Paul Burridge wrote:
With all due respect, I would guess you
don't have an EE B.S. degree.

Cut the chest puffing.

Chest-puffing is one of Kev's more prominent character traits, I'm
afraid. In fact one often gets the impression that his contributions
to these threads is more contrived to show off his knowledge of
electonics and mathematics

Not at all. The purpose of my contributions are as a means of getting
attention to my product, thereby gaining me much Guinness.

than to help others out of pure, selfless
altruism.

Where on earth did you get this daft idea that I post for the good of
the people? As I have noted many times, there is no such thing as
selfless altruism, its all for ulterior motives. We are all inherently
selfish. I absolute agree that everything I do is ultimately geared
toward my self interest, or to be more exact, the self interest of my
genes. I have never claimed otherwise. Anyone who claims that they take
action for the benefit of others, at a net determinate to themselves are
either, liars, fools, or deluded.

Anyway, personal insults aside, I for one am lurking with interest to
see who prevails in this linearity argument. It's a pity some
heavyweight like Win can't step in and judge who's in the right on

With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and with
all due respect to Winfred, is more qualified than myself on electronics
matters.?

this one but I rather suspect he has better things to do with his
time.

This one is easy. I'm right. As far as the class A amp goes, its a no
contest. It can't possible form a modulator without relying on the
non-linear behaviour of the transistor. Its not debatable. I have
explained the details already.

Regarding the definition of linearity, it is an open book. There is no
single absolute correct definition. What we have here is a play on
words, where some one is claiming that his version of the word
definition is the only valid one, even whem most don't use it that way.
A linear operator in mathematics, or linearity, is used in a different
sense then it is used in analogue design. An object that satisfies the
definition of a linear system in mathematics, is not one that is usually
applicable to analogue design, and as used by, essentially, all analogue
designers. The analogue definition of linearity is much more
restrictive. For example, a linear amplifier in electronics is generally
restricted to those amplifiers such that the output voltage or current
is a simple constant times the input voltage or current, with or without
an offset. That is, there is a *linear* = *straight* *line* relation
between output and input. This is equivalent to requiring that the
output only contains frequencies present at its input, i.e. no
distortion. Some other mathematical definitions of linearity would not
be so restrictive. For example, suppose a signal is fed through a magic
analogue Fourier transform device that converts the input voltage to
that of its Fourier transform. You would be hard pressed to get someone
to agree that the output signal is not a gross distortion of its input,
despite the fact that the Fourier transform is mathematically a linear
transform. Sure, some high brow might like to claim that his definition
is the "real" one, but words only mean what the majority means by them,
and in this case, a "linear" system, is one with a straight/linear line
relation between input and output.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.