Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Jim Thompson wrote:

Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

Phil Allison answered your question.

" ** The overall gain is: 6.82 times 4000 / Rg

Where Rg is the total resistance between the two emitters.

6.82 is the fixed gain of the op-amp stage = 150 / 22.

4000 is the effective differential collector load - ie 4.4k with 44k in
parallel.

At low gain settings, the max Rg value is limited by the two 4.7k ohms.

At circa 1000 times gain, Rg is affected slightly by the effective emitter
resistance of the two 4403 compounds - about 4 ohms in total.

So, at max control setting the gain is:

27,280 / 26 = 1049

For 100 times gain, Rg = 272 ohms "


Apparently the decline in your mental faculties means you can't work it out for
yourself. It's not exactly difficult.

Graham

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:44:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

...Jim Thompson

In my haste I left out a few points...

(1) The namby-pamby's who never post a technical question/answer are
always after me to offer a technical post. Here 'tis! Where's your
response?

(2) Part of my "Looks like crap to me ;-)" comment was directed at the
amateurs who always have to go back to voltage-between-stages mode.
They can't cope with current as a signal.

(3) I'm off to get my (eye) lens replacement. Probably won't be back
for at least 4 hours. My bet is there will still be no analysis.

Wimpy wooses ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many posts wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there easy as
cake.

Colin =^.^=

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many posts wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there easy as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Jim Thompson wrote:

(2) Part of my "Looks like crap to me ;-)" comment was directed at the
amateurs who always have to go back to voltage-between-stages mode.
They can't cope with current as a signal.

More modern versions replace R10 and R11 with 'links' and reduce the values of
R12 and R13 ( to ~12k in this instance).

Graham

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the ratio of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the ratio of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=


So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the ratio of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
....
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:30 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the ratio of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
...
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=


Write down A SINGLE EQUATION showing that the gain is "42" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:30 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of
the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many
posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai
darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance
between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the ratio
of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
...
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=


Write down A SINGLE EQUATION showing that the gain is "42" ;-)

(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1)) / (1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11)) * r12/r11

g=42 when vr1=675r

Ok, enough Im realy bored with this now,
why cant we talk about something more difficult like trying to measure the
speed of light in a Single direction ?

Colin =^.^=

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:34:09 GMT, "colin"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:30 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of
the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many
posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai
darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance
between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the ratio
of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
...
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=


Write down A SINGLE EQUATION showing that the gain is "42" ;-)

(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1)) / (1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11)) * r12/r11

g=42 when vr1=675r

Ok, enough Im realy bored with this now,
why cant we talk about something more difficult like trying to measure the
speed of light in a Single direction ?

Colin =^.^=


Sigh!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:44:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Yep it is.... sci.electronics.DUMMIES

Where are all the gurus when you want a real engineering answer?
Sucking on their thumbs and bowing to Gore ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:44:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
Gave us:

Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....


Yet another retarded, cross posted, off topic ****tard post 'eh
ThompsTard!?

Do you have a life, ****head? If so, it must be pretty ****ing drab,
and then your retarded ass has the gall to even think you have the
aptitude to assess others!

Get off it, you dumb ****!

As to your post title, YOU QUALIFY!

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:22:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
Gave us:

(3) I'm off to get my (eye) lens replacement. Probably won't be back
for at least 4 hours. My bet is there will still be no analysis.

Wimpy wooses ;-)

I hope you ****ing have a problem with the procedure, go blind, and
NEVER post your retarded bull**** here again, ****head!

Oh, and it's WUSS, dip****!

As in You're a wussy boy. You're also a PUSSY boy. **** off, and
go blind, asswipe!

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:34:09 GMT, "colin"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:30 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of
the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many
posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai
darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance
between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the ratio
of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
...
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=


Write down A SINGLE EQUATION showing that the gain is "42" ;-)

(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1)) / (1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11)) * r12/r11

g=42 when vr1=675r

Ok, enough Im realy bored with this now,
why cant we talk about something more difficult like trying to measure the
speed of light in a Single direction ?

Colin =^.^=


Get an rf signal generator, 100 MHz maybe, near an oscilloscope. Run a
long coax to a laser (pointer type is fine) from the generator. Run
another long coax from a pin photodetector (with maybe a NON AGC
amplifier) back to the scope. Start with the laser close to the pin
and measure phase shift. Move them apart, ditto.

This would work with a pulse generator, measuring arrival time, too.

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:34:09 GMT, "colin"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:30 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson"
wrote
in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID:
.com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of
the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many
posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai
darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be
obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance
between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the
ratio
of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
...
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=


Write down A SINGLE EQUATION showing that the gain is "42" ;-)

(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1)) / (1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11)) * r12/r11

g=42 when vr1=675r

Ok, enough Im realy bored with this now,
why cant we talk about something more difficult like trying to measure the
speed of light in a Single direction ?

Colin =^.^=


Get an rf signal generator, 100 MHz maybe, near an oscilloscope. Run a
long coax to a laser (pointer type is fine) from the generator. Run
another long coax from a pin photodetector (with maybe a NON AGC
amplifier) back to the scope. Start with the laser close to the pin
and measure phase shift. Move them apart, ditto.

This would work with a pulse generator, measuring arrival time, too.

but the signal traveling down the coax is governed by the speed of light,
by the time the received signal is brought next to the transmited signal it
has undergone a roundtrip,
moving the optical devices apart just alters the total trip, not just the
trip in one direction only.

Colin =^.^=

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:56:08 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:34:09 GMT, "colin"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:30 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson"
wrote
in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID:
.com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of
the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many
posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai
darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors .... there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be
obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance
between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the
ratio
of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
...
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=


Write down A SINGLE EQUATION showing that the gain is "42" ;-)

(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1)) / (1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11)) * r12/r11

g=42 when vr1=675r

Ok, enough Im realy bored with this now,
why cant we talk about something more difficult like trying to measure the
speed of light in a Single direction ?

Colin =^.^=


Get an rf signal generator, 100 MHz maybe, near an oscilloscope. Run a
long coax to a laser (pointer type is fine) from the generator. Run
another long coax from a pin photodetector (with maybe a NON AGC
amplifier) back to the scope. Start with the laser close to the pin
and measure phase shift. Move them apart, ditto.

This would work with a pulse generator, measuring arrival time, too.

but the signal traveling down the coax is governed by the speed of light,
by the time the received signal is brought next to the transmited signal it
has undergone a roundtrip,
moving the optical devices apart just alters the total trip, not just the
trip in one direction only.

Colin =^.^=


The coaxes add a constant delay, which you just subtract out.

C = deltaDistance/deltaTime

Past that, you're getting philosophical.

John

View in a fixed-width font such as Courier.

colin wrote:

Get an rf signal generator, 100 MHz maybe, near an oscilloscope. Run a
long coax to a laser (pointer type is fine) from the generator. Run
another long coax from a pin photodetector (with maybe a NON AGC
amplifier) back to the scope. Start with the laser close to the pin
and measure phase shift. Move them apart, ditto.

This would work with a pulse generator, measuring arrival time, too.

but the signal traveling down the coax is governed by the speed of light,
by the time the received signal is brought next to the transmited signal it
has undergone a roundtrip,
moving the optical devices apart just alters the total trip, not just the
trip in one direction only.

Colin =^.^=


Well, it depends on what you are trying to do. Are you looking for currents
in the once presumed ether?

You could take two highly stable synchronized time standards, A and B, and
move B to the destination end of the experiment, and turn on the
laser when A reaches a predefined second, and record when the light pulse
comes to B after that same predefined second.

If you are worried about relativistic effects on the time standards, you
can bring A and B back together to recheck their synchronism.

-Chuck

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
colin wrote:

Get an rf signal generator, 100 MHz maybe, near an oscilloscope. Run a
long coax to a laser (pointer type is fine) from the generator. Run
another long coax from a pin photodetector (with maybe a NON AGC
amplifier) back to the scope. Start with the laser close to the pin
and measure phase shift. Move them apart, ditto.

This would work with a pulse generator, measuring arrival time, too.

but the signal traveling down the coax is governed by the speed of light,
by the time the received signal is brought next to the transmited signal
it has undergone a roundtrip,
moving the optical devices apart just alters the total trip, not just the
trip in one direction only.

Colin =^.^=


Well, it depends on what you are trying to do. Are you looking for
currents
in the once presumed ether?

no I just find it fascinating that its so difficult to arrange an experiment
that measures it in one direction only,
that I dont think anyone has done it. everything seems to be extrapolated
form round trip experiments.

You could take two highly stable synchronized time standards, A and B, and
move B to the destination end of the experiment, and turn on the
laser when A reaches a predefined second, and record when the light pulse
comes to B after that same predefined second.

its effectivly been done with two fixed hydrogen masers in buildings some
distance apart.
the results seemed to cuase some controversy in some cirlces.

If you are worried about relativistic effects on the time standards, you
can bring A and B back together to recheck their synchronism.


moving the clocks introduces an error too, trying to move them realy slowly
may not be enough.
the two hydrogen masers were also moving at different speeds ever so
slightly.

Colin =^.^=

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:56:08 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in
message
. ..
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:34:09 GMT, "colin"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message news On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:30 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:00:54 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson"
wrote
in
message ...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:05 GMT, "colin"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson"
wrote
in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID:
.com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing
as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain
of
the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

I'd not noticed that post till now when I had to go search for it,
I dont look here for a few days sometimes,
I could end up spending most of the day reading and answering
posts
here,
wich I feel like ive ended up doing on a few occasions,
It amases me how the likes of Win and several others make so many
posts
wich
go into such detail,
maybe they read/think/type a lot faster than me ?

but this looks like a piece of pie to me,
the input stage is just a differential pair made with Sziklai
darlington
the rest is just taking the ratio of the right resistors ....
there
easy
as
cake.

Colin =^.^=


So write an equation. Then the defect/poor-"design" will be
obvious.

Wel ok if you insist, im kinda busy with my lightspeed converter so
il
just
give it a quick going over,
in the first stage ignoring emitter resitance as its a darlington,
current is due to the input voltage apearing accros the resistance
between
emitters,
wich is (r2+r6) in parallell with (R9+vr1)
this current flow through the collector load
consisting of (r4+r8) in parallel with (R10,R11)
and produces a voltage - good old ohms law again,
this differential voltage is amplified by the op amp stage in the
ratio
of
its feedback resistors,
ie r13/r10. to produce a single ended op voltage.

see - its just a question of resistance ratios.
now when do I get my pie or cake ?

Colin =^.^=

So write it as a single equation. You're waffling ;-)

jeez, you want me to expand out simple ohms law and stuff ?
...
ree = 1/(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1))
rcc = 1/(1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11))
gain = rcc/ree * r12/r11

I should of just said the gain is 42 that would of been easier,
ot would probably be right for some value of vr1 too !

Colin =^.^=


Write down A SINGLE EQUATION showing that the gain is "42" ;-)

(1/(r2+r6)+1/(r9+vr1)) / (1/(r4+r8)+1/(r10+r11)) * r12/r11

g=42 when vr1=675r

Ok, enough Im realy bored with this now,
why cant we talk about something more difficult like trying to measure
the
speed of light in a Single direction ?

Colin =^.^=


Get an rf signal generator, 100 MHz maybe, near an oscilloscope. Run a
long coax to a laser (pointer type is fine) from the generator. Run
another long coax from a pin photodetector (with maybe a NON AGC
amplifier) back to the scope. Start with the laser close to the pin
and measure phase shift. Move them apart, ditto.

This would work with a pulse generator, measuring arrival time, too.

but the signal traveling down the coax is governed by the speed of light,
by the time the received signal is brought next to the transmited signal
it
has undergone a roundtrip,
moving the optical devices apart just alters the total trip, not just the
trip in one direction only.

Colin =^.^=


The coaxes add a constant delay, which you just subtract out.

C = deltaDistance/deltaTime

Past that, you're getting philosophical.

Its still a round trip, one part of it wich is fixed in length is through
cable, the other variable part is through air.
The velocity is proportional to about 0.66C for some typical cable, as
oposed to 0.99 (?) for air.

Colin =^.^=

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:35:04 GMT, Fred Bloggs
wrote:

View in a fixed-width font such as Courier.


.
.
. .-----.
. | |
. --- |
. R2
. | ve -ve
. +------+----------+---Rg----
. | | |
. | | gm1vbe1 |
. hie1 /|\ |
. vd | \v/ |
. -- ----' | |
. 2 | |
. +-----. |
. | | |
. R3 hie2 /|\ gm2vbe2
. | | \v/
. | | |
. +-----+----+---- -vo/2
. |
. |
. R4
. |
. |
. ---
.
.
.
. R4
. ----------
. vo R2||(Rg/2)
. Av= -- = -------------------------------
. vd 1 1
. 1+ --------- x -------------------
. R2||(Rg/2) gm1(1+gm2(R3||hie2))
.
.
.
.
.


Gack! You really know how to over-complicate a simple analysis don't
you ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:53:53 GMT, "colin"
wrote:



no I just find it fascinating that its so difficult to arrange an experiment
that measures it in one direction only,
that I dont think anyone has done it. everything seems to be extrapolated
form round trip experiments.

It's easily done with two cesium clocks; just apply money. Heck, two
rubidiums would work.

HP once bought two airline seats around the world, one for an engineer
and one for a battery-powered cesium clock. They synched two clocks
and then flew one around the world. The resulting time error was
consistant with relativity.

John

Jim Thompson wrote:

Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

Perhaps because:

1) You were not the original poster and the above analysis was not
necessary to answer the question.

2) Many of us are employed and/or have more intersting things to do.

3) You don't run this newsgroup, so nobody feels obligated to jump when
you issue a command.

4) It didn't look like a neo-con rant, so we were all confused.


--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
If everything is coming your way then you're in the wrong lane.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:03:42 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

[snip]

Perhaps because:

1) You were not the original poster and the above analysis was not
necessary to answer the question.

2) Many of us are employed and/or have more intersting things to do.

3) You don't run this newsgroup, so nobody feels obligated to jump when
you issue a command.

4) It didn't look like a neo-con rant, so we were all confused.


I'm curious. Do you think I'm unemployed? I typically work a 60 hour
week.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Jim Thompson"


I'm curious. Do you think I'm unemployed? I typically work a 60 hour
week.


** YOU LIE !!

Being a total asshole takes 168 hours a week , minimum.




........ Phil

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:20:44 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson"


I'm curious. Do you think I'm unemployed? I typically work a 60 hour
week.


** YOU LIE !!

Being a total asshole takes 168 hours a week , minimum.

---
So you work 8 days a week? ;-)


--
JF

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:38:08 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:22:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
Gave us:

(3) I'm off to get my (eye) lens replacement. Probably won't be back
for at least 4 hours. My bet is there will still be no analysis.

Wimpy wooses ;-)

I hope you ****ing have a problem with the procedure, go blind, and
NEVER post your retarded bull**** here again, ****head!

---
He's not so bad, and that's just mean. Why not wish him the best?
If he's happy then that happiness will radiate out from him and will
affect everyone around him in a positive way.

On the other hand, if you wish for him to go blind, and he does,
then you'll think you had a hand in his misfortune for the rest of
your life and you'll believe that the responsibility for his
unhappiness was, at least partly, yours. That's just another weight
you'll have to bear forever.

Think about how _your_ life would change if you went blind at
someone's behest and you might change your viewpoint.


--
JF

colin wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
colin wrote:

Get an rf signal generator, 100 MHz maybe, near an oscilloscope. Run a
long coax to a laser (pointer type is fine) from the generator. Run
another long coax from a pin photodetector (with maybe a NON AGC
amplifier) back to the scope. Start with the laser close to the pin
and measure phase shift. Move them apart, ditto.

This would work with a pulse generator, measuring arrival time, too.
but the signal traveling down the coax is governed by the speed of light,
by the time the received signal is brought next to the transmited signal
it has undergone a roundtrip,
moving the optical devices apart just alters the total trip, not just the
trip in one direction only.

Colin =^.^=

Well, it depends on what you are trying to do. Are you looking for
currents
in the once presumed ether?

no I just find it fascinating that its so difficult to arrange an experiment
that measures it in one direction only,

I guess it depends on how literally you need it to be in one direction.
The reason it is difficult, is there is no way to convey the information from
the finish line to the start line without doing a round trip...

However, if you consider light traveling through a fiber, or light bouncing
off of mirrors not to be round trip, you could do something with that.

1) Coil up a few kilometers of optical fiber on a spool, and pop your laser
pulse into one end, and measure it with your biased PIN diode on the other,
and let your scope do its thing...

2) Arrange two almost parallel mirrors a few hundred meters apart, and introduce
a beam at a slight off orthogonal angle, and let the beam bounce back and forth
between the mirrors hundreds, of times. You can arrange the mirrors so the beam
enters and leaves on the same vector. (Hint, if the mirrors are slightly
off of parallel, the bounce can be made to travel from one side of the
mirror plane to the other and return back)

Of course, strictly speaking, either method involves the beam making a
return trip.


that I dont think anyone has done it. everything seems to be extrapolated
form round trip experiments.

You could take two highly stable synchronized time standards, A and B, and
move B to the destination end of the experiment, and turn on the
laser when A reaches a predefined second, and record when the light pulse
comes to B after that same predefined second.

its effectivly been done with two fixed hydrogen masers in buildings some
distance apart.
the results seemed to cuase some controversy in some cirlces.

If you are worried about relativistic effects on the time standards, you
can bring A and B back together to recheck their synchronism.


moving the clocks introduces an error too, trying to move them realy slowly
may not be enough.
the two hydrogen masers were also moving at different speeds ever so
slightly.

Terribly sorry about that, but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't
allow you to know position and velocity at the same time.


-Chuck

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:17:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
Gave us:

I'm curious. Do you think I'm unemployed? I typically work a 60 hour
week.


Yet you have time to take retarded dumps in here.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:02:57 -0500, John Fields
Gave us:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:38:08 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:22:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
Gave us:

(3) I'm off to get my (eye) lens replacement. Probably won't be back
for at least 4 hours. My bet is there will still be no analysis.

Wimpy wooses ;-)

I hope you ****ing have a problem with the procedure, go blind, and
NEVER post your retarded bull**** here again, ****head!

---
He's not so bad, and that's just mean. Why not wish him the best?
If he's happy then that happiness will radiate out from him and will
affect everyone around him in a positive way.

On the other hand, if you wish for him to go blind, and he does,
then you'll think you had a hand in his misfortune for the rest of
your life and you'll believe that the responsibility for his
unhappiness was, at least partly, yours. That's just another weight
you'll have to bear forever.

Think about how _your_ life would change if you went blind at
someone's behest and you might change your viewpoint.


Yeah, except that since we both know that my remark isn't going to
cause his procedure to go awry, perhaps it will have an affect on his
inability to post anything but tripe.

I just get ****ed every time I pull headers and there's yet another
post, authored by him, that is like nothing more than a bag of ****
some adolescent kid left on one's doorstep, set aflame, while he sits
off in the shadows, waiting for the homeowner to come to the door and
stomp it out.

So yeah, it was mean, but so is his attitude lately (or longer).
Maybe he is getting up in years too much, and has had too many things
not go his way. Who knows why he pulls this ****...

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:36:14 -0600, "Tim Williams"
Gave us:

"MassiveProng" wrote in
message ...
Who knows why he pulls this ****...

...This from the poster who has used the word "****" (and assorted other
vulgarities) several hundred times in the last month alone.

Any defense of that?

The term "vulgar" is relative.


Ever see the ending of "The Magic Christian"?

The usual way of gaining, and broadbanding the gain of, the compound
follower:

View in a fixed-width font such as Courier.

"MassiveProng" wrote in
message ...
Who knows why he pulls this ****...

....This from the poster who has used the word "****" (and assorted other
vulgarities) several hundred times in the last month alone.

Any defense of that?

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Is S.E.D actually sci.electronics.DUMMIES ??

When I saw this original post....

From: "powerampfreak"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Somebody explaining this design?
Date: 9 Mar 2007 12:08:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: .com

I commented, "Looks like crap to me ;-)"

The response from the hot air crowd, you know, the ones posing as
guru's, was an implication that I was incorrect.

So I posed a simple question... do a hand analysis of the gain of the
circuit.

It's a simple analysis (if you're not a faker :-)

It's been about 40 hours since I posted that request/taunt.

Nary a peep.

So I think this is TRULY...

sci.electronics.DUMMIES ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--

Best, at the moment that I can guess.....

Short circuit the gain setting pot/capacitor and throw away the NPN
transistors. It's a differential pair. The gain is gmRC. gm is set by the
'tail' resistor which is R2||R6.

Put the NPNs back in again. It's still a differential amplifier but the NPNs
'pin' the PNP currents at Vbe/Rbe which makes gm some different value......,
gm' less than before.

However the NPNs 'boost' that value by approximately their Beta....Bnpn [1]
So

Av = BnpnRCgm' = BnpnRCIcpnp/25E-3 = BnpnRCVbe/25E-3Rbe

That might be a factor of two out because it's a diferential amplifier.

Open circuit the gain setting network and it's just a pair of 'thingy'
amplifiers with

Av = RC/RE

In between........ I couldn't be bothered.


[1] Wildish guess that 'feels' right because there is some feedyback thing
going on and I think gm is a measure of re, or something.

I won't push my luck further on 'second' order effects because I probably
haven't got the first order ones right.

On the basis of the above analysis..... the gain is going to vary all over
the shop as Bnpn (and other stuff) varies. So yes it is crap.

DNA

Genome wrote:

On the basis of the above analysis..... the gain is going to vary all over
the shop as Bnpn (and other stuff) varies. So yes it is crap.

WRONG !

Every serious pro-audio mixer has a mic pre-amp circuit that's not a heck of a
lot different to this since the late 1970s.

It performs really rather well. Has no-one yet considered simulating it ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Genome wrote:


On the basis of the above analysis..... the gain is going to vary all over
the shop as Bnpn (and other stuff) varies. So yes it is crap.


WRONG !

Every serious pro-audio mixer has a mic pre-amp circuit that's not a heck of a
lot different to this since the late 1970s.

It performs really rather well. Has no-one yet considered simulating it ?


Not really concerned with assessment of basic performance, the basic
configuration is crude, problematic, lacks precision, and operator
tuning significantly alters operating characteristic. Then the one
component with well-matched differential components is underutilized.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Genome wrote:

On the basis of the above analysis..... the gain is going to vary all
over
the shop as Bnpn (and other stuff) varies. So yes it is crap.

WRONG !

Every serious pro-audio mixer has a mic pre-amp circuit that's not a heck
of a
lot different to this since the late 1970s.

It performs really rather well. Has no-one yet considered simulating it ?

Graham


So, your counter to my 'analysis' is....

"WRONG

Every serious pro-audio.........."

Is that some sort of donkeymoron[1]?

How does the fact that someone uses something prove an analysis of it is
incorrect?

DNA

[1] cf oxymoron. Example 'serious pro-audio'

Good grief, the concept of 'pro-audio' is bad enough, getting serious about
it is just being silly.

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Genome wrote:

On the basis of the above analysis..... the gain is going to vary all over
the shop as Bnpn (and other stuff) varies. So yes it is crap.

WRONG !

Every serious pro-audio mixer has a mic pre-amp circuit that's not a heck of a
lot different to this since the late 1970s.

It performs really rather well. Has no-one yet considered simulating it ?

Not really concerned with assessment of basic performance,

Why not ?


the basic configuration is crude, problematic, lacks precision, and operator
tuning

Tuning ?


significantly alters operating characteristic. Then the one component with
well-matched differential components is underutilized.

So Mr Expert. Design a better one.

I'm waiting with bated breath.

Graham