Signal amplifier works

Jim Thompson · Feb 12, 2013

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:18:58 -0800, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:34:02 -0500, Uncle Steve wrote:

What did everyone do before op-amps were
available?

The math...

:-}

I've been battling (in the local newspaper opinion page) a
village-idiot liberal anti-gun type who thinks that Lott's hypothesis
that a 1% increase in gun ownership causes a 3% reduction in crime
rate is a LINEAR relationship :-(

(Related to my difference equation post

Jim Thompson · Feb 12, 2013

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:48:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Uncle Steve wrote:

Uncle Steve

My circuits work. Yours don't. What else can I say?

Stop playing with turds.

Jim Thompson · Feb 12, 2013

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:41:49 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:42:10 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

It's all so tiresome. Greg Egan once wrote of a hypothetical
terrorist group described as "anthrocosmologists" who bear a striking
resemblance to such persons, who impute anthropic principles to
existence a priori -- which is necessarily the opposite to the idea of
undertaking observation to deduce or infer principles of existence.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wave functions collapse
into reality when they are observed. Combine that with the
many-universes concept, and I conclude that I have created my own
universe of which you are a minor detail.

Uncle Steve · Feb 13, 2013

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 01:18:58PM -0800, Fred Abse wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:34:02 -0500, Uncle Steve wrote:

What did everyone do before op-amps were
available?

The math...

"Math is hard" -- Barbie

The site I was referencing has a number of articles that look good at
first blush: http://sound.westhost.com/no-opamps.htm for one, which
I'll have a go at as I work through his introductory articles.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
More than a century has passed since science laid down sound
propositions as to the origins of the universe, but how many have
mastered them or possess the really scientific spirit of criticism? A
few thousands at the outside, who are lost in the midst of hundreds of
millions still steeped in prejudices and superstitions worthy of
savages, who are consequently ever ready to serve as puppets for
religious impostors. -- Peter Kropotkin

Jamie · Feb 13, 2013

Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 01:18:58PM -0800, Fred Abse wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:34:02 -0500, Uncle Steve wrote:

What did everyone do before op-amps were
available?

The math...

"Math is hard" -- Barbie

The site I was referencing has a number of articles that look good at
first blush: http://sound.westhost.com/no-opamps.htm for one, which
I'll have a go at as I work through his introductory articles.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

There are just as many problems on both sides of the street, avoiding
one isn't going to make the other better.

In actuality, OP-AMps are easier to work with. You need to get a few
basics down and you'll see why.

Look for an "Ideal Op-Amp". Most articles should also cover the
aspects of a op-amp in real life over the ideal one, so you'll have a
better understanding as to why things are done as they are.

http://research.cs.tamu.edu/prism/lectures/iss/iss_l5.pdf

Take a look at that.

Jamie

John Larkin · Feb 13, 2013

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:01:14 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:41:49PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:42:10 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

It's all so tiresome. Greg Egan once wrote of a hypothetical
terrorist group described as "anthrocosmologists" who bear a striking
resemblance to such persons, who impute anthropic principles to
existence a priori -- which is necessarily the opposite to the idea of
undertaking observation to deduce or infer principles of existence.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wave functions collapse
into reality when they are observed. Combine that with the
many-universes concept, and I conclude that I have created my own
universe of which you are a minor detail.

Oh yeah? I have a doomsday device and I fully intend to keep
destroying the universe until I get you. So there.

(p.s. please don't tell the DHS. Thx.)

Well, just don't take it as carry-on.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

Fred Abse · Feb 13, 2013

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:18:39 -0500, Uncle Steve wrote:

"Math is hard" -- Barbie

"We are not going to the moon because it is easy, we are going to the moon
because it is hard"
John F. Kennedy.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

Uncle Steve · Feb 13, 2013

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:43:28PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:01:14 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:41:49PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:42:10 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

It's all so tiresome. Greg Egan once wrote of a hypothetical
terrorist group described as "anthrocosmologists" who bear a striking
resemblance to such persons, who impute anthropic principles to
existence a priori -- which is necessarily the opposite to the idea of
undertaking observation to deduce or infer principles of existence.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wave functions collapse
into reality when they are observed. Combine that with the
many-universes concept, and I conclude that I have created my own
universe of which you are a minor detail.

Oh yeah? I have a doomsday device and I fully intend to keep
destroying the universe until I get you. So there.

(p.s. please don't tell the DHS. Thx.)

Well, just don't take it as carry-on.

I don't have to. I simply destroy universes until I teleport to where
I want to go.

And now for my next trick, a vacation in sunny Havana.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
More than a century has passed since science laid down sound
propositions as to the origins of the universe, but how many have
mastered them or possess the really scientific spirit of criticism? A
few thousands at the outside, who are lost in the midst of hundreds of
millions still steeped in prejudices and superstitions worthy of
savages, who are consequently ever ready to serve as puppets for
religious impostors. -- Peter Kropotkin

Feb 14, 2013

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:36 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:37PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:53:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:04PM -0500, Jamie wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:49:20PM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:18:13AM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/9/2013 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

... unless there is no signal at the input.

I started with some information at the following two URLS:

http://www.mysticmarvels.com/amplifier.html
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

Sorry, they are both hacks and idiots, the first one being the worst.

Yup, both full of Bad Info presented with confidence. The first guy is
smarmy besides, coming over all superior about current flow vs electron
flow, as if it mattered for solid-state circuit design.

That little tidbit is useful. As electrons are the medium of
electronic signal propagation, it's helpful to know what's actually
going on in the wires. Counter-intuitive concepts like that are
exactly the sort of thing that make science difficult for kids. An
exemplar is the view of the Earth as the center of the universe, as
was common knowledge prior to the Copernican revolution.

It's a good thing to know, but reversing the directions of all the
arrows in his diagrams is going to confuse people terminally when they
get to real circuit design. The main point of drawing diagrams so that
current flows generally downward and to the right is so that people
don't get confused, and to reduce the number of minus signs in the
algebra, which of course are a common source of blunders.

The less obvious advantage to the current convention is that it makes
electronic diagrams more amenable to stand-in as loose metaphor for
life, or living, but it is difficult to explain since 'living' in this
context is a religious concept subject to the usual prohibitions on
open discussion or analysis.

Counterfactual concepts make real understanding unnecessarily
difficult. The fact that electronic circuits are presented with the
assumption that charge flows from positive to negative poles obscures
the idea that it is the electrical potential for the flow of electrons
that is significant at any given point in a circuit. I don't doubt
that the terminology in common use could be less confusing.

Do you have an example of a solid-state circuit accessible to a beginner
where it matters what the carrier polarity is? Holes are slower than
electrons in almost every material I can think of, but they look like
perfectly good positive charge carriers in all other respects.

The first URL goes through the process of building a high-gain
amplifier, and it works O.K. with the exception that there is no
power. The second URL goes into more detail and shows how to deliver
some power to the speaker as in figure 16. I have different parts on
hand, and I am working with a 12V supply instead of 9V as in the first
URL. Since I am looking to deliver big chunky volts to my speaker,
I went ahead and modified Figure 16 and the example in the first URL
to obtain the following circuit:

12V +---+----------+----------+ R1 = 510K
| | | | R2 = 5.9K
| > R2 > R3 | R3 = 220
R1 > < < | C1 = 1uF
| | | Q1, Q2 = 2N2222
| +-- | | Q3 = 2N3055
input | | \ b |c |
o---||-+-(Q1) -----(Q2) -----(Q3)
C1 | |e / |
1uf | --- SPKR
| |
| |
o----------+---------------------+

SPKR is a ribbon tweeter with a 2 Ohm, 10 Watt resistor in series.

Yikes, Beta bias! DC through the voice coil!

That looks a lot like a circuit that I built when I was 10, out of a
book of projects (that would have been early 1970). It sorta worked,
kinda, but ate batteries like mad. (It used a TR01C TO-3 package
germanium transistor, made by International Rectifier. It also had a
carbon mic so it didn't need a preamp.)

I'll be better off when I internalize the details of how transistors
work in various configurations, but at the moment the concepts are
still a little fuzzy.

Sure, it takes everybody awhile--they're nontrivial devices. It's
easier to get right if you think of transistors as mostly
voltage-controlled rather than current-controlled. That's closer to the
physics, and will also protect you against doing beta-dependent circuits
like the above and the ones in reference #2.

Base current isn't a necessary feature of transistor behaviour--you can
get transistors with betas ranging from about 5 to several thousand, and
the beta of a single device can easily vary over a 3:1 range, depending
on collector current. On the other hand, transconductance is almost
identical for every transistor at a given collector current, and comes
right out of the simplest version of the device physics (the Ebers-Moll
model).

Monkeys armed with typewriters have mastered basic analog electronics,
so I ought to be able to get there as well. It would be helpful if
there were less disinformation or outright lies in the way, however.
Some people seem strangely committed to making learning as difficult
as possible. I wonder why that is.

Competition?

What, they want to sell me a fish every day? I can catch my own
goddamn fish.

Yet you expect people to go out of their way to teach you to fish
after you've pissed on them. That is the lefty way.

No, I merely expect that sane people won't lie or distort facts merely
because they think that knowledge is sacred and requires some sort of
arbitrary sacrifice to be paid in return for its disclosure. If you
think the 'payment' for discussion of the trivial is measured in
humiliation, you are insane.

Like all lefties, you're illiterate and incapable of thought.

John Larkin · Feb 14, 2013

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:55:23 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:43:28PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:01:14 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:41:49PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:42:10 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

It's all so tiresome. Greg Egan once wrote of a hypothetical
terrorist group described as "anthrocosmologists" who bear a striking
resemblance to such persons, who impute anthropic principles to
existence a priori -- which is necessarily the opposite to the idea of
undertaking observation to deduce or infer principles of existence.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wave functions collapse
into reality when they are observed. Combine that with the
many-universes concept, and I conclude that I have created my own
universe of which you are a minor detail.

Oh yeah? I have a doomsday device and I fully intend to keep
destroying the universe until I get you. So there.

(p.s. please don't tell the DHS. Thx.)

Well, just don't take it as carry-on.

I don't have to. I simply destroy universes until I teleport to where
I want to go.

There are infinitely many, and they are being created much faster than you can
zap them.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

John Larkin · Feb 14, 2013

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:36 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:37PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:53:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:04PM -0500, Jamie wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:49:20PM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:18:13AM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/9/2013 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

... unless there is no signal at the input.

I started with some information at the following two URLS:

http://www.mysticmarvels.com/amplifier.html
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

Sorry, they are both hacks and idiots, the first one being the worst.

Yup, both full of Bad Info presented with confidence. The first guy is
smarmy besides, coming over all superior about current flow vs electron
flow, as if it mattered for solid-state circuit design.

That little tidbit is useful. As electrons are the medium of
electronic signal propagation, it's helpful to know what's actually
going on in the wires. Counter-intuitive concepts like that are
exactly the sort of thing that make science difficult for kids. An
exemplar is the view of the Earth as the center of the universe, as
was common knowledge prior to the Copernican revolution.

It's a good thing to know, but reversing the directions of all the
arrows in his diagrams is going to confuse people terminally when they
get to real circuit design. The main point of drawing diagrams so that
current flows generally downward and to the right is so that people
don't get confused, and to reduce the number of minus signs in the
algebra, which of course are a common source of blunders.

The less obvious advantage to the current convention is that it makes
electronic diagrams more amenable to stand-in as loose metaphor for
life, or living, but it is difficult to explain since 'living' in this
context is a religious concept subject to the usual prohibitions on
open discussion or analysis.

Counterfactual concepts make real understanding unnecessarily
difficult. The fact that electronic circuits are presented with the
assumption that charge flows from positive to negative poles obscures
the idea that it is the electrical potential for the flow of electrons
that is significant at any given point in a circuit. I don't doubt
that the terminology in common use could be less confusing.

Do you have an example of a solid-state circuit accessible to a beginner
where it matters what the carrier polarity is? Holes are slower than
electrons in almost every material I can think of, but they look like
perfectly good positive charge carriers in all other respects.

The first URL goes through the process of building a high-gain
amplifier, and it works O.K. with the exception that there is no
power. The second URL goes into more detail and shows how to deliver
some power to the speaker as in figure 16. I have different parts on
hand, and I am working with a 12V supply instead of 9V as in the first
URL. Since I am looking to deliver big chunky volts to my speaker,
I went ahead and modified Figure 16 and the example in the first URL
to obtain the following circuit:

12V +---+----------+----------+ R1 = 510K
| | | | R2 = 5.9K
| > R2 > R3 | R3 = 220
R1 > < < | C1 = 1uF
| | | Q1, Q2 = 2N2222
| +-- | | Q3 = 2N3055
input | | \ b |c |
o---||-+-(Q1) -----(Q2) -----(Q3)
C1 | |e / |
1uf | --- SPKR
| |
| |
o----------+---------------------+

SPKR is a ribbon tweeter with a 2 Ohm, 10 Watt resistor in series.

Yikes, Beta bias! DC through the voice coil!

That looks a lot like a circuit that I built when I was 10, out of a
book of projects (that would have been early 1970). It sorta worked,
kinda, but ate batteries like mad. (It used a TR01C TO-3 package
germanium transistor, made by International Rectifier. It also had a
carbon mic so it didn't need a preamp.)

I'll be better off when I internalize the details of how transistors
work in various configurations, but at the moment the concepts are
still a little fuzzy.

Sure, it takes everybody awhile--they're nontrivial devices. It's
easier to get right if you think of transistors as mostly
voltage-controlled rather than current-controlled. That's closer to the
physics, and will also protect you against doing beta-dependent circuits
like the above and the ones in reference #2.

Base current isn't a necessary feature of transistor behaviour--you can
get transistors with betas ranging from about 5 to several thousand, and
the beta of a single device can easily vary over a 3:1 range, depending
on collector current. On the other hand, transconductance is almost
identical for every transistor at a given collector current, and comes
right out of the simplest version of the device physics (the Ebers-Moll
model).

Monkeys armed with typewriters have mastered basic analog electronics,
so I ought to be able to get there as well. It would be helpful if
there were less disinformation or outright lies in the way, however.
Some people seem strangely committed to making learning as difficult
as possible. I wonder why that is.

Competition?

What, they want to sell me a fish every day? I can catch my own
goddamn fish.

Yet you expect people to go out of their way to teach you to fish
after you've pissed on them. That is the lefty way.

No, I merely expect that sane people won't lie or distort facts merely
because they think that knowledge is sacred and requires some sort of
arbitrary sacrifice to be paid in return for its disclosure. If you
think the 'payment' for discussion of the trivial is measured in
humiliation, you are insane.

A minute minority of electronic circuits, arguably none of them, are trivial.

That's one reason why there are so many bad circuits, and bad circuit designers,
around.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

Uncle Steve · Feb 14, 2013

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:20:50PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:36 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:37PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:53:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:04PM -0500, Jamie wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:49:20PM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:18:13AM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/9/2013 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

... unless there is no signal at the input.

I started with some information at the following two URLS:

http://www.mysticmarvels.com/amplifier.html
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

Sorry, they are both hacks and idiots, the first one being the worst.

Yup, both full of Bad Info presented with confidence. The first guy is
smarmy besides, coming over all superior about current flow vs electron
flow, as if it mattered for solid-state circuit design.

That little tidbit is useful. As electrons are the medium of
electronic signal propagation, it's helpful to know what's actually
going on in the wires. Counter-intuitive concepts like that are
exactly the sort of thing that make science difficult for kids. An
exemplar is the view of the Earth as the center of the universe, as
was common knowledge prior to the Copernican revolution.

It's a good thing to know, but reversing the directions of all the
arrows in his diagrams is going to confuse people terminally when they
get to real circuit design. The main point of drawing diagrams so that
current flows generally downward and to the right is so that people
don't get confused, and to reduce the number of minus signs in the
algebra, which of course are a common source of blunders.

The less obvious advantage to the current convention is that it makes
electronic diagrams more amenable to stand-in as loose metaphor for
life, or living, but it is difficult to explain since 'living' in this
context is a religious concept subject to the usual prohibitions on
open discussion or analysis.

Counterfactual concepts make real understanding unnecessarily
difficult. The fact that electronic circuits are presented with the
assumption that charge flows from positive to negative poles obscures
the idea that it is the electrical potential for the flow of electrons
that is significant at any given point in a circuit. I don't doubt
that the terminology in common use could be less confusing.

Do you have an example of a solid-state circuit accessible to a beginner
where it matters what the carrier polarity is? Holes are slower than
electrons in almost every material I can think of, but they look like
perfectly good positive charge carriers in all other respects.

The first URL goes through the process of building a high-gain
amplifier, and it works O.K. with the exception that there is no
power. The second URL goes into more detail and shows how to deliver
some power to the speaker as in figure 16. I have different parts on
hand, and I am working with a 12V supply instead of 9V as in the first
URL. Since I am looking to deliver big chunky volts to my speaker,
I went ahead and modified Figure 16 and the example in the first URL
to obtain the following circuit:

12V +---+----------+----------+ R1 = 510K
| | | | R2 = 5.9K
| > R2 > R3 | R3 = 220
R1 > < < | C1 = 1uF
| | | Q1, Q2 = 2N2222
| +-- | | Q3 = 2N3055
input | | \ b |c |
o---||-+-(Q1) -----(Q2) -----(Q3)
C1 | |e / |
1uf | --- SPKR
| |
| |
o----------+---------------------+

SPKR is a ribbon tweeter with a 2 Ohm, 10 Watt resistor in series.

Yikes, Beta bias! DC through the voice coil!

That looks a lot like a circuit that I built when I was 10, out of a
book of projects (that would have been early 1970). It sorta worked,
kinda, but ate batteries like mad. (It used a TR01C TO-3 package
germanium transistor, made by International Rectifier. It also had a
carbon mic so it didn't need a preamp.)

I'll be better off when I internalize the details of how transistors
work in various configurations, but at the moment the concepts are
still a little fuzzy.

Sure, it takes everybody awhile--they're nontrivial devices. It's
easier to get right if you think of transistors as mostly
voltage-controlled rather than current-controlled. That's closer to the
physics, and will also protect you against doing beta-dependent circuits
like the above and the ones in reference #2.

Base current isn't a necessary feature of transistor behaviour--you can
get transistors with betas ranging from about 5 to several thousand, and
the beta of a single device can easily vary over a 3:1 range, depending
on collector current. On the other hand, transconductance is almost
identical for every transistor at a given collector current, and comes
right out of the simplest version of the device physics (the Ebers-Moll
model).

Monkeys armed with typewriters have mastered basic analog electronics,
so I ought to be able to get there as well. It would be helpful if
there were less disinformation or outright lies in the way, however.
Some people seem strangely committed to making learning as difficult
as possible. I wonder why that is.

Competition?

What, they want to sell me a fish every day? I can catch my own
goddamn fish.

Yet you expect people to go out of their way to teach you to fish
after you've pissed on them. That is the lefty way.

No, I merely expect that sane people won't lie or distort facts merely
because they think that knowledge is sacred and requires some sort of
arbitrary sacrifice to be paid in return for its disclosure. If you
think the 'payment' for discussion of the trivial is measured in
humiliation, you are insane.

Like all lefties, you're illiterate and incapable of thought.

It must be difficult, hating your self so much that you cannot
entertain the idea of normal relations with normal people.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
More than a century has passed since science laid down sound
propositions as to the origins of the universe, but how many have
mastered them or possess the really scientific spirit of criticism? A
few thousands at the outside, who are lost in the midst of hundreds of
millions still steeped in prejudices and superstitions worthy of
savages, who are consequently ever ready to serve as puppets for
religious impostors. -- Peter Kropotkin

Uncle Steve · Feb 14, 2013

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:05:55PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:55:23 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:43:28PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:01:14 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:41:49PM -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:42:10 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

It's all so tiresome. Greg Egan once wrote of a hypothetical
terrorist group described as "anthrocosmologists" who bear a striking
resemblance to such persons, who impute anthropic principles to
existence a priori -- which is necessarily the opposite to the idea of
undertaking observation to deduce or infer principles of existence.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, wave functions collapse
into reality when they are observed. Combine that with the
many-universes concept, and I conclude that I have created my own
universe of which you are a minor detail.

Oh yeah? I have a doomsday device and I fully intend to keep
destroying the universe until I get you. So there.

(p.s. please don't tell the DHS. Thx.)

Well, just don't take it as carry-on.

I don't have to. I simply destroy universes until I teleport to where
I want to go.

There are infinitely many, and they are being created much faster than you can
zap them.

I know. It's difficult not to overshoot. One of the reasons why I'm
keen on analogue electronics. The "STOP DESTROYING UNIVERSES" button
needs a little debouncing and ideally should have some safety
features. The crude lash-up I'm currently using works, but is highly
suboptimal.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
More than a century has passed since science laid down sound
propositions as to the origins of the universe, but how many have
mastered them or possess the really scientific spirit of criticism? A
few thousands at the outside, who are lost in the midst of hundreds of
millions still steeped in prejudices and superstitions worthy of
savages, who are consequently ever ready to serve as puppets for
religious impostors. -- Peter Kropotkin

Jim Thompson · Feb 14, 2013

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:26:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:20:50PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:36 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:37PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:53:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:04PM -0500, Jamie wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:49:20PM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:18:13AM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/9/2013 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

... unless there is no signal at the input.

I started with some information at the following two URLS:

http://www.mysticmarvels.com/amplifier.html
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

Sorry, they are both hacks and idiots, the first one being the worst.

Yup, both full of Bad Info presented with confidence. The first guy is
smarmy besides, coming over all superior about current flow vs electron
flow, as if it mattered for solid-state circuit design.

That little tidbit is useful. As electrons are the medium of
electronic signal propagation, it's helpful to know what's actually
going on in the wires. Counter-intuitive concepts like that are
exactly the sort of thing that make science difficult for kids. An
exemplar is the view of the Earth as the center of the universe, as
was common knowledge prior to the Copernican revolution.

It's a good thing to know, but reversing the directions of all the
arrows in his diagrams is going to confuse people terminally when they
get to real circuit design. The main point of drawing diagrams so that
current flows generally downward and to the right is so that people
don't get confused, and to reduce the number of minus signs in the
algebra, which of course are a common source of blunders.

The less obvious advantage to the current convention is that it makes
electronic diagrams more amenable to stand-in as loose metaphor for
life, or living, but it is difficult to explain since 'living' in this
context is a religious concept subject to the usual prohibitions on
open discussion or analysis.

Counterfactual concepts make real understanding unnecessarily
difficult. The fact that electronic circuits are presented with the
assumption that charge flows from positive to negative poles obscures
the idea that it is the electrical potential for the flow of electrons
that is significant at any given point in a circuit. I don't doubt
that the terminology in common use could be less confusing.

Do you have an example of a solid-state circuit accessible to a beginner
where it matters what the carrier polarity is? Holes are slower than
electrons in almost every material I can think of, but they look like
perfectly good positive charge carriers in all other respects.

The first URL goes through the process of building a high-gain
amplifier, and it works O.K. with the exception that there is no
power. The second URL goes into more detail and shows how to deliver
some power to the speaker as in figure 16. I have different parts on
hand, and I am working with a 12V supply instead of 9V as in the first
URL. Since I am looking to deliver big chunky volts to my speaker,
I went ahead and modified Figure 16 and the example in the first URL
to obtain the following circuit:

12V +---+----------+----------+ R1 = 510K
| | | | R2 = 5.9K
| > R2 > R3 | R3 = 220
R1 > < < | C1 = 1uF
| | | Q1, Q2 = 2N2222
| +-- | | Q3 = 2N3055
input | | \ b |c |
o---||-+-(Q1) -----(Q2) -----(Q3)
C1 | |e / |
1uf | --- SPKR
| |
| |
o----------+---------------------+

SPKR is a ribbon tweeter with a 2 Ohm, 10 Watt resistor in series.

Yikes, Beta bias! DC through the voice coil!

That looks a lot like a circuit that I built when I was 10, out of a
book of projects (that would have been early 1970). It sorta worked,
kinda, but ate batteries like mad. (It used a TR01C TO-3 package
germanium transistor, made by International Rectifier. It also had a
carbon mic so it didn't need a preamp.)

I'll be better off when I internalize the details of how transistors
work in various configurations, but at the moment the concepts are
still a little fuzzy.

Sure, it takes everybody awhile--they're nontrivial devices. It's
easier to get right if you think of transistors as mostly
voltage-controlled rather than current-controlled. That's closer to the
physics, and will also protect you against doing beta-dependent circuits
like the above and the ones in reference #2.

Base current isn't a necessary feature of transistor behaviour--you can
get transistors with betas ranging from about 5 to several thousand, and
the beta of a single device can easily vary over a 3:1 range, depending
on collector current. On the other hand, transconductance is almost
identical for every transistor at a given collector current, and comes
right out of the simplest version of the device physics (the Ebers-Moll
model).

Monkeys armed with typewriters have mastered basic analog electronics,
so I ought to be able to get there as well. It would be helpful if
there were less disinformation or outright lies in the way, however.
Some people seem strangely committed to making learning as difficult
as possible. I wonder why that is.

Competition?

What, they want to sell me a fish every day? I can catch my own
goddamn fish.

Yet you expect people to go out of their way to teach you to fish
after you've pissed on them. That is the lefty way.

No, I merely expect that sane people won't lie or distort facts merely
because they think that knowledge is sacred and requires some sort of
arbitrary sacrifice to be paid in return for its disclosure. If you
think the 'payment' for discussion of the trivial is measured in
humiliation, you are insane.

Like all lefties, you're illiterate and incapable of thought.

It must be difficult, hating your self so much that you cannot
entertain the idea of normal relations with normal people.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

Feb 14, 2013

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:26:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:20:50PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:36 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:37PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:53:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:04PM -0500, Jamie wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:49:20PM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:18:13AM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/9/2013 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

... unless there is no signal at the input.

I started with some information at the following two URLS:

http://www.mysticmarvels.com/amplifier.html
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

Sorry, they are both hacks and idiots, the first one being the worst.

Yup, both full of Bad Info presented with confidence. The first guy is
smarmy besides, coming over all superior about current flow vs electron
flow, as if it mattered for solid-state circuit design.

That little tidbit is useful. As electrons are the medium of
electronic signal propagation, it's helpful to know what's actually
going on in the wires. Counter-intuitive concepts like that are
exactly the sort of thing that make science difficult for kids. An
exemplar is the view of the Earth as the center of the universe, as
was common knowledge prior to the Copernican revolution.

It's a good thing to know, but reversing the directions of all the
arrows in his diagrams is going to confuse people terminally when they
get to real circuit design. The main point of drawing diagrams so that
current flows generally downward and to the right is so that people
don't get confused, and to reduce the number of minus signs in the
algebra, which of course are a common source of blunders.

The less obvious advantage to the current convention is that it makes
electronic diagrams more amenable to stand-in as loose metaphor for
life, or living, but it is difficult to explain since 'living' in this
context is a religious concept subject to the usual prohibitions on
open discussion or analysis.

Counterfactual concepts make real understanding unnecessarily
difficult. The fact that electronic circuits are presented with the
assumption that charge flows from positive to negative poles obscures
the idea that it is the electrical potential for the flow of electrons
that is significant at any given point in a circuit. I don't doubt
that the terminology in common use could be less confusing.

Do you have an example of a solid-state circuit accessible to a beginner
where it matters what the carrier polarity is? Holes are slower than
electrons in almost every material I can think of, but they look like
perfectly good positive charge carriers in all other respects.

The first URL goes through the process of building a high-gain
amplifier, and it works O.K. with the exception that there is no
power. The second URL goes into more detail and shows how to deliver
some power to the speaker as in figure 16. I have different parts on
hand, and I am working with a 12V supply instead of 9V as in the first
URL. Since I am looking to deliver big chunky volts to my speaker,
I went ahead and modified Figure 16 and the example in the first URL
to obtain the following circuit:

12V +---+----------+----------+ R1 = 510K
| | | | R2 = 5.9K
| > R2 > R3 | R3 = 220
R1 > < < | C1 = 1uF
| | | Q1, Q2 = 2N2222
| +-- | | Q3 = 2N3055
input | | \ b |c |
o---||-+-(Q1) -----(Q2) -----(Q3)
C1 | |e / |
1uf | --- SPKR
| |
| |
o----------+---------------------+

SPKR is a ribbon tweeter with a 2 Ohm, 10 Watt resistor in series.

Yikes, Beta bias! DC through the voice coil!

That looks a lot like a circuit that I built when I was 10, out of a
book of projects (that would have been early 1970). It sorta worked,
kinda, but ate batteries like mad. (It used a TR01C TO-3 package
germanium transistor, made by International Rectifier. It also had a
carbon mic so it didn't need a preamp.)

I'll be better off when I internalize the details of how transistors
work in various configurations, but at the moment the concepts are
still a little fuzzy.

Sure, it takes everybody awhile--they're nontrivial devices. It's
easier to get right if you think of transistors as mostly
voltage-controlled rather than current-controlled. That's closer to the
physics, and will also protect you against doing beta-dependent circuits
like the above and the ones in reference #2.

Base current isn't a necessary feature of transistor behaviour--you can
get transistors with betas ranging from about 5 to several thousand, and
the beta of a single device can easily vary over a 3:1 range, depending
on collector current. On the other hand, transconductance is almost
identical for every transistor at a given collector current, and comes
right out of the simplest version of the device physics (the Ebers-Moll
model).

Monkeys armed with typewriters have mastered basic analog electronics,
so I ought to be able to get there as well. It would be helpful if
there were less disinformation or outright lies in the way, however.
Some people seem strangely committed to making learning as difficult
as possible. I wonder why that is.

Competition?

What, they want to sell me a fish every day? I can catch my own
goddamn fish.

Yet you expect people to go out of their way to teach you to fish
after you've pissed on them. That is the lefty way.

No, I merely expect that sane people won't lie or distort facts merely
because they think that knowledge is sacred and requires some sort of
arbitrary sacrifice to be paid in return for its disclosure. If you
think the 'payment' for discussion of the trivial is measured in
humiliation, you are insane.

Like all lefties, you're illiterate and incapable of thought.

It must be difficult, hating your self so much that you cannot
entertain the idea of normal relations with normal people.

Of course, like all lefties, you're clueless. It's evident that you're
really not here to learn anything about electronics so it would
probably be a wise idea to leave, now. Though wise and lefty
certainly don't belong in the same paragraph.

Uncle Steve · Feb 14, 2013

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:33:43PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:26:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:20:50PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:36 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:37PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:53:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:04PM -0500, Jamie wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:49:20PM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/10/2013 10:44 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:18:13AM -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2/9/2013 9:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:

... unless there is no signal at the input.

I started with some information at the following two URLS:

http://www.mysticmarvels.com/amplifier.html
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

Sorry, they are both hacks and idiots, the first one being the worst.

Yup, both full of Bad Info presented with confidence. The first guy is
smarmy besides, coming over all superior about current flow vs electron
flow, as if it mattered for solid-state circuit design.

That little tidbit is useful. As electrons are the medium of
electronic signal propagation, it's helpful to know what's actually
going on in the wires. Counter-intuitive concepts like that are
exactly the sort of thing that make science difficult for kids. An
exemplar is the view of the Earth as the center of the universe, as
was common knowledge prior to the Copernican revolution.

It's a good thing to know, but reversing the directions of all the
arrows in his diagrams is going to confuse people terminally when they
get to real circuit design. The main point of drawing diagrams so that
current flows generally downward and to the right is so that people
don't get confused, and to reduce the number of minus signs in the
algebra, which of course are a common source of blunders.

The less obvious advantage to the current convention is that it makes
electronic diagrams more amenable to stand-in as loose metaphor for
life, or living, but it is difficult to explain since 'living' in this
context is a religious concept subject to the usual prohibitions on
open discussion or analysis.

Counterfactual concepts make real understanding unnecessarily
difficult. The fact that electronic circuits are presented with the
assumption that charge flows from positive to negative poles obscures
the idea that it is the electrical potential for the flow of electrons
that is significant at any given point in a circuit. I don't doubt
that the terminology in common use could be less confusing.

Do you have an example of a solid-state circuit accessible to a beginner
where it matters what the carrier polarity is? Holes are slower than
electrons in almost every material I can think of, but they look like
perfectly good positive charge carriers in all other respects.

The first URL goes through the process of building a high-gain
amplifier, and it works O.K. with the exception that there is no
power. The second URL goes into more detail and shows how to deliver
some power to the speaker as in figure 16. I have different parts on
hand, and I am working with a 12V supply instead of 9V as in the first
URL. Since I am looking to deliver big chunky volts to my speaker,
I went ahead and modified Figure 16 and the example in the first URL
to obtain the following circuit:

12V +---+----------+----------+ R1 = 510K
| | | | R2 = 5.9K
| > R2 > R3 | R3 = 220
R1 > < < | C1 = 1uF
| | | Q1, Q2 = 2N2222
| +-- | | Q3 = 2N3055
input | | \ b |c |
o---||-+-(Q1) -----(Q2) -----(Q3)
C1 | |e / |
1uf | --- SPKR
| |
| |
o----------+---------------------+

SPKR is a ribbon tweeter with a 2 Ohm, 10 Watt resistor in series.

Yikes, Beta bias! DC through the voice coil!

That looks a lot like a circuit that I built when I was 10, out of a
book of projects (that would have been early 1970). It sorta worked,
kinda, but ate batteries like mad. (It used a TR01C TO-3 package
germanium transistor, made by International Rectifier. It also had a
carbon mic so it didn't need a preamp.)

I'll be better off when I internalize the details of how transistors
work in various configurations, but at the moment the concepts are
still a little fuzzy.

Sure, it takes everybody awhile--they're nontrivial devices. It's
easier to get right if you think of transistors as mostly
voltage-controlled rather than current-controlled. That's closer to the
physics, and will also protect you against doing beta-dependent circuits
like the above and the ones in reference #2.

Base current isn't a necessary feature of transistor behaviour--you can
get transistors with betas ranging from about 5 to several thousand, and
the beta of a single device can easily vary over a 3:1 range, depending
on collector current. On the other hand, transconductance is almost
identical for every transistor at a given collector current, and comes
right out of the simplest version of the device physics (the Ebers-Moll
model).

Monkeys armed with typewriters have mastered basic analog electronics,
so I ought to be able to get there as well. It would be helpful if
there were less disinformation or outright lies in the way, however.
Some people seem strangely committed to making learning as difficult
as possible. I wonder why that is.

Competition?

What, they want to sell me a fish every day? I can catch my own
goddamn fish.

Yet you expect people to go out of their way to teach you to fish
after you've pissed on them. That is the lefty way.

No, I merely expect that sane people won't lie or distort facts merely
because they think that knowledge is sacred and requires some sort of
arbitrary sacrifice to be paid in return for its disclosure. If you
think the 'payment' for discussion of the trivial is measured in
humiliation, you are insane.

Like all lefties, you're illiterate and incapable of thought.

It must be difficult, hating your self so much that you cannot
entertain the idea of normal relations with normal people.

Of course, like all lefties, you're clueless. It's evident that you're
really not here to learn anything about electronics so it would
probably be a wise idea to leave, now. Though wise and lefty
certainly don't belong in the same paragraph.

Characteristic projection of your own prejudices on others. Clearly
you're not here to discuss matters of basic electronics in a civil
fashion unless with people who agree with every one of your delusional
prejudices.

FTR, I'm not a Leftist but I play them on the Internet.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
More than a century has passed since science laid down sound
propositions as to the origins of the universe, but how many have
mastered them or possess the really scientific spirit of criticism? A
few thousands at the outside, who are lost in the midst of hundreds of
millions still steeped in prejudices and superstitions worthy of
savages, who are consequently ever ready to serve as puppets for
religious impostors. -- Peter Kropotkin

Jim Thompson · Feb 14, 2013

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:31:17 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:33:43PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
[snip]

Of course, like all lefties, you're clueless. It's evident that you're
really not here to learn anything about electronics so it would
probably be a wise idea to leave, now. Though wise and lefty
certainly don't belong in the same paragraph.

Characteristic projection of your own prejudices on others. Clearly
you're not here to discuss matters of basic electronics in a civil
fashion unless with people who agree with every one of your delusional
prejudices.

FTR, I'm not a Leftist but I play them on the Internet.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

Bwahahahahahaha!

You've not presented any "basic electronics" here.

Just BS that is totally incorrect.

And you're clearly not interested in actually learning, rejecting any
suggestions from those of us who have been doing circuit design
professionally for years (me, I'm 50 years after graduation from
M.I.T.)

You have your head firmly up your butt, yet claim you know what you
are doing.

So... Don't go away mad... just go away.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Feb 14, 2013

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:31:17 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:33:43PM -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:26:06 -0500, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com
wrote:
...

It must be difficult, hating your self so much that you cannot
entertain the idea of normal relations with normal people.

Of course, like all lefties, you're clueless. It's evident that you're
really not here to learn anything about electronics so it would
probably be a wise idea to leave, now. Though wise and lefty
certainly don't belong in the same paragraph.

Characteristic projection of your own prejudices on others. Clearly
you're not here to discuss matters of basic electronics in a civil
fashion unless with people who agree with every one of your delusional
prejudices.

The projection is all yours. Like all lefties, you need to be
acquainted with a mirror. Clearly you don't want to learn. It's
surprising people have helped you this far. You're not worth it.

FTR, I'm not a Leftist but I play them on the Internet.

Like all lefties, you're a liar. It's a requirement.

Signal amplifier works

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Jamie

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Signal amplifier works

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Jamie

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Fred Abse

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Uncle Steve

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor