phase splitter issue - Page 103 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves

Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24th October 2012, 12:55 PM   #1021
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Your posts 972, 986, and 991, which are the only Thevenin models I've seen from you.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 01:22 PM   #1022
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Post 1016. The models that you have disparaged as not working.
__________________
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 02:18 PM   #1023
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPaul View Post
Where are the models that don't work? No comments at all? Amazing!
I linked you to the relevant page at Duncan Amps for models.
The 2nd 6l6 model was and is dm6l6.inc. You couldn't find it
the first time, and after I explained where to find, you went
back and did the exact same thing and it still doesn't work.

I never told you to do "exact same thing". You just do what
you do, and its my fault you can't get a result. Coincidence
your arguments against Sy ring much the same? Sy is still
dead wrong (even though he's absolutely right because I
just said so, kinda like what happens at the plate), but you
will never be the one to prove it by whining that we don't
give you stuff.

There is a problem with assumption of correlated independent
causes always giving the same effects. This assumption, and
not absurd models or calculations that may follow, is at fault.
Yet this assumption agrees with real amps pretty darn well,
even in worst realistically conceived case that should poke
big holes, not faulty enough to make a thousand+ posts over.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 02:38 PM   #1024
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Kenpeter, bottom line, I couldn't get the files to work on my PC. I never blamed you for the problem.

If you want to characterize a request for help as "whining" and respond with libelous comments about SY and me in your PM, anyone who might want to ask you for help in the futture should take note.

It's fine that you don't want to help. The vitriol is unnecessary.
__________________
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 02:39 PM   #1025
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas
In case of a triode with Mu=100, and the assumption that load behaviors correlate.
What happens at the cathode end is 99% impedance, and 1% arbitrary assumption.
What happens at the plate end is 1% impedance and 99% arbitrary assumption.

I can make you a hybrid where both ends are 50% impedance 50% assumption.
But strangely, it doesn't work any different. My conclusion is that the assumption
was a good one, despite my feelings that it has no merit and ought to be invalid.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 02:44 PM   #1026
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPaul View Post
and respond with libelous comments about SY and me in your PM
I believe the phase in question was, "You and Sy need to stop smoking crack."
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 02:51 PM   #1027
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
You got it!
__________________
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 03:09 PM   #1028
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpeter View Post
I believe the phase in question was, "You and Sy need to stop smoking crack."
Hey, it's been at least two weeks!
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2012, 03:21 PM   #1029
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
SY, I know it's easier to reply to kenpeter than me, but may I redirect your attention to posts 1016 and 1017?
__________________
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine

Last edited by CPaul; 24th October 2012 at 03:38 PM. Reason: "post" to "posts"
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2012, 09:51 PM   #1030
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
SY, you seem to be having some trouble responding to p. 1016, and 1017 in light of 1016. Perhaps if I summarized?

First, please review p. 1012, which establishes that model 1 in p. 1016 is the same as the model in Figure 3 of your article. (If you disagree, be explicit as to why. Simply saying that models are wrong is meaningless. Wrong? How? Wrong color? Why, are black and blue no good?)

You can create model 2 from model 1 by adding a resistor of arbitrary value between ground and the sources. Now get rid of that ground and resistor to create model 3. Subject all models to the loads and signals in the square wave test you published in your article. The simulation results (p. 1016) are identical and conform to your test results. So the models aren't “wrong” and “incorrect.” We also see that the ground is non-functional. It plays no part in explaining how a balanced Cdyne works. No great surprise here – there is no ground lurking within a triode.

It makes no sense to defer to models with non-functional components (models 1 and 2) if we have one without them (model 3.) In the absence of a ground, model 3 can even be simplified by combining the sources and resistors to get Burkhart’s model. That model is favored not only because it alone contains only functional components, but because with half the components and nodes of model 1, it would be the choice of Occam (parsimony) and Einstein (as simple as possible, but no simpler.)

But there’s a problem – model 3 states that Zpg and Zkg are a little more than Rk/2 = Rp/2. Actually, all three models contradict one another on that point. But on second thought, it’s really not a problem. There is no experimental evidence available from a balanced Cdyne to favor any of these values. Crafted to reflect only the empirical measurements of a balanced Cdyne, there is no reason to believe that any of the models offers any reliable information about parameters which can’t be measured – Zpg and Zkg.

Neither these nor your model can establish the values of Zkg and Zpg.
__________________
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phase Splitter Help famousmockingbird Tubes / Valves 16 10th May 2011 09:40 PM
Phase splitter Hojvaelde Tubes / Valves 9 6th May 2011 07:32 PM
phase splitter grungeman91 Tubes / Valves 2 5th May 2011 01:58 AM
Need help on phase splitter guwakzhai Power Supplies 7 23rd December 2010 05:51 PM
Phase Splitter Name Gold_xyz Tubes / Valves 17 21st February 2008 09:48 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2