On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 13:49:05 -0400, Phil Hobbs <hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:>On 4/6/2014 1:22 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:19:18 -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. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> >> I suppose that was your list of fast CMOS opamps. >> >> >There are some pretty good ones, though not in the ADA4899 or ADA4817 >class. I've got quite fond of the AD8605 series--RRIO but with some >real output drive, so they run into ADCs really well.That AD8605 isn't bad, low noise and reasonable input capacitance. But the AD8033 (jfet) has it beat on most specs: 8x the bandwidth, less than half the Cin, and up to 24 volt supplies. It seems to be absolutely c-load stable.> >IBM stuck with bipolar ECL until the early '90s, because of its huge >transconductance advantage over CMOS. When they made the switch, which >was due to the heat problem, Amdahl (Fujitsu) ate their lunch for one >product generation before switching themselves. > >An advanced ECL process of that era had about 600 process steps, vs. 300 >for CMOS, so the cost delta was pretty significant, but the extra >performance made it worthwhile.Digital CMOS is of course a different issue. I can't imagine a bipolar (or jfet!) FPGA. There were some attempts at doing logic with gaasfets (Gigabit Logic!) but that didn't work out. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
Are TI Pspice models encripted?
Started by ●April 4, 2014
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:37:40 -0700, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:25:54 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On 4/4/2014 9:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:27:07 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:10:20 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>...snip... >>>>> You just need to read thru it thoroughly, actually the effects of the >>>>> Cload values are easy to decipher. >>>> >>>> I especially enjoyed the first-page claim about how it can drive an >>>> ADC s/h circuit, and fig 18, which shows that it can't. >>>> >>>> Why didn't they make it c-load stable? >>> >>> Ask National/TI. I didn't design it, I just modeled it. >>> >>> That you can't decipher some of the data (because you're CMOS >>> illiterate) is your problem, not mine. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>Ok, a relatively civil conversation until Jim can't resist throwing an >>insult into the mix. > >That is the pattern.--- No, the pattern is usually your trying to take control of a thread by throwing shit into the game. John Fields
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:33:02 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:37:40 -0700, John Larkin ><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:25:54 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On 4/4/2014 9:58 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:27:07 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:10:20 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>...snip... >>>>>> You just need to read thru it thoroughly, actually the effects of the >>>>>> Cload values are easy to decipher. >>>>> >>>>> I especially enjoyed the first-page claim about how it can drive an >>>>> ADC s/h circuit, and fig 18, which shows that it can't. >>>>> >>>>> Why didn't they make it c-load stable? >>>> >>>> Ask National/TI. I didn't design it, I just modeled it. >>>> >>>> That you can't decipher some of the data (because you're CMOS >>>> illiterate) is your problem, not mine. >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>>Ok, a relatively civil conversation until Jim can't resist throwing an >>>insult into the mix. >> >>That is the pattern. > >--- >No, the pattern is usually your trying to take control of a thread >by throwing shit into the game. > >John Fields
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
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: > >>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. > >--- >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. I asked him to cite some fast CMOS opamps. That would actually be on-topic and useful to the group. His response is to insult and then killfile me (for, maybe, the 10th time!)> >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.Wrong. I named opamps, by part number. He didn't. Because he's factually wrong. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:>Den mandag den 7. april 2014 00.12.51 UTC+2 skrev John Fields: >> 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. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> 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. > >to me that seems like a fitting description of them both once either of >them get the mudslinging started > >-LasseRead the thread. What I've been slinging is opamp part numbers. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:48:06 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>On 4/6/2014 2:40 PM, John Larkin 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. >> >> He starts fights that he always loses, and slinks away from with that >> "killfile" nonsense. I wonder why. > >You completely miss my point. You are more than happy to roll around in >the dirt with him or any of the other children.I am happy to compare opamps. But he won't play. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
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. You need to grow the fuck up and, maybe, get away from USENET before all that simmering hate in you eats you up. John Fields
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
Den mandag den 7. april 2014 00.37.38 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > > <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: > > > > >Den mandag den 7. april 2014 00.12.51 UTC+2 skrev John Fields: > > >> 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. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --- > > >> > > >> 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. > > > > > >to me that seems like a fitting description of them both once either of > > >them get the mudslinging started > > > > > >-Lasse > > > > Read the thread. What I've been slinging is opamp part numbers. >I know, not always the same who starts -Lasse
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:>Den mandag den 7. april 2014 00.12.51 UTC+2 skrev John Fields:>> 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. > >to me that seems like a fitting description of them both once either of >them get the mudslinging started > >-Lasse--- I agree. My feeling is that Larkin starts the mudslinging much more often than Thompson does, though, since all Jim has to do is post something - even something innocuous - and John is all over him. But maybe that's just me...
Reply by ●April 6, 20142014-04-06
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: >> >>>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. >> >>--- >>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. --->I asked him to cite some fast CMOS opamps. That would actually be on-topic and >useful to the group.--- The topic of the thread was about simulators, so your "contribution" was off-topic and, being so, of limited usefulness to the group since all you were really trying to do was start a pissing contest. --->His response is to insult and then killfile me (for, maybe, >the 10th time!)--- Your exaggerations do nothing but fan the flames so - if you're serious about wanting to make things better - why not take the high road, let bygones be bygones, and extend the olive branch? --->> >>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. > >Wrong.--- Then what's this about?: "Chicken! You are wrong about CMOS amps, and are going off to hide in the back of your coop." --->I named opamps, by part number. >He didn't. Because he's factually wrong.--- Argumentum ex silentio.
