N101N - are you trolling the audience? 
Rhetorical question...
The fact you don't see the feedback in the case of emitter degeneration doesn't mean it's not there - it just means you don't see it YET.
Clear explanation of degeneration-as-a-feedback:
Series Feedback: emitter/source degeneration
Rhetorical question...The fact you don't see the feedback in the case of emitter degeneration doesn't mean it's not there - it just means you don't see it YET.
Clear explanation of degeneration-as-a-feedback:
Series Feedback: emitter/source degeneration
About the class A JLH amp
Initial circuit :
https://sound-au.com/tcaas/jlh1969.pdf
By the way, it is one of the first amplifiers for which better subjective
resultats were claimed.
https://sound-au.com/tcaas/jlh1969letter.pdf
Initial circuit :
https://sound-au.com/tcaas/jlh1969.pdf
By the way, it is one of the first amplifiers for which better subjective
resultats were claimed.
Subjective ?? by shareholders (or designers)?
What a piece of garbage , designed by a college educated idiot ?
Even with "caveman" components , redneck could do better in the 70's (with
"outside the box thinking"). innovation is a fickle slow cluster (you know what). Mercury diodes in 1882 , stupid monkey's could not develop mercury
vapor lighting - patent 1901 .. 1930 before the monkeys got off their a$$ to
refine a real lighting source slightly perfected the 1950's.
Sort of like Microsoft regurgitating W2k -add malware/marketing , and claim
massive "innovation" (W8/10). The greedy market drives these retarded sluggish advances. War and destruction is a faster catalyst for advancement.
IOT is a subjective innovation ,, it will centralize and expose all , not benefit us at all. bubbles will burst , we will bail out "to big to fail" (again).
Truly bipolar innovation corrupted by greed and disinformation.
Mushrooms for all , unlearn the typical b$. Really.
If I sat in front of a mercury diode in 1883 , my back yard would be well lit in 1884.
MH in 1885 , I would dope the arc with everything and anything. 20 years to do blue/uv (+phosphor) white.
Present COB UV phosphorwhite streetlight would of been reality in 75'
led lighting - pathetic. Capitalism or a war economy seems to drive "innovation" at a snails pace.
blowin' up humans and cities advanced more in a decade than useful infrastructure advancements do in
a century. Instinct is the enemy.
OS
Last edited:
"...downright reprehensible to consider?..." I like it. Can "to consider" be interchanged with "to think"?. It seems like “Don't dig up in doubt (as reprehensible) what you planted in faith.”
An electric field precedes the movement of electrons in filling the gradient of the field. Try touching a high voltage near zero impedance voltage source to a discharged 1 Farad capacitor.
Resistors and capacitors cause higher correcting electron currents upon the initial application of an electric field, being subsequently reduced when electrons position themselves in matching the gradient. In the case of a near ideal capacitor the movement of electrons ultimately reduces to zero whereupon electron densities in the dielectric matches the field.
Although a constant current ultimately results in a resistor the electron density along its length is variant in accordance with the electric field. Hence it is by the timed movement of electrons in space that is the feedback element in neutralizing the imposition of the electric field. This is to state that corrections take place in time as a result of electron feedback. So the question becomes as you suggest. What is not feedback?
Well... just because my IQ is in the single digits doesn't mean I can think...
Current Feedback Arrow
CFA = Current Feedback Arrow, a current error
I noticed what it follows some time ago but forget to mention here. It was recalled to me by a nice email I received this morning.
Image from Post # 619
Current Feedback Amplifiers, not only a semantic problem?
Image from Post #1112
Current Feedback Amplifiers, not only a semantic problem?
The source of this image is Analog Devices, tutorial MT-034 figure 2 or "Op amp applications" figure 1-14
Image from Sergio Franco's article in EDN
post #1427 and #1248
Current Feedback Amplifiers, not only a semantic problem?
CFA = Current Feedback Arrow, a current error
I noticed what it follows some time ago but forget to mention here. It was recalled to me by a nice email I received this morning.
Image from Post # 619
Current Feedback Amplifiers, not only a semantic problem?
Image from Post #1112
Current Feedback Amplifiers, not only a semantic problem?
The source of this image is Analog Devices, tutorial MT-034 figure 2 or "Op amp applications" figure 1-14
Image from Sergio Franco's article in EDN
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
post #1427 and #1248
Current Feedback Amplifiers, not only a semantic problem?
An arrow drawn by an angel ?
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm speechless that somebody can be so persistent in his denial of facts.
All models show that V(out) = I(in-) * Z(s).
Thus whithout input current , no output voltage.
But for letting a current I(in-) flowing through the CFA's input impedance, there is no other way but to offer a certain Voltage at that point.
So the amount of volts are only used as the transport vehicle to facilitate Current I(in-).
There is no mathematical relation between output voltage and input voltage, nor is the input impedance showing up in the transfer function.
This makes the voltage to be offered at the -Input amongst others a function of the unknown and varying input impedance.
But this is not the case for the current, being directly related through V(out) = I(in-) *Z(s).
Thus a CFA is completely controlled by current I(in-), and therefore its current feedback, end of discussion.
Hans
I've heard referred to it as the pyramid effect. Image two people on the top of a pyramid, discussing something. They do not fully agree with each other, and thus each tries to make his position clearer with more and more specific, more and more extreme cases. Its like sliding down the pyramid, each on an opposite face. As the arguments heat up and the positions get more and more extreme, they slide down until they are at the foot, with the enormous barrier between them, both physical and in conviction, and no chance in hell to ever agree.
Yet, it started out as a simple difference of opinion.
I think that is how wars start.
Jan
Yet, it started out as a simple difference of opinion.
I think that is how wars start.
Jan
I had Hans' reaction to forr's latest post: he was confirming that a CFA employs c.f! How could the post be interpreted otherwise, I thought? But obviously, forr thinks it confirms his beliefs.
I wonder if there is some very basic thing that is the source of this disagreement. Start with the basics, move up the chain of logic and find out where the reasonings diverge.
A few posts ago, you posted a classic control theory definition of feedback. I wonder if forr agrees with that?
What is the problem ?
V=RI !
Common base configuration (CFA) has low impedance input while common emitter (VFA) has high one.
If you have understood the advantages and disadvantages of each topology, why continue this semantic debate and not move on to something more interesting? Like for example comparing both and listening to see if there is audible differences ?
Of course, if you have some incurable allergy to one of the configurations, like Wally AKA Reodor Felgen, you can submit a medical certificate or give a nickname of your choice to one or both of them ;-)
Professor where have you got this from? I have nothing against CFA amplifiers, I have designed some myself, but personally I prefer VFA amplifiers with H-bridge input stage.
For the last time I'm not Waly.
Scott knows who I am and he can confirm that I'm not Waly.
Yes, please, or any other banned person. Though I do miss him as well as some common acquaintances who chose to no longer participate here.
Last edited: