JN
When you apply a voltage going from 0 to the trigger voltage of a neon lamp, the current will be extremely close to 0, but due to leakage or possibly internal capacitance or even some truly extremely small internal leakage it will rise linearly-ish with voltage and be considered ohmic. At the trigger voltage from a voltage source it will switch on and the current will dramatically increase. I think we all agree on this. (Now from a voltage source at this point it will explode!). This increase in current means over some very small voltage change the current increase is significantly greater.
That certainly is nonohmic behavior. But as the current is increasing with the voltage it is not negative resistance at that point.
Now as the neon lamp has a current limiting resistor and is charging a capacitor the voltage across the neon lamp will begin to fall. As the voltage falls the current does drop a very small bit as the source in this case is a very high value resistance from a voltage difference between the source voltage and the capacitor load resistance of about a voltage that starts at 90 volts or so and drops to 60-ish volts. When the voltage is just above the switch off voltage current flows well as the voltage drops just below that the current drops. So again we have a decrease in current with a decrease in voltage. Again a nonohmic response.
What we do not seem to have is a decrease in current with a voltage increase or an increase in current with a voltage decrease!
So the issue appears to be when to call nonohmic resistance negative resistance.
However in keeping with the spirit of this thread it is clear you are a gazorticated flembian norgish! 🙂 !!!
When you apply a voltage going from 0 to the trigger voltage of a neon lamp, the current will be extremely close to 0, but due to leakage or possibly internal capacitance or even some truly extremely small internal leakage it will rise linearly-ish with voltage and be considered ohmic. At the trigger voltage from a voltage source it will switch on and the current will dramatically increase. I think we all agree on this. (Now from a voltage source at this point it will explode!). This increase in current means over some very small voltage change the current increase is significantly greater.
That certainly is nonohmic behavior. But as the current is increasing with the voltage it is not negative resistance at that point.
Now as the neon lamp has a current limiting resistor and is charging a capacitor the voltage across the neon lamp will begin to fall. As the voltage falls the current does drop a very small bit as the source in this case is a very high value resistance from a voltage difference between the source voltage and the capacitor load resistance of about a voltage that starts at 90 volts or so and drops to 60-ish volts. When the voltage is just above the switch off voltage current flows well as the voltage drops just below that the current drops. So again we have a decrease in current with a decrease in voltage. Again a nonohmic response.
What we do not seem to have is a decrease in current with a voltage increase or an increase in current with a voltage decrease!
So the issue appears to be when to call nonohmic resistance negative resistance.
However in keeping with the spirit of this thread it is clear you are a gazorticated flembian norgish! 🙂 !!!
hahaha YES ! 100's of useless info in 'peer' reviewed papers. Mental masterbation. Only to be forgotten forever afterwards in 99% of papers.
"So they rely exactly on the negative resistance, even if that's not obvious to you. A short justification is that some sort of power gain is required from such a device, otherwise you could not have anything to oscillate, since the supply energy needs to be converted in the output oscillation energy, otherwise this would be a perpetuum mobile. It is rather easy to prove, using the superposition theorem, that negative resistance devices have some sort of power gain, hence they can oscillate under certain conditions (when the power gain is > 1)."
OMG! Really? A neon bulb?
How To Acquire Knowledge - Emil Wallner - Medium
IMO Theory plus Experience = Knowledge. Theory alone is Not knowledge. Test, measure, compare. I recall a physics engineer telling me why LLNL didnt hire theorists from universities... they could come up with solutions which were impossible in the real physical world and did not know it. I have learned to be skeptical.
Happy Valentines day, you all. 🙂
-Richard
Last edited:
That is a great question. You cannot totally discount what people tell can hear. So, its up to how you qualify the experience. Test and measure, and compare. I often use the test of how many others say they hear the same things/describe it the same way by a large number of people in many cultures and systems over time. Then it has a high probability of being true (fact).
Not much different from pharma results. It takes a huge population using a drug to know if it really works or not. Even though a few samplings/tests showed it was working for the few tested ... positive.... However, a larger number of population may show same or different results.
So, in this method, it is the majority outcome/experience and may ignore the few who get opposite results which are also in fact consistent and true for them - but we have no way to know for certain.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Since you've been making things up and attributing them to me, I'm sure your list is looooong.
You did try to use that method on me in the discussion on ESLs, as I took Richard's observation of bias voltage vs sound all the way through to charge mobility effects...when jacob2 then provided a link to a paper that absolutely confirms the cause, confirms the effect, and concludes with exactly what I was saying. All the while, you kept telling me I don't know anything.
Today I was the windshield, you were the bug. Tomorrow is a different day, the roles might be reversed.
Get over it, you'll live longer.
Jn
Last edited:
Ed, you are a clear amateur at this dissing thing.
You have to first tell me I know nothing, then make up things I didn't say to prove me stupid.
Duh..😀
Jn
You have to first tell me I know nothing, then make up things I didn't say to prove me stupid.
Duh..😀
Jn
Sounds like managerial failure to have an EE doing the setup and calculations, especially one that seems to have had no munitions experience.
It would be interesting to know what line deviation Richard was describing as affecting his sound.
Jn
Thanks.
Bob Widlar died in 1991 and LM3886 was introduced in 1999 as per search on google. Probably his (and others) ealier design topology/concepts was used ?
Regards
There is a bit of Widlar in the LM3886, but is a pretty crude design overall. Slow, single ended driver, etc. Is this the best of the power IC's?
Attachments
Last edited:
The 3886 is an evolution of the LM12 that Widlar designed shortly before he died. It was a respin for Sony who bought lots or so some NS engineers involved told me in the early 1990s. NS would let Widlar do things no one else would attempt back then.
The LM12 was one of the first power ICs and really revolutionary when it was introduced.
The LM12 was one of the first power ICs and really revolutionary when it was introduced.
Are they? Scientific types, I mean. Or well read, ill-behaved lab techs? That would be my call.
A PHD EE. I would not assume he had no experience with such weapons. Just not with placing the barrel into a shed effect. The ETech had experience with the operation/firing of the canon.
IMO his calculation was fatally flawed. Did not consider the rate of expansion, direction of shock wave etal. Incomplete knowledge of applied theory. At least he did listen enough to do some calculations to assure himself he was doing the right thing and to hell with experienced ET. Thats confidence in your self. Learning by trail and error? Things that just go pop and a smell of something burnt in the lab is dismissed with a laugh. But, some things are more serious when they go Boom.
A multi-discipline approach and involvement would be a check on reality. Of course the leader could have got a second opinion..... nah... who would do that?
I am only criticising theory without experience does not = knowledge.
Be skeptical. Ask more questions.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
No, It didnt affect the sound because I was only monitoring the FR while R.Lees adjusted the ac line voltage but listened with the HV which gave flattest response.
Anyway, I was just wondering....
No one here knows about such affect. My guess was the speakers had excessive leakage ? I know mine do. I can hear it. Corona discharge sound in upper left corner. Worse in high humidity environment. Any theory about FR loss at HF end of spectrum with high leakage?
THx-Richard
Last edited:
I would call adjusting the HV to "flatten the response" to be affecting the sound..
The panel design and directivity require uniform charge. Any currents across a membrane of 10e+12 ohms per square will produce large gradients in potential. That will mess up operation big time.
Jn
Welcome to Richard's world of doublespeak. Are you going to chase the latest flock of wild geese he's let loose?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.