In article <feu4k9pivnsbfind7l5kcr9jl9fl4kp5kd@4ax.com>, 
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
> 
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 22:21:58 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
> <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> >In article <ehg3k9l17635s3shknst8m5r07hlsl9hfj@4ax.com>, 
> >jfields@austininstruments.com says...
> >> > Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of
> >> >> your coop.
> >> >
> >> >But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
> >> 
> >> ---
> >> There's more to it than just that, in that Larkin takes umbrage at
> >> whatever he considers to be detrimental - in the slightest - to the
> >> image he holds of himself, especially when it comes to technical
> >> faux pas he commits which are reported back to him.
> >> 
> >> On those not quite rare occurrences he usually strikes back with a
> >> snide remark or two designed to impugn the reporter's veracity
> >> instead of addressing the technical issue, and will escalate the
> >> harangue as necessary, usually resorting to ad hominem arguments, in
> >> order to kill the messenger.
> >> 
> >> By then, Larkin has often completely derailed the technical argument
> >> with the end of it being that his faux pas has been swept under the
> >> carpet and, to the unwary observer, dealt with honorably.
> >> 
> >>
> > What an imagination you have.
> >
> > Jealousy will get you no where!
> >
> >Jamie
> 
> ---
> http://www.natchaug.org/about_us.htm

 I would not advise giving out your current address in a public 
forum, lots of strangers here!
  
Jamie

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:21:22 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 04:41:41 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:21:29 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:40:53 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:36:12 -0700, John Larkin
>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:12:51 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>There's more to it than just that, in that Larkin takes umbrage at
>>>>>>whatever he considers to be detrimental - in the slightest - to the
>>>>>>image he holds of himself, especially when it comes to technical
>>>>>>faux pas he commits which are reported back to him.
>>>>>
>>>>>I was trying to get Jim to back up his claim about how fast linear CMOS can be.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>No, you weren't.
>>>>
>>>>What you were trying to do was to get him to post_anything_ so that
>>>>you could counter with something faster in bipolar and continue your
>>>>neverending harangue.
>>>
>>>So you concede that bipolar opamps are faster than cmos opamps? 
>>
>>---
>>Not at all, since some are and some aren't.
>>---
>>
>>>Thanks for backing me up on that.
>>
>>---
>>Incorrect conclusion based on a false premise.
>>---
>>
>>>Too bad Jim can't see it.
>>
>>---
>>Then - instead of working toward seeing an end to the harangue -
>>you'd like for it to continue with me, no less, conscripted into
>>your cadre of sycophants by trickery.
>>
>
>Do you actually talk like that? In TEXAS?

---
You asked that once before, and the answer is still the same: "I
don't talk like that, I write like that."

BTW, why the slur?

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 04:41:41 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:21:29 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:40:53 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:36:12 -0700, John Larkin
>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:12:51 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>There's more to it than just that, in that Larkin takes umbrage at
>>>>>whatever he considers to be detrimental - in the slightest - to the
>>>>>image he holds of himself, especially when it comes to technical
>>>>>faux pas he commits which are reported back to him.
>>>>
>>>>I was trying to get Jim to back up his claim about how fast linear CMOS can be.
>>>
>>>---
>>>No, you weren't.
>>>
>>>What you were trying to do was to get him to post_anything_ so that
>>>you could counter with something faster in bipolar and continue your
>>>neverending harangue.
>>
>>So you concede that bipolar opamps are faster than cmos opamps? 
>
>---
>Not at all, since some are and some aren't.
>---
>
>>Thanks for backing me up on that.
>
>---
>Incorrect conclusion based on a false premise.
>---
>
>>Too bad Jim can't see it.
>
>---
>Then - instead of working toward seeing an end to the harangue -
>you'd like for it to continue with me, no less, conscripted into
>your cadre of sycophants by trickery.
>

Do you actually talk like that? In TEXAS?



-- 

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

Precision electronic instrumentation

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:50:35 -0400, Phil Hobbs <hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 4/7/2014 7:30 AM, Mike Perkins wrote:
>> On 07/04/2014 12:06, John Devereux wrote:
>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:27 -0500, John Fields
>>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:40:55 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*."  ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bipolar's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diapers.  Sometimes I think you still are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>> amps, name a
>>>>>>>>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the
>>>>>>>>>>>> speed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near
>>>>>>>>>>>> the specs
>>>>>>>>>>>> of an AD8034.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on, try it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the insight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .FUNC[PLINK]  BYE >:-}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note to all:  Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me.  I
>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance
>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide
>>>>>>>> in the back of
>>>>>>>> your coop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Review the thread. I wanted to talk about CMOS parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> You really didn't; what you _wanted to do was to best Jim at his own
>>>>> game by changing the focus of the thread to fall into line with what
>>>>> you considered to be an area where you'd be unbeatable.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>> He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that
>>>>>> "killfile" nonsense. I wonder why.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Generally, you're the one who starts the fights; all because you're
>>>>> so pussywhipped that when he made a comment about your wife which
>>>>> you decided was grounds to start a neverending vendetta, you did.
>>>>
>>>> So, you wouldn't mind if people slagged your wife?
>>>
>>> That was just mildly off-color humor in the context, you blew it up into
>>> a silly pistols-at-dawn mortal insult thing.
>>>
>>> But I do think Jim is almost always to blame for the "fights".
>>
>> Just an observation but Jim has become thicker skinned recently.
>>
>> You can typically tell the most culpable party from an insistence on
>> having the last word.
>>
>
>Wow, I guess some folks need their minimum daily requirement of 
>bickering, so if J&J don't provide it, they feel they have to step in.
>
>Why don't we talk about op amps?
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

The record for an opamp is probably THS4303, 1.8 GHZ closed-loop at gain=10,
which is 18 GHz GBW.

(It's bipolar!)


-- 

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

Precision electronic instrumentation

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:50:35 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 4/7/2014 7:30 AM, Mike Perkins wrote:
>> On 07/04/2014 12:06, John Devereux wrote:
>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:27 -0500, John Fields
>>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:40:55 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*."  ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bipolar's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diapers.  Sometimes I think you still are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>> amps, name a
>>>>>>>>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the
>>>>>>>>>>>> speed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near
>>>>>>>>>>>> the specs
>>>>>>>>>>>> of an AD8034.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on, try it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the insight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .FUNC[PLINK]  BYE >:-}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note to all:  Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me.  I
>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance
>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide
>>>>>>>> in the back of
>>>>>>>> your coop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Review the thread. I wanted to talk about CMOS parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> You really didn't; what you _wanted to do was to best Jim at his own
>>>>> game by changing the focus of the thread to fall into line with what
>>>>> you considered to be an area where you'd be unbeatable.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>> He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that
>>>>>> "killfile" nonsense. I wonder why.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Generally, you're the one who starts the fights; all because you're
>>>>> so pussywhipped that when he made a comment about your wife which
>>>>> you decided was grounds to start a neverending vendetta, you did.
>>>>
>>>> So, you wouldn't mind if people slagged your wife?
>>>
>>> That was just mildly off-color humor in the context, you blew it up into
>>> a silly pistols-at-dawn mortal insult thing.
>>>
>>> But I do think Jim is almost always to blame for the "fights".
>>
>> Just an observation but Jim has become thicker skinned recently.
>>
>> You can typically tell the most culpable party from an insistence on
>> having the last word.
>>
>
>Wow, I guess some folks need their minimum daily requirement of 
>bickering, so if J&J don't provide it, they feel they have to step in.

---
Welcome to the row. ;)

On 4/7/2014 7:30 AM, Mike Perkins wrote:
> On 07/04/2014 12:06, John Devereux wrote:
>> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:27 -0500, John Fields
>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:40:55 -0700, John Larkin
>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields
>>>>>>>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> about CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*."  ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency
>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output...
>>>>>>>>>>>> bipolar's
>>>>>>>>>>>> included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were
>>>>>>>>>>>> still in
>>>>>>>>>>>> diapers.  Sometimes I think you still are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>> amps, name a
>>>>>>>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the
>>>>>>>>>>> speed and
>>>>>>>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near
>>>>>>>>>>> the specs
>>>>>>>>>>> of an AD8034.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Come on, try it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the insight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .FUNC[PLINK]  BYE >:-}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note to all:  Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me.  I
>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance
>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide
>>>>>>> in the back of
>>>>>>> your coop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>>>>>
>>>>> Review the thread. I wanted to talk about CMOS parts.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> You really didn't; what you _wanted to do was to best Jim at his own
>>>> game by changing the focus of the thread to fall into line with what
>>>> you considered to be an area where you'd be unbeatable.
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>> He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that
>>>>> "killfile" nonsense. I wonder why.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Generally, you're the one who starts the fights; all because you're
>>>> so pussywhipped that when he made a comment about your wife which
>>>> you decided was grounds to start a neverending vendetta, you did.
>>>
>>> So, you wouldn't mind if people slagged your wife?
>>
>> That was just mildly off-color humor in the context, you blew it up into
>> a silly pistols-at-dawn mortal insult thing.
>>
>> But I do think Jim is almost always to blame for the "fights".
>
> Just an observation but Jim has become thicker skinned recently.
>
> You can typically tell the most culpable party from an insistence on
> having the last word.
>

Wow, I guess some folks need their minimum daily requirement of 
bickering, so if J&J don't provide it, they feel they have to step in.

Why don't we talk about op amps?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On 07/04/2014 12:06, John Devereux wrote:
> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:27 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:40:55 -0700, John Larkin
>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2014 1:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:22:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:09:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:42:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:48:29 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:28:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:49:43 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who uttered their profound statement of ignorance, "Thing about CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>> is its terrible ratio of capacitance to transconductance. I've
>>>>>>>>>>> seen CMOS opamps that have PSRR *gain*."  ???
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with half a clue knows that PSRR is referred to input for a
>>>>>>>>>>> reason... to hide the fact that there is always a frequency point
>>>>>>>>>>> above which ALL OpAmps have gain from supplies to output... bipolar's
>>>>>>>>>>> included.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was designing bipolar integrated circuits while you were still in
>>>>>>>>>>> diapers.  Sometimes I think you still are.
>>>>>>>>>>> 		
>>>>>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're still chicken, and still wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you dispute the gain:capacitance disadvantage of CMOS amps, name a
>>>>>>>>>> CMOS opamp that's as fast as a bipolar THS3201. Or has the speed and
>>>>>>>>>> input capacitance of a jfet ADA4817. Or comes anywhere near the specs
>>>>>>>>>> of an AD8034.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Come on, try it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the insight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .FUNC[PLINK]  BYE >:-}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note to all:  Replying to Larkin will _not_ be seen by me.  I finally
>>>>>>> figured out how to kill subthreads, so I have no annoyance whatsoever.
>>>>>>> 		
>>>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of
>>>>>> your coop.
>>>>>
>>>>> But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>>>>
>>>> Review the thread. I wanted to talk about CMOS parts.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> You really didn't; what you _wanted to do was to best Jim at his own
>>> game by changing the focus of the thread to fall into line with what
>>> you considered to be an area where you'd be unbeatable.
>>> ---
>>>
>>>> He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that
>>>> "killfile" nonsense. I wonder why.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Generally, you're the one who starts the fights; all because you're
>>> so pussywhipped that when he made a comment about your wife which
>>> you decided was grounds to start a neverending vendetta, you did.
>>
>> So, you wouldn't mind if people slagged your wife?
>
> That was just mildly off-color humor in the context, you blew it up into
> a silly pistols-at-dawn mortal insult thing.
>
> But I do think Jim is almost always to blame for the "fights".

Just an observation but Jim has become thicker skinned recently.

You can typically tell the most culpable party from an insistence on 
having the last word.

-- 
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 22:21:58 -0400, "Maynard A. Philbrook Jr."
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <ehg3k9l17635s3shknst8m5r07hlsl9hfj@4ax.com>, 
>jfields@austininstruments.com says...
>> > Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of
>> >> your coop.
>> >
>> >But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>> 
>> ---
>> There's more to it than just that, in that Larkin takes umbrage at
>> whatever he considers to be detrimental - in the slightest - to the
>> image he holds of himself, especially when it comes to technical
>> faux pas he commits which are reported back to him.
>> 
>> On those not quite rare occurrences he usually strikes back with a
>> snide remark or two designed to impugn the reporter's veracity
>> instead of addressing the technical issue, and will escalate the
>> harangue as necessary, usually resorting to ad hominem arguments, in
>> order to kill the messenger.
>> 
>> By then, Larkin has often completely derailed the technical argument
>> with the end of it being that his faux pas has been swept under the
>> carpet and, to the unwary observer, dealt with honorably.
>> 
>>
> What an imagination you have.
>
> Jealousy will get you no where!
>
>Jamie

---
http://www.natchaug.org/about_us.htm

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:21:29 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:40:53 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:36:12 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:12:51 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:31:38 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>But John can't let this end without trying at least to draw blood.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>There's more to it than just that, in that Larkin takes umbrage at
>>>>whatever he considers to be detrimental - in the slightest - to the
>>>>image he holds of himself, especially when it comes to technical
>>>>faux pas he commits which are reported back to him.
>>>
>>>I was trying to get Jim to back up his claim about how fast linear CMOS can be.
>>
>>---
>>No, you weren't.
>>
>>What you were trying to do was to get him to post_anything_ so that
>>you could counter with something faster in bipolar and continue your
>>neverending harangue.
>
>So you concede that bipolar opamps are faster than cmos opamps? 

---
Not at all, since some are and some aren't.
---

>Thanks for backing me up on that.

---
Incorrect conclusion based on a false premise.
---

>Too bad Jim can't see it.

---
Then - instead of working toward seeing an end to the harangue -
you'd like for it to continue with me, no less, conscripted into
your cadre of sycophants by trickery.

Sick.