On 3/4/23 18:28, Guy Dunphy wrote: Dave McGuire, AK4HZ? Jan 26:"the document being shipped from Australia to the LSSM, it arrived intact a couple of days ago and is in the scanning queue."
Has there been an update on this?
Did I miss a post (again) mentioning where the file(s) have been posted? No, and no. How's the scanning going? I don't know; I will check today and report back. Is there any evaluation of the type and range of information in that 1.5 inch thick stack? Possibly, but not by me. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
OK Steve thank you for the information regarding the ? Keysight, part number is 08510-90064 document and reference to the ?Microwaves101.com section on connector care ? I will PM you later on in the week Paul ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve - Home
Sent: 04 March 2023 23:06
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors? Hi Paul, It has been a while, I hope all is well with you. I retired 4 years ago so my trips to the UK will be less frequent but will be for pleasure rather than work! The document we regularly refer to for connector care is available from Keysight, part number is 08510-90064 and is a free download. See also the Microwaves101.com section on connector care for a condensed table of connector torque requirements.? Cheers,
On Mar 4, 2023, at 4:45 PM, Paul Bicknell <admin@...> wrote:
? Hi Steve it has been a long time since we have spoken ? Regarding maximum torque I recently read about the torque requirements but unfortunately I cannot find the article? it defined the Torque settings for SMA , 3.5 , 2.92,alao 2.4 , 1.85 and they were not all the same? ? Do you or anyone have the Torque settings for the above connectors ? ? Gauging of connectors was mandatory in our metrology labs, as was use of a calibrated torque wrench for the connections. In the event we had to mate SMA to 3.5 mm, 3.5 to 2.92, etc. (any connection that was between mateable but ?non identical connector types) the maximum torque was limited to 5 lb/in to prevent damage to the precision connectors.? ? Or male SMA to female 3.5 mm probably.? ?SMA was originally designed to be inexpensive, and the center pin protrusion is not well controlled.? ?I've heard of people using connector gauges to check protrusion before mating,? but I haven't tried it myself.? ?HTH.? ? ? Jim Ford Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- Date: 3/4/23 9:25 AM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors ?It is not just generic cheap SMA connectors. Mini circuits SMA plugs have been known to ruin 2.92mm jacks. Avoid connecting ANY SMA males to 2.92mm females.
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
So the HUBER+SUHNER? Torque wrench 74 Z-0-0-21 is set to 1 Nm? = 8.85 in lbs ? OK for SMA but a bit high for For 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm as the recommended torque is 8 in-lbs Perhaps HUBER+SUHNER? should standardise there 8 mm Torque wrench to below 1 Nm at 8 in lbs making it compliant ?with ??? ??? SMA , 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm made out of stainless steel My HUBER+SUHNER? Torque wrench 74 Z-0-0-21 came in with a lode of ex aircraft spares still in its original sealed rapping a good find for me ? Paul ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Bicknell
Sent: 04 March 2023 23:15
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors? Hi Tom Thank you for the information and from memory that looks familiar as I thought it was strange that the SMA was 4 in-lbs and the 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm recommended torque is higher at 8 in-lbs but the SMA value I was given must have been for Brass It all makes sense now. my Suhner Torque ranch is set to 1Nm I must check what this = in-lbs Regards Paul ? ? From Microwaves101.com:
??????? SMA (stainless steel) 7-10 in-lbs
??????? SMA (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? SSMA (stainless steel) 7-8 in-lbs
??????? SMM (stainless steel) 2-3 in-lbs
??????? SMC (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? Type N 12-15 in-lbs
??????? TNC 12-15 in-lbs
??????? SC 12-15 in-lbs
??? ??? For 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm recommended torque is 8 in-lbs
??? ??? To connect 3.5 or 2.92 to SMA, 5 in-lbs
??? ??? For 1 mm connectors, 4 in.-lbs.
Different sources give slightly different values, so use whatever the manufacturer recommends. But in the absence of specific information, the above values should be fine.
--Cheers,
Tom
-- Prof. Thomas H. Lee Allen Ctr., Rm. 205 420 Via Palou Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4070 On 3/4/2023 14:45, Paul Bicknell wrote: Hi Steve it has been a long time since we have spoken ? Regarding maximum torque I recently read about the torque requirements but unfortunately I cannot find the article? it defined the Torque settings for SMA , 3.5 , 2.92,alao 2.4 , 1.85 and they were not all the same? ? Do you or anyone have the Torque settings for the above connectors
?
|
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ? Jan 26:"the document being shipped from Australia to the LSSM, it arrived intact a couple of days ago and is in the scanning queue." Has there been an update on this? Did I miss a post (again) mentioning where the file(s) have been posted? How's the scanning going? Is there any evaluation of the type and range of information in that 1.5 inch thick stack? Asking because I'm currently going through a recent acquisition of HP spare parts, most with only the HP part number identifiers. The more of them I can identify as standard parts and merge with my main, pretty compact, parts stock the better. But my set of HP part number cross-refs is quite limited.  
|
Re: HP 8591e Power supply
On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 04:24 AM, george edmonds wrote:
The normal problem that I have found is that one of the SMD diodes CR301 to CR306 goes leaky and prevents the supply ever turning on.
I power up the control board from a low voltage current limited supply to fault find,? I have even used a 9V PP3 battery to do so.
Hi George, all,
thank you! I resumed this thread and found the Geroge's tips. Thank you very much @George. I started to check the two diode that I am able to identify on the left of T301 (CR301 and CR306) and both seem OK. CR301 is also directly connected to a transistor Q301 that I am not able to identify (1AM or IAM ??).
Could you so kind to explain how I can use a 9V pp3 battery to check this board? Do you mean inserted with the other two boards in the assy or I can test it alone on my desk and a simple 9V battery? 
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Hi Tom Thank you for the information and from memory that looks familiar as I thought it was strange that the SMA was 4 in-lbs and the 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm recommended torque is higher at 8 in-lbs but the SMA value I was given must have been for Brass It all makes sense now. my Suhner Torque ranch is set to 1Nm I must check what this = in-lbs Regards Paul ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Lee
Sent: 04 March 2023 22:55
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors? From Microwaves101.com:
??????? SMA (stainless steel) 7-10 in-lbs
??????? SMA (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? SSMA (stainless steel) 7-8 in-lbs
??????? SMM (stainless steel) 2-3 in-lbs
??????? SMC (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? Type N 12-15 in-lbs
??????? TNC 12-15 in-lbs
??????? SC 12-15 in-lbs
??? ??? For 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm recommended torque is 8 in-lbs
??? ??? To connect 3.5 or 2.92 to SMA, 5 in-lbs
??? ??? For 1 mm connectors, 4 in.-lbs.
Different sources give slightly different values, so use whatever the manufacturer recommends. But in the absence of specific information, the above values should be fine.
--Cheers,
Tom
-- Prof. Thomas H. Lee Allen Ctr., Rm. 205 420 Via Palou Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4070 On 3/4/2023 14:45, Paul Bicknell wrote: Hi Steve it has been a long time since we have spoken ? Regarding maximum torque I recently read about the torque requirements but unfortunately I cannot find the article? it defined the Torque settings for SMA , 3.5 , 2.92,alao 2.4 , 1.85 and they were not all the same? ? Do you or anyone have the Torque settings for the above connectors
?
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Thanks Tom, saved me from doing a search for the quotes!
Cheers,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2023, at 4:55 PM, Tom Lee <tomlee@...> wrote:
?
From Microwaves101.com:
??????? SMA (stainless steel) 7-10 in-lbs
??????? SMA (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? SSMA (stainless steel) 7-8 in-lbs
??????? SMM (stainless steel) 2-3 in-lbs
??????? SMC (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? Type N 12-15 in-lbs
??????? TNC 12-15 in-lbs
??????? SC 12-15 in-lbs
??? ??? For 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm recommended torque is 8 in-lbs
??? ??? To connect 3.5 or 2.92 to SMA, 5 in-lbs
??? ??? For 1 mm connectors, 4 in.-lbs.
Different sources give slightly different values, so use whatever
the manufacturer recommends. But in the absence of specific
information, the above values should be fine.
--Cheers,
Tom
--
Prof. Thomas H. Lee
Allen Ctr., Rm. 205
420 Via Palou Mall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-4070
On 3/4/2023 14:45, Paul Bicknell wrote:
Hi
Steve it has been a long time since we have spoken
?
Regarding
maximum torque I recently read about the torque
requirements but unfortunately I cannot find the article? it
defined the
Torque settings for SMA , 3.5 , 2.92,alao
2.4 , 1.85 and they were not all the same?
?
Do you or anyone have the Torque settings
for the above connectors
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Hi Paul,
It has been a while, I hope all is well with you. I retired 4 years ago so my trips to the UK will be less frequent but will be for pleasure rather than work!
The document we regularly refer to for connector care is available from Keysight, part number is 08510-90064 and is a free download. See also the Microwaves101.com section on connector care for a condensed table of connector torque requirements.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2023, at 4:45 PM, Paul Bicknell <admin@...> wrote:
? Hi Steve it has been a long time since we have spoken ? Regarding maximum torque I recently read about the torque requirements but unfortunately I cannot find the article? it defined the Torque settings for SMA , 3.5 , 2.92,alao 2.4 , 1.85 and they were not all the same? ? Do you or anyone have the Torque settings for the above connectors ? ? Gauging of connectors was mandatory in our metrology labs, as was use of a calibrated torque wrench for the connections. In the event we had to mate SMA to 3.5 mm, 3.5 to 2.92, etc. (any connection that was between mateable but ?non identical connector types) the maximum torque was limited to 5 lb/in to prevent damage to the precision connectors.? ? Or male SMA to female 3.5 mm probably.? ?SMA was originally designed to be inexpensive, and the center pin protrusion is not well controlled.? ?I've heard of people using connector gauges to check protrusion before mating,? but I haven't tried it myself.? ?HTH.? ? ? Jim Ford Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- Date: 3/4/23 9:25 AM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors ?It is not just generic cheap SMA connectors. Mini circuits SMA plugs have been known to ruin 2.92mm jacks. Avoid connecting ANY SMA males to 2.92mm females.
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
From Microwaves101.com:
??????? SMA (stainless steel) 7-10 in-lbs
??????? SMA (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? SSMA (stainless steel) 7-8 in-lbs
??????? SMM (stainless steel) 2-3 in-lbs
??????? SMC (brass) 3-5 in-lbs
??????? Type N 12-15 in-lbs
??????? TNC 12-15 in-lbs
??????? SC 12-15 in-lbs
??? ??? For 3.5mm, 2.92mm, and 1.85mm recommended torque is 8 in-lbs
??? ??? To connect 3.5 or 2.92 to SMA, 5 in-lbs
??? ??? For 1 mm connectors, 4 in.-lbs.
Different sources give slightly different values, so use whatever
the manufacturer recommends. But in the absence of specific
information, the above values should be fine.
--Cheers,
Tom
--
Prof. Thomas H. Lee
Allen Ctr., Rm. 205
420 Via Palou Mall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-4070
On 3/4/2023 14:45, Paul Bicknell wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi
Steve it has been a long time since we have spoken
?
Regarding
maximum torque I recently read about the torque
requirements but unfortunately I cannot find the article? it
defined the
Torque settings for SMA , 3.5 , 2.92,alao
2.4 , 1.85 and they were not all the same?
?
Do you or anyone have the Torque settings
for the above connectors
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Hi Steve it has been a long time since we have spoken ? Regarding maximum torque I recently read about the torque requirements but unfortunately I cannot find the article? it defined the Torque settings for SMA , 3.5 , 2.92,alao 2.4 , 1.85 and they were not all the same? ? Do you or anyone have the Torque settings for the above connectors ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve - Home
Sent: 04 March 2023 21:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors? Gauging of connectors was mandatory in our metrology labs, as was use of a calibrated torque wrench for the connections. In the event we had to mate SMA to 3.5 mm, 3.5 to 2.92, etc. (any connection that was between mateable but ?non identical connector types) the maximum torque was limited to 5 lb/in to prevent damage to the precision connectors.? ? Or male SMA to female 3.5 mm probably.? ?SMA was originally designed to be inexpensive, and the center pin protrusion is not well controlled.? ?I've heard of people using connector gauges to check protrusion before mating,? but I haven't tried it myself.? ?HTH.? ? ? Jim Ford Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- Date: 3/4/23 9:25 AM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors ?It is not just generic cheap SMA connectors. Mini circuits SMA plugs have been known to ruin 2.92mm jacks. Avoid connecting ANY SMA males to 2.92mm females.
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Gauging of connectors was mandatory in our metrology labs, as was use of a calibrated torque wrench for the connections. In the event we had to mate SMA to 3.5 mm, 3.5 to 2.92, etc. (any connection that was between mateable but ?non identical connector types) the maximum torque was limited to 5 lb/in to prevent damage to the precision connectors.? Steve
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2023, at 2:19 PM, Jim Ford <james.ford@...> wrote:
? Or male SMA to female 3.5 mm probably.? ?SMA was originally designed to be inexpensive, and the center pin protrusion is not well controlled.? ?I've heard of people using connector gauges to check protrusion before mating,? but I haven't tried it myself.? ?HTH.? ? ? Jim Ford
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Willy <ratn9ne@...> Date: 3/4/23 9:25 AM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
?It is not just generic cheap SMA connectors. Mini circuits SMA plugs have been known to ruin 2.92mm jacks. Avoid connecting ANY SMA males to 2.92mm females.
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Hi Paul!?
Yes, Mini Circuit Labs (MCL) is very much different firm from when Harvey Kaylie left AIL and started making DBM's on his kitchen table in the Bronx (he used relay cans because they were cheap, soldered so hermetic, and people recognized them). The evolution of their company is incredible.
I was invited to bring some Ham MW equipment to the IMS in Baltimore in 2011 or so. I displayed the stuff and also got to walk around the place and look at the exhibits. At a time when a booth for the week was like 10x20 feet and cost in the thousands for the week (15-20 K for a booth??), MCL had, like, 30 booths worth of space and were showing off 18 GHz Test Cables, Signal Generators up to 18 or 26 GHz all sorts of MW products, higher than 2 GHz. They must of had 50 people working the spaces. This was 12 years back. They have changed and are probably the single largest supply of microwave parts going as far as single source and variety.
73
Jeff Kruth
In a message dated 3/4/2023 3:44:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, admin@... writes:
?
Hi Matt
I stand corrected I was thinking about the original MiniCircuits rang that
didn't go much above 2 Ghz irrespective off the connector and I think that
might be the range that the other person was referring to that damages a SMA
3.5
The MiniCircuits of to day is a much different company compared to what it
was 25 years ago as you point out in your link You are obviously Passionate
about MiniCircuits and that is not a bad thing as I Have mainly come across
MiniCircuits in satellite IF paths?
Regards Paul
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected][mailto: [email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Huszagh Sent: 04 March 2023 19:01 To: Paul Bicknell < admin@...>; [email protected]Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors "Paul Bicknell" < admin@...> writes: > Just a line from Maury MW > > Regarding Mini circuits they are predominately below 2 GHz so no > reason Mating with APC 3.5 or APC 2.92 connectors What is this based on? I doubt most MiniCircuits SMA connectors are only rated to 2 GHz... If you're refering to adapters, the only ones rated to 2 GHz are SMA to BNC adapters: The rest go to much higher frequencies - typically 18 GHz, but even 26.5GHz for SMA to 3.5 mm. If you're referring to modules, I very much doubt MiniCircuits would use connectors not rated to the frequency rating of the module (be it filters, couplers, etc.). If you're mating SMA to 2.92 and you care about your 2.92 connector, you should gage the SMA connector prior to mating - that applies regardless of manufacturer. For what it's worth, all my MiniCircuits SMA connectors have been in spec according to my Maury SMA gage kit when received. It doesn't surprise me at all that mating SMA male to 2.92 female damages the 2.92 female with sufficient frequency, but I don't think that's a minicircuits problem. You're mating a precision connector to a non-precision connector. If you're doing that, gage your connectors. Matt
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Hi Matt
I stand corrected I was thinking about the original MiniCircuits rang that
didn't go much above 2 Ghz irrespective off the connector and I think that
might be the range that the other person was referring to that damages a SMA
3.5
The MiniCircuits of to day is a much different company compared to what it
was 25 years ago as you point out in your link You are obviously Passionate
about MiniCircuits and that is not a bad thing as I Have mainly come across
MiniCircuits in satellite IF paths
Regards Paul
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected][mailto: [email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Huszagh Sent: 04 March 2023 19:01 To: Paul Bicknell <admin@...>; [email protected]Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors "Paul Bicknell" <admin@...> writes: Just a line from Maury MW
Regarding Mini circuits they are predominately below 2 GHz so no
reason Mating with APC 3.5 or APC 2.92 connectors What is this based on? I doubt most MiniCircuits SMA connectors are only rated to 2 GHz... If you're refering to adapters, the only ones rated to 2 GHz are SMA to BNC adapters: The rest go to much higher frequencies - typically 18 GHz, but even 26.5GHz for SMA to 3.5 mm. If you're referring to modules, I very much doubt MiniCircuits would use connectors not rated to the frequency rating of the module (be it filters, couplers, etc.). If you're mating SMA to 2.92 and you care about your 2.92 connector, you should gage the SMA connector prior to mating - that applies regardless of manufacturer. For what it's worth, all my MiniCircuits SMA connectors have been in spec according to my Maury SMA gage kit when received. It doesn't surprise me at all that mating SMA male to 2.92 female damages the 2.92 female with sufficient frequency, but I don't think that's a minicircuits problem. You're mating a precision connector to a non-precision connector. If you're doing that, gage your connectors. Matt
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Or male SMA to female 3.5 mm probably.? ?SMA was originally designed to be inexpensive, and the center pin protrusion is not well controlled.? ?I've heard of people using connector gauges to check protrusion before mating,? but I haven't tried it myself.? ?HTH.? ? ? Jim Ford
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: Willy <ratn9ne@...> Date: 3/4/23 9:25 AM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
?It is not just generic cheap SMA connectors. Mini circuits SMA plugs have been known to ruin 2.92mm jacks. Avoid connecting ANY SMA males to 2.92mm females.
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
"Paul Bicknell" <admin@...> writes: Just a line from Maury MW
Regarding Mini circuits they are predominately below 2 GHz so no reason Mating with APC 3.5 or APC 2.92 connectors What is this based on? I doubt most MiniCircuits SMA connectors are only rated to 2 GHz... If you're refering to adapters, the only ones rated to 2 GHz are SMA to BNC adapters: The rest go to much higher frequencies - typically 18 GHz, but even 26.5GHz for SMA to 3.5 mm. If you're referring to modules, I very much doubt MiniCircuits would use connectors not rated to the frequency rating of the module (be it filters, couplers, etc.). If you're mating SMA to 2.92 and you care about your 2.92 connector, you should gage the SMA connector prior to mating - that applies regardless of manufacturer. For what it's worth, all my MiniCircuits SMA connectors have been in spec according to my Maury SMA gage kit when received. It doesn't surprise me at all that mating SMA male to 2.92 female damages the 2.92 female with sufficient frequency, but I don't think that's a minicircuits problem. You're mating a precision connector to a non-precision connector. If you're doing that, gage your connectors. Matt
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Just a line from Maury MW Regarding Mini circuits they are predominately below 2 GHz so no reason Mating with APC 3.5 or APC 2.92 connectors ? Paul ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Willy
Sent: 04 March 2023 17:25
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors ? ?It is not just generic cheap SMA connectors. Mini circuits SMA plugs have been known to ruin 2.92mm jacks. Avoid connecting ANY SMA males to 2.92mm females.
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
?It is not just generic cheap SMA connectors. Mini circuits SMA plugs have been known to ruin 2.92mm jacks. Avoid connecting ANY SMA males to 2.92mm females.
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Thanks On 2023. 03. 03. 21:40, Bruce wrote: Tam -
Interesting use of Decade - spoken lie a true engineer :-)
Cheers!
Bruce
Quoting Tam Hanna <tamhan@...>:
China is easy to misunderstand. Sadly, I am not allowed by NDA with a client to go into detail.
Let me ONLY say that - while bashing the Chinese gets you brownie points with the good looking Conservative girl down the road, and pisses off the libz, you are dealing with an ancient civilization which, until about 100 years ago, could and did easily rebuff offers from Western powers. Then the century of shame came, but now they are back again to the normal status.
The Chinese are a deeply manufacturing oriented civilization, are 1.2 billion strong in manpower, with a Conservative government and no social decay. For them, manufacturing and trade of durable goods is the core of civilization. By numbers alone, even if they were a decade stupider, the sheer amount of more men would be enough to ensure that they still have an equal absolute number of great engineers to the USA. And to be clear there is no evidence of the Chinese being stupider at all.
Plus, their social order and culture means that they work together more efficiently by and large. Do not let Conservative pundits misguide you - OK, face orientation MAY lead to minimal inefficiencies, but the otherwise higher work ethic compensates for that. It is like a very fast one handed cigar roller, and a decently fast two handed one.
To my Conservative brothers: feel free to - misguidedly - hate the Chinese. I incidentally still wait for someone to show me on the doll, where the Chinese hurt him. But ignore them at your peril.
I type this in English, but if I had a son, he would learn Chinese.
Tam
On 2023. 03. 03. 20:04, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 3/3/23 13:44, Martin Rickes wrote:
Calma chicos :) there's no need for inappropriate language here. ? There certainly isn't.? And I'm sure that wasn't appreciated by any of the respected, educated engineers here who happen to be Asian.
? We are unified here by the purity of engineering, and common interests, passions, and professions.
???????????? -Dave
With best regards
Tam HANNA
--
Enjoy electronics, 3D printing and cigars? Join more than 21000 followers on my Instagram at
With best regards Tam HANNA -- Enjoy electronics, 3D printing and cigars? Join more than 21000 followers on my Instagram at
|
Re: Unknown component on HP1345A monitor
Hello all,
Looks like an axial Kemet solid Tantalum electrolytic capacitor, 2,2 uF, 20V.
Kind regards,
Thomas
|
Re: Mating APC 3.5 with APC 2.92 connectors
Hi Dave, many thanks for the paper also from me, very informative! Hi Martin,
unless you do some very critical work and need to see 50dB of matching... :)
I think, this isn't even possible with commercial grade equipment. When I worked with the PNA-X and the Rosenberger 67GHz 2,92mm cal kit, I have noticed that the fixed load is assumed as ideal over the full frequency range. The actual load would have to have a better match than 50dB to measure 50dB match. I don't think it has. 40dB match is already very challenging. Also, opening and closing the connector yields effects of this order. Moreover, I have noticed that neither the open nor the short standard is modelled with any loss. Maybe, I'm too spoiled with low frequency measurement accuracies... Best regards, Tom DG8SAQ
|
Dave McGuire
Paul Bicknell
Guy Dunphy
Willy