In article , Sander deWaal
wrote:
John Byrns said:
In article ,
"Henry Pasternack" wrote:
By the way, did you know I studied EE in Frederick Terman's department?
He was professor emeritus, until he died, while I was at university. Some
of my professors were his former students, including a legend or two from
the "golden age" of tube radio, plus a good share of more modern legends.
The crucial question is did any of the wisdom of these giants rub off on
you while you put in your time there.
Dunno about that, but his analysis about the alleged feedback in
triodes (or absence thereof) made a lot of sense to me (at least the
parts that I could understand).
Henry seems to know his stuff pretty well.
This discussion isn't a matter of knowing much of anything, if I read
Henry correctly he is not saying that the operation of the triode doesn't
involve NFB, or that it does for that matter, all Henry is saying is that
there are several alternate ways to describe the operation of the triode
when it is viewed as a black box. Henry's logic can equally well be
applied to other devices, like say the famous Williamson amplifier, to
describe their operation without reference to NFB. The fact that a device
can be described by a Thevenin or Norton equivalent circuit says nothing
about whether or not the device makes use of NFB as part of its internal
operation. Given that both viewpoints are valid in a mathematical sense,
this whole discussion is just so much pointless gum flapping.
I should note that I only rejoined this group a week ago, and while there
appear to be numerous threads that may be discussing this subject, I have
only looked at two, first the "Diode" thread, and today this thread.
Since I have been only selectively reading the posts here, I may be
missing some crucial history which could render some of my comments
invalid, YMMV.
Regards,
John Byrns
Surf my web pages at,
http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/