On Oct 26, 2:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:



On Oct 26, 8:27 am, Chel van Gennip wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
That is why we have this thread, to explain to the three self-styled
"engineers" Graham Stevenson, Arny Krueger and Don Pearce that a Class
A amplifier must have its signal limited or it is no longer a Class A
amplifier. How can any properly educated engineer not know that the
signal in an amplifier class is by necessity limited? Yet those three
signed their names repeatedly to a claim that Class A is
an amplification Class in which "the output device(s) never cease
conducting under any signal condition."

You really should try to express yourself more clearly. There are
several modes of amplification. In Class A "the output device(s)never
cease conducting" Amplifiers are designed to use one (or more) modes of
amplification. When used outside the specified signal range, the
amplifier wont operate in the designed mode(s) of amplification. e.g. if
you don't supply mains power, none of the output devices will conduct.
Even switched off, and not operating at all, an amplifier designed to
operate in Class A will remain an amplifier desinged to operate in Class A,

Now you're down to pulling the plug to make an absurd misdefinition by
Graham Poopie Stevenson work. That is taking professional solidarity
among "engineers" too far.

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

Andre, I'm surprised you would give Chel such a trivially easy challenge
to meet. So as not interfere I will save my solution for a later post,
assuming anyone is even interested.

You'd really assume that on a newsgroup called "rec.audio.pro" a dozen
solutions would by now have been volunteered. Instead they've wasted
everyone's time bitching that amp design challenges don't belong on
their newsgroup.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

I wouldn't be so fast in saying it is too easy a challenge. You might
get stuck again with having to tutor some diplomaed quarterwit, as you
did that time poor Pinkerton was dumb enough to announce he would
design a solid state amp that would sound just like a 300B I would
design at the same time. I nearly died of boredom waiting while you
and Patrick gave Pinkerton a crash course that stretched on and on
while yet more and more lacunae in his education became visible --
check in the ill-educated "engineers" thread for an estimate that
electronic engineers receive only 15 hours of education altogether on
amplifier design. (It's offered as an excuse for the incompetence of
Poopie, Slapdash and Bluster, so it might be an underestimate, but
even two or three times that much would still be a low number.)
Pinkostinko's incompetence is being explained before our very eyes --
about forty years too late for Pinko. I have high hopes that this
Dutch fellow might be much more competent; I hold Dutch education,
engineering and graphic arts in the very highest esteem.

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey