Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #240653

Re: The low road versus the high road

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web