On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:42:32 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:> but haven't taken >sides other than that.You took sides calling me a troll. Is your name Zimmerman? Lots of petty horseshit oozes from you. Just because this isn't one of those doesn't clear you either. But yes... triviality has crept into the entirety of Usenet. It has to do with parentage. Or lack thereof.
pc motherboard grounds
Started by ●August 25, 2012
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:23:50 -0700, SoothSayer <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:12:23 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>Where? All you do is whine. > > Describing your fucked up personality is NOT "whining" you fucking >immature bastard.Personality? I thought we were supposed to discuss electronics. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:47:44 -0700, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:22:46 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:19:39 -0700, John Larkin >><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:57:29 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>[snip] >>>> >>>>Larkin is indeed a Napoleonic runt. >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>> >>>You never talk about electronics any more. You just whine about >>>personalities. What an old hen. >> >>And you're too ignorant to understand what's funny about your last >>statement ;-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Say something real about electronics. > >Design a current source, or say something real about the ones I've >posted.See! Total ignorance exemplified ;-) ...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:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:21:09 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:47:44 -0700, John Larkin ><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:22:46 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:19:39 -0700, John Larkin >>><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:57:29 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>Larkin is indeed a Napoleonic runt. >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>> >>>>You never talk about electronics any more. You just whine about >>>>personalities. What an old hen. >>> >>>And you're too ignorant to understand what's funny about your last >>>statement ;-) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>Say something real about electronics. >> >>Design a current source, or say something real about the ones I've >>posted. > >See! Total ignorance exemplified ;-) > > ...Jim ThompsonSee! Still zero electronic content. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:05:10 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> >> John Larkin wrote: >> > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 22:53:35 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" >> > <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > John Larkin wrote: >> > > > >> > > > You *don't* understand my circuit! >> > > >> > > I wish I did. Whether he does or not, would you mind describing it? >> > >> > This one? >> > >> > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Isrc_Ib_2.JPG >> > >> > U1 and the p-fet are a slow but precise closed-loop current source. >> > It's cascoded into the fast PNP transistor below, which gives us low >> > output capacitance. R3 allows the PNP emitter to move a bit and reduce >> > Early effect. R4 keeps the PNP from oscillating. >> > >> > The big DC error becomes the base current of the PNP. RF PNPs tend to >> > have have low betas, so we lose some of our precise current to the >> > base, and that changes with tempearture. So we dump the base current >> > into U2, and the resulting signal (drop across R2) increases the >> > effective reference voltage to the upper current source, increasing >> > the emitter current, almost canceling the base current error. >> > >> > R2=R1 gets us close enough. The base current cancellation is a >> > positive feedback loop, but the gain is low, basically 1/beta, so it's >> > stable. >> > > >The problem I see with that is that the base current correction only >works at DC.Sure; it forces the collector current to average what we want it to be, temperature corrected. For few-percent error tolerance, it's probably fine, but>the step response will have whoop-de-doos. (They may be too far out in >time to care about, but they could also interact with subsequent pulses >and cause jitter.)Think so? It's just a cascode that has the base current corrected for. The emitter resistor should increase the output impedance, kill most of the Early slope.> >I still say that simulated inductor circuit is simpler--4 parts, zero >current error at all frequencies, L as high as you like (if you use a >BFP640). You can put a damping resistor in parallel to kill the Q if >that's an issue. (I suppose the whoop-de-do jitter issue might be there >as well, somewhere between the bandwidths of the LC and the op amp loop, >but I'd have to think way too hard to figure that out.) ;) >This one?>One interesting trick for this is to use a simulated inductor, i.e. a >one-pole capacitance multiplier floating--like so:--> I_in 0--*-------- -------*--0 | \ A | | ----- | | | | *--RRRR----*----| |--*>That has no base current error, and lets you use NPNs for the >high-frequency task even in a current-sourcing application. Something >like a BFG25AW is often a good choice.Doesn't RRRR act like, well, a resistor? It seems to me, too, that the c-b junction will forward conduct (into the capacitance of the current source) as the ramp runs up. -- 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
Reply by ●August 28, 20122012-08-28
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:00:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:> >>>As noted, the proper base/gate resistor fixes it, as it does for most >>>emitter-follower type circuits. Not many people appreciate how much >>>emitter follower configs (low-z in the base, hi-z in the emitter) like >>>to oscillate.=20 >> >>Poxy hell, you point to your own lack of understanding. That is a =totally>>inappropriate use of an emitter follower. No wonder you have silly >>problems, you don't grok electronics at all. > >It's not an emitter follower, but it is an "emitter-follower type >circuit", namely the emitter does not see a low impedance to ground, >but the base does. A base resistor is a good way to prevent VHF >oscillations. This the the so-called "base stopper" or, or mosfet >amps, "gate stopper" resistor in Olde English. > >Don't be a jerk. >=46raudlent reply. =20 You do NOT grok electronics. ?-/
Reply by ●August 28, 20122012-08-28
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:26:50 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:> >>>Poxy hell, you point to your own lack of understanding. That is a =totally>>>inappropriate use of an emitter follower. No wonder you have silly >>>problems, you don't grok electronics at all. >> >>It's not an emitter follower, but it is an "emitter-follower type >>circuit", namely the emitter does not see a low impedance to ground, >>but the base does. A base resistor is a good way to prevent VHF >>oscillations. This the the so-called "base stopper" or, or mosfet >>amps, "gate stopper" resistor in Olde English. >> >>Don't be a jerk. > >Anyone who disagrees with Larkin on a technical level receives ad >hominem designation as a jerk, old hen, senile, whatever. > >The truth is that Larkin is a Napoleonic runt who can't stand to be >technically criticized, and will dream up all kinds of excuses, >subterfuge, obfuscation to claim he's right, even when he is obviously >wrong. > =09I know he is an idiot lying narcissistic POS. Just sometimes i see an opportunity to make him display it in full gory. ?-)
Reply by ●August 28, 20122012-08-28
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:29:39 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:47:48 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:24:20 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 22:53:35 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" >>><td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You *don't* understand my circuit! >>>> >>>>I wish I did. Whether he does or not, would you mind describing it? >>> >>>This one? >>> >>>https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Isrc_Ib_2.JPG >>> >>>U1 and the p-fet are a slow but precise closed-loop current source. >>>It's cascoded into the fast PNP transistor below, which gives us low >>>output capacitance. R3 allows the PNP emitter to move a bit and reduce >>>Early effect. R4 keeps the PNP from oscillating. >>> >>>The big DC error becomes the base current of the PNP. RF PNPs tend to >>>have have low betas, so we lose some of our precise current to the >>>base, and that changes with tempearture. So we dump the base current >>>into U2, and the resulting signal (drop across R2) increases the >>>effective reference voltage to the upper current source, increasing >>>the emitter current, almost canceling the base current error. >>> >>>R2=3DR1 gets us close enough. The base current cancellation is a >>>positive feedback loop, but the gain is low, basically 1/beta, so it's >>>stable. >>> >>>Jim is on record as not liking this. He won't say why. >> >>Post the circuit WITH VALUES so it can be checked. Otherwise it's a >>figment of the Napoleonic runt. >> =09 >> ...Jim Thompson > >What you are saying is that you can't decide if it will work unless I >show all the values. Which means you can't find suitable values >yourself. Which meand you can't understand it. > >QED. > >Hint: all the resistor values can be the same.It may or may not work fine with ideal parts. The real question is what will it do with REAL parts! Your topology is NOT a circuit. What = happens when all resistors are 10 milliohms or 10 gigaohms? No topology works in all cases. Quit the bullshit. ?-)
Reply by ●August 28, 20122012-08-28
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:19:39 -0700, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:> >>Larkin throws up (literally) his problems on this page, but never >>shows the final solution (probably because he stole the solution from >>one of responding posters). > >I've posted a number of PDFs of actual schematics in actual production >products. *I* decide what's proprietary. I also post circuit ideas to >play with, some serious and some goofy, but you never play. Playing >with circuits is a fun sport, like riffing on a jazz theme, but you >can't do it.I have seen you post fragments of something. Never a complete schematic of even a test jig. Interesting scope traces without useful circuit data. Physical test circuit layouts without any other information to make it useful. Not much else. Garbage really. ?-)
Reply by ●August 28, 20122012-08-28
MrTallyman wrote:> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:42:32 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" > <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote: > > > but haven't taken > > sides other than that. > > You took sides calling me a troll. Is your name Zimmerman?You are not in the category of Larkin or anyone else. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add one more zero, and remove the last word.
