You used words intended to malign me, rather than sticking to the point at issue. I can't say I care - I've been around Usenet long enough.
But be honest with yourself. When you're insulting someone (or at least trying to), recognise that you're doing it.
Sylvia.
or,
it
handy
ly
It would depend a lot on the op-amp. It is very possible to have an op-amp which is stable for any RC time constant formed that way. It just needs to have less than 90 degrees of phase lag all the way from DC to the bandwidth.
Has anybody ever made an opamp with a -3 dB/octave rolloff? That could be handy.
John
That's *exactly* the point. You won't stick to it, rather continue to argue an indefensible position.
You flatter yourself. You aren't important enough.
I can't think of any but it seems reasonable that somebody must have at least made one with less than 90 degrees of lag. 5 degrees of phase margin would be "doesn't oscillate" but 45 degrees would be much nicer.
It would also be nice to have some that are designed to work into inductive loads. A rail to rail power opamp would also be nice.
Yeah: W-H-I-P-P-E-D. ;-)
Hope This Helps! Rich
Why are you guys so threatened by women? Even more, why are you so threatened by men who *aren't* afraid of women?
Women are great. I like them. The only thing men are good for is designing electronics with.
John
I didn't mean an amp that crosses unity gain at -3 dB slope, I want one that's -3 all the way down. Obviously, with that shallow a slope, and reasonable limits on the first break, its DC gain would suck.
Maybe Jim can comment.
John
Just in case you have an impaired sense of sarcasm, I was correcting JF's spelling.
Hope This Helps! Rich
You obviously have no concept or grasp of slang or how it is used.
--- You know what, John?
From your posturing I think _you're_ the one who's afraid of women.
Think about it.
A woman hits these groups and starts making all sorts of preposterous claims and throwing veiled insults around, (which, intellectually, you should recognize as being such) and yet you support her.
Had it been a man doing the same thing you would certainly have been, at least, critical.
Instead, you make a declaration that you're "on her side" (which is kind of interesting, even without delving into it too deeply) and then you start accusing all of her critics as being afraid of women.
If we (her critics) were afraid of women, then we would have been humbly nonconfrontational from the start and taken the approach you did, that of: "Please, oh please, dear God, don't let her get angry with me.
---
--- That's too broad to be always true, since some of them are and some of them aren't.
---
--- Me too, but I like the ones who haven't had meanness bred into them and are smart and funny and glib.
---
--- Seems your mother thought differently.
JF
I went to a frat party where one guy had been ribbed by his mates as being p-whipped. He wore a t-shirt that had PW in big letters on the front. His girlfriend's shirt had a big P.
That's sort of how I feel about things.
John
Read the posts. I said some critical things to her initially, when I disagred with her. Some weren't very nice.
Read the posts.
I'm on her side when she's right. Which, at some point, she certainly was. At that point, you were being obnoxious, challenging, and dead wrong.
I'm an engineer. I'm on anybody's side when they're right. I try very hard to not let my emotions distort the facts, because that generally has bad consequences.
Why are you among "her critics" when she is right about the facts, and you are wrong? Same reason you are among my critics, I guess.
You posted a nonsense circuit that was latched up, defended it rudely, said absurd things about it (like "the output of the opamp doesn't matter"), and read the LT Spice current probe backwards. You defended it, rudely, long after it was explained. Then you blamed LT Spice, which turns out to work logically.
Maybe it's women being smarter than you is what you're afraid of. Yeah, that must be it.
Obviously. She was a woman. I can't imagine why women like men, but I'm very grateful that they do.
John
We know. It shows... And the funny part is that you are not qualified to determine which or either when it relates to someone other than you and yours.
None of us are in your frat. Frat is whack here in Usenet.
e n t
I knew what you meant. The gain at DC need not suck at all. You could implement one with an externally compensated op-amp. The capacitor for the lowest pole would have to be largish but these days even 1F capacitors can be bought so it would be possible to put the lowest pole down in the mHz range. You'd need about two components per decade so from 1mHz to 10MHz would require some 14 or so parts.
Oh, I never belonged to a frat. They were gross, mostly. I preferred to spend my free time with women.
John
-- Yeah, sure... As long as what they\'re right about doesn\'t make you wrong.
-- Just one of the girls, huh? There\'s an interesting picture starting to emerge... JF
That I like women? That I'd rather be with one woman in bed than with
15 bored guys, drinking cheap beer, hanging out on dirty couches? You're just now figuring that out?Which would you prefer?
The frats I visited were full of gross guys who bragged a lot about their romantic exploits. The places were expensive, boring, noisy, and generally smelled bad. I didn't need to copy anybody's old term papers, or review last years's exam questions, which was one of the reasons a lot of guys joined frats. For less money, I had my own apartment with one clean couch.
Which would you prefer?
But why the fascination with my youth? Post something about electronics.
John
In the context of a true (absolute, not incremental) negative resistor, as she clearly states, she's absolutely right. Where else would the energy come from?
Quit your silly village gossiping, he-said-she-said stuff. Quit acting like a 7-year old who's afraid of girls. Put that energy into getting your electronics right, and checking you circuits before you post them.
The circuit you posted was a crock. The opamp was railed low. You claimed behavior that clearly violated conservation of energy... nut-case turf. You can't bluster your way out of that.
She was right, you were wrong. Which is OK, but you were mean, sardonic, challenging, insulting wrong. Not smart for people who don't check their work.
It didn't matter how the current probe worked. It was obvious that the amp was railed, the current was flowing INTO R4, and they no simple circuit is going to violate conservation of energy.
I was uninformed about the trigger polarity of a 555. I thought there was only one kind of negative resistor, when there are actually two. I'm still trying to understand the fundamantals of that one. I mean, what's the difference between rotating an E:I graph 90 degrees clockwise, and rotating it 90 ccw? Maybe you can explain that to us.
No, I'm having fun. And you're not. I check my work; you don't.
John
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.