Blog

Seduction

posted Oct 19, 2011 2:34 PM by Jaco Vosloo


opener routines-for-use-in-various-situations

Maniac's seduction website

Social Programming

What is an Average Frustrated Chump?

Acronyms

Games
Strawberry Fields
This is a game to find out some things about how chicks see sex. It is very popular in Japan & is a good state transitioner.
Intro: Hey, lets play a game!
Imagine you are alone in a field, and see a straberry field in front of you with tasty strawberries.
There is a fence/gate around the field. How high is it?
(= how easy is this girl/guy to take sex)
How you are in the strawberry field, how many strawberries do you take?
(=how many BFs/GFs that person wants)
Ok, after you have finished enjoying the strawberries, how do you feel about the farmer, who's field you took them from?
(=how you feel to that person after fucking them)
http://www.seductiontuition.com/maniac-high/strawberry-fields.html

Roller Coasters
-You enter an amusement park
-You go to roller coaster line -How long do you wait to get on? (how much time you want foreplay)
-you're on the ride, going all around, what is feeling? (your feelings during sex)
-your car plunges into splashpool at end, what do you shout? (what you say at orgasm)
-Now you go to merry go round, but horse is broken, how you feel? (chick's feeling when guy cant get it up)
-Now describe the perfect roller coaster ride.. shape of track, feeling.. (describes the ideal fuck)

Web of life
Imagine you are a spider & have a web
-How/what kinds many insects have you caught? (describe your types of conquests, and former lovers, excotic? unusual, many?, beautiful? strong?)
-One insect escapes and says something to you, what he says? (your memories of failure when you fail to catch a particular guy)

Leap for life
-you are on ground, waiting your turn for first jump, watching other divers free-falling back to earth, what are you thinking/feeling? (describes your sexual desire)
-your turn, you are on plane, at door's edge and jump out, what do you scream? (what you say at orgasm)
-you land safely, and instructor approaches you, what is he saying? (what you imagine your partner tells you after sex)
http://www.seductiontuition.com/maniac-high/kokology.html


12v Fluorescent lamp drivers

posted Oct 7, 2011 2:28 PM by Jaco Vosloo

12v Fluoro Inverter
This is a low-cost project for 20 or 40 watt fluorescent tubes. However the most efficient is to use a 40 watt tube (or two 20 watt tubes in series).

The circuit doesn't require many components but its operation is quite complex. The clever component is the transformer. It performs 3 functions.
Firstly it is acting as a feedback component for the transistor to create an oscillator circuit. Secondly it is providing a high voltage (over 1 000 volts) to strike the tube and keep it struck and thirdly it is supplying spikes of energy to illuminate the tube.
The circuit is shown in figure 1 and we will take a detailed look at how the transformer carries out the three functions.
The transformer in this project is not a lethal device as the output wattage is slightly below the value that produces electrocution. However the output is in excess of 1,000v and the ends of the secondary winding should not be touched when the transformer is operating.
To get a shock you must touch both
ends at the same time - it is not sufficient to touch one end and any other part of the circuit as the secondary is an isolated winding.
Even a simple transformer such as the one we are winding in this project will demonstrate a number of interesting features. One of them is the ability to step-up a voltage. This is the main purpose in this project as we require a voltage of approximately 1,000v to strike the tube.
Another interesting feature is the availability to get positive or negative voltage (phase) from a separate winding on the transformer, simply by connecting the winding around one way or the other. In this project we connect the winding to get positive feedback so that a single transistor will drive the circuit.

The oscillator works on positive feedback. This positive feedback comes from a separate 13 turn winding on the transformer called the feedback winding.
The cycle starts by turning on the transistor a fair bit via the 180R resistor on the base and this causes current to flow in the primary winding. The flow of current causes magnetic flux to be produced by the winding and this passes through the ferrite core. The feedback winding is also wound around the core and the magnetic lines pass through this winding and produce a voltage.
The winding is connected to the transistor so that the voltage from the winding ASSISTS the voltage from the 180R resistor and causes the transistor to turn on harder.
Thus more current flows through the primary winding and the magnetic flux increases. This causes more voltage to be produced in the feedback winding and the transistor turns on even harder.
This continues until the transistor is fully turned ON and maximum current is flowing in the primary winding.
Now comes the important part.
Even though maximum current is flowing in the primary winding and maximum flux is produced in the core, this flux is a steady flux and not an increasing flux.
The only time a voltage is produced in a secondary (or feedback) winding is when the flux is INCREASING (or decreasing). When the flux is stationary, the voltage in any of these windings ceases to be produced.
Thus we come to a point in the cycle where the current in the primary is a maximum but the voltage in the feedback winding is zero.
The only current flowing into the base of the transistor comes from the turn on resistor but this is note enough to fully turn the transistor ON and so the transistor turns off a small amount.
This has the effect of reducing the flux in the ferrite rod and we now have a situation where the flux is DECREASING. This changes the situation in the feedback winding. The voltage in the feedback winding is now produced in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION and the transistor begins to turn off even more.
The magnetic flux begins to collapse very quickly and this produces a very high reverse voltage on the base of the transistor (up to about 25v) to turn the transistor off completely.
This is how we get a positive and negative voltage for the transistor.
This is quite an amazing achievement as the voltage through the primary doesn't change direction - it merely increases and decreases in value - but the voltage from any of the other windings changes direction!
The collapsing magnetic flux cuts the turns of the secondary winding and produces a voltage of about 2.5v per turn in the 450 turns, making a total of about 1 ,000 appearing across the ends of the tube. This is sufficient to strike the tube and as we mentioned above, the resistance (or impedance) of the tube reduces as more current flows. In our case the voltage across the tube is about 400v (this voltage depends on how hard the tube is driven and is riot a fixed value).
When the magnetic flux has almost fully been converted to electrical energy, the 180R turn-on resistor on the base of the transistor starts the cycle over again.
The voltages produced by the transformer are very spiky and the gas in a fluorescent tube is very quick to react to these spikes. The gas produces ultraviolet light that strikes the fluorescent material on the inside of the tube and causes it to produce visible light.
The tube forms part of the load for the transformer and has an effect on quenching the spikes to the transistor so it is not advisable to operate the transformer without the tube connected.

PARTS LIST

1 – 2R2 1/4watt (for testing)
1 - 47R 1/4watt
1 - 180R 1watt
1 - 47k
1 - 100k mini rim pot
1 - 100ngreencap
1 - 100u 16v electrolytic
1 - BC338 transistor
1 - TIP 3055 transistor
1 - on/off switch
1 - 12mm bolt and nut for transistor
1 - heat-sink 5cm x 10cm
1 - ferrite rod 10mm dia x 8m long
1 - 30m winding wire .28mm dia
1 - 4m winding wire .61 mm dia
(wire diameters are NOT critical)
1 - insulation tape either sticky tape
or masking tape
1 - interlayer insulation - paper

Extras:

2 - 20 watt fluorescent tubes
1 - box to house project
1 - 6m of figure-8 flex to go between inverter and tube(s)


8 Watt driver


The schematic for the 8 Watt driver will show you that this design is quite different from both previous ones. It uses capacitive ballasting like the 2 Watt driver, and a two-transistor saturation-limited oscillator like the 20 Watt design. But note an important difference: This circuit has a choke added in the DC supply, that produces more effects than you may think: Thanks to this choke, mutual conduction between the two transistors is no longer a problem, allowing for a very simple drive scheme and almost lossless operation. The input current becomes almost clean DC, minimizing further filtering requirements. And the waveform becomes a quite clean sine wave, which gives a tremendous advantage in terms of radiated noise! This lamp can be used in a radio station without causing any interference.


5W FLUORESCENT LAMP INTENSITY MODULATOR


The circuit was designed to experiment with using small fluorescent lamps as a broad pattern source of modulated light. The circuit hits the small lamp with narrow 1us pulses at a rate of 10KHz. Each pulse launches about 10 watts of visible light. The lamp starting method is adcrude but the circuit does work.


12VDC Fluorescent Lamp Driver

A number of people have been unable to find the transformer needed for the Black Light project, so I looked around to see if I could find a fluorescent lamp driver that does not require any special components. I finally found one in Electronics Now. Here it is. It uses a normal 120 to 6V stepdown transformer in reverse to step 12V to about 350V to drive a lamp without the need to warm the filaments.

40W Fluorescent Lamp Inverter


This 40W fluorescent lamp inverter allows you to run 40W fluorescent tubes from any 12V source capable of delivering 3A. This is basically a larger version of the 12VDC Fluorescent Lamp Driver and can be used to light regular or blacklight tubes

Part Total Qty. Description
R1 1 180 Ohm 1W Resistor
R2 1 47 Ohm 1/4W Resistor
R3 1 2.2 Ohm 1W Resistor (only needed once)
C1, C2 2 100uF 16V Electrolytic Capacitor
C3 1 100nF Ceramic Disc Capacitor
Q1 1 TIP 3055 or 2N3055 or equivalent
L1 1 See "Notes"
T1 1 See "Notes"







God and singularity

posted Jun 11, 2011 9:47 AM by Jaco Vosloo   [ updated Jun 25, 2011 1:23 PM ]

I'm working on a writeup of my philosophical beliefs around God and singularity.  Here are some references:

Terminology:

Stosolus:  Represents the single final being, similar to what people call God, creator, etc.

Omniverse
Video: Imagining the Omniverse
Video: God 2.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

God and the Singularity
God = Singularity?
A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence
Time Travel and Paradox
Grandfather paradox
Turtles all the way down

Frank Tipler has responded to Glenn's post linking to my post about God and the Singularity. He writes:

I beg to differ with:

"PHIL BOWERMASTER writes on God and the Singularity. They're not the same thing, he notes."

The word "singularity" has several distinct meanings. P.B. is referring to a sudden and radical change in technology. But "singularity" also has a precise mathematical meaning" "points" where quantities diverge to infinity (or are otherwise not defined). The laws of physics tell us that the universe began in a singularity in this precise mathematical sense 13.7 billion years ago. This initial singularity is the Uncaused First Cause. Maimonides and Aquinas defined "God" to be the Uncaused First Cause. Hence, by definition, the Cosmological Singularity is God!

Several of those who responded to the original entry made similar comments, although without referencing Maimonides and Aquinas. Professor Tipler is correct to point out the referring to the predicted upcoming Technological Singularity as "The Singularity" is a subjective and arbitrary choice. However, at the risk of bandying cosmological ideas about with one of the authors of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, I would assert that it may be just as arbitrary to identify the singularity of 13.7 billion years ago as the Uncaused First Cause. If those who are now applying evo/devo concepts to cosmology are correct, the singularity that began this particular universe is just one of many in a developmental multiverse. As John Smart explains it:

In the simplest and most biological of these cosmological models, our universe’s genes self-organized, through many successive cycles in the multiverse, to produce the life-friendly and intelligence-friendly universe we live in today. This theory of intelligent self-organized design proposes that, analogous to living ecosystems, our universe's "genes, organisms, and environment" encode deep developmental intelligence on a macroscopic scale, while they use primarily evolutionary and chaotic mechanisms to unfold that intelligence on the scale that we normally observe it.

So our particular universe need not be the (direct) result of an Uncaused First Cause, and that singularity of 13.7 billion years ago may or may not be correctly identified with God. However, if there is a larger universe that evolves increasingly intelligence-supporting universes, we do face the question of how that ever came into being. The first and perhaps greatest singularity, maybe the one that really deserves to be called "the singularity" is at heart a conceptual one, having to do with the discontinuity between nothing existing and something existing. Stephen has called this singularity The Miracle, and about it he writes:

There's a central question that science cannot address. For all of us, believers and secularists alike, it's "turtles all the way down."

Whether you believe in God, believe there is no god, or remain undecided - there is an undeniable miracle. Why does anything exist at all? Believers say "God made it." Yeah, well who or what made God? Secularists like to talk about the Singularity that caused the Big Bang. Okay, but where did that come from? If you say "Multiverse," or even that intelligent universes spawn other intelligent universes (as discussed James Gardner's book Biocosm) then that's just another turtle.

So here, then, is that Uncaused First Cause of Maimonides and Aquinas. Or maybe it would be better to say where, then, is that Uncaused First Cause?



Christian Evolution

posted Dec 19, 2010 1:04 AM by Jaco Vosloo   [ updated Dec 19, 2010 1:17 AM ]

The Bible was meant to be a book of faith, not one of science. I am not a literalist; that is, I do not believe that every word of the Bible was written by God Himself. Rather I believe it was written by men who were inspired by God to present a spiritual message and who embellished that message with historical and poetic detail. They wrote what they believed was true, but since they were men of faith writing what essentially was a bare-bones spiritual message, they used mythology, folklore and current events to fill out the message, to strengthen it and to help interpret it. As such, like Galileo I am not surprised that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate, because I look to the Bible for spiritual truths that only God can reveal, not for scientific truths that are best determined by the direct observation of nature.

This in turn leads me to my second reason why I am both a creationist and an evolutionist. The purpose of science is to determine the mechanisms by which the universe operates, of which evolution is one, whereas the purpose of religion is to determine the meaning the universe, its purpose for existence. As such, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that a supernatural entity created by supernatural means the foundation of space-time and the natural laws and forces that operate and control space-time, then used those very laws and forces to create the universe from the Big Bang and to control its development. Or not, since by themselves these laws and forces could create and develop our modern universe without divine intervention. The point is that I distinguish between the ultimate origin of space-time and the way space-time subsequently operated. Science probably may never be able to tell us for certain where space-time came from, but it will be able to explain - from the moment of the Big Bang onward - where the universe came from and how it developed. Religion on the other hand can tell us that space-time was created by God, and offer possible reasons why He chose to do so.
Here are two great articles about christian evolution philosophy.


Interesting alphabets

posted Nov 22, 2010 1:10 PM by Jaco Vosloo

1-5 of 5