Leslie custom speed control help?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cj1o17$gkl$1@panix2.panix.com>,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> In article <znr1096034459k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >> I have ever heard of.
> >
> >Could it have something to do with the fact that typically an
> >oscilloscope has one side of its input connected to the scope ground
> >which gets back to the AC power ground through the chassis? Connecting
> >one side of the output of the Hampton Motor Control to the power
> >neutral (though the ground-to-neutral bond) might make it unhappy.
>
> That's why you got the differential input module on Tek scopes. Of course,
> since the AC power ground _is_ tied to the reference ground, you don't really
> need it and you can just pick off the black wire on the output with the
> high-Z probe and let the ground pin on the probe float.

....or for those without fancy differential plugins, try a plain 2
channel vertical amp set to add ch 1 and 2 and set ch2 to invert. You
get a cheap diff input, as stock on most every dual channel scope. You
do need two probes though, but you should have that already.


To the OP re: variable speed leslie control, I've seen players "duty
cycle modulate" the fast/slow switch and achieve quite a wide range of
leslie speeds as well as musically interesting rotor speed trajectories.
A true varispeed sounds like a cop out to me with a big limitation: you
miss out on all of the fun possibilities of having a non constant rotor
speed... ;-)


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chris Hornbeck"
>
> >what's so bad about a variac? i'm in the process of putting variacs
> >on both motors of a 2motor leslie . . .
>
> I think all these caveats are just good practical conservativism. No
> motors like being throttled back, including gasoline auto engines.
>

** Utter bullshit.


> The difference is that auto engines are designed to survive it.
> Ordinary electric motors must suffer in silence.


** Only a fool argues from analogies that are wrong themselves.


>
> No solution, including variac, phase angle or cycle counting is
> without some penalty to the motor, and the relative penalties vary
> with the amount of speed reduction.
>


** Fools always compound their errors, in Horbeck's case - ad
infinitum.




................ Phil

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison wrote:

> "Chris Hornbeck"
>
>>>what's so bad about a variac? i'm in the process of putting variacs
>>>on both motors of a 2motor leslie . . .
>>
>>I think all these caveats are just good practical conservativism. No
>>motors like being throttled back, including gasoline auto engines.
>>
>
>
> ** Utter bullshit.

** Utter bullshit.

Oh look, we both provided the same level of _informative_ rebuttal
that helps others know why they're wrong instead of just insisting
that we're right. I guess that means that as of now, the argument
is tied one to one.

- Logan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw"
> Phil Allison wrote:
> > Chris Hornbeck
> >>I think all these caveats are just good practical conservativism. No
> >>motors like being throttled back, including gasoline auto engines.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ** Utter bullshit.
>
> ** Utter bullshit.
>
> Oh look, we both provided the same level of _informative_ rebuttal



** An unsupported ( plus ridiculous ) assertion needs no rebuttal.

In legal terms there is simply "no case to answer".

The makers of such assertions needs to provide **their** reasoning.



> that helps others know why they're wrong instead of just insisting
> that we're right.


** Then why not ask Hornbeck to justify his mad assertion ???

I cannot be bothered since the dude is a raving nut case.



> I guess that means that as of now, the argument
> is tied one to one.
>


** What you "guess" is a just as smelly as anything else you blow out your
backside.





................ Phil