Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Judges 13:18 Judges 13:18 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default another bizarre audio circuit

John Larkin wrote:




ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Chokes.JPG

John



What is the book?
  #122   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Fred Bloggs[_2_] Fred Bloggs[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Mar 4, 11:18*pm, John Larkin
wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:23:17 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs





wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:54 pm, John Larkin
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 19:53:58 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs


wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:58 pm, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:55:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs


wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:33 pm, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:03:38 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs


wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:40 am, John Larkin
wrote:
I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp
circuit:


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg


but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp...


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG


Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun
playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.

  #123   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
John Larkin John Larkin is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:22:16 +1300, Judges 13:18
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:




ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Chokes.JPG

John



What is the book?


Ghirardi, Radio Physics Course, 1932. I have a heap of old electronics
books, going back to 1921. People *did* use a lot of transformers and
inductors in signal paths, as the RF boys still do. Gain-bandwidth
used to be expensive.

John

  #124   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Werner Werner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On 04/03/11 01:21, Pomegranate ******* wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:42:45 -0800, MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:07:38 -0600, John - KD5YI
wrote:


Moer proof of you utter stupidity. I have posted links several times
here to photo sites that have all of my library of photos that I feel
someone could see.

Really?


Yes, dumb****.

I could post a photo site


Yes, if your IQ wasn't that of a circus flea.

of anyone I choose


No, you cannot. You can only post YOUR site. If you post someone
else's site you are posting THEIR site, you dumb whore for a mother
*******.

and you would not
have any idea they were not mine.


Can you really be that stupid? I alter my original assessment. Your
IQ is only 15.


What is your IQ, Mr Nymbecile?


I discard that


Good for you. I don't give a fat flying **** what you retain or
discard, you pathetic, meaningless piece of ****.

claim of your proof of
technical abilities unless you can back it up.


The posts are already in the group, bitch. Posted way back in the
threads they were originally posted in, ya little bitch.

Your lame refutation falls short of one main ingredient. That being
credibility. My original posts, which you failed to examine, are fine
and are still there for all to see. So much for them belonging to
someone else.

Can you really be that stupid?


One can tell that it's new moon just by reading this.

  #125   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
FatBytestard FatBytestard is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 03:55:14 +0800, Werner wrote:

One can tell that it's new moon just by reading this.



Yeah, idiot,mouthy ****s like you come out of the woodwork, further
proving that so many mothers needed to be put in prison for
failure-to-flush offenses. It can still be rectified, but public
stonings have not yet become in vogue again yet.


  #126   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Bill Sloman Bill Sloman is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Mar 5, 4:42*am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 19:35:32 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman

wrote:
and too low in the pecking order


*Sorry cast boy, but if we are declaring levels of attainment and
awareness here, you would certainly be the loser against me.


Dream on.

You don't even know what a 555 timer IC is for, much less the fact that
it is still used. Far more than you are willing to believe, since it
proves you wrong.


I know what Hans Camenzind claims that he though he was designing it
to do, and I've seen lots of exampled of the ways in which it is used.
I'm well aware that it still sells in large number, for use in legacy
designs, and that "legacy designers" still design it into new
circuits, because it is easier and quicker to adapt an old circuit
than to redesign around mre modern parts.

None of this falsifies the point I make - that the 555 stopped being a
widely applicable circuit back around 1980.

Since you half-baqked arguments don't address this particualr point,
they don't "prove me wrong". They do prove that you can't think
straight, which makes you* "both wrong AND the loser. *Bye."

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

  #127   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,



You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222
transistors used every day in new designs too. In your
idiot-without-a-clue mindset, those too would be "legacy designs".

You lose, again. As usual.
  #128   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Phil Hobbs[_2_] Phil Hobbs[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default another bizarre audio circuit

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:31 am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On 2 Mar., 17:40, John Larkin
wrote:
I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp
circuit:


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg


but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp...


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG


Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun
playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.


John


speaking of bizarre :http://tubetime.us/?p=85
I'm sure someone here will love it


-Lasse


Pretty good stuff.

It will go way over Sloman's head.


Along with the hundred other things a boy can do with a 555.

So someone has used a 555 to make a less than impressive radio-
receiver. Why would anybody be interested, if they hadn't fixated on
the device early in their career and never moved on?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a
far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle.

And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to
cheat at solitaire.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net
  #129   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
George Herold George Herold is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Mar 6, 11:51*am, Phil Hobbs
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:31 am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
*wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "


*wrote:
On 2 Mar., 17:40, John Larkin
*wrote:
I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp
circuit:


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg


but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp....


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG


Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun
playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.


John


speaking of bizarre :http://tubetime.us/?p=85
I'm sure someone here will love it


-Lasse


* *Pretty good stuff.


* *It will go way over Sloman's head.


Along with the hundred other things a boy can do with a 555.


So someone has used a 555 to make a less than impressive radio-
receiver. Why would anybody be interested, if they hadn't fixated on
the device early in their career and never moved on?


--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a
far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle..

And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to
cheat at solitaire.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So you'll know what to do when,

You're stuck on a desert island with three cocanut shells, some wire
and a 555 timer.....

Seriously I don't use the 555 anymore, but we have several old
circuits still using it. And I hope it and the 741 have only reached
middle age.

George H.

George H.
  #130   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Phil Hobbs[_2_] Phil Hobbs[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default another bizarre audio circuit

George Herold wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:51 am, Phil Hobbs
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:31 am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "


wrote:
On 2 Mar., 17:40, John Larkin
wrote:
I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp
circuit:


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg


but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp....


ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG


Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun
playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.


John


speaking of bizarre :http://tubetime.us/?p=85
I'm sure someone here will love it


-Lasse


Pretty good stuff.


It will go way over Sloman's head.


Along with the hundred other things a boy can do with a 555.


So someone has used a 555 to make a less than impressive radio-
receiver. Why would anybody be interested, if they hadn't fixated on
the device early in their career and never moved on?


--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a
far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle..

And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to
cheat at solitaire.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So you'll know what to do when,

You're stuck on a desert island with three cocanut shells, some wire
and a 555 timer.....

Seriously I don't use the 555 anymore, but we have several old
circuits still using it. And I hope it and the 741 have only reached
middle age.

George H.

George H.


I don't either, at least not in real circuits, but I could imagine
situations where I might, e.g. in a missing pulse detector for a laser
interlock. It could look for a 'sanity' pulse from a micro, and turn
off a relay to open the interlock. I've used programmable unijunctions
for that in the past, but that was mostly for fun. Either way, that job
shouldn't be done by a PIC, because it's processor or firmware failures
it's designed to detect.

I just get tired of the chronological snobbery of 'legacy' this and
'obsolete' that. As one of my daughters' friends said, "I get really
sick of being told by aging baby boomers that I'm out of date because I
don't subscribe to their 1968 worldview."

Cheers

Phil "mine's more 1168" Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net


  #131   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
I AM THAT I AM I AM THAT I AM is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:34:13 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

George Herold wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:51 am, Phil Hobbs
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:31 am, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On 2 Mar., 17:40, John Larkin
wrote:
I've always sort of liked the classic "GE" tape head/mic preamp
circuit:

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GEcircuit.jpg

but it occurred to me that it might also make a nice headphone amp....

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/GE_headphone_amp.JPG

Audio tends to be nonsense, but at least the audio guys have fun
playing with circuits, whether they make a lot of sense or not.

John

speaking of bizarre :http://tubetime.us/?p=85
I'm sure someone here will love it

-Lasse

Pretty good stuff.

It will go way over Sloman's head.

Along with the hundred other things a boy can do with a 555.

So someone has used a 555 to make a less than impressive radio-
receiver. Why would anybody be interested, if they hadn't fixated on
the device early in their career and never moved on?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

For the same reason people build ships in bottles, when you can build a
far more durable working model much more easily by heaving out the bottle..

And the same reason people compose sonnets, and even sometimes fail to
cheat at solitaire.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So you'll know what to do when,

You're stuck on a desert island with three cocanut shells, some wire
and a 555 timer.....

Seriously I don't use the 555 anymore, but we have several old
circuits still using it. And I hope it and the 741 have only reached
middle age.

George H.

George H.


I don't either, at least not in real circuits, but I could imagine
situations where I might, e.g. in a missing pulse detector for a laser
interlock. It could look for a 'sanity' pulse from a micro, and turn
off a relay to open the interlock. I've used programmable unijunctions
for that in the past, but that was mostly for fun. Either way, that job
shouldn't be done by a PIC, because it's processor or firmware failures
it's designed to detect.

I just get tired of the chronological snobbery of 'legacy' this and
'obsolete' that. As one of my daughters' friends said, "I get really
sick of being told by aging baby boomers that I'm out of date because I
don't subscribe to their 1968 worldview."

Cheers

Phil "mine's more 1168" Hobbs



Folks used the i80186 in the motion control industry for years, and it
was never a consumer PC product.

They went straight to the already also "done" i80286 when they replaced
the XT (8088).

The '186' is still used, but there are more efficient microcontrollers
with more 'features' out there so it rarely gets used any more. It
actually IS all but obsolete.

The 555 doesn't exactly follow that track as being a simpler device, it
does still get used in many instances.
  #132   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Bill Sloman Bill Sloman is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Mar 6, 3:56*pm, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman

wrote:
for use in legacy
designs,


* You're a goddamned idiot.

* If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.


If it uses the 555, the odds are heavily in favour of it being a
legacy design. Nowadays rhere are better ways of doing what the 555
can do.

* Your logic is as flawed as it gets. *There are still millions of 2n222
transistors used every day in new designs too. *In your
idiot-without-a-clue mindset, those too would be "legacy designs".


The 2N2222 a simpler part. The strength of the 555 was that it
combined a monostable with a relatively high current switch. These
turn out to be functions that don't really work well together. The
2N2222 is just a good saturating switch.

* You lose, again. *As usual.


You'd like to think so. It's a pity that you can't think straight. but
it does the advantage that it leads you to spectacularly comic
pratfalls. This is one of them.

--
Bill Sloman,Nijmegen

  #133   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
John Larkin John Larkin is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,



You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222


Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?

John

  #134   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
[email protected] krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:49:23 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,



You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222


Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?


They only come in packs of ~10.
  #136   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
Michael A. Terrell Michael A. Terrell is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default another bizarre audio circuit


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,



You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222


Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?



http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
  #137   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
I AM THAT I AM I AM THAT I AM is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,


You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222


Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?



http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each


You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix
part, right?

That's the reason it is at $15.
  #138   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
John Larkin John Larkin is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,


You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222

Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?



http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each


You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix
part, right?

That's the reason it is at $15.


The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's
expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in
production.

John

  #139   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
John - KD5YI John - KD5YI is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On 3/10/2011 5:13 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,


You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222

Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?


http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each


You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix
part, right?

That's the reason it is at $15.


The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's
expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in
production.

John


John -

You can count on AlwaysWrong to be, well, AlwaysWrong.

John
  #140   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
[email protected] krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:26:05 -0600, John - KD5YI wrote:

On 3/10/2011 5:13 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,


You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222

Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?


http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each

You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix
part, right?

That's the reason it is at $15.


The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's
expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in
production.

John


John -

You can count on AlwaysWrong to be, well, AlwaysWrong.


Larkin gave him the name.


  #141   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
I AM THAT I AM I AM THAT I AM is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:13:44 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,


You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222

Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?


http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each


You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix
part, right?

That's the reason it is at $15.


The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's
expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in
production.

John


So, you really are in the dark about jan mil parts. Interesting.

My error was simply a typo. Yours are always far worse.

Very few jan series parts are still 'in production'.

It does occur, and they are not cheap, and one must buy like a million
of them to get a production run going.

The only lines left these days are the radiation hardened class.
  #142   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
John - KD5YI John - KD5YI is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On 3/10/2011 6:59 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:26:05 -0600, John - wrote:

On 3/10/2011 5:13 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,


You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222

Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?


http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each

You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix
part, right?

That's the reason it is at $15.

The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's
expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in
production.

John


John -

You can count on AlwaysWrong to be, well, AlwaysWrong.


Larkin gave him the name.


Accurate nym - er - name.

What a dolt!

  #143   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
John - KD5YI John - KD5YI is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default another bizarre audio circuit

On 3/10/2011 6:59 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:26:05 -0600, John - wrote:

On 3/10/2011 5:13 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:13:44 -0800, I AM THAT I AM
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:42:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:56:19 -0800, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:15:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
wrote:

for use in legacy
designs,


You're a goddamned idiot.

If someone designs a new circuit, it is NOT "a legacy design" simply
because it uses an old established part.

Your logic is as flawed as it gets. There are still millions of 2n222

Where can I buy some of those 2N222's?


http://store.americanmicrosemiconduc.../jan2n222.html

Better hurry. There are only four left, at $14.94 each

You do know the difference between a normal 2n2222 and a 'jan' prefix
part, right?

That's the reason it is at $15.

The transistor in the link above is a 2N222, not a 2N2222. It's
expensive because it's a rare antique PNP germanium no longer in
production.

John


John -

You can count on AlwaysWrong to be, well, AlwaysWrong.


Larkin gave him the name.



BTW - have you noticed that he thinks he is God? (I AM THAT I AM nym)
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Separate circuit for audio equipment [email protected] High End Audio 14 January 6th 09 05:05 PM
bizarre audio problem Dan Car Audio 10 March 15th 08 02:24 PM
Hybrid telephone audio circuit 2 Audiomix Pro Audio 9 June 17th 04 02:51 PM
Bizarre Duet...your thoughts please SDOLMER Pro Audio 11 March 23rd 04 05:18 PM
OP-AMP like circuit in old audio amp (P-P) in old radio Robert Casey Vacuum Tubes 75 October 1st 03 11:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"