Electronics Design does it Again!
in [Design]
|
Prev: Which type of volatile RAM has the least duration of data remanence when power-offed?
Next: USB3.0 FD Design
From: JosephKK on 14 May 2010 02:21 On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:57:40 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:45:17 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> http://electronicdesign.com/article/power/non_inverting_level_shifter_requires_only_one_op_amp_one_supply_voltage.aspx >>> >> >>"Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for >>this address in a way that will never complete." >> >>Guess they want tracking cookies? >> >>> >>> Such brilliance! How do they keep doing it? >>> >>> Sarcasm aside, he made a mistake. >>> >>> And we should take up a collection and buy Pease some grid paper. >>> >> >>Bob made a mistake? Hard to believe, but can happen to anyone. Does he >>still have all those mini buses on his lot? > >Try this one: > >http://electronicdesign.com/authors/author.aspx?author=3324 > >It's Matlin who made the mistake. > >Pease just drew another one of his hideous scribbles. > >Yes, lots of rusty VWs on his lawn and on the street. > >John > Same problem, redirect loop.
From: JosephKK on 14 May 2010 02:28 On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:52:17 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:56:44 -0500, John O'Flaherty ><quiasmox(a)yeeha.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:45:57 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:02:58 -0500, John O'Flaherty >>><quiasmox(a)yeeha.com> wrote: >>> >>>>I see attenuation of 1/2 at the input, gain of 4 (3+1), and >>>>attenuation of 1/2 at the output. LTSpice agrees, unless I made a >>>>mistake. >>> >>> >>>You did. You left out the pot and the cap. >> >>That wasn't a mistake, it was a choice. I believe the intention of the >>circuit is to have that as an AC ground, that is, as an adjustable >>reference voltage. Is the fact that the capacitor size wasn't >>specified in the published circuit the mistake that you meant to point >>out? > >My point was that the gain and the frequency response change as the >offset pot is turned. Tacky. > >My other point is the Electronic Design will publish any old trivial >junk to fill in space between the ads. > >John > Like i have said before, that is why i gave up on it near 30 years ago. It has not got any better.
From: Nico Coesel on 14 May 2010 02:40 John O'Flaherty <quiasmox(a)yeeha.com> wrote: >On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:45:57 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:02:58 -0500, John O'Flaherty >><quiasmox(a)yeeha.com> wrote: >> >>>I see attenuation of 1/2 at the input, gain of 4 (3+1), and >>>attenuation of 1/2 at the output. LTSpice agrees, unless I made a >>>mistake. >> >> >>You did. You left out the pot and the cap. > >That wasn't a mistake, it was a choice. I believe the intention of the >circuit is to have that as an AC ground, that is, as an adjustable >reference voltage. Is the fact that the capacitor size wasn't >specified in the published circuit the mistake that you meant to point >out? The capacitor is there to provide an AC ground. The 'DC' (low frequency) amplification also depends on the potmeter. Video signals do not have a fixed DC level so you might be in for a bit of trouble if you use this circuit. Just add the capacitor and some resistors to mimic the pot and run an AC analyses. The circuit would be okay if a second opamp is used to provide a solid reference voltage. This turns the circuit into a classic non-inverting summing amplifier hardly worth publishing. Actually this solution will be smaller since the capacitor would be fairly large anyway. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jan Panteltje on 14 May 2010 06:59 On a sunny day (Thu, 13 May 2010 17:48:41 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <i37pu594178305v2a62vb99d263og1tfau(a)4ax.com>: >I like this as a test: > > > > +10V > | > | > | > | > c > +5V--------------b > e > | > | > 1K > | > | > | > | > gnd > > >What's the base voltage? > >What's the base current? > >What's the emitter voltage? > >What's the collector current? > >What's the collector voltage? > >Any other comments? > > >I'm not kidding. One "experienced ee" said that, since the transistor >is saturated, the collector voltage is zero. A tech applicant said >that the base voltage is 0.6. > >Some people got it right, but nobody has mentioned oscillation so far. > >John How many asked if it was germanium or Si? Would be my first question.
From: Oppie on 14 May 2010 08:48
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:t38ou5lhrikpleklddpca6b255nhbt67ui(a)4ax.com... > > Yes, lots of rusty VWs on his lawn and on the street. > Got an address so we can check it out on Google Earth? |