Thin / metal film resistors
in [Design]
|
From: Archimedes' Lever on 10 Jan 2010 14:24 On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:25:16 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:50:36 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> >wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin Bullshits AGAIN " >>> >>> >>> Johnson noise is Johnson noise. It only depends on the resistance and >>> the temperature. Without voltage across a resistor, all you can have >>> is Johnson noise. >>> >>> With current flowing through them, metal films definitely have well >>> below shot noise. >> >>** Huh ?? Makes no sense. > >What part of that doesn't make sense to you? > >John 'definitely have figures which are well below shot noise...' is that maybe what you meant to say when you mumbled that non-sentence above? I understood what you were saying, but he obviously didn't. Still, 'your set-up' should have been able to measure distinctly different numbers for each form factor. If not, 'your set-up' is suspect of having too high a baseline noise floor for the job.
From: John Larkin on 10 Jan 2010 14:40 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:24:43 -0800, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:25:16 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:50:36 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> >>wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin Bullshits AGAIN " >>>> >>>> >>>> Johnson noise is Johnson noise. It only depends on the resistance and >>>> the temperature. Without voltage across a resistor, all you can have >>>> is Johnson noise. >>>> >>>> With current flowing through them, metal films definitely have well >>>> below shot noise. >>> >>>** Huh ?? Makes no sense. >> >>What part of that doesn't make sense to you? >> >>John > > >'definitely have figures which are well below shot noise...' > > is that maybe what you meant to say when you mumbled that non-sentence >above? > > I understood what you were saying, but he obviously didn't. > > Still, 'your set-up' should have been able to measure distinctly >different numbers for each form factor. If not, 'your set-up' is suspect >of having too high a baseline noise floor for the job. Any time you'd like to start making sense, we're ready. John
From: Archimedes' Lever on 10 Jan 2010 14:54 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:40:21 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:24:43 -0800, Archimedes' Lever ><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:25:16 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:50:36 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Larkin Bullshits AGAIN " >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Johnson noise is Johnson noise. It only depends on the resistance and >>>>> the temperature. Without voltage across a resistor, all you can have >>>>> is Johnson noise. >>>>> >>>>> With current flowing through them, metal films definitely have well >>>>> below shot noise. >>>> >>>>** Huh ?? Makes no sense. >>> >>>What part of that doesn't make sense to you? >>> >>>John >> >> >>'definitely have figures which are well below shot noise...' >> >> is that maybe what you meant to say when you mumbled that non-sentence >>above? >> >> I understood what you were saying, but he obviously didn't. >> >> Still, 'your set-up' should have been able to measure distinctly >>different numbers for each form factor. If not, 'your set-up' is suspect >>of having too high a baseline noise floor for the job. > >Any time you'd like to start making sense, we're ready. > >John To think that I was on your side. Won't make that mistake again. You stayed on the retard bandwagon all by yourself.
From: John Larkin on 10 Jan 2010 15:08 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:54:34 -0800, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:40:21 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:24:43 -0800, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:25:16 -0800, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:50:36 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"John Larkin Bullshits AGAIN " >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Johnson noise is Johnson noise. It only depends on the resistance and >>>>>> the temperature. Without voltage across a resistor, all you can have >>>>>> is Johnson noise. >>>>>> >>>>>> With current flowing through them, metal films definitely have well >>>>>> below shot noise. >>>>> >>>>>** Huh ?? Makes no sense. >>>> >>>>What part of that doesn't make sense to you? >>>> >>>>John >>> >>> >>>'definitely have figures which are well below shot noise...' >>> >>> is that maybe what you meant to say when you mumbled that non-sentence >>>above? >>> >>> I understood what you were saying, but he obviously didn't. >>> >>> Still, 'your set-up' should have been able to measure distinctly >>>different numbers for each form factor. If not, 'your set-up' is suspect >>>of having too high a baseline noise floor for the job. >> >>Any time you'd like to start making sense, we're ready. >> >>John > > To think that I was on your side. > > Won't make that mistake again. You stayed on the retard bandwagon all >by yourself. Quote: "is that maybe what you meant to say when you mumbled that non-sentence above?" I suppose that's as close to being friendly and Christian as you can manage. Tell us about the setup that you'd use for measuring shot noise in metal film resistors. John
From: invalid on 10 Jan 2010 15:26 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:08:39 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:54:34 -0800, Archimedes' Lever ><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:40:21 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:24:43 -0800, Archimedes' Lever >>><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:25:16 -0800, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:50:36 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"John Larkin Bullshits AGAIN " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Johnson noise is Johnson noise. It only depends on the resistance and >>>>>>> the temperature. Without voltage across a resistor, all you can have >>>>>>> is Johnson noise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With current flowing through them, metal films definitely have well >>>>>>> below shot noise. >>>>>> >>>>>>** Huh ?? Makes no sense. >>>>> >>>>>What part of that doesn't make sense to you? >>>>> >>>>>John >>>> >>>> >>>>'definitely have figures which are well below shot noise...' >>>> >>>> is that maybe what you meant to say when you mumbled that non-sentence >>>>above? >>>> >>>> I understood what you were saying, but he obviously didn't. >>>> >>>> Still, 'your set-up' should have been able to measure distinctly >>>>different numbers for each form factor. If not, 'your set-up' is suspect >>>>of having too high a baseline noise floor for the job. >>> >>>Any time you'd like to start making sense, we're ready. >>> >>>John >> >> To think that I was on your side. >> >> Won't make that mistake again. You stayed on the retard bandwagon all >>by yourself. > > >Quote: > >"is that maybe what you meant to say when you mumbled that >non-sentence above?" > >I suppose that's as close to being friendly and Christian as you can >manage. > >Tell us about the setup that you'd use for measuring shot noise in >metal film resistors. > >John -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHY DON'T YOU INSTEAD POST A QUESTION ABOUT A CIRCUIT?
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: LM675 spice model Next: low cost 5A 25vi/p , adj o/p buck reg. |