On 23 Dec 2006 05:46:50 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in
om:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
I've had it in my files since the chip first came out. Studied it
several times. Even used the chip in a couple designs.


It
faithfully reproduces an audio sinewave... but has an AGC.


Any linear amplifier will "reproduce" a sinewave. If it has AGC then
how "faithfully" that sinewave is reproduced depends on the time
constant of the AGC loop.


The harmonic
dostortion is less than 1% according to the spec.


That's for a 1kHz sinewave with 1:1 (no) compression. That's pretty
crappy even for a CB, and proves that -you- didn't read the complete
datasheet. For comparison, look at the specs of the CA3080.


So far, my new design
is working well... and has constant audio punch level... no matter if
you whisper or yell into the mic Exactly what is needed!


If that's the case then you set the feedback time constant too slow
and built yourself a CVA, not a compressor. Look at the scope and you
will see spikes.


With the fast
attack/release of the noise gate feature.. this chip is fantastic at
blocking ambient background noise!


Yes, it works very well at blocking signals. So does a switch. The
problems start when it begins -passing- signals. Didn't I tell you to
do your research?

Well... it seems you are much smarter than the engineers at Analog
Devices... LOL


Maybe. Maybe not. But I'm definitely smarter than you. I understand
how the chip works and its intended purpose, which is not the same as
the objective of your hacked design -- to increase the talk-power of a
CB radio.


They could sure use someone like you. Why don't you send them your
resume?


Why don't you spend some time and effort to learn about this stuff so
you can build something good instead of hacking other people's designs
and hoping they sell?

Steveo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

Are you running anything else
besides that furnace?


Furnace!? lol yeah I have a bunch of old radios, including Jim's' 2510 in
my truck.

Check Check... Did me good working countless op's worldwide with it.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Why don't you spend some time and effort to learn about this stuff so
you can build something good instead of hacking other people's designs
and hoping they sell?

Frank, never hacked at anyones design. My designs are all original...
your designs are nonexistant... LOL

www.telstar-electronics.com

On 25 Dec 2006 08:07:13 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in
. com:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Why don't you spend some time and effort to learn about this stuff so
you can build something good instead of hacking other people's designs
and hoping they sell?

Frank, never hacked at anyones design. My designs are all original...


Right. Let's start with your earlier design, a 2-pill, push-pull
"linear" hacked from a Communications Concepts kit, which itself is a
hack from a Motorola datasheet; then when under pressure for a decent
bias circuit you hack a design from a ham's webpage on and refuse to
disclose the schematic. You start -this- thread by openly admitting
how you are hacking a "compressor" circuit from another ham. Yet you
maintain that none of your designs are hacked. I'm now convinced that
you have redefined the term "hacked" to suit your purposes, just like
you did with the word "linear", and will likely do with "compression".
Congratulations, you just graduated from the Presidential Academy of
Semantics.


your designs are nonexistant... LOL


And once again you're back to the "sour grapes" excuse..... you should
have stopped with the 'lying president' emulation.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Right. Let's start with your earlier design, a 2-pill, push-pull
"linear" hacked from a Communications Concepts kit, which itself is a
hack from a Motorola datasheet; then when under pressure for a decent
bias circuit you hack a design from a ham's webpage on and refuse to
disclose the schematic. You start -this- thread by openly admitting
how you are hacking a "compressor" circuit from another ham. Yet you
maintain that none of your designs are hacked. I'm now convinced that
you have redefined the term "hacked" to suit your purposes, just like
you did with the word "linear", and will likely do with "compression".
Congratulations, you just graduated from the Presidential Academy of
Semantics.

Frank, you evidently think that once an IC or transistor is used in a
design... that if someone else uses that same transistor or IC... that
the new design has hacked the existing one.
No wonder you never designed anything... LOL

www.telstar-electronics.com

On 26 Dec 2006 02:50:21 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in
. com:


Frank Gilliland wrote:
Right. Let's start with your earlier design, a 2-pill, push-pull
"linear" hacked from a Communications Concepts kit, which itself is a
hack from a Motorola datasheet; then when under pressure for a decent
bias circuit you hack a design from a ham's webpage on and refuse to
disclose the schematic. You start -this- thread by openly admitting
how you are hacking a "compressor" circuit from another ham. Yet you
maintain that none of your designs are hacked. I'm now convinced that
you have redefined the term "hacked" to suit your purposes, just like
you did with the word "linear", and will likely do with "compression".
Congratulations, you just graduated from the Presidential Academy of
Semantics.

Frank, you evidently think that once an IC or transistor is used in a
design... that if someone else uses that same transistor or IC... that
the new design has hacked the existing one.


Hey Kreskin, in your case it does because you don't have enough
understanding of the theory to design and assemble anything from
scratch.


No wonder you never designed anything... LOL


You claim to be an engineer. So what happens when you design something
for your employer? Who owns the design?

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Hey Kreskin, in your case it does because you don't have enough
understanding of the theory to design and assemble anything from
scratch.

You claim to be an engineer. So what happens when you design something
for your employer? Who owns the design?

Frank, as usual... you are getting off on a tangent because you have no
other defense. This conversation is over for me. Nuff said.

www.telstar-electronics.com

On 27 Dec 2006 11:52:12 -0800, "Pouting Brian"
wrote in
om:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Hey Kreskin, in your case it does because you don't have enough
understanding of the theory to design and assemble anything from
scratch.

You claim to be an engineer. So what happens when you design something
for your employer? Who owns the design?

Frank, as usual... you are getting off on a tangent because you have no
other defense. This conversation is over for me. Nuff said.


The employer owns the design. I have no right or control over any
design made under the direction of any of my previous employers. That
means I can't use them, I can't re-use them, I can't sell them and I
can't publically disclose them. The only reason I'm mentioning this is
because it was pointed out to me that a lot of people don't know this.
But it really doesn't matter to you since you were never an engineer
and are now back to your pouting routine. Works for me.