Menu
John,
First, you may have noted that I purposely claimed as
a goal to keep things very simple, which I think I did
fairly well. To state that there are 'numerous' mistakes
is not a matter of treating me unfairly, but it goes to
the matter of treating the rest of the readers unfairly.
How can they make up their minds if you don't give your
opposing viewpoints?
Second, I too could have just sent people to one or more
of my favorite websites, but I chose instead to write
this all out in my own words. While you may dispute
some of it, I challenge you (in the politest sense of
the word) to put forth your reasons for calling me into
question, preferably in your own words please. IMO,
sending someone off to a website that has a fantastic
amount of data, and telling them to search for the
answer, is not a good way to give them the answer to
the simple questions they asked in the first place.
Third, I am more than familiar with Mr. Keen and his
website. Overall, his presentation is very thorough,
and I would have the devil's own time of it trying to
find fault with about 98% of his writings. Keep in
mind that I have no real ax to grind with him, but there
are places where he makes an engineer cringe. In point
of fact, he states baldly at the outset that he is not
an engineer in the classical sense, whereas I can make
that claim. But what he is doing is bringing to his
pages that which he can depend on through his personal
experiences, or which he has garnered from his friends.
No fault there, and I applaud him for this. I wish
that I had the time to do the same thing. Going any
further would be petty nit-picking, and unproductive.
Fourth, I was trying to keep things relevant to the amps
used in the guitar markets - that eliminates any of the
advanced transformer circuits. What's more, your link
to a page dealing with so-called magnetic amplifiers is
misleading - you should have read the whole thing.
To quote from the fifth paragraph:
>> The term "amplifier" is used for this arrangement because,
>> by use of a few milliamperes, control of an output of 1
>> or more amperes is obtained.
They are using a DC current to saturate the core of an
otherwise ordinary transformer, which then devolves to
a simple interpretation of the DC current being used to
control the AC output independently of the input. And
you must keep in mind that everything else on this page
devolves from the above quote. There are, of course,
many uses for this type of circuit, and I wholeheartedly
concede that this single component is an active one. But
try to find such a device in any guitar/bass amp ever
made, hmmmm? I rest my case.
And finally, there really are two main camps, or schools
of thought, on how things work in the electronics world.
It can usually be divided down to engineers vs. technicians,
but that's a gross oversimplification. At the heart of it
all, there truly is room for different interpretations of
what one has learned via the simple expedient of personal,
hands-on, experimentation. To remain open minded about
the observations, deductions and conclusions of others is
what science is all about - it's not only the best way to
make progress, it's the only way that will stand the test
of time.
unlunf
--- In , "John Greene" <greene_pedals@y...> wrote:
>
> This is 'close' but not entirely correct. Rather than point out the
> numerous errors in your post, I'll refer you to this link:
>
> which answers most any question you could have with regard to tube
> amplifiers.
>
> And BTW, a transformer is an 'active' component. There even have
> been transformer 'power amplifiers' manufactured in the past where
> the transformer was the active power element.
>
>
> regards,
>
> --john
>
