Chip with simple program for Toy

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:33:20 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000, feebo Gave us:

he was publicly slaughtered
on that one -

You're full of shit. The PIN is on the card, dumbfuck. Your cite
even said so.

Bwuahahahahahaha!

so now you can't read - keep wriggling shit-sucker

 

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:35:17 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Shows what happens when she doesn't get the hysterectomy soon
enough...

shame your mother didn't

 

[Immortalist]

On Mar 21, 9:57 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 19, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:

You are composed of cells, billions and billions. Each
cell follows the laws of chemistry, immutably - including
your brain cells. They just run along, minimizing the
Gibbs free energy, that's what molecules do.

You are reaching quite incorrect conclusions.
More precisely, you are misrepresenting what the
laws of chemistry say.

Am not.

If we accept the general intent of what you said or
meant to say, it is statistical. The importance of "random"
fluctuations to biology is increasingly appreciated.

Straw man.

Clearly, human behavior is very complex,
probably intractable. And likely, this is due
in large part to thermodynamic fluctuations.
Humans are noisy, messy sytems.

But that doesn't address the free will question.
The brain/mind may be chaotic and
unpredictable, but that doesn't mean you have
free will. You are still a mass of cells, governed
by the laws of chemistry.

A. [Compatibilism] is the belief that free will and determinism are in
fact compatible and capable of co-existence.

B. [Incompatibilism] is the belief that they are not compatible. This
does not mean that free will and determinism are in fact both true,
but merely that they may coexist within the theoretical realm.

1. [Hard Determinism] the belief that determinism
-- exists but free will does not , or

2. [Libertarianism] the belief that free will
-- exists but determinism does not.

3. [Pessimistic Incompatibilism] the belief that
-- determinism does not exist, but neither
-- does free will.

Compatibilism, as most famously championed by Hume, is a theory that
argues that free will and determinism exist and are in fact
compatible. The compatibilist definition of free will states that free
will is not the ability to choose as an agent independent of prior
cause, but as an agent who is not forced to make a certain choice.
Compatibilists, being determinists, argue that all acts that take
place are predetermined by prior causes. Because human decision is an
act that is not exempt from prior cause, by this definition, some
determinists known as hard determinists believe that free will thus
becomes an illusion. A compatibilist however will draw a distinction
between an act that is forced and an act that is chosen, and it is
this distinction that defines for them what free will actually is.

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

I won't address the specifics of "free will". But it is improper to
dismiss it by invoking thermodynamics or such.

It's quite proper, if it is reasonable.

To invoke free will, you must posit a 'mind',
which is somehow acting independently
of cellular activity.

--
Rich

Is free will caused? Or is it something without a cause? The substance
water is the activities of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, not needing the
assumption that water is either the hydrogen and oxygen or independent
of them, but interactive on different scales of activity.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VChMh.12686$7l1.8261@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
You are missing the point. What do you mean by "explain"?

Account for. Describe sufficiently to duplicate. To enable
the creation of a model which performs in a manner at
least similar to, if not identical to, the original.

Miss my point again How do you actually *perceive* an "explanation".

Please, explain "explain" without referring to itself. Like, explain
means to give an understanding..like. you know...when you are aware
of something that clicks in your brain..well, what do you mean by
"aware"...etc. Its all circular. Turtules all the way down...

Agreed, again IF this all must ultimately refer back to this
notion of "consciousness" which we have yet to define.

Exactly my point. We cant define consciousness in an absolute way.

MY point was that it is "consciousness" itself which we have
yet to adequately define or describe such that we can truly
speak of it in any meaningful manner. In any and all cases I've
been able to think of, at least, "consciousness" winds up
equating to "that which *I* experience in myself."

My argument shows that it is that it is quite impossible to define
consciousness without referring to consciousness in the definition. Its
inherently a circular process. If consciousness can not be independently
defined, it cant be independently explained either.

Absolute proofs are essentially, not possible, proofs are relative to
deductions from axioms.

I'm not sure I can parse that correctly; did you intend for
a period after "possible" and no comma following
"essentially"?

or a ;, but what th hell...

My arguments for the existance of consciousness in others is via:

1 No magic axiom http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/magic.html
2 Physical structure of all brains are the simular.
3 Measured brain responses are the simular.

Again, I completely agree that the existence of consciousness
in others is the safe way to bet; I was simply assert that since
we cannot directly experience it, we cannot be
"absolutely certain" (whatever THAT really means ) that
it exists.

Agreed.

The problem with the above, of course, will come with #2
and #3, in that should we ever come up with examples of
entities which APPEAR to display sentience/intelligence/
consciousness, and which are NOT humans, then these will
not hold and yet we would not have a truly valid reason for
denying consciousness in these non-human entities.

Yes, its a difficult problem, and in principle, non solvable. Yes, you
understand that we cant prove consciousness, I am saying why. You can not
have valid proofs in circular reasoning arguments.

So again from any practical perspective, I would also have to
acknowledge a sufficiently sophisticated artificial intelligence -
one capable of reliably passing the Turing test - as a fully
"conscious" entity to the same degree that I recognize any
human being as such. But such an artificial being would clearly
be driven by purely physical mechanisms

Not sure on the "but" here. We are all driven by purely physical
mechanisms.

Agreed, but there are of course those people who assert
a "supernatural" origin of consciousness/self, or at the very
least would still fall into the mind/body dualist camp. And I at
least thought you had started out with an assertion that a physical
basis for consciousness could not be proven.

No it cant be proven, but we can verify it as we varify that the speed of
light is an invariant in inertial frames.

For example, we can cut bits of the brain away, and note the results. We can
measure electrical signals of the brain and corralate them with actions etc.

Prove is not relevant in science. To hold a view as "correct" we ust require
a reasonable amount of evidence .

My point here is
that, should we ever demonstrate the existence of entities as I
describe here (and I believe we will), then this would constitute
an existence proof of that very thing.

If I read you correctly. You are saying that you believe Zombies are
possible. I don't. I am as convinced as I can be that behaviour as a human
requires consciousness. Our explanation for what "understanding" means
resolve to consciousness, therefore understanding is not possible without
consciousness. So, a Zombie could never understand.

(unless its creator
could show the point at which a "soul" had been installed,
somewhere in the production process...), and therefore
we would have to conclude that "consciousness" in a
practical sense IS derivable from "physics," or at the very
least could be in this particular case.

That's not what is meant by derivable by physics.

OK, I have misunderstood your point, then. I am beginning to
suspect that we are actually in what could only be termed
violent agreement...;-)

Probably.

Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness is indeed a
part of physics in the sense that, whatever it is, it is strictly
the result of the physical structure in the brain. However, it is a
new axiom of physics.

By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from known laws
of physics.

Ah, I see; but then, while I agree with the "no magic" axoim, I am
not sure that you have truly proven that consciousness could not
be derived from physical laws. IF consciousness has purely physical
origins - and I think we are in agreement that it does - then it
should be derivable.

Not at all. As I noted, Kurt Godels proof of Undecidability trounces that
notion. e.g http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html.

We have to accept that there are statements that exist in their own right.
For example, most don't question that conservation of momentum is not
derivable from prior physics.

Conciousness is a new axiom of physics. This idea, to my knowledge, was
first suggested by David Chalmers, http://consc.net/chalmers/. I just
supplied the proof that their can't be a proof of consciousness ;-)

That we have not yet achieved this is evidence
that it may be difficult to do this, but not that it is impossible.

My argument is that it is not derivable because all "understandings" of
consciousness must, inherently resolve back to what consciousness is in the
first place. That is, a circular argument. The property of circular
arguments are that anything within the loop can be shown to be consistent,
irrespective of absolute correctness. That is, *any* and *all* explanations
of consciences can be made consistent, therefore, there is no way to select
which particular explanation is the correct one. If we can derive an
infinite number of explanations, than we actually have no explanation at
all.

This inability to derive consciousness from inanimate matter is not an
indication that consciousness is not a result of inanimate matter as Godel
shows that statements may be true, but not derivable.

For example, both the shrodinger equation and the constant of light
postulate are not derivable from prior physics. We don't state that
the constant speed of light is not part of physics because we cannot
deduce it from other laws, we simply introduce it as a new law, and
derive new results from that new axiom. Consciousness is another
new law of physics. It is part of physics, but can not be reduced
(explained by) to something prior in physics. Nothing can explain
qualia.

I'm not even sure that consciousness, at our present level of
understanding, could be called a "new law of physics" - if it is,
then exactly what IS that law?

The law that consciousness exists.

What does it state?

Statements about consciousness can only be made in the loop of
consciousness, e.g. aware, perceive, know, etc. It cant be referenced
outside that loop.

Where is
the "Schroedinger equation" of consciousness? Now it may very
well turn out that this IS the case, that consciousness will wind
up being described by such a fundamental law that it cannot be
derived - but I don't believe that this has yet been shown.

Ahmmm...I still think you miss my argument. We inherently cannot define what
consciousness is, except by using words like "aware" "know" etc, which all
require and refer back to consciousness itself. Since we can not define what
consciousness is in principle, it clearly can not be explained. One must
have a definition of something in order to explain it. Otherwise, what is it
that we are talking about? This is really so trivial, by my book, its
unreal. No definition, no explanation, its that simple really.

My view is that "Zombies" are not possible. That is, something that
acts in every way as a consciousness would, but not be conscious.

Perhaps, and I might even agree with that view - but I would have
to also acknowledge that I have no solid basis in evidence in
reason for that view, for the simple reason that I cannot PROVE
that even other humans are truly conscious. I assume that they
are, and I can say that I have some fairly good reasons for doing so
- but if "zombies" ARE possible, then by definition I cannot
distinguish them from truly conscious beings, and thus have no way to
describe the difference. Dan Dennett has done some very good work in
addressing this in his books on the nature of consciousness, which
I would wholeheartedly recommend to anyone still reading the
thread at this point...


It is difficult to give a solid argument for this conjecture, the
hint for me is that understanding can not be defined without
introducing consciousness, so a neither can a Zombie "understand".
It seems that "understanding" is required to solve problems
requiring an overall picture view. Unfortunately, this can not be
proved.

Agreed, again. This will rapidly become a very dull discussion
if we can't find something to actually argue about...

Consciousness just seems to be that thing that occurs when
sufficiently complex systems interact.

Yes, but then that would imply that it will always (or at least
sufficiently often) will arise when "intelligent" systems become
sufficiently complex. (Which is, of course, a time-honored
mainstay of science-fiction stories involving AI, as in the
Gospels According To St. Heinlein & St. Asimov....) And
should that happen, we will then have the aforementioned
existence proof of consciousness arising from purely physical
mechanisms.

But as far as any conceivable definition of "reasonable proof" we already
have that proof. We know the brain is physical, there is zero evidence to
suggest that something is missing, and yet plenty of evidence to show that
physical cause and effect is all there is to our actions. e.g smoking a
chemical, effects how we feel etc.

Which, at this point, I realize we are in agreement
on, but it's pleasing to note that that would (or at least SHOULD,
if only we lived in a just and rational universe) put the final nail
in the coffin of the "supernatural" assertions regarding the self.
I don't actually expect it to, of course, since such beliefs are
inherently non-rational, but it will at least at that point provide
the rest of us with the added entertainment of that camp trying
to show us where HAL 9000's soul came from....;-)

It's been a fun discussion, but I suspect we've reached or are
rapidly approaching the end of having much more ground to
cover.

Yes, indeed.

Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:34:33 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:01:27 GMT, Rich the Newsgroup Wacko
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000, feebo wrote:

While the tit-for-tat is amusing for a while I am certain you will tire of
it shortly.

A woman had kids, fancy that!
They're triplets named Nat, Pat, and Tat.
'Twas fun in the breeding,
But not in the feeding,
Because there was no tit for Tat!

Rotate Larkin's logo 90° CCW.

LOL! Thanks!

It's kind of fun driving past the San Onofre plant, when the two domes
start looming on the horizon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1335000/images/_1336834_nuclear300afp.jpg

"Hey! Look! Dolly Parton's sunbathing!" ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Greg Neill]

"larry" <larry@thishere.com> wrote in message
news:0KBMh.142104$nW6.136822@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Hi all,
I'm a beginner in electronics and would appreciate a little help.
The problem I'm having is that all the books for beginners that I've read. Tend to go
from
resistors, capacitors, diodes and coils in series and parellel networks.
To imaginary transistor circuits with no definition of how these effect each other and
how
the values of resistors and capacitors where arrived at.
Non of the books I've read so far, are any help in this aspect of circuit analysis. I
tried to
work it out from first principles. I keep finding that my calculations don't agree with
the circuit designers numbers.

Take the low voltage preamp (attached) for EG.
You can see all of it at www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/Audio/lvpreamp.htm.
It doesn't matter how I calculate the resistors. I can't get the 1.5v at the base of T2,
or anything close to 1.5v.

I can't work out what I'm doing wrong.
Any help or www. address with transistor circuit analysis (for ideots)
would be appreciated.

Thanks

[Massive snip]

Larry, this isn't a binary group, so please don't post
binary format schematics here.

A book that I found useful when I was getting started
was "Basic Electronic Circuits Simplified" by Hibbs.
It had lots of good examples of how to go about seeing
and calculating what circtuits were doing. I'm afraid
it would be a bit dated now, it spent quite a bit of
time on tube circuits and not as much on transistors,
but the approaches are still valid.

 

[Shrikeback]

On Mar 17, 4:14 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 15, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net> wrote:

The truth is Free Will is Good, and anything in
opposition to Free Will is Evil.

Except that, like Never Never Land, it is a
mirage, per a simple reductionist argument...

Reductionism is a mirage, as we all know
by a simple argument of Heisenberg's.

 

[Bob Myers]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:SIzMh.23662$Lz4.17113@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

Miss my point again How do you actually *perceive* an "explanation".

Not really missing your point - I am just wondering if it
is, per se, NECESSARY for an "explanation" to be perceived
in the sense that this word relates to consciousness. We can
imagine, for instance, a mechanism which is most definitely
non-conscious, and yet "understands" an explanation or model
of something sufficiently well so as to achieve practical, useful
results. But we're definitely at the point of splitting hairs when
we get that there.

If I read you correctly. You are saying that you believe Zombies are
possible.

Not quite; I am saying that I don't at this point believe I have
a clear and valid set of reasons that renders them impossible.
If that equates to "believing them possible" (no matter how
unlikely), then I suppose I would plead guilty.

I don't. I am as convinced as I can be that behaviour as a human requires
consciousness. Our explanation for what "understanding" means resolve to
consciousness, therefore understanding is not possible without
consciousness. So, a Zombie could never understand.

To be sure - but then, that argument does not mean that
"zombies" could not exist. We have agreed, I think, that a good working
definition of "zombie" is a non-conscious entity which SIMULATES
the behavior of a conscious entity sufficiently well so as to be
indistinguishable, by any objective external obsever, from an
other entity that we are assuming is "conscious." There's nothing
in that definition that requires said zombie to actually understand
anything, though - just that they give the proper responses to
whatever stimuli we might offer.

Ah, I see; but then, while I agree with the "no magic" axoim, I am
not sure that you have truly proven that consciousness could not
be derived from physical laws. IF consciousness has purely physical
origins - and I think we are in agreement that it does - then it
should be derivable.

Not at all. As I noted, Kurt Godels proof of Undecidability trounces that
notion. e.g
http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html.

All Godel says, though, is that it is POSSIBLE that consciousness
may not be derivable - he does not say that it MUST be. I should
modify my statement slightly, though, and say that consciousness MAY
still be derivable from existing physics, not that it "should" be. In
short,
we've not yet really shown it either way.

I'm not even sure that consciousness, at our present level of
understanding, could be called a "new law of physics" - if it is,
then exactly what IS that law?

The law that consciousness exists.

But that's not really a "law" - it is simply a statement of personal
experience. Again, each of us "knows" that we are conscious because
we directly experience the state that this word identifies, in ourselves.
We have no way of proving or demonstrating its existence anywhere
else, although again it IS certainly the best way to bet.

Well, as I said, it's been fun - but we really ARE going over some
pretty fine points now, and I doubt there's much more to be
said.

Bob M.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:33:00 GMT, larry <larry@thishere.com> wrote:

I'm a beginner in electronics and would appreciate a little help.
The problem I'm having is that all the books for beginners that I've read. Tend to go from
resistors, capacitors, diodes and coils in series and parellel networks.
To imaginary transistor circuits with no definition of how these effect each other and how
the values of resistors and capacitors where arrived at.
Non of the books I've read so far, are any help in this aspect of circuit analysis. I tried to
work it out from first principles. I keep finding that my calculations don't agree with
the circuit designers numbers.

Take the low voltage preamp (attached) for EG.
You can see all of it at www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/Audio/lvpreamp.htm.
It doesn't matter how I calculate the resistors. I can't get the 1.5v at the base of T2,
or anything close to 1.5v.

I can't work out what I'm doing wrong.

Well, let's keep it easy and I need to put this into ASCII, so we can
let others see it. View with Courier or other fixed spaced font:

3V
|
| 3V
\ |
/ R1 |
\ 12k |
/ |
| |
| |/c Q2
+----------| 2N3904
| |>e
C1 | |
|| 1u R7 |/c Q1 |
IN-----||---+----/\/\-----| 2N3904 |
|| | 1k |>e | C2
| | | || 10u
| | +---||-----OUT
| | | ||
| +------, |
| | | |
| \ | C3 |
| / R4 --- |
| \ 1.5k--- |
| / |220u |
| | | |
| | | \
| | | / R2
| gnd gnd \ 1k
| /
| |
| R5 |
'--------------------/\/\----+
100k |
|
\
/ R3
\ 1k
.tran 1 /
|
|
gnd

What I did was to assume there is some Ib for Q1 -- a base current of
some as yet unknown value, but definitely present. (I think you can
see why the base may be pulled up enough to have some current at all,
but if you can't I can explain that later, too. For now, let's just
go with the idea.) This Ib is multiplied by the transistor beta
(which I will call 'B' in equations) to form Ic and +1 more to make
Ie. So let's follow that logic and see where it goes.

Okay. Ib flows to the emitter and combines with Ic (B*Ib) to make Ie,
which equals (B+1)*Ib. This current sets up the emitter voltage,
because it has to flow through R4 to get to ground: Ve=R4*Ib*(B+1).
Make sense? Then working backwards to the base, we get a base voltage
of Ve + Vbe, or Vb=R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe. (I'll use .65V by default for
Vbe, here.) Working backwards more, the voltage at the other end of
R7 will then be Ib*R7 more, so this node is R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe+Ib*R7.
Going through R5 adds still more, so R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe+Ib*R7+Ib*R5.

Okay. So that is a divider node. What's its voltage? Well, it is
the value of Ve for Q2, let's call it Ve_Q2 for now, split by R2 and
R3, which makes it Ve_Q2*R3/(R2+R3). But what is Ve_Q2? Well, it's
one Vbe drop from the base, Vb_Q2. What's that voltage?? Well, it's
the supply voltage less Ic (of Q1, which is B*Ib) times R1. So...
this means that Vb_Q2 = V - Ib*B*R1. And Ve_Q2 = Vb_Q2 - Vbe_Q2.
(I'll also just assume Vbe_Q2 is the same .65V, for now.)

Putting all this together, we get:

(V-B*Ib*R1-Vbe_Q2)*R3/(R2+R3) = R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe+Ib*R7+Ib*R5

V=3V, from the circuit, by the way. And everything is about Q1,
unless I specifically added _Q2 to the name.

Okay, so it's a bit of a mess. Solve for Ib. That will help a lot.

Ib = (V-Vbe_Q2-(1+R2/R3)*Vbe)/((1+R2/R3)*((B+1)*R4+R5+R7)+B*R1)

That should work out to about Ib=240nA with B=300 (guessed, for now.)

Plug that in to calculate Ic of B*Ib, or 72uA. Multiply that by R1,
to get 864mV. Subtract that from 3V to get 2.136V at the base of Q2.

Hope that helps (and that I didn't lead you astray.)

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:39:26 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

snip
Well, let's keep it easy and I need to put this into ASCII, so we can
let others see it. View with Courier or other fixed spaced font:

3V
|
| 3V
\ |
/ R1 |
\ 12k |
/ |
| |
| |/c Q2
+----------| 2N3904
| |>e
C1 | |
|| 1u R7 |/c Q1 |
IN-----||---+----/\/\-----| 2N3904 |
|| | 1k |>e | C2
| | | || 10u
| | +---||-----OUT
| | | ||
| +------, |
| | | |
| \ | C3 |
| / R4 --- |
| \ 1.5k--- |
| / |220u |
| | | |
| | | \
| | | / R2
| gnd gnd \ 1k
| /
| |
| R5 |
'--------------------/\/\----+
100k |
|
\
/ R3
\ 1k
.tran 1 /
|
|
gnd


What I did was to assume there is some Ib for Q1 -- a base current of
some as yet unknown value, but definitely present. (I think you can
see why the base may be pulled up enough to have some current at all,
but if you can't I can explain that later, too. For now, let's just
go with the idea.) This Ib is multiplied by the transistor beta
(which I will call 'B' in equations) to form Ic and +1 more to make
Ie. So let's follow that logic and see where it goes.

Okay. Ib flows to the emitter and combines with Ic (B*Ib) to make Ie,
which equals (B+1)*Ib. This current sets up the emitter voltage,
because it has to flow through R4 to get to ground: Ve=R4*Ib*(B+1).
Make sense? Then working backwards to the base, we get a base voltage
of Ve + Vbe, or Vb=R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe. (I'll use .65V by default for
Vbe, here.) Working backwards more, the voltage at the other end of
R7 will then be Ib*R7 more, so this node is R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe+Ib*R7.
Going through R5 adds still more, so R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe+Ib*R7+Ib*R5.

Okay. So that is a divider node. What's its voltage? Well, it is
the value of Ve for Q2, let's call it Ve_Q2 for now, split by R2 and
R3, which makes it Ve_Q2*R3/(R2+R3). But what is Ve_Q2? Well, it's
one Vbe drop from the base, Vb_Q2. What's that voltage?? Well, it's
the supply voltage less Ic (of Q1, which is B*Ib) times R1. So...
this means that Vb_Q2 = V - Ib*B*R1. And Ve_Q2 = Vb_Q2 - Vbe_Q2.
(I'll also just assume Vbe_Q2 is the same .65V, for now.)

Putting all this together, we get:

(V-B*Ib*R1-Vbe_Q2)*R3/(R2+R3) = R4*Ib*(B+1)+Vbe+Ib*R7+Ib*R5

V=3V, from the circuit, by the way. And everything is about Q1,
unless I specifically added _Q2 to the name.

Okay, so it's a bit of a mess. Solve for Ib. That will help a lot.

Ib = (V-Vbe_Q2-(1+R2/R3)*Vbe)/((1+R2/R3)*((B+1)*R4+R5+R7)+B*R1)

That should work out to about Ib=240nA with B=300 (guessed, for now.)

Plug that in to calculate Ic of B*Ib, or 72uA. Multiply that by R1,
to get 864mV. Subtract that from 3V to get 2.136V at the base of Q2.

Hope that helps (and that I didn't lead you astray.)

Jon

Oh, shoot. My diagram has Q1 where you have T2 and visa versa. So
you were asking about the base of Q1 (on my diagram.) Oh, well.

To get that, just use (B+1)*Ib*R4 to get Ve and then add about .6V to
it. That will be (300+1)*240nA*15k+.6, or about 1.68V.

Sorry for earlier answering the wrong question.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:43:53 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

To get that, just use (B+1)*Ib*R4 to get Ve and then add about .6V to
it. That will be (300+1)*240nA*15k+.6, or about 1.68V.

Or...(300+1)*240nA*1.5k+.6, if I can get the value of R4 right. So
that is about 0.71V, not 1.68V.

That decimal point just disappeared in my earlier calculation. Oh,
well.

Jon

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:07:38 +0000, feebo Gave us:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:35:17 -0700, MassiveProng
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


Shows what happens when she doesn't get the hysterectomy soon
enough...

shame your mother didn't

Your shithead mother should be a jailed felon, fucktard. For the
crime of not flushing your shithead ass, the moment she shat you out
of her retarded ass, you TPOS!

 

[john jardine]

"larry" <larry@thishere.com> wrote in message
news:0KBMh.142104$nW6.136822@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Hi all,
I'm a beginner in electronics and would appreciate a little help.
The problem I'm having is that all the books for beginners that I've read.
Tend to go from
resistors, capacitors, diodes and coils in series and parellel networks.
To imaginary transistor circuits with no definition of how these effect
each other and how
the values of resistors and capacitors where arrived at.
Non of the books I've read so far, are any help in this aspect of circuit
analysis. I tried to
work it out from first principles. I keep finding that my calculations
don't agree with
the circuit designers numbers.

Take the low voltage preamp (attached) for EG.
You can see all of it at
www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/Audio/lvpreamp.htm.
It doesn't matter how I calculate the resistors. I can't get the 1.5v at
the base of T2,
or anything close to 1.5v.

I can't work out what I'm doing wrong.
Any help or www. address with transistor circuit analysis (for ideots)
would be appreciated.

Thanks

Jonathan replied as I was typing this but I'm not throwing it away as it
took me 15 minutes.
It's a bit long ...

Yes. The books invariably teach theory. The 'theory' stuff is carved in
stone, hence can be cloned from book to book with little effort and no
worries of plagarism. The stuff that you want to do is called 'design', it's
an artform. 'technique' is king and none of it cannot be written up easily.

The trick with circuits such as you linked, either to analyse or to design,
is (somewhat inobvious), to try to work from back to front and see if it all
hangs together!.
In this case we are told the output is sitting midrail at 1.5V.
So ... there's got to be 2.2V at T1's base. (allow 0.7V for the BE diode).
So ... there's now going to be 0.8V across R1 (3V battery minus that 2.2V).
So ... there's got to be 67uA going through that R1 resistor (0.8V /
12000ohms).
(ignore the very tiny base current that will be going to T1 base)

Easy eh!, that's three bit of info unlocked from one given key fact.

Move on further ...
That same 67uA is going through T2, through R4, then to ground. (ignore any
base current 'cos it's only maybe 1/100th of that 67uA transistor current.
So ... there's got to be 0.1V across R4 (67uA times R4's 1500ohms).
So ... there's got to be 0.8V at T2's base (allow 0.7V for the BE diode).

That 0.8V is the 'base bias' voltage that is setting up the whole amplifier
DC operating point. This bias sometimes comes directly from a two resistor
potential divider strung across the supply rails but in this case it's
coming via the output transistor.
Sound crazy as the output voltage is the result of this base bias voltage in
the first place. Sort of chicken and egg situation but it works fine as this
is the magic of 'feedback'.

So ... we must have 0.8V at the junction of R3 and R2. (ignore R5 at the
moment).
So ... the current through R3 must be 800uA (0.8V / R3's 1000ohms)
So ... the current through R2 must be the same 800uA.
So ... the voltage dropped across R2 must be 0.8V (800uA times R2's
1000ohms).

Hence ... we are now back where we started out and the voltage at T1's
emitter should add up to the original midrail voltage of 1.5V.
So ... we've 0.8V across R3 plus 0.8V across R2. This totals 1.6V, which
(gasp!) is pretty near to the 1.5V that it should be. It will never be a
perfect match, as BE junctions are just near guesstimates at "0.7V" and all
the resistors will have tolerances anyway.

R5 drops virtually no DC voltage as the current through it is the base
current of T2, which is tiny. R5 is just there to raise the AC input
impedance of the amplifier. If it wasn't fitted, the signal coming in would
be loaded by R3 and R2, which are very low values.
The foregoing shows only the DC setup conditions. AC signal handling
details sit on top of this.
(There's no clear reason why R7 is fitted).























--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[RichD]

On Mar 21, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

No we dont have free will. Trivial logic shows that this is the case.
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html

... what I consider a proof that consciousness is not
derivable from physics. Its summarised by, if you are
unconscious can you "understand" anything? So, to
"understand" one must be conscious. Therefore
"understanding" consciousness itself requires
consciousness in its explanation. This is a circular argument,

hey, I thought I was the only one who ruminated
about this stuff...

You circularity argument is clever, but sophistic.
I can refer to 'understanding' without prior reference
to consciousness, viz:

That 'eureka' moment is a brain/mental state
which results from a particular sequence of
synapses firing; i.e. the sequence IS the mental
state. This is a strictly neurophysiology
explanation, which avoid any circular reasoning.

We can imagine a brain scanner, which monitors
electrcal activity, and can recognize such states;
the green light blinks "He gets it!" Of course, it will
be different for every concept, and the brain is so
complex, we will never be able to perform such
monitoring. However, it is a cogent physical description.

--
Rich

 

[Bob]

On 21 Mar 2007 21:57:24 -0700, "RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Mar 19, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:
You are composed of cells, billions and billions. Each
cell follows the laws of chemistry, immutably - including
your brain cells. They just run along, minimizing the
Gibbs free energy, that's what molecules do.

You are reaching quite incorrect conclusions.
More precisely, you are misrepresenting what the
laws of chemistry say.

Am not.

If we accept the general intent of what you said or
meant to say, it is statistical. The importance of "random"
fluctuations to biology is increasingly appreciated.

Straw man.

Clearly, human behavior is very complex,
probably intractable. And likely, this is due
in large part to thermodynamic fluctuations.
Humans are noisy, messy sytems.

But that doesn't address the free will question.
The brain/mind may be chaotic and
unpredictable, but that doesn't mean you have
free will. You are still a mass of cells, governed
by the laws of chemistry.

I won't address the specifics of "free will". But it is improper to
dismiss it by invoking thermodynamics or such.

It's quite proper, if it is reasonable.

To invoke free will, you must posit a 'mind',
which is somehow acting independently
of cellular activity.

Your basic point was that the laws of thermo (or of chem) disallow
"free will". That is false, for the reason I stated, and which you
seem to understand.

Quite explicitly, I did not claim any position on free will -- only
that "thermo" does not disallow it.

Our understanding of "mind" is not yet far enough advanced to allow
any meaningful scientific discussion of what free will, or its
appearance, is. When we get to the point we can discuss "mind" in
molecular terms, discuss what it means to "have a thought" in
molecular terms, then we can discuss what "free will" is in molecular
terms. Until then, it is a premature question. So let's just enjoy it
while at least we think we have it.

bob

 

[larry]

Yep, sorry about the binary file I won't do it again.
Thanks for your help. That's made it a lot clearer for me.


Thanks again.

Larry

 

[RichD]

On Mar 22, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Please, explain "explain" without referring to itself. Like, explain
means to give an understanding..like, you know...when you are aware
of something that clicks in your brain..well, what do you mean by
"aware"...etc. Its all circular. Turtules all the way down...

No.

Formulate a Turing machine which models the data,
a la Kolmogorov complexity. This consitutes 'explanation'.
I believe this is, in fact, what the brain does (the details are
a bit mysterious).

Difficult, but no logic or semantic problems involving self-reference.

Agreed, again IF this all must ultimately refer back to this
notion of "consciousness" which we have yet to define.

Exactly my point. We cant define consciousness in an absolute way.

A mental state which includes self-awareness.
(mental states = brain states, I believe we concur)

MY point was that it is "consciousness" itself which we have
yet to adequately define or describe such that we can truly
speak of it in any meaningful manner. In any and all cases I've
been able to think of, at least, "consciousness" winds up
equating to "that which *I* experience in myself."

My argument shows that it is that it is quite impossible to define
consciousness without referring to consciousness in the definition. Its
inherently a circular process.

False. Refer to neural activity - which is what
thinking/feeling/memory IS.

We can
measure electrical signals of the brain and corralate them with actions etc.

Right.
So what's the problem?

My argument is that it is not derivable because all "understandings" of
consciousness must, inherently resolve back to what consciousness is in the
first place. That is, a circular argument...

We inherently cannot define what
consciousness is, except by using words like "aware" "know" etc, which all
require and refer back to consciousness itself. Since we can not define what
consciousness is in principle, it clearly can not be explained. One must
have a definition of something in order to explain it. Otherwise, what is it
that we are talking about? This is really so trivial, by my book, its
unreal.

nah

As you said yourself, consciousness seems to
arise from a sufficiently complex neural network.
But there are degrees... a snail has a neural net,
with brain activity, should we call it conscious?
That doesn't appear too useful. Yet we agree
mammals seem to have it... I don't see the problem
as circularity, but rather you need some well-defined
threshold of complexity, which is in principle feasible.

But we can empirically test for self-awareness
(which we might define as 'soul'). We know that chimps
are self-aware. So this, again, is open to scientific
investigation, without logical difficulties.

--
Rich

 

[RichD]

On Mar 21, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness
is indeed a part of physics in the sense that, whatever it
is, it is strictly the result of the physical structure in
the brain. However, it is a new axiom of physics.

By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from
known laws of physics.

There's another consideration... in quantum
mechanics, the observer occupies a special
place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event)without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness. Hence, consciousness has
some attribute whch interacts with nature.

--
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:39:26 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Plug that in to calculate Ic of B*Ib, or 72uA. Multiply that by R1,
to get 864mV. Subtract that from 3V to get 2.136V at the base of Q2.

If you didn't see it, to get the emitter voltage (the article says,
"T1's emitter voltage is biased close to half supply voltage (1.5V) to
allow for maximum output voltage swing" which corresponds to the
emitter voltage of my Q2), you need only take that 2.136V and reduce
it by about 0.65V, which gives 1.486V. So that is where the 1.5V
biasing estimate comes from.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:04:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:39:26 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Plug that in to calculate Ic of B*Ib, or 72uA. Multiply that by R1,
to get 864mV. Subtract that from 3V to get 2.136V at the base of Q2.

If you didn't see it, to get the emitter voltage (the article says,
"T1's emitter voltage is biased close to half supply voltage (1.5V) to
allow for maximum output voltage swing" which corresponds to the
emitter voltage of my Q2), you need only take that 2.136V and reduce
it by about 0.65V, which gives 1.486V. So that is where the 1.5V
biasing estimate comes from.

If you are interested, I've got a simple calculator for DOS boxes
available, called eq.exe. It's available at:

http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/c_expr.html

To do the calculations I was playing with, I didn't grab a calculator
as I like to see the symbolic names of things I'm putting into the
equations. Here is what I entered:

eq r1=12e3 r2=1e3 r3=1e3 r7=1e3 r5=100e3 r4=1500 v=3 b=300 -(v-.66-.6*(1+r2/r3))/((1+r2/r3)*((b+1)*r4+r7+r5)+b*r1)*b*r1+3-.66

That produced this output, 1.467736451, which estimates the emitter
voltage. (You can see I estimated Q1's Vbe at .6 and Q2's at .66;
60mV difference because the collector current of Q1 is 72uA or so and
the collector current of Q2 is about 10X larger [rule is 60mV per
decade change in collector current.]) With that, you can play with
the various values (such as beta, 'b') and see how that affects
things. For example, using a beta of 200, I get 1.486V; beta of 300
is the above mentioned 1.468V; beta of 800 (max for the bjt) gives
1.443V; beta of 100 (min, I think, for the bjt) gives 1.538V. Not a
lot of change in the operating point.

Complete source code is available, too.

Jon