Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350126 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-15 19:44 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-16 09:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-15 19:44 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-15 12:49 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-15 14:35 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Silver Slimer <linux@shit.is> - 2016-04-15 18:28 -0400
Re: OK, you experts vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-16 00:10 +0000
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-15 18:46 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-15 21:50 -0400
Re: OK, you experts vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-16 02:30 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-15 22:58 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-16 06:52 -0400
Re: OK, you experts William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-16 13:30 +0100
OK, you coo coo trolls Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-16 08:42 -0400
Re: OK, you coo coo trolls Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-16 09:07 -0400
Re: OK, you coo coo trolls William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-16 14:23 +0100
Re: OK, you coo coo trolls Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-16 09:31 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-16 08:59 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-16 08:57 -0400
Re: OK, you experts vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-16 15:34 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-16 13:32 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-16 11:09 -0700
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:27 -0400
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-18 08:51 -0500
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-18 10:43 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:10 -0700
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-16 13:57 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 14:13 -0700
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-16 16:30 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 19:45 -0700
Re: OK, you experts ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 04:04 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-04-17 09:11 -0400
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-17 06:49 -0700
Re: I don't use Ubuntu, so I don't care. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-17 18:23 -0700
Re: Is every Microsoft server now a Linux server too ? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-18 04:25 -0700
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 14:39 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-04-18 19:52 -0400
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-17 06:28 -0700
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-18 13:00 -0500
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-18 12:00 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 02:30 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 05:58 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 04:08 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 08:35 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 06:06 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 10:03 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 07:25 -0700
re: OK, you experts "Henry" <henry@alpha.org> - 2016-04-20 14:20 +0200
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-19 04:10 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 04:38 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 08:37 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 06:08 -0700
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-19 08:43 -0500
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-19 09:47 -0500
Re: OK, you experts Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-19 09:13 -0700
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-19 09:55 -0700
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-19 13:10 -0500
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-20 08:55 -0300
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-20 10:01 -0700
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-21 08:29 -0300
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-21 06:54 -0500
Re: OK, you experts owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 14:18 +0000
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 11:16 -0400
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 12:12 -0400
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-22 08:32 -0300
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 04:59 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 07:11 -0700
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 07:41 -0700
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-23 08:41 -0300
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-23 06:35 -0700
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-23 13:39 -0300
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-24 04:48 -0700
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-26 08:26 -0300
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 09:59 -0400
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-26 08:25 -0300
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 10:08 -0400
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-23 08:35 -0300
re: OK, you experts "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 16:30 +0200
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-23 08:33 -0300
Re: OK, you experts ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 17:10 +0000
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 12:13 -0400
Re: OK, you experts sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-04-22 08:40 -0300
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:09 -0400
re: OK, you experts "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 17:47 +0200
Re: OK, you experts Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 12:08 -0400
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-19 08:05 -0500
Re: OK, you experts Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 06:13 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 09:16 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 10:04 -0400
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 16:20 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 09:05 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 07:32 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 13:35 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 12:07 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 09:24 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 14:10 -0400
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 15:03 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 12:18 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 09:24 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:42 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 18:23 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:43 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 05:45 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 10:07 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 06:28 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 13:20 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 11:27 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 17:37 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 14:28 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 20:52 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 11:29 -0400
Re: OK, you experts -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-18 10:14 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 17:42 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 14:29 -0400
Re: OK, you experts chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-18 13:42 -0500
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 15:56 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 20:45 +0000
Re: OK, you experts vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-19 08:14 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 08:59 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 05:51 -0400
Re: OK, you experts vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-19 19:11 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:32 -0700
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 20:44 +0000
Re: OK, you experts Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 17:51 -0400
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 10:49 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-18 08:05 -0700
Re: OK, you experts DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 14:34 -0400
Re: OK, you experts Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 09:00 +0000
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 04:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e491d930-ba61-48cb-9d15-c0192baa2fc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350804 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:03:01 AM UTC, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > > On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:00:36 PM UTC, -hh wrote: > >> On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 2:00:38 PM UTC-4, chrisv wrote: > >> > vallor wrote: > >> > > >> > >"Hugh"'s reputation, for example, is that he is an apologist for > >> > >extremely nasty trolls, making all sorts of machinations to try to twist > >> > >what they do into something worthy of even being read. We're talking > >> > >libel and defamation, not just insults. > >> > > >> > I recall when that fscking asshole "-hh" joined with "GreyCloud", to > >> > attack me. I had posted links to photos of some things that I owned, > >> > and "GreyCloud" came right-out and called me a liar - claiming that > >> > the items in question belonged to someone else. > >> > >> Did he really? Cite please. > >> > >> Oh, and for my part, I merely pointed out that you failed miserably > >> in actually substantiating your claim of having a BSEE, particularly > >> since instead of posting a photo of your diploma, you instead used > >> a couple of pics of first and second year undergraduate textbooks. > > > > Chrisv claimed that negative feedback is not used to stabilise an > > amplifier circuit. That alone proves he doesn't have a BSEE. > > Nope. Negative feedback is not used to stabilise an amplifier circuit... > it is used to stabilize the *output* of an amplifier circuit. Sheer sophistry. The output is part of the circuit from the perspective of amplifier design, an obvious example being the importance of impedance matching with valve amplification. > Negative > feedback can actually cause the circuit to *produce* oscillations, unless > damping or timing adjustments are introduced to the circuit. That might be so but it does not change the fact that it is wrong to say that negative feedback is not used to stabilise a circuit. > Google it up. No, LMGTFY. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback > > Though negative feedback has many advantages, amplifiers with feedback > can oscillate. See the article on step response. They may even exhibit > instability. Harry Nyquist of Bell Laboratories proposed the Nyquist > stability criterion and the Nyquist plot that identify stable feedback > systems, including amplifiers and control systems. No one said that negative feedback guarantees stability. The point refuted is that negative feedback is not used to improve stability - a position that is untenable. From the same article: '[N]egative feedback generally promotes stability. Negative feedback tends to promote a settling to equilibrium, and reduces the effects of perturbations. Negative feedback loops in which just the right amount of correction is applied with optimum timing can be very stable, accurate, and responsive'. Although loyalty is commendable, trying to defend chrisv's lack of understanding is not really helping him or anyone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 08:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf58o1$p2o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350806 |
Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:03:01 AM UTC, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:00:36 PM UTC, -hh wrote: >> >> On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 2:00:38 PM UTC-4, chrisv wrote: >> >> > vallor wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >"Hugh"'s reputation, for example, is that he is an apologist for >> >> > >extremely nasty trolls, making all sorts of machinations to try to twist >> >> > >what they do into something worthy of even being read. We're talking >> >> > >libel and defamation, not just insults. >> >> > >> >> > I recall when that fscking asshole "-hh" joined with "GreyCloud", to >> >> > attack me. I had posted links to photos of some things that I owned, >> >> > and "GreyCloud" came right-out and called me a liar - claiming that >> >> > the items in question belonged to someone else. >> >> >> >> Did he really? Cite please. >> >> >> >> Oh, and for my part, I merely pointed out that you failed miserably >> >> in actually substantiating your claim of having a BSEE, particularly >> >> since instead of posting a photo of your diploma, you instead used >> >> a couple of pics of first and second year undergraduate textbooks. >> > >> > Chrisv claimed that negative feedback is not used to stabilise an >> > amplifier circuit. That alone proves he doesn't have a BSEE. >> >> Nope. Negative feedback is not used to stabilise an amplifier circuit... >> it is used to stabilize the *output* of an amplifier circuit. > > Sheer sophistry. The output is part of the circuit from the perspective of amplifier design, an obvious example being the importance of impedance matching with valve amplification. > >> Negative >> feedback can actually cause the circuit to *produce* oscillations, unless >> damping or timing adjustments are introduced to the circuit. > > That might be so but it does not change the fact that it is wrong to say that negative feedback is not used to stabilise a circuit. You don't even comprehend what you read. >> Google it up. No, LMGTFY. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback >> >> Though negative feedback has many advantages, amplifiers with feedback >> can oscillate. See the article on step response. They may even exhibit >> instability. Harry Nyquist of Bell Laboratories proposed the Nyquist >> stability criterion and the Nyquist plot that identify stable feedback >> systems, including amplifiers and control systems. > > No one said that negative feedback guarantees stability. The point > refuted is that negative feedback is not used to improve stability - a > position that is untenable. > > From the same article: '[N]egative feedback generally promotes stability. > Negative feedback tends to promote a settling to equilibrium, and reduces > the effects of perturbations. Negative feedback loops in which just the > right amount of correction is applied with optimum timing can be very > stable, accurate, and responsive'. For *output*. > Although loyalty is commendable, trying to defend chrisv's lack of > understanding is not really helping him or anyone else. It is you who don't understand. There is more than one thing here to which the word "stability" replies: output versus circuit characteristics. Chrisv's mistake is in not clarifying, in his original statement, the element being characterized by the word "stability". Of course, you clowns glom onto anything and build it up into some kind of defamation, so I am just pissing into the wind here. -- "Good afternoon, madam. How may I help you?" "Good afternoon. I'd like a FrintArms HandCannon, please." "A--? Oh, now, that's an awfully big gun for such a lovely lady. I mean, not everybody thinks ladies should carry guns at all, though I say they have a right to. But I think... I might... Let's have a look down here. I might have just the thing for you. Yes, here we are! Look at that, isn't it neat? Now that is a FrintArms product as well, but it's what's called a laser -- a light-pistol some people call them. Very small, as you see; fits easily into a pocket or bag; won't spoil the line of a jacket; and you won't feel you're lugging half a tonne of iron around with you. We do a range of matching accessories, including -- if I may say so -- a rather saucy garter holster. Wish I got to do the fitting for that! Ha -- just my little joke. And there's *even*... here we are -- this special presentation pack: gun, charged battery, charging unit, beautiful glider-hide shoulder holster with adjustable fitting and contrast stitching, and a discount on your next battery. Full instructions, of course, and a voucher for free lessons at your local gun club or range. Or there's the *special* presentation pack; it has all the other one's got but with *two* charged batteries and a night-sight, too. Here, feel that -- don't worry, it's a dummy battery -- isn't it neat? Feel how light it is? Smooth, see? No bits to stick out and catch on your clothes, *and* beautifully balanced. And of course the beauty of a laser is, there's no recoil. Because it's shooting light, you see? Beautiful gun, beautiful gun; my wife has one. Really. That's not a line, she really has. Now, I can do you that one -- with a battery and a free charge -- for ninety-five; or the presentation pack on a special offer for one-nineteen; or this, the special presentation pack, for one-forty-nine." "I'll take the special." "Sound choice, madam, *sound* choice. Now, do--?" "And a HandCannon, with the eighty-mill silencer, five GP clips, three six-five AP/wire-fl'echettes clips, two bipropellant HE clips, and a Special Projectile Pack if you have one -- the one with the embedding rounds, not the signalers. I assume the night-sight on this toy is compatible?" "Aah... yes, And how does madam wish to pay?" She slapped her credit card on the counter. "Eventually." -- Iain M. Banks, "Against a Dark Background"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597229a0-b73b-4804-abab-d1e8c4761003@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350820 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 12:39:42 PM UTC, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:03:01 AM UTC, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> > >> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:00:36 PM UTC, -hh wrote: > >> >> On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 2:00:38 PM UTC-4, chrisv wrote: > >> >> > vallor wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > >"Hugh"'s reputation, for example, is that he is an apologist for > >> >> > >extremely nasty trolls, making all sorts of machinations to try to twist > >> >> > >what they do into something worthy of even being read. We're talking > >> >> > >libel and defamation, not just insults. > >> >> > > >> >> > I recall when that fscking asshole "-hh" joined with "GreyCloud", to > >> >> > attack me. I had posted links to photos of some things that I owned, > >> >> > and "GreyCloud" came right-out and called me a liar - claiming that > >> >> > the items in question belonged to someone else. > >> >> > >> >> Did he really? Cite please. > >> >> > >> >> Oh, and for my part, I merely pointed out that you failed miserably > >> >> in actually substantiating your claim of having a BSEE, particularly > >> >> since instead of posting a photo of your diploma, you instead used > >> >> a couple of pics of first and second year undergraduate textbooks. > >> > > >> > Chrisv claimed that negative feedback is not used to stabilise an > >> > amplifier circuit. That alone proves he doesn't have a BSEE. > >> > >> Nope. Negative feedback is not used to stabilise an amplifier circuit... > >> it is used to stabilize the *output* of an amplifier circuit. > > > > Sheer sophistry. The output is part of the circuit from the perspective of amplifier design, an obvious example being the importance of impedance matching with valve amplification. > > > >> Negative > >> feedback can actually cause the circuit to *produce* oscillations, unless > >> damping or timing adjustments are introduced to the circuit. > > > > That might be so but it does not change the fact that it is wrong to say that negative feedback is not used to stabilise a circuit. > > You don't even comprehend what you read. I comprehend perfectly and your only 'defence' now is to lie about what has transpired. > >> Google it up. No, LMGTFY. > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback > >> > >> Though negative feedback has many advantages, amplifiers with feedback > >> can oscillate. See the article on step response. They may even exhibit > >> instability. Harry Nyquist of Bell Laboratories proposed the Nyquist > >> stability criterion and the Nyquist plot that identify stable feedback > >> systems, including amplifiers and control systems. > > > > No one said that negative feedback guarantees stability. The point > > refuted is that negative feedback is not used to improve stability - a > > position that is untenable. > > > > From the same article: '[N]egative feedback generally promotes stability. > > Negative feedback tends to promote a settling to equilibrium, and reduces > > the effects of perturbations. Negative feedback loops in which just the > > right amount of correction is applied with optimum timing can be very > > stable, accurate, and responsive'. > > For *output*. Not just for output. Negative feedback can stabilise a circuit as well but since you know nothing about amplifier design, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend. > > Although loyalty is commendable, trying to defend chrisv's lack of > > understanding is not really helping him or anyone else. > > It is you who don't understand. There is more than one thing here to which > the word "stability" replies: output versus circuit characteristics. > > Chrisv's mistake is in not clarifying, in his original statement, the > element being characterized by the word "stability". Unfortunately for you and chrisv, negative feedback helps to stabilise circuits as well. > Of course, you clowns glom onto anything and build it up into some kind of > defamation, so I am just pissing into the wind here. You're the one engaging in defamation. When it comes to how negative feedback can stabilise circuits, I can certainly agree that you're pissing in the wind trying to buddy up with chrisv.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 10:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf5dtj$dno$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350830 |
Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > I comprehend perfectly and your only 'defence' now is to lie about what has transpired. Bye bye, sucker. -- When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes. -- Dylan Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 07:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4a33372-a4ea-43cc-bad1-575bc00db7b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350841 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 2:08:00 PM UTC, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > > I comprehend perfectly and your only 'defence' now is to lie about what has transpired. > > Bye bye, sucker. You were proved wrong, now you're hiding behind your killfile. I find it extremely dishonest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Henry" <henry@alpha.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6403c9637b3ffeb366507c9a836cb164@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #350820 |
Chris Ahlstrom said: >> From the same article: '[N]egative feedback generally promotes stability. >> Negative feedback tends to promote a settling to equilibrium, and reduces >> the effects of perturbations. Negative feedback loops in which just the >> right amount of correction is applied with optimum timing can be very >> stable, accurate, and responsive'. > > For *output*. > So your best defense is to claim that the *output* of the circuit is not part of the circuit? That doesn't make sense. You do realize that there are typically several stages of a circuit with intermediate stages having their own outputs (eg - multistage amplifier). So which specific output don't you think is part of the circuit? > Chrisv's mistake is... His mistake is doubling down on his original mistake instead of owning up to it. - H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 04:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f33876c-56b1-46da-8f8d-c163e3cd1c2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350804 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > ... > > Chrisv claimed that negative feedback is not used to stabilise an > > amplifier circuit. That alone proves he doesn't have a BSEE. > > Nope. Negative feedback is not used to stabilise an amplifier circuit... > it is used to stabilize the *output* of an amplifier circuit. "X is not used to modify Y ... X is used within Y" Nice back-bend to try to split hairs, Ahlstrom. > Negative feedback can actually cause the circuit to *produce* oscillations, > unless damping or timing adjustments are introduced to the circuit. That's merely a qualifier. Your whole defense has been farcical from the start, as you've both been trying to rationalize ignoring a design's **first order effect** by trying to point out that there's a **second order effect**. But no one ever claimed that said second order effects don't exist. > Google it up. No, LMGTFY. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback "Though negative feedback has many advantages, ..." Try reading the top of the page first, for the more primary points are mentioned first: "Whereas positive feedback tends to lead to instability via exponential growth, oscillation or chaotic behavior, negative feedback generally promotes stability." And the section you cited from started with the note: "Main article: Negative feedback amplifier" Which is URL: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback_amplifier> Perhaps this is really a better URL you should have used. Looking at that pages Overview: "Fundamentally, all electronic devices that once provided power gain (e.g., vacuum tubes, bipolar transistors, MOS transistors) are nonlinear. Negative feedback trades gain for higher linearity (reducing distortion), and can provide other benefits." There's that pesky old primary purpose listed first again. And sure, it also mentions some second order effects to watch out for: "If not designed correctly, amplifiers with negative feedback can become unstable, resulting in unwanted behavior such as oscillation." But the cart *still* doesn't go in front of the horse. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 04:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79ce4edd-b6d0-4ca9-a1d7-2bdf53723a94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350808 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 11:10:37 AM UTC, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > > Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > > ... > > > Chrisv claimed that negative feedback is not used to stabilise an > > > amplifier circuit. That alone proves he doesn't have a BSEE. > > > > Nope. Negative feedback is not used to stabilise an amplifier circuit... > > it is used to stabilize the *output* of an amplifier circuit. > > "X is not used to modify Y ... X is used within Y" > > Nice back-bend to try to split hairs, Ahlstrom. If the output is not part of a circuit, I would be interested to know Chris's explanation for how impedance mismatch between speaker load and output can cause flyback potential that causes the output transformer and/or the valve sockets to arc or how impedance mismatch can reduce the lifespan of a thermionic valve.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 08:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf58rc$p2o$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350811 |
Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 11:10:37 AM UTC, -hh wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> > Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> > > ... >> > > Chrisv claimed that negative feedback is not used to stabilise an >> > > amplifier circuit. That alone proves he doesn't have a BSEE. >> > >> > Nope. Negative feedback is not used to stabilise an amplifier circuit... >> > it is used to stabilize the *output* of an amplifier circuit. >> >> "X is not used to modify Y ... X is used within Y" >> >> Nice back-bend to try to split hairs, Ahlstrom. Trying to define a technical precisely is splitting hairs? Only in the world of -highhorse. > If the output is not part of a circuit, I would be interested to know > Chris's explanation for how impedance mismatch between speaker load and > output can cause flyback potential that causes the output transformer > and/or the valve sockets to arc or how impedance mismatch can reduce the > lifespan of a thermionic valve. LOL -- Q: What's the difference between a Mac and an Etch-a-Sketch? A: You don't have to shake the Mac to clear the screen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28facbea-2f32-426a-8b10-8b37b462d616@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350821 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 12:41:28 PM UTC, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Incubus wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > If the output is not part of a circuit, I would be interested to know > > Chris's explanation for how impedance mismatch between speaker load and > > output can cause flyback potential that causes the output transformer > > and/or the valve sockets to arc or how impedance mismatch can reduce the > > lifespan of a thermionic valve. > > LOL There you have it - a valid, real world example of how negative feedback can stabilise a circuit and Ahlstrom runs away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <e9bchb9kq541usgvui0od6gheider6jnm3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #350804 |
>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote: >>> >>> Oh, and for my part, I merely pointed out that you failed miserably >>> in actually substantiating your claim of having a BSEE, What a lying asshole, like you, points-out is usually wrong. Any *objective* observer would think that I put-up a pretty robust argument, and posted copious amounts of evidence (Web links, school books, diploma), for a someone that is (according to shitty trolls) a "clueless bullshitter". >>> particularly >>> since instead of posting a photo of your diploma, you instead used >>> a couple of pics of first and second year undergraduate textbooks. You are a bald-faced liar, "-hh". I also posted a photo of my diploma. This was the item that "GreyCloud" challenged me to post, after accusing me of lying about my books. When I predicted that he would also deny that the diploma was mine, you attacked me. FFS, what choice did he have? What choice do any of you trolls have? You *must* deny that the diploma is mine, or your entire fantasy world of me being a "clueless liar" comes crashing down! If I am completely in the right, about all of this, what does it say about you (*and "GleyCloud" and "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" and "Cola Zealot"), "-hh"? Does it say that you are shit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7dgchb1hd3udmvv3nvf6cv381j2c72gk6l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #350839 |
>>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote: >>>> >>>> a couple of pics of first and second year undergraduate textbooks. I just noticed the above untruth. The *truth* is that I posted the collection of all of the technical books that I used during the entire duration of my education in Electrical Engineering, which culminated in me graduating with a Bachelor's degree, magna cum laude. There are also a couple (the Grob and the Malvino) of older "technician" level books that I had. >You are a bald-faced liar, "-hh". -- "The negative feedback kept the circuit stable." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", putting his ignorance on display
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <puydnfIpJsWQxIvKnZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #350844 |
On 2016-04-19, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > The *truth* is that I posted the collection of all of the technical > books that I used during the entire duration of my education in > Electrical Engineering, which culminated in me graduating with a > Bachelor's degree, magna cum laude. Congratulations. That's quite an accomplishment. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98b08b5b-9ca3-4bac-808c-0f2e4fea9fef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350854 |
Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-04-19, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > The *truth* is that I posted the collection of all of the technical > > books that I used during the entire duration of my education in > > Electrical Engineering, which culminated in me graduating with a > > Bachelor's degree, magna cum laude. > > Congratulations. That's quite an accomplishment. It might be, if it was true. FYI, he never showed his actual diploma (recused or not). And since the claim above is now claiming to have been a pile of **ALL** of his textbooks for what's known to be a four year degree, request that he repost it .. the original link is dead, and my recollection is that it wasn't more than perhaps but a dozen books. Needless to say, one doesn't graduate with an Engineering degree from an accredited institution without at least a ~half dozen new textbooks per year. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c0tchb1520skrh9oupba7g0teub99q9bli@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #350854 |
Marek Novotny wrote: > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> The *truth* is that I posted the collection of all of the technical >> books that I used during the entire duration of my education in >> Electrical Engineering, which culminated in me graduating with a >> Bachelor's degree, magna cum laude. > > Congratulations. That's quite an accomplishment. Thank you. I am very proud of two things: my daughter, and my BSEE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 08:55 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <nf7qh9$678$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350874 |
On 04/19/2016 03:10 PM, chrisv wrote: > Marek Novotny wrote: > >> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> The *truth* is that I posted the collection of all of the technical >>> books that I used during the entire duration of my education in >>> Electrical Engineering, which culminated in me graduating with a >>> Bachelor's degree, magna cum laude. >> >> Congratulations. That's quite an accomplishment. > > Thank you. I am very proud of two things: my daughter, and my BSEE. > It is a known fact that -hh has a habit of amplifying his negative feedback. He will throw out unsubstantiated, non-germane, non-verifiable arguments to puff himself up. If nothing works he will cry “ad hominem attack”. Once in a while he will post a photo of himself standing next to his neighbors expensive sports car. Small minds in a big way will deny others their accomplishments. The reasons are obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2aac99a-7cd8-46b0-aaf5-4ff723697453@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350954 |
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 7:55:35 AM UTC-4, sbd wrote: > [...] > > It is a known fact ... Unsubstantiated claims; cites please. > Small minds in a big way will deny others their accomplishments. > The reasons are obvious. Hey DFS ... here's another one self-identifying his pwnage. You probably remember the 2014 beatdown over his "70,000x better!". -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 08:29 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <nfadc6$s05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #351015 |
On 04/20/2016 02:01 PM, -hh wrote: > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 7:55:35 AM UTC-4, sbd wrote: >> [...] >> >> It is a known fact ... > > Unsubstantiated claims; cites please. > > >> Small minds in a big way will deny others their accomplishments. >> The reasons are obvious. > > Hey DFS ... here's another one self-identifying his pwnage. > You probably remember the 2014 beatdown over his "70,000x better!". > > > -hh > Eliciting DFFFFS's help hey? What, are you a man or a pansy boy wearing a frock? I think the latter! That is pure ad hominem for you! You might think the “2014-70,000x” tangle as a beatdown, a wishful mistaken perception on your part. In reality, you were dragged deep into uncharted waters over a period of a month and drowned there unceremoniously. The near death experience must have been really traumatic for you. No wonder you are crying out for DFFFFS to come to your aid!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 06:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njfhhb11la40fbjrpf0naree9gbk17id9k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #351123 |
sbd wrote: > No wonder you are crying out for DFFFFS to come to your aid! The filthy, lying bastards need to support each other... -- 'What -hh said about Photoshop - expensive, waste, Gimp does the same for free - is exactly the written position of most if not all "advocates" on cola.' - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjd03r.abb@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351130 |
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > sbd wrote: > >> No wonder you are crying out for DFFFFS to come to your aid! > > The filthy, lying bastards need to support each other... > Has there ever been a chrisv post without cuss words?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web