On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:00:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:43:00 -0700, josephkk ><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:38:59 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:01:35 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:58:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:47:01 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:19:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>[snip] >>>>>> >>>>>>WHERE did you SHOW a WORKING circuit ?? You didn't. >>>>> >>>>>I've posted a bunch of current source circuits. They all work. >>>> >>>>In previous posts you said that the ones you attempted for your 1V/ns >>>>ramp oscillated?? >>> >>>It depends on the PNP transistor and the value of the base resistor. A >>>BCX71 oscillates at around 80 MHz, and the hotter RF parts much >>>higher. It has nothing to do with the opamp gain/phase as you >>>suggested; the oscillation is local to the transistor. 100 ohms in the >>>base fixes it for pretty much all cases. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I design sub-nanosecond stuff on-chip all the time, so shove your >>>>>>snarky crap up your ass. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're a shit "designer"... all NO-SHOW. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>> >>>>>So show something of your own. >>>>> >>>>>You can't. >>>> >>>>Show us the ramp device that _doesn't_ oscillate. >>> >>>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. >> >>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. ...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.
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 08:26:50 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:00:58 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:43:00 -0700, josephkk >><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:38:59 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:01:35 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:58:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:47:01 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:19:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>[snip] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>WHERE did you SHOW a WORKING circuit ?? You didn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>I've posted a bunch of current source circuits. They all work. >>>>> >>>>>In previous posts you said that the ones you attempted for your 1V/ns >>>>>ramp oscillated?? >>>> >>>>It depends on the PNP transistor and the value of the base resistor. A >>>>BCX71 oscillates at around 80 MHz, and the hotter RF parts much >>>>higher. It has nothing to do with the opamp gain/phase as you >>>>suggested; the oscillation is local to the transistor. 100 ohms in the >>>>base fixes it for pretty much all cases. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I design sub-nanosecond stuff on-chip all the time, so shove your >>>>>>>snarky crap up your ass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You're a shit "designer"... all NO-SHOW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>>>So show something of your own. >>>>>> >>>>>>You can't. >>>>> >>>>>Show us the ramp device that _doesn't_ oscillate. >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>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.If you whine about other peoples' circuits but can't post anything decent yourself, you *are* an old hen. If you can't understand a simple circuit without values you can plug into Spice, your instincts are truly shot. Come on, post a fast, precise current source for us to kick around. Or be chicken. -- 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 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:19:16 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>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=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. >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>> ...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. > >So, whatever values I pick will not be the right values?You can't pick values that would make this circuit work, because you can't understand it. Spice does all your thinking for you. For Pete's sake, I told you that all the resistors can be the same, so all you have to do now is start at 1 ohm and Spice your way up, one ohm at a time, until it does work. That's the way you "design" anyhow. Maybe the unknown value of V+ is what's confusing you. Try 10. Or post an original circuit yourself. Fat chance! -- 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 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:26:50 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:00:58 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:43:00 -0700, josephkk >><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:38:59 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:01:35 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:58:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:47:01 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:19:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>[snip] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>WHERE did you SHOW a WORKING circuit ?? You didn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>I've posted a bunch of current source circuits. They all work. >>>>> >>>>>In previous posts you said that the ones you attempted for your 1V/ns >>>>>ramp oscillated?? >>>> >>>>It depends on the PNP transistor and the value of the base resistor. A >>>>BCX71 oscillates at around 80 MHz, and the hotter RF parts much >>>>higher. It has nothing to do with the opamp gain/phase as you >>>>suggested; the oscillation is local to the transistor. 100 ohms in the >>>>base fixes it for pretty much all cases. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I design sub-nanosecond stuff on-chip all the time, so shove your >>>>>>>snarky crap up your ass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You're a shit "designer"... all NO-SHOW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>>>So show something of your own. >>>>>> >>>>>>You can't. >>>>> >>>>>Show us the ramp device that _doesn't_ oscillate. >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>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.100% precise and accurate observation. And SPOT ON!> >The truth is that Larkin is a Napoleonic runt who can't stand to be >technically criticized,Whatever type of fucktard he is, you are correct. He CANNOT handle critical assessments in any way shape or form, and is VERY immature as a result.> and will dream up all kinds of excuses, >subterfuge, obfuscation to claim he's right, even when he is obviously >wrong.All the while spouting his variety of "kind" insults, then claiming no such insult ever occurred, and also claiming he was insulted. He IS an insult to mature adulthood. Damned shame that it isn't merely a Roy Batty situation. Nothing would please me more than for him to take the endless nap. Especially after he spews all the "I have seen..." and "I have done..." bragging, all the while denying others of any credit for their experiences. But none of you even know who Roy Batty "is". He falls in somewhere around an 11 year old silver spoon fed ditz, bully-by-mouth type. He would never have been like this if he had paid his own way through school. I watched an episode of "Gellery Girls" on Bravo the other day. You should see the things that New Yorkers say about each other based on where they are from in NYC. I reminded me of Johnny Boy Larkin, thinking himself so much better than anyone else in the group.. I say, he knows what he knows and that ain't much. I am the same, and so are you, but we know a lot more than "that ain't much". He is a classless claimer of class. Now THAT description is SPOT ON! His personality disorder gets in the way of his usefulness in the electronics industry. Same problem that many "lead guitarists" have. Except he doesn't approach their class either.> ...Jim Thompson
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:46:14 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>You can't pick values that would make this circuit work, because you >can't understand it. Spice does all your thinking for you.The sad thing is that you cannot possibly believe that about him, but you do. He probably knows more than you ever will.
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:57:09 -0700, SoothSayer <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote:> I reminded me of Johnny Boy Larkin, thinking himself so much better >than anyone else in the group..That should be "It reminded me of..." I remind me of me. Johnny Boy reminds me of a self absorbed, self aggrandized asswipe. You ain't all that, boy. Not by a long shot.
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:57:09 -0700, SoothSayer <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:26:50 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:00:58 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:43:00 -0700, josephkk >>><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:38:59 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:01:35 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:58:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:47:01 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:19:02 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>[snip] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>WHERE did you SHOW a WORKING circuit ?? You didn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've posted a bunch of current source circuits. They all work. >>>>>> >>>>>>In previous posts you said that the ones you attempted for your 1V/ns >>>>>>ramp oscillated?? >>>>> >>>>>It depends on the PNP transistor and the value of the base resistor. A >>>>>BCX71 oscillates at around 80 MHz, and the hotter RF parts much >>>>>higher. It has nothing to do with the opamp gain/phase as you >>>>>suggested; the oscillation is local to the transistor. 100 ohms in the >>>>>base fixes it for pretty much all cases. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I design sub-nanosecond stuff on-chip all the time, so shove your >>>>>>>>snarky crap up your ass. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You're a shit "designer"... all NO-SHOW. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So show something of your own. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You can't. >>>>>> >>>>>>Show us the ramp device that _doesn't_ oscillate. >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>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. > > 100% precise and accurate observation. And SPOT ON! >> >>The truth is that Larkin is a Napoleonic runt who can't stand to be >>technically criticized, > > Whatever type of fucktard he is, you are correct. He CANNOT handle >critical assessments in any way shape or form, and is VERY immature as a >result.Critical assessments? From you? From Jim? Where? All you do is whine. -- 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 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:01:25 -0700, SoothSayer <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:46:14 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>You can't pick values that would make this circuit work, because you >>can't understand it. Spice does all your thinking for you. > > > The sad thing is that you cannot possibly believe that about him, but >you do.It would be easy for him to prove otherwise. I do in fact believe it of him. If he can't Spice it, he can't evaluate it. -- 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 27, 20122012-08-27
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. > > Jim is on record as not liking this. He won't say why.It's very interesting, especially using the base that way. Ten years ago it would have been the subject of an interesting discussion on SED. I'm constantly reminded of an argument and a falling out that occurred when I was 11. The bystanders here even take sides more than they did then. I specifically said the 'pimp' comment was over the line but haven't taken sides other than that. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add one more zero, and remove the last word.
Reply by ●August 27, 20122012-08-27
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:14:28 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:01:25 -0700, SoothSayer ><SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote: > >>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:46:14 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>You can't pick values that would make this circuit work, because you >>>can't understand it. Spice does all your thinking for you. >> >> >> The sad thing is that you cannot possibly believe that about him, but >>you do. > >It would be easy for him to prove otherwise. > >I do in fact believe it of him. If he can't Spice it, he can't >evaluate it.It's build it or Spice it to PROVE it. I DESIGN more circuits per year than Larkin can even count that high. Like Joerg, I can't publish my work, it's all proprietary. That's why I say "Come by". You can look over my shoulder, but no print-outs (or cameras :-) 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). Larkin is indeed a Napoleonic runt. ...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.
