Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
A diode is not of course a very good switch and has a gently
changing V/I slope (ie impedance) near zero bias.
Which is precisely why you put the transformer in between. That
shifts the voltage up the curve of the diode away from the zero
bias point.
Bear in mind
2nd attempt to email:
--- John Winterflood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
R Stiffler wrote:
I guess his mail is getting messed up, the
comments you
make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not
myself.
My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting
(without
caretted indenting)
--- John Winterflood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
R Stiffler wrote:
I guess his mail is getting messed up, the
comments you
make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not
myself.
My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting
(without
caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing
Paul wrote:
I really don't see it that way. The carbon resistor is
made of atoms containing charged particles. The noise
is relative to the temperature of the charged
particles.
Neither do I. I was trying to illustrate that
assigning the noise source to the radiation
resistance itself or some
- no noise. However I think I have used such a
device maybe once in my lifetime, so my memory isn't all that good
on that score.
-Original Message-
From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law
--- Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I sent the following to
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Yet it was populated
--- Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I sent the following to
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Yet it was populated
Excuse me. I meant to say, it did not populate.
Paul Lowrance
Hi Robin,
I had a few comments regarding your conversation with
R. Stiffler --
--- Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In reply to R Stiffler's message of Mon, 13 Nov
2006 15:13:45
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin! I'm at a loss?
So you are saying that 'Carbon' has 0 {zero}
OK, this is a little annoying. I sent the following
email before the other emails, which went through but
the following did not. Has anyone experienced this
problem? I am using Yahoo email. Maybe Yahoo doesn't
want me anymore. :-( I noticed the yahoo email Search
is also failing last few weeks.
R Stiffler wrote:
...
Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage
noise than Metal film resistors
This is not really true. We may divide the noise sources in Carbon
composition resistors into two types:
1) True Thermal noise (also called Johnson or Nyquist noise) which
is the
I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to
were by Paul Lowrance and not myself.
Thanks anyway...
-Original Message-
From: John Winterflood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law
--- John Winterflood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
R Stiffler wrote:
...
Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage
noise than Metal film resistors
This is not really true. We may divide the noise
sources in Carbon
composition resistors into two types:
1) True Thermal noise
9:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is
incorrect
R Stiffler wrote:
...
Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage
noise than Metal film resistors
, because I stopped
making sense long ago.
-Original Message-
From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Indeed, it seems everything I touch lately is
performing highly unusual
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is
incorrect
R Stiffler wrote:
...
Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage
noise than Metal film resistors
R Stiffler wrote:
I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you
make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself.
My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting (without
caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing caused
that.
Paul wrote:
... Radiation resistance
R Stiffler wrote:
I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you
make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself.
My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting (without
caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing was the
cause.
Paul wrote:
... Radiation resistance
In reply to John Winterflood's message of Wed, 15 Nov 2006
01:54:51 +0800:
Hi,
[snip]
With regard to Johnson noise, if you short or open the resistor, then
the entire 4kT watts generated is simply dissipated back into the
sourcing resistor as heat and there is no net power flow. If you load
Deborah D. L. Chung has been on this issue for some time, the following
links may be of interest in ref. to the carbon resistor and excess energy.
The Chung's Negative Resistance experiment
Dr. Deborah D. L. Chung, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering
at University at Buffalo (UB)
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:27:11 -0800
(PST):
Hi,
[snip]
Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power
source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates
more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time,
more energy is leaving experiment B than experiment A.
Why have we tried to decrease the time measurement window? Look at the
first oscilloscopes, they were deemed a great advance in measurement
technology, yet they were slow, the window was broad. Technology improved
and we began to see things in waveforms that we were amazed with. The faster
the
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:27:11 -0800
(PST):
Hi,
[snip]
Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power
source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates
more power. It is a very simple
--- Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006
11:27:11 -0800
(PST):
Hi,
[snip]
Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power
source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates
more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time,
more
, so my memory isn't all that good
on that score.
-Original Message-
From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov
23 matches
Mail list logo
