On Mar 20, 7:42�am, Darrell <darrel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 1:22�pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
> wrote:
>
> > thank you for that useful tidbit.
>
> > i think that essentially "my" DSP trick should be replaced (or at
> > least supplemented) with Tim's.
>
> Well, I am the one that should be offering the thanks! �If anyone does
> want to update the trick, I created a diagram that might prove
> useful. �It can be found athttp://img393.imageshack.us/img393/7823/diagramah3.jpg.
>
> Darrell
Darrell,
I am interested in your Matlab code, could you post it?
Also, the link to your diagram doesn't work.
Thanks,
Tom
Reply by Darrell●March 20, 20082008-03-20
On Mar 19, 1:22�pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> thank you for that useful tidbit.
>
> i think that essentially "my" DSP trick should be replaced (or at
> least supplemented) with Tim's.
Well, I am the one that should be offering the thanks! If anyone does
want to update the trick, I created a diagram that might prove
useful. It can be found at http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/7823/diagramah3.jpg.
Darrell
Reply by mk●March 19, 20082008-03-19
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:38 -0400, Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org>
wrote:
>Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> writes:
>
>> Randy,
>>
>> Whether you like the name or not, a "leaky" integrator describes a
>> circuit that intentionally has a resistor in parallel with the
>> integration capacitor (at least in the most common implementation).
>
>Al,
>
>Your dictatorial attitude here is not helpful.
>
I think you're misinterpreting Al's posture here.
>I presume that, since you're arguing the point so vehemently, you have
>seen designs in which a leakage resistance was purposely introduced
>referred to as leaky integrators. However, could it not be true that the
>term could be used for both cases (intentional leaks and otherwise)?
>
Not really, at least no one documents their "regular" integrator as
leaky. If you have an unintentional leaky integrator you compensate
for the leak (to the degree you need) so that it's not leaky anymore.
But if you have a schematic or a verilog module which says "leaky
integrator" on it, it's definitely intentional.
I think the main issue is a matter of time constants. In analog all
storage is leaky (mainly capacitors whether they're discrete or
integrated, made by gates, metal to metal or dram trenches etc) but if
their time constant are low enough to interfere with regular operation
(ie dram) you compensate or when the time constant is high enough that
it doesn't bother you (ie a charge-pump that you add/subtract new
current very frequently guaranteed by the bit transitions on the
incoming data stream) you may not care about the offset this may
create. But in almost all systems where you have an integrator (even
in digital ones because of quantization error sometimes) you have an
offset arriving at the input of the integrator. If you don't
compensate for this offset at the input, your integrator saturates.
Leaky integrators are designed to handle this case.
>This really isn't a matter of my defending an error. I have done several
>searches on the topic and all the ones I could find model situations in
>which the leak was unintentional.
Then you were looking for it in all the wrong places ;-)
>Is it not reasonable to consider that this term, especially when applied
>to a circuit based on an electronic component which is known to have an
>unintentional flaw, can actually refer to the flawed case as well?
>
Again you don't name them that way if it's unintentional. If you have
an integrator which is leaky (with in the range you need it) you need
to fix it.
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●March 19, 20082008-03-19
On Mar 19, 8:46 am, Darrell <darrel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 9:47 pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
> wrote:
>
> > yeah, i think Tim's works just as well as my alg (and had said so),
> > but i never implemented it (because i hadn't implemented a DC blocker
> > in years, perhaps a decade and had never thunked of the concise
> > simplification that Tim did).
>
> I finally had a chance to go back and look at this, and there was
> indeed an implementation issue with Tim's. After fixing that his and
> yours perform essentially the same.
>
thank you for that useful tidbit.
i think that essentially "my" DSP trick should be replaced (or at
least supplemented) with Tim's.
r b-j
Reply by Darrell●March 19, 20082008-03-19
On Mar 13, 9:47�pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> yeah, i think Tim's works just as well as my alg (and had said so),
> but i never implemented it (because i hadn't implemented a DC blocker
> in years, perhaps a decade and had never thunked of the concise
> simplification that Tim did).
I finally had a chance to go back and look at this, and there was
indeed an implementation issue with Tim's. After fixing that his and
yours perform essentially the same.
Darrell
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●March 18, 20082008-03-18
On Mar 17, 8:36 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>
> What makes you think it was negligence, and not planned?
that's why it should be a firing squad.
r b-j
Reply by Steve Underwood●March 17, 20082008-03-17
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2:10 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 8:13 am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> Ah Shoot!!! ... @%^%$#*& !!
>>> well, it's good to see someone else here who's mad as fucking @%^%
>>> $#*&!! at someone else. it saves me from my daily rant about the
>>> Abomination in Chief (but, hell, look at the news today, and this
>>> Asshole says they're "on top of the situation." yeah, right! like
>>> "Brownie, yer doin' a heck-of-a job!" "On top of the situation," my
>>> gluttious maximus! any money my daughters might expect to help with
>>> college or retirement is down the crapper. Gee, at least we don't
>>> have any of them "tax-and-spendin' libruls" running the government.)
>> What we have here is a failure to communicate -- err, regulate. This
>> could have been headed off at many places, but philosophy (wrong headed,
>> but let that be) trumped pragmatism and here we are.
>
> it's no excuse. W sold out my daughters' future to benefit his
> wealthy buddies who are now gonna be bailed out again at taxpayer
> expense and not held to account for their criminally negligent
> behavior when entrusted with zillions of other people's money. and
> they did that criminally negligent behavior for the purpose of making
> themselves even *more* obscenely rich.
What makes you think it was negligence, and not planned? Very rich
people come out of major downturns richer than they went in. Its the
whole basis trade. Anyone who makes sure they have the cash available to
buy when things get really cheap, is gonna make a killing when they get
back to normal (whatever normal is).
Steve
Reply by Randy Yates●March 17, 20082008-03-17
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
> [...]
> With such an (enforced) honest assessment, they would nearly all have
> been found to be bankrupt. It couldn't be allowed to happen.
So the deception goes on...
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by Jerry Avins●March 17, 20082008-03-17
Al Clark wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in news:79c02d5a-
> 9239-4c85-95d2-cf1c7e3df379@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 17, 2:10 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>> On Mar 17, 8:13 am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>> Ah Shoot!!! ... @%^%$#*& !!
>>>> well, it's good to see someone else here who's mad as fucking @%^%
>>>> $#*&!! at someone else. it saves me from my daily rant about the
>>>> Abomination in Chief (but, hell, look at the news today, and this
>>>> Asshole says they're "on top of the situation." yeah, right! like
>>>> "Brownie, yer doin' a heck-of-a job!" "On top of the situation," my
>>>> gluttious maximus! any money my daughters might expect to help with
>>>> college or retirement is down the crapper. Gee, at least we don't
>>>> have any of them "tax-and-spendin' libruls" running the government.)
>>> What we have here is a failure to communicate -- err, regulate. This
>>> could have been headed off at many places, but philosophy (wrong
> headed,
>>> but let that be) trumped pragmatism and here we are.
>> it's no excuse. W sold out my daughters' future to benefit his
>> wealthy buddies who are now gonna be bailed out again at taxpayer
>> expense and not held to account for their criminally negligent
>> behavior when entrusted with zillions of other people's money. and
>> they did that criminally negligent behavior for the purpose of making
>> themselves even *more* obscenely rich.
>>
>> we don't need merely an election. we need a firing squad.
>> impeachment and removal from office is not enough.
>>
>> like Ceau�escu. W is as deserving (but not his spouse).
>>
>> r b-j (who otherwise opposes the death penalty.)
>>
>>
>
> Robert,
>
> Don't you think this is a bit harsh? We are a country that embraces
> diversity. There are many people who say its time to elect a female
> president or a black president. In this same spirit of diversity, In
> 2000, it was time that we elected an idiot president. There are plenty of
> idiots out there, Didn't they deserve their turn?
>
> Actually, given the hand that they were dealt, I think the fed acted
> pretty well. I don't think that Ben Bernanke is a Brownie. I fact that
> Bush says we are on top of things certainly doesn't inspire confidence,
> but I think the fed's action was positive.
If B-S had been allowed to file for bankruptcy, their assets would have
been sold on the open market, establishing their value. All the other
players would have had to use the numbers so determined to value their
own holdings. With such an (enforced) honest assessment, they would
nearly all have been found to be bankrupt. It couldn't be allowed to happen.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Al Clark●March 17, 20082008-03-17
robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in news:79c02d5a-
9239-4c85-95d2-cf1c7e3df379@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 17, 2:10 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> > On Mar 17, 8:13 am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> Ah Shoot!!! ... @%^%$#*& !!
>>
>> > well, it's good to see someone else here who's mad as fucking @%^%
>> > $#*&!! at someone else. it saves me from my daily rant about the
>> > Abomination in Chief (but, hell, look at the news today, and this
>> > Asshole says they're "on top of the situation." yeah, right! like
>> > "Brownie, yer doin' a heck-of-a job!" "On top of the situation," my
>> > gluttious maximus! any money my daughters might expect to help with
>> > college or retirement is down the crapper. Gee, at least we don't
>> > have any of them "tax-and-spendin' libruls" running the government.)
>>
>> What we have here is a failure to communicate -- err, regulate. This
>> could have been headed off at many places, but philosophy (wrong
headed,
>> but let that be) trumped pragmatism and here we are.
>
> it's no excuse. W sold out my daughters' future to benefit his
> wealthy buddies who are now gonna be bailed out again at taxpayer
> expense and not held to account for their criminally negligent
> behavior when entrusted with zillions of other people's money. and
> they did that criminally negligent behavior for the purpose of making
> themselves even *more* obscenely rich.
>
> we don't need merely an election. we need a firing squad.
> impeachment and removal from office is not enough.
>
> like Ceau�escu. W is as deserving (but not his spouse).
>
> r b-j (who otherwise opposes the death penalty.)
>
>
Robert,
Don't you think this is a bit harsh? We are a country that embraces
diversity. There are many people who say its time to elect a female
president or a black president. In this same spirit of diversity, In
2000, it was time that we elected an idiot president. There are plenty of
idiots out there, Didn't they deserve their turn?
Actually, given the hand that they were dealt, I think the fed acted
pretty well. I don't think that Ben Bernanke is a Brownie. I fact that
Bush says we are on top of things certainly doesn't inspire confidence,
but I think the fed's action was positive.
Al Clark