A friend called me saying his 1TB SD Card he was using for backup stopped working on Windows & MacOS

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Earth to nospam: The words I quoted ("regulates" ("the flow of
electrical current")) are from the reference *you* used to prove *your*
point. So now you're disputing your own argument. Not that that's the
first time, but still.

nope. i did not provide that reference. diesel did, and it's incorrect.

Still having problems with reading for comprehension, are we!? I did
not say you *provided* that reference, I said you *used* it. You used
it, by quoting it as a counter argument to my post. Now you're (again)
back pedaling by saying "it's incorrect", which you did *not* say in
your first post.

there is no backpedaling.

you said regulator wasn't used. it was, and i posted where it was.

the definition is also incorrect, but that's separate from when the
term was first used.

i cited that link because it was the first instance where a resistor
was called a regulator, to which several other people responded that
it's incorrect.

Boggle! In the referenced page, the word "regulator" is *not*
mentioned.

the word 'regulates' was, which is what a regulator does.

if that's the basis of your argument, then you need help.

you are arguing just to argue, as always.

Here's the URL again:

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/resistor

yep, and it begins:
A resistor is an electrical component that limits or regulates the
flow of electrical current in an electronic circuit. Resistors can
also be used to provide a specific voltage for an active device
such as a transistor.

see where it says 'limits or regulates' ?

a component that regulates can also be called a regulator.

So what do we have he You use a reference as an argument, then you
dispute that very argument, when confronted with that contradiction, you
dispute that you used the reference, say that it's incorrect and say
that it says something, which it doesn't.

nope, that's not what we have at all. not even close.

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Earth to nospam: The words I quoted ("regulates" ("the flow of
electrical current")) are from the reference *you* used to prove *your*
point. So now you're disputing your own argument. Not that that's the
first time, but still.

nope. i did not provide that reference. diesel did, and it's incorrect.

Still having problems with reading for comprehension, are we!? I did
not say you *provided* that reference, I said you *used* it. You used
it, by quoting it as a counter argument to my post. Now you're (again)
back pedaling by saying "it's incorrect", which you did *not* say in
your first post.

there is no backpedaling.

you said regulator wasn't used. it was, and i posted where it was.

[Wrong, but no further comment, in order not to distract from the below.]

the definition is also incorrect, but that's separate from when the
term was first used.

i cited that link because it was the first instance where a resistor
was called a regulator, to which several other people responded that
it's incorrect.

Boggle! In the referenced page, the word "regulator" is *not*
mentioned.

the word 'regulates' was, which is what a regulator does.

if that's the basis of your argument, then you need help.

you are arguing just to argue, as always.

Here's the URL again:

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/resistor

yep, and it begins:
A resistor is an electrical component that limits or regulates the
flow of electrical current in an electronic circuit. Resistors can
also be used to provide a specific voltage for an active device
such as a transistor.

see where it says 'limits or regulates' ?

a component that regulates can also be called a regulator.

This is *too* funny!

*I* already said the same thing, many posts *before* you bring it up
now.

Here is the copy from my previous post (a part which you again
silently snipped):

2) A resistor might not be a 'regulator' in *Paul*'s (and your?)
(too) restricted definition of that term, but to anyone with a
non-closed mind, a device which "regulates" ("the flow of electrical
current") might well be called a 'regulator'.

Me
a device which "regulates" ("the flow of electrical current") might well
be called a 'regulator'.
/Me

You
a component that regulates can also be called a regulator.
/You

So braniac, after multiple interations, you come up with the exact
same argument, which I already made eons ago, but which apparently went
right over your head!

Moral: Instead of your compulsive argueing, learn to read for
comprehension and to remember what was and was not said, do *not*
snip relevant material and do not snip silently.

EOD.

So what do we have he You use a reference as an argument, then you
dispute that very argument, when confronted with that contradiction, you
dispute that you used the reference, say that it's incorrect and say
that it says something, which it doesn't.

nope, that's not what we have at all. not even close.

You're right, not even close. It's even much, much more worse than
that.

Diesel
news:XnsAAA7B646FF425HT1@wv8i7hFro8pr3vkKQYMKY96kq ueTl3Y7brMcY5Hw4.Xb
fNb89k6 Sat, 10 Aug 2019 21:49:54 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

~BD~
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:41:33 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 09/08/2019 20:43, Diesel wrote:
I'm not going to play along this time, Pooh. Sorry. It's too
much like the inline vs series debate you tried to derail
another conversation with. I left the definition when I
responded to Paul for a reason. You may argue with the
definition, if you'd like. I'm not going to waste the time.

Methinks you are 'out of your league', Dustin! ;-)

Considering that you (along with Pooh) couldn't answer basic
questions about a couple of circuits I shared previously, it
doesn't surprise me that you think I'm out of my league. You don't
even know what we're writing about.

And if you think I'm out of my league for suggesting the proper
way in which to troubleshoot a circuit board, you're a far bigger
idiot than I've previously given you credit for being.
Cluebyfour, moron, you don't jump right in with jtag probing until
you know ALL connections that should be made still are, and the
components ahead of the chip you want to examine, because you
think it's dead, are still working as expected. IE: power is going
where it should be at the correct levels. Until you do that,
first, you're wasting your ****ing time probing around on
anything.

You do not skip those steps, they exist for a ****ing reason.
Tried and true troubleshooting methodology here, numbnuts. It
predates me, and likely everyone in this discussion by years, if
not decades.

Did you consult with any royal navy books concerning troubleshooting
failures? [g] I don't think I missed a reply, here. Do you intend to
respond, David?

I know, I know, you were so hoping pooh could legitimately hand me my
ass and rightfully declare he did. So sorry that didn't happen for
you. [g]



--
All the world's a stage and the people on it are poorly rehearsed

Wildman news:zJadnQZoJL1QCtLAnZ2dnUU7-
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 04:21:33 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 21:49:54 +0000, Diesel wrote:

Wildman
Sat, 10 Aug
2019
01:59:59 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

Chances are you are correct but there is the outside chance
that resistors and/or capacitors connected to a chip could
be part of an internal regulation circuit. Probably not
but a possibility.

http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/555-astable-calculator

Quite the possibility, actually.

Thanks for the walk down memory lane. I hadn't thought about
a 555 timer in many years.

You're welcome.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/ic-voltage-regulators

I think you'll find that one is more directly related to your
comment, and much much harder to dismiss. Clearly, resistors do more
than '**** all' [g]




--
'Stupid' is a boundless concept.

"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
Sun, 11 Aug 2019
08:04:46 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 21:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Wildman
Sat, 10 Aug
2019 01:59:59 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

Chances are you are correct but there is the outside chance
that resistors and/or capacitors connected to a chip could
be part of an internal regulation circuit. Probably not
but a possibility.

http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/555-astable-calculator

Quite the possibility, actually.

Yes, thank you so much for posting what might been seen by some as
an irrelevant heap of ******** but obviously to those with alien
enhanced super nodel noodles interfaced directly to their brain
stem this must serve as some kind of revelation.

Unfortunately, I cannot see what the good ol' 555 RIP, bless it's
little 8 pins and DIPpy form factor has to do with regulation
unless and let me guess, you have found yet another Humpty Dumpty
definition for regulator. Yes, that must be it. Do inform us. I
know you won't because you always end up being ridiculed when you
commit.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/ic-voltage-regulators

Maybe this one will be easier for you to understand.



--
War. What is it good for? Absolutely NOTHING! (say it again)...

Paul Sat, 10
Aug 2019 22:36:05 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

Diesel wrote:
Paul Fri,
09 Aug 2019 23:09:10 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

Wildman wrote:

Also, a single resistor could be used in series with the load
but it would be more sensitive to slight current variations.
The two resistor circuit is more stable.

But we have to give Dustin a chance to give us his idea.

An idea for? I simply questioned why you opted to skip standard
troubleshooting procedures...And you've been on quite a rant ever
since.

Dustin wants to show us his stuff.

Aha. That's what this is really about.

I like answers to be logical and based
on the evidence at hand.

I do as well. So what logical reason did you have then for skipping
standard troubleshooting procedures and delve into jtag probing (if
possible and supported), etc?

Let's take your "presentation" in the other posting.

Let's remain focused on the issue I actually took with you, instead
of tryig to side step around your screwup.

Why did you opt to skip standard troubleshooting procedures?

"http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/555-astable-calculator

Quite the possibility, actually."

Uh, what ?

What is that URL about ? How did you relate it (logically)
to anything in the discussion ?

The confusion is due to your having misunderstood what I wrote, and
snipped the post I replied to.

What did we learn from *you*, Dustin, in those two lines ?

Who's "we" Paul?



--
Catatonic (n.) - Italian beverage most preferred by cats.

~BD~ Sat, 10
Aug 2019 22:47:29 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

aside Did you like the T-shirt, Paul?

You still haven't got the foggiest idea what this discussion is about,
you simply think you've found someone who will 'hand me my arse'. Keep
on dreaming.


--
'Try to get back on topic,' he said moderately.

"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
news 20:40:43 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 18:34:33 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:

On 11 Aug 2019 14:57:45 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Well, some of 'us' had no trouble correctly interpreting "those
two
lines" in the context given.

Fantastic. Do enlighten us.

Still waiting.


http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156585042200


Let me know where I can find a reply from you concerning your attempt
to defend David Brooks, mmm'kay?

In the meantime, here's a voltage regulator IC that requires
resistors to dial it in - it's a variable regulator.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/ic-voltage-regulators

I wasn't trying to fight with anyone, nor was I talking **** about
the repairs I've succesfully performed.


--
I phoned my dad to tell him I had stopped smoking. He called me a
quitter. --Steven Pearl

Paul Sun, 11
Aug 2019 22:56:16 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

If you have a contribution to make, just make
it. There's no reason to name anyone else.

"I think a resistor broke on your SD, but
I don't know exactly what all the resistors do"

That's not what I wrote. Any particular reason you feel the need to
put words in my mouth?

If you craft an answer like that, there's no reason
for anyone to react to it. You're not claiming
any specific mechanism. You're not claiming
an "extensive knowledge of electronics making
me a genius and you a dummy".

I made no such claims. Where as you have made the claim that you've
never experienced SMD component failure in anything. You must have
little to no practical real world board level repair experience if
that's really the case for you.

If you have an "extensive knowledge of electronics",
then ****ing well show me! It's actually easy.
You could quite easily craft a retort. I could have
been shot down in flames.

I do have an extensive knowledge of electronics. But, I don't have
anything to prove to you or anyone else. As I told you from the get
go, had you laid out the standard troubleshooting procedures and went
from there, I'd have remained in lurking mode for the thread. You
didn't do so.

I also follow standard troubleshooting procedures. I've seen dead SMD
components, and, I've succesfully repaired some sd cards.

But I know Dustin, and I know he couldn't even look
up or plagiarize a retort, because he's just a
garden variety TROLL.

Now, you're outright lying by attempting to pass off your personal
opinions of me as something more than that. You do not know me, we've
never met. You clearly know nothing of my background, aside from what
little things you may have pieced together from usenet articles.

In other words, to be frank, you're writing from your arse.


A person who spends $500 on an SD, is not going to
open it up for fun. There may be a warranty on it
which can be exercised. You might get a replacement
if you still have the bill, a device which actually works.

The individual tossed the card in the trash, according to the OP (who
is a well known actual, troll). If it was still under warranty, why
toss it in the garbage? If you're going to toss it, then you lose
nothing by opening it up and having a look around. Worst case
scenario, you don't get your data back, but if you just tossed it
into the trash as the OP wrote the owner did, you certainly get
nothing back.

The SD is covered in a plastic cover, which protects
the discrete components. You can't do a "screwdriver
strike" like you can on a motherboard. A number of
posters have "pinged off" a small cap next to the
CPU socket with a screwdriver, resulting in a mobo failure.
The plastic cover prevents your fingernails from
lifting off a 0201 by accident.

I didn't provide any specific details concerning repair do's and
don'ts. You and I didn't get that far into any sort of adult
discussion before you decided to run off at the mouth instead of
explaining why you neglected to suggest the OP to follow standard
troubleshooting. You described the possibility of jtag probing, but
skipped the standard things you should have checked, long before
going that far.

Now you're in save your hide mode, trying to claim that all SD cards
are made the same way and when they die, there's nothing you can do.
Pooh recently learned, and admitted as much in a follow up post in
this very thread that some sd cards do have supporting components
which you can physically access, which you can run tests on to
determine if they are still working as they should be.

At no time did I see you suggest any of that.

If a manufacturer doesn't know how to solder, they
will be deluged in returns. Either returns from the
store, or warranty returns. At $500, that manufacturing
line had better be tuned up.

I'm amused that you assume all soldering work done by robots is going
to be perfect each and every time. [g]

I have yet to find a full datasheet for an SD controller,
so device details or a "sample schematic" are not
available.

So, lemme get this straight, you're like David Brooks in the sense
that if you can't find something, it doesn't exist?

There was a time when a product briefing had a pinout,
and you could guess at stuff by looking at it.

Guess at stuff? What sort of professional training do you have in the
field of electronics and board level troubleshooting and repair,
Paul?


--
'I'll worry about it tomorrow.' - S. O'Hara

Frank Slootweg
Sun, 11 Aug 2019
14:57:45 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

Paul wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Paul
Fri, 09 Aug 2019 23:09:10 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

Wildman wrote:

Also, a single resistor could be used in series with the load
but it would be more sensitive to slight current variations.
The two resistor circuit is more stable.

But we have to give Dustin a chance to give us his idea.

An idea for? I simply questioned why you opted to skip standard
troubleshooting procedures...And you've been on quite a rant
ever since.

Dustin wants to show us his stuff.

Aha. That's what this is really about.

I like answers to be logical and based
on the evidence at hand.

Let's take your "presentation" in the other posting.

"http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/555-astable-calculator

Quite the possibility, actually."

Uh, what ?

What is that URL about ? How did you relate it (logically)
to anything in the discussion ?

It relates to the part you snipped, i.e.:

restore

From: Diesel
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware
Subject: A friend called me saying his 1TB SD Card he was
using for backup stopped working on Windows & MacOS Date: Sat, 10
Aug 2019 21:49:54 -0000 (UTC) Lines: 20
Message-ID:
XnsAAA7B64776DE3HT1@wv8i7hFro8pr3vkKQYMKY96kqueTl 3Y7brMcY5Hw4.XbfN
b89k6

Wildman
Sat, 10 Aug
2019 01:59:59 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

Chances are you are correct but there is the outside chance
that resistors and/or capacitors connected to a chip could
be part of an internal regulation circuit. Probably not
but a possibility.

http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/555-astable-calculator

Quite the possibility, actually.

/restore

I.e. Dustin's response relates to the text he responded to. I
realize
that such an occurence is uncommon on Usenet, but it *does* happen
once in a while. This was one such event.

What did we learn from *you*, Dustin, in those two lines ?

Well, some of 'us' had no trouble correctly interpreting "those
two
lines" in the context given.

I could do this:

"http://www.archive.org

Quite the possibility, actually"

FWIW, I'm not taking sides, but I suggest you step back from
your
position and (re-)read what Dustin actually wrote and respond to
that. Early on, you went off track and you'll never get anywhere
without going back to that point (or stepping out of the
discussion).

Some examples from your post:

[Rewind:]

But we have to give Dustin a chance to give us his idea.

An idea for? I simply questioned why you opted to skip standard
troubleshooting procedures...And you've been on quite a rant
ever since.

Why didn't you respond to *this*, which is the crux of the
matter?

He has no legitimate response to offer. I called him out on it,
rightfully.

Let's take your "presentation" in the other posting.

Being pompous about something you apparently didn't understand
isn't really helping your case.

Agreed. And for the record, I don't know why I've received such
hostilities. All because I asked why standard troubleshooting
procedures weren't followed...




--
Hockey is a sport for white men.
Basketball is a sport for black men.
Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps. -- Tiger
Woods

"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
Sat, 10 Aug 2019
22:38:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

I'm not being sloppy. I said nothing about a solid state
regulator, didn't even specify voltage or current or both. I left
it at regulator. You and Paul strolled off from there.

No, thinky real hard again. Paul said show me the regulator.
Instead of admitting you were talking ******** YOU decided to
bull**** and drag me into the argument on your side.

I did nothing of the sort. You jumped into the conversation calling
me a ******, initially, before you had to back track.

real hard again and listen. I come here to play and play to win.

You haven't scored first place a single time, in the entire time i've
sadly known you to exist. You write alot of bull****, and you razzle
dazzle non techies with your bull****, but you consistently fail to
snow most others who are techies that understand the subject
material being discussed.

And let's not forget what a rant you left concerning my questions
about two circuits I shared. [g]

You have a generalized knowledge of a lot of different subjects, but
you are not and never have been a professional technician. As far as
your proficiency concerning writing code goes, well, readers who give
a **** about it can just revisit the old thread when I shared asic
source code and succesfully tricked you into showing your ignorance.

Or just read anothers opinion of what you were doing (and that's
exactly what you were doing, it's your goto plan of action when
you're called out)

Message-ID:

Jax wrote on 5/25/2014 :
FromTheRafters wrote in
news:llt35u$gvp$1 @news2.open-news-network.org:

Jax expressed precisely :

[...]

Spin it how you like but the fact remains that you paraded
Exevalid as a wonder program and two weeks later several people
conclusively showed that it was badly flawed.

Actually, it worked flawlessly for the real reason he posted it.

Rafters.... Dustin posted Exevalid to see who could tell him what
it did.

That's not how I understood it. Dustin posted many times some
assembly language programs to see if certain select posters who
claim to be coders could tell him what they were doing. That bait
went untaken with his various 'hello world' type programs as well as
his CMOS checksum invalidator program. He apparently chose ASIC due
to its incomplete, by today's standards, implementation of HLL
constructs to trick these 'coders' into thinking that they
understood it enough to play along. Once sucked in by this ploy,
Pooh showed his hand.

Pooh cat was able to do that.

No, in fact Pooh showed his misunderstanding. The rest was 'damage
control' by deflection.

However Exevalid didn't do what he intended because it failed in
certain circumstances.

Pooh cat made some corrections.

He sucked you in as well. Pooh broke the program by removing what he
thought, incorrectly, was unneeded. He also described two integer
variables as representing 'true' and 'false' boolean values - those
integers were stored in two bytes each whereas two boolean values
would only take two bits to store. Global variables? Missing and/or
non-existent subroutines? Why not just tell Dustin what it was
doing? Hell, the name was EXEVALID (big clue there) and Pooh
extracted only the length calculation routine from it and called it
a *counter* and then proceeded to expand and overcomplicate it.

That just doesn't sound like a coder to me.

You've only been able to bull**** people who really don't have a clue
about the subject up for discussion. You've been pulling **** like
that for years.



You may argue with the definition, if you'd like. I'm not
going to waste the time.

I don't think there is much to argue about.

Nah, there isn't really. I provided standard troubleshooting
procedures, and Paul for whatever reason opted to skip them and
declare without checking how accurate/inaccurate they were that
the SD cards when they fail are just ****ed and you're out the
data, always.

Except, that's not always the case and sometimes it's the SMD
component(s) responsible for the 'dead' sdcard. Paul goes onto to
claim that he's never seen dead SMD components on anything. Paul
must live in an off world bubble if that's the case. I really
don't know why he'd think SMD wouldn't have the same issues and
limitations as their physically larger counter parts. Electronic
components fail, regardless of physical dimensions or packaging.

No rebuttle eh?


--
You can't direct the wind, but you can adjust your sails.

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:06:02 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

There was a time when a product briefing had a pinout,
and you could guess at stuff by looking at it.

Guess at stuff? What sort of professional training do you have in the
field of electronics and board level troubleshooting and repair,
Paul?

Guessing at stuff is part and parcel of forming a hypothesis. Certainly
for any complex system that's failed. You do talk rubbish.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:06:08 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
Sat, 10 Aug 2019
22:38:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

I'm not being sloppy. I said nothing about a solid state
regulator, didn't even specify voltage or current or both. I left
it at regulator. You and Paul strolled off from there.

No, thinky real hard again. Paul said show me the regulator.
Instead of admitting you were talking ******** YOU decided to
bull**** and drag me into the argument on your side.

I did nothing of the sort. You jumped into the conversation calling
me a ******, initially, before you had to back track.

real hard again and listen. I come here to play and play to win.

You haven't scored first place a single time, in the entire time i've
sadly known you to exist. You write alot of bull****, and you razzle
dazzle non techies with your bull****, but you consistently fail to
snow most others who are techies that understand the subject
material being discussed.

And let's not forget what a rant you left concerning my questions
about two circuits I shared. [g]

You have a generalized knowledge of a lot of different subjects, but
you are not and never have been a professional technician. As far as
your proficiency concerning writing code goes, well, readers who give
a **** about it can just revisit the old thread when I shared asic
source code and succesfully tricked you into showing your ignorance.

Or just read anothers opinion of what you were doing (and that's
exactly what you were doing, it's your goto plan of action when
you're called out)

Message-ID:

Jax wrote on 5/25/2014 :
FromTheRafters wrote in
news:llt35u$gvp$1 @news2.open-news-network.org:

Jax expressed precisely :

[...]

Spin it how you like but the fact remains that you paraded
Exevalid as a wonder program and two weeks later several people
conclusively showed that it was badly flawed.

Actually, it worked flawlessly for the real reason he posted it.

Rafters.... Dustin posted Exevalid to see who could tell him what
it did.

That's not how I understood it. Dustin posted many times some
assembly language programs to see if certain select posters who
claim to be coders could tell him what they were doing. That bait
went untaken with his various 'hello world' type programs as well as
his CMOS checksum invalidator program. He apparently chose ASIC due
to its incomplete, by today's standards, implementation of HLL
constructs to trick these 'coders' into thinking that they
understood it enough to play along. Once sucked in by this ploy,
Pooh showed his hand.

Pooh cat was able to do that.

No, in fact Pooh showed his misunderstanding. The rest was 'damage
control' by deflection.

However Exevalid didn't do what he intended because it failed in
certain circumstances.

Pooh cat made some corrections.

He sucked you in as well. Pooh broke the program by removing what he
thought, incorrectly, was unneeded. He also described two integer
variables as representing 'true' and 'false' boolean values - those
integers were stored in two bytes each whereas two boolean values
would only take two bits to store. Global variables? Missing and/or
non-existent subroutines? Why not just tell Dustin what it was
doing? Hell, the name was EXEVALID (big clue there) and Pooh
extracted only the length calculation routine from it and called it
a *counter* and then proceeded to expand and overcomplicate it.

That just doesn't sound like a coder to me.

You've only been able to bull**** people who really don't have a clue
about the subject up for discussion. You've been pulling **** like
that for years.



You may argue with the definition, if you'd like. I'm not
going to waste the time.

I don't think there is much to argue about.

Nah, there isn't really. I provided standard troubleshooting
procedures, and Paul for whatever reason opted to skip them and
declare without checking how accurate/inaccurate they were that
the SD cards when they fail are just ****ed and you're out the
data, always.

Except, that's not always the case and sometimes it's the SMD
component(s) responsible for the 'dead' sdcard. Paul goes onto to
claim that he's never seen dead SMD components on anything. Paul
must live in an off world bubble if that's the case. I really
don't know why he'd think SMD wouldn't have the same issues and
limitations as their physically larger counter parts. Electronic
components fail, regardless of physical dimensions or packaging.

No rebuttle eh?

Rebuttal of what? You have resorted to posting the usual word wall
smokescreen of jumbled up drivel. You can't stay on topic and put up a
reasoned argument. A resistor is not a regulator no matter how you try
to obfuscate and spin the matter.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:05:59 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
Sun, 11 Aug 2019
08:04:46 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 21:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Wildman
Sat, 10 Aug
2019 01:59:59 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

Chances are you are correct but there is the outside chance
that resistors and/or capacitors connected to a chip could
be part of an internal regulation circuit. Probably not
but a possibility.

http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/555-astable-calculator

Quite the possibility, actually.

Yes, thank you so much for posting what might been seen by some as
an irrelevant heap of ******** but obviously to those with alien
enhanced super nodel noodles interfaced directly to their brain
stem this must serve as some kind of revelation.

Unfortunately, I cannot see what the good ol' 555 RIP, bless it's
little 8 pins and DIPpy form factor has to do with regulation
unless and let me guess, you have found yet another Humpty Dumpty
definition for regulator. Yes, that must be it. Do inform us. I
know you won't because you always end up being ridiculed when you
commit.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/ic-voltage-regulators

Maybe this one will be easier for you to understand.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how connecting a resistor to a 555
timer makes the resistor a regulator because it doesn't.

No matter how much you try to hide that fact by diluting it with links
and OT word walls. That fact will never change.

We live in a world of fools Dustin, and you will always be their King
but never my better.

Play on. You mustn't lose the hearts and minds of the mob.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

Diesel wrote:
Wildman news:zJadnQZoJL1QCtLAnZ2dnUU7-
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 04:21:33 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 21:49:54 +0000, Diesel wrote:

Wildman
Sat, 10 Aug
2019
01:59:59 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

[snip]

Chances are you are correct but there is the outside chance
that resistors and/or capacitors connected to a chip could
be part of an internal regulation circuit. Probably not
but a possibility.
http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/555-astable-calculator

Quite the possibility, actually.
Thanks for the walk down memory lane. I hadn't thought about
a 555 timer in many years.

You're welcome.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/ic-voltage-regulators

I think you'll find that one is more directly related to your
comment, and much much harder to dismiss. Clearly, resistors do more
than '**** all' [g]

None of the circuits on that page is purely passive.

Every one of them involves active gain stages, with
transistors, amplifiers, and band gap references internally.

R1 and R2 in this circuit, are part of setting the response
of the circuit to voltage. This is a linear circuit, a linear
regulator, not very efficient. Resistor R2 is a variable
resistor, because without the variable resistor, the output
voltage could not be set precisely. In other words, an error
in the value of R2, throws the circuit off. So they cheat
and use an adjustable resistor. The *user* uses a screwdriver
to set the correct circuit output voltage. The *user* is
the regulator, not the circuit.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/wp-cont...ing-LM3171.jpg

In this one, R1 and R2 are fixed values. They have a tolerance
(a plus or minus). The output voltage will have an offset
from the desired value. Whether this meets the tolerance of
the load to voltage error, is then part of the design.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/wp-cont...ck-Diagram.jpg

One of the characteristics of the *amplifier* inside the
regulator, is that it draws zero current. Or, as close to
zero current as they can manage. This emphasizes the part
of resistive devices we hate. When we do the load regulation
and line regulation calcs, the bad characteristics of the
circuit come out.

Raw input voltage +
|
R1
|
+----- load current ---+ to load
|
R2
|
GND

If the raw input voltage changes, the resistor network
does not regulate, because the Vload goes up and
down as Vraw goes up and down. This implies
"bad line regulation".

unregulated 5 to 6V +
|
1K
|
+----- output goes between 2.5V and 3V
| (That's not regulation!)
1K
|
GND

Now, in the *amplified* circuits on that page, they
attempt to draw zero input current (could be low
microamps or nanoamps). Since the load current measurement
point in the above, is zero current, there is no opportunity
for the load regulation to be bad.

Raw input voltage +
|
R1
|
+----- Circuit performs well if load = 0mA
| Circuit performs poorly if load
R2 varies from 0 to 20mA = poor load
| regulation
GND


However, if we use the above voltage divider and apply
a variable load (say 0 to 20mA load because the
circuit inside the load does variable work and its
load varies). If we measure the voltage at the node
where R1 and R2 meet, it goes up and down as Iload
varies.

These are the things I wanted you to outline in your
answer. Explaining it to you, kinda spoils the
surprise, doesn't it.

The resistors by themselves are worthless. For
practical circuits, you *don't* do it this way.
You can get much better results with active
elements, involving gain, closed loop feedback
and band gap (quantum mechanical) references.

The R1 and R2 in such circuits, are feedback
elements setting gain.

In a 7805 three terminal regulator, all of these
components are integrated on the silicon die.
But a 7805, even a small one in a TO220 package,
are way too big for usage in an SD card. None of
the circuits on the above page, is fit for
designing an SD. Linear regulators (like LM317
with resistive divider gain setting) have poor
efficiency and throw off heat in proportion to
the size of the load.

In the switching circuit on that web page, there
is an energy storage element. To detect a
switching regulator design, we look for evidence
of things like a wound inductor as proof a
switcher is present. A switching supply can
be much more efficient (~93%) than any linear
regulator. It throws off less heat. They are
commonly used on addin cards, they can be seen
on motherboards and so on. The available pictures
of SD cards do not show such an element.

Inductors can be integrated inside silicon chips.
BiCMOS process technology (which isn't used any
more) supports things like this. The inductance
value would be tiny.

Intel integrated all sorts of this stuff inside
Haswell, and did switching regulation in the
hundreds of MHz range, an unheard of feat
compared to any other part of the industry.
And in the generation after Haswell, they
removed it...

Nothing in the topology of practical SD
designs, hints at anything of this sort.
Intel could do what it did, because it
had sufficient X*Y space to do it.

It *is* possible to integrate regulators into
silicon chips. It's done all the time. However,
with the usage of linear regulators, the load
current cannot be large, or heat will be involved.
The SD card has a *plastic* housing and *no*
TIM between the internal components and the
plastic housing. The socket the SD is in, is
typically in a *zero airflow* area of a computing
device. If you were to implement a linear regulator
and the circuit draws any significant amount of
current, the device is going to get hot.

The devices that do their own regulation, tend
to have an assumption of some amount of airflow
over their top surface. Like maybe 200LFM is
assumed. You have to study the thermal details
of such chips, to keep their temperatures
reasonable. An SD is the worst possible kind of
packaging solution for thermal issues.

The SD card does have passive components inside.
Without a datasheet of any note, or an application
note with a sample schematic, we can't say for
sure what function they have. In any circuit
with a handful of passives, some can be removed
without immediately killing the circuit. Some,
like series damping resistors, have data flowing
through them. Big deal. We need a means to damage
these components. The SD has that nice plastic
package on the outside, which prevents gouging
injuries to the device. The ESD rating of the
SD is high - it's higher than an Intel USB port,
which is already doing a good job. It's probably
slightly less than the ESD rating of an RS232
serial port (which is the best).

There is no particular reason to suspect a
problem with the physical aspects of the SD.
However, the real and known reliability issues
with TLC flash, is an obvious point of logical
failure in the circuit. Just as loss of the
SA (Service Area) on a hard drive, spells doom
for the hard drive. If you can't read the SA,
"it's dead, Jim". Flash devices have the same
failure mode.

Paul