Maker Pro
Maker Pro

a question about resistors in an arc experiment

J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
There are certain words, and actions, that society decides are
inappropriate in some situations. Like saying "bloody" in England,
talking on a cell phone at dinner, wearing yellow to a wedding in
Bangladesh (I made that one up, but you get the idea.) These are
voluntary rules, namely manners.

Following these rules is a symbol of respect, politeness,
civilization. I think we should have such rules, even when they have
no practical sense at all, so that we actually *have* ways to signal
mutual respect.

No sale. Nonsense rules do not show respect, they show disrespect.
However, while a culture still understands the situation which led to
a ritual, it has value as a reminder of group will to survive, and a
particular method once used survive perceived tough times. Once that
connection is lost, the value of the ritual is lost.
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
You used words intended to malign me, rather than sticking to the point
at issue. I can't say I care - I've been around Usenet long enough.

That's *exactly* the point. You won't stick to it, rather continue to
argue an indefensible position.
But be honest with yourself. When you're insulting someone (or at least
trying to), recognise that you're doing it.

You flatter yourself. You aren't important enough.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Muzak is uniformly irritating and banal, Phil is frequently amusing
and never banal.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

While i find muzak rarely irritating it is consistently banal,
likewise i find Phil rarely entertaining and consistently anal.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think I can add to the confusion:

We are thinking "number line like this:

-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..... really big, infinite, -really big ...

There are two ways to get to a negative number. One takes you past
the "infinite" value. In truth though. we have a 2D world we can
avoid hitting the singular value by going a little reactive.


.................................
.................----------......
..-...0...-------....*.....------
...-------.......................
.................................

As often happens in math, the pole is the center pole of a spiral
staircase. You have to go around the pole twice to get back where you
started.
For projective infinity kind of, for affine infinity no.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Jan 19, 6:37 pm, John Larkin
[....]
I still can't get my head around the fundamental reason why there's
only one kind of positive resistor but two kinds of negative resistor.
I think I can add to the confusion:
We are thinking "number line like this:
-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..... really big, infinite, -really big ...
There are two ways to get to a negative number.  One takes you past
the "infinite" value.  In truth though. we have a 2D world we can
avoid hitting the singular value by going a little reactive.

As often happens in math, the pole is the center pole of a spiral
staircase.  You have to go around the pole twice to get back where you
started.

Don't you remember how much grief certain parties gave me for using
the term "infinite"?

(I don't know why I call them parties, when they never seem to have
any fun.)

Some people are concerned on theological grounds any time the subject
goes to that of the infinite. They have near fits when you start
comparing the sizes of infinities and their heads explode if the
question of whether there is an infinite number of infinitudes. In
this case we merely have a 1/0 sort of infinity or a simple pole.
This is not to suggest that all poles are simple. I work with one who
does quantum physics, but that is way off the topic of this question.

I hope this helps. :>
What is the difference in size is the set of irrational numbers versus
the set of rational numbers? Explain your answer.
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
Has anybody ever made an opamp with a -3 dB/octave rolloff?

I can't think of any but it seems reasonable that somebody must have
at least made one with less than 90 degrees of lag. 5 degrees of
phase margin would be "doesn't oscillate" but 45 degrees would be much
nicer.
That could
be handy.

It would also be nice to have some that are designed to work into
inductive loads. A rail to rail power opamp would also be nice.
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
37 pm, John Larkin
[....]
I still can't get my head around the fundamental reason why there's
only one kind of positive resistor but two kinds of negative resistor.
I think I can add to the confusion:
We are thinking "number line like this:
-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..... really big, infinite, -really big ...
There are two ways to get to a negative number.  One takes you past
the "infinite" value.  In truth though. we have a 2D world we can
avoid hitting the singular value by going a little reactive.
.................................
.................----------......
..-...0...-------....*.....------
...-------.......................
.................................
As often happens in math, the pole is the center pole of a spiral
staircase.  You have to go around the pole twice to get back where you
started.
Don't you remember how much grief certain parties gave me for using
the term "infinite"?
(I don't know why I call them parties, when they never seem to have
any fun.)
Some people are concerned on theological grounds any time the subject
goes to that of the infinite.  They have near fits when you start
comparing the sizes of infinities and their heads explode if the
question of whether there is an infinite number of infinitudes. In
this case we merely have a 1/0 sort of infinity or a simple pole.
This is not to suggest that all poles are simple.  I work with one who
does quantum physics, but that is way off the topic of this question.
I hope this helps.  :>

What is the difference in size is the set of irrational numbers versus
the set of rational numbers?  Explain your answer.


The rational numbers can be put onto a list that just runs down the
page. Therefor they are only one dimensionally infinite. The
irrationals require at least two dimensions of infinite listing.

For any who don't get what we are joking about here:

Take any rational number in the form of:

ABCD..../UVWX....

Prepend on either number enough zeros to pad the number of digits to
be equal.

Prepend a "1" on each number.

Interleave the digits of this number like this:

AUBVCW....

You now have an integer value that will be different for every
rational you started with.

This integer is the index for where to write down this rational number
on the list.

Because of the prepending of "1", we know that the first two digits of
this index will always be "11". This means that we will have room
left over for 98 times as many more numbers.


****************************

Assume that you have a list of the irrationals.

Assume that they are padded on the right with many zeros below the
decimal or consider white spaces as zeros.

From the first number, take the first digit to the right of the
decimal. From the second take the second. Continue down the list
creating a string of digits.

For each of these selected digits add one with no carry. 0 becomes 1,
1 becomes 2 .... 9 becomes 0

Place a decimal point in front of this string of digits.

You now have a number between 0 and 1 that differs from the first in
the first digit and differs from the second on the second digit and so
on. Therefor this number must not be on our proposed list. This
proves that in a list that is infinite in only one direction the
irrationals can't be listed.

It is left to the reader to prove whether or not there exists a rule
that would allow all the irrationals to be placed in two dimensions.
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Jan 19, 6:37 pm, John Larkin
[....]
I still can't get my head around the fundamental reason why there's
only one kind of positive resistor but two kinds of negative resistor.
I think I can add to the confusion:
We are thinking "number line like this:
-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..... really big, infinite, -really big ...
There are two ways to get to a negative number.  One takes you past
the "infinite" value.  In truth though. we have a 2D world we can
avoid hitting the singular value by going a little reactive.

As often happens in math, the pole is the center pole of a spiral
staircase.  You have to go around the pole twice to get back where you
started.

For projective infinity kind of, for affine infinity no.

Since we are adding to the confusion:

As we consider the impedance values, we are not considering how they
depend on frequency. We can have frequency dependent resistances and
positive and negative reactive values that depend in various ways on
the frequency. This makes it at least a 3 dimensional space.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Read Judith Martin, Miss Manners. And try not to scratch your privates too
much the next time you meet with customers.

There's a difference between a corporate staff meeting and a comedy
club.

Hope This Helps!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why are you guys so threatened by women? Even more, why are you so
threatened by men who *aren't* afraid of women?

Just in case you have an impaired sense of sarcasm, I was correcting
JF's spelling.

Hope This Helps!
Rich
 
I went to a frat party where one guy had been ribbed by his mates as
being p-whipped. He wore a t-shirt that had PW in big letters on the
front. His girlfriend's shirt had a big P.

That's sort of how I feel about things.

John


We know. It shows... And the funny part is that you are not qualified
to determine which or either when it relates to someone other than you
and yours.

None of us are in your frat. Frat is whack here in Usenet.
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
I didn't mean an amp that crosses unity gain at -3 dB slope, I want
one that's -3 all the way down. Obviously, with that shallow a slope,
and reasonable limits on the first break, its DC gain would suck.

I knew what you meant. The gain at DC need not suck at all. You
could implement one with an externally compensated op-amp. The
capacitor for the lowest pole would have to be largish but these days
even 1F capacitors can be bought so it would be possible to put the
lowest pole down in the mHz range. You'd need about two components
per decade so from 1mHz to 10MHz would require some 14 or so parts.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
My paragraph restored.
Read Judith Martin, Miss Manners. And try not to scratch your privates
too much the next time you meet with customers.

John

I have, and i stand by my position. I have even written to such
columns to express it.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
There's a difference between a corporate staff meeting and a comedy
club.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Get your program here! You can't tell the players without your
program!
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Jan 19, 8:44 pm, John Larkin
On Jan 19, 6:37 pm, John Larkin
[....]
I still can't get my head around the fundamental reason why there's
only one kind of positive resistor but two kinds of negative resistor.
I think I can add to the confusion:
We are thinking "number line like this:
-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..... really big, infinite, -really big ...
There are two ways to get to a negative number.  One takes you past
the "infinite" value.  In truth though. we have a 2D world we can
avoid hitting the singular value by going a little reactive.

As often happens in math, the pole is the center pole of a spiral
staircase.  You have to go around the pole twice to get back where you
started.
Don't you remember how much grief certain parties gave me for using
the term "infinite"?
(I don't know why I call them parties, when they never seem to have
any fun.)
Some people are concerned on theological grounds any time the subject
goes to that of the infinite.  They have near fits when you start
comparing the sizes of infinities and their heads explode if the
question of whether there is an infinite number of infinitudes. In
this case we merely have a 1/0 sort of infinity or a simple pole.
This is not to suggest that all poles are simple.  I work with one who
does quantum physics, but that is way off the topic of this question.
I hope this helps.  :>

What is the difference in size is the set of irrational numbers versus
the set of rational numbers?  Explain your answer.


The rational numbers can be put onto a list that just runs down the
page. Therefor they are only one dimensionally infinite. The
irrationals require at least two dimensions of infinite listing.

For any who don't get what we are joking about here:

Take any rational number in the form of:

ABCD..../UVWX....

Prepend on either number enough zeros to pad the number of digits to
be equal.

Prepend a "1" on each number.

Interleave the digits of this number like this:

AUBVCW....

You now have an integer value that will be different for every
rational you started with.

This integer is the index for where to write down this rational number
on the list.

Because of the prepending of "1", we know that the first two digits of
this index will always be "11". This means that we will have room
left over for 98 times as many more numbers.

Almost holds water. But non sequitur.
****************************

Assume that you have a list of the irrationals.

Assume that they are padded on the right with many zeros below the
decimal or consider white spaces as zeros.

From the first number, take the first digit to the right of the
decimal. From the second take the second. Continue down the list
creating a string of digits.

For each of these selected digits add one with no carry. 0 becomes 1,
1 becomes 2 .... 9 becomes 0

Place a decimal point in front of this string of digits.

You now have a number between 0 and 1 that differs from the first in
the first digit and differs from the second on the second digit and so
on. Therefor this number must not be on our proposed list. This
proves that in a list that is infinite in only one direction the
irrationals can't be listed.

It is left to the reader to prove whether or not there exists a rule
that would allow all the irrationals to be placed in two dimensions.
I cannot follow this one, it does not make sense to me. Non sequitur.
Claim not substantiated yet.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why are you guys so threatened by women? Even more, why are you so
threatened by men who *aren't* afraid of women?

Women are great. I like them. The only thing men are good for is
designing electronics with.

John

I have met women that do great circuit design as well. I fact 2 of
the top 5 i have known.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Jan 19, 6:37 pm, John Larkin
[....]
I still can't get my head around the fundamental reason why there's
only one kind of positive resistor but two kinds of negative resistor.
I think I can add to the confusion:
We are thinking "number line like this:
-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..... really big, infinite, -really big ...
There are two ways to get to a negative number.  One takes you past
the "infinite" value.  In truth though. we have a 2D world we can
avoid hitting the singular value by going a little reactive.

As often happens in math, the pole is the center pole of a spiral
staircase.  You have to go around the pole twice to get back where you
started.

For projective infinity kind of, for affine infinity no.

Since we are adding to the confusion:

As we consider the impedance values, we are not considering how they
depend on frequency. We can have frequency dependent resistances and
positive and negative reactive values that depend in various ways on
the frequency. This makes it at least a 3 dimensional space.

Now you are making progress. And that 3rd dimension is non-linear and
twisted, it goes through a transition between 300 MHz and 3 GHz where
lumped constants give way to transmission line techniques.
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
37 pm, John Larkin
[....]
I still can't get my head around the fundamental reason why there's
only one kind of positive resistor but two kinds of negative resistor.
I think I can add to the confusion:
We are thinking "number line like this:
-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ..... really big, infinite, -really big ...
There are two ways to get to a negative number.  One takes you past
the "infinite" value.  In truth though. we have a 2D world we can
avoid hitting the singular value by going a little reactive.
.................................
.................----------......
..-...0...-------....*.....------
...-------.......................
.................................
As often happens in math, the pole is the center pole of a spiral
staircase.  You have to go around the pole twice to get back where you
started.
For projective infinity kind of, for affine infinity no.
Since we are adding to the confusion:
As we consider the impedance values, we are not considering how they
depend on frequency.  We can have frequency dependent resistances and
positive and negative reactive values that depend in various ways on
the frequency.  This makes it at least a 3 dimensional space.

Now you are making progress.  And that 3rd dimension is non-linear and
twisted, it goes through a transition between 300 MHz and 3 GHz where
lumped constants give way to transmission line techniques.

I don't see that as a real transition in the extra dimension. That is
an artifact created by the mechanical sizes we can do. Real
transitions would be the places where the wavelength passes some size
determined by physics.

BTW: We have 60Hz transmission lines near my house so the 300MHz
lower edge on you 300MHz and 3GHz is a little high.

Some time back there was a great article in EDN using a current source
to control the time of a one shot. I am fairly certain it was April's
issue. They had a way that the value of a resistor controlled the
time after you pressed a button that the heater turned off. By making
the resistance negative, they made this time negative so that the
heater turned off 20 seconds before you pressed the button.
 
Top