For $20 I couldn't resist. No clue what I will use this for. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:10:25 pm
content: Saw this sitting on a shelf and I couldn't resist it, there was quite a bit of other neat stuff in this store but this thing... no clue what I will ever use it for but just look at it. The red in the lettering along with grey paint is just perfect.Based on the bag of hardware I don't even think it's ever been used. If anyone has more info on the company that made it and whatnot that would be cool, I'm curious what sort of high votlage equipment it's made for, I'll have to try and measure the discharge resistors in a bit.

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:25:30 pm
content: Giant pics are worthless because nobody is going to wait for them to load.Learn to edit your pics.Quote from: XOIIO on January 19, 2017, 11:10:25 pm

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:33:00 pm
content: No idea? Marked 3000V and then there is this: (img)Hopes that helps.John

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:35:08 pm
content: Funny that it was at a furniture store. You should put a speaker inside and have it play an MP3 of Tesla coil noises when the switch is in the Discharge position. That'd make for a nice conversation piece in the living room.

author: edpalmer42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:37:01 pm
content: Rose's does come up with some cool toys, don't they.

author: iaeen
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:39:53 pm
content: Quote from: shteii01 on January 19, 2017, 11:25:30 pmI don't have a problem loading them. Maybe you should get a better internet connection.@OP neat find. I have no idea what it is, but I confess that I would probably be in the same boat if I came across it at that price.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:50:34 pm
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 19, 2017, 11:10:25 pmNice pics. Looks like it was part of a Canadian A/N-SQS-502 sonar system -"A high frequency attack sonar integrated with the Limbo ASW mortar to control firing. It received the Canadian designation of SQS 502"http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/systems/sonar/I think it safely discharges high voltage through those resistors to ground so the equipment can be serviced.

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:55:13 pm
content: Isn't it a large rotary HV switch, with discharge resistors? I. E. for discharging a big HV capacitor.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 11:59:18 pm
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 19, 2017, 11:10:25 pmThe nameplate reads "R.C.N. Stock No, 041-0652 Year 59", and there is something about Sonar.Could "R.C.N." be Royal Canadian Navy?This piece of equipment was build (and probably designed) by C.W. CO. LTD.This is from 1959, it cost you almost nothing, the condition is perfect; you should not tamper with it, and just display it.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:06:38 am
content: "I don't have a problem loading them. Maybe you should get a better internet connection."I think 100 MB is a bit much for a simple text thread, especially as much/most of the world doesn't have unlimited monthly usage.

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:13:58 am
content: Quote from: shteii01 on January 19, 2017, 11:25:30 pmThey loaded in here instantly, and I am on an iPad right now.Edit: perhaps the OP edited the pics before I got to the thread...

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:25:27 am
content: Quote from: shteii01 on January 19, 2017, 11:25:30 pmIt's not my fault you aren't able to load pictures properly, and these aren't "giant", I just uploaded them as my phone takes them.Quote from: FlyingHacker on January 20, 2017, 12:13:58 amNo editing, before or after posting this thread.Quote from: SkyMaster on January 19, 2017, 11:59:18 pmQuote from: xrunner on January 19, 2017, 11:50:34 pmAh, maybe, I did see sonar on the label a couple times, wasn't sure if that was actually for sonar or not. It is too bad that the paint on top is scuffed up since the rest of it is so relatively new.Quote from: edpalmer42 on January 19, 2017, 11:37:01 pmah, are you local? OR maybe it's a chain. I just found out about them really today, I thought they just did auctions, had no clue that they just sold stuff too, and I used to volunteer a block away from them.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:28:16 am
content: Oh yeah the hardware bag is just a zip lock actually, didn't notice that at first. Probably was used then.I'll have to try and find some more sonar equipment to go with this. Maybe use it as a super heavy duty light switch or something in the meantime.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:32:51 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on January 20, 2017, 12:06:38 amAren't there firefox/chrome plugins that prompt loading images that people can use if their data is so restricted? I remember reading about something like that I think.anyhow more googling doesn't bring up anything specific to this or discharge switches, at least quick ones, I could probably try and find detailed sonar stuff to read through, but doubt I'd find a whole lot on the switches. Probably purpose built and not in large numbers, would be cool to find out how many there are based on the serial number.edit: Oh and resistors are printed as 22,000 ?, 60w, made my marsland or something like that, marsland is apparently an electronics manufacturer in turkey.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:33:47 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on January 20, 2017, 12:06:38 amOriginal: 4.5MBResized to 1000px wide: 100KBWhy waste bandwidth for no good reason - especially when there are a lot of people that do not have high bandwidth services available."Get a better internet service" is a rather arrogant recommendation, IMHO.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:39:31 am
content: Well when someone makes a reply like "Giant pics are worthless because nobody is going to wait for them to load. Learn to edit your pics." it doesn't exactly come across in a friendly tone, if someone wants to make a suggestion they could at least act civil about it. Besides, I haven't used the forum much since getting a new phone, I'm used to the 8mp stuff from a fourth gen iphone and never had complaints then.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:44:23 am
content: Yea very sure it goes with that sonar system I linked.It's interesting that they provided two positions for the discharge, for left or right handed people?

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:45:07 am
content: Anyone tried Opera's turbo mode?I have no idea if its any good for this purpose, but I remember it was useful back in the day.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:46:10 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 20, 2017, 12:25:27 am4.5MB is not a small image file.Quote from: XOIIO on January 20, 2017, 12:39:31 amPutting one or two big images may not have attracted criticism, but dumping 9 of them into a single post is really going to cause some membersrealproblems.Resizing images is not difficult and it is a simple courtesy when there is no need for such large file sizes - as my example above clearly shows.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:50:35 am
content: Quote from: iaeen on January 19, 2017, 11:39:53 pmYou know, some people actually can't. You might try thinking before you start insulting.

author: M4trix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:55:24 am
content: Well, you could use it for switching on and off the Old Sparky.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sparky

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 12:59:18 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on January 20, 2017, 12:44:23 amInterestingly it looks like only one of the run positions is hooked up, unless they are using the section of the switch closest to the front panel for a separate purpose, it is two very small wires that go into the larger brown one and then the four red wires are on the back section there. I have to fool around with it when I have the time to, and I don't have a bunch of people in the area with my workbench to actually put the thing on.I am short two screws sadly, I'll have to try and find more to complete the external appearance.I should just try and find an old factory siren and hook it up to the run position along with a flashing red light lolQuote from: M4trix on January 20, 2017, 12:55:24 amMaybe lol, not sure what sort of amperage this thing is rated for, or if it's dc or ac, I'll have to read up on sonar systems from that era. I think the only older things I have now are a typewriter and my geiger counter, not sure on the Geiger counter actually though, the last calibration was 84. I'll have to see if there's a serial number lookup.

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 02:13:31 am
content: I actually prefer giant pics because I like to be able to choose to see the details. Ideally, the forum software would automatically make a ~640x480 preview of every image, loading only that image when a thread is viewed. Then a user could choose to click on that smaller image to see a larger version. I don't know if Dave wants to pop for the extra bandwidth or not, however, but that could be a premium paid subscriber feature (I would subscribe). It could also have a user setting where users could specify low bandwidth usage as a pref and the forum would feed them smaller, more compressed versions of imagesI really hate it when someone posts a pic of a cool piece of equipment, and the pic isn't available in hi res. People like to zoom in and see details. Cameras are big and detailed these days, and users want to see the pixels.If the forum forces you to download the entire image when you view the thread then I really have to say the problem is with the forum software, not the original poster.You don't set the speed limit to 25 on the highway just because some slow moving farm equipment can't go any faster than that. You make a passing lane and let the faster cars go fast and the slow vehicles go slow.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 02:15:45 am
content: Quote from: FlyingHacker on January 20, 2017, 02:13:31 amNor do you plow up the back of a slower vehicle just because you don't want to slow down.If the forum doesn't do automatic resizing (REAL resizing, not display scaling (which it does)), you do it.

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 02:29:40 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 20, 2017, 02:15:45 amOf course not. That is why I said you have a passing lane. (In this progressively worse analogy...)The point is that the forum should do this. People who have the bandwidth like big images. People who don't want small images. It is trivial for the forum to create low res versions at the time of upload. Then the larger images are opt in. Best of both worlds. It would likely result in lower bandwidth usage for Dave, even if the hi res photos were allowed to be bigger, because the majority of users would not click the images to see the hi res versions, and they certainly wouldn't click them every time they viewed the thread, which is currently downloading all the full sized images every time the thread is viewed (assuming limited caching, which is frequently the case).People should complain about the forum not doing this, rather than complaining about the OP posting normal sized photos with the type of detail many users enjoy seeing.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 02:32:13 am
content: I have plenty of bandwidth, that doesn't mean I want to load a dozen large images which can't possibly be displayed in the confines of the forum. It wastes bandwidth and memory (and if you think that's not a problem you need to look at the issues most browsers have with rendering large images. They are B. A. D. at it.).

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 02:58:11 am
content: Quote from: FlyingHacker on January 20, 2017, 02:29:40 amThat's another point, don't edit the pictures and you don't lose any quality, or at least not much through the upload process, and the forum could scale them down, that would be nice, but these are hosted with imgur, however I have seen other forums based on this software/whatever you want to call it that have this feature and automatically resize them down, so I imagine it's just a toggle in an option menu.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 02:58:52 am
content: My god this bitching has happened before.First, this loaded instantly for me.Honestly, if you have limited data, you should be very well aware that there are large images EVERYWHERE and you should work accordingly. There are services that compress searched websites on the fly to reduce data usage.And I absolutely HATE low res images. I often try to help someone or investigate something, and I can't see a fricking thing because someone shrunk it down to a stupid level, or used a Shenzhen specialty camera. I can get the cringing if your on a data limit, but most of populated Europe, USA, and Australia/NZ has capless broadband. I can understand there are more people to the world than that, but that constitutes maybe 80% of the forum's population (Just a guess, don't quote me)But do you know what I hate more? People going off and complaining about some small piddly thing on someone's forum. I am guilty of it too, and I hate it. Sometimes it's justified, but this is just stupid. Admire the switch, and move along.Now to give input, I would pay 20 dollars for the box with nothing in it. (Maybe not that much, but you get the point). That thing looks awesome. Great find.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:11:55 am
content: How to provide Large sized images, without slamming a person's bandwidth:If you would rather something which was a bit more visual, then use a compressed image as inline viewable, with a link to the 4.5MB monster:IMO, people need to consider others. If you don't , you are either arrogant, ignorant or lazy.If you are arrogant - then take a look at yourself.If you are ignorant - (as in not knowing how to do something) then ask. There are many people here who would be happy to help.If you are lazy - refer to the answer for "arrogant".

author: edpalmer42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:19:35 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 20, 2017, 12:25:27 amNo, Rose's isn't a chain. It's a family-run business. I used to live in Saskatoon and occasionally get back to visit family. I drop in to Rose's when I'm in town and often see the same stuff as the last time I was there! I think they buy pallet lots of government/military surplus and then sell it or strip it and sell the parts. They've been doing this for decades. Actually, I don't know if they're still bringing in new stock or just selling the same old stuff. Ask them the next time you're in. I've never asked because I get there so seldom that it really wouldn't affect me. Besides, I don't have room for any more boat anchors!And since the picture size appears to be an issue, I'll say that in this case, the large pictures didn't add any value. Smaller ones would do just as well. I always try to keep picture size down to about 100KB each. If there's a good reason for a larger picture, post a small one here with a link to the big one on some picture sharing site. A big reason to keep the picture size down is to help Dave out. If everyone posted huge pictures, his storage and bandwidth costs would jump without adding significant value to the forum and people with lower bandwidth links would be inconvenienced.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:25:11 am
content: Quote from: edpalmer42 on January 20, 2017, 03:19:35 amWell said - and if I'm ever over your way (or you're over mine), I'll buy you a drink.

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:31:58 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 20, 2017, 03:11:55 amThat might help on return visits to the thread, but without low res versions or at least thumbnails people with limited bandwidth still use the same bandwidth if they want to see the pictures.The solution is in the forum software. People should be able to upload photos directly from their phones, since that is the most common acquisition device these days. The forum should make a medium sized compressed image to show in line, and allow very larger images upon clicking.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:47:00 am
content: Quote from: edpalmer42 on January 20, 2017, 03:19:35 amI hosted the images on imgur, so dave's servers shouldn't get any extra load, probably much less than if I hosted smaller images on the forum itself, because all it's doing is embedding the image from imgur. (unless for some reason dave's servers cache the image but I don't think they do, that wouldn't make much sense). That's part of the reason why I use imgur on here.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:53:39 am
content: In terms of easing the load on Dave's server, that's great. It's the impact on members viewing the thread that is the issue.There's nothing stopping anyone from having two images on an externally hosted site.....The smaller version for display in the thread with a link to the larger one for full detail. Dave's server would not have to handle any of those images at all and the member could select which (of the 9 in this case) they want to look at more closely.

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:58:10 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 20, 2017, 02:58:11 amI would have more time for such argument if your hand held out of focus phone camera photos had any quality to start with.For example

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:06:30 am
content: You can't really tell how good the focus is ... because the camera shake is too prominent.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:12:44 am
content: I think if we try hard enough we could have nearly every page of every text thread downloading 1.5 TB of images in the background, after all that's just how they come out of the camera, certainly not the poster's fault, - just think of the quality.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:14:02 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 20, 2017, 04:06:30 amYeah, this camera can do ridiculously good pictures when you hold it super steady or have it on a tripod, I don't have the steadiest hands at times but that is clearly legible.Here are pictures I took when I first got the phone.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/new-phone-new-camer-holy-crap/edit: oh yeah, embedded picture warning

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:20:59 am
content: Nobody doubts the camera can perform well - it's just in this case, the images weren't all that crash hot - for a 4.5MB file size.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:29:21 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 20, 2017, 12:32:51 amDoes seem like you could use that switch for something. Looks like you could rearrange the contacts if you wanted.Boxes always come in handy.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:31:58 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 20, 2017, 02:58:11 amStop digging!Yep, if your DSLR images are 28MB, don't edit them and risk looseing quality, just post them on forums, after all, if all the 100s of readers haven't got 500Mb/s unlimited internet connections it's hardly you or your cameras fault is it..Notice there's a quite a lot from the UK with this problem.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:35:04 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on January 20, 2017, 04:29:21 amyeah, I could rewire it with extreme ease. I'm not a fan of where the wires come out, I guess it's meant to be side mounted or something.I'll probably hit the contacts with some contact cleaner since I have some sitting around. I'll probably keep the box intact but might do something inside of it since there's quite a lot of room, or maybe start work on a big arse railgun/coilgunQuote from: StillTrying on January 20, 2017, 04:31:58 amI haven't got even close to 500mb/s and they loaded fine, I've got maybe 8 or so here, with repeated tests.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 01:06:08 pm
content: I have 90/90 Symmetrical internet. By no means am I a speed demon over here. My area goes up to 300/300, and some more populated areas in the US go up to 1000/1000 for most people and mid-small business. Of course if your google and you have a giant datacenter, you get more than that.I just find it odd and stupid that people are upset over this. It reminds me of friends with dial-up, I can't send them anything better than text or it will never load.

author: Hensingler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:17:06 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 20, 2017, 01:06:08 pmBeing able to see a problem from someone else's perspective is a mark of intelligence - a mark you seem to lack.Posting about 1MB of information in 43MB of files for hundreds of people to download because one person is too ignorant or lazy to resize photos is very rude and something people should be upset over.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:32:03 pm
content: Quote from: Hensingler on January 20, 2017, 03:17:06 pmHoly shit, it's a forum post. No I never had to be cautious about where I go on the internet, but people are acting like he just punched a guy. And for me, 43 MB is puny. I download that much just going to youtube for five minutes. Might as well get upset over people embedding youtube videos into their posts, heck if your so tight on bandwidth, how the hell can you manage to watch any EEVBlog videos if 43 MB is such a massive amount?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:34:45 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 20, 2017, 04:32:03 pmAs usual, youcompletelymiss the point. You CHOOSE to load a Youtube video. You do NOT choose to load massive oversized images whichare being resized on the fly by your browser so you can't even see the full size. It is a waste of bandwidth, and by that I do not mean 'transfer allowance' or 'I don't have enough', I mean 'it's not needed'. It's also a huge CPU and memory hog in the browser, slowing everything down.Cue 'blah blah blah i7 blah blah get a better computer'...

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:50:21 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 20, 2017, 04:34:45 pmLoads fine on a tablet. Nvidia K1 Shield with 2GB of RAM.Considering a dual core A4 chip can beat that head over heels, and you can probably get paid to take that off somebody's hand, I don't see the problem. My new Pentium 3 has enough RAM to load that page. Heck, my 486 system, when given a boost, could technically hold that much.I for the longest time have had the shit system, my first desktop machine was the said dual core A4 with integrated Radeon 6000 graphics. It was slow then and it's slow today. I had 4GB of RAM, and before that I had a single core, single thread Celeron laptop with 2GB of RAM and a craptastic screen. The thing overheated like crazy, and it sucked, yet that could still load this page. Computing power isn't the issue here.And I can get the aggravation at just losing 43MB out of one's often tiny limit. Here in the US, phone plans are some of the most expensive in the world, and they nickle and dime you to death at every opportunity. But that's nothing to take out on a forum poster. It's something you should be well aware exists. The web has large images, they are a thing. Go everywhere, and webpages are massive.This guy wanted to show us something cool, and now he's being yelled at and has an argument on his hands. That's way more annoying than some large images. Consider your revenge paid in full.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 07:22:12 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on January 20, 2017, 12:44:23 amYou know what, considering how big the switch is and that it has some unused contact pairs, I bet that this case/switch was used for other things too, so maybe there are other versions out there with four different functions.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 03:06:20 am
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on January 19, 2017, 11:59:18 pmWell, unless Daniel Leary brought it back from the future Royal Cinnabar Navy, I'd say it's definitely Canadian.

author: lordvader88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 03:11:50 am
content: I don't know many places to start with, but I don't think there's anywhere to get old cool stuff around here.I mean what mad scientist lair doesn't want lots of high voltage stuff.A few years ago I even contacted the university to see if they had old junk in the basement from like the 70s for example, that they didn't want anymore. And he said they threw it all out.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 03:43:16 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 20, 2017, 04:32:03 pmThis is your problem. Not so much the "43MB" part. The "And forme" part.You need to understand what was said here:Quote from: Hensingler on January 20, 2017, 03:17:06 pmI was thinking you did when I started reading this....Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 20, 2017, 01:06:08 pmSo - do you denigrate them about their internet service? Do you ignore their situation and send them 43MB of unsolicited images anyway?Yes, certainly this is a forum and images are sometimes included, but the primary content is text. People come to a thread and load a page that may have a megabyte of content. For some it loads faster than others, but the page is delivered in a reasonable time. Someone on ADSL with 2Mbbs will get such a page in 4-5 seconds, assuming no network congestion. Someone with 30Mbps cable will get it well under a second. Throw in an extra 45MB and it will take around 12 seconds for the cable service and over 3 minutes on the ADSL line. 12 seconds could be taken in one's stride - but more than 3 minutesfor content that is unexpectedis just worrying.The fact that such size was unnecessary just adds to the insult.Or is it your belief that anybody with a poor internet service should be treated as a second class citizen?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 03:45:20 am
content: I will make no further comment in this thread on the subject of image sizes.I will offer no further criticism in this thread on the subject of image sizes.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 03:52:37 am
content: It does seem kind of silly to upload photos that are nearly 6 times larger than the common 1920x1080 screen. Does the phone have no options for saving lower size copies? Even my 12 year old digital camera can save as raw + a jpg (with choice of 3 quality settings) at the same time.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 04:41:22 am
content: Quote from: rdl on January 21, 2017, 03:52:37 amI can do widescreen ones which are 16mp but even at the same distance, and same lighting, and same position, it takes a lot of the quality out of it, and chances are I'd forget it in that mode. Aside from that no other saving options except for hdr in the stock photo app, and the others I've tried are too cluttered for quickly adjusting settings.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 04:50:50 am
content: Don't get me wrong. There can easily be a valid reason for providing large high resolution images, it's just there needs to be some consideration in how they are presented.My suggestion isWARNING: Link is to full image[url=URL for big image]URL for small imageWarning text

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 05:09:11 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 21, 2017, 04:41:22 amIf you want an easy (and free) solution for resizing images on your computer, I can recommend Irfanview in batch mode.You can set parameters once and they will stay in effect every time you open the program - until you change them. You can even have saved parameter sets if you want. You can drag and drop a selection of images into the source file window then run the batch. It will process all the images in one go.If anybody wants, I can show you how.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 05:18:04 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 21, 2017, 03:43:16 amDid you actually read any of what I actually wrote or did you just ignore what sounded like a halfway decent attempt to understand the situation.?I want to make sure the page is actually 45MB when loaded, and that there is no image scaling realtime. Even with my 90/90 connection at full saturation with full speed on the other side, it would still take 4 seconds, more than it does for me.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 05:32:49 am
content: I read what you wrote. I understood it too. I believe there are a number of members here that have as well. I even believeXOIIOhas an appreciation of the issue.It seems, even with that last post, you still do not "get it".I have not only addressed the issue - as have many - but I have offered a solution ... and one that can be implemented immediately. I have also offered assistance.It seems pointless to continue this discussion with you.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 05:36:13 am
content: Well, it seems while everybody was grabbing their pitchforks, people forgot to actually figure out if the website was ACTUALLY 43MB. It's not. It's actually 4131 KB uncompressed.Which explains why it doesn't take EVERYBODY ages to load some images, because they are being scaled realtime, they are taking, according to my tests, 2867 KB of the webpage, and this includes replies, and further images posted afterwards.To replicate my test, use thehttps://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-developer/developersfor firefox (it exists for chrome and opera, but I have used the firefox version because EEVBlog general chat is broken on Chrome) and when installed, go under information, and click view document size.You get this,I don't think 4MB is unreasonable. 43MB can be chunky for a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is that it's not 43MB and a 1Mbps connection, the LCD for broadband worldwide, would take only 32 seconds.Yes, you could reduce it further, yes you could seriously compress the images, but considering your accusing a man of a crime he never committed, and providing no proof or attempt to prove your point, instead just ignoring my rational arguments and cherry picking statements to lob at me, I think this is much better than your scary 43MB.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:07:17 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 21, 2017, 05:36:13 amPage 1, when displaying 25 posts, is approximately 40 MB in size and initiates 86 requests. Since only one of the photos in the first post is 4 MB, and there are nine in total, it's not possible for the entire page to be only 4 MB.Quote from: lordvader88 on January 21, 2017, 03:11:50 amIt's definitely cool stuff for a lair.So, XOIIO, any ideas yet for the big, ominous-looking switch?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:19:40 am
content: Just did my own quick tests, repeated 3 times as a sanity check...Just in image cache - loading Page 1 of this thread increases disk storage by in excess of 42MB, Visitingthreeother pages on this forum adds another 640K, in total.I'm on 30Mbps cable and page reload never went under 13 seconds.Asbitseekerhas stated - there's something drastically wrong with your numbers.But even aside from this nitpicking, the fundamental principle here is that huge images posted inline are not necessary and will affect people.Being unaware of this is unfortunate, but deliberately ignoring this is the height of arrogance. JMHO.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:22:33 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on January 21, 2017, 05:36:13 amNo, people didn't forget.QuoteBY THE BROWSER. It has to download the full image to do that.QuoteThe fact of the matter is you're talking out your arse... Save the page, look at the size of the saved files. Boom, that's what's required to display the page.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:26:19 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 21, 2017, 06:22:33 amIwasthinking of asking the question: "Whereare they'being scaled realtime'- but I wasn't sure if it would be answered.I like your succinctness.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:28:14 am
content: Back to the topic.Nice score for $20.I'm outta here.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:40:31 am
content: Good posts Brumby Hensingler, Monkeh, I'm glad some understand it.Of course mistakes and accidents are perfectly allowed, but worse than wasting 97% of a resource is trying to defend it.You wouldn't build a power supply expecting 90% efficiency, and when you found it was only 3% efficient saying we'll build 1360 of them anyway and just let everyone use more leccy, because we can.I've just measured (wasted) page 1 from a cold start.TCP/IP said 43.6MB, if you include sent requests in the useage it's 45.1MB.I didn't time it, but it felt a lot closer to 40MB than 4MB!I clicked and saved an image, which saved as 5344x4008 pix 4.22 MB. In RAM that 1 jpg is 62.7MB! that might/would mean that page 1 uses around 500MB of RAM!Of course page 1 and the images loads instantly now including the images, (10KB TCP/IP maybe) they couldn't possibly be coming from my browser's RAM/disc caches could they...Edit.Unlike text, JPGs can't be compressed of course unless the server does it, close-up the images are quite noisy - prob not meant to be used at 5k x 4k pix.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 07:29:44 am
content: Quote from: bitseeker on January 21, 2017, 06:07:17 amI think I will seriously try and find one of those "awooga" factory horns, or something similar, and one of those red caged lights, and have that turn on when you put the switch to operate or something lol.That, or if I get a workbench set up more properly, I could use it to switch power to a workbench power supply and all the light/soldering iron/power supply I have set up, I think that would be pretty neat. I mean, won't be the safest thing in the world considering I'll be using these relatively thinner cords to go to the power supply, I don't want to (or have the tools to) cut up the case to put an outlet in.Could also just find some proper black cabling for 120v stuff and use that as well, the I can also ground the switch.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 08:08:41 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 21, 2017, 07:29:44 amI like it!And a "do not touch" or "do not operate" sign beside it.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 09:47:55 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 21, 2017, 07:29:44 amI was thinking of a different use for that switch. With you being able to move the contacts on the ceramics, you may be able to use it to switch to the polarity of a HV signal.

author: edpalmer42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:23:55 pm
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 21, 2017, 07:29:44 amThat switch doesn't look like it would appreciate a lot of current through it. If you want to use it to disable power, use the switch to operate a big clunking relay - the noisier the better. Rose's might have something like that. Be sure to post pictures.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 08:46:36 pm
content: Yeah, that's one thing, I don't know if it's 3000v at only 5 amps or something like that. Not sure what use I would have for switching hv polarity.No big relays there that I saw but they did have a ridiculous transformer, I mean holy crap. Also some a few of these weird multi tap things I have no clue about.http://imgur.com/a/APLcy

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 09:29:24 pm
content: It is exactly what it says it is, a high voltage safety (disconnect) switch. The resistors are inserted across the output (I assume) to discharge any downstream capacitors. Disconnecting from an upstream source is another issue. The unit appears to be part of a Sonar system.It also appears to have the capability of alternate configurations based on requirements. It's kind of interesting how that can be 3 KV wire. It certainly doesn't look special.No problem loading the images - including where they are repeated.I figure if the BBS will accept the file size, they are small enough.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 09:42:14 pm
content: Quote from: Hensingler on January 20, 2017, 03:17:06 pmMight I add arrogant too.When I clicked on this thread for the first time I immediately saw the image size was SO large, thanked the first reply and moved to somewhere else where time would be better spent.Having read all of the replies and visiting the OP a # of times the OP's images have still not fully loaded into my browser's cache.So, yes I have slow internet.....does that affect the contribution I can make ? Certainly not.If the OP still hasn't got it through his thick head that imagery size and the way he's presented them is justunacceptable.The OP need listen to the very experienced members that are trying to give guidance.I have made many thousands of posts with many hundreds of attachments, never has one been more than 1Mb and the vast majority are well under 200Kb.Wake up to this or be shunned by the membership.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 09:47:32 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 21, 2017, 09:29:24 pmThe forum isn't aware of the size of those images because they weren't uploaded to it. They're linked remotely. The forum limit is 1MB per attachment, 2MB total for a post. So, those photos would have been rejected by the forum.Incidentally, the forum will automatically create and display thumbnails of images that you upload with your post. Then, only those who click the thumbnail will get the full-size file. Thus, it does the right thing if you use the facilities provided.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 09:59:09 pm
content: Quote from: bitseeker on January 21, 2017, 09:47:32 pmThat is one thing I like about Tapatalk; it makes uploading images from your mobile device super easy *and* it even gives you several options for rescaling them.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 11:43:44 pm
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 21, 2017, 08:46:36 pm5... amps? I really doubt that very much. Low hundreds of milliamps at the absolute most, more likely tens..

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 12:11:58 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 21, 2017, 09:42:14 pmAn attitude like that is exactly why I haven't bothered to change anything, your shitty attitude is frankly pathetic, the only arrogant thick headed person here is you, especially when you come in after it's been widely discussed and start it up yet again, and then expect someone to go out of their way to change something after being spoken to like that.Quote from: Monkeh on January 21, 2017, 11:43:44 pmyeah, one person on reddit who saw this is a sonar tech so I'm going to ask him, maybe he will know more.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 12:42:32 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 22, 2017, 12:11:58 amGreat, it might seem you got the message then, even if you seem reluctant to admit it.We look forward to your further reasoned , prepared and thoughtful posts.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 01:17:08 am
content: I got the message the first time I opened this thread, I never said that I didn't.I'd say I'd look forward to your further reasoned, thoughtful, and prepared comments, but I have yet to see any evidence of that capability based on your previous comment, especially considering the lack of ability to understand that after four pages with 90% of the content being people bitching about the side of images, especially on the first page, that the point has been made blatantly obvious and the shitty attitude some people have clearly has not helped.If one of the mods would like to lock off this thread go for it, because clearly the majority of people aren't able to just ignore something slightly inconvenient, or leave a discussion at rest after it's been beaten to death repeatedly, all I can see coming from this thread from now on is more people bitching and being pricks throwing around insults, which yes I am doing now because I'm sick and fucking tired of it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 01:41:36 am
content: As futureproof as high resolution goes, more resolution than a 5K display is clearly overkill for what we're trying to do here. 1080p is good enough for this and can be well under 1MB per image with acceptable quality. There are, however, cases where 1080p is going to be insufficient, such as a high detail scan of a large PCB.I do have to say that the previews (for attached images) are too low of a resolution. Those should be upsized to at least 480p or maybe even 720p. Then the preview would be more useful in determining whether or not it's worth opening the full resolution image.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 02:04:14 am
content: As long as you don't switch it live, it may handle a fair amount. I wonder about the 3KV too. looks like it could handle higher voltages.

author: edpalmer42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 02:16:59 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on January 22, 2017, 02:04:14 amI agree. After all, this thing is mil spec. I would expect a commercial voltage rating to be far higher than a military rating.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 03:24:08 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 22, 2017, 12:11:58 amCool. Looking forward to hearing what you learn.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 03:36:53 am
content: Quote from: bitseeker on January 22, 2017, 03:24:08 amUnfortunately it's a younger guy so he has no clue, I wonder if there's technical documentation out there or if it would still be classified.Quote from: edpalmer42 on January 22, 2017, 02:16:59 amQuote from: edpalmer42 on January 22, 2017, 02:16:59 amyeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it was over engineered, I'm just curious what the actual current rating would be, if I knew what specific part of the sonar system this controlled it might help.considering it's 3kv, maybe it would be one of the crt displays? That would be high voltage, and fairly low current, and would explain the discharge resistors, although crt's are generally in he 9-11kv range right?maybe it goes to the transponder that actually makes the pulse.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2017, 07:54:53 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on January 22, 2017, 03:36:53 amI'm not familiar with Canadian demilitarization practices. If you have a relevant museum nearby, maybe take photos with you and see if anyone recognizes it. Volunteers at a Canadian aviation museum I went to once were a veritable library on the equipment they flew or maintained during their time in the military.