletting station (35-75 in operation concurrently) would lead the associated controller to move the formation of the tablet *up* in the die. This requires updating the upper punch penetration and lower punch penetration settings (mechanisms!) in-synchrony to ensure the distance between punch tips remains unchanged. (heaven forbid you let the punch tips TOUCH -- crunch!). Of course, the mechanisms for each are different so the mechanical gains and dynamics of their mechanisms differ. I.e., the control loops governing their "positions" (at the end of motorized mechanisms; revolutions becomes tenths of thousandths of inches) differ and can't be assumed to travel (adjust) at identical rates. Less distance to travel between it's formation and ejection AND likely out of any "barreled" portion of the die (even steel wears when subjected to 10T events at 200Hz day in and day out). Ah, but that means EVERY tabletting station will now form a tablet at that new displacement! (And, stations are forming tablets WHILE THE PUNCHES PENETRATIONS ARE "IN MOTION"!) What if some other station NOW exhibits a higher ejection force? Do you move the tablet up even further in the die? Do you ignore the "problem"? Coerce the previous station to tolerate a compromise position? How many tablets do you end up discarding for each tradeoff? When do you halt the process and signal the operator to change the tooling (punches/die) because the process has moved out of your control region? While the punches are in motion, tablets are being formed. The forces they experience in their formation is approximately (nonlinearly!) related to the weight (mass) of the tablet thus formed. This is intuitive -- a "fixed" amount of material being compressed to a particular "final size". So, if there is any variation between punch-tip-to-punch-tip distance WHILE UNDER ADJUSTMENT, it manifests as "weight variation" (though you can't deduce whether a high force means an overweight tablet or an underweight tablet because you don't know the dimensions of the actual tablet!). So, the control loop that adjust the amount of material to install in each die sees that it needs to compensate (even though it might be operating at the ideal point IF THE PUNCHES HAD SETTLED INTO THEIR CORRECT PLACES). As a result, it alters the fill -- and, thus, weights -- of the other tabletting stations that haven't experienced this disturbance -- yet! I.e., the loop can make WORSE product than if it hadn't been in place! [Do you remember that threee-letter agency, begins with an F?] As the tablet is formed higher in the die, there is increased opportunity for material ("tablet powder... 'granulation') to incompletely fill the die (it is gravity fed). This will likely affect ALL tabletting stations so you want to pool the observations of all of the control loops before deciding that you have a "fill problem". If so, you tweek the setpoint of the hopper controllers -- which then feeds back into the mechanical processing of all of the tabletting stations served by that hopper (typically two hoppers per machine). All of these changes affect real physical characteristics of the tablets produced: weight, hardness, friability, dissolution time, etc. Thus, there are "offline" tests performed by manufacturing staff to test these parameters and tweek the press based on their results. But, these tests often take on the order of minutes or fractional hours... the machine is no longer in the same configuration it was when the tablets sampled were produced! So, you have to keep track of which tablets were actually sampled, along with the observations made during their formulation, in order to apply the desired corrections to the CURRENT process. This is ONE product. With *dozens* of interacting control loops manufacturing product (at 200 completed items per second) for a regulated (FDA) industry. Would you like to discuss using control theory to assist in autopilot navigation? Or, controlling temperature/humidity/flow in a process air handler? Or controling the intensity of a lamp to ensure it accurately detects the "color" of a blood assay? Or, controlling the formulation of a "candy shell" on a small, oval piece of chocolate?? :> But, hey, I'm clearly "overwhelmed" by a paddle pushing on an Ambubag. Yeah, that.
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
On 8/16/2020 8:33 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:> søndag den 16. august 2020 kl. 17.14.22 UTC+2 skrev>> I wonder how many old ladies ricky's team plans to kill, trying to learn >> PIDs and stuff. > > I very much doubt they'll be allowed to hook anything living up to a > ventilator hacked together by amateurs, no matter how well-meaning they are > > seems like an exercise in feeling like they are "doing something"That had been DONE more than a decade ago (by at least one college student without the "benefit" of an international team of "experts"). And, more recently, by REAL PROFESSIONALS (with assets that could be claimed in litigation!). Wow! I'm jealous! I wish I had all of that free (unpaid) time to throw away! I try hard to make my /pro bono/ efforts bear fruit as I'm not keen on throwing away hours of my life, pointlessly (developed a machine to test/assess, catalog and install software -- OS+apps -- on 1000 donated laptops for "underprivileged" kids for this coming school year)
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
On 8/16/2020 9:46 AM, bitrex wrote:> On 8/16/2020 11:14 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen >> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >> >>> søndag den 16. august 2020 kl. 16.31.14 UTC+2 skrev Jan Panteltje: >>>> On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Aug 2020 22:46:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Ricketty C >>>> <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in >>>> <d2d879c1-cf13-42f8-9727-8ef27dc2dc65o@googlegroups.com>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> He shows the only difference between patient triggered and machine triggered >>>>> waveforms is the negative pressure from the patient trying to draw air in >>>>> at the very start of the cycle. His diagrams are pretty poor with no >>>>> registration >>>>> between the various points on different parameters, but he gets across >>>>> the main points. You can do a Google search to find other much better >>>>> diagrams. I don't think there are any new concepts to an engineer. >>>> >>>> No experience with these things >>>> but from _my_ life I know breathing is related to oxygen level in the blood. >>> >>> not really, your breathing is mostly related to the amount of CO2 in your lungs >>> that's why breathing something like pure nitrogen will kill you without you >>> even noticing >> >> I wonder how many old ladies ricky's team plans to kill, trying to >> learn PIDs and stuff. >> >> >> > > The Bird Mark 8 was a pretty simple, totally hydro-mechanical gizmo. 1940s > tech, used in hospitals in the US well into the 1970s and probably longer > elsewhere. > > "This is not an exact science, probably at best a guess": > > <https://youtu.be/SG3zlpRSfWE?t=102> > > Still, probably saved way more old ladies than it killed. > > Some device like OP is talking about with an electronically-controlled > squeeze-bag seems to intrinsically limit the potential hazardous failure modes. > You only have so much air to work with and the mechanical "squeezer" can only > physically move so fast.I can't find the original alumni newsletter but a web search turns up an indirect reference: "At MIT, the MIT Emergency Ventilator Project, is dedicated to creating an open-source, low-cost ventilator, based on a project that was completed in a MIT engineering class back in 2010. Students made a ventilator prototype using less than $200 of materials, which is much cheaper than the typical ventilator that can cost as much as $30,000. Today, these materials would cost close to $400 or $500." Note "class back in 2010". <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/mit-volunteers-created-open-source-low-cost-ventilator-for-covid-19.html> It's important to note that MIT expressly indicated it would NOT approach the FDA for approvals! Next, we can invent a conveyance to transport people and goods without the need for horses!!
Reply by ●August 16, 20202020-08-16
On 8/16/2020 4:01 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> bitrex wrote: >> >> In Singapore they just hang the condemned; it's quick and cheap and >> they don't worry too much about whether when they violate some >> Abrahamic commandment, which they don't have, that they should at >> least be nicer about breaking it, so they may go about their business >> afterwards secure in the knowledge they are still good Christians in >> the eyes of God. like the first Commandment actually says "Thou shalt >> not kill, except if..." > > What it actually says is thou shall not commit murder. The commandment > against "false witness" is also misinterpreted as a commandment against > lying in general. > > >Interpreting it as "thou shalt not murder" which may be closer to the original Hebrew meaning, 5000 years ago, adds an escape route. what's a murder? "killing of an innocent person." Well what's an innocent person. Someone who isn't guilty. Who convicts people and determines if they're guilty? Humans do. Based on what. On what their particular ideas of what is "moral" in a particular situation. This (otherwise not bad) NR article doesn't really go far enough. _all_ use of the Ten Commandments to justify actions of the state cheapen the Ten Commandments. <https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/12/you-can-kill-dont-murder-dennis-prager/>
