We lost each other.
I'm speaking about conditions to minimize PIM in the amp with GNFB. Power losses are not obvious here, however. I give up, since the discussion about how to minimize PIM is off-topic in this thread.
That's not the Truth. The Truth is, to see a Duck there.
Last edited:
Gee, guys, a silly 10Hz difference. However, where did 2F2-8F1 go?
For the record, the 741 is NOT clipping in example 3, and this can be shown in the results for the 741 in table 2 in the same paper where TWICE the output voltage was used in the measurement and 3.8% was totaled for 10V pp.
Now, we have to look at the next set of symmetric components, then the third set, etc. just to be sure.
Yes, there are several sets of symmetrical components, where did they come from?
For the record, the 741 is NOT clipping in example 3, and this can be shown in the results for the 741 in table 2 in the same paper where TWICE the output voltage was used in the measurement and 3.8% was totaled for 10V pp.
Now, we have to look at the next set of symmetric components, then the third set, etc. just to be sure.
Yes, there are several sets of symmetrical components, where did they come from?
I suppose all that several sources have right brain over-dependence?
It's even worse than a double blind test.
Time for a wrap-up
For those just dropping in and not looking forward to reading the last 100 pages or so, let me give you a quick summary of what transpired:
30+ years ago a paper by Otala, Leinonen and Curl showed, among other stuff, the TIM spectrum in a 741 opamp. Som spectral lines were not labeled in the graph and Mr Curl stated these were 'unexplained inharmonic components'. When it was pointed out by those who actually read the paper that the paper mentioned these components as harmonic components, Mr Curl did a quick about-face. He now maintains that Mr Otala, Mr Leinonen and, necessarily, himself were wrong at the time and that those lines really were inharmonic components.
This caused some consternation, especially since the original statements dovetailed neatly with what is know about how circuits work. And especially since the new statement flies in the face of what is known about how circuits work. And especially since Mr Curl has been unable or unwilling to come up with proof, arguments or reasons why these lines would be inharmonic, except non-relevant statements similar to: 'This is true because I heard a phonecall from Dick to Jack while I was having lunch in the Bentley with Mitch'.
This didn't require 100 pages; it probably required less than one page. The balance of the posts falls roughly in three cathegories:
- John Curl complaining that he was insulted, that 'people were out to get him', and that if they wouldn't believe him, THEY needed to proof HE is wrong;
- Some posts from people who didn't get the discussion, like 'don't you agree that science cannot explain everything'?;
- People trying to get John to come up with some proof or arguments to his opinion, and in general pointing out that unless that happens, the legs he has to stand on could be counted on the fingers of an amputated arm (I'm using Literary Freedom here).
So, there you have it. It is not necssary to follow the next 100 pages as I'm willing to do another quick wrap-up at that point.
Don't mention it.
jd
For those just dropping in and not looking forward to reading the last 100 pages or so, let me give you a quick summary of what transpired:
30+ years ago a paper by Otala, Leinonen and Curl showed, among other stuff, the TIM spectrum in a 741 opamp. Som spectral lines were not labeled in the graph and Mr Curl stated these were 'unexplained inharmonic components'. When it was pointed out by those who actually read the paper that the paper mentioned these components as harmonic components, Mr Curl did a quick about-face. He now maintains that Mr Otala, Mr Leinonen and, necessarily, himself were wrong at the time and that those lines really were inharmonic components.
This caused some consternation, especially since the original statements dovetailed neatly with what is know about how circuits work. And especially since the new statement flies in the face of what is known about how circuits work. And especially since Mr Curl has been unable or unwilling to come up with proof, arguments or reasons why these lines would be inharmonic, except non-relevant statements similar to: 'This is true because I heard a phonecall from Dick to Jack while I was having lunch in the Bentley with Mitch'.
This didn't require 100 pages; it probably required less than one page. The balance of the posts falls roughly in three cathegories:
- John Curl complaining that he was insulted, that 'people were out to get him', and that if they wouldn't believe him, THEY needed to proof HE is wrong;
- Some posts from people who didn't get the discussion, like 'don't you agree that science cannot explain everything'?;
- People trying to get John to come up with some proof or arguments to his opinion, and in general pointing out that unless that happens, the legs he has to stand on could be counted on the fingers of an amputated arm (I'm using Literary Freedom here).
So, there you have it. It is not necssary to follow the next 100 pages as I'm willing to do another quick wrap-up at that point.
Don't mention it.
jd
Jan, it was YOU who jumped the gun, WITHOUT making the calculations, and put in the WRONG notations on the disputed figures. Where is 2F2-8F1 for example? Where, oh where can it be? It calculates to 4.56KHz, does it not?
Where is it? Please tell me, or I will have to keep you 'after school' for insubordination to a person who is only trying to teach something here.
I might also ask, why this level of rudeness? What do I get out of all this? Fame, glory? No, just trying to input a new (to me) concept as to the nature of op amps, and where they might potentially stray from ideal.
Where is it? Please tell me, or I will have to keep you 'after school' for insubordination to a person who is only trying to teach something here.
I might also ask, why this level of rudeness? What do I get out of all this? Fame, glory? No, just trying to input a new (to me) concept as to the nature of op amps, and where they might potentially stray from ideal.
Its in post 971: 2F2-8F1 4k56. Just turn your head 90 degrees and you can read it.
jd
Please look again, Jan. What you thought was 4.56K is really 4.99K. Just look at the graph, not just Jan, but everybody! Can't you see that it is NOT 4.56K? You made an oversight, Jan. Look again, blow up the graph, if necessary, look at Gerhard's work for comparison. However, please realize that an error has been made in where these frequencies come from.
Really?
"You are dork! We did all that of this and that 40 years ago!"
Can you show me please something revolutionary that John did, or demonstrated, during the life of this particular thread, except empty statements about how progressive he and his friends are, and how badly we oppose him?
What John tries to suggest, only that on the picture made 30 years ago he sees presence of PIM, and this presence is signified by non-harmonic sidebands
If it is a New Word in The Progressive Science, I am The Pope.
Firstly I must apologise for not including you with PMA. I do feel that you are one of the few who is well qualified and has a zeal to get it right - in the real listening world.
Living over here on the edge of Europe and a long way from showrooms etc. I have no idea of how JC's designs sound. What is obvious though is that he is attempting to shake some people out of the ruts in which their thinking takes place. I also think that he may have his tongue in his cheek and that he is rattling a few cages for fun! If I am right in this, then he is indeed very successful.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.