Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #341629
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue |
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:22 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <n85ee7$b25$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <n7t9lo$nf8$1@dont-email.me> <n7tqgo$v0i$1@dont-email.me> <n7u722$jl1$1@dont-email.me> <v08cab147iqipacoer2dd9atclao2e2equ@4ax.com> <n859k6$n9d$1@dont-email.me> |
"DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in message news:n859k6$n9d$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/25/2016 8:19 AM, shit(I have a BSEE)v wrote:
>
>> I love it when they try to "ridicule" us by quoting us being
>> absolutely correct. They must hope to fool some stupid and ignorant
>> readers.
>
> Were you being "absolutely correct" when you said "Windows Vista needs 4G
> and 2 fast CPU's to run acceptably well."?
>
> huh, turd?
There are dozens of examples of turdv stupidity.
>
>> -- "The negative feedback kept the circuit stable." - trolling fsckwit
>> "Ezekiel", putting his ignorance on display
"I love it when they try to ridicule us by
quoting us being absolutely correct."
Yes, negative feedback does keep a circuit stable. This is simply a fact.
> Too bad your shit-for-brains got it all wrong - again. You need a refund
> from that "university" you claim you attended.
>
> The only source I've seen that supports your idiotic claim about NFB is...
> you.
>
Pay no attention to what is actually taught at the top colleges and
universities in the world. Turdv must believe that if he repeats his
ignorance enough times that it will magically become correct.
--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining
stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
"To make systems stable, we use Negative Feedback"
MIT - http://web.mit.edu/jamwno/Public/UAT/Jim_Feedback.ppt
"Since it’s hard to make the op-amp gain stable over all operating
conditions *negative feedback* is used to **stabilize** the op-amp"
MIT - http://www.mit.edu/~godoy/6098/study/review_all.pdf
"Negative feedback is a central concept in the design of linear amplifiers.
It enables them to be designed with predictable, precise and **stable**
performance."
Oxford University -
http://www-teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk/practical_course/ELManCh14.pdf
"Black used negative feedback, which reduces the gain but makes the
amplifier insensitive to variations in tube characteristics. This invention
made it possible to build *stable* amplifiers with linear
characteristics..."
Princeton University - http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9493.pdf
<quote>
(Caltech)
Negative Feedback
A major breakthrough was invention of the feedback amplifier in 1927 by
Harold S. Black. Black used negative feedback which reduces the gain but
makes the amplifier very insensitive to variations in tube characteristics.
This invention made it possible to build **stable amplifiers** with linear
characteristics.
Positive Feedback
In a system with positive feedback, the increase in some variable or signal
leads to a situation in which that quantify is further through its dynamics.
This has a **destabilizing** effect and is usually accompanied by a
saturation that limits the growth of the quantity.
</quote>
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/books/AM05/pdf/am06-complete_16Sep06.pdf
<quote>
If we introduce positive, or regenerative, feedback into an amplifier
circuit, it has the tendency of creating and sustaining oscillations.
Negative feedback, on the other hand, has a "dampening" effect on an
amplifier. While positive feedback drives an amplifier circuit toward a
point of instability (oscillations), negative feedback drives it the
opposite direction: toward a point of stability.
</quote>
http://openbookproject.net/electricCircuits/Semi/SEMI_4.html#xtocid209015
<quote>
OSCILLATORS
We have already talked about FEEDBACK in terms of NEGATIVE FEEDBACK to
stabilize a circuit. We will now cover a new term called POSITIVE FEEDBACK -
it changes the performance of circuit completely. It makes the circuit
OSCILLATE. Negative feedback "kills" a circuits performance - positive
feedback makes it oscillate.
</quote>
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 05:31 -0800
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-18 10:34 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-19 09:48 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-20 15:07 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-20 19:23 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 09:44 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 10:48 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 11:05 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 13:11 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 16:52 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 18:30 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-22 09:47 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 14:11 +0100
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 22:33 +0100
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:22 -0700
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:34 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 07:19 -0600
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 08:59 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:22 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-25 14:58 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:23 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-25 18:38 +0100
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 12:52 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:58 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 17:35 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 18:39 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:35 -0700
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 10:24 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-25 15:36 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 15:58 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 17:16 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 15:54 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-26 14:09 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 21:16 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-26 17:17 -0500
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:20 +0000
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:11 -0700
Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-27 21:26 +0000
csiph-web