NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/electron/18634

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-09 | 61.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!iago.caltech.edu!lmh
From: [e-mail] (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Larry Lippman
Date: 9 Nov 1992 13:44 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 1237
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

[This is a repost of Lippman article:]

From: [e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: incandescent light bulb life extender (Bogus Advice Warning!)
Summary: More on thermistors & Debunking Tall Tales from John DeArmond
Date: 15 Dec 90 04:54:19 GMT


    This article has two sections.  The first covers technical
issues, and its end is clearly marked for those readers who wish to stop
reading at that point.  The second is designed to give Mr. DeArmond an
"attitude adjustment" for his propensity to Tell Tall Tales, and it
reveals some facts which may assist readers in evaluating his
credibility.  There are also fascinating excerpts from previous articles
posted by Mr. DeArmond, courtesy of a CD-ROM Usenet archive.  I dislike
having to write the second part of this article, but everyone has a
limit as to how much bullshit and name-calling they will silently and
politely endure.  In previous articles I hinted to Mr. DeArmond that
people in glass houses should not throw stones, but he didn't get the
message.  He *will* get the message this time.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> >>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> >>> Here is how to extend your bulb life indefinitely with practically (<1%)
> >>> decrease in output.  Place a negative tempco thermistor of the proper
> >>> value in the lamp lead. [description of modifying light fixture deleted]

> [e-mail] (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
> >    The funny part here is that while ul listed, these button type jobs are
> >a common cause of fires, and very popular (winning) lawsuit item.  I have
> >a friend that testifies and consults, and has made a ton of money off these
> >little jobs blowing up.  The UL rating was either a result of poor government
> >inoperation or just a simple bribe.

    UL disagrees with these statements.  Perhaps you can prove otherwise?

> I'll second that motion.  I tried some of the little buttons in a 4 bulb
> chandelier in my den.  By the time they had failed and shorted under
> 100 watt bulbs, they had emitted a large quantity of smoke and had
> fried to a blackened crisp.  *I* consider them a fire hazard after my
> experience.

    Amazing!  Mr. DeArmond never told us about his alleged
experience with the button-type devices until *after* Allen Michielsen
stated that they were a fire hazard.

    Out of curiosity, I called a contact at UL (708/272-8800) who
referred me to an engineer responsible for lighting fixture safety (name
upon request).  The engineer with whom I spoke, who was quite familiar
with the button-type lamp life extenders, had no knowledge of *any*
fires caused by UL-approved devices inserted in lamp sockets.

    My curiosity being piqued, I called the IES (Illuminating
Engineering Society, 212/705-7919) and an engineer who deals with
lighting safety issues, John Briggs, was kind enough to speak with me
out of professional courtesy since I am not an IES member.  Mr. Briggs
was familiar with the button-type devices, and was unaware of any fires
caused by their use.

    At Mr. Briggs' suggestion I contacted the General Electric
Lighting Products Division (216/266-3900) and spoke with a technical
specialist who advised me that he knew of no fire hazard from the use of
such button-type devices.  Mr. Briggs offered the opinion that if anyone
had any prejudice *against* lamp life extenders it would be a lamp
manufacturer.

    Since this was getting curioser and curioser, I then contacted
the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association, 617/770-3000) and spoke
with an engineer in their Electrical Engineering department, Mike Ode,
who was not aware of these devices being a fire hazard.  At Mr. Ode's
suggestion, I then spoke with Ken Taylor in the NFPA Fire Analysis
Division, who had no specific data as to these devices being a fire
hazard.  Mr. Taylor did give me an interesting statistic: approximately
3,200 fires per year are caused by lamps and lighting fixtures.

    There was only one more organization left to call - which was
fortunate since I have only a finite amount of coffee break time to
spend on this pursuit. :-)  I called the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety
Commission, regional office, 212/264-1130) and spoke with Robert Moro,
who stated that their agency did have about half a dozen complaints
concerning *one* particular button-type device which was imported and
did *not* have UL approval.  About half of these complaints pertained to
electrical shock resulting from the exposed portion of the metal lamp
screw base (since a lamp can no longer screw into a socket as deeply
with a button-type device).  The CPSC had not as yet reached any final
determination on these complaints, and they had as yet no conclusive
information that any fires had actually been caused by such devices.

    Clearly there is a grain of truth to these devices being the
subject of complaint, but there does not yet appear to be conclusive
data that they have been the *direct* cause of any fire.  If such were
the case, one might think that UL, IES, NFPA and General Electric would
be aware of the situation.  It is important to bear in mind that there
are *3,200* fires each year caused by lamps and lighting fixtures, and
that even if such a button-type device were installed when such a fire
occurred, one cannot simply conclude that the mere presence of such
device caused the fire.

    Likewise, I had not previously heard of any fires caused by the
UL-approved devices, which is why in my original article I stated that
UL considered them safe because they were confined within the metal
barrier of the lamp socket.

    It may also help readers to know that typical base temperatures
of incandescent lamps in the range of 60 to 100 watts run from 194 to
208 deg F (data taken from NFPA handbook).  It does not seem likely that
the button-type devices will get hot enough to destroy any thermosetting
plastic insulating material used in their manufacture, considering that
most thermoset plastics used for electrical component manufacture (like
allyls, phenolics, etc.) will withstand temperatures of at least 350 deg
F.

> I tried some of the little buttons in a 4 bulb
> chandelier in my den.  By the time they had failed and shorted under
> 100 watt bulbs, they had emitted a large quantity of smoke and had
> fried to a blakened crisp.

    Since a chandelier is open, with heat rapidly dissipated through
convection, and since under such circumstances the lamp base temperature
is not likely to exceed 212 deg F, what, pray tell, caused the devices
to allegedly "emit a large quantity of smoke and fry to a blackened
crisp"?

    Enquiring minds would like to know why Mr. DeArmond seems to be
one out of only a handful of persons in the *entire* country with a
truly specific claim as to the burning of these button-type devices.  In
addition, do Mr. DeArmond's alleged devices bear UL-approval?  If not,
then why would a person as allegedly astute as Mr. DeArmond purchase
such a device lacking UL-approval?  Readers who make it through to the
end of this article may well develop a theory as to Mr. DeArmond's
claims, however.

> The thermistors specified are meant for surge or inrush limiting
> applications.

    ALL of the thermistors in the Panasonic ERT-D-series and the
Keystone RL-series specified by Mr. DeArmond are intended for
temperature measurement, temperature compensation, time delay, and
limiting for signal (*not* power) circuits only.  The thermistors in
these series have 26 AWG and 24 AWG wire leads, which ought to be a clue
as to their intended application - if one actually had such a thermistor
in their possession. But this wire lead gage data is not found in the
Digi-Key catalog.

    What Mr. DeArmond failed to find in his Digi-Key catalog,
because it was somewhat buried at the upper right hand corner of a page
which otherwise listed varistors, was the one series which actually is
suitable for power inrush limiting.  Those thermistors, the Keystone
CL-series, have 18 AWG and 22 AWG wire leads, are quite suitable for
lamp or power applications, and have explicitly specified current
ratings from 1.1 to 12 amps.  The best part is that at full rated
current THEY DON'T GET ANY HOTTER THAN 25 DEG C.

    Based upon the thermistor selection listed in the Digi-Key
catalog, it would be utterly absurd to consider anything other than the
Keystone CL-series for a lamp application.

    Why didn't Mr. DeArmond tell us about *that* series?  Was it
because he overlooked it while trying to make the best of other part
numbers in support of his latest Tall Tale?

    But, this situation gets better and better, so please be patient...

> I thoroughly tested the application before I made the recommendation.

    I know of some oceanfront property for sale in Arizona. :-)

> Because this is a new application for the parts, different than the
> normal use in switchmode powersupplies

    It's a "new application" alright, because none of the thermistors
mentioned by Mr. DeArmond are intended for "switchmode powersupplies".

> I set up a test environment in my
> lab that consisted of a  light fixture representative of what is in my
> house, a variac to vary the applied voltage and a thermocouple datalogger
> to record what thermal events occured. One thermocouple was fastened via
> thermal epoxee to the thermistor and the other to the base of the lamp
> socket.  A 100 watt bulb  and a PAR reflector lamp were tested.

    My gawd, I'm impressed.

> >    While the above installation technique may function as intended,
> >readers should be aware that such an "aftermarket" installation: (1) most
> >likely voids the UL approval on the lighting fixture in question;
>
> Since doing anything to a fixture that deviates from the UL test conditions
> voids the approval, (such as putting all those 100 watt bulbs in "60
> watt max" sockets), at least one can say that "voiding" is common and
> does not cause many fires.  As we'll see, the *practical* safety is
> not degraded and if anything, is enhanced.

    Self-proclaimed "practical safety" which violates explicit rules,
regulations and standards (i.e., UL, NEC and building codes) does not go
very far with insurance companies or building inspectors.

> >(2) is a National Electrical Code (NEC) violation;
> Hardly.  Most areas adopt the NEC in total.  I've had other occasions to
> check here in Cobb county and know that this is the case here.

    Which means that use of a light fixture no longer having UL approval
violates the local building code in Marietta, GA.

    Now, why is this *important*?  Because the discovery of such an
intentional violation may void insurance coverage in the event of a fire.
Consider the following quotation from a Hartford insurance policy:

    "We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from
    any of the following ...
    c.  Faulty, inadequate or defective:
        (1) Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting;
        (2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction,
            renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
        (3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or
            remodeling; or
        (4) Maintenance;
    of part or all of any property on or off the described premises."

    Who wants to risk losing the economic investment in their house
and personal possessions by taking Mr. DeArmond's advice and modifying a
light fixture to save a paulty few dollars per year?

    But Mr. DeArmond has nothing to worry about.  He'll just tell
the insurance company that he made measurements with a gen-U-wine FLUKE
8800A 5-1/2 digit DVM, that while 12 years old and obsolete, still has
NBS-traceable calibration! :-)

> But let's address the issue Larry the Lid raises above.  Even though we
> know that a filament short is always blown away instantly upon contact

    A filament short is *usually* blown away because there is no
device in series with the lamp to create impedance and limit current. A
series thermistor, even in the hot state, may well limit current such
that neither the shorted filament nor thermistor itself will have enough
energy to instantaneously open.  The actual instantaneous fault current
available from a typical 20 ampere electrical branch circuit may reach
the hundreds of ampere range, with a low resistance fault within a lamp
usually blowing out in several cycles - which is usually not long enough
to trip an overcurrent device.  It doesn't take much imagination to see
how even 1 ohm of series resistance can drastically reduce current such
that the energy necessary to open an internal lamp fault is no longer
available.

    Consider this example, which should be intuitive to many
readers. A 2" piece of 28 AWG wire connected to the 18 AWG conductors of
a line cord will probably blow away in a fraction of a second if the
line cord were plugged into an AC outlet.  If an appropriate series
impedance that limited current were now added to the circuit, the 28 AWG
wire would first become red hot (perhaps for a long time) before
opening.  Also, that series impedance might itself get rather hot in the
process.

> and because we could speculate that a lamp construction that would allow
> a continuous short between electrodes could never be approved,

    Mr. DeArmond should take apart a few different models of light
bulbs and see how filament support wires can well be deflected against
broken filament sections to create low resistance faults in a lamp
failure. Such light bulbs are all UL-approved.

> Since power dissipation would be worst case with a cold, high resistance
> termistor, my testing was done at ambient.  My test rig is simplicity
> itself - a ptn-126 thermistor clipped in a  Jesus Cord (a 120 volt cord
> with aligator clips on the end - makes you yell "JEEEESUS" when they get
> together and can aid you in meeting Him if you grab 'em :-) and laying on
> a paper towel for fuel.   Plug the cord in and ... POP!  The thermistor
> blows apart instantly. No flame and no smoke.   This is, of course, many
> times more severe than conditions that exist in the light fixture.

    One can perform the same test and achieve the same results with
a 1N4005 rectifier diode; I suspect that this is intuitive to many
readers. Earlier in his article, Mr. DeArmond seems to have taken the
bait planted by Allen Michielsen and agreed that the diode devices are a
hazard.

    Well, if both a diode device and a thermistor device will "blow
apart instantly", then why is Mr. DeArmond's thermistor device *safe*,
but the diode device a *hazard*?

> I plan on setting up an accelerated life test with a cycle timer that
> will cycle the lamp on and off at about 10 0r 15 second intervals. I'll
> probably conduct at least part of the test with fiberglass insulation
> wrapped around the thermistor to see if that makes any differnece.

    Well, since Mr. DeArmond has told us in misc.jobs.contract that
he is out of work, I suppose he has nothing better to do with his time.
I am a little disappointed, though, that Mr. DeArmond cannot think of
anything more creative to do than duplicate efforts that others have
already done - all to save a few dollars per year.  But it makes a Great
Tall Tale, doesn't it, Mr. DeArmond?

$$> Typical on resistance for the 16 ohm device is 1 ohm which means that it
$$> dissipates about a watt with a 100 watt bulb. ...
$$> The part will rise
$$> about 60 degrees C over ambient when in operation so you don't want
$$> to insulate it or pack it in a closed box.

    The above are quotes from Mr. DeArmond's original article.  I'm
not always certain what he means by "ambient", but I suspect the above
refers to room temperature.  But, as readers will see shortly, it
doesn't make much difference how his ambient temperature is defined.

> >    The 16-ohm device is actually a Panasonic (PNT-126), and has a
> >maximum rating of 0.6 watts.  Its R25/R50 deg C resistance ratio is 2.3,
> >which means that its resistance is still about 7 ohms at 50 deg C.  I
> >would find it difficult to believe that at 85 deg C ("60 degrees C over
> >ambient") its resistance would be as little as 1 ohm.  2.5 to 3 ohms
> >seems more likely, which means we could be dissipating at least 2.5
> >watts.  That's *FOUR* times the *maximum* rating of the thermistor!
>
> The actual *MEASURED* (as opposed to hypothesized or made up) voltage
> drop across a PTN-126 while wired in series with a 100 watt bulb ranges
> from 0.8 to 1.0 volts as measured with a Fluke 8800A 5-1/2 digit
> voltmeter with the true RMS option installed and an NBS (ne NITS)
> traceable  calibration.  Since the measured current is just a bit under
> an amp, the computed resistance is about an ohm and the  power
> dissipation is about a watt.  We know from experience that Larry finds
> experimental data "difficult to believe".  Fabricated numbers are *SO*
> much more tidy.

    I have 9 pages of detailed specifications on that Panasonic
ERT-D thermistor series, and the part claimed by Mr. DeArmond will *not*
achieve a resistance of 1 ohm at 85 deg C.  The exact part number for
the PTN-126 [sic] Digi-Key stock number is the Panasonic ERT-D3FFL160S.

    Let's first consider its recommended application from the actual
Panasonic data sheets: "Temperature detection.  Temperature compensation
for measuring equipment.  Temperature compensation for deflection coil
in TV's, etc."  Not one word about inrush current limiting.  In fact, in
the "Precautions for Handling" section Panasonic makes it clear that
this part should be used as a measuring component only.

    Not given in the abbreviated Digi-Key specifications is the
dissipation constant of this device: 7 mw/deg C.  This means that in
order for it to dissipate 1 watt (as claimed by Mr. DeArmond), its
temperature would have to rise 143 deg C above 25 deg C, for an actual
temperature of 168 deg C.  Since the absolute maximum temperature for
the device is 125 deg C, it would be destroyed before dissipating 1 watt.

    Yet, Mr. DeArmond says: "The part will rise about 60 degrees C
over ambient when in operation".  I believe he means room temperature
ambient here, but even if he means fixture ambient, the end result is
the same: component failure.

    I do believe we have, shall we say, "a discrepancy" here.  Some
possible explanations are: (1) the temperature is really greater than
what Mr. DeArmond reported; (2) Mr. DeArmond has made some measurement
error; (3) Mr. DeArmond is not using the part number he so claims;
(4) Panasonic has lied on their data sheets; or (5) Mr. DeArmond is
pulling our leg.

    Perhaps I am to be so impressed with Mr. DeArmond's claimed
use of a 12-year old obsolete 5-1/2 digit DVM with "NBS traceability"
that I am to be deterred from further pursuing this issue?

    But it gets even better in about 22 more lines, so read on...

> >    Also, the above thermistor series is primarily intended as a
> >temperature measuring element, and not for any significant power dissipation
> >in any protective circuit.  That's why its only rated at 0.6 watts.
>
> Low ohm negative tempco thermistors with significant watt ratings are
> designed for inrush applications and make pretty poor measuring devices,
> as a glance at the thermistor curves would show.

    Oh, so Mr. DeArmond has the curves for this thermistor?  If so, then
he must notice an amazing degree of parallelism in slopes among the curves
for *every* thermistor in this ERT-D-series, from 8 ohms to 150,000 ohms.
Since the Panasonic curves are log plots, the lines are almost straight.
Low resistance thermistors are indeed used for measuring applications,
primarily for temperature compensation.

    That was a good bluff, Mr. DeArmond - too bad it didn't work.

> Since the 600 milliwatt
> rating is for worst-case conditions, I have no problem at all operating
> the device at higher dissipations under less severe thermal conditions.

    I have a confession to make: I baited Mr. DeArmond, and he fell
for it, shall we say, hook, line and sinker.  Call me an SOB if you'd like,
but I am really tired of Mr. DeArmond's name-calling and fairy tales.

    The 600 mw rating is not at all what Mr. DeArmond thinks it is,
and I intentionally did not clarify the issue in my original article.
Let me quote from the Panasonic data sheets: "Rated power is power that
is needed to go up till 125 deg C, and when the ambient temperature
exceeds 25 deg C, the rated power should be derated according to the
following curve."  The curve is a straight line showing 100% at 25 deg C
and 0% at 125 deg C.

    This means that at 125 deg C ambient the thermistor is rated to
dissipate *ZERO* power.

> We must remember that the ambient temperature in a fixture is MUCH higher
> than the 60 degree rise, (80 degree C absolute) measured on the surface
> of the thermistor.

    I'll be generous and say the ambient temperature in Mr.
DeArmond's fixture is only 85 deg C.  At 85 deg C, the maximum
permissible dissipation is 40% of 600 mw, or 240 mw.  Oh my, Mr.
DeArmond is allegedly running the thermistor at *FOUR* times its rating.
Which is exactly what I said in my original article, but I derived the
4-times in an intentionally misleading fashion.

    I am sorry if I misled anyone else, but my "bottom line" was
still correct - and that was the real point.

> Since the 600 milliwatt
> rating is for worst-case conditions, I have no problem at all operating
> the device at higher dissipations under less severe thermal conditions.

    The truth is, the 600 mw rating is for *best* conditions when
the thermistor temperature is heat-sinked at 25 deg C.  Less severe
thermal conditions, my ass!  Maybe this article will cause Mr. DeArmond
to grow up and realize that he cannot always bluff his way through life
- especially when he pretends to have engineering knowledge that he in
fact lacks.

    In the particular case of this do-it-yourself lamp life extension
procedure described by Mr. DeArmond, it disturbed me that he would give
bogus advice which has the potential to jeopardize life and property.
This is the reason I took some time to research and write this article.

    The above completes the first half of this article.  For those
who are solely concerned with technical information, you may stop
reading here.  For those who would like to see Mr. DeArmond get some
well-deserved "attitude adjustment" concerning his Tall Tales, read on.
The next part is rather long, and the "revelations" are toward the end,
but it should have decent entertainment value to some readers.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> Allen, you just gotta overlook Larry the Lid (as he's referred to in other
> groups.)  I induced him to make an ass out of himself in comp.dcom.telecom
> a few months ago and he's been messing his britches to get even ever since.

    For those readers who are unaware, Mr. DeArmond treated telecom
readers to a Tall Tale in which: (1) while working for "the government"
at a time when he would have been a teenager; (2) he obtained an
electronic eavesdropping device from the CIA; (3) bragged about
committing a felony by installing it in his supervisor's office without
the benefit of any lawful authority; and (4) used recordings so made to
blackmail his supervisor so that the supervisor would not proceed with a
plan to have Mr. DeArmond fired by planting marijuana in Mr. DeArmond's
car!

    That's quite a story, huh?  Certainly worthy of a few episodes
on the former television series "Soap".  When I pointed out certain, uh,
technical improbabilities in his *detailed* story, Mr. DeArmond got a
little upset with me.  I wonder why?

> He's quite fond of quoting the hypothetical and or calculated answers as
> fact.

    My armchair diagnosis is that Mr. DeArmond appears to disdain
what he cannot comprehend, most likely due to feelings of insecurity
resulting from his self-admitted lack of a college education (or any
other professional credentials, for that matter).  More on this shortly
from the keyboard of Mr. DeArmond himself.

> Just a spoiled rich kid not getting his way.

    Wrong choice of insult, Mr. DeArmond, as you are about to learn.

    Funny, but I have never, *ever* mentioned anything on the Net
about my finances, employment or standard of living.  I do talk about my
numerous cats, though.  I wonder if that makes me a "spoiled rich kid"?

    On the other hand, readers of misc.jobs.contract sure have been
treated to Tall Tales from Mr. DeArmond about *his* incredible string of
financial successes.  How about a few choice examples, and then we'll
inject some truth?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> I'll use myself and my current team as an example.  With only one of us
$$> earning less than 100k/yr, I think we could agree that we're more than
$$> adequately compensated.  The interesting thing is that NONE of us have
$$> degrees.  I'll be there's not 4 years' college between all of us.

    I sure believe that last sentence!

$$> My slightly younger brother is a dentist.
$$> Our earned income is about the same - and remember that I've intentionally
$$> backed off a bit for a bit.  BUT.  He has 8 years of post-secondary
$$> education, during which time he did not make a dime.  IN fact, he came out
$$> of dental school with very large student debt.  (and he's one of the few who
$$> believes that you really should pay it back.)  During that same 8 years,
$$> my earnings were in the 7 digit range.

    Okay, show of hands time: How many other Net readers claim
earnings "in the 7 digit range"?  Gawd, *SEVEN* digits - why, Mr.
DeArmond must be a MILLIONAIRE!  And to think he called *me* a "spoiled
rich kid"...

$$> I'm vastly better educated than most of my peers.
$$> The difference is that I made myself become educated rather than relying
$$> on an institution to do it for me.  I have a library that rivals many
$$> small schools.  I've read everything in it at least once.

    Does "read == comprehend"?  As my late father was fond of saying
about incompetent people: "He woke up one morning, hit himself over the
ass with a book, and called himself an engineer."

$$> I have a
$$> hardware and software development lab that is better than anything any of
$$> my clients have.

    Doesn't say much for the caliber of his "clients", does it?

$$> I hope the above did not sound too snobbish.

    Naw, not at all.

$$> But I know of no other way to make the point other than to make an
$$> example of myself.

    Mr. DeArmond certainly has made an example of himself, but not quite
in the manner he intended.

$$> Of course, one of the best ways to run into degree snobs is to
$$> contact a company through their HR slime.  Being degree snobs is the only
$$> way these people can build any self-respect.

    One of the reasons why Mr. DeArmond dislikes "HR slime" is
because they *verify* resumes, background and credentials - scrutiny
which would likely preclude hiring of Mr. DeArmond.  More about this
later...

$$> John De Armond, WD4OQC  |
$$> Radiation Systems, Inc. |
$$> Atlanta, Ga             |
$$> {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd|

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> As a person who has built and sold a large consulting engineering firm
$$> in order to return to being small, let me address this point.

    A "large" consulting engineering firm, no less.  Mr. DeArmond
always needs to inject that hyperbole.  What is the name and location of
that firm, pray tell?

$$> My personal goal is to do billable work only about
$$> 9 months out of the year and spend the rest of the time relaxing/studying/
$$> building new product.  I'm just about there.

    Gawd, I'm turning green with envy.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Or consider when I was a heavy equipment operator and in the IUOE.
$$> I started out running a bulldozer.
$$> - a reminder of a much darker period of my career.

    Oh, so *that's* the kind of "consulting engineering firm" built
and sold by Mr. DeArmond, who is now apparently an "operating engineer".
Perhaps he consults on how to operate bulldozers?  Maybe that's why he
doesn't know much about thermistors?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Let me get this straight.  You're advocating that I
$$> close down my consulting operation, forgo a 6
$$> digit income and start paying out money to some institution that
$$> will after 4 years of hassles give me a sheet of paper?

    Well, now we're down to a mere "6 digit income"...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> My brother and I have had an
$$> informal contest for years to see who makes the most money each year.
$$> So far, I've beaten him every year, though the margins are narrowing as I
$$> back off from a full 2000 hour work year.

    Anyone want to give Mr. DeArmond's brother, Eben Jr., a call and
ask how the "contest" is going?  He practices dentistry in Cleveland,
TN. I wonder how Dr. DeArmond would react to his brother posting these,
um, "contest results" to the whole world?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> In my past
$$> career, I consulted in the nuclear power industry, usually in the
$$> field of industrial controls and radiation monitors.

    How likely is it that a person with an apparent total lack of
educational and professional credentials would "consult to the nuclear
power industry"?  In matters of safety with radiation monitors, no less!
Unless, of course, Mr. DeArmond's "consulting" is one reason why the
nuclear power industry is presently in trouble.  I wonder if he worked
at Three Mile Island?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> One of these associations later enabled me to get a half million line of
$$> signature credit in order to start my first company.

    Half a million dollars must have started a pretty large company.
I don't suppose Mr. DeArmond would tell us the name and location of that
company, eh?  Or what happened to it?

    Mr. DeArmond certainly seems like a very rich and successful
person. One would think that a person with "7 digit earnings" would live
in some storybook Southern mansion replete with antebellum splendor.
Especially a fellow like Mr. DeArmond, who obviously likes to show off
and is *very* proud of his alleged income and success.

    Curiously, however, that does not appear to be the case.
Sources in Marietta, GA say that Mr. DeArmond and his wife Doreen live
in a rather non-descript one-story 2,051 sq-ft house on a 4,089 sq-ft
lot with an improved value of $ 76,936.00.  Where, pray tell, are the
fruits of Mr. DeArmond's "7 digit earnings", since they certainly don't
appear to be in his house?  They don't appear to be in the cars he
drives, either.

    Could all his income be tied up maintaining NBS-traceability for
a 12-year old obsolete FLUKE 8800A 5-1/2 digit DVM?

    How can Mr. DeArmond reconcile this curious situation?  Lemme
guess: perhaps he'll say it's just the servants' quarters and he really
lives elsewhere!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Anyway, I thought I'd offer some experiences regarding working at home.
$$> RSI is based in my basement.  I've converted the entire 2500 sq ft
$$> basement into an office and laboratory.

    Good lord, Mr DeArmond even exaggerates the size of his
basement! Can't he tell the plain truth about *anything*?  But wait,
maybe the extra 25% is located in an underground bunker, the existence
of which is unknown to the Cobb County Board of Assessors.  That's
right, that's the ticket!

    I will give an even better example of Mr. DeArmond's veracity.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Never use the title of President except where you legally
$$> must.  I use the title "General Manager" or "Director of Engineering"
$$> depending on who I am addressing.  This implies a larger organization
$$> ...
$$> I've had many clients in the last 10 years
$$> but only one employer - my company, Radiation Systems, Inc.  My resume
$$> reflects that fact.  This approach gets around the pinheaded personnel
$$> people plus it demonstrates to your prospective sponsor a degree of
$$> stability and success.  It's all a matter of perspective.

    Here's the truth, as furnished by a recipient of one of Mr.
DeArmond's "resumes" who had the truly bad manners to actually check it
out:

    Radiation Systems, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Tennessee on 2/28/85 listing Mr. DeArmond as registered agent with a
home address on Talley St. in Cleveland, TN, and with a corporate
address of his father's (Eben DeArmond, Sr.) accounting business office
on Broad St.

    Now, here's the real kicker - on 3/31/89 the Tenessee Secretary
of State revoked the corporate charter of Radiation Systems, Inc. for
failure to file corporate reports and tax returns since 1987!  While Mr.
DeArmond now lives in Marietta, GA, his corporation was never
incorporated or registered as a foreign corporation in the State of
Georgia, either. One would think Mr. DeArmond's "CPA" or "corporate
attorney" (as he is fond of referring to in misc.jobs.contract when
dispenses allegedly sage advice) would see that he uses a corporate
identity in a lawful manner, huh?  Or is Radiation Systems, Inc.
apparently just another one of Mr. DeArmond's failures?  Incur some
debts in the name of a corporation, screw the creditors and let it go
defunct, perhaps?  Maybe botch some work, get sued by unhappy clients
and just run away?

    Oh well, so much for "10 years with one employer" and
truthfulness on a resume...  In fact, so much for being truthful to Net
readers, too!

    Perhaps Mr. DeArmond could also tell us why *suddenly*, three or
so weeks ago he finally stopped using the name Radiation Systems, Inc.?
Someone catch up with you, Mr. DeArmond?  The IRS, perhaps?  The IRS is
on the Net, btw, (check the DC map file), and I bet they could have a
field day with Mr. DeArmond's "7 digit earnings" and solicitation of
business (over the Net, too!) using a defunct corporation name.

    In closing, here are a few more assorted gems:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Yes, Yes, and Yes.  In my case, even though the company has existed
$$> for almost 10 years,  I have a multi-hundred thousand dollar line
$$> of unsecured credit and my record is absolutely spotless, we almost
$$> did not get a loan on our last house.  We ended up putting down
$$> 25% which entitles you to a "No-docs" or no credit check loan.

    The above seem a little funny to any reader?  I certainly
believe the part about paying extra money to avoid the embarrassment of
failing to pass a credit check, though!

$$> Disclaimer for the knuckleheads out there:  No, I do not advocate lying
$$> or even distorting the truth.

    Naw, never - eh, Mr. DeArmond?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Reality is starkly different.  Over the last 5 years or so, I've
$$> written off about $50,000 in bad debt losses and have paid about
$$> another $30k in legal fees prosecuting collections.  The scars are
$$> just now going away.  I've NEVER lost a collection suit and I've
$$> never collected any significant amount of money!

    I genuinely believe that Mr. DeArmond lost money and incurred
legal fees, but perhaps for some slightly "different" reasons.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Just as we were turning up the first system, the founders of this
$$> startup phone company sold the company.  The new owner was, shall
$$> we say, unsavory.  He decided that he did not want to pay royalities
$$> or allow us to own the program -which we had the right to.  So he
$$> addressed the problem in the usual mob manner - he sent some goons over
$$> to kidnap us while they stole our equipment and software.
$$> ...
$$> Sure we sued them and pressed criminal charges.  But in America today,
$$> money is justice (and don't ever forget that.)  He managed to have the
$$> criminal charges quietly dropped and the civil case, though still
$$> technically on the docket now 5 years later, is effectively dead.

    Lordy, what a *story*!  KIDNAPPED BY GOONS FROM THE MOB!  And
Mr. DeArmond wants us to believe his claim about testing the thermistors!?

Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231   {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX:   [phone]                  {utzoo, uunet}!/      \aerion!larry


From: [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond)
Subject: Re: incandescent light bulb life extender
Date: 16 Dec 90 12:04:00 GMT

We all got to see another one of Larry's little mental explosions.

Larry's obsession with my life has obviously become an illness.  It is
unfortunate that such people are allowed about.  Nontheless they are so
we have to live with it.   I won't bore the group with a a point by
point rebuttal.  I will address only the technical issues the Lid raised
and then opinionate only a bit at the end.

[An amazing and most likely fabricated investigative quest description
deleted.]

>    Likewise, I had not previously heard of any fires caused by the
>UL-approved devices, which is why in my original article I stated that UL
>considered them safe because they were confined within the metal barrier
>of the lamp socket.

I never claimed that the rectifier buttons had caused any fires and I
don't believe the other fellow did either; I simply stated that the ones
I tried in my fixtures had burned to a crisp.  Since there was nothing
flammable near the socket other than the lining of the socket itself, it
would be hard  to imagine a fire scenario.  *BUT*, the fact that the
buttons burned up - I did save the residue to show people - tells *ME*
that there is a  potential to start fires.  And to that conclusion, I
don't give a damn WHAT UL has to say about it.

>    It may also help readers to know that typical base temperatures
>of incandescent lamps in the range of 60 to 100 watts run from 194 to
>208 deg F (data taken from NFPA handbook).

As usual, Larry backs up his arguments with rote dissertations from a
book.   Since  "typical" rarely occurs outside the printed page, I
prefer to make in situ measurements of the actual conditions involved.
I'll allow the reader to determine whether  "typical" values from a text
or measured values are more appropriate in a given situation.

>    What Mr. DeArmond failed to find in his Digi-Key catalog, because
>it was somewhat buried at the upper right hand corner of a page which
>otherwise listed varistors, was the one series which actually is suitable
>for power inrush limiting.  Those thermistors, the Keystone CL-series,
>have 18 AWG and 22 AWG wire leads, are quite suitable for lamp or power
>applications, and have explicitly specified current ratings from 1.1 to
>12 amps.  The best part is that at full rated current THEY DON'T GET ANY
>HOTTER THAN 25 DEG C.

Yes, the Keystone parts are quite adequate, but the panasonic ones are
too.  I'm not arguing against the Keystone or any other similiar part,
I'm arguing based on actual experimental results that the Panasonic part
works quite well.   I was originally attracted to the 8 ohm part as a
result of seeing it used in an inrush application.

>He'll just tell
>the insurance company that he made measurements with a gen-U-wine
>FLUKE 8800A 5-1/2 digit DVM, that while 12 years old and obsolete,
>still has NBS-traceable calibration! :-)

Is the implication here that one should discard fully functioning
instrumentation that meets the manufactur's specifications and has a
traceable calibration just because it accumulates some age? Is that what
you're really trying to say, Larry?

Or are you saying that new is better regardless of its calibration? Do
you think that a voltage measurement made to 4 decimal places with an
instrument that is within mfr's specifications is bogus because the
instrument is old?  I would have expected much better for someone who
purports to be technical.

>    A filament short is *usually* blown away because there is no
>device in series with the lamp to create impedance and limit current.
>A series thermistor, even in the hot state, may well limit current such
>that neither the shorted filament nor thermistor itself will have
>enough energy to instantaneously open.  The actual instantaneous
>fault current available from a typical 20 ampere electrical branch
>circuit may reach the hundreds of ampere range, with a low resistance
>fault within a lamp usually blowing out in several cycles - which is
>usually not long enough to trip an overcurrent device.  It doesn't take
>much imagination to see how even 1 ohm of series resistance can drastically
>reduce current such that the energy necessary to open an internal lamp
>fault is no longer available.

But if your imagination is true, then any lighting circuit that contains
a dimmer circuit is a fire hazard.  After all, dimmers contain active
devices with no more physical ruggedness or surge handling capability
than the thermistor in question.

Let's look at a hard example.  I pulled the dimmer from a fixture in my
house and looked at it.  It contains a device that cross references to a
GE SC-146 triac that is packaged in a TO-220 package.  The GE SCR manual
rates this device at 10 amps continuous. The dimmer is a 1000 watt unit
which is larger than the normal 600 watt  units which would probably use
the equivalent of a GE SC-241.  The data sheet gives a maximum peak one
cycle non-rep surge current of 100 amps. In other words, this is the
maximum current the device would be  expected to handle for one cycle of
AC current in isolation from all others.

This is the value used to evaluate triacs for inrush and filament short
circuit duty.  On page 245 of the same manual, it recommends that for a
100 watt bulb, the inrush current design criteria be about 17 amps. Thus
this triac gives very good margins for inrush but it would fail
miserably in Larry's direct short, multi-hundred amp scenario.

But the failure rate for lamp dimmers is insignificant.  What's wrong
with this picture?  Could it be that Larry's scenario is incredible? I
think so.  If we saw any significant instances of long term (defined as
many cycles) direct short circuits, the fatality rate for lamp dimmers
would probably get the attention of Ralph Nader :-) It would be
reasonable to postulate that the vast majority of lamp failures involve
filament short currents of less than about a hundred amps for only a
cycle or two.

>    Consider this example, which should be intuitive to many readers.
>A 2" piece of 28 AWG wire connected to the 18 AWG conductors of a line cord
>will probably blow away in a fraction of a second if the line cord were
>plugged into an AC outlet.  If an appropriate series impedance that limited
>current were now added to the circuit, the 28 AWG wire would first become
>red hot (perhaps for a long time) before opening.  Also, that series
>impedance might itself get rather hot in the process.

After thinking about it for a minute, I decided to make another test. I
took a PNT-124 8 ohm thermister out to my metal shop and connected it to
my DC welder power supply.  A Gen-U-wine Fluke amp-clamp was applied to
the secondary lead before the rectifier in order to measure the peak
current.  The volt meter in this case was an IES 2360 (brand new but
uncertified - that ought to make the Lid happy :-) because it has a peak
hold feature.  The thermister was clamped directly between the two
welding clamps so as to reduce the circuit impedance.  I set the welder
control to 150 amps and pushed the ON button...

The thermister "flashed" into oblivion.  "Flashed" is the best word to
describe the action.  There was a brief ball of flame similiar to that
from the muzzle of a gun.  The device pretty much disapeared.  The leads
were left clamped into the welding clamps.  The tinplate on the  leads
was slightly discolored but not so much as to expect it got red hot. The
interesting thing is that there are still shards of solder on the end
where  the thermistor used to be.  That would explain the flash.  The
solder  attachment points failed and vaporized in a ball of fire.  The
peak current registered was about 230 amps.  I say "about" because I
don't know the single cycle behavior of this meter and because it is not
certified.

I'll let the reader determine if this failure mode, which is similiar
to many solid state components when grossly overloaded, is hazardous
in the context of a lamp socket.  I do agree that in the event a
person were to place sufficient impedance in a lamp circuit such that
the current could only peak at 20 amps or so, that it would be a bad
idea to use ANY thermistor in the circuit.

>> and because we could speculate that a lamp construction that would allow
>> a continuous short between electrodes could never be approved,
>
>    Mr. DeArmond should take apart a few different models of light
>bulbs and see how filament support wires can well be deflected against
>broken filament sections to create low resistance faults in a lamp failure.
>Such light bulbs are all UL-approved.

As usual, Larry did not address the issue.  A connection established
across part of a filament merely establishes a circuit through a
filament that is now grossly overvoltaged.  This filament will fail
instaneously and with quite a show of pyrotechnics.  Let's assume that a
filament could establish contact with the opposite electrode over as
little as  a fourth of its length.  That would mean that its cold
resistance would be 1/4 that of normal and the inrush would be 4 times
normal.  Using  GE's figure of 17 amps for a 100 watt bulb, that would
give us an  inrush of 68 amps.  This is still well below the point that
even the triac discussed above would fail, assuming the filament blew
away in one or two cycles.  Since the filament would heat vastly more
rapidly than normal, the failure would clear the fault more rapidly than
the normal inrush interval.   From the discussions in the GE SCR manual,
planning on filament clearance times of one or two cycles is reasonable.

>    Yet, Mr. DeArmond says: "The part will rise about 60 degrees C
>over ambient when in operation".  I believe he means room temperature
>ambient here, but even if he means fixture ambient, the end result is
>the same: component failure.

And yet they don't fail.  Is it magic?  I think not.  It is the  result
of careful experimentation and design. Learn how to read a spec sheet,
Larry, and then do some experimental work to verify the applicability of
the datasheet.  Learn  what the term "specsmanship" means.   Be creative
and never take a spec sheet at face value.  You might slip up and find a
use for something that the manufacturer never imagined.

[another mental masturbation deleted.]

>    The truth is, the 600 mw rating is for *best* conditions when
>the thermistor temperature is heat-sinked at 25 deg C.  Less severe thermal
>conditions, my ass!  Maybe this article will cause Mr. DeArmond to grow up
>and realize that he cannot always bluff his way through life - especially
>when he pretends to have engineering knowledge that he in fact lacks.

If you think my data is so bogus Larry, why don't you simply repeat the
tests.  If you've got enough time to prowl around in my personal life,
you've obviously got enough time to set up a light bulb and a digital
pyrometer and report your own results.  We know why you don't, of
course. You'd rather masturbate in public and sling mud.  There's some
growing up to be done but it's not on this end.

Tell you what, guy.  Why don't we just cut to the chase and be done
with it.  I'll put my experimental results up for 3rd party verification
and make the results available here.  Let's see if you've got the
guts to duplicate the experiments and do the same.  I'll even let you
use a NEW voltmeter.

-----------------
EDITORIAL OPINION

What follows is strictly my opinion.  If you don't want to read further,
go to the next article.

Let's look at the extremes to which Larry has gone in order to satisfy
his fettish.  He has bought a CD ROM version of the net at no small cost
in order to be able to conduct his hate-driven vendetta against me and a
couple of others on the net.  That in itself is sick.  But he goes
further.  He posts "facts" about my personal life that are just plain
out and out lies.  Everything from the trivial such as the size of my
house and office and what I paid for it to the rather serious such as
slandering my company, my financial status and my family.  Did you
know, for example, that I've gotten reports of his contacting former
clients and spewing this filth?  It is probably a waste of time to even
attempt to address these lies so I won't.  But if anyone has questions
about a particular instance, please email and we'll discuss it.

I suppose it is to be expected that successful people make a few
enemies. There are people in this world who are so insecure that they
terribly resent others who have bootstrapped themselves up under adverse
conditions.  They like to rationalize others' successes and their
failures with excuses like "If only I had as much {money, education,
good looks, balls, etc} as that guy, I'd be successful too".  They tend
to view others through the distortions of their own character flaws.
Thus with Larry.  The only thing he has achieved in his life is having
Daddy put him through college so he terribly resents those successful
people who did not do so.

I quite possibly would be more successful than I am now with a full
college education but we'll never know.  At least I'm honest enough to
admit my lack of that credential.  One does, however have to wonder
about an obsession with something that in my case would have happened
almost 20 years ago.  When I would have been in college, the 8008 would
have been the rage :-)  Isn't that scary.  I wonder how relevant that
education would be today?

Perhaps I should get mad and get a lawyer or worse.  Maybe I will before
it's over.  I'll admit that I did get mad several months ago in the
beginning of his fit.  Normal people just don't act like Larry does so
he caught me off guard.  But what I feel right now is pity.  Pity for a
person with such a distorted phyche that he must try to build
self-respect by attacking others.  I'd imagine that he feels terrible
guilt from having had it all given to him by Daddy and anger because he
cannot find a way to enjoy it. Daddy was probably authoritarian and this
is Larry's way of striking back.

I initially wondered what it could have been that sent him off into such
a frenzied rage starting over in comp.dcom.telecom a few months ago.
I'd never had a conversation, email, net or otherwise with the guy.
What I discovered as I began to swap email with other of Larry's victims
is this model of his personality that I've described here.

The really sad part is that he could probably build that self-respect AND
the respect of others strictly on his own.  Perhaps it's not too late.
Larry, I do hope you get help with your problem. You'll live a much
happier life for it. We'll be rooting for you.

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  |
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      | "Vote early, Vote often"


From: [e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: incandescent light bulb life extender (Bogus Advice Warning)
Summary: Evaluate John DeArmond's veracity with just a phone call...
Date: 16 Dec 90 20:47:25 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John G. DeArmond) writes:

    I will make this as brief as possible, and leave it up to
readers to draw their own conclusions.

    I urge any interested readers to carefully re-read my previous
article and compare it to Mr. DeArmond's response.  Note the numerous
items he failed to respond to, and note what tangents he created to
avoid the central issues.  Note how he avoided comment on the issue of
how a lamp fixture modification can void an insurance policy - which was
probably the single most important point that I was trying to convey!

> [An amazing and most likely fabricated investigative quest description
> deleted.]

    Amazing indeed, but not exactly fabricated.  As an example, for
the small price of a short telephone call any reader wishing to verify
certain facts that I presented may contact the Tennessee Secretary of
State (615/741-2816) and the Georgia Secretary of State (404/656-2817),
both agencies being more than willing to furnish information over the
telephone.

    While at first glance perhaps being irrelevant, the simple point
made in the second portion of my previous article is that a person
making egregious misrepresentations on one topic, as I have *proven* in
the case of Mr. DeArmond, is likely to make misrepresentations on *any*
topic.

> I never claimed that the rectifier buttons had caused any fires and I
> don't believe the other fellow did either

    Mr. DeArmond seems to have a short memory:

$$> [e-mail] (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
$$> >    The funny part here is that while ul listed, these button type jobs are
$$> >a common cause of fires, and very popular (winning) lawsuit item.

$$> By the time they had failed and shorted under
$$> 100 watt bulbs, they had emitted a large quantity of smoke and had
$$> fried to a blakened crisp.  *I* consider them a fire hazard after my
$$> experience.

> >    It may also help readers to know that typical base temperatures
> >of incandescent lamps in the range of 60 to 100 watts run from 194 to
> >208 deg F (data taken from NFPA handbook).
>
> As usual, Larry backs up his arguments with rote dissertations from a
> book.   Since  "typical" rarely occurs outside the printed page, I prefer
> to make in situ measurements of the actual conditions involved.  I'll
> allow the reader to determine whether  "typical" values from a text or
> measured values are more appropriate in a given situation.

    Apparently Mr. DeArmond has never encountered the concepts of
sampling, variance, distributions and statistics.  So, Mr. DeArmond claims
to have made perhaps *one* measurement on *one* light bulb, and now he knows
more accurate information than the NFPA!

    Poor Mr. DeArmond! - he cannot appreciate the humor of his own
naivete.

> >    What Mr. DeArmond failed to find in his Digi-Key catalog, because
> >it was somewhat buried at the upper right hand corner of a page which
> >otherwise listed varistors, was the one series which actually is suitable
> >for power inrush limiting.  Those thermistors, the Keystone CL-series,
> >have 18 AWG and 22 AWG wire leads, are quite suitable for lamp or power
> >applications, and have explicitly specified current ratings from 1.1 to
> >12 amps.  The best part is that at full rated current THEY DON'T GET ANY
> >HOTTER THAN 25 DEG C.
>
> Yes, the Keystone parts are quite adequate, but the panasonic ones are
> too.  I'm not arguing against the Keystone or any other similiar part,
> I'm arguing based on actual experimental results that the Panasonic part
> works quite well.

    The two components cost about the same money, the Keystone part
is specifically designed for the application, and the Keystone part gets
no hotter than ambient temperature.  The Panasonic part is not recommended
for the application, Mr. DeArmond admits that it rises in temperature by
60 deg C above ambient, Mr. DeArmond is operating it at least 400% above
its rating, and he concludes "it works quite well"!  Not to mention the
other issues raised in my previous article...

> Let's look at a hard example.  I pulled the dimmer from a fixture in my
> house and looked at it.  [nonsense deleted]

    I won't play Mr. DeArmond's game and get off on a tangent.  It
seems that Mr. DeArmond would like to forget the real issues:

1.    Is modification of wiring in a light fixture, per Mr. DeArmond's
    suggestion, a building code violation, and can it void insurance
    coverage in the event of a fire?

2.    Is Mr. DeArmond's suggestion a potentially dangerous misapplication
    of a thermistor?

3.    Did Mr. DeArmond tell us a bogus story about his "test results",
    in view of the actual specifications of the device in question??

> After thinking about it for a minute, I decided to make another test.
> I took a PNT-124 8 ohm thermister out to my metal shop and connected
> it to my DC welder power supply. [more nonsense deleted]

    My gawd, another tangent - allegedly testing the thermistor on a
DC welder, no less!  Does Mr. DeArmond think that if he wastes enough
lines on enough tangents that readers will tire and forget the real issues?

> >    Yet, Mr. DeArmond says: "The part will rise about 60 degrees C
> >over ambient when in operation".  I believe he means room temperature
> >ambient here, but even if he means fixture ambient, the end result is
> >the same: component failure.
>
> And yet they don't fail.  Is it magic?  I think not.  It is the  result
> of careful experimentation and design. Learn how to read a spec sheet,
> Larry, and then do some experimental work to verify the applicability of
> the datasheet.  Learn  what the term "specsmanship" means.   Be creative
> and never take a spec sheet at face value.  You might slip up and
> find a use for something that the manufacturer never imagined.

    Mr. DeArmond's argument is absurd beyond belief.  When a real
engineer specifies say, a 1 watt resistor, is an actual application
likely to require dissipation of 0.75 watts or 4.0 watts?  If we are
to take Mr. DeArmond's advice, we should exceed all ratings by at least
400%, or until slightly less than failure conditions - whichever comes
first!

> If you think my data is so bogus Larry, why don't you simply repeat the
> tests.

    I did.  Mr. DeArmond had the misfortune of picking a thermistor
vendor and series which I use, I have experience with, I have extensive
data on, and which I have extensive inventory of.

    But don't any reader take my word for this - just call Panasonic
and ask to speak with an application engineer.  Panasonic ought to know
their own components better than anyone else!

    Also, if a reader really wants to know about the Panasonic
thermistor specifications, I will be glad to fax them the 9 pages of data
which are applicable (provided that I don't get inundated with requests;
this offer does not apply to Mr. DeArmond or a shill in his behalf).

> We know why you don't, of course.

    You guessed wrong, Mr. DeArmond.  I do my "homework".

> Tell you what, guy.  Why don't we just cut to the chase and be done
> with it.  I'll put my experimental results up for 3rd party verification
> and make the results available here.

    Human nature being what it is, Mr. DeArmond knows that no one
will actually go to that much trouble since it would require
considerable time, communication and coordination among various people.
So, Mr. DeArmond bluffs and hopes to plant a seed of doubt.  What *else*
can a person with Mr. DeArmond's ego do?  Actually admit he told a Tall
Tale?

    However, in the beginning of this article I made it easy for a
reader to ascertain Mr. DeArmond's veracity in a 5-minute telephone call.
Now *that* is something a curious reader may actually do.

    Any takers?  [refer back to my previous article for details to
be verified].

> What follows is strictly my opinion.  If you don't want to read further,
> go to the next article.

    A two-section article.  Just like mine.  I'm truly honored that
Mr. DeArmond wishes to emulate my writing style.

> It is probably a waste of time to even attempt
> to address these lies so I won't.

    Mr. DeArmond cannot very well refute the *truth*.  Some of those
"lies" were pretty serious, if they were in fact "lies".  One might think
that Mr. DeArmond would refute just one "lie", though, to prove his point.

> I suppose it is to be expected that successful people make a few enemies.
> There are people in this world who are so insecure that they terribly
> resent others who have bootstrapped themselves up under adverse
> conditions.

    You're right, Mr. DeArmond -  I am envious of your "7 digit" income
and all of your "trappings of success", especially the 500 sq-ft underground
bunker in your house. :-)

> At least I'm honest enough to admit my lack of that credential.

    It has only been since the formation of misc.jobs.contract that
Mr. DeArmond has admitted his lack of education and credentials - so
that he could regale readers in that group with his allegedly vast
self-made business successes.  In various prior articles, however, Mr.
DeArmond has claimed to be a "health physicist", and has dispensed
advice about radiation safety issues.  Nothing like a self-taught
"health physicist"! Sort of like a self-taught "brain surgeon", if
anyone fails to get the point.

> Perhaps I should get mad and get a lawyer or worse.  Maybe I will before
> it's over.

    Please do that, Mr. DeArmond.  I *love* to testify in court, and
so far I have a 1000 batting average: no client for whom I have
testified as an expert witness in product liability and forensic science
matters has ever failed to win their case or otherwise obtain a
favorable out of court settlement.  Also, I freely admit that testifying
as an expert witness is the *ultimate* "ego trip", and it's also the
ultimate mind game when the defense tries to pick apart one's testimony.

    Will this be your "corporate attorney" you always refer to in
misc.jobs.contract?  You know, the attorney who apparently must tell you
it's okay to not file your state corporation reports and tax returns so
that the state revokes the charter of your corporation, and that it's
okay to operate using a defunct corporation name.

> What I
> discovered as I began to swap email with other of Larry's victims is this
> model of his personality that I've described here.

    By all means, I encourage my other "victims" to come forward and
denounce me and my "lies"!

> Larry, I do hope you get help with your problem. You'll live a much
> happier life for it. We'll be rooting for you.

    Mr. DeArmond is right, I have a problem: I dislike liars and
braggarts, especially those who give advice that if actually followed
could result in harm to others.

Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231   {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX:   [phone]                  {utzoo, uunet}!/      \aerion!larry