Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Terry Given wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: In summary, there are differing concepts of what linearity is being understood to mean in the real world. No again. Those who are confused about it, and can't admit they are simply wrong about what amounts to a widely accepted definitional matter [snip] You nor anyone else need take my word for it: it is in *all* the Signals, Systems, and Communications texts I've ever opened up -- they are wholly consistant with each other; check for yourself. Your "definition" is not in any of them (af(t) = f(at)???). So I feel justified in simply saying you are flatly wrong. If you could at least post a citation from a text that has your definition and a worked mathematical problem/solution (no "Circuits" junk), then at least we could say it was all a grand misunderstanding. herewith a self-confessed doesnt-know-it-all's analysis: IF y(x) = mx+c (even KA cant argue with the linearity (and time-invariance) of this....LOL) THEN y(ax) = max+c AND ay(x) = max+ac Look, you picking up on a triviality that was thrown in as a side line and as as immediate response to a justification of my claims. My claims stand as correct. I clearly stated what was I consider an appropriate definition of linearity, i.e. no frequencies present in the output, not present at the input. Elementary Sesame-Street Theory (one of these things is not like the other) clearly shows this "definition" of linearity to be rubbish. This was, to all intents and purposes, a typo. I was meaning to refer to a simple constant gain transfer function. Is it really credible, given that you are obviously aware of my GR papers, that I am to stupid to know standard definition of linearity. However, it would seem that you are another one of those sad people who think y=x^2 is a linear equation between x and y. gwhite most certainly has it correct. KA does not. Dream on. This is bloody absurd. www.google.com "nonlinear differential equations" 22,000 hits. You need to get to grips with than fact that the term "linear" is being used with two different meanings, where *both* meanings are perfectly valid in their own contexts. Look, I know what gwite white means, its trivial. It is also trivial to understand that it is not applicable to analogue design of amplifies. Next you'll be declaring that "homogeneous" only, means the one specific definition as used in differential equations. Or how about "canonical" as a slight aside, I have read H&H about 8 times, and will continue to do so - it is one of the more useful books on electronics I have ever bought (and I have about 600 of them). If you do not have that book - GO AND BUY IT!! I even met WINFIELD Hill at an MIT junkfest once a few years ago, and had an interesting discussion with him about my work on high-speed PMSM energy storage flywheels and giant SMPS. That guy is really smart - I suggest anyone reading this forum should pay close attention to win's postings (i sure do). As far as being an "academic" - well, go read H&H - its beauty lies in its practicality, unlike most texts. Just because someone works in academia, doesnt mean they are useless (although to be fair, its usually not a bad first guess). I hope you not suggesting that I have any negative opinions of Win because I claimed that I was not an academic. Likewise I have met plenty of blithering idiots out doing "real" engineering (its a good thing - competent people end up being well paid to fix their screw-ups). The worst ones tend to work in sales (I presume its because they cant get real jobs) Really this entire thread has done little more than allow Kevin Aylward to appear like a pompous idiot, with a somewhat limited understanding. A BSc and half-a-dozen MSc courses (one A - wow. I remember those - they are what you get if you dont do well enough for an A+) simply makes for a failed MSc. Of all the pomposities, I just loved this one: No this one is about gwhite being a pretentious prat trying to impress everyone with a fancy mathematical definition of linearity that has little or zero relevance in this context, i.e analogue design of amplifiers. He has *yet* to show how said class A amplifier, as he claimed, can form a modulator without relying on the fact that the transfer function of the transistor is non-linear. He has simple attempted to obscure the issues by making irrelevant technical points. In all honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. It kind of makes one wonder just how KA knows there isnt much he doesnt know. why do I post on these newsboards? am I being selfish? I dont think so. Not consciously, but inherently, there is no other way, that is not if you believe in evolution, i.e if you are one of those creationists. 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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
Tx Source Impedance & Load Reflections | Antenna | |||
Reflected power ? new thread, new beginning, kinda ? | Antenna | |||
Dipoles & Tuned Circuits | Antenna |