Gee......Jan......
I wasn't refering to you.
I wondered afterwards if you would take it that way.
Guess you answered my question.
(BTW.....in case anyone forgot......I personlly don't like the sound of AD846-like parts. But don't tell you-know-who. It is more fun to see him get wound up calling it an "unforunate topology". Comedy this good, you can't get just any ol' place.)
Jocko
I wasn't refering to you.
I wondered afterwards if you would take it that way.
Guess you answered my question.
(BTW.....in case anyone forgot......I personlly don't like the sound of AD846-like parts. But don't tell you-know-who. It is more fun to see him get wound up calling it an "unforunate topology". Comedy this good, you can't get just any ol' place.)
Jocko
Jocko,
I didn't take it that way, but you voiced something that irritates me also once in a while. Seems to be one of those rare occasions we actually agreed😀 .
Have a nice day,
Jan Didden
I didn't take it that way, but you voiced something that irritates me also once in a while. Seems to be one of those rare occasions we actually agreed😀 .
Have a nice day,
Jan Didden
Re: Oh, brother.......
Voltage sampled by the feedback network, and received by the input stage...That the later is significantly loaded down by said network does not alter this fact.
🙄
No Homo sapiens, i only found out a few days ago, when Jan sent me the Cherry paper, that the later merely confirmed what i already considered to be self evident.....
..so i was not the first to bring Cherry up here...
But in your case i accept that:
Where ignorance is bliss, it would be folly to be wise
millwood said:
Voltage sampled by the feedback network, and received by the input stage...That the later is significantly loaded down by said network does not alter this fact.
Jocko Homo said:
🙄
Jocko Homo said:
No Homo sapiens, i only found out a few days ago, when Jan sent me the Cherry paper, that the later merely confirmed what i already considered to be self evident.....
..so i was not the first to bring Cherry up here...
But in your case i accept that:
Where ignorance is bliss, it would be folly to be wise
The Hairdressers' Feedback Development Sub-Committee ......
"Voltage sampled by the feedback network, and received by the input stage...That the later is significantly loaded down by said network does not alter this fact."
If whether or not a voltage or current feedback (that is what the rest of the world calls current feedback) makes no difference with respect to the feedback network, why can't you build an integrator, that is a real integrator with just a capacitor from the output to the input, with a current feedback amplifier? There is plenty of information about the difference between current feedback and voltage feedback amplifiers. This thread does bring back memories of other bit of writing that seems to be based on exactly the same cryptic thinking:
"But it won't work - it's not round!"
"Bah - that's minor - the important questions are what color should it be? How big? Boy, you really don't know anything about marketing, do you?"
"Well, you're obviously being totally naive of course," said the girl, "When you've been in marketing as long as I have you'll know that before any new product can be developed it has to be properly researched. We've got to find out what people want from fire, how they relate to it, what sort of image it has for them."
In light of the undeniable similarities in tone and side stepping actual discussions of the real differences, I suggest the following new name so for the topology formally known as current feedback, so that Mr. K can move on to his next point without another five hundred and seventy-three post:
Golgafrinchan feedback
P.S. What do
"Voltage sampled by the feedback network, and received by the input stage...That the later is significantly loaded down by said network does not alter this fact."
If whether or not a voltage or current feedback (that is what the rest of the world calls current feedback) makes no difference with respect to the feedback network, why can't you build an integrator, that is a real integrator with just a capacitor from the output to the input, with a current feedback amplifier? There is plenty of information about the difference between current feedback and voltage feedback amplifiers. This thread does bring back memories of other bit of writing that seems to be based on exactly the same cryptic thinking:
"But it won't work - it's not round!"
"Bah - that's minor - the important questions are what color should it be? How big? Boy, you really don't know anything about marketing, do you?"
"Well, you're obviously being totally naive of course," said the girl, "When you've been in marketing as long as I have you'll know that before any new product can be developed it has to be properly researched. We've got to find out what people want from fire, how they relate to it, what sort of image it has for them."
In light of the undeniable similarities in tone and side stepping actual discussions of the real differences, I suggest the following new name so for the topology formally known as current feedback, so that Mr. K can move on to his next point without another five hundred and seventy-three post:
Golgafrinchan feedback
P.S. What do
I think CFB amp can't fight with noise compare to VFB.
If I use a diff input stage ,so how will i do to have a CFB amp?
If I use a diff input stage ,so how will i do to have a CFB amp?
You are probably right if you talk about the audio band but there are types for RF which has less than 1 nV/Hz in the RF band.thanh said:
If you exclude mic and phono preamps noise is not a very big problem even if you use CFB amps.
Christer said:
But 'current feedback' cannot be that name, as this has always been used to describe a system in which the feedback networks nominal (required) transfer function is a current....
Either we can call it an CFB amplifier when the feedback sense a current "information" over a shunt resistor OR when the feedback input node sees a "current signal" becausem of a transimpedance stage, OR why not both....?
The first case could be called "current shunt feedback"
and the second case could be called "current transimpedance feedback", eg. two type of CFB with distinguished difference in their naiming.
Just a proposal.
Cheers 😉
The first case could be called "current shunt feedback"
and the second case could be called "current transimpedance feedback", eg. two type of CFB with distinguished difference in their naiming.
Just a proposal.
Cheers 😉
When I point to a red flower and call that a “red flower” nobody has a problem with that whether it is a tulip or a poppy. When I point to a blue flower nobody etc. etc. But on this board obviously there will be a lengthy discussion about what kind of red and what kind of blue and how we shall define red and blue.
Cheers 😴
Cheers 😴
Actually Jan, a good friend of mine is such a painter and was teached by Melle 🙂 And yes he knows the difference between cobalt blue and titanium blue, but that both are a kind of blue is no discussion.
Cheers 🙂 😉
Cheers 🙂 😉
....just as we agree that CFB, VFB, seriesFB, shuntFB etc are all some kind of feedback.🙂 😉 😉
Jan
Jan
mikeks said:
why don't we just call them "electron feedback"? afterall, whatever happens, the electrons are sent back and they certainly don't know in what forms they are sent back for. Right?
😉
mikeks said:
Hmm.. isn't it a bit wrong "nuance" in that "colour"...or should I write "color"?! 😎 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.