SY, a model says that integers start at 0 stop after 13. Therefore the model doesn't recognize any integer larger than 13. So it defines addition so that the sum of any two integers is a number between 0 and 13 inclusive. I present all kinds of data. See, I've proven that there are only 14 integers.
Data from a faulty model is faulty data. Your logic is "I assert that data from my model is true. Since my model produces valid data, my model is true." That is flawed logic. But that is what you (and apparently leadbelly) is arguing.
Data from a faulty model is faulty data. Your logic is "I assert that data from my model is true. Since my model produces valid data, my model is true." That is flawed logic. But that is what you (and apparently leadbelly) is arguing.
By that analogy, all you have to do is point out "14" and your case is made. SY has asked you repeatedly in this thread for that elusive "14". Where is it?
Leeadbelly, you argue a tautology. Who validates the data? Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
Use the Thevenin theorem to validate the data. It says that the impedance between any two nodes can be measured by dividing the open circuit voltage between the nodes by the current that flows between them when they are shorted. No exceptions - no speacial pleading. SY's results contradict this theorem. It's as simple as that.
Use the Thevenin theorem to validate the data. It says that the impedance between any two nodes can be measured by dividing the open circuit voltage between the nodes by the current that flows between them when they are shorted. No exceptions - no speacial pleading. SY's results contradict this theorem. It's as simple as that.
I have asked SY repeatedly to take me step by step through his analysis by apllying the Thevenin theorem.
No answer.
I have asked him repeatedly to reply to the fact pointed out in my latest letter to Linear Audio that a simple current mirror circuit shows that equal rise times across equal impedances do not imply that the loads are driven from equal source impedances.
Again, no reply, unless you want to count snide remarks.
Leadbelly, would you like to take me through SY's steps by applcation of the Thevenin theorem?
No answer.
I have asked him repeatedly to reply to the fact pointed out in my latest letter to Linear Audio that a simple current mirror circuit shows that equal rise times across equal impedances do not imply that the loads are driven from equal source impedances.
Again, no reply, unless you want to count snide remarks.
Leadbelly, would you like to take me through SY's steps by applcation of the Thevenin theorem?
Sorry, no takers here. Don't argue data with an experimentalist: data used to pay my room and board. Data is data. What is this 14 who's existence is precluded? Just describe the case. SY has asked you for it numerous times.
He applies his boundary condition demands so as to preclude the correct application of Thevenin's Theorem.
And you an experimentalist, have never seen bad data? Pons and Fleishman (spelling?) bring anything to mind?
C'mon, Leadbelly, take the challenge SY refuses. Use Thevenin to derive Cathodyne P-K, P-gnd and K-gnd impedances.
And you an experimentalist, have never seen bad data? Pons and Fleishman (spelling?) bring anything to mind?
C'mon, Leadbelly, take the challenge SY refuses. Use Thevenin to derive Cathodyne P-K, P-gnd and K-gnd impedances.
OK, so by referring to Pons and Fleischmann you are suggesting that both data and model are wrong? Just want to clear, as in your "0 to 13" analogy you were only questioning the model I take it. So now there is something wrong with SY's experimental procedure or he is falsifying results as well?
OK, one more then. Yes Leadbelly, if the data comes from the model, and the model is bad, then the data is highly questionable. Like with P & F.
I think SY 's data is wholly consistent with his model. He doesn't need to falsify it for it to be bad.
I do hope you'll agree to walk through Cathodyne impedances with me using Thevenin. This will get to the heart of the fault in SY's model.
G'night.
I think SY 's data is wholly consistent with his model. He doesn't need to falsify it for it to be bad.
I do hope you'll agree to walk through Cathodyne impedances with me using Thevenin. This will get to the heart of the fault in SY's model.
G'night.
at which point in his life did helmholtz stomp down on ohm and curse deforest for his three terminal device?
dave
Again, please explain to me how experimental data is produced by a model and not by experiment. Please guide us over that leap that you seem to keep taking.
Sorry leadbelly, either you haven't read every post in this thread or you haven't comprehended them.
It's SY's approach, the so-called "boundary conditions", that's flawed so it's irrelevant what his data is.
A stopped clock, under the appropriate "boundary conditions", gives the correct time according to the experimental data.
SY's data doesn't even rise to the level of requiring rebuttal. His data is garbage because his entire approach, the so-called "boundary conditions" approach is garbage. It's not even wrong.
Last edited:
I think it might be better to call the balance requirement a constraint rather than a boundary condition. A constrained model may give different results from an otherwise similar unconstrained model. A ball constrained to move along an inclined plane under gravity will behave differently from a ball dropped freely, because the plane couples the vertical movement to horizontal movement.
Probably, but its not quite optimally biased.
Prefer equal 1/3 rail voltage across each triode
when direct coupling. That shows 100V across
your first triode, and only 83V across the second.
Triodes really want slightly over 1/2 rail voltage
for best linearity and headroom. But then coupling
between them requires added parts, maybe a cap.
Could be worse than any theoretical improvement.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.