[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:40:23 -0800, John Larkin
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:19:57 -0500,
[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:50:49 -0800, John Larkin
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:35:43 -0800 (PST), George Herold
On Nov 28, 8:19 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:16:30 -0800 (PST), George Herold
On Nov 28, 4:23 pm, Spehro Pefhany <
[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:25:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<snip>
Oh and about the nice idea of recomputing my first R3 to make it all
come out right.
That's a great idea, unfortunately I was trying to do a bit much with
this section of circuit and the 10k resistor is actually a pot that
adjusts the amplitude.. so I'm a bit f'ed.
George H.
Probably easiest to just buffer with an op-amp follower after the
divider. Just one part to hack in.
Yeah, driving home I figure I'll turn the first opamp into a buffer,
and then change a few resistors in the next (2) stages.. a four pole
butterworth.
No one will care but me....
George H.
Or do it right, using a quad op-amp package... Sallen-Key sucks >:-}
What transfer function are you trying to realize?
...Jim Thompson
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Grin... too late for that.
And I hate opamp quad packs...
I can never get things nice and tight. :^)
George H.
There's seldom a reason to go beyond duals.
The design I'm working on uses sixteen quads per board. Thirty-two
duals wouldn't cut it. Getting the design tight is simply a matter of
a little work (and two sides). In fact, thirty-two duals would be
*far* worse. You can pack a lot of 0402s in a small space.
Two duals aren't much bigger than a quad, and routing can be easier
with duals.
I used to think that but have changed my mind after using quads with
0402 discrete's.
Wait until you graduate to a quad 16QFN and 0201
Then your techs need a sign above the lab benches "No sneezing within 10
feet".
[...]