amplify 40kHz audio signal using TL082: first two stages are

[Larry Brasfield]

The DERF transform, applied here, is described earlier in this thread.

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:423C5834.2080503@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:

Asked and answered. You may like repeating
yourself, but I find it too boring for words.

Nah- you didn't answer anything, [DERF]

Nor did you answer, except with garbage.

you haven't been able to answer a single OP.

If you were as skilled at argument as you are
at unsubstatiated and baseless assertion, you
would be a force to be reckoned with.

Your explanation is unacceptable

Ok by me. Was there anything in particular, in the
way of technical ideas or facts, that you found
yourself unable to digest? (I imagine so! <g&gt

[DERF]

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
message news:KB6_d.11260$C47.271@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Hello Larry,
Hi, Joerg.
... Now, with much smaller devices available within
the internal circuitry of IC's, they can deliver
speed versus power that is challenging (to say
the least) to achieve with discrete circuits, even
when fly-turd passives and SOT-23's are used.

So far I haven't seen that advantage that much. Very fast chips are usually very expensive, meaning they are out of budget for
many projects.

I think the cost of those parts will come down as
newer (and faster) fab lines come online and the
ones currently dedicated to higher margin parts
become available for "cheap" stuff.

On the discrete front there are lots of blazingly fast SiGe transistors. Even some really old regular ones can still run circles
around chips. An example is ye olde RF work horse, the BFS17A. It can ramp several milliamps in under a nanosecond.

For RF, the pad and trace capacitance can usually
be dealt with by incorporating it into the transmission
lines used as a matter of course. In that environment,
power is mainly a function of signal level. The power
I alluded to above is the power necessary to make
circuits work when the capacitance must be driven
at a higher impedance, typically much higher.

But there is often a case for chips. I must admit that I have used the uA733 a lot in the old days. That was because volumes of it
were built into VCRs so it became a cheap device. Whenever I use an IC I try my utmost to avoid a single sourced part. This is
because I have seen too many people including clients get zinged by that. Heck, I even flung a SMPS design to semi-discrete once
and even after a decade in production no PWM chip has come close in cost.

Designing for volume over years is a special challenge,
one which often precludes using the niftiest new parts.

In ultrasound apps I'd say that all but two of my front-end designs were discrete. The two that weren't used the AD603 which is a
marvelous chip but at around $5 it is too expensive for some designs.

I put a discrete amplifier in front of a predecessor
to the AD603. It added cost, but got the noise
down enough that management agreed with its use
in a moderately high volume circuit. Later, I found
out that a system level foulup had discarded about
6 dB of SNR after all my effort to glean a several
dB SNR improvement over what the IC could do.
(I won't go in the bureaucratic snafu behind that!)

Regards, Joerg

Likewise, and thanks.
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

Amazingly, all 4 of the DERF criteria applied to that elision.

Oh the "elision" is it? Well- hoot-tee-doo, the little effete,
pseudo-sophisticated, narcissist is so damned special. Can you do
anything at all except shoot your mouth off? You don't know a damn thing
about detection circuits- you have been asked many times to finish the
circuit, and you not only refuse, but continue to brag about a
non-existent career. Where is the circuit, pretentious little
pseudo-intellectual?- Where is that circuit? And as long as we're on it,
where is that power supply? where is that algorithm, where is that
encoder, where is that derivation, where is this and where is that you
claim to know so much about and never have produced a thing- except a
bunch of hot air and bs. You are typical NG troll trash.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

For RF, the pad and trace capacitance can usually
be dealt with by incorporating it into the transmission
lines used as a matter of course.

Huh? Isn't that an original thought...

In that environment,
power is mainly a function of signal level.

Huh?

The power
I alluded to above is the power necessary to make
circuits work when the capacitance must be driven
at a higher impedance, typically much higher.

Which "above" allusion to power was that, phony boy- the previous sentence?

I put a discrete amplifier in front of a predecessor
to the AD603. It added cost, but got the noise
down enough that management agreed with its use
in a moderately high volume circuit. Later, I found
out that a system level foulup had discarded about
6 dB of SNR after all my effort to glean a several
dB SNR improvement over what the IC could do.
(I won't go in the bureaucratic snafu behind that!)

What a crock of shit- the little moron trumps the world again, huh? And
that's why you're a minor punk programmer who cleans the bathroom part-time?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:
[...snip pseudo-intellectual trash...]

The pseudo-intellectual troll Brasfield in troll mode will now proceed
to post 500,000 words of evasion rather than finish one simple
thread...typical third rate garbage.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

The DERF transform, applied here, is described earlier in this thread.

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:423C8B78.7060202@nospam.com...
[DERF]

Can you do anything at all except shoot your mouth off?

Yes. I can be brought to tears by your antics and posturing.

You don't know a damn thing about detection circuits

I am quite willing for you to believe that. Fortunately for
people who have paid me good money to design them,
my detection circuits do the job required of them and
have been copied into new designs done by others.

- you have been asked many times to finish the circuit,

The OP has not yet indicated any desire for a replacement
detector or review of his current detector. I have absolutely
no desire to engage in any more [1] effort along that path.
If my motivation was to prove something to you, I might
be inclined to get one or more of my detectors drawn up
in a suitable form for publication here. But, as you seem
completely unable to comphrehend, I am not the least bit
concerned about your low opinion. In fact, I treasure it.

[1. I have extended an offer to review the detector, and
given strong hints that such a review could be useful.]

and you not only refuse

For now, I decline for reasons stated.

, but continue to brag about a non-existent career.

Pure speculation, and false to boot. Delusional.

?- Where is that circuit?
["Where is " this and that cut.]

Fred, you completely misunderstand what I try to
accomplish here. And I do not think you can, even
when explained. But I will plant this little seed of
doubt in your overwhelming superiority complex.

I consider my job well done when a poster goes away
with his self esteem intact, more understanding than
he/she had before, and her/his presenting issue solved
to his/her own satisfaction. Whether this leaves you
with a better or worse opinion of me and my skills is
entirely immaterial to me. If anybody else reading is
naive enough to think less of me because of my effort
or yours, I consider that their problem, not mine.

You seem to think there is some kind of contest here.
What you seem unable to grasp is that I am completely
uninterested in the game(s) you like to play here.

[DERF]
--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

If my motivation was to prove something to you, I might
be inclined

Classic troll fallback- you have been pulling that one since you
arrived. You just love going off topic evasion, and upwards of 500,000
words of bs versus one single short on-topic post. You are a typical NG
fraud...

I consider my job well done when a poster goes away
with his self esteem ...

I can't believe anyone is so dumb they actually read you bullshit... go
away you are worthless.

 

[Fred Bartoli]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> a écrit dans le message de
news:RxmBaiEyfCPCFwK8@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bartoli <fred._canxxxel_this_
bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote (in <423c21a6$0$22865$6
36a15ce@news.free.fr&gt about 'amplify 40kHz audio signal using TL082:
first two stages are fine, but high noise from the third stage', on Sat,
19 Mar 2005:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> a écrit dans le message
de
news:l93$RRBoU0OCFwEw@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bartoli
fred._canxxxel_this_
bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote (in
423b398b$0$22858$6
36a15ce@news.free.fr&gt about 'amplify 40kHz audio signal using TL082:
first two stages are fine, but high noise from the third stage', on
Fri,
18 Mar 2005:

Now, you build an amplifier, isn't it?

Only in France and Wales.

???

Sorry John, but I miss the point.
Probably some more shade in my knowledge of english.


The appended 'isn't it' is characteristic of French ('n'est-ce pas?')
and Welsh English (not Welsh Welsh) spoken language. Note that the 'it'
in 'isn't it' has no referent in the preceding sentence, as in 'He's a
really tall man, isn't it?'

Thanks.
Obviouly, as you've spotted, the 'isn't it' was carelessly imported from
French. But now, following the example of Mr Jourdain, I'm very proud of my
new knowledge of Welsh English and I can find this 'isn't it' admirable.

I can even find more consolation into this by thinking that my bad (not so
much I hope) mix of French and English could be mistaken with some form of
erudition *cough*


--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:07:03 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

What you seem unable to grasp is that I am completely
uninterested in the game(s) you like to play here.

---
Yet you feel compelled to extend the life of the game by adding fuel
to the fire. Can't you see the inconsistency between what you say
and what you do?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:07:03 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

I consider my job well done when a poster goes away
with his self esteem intact,

---
Yet you often leave behind little pejorative comments when someone
disagrees with you which, if they're not responded to, can erode an
unwary recipient's self esteem.

--
John Fields

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:07:03 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:



I consider my job well done when a poster goes away
with his self esteem intact,


---
Yet you often leave behind little pejorative comments when someone
disagrees with you which, if they're not responded to, can erode an
unwary recipient's self esteem.

Exactly- you can research his hypocrisy on sci.electronics.basics where
he was beating up on newbies all the time. He must be really dumb to
think we can't check up on that...

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:rj6p31pjrfdem8oevchd65dqa0hhhdidp7@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:07:03 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

I consider my job well done when a poster goes away
with his self esteem intact,
---
Yet you often leave behind little pejorative comments when someone
disagrees with you which, if they're not responded to, can erode an
unwary recipient's self esteem.

I have different objectives in discussion with people
who want to play games rather than get a technical
problem solved. The clauses you cut off my sentence
would make that somewhat more evident.

Nevertheless, if you are relating personal experience,
I hope you feel better as time goes on.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

I have different objectives in discussion with people
who want to play games rather than get a technical
problem solved.

What a goddammed fraud!!! Please show us your technical discussion of
the high gain detection circuit- I am waiting to rip you a new ass
hole...and as for "games"- that would be you, superficial little pussy
troll boy...


....snip chicken troll garbage...

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:44:11 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:de8p3195l21m720scc9mh2g1fej55i29nm@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:46:04 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Exactly- you can research his hypocrisy on sci.electronics.basics where
he was beating up on newbies all the time. He must be really dumb to
think we can't check up on that...

In passing, I note yet another unsubstaniated slander.
People must be really dumb who believe such tripe.

One I found particularly interesting, (which I'm still working on,
BTW) was: "Sweep Generator possible from 555 Astable circuit?" on seb
where he started with his foolishness, had his ass handed to him, and
then retreated without so much as a fare-thee-well...

How about making a real case? If that benign,
two paragraph request for clarification is your
best evidence of "beating up on newbies", I am
looking forward to your presentation.

---
Attitude, Larry. Attitude. Your air of smug superiority belies your
claims at benignness and begs for a good slapping around.
---

your perception of "ass handed" is comical and
your conversion of my electing to not supplement
the numerous other suggestions into a "retreat"
is a good indicator of what games you prefer.

Make your case, without innuendo if you can.
---

Blah, blah, blah, bob and weave, dance and strut.
---

Be careful who your heros are, John.

---
Blow me, Larry.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:48:51 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
message news:r9ap31l305em4lpptkl8h0lgoeebe2ve94@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:54:11 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:rj6p31pjrfdem8oevchd65dqa0hhhdidp7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:07:03 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

I consider my job well done when a poster goes away
with his self esteem intact,
---
Yet you often leave behind little pejorative comments when someone
disagrees with you which, if they're not responded to, can erode an
unwary recipient's self esteem.

I have different objectives in discussion with people
who want to play games rather than get a technical
problem solved. The clauses you cut off my sentence
would make that somewhat more evident.
---
Repost them and prove your point.


It's a state of mind which I reported and you
already detected. What is there to prove?
If you doubt it, then what was your point?

---
Change the subject, bob and weave, do _anything_ but face the issue...

--
John Fields

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:44:11 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:de8p3195l21m720scc9mh2g1fej55i29nm@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:46:04 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

Exactly- you can research his hypocrisy on sci.electronics.basics where
he was beating up on newbies all the time. He must be really dumb to
think we can't check up on that...

In passing, I note yet another unsubstaniated slander.
People must be really dumb who believe such tripe.


One I found particularly interesting, (which I'm still working on,
BTW) was: "Sweep Generator possible from 555 Astable circuit?" on seb
where he started with his foolishness, had his ass handed to him, and
then retreated without so much as a fare-thee-well...

How about making a real case? If that benign,
two paragraph request for clarification is your
best evidence of "beating up on newbies", I am
looking forward to your presentation.


---
Attitude, Larry. Attitude. Your air of smug superiority belies your
claims at benignness and begs for a good slapping around.
---


your perception of "ass handed" is comical and
your conversion of my electing to not supplement
the numerous other suggestions into a "retreat"
is a good indicator of what games you prefer.

Make your case, without innuendo if you can.

---
Blah, blah, blah, bob and weave, dance and strut.
---


Be careful who your heros are, John.


---
Blow me, Larry.

Larry is like the punk retard who sticks his jaw out and challenges the
opposition to hit him, gets KO'd, wakes back up, and asks for it again
like nothing happened. He has been beat to shit in several threads on
SED and keeps coming back for more. I can say with great certainty from
a professional viewpoint that his punk-assed Perl routine was real
second rate stuff- especially for someone who has been working since at
least 1987 that we know of- from his lobotomizingly boring PCB short
circuit finder patent- anyone who knew anything wouldn't have posted
that hacked nothing of a program- equivalent to someone saying "hey
look, I know how to use if elseif statements"- pathetic really.

 

[lemonjuice]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:31:17 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"lemonjuice" <exskimos@anonymous.to> wrote in message
news:1111180812.330626.262910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

(And before you reply, you may want to
consider Fred Bartoli's post of 12:16 today
where he makes a point relevant to your
"snipe".

I checked it. All wrong.


Not all wrong at all. His fundamental point, which
you would do well to learn, is that the noise output
of cascaded amplifiers with moderate gain will be
dominated by the input noise of the first stage.
Wrong. His fundamental point was he believed in modern day miracles.

Catholic background may be a factor.... Check up the posts.

This principle, (in a more general form that applies
to any set of gains), is known as the "Friis formula"
or "Friis noise equation".
Friis is irrelevent to subject.
study a bit, then extend an apology to Mr. Bartoli.
By driving over him?

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vtcp31pbrlka52m9e9tb697aj7ogv9kpdb@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:48:51 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
message news:r9ap31l305em4lpptkl8h0lgoeebe2ve94@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:54:11 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:rj6p31pjrfdem8oevchd65dqa0hhhdidp7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:07:03 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

I consider my job well done when a poster goes away
with his self esteem intact,
---
Yet you often leave behind little pejorative comments when someone
disagrees with you which, if they're not responded to, can erode an
unwary recipient's self esteem.

I have different objectives in discussion with people
who want to play games rather than get a technical
problem solved. The clauses you cut off my sentence
would make that somewhat more evident.
---
Repost them and prove your point.

It's a state of mind which I reported and you
already detected. What is there to prove?
If you doubt it, then what was your point?

---
Change the subject, bob and weave, do _anything_ but face the issue...

What issue?

Clearly, I need to be more clear. Retry follows:
What, precisely, would you like me to prove?

Now, just to save some time and bandwidth, if
you want me to prove my claim "I have different
objectives with people who want to play games",
then you will have to take my word for it. You
are among the last people I would explain them
to. (And you must take my word on that also.)

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:30:27 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

Now, just to save some time and bandwidth, if
you want me to prove my claim "I have different
objectives with people who want to play games",
then you will have to take my word for it. You
are among the last people I would explain them
to. (And you must take my word on that also.)

---
I don't have to take your word for anything, you supercilious,
sophomoric ass and, if you refuse to come up with a proof, then I
daresay it's because you don't have one and are reverting to your
"duck and run" strategy in order to try to save yourself from having
even more richly deserved ridicule heaped upon you.

--
John Fields

 

[Joerg]

Hi Ken,

It doesn't need to be truely wide band:

(1)
A burst of the 40KHz signal reflects off the far object and is received.
In the reciever, both the amplitude profile and the phase of individual
cycles can be used in the calculation.

So long as the amplitude profile is short enough in time that the timing
can be determined to within on cycle, the phase of the signal can be used
to fill in the digits below that. If the filter is reasonably stable, a
constant can be subtracted from the result to correct of its delay.

(2)
The 40KHz can be frequency modulated. The narrowness of the filter makes
the time between zero crossings change more slowly than in the transmitted
signal. A micro can look at the series of values of the period of the
signal. It can fit the numbers to a curve and determine when the curve
passed through a certain value. This will give a value that again is only
lated by a constant.

It depends on the amount of information you need to process. I was
thinking more along the lines of ultrasound as used in the marine or
medical world. There you often have to log a whole enchilada of echoes
in short sequence. The usual scenario is to use a burst of 2-3 cycles
followed by a long enough listening phase. The receiver bandwidth is
then matched to that burst.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com