AoE x-Chapters, 4x.26, MOSFET current source, nodal analysis

Jan Panteltje wrote...
>
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/7zl3yi789idg3s8/4x.26_Loop%20%26%20Nodal%20Analysis.pdf?dl=1
>
> do not use '&' in filenames
> do not use spaces in filenames

 OK, thanks, good suggestion for DropBox links.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/beyu2toxgvvedf9/4x.26_CS_Nodal-Analysis.pdf?dl=1


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

On a sunny day (Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:25:33 -0500) it happened "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote in <qilo0k$eku$1@dont-email.me>:

>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:qiljlc$u5k$1@dont-email.me...
>> do not use '&' in filenames
>> do not use spaces in filenames
>
>Bwahaha, it's 2019.  You old *nix fogies are still having problems with 
>this?!
>
>Tim

You silly widows users still do not understand the world is MUCH greater than your latest auto update security hole.

Phil Hobbs wrote...
>
>  [ snip ]

 Phil, thanks very much for your comments,
 I have made a dozen changes.  And Paul 
 will no doubt rework it further as well.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:qim2na$vu$1@dont-email.me...
>
> You silly widows users still do not understand the world is MUCH greater 
> than your latest auto update security hole.
>

Windows?  No, I mean I don't even hear my Linux friends complaining of shit 
that archaic.  They used to.  I assume it's been fixed.  Are you using 90s 
Redhat or something?  Update that security hole!

Or they still mumble about it but have resigned themselves to hopelessness 
over the years...

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/ 

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:11:49 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/08/19 01:55, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>   Plus, when you have an analytical
>>   solution to your circuit, you can more easily see
>>   what the trade offs are, and optimize the circuit.
>
>That should be writ large, and engraved in all
>university courses.
>
>Unfortunately it is becoming a lost art :(

Learning classic circuit theory and analysis is critical to doing
original circuit design, but it's just the starting point.

Design is the opposite of analysis. And most all the interesting stuff
is seriously nonlinear.

What the theory can do is provide insight, guide creative fiddling.
Ultimately most of us solder parts to boards to make stuff that works,
not publish papers.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 03:05:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>Comma splice alert! ;)
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs


From wiki:


Brother Cadfael is the main fictional character in a series of
historical murder mysteries written between 1977 and 1994 by the
linguist-scholar Edith Pargeter ...


That's funny. Her continuous comma splices make the books almost
unreadable.




-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message 
news:qilqcm$rtg$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> One point that might be worth a footnote is that Kirchhoff's laws are a
> low-frequency approximation, applicable only when radiation and
> self-capacitance are negligible.  It's surprising how many folks (even
> some who know more about antennas than I do) treat them as Holy Writ.

Well, they're still valid locally.  You wouldn't use a transmission line (as 
such) and assume the currents through one wire of it are equal at both ends; 
but you can assume so for the two terminals of each port.  Likewise, the 
assumption breaks at frequencies where higher order (non-TEM00) modes are 
active; but at those frequencies, we don't call it a transmission line 
anymore (well, descriptively perhaps, but not theoretically).

More accurately, the applicable locality is proportional to wavelength times 
approximation tolerance.  In the lambda-->0 limit, it's simply the 
conservation of charge for a differential volume, or, rewritten a bit... 
Ampere's or Faraday's laws I think?

This kind of discussion can quickly get pedantic, but it's a good idea to 
have somewhere.  It's beyond the scope of this section; but, the 
transmission lines section, I believe, has yet to be seen?  That's the 
perfect place.  Just dropping a footnote to it here, would be nice.  (Also 
in the section on R/L/Cs and their equivalent circuits, which arise for 
similar reasons; and probably other places?)


>> If we assume the (alpha+beta)/(alpha&#8208;1) term is about unity, the 
>> equation says the op&#8208;amp&rsquo;s influence is going away above a cutoff 
>> frequency fc = 1/2pi R2 C2, which is not a surprise.
>
> There's apparently nothing motivating this assumption--it would be
> clearer stated the other way round.  That whole paragraph is too terse, I 
> think.  Which terms are being neglected, and what additional assumptions 
> does that involve?

Regarding the formatting here -- it may feel better with omega_1 and omega_2 
terms (1/RC), instead of alpha and beta (frequency-dependent gain terms), or 
maybe included in them, or maybe doing omegas first and then instead of the 
rational expression with alpha and beta, a shorter H is used?  I'd have to 
play around with the algebra a bit to see what's neater.  Anyway, that might 
arguably be just an editing thing as well?

Another assumption that I didn't see supported: ignoring the current in the 
sense resistor.  We all know what we're doing, at least in the usual (high 
output current) case, but you're also talking about microcurrent sources, 
for which the resistors will be similar value, or the shunt resistor might 
even be larger.  In that case we cannot ignore the contribution.

A direct consequence is, instead of treating the opamp as an integrator, 
it's an integrator+1 term -- the +in signal gets feed-forward into both the 
gate and the shunt, giving weird DC and non-minimum-phase AC terms/errors.

An inverting configuration would be more honest here, if inconvenient; but, 
I wonder also if this would have any potential improvements for dynamics? 
May be worth testing.  I suppose a noninverting integrator configuration 
might also be possible (a variant on the Howland charge pump, with C load, 
but also with inverting feedback), again with the possibility of different 
performance.

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/ 

On 10/08/19 14:47, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:11:49 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/08/19 01:55, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>    Plus, when you have an analytical
>>>    solution to your circuit, you can more easily see
>>>    what the trade offs are, and optimize the circuit.
>>
>> That should be writ large, and engraved in all
>> university courses.
>>
>> Unfortunately it is becoming a lost art :(
> 
> Learning classic circuit theory and analysis is critical to doing
> original circuit design, but it's just the starting point.
> 
> Design is the opposite of analysis. And most all the interesting stuff
> is seriously nonlinear.
> 
> What the theory can do is provide insight, guide creative fiddling.
> Ultimately most of us solder parts to boards to make stuff that works,
> not publish papers.

Completely understood and accepted. Anything significantly
non-linear virtually requires number crunching rather than
standard analysis.

Nonetheless, an analytical solution to a /simplified/ model
can yield valuable insights. The classic simplified model
in physics is exemplified by "...assume a spherical cow...".

There are many similar things in electronics, e.g. simple
model are used to estimate EMI/EMC between one comms system
and another. Imperfect? Of course; it never matches reality.
Useful? Yes.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 15:38:39 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/08/19 14:47, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:11:49 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/08/19 01:55, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>    Plus, when you have an analytical
>>>>    solution to your circuit, you can more easily see
>>>>    what the trade offs are, and optimize the circuit.
>>>
>>> That should be writ large, and engraved in all
>>> university courses.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it is becoming a lost art :(
>> 
>> Learning classic circuit theory and analysis is critical to doing
>> original circuit design, but it's just the starting point.
>> 
>> Design is the opposite of analysis. And most all the interesting stuff
>> is seriously nonlinear.
>> 
>> What the theory can do is provide insight, guide creative fiddling.
>> Ultimately most of us solder parts to boards to make stuff that works,
>> not publish papers.
>
>Completely understood and accepted. Anything significantly
>non-linear virtually requires number crunching rather than
>standard analysis.
>
>Nonetheless, an analytical solution to a /simplified/ model
>can yield valuable insights. The classic simplified model
>in physics is exemplified by "...assume a spherical cow...".
>
>There are many similar things in electronics, e.g. simple
>model are used to estimate EMI/EMC between one comms system
>and another. Imperfect? Of course; it never matches reality.
>Useful? Yes.

Circuit design starts with the topology problem: what is the schematic
that we want to analyze? Where does it come from?

In my EE school, when I talked about designing things I was told
"Undergrads don't design; that starts in graduate school" so I didn't
apply for grad school.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

On a sunny day (Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:44:21 -0500) it happened "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote in <qimhnb$i5d$1@dont-email.me>:

>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:qim2na$vu$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> You silly widows users still do not understand the world is MUCH greater 
>> than your latest auto update security hole.
>>
>
>Windows?  No, I mean I don't even hear my Linux friends complaining of shit 
>that archaic.  They used to.  I assume it's been fixed.  Are you using 90s 
>Redhat or something?  Update that security hole!

What security hole?
It '&' is just part of the bash syntax and means run program in the background.


>Or they still mumble about it but have resigned themselves to hopelessness 
>over the years...

Try reading a book on Unix, almost everything runs on Linux these days
except for some silly widows computers in homes of people
who have not bought / borrowed / stolen / rented / learned / what else have you   a clue.

Why do it to yerselves?

And no this system is lemme see
~ # uname -a
Linux panteltje12 2.6.37.6-smp #1 SMP Sat Aug 3 19:23:48 CEST 2013 i686 AMD Sempron(tm) 145 Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux

Slackware, probably the most sane distro there is.

Why bother updating? 'tworks right no?

Sure YOUR system may need updating because yet an other processor security disaster was discovered last week.
 https://thenextweb.com/security/2019/08/06/researchers-discover-troubling-new-security-flaw-in-all-modern-intel-processors/
Not a day goes bye

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-intel-cyber/new-intel-security-flaws-could-slow-some-chips-by-nearly-20-idUSKCN1SK2OD

I KNOW intel procesors are part of the NSA spy network.
That is why I keep the invasion plans carved in stone^H^H^H^H^HMDISC hidden so they do not know the Orange House will be taken at noon.

That is why I run AMD so that sensitive data is not made public.

U Use Intel I Presume?


Huwei is releasing their own replacement for android shortly, thank Agent Orange's tariffs
I may just get one, I do not like android, this can only get better,
Dunno if it is Linux based...

<press power button to delete this text>

UUGH