DC Wave Questions

[John Fields]

Spelling flames, John, just *do* become you perfectly!

---
Flame or not, the fact remains that you posit yourself as an arbiter
of the proper use of the language and yet clumsily (and helplessly, it
seems) make errors which belie your claim. I like to point them out
because they're just another example of your hypocrisy and I wouldn't
want you to think that your bullshit went undetected.

 

[TokaMundo]

Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by
the DC component.

Ed

Yes, and there are even inductors that are specifically selected to
saturate and thereby change to a reduced inductance in operation.

Even without a DC offset.

A "hard start" choke in an oscillator circuit that begins at one
given inductance, yet has a very small core cross section will provide
the shift need to start the swing, then saturate quickly so as to not
steal power from the loop. Very important on low consumption
miniature power supplies, for example. The inductance keeps the supply
from having a hard start issue at power up, yet gets out of the way in
normal operation due to the ease at which its overtly small core
saturates, shifting its inductance down, which steals less energy from
the oscillator.

 

[TokaMundo]

Flame or not, the fact remains that you posit yourself as an arbiter
of the proper use of the language and yet clumsily (and helplessly, it
seems) make errors which belie your claim. I like to point them out
because they're just another example of your hypocrisy and I wouldn't
want you to think that your bullshit went undetected.


John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

I'd say very much so LESS than professional.

 

[John Fields]

I'd say very much so LESS than professional.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by
the DC component.

Ed

What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real
world (and one I had overlooked).

However, what you have actually said is not true.

An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not
saturate. Rather it will behave in accordance with the simple
mathematical model of inductance.

The real-world magnetic device chosen to play the role of an inductor
can saturate, and it's something we might need to think about. However
the propensity towards saturation would need to be specified by
additional parameters beyond a simple constant value of L. While we're
at it, we should put in parasitic resistance, temperature dependence,
possible effects of external fields, and probably some other things
that I'm not thinking about.

If asked to solve a problem with an inductance, you treat it as such.
If asked to solve a problem with an inductor, you have to consider the
broader properties of that device, of which inductance is only one, and
not necesssarily a constant one.

 

[TokaMundo]

I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but your commentary
is unimportant.

You shock no one. You are droll, at best.

Ha! You think your commentary is important? You don't even know how
to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly.

We can only hope that one day you receive a *real* "great shock",
you self important idiot.

 

[TokaMundo]

What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real
world (and one I had overlooked).

However, what you have actually said is not true.

There ARE such cases. In such cases, the L value will drop.

An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not
saturate. Rather it will behave in accordance with the simple
mathematical model of inductance.

Sure. If one states a fixed L for a calculation, then DC offsets
are ignored. Perhaps this is why high frequency inductors are hybrid
cores, as opposed to steel or iron as in a low frequency case.

The real-world magnetic device chosen to play the role of an inductor
can saturate, and it's something we might need to think about. However
the propensity towards saturation would need to be specified by
additional parameters beyond a simple constant value of L. While we're
at it, we should put in parasitic resistance, temperature dependence,
possible effects of external fields, and probably some other things
that I'm not thinking about.

If asked to solve a problem with an inductance, you treat it as such.
If asked to solve a problem with an inductor, you have to consider the
broader properties of that device, of which inductance is only one, and
not necesssarily a constant one.

I see what you are saying. You are declaring/regarding it as a mere
number that gets plugged into a formula. OK. In that case you are
correct... the value is immutable... however...

If one must regard the junction potential of a diode in making a
circuit calculation for a circuit which includes a diode, one must
also make calculations for the parasitic, etc. effects of other
components as well, when designing or discussing them.

The *ideal* circuit scenario is one for the classroom in which the
basic fundamentals are conveyed. After that, the instructor
immediately conveys the whys and wherefors of the REAL world
scenarios making a direct distinction between the two.

Out here, in the real world, one needs to consider real world
effects. I see from your explanation and distinction between the two
that you know this. So, for the real world...

DC offsets saturating an inductor is most certainly a needed
consideration, if the circuit so demands, just as knowing what the on
resistance of a transistor is, or the junction potential of a diode in
a circuit which contains such elements.

Out here... in the perimeter, there are no stars...

Out here... we is stoned... immaculate.

 

[John Fields]

You shock no one. You are droll, at best.

Ha! You think your commentary is important?

---
Perhaps not, but at least it's accurate.
---

You don't even know how
to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly.

---
Really? A clock _crystal_ usually carries the reference designator
"Y" followed by a numerical identifier. If you're referring to "U"1
on the schematic I recently posted to abse, it would have been
apparent to anyone who knows how to read a schematic that U1 is a
clock _oscillator_ carrying the common "U" (Unit) reference
designation. Not only was its output connected to the clock input of
a counter, (that should have been a clue, since a clock _crystal_
would have been surrounded by its supporting components) but its
operating frequency "32768Hz" was written on the schematic in a
location that could only have associated it with U1.

So what it basically boils down to is that _you_, dear boy, can't tell
the difference between a crystal and a clock oscillator.
---

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

You shock no one. You are droll, at best.

Ha! You think your commentary is important? You don't even know how
to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly.

We can only hope that one day you receive a *real* "great shock",
you self important idiot.

And you are too damn stupid to recognize the component as a
oscillator module. The "U" designator is used this way by a lot of
manufacturers since it is not a crystal, and at the design level it is
just another chip.

PLONK!

 

[TokaMundo]

So what it basically boils down to is that _you_, dear boy, can't tell
the difference between a crystal and a clock oscillator.

No. It "boils down" to the fact that YOU do not know how to
designate components on a schematic.

They ARE supposed to be easily interpreted, not your "I don't give a
crap, as long as my moniker is at the bottom of this page that I
earlier claimed was a mere repost of a "someone else's schematic"".

Do you always wear blinders?

 

[TokaMundo]

And you are too damn stupid to recognize the component as a
oscillator module. The "U" designator is used this way by a lot of
manufacturers since it is not a crystal, and at the design level it is
just another chip.

PLONK!

If the retarded twit can critique someone else's spelling, he can
handle being called on not designating the crystal (and yes it's a
crystal) correctly.

You retarded plonk boy. Wrangle that.

 

[Repeating Rifle]

I have peeked in upon this thread from time to time from ints inception. It
seems so out of the EE mainstream that it is breeding mosquitos.

Bill

 

[John Fields]

If the retarded twit can critique someone else's spelling, he can
handle being called on not designating the crystal (and yes it's a
crystal) correctly.

---
Oh, my, the little ****'s got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged
as too fucking stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and
now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of
pique!

No, you stupid twat, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal
_oscillator_.

If it was a crystal it would look something like this:


+--------------------
|
|
| OSC IN OSC OUT
+---+----------+-----
| |
+---[R1]---+
| |
| [R2]
| |
+---[Y1]---+
| |
[C1] [C2]
| |
GND GND

Where Y1 would be the crystal, as I explained in an earlier post.

But you don't want to hear about that, do you? No, you'd rather yell
and scream and stamp your little feet over nothing.

 

[John Fields]

No. It "boils down" to the fact that YOU do not know how to
designate components on a schematic.

They ARE supposed to be easily interpreted, not your "I don't give a
crap, as long as my moniker is at the bottom of this page that I
earlier claimed was a mere repost of a "someone else's schematic"".

Do you always wear blinders?

---
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one having problems figuring out the
difference between a crystal and a crystal oscillator, and _you_ seem
to be the one with a serious tunnel vision problem which excludes the
possibility of your being wrong.

Plus, you're just as full of shit about the "someone else's schematic"
as you are about all the rest of the crap you post.

You must be _really_ stupid if you think you're going to pull that one
off, but if you want to try, let's see the message ID of the post
you're referring to, OK?

 

[TokaMundo]

---
Oh, my, the little ****'s got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged
as too fucking stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and
now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of
pique!

No, you stupid twat, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal
_oscillator_.

Oh boy... now it appears we got a misogynist on our hands here.
You're an easy read, John boy.

If it was a crystal it would look something like this:


+--------------------
|
|
| OSC IN OSC OUT
+---+----------+-----
| |
+---[R1]---+
| |
| [R2]
| |
+---[Y1]---+
| |
[C1] [C2]
| |
GND GND

Where Y1 would be the crystal, as I explained in an earlier post.

Didn't need an explanation then... don't need one now.

You need to explain your bent mentality though.

But you don't want to hear about that, do you?

You are retarded, spell checker boy. You just can't take what you
dish out.

No, you'd rather yell
and scream and stamp your little feet over nothing.

Like you do over trivialities like spelling.

Grow the **** up, dipass.

Go seek psychiatric help for that misogyny thing.

Hope that word isn't to big for your lame ass.

 

[TokaMundo]

Plus, you're just as full of shit about the "someone else's schematic"
as you are about all the rest of the crap you post.

You must be _really_ stupid if you think you're going to pull that one
off, but if you want to try, let's see the message ID of the post
you're referring to, OK?

Your original post, dipshit. The title of the post. It says (from
sed for bounty hunter). Then, you again refer to the "OP" in another
post.

Make up your mind. Is it yours or someone else's.

 

[ehsjr]

What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real
world (and one I had overlooked).

However, what you have actually said is not true.

An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not
saturate.

You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the
way the *component* represented by C and the *component*
represented by L react. It is in your context that I used
the term L. Now, apparently, you have changed the context
to exclude consideration of the component (which will
sometimes lead to incorrect analysis) and to restrict the
term to have it refer to the property only. Therefore,
we did not refer to the same thing with the term L.

What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per
the definition for inductance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance
"1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive
force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux.
2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which
electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction."

If asked to solve a problem with an inductance, you treat it as such.
If asked to solve a problem with an inductor, you have to consider the
broader properties of that device, of which inductance is only one, and
not necesssarily a constant one.

I don't know where you came up with the above "rules" or whatever
you want to call them. If, in solving a problem with an inductance,
(specifically in this case, the effects of DC on an R,L,C load
impedance) no consideration is given to saturation, the solution
can be erroneous. Very specifically for the op's question,
the possibility of saturation *must* be considered, even though
the question did not include the word inductor. I think those
rules, or whatever you call them, are not correct.

Ed

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

That's about the same as pointing out that some capacitors
are polarity sensitive, and will effectively be a short
if the polarity is wrong. It's true, but does not enter
into the problem at this point.

You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the

Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't.

To me it is obvious that by L and C, he meant the inductance and
the capacitance, not the specific inductor or capacitor.

If he'd have meant a specific device, he have had to specify a
few parameters as to just what kind of a device, no?

way the *component* represented by C and the *component*
represented by L react. It is in your context that I used
the term L. Now, apparently, you have changed the context
to exclude consideration of the component (which will
sometimes lead to incorrect analysis) and to restrict the
term to have it refer to the property only. Therefore,
we did not refer to the same thing with the term L.

Exactly, except I don't think he changed the context.

What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per
the definition for inductance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance
"1. The property of an electric circuit by which an
electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing
magnetic flux.
2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which
electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction."

A circuit element, not a component device.

I don't know where you came up with the above "rules" or whatever
you want to call them. If, in solving a problem with an inductance,
(specifically in this case, the effects of DC on an R,L,C load
impedance) no consideration is given to saturation, the solution
can be erroneous.

But saturation has nothing to do with the inductance. After the
right inductance is calculated, then a specific device has to be
chosen, and *that* is when saturation has to be considered. So
do physical size, mounting style, insulation, and perhaps other
parameters too, none of which are related to the original
"inductance" problem.

Very specifically for the op's question,
the possibility of saturation *must* be considered, even though
the question did not include the word inductor. I think those
rules, or whatever you call them, are not correct.

Could be! I don't remember the OP's question...

 

[John Fields]

Oh boy... now it appears we got a misogynist on our hands here.
You're an easy read, John boy.

---
I endeavor to keep it simple for your sake.
---

If it was a crystal it would look something like this:


+--------------------
|
|
| OSC IN OSC OUT
+---+----------+-----
| |
+---[R1]---+
| |
| [R2]
| |
+---[Y1]---+
| |
[C1] [C2]
| |
GND GND

Where Y1 would be the crystal, as I explained in an earlier post.

Didn't need an explanation then... don't need one now.

---
Now that you've been shown the magic trick you claim you knew it all
along? Typical of the likes of you.
---

You need to explain your bent mentality though.

---
You mean likening you to a thoroughly disgusting, spoiled, female
brat? No explanation is necessary, it's all self-evident. All I did
was draw the parallel, _you_ supply the evidence.
---

You are retarded, spell checker boy. You just can't take what you
dish out.

---
I can't take what I dish out?

LOL, you fucking idiot, what you're fumbling around trying to come up
with is: "You can dish it out but you can't take it." but, of course,
with your substandard command of the language you blurt out gibberish.
---

Like you do over trivialities like spelling.

---
If it's trivial, then even you should have no problem with it.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.
---

Grow the **** up, dipass.

---
Blow me.
---

Go seek psychiatric help for that misogyny thing.

Hope that word isn't to big for your lame ass.

^^
too

 

[John Fields]

Your original post, dipshit. The title of the post. It says (from
sed for bounty hunter). Then, you again refer to the "OP" in another
post.

---
Had you bothered to get off of your fat, lazy ass and checked the
origin of the thread you might have discovered that it started on sed
where the OP asked for a five minute timer.

Since sed is a text-only newsgroup I advised the OP that I'd have a
solution for him which I'd post to abse, (where binaries are allowed
to be posted) then when I posted, I used the same subject as in sed in
order to keep some continuity, but indicated that the _thread_ came
from sed. Not the _post_, pinhead, the thread. The clue should have
been that since the post had a binary attached to it, it _couldn't_
have come from sed
---