Driver to drive?

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:19:43 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:shs0dcht0u1ueng46n19keljm5j7ienvpl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:59:26 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:2g6uccheh2pto7113hegrstud5ro8r8paj@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:16:29 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
news:kfudnRgqWLyQIlDFnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com...

"bitrex" wrote in message news:9DdzA.62942$mb5.42260@fx19.iad...


I'm a liberal and yet, in some circumstances I do support the death
penalty.

I don't see that there can be much more of a cold-bloodied, calculated
murder, than having 12 people calmly sit on seats debating the merits of
killing someone over several days, with a state sponsored judge exposing
all sorts of "rational" arguments as to how it is ethically justifiable to
execute said person being debated. Said person is then dragged to a room
with gawking onlookers watching the deliberate injection of chemicals to
terminate said life. This is no less barbaric than at a Roman gladiator
ring
where the emperor points his thump up or down.

What is even more grotesque, is that large numbers of those barbarians
supporting state sponsored murder are alleged Christians, despite their
role
model, Jesus, emphatically instructing them that "thou shall not kill".
More, stunningly the xtians claim that it is they that there the morally
righteous ones.

The perp gave up his right to life by taking that of another. End of
story.

Ok. After the Jury, judge and executioners have killed the aforementioned,
we can now kill said Jury, judge and executioners because they have now
killed someone, or taken deliberate action that resulted in the death of
someone. i.e. murdered someone.

It's obvious you're illiterate.

Its obvious that you can't understand the issues involved.

No, it's obvious that either you're illiterate or trolling. Hint:
Murder <> killing

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:08:35 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:58:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

"Procedure" tomorrow (Wednesday) at 11:00AM:

Down the throat with a scope, check out the stomach, then into the
small intestine, use side-looking ultrasound on the end of the probe
(didn't know such a thing existed) to examine the common pancreas/bile
duct, go up it with a wire, then thread a balloon up that wire,
inflate and decimate the stones, then go on up and examine the gall
bladder.

Possible later procedure, after the nauseous, tiredness, yellowness
abates, go in thru an incision and remove the gall bladder.

Such fun >:-}

If I don't show up in a day or too...

...Jim Thompson

Well the docs tried to kill me, but I survived a very unpleasant trip.

They put a stent in my bile duct, but in recovery they discovered my
kidneys couldn't cope, and went into failure

So a one-day outpatient "procedure" ended up being a nasty 6-day
battle with helping the kidneys to recover.

Thanks to all for your good wishes!

...Jim Thompson

Ouch. Nasty.

Best wishes from us, Jim.

--sp


--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[amdx]

On 3/21/2017 2:21 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:54:05 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 3/21/2017 9:57 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 3/20/2017 10:25 PM, rickman wrote:
On 3/20/2017 10:23 PM, amdx wrote:
On 3/20/2017 8:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 3/20/2017 9:09 PM, amdx wrote:

I'm sure it could be built with a couple of opamps. It is a 50 ohm
output. Could probably do better, this starts to distort at I think
8 Vpp. But I don't have any antenna that need much that headroom.

That's 8Vpp open circuit, 4Vpp loaded.

Well then, eazy peazy. I used a circuit that used positive feedback to
make the output impedance look higher than the resistor in the circuit.
I think I used 12.5 or maybe it was just 12 and got multiplied by 4.
This makes the calculation of the gain a little more complex so you
would not be able to adjust the gain with a pot or anything... unless it
was on an earlier stage.

The middle stage with the single transistor, anything special about
that? It has a connection with caps I'm not familiar with from the
emitter to the input. That would be a low level of positive feedback I
believe. Any idea why?

He's bootstrapping the input impedance to avoid loading the FET stage.
Kleijer's crafty.

Hey I'm a semi-retired shrimp seller with a little bit of technical
skill. I did a good job of replicating the circuit, I didn't design it.
I can only explain operation on a simple level. If I had more knowledge
I would have corrected the distortion at increased input levels.
I suspect a good analog engineer would have done a lot of things
different to reach the goal of high input impedance, 50 ohm output. On
the other hand Kleijer built a working circuit and later went back and
built an improved second version. I follow the crystal radio community
and have not heard of anyone else that built the circuit, it's a shame
because it is a very useful piece of equipment for experimenting with
high Q LC circuits.

ISTM Kleijer did a very decent job, and got something more than good
enough for his task. And was nice enough to share it with everyone.
+1 for Kleijer.

I hope to take dagmar's design and improve it further.

We could do that, but it would add complexity without much benefit to
your application. Using an op-amp buffer instead of a BJT follower is
one possibility...

I worded that poorly, I meant, take dagmar's design to further improve
Kleijers design.
I hack, I don't design.
Mikek

Oh I'm not offended, trust me.

I wasn't thinking I offended you, I just didn't want to leave the
impression that I could improve your circuit.

I was agreeing with you that my circuit's
performance could be improved on. I'm well aware, we just don't need it.
Give me one more transistor and it could be markedly better still, but
we don't need it. It's a waste to overcomplicate a thing.

I was also giving thumbs-up to Kleijer. A schematic is a window into the
designer's soul. Kleijer has soul.

I spent hours reading all the different experiments that he did. Great
stuff. I posted his very low voltage osc. a few times, says he stopped
working on it when it would started and oscillated at 5.5mV. (.0055V)
> http://www.dicks-website.eu/fetosc/enindex.htm

Mikek

Cheers,
James Arthur

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:58:01 -0700, boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:08:35 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:58:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

"Procedure" tomorrow (Wednesday) at 11:00AM:

Down the throat with a scope, check out the stomach, then into the
small intestine, use side-looking ultrasound on the end of the probe
(didn't know such a thing existed) to examine the common pancreas/bile
duct, go up it with a wire, then thread a balloon up that wire,
inflate and decimate the stones, then go on up and examine the gall
bladder.

Possible later procedure, after the nauseous, tiredness, yellowness
abates, go in thru an incision and remove the gall bladder.

Such fun >:-}

If I don't show up in a day or too...

...Jim Thompson

Well the docs tried to kill me, but I survived a very unpleasant trip.

They put a stent in my bile duct, but in recovery they discovered my
kidneys couldn't cope, and went into failure

So a one-day outpatient "procedure" ended up being a nasty 6-day
battle with helping the kidneys to recover.

Thanks to all for your good wishes!

...Jim Thompson



It's ALIVE !!!



boB

Yep >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:24:44 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:08:35 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Well the docs tried to kill me, but I survived a very unpleasant trip.

They put a stent in my bile duct, but in recovery they discovered my
kidneys couldn't cope, and went into failure

So a one-day outpatient "procedure" ended up being a nasty 6-day battle
with helping the kidneys to recover.

Thanks to all for your good wishes!

Welcome back, Jim! The Lefties were getting a bit of a free run in your
absence, spreading their old, discredited nonsense around. ;-

Please take care of that for me... I'm still a wee bit wasted... feel
like I was run over by a steam roller.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:39:56 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
<jb9889@notformail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:37:16 -0400, bitrex wrote:

Who else would tell me my circuits were junk?

Yeah, just like your political theroeis LOL!!! :-

Time to dump some history out before it's trapped in unclocked memory:

My best "cubicle-mate" ever was Tom Frederiksen at Motorola SPD
1962-1968... we used to ruthlessly trash each other's circuit
designs... Tom was fond of tossing out coffee bets... my best win ever
was the lateral-PNP booster which allowed predictable lateral-PNP
current mirrors:

<http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/EnhancedCurrentMirrors.pdf>

Thompson Current Mirror starting at p4.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:25:29 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> And just who determines what constitutes "just"?

Kev, you're *so* Money Supermarket. ;-)

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:37:21 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Please take care of that for me... I'm still a wee bit wasted... feel
like I was run over by a steam roller.

Entirely understandable. I was in the same position back in January. Get
plenty of rest and don't set your recovery back by pushing your luck too
soon. Rest, rest, rest now.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-03-21, Tim Williams <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

"Clifford Heath" <no.spam@please.net> wrote in message
news:58cf69a5$0$10743$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com...
Interesting, I don't know. I suspect someone would have thought of
that during the >10years of research that went into this. Would
radiation kill the bias magnet? (of course, for this purpose it
wouldn't need to be built-in).

Hmm, I don't know offhand!

Looks like magnets are moderately sensitive:
https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/r04/papers/TUKP06.PDF
I'm not sure offhand how many n/cm^2 corresponds to what Sv/Gy/rem/etc.
rate, or of course how that compares to beta or gamma radiation. But strong
reductions in the 10^15 range seems pretty sensitive, like a
knock-the-electron-out-of-place-and-she's-done ~quantitative kind of rate.

Hmm, I wonder how much that depends on the boron content. Ferrite magnets
wouldn't need to worry about that.

Anyway, no, you wouldn't need to bring the magnet with, not unless you need
that as a semi-permanent lock signal (as it's used in commerce).

There's also Wiegand wires, which I think are embedded (or omitted) in an
array, to give a pattern of blips as they slide past the pickup coil and
become magnetized.

they are offset up or down in a strip* so that as they pass two pickup coils
they trigger pulse on terminal "0" or terminal "1" , fairly rare these days,
but the electrical interface is still supported by modern RFID readers.

(*) so techically array is correct: an array with two rows,
each row being the boolean inverse of the other



--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

 

[Kevin Aylward]

wrote in message news:dph3dcp4spjtd1p7knf16fpkbttr0jsc8k@4ax.com...

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:19:43 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:shs0dcht0u1ueng46n19keljm5j7ienvpl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:59:26 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:2g6uccheh2pto7113hegrstud5ro8r8paj@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:16:29 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
news:kfudnRgqWLyQIlDFnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com...

"bitrex" wrote in message news:9DdzA.62942$mb5.42260@fx19.iad...


I'm a liberal and yet, in some circumstances I do support the death
penalty.

I don't see that there can be much more of a cold-bloodied, calculated
murder, than having 12 people calmly sit on seats debating the merits of
killing someone over several days, with a state sponsored judge exposing
all sorts of "rational" arguments as to how it is ethically justifiable
to
execute said person being debated. Said person is then dragged to a room
with gawking onlookers watching the deliberate injection of chemicals to
terminate said life. This is no less barbaric than at a Roman gladiator
ring
where the emperor points his thump up or down.

What is even more grotesque, is that large numbers of those barbarians
supporting state sponsored murder are alleged Christians, despite their
role
model, Jesus, emphatically instructing them that "thou shall not kill".
More, stunningly the xtians claim that it is they that there the morally
righteous ones.

The perp gave up his right to life by taking that of another. End of
story.

Ok. After the Jury, judge and executioners have killed the
aforementioned,
we can now kill said Jury, judge and executioners because they have now
killed someone, or taken deliberate action that resulted in the death of
someone. i.e. murdered someone.

It's obvious you're illiterate.

Its obvious that you can't understand the issues involved.

No, it's obvious that either you're illiterate or trolling. Hint:
Murder <> killing

Ho humm.

No, Its obvious that you can't understand the issues involved, and I am
stunned by your real lack of a deeper insight on this matter.

Whether something is legal in a given state, does not equate to it being
ethical.

Consider the Australian aborigine child growing up, eating insects. Its
normal to her. To westerners, its disgusting.

You believe that that just because the particular legal system you have been
brought up in as a child, says it is ok for representatives of that legal
system, to kill people not in threat to a life, then it is. I, and many
others, consider it disgusting.

You believe that just because someone has killed someone, that that makes it
ethical to carry out more killings. I don't.

Killing someone that is not a threat to another life, is wrong. Period. If
that makes me a troll, whatever...

I would suggest that you really try and articulate exactly why you believe
one event is murder, and the other isn't. Its a non trivial issue.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

 

[Kevin Aylward]

"bitrex" wrote in message news:IAiAA.71782$Hf3.16044@fx37.iad...

On 03/19/2017 01:23 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:07:05 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

People make a mockery of reason too often. Maybe you should spend some
time watching groups of people making such decisions.

I don't agree with you and probably never will, but - in what must be a
Usenet first - I can at least see where you're coming from here.


One might argue that in a society which is intrinsically just, the
chances are good that the death penalty will be used, in the main, for
just reasons.

And just who determines what constitutes "just"?


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

 

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:17:38 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:25:18 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:dph3dcp4spjtd1p7knf16fpkbttr0jsc8k@4ax.com...

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:19:43 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:shs0dcht0u1ueng46n19keljm5j7ienvpl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:59:26 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:2g6uccheh2pto7113hegrstud5ro8r8paj@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:16:29 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
news:kfudnRgqWLyQIlDFnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com...

"bitrex" wrote in message news:9DdzA.62942$mb5.42260@fx19.iad...


I'm a liberal and yet, in some circumstances I do support the death
penalty.

I don't see that there can be much more of a cold-bloodied, calculated
murder, than having 12 people calmly sit on seats debating the merits of
killing someone over several days, with a state sponsored judge exposing
all sorts of "rational" arguments as to how it is ethically justifiable
to
execute said person being debated. Said person is then dragged to a room
with gawking onlookers watching the deliberate injection of chemicals to
terminate said life. This is no less barbaric than at a Roman gladiator
ring
where the emperor points his thump up or down.

What is even more grotesque, is that large numbers of those barbarians
supporting state sponsored murder are alleged Christians, despite their
role
model, Jesus, emphatically instructing them that "thou shall not kill".
More, stunningly the xtians claim that it is they that there the morally
righteous ones.

The perp gave up his right to life by taking that of another. End of
story.

Ok. After the Jury, judge and executioners have killed the
aforementioned,
we can now kill said Jury, judge and executioners because they have now
killed someone, or taken deliberate action that resulted in the death of
someone. i.e. murdered someone.

It's obvious you're illiterate.

Its obvious that you can't understand the issues involved.

No, it's obvious that either you're illiterate or trolling. Hint:
Murder <> killing

Ho humm.

OK, you're not interested in the facts. Therefore, the only
conclusion possible is that you're trolling. Meet Sloman.

Sadly, the only facts that exist for krw exist inside his brain, which seems to have stopped absorbing new information a couple of decades ago, and wasn't all that discriminating before that.

Anybody who has the temerity to disagree with krw's opinions is a troll and a liar - in krw's opinion. Krw's opinion obviously isn't worth having, but he gives it to us anyway.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:25:18 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:dph3dcp4spjtd1p7knf16fpkbttr0jsc8k@4ax.com...

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:19:43 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:shs0dcht0u1ueng46n19keljm5j7ienvpl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:59:26 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:2g6uccheh2pto7113hegrstud5ro8r8paj@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:16:29 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
news:kfudnRgqWLyQIlDFnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com...

"bitrex" wrote in message news:9DdzA.62942$mb5.42260@fx19.iad...


I'm a liberal and yet, in some circumstances I do support the death
penalty.

I don't see that there can be much more of a cold-bloodied, calculated
murder, than having 12 people calmly sit on seats debating the merits of
killing someone over several days, with a state sponsored judge exposing
all sorts of "rational" arguments as to how it is ethically justifiable
to
execute said person being debated. Said person is then dragged to a room
with gawking onlookers watching the deliberate injection of chemicals to
terminate said life. This is no less barbaric than at a Roman gladiator
ring
where the emperor points his thump up or down.

What is even more grotesque, is that large numbers of those barbarians
supporting state sponsored murder are alleged Christians, despite their
role
model, Jesus, emphatically instructing them that "thou shall not kill".
More, stunningly the xtians claim that it is they that there the morally
righteous ones.

The perp gave up his right to life by taking that of another. End of
story.

Ok. After the Jury, judge and executioners have killed the
aforementioned,
we can now kill said Jury, judge and executioners because they have now
killed someone, or taken deliberate action that resulted in the death of
someone. i.e. murdered someone.

It's obvious you're illiterate.

Its obvious that you can't understand the issues involved.

No, it's obvious that either you're illiterate or trolling. Hint:
Murder <> killing

Ho humm.

OK, you're not interested in the facts. Therefore, the only
conclusion possible is that you're trolling. Meet Slowman.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

wrote in message news:0v46dc9bgb5pjf6lpc3jej19tl97qpu4db@4ax.com...

model, Jesus, emphatically instructing them that "thou shall not kill".
More, stunningly the xtians claim that it is they that there the
morally
righteous ones.

The perp gave up his right to life by taking that of another. End of
story.

Ok. After the Jury, judge and executioners have killed the
aforementioned,
we can now kill said Jury, judge and executioners because they have now
killed someone, or taken deliberate action that resulted in the death of
someone. i.e. murdered someone.

It's obvious you're illiterate.

Its obvious that you can't understand the issues involved.



Ho humm.

OK, you're not interested in the facts. Therefore, the only
conclusion possible is that you're trolling. Meet Slowman.

I gave you facts.

Fact: a Jury/Judge/executioner orders/kills someone not in defence of a
life.

Appropriate definition of Murder: premeditated killing/ordering of killing
of someone not in protection of a life

As I said, it is pretty stunning that anyone, if even if they wanted to add
weasel words around the definition to enable disagreement of my point, is
utterly incapable of understanding the essence of the point being made.

I read your continuing ad-hominem attacks, yet you have failed to produce
any argument, let alone an intellectual argument as to why "The perp gave up
his right to life by taking that of another" does not apply to to the
state's Jury/Judge/executioner. It satisfies your claim.

Defend you arguments, or go away. You are only embarrassing yourself.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

 

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:42:31 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

wrote in message news:0v46dc9bgb5pjf6lpc3jej19tl97qpu4db@4ax.com...

model, Jesus, emphatically instructing them that "thou shall not kill".
More, stunningly the xtians claim that it is they that there the
morally
righteous ones.

The perp gave up his right to life by taking that of another. End of
story.

Ok. After the Jury, judge and executioners have killed the
aforementioned,
we can now kill said Jury, judge and executioners because they have now
killed someone, or taken deliberate action that resulted in the death of
someone. i.e. murdered someone.

It's obvious you're illiterate.

Its obvious that you can't understand the issues involved.



Ho humm.

OK, you're not interested in the facts. Therefore, the only
conclusion possible is that you're trolling. Meet Slowman.

I gave you facts.

No, you don't even know the difference (I didn't read after your first
lie).

 

[amdx]

On 3/21/2017 9:28 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:27:51 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 3/21/2017 2:19 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 6:15:37 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Can I tell this is working if my 1X gain increases?
The 17 to 1 divider of the input cap and the gate capacitance and the 17
times gain of the amplifier equals 1X.

Say I get 80% T1 gate cancellation (by moving the 20Meg), now we have
effectively 1pf.
1pf/0.3pf = 3.33 and the amp gain 17 / 3.33 = 5.1
So I would think my total circuit gain would increase to 5.1.
Or do I not get it?

You've got it perfectly. I don't expect a very large improvement from
bootstrapping the 20M alone though--a resistor's capacitance is pretty
low already, and two in series, even lower.

Your author's figures are inconsistent. He starts saying the input
capacitance is 1.4pF and the input coupling cap is 0.3pF, but then he
says the 0.3pF and FET T1's capacitances form a 17:1 divider. That can't
all be true--0.3pF should form a 5.7:1 divider with a 1.4pF input, not
17:1.

When I guesstimate a 5x improvement, I'm banking on the 17:1 being true,
c.in(eff) being 5pF, and getting that down to 1pF, roughly, with the
circuit I sketched.

If you're already really at 1.4pF the improvement will only be 1.0pF/1.4pF,
and not 1.0pF/5pF.

As I said before, a better buffer could do better--you could tweak the
bootstrap to perfect null--but then chances are you'd have an oscillator.

What I posted seemed like a reasonable compromise for a first try.

I thought about this a bit and came up with an improved follower.

The main limitation of the previous circuit was the FET's poor performance
as a voltage-follower. Unaided, the T1 has a gain of about 0.6. That hits
our bootstrapping from all sides. First, c(gs) (the largest capacitance)
is only bootstrapped by 60%, leaving 40% of the BC547C's ~5pF c(gs). Next,
we use that voltage to drive our less-than-unity Q2, which drives less-than-
unity Q1. This all adds up.

Changing T1's load to a current sink makes T1 into a much better follower,
increasing voltage gain from 0.6 to about 0.95. The better 'follower'
action now bootstraps away nearly all of c(gs) (T1's largest capacitance),
and gives us a better signal to drive the drain bootstrap as well. Good,
good, and good. And not terribly much trouble to do, either.

Vdd Vdd
-+- -+-
| |
| [22k] R5
Q1 \| |
BC547B |---+-------.
.<| | |
| [47k] R6 |
(shield) T1 |--' | |
------ BF256C | === |
----------+----->|--. |
---+-- | | Vdd --- C2
| | | -+- ---100n
| | | | |
| R1 [10M] | |/ Q2 |
| | +---| BC547B |
| | | |>. |
| | R3 [470] | |
| | | | | C3
| | | | | 100n
| +----||---+-----+-------+-----||---> to ampl.
| | C1 | |
| R2 [10M] 100pF R4 [470] --- C4
| | | --- 100n
| === === |
| |
'------------------------------+
|
Cin ~200fF [2.2k] R7
|
===

Cheers,
James Arthur

Thanks for the time.
As it is now constructed the enclosure is the shield.
Is that good or bad? ie. Should the enclosure be isolated from the shield?

The enclosure should be grounded! Let's not confuse that with
bootstrapping the input coax's shield (which you'll only do _if_
you use coax).

So yes, the enclosure should be isolated from the driven shield that is
shown in the schematic.

(My shield-driver is pretty wimpy, only suitable for a very short, low-
capacitance run. Might need beefing up.)

If you build it, it'll be fun to hear what output voltage you get from
this stage when you drive your 0.3pF input cap with, say, 50mV AC. If
you put 50mV into the 0.3pF and get 25mV out the back end, that means
our net input capacitance after bootstrapping is about the same as your
series 0.3pF.

Cheers,
James Arthur

OK, The circuit is built, I haven't tested it. I'm testing just the
circuit just the circuit posted.
I want to know how to drive the input.
Say I connect a 9 inch piece of RG58, that's 19pf, is that to much?
I want to drive it with a 50 ohm sig/gen.
Can I terminate the RG58 with 50 ohms or do I need to feed the RG58 with
a high impedance? Maybe a series 1Mohm.
I don't see how to separate the sig/gen cable from the input cable.
May I just need to connect it to the LC and see what I get.
Thank, Mikek

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:19:57 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 20:03:50 -0400, krw wrote:

That's impossible, which is the whole "reasonable" thing.

Nothing whatsoever impossible about it!

Not at all. There is always doubt. It may be an unreasonable doubt
but there is _always_ doubt (what if the Earth was really flat?).
Hence, "beyond reasonable doubt".

What do you think of this sorry piece of work?

<http://www.wftv.com/news/local/ayala-to-explain-why-she-wont-seek-death-penalty-against-murder-suspect-markeith-loyd/503151996>


--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 01:41:14 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
news:kfudnRgqWLyQIlDFnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com...

"bitrex" wrote in message news:9DdzA.62942$mb5.42260@fx19.iad...


I'm a liberal and yet, in some circumstances I do support the death
penalty.

I don't see that there can be much more of a cold-bloodied, calculated
murder, than having 12 people calmly sit on seats debating the merits
of killing someone over several days, with a state sponsored judge
exposing all sorts of "rational" arguments as to how it is ethically
justifiable to execute said person being debated. Said person is then
dragged to a room with gawking onlookers watching the deliberate
injection of chemicals to terminate said life. This is no less
barbaric than at a Roman gladiator ring where the emperor points his
thumb up or down.

What is even more grotesque, is that large numbers of those barbarians
supporting state sponsored murder are alleged Christians, despite
their role model, Jesus, emphatically instructing them that "thou
shall not kill". More, stunningly the xtians claim that it is they
that there the morally righteous ones.


It was mistranslated from, 'Thou shall not murder'. Not that you
would care.

I really think it's funny when militant atheists lecture Christians on
Christianity.

Like their claim, "Money is the root of all evil", when the bible
states "The love of money is the root of all evil". In other words,
'Greed is the root of all evil', which describes today's 'Liberals' to a
tee.


--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

 

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 2:52:11 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 3/21/2017 9:28 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:27:51 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 3/21/2017 2:19 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 6:15:37 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Can I tell this is working if my 1X gain increases?
The 17 to 1 divider of the input cap and the gate capacitance and the 17
times gain of the amplifier equals 1X.

Say I get 80% T1 gate cancellation (by moving the 20Meg), now we have
effectively 1pf.
1pf/0.3pf = 3.33 and the amp gain 17 / 3.33 = 5.1
So I would think my total circuit gain would increase to 5.1.
Or do I not get it?

You've got it perfectly. I don't expect a very large improvement from
bootstrapping the 20M alone though--a resistor's capacitance is pretty
low already, and two in series, even lower.

Your author's figures are inconsistent. He starts saying the input
capacitance is 1.4pF and the input coupling cap is 0.3pF, but then he
says the 0.3pF and FET T1's capacitances form a 17:1 divider. That can't
all be true--0.3pF should form a 5.7:1 divider with a 1.4pF input, not
17:1.

When I guesstimate a 5x improvement, I'm banking on the 17:1 being true,
c.in(eff) being 5pF, and getting that down to 1pF, roughly, with the
circuit I sketched.

If you're already really at 1.4pF the improvement will only be 1.0pF/1.4pF,
and not 1.0pF/5pF.

As I said before, a better buffer could do better--you could tweak the
bootstrap to perfect null--but then chances are you'd have an oscillator.

What I posted seemed like a reasonable compromise for a first try.

I thought about this a bit and came up with an improved follower.

The main limitation of the previous circuit was the FET's poor performance
as a voltage-follower. Unaided, the T1 has a gain of about 0.6. That hits
our bootstrapping from all sides. First, c(gs) (the largest capacitance)
is only bootstrapped by 60%, leaving 40% of the BC547C's ~5pF c(gs). Next,
we use that voltage to drive our less-than-unity Q2, which drives less-than-
unity Q1. This all adds up.

Changing T1's load to a current sink makes T1 into a much better follower,
increasing voltage gain from 0.6 to about 0.95. The better 'follower'
action now bootstraps away nearly all of c(gs) (T1's largest capacitance),
and gives us a better signal to drive the drain bootstrap as well. Good,
good, and good. And not terribly much trouble to do, either.

Vdd Vdd
-+- -+-
| |
| [22k] R5
Q1 \| |
BC547B |---+-------.
.<| | |
| [47k] R6 |
(shield) T1 |--' | |
------ BF256C | === |
----------+----->|--. |
---+-- | | Vdd --- C2
| | | -+- ---100n
| | | | |
| R1 [10M] | |/ Q2 |
| | +---| BC547B |
| | | |>. |
| | R3 [470] | |
| | | | | C3
| | | | | 100n
| +----||---+-----+-------+-----||---> to ampl.
| | C1 | |
| R2 [10M] 100pF R4 [470] --- C4
| | | --- 100n
| === === |
| |
'------------------------------+
|
Cin ~200fF [2.2k] R7
|
===

Cheers,
James Arthur

Thanks for the time.
As it is now constructed the enclosure is the shield.
Is that good or bad? ie. Should the enclosure be isolated from the shield?

The enclosure should be grounded! Let's not confuse that with
bootstrapping the input coax's shield (which you'll only do _if_
you use coax).

So yes, the enclosure should be isolated from the driven shield that is
shown in the schematic.

(My shield-driver is pretty wimpy, only suitable for a very short, low-
capacitance run. Might need beefing up.)

If you build it, it'll be fun to hear what output voltage you get from
this stage when you drive your 0.3pF input cap with, say, 50mV AC. If
you put 50mV into the 0.3pF and get 25mV out the back end, that means
our net input capacitance after bootstrapping is about the same as your
series 0.3pF.

Cheers,
James Arthur


OK, The circuit is built, I haven't tested it. I'm testing just the
circuit just the circuit posted.
I want to know how to drive the input.
Say I connect a 9 inch piece of RG58, that's 19pf, is that to much?
I want to drive it with a 50 ohm sig/gen.
Can I terminate the RG58 with 50 ohms or do I need to feed the RG58 with
a high impedance? Maybe a series 1Mohm.
I don't see how to separate the sig/gen cable from the input cable.
May I just need to connect it to the LC and see what I get.
Thank, Mikek

How about one step at a time? First, calibrate your input cap:

C1
..---. 0.3pF
| ~ |--------||----+----> A
'---' |
10V --- C2
--- 100pF
|
===

Measure V(A), calculate (don't forget to add your measuring instrument's
c.in to C2).


Then no coax:

T1 |--
..---. 0.3pF |
| ~ |--------||------>|--.
'---' | T1.s
<1V
Put a known voltage into the 0.3pF, then measure the voltage at T1.s.

Kleijer says his gain at that node is 1/17th.

If things are good this far, add a short piece of coax to the input with
the shield grounded, and try. Then try with the shield driven. Then Bob's
yer Grandma. Or something.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message newsaruc8$b5u$4@dont-email.me...

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:23:37 -0400, krw wrote:

It's obvious you're illiterate.

no point in reading further

I feel I should at this point apologise for the remarks made by my fellow
countryman, Kev. He and the poster "tabbypurr" are both singularly ill-
informed on this issue. Their ignorance is only matched by their
indefatigable ability to repeat the same dogma over and over and over
again. You will never win an argument against them; they simply won't
listen to reason. Do yourself a big favour and mark the thread "ignore"
in your newsreader. You'll save yourself from a huge amount of wasted
time.

I appreciate the support.

I did find the word "illiterate" somewhat amusing in as much as that it
is typically the "intellectuals" that present the reasoned arguments on
ethical issues rather than the redneck southerners.

I would rather have a 'redneck' on my side in a fight, than an
'ineffectual' intellectual.

--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)