The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Phil Allison"
References: <email@example.com> <7a9M9.6086$jM5.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Audio noise in diff amps
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:49:26 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:37:45 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"Rick" wrote in message
> Phil Allison wrote:
> > "Rick" wrote in message
> > news:email@example.com...
> >> You weren't being abused by fools.
> > ** Yep, I was actually. Now **you** add to the list.
> Perhaps you could point to ANYTHING I've said that's technically wrong
> or even ambiguous as proof of my foolishness.
** No, I said you were abusing me and you still are. There is no
need to do that so it is the act of a fool. QED
I'm not the muppet insisting
> that noise is some sort of special voltage that doesn't deliver power into
> a load in order to preserve the laws of thermodynamics.
** Massive misquote.
Only ignorant jerks write their own version of someone's words in order
to make jibes.
I'm not the one quoting a VOLTAGE as, variously, uV, dBm, dB and dBu.
** The terms uV and dBu are always voltage. Also dBm in the OPs
> >> You made an invalid assumption that
> >> everyone on this group is an audio engineer who misuses the term "dBm"
> >> in the same manner as you.
> > ** What absolute bullshit. How the hell do you reach an idiot
> > conclusion like that ??
> From the fact that everyone is talking across eachother because of your
> use of audio engineering's ambiguous, and apparently obsolete, use of dBm.
** The OP used it. I used it once. Then I explaind it - in my next
Go a problem with that shithead.
> > I made *no error whatever* and my correct explanation was
> You wouldn't have NEEDED to explain yourself if you'd bothered to mention
> few salient facts in the first place.
** My post was directed at the OP - not the whole NG. Wake up.
You didn't originally mention the
> bandwidth or the formula you'd used to come up with 2.4uV.
** I did. The audio band. Know what that is dickhead ??
I knew what
> you were on about, but it's evident that others didn't.
** Like hell. There was one person maned Pearce with a score to settle
and a mad idea in his head.
You then went
> and quoted that voltage in dBm - utterly vague, particularly when the
> reference impendace is arbitrary...not everyone in engineering uses 600
** Bullshit. I quoted the ACTUAL voltage then the equivalent in dBm to
give the OP a comparasion with HIS quoted figure in dBm from HIS Fluke
meter - ever seem one of them dickhead?
> You then invented a new Physics, whereby power sources don't dissipate
> resistive loads.
** Listen arsehole - do not misquote and put your words in my mouth.
I might put my boot in yours.
That's not what I'd call "no error whatsoever" - that's
> as wrong as can be.
** Seeing as these are **your** words and NOT mine then you are the
one who is wrong as can be Mr Dickhead.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup