XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: sophi.2@invalid.org   
      
   On 3/2/2011 10:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:   
   > On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:06:41 -0600, John - KD5YI   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/2/2011 8:52 PM, John Larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:40:27 -0600, John - KD5YI   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 3/2/2011 8:32 PM, John Larkin wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:59:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman   
   >>>>>     wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Mar 3, 2:11 am, John Larkin   
   >>>>>>     wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:36:25 -0600, John Fields   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>     wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:40:42 -0800, John Larkin   
   >>>>>>>>     wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp   
   >>>>>>>>> circuit:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun   
   >>>>>>>>> playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> John   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ---   
   >>>>>>>> Even though you scorn and ridicule audio, there's nothing wrong with   
   >>>>>>>> anyone seeking perfection there, just as there's nothing wrong with   
   >>>>>>>> your search for perfection in the genre which pleases _you_ to pursue.   
   >>>>>>>> So, speaking of fun, why don't you do a complete design and assign   
   >>>>>>>> values to the circuit components and identify the semiconductors?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You're not playing the game. You are sitting in the henhouse, clucking   
   >>>>>>> about the people who do.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> He's not playing your game, which involves telling John Larkin how   
   >>>>>> cute his circuits are.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> He's not designing circuits, which is what this newsgroup is about.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You aren't either. Both of you start to cluck and peck when people do   
   >>>>> design circuits. No surprise.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Or is that legwork _we're_ supposed to do in order to flesh out your   
   >>>>>>>> divine revelation?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Chickenleg work!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It's half the story - a few component values make it a lot easier to   
   >>>>>> work out what a circuit is doing.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You can't look at a circuit this simple and see what it's doing? OK,   
   >>>>> no surprise.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> John   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Well, I thought designing a circuit included supplying component values.   
   >>>> No?   
   >>>   
   >>> I posted topologies. Values can be scaled to the application, but you   
   >>> need a topology first. If I were actually going to build this, for   
   >>> money, of course I'd have to define specs and then compute values.   
   >>> That's just grunt work.   
   >>>   
   >>> John   
   >>   
   >> Not really. I have a few circuits I could throw out and claim that they   
   >> are topologies and you would not be able to use them without values.   
   >> Granted, mine are more complex than the one being discussed, but I'm   
   >> hoping to make a point.   
   >>   
   >> John (not Larkin)   
   >>   
   >   
   > I think circuit topologies are fun to play with. Lots of textbooks   
   > show, and discuss, circuits without explicit values. Once you have a   
   > topology, then you can proceed to specs and component values.   
   >   
   > If you think all circuits should be posted with values, post some.   
   >   
   > John   
      
   You are correct, John. Now you have a topology. Please post the   
   component values.   
      
   Thanks,   
   John   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)