John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[Wavebourn]

Originally Posted by syn08

You lost me completely here.

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.

Originally Posted by syn08

Math again? We need no stikin' math. You better look at Fig. 3 from our paper, of 33 years ago, that's the Truth.

That's not the Truth. The Truth is, to see a Duck there.

[syn08]

Originally Posted by brianco

I side with John simply because he is attempting to force you to THINK CREATIVELY.

Originally Posted by Lumba Ogir

A wasted effort.

Probably so, I got lumbatomized lately.

[john curl]

There is current thinking from several sources that getting a PhD does limit creativity in many cases. It has to do with left brain over-dependence.

[john curl]

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?

[Wavebourn]

Originally Posted by john curl

There is current thinking from several sources that getting a PhD does limit creativity in many cases. It has to do with left brain over-dependence.

I suppose all that several sources have right brain over-dependence?

It's even worse than a double blind test.

[janneman]

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

[PMA]

So why you have not quit yet? Your time is precious to waste it here, I guess.

[john curl]

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.

[janneman]

Originally Posted by PMA

So why you have not quit yet? Your time is precious to waste it here, I guess.

Well, I save time to skip the next 100 pages and then do a cut-'n-paste
The remaining time I charge to the entertainment allotment.

jd

[janneman]

Originally Posted by john curl

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?[snip]

Its in post 971: 2F2-8F1 4k56. Just turn your head 90 degrees and you can read it.

jd