John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting conjectures are ones for which inductive evidence exists, but deductive proof is missing, IMHO.

WTF are you talking about? Induction evidence is proof since Peano and Dedekind. There were attempts to build a constructive mathematics, without induction, and the Zermelo axiom, some time at the beginning of the 20th century, and after some 50 years of efforts they have successfully rewritten arithmetic to the point they were able to "constructively" add two arbitrary integers, otherwise said, "constructively" prove that 1+1=2. Nice try.
 
Member
Joined 2011
Paid Member
First mouser.com , now digikey.com : BF862 NJFET EOL

Might buy a few hundred more just to be on the safe side
 

Attachments

  • now_digikey.png
    now_digikey.png
    20.7 KB · Views: 227
Sometimes maths for the sake of maths later turn out to have practical application.

I was very proud of myself (not being a maths guy) when after reading years of bad approximations of the efficiency of class G and class H amplifiers I derived it in closed form as an appendix in an ISSCC paper. It became the textbook standard derivation.

I tried to instill a little admiration for the beauty of Euler's equation in my digital RIAA article, simple algebra to do complex phasors, design both analog and IIR filters with the same equations, etc.
 
Last edited:
Disabled Account
Joined 2012
I was very proud of myself (not being a maths guy) when after reading years of bad approximations of the efficiency of class G and class H amplifiers I derived it in closed form as an appendix in an ISSCC paper. It became the textbook standard derivation.

I tried to instill a little admiration for the beauty of Euler's equation in my digital RIAA article, simple algebra to do complex phasors, design both analog and IIR filters with the same equations, etc.

:cool: :)

Old memory playback.... why is their efficiency only quoted at max output? When at lower output power it is not always better than others?


-RM
 
Last edited:
It puts together, in one formula, calculus (the e number), geometry (the pi number), algebra (the i number) and arithmetic (the 1 number). Hence, this formula illustrates the unity of mathematics.

Holy smokes... Waly contributed something to the forum. Albiet minor, everyone throw a nickle into the hat so we can buy him a cookie.

I have to wonder if several other members of a more prime age would like to not spend their last years on a math problem. Now I might be able to get my uncle to solve one because he thinks about, gets up 4 hours later writes down the answer, and goes back to sleep for another 4 hours.
 
And e^(iπ)+1=0 is definitely the best form of the equation. It's a spectacular piece of glue to translate disparate equations.

It also completely defines two transcendental numbers in terms of the unit - via a power relationship, of all things, involving a fundamentally-useful constant.

Euler's result is a sublime work of pure mathematics.
 
Last edited:
Holy smokes... Waly contributed something to the forum. Albiet minor, everyone throw a nickle into the hat so we can buy him a cookie.

I have to wonder if several other members of a more prime age would like to not spend their last years on a math problem. Now I might be able to get my uncle to solve one because he thinks about, gets up 4 hours later writes down the answer, and goes back to sleep for another 4 hours.

Math at its pinnacle has been a young man's (woman's!) sport. That is changing over time as problems being solved are becoming more team-based than individuals, but there's been quite a bit of ink spilled on that phenomenon.

And I agree, Martin; Euler's body of work is beyond sensational.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.