Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- From: keithr <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:17:00 +1000
John Byrns wrote:
In article <4721e0b6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, keithr <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
You really have to wonder.
Here we have three self-proclaimed engineers claiming that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s)never cease
conducting under any signal condition."
conduction "under any signal condition".
What a load of pedantic crap. How about simply specifying that a Class A
amplification stage will never cease to conduct when operated within it's
designed operating range (presuming that it was properly designed).
The problem with that definition is that it hands the original argument
to those that say a class AB amplifier can produce some level of class A
power, putting in error those who claim a class AB amplifier can't
produce any class A power at all. Since I am in the former camp I like
this definition, but I am sure those in the class AB amp can't produce
any class A power camp won't like it at all.
Under your definition all the designer of a class AB amp must do to get
his amp to produce some class A power is state something like "this
class AB amplifier is designed to produce 50 Watts, and is also designed
as a class A amplifier to produce 15 Watts."
To state the bleedin' obvious, a class AB amplifier is not a class A
amplifier. You would bias it rather differently to a pure class A job.
Class AB is a clever hack or kludge to get over the deficiencies of both
class A (dreadful efficiency and excess heat) and class B (crossover
distortion). Class B is the only one that scales to high power, and as the
crossover distortion is a fixed amount, it's significance diminishes as the
power level rises. Presto! bias The amp to work as push pull class A at low
levels and go into asymmetric cutoff on the output devices at higher levels
where the crossover distortion is less significant. Clever but not
pertinent to the debate about pure class A.
As for injunears, having passed some written exam at some point in life
(usually before any useful work was done) is no a guarantee of anything.
I've worked with everything from PHDs to people without a qualification
to their name, and, apart from a few of the PHDs, the ratio of the clever
to the idiots has been roughly the same regardless of qualification.
Why are you setting a few of the PhDs apart? Why don't you just say
that ratio of clever to idiots doesn't apply to PhDs, or are you
actually trying to say something else? For myself I'm not sure that
PhDs don't follow the same clever/idiot ratio as other people.
Most of the technical PHDs that I have known have been true nerds. They knew
all about something but nothing about anything else. Whether you consider
that clever or not, at least they had mastered something completely. I have
known a few non technical PHDs, even a couple of PHDs in philosophy, they
were a waste of space and oxygen. When the revolution comes, they will be
the first up against the wall :)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- From: John Byrns
- Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- References:
- Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- From: John Byrns
- Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- Next by Date: Re: It's all about application
- Previous by thread: Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- Next by thread: Re: Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
