High Quality White Noise Gen
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 6 Jun 2010 22:39 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:19:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 7, 3:41�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:37:19 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jun 6, 10:36�pm, George Herold <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 5, 6:52�pm, John Larkin >> >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > >On Jun 5, 8:18�pm, John Larkin >> >> > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >On Jun 5, 1:24�am, John Larkin >> >> > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >On Jun 4, 10:40�pm, Phil Hobbs >> >> > >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 6/4/2010 12:01 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Jun 4, 4:41 pm, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 10:07 am, Phil Hobbs >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/3/2010 11:12 PM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>> langw...(a)fonz.dk wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> On 3 Jun., 23:11, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>> On 6/3/2010 9:49 AM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 4:36 pm, John Larkin >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> � � �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> � � �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, whit3rd<whit...(a)gmail.com> � � �wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 10:37 am, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> � � �wrote: >> >> >> > ><snip> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You might want to search on single photon avalanche photo-detection. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-16-3-2232 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I haven't looked at the full paper but the list of references includes >> >> > >> >> >> > some useful stuff. >> >> >> > >> >> >> Geiger-mode APDs are mostly a crock unless you need timing accuracy >> >> > >> >> >> better than, say, 10 ns. �Their dark count rate is a good six orders of >> >> > >> >> >> magnitude worse than a PMT of the same area, and their dead time is 10 >> >> > >> >> >> times longer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> On the other hand, they don't die if you put them in a helium >> >> > >> >> >> atmosphere, and they last longer than 5 years. >> >> >And they can offer single photon detection of longer wavelength >> >photons than any photomultiplier tube can pick up. For some >> >apllication this is vital. >> >> >> > >> >> >Horses for courses. They can be a lot more compact and robust than >> >> > >> >> >PMTs - on which I'm rather more expert. >> >> >> > >> >> Vain fathead. >> >> >> > >> >I've worked with PMT's - which is more than I can claim about SPAD's - >> >> > >> >and I've persuaded the IEEE that I do know a little about PMTs - see >> >> > >> >the IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices volume 38 pages 679-680, >> >> > >> >published in March 1991. >> >> >> > >> >You do need to base your abuse on something more than your right-wing >> >> > >> >intuition. Going off half-cocked like this does rather expose your >> >> > >> >enthusiasm for believeing what you want to believe despite the absence >> >> > >> >of any evidence to support your point of view. >> >> >> > >> All you do here is claim how "expert" you are, or maybe were, without >> >> > >> ever making actual contributions. >> >> >> > >Nothing that you'd be willing to acknowledge, particularly since most >> >> > >of my contributions are references to the publshed literature, a >> >> > >source that you seem ill-equipped to exploit >> >> >> > >> You never *do* anything. >> >> >> > >Not at the moment, and I find it frustrating. >> >> >> > >> And when I don't have convincing evidence, I experiment and collect >> >> > >> some. A mouse isn't a soldering iron. >> >> >> > >You burble about 140dB of ripple rejection >> >> >> > Burble? >> >> >> Maybe he say you coming through the turgey(sp) wood. >> >> Tulgey. >> >> >> >> >Charles Lutwidge Dodgson worked as an academic mathematician in the >> >areas of geometry, matrix algebra and mathematical logic, none of >> >which would appeal to John Larkin. >> >> I can recite "Jabberwocky" by heart, and do sometimes if the beer or >> wine are of sufficient quality. >> >> This Bandit chardonnay here is actually pretty good. > >My wife recently found an excuse to open some of our 2004 Gosset >Polish Hill Riesling - last year she thought that the 2003 was better, >but this year the 2004 does seem to come into its own. > >http://www.grosset.com.au/wines_polishhillriesling.htm How can a wine critic know that the wine tastes of "glacial gravel, slate and shale"? Does he munch on rocks for reference? I've seen a lot of "rock" references in wine criticism lately. "Hints of cherry and apricot mold" are passe. Wine snobs are like audiophools. Double-blind testing shows them as the delusional fatheads that they are. There is a trend in California to buy tasty cheap wine. Makes sense to me. http://www.enthusiasticspirits.com/r/products/three-thieves-bandit-pinot-grigio-2008?utm_source=Google;utm_medium=Feed The other trend is bars and restaurants that serve "draft" wine, right out of the barrel. John
From: Jim Thompson on 6 Jun 2010 23:08 On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:36:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:54:05 -0700 (PDT), George Herold ><gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >>On Jun 6, 4:46�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> >>wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT), George Herold <gher...(a)teachspin.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, John Larkin >>> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> >On Jun 5, 8:18 pm, John Larkin >>> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> >> >On Jun 5, 1:24 am, John Larkin >>> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >On Jun 4, 10:40 pm, Phil Hobbs >>> >> >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> On 6/4/2010 12:01 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 4, 4:41 pm, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 10:07 am, Phil Hobbs >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>> On 6/3/2010 11:12 PM, George Herold wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>> langw...(a)fonz.dk wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> On 3 Jun., 23:11, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On 6/3/2010 9:49 AM, George Herold wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 4:36 pm, John Larkin >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, whit3rd<whit...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 10:37 am, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> ><snip> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > You might want to search on single photon avalanche photo-detection. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-16-3-2232 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > I haven't looked at the full paper but the list of references includes >>> >> >> >> >> > some useful stuff. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Geiger-mode APDs are mostly a crock unless you need timing accuracy >>> >> >> >> >> better than, say, 10 ns. Their dark count rate is a good six orders of >>> >> >> >> >> magnitude worse than a PMT of the same area, and their dead time is 10 >>> >> >> >> >> times longer. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> On the other hand, they don't die if you put them in a helium >>> >> >> >> >> atmosphere, and they last longer than 5 years. >>> >>> >> >> >> >Horses for courses. They can be a lot more compact and robust than >>> >> >> >> >PMTs - on which I'm rather more expert. >>> >>> >> >> >> Vain fathead. >>> >>> >> >> >I've worked with PMT's - which is more than I can claim about SPAD's - >>> >> >> >and I've persuaded the IEEE that I do know a little about PMTs - see >>> >> >> >the IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices volume 38 pages 679-680, >>> >> >> >published in March 1991. >>> >>> >> >> >You do need to base your abuse on something more than your right-wing >>> >> >> >intuition. Going off half-cocked like this does rather expose your >>> >> >> >enthusiasm for believeing what you want to believe despite the absence >>> >> >> >of any evidence to support your point of view. >>> >>> >> >> All you do here is claim how "expert" you are, or maybe were, without >>> >> >> ever making actual contributions. >>> >>> >> >Nothing that you'd be willing to acknowledge, particularly since most >>> >> >of my contributions are references to the publshed literature, a >>> >> >source that you seem ill-equipped to exploit >>> >>> >> >> You never *do* anything. >>> >>> >> >Not at the moment, and I find it frustrating. >>> >>> >> >> And when I don't have convincing evidence, I experiment and collect >>> >> >> some. A mouse isn't a soldering iron. >>> >>> >> >You burble about 140dB of ripple rejection >>> >>> >> Burble? >>> >Maybe he say you coming through the turgey(sp) wood. >>> >>> >> I questioned whether the Spice models of the c-multiplier were >>> >> accurate at mid-frequencies. None came close to 140, or even 80, dB at >>> >> frequencies where Early slope matters. So I tried some experiments. >>> >>> >The Early effect goes away at at high frequencies? >>> >>> At high frequencies other parasitics become more important? �Early gets >>> swamped by Cce?- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >>Hmm OK... LTspice didn't seem to show that, (90dB of attenuation at >>100kHz), but maybe I have to do some real measurements. I'm afraid I >>don't really understand the Early effect/ voltage. >> > >Just imagine a resistor from collector to emitter. The question is, >what's the value? > >John Early effect changes the base WIDTH, thus the current gain. Stick to sales, John :-) ...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 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: George Herold on 6 Jun 2010 23:31 On Jun 6, 9:35 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > > > > > > <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Jun 5, 8:18 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Jun 5, 1:24 am, John Larkin > >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Jun 4, 10:40 pm, Phil Hobbs > >> >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 6/4/2010 12:01 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > >> >> >> >> > On Jun 4, 4:41 pm, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 10:07 am, Phil Hobbs > > >> >> >> >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>> On 6/3/2010 11:12 PM, George Herold wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >>>> langw...(a)fonz.dk wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>>>> On 3 Jun., 23:11, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> > >> >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On 6/3/2010 9:49 AM, George Herold wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 4:36 pm, John Larkin > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, whit3rd<whit...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 10:37 am, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > > >> ><snip> > > >> >> >> >> > You might want to search on single photon avalanche photo-detection. > > >> >> >> >> >http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-16-3-2232 > > >> >> >> >> > I haven't looked at the full paper but the list of references includes > >> >> >> >> > some useful stuff. > > >> >> >> >> Geiger-mode APDs are mostly a crock unless you need timing accuracy > >> >> >> >> better than, say, 10 ns. Their dark count rate is a good six orders of > >> >> >> >> magnitude worse than a PMT of the same area, and their dead time is 10 > >> >> >> >> times longer. > > >> >> >> >> On the other hand, they don't die if you put them in a helium > >> >> >> >> atmosphere, and they last longer than 5 years. > > >> >> >> >Horses for courses. They can be a lot more compact and robust than > >> >> >> >PMTs - on which I'm rather more expert. > > >> >> >> Vain fathead. > > >> >> >I've worked with PMT's - which is more than I can claim about SPAD's - > >> >> >and I've persuaded the IEEE that I do know a little about PMTs - see > >> >> >the IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices volume 38 pages 679-680, > >> >> >published in March 1991. > > >> >> >You do need to base your abuse on something more than your right-wing > >> >> >intuition. Going off half-cocked like this does rather expose your > >> >> >enthusiasm for believeing what you want to believe despite the absence > >> >> >of any evidence to support your point of view. > > >> >> All you do here is claim how "expert" you are, or maybe were, without > >> >> ever making actual contributions. > > >> >Nothing that you'd be willing to acknowledge, particularly since most > >> >of my contributions are references to the publshed literature, a > >> >source that you seem ill-equipped to exploit > > >> >> You never *do* anything. > > >> >Not at the moment, and I find it frustrating. > > >> >> And when I don't have convincing evidence, I experiment and collect > >> >> some. A mouse isn't a soldering iron. > > >> >You burble about 140dB of ripple rejection > > >> Burble? > >Maybe he say you coming through the turgey(sp) wood. > > >> I questioned whether the Spice models of the c-multiplier were > >> accurate at mid-frequencies. None came close to 140, or even 80, dB at > >> frequencies where Early slope matters. So I tried some experiments. > > >The Early effect goes away at at high frequencies? > > No, but the optput capacitor impedance continues to decline. > > There are a few frequency zones: > > Dc to where the base lowpass filter kicks in: 0 dB ripple attenuation. > > A region where the Early thing works, roughly -50 dB. > > A slope downward, beginning at the corner frequency set by Re and the > output filter capacitance Cf. Ahh excellent. It's this one that makes it not work so well when I load the output too much. (Or do I just need a bigger cap?) > > Some high frequency where the attenuation is Cf/Cce > > More or less. > > I was interested in that second one, where simple calculations or > Spice aren't necessarily predictive. > > John- Hide quoted text - Thanks so much for spelling it all out. George H. > > - Show quoted text -
From: George Herold on 6 Jun 2010 23:37 On Jun 6, 9:41 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 6, 10:36 pm, George Herold <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, John Larkin > > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >On Jun 5, 8:18 pm, John Larkin > >> > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >> >On Jun 5, 1:24 am, John Larkin > >> > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >> >> >On Jun 4, 10:40 pm, Phil Hobbs > >> > >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> On 6/4/2010 12:01 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > >> > >> >> >> > On Jun 4, 4:41 pm, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 10:07 am, Phil Hobbs > > >> > >> >> >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/3/2010 11:12 PM, George Herold wrote: > > >> > >> >> >> >>>> langw...(a)fonz.dk wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >>>>> On 3 Jun., 23:11, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> > >> > >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >>>>>> On 6/3/2010 9:49 AM, George Herold wrote: > > >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 4:36 pm, John Larkin > >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > > >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, whit3rd<whit...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 10:37 am, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > > >> > ><snip> > > >> > >> >> >> > You might want to search on single photon avalanche photo-detection. > > >> > >> >> >> >http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-16-3-2232 > > >> > >> >> >> > I haven't looked at the full paper but the list of references includes > >> > >> >> >> > some useful stuff. > > >> > >> >> >> Geiger-mode APDs are mostly a crock unless you need timing accuracy > >> > >> >> >> better than, say, 10 ns. Their dark count rate is a good six orders of > >> > >> >> >> magnitude worse than a PMT of the same area, and their dead time is 10 > >> > >> >> >> times longer. > > >> > >> >> >> On the other hand, they don't die if you put them in a helium > >> > >> >> >> atmosphere, and they last longer than 5 years. > > >And they can offer single photon detection of longer wavelength > >photons than any photomultiplier tube can pick up. For some > >apllication this is vital. > > >> > >> >> >Horses for courses. They can be a lot more compact and robust than > >> > >> >> >PMTs - on which I'm rather more expert. > > >> > >> >> Vain fathead. > > >> > >> >I've worked with PMT's - which is more than I can claim about SPAD's - > >> > >> >and I've persuaded the IEEE that I do know a little about PMTs - see > >> > >> >the IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices volume 38 pages 679-680, > >> > >> >published in March 1991. > > >> > >> >You do need to base your abuse on something more than your right-wing > >> > >> >intuition. Going off half-cocked like this does rather expose your > >> > >> >enthusiasm for believeing what you want to believe despite the absence > >> > >> >of any evidence to support your point of view. > > >> > >> All you do here is claim how "expert" you are, or maybe were, without > >> > >> ever making actual contributions. > > >> > >Nothing that you'd be willing to acknowledge, particularly since most > >> > >of my contributions are references to the publshed literature, a > >> > >source that you seem ill-equipped to exploit > > >> > >> You never *do* anything. > > >> > >Not at the moment, and I find it frustrating. > > >> > >> And when I don't have convincing evidence, I experiment and collect > >> > >> some. A mouse isn't a soldering iron. > > >> > >You burble about 140dB of ripple rejection > > >> > Burble? > > >> Maybe he say you coming through the turgey(sp) wood. > > Tulgey. > > > > >Charles Lutwidge Dodgson worked as an academic mathematician in the > >areas of geometry, matrix algebra and mathematical logic, none of > >which would appeal to John Larkin. > > I can recite "Jabberwocky" by heart, and do sometimes if the beer or > wine are of sufficient quality. My daughter (age 10) recited it at the last company/ holiday poetry reading. She may make a mistake or two, but shell kill ya with charm. > > This Bandit chardonnay here is actually pretty good. > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: George Herold on 6 Jun 2010 23:42
On Jun 6, 11:08 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:36:27 -0700, John Larkin > > > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:54:05 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > ><gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > > >>On Jun 6, 4:46 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> > >>wrote: > >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT), George Herold <gher...(a)teachspin.com> > >>> wrote: > > >>> >On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, John Larkin > >>> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > >>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>> >> >On Jun 5, 8:18 pm, John Larkin > >>> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>> >> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >>> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>> >> >> >On Jun 5, 1:24 am, John Larkin > >>> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >>> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >On Jun 4, 10:40 pm, Phil Hobbs > >>> >> >> >> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> On 6/4/2010 12:01 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > >>> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 4, 4:41 pm, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 10:07 am, Phil Hobbs > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >>> On 6/3/2010 11:12 PM, George Herold wrote: > > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>> langw...(a)fonz.dk wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> On 3 Jun., 23:11, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On 6/3/2010 9:49 AM, George Herold wrote: > > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 4:36 pm, John Larkin > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, whit3rd<whit...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 10:37 am, George Herold<gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote: > > >>> >> ><snip> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > You might want to search on single photon avalanche photo-detection. > > >>> >> >> >> >> >http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-16-3-2232 > > >>> >> >> >> >> > I haven't looked at the full paper but the list of references includes > >>> >> >> >> >> > some useful stuff. > > >>> >> >> >> >> Geiger-mode APDs are mostly a crock unless you need timing accuracy > >>> >> >> >> >> better than, say, 10 ns. Their dark count rate is a good six orders of > >>> >> >> >> >> magnitude worse than a PMT of the same area, and their dead time is 10 > >>> >> >> >> >> times longer. > > >>> >> >> >> >> On the other hand, they don't die if you put them in a helium > >>> >> >> >> >> atmosphere, and they last longer than 5 years. > > >>> >> >> >> >Horses for courses. They can be a lot more compact and robust than > >>> >> >> >> >PMTs - on which I'm rather more expert. > > >>> >> >> >> Vain fathead. > > >>> >> >> >I've worked with PMT's - which is more than I can claim about SPAD's - > >>> >> >> >and I've persuaded the IEEE that I do know a little about PMTs - see > >>> >> >> >the IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices volume 38 pages 679-680, > >>> >> >> >published in March 1991. > > >>> >> >> >You do need to base your abuse on something more than your right-wing > >>> >> >> >intuition. Going off half-cocked like this does rather expose your > >>> >> >> >enthusiasm for believeing what you want to believe despite the absence > >>> >> >> >of any evidence to support your point of view. > > >>> >> >> All you do here is claim how "expert" you are, or maybe were, without > >>> >> >> ever making actual contributions. > > >>> >> >Nothing that you'd be willing to acknowledge, particularly since most > >>> >> >of my contributions are references to the publshed literature, a > >>> >> >source that you seem ill-equipped to exploit > > >>> >> >> You never *do* anything. > > >>> >> >Not at the moment, and I find it frustrating. > > >>> >> >> And when I don't have convincing evidence, I experiment and collect > >>> >> >> some. A mouse isn't a soldering iron. > > >>> >> >You burble about 140dB of ripple rejection > > >>> >> Burble? > >>> >Maybe he say you coming through the turgey(sp) wood. > > >>> >> I questioned whether the Spice models of the c-multiplier were > >>> >> accurate at mid-frequencies. None came close to 140, or even 80, dB at > >>> >> frequencies where Early slope matters. So I tried some experiments.. > > >>> >The Early effect goes away at at high frequencies? > > >>> At high frequencies other parasitics become more important? Early gets > >>> swamped by Cce?- Hide quoted text - > > >>> - Show quoted text - > > >>Hmm OK... LTspice didn't seem to show that, (90dB of attenuation at > >>100kHz), but maybe I have to do some real measurements. I'm afraid I > >>don't really understand the Early effect/ voltage. > > >Just imagine a resistor from collector to emitter. The question is, > >what's the value? > > >John > > Early effect changes the base WIDTH, thus the current gain. Current gain is modulated by the collector-base voltage? That seems to explain it. George H. > > Stick to sales, John :-) > > ...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 athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 | > > The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |