Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3DB1F8E0.1464@Spam.Bots> <4Vrs9.92$0J6.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DB27E3A.F0C@Spam.Bots> <0Wts9.218$0J6.email@example.com> <3DB3411D.1B53@Spam.Bots> <7WMs9.18$JW5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <7ZDLAbAr77s9Ew6C@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4Zsu9.378$lU1.email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Aylward, Engelhardt: Noise in a transient sim?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1035644785 2103 188.8.131.52 (26 Oct 2002 15:06:25 GMT)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:06:24 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:06:25 BST
"John Woodgate" wrote in message
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> wrote (in
> .ntli.net>) about 'Aylward, Engelhardt: Noise in a transient sim?', on
> Sat, 26 Oct 2002:
> >I was pointing out the fact that the true signal BW, *is* the signal
> >noise BW. This should indicate quite clearly, that a claim of
> >0.01nv/sqrth over a BW of 7Ghz, is quite nonsense. Why you don't see
> >this is pretty amazing really.
> You two are continually talking 'past' each other. Look at it in a
> different way. To get 0.01 nV/sqrth, the circuit resistance, given by:
> R = V^2/(4kTB), = 9 x 10^-13 ohms at 290 K. Unlikely.
I disagree that I have been talking past the dude. I understand exactly
where he is coming from. I have explained to him what BW really means
and contrasted it with what he *thinks* it means, i.e. signal frequncy
is not BW. Not only has he stuck his head in the sand, he is unable to
look at the overall system and know right off the bat, that what he
suggests is totally daft.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.