Can somebody take a peek at this circuit for me?

[Larry Brasfield]

Reversable Derf transform applied.
Scurrilous subject renamed.

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:4242C84F.8000601@nospam.com...

You're going to learn how to respond to a post one of these days.

Not at your hands, obviously.

Most Usenet participants with experience snip. So what?

If you have any specific examples of misquoting, say so
and provide them, otherwise your vague allegation is just
more noise without import.

Your "dodge, weave" is not true and redundant.

No "excuses" are needed and you misconstrue what I've
written if that was anything but one of your fabrications.

Your allegation regarding 'it' is too vague to be falsifiable.

EVERY THREAD YOU ENTER WILL BECOME A SHAMBLES..You can't hide-

The threads that you pollute with your spew can be
dealt with by the very simple rule: "When Fred posts
'responding' to Larry, there will be very little content;
open at the high risk of wasting time to see that."

I have no desire to hide. Especially from you.

you tried to hide your circuit post in SEB- while I will cross-post it all the hell over the place-

That is patently silly. I responded to a post in a single
forum, which stated: "I'm interested in seeing this circuit
that allegedly trumps John's." This was referring to a
simulation I mentioned, which I put in my reply post
without altering the 'Newsgroups:' header in any way.

Your threat to post it all over amounts to nothing more
than "Fred finds a new way to prove he is a crackpot."

you have enemies..

Ooooh. I'll never sleep peacefully again!

Re-insert snipped material:
[Cut as immaterial to points raised by Fred or made by me.]

[Fred also once wrote:]

:
[snip '>>' quoted .asc for relevance]

You should learn to do some judicious snipping. The
above material, both quoted and snipped or cut, has
no relevance to any point you made in your post. It
can be cut without adding to or subtracting from the
few "factual" assertions you made. So why make
people silly enough to pore over your posts go thru
all that just to get to the bottom?

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

Reversable Derf Transform extractions:
Dreck:
[d1: YOU ARE A GODDAMMED FRAUD AND]
[d2: windbag]
[d3: crap]

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:18:40 GMT, Rich The Newsgropup Wacko
<wacko@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:02:40 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:02:50 +0100, "Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:


"Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> a écrit dans
le message de news:4241d798$0$2778$626a14ce@news.free.fr...


I wonder what it is now they've changed it's name.

Oops.
I apostrophe (French verb for 'heckle') myself before the apostrophe cop do.

"I wonder what it is now they've changed its name."


Hey, we don't like furriners that use our language better than we do.


That's not true of everybody. I don't like
a) furriners who immigrate and can't be bothered to learn the language of
their new homeland
b) merkins that can't speak as good of merkin as furriners.
/grumble

Cheers!
Rich

Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<uuu5419acdkg6uib0t4peshbe8uelj3nq9@4ax.com&gt about 'Can somebody take a
peek at this circuit for me?', on Thu, 24 Mar 2005:

Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

You might get a kick in the nuts for doing that.

The people who live in the N. American continent south of the 49th
parallel are 'Merkans', not 'Merkins'. The latter have more hair.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Larry Brasfield
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote (in
<hFC0e.15$TJ1.498@news.uswest.net&gt about '[OT]Quoting and other wee
issues [was: FB's More Brasfield [... FB spew]]', on Thu, 24 Mar 2005:

Reversable Derf transform applied.
Scurrilous subject renamed.

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:4242C84F.8000601@nospam.com...

You're going to learn how to respond to a post one of these days.

Not at your hands, obviously.

You DO realise you are arguing with a sophisticated bot, don't you?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:XLxh6MeKKwQCFwxt@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Larry Brasfield <donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote (in
hFC0e.15$TJ1.498@news.uswest.net&gt about '[OT]Quoting and other wee issues [was: FB's More Brasfield [... FB spew]]', on Thu, 24
Mar 2005:
Reversable Derf transform applied.
Scurrilous subject renamed.

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:4242C84F.8000601@nospam.com...
[Cut for relavance.]

You DO realise you are arguing with a sophisticated bot, don't you?

Point well taken. I had not quite thought of it in just
those terms, but now that you mention it, the analogy
or classification is profound and relevant. You may
have reduced my already decreasing frequency of
reply's to the bot emissions. Thanks.

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

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <irusCvd0HwQCFwVv@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
uuu5419acdkg6uib0t4peshbe8uelj3nq9@4ax.com&gt about 'Can somebody take a
peek at this circuit for me?', on Thu, 24 Mar 2005:
Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

You might get a kick in the nuts for doing that.

The people who live in the N. American continent south of the 49th
parallel are 'Merkans', not 'Merkins'. The latter have more hair.

Those that live above the that thare borDARE are known as

Cunuckistanis, most of whom live well south of the 49th.

--
Keith

 

[Guy Macon]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

You're going to learn how to respond to a post one of these days. You
snip, misquote, dodge, weave, and make excuses for your sorry-ass left
and right, but it's just not going to work- YOU ARE A GODDAMMED FRAUD
AND EVERY THREAD YOU ENTER WILL BECOME A SHAMBLES..You can't hide- you
tried to hide your circuit post in SEB- while I will cross-post it all
the hell over the place- you have enemies..

"Usenet being what it is, if you participate in newsgroups
at all over a period if time you have the possibility of
attracting your own personal lunatic, who considers any
disagreement a personal affront, and considers it their
duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on.
It's kind of pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure
out why no one else sees their actions as heroic."
-Richard Ward

 

[Pooh Bear]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote (in
4241F752.63729E59@hotmail.com&gt about 'Can somebody take a peek at this
circuit for me?', on Wed, 23 Mar 2005:

I actually had an offer from Imperial but wasn't aware that UCL was
duff. UCL seemed like a more interesting college to go to.

More girls.

Indeed. ;-)

I was 18 years earlier.

Also at UCL ?


GRaham

 

[Pooh Bear]

John Larkin wrote:

Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

What a curious concept. These days the girls seem to like being shaved.


Graham

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:07:48 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
uuu5419acdkg6uib0t4peshbe8uelj3nq9@4ax.com&gt about 'Can somebody take a
peek at this circuit for me?', on Thu, 24 Mar 2005:
Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

You might get a kick in the nuts for doing that.

The people who live in the N. American continent south of the 49th
parallel are 'Merkans', not 'Merkins'. The latter have more hair.

Ah. Merkan. Sorry.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"Michael Noone" <mnoone.uiuc.edu@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9621791C6A746mnooneuiucedu127001@216.196.97.136...

"Larry Brasfield" <donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8HS%d.1$e%3.253@news.uswest.net:

You should learn to say what a circuit has to do in
terms of performance, preferably quantifiable. I
could say your circuit will "work", because you
have not really specified what that means.

Well - right now I just want to see if it even sort of works - but
eventually I want a circuit that can amplify a 0-10V signal to 0-400 with
response time of about 1ms and with accuracy to the nearest volt on the
output.

I suggest you learn to use a simulator rather than presenting
stuff that just cannot work. By using it to examine currents
and voltages for specific branches and nodes, you should be
able to discover elementary errors for yourself.
....

[Old and resolved topic (on or blown FET) cut.]

A "simulation" done with your mind would be
a good way to start. That is a skill you will need no
matter how good computer based simulation become.

I don't understand - say I apply a 0V signal to the input. Assuming the
mosfet is off already, vout will be ground, as the load is grounded (which
now I realize I failed to mention),

You seem to be supporting my point already.

and thus the voltage divider will
divide 0 by forty - and so both V+ and V- on the op-amp will be 0, and the
op-amp will be happy.

That would be the ideal circumstance. A more complete
mental simulation would include more dynamic effects.
Then, stability could become more of an issue.

Unless there is a load, and it is connected to a more
positive level than the VSS supply, I would expect no
output like what you probably hope for.

The load would be connected to ground.

The load's actual (E versus I versus (t or f)) characteristic
needs to be known or bounded to permit real design.

Another issue with your circuit, (and boost stages
added to op-amps generally), is that it may not
be stable. Depending on your load, your circuit
could easily oscillate (once you get the MOSFET
to not be always on).

I was most worried about stability. Now that I'm thinking about it - I
would think that this circuit will oscilate - say I give it a 5V input (to
v-). If the circuit worked like hoped eventually vout would be 200V, then
the voltage divider would divide 200 by 40, and V+ would be 5V to. Since
the op-amp amplifies the difference between V+ and V-, Vout from the op-amp
would be 0, and it would continue to oscilate back and forth like that.

This is not the place to go into stability. It is a whole
subject of study. Perhaps the most useful thing I can
tell you (if you believe it) is that stability is not anything
that you want to assume take for granted in feedback
systems. Too many discover this to their chagrin.

If you look at recent sim circuits posted under this
thread, (in both fora you seem to have selected for
it), you can see some reasons for such an idea.

Thanks,

You're welcome.

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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Keith Williams wrote:

In article <irusCvd0HwQCFwVv@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
uuu5419acdkg6uib0t4peshbe8uelj3nq9@4ax.com&gt about 'Can somebody take a
peek at this circuit for me?', on Thu, 24 Mar 2005:
Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

You might get a kick in the nuts for doing that.

The people who live in the N. American continent south of the 49th
parallel are 'Merkans', not 'Merkins'. The latter have more hair.

Those that live above the that thare borDARE are known as
Cunuckistanis, most of whom live well south of the 49th.

Anybody remember the Maharincess of Frammistan? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:23:10 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

What a curious concept. These days the girls seem to like being shaved.

That's because they want to look more like Barbie.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:49:43 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Larry Brasfield wrote:
"Michael Noone" <mnoone.uiuc.edu@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9621752B7559Bmnooneuiucedu127001@216.196.97.136...

John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
news:8ig041puudk80v93lqk5i64dcqbn8m5h1j@4ax.com:

...

Looks to me, as I understand the stated voltages, that you have 400
volts gate-to-source on this fet. That will kill it.

John


I was planning on using a high voltage FET. I was thinking something
along the lines of this: http://www.irf.com/product-
info/datasheets/data/irfb17n50l.pdf - it's designed to switch 500V...
Why would it get killed? Thanks,


You need to consider:

1. What range of output voltage (with respect to ground)
can the op-amp output cover given its connections?
2. Given the FET source connection, how does answer
to 1 affect the gate-to-source voltage applied to the FET?
3. What is the rated gate-to-source voltage of the FET?

When you have answers to those questions, you will have
the answer to "Why would it get killed?"


That's what you say but now, but your earlier post said that it would
just be "always on"- so which is it? You're real big on being an
after-the-fact expert aren't you? After someone else told you what the
facts were...so typical of a fraud and sleaze.

No, he's right. Once you blow out the gate, it is always on.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:48:42 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:49:43 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:


[snip]

When you have answers to those questions, you will have
the answer to "Why would it get killed?"


That's what you say but now, but your earlier post said that it would
just be "always on"- so which is it? You're real big on being an
after-the-fact expert aren't you? After someone else told you what the
facts were...so typical of a fraud and sleaze.

No, he's right. Once you blow out the gate, it is always on.

John

Fred WHO ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Active8]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:27:05 -0800, Robert Monsen wrote:
<snip>

The name DYSON is a word play, being short for 'disinformation'."

And the poster who went by the name of Dyson... The first name he
went by was what?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"Michael Noone" <mnoone.uiuc.edu@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9621791C6A746mnooneuiucedu127001@216.196.97.136...

After two days- the fraud Brasfield responds to the juvenile punk with
his usual drivel...

This is not the place to go into stability. It is a whole subject of >study.

Not really pseudo-intellectual, the study of stability is part and
parcel with the study of electronics. But you wouldn't know that because
you studied neither subject with any success...and this explains why
your work is so inferior, and also why you have never been employed as
an engineer.

Perhaps the most useful thing I can
tell you (if you believe it) is that stability is not anything
that you want to assume take for granted in feedback
systems. Too many discover this to their chagrin.

If you look at recent sim circuits posted under this
thread, (in both fora you seem to have selected for
it), you can see some reasons for such an idea.

Especially to look at yours which doesn't even work at DC- not a real
good sign that it's of much use.

Thanks,


You're welcome.

You just love to assume the OP thanks you for your specious and
non-informational trash posts....

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:4242C84F.8000601@nospam.com...





You snip, misquote, dodge, weave, and make excuses for your sorry-ass left and right, but it's just not going to work- [d1]


Most Usenet participants with experience snip. So what?

Not quite like you do, fake and fraud...you will do anything to *try* to
salvage your hallucinatory status.

If you have any specific examples of misquoting, say so
and provide them, otherwise your vague allegation is just
more noise without import.

Oh I bet you would just love to post 10,000 words of excuses and
discussion about what you meant here, what you meant there, times and
dates and other irrelevant obfuscating smoke screen material- it is
clear what you are- a lying, fake, wimp.

Your "dodge, weave" is not true and redundant.

No "excuses" are needed and you misconstrue what I've
written if that was anything but one of your fabrications.

Your allegation regarding 'it' is too vague to be falsifiable.

That is exactly what you do, fake. This bs thread started by the
ignorant juvenile punk is a case in point.

EVERY THREAD YOU ENTER WILL BECOME A SHAMBLES..You can't hide-


The threads that you pollute with your spew can be
dealt with by the very simple rule: "When Fred posts
'responding' to Larry, there will be very little content;
open at the high risk of wasting time to see that."

Really- I don't see that your posts generate much interest- looks like
most people respond to tell what you are.

I have no desire to hide. Especially from you.

You did try to hide when called due to produce your "circuit"- you
posted it to SEB only and not SED, the original request from the
juvenile punk and others was in SED- but you chose to try and sneak it
into SEB- that is called hiding.

you tried to hide your circuit post in SEB- while I will cross-post it all the hell over the place-


That is patently silly. I responded to a post in a single
forum, which stated: "I'm interested in seeing this circuit
that allegedly trumps John's." This was referring to a
simulation I mentioned, which I put in my reply post
without altering the 'Newsgroups:' header in any way.

Very superficial rationalization- after all your windbag bs about being
so highly skilled and learned, you posted a totally flawed and
unsatisfactory excuse for a circuit.

Your threat to post it all over amounts to nothing more
than "Fred finds a new way to prove he is a crackpot."

Sure I am- is that all you have, unemployable loser?

you have enemies..


Ooooh. I'll never sleep peacefully again!

People will start to get sick of your disruption eventually....

You should learn to do some judicious snipping....

[...snip your cowardly backpedaling and revisions...]

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote (in
<42432050.64555C73@hotmail.com&gt about 'Can somebody take a peek at this
circuit for me?', on Thu, 24 Mar 2005:

Also at UCL ?

No, at QMC. I turned down UCL; the interviewer seemed to be a poser. But
QMC was no better.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <pan.2005.03.24.23.55.28.644061@example.net>,
richgrise@example.net says...

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Keith Williams wrote:

In article <irusCvd0HwQCFwVv@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
uuu5419acdkg6uib0t4peshbe8uelj3nq9@4ax.com&gt about 'Can somebody take a
peek at this circuit for me?', on Thu, 24 Mar 2005:
Uh, look up 'merkin' some time.

You might get a kick in the nuts for doing that.

The people who live in the N. American continent south of the 49th
parallel are 'Merkans', not 'Merkins'. The latter have more hair.

Those that live above the that thare borDARE are known as
Cunuckistanis, most of whom live well south of the 49th.

Anybody remember the Maharincess of Frammistan? ;-)

Nope. Mr. Google hasn't either. Search.com finds you.

--
Keith