I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense" and why some answers confuse me. While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer function of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection. Yesterday I looked at ---R1----*----R2----* | | *----L1----* | | *----C1----* | | *--| - | | | OA *-*----- Vout GND-----*--|+ | OA = opamp and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was. I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2 semesters of work? Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need? I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group answering my "dumb" questions.
Back to basic's
Started by ●August 23, 2004
Reply by ●August 23, 20042004-08-23
Richard Owlett wrote:> I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense" > and why some answers confuse me. > > While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer function > of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection. > > Yesterday I looked at > > ---R1----*----R2----* > | | > *----L1----* > | | > *----C1----* > | | > *--| - | | > | OA *-*----- Vout > GND-----*--|+ | > > OA = opamp > > and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was. > > I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND > COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2 semesters > of work? > > Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need? > > I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group > answering my "dumb" questions. > > > > >I've found the "Art of Electronics" book more helpful for jogging my memory than my original text books. My copy isn't here so I apologize for not including a more complete reference.
Reply by ●August 24, 20042004-08-24
Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:> Richard Owlett wrote: > >> I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense" >> and why some answers confuse me. >> >> While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer >> function of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection. >> >> Yesterday I looked at >> >> ---R1----*----R2----* >> | | >> *----L1----* >> | | >> *----C1----* >> | | >> *--| - | | >> | OA *-*----- Vout >> GND-----*--|+ | >> >> OA = opamp >> >> and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was. >> >> I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND >> COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2 >> semesters of work? >> >> Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need? >> >> I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group >> answering my "dumb" questions. >> >> >> >> >> > I've found the "Art of Electronics" book more helpful for jogging my > memory than my original text books. My copy isn't here so I apologize > for not including a more complete reference.Horowitz and Hill, "Art of Electronics", 2nd. edition, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521370957, http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0521370957-0, etc., etc. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●August 24, 20042004-08-24
Richard Owlett <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message news:<10ikeohpk164l89@corp.supernews.com>...> I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group > answering my "dumb" questions.Which questions would that be? I have answered your posts once or twice in the past, and haven't found any "dumb" questions. I think your questions are more or less as what would be expected from students of a beginner's course in DSP, with two important differences: - In your questions I can see progress. If not from post to post, so over time. - You are sincerely interested in DSP. The most sincere question I ever had from a student in a class of mine was "Is this subject likely to come up during examiantion?" Nah, you're doing good. Rune
Reply by ●August 24, 20042004-08-24
Rune Allnor wrote:> Richard Owlett <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message news:<10ikeohpk164l89@corp.supernews.com>... > > >>I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group >>answering my "dumb" questions. > > > Which questions would that be?The " around 'dumb' were very significant;} My point was that I keep asking essentially the same rephrased question and the group does not get tired rephrasing same answer until it sinks thru. [BTW I have medical evidence that my skull *IS* denser than average ;] > I have answered your posts once or twice> in the past, and haven't found any "dumb" questions. I think your > questions are more or less as what would be expected from students of a > beginner's course in DSP, with two important differences: > > - In your questions I can see progress. If not from post to post, > so over time. > - You are sincerely interested in DSP. The most sincere question > I ever had from a student in a class of mine was "Is this subject > likely to come up during examiantion?"I have at least two advantages over typical student: 1. 3-4 decades in age 2. I'm an 'amateur' in the strictest derivational sense [ my current profession is "Hospital Services Courier" for the American Red Cross ] {1-800-GIVE LIFE for nearest donor center}> > Nah, you're doing good. > > RuneMy point was to say "Thank you" to group. Perhaps also buying gruel factory for Rick's kids ;]
Reply by ●August 31, 20042004-08-31
"Tim Wescott" <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:10ilfr5qumcoj50@corp.supernews.com...> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: > > Richard Owlett wrote: > > > >> I think I've identified why some of my questions "do not make sense" > >> and why some answers confuse me. > >> > >> While in school, some 40 years ago, I could write the transfer > >> function of some simple RLC circuits almost by inspection. > >> > >> Yesterday I looked at > >> > >> ---R1----*----R2----* > >> | | > >> *----L1----* > >> | | > >> *----C1----* > >> | | > >> *--| - | | > >> | OA *-*----- Vout > >> GND-----*--|+ | > >> > >> OA = opamp > >> > >> and realized I not had foggiest of what its transfer function was. > >> > >> I have beside me my 1967 edition of _SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND > >> COMMUNICATION_ by Lathi. Must I start @ pg 1 and repeat >~ 2 > >> semesters of work? > >> > >> Is there a WEBSITE which would give me the brush up I need? > >> > >> I'm beginning to really appreciate the patience of many of this group > >> answering my "dumb" questions. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > I've found the "Art of Electronics" book more helpful for jogging my > > memory than my original text books. My copy isn't here so I apologize > > for not including a more complete reference. > > Horowitz and Hill, "Art of Electronics", 2nd. edition, Cambridge > University Press, ISBN 0521370957, > http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0521370957-0, etc., etc. > > -- > > Tim Wescott > Wescott Design Services > http://www.wescottdesign.comNever like that book - was written by a Physics man rather than an engineer and they have a different approach. Tom
Reply by ●August 31, 20042004-08-31
In article <1093921958.123633@ftpsrv1>, Tom <somebody@knowherex.netgx> wrote:>"Tim Wescott" <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message >news:10ilfr5qumcoj50@corp.supernews.com... >> Horowitz and Hill, "Art of Electronics", 2nd. edition, Cambridge >> University Press, ISBN 0521370957, >> http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0521370957-0, etc., etc. > >Never like that book - was written by a Physics man rather than an engineer >and they have a different approach.Hm... that must be why I liked that book. It made electronics comprehensible, for the most part, without spoon-feeding the reader. -Alex