On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:14:40 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:>On 17/06/16 02:27, Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 04:59:40 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Well, I would have chosen "1.5 meg" and "12 meg". But that's just me >>> be silly. > >Was another name even needed? They're already called USB 1, 2, 3, so why >not just refer to the speed by the standard version that introduced it?USB1 was 1.5 and 12, USB2 was 480, USB3 5G and USB3.1 10G (with spec devices not needing to support the highest speeds in general). So what are you going to call the two speeds in USB1?>> I was helping someone buy an air compressor a couple of weeks ago. >> Air-powered tools have two parameters for the compressed air source - >> a required pressure, and a required volume of (compressed) air >> (usually PSI and SCFM in the US). > >Yep, that is dopey. Should be power (watts) at pressure, for continuous >use, since that reflects the actual requirement.Errr...? SCFM at a given pressure *is* effectively power. Or consider the analogy to be voltage (PSI) and amperage (SCFM) if you prefer. On an air compressor, the output pressure is adjustable, and tools work at various pressures - and have requirements for some amount of air at that pressure. There is also no simple ratio of pressure and volume that compressors supply. In particular, less expensive compressors tend to have a much lower duty cycle at high pressures (because of the great amount of heat generated, and limited cooling), this is true of larger compressors as well, but to a more limited extent (and usually only near the maximum output pressure). So specifying both is no sillier than specifying that some device needs 2A at 5V and another 1A at 10V - that they both need 10W is interesting, but you can't actually use them with just that knowledge.
Low-cost low-pin count MCU with USB Host support
Started by ●June 6, 2016
Reply by ●June 17, 20162016-06-17