Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #239813 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-23 16:22 +0200 |
| Last post | 2014-04-24 13:19 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 89 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-23 16:22 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-23 10:51 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-23 11:04 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-23 18:06 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-23 18:14 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 13:20 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-24 15:59 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-24 11:30 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 17:43 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-24 12:04 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-24 12:38 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-24 10:42 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-24 22:26 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-25 14:41 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 07:55 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-25 09:25 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 08:40 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 16:03 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-04-25 14:21 +0000
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-25 11:41 -0600
"Hadron" basically admits Windows is "lowest common denominator" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-25 09:24 -0400
Re: "Hadron" basically admits Windows is "lowest common denominator" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-29 19:47 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 08:39 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-30 10:13 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 10:19 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-30 10:31 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 10:34 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-30 12:31 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 17:04 -0700
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-25 17:44 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 11:01 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-29 19:33 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 08:00 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-30 09:12 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 10:05 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-25 14:07 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 14:22 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 23:57 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-28 16:01 +0200
The low road versus the high road Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 10:24 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-28 10:54 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 10:08 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-28 18:12 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 18:26 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:02 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 18:32 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-04-28 18:44 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:09 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 18:47 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 12:53 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 19:10 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 20:00 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 13:11 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 13:32 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 13:46 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-29 19:28 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-30 07:58 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:11 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 14:12 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 13:04 -0400
Re: The low road versus the high road GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 11:19 -0600
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 12:03 -0500
Re: The low road versus the high road GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 11:17 -0600
Re: The low road versus the high road Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 19:21 +0200
Re: The low road versus the high road GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 12:06 -0600
Re: The low road versus the high road chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 11:53 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-28 19:23 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 19:57 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 01:08 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2014-04-26 10:48 +0100
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 08:24 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-27 17:39 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 14:41 -0700
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 15:53 +0200
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-28 13:21 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-23 12:52 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 13:26 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Benny <bt@example.net> - 2014-04-23 15:56 -0600
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2014-04-24 00:10 +0100
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-24 06:51 -0500
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Sinister Midget <fardblossom@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 21:40 +0000
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-23 16:43 -0700
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2014-04-24 01:48 +0100
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-23 21:40 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-24 05:41 -0400
Re: Help for all the unemployed MSCEs posting in COLA Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 13:19 +0200
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-25 23:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87oazpqdg9.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #240143 |
flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote: >>> >>>> I really am a fuckwit. >> >> Message corrected. > > Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom? Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design, implementation and testing before selecting a platform.... What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days. -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 16:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bs75a9FthqaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #240173 |
On 25/04/14 23:57, Hadron wrote: > flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes: > >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> >>>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote: >>>> >>>>> I really am a fuckwit. >>> >>> Message corrected. >> >> Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom? > > Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design, > implementation and testing before selecting a platform.... > > What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days. > If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is suitable. It is really quite simple. Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 10:24 -0400 |
| Subject | The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljloab$kte$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240630 |
Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 25/04/14 23:57, Hadron wrote: >> flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>>> >>>>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I really am a fuckwit. >>>> >>>> Message corrected. >>> >>> Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom? LOL. Rich irony from Flounder. >> Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design, >> implementation and testing before selecting a platform.... >> >> What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days. <chuckle> (Rhymes with "knuckle"). > If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and > implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple > platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the > preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is > suitable. It is really quite simple. Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than you do, Ian. :-D -- echo "Hmmm...you don't have Berkeley networking in libc.a..." echo "but the Wollongong group seems to have hacked it in." -- Larry Wall in Configure from the perl distribution
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 10:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <803v7lq0ut61$.89f8xh5hwg6p.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #240631 |
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:24:11 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 25/04/14 23:57, Hadron wrote: >>> flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:07:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ian Hilliard wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>>>> >>>>>> On 25/04/14 14:00, Hadron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I really am a fuckwit. >>>>> >>>>> Message corrected. >>>> >>>> Why don't you grow up already Chris Ahlstrom? > > LOL. Rich irony from Flounder. > >>> Maybe Creepy "dunno" if Hilliard does the speccing, design, >>> implementation and testing before selecting a platform.... >>> >>> What a fuck knuckle Ahlstrom is these days. > > <chuckle> (Rhymes with "knuckle"). > >> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and >> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple >> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the >> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is >> suitable. It is really quite simple. > > Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than > you do, Ian. :-D You growing up, my comment, has nothing to do with what Ian doesn't know about engineering, Chris Ahlstrom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 10:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <kdqsl91nr1254tru1jovh0rc49nrtff97j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240631 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Ian Hilliard wrote: >> >> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and >> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple >> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the >> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is >> suitable. It is really quite simple. > >Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than >you do, Ian. :-D LOL. Sure. Like when Flathead claimed that negative feedback is added into the amplifier circuitry "in order to maintain stability" and that the amp "will go unstable" if there's not enough negative feedback. Both flat-out *wrong* statements, that I corrected. Of course, rather than taking the opportunity to learn from an expert, the shitty trolls went on the attack, claiming that "everyone knows" that negative feedback "stabilizes" the amplifier, and I could not possibly be an engineer for claiming otherwise. Failing to understand what they Googled-up on the subject, their "instant Google expertise" failed them mightily. Ignorant assholes. -- "Negative feedback has many benefits, but 'maintaining stability' is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact. The more negative feedback there is, the greater the chance of *instability*." - chrisv, 100% correct (and proven so).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 18:12 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <bs7cv6FmjfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #240635 |
On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Ian Hilliard wrote: >>> >>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and >>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple >>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the >>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is >>> suitable. It is really quite simple. >> >> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than >> you do, Ian. :-D > > LOL. Sure. Like when Flathead claimed that negative feedback is > added into the amplifier circuitry "in order to maintain stability" > and that the amp "will go unstable" if there's not enough negative > feedback. Both flat-out *wrong* statements, that I corrected. Such a statement is only wrong because of its incompleteness. Negative feedback reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and compensates for distortion by cancelling out some of the input signal. If an amplifier circuit through design or implementation problems has end to end positive feedback, it can become unstable without negative feedback. Negative feedback can only have a moderating effect if there is positive feedback in intermediate circuits within the amplifier chain. Under these circumstances it is not uncommon for the instability to move outside of the normal operating range. In audio amplifiers, this usually then manifests itself as distortion, because the amplifier is being fully driven producing RF. Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an answer. The problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the answer. Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 18:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljlvf4$ei9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240645 |
Ian Hilliard wrote: > On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote: >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Ian Hilliard wrote: >>>> >>>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and >>>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple >>>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but >>>> the preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it >>>> is suitable. It is really quite simple. >>> >>> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than >>> you do, Ian. :-D >> >> LOL. Sure. Like when Flathead claimed that negative feedback is >> added into the amplifier circuitry "in order to maintain stability" >> and that the amp "will go unstable" if there's not enough negative >> feedback. Both flat-out *wrong* statements, that I corrected. > > Such a statement is only wrong because of its incompleteness. Negative > feedback reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and > compensates for distortion by cancelling out some of the input signal. > If an amplifier circuit through design or implementation problems has > end to end positive feedback, it can become unstable without negative > feedback. It can also become unstable with too much negative feedback. But it has to be way overdone to get it unstable. It trades gain (as you have written) for better linearity and less distortion, as all amplifying stages are not really linear < snip > > Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an answer. It is, but to say that positive feedback stabilises the amp is even less of an answer, it gets quickly to the point where the amp starts oscillating. In any given amp you will likely find both forms
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 12:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <g72tl9ls7mo8fa9e68snkg2ushq6g4jt8s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240650 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: >It can also become unstable with too much negative feedback. >But it has to be way overdone to get it unstable. I would not say that it has to be way overdone. It is common to find circuits that fead-back even 100% of the signal. If someone hasn't done the engineering to ensure that the circuit is stable under those conditions...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 18:32 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <87fvkxpg8j.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #240645 |
Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> writes: > On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote: >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Ian Hilliard wrote: >>>> >>>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and >>>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple >>>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the >>>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is >>>> suitable. It is really quite simple. >>> >>> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than >>> you do, Ian. :-D >> >> LOL. Sure. Like when Flathead claimed that negative feedback is >> added into the amplifier circuitry "in order to maintain stability" >> and that the amp "will go unstable" if there's not enough negative >> feedback. Both flat-out *wrong* statements, that I corrected. You#re a fucking idiot TRYING to play with words. Negative feedback loops ARE introduced into circuits to provide stability and also to provide noise reduction. > > Such a statement is only wrong because of its incompleteness. Negative feedback > reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and compensates for distortion > by cancelling out some of the input signal. If an amplifier circuit > through Wrong. It doesnt "cancel out the input signal" whatsoever : it or a directly attenuated multiple/fraction of it is subtracted from the input. This is in no way cancelling anything - rather modifying. consider a +/- sine wave sitting on top of a 5 v "carrier" or bias. The negative feeback might only remove the carrier/bias or a portion of it - the actual signal component modulated onto the carrier is in no way affected. > design or implementation problems has end to end positive feedback, it can > become unstable without negative feedback. You're being too nice. turdv is a fucking idiot that denied negative feedback is used to stabilise systems. "Just the opposite in fact" is his quote. > > Negative feedback can only have a moderating effect if there is positive > feedback in intermediate circuits within the amplifier chain. Under these > circumstances it is not uncommon for the instability to move outside of the > normal operating range. In audio amplifiers, this usually then manifests itself > as distortion, because the amplifier is being fully driven producing > RF. *garble* No surprise there. > > Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an > answer. The Of course but IT IS an answer as to why its used in most places. > problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no answer, > because they can lull one into the belief that they have the answer. Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. The fact that it "might be used for something else" is immaterial. > > Ian > -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 18:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <bs7equF13lgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #240651 |
On 28/04/14 18:32, Hadron wrote: > Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> writes: > >> On 28/04/14 17:08, chrisv wrote: >>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> Ian Hilliard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If you are doing your job correctly, requirement collection and >>>>> implementation is platform independent. Testing is done on multiple >>>>> platforms. It is common that the development is done on Windows, but the >>>>> preferred OS is only used for deployment, if testing proves that it is >>>>> suitable. It is really quite simple. >>>> >>>> Apparently "Hadron" and Flounder know a lot more about engineering than >>>> you do, Ian. :-D >>> >>> LOL. Sure. Like when Flathead claimed that negative feedback is >>> added into the amplifier circuitry "in order to maintain stability" >>> and that the amp "will go unstable" if there's not enough negative >>> feedback. Both flat-out *wrong* statements, that I corrected. > > You#re a fucking idiot TRYING to play with words. Negative feedback > loops ARE introduced into circuits to provide stability and also to > provide noise reduction. > Negative feedback increases noise, because it feeds output noise back into the input. There is no cancellation of noise, because it is random. >> >> Such a statement is only wrong because of its incompleteness. Negative feedback >> reduces the overall gain of an amplifying circuit and compensates for distortion >> by cancelling out some of the input signal. If an amplifier circuit >> through > > Wrong. It doesnt "cancel out the input signal" whatsoever : it or a > directly attenuated multiple/fraction of it is subtracted from the > input. This is in no way cancelling anything - rather > modifying. consider a +/- sine wave sitting on top of a 5 v "carrier" or > bias. The negative feeback might only remove the carrier/bias or a portion of > it - the actual signal component modulated onto the carrier is in no way > affected. > Wrong, some of the output is fed in counter phase back to the input to cancel some of the input signal. Learn some electronics, before spouting off. >> design or implementation problems has end to end positive feedback, it can >> become unstable without negative feedback. > > You're being too nice. turdv is a fucking idiot that denied negative > feedback is used to stabilise systems. "Just the opposite in fact" is > his quote. > >> >> Negative feedback can only have a moderating effect if there is positive >> feedback in intermediate circuits within the amplifier chain. Under these >> circumstances it is not uncommon for the instability to move outside of the >> normal operating range. In audio amplifiers, this usually then manifests itself >> as distortion, because the amplifier is being fully driven producing >> RF. > > *garble* No surprise there. > >> >> Saying that negative feedback stabilises an amplifier is half an >> answer. The > > Of course but IT IS an answer as to why its used in most places. > >> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no answer, >> because they can lull one into the belief that they have the answer. > > Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising > systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. The fact that it "might be used for > something else" is immaterial. > Negative feedback stabilises a system iff there is already positive feedback. It is the positive feedback that causes the instability. A well designed amplifier doesn't become unstable. The main reason for negative feedback is that it is a quick and dirty way to compensate for the non-linearity of the amplifier both in E & wt. Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 12:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <2h2tl91fcd1ivqm8dudegsvtcaor1dh6ki@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240653 |
Ian Hilliard wrote: > Hadron quacked: >> >> You#re a fucking idiot TRYING to play with words. Negative feedback >> loops ARE introduced into circuits to provide stability No, they are *not*. "Setting the gain" is *not* "providing stability". They are *different things*. >> and also to provide noise reduction. > > There is no cancellation of noise, because it is random. Quack is *such* an *ignorant* asshole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 18:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljm0mm$ns6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240651 |
Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: > >> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >> answer. > > Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising > systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and distortion) You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, you were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about linux. Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do about linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and because you are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 12:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljm12r$npm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240654 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: > >> >>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>> answer. >> >> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. > > It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. > Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more > amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and distortion) > > You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, you > were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) > > You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about linux. > Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do about > linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and because you > are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that Yup. And Ian is absolutely right in attempt to clarify terms and meanings, and to explain how there is more than one goal being effected by choosing the type of feedback. >> pretentious dick >> pretentious dick >> pretentious dick >> pretentious dick Is that the sound of one "Hadron" fapping? -- BOFH excuse #227: Fatal error right in front of screen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 19:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <87bnvlpegk.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #240655 |
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> writes: > Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >> >>> >>>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>>> answer. >>> >>> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >>> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. >> >> It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. Too much of ANYTHING breaks things, For crying out loud. Do we have to go back to 1+1 == 2? For crying out loud. >> Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more >> amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and distortion) >> >> You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, you >> were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) I was. I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s but even then negative feedback was a staple of ANY engineering. >> >> You have about as much of an idea about electronics as you have about >> linux. I know more about Linux than you Kohlkopf. As I have repeatedly shown. >> Any slightly demented cow knows more about quantum physics than you do about >> linux or electronics. You just "know" what google tells you, and because you >> are a incredibly stupid prick don't understand even 1% of that > > Yup. > > And Ian is absolutely right in attempt to clarify terms and meanings, and to > explain how there is more than one goal being effected by choosing the type > of feedback. He clarified nothing. What he DID do was, in a mealy mouthed, way show turd to be a frothing idiot. But he had to cover that up with "only half an answer". > >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick >>> pretentious dick > > Is that the sound of one "Hadron" fapping? Its probably the sound of you slurping pee pees you little weenie. Negative feedback IS USED TO STABLISE SYSTEMS END OF STORY. It is used for other things too including noise reduction. turd was wrong and you're too much of a simpering little tit to admit it. -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 20:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljm501$qjm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240662 |
The lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: > Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> writes: > >> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >>> >>>> >>>>> problem with half answers is that they can be more dangerous than no >>>>> answer, because they can lull one into the belief that they have the >>>>> answer. >>>> >>>> Stop being such a pretentious dick. negative feedback stabilising >>>> systems is in NO WAY A HALF ANSWER. >>> >>> It is. Too much negative feeback will make the circuit unstable. > > Too much of ANYTHING breaks things, For crying out loud. Oh, the Hadron cop out > Do we have to go back to 1+1 == 2? For crying out loud. It was claimed that negative feedback will make an amp more stable. It does, but only to a certain point. The claim is too general, because it does not mention the fact that it can make the circuit really unstable too > >>> Apart from the fact that overdoing it will remove much gain, making more >>> amp-stages necessary (which will introduce additional noise and >>> distortion) >>> >>> You again try to imply that you are a "knowledgeable" man (after all, >>> you were at CERN and IBM [rolls eyes]) > > I was. And you were fired because you were too damn incompetent to sweep the parking lots. If they even allowed you anywhere near those > I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s You have nothing of that kind > but even then > negative feedback was a staple of ANY engineering. Negative feedback is usually the easy way out. By far not the best. It is a cheap solution. It is better to use a good design, good components and then apply feedback sparingly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 13:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ft5tl9h6e5sf1ageb2tpj46auofjnbuji9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240682 |
> The lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >> >> I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s Don't you wish that you were not a shameless, documented liar, so that someone might believe you, shithead? >> but even then negative feedback was a staple of ANY engineering. Not to "provide stability", you ignorant asshole. Why don't you just STFU when you don't know what you're talking about, Quack? You won't find me spouting-off in the technical areas of software design. Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and intellectual superiors, truth be damned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 13:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <357tl9hb05vo967cc4hgddm1l2v06vhjtu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240688 |
chrisv wrote: >> The lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry snotted: >>> >>> I also DO have a EE Bsc... Admittedly from the 80s > >Don't you wish that you were not a shameless, documented liar, so that >someone might believe you, shithead? Anyone who has been educated as an engineer (and is not a complete lying piece of shit) would, at least, be sympathetic to my points. They would not ridicule me, when I am technically correct. My correction of Flathead's (incorrect) statements was correct. The issue was not about setting gain, so that (tenuous) angle cannot be relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 13:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <458tl9houb7nenqat94rfkdcdp75e973q9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #240688 |
chrisv wrote: >Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and >intellectual superiors, truth be damned. You, and your filthy friend, the "instant Google expert" Ezekreep. Is that bald-faced lying Kreep still twisting my words into "negative feedback reduces the stability of an amplifier" to attack me? Why use my actual words, when they can be "interpreted" into something not correct, right? So "honest" of the Kreep. At least you like him, eh, Quack?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 19:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ljpcj7$6sq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #240688 |
On 04/28/2014 02:11 PM, chrisv wrote: > Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and > intellectual superiors, truth be damned. turd, you're intellectually superior to Dumb Willie, but that's about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-30 07:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The low road versus the high road |
| Message-ID | <ap2er0oy54tw$.1p04yt4xo3p2$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #240835 |
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:28:34 -0400, DFS wrote: > On 04/28/2014 02:11 PM, chrisv wrote: > >> Oh, that's right, you must *attack* your moral and >> intellectual superiors, truth be damned. > > > turd, you're intellectually superior to Dumb Willie, but that's about it. So is 7, and that ain't saying much either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web