Driver to drive?

[Mac]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:05:48 +0000, Joerg wrote:

Hello Mac,

I had to redesign a few video circuits because they would occasionally
become unstable. To tell you the truth, I kicked the opamps out of
almost all of them and replaced them with transistors of the 10 cent
category.



This is very interesting. How many transitors and in what configuration?
Do you rely on relatively high voltage rails (like +/- 12) or can it be
done easily with, say, +/- 5?



Being a consultant I usually took whatever voltages the client's system
offered. +/-12V is nice, so is a +/-5V situation. But there were
occasions when I had to make do with +5V alone. That requires a lot of
quiescent current to be able to properly drive a 75Ohm cable with source
termination. On +5V only systems there was plenty of power available
though, thanks to the widespread use of guzzlers such as PALs, Thevenin
terminators etc.

Gain was achieved with the usual simple two-transistor stages and I used
AC coupling a lot. You just have to make sure that the 3dB limit at the
low end is low enough for the allowed droop at the end of a horizontal
line which usually will be in the millivolt range. The same goes for any
clamping but here FETs such as the BSS84 and BSS123 come to the rescue
which can be had for around five cents a pop. These would also make good
video buffers but, being a penny pincher, that was delegated to bipolar
versions at half the cost.

If you need lots of gain, for example after elaborate filtering, there
is the uA733 (Texas) which is a blazingly fast amp for its day and age.
That was always my friend because of its great performance and low cost.
The strange thing was that hardly anybody knew about it. I don't know
how long it is going to be around considering that this chip design
dates back to the early 70's. But it was transferred to SMT which
surprised me. Then again, for under 40 cents it is a true bargain.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Thanks! You seem to be the king of cheap discrete solutions. ;-)

--Mac

 

[Parse Tree]

Reg Edwards wrote:

Everybody who supports the death penalty should be shot.


======================

By who ?

I'll do it, but it'll have to be done in a sunny place so that it can
double as my vacation.

 

[Parse Tree]

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:



But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?


---
That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
strand of DNA is assembled.

The definition varies from culture to culture, but it's usually around
age 18 or so.

 

[Parse Tree]

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:57:55 GMT, Parse Tree
account@domain.extension> wrote:


Aunty Kreist wrote:


But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?

It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.


---
Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, no?

No, I'm arguing that it stops being a biological parasite when it can
survive on its own. The law defines humanity as happening at around 18
or so.

Unfortunately in some cases, leaving the host doesn't guarantee that
the parasitic behavior will end.

Indeed!

 

[Parse Tree]

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:56:21 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:


"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote in message
news:3595jsF4j4g2sU3@individual.net...


But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?

Very gray area, but it would seem to me that it's when the fetus can survive
outside the womb. Given med. technology, that's around the middle of the
second trimester....


---
Then, with the inevitable advances in medical technology one would
expect, that "time of survival" will be pushed closer and closer to
the time of conception until it will be possible to bring a fertilized
egg to term out of the womb. If such is the case, then you argue that
life begins at conception but that we can't currently support it
ex-utero that early?

It would be parasitic on some mechanical device, then.

 

[Parse Tree]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No consciousness
no morals.

So.... ipso facto....., all Liberals are unconscious?

I think Paul Martin is a bit too stupid to merely be unconscious.

 

[Parse Tree]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <ik60v05pjc0hs834ar5hf33ra4pnctfgro@4ax.com&gt about
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:


BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?


It's at the point (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0).

That would mean that there'd be negative points.

Damn you Descartes!

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Aunty Kreist wrote:

No matter what
tactic you badly try to employ, the fact remains that you simply

cannot

control the beliefs, thoughts, and actions of others.

What if he used an electroprobe mind control device?

Then that would work on most people, but not us because we'd be wearing
our tinfoil hats.

Speaking of the electroprobe mind control device, are there any on
sci.electronics.design that could give us some valuable insight into
defeating this nefarious device?

 

[ynotssor]

"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> quoted in message
news:35aea8F4ksoqrU1@individual.net

What Is God?

root is God.

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:41F0AF00.89D5FE11@Hovnanian.com...

James Knott wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

You sound like an ex-neighbor of mine, who opined, while eating lunch
at my house, that she couldn't understand why my children were so
well-behaved, since they didn't go to church, or believe in god.

I told her to depart my premises, never to return ;-)

Someone recently told me, that only "Christians" could be moral.

And then there have been studies that indicate just the opposite. People
whose morality is based on an internal set of values have better
judgment than those that delegate this responsibility to a group,
mythology or authority figure.

When you look at all the violence committed in "God's" name, it's
obvious
we're better off without him/her/it.

Except for those who don't have the capacity to regulate their own
lives. For them, religion is a good thing. Its just that you don't
really want this sort of people in positions of responsibility. That's
when society gets into trouble.

A wise person once said that Jesus Christ was just a parole officer with
long hair and sandals.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com

My 2 cents here.....I like the way you, and most of the other "science"
oriented posters think. It shows rationality and intelligence. You show that
you are free thinkers that do not fall into the stereotypical "dogma traps"
that most belief systems so rely on.

Many Pagans in this newsgroup ( being ARW) also tend to think along these
same lines- believing that our beliefs, ethics, morals, etc. are our own,
and there is great importance placed on one being responsible for one's own
self...not the Omnipotent Sky Fairy, as our Nevermore likes to call God.

I must say that I am totally baffled as to how someone who professes to be a
man of science ( Fields) can spout such ridiculous dogma, claiming that God
is this or that, that God created the universe, etc. I just cannot grasp how
someone who's lifestyle revolves around the science of things can so blindly
believe what's told to them by a religion, and not base opinions on actually
proof, and fact.

It's just hypocritical, I guess.

 

[ParaXerxes]

ynotssor wrote:

"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> quoted in message
news:35aea8F4ksoqrU1@individual.net

What Is God?

root is God.

Been watching Hackers lately?

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:10v0nllrtle3j26@corp.supernews.com...

Aunty Kreist wrote:
"Marco Dieckhoff" <dieck@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:0264c2-8i.ln1@hamlet.frbr.etc.tu-bs.de...

Sorry, but I can't see any reason why comp.os.linux.networking is
in the list of newsgroups to this topic.

Can anyone enlighten me? Otherwise please take care not to post
this thread to comp.os.linux.networking anymore. Thanks.

--
Marco Dieckhoff


It's crossposted because John Fields is trolling our group with preachy
Christian rants. Then, when he's posting from your group, he states the
opposite of what he's claimed here, so you guys won't think he's nuts.
We're
just doing you the service of showing you all what a nutjob Fields is.



And we are indebted to you for your forsight and providing us with such
educational material indeed.

Hee hee! I aim to please.

 

[ParaXerxes]

Aunty Kreist wrote:

My 2 cents here.....I like the way you, and most of the other "science"
oriented posters think. It shows rationality and intelligence. You show
that you are free thinkers that do not fall into the stereotypical "dogma
traps" that most belief systems so rely on.

Science, unfortunately, is so much about dogma. The myth that it is not is
wrong and just proves that many in science or interested in science do not
think rationally, with intelligence and are the free thinkers that you
posit they are. Dogma is dogma and delusion is delusion, no matter the
field of human endeavour.

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:crk0v0htqfrdouto9tja3kf1eun275uv4v@4ax.com...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:20:51 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ik60v05pjc0hs834ar5hf33ra4pnctfgro@4ax.com...

BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?

Have you, or are you gonna go on another religious zealot-like rant?

---
Are you going to answer the question or not?

And, what is it with you and this rant crap?

Here's the sum total of my "rant", a reply to Clint Clark on another
thread:

QUOTE
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "Clint Clark" <clint@artdsm.com
wrote:

What Is God?

God is the creator of our universe.
END QUOTE

other than a few other remarks on that thread, that's it, so what are
you trying to pull?

Pull? No thanks, give your finger to yer wife.

Does the mere mention of a god upset you so much that you see seven
words as a rant or a threat of some kind?

The rant comment refers to:
1. Your repeated statements about what others should believe
2.You ignorant comments stating that some big sky fairy is the one and only
creator, ruling out scientific fact completely
3. The pro-life dogma and agenda you have continually spouted on a newsgroup
chock full of Pagans, who are mostly quiet independent minded
4. The fact that you will respond to each and every post made to you. I can
just type ooga booga in all my responses to you, and you'll still comment
back.

--
John Fields

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@stmartin.edu> wrote in message
news:1106268009.995783.66960@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Aunty Kreist wrote:
No matter what
tactic you badly try to employ, the fact remains that you simply
cannot
control the beliefs, thoughts, and actions of others.
What if he used an electroprobe mind control device?

Haha! I think I might enjoy that.

 

[Paul Burke]

John Woodgate wrote:

Some people will confess to anything, even without the bright lights and
rubber hoses. IMHO, anyone who kills a human is insane at that time, and
does not have the same sort of 'mens rea' as a robber or other criminal.

It must have been a real bugger to be public prosecutor in Anglo Saxon
times... I mean, you've just presented a watertight case, all you are
waiting for is the judge to pronounce sentence... but bugger me, it's
the king, Edward the Confessor... "I find myself guilty of this crime,
and the sentence is one hundred lashes. Bring in the monks!"

Paul Burke

 

[Paul Burke]

Rich Grise wrote:

All seriousness aside, how is "Cwm" pronounced?

'Coom' as in 'Chocolate coloured cwm'. The Welsh (for it is a Welsh
word) also have a traditional sort-of fiddle, called the Strwth.

Paul Burke

 

[Ric]

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:40:15 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'd suspect that "wine" will never show up there?

Tom

Actually, I can't recall of wine coming up as a _subject_line_, just
some bantering between John Larkin and myself about the wine we were
currently sipping, what we had at lunch, etc.

<http://www.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl3762138461d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=ei4tnt88jjs8pa558h3mem9opgk0bsr6ci%404ax.com>

--
Rick

 

[Paul Burke]

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

Which god is this? Can you get personalised certificates of your human
rights for an appropriate fee, often called a 'tithe'?

Except when it's called an "indulgence".

I'd join any church that would sell me an effective overindulgence, that
would remit punishment for sins of commission, omission and that second
bottle of Rioja.

Paul Burke

 

[Paul Burke]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

If you allow for the existence of God, you must also allow for the
existence of Satan. ...
If, and I only said 'if' there is a God, then there is Satan, who is known
to be the consumate evil.

Right, so either Satan is one of God's poor creatures like you and me,
or Satan is an entity in his own right, in which case God did not create
the universe.. at least, not Satan. So who is pretender and who is king?

Paul Burke