No. Wrong again. You would be better off asking rather than jumping to conclusions. Its more often the speaker cables that have been the problem. Didn't you read what I said? Why would I mention cables and then you ignore it and focus only on speakers instead?
You have to pay attention if you want to make progress in audio and electronics, right?
Because you said speakers and I was focusing on them with the understanding they be easier to cause damage to. Here:
So are you going to answer the question or not?
Looked up Kirchhoff's circuit laws, turns out already knew them, just didn't remember the name. Who doesn't know basic Newtonian physics?
When I've instructed new shooters in handling firearms, I don't take them to the range and hand them a revolver. I start at their home, at the kitchen table, with no firearms in sight, with a lesson in the four rules of safe firearms handling. These rules are designed to overlap, so that if one and only one is violated, nobody is likely to get hurt. Firearms are inherently dangerous, an explosion right near you and consequences some ways away. The person holding the firearm is completely responsible for every round fired, no excuses Alec Baldwin.
The next step is to show them a few real firearms, unloaded of course, and demonstrate the operation of one or two kinds. Then, with me observing the student's safety of handling, I let them pick up a firearm. I've had a woman break into tears at this stage, and she understood properly the responsibility she had just assumed. Later, at the range, conversation is difficult ( >30dB hearing protection) so these early steps are extra important. At the range, the added stress of loud noises at random times and our human reactions can cause everything from flinching to a heightened feeling of danger. I observe my student continuously for safety of handing, and insist on break times very often. Unless some misunderstanding is causing a frustrating inability to even hit the target, I ignore all issues of stance, grip, situational awareness, and such, and only work on safety thinking.
Why all this yak-yak? Beginning in any challenging and potentially dangerous discipline is very difficult to do all by yourself, trying to abstract and extract from a noisy information environment enough to even get started. It's much better to have a trusted mentor looking over your shoulder, giving immediate feedback and available to answer questions. Only a small sliver of this is possible on an internet forum, with the inherently glacial information data rate, so it becomes extra important for the student to learn how to filter and focus their questions to get best results from the medium.
But! Safety first, second and third. Tough to teach by typing with one or two fingers to a stranger somewhere in the world, but essential. A good safety plan is to have overlapping layers so that a single point of failure of attention isn't potentially dangerous. For example: yes, I've made certain (twice) that there's no live voltages in this chassis, but I'll still keep one hand in my pocket. More layers of safety is even better. No shortcuts allowed. Nuf said.
All good fortune,
Chris
The next step is to show them a few real firearms, unloaded of course, and demonstrate the operation of one or two kinds. Then, with me observing the student's safety of handling, I let them pick up a firearm. I've had a woman break into tears at this stage, and she understood properly the responsibility she had just assumed. Later, at the range, conversation is difficult ( >30dB hearing protection) so these early steps are extra important. At the range, the added stress of loud noises at random times and our human reactions can cause everything from flinching to a heightened feeling of danger. I observe my student continuously for safety of handing, and insist on break times very often. Unless some misunderstanding is causing a frustrating inability to even hit the target, I ignore all issues of stance, grip, situational awareness, and such, and only work on safety thinking.
Why all this yak-yak? Beginning in any challenging and potentially dangerous discipline is very difficult to do all by yourself, trying to abstract and extract from a noisy information environment enough to even get started. It's much better to have a trusted mentor looking over your shoulder, giving immediate feedback and available to answer questions. Only a small sliver of this is possible on an internet forum, with the inherently glacial information data rate, so it becomes extra important for the student to learn how to filter and focus their questions to get best results from the medium.
But! Safety first, second and third. Tough to teach by typing with one or two fingers to a stranger somewhere in the world, but essential. A good safety plan is to have overlapping layers so that a single point of failure of attention isn't potentially dangerous. For example: yes, I've made certain (twice) that there's no live voltages in this chassis, but I'll still keep one hand in my pocket. More layers of safety is even better. No shortcuts allowed. Nuf said.
All good fortune,
Chris
@Adriel
Okay, do you think you can use Kirchhoff's laws to solve for the voltages and currents in a circuit loop? How about for two interconnected loops? First just with resistors, then with capacitors and or inductors in the loops. How about with more than one voltage and or current source? Its simple enough if you know how. Probably you are not prepared.
Once you can do the above, then maybe we can try it with Laplace Transforms and S. Once you can do that then you are getting much closer to being ready to study feedback. You could start to really understand what "The F Word" paper was talking about, not just superficially, but really understand it.
Okay, do you think you can use Kirchhoff's laws to solve for the voltages and currents in a circuit loop? How about for two interconnected loops? First just with resistors, then with capacitors and or inductors in the loops. How about with more than one voltage and or current source? Its simple enough if you know how. Probably you are not prepared.
Once you can do the above, then maybe we can try it with Laplace Transforms and S. Once you can do that then you are getting much closer to being ready to study feedback. You could start to really understand what "The F Word" paper was talking about, not just superficially, but really understand it.
Last edited:
I know oscillations are bad for drivers. Being logical, could surmise an oscillation in a wire, which has resistance, cause it to heat to a point of damage (First? Law of Thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed).
See now you go back again and saying C8 and R16 are not valid and must be changed. Okay, thank you for confirming this, will look for another amplifier design since not possible at this time for me to determine the correct values for C8 and R16.
I will say wish was taught this way and wish you were closer, I patiently pay attention and listen. I am still not comfortable with pistols, though my preference is shotguns.
By the way, the only useable gun (the other requires a special sized ammunition, maybe one day replace the barrel, it is just a worthless (as not factory original as converted to hunting rifle) Mouser) I am custodian of is a black powder Kentucky pistol. If I was ever to even consider firing it, have it evaluated, tested and then trained how to use it. However, because it was made by Opa including Birdseye maple, it will never be used as too risky.
No, I didn't say that. What I was trying to explain was that they would need to be reevaluated. Maybe they would change, maybe not. You don't know yet.
I was told it was the starting point. So with that checked off, what next, please?
Thank you for clarifying the implied statement. Okay then, is it evaluated on paper or physically? My understanding is the former and since clearly are far superior, you can. I myself will accept the danger as my understanding is this be requirement of any amplifier. Explains why they are expensive.
I was kind of bummed the answers were provided. Instead, didn't read the text and in a few seconds came up with a method of solving, then checked and they matched. So, from the video I linked, already knew both lectures, though read to be sure, I do.
The voltage at the OPT going to V2 is 325VDC, correct? The ratio be 8.000/8 so therefore 325/1000, correct? Meaning 0,325VAC is going into the feedback loop?
Then what node and value are we desiring to solve for to evaluate C8 and R16?
Almost forgot to purchase the book, have not only gotten the pre amplifier book, also the power supply while still available rather then later maybe wanting it and not have it.
Again, thank you for the recommendations @Captain B and @Markw4 (reminder and link). 🙂
Again, thank you for the recommendations @Captain B and @Markw4 (reminder and link). 🙂
Adriel,
Just saw your new thread. It's considered poor form, and against forum rules, to open multiple threads on the same topic. Just FYI.
Are you absolutely committed to this schematic? These long loop feedback designs from the Eisenhower era have a nostalgic appeal, but are critically dependent on everything being exactly as prescribed, especially the output transformer. Why not look into some design with modern available parts? A design without feedback around the OPT can be very forgiving of differences in transformers, still work fine, or better, and are much more DIY friendly.
All good fortune,
Chris
Just saw your new thread. It's considered poor form, and against forum rules, to open multiple threads on the same topic. Just FYI.
Are you absolutely committed to this schematic? These long loop feedback designs from the Eisenhower era have a nostalgic appeal, but are critically dependent on everything being exactly as prescribed, especially the output transformer. Why not look into some design with modern available parts? A design without feedback around the OPT can be very forgiving of differences in transformers, still work fine, or better, and are much more DIY friendly.
All good fortune,
Chris
I saw it as a different topic, this is about capacitors and resistors.
I am of course welcome to shifting the focus of this thread, I have tried twice and failed.
I asked twice and been informed nothing exists.
Tent-pole make tent-canvas go up.
A single Bode pole or zero does not slope the same both ways, but you can work it out with a tent-pole.
I hope you enjoy reading them. 😁 Personally, I find the learning involved in this hobby as rewarding as the building and listening. My builds tend to take me a long time to plan and execute. I'm OK with that though. It's not a race.
Thank you for the well wish. 🙂
Thank you also for the reminder this is not a race. Also a good way of taking time and gathering stuff up. 🙂
Woke up about ten minutes before closing of an eBay auction (didn't want to, say why might be complaining). Never have won an auction, get sniped, so let it be even though could watch. By golly I won! A five tube carton of NOS Tungsgram EL84 for just over $100USD. One of the recommended in a 1992 article on the EL84 for PP just happened on. They will be for later, once feel confident the amplifier is working correctly. 😉