Data slicer.

A circuit containing three components is really easy to post -- unless that's too complex for you.

Speak the language correctly or post a picture. Don't diss people for being mislead by your erroneous use of terminology that you don't understand.

How about explaining this then...

"At 3 components it could hardly be simpler - the signal is direct to one comparator input, the other input has an integrating capacitor fed via a resistor by the signal on the other pin. "

Which of the "other" pins? You've used that term twice with a three pin device. I understood this to mean the output of the comparator was feeding back through the low pass filter, "integrator" by your terminology. If that is not right, perhaps you can draw a circuit? Your description is not clear.

Are you saying one comparator input gets the signal directly and the other gets a LPF of the input?

Yeah scribble something on a piece of paper and post a pic. We mostly think in circuits, not words.

George H.

Troublemaker.

Joerg's already got one of those.

Yes. So big that you can't write a number big enough.

Or, sometimes, so big that more wouldn't matter.

That's it?

All this fuss just for a DC decoupling Cap..

Jamie

I hope he's enjoying it!

Jamie

#2 for my money.

Engineering is about making stuff that works well, within practical constra ints such as size, weight, power, and cost.

So for engineering purposes, for "infinite" read "practically infinite". Fo

".

(just a helpful note from an amateur lexicographer.) ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Engineering accomplished a lot centuries before there was science and theory to explain what was going on. People tried things and learned. LT Spice does help.

"Engineer" appears in one Shakespeare play. I don't think "physicist" does. So there!

"Unbounded" was another usage (on wikipedia).

That's synonymous with "infinite" around here. It does cause panty-twisting among some s.e.d. gits.

The only person who spotted my slip on terminology, has for some unfathomable reason decided the filter must be on the comparator output.

My terminology might not be just so for google to find useful results - but at least it didn't produce the stupid comments I've got from certain individuals here.

Apparently my not knowing the jargon is ample excuse for some people to fire off a few sarcastic and stupid comments.

Who'd have thought that some people on a design group would be too thick to get it!!!

I think many people spotted your "slip" in terminology, but didn't say anything. Many people were also confused by your description of the circuit which clearly caused problems understanding what you were trying to do.

Maybe you would have gotten better responses if you had explained rather than complained when they didn't understand.

What you call "stupid comments" were others trying to work with the poor description of your circuit. You used "other pin" twice to refer to two different pins on a device with 3 important pins. That was not clear and several people got the impression the output of the comparator was feeding back to the input via the filter.

You must've KF'd me when I posted the explanations and then changed your mind in time to make that accusation.

There's still time - and I wouldn't miss you.................

Typical sociopath - you don't realise it was mostly *YOUR* stupid comments I was referring to.