On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:24:07 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote in
om:

Brian,

I have just been to your site and, according to that...
In over 5 years of business, only three products appear
to have been created... two of which have been discontinued
(already).
Between discontinuing previous products, and offering this
latest, there appears to have been no products for sale - no
income, no business.

A business with just one $60 product (when it becomes
available), two discontinued items, and large gaps in trading.
You may not be using kits, but just what do you think your
Web site and it's figures say about you and your business?

Right or wrong, he is saying what people see when they
view your site... and what will they think if they ever
see these newsgroup threads.

They'll know that I have a very small company. I don't see a thing
wrong with that. If they don't like that... nothing I can do about it.
Items are often discontinued by a manufacturer when their profit
margin becomes unacceptable in the marketplace. Why should I continue
to offer a product that I can't make a reasonable profit on? Do you
run a business?


I do. And part of running a business is catering to the market. Trying
to manipulate the market to suit the product (pet rocks, white salmon)
might net you a few bucks at the beginning, but the market eventually
wises up. Looking at your business history, it appears the market was
smarter than you from the beginning, Brian.

"LOL"

On Jul 11, 5:24 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
I do. And part of running a business is catering to the market. Trying
to manipulate the market to suit the product (pet rocks, white salmon)
might net you a few bucks at the beginning, but the market eventually
wises up. Looking at your business history, it appears the market was
smarter than you from the beginning, Brian.


Frank, you sure know a lot about running a business... and you never
even had one... lol
The real issue as I see it is... does anyone really care about what
you have to say?
I sure don't. I hope others do... or you're wasting a lot of time here.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:21:32 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
.com:

On Jul 11, 5:24 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
I do. And part of running a business is catering to the market. Trying
to manipulate the market to suit the product (pet rocks, white salmon)
might net you a few bucks at the beginning, but the market eventually
wises up. Looking at your business history, it appears the market was
smarter than you from the beginning, Brian.


Frank, you sure know a lot about running a business... and you never
even had one... lol


Do you have a reading deficiency along with your MPD?


The real issue as I see it is... does anyone really care about what
you have to say?


Of course they do. All these posts are archived on google and
elsewhere. Go ahead and google "Telspam Electronics" and tell me what
you see. Do you really think people won't check your credentials when
buying something that is relatively unknown, with no reputation or
testimonials, and can't be found in any reference material beyond your
website and your spam? They look at the posts and see that, even when
you don't avoid the tough questions altogether, all you can quote is
either techno-babble or "it's a gray world". Yep, people really do
care about what I have to say.


I sure don't. I hope others do... or you're wasting a lot of time here.


That's my choice. Whether or not to buy one of your hack-jobs is the
choice that people who google your name and product must make.

"james" wrote...

Partially correct in your formulae.

It is printed as I gave it on pages 147 & 148 in...

Electrical principles and measurements Level 2
By I. McKenzie Smith
(B.Sc., Dip.A.Ed., C. Eng., M.I.E.E., M.I.E.R.E., F.I.T.E)
Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Stow Colledge, Glasgow.

The words of the noted lecturers, one of whom also worked
for the Ministry of Defence, are incredibly clear... the
waveform does not change.

So I think that what we have here is a perception issue. Try this...

You say that the waveform changes so tell me:
If you amplify a sinusoidal waveform, what waveform does it become?
At what level does a sinusoidal waveform become some other waveform?
Or, at what level is it a sinusoidal waveform?

Can you see where I am going with this?
To say that a large sinewave is not still a sinewave is like saying
a large circle is no longer a circle.

With pure amplification, the signal may have altered in amplitude,
but a sinusoidal waveform will still be a sinusoidal waveform on
the output. The sine, angular frequency and phase shift are
all unchanged.

I am not saying that the signal is unaltered, but that the
waveform is still whatever waveform was put in.
Now I don't like to disagree with you but, if you really believe
that an amplified sinewave is not a sinewave, then I really
must stick with the named lecturers and Heads of Departments.
Nothing personal, you understand, but they do have a sh1tload
of letters after their names :~)


BTW: Sometimes I may take a while to reply to messages,
it's just that I have other things to do and just fit this
and other groups in where possible.


Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:23:51 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

+++With pure amplification, the signal may have altered in amplitude,
+++but a sinusoidal waveform will still be a sinusoidal waveform on
+++the output. The sine, angular frequency and phase shift are
+++all unchanged.
*************

Wrong

Depending on how the amplifier is configured there is a phase shift.
In a Common emmiter configured transistor amp there is a 180 degree
shift in the pahse. So the waveform is altered by phase.

Only the emitter(source) follower in a semiconductor amplifier will
not cause a phase shift.

Correct that the angular frequency is not changed and that a sine wave
is a sine wave, but still the amplitude has changed. Therefore they
are not identical weaveforms. Therefore they do change, if only in
amplitude.

james

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:39:01 GMT, james wrote
in :

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:23:51 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

+++With pure amplification, the signal may have altered in amplitude,
+++but a sinusoidal waveform will still be a sinusoidal waveform on
+++the output. The sine, angular frequency and phase shift are
+++all unchanged.
*************

Wrong

Depending on how the amplifier is configured there is a phase shift.
In a Common emmiter configured transistor amp there is a 180 degree
shift in the pahse. So the waveform is altered by phase.

Only the emitter(source) follower in a semiconductor amplifier will
not cause a phase shift.

Correct that the angular frequency is not changed and that a sine wave
is a sine wave, but still the amplitude has changed. Therefore they
are not identical weaveforms. Therefore they do change, if only in
amplitude.


I think the key word here is 'waveform', where 'form' is the issue and
scale or phase are not. Because ANY device, active or passive, will
introduce some phase delay and amplitude variation to the signal. So
be practical or be a purist, but you're both really just saying the
same thing.

Now if you wanted to take this to a philosophical level, no two
signals can EVER be identical for the simple reason that they can
always be differentiated, if not by amplitude or phase then by
temporal location (one is the input, the other is the output) or by
physical location (you measure this one here and that one there). But
by the same rule of identity I guess that means no two opinions will
ever be identical either, so argue away.....

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:18:59 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

+++On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:39:01 GMT, james wrote
+++in :
+++
+++On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:23:51 +0100, " Peter"
+++wrote:
+++
++++++With pure amplification, the signal may have altered in amplitude,
++++++but a sinusoidal waveform will still be a sinusoidal waveform on
++++++the output. The sine, angular frequency and phase shift are
++++++all unchanged.
+++*************
+++
+++Wrong
+++
+++Depending on how the amplifier is configured there is a phase shift.
+++In a Common emmiter configured transistor amp there is a 180 degree
+++shift in the pahse. So the waveform is altered by phase.
+++
+++Only the emitter(source) follower in a semiconductor amplifier will
+++not cause a phase shift.
+++
+++Correct that the angular frequency is not changed and that a sine wave
+++is a sine wave, but still the amplitude has changed. Therefore they
+++are not identical weaveforms. Therefore they do change, if only in
+++amplitude.
+++
+++
+++I think the key word here is 'waveform', where 'form' is the issue and
+++scale or phase are not. Because ANY device, active or passive, will
+++introduce some phase delay and amplitude variation to the signal. So
+++be practical or be a purist, but you're both really just saying the
+++same thing.
+++
+++Now if you wanted to take this to a philosophical level, no two
+++signals can EVER be identical for the simple reason that they can
+++always be differentiated, if not by amplitude or phase then by
+++temporal location (one is the input, the other is the output) or by
+++physical location (you measure this one here and that one there). But
+++by the same rule of identity I guess that means no two opinions will
+++ever be identical either, so argue away.....
+++
*********

In a way this could be considered nit picking. I agree that the
overall form is a sinusoid. I just don't like the implication that all
sinusiods are unchanged by amplification, positve or negative. Granted
the amplitude of the form is alterd and little on none of the rest of
the function is not. Yet the amplitude is a partt of a sinusoidal
waveform.

again it is a minor point.

james

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:06:09 GMT, james wrote
in :

snip
In a way this could be considered nit picking. I agree that the
overall form is a sinusoid. I just don't like the implication that all
sinusiods are unchanged by amplification, positve or negative. Granted
the amplitude of the form is alterd and little on none of the rest of
the function is not. Yet the amplitude is a partt of a sinusoidal
waveform.

again it is a minor point.


True, and your point is perfectly valid. You are technically correct
that amplification, inversion and phase shift are types of distortion.
But for the purpose of -this- discussion (audio distortion caused by
Brian's noise-board), it seems you are trying to sand the table-top
before cutting down the tree. Now if this were carried over to a new
thread it might be fun....

"james" wrote...


First of all, I should point out that I have not seen any messages
posted since my last reply, they will be downloaded as this is sent...


When your mathematics appear to disagree with so many well
qualified engineers, lecturers, heads of educational departments
and technical authors, it's time to check for some little
error... something that can slip through or seem insignificant.


The frequency component of the function, sin(2*PI*f*t),remains the
same in both equation.

It will always appear constant, it is not an absolute value...
f*t
Through a complete cycle, the maximum result will be 1, regardless
of the actual frequency.


The amplitude does not.


Of course not, *you* are using an absolute value.

The waveform is the relationship between changes in amplitude
and time. By putting in an absolute value, peak voltage, you
are now comparing signal levels rather than waveform.

The amplitude should have a maximum value of 1...

quote ref=1
The maximum voltage of a sine is 1, thus Vm is the
maximum or peak value of the alternating voltage.
/quote

Diagrams in the book show exactly that. But, as you may
not have the book collection that I have, check out the
diagram here...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ine_Cosine_Gra
ph.png/300px-Sine_Cosine_Graph.png

(NOTE: URL wrapped to two lines)

Now,
v = Vm sin 2pi*f*t
= sin 2pi*f*t

So, as said before...

quote ref=2
Amplification This essential process involves an increase
in the amplitude or size of a signal without any change
to the waveform.
/quote


Now I can believe the mathematics that I
have been taught or accept your hypothesis.


Those are the words of well respected and qualified engineers,
lecturers, heads of educational departments and technical
authors.



Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/

ref1: Electrical and electronic principles Level 2
I. McKenzie Smith.
(pages 144 - 148)

ref2: Electronics For Engineers.
R. J. Maddock (Former principle lecturer,
Southampton Institute of Higher Education)
D. M. Calcutt (Senior Lecturer, School of Systems
Engineering, University of Portsmouth).
(page 11)

Peter

Have a nice day. I think there is little more that can be accomplished
continuing this banter. You can believe what you wish.

james


On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:23:12 +0100, " Peter"
wrote:

+++"james" wrote...
+++
+++
+++First of all, I should point out that I have not seen any messages
+++posted since my last reply, they will be downloaded as this is sent...
+++
+++
+++When your mathematics appear to disagree with so many well
+++qualified engineers, lecturers, heads of educational departments
+++and technical authors, it's time to check for some little
+++error... something that can slip through or seem insignificant.
+++
+++
+++ The frequency component of the function, sin(2*PI*f*t),remains the
+++ same in both equation.
+++
+++It will always appear constant, it is not an absolute value...
+++ f*t
+++Through a complete cycle, the maximum result will be 1, regardless
+++of the actual frequency.
+++
+++
+++ The amplitude does not.
+++
+++
+++Of course not, *you* are using an absolute value.
+++
+++The waveform is the relationship between changes in amplitude
+++and time. By putting in an absolute value, peak voltage, you
+++are now comparing signal levels rather than waveform.
+++
+++The amplitude should have a maximum value of 1...
+++
+++quote ref=1
+++ The maximum voltage of a sine is 1, thus Vm is the
+++ maximum or peak value of the alternating voltage.
+++/quote
+++
+++Diagrams in the book show exactly that. But, as you may
+++not have the book collection that I have, check out the
+++diagram here...
+++http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ine_Cosine_Gra
+++ph.png/300px-Sine_Cosine_Graph.png
+++
+++ (NOTE: URL wrapped to two lines)
+++
+++Now,
+++ v = Vm sin 2pi*f*t
+++ = sin 2pi*f*t
+++
+++So, as said before...
+++
+++quote ref=2
+++ Amplification This essential process involves an increase
+++ in the amplitude or size of a signal without any change
+++ to the waveform.
+++/quote
+++
+++
+++ Now I can believe the mathematics that I
+++ have been taught or accept your hypothesis.
+++
+++
+++Those are the words of well respected and qualified engineers,
+++lecturers, heads of educational departments and technical
+++authors.
+++
+++
+++
+++Regards,
+++Peter.
+++ http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/
+++
+++ ref1: Electrical and electronic principles Level 2
+++ I. McKenzie Smith.
+++ (pages 144 - 148)
+++
+++ ref2: Electronics For Engineers.
+++ R. J. Maddock (Former principle lecturer,
+++ Southampton Institute of Higher Education)
+++ D. M. Calcutt (Senior Lecturer, School of Systems
+++ Engineering, University of Portsmouth).
+++ (page 11)
+++
+++