I need some parts . . . . - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion I need some parts . . . .

WHIPPERSNAPPER

More options Jun 9 1998, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: Whips...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER)

Date: 1998/06/09

Subject: Re: I need some parts . . . .

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <hkhensonEu9xzs....@netcom.com>,

Keith Henson <hkhen...@netcom.com> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whips...@cris.com) wrote:
>: In article <hkhensonEu0Fzo....@netcom.com>,
>: Keith Henson <hkhen...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whips...@cris.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >snip
>: >
>: >: I could probably help you, Keith. But it's not very likely I will!
>: >
>: >I doubt you could whipper.
>: >
>: >(snip teaching grandpa to suck eggss)
>: >
>: >Whipper, look up my first patent, about a 4 quadrant log-anti-log
>: >multiplier. Think about what that took in matched parts. Keith
Henson

>: Not having tried the device, I can't say, but it's clear you didn't
match
>: them perfectly:

>: "Variations of the transistor gains among the transistors connected in the
>: loop induces a linear error which may readily be corrected by adjusting
>: input resistances in the input signal paths. A compensation resistor is
>: connected between the base electrodes of the first and fourth transistors
>: of the loop; the compensation resistor is provided with a compensation
>: current derived from the collector electrode of the fourth transistor. The
>: compensation current is adjusted by setting the value of the compensation
>: resistor, which provides a correction for the error in the circuit created
>: by the ohmic resistances of the transistor emitters."

>: I suppose you didn't think I'd look it up.

>You looked it up, but you don't seem to have understood what you read.

I understood it perfectly. As far as I can see, the requirement of this
circuit for matched components is near zero.

>The first sentence is about correcting for effects which are on the same
>order as the errors in the input (gain) resistors.

Can the doubletalk, Henson. It's to correct for gain mismatch, which
means simply that one of the POINTS of this invention is to reduce or
eliminate the need for component matching! I see no limits on that
resistor's value, and presumably it could compensate for a large
discrepancy.

You said: "Think about what that took in matched parts." I did. It
obviates the need for matched parts! You're a lot of smoke, Henson. The
invention is clever (has it seen any actual use?). Why you used it as an
example of omigod how awesome its requirements for matched components... I
can't imagine.

You were hunting a way to seem superior, I suppose.

>The second is about
>correcting for errors induced by the ohmic (non log) resistances which are
>a small source of error even for ideally matched parts. (Then you have
>third order errors due to drift with temperature.)

Yadda-yadda. Of course.

You said: "Think about what that took in matched parts."

The invention says it over and over. It compensates for mismatched parts:

"It is yet another object of the present invention to provide an
electronic analog multiplier ... where in the mismatches between the
transistor junctions and the error induced by ohmic resistances of the
transistor emitters are readily compensated..."

"Gain error ... is readily compensated by simply adjusting input
resistances ..."

"The system ... readily generates a correction signal to be fed back into
the transistor loop to compensate for the ohmic resistances of the
transistor emitters."

"To calibrate and correct for errors from junction mismatches, an
appropriate input resistor R is adjusted..."

Et cetera. All of which you know, or is your name on there by mistake?

What a maroon.

Like Archangel, your prejudice makes you stupid, and it makes you assume
I'll be stupid too. (I have Deming on my bookshelf, three feet away.)

- Whippersnapper

"I control your fate! Your very LIVES are in my hands!" -- Calvin

Reply to author Forward