Ok.....but all these Astro events fold down to the here and now.
It is argued that these far off events are cause of insignificant local effect....however these astro event influences are coming from all directions and contrive to cause noise....1/f noise ?.
Are electric phenomena 'directed/controlled'(ie rectified) noise (energies) ?.
Dan.
Dan.
Whoa, chill.
By constant voltage amplifier I mean eg 1V input equals 1V output (sign not required, output current not defined) versus for example constant current output of 1A per 1V of input (output voltage not defined).
These are two distinct classes of amplifier and both may be implemented by means of direct emitter feedback (CFA) or diff pair stage feedback (VFA) operation in order to achieve stabilisation.
Is this summary correct, please inform me.
Dan.
Man you must be desperate to cling to something I said in 2006, out of context at that! Note that I did not say that CFA is not a correct name. The discussion context was with regard to the earlier nomenclature where CFB was referring to feedback where the output current sample was used for feedback, instead of an output voltage sample.
Anyway, as long as you think that perfectly normal negative feedback is 'bootstrapping' or 'positive feedback', you really should spend more time reading literature than banging on a keyboard. I mean, with all the time you spend explaining us how it works, wouldn't it be time for yourself to understand it, finally? Not that I am holding my breath.
Edit: On second thought, I won't read your posts anymore. I'm supposed to enjoy it here.
Jan
Last edited:
So that was not a chicken egg them ?
Jan
Interesting. You mean an egg with a chicken inside is not a chicken egg ?
Read the post. The egg was from an animal that 'was not a chicken yet'. So no chicken egg. ;-)
Your writings belong to those I read. When a topic interests me, I look for all the documentation I can find. So I currently dissect all the DiyAudio threads about CFA and copy everything which seems to be of some interest. From your various posts here, I will say one thing : your thinking about CFA has obsviously evolved since 2002.
You have no idea of how large my library is. I am usually recognized as well documented on many audio topics. I own (and have read and re-read) all the books written by D. Self, the B. Cordell's one, the whole collection of Linear Audio and was a reader of WW, EW+WW and EW. since 1978 (the first issue I bought has Baxandall and Linkwitz's articles, one can't dream of better begining for serious audio). I let you think that from all this, I did not understand anything.. just as Baxandall, Cherry, Aylward and a significant number of DiyAudio. I would appreciate your interpretation of CFA.
It is not the first time you say that, it seems more a problem of person than relative to technics, otherwise you would be more explicit about my "misinterpretations". Some other people seem to appreciate my posts.
It's very serious. Please tell me where I wrote wrong CFA definition, so I can delete it.
So you are saying that Ferrari is an acronym which describes the behaviour of a category of cars ?
I congratulate you for this excellent comparison that I never imagined.
That seems to me a very good summary of this thread.
Yes sir.
Something tells me that you should avoid comparisons with the vehicle industry.
Gloops !
Sorry, I did not know that you were a judge of the quality of the technical content of the messages. I will now try to approach the excellence of your answers and their irreproachable argument. I hope that you will forgive us this misconduct and that you will not take sanctions for inappropriate and disrespectful content.
- "low open loop circuits" : do you understand what you write ?
- "tube amplifiers belonging to the CFA category" : Single input tube amplifier on which feedback is applied on cathode are not CFA ?
This is not true.
It's clear.
Do you allow me to ask you for messages where I have denied that CFA is the name given to a specific topology?
1) So, you confirm that according to you, an egg with a chicken inside is not a chicken egg, so what is it ?
2)
As you can verify in the original message, the problem concerns chicken and egg, not chicken egg. Eggs appeared a few million years before chickens.
Attachments
Of course not. There was no chicken inside the egg, because it was not an egg from a chicken. It was an egg from an animal that was not a chicken yet.
Do we have a language issue here??
Jan
OK, that's positive at least!
Most scholars on evolution agree that there is a continuum over time from one species to another. For instance, you can say that some pre-historic human species, like the Neanderthals, are the forefathers of us Homo Sapiens. And if you go back in time (in this scenario) you will find a common ancestor of you and me who is a Neanderthaler.
But you cannot find a Neanderthaler that is the father/mother of the first Homo Sapiens; it doesn't/didn't work that way. The two groups genetically drift apart slowly (almost always because they are physically separated by a mountain, a sea or other barrier) until the point that they can no longer interbreed, at which point they are officially two separate species.
It is generally agreed that there has been an overlap time with several Homo Sapiens-like groups of hominids that did interbreed until they were so different that the offspring always was infertile. Look at horses and donkeys - they can breed mules but the mule is infertile, so donkeys and horses are two separate species.
Sorry for the detour to say that you cannot have had at any time an egg with a chicken inside, laid by an animal that was not (yet) a chicken...
Jan
Last edited:
Jan,
I will not continue this debate on evolution.
What you say in the quoted is plenty wrong, Neandertal was not forefather of Homo Sapiens.
Modern Homo Sapiens genome contain a part of Neandertal genome except in some regions in Africa. This means, there have been fertile hybridizations between Neandertal settled in eurasia and Homo Sapiens coming from Africa.
I agree, on both counts. Was trying to keep it simple, but you are right. And we will stop this discussion ;-)
Jan
When one of our interlocutors seems to have problems of hearing or understanding, we all tend to repeat ourselves.
But I agree with you: Talking with a stone is a waste of time.
Reodor,
IMHO the most important thing would be to agree on definition of :
- current feedback
- voltage feedback
If working on the same circuit can help people to converge, then ok let's take a circuit.
But may be we can start proposing definition and have a reflection on it.
Some times ago I proposed something very simple :
An amplifier with current feedback would be an amplifier on which we can replace the feedback network by a current source driven by the output.
An amplifier with voltage feedback would be an amplifier on which we can replace the feedback network by a voltage source driven by the output.
I don't remember if I had some feedback (ahahah) on these definitions.
If this definition seems : stupid, silly, insulting, thank you for telling me with technical arguments.
Christophe, yes I am a stone. Of the type which allows to create a line of weakness to neatly cut a glass plate, it's called a diamond.
Last edited: