| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:19:48 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,482 |
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined HeisenbergrCOs uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
On 29/09/2025 4:35 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise
Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors.
Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined HeisenbergrCOs uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
It wasn't Heisenberg's cat, but Schroedinger's and that was all about >collapsing a waveform, and rather different insight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
and you've completely misunderstood the science daily release.
It was all about putting the uncertainty where the experimenter wanted
to put it, getting more precision on momentum by loosening up the
precision on position.
On 29/09/2025 4:35 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise
Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. >>> Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined HeisenbergrCOs uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research. >>>
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
It wasn't Heisenberg's cat, but Schroedinger's and that was all about
collapsing a waveform, and rather different insight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
and you've completely misunderstood the science daily release.
It was all about putting the uncertainty where the experimenter wanted
to put it, getting more precision on momentum by loosening up the
precision on position.
Such wise words.
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined Heisenberg???s uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise >Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. >Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined HeisenbergrCOs uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:35:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise
Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors.
Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined Heisenberg|ore4raos uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
It's tiresome, and hard to get designs done, when everything gets revolutionized every few days.
On 30/09/2025 12:40 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:35:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise
Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. >>> Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined HeisenbergrCOs uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
It's tiresome, and hard to get designs done, when everything gets
revolutionized every few days.
Jan Panteltje's post did claim that the work was revolutionary, but he's
dim enough not to have realised that it was Schroedinger's cat that
might or might not have been dead, not Heisenberg's.
In fact the work is a spin-off of some work on quantum computing, and
since you don't go in for that, you can indulgence in what you fondly >imagine to be design without any anxiety.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:58:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/09/2025 12:40 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:35:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise
Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. >>>> Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined Heisenberg|ore4raos uncertainty principle, >>>> engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics,
while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
It's tiresome, and hard to get designs done, when everything gets
revolutionized every few days.
Jan Panteltje's post did claim that the work was revolutionary, but he's
dim enough not to have realised that it was Schroedinger's cat that
might or might not have been dead, not Heisenberg's.
In fact the work is a spin-off of some work on quantum computing, and
since you don't go in for that, you can indulgence in what you fondly
imagine to be design without any anxiety.
As you can not-design without anxiety.
Imagine if you can, a series R+L+voltage-source circuit where all
three elements can be independently arbitrarily modulated at MHz
bandwidth. Well, conservation of energy isn't everything.
Inductance is similarly inflexible. If you add a second inductor coupled
to the first, you can do all sorts of stuff, but the only way you can modulate the inductance at MHz rates is by saturating a magnetic core in
the return path, and that's above your pay grade.
On 30/09/2025 2:15 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:58:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/09/2025 12:40 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:35:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise
Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. >>>>> Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined HeisenbergrCOs uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics, >>>>> while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research. >>>>>
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
It's tiresome, and hard to get designs done, when everything gets
revolutionized every few days.
Jan Panteltje's post did claim that the work was revolutionary, but he's >>> dim enough not to have realised that it was Schroedinger's cat that
might or might not have been dead, not Heisenberg's.
In fact the work is a spin-off of some work on quantum computing, and
since you don't go in for that, you can indulgence in what you fondly
imagine to be design without any anxiety.
As you can not-design without anxiety.
I do design stuff from time to time, and most of it gets posted here.
It's not serious, in the sense that it usually isn't properly toleranced
or documented, but in the sense of arranging components to get a desired >result, it is serious enough.
Imagine if you can, a series R+L+voltage-source circuit where all
three elements can be independently arbitrarily modulated at MHz
bandwidth. Well, conservation of energy isn't everything.
It's kind of hard to modulate resistance at all - at least in a resistor.
Inductance is similarly inflexible. If you add a second inductor coupled
to the first, you can do all sorts of stuff, but the only way you can >modulate the inductance at MHz rates is by saturating a magnetic core in
the return path, and that's above your pay grade.
Voltage sources can be modulated without difficulty.
I don't need much imagination at all to see you typing out word salad
that you don't actually understand.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:34:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/09/2025 2:15 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:58:18 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/09/2025 12:40 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 06:35:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
Heisenberg said it was impossible. Scientists just proved otherwise >>>>>> Foundational research opens pathway for next-generation quantum sensors. >>>>>> Date:
September 28, 2025
Source:
University of Sydney
Summary:
Researchers have reimagined HeisenbergrCOs uncertainty principle,
engineering a trade-off that allows precise measurement of both position and momentum.
Using quantum computing tools like grid states and trapped ions, they demonstrated
sensing precision beyond classical limits.
Such advances could revolutionize navigation, medicine, and physics, >>>>>> while underscoring the global collaboration driving quantum research. >>>>>>
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250928095633.htm
Finally Heisenberg's cat babble is dead.
It's tiresome, and hard to get designs done, when everything gets
revolutionized every few days.
Jan Panteltje's post did claim that the work was revolutionary, but he's >>>> dim enough not to have realised that it was Schroedinger's cat that
might or might not have been dead, not Heisenberg's.
In fact the work is a spin-off of some work on quantum computing, and
since you don't go in for that, you can indulgence in what you fondly
imagine to be design without any anxiety.
As you can not-design without anxiety.
I do design stuff from time to time, and most of it gets posted here.
It's not serious, in the sense that it usually isn't properly toleranced
or documented, but in the sense of arranging components to get a desired >>result, it is serious enough.
Imagine if you can, a series R+L+voltage-source circuit where all
three elements can be independently arbitrarily modulated at MHz
bandwidth. Well, conservation of energy isn't everything.
It's kind of hard to modulate resistance at all - at least in a resistor.
Of course it's hard. That's why they sell well.
Inductance is similarly inflexible. If you add a second inductor coupled >>to the first, you can do all sorts of stuff, but the only way you can >>modulate the inductance at MHz rates is by saturating a magnetic core in >>the return path, and that's above your pay grade.
Voltage sources can be modulated without difficulty.
I don't need much imagination at all to see you typing out word salad
that you don't actually understand.
Oh it works fine. We'll be shipping the R+L version soon. Adding V is >obviously easy.
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
Inductance is similarly inflexible. If you add a second inductor coupled
to the first, you can do all sorts of stuff, but the only way you can
modulate the inductance at MHz rates is by saturating a magnetic core in
the return path, and that's above your pay grade.
That's not the only way. Injecting a variable current at 90-degrees to
the main current will simulate a variable inductor or capacitor. I have
used this system to 'pull' a 16.5 Mc/s crystal oscilator using an EF91
as the gain-controlled phase-shift amplifier.
<http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/Radio/G8HEH/2metretransceiver.htm#XTALOSC
Clue: The 90-degree phase shift is being injected into the cathode of
the first EF91 (modulator) from the cathode of the second EF91
(oscillator) with the choke between the cathodes and the 680-ohm cathode resistor forming the phase-shift network.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
In the case of "Gyrator", Tellegen named it to describe how it rotates
the behaviour of the conventional elements of L, C & R. As far as I can
see your product doesn't involve any form of rotation, so the "Gyr" bit
is misleading.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
In the case of "Gyrator", Tellegen named it to describe how it rotates
the behaviour of the conventional elements of L, C & R. As far as I can
see your product doesn't involve any form of rotation, so the "Gyr" bit
is misleading.
Well, we're synthesizing arbitrary impedances, arguably a bit more
than what a classic gyrator does. But advertising slogans don't need
to pass peer review in academic journals.
One problem with faking inductances by gyrating caps is energy storage density.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
In the case of "Gyrator", Tellegen named it to describe how it rotates
the behaviour of the conventional elements of L, C & R. As far as I can >>> see your product doesn't involve any form of rotation, so the "Gyr" bit
is misleading.
Well, we're synthesizing arbitrary impedances, arguably a bit more
than what a classic gyrator does. But advertising slogans don't need
to pass peer review in academic journals.
One problem with faking inductances by gyrating caps is energy storage
density.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Fleximpedance?
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 10:11:26 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesXX@YYverizon.net>
wrote:
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
In the case of "Gyrator", Tellegen named it to describe how it rotates >>>> the behaviour of the conventional elements of L, C & R. As far as I can >>>> see your product doesn't involve any form of rotation, so the "Gyr" bit >>>> is misleading.
Well, we're synthesizing arbitrary impedances, arguably a bit more
than what a classic gyrator does. But advertising slogans don't need
to pass peer review in academic journals.
One problem with faking inductances by gyrating caps is energy storage
density.
Fleximpedance?
That's not bad. Could be a newsletter title.
On 2/10/2025 12:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 10:11:26 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesXX@YYverizon.net>
wrote:
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
In the case of "Gyrator", Tellegen named it to describe how it rotates >>>>> the behaviour of the conventional elements of L, C & R. As far as I can >>>>> see your product doesn't involve any form of rotation, so the "Gyr" bit >>>>> is misleading.
Well, we're synthesizing arbitrary impedances, arguably a bit more
than what a classic gyrator does. But advertising slogans don't need
to pass peer review in academic journals.
But they do need to be tailored to the target audience.
One problem with faking inductances by gyrating caps is energy storage >>>> density.
Fleximpedance?
That's not bad. Could be a newsletter title.
Falls a bit short of suggesting arbitrary impedances (which might need
to be negative).
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Fantasy electronics?
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 01:30:58 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 12:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 10:11:26 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesXX@YYverizon.net>
wrote:
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little
scientific.
In the case of "Gyrator", Tellegen named it to describe how it rotates >>>>>> the behaviour of the conventional elements of L, C & R. As far as I can >>>>>> see your product doesn't involve any form of rotation, so the "Gyr" bit >>>>>> is misleading.
Well, we're synthesizing arbitrary impedances, arguably a bit more
than what a classic gyrator does. But advertising slogans don't need >>>>> to pass peer review in academic journals.
But they do need to be tailored to the target audience.
We call them "customers"
One problem with faking inductances by gyrating caps is energy storage >>>>> density.
Fleximpedance?
That's not bad. Could be a newsletter title.
Falls a bit short of suggesting arbitrary impedances (which might need
to be negative).
Sure, once you have a general impedance synthesis system you can just
program things negative. That has stability issues, but we program
both resistances and inductances close to zero, below the actual
values inherent in the circuits.
On 10/1/2025 12:05 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 01:30:58 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 12:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 10:11:26 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesXX@YYverizon.net>
wrote:
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe aOmnipedance?
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance. >>>>>>>>>
Gyropedance is sort of a play on gyrator. That sounds a little >>>>>>>> scientific.
In the case of "Gyrator", Tellegen named it to describe how it rotates >>>>>>> the behaviour of the conventional elements of L, C & R. As far as I can
see your product doesn't involve any form of rotation, so the "Gyr" bit >>>>>>> is misleading.
Well, we're synthesizing arbitrary impedances, arguably a bit more >>>>>> than what a classic gyrator does. But advertising slogans don't need >>>>>> to pass peer review in academic journals.
But they do need to be tailored to the target audience.
We call them "customers"
One problem with faking inductances by gyrating caps is energy storage >>>>>> density.
Fleximpedance?
That's not bad. Could be a newsletter title.
Falls a bit short of suggesting arbitrary impedances (which might need
to be negative).
Sure, once you have a general impedance synthesis system you can just
program things negative. That has stability issues, but we program
both resistances and inductances close to zero, below the actual
values inherent in the circuits.
Ok. It can be called the Larkinator -
a programmable modpedance generator :-)
Ed
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:50:17 -0400, ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 12:05 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 01:30:58 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 12:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 10:11:26 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesXX@YYverizon.net> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Fleximpedance?
That's not bad. Could be a newsletter title.
Falls a bit short of suggesting arbitrary impedances (which might need >>>> to be negative).
Sure, once you have a general impedance synthesis system you can just
program things negative. That has stability issues, but we program
both resistances and inductances close to zero, below the actual
values inherent in the circuits.
Ok. It can be called the Larkinator -
a programmable modpedance generator :-)
Yes. The Larkinator circuit is a higher speed variant of the classic Slomanator.
On 2/10/2025 6:13 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:50:17 -0400, ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 12:05 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 01:30:58 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 12:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 10:11:26 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesXX@YYverizon.net> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Fleximpedance?
That's not bad. Could be a newsletter title.
Falls a bit short of suggesting arbitrary impedances (which might need >>>> to be negative).
Sure, once you have a general impedance synthesis system you can just
program things negative. That has stability issues, but we program
both resistances and inductances close to zero, below the actual
values inherent in the circuits.
Ok. It can be called the Larkinator -
a programmable modpedance generator :-)
Yes. The Larkinator circuit is a higher speed variant of the classic Slomanator.
The only negative impedance circuit I can recall posting here was a Philips-developed scheme for running DC motors at constant speed by
driving them from a constant voltage through a negative resistance that compensated for the positive resistance of the windings. I think it was
used in cheap tape recorders. The positive feedback that made it work
was frequency limited to prevent oscillation. I think it depended on a
single cheap op amp. I did identify where it came from when I posted
about the circuit.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 6:13 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:50:17 -0400, ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 12:05 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 01:30:58 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 12:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 10:11:26 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesXX@YYverizon.net> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 10/1/25 9:58 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:13:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:09:46 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Fleximpedance?
That's not bad. Could be a newsletter title.
Falls a bit short of suggesting arbitrary impedances (which might need >>>>>> to be negative).
Sure, once you have a general impedance synthesis system you can just >>>>> program things negative. That has stability issues, but we program
both resistances and inductances close to zero, below the actual
values inherent in the circuits.
Ok. It can be called the Larkinator -
a programmable modpedance generator :-)
Yes. The Larkinator circuit is a higher speed variant of the classic
Slomanator.
The only negative impedance circuit I can recall posting here was a
Philips-developed scheme for running DC motors at constant speed by
driving them from a constant voltage through a negative resistance that
compensated for the positive resistance of the windings. I think it was
used in cheap tape recorders. The positive feedback that made it work
was frequency limited to prevent oscillation. I think it depended on a
single cheap op amp. I did identify where it came from when I posted
about the circuit.
It was used in the EL3302 series, there is a full description of it in
the Philips Technical Review. There were no op-amps, it just used
discrete components with one special temperature-compensating resistor
wound with copper wire.
I have used negative impedance at low frequency to overcome 'cogging' in--
a motor driving a parallel-tracking gramophone pickup carriage - and at
audio frequencies to compensate for voltage drop in a long loudspeaker
cable.
The audio installation was going to be in the Science Museum in London
with ordinary twin-and-earth house wiring cable connecting an amplifier
to a horn pressure driver of about 6 ohms impedance (A Western Electric
555). The length of cable between the amplifier and the drive unit was unknown at the time of designing the amplifier but it was assumed to be
up to 50 metres.
I arranged for the power to be supplied on the usual 'live' and
'neutral' conductors but specified that the earth wire had to be
connected to the neutral at the loudspeaker end of the circuit. The returning voltage on the earth wire, which was equivalent to the volt
drop on the 'neutral' conductor, was doubled and fed into the power
amplifier stage to compensate for the total cable losses. Any change of resistance due to length or temperature was assumed to affect both power conductors equally.
[For more information search for "Denman horn"]
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy
load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount
of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors,
and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power 4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat.
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power
from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake)
stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store
his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a
cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real
challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And
stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real
motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all tangled.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly
general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads.
Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy
load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount
of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors,
and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power
4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat.
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power
from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power
resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake)
stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store
his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
Obviously.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a
cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real
challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And
stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Most circuit design has lots of tedious constraints, which you can't
boast about getting around because they are tedious.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real
motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all
tangled.
Obviously. If you learned a bit more about magnetics you might be able
to get into designing your own transformers, rather than insisting on
using parts that you can buy of the shelf.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
None. Most of yours seem to have trouble understanding their problems >clearly enough to be able to go out and buy off the shelf solutions.
Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real
inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly
general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads.
Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and
inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors >>>>>>>> have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now. >>>>>>>>
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy
load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount
of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors,
and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power
4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat.
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power
from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power
resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake)
stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store
his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
Obviously.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a
cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real
challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And
stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Most circuit design has lots of tedious constraints, which you can't
boast about getting around because they are tedious.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real
motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all
tangled.
Obviously. If you learned a bit more about magnetics you might be able
to get into designing your own transformers, rather than insisting on
using parts that you can buy of the shelf.
Buying 90 cent surface-mount transformers make sense.
Right now we are
waiting for another batch of kapton things from JLC, windings for fast high-voltage planar transmission-line transformers.
Avtech Electrosystems abruptly went out of business and we've had some enquiries about high-voltage pulsers.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
None. Most of yours seem to have trouble understanding their problems
clearly enough to be able to go out and buy off the shelf solutions.
We like to do stuff that has no competition. That's interesting and
avoids bidding wars.
Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real
inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly
general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads.
Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and
inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe a >>>>>>>>> resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance.
Omnipedance?
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy >>>> load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount
of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors,
and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power
4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat.
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power >>>> from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power >>>> resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake)
stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store
his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
Obviously.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a
cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real
challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And
stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Most circuit design has lots of tedious constraints, which you can't
boast about getting around because they are tedious.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real
motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all >>>> tangled.
Obviously. If you learned a bit more about magnetics you might be able
to get into designing your own transformers, rather than insisting on
using parts that you can buy of the shelf.
Buying 90 cent surface-mount transformers make sense.
If they do what you want. Winding your own - or getting your own
windings printed - gives you a lot more flexibility.
Right now we are
waiting for another batch of kapton things from JLC, windings for fast
high-voltage planar transmission-line transformers.
Avtech Electrosystems abruptly went out of business and we've had some
enquiries about high-voltage pulsers.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
None. Most of yours seem to have trouble understanding their problems
clearly enough to be able to go out and buy off the shelf solutions.
We like to do stuff that has no competition. That's interesting and
avoids bidding wars.
But does restrict you to niche markets, which aren't big.
Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real >>>> inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly
general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads.
Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and
inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may
well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic
- they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:16:24 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe aOmnipedance?
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything >>>>>>>>>> needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance. >>>>>>>>>
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy >>>>> load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount >>>>> of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors, >>>>> and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power >>>>> 4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat. >>>>>
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power >>>>> from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power >>>>> resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake) >>>>> stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store >>>>> his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
Obviously.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a >>>>> cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real
challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And
stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Most circuit design has lots of tedious constraints, which you can't
boast about getting around because they are tedious.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real
motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all >>>>> tangled.
Obviously. If you learned a bit more about magnetics you might be able >>>> to get into designing your own transformers, rather than insisting on
using parts that you can buy of the shelf.
Buying 90 cent surface-mount transformers make sense.
If they do what you want. Winding your own - or getting your own
windings printed - gives you a lot more flexibility.
Right now we are
waiting for another batch of kapton things from JLC, windings for fast
high-voltage planar transmission-line transformers.
Avtech Electrosystems abruptly went out of business and we've had some
enquiries about high-voltage pulsers.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
None. Most of yours seem to have trouble understanding their problems
clearly enough to be able to go out and buy off the shelf solutions.
We like to do stuff that has no competition. That's interesting and
avoids bidding wars.
But does restrict you to niche markets, which aren't big.
Big enough, but more importantly fun. Yes, jet engines are a niche
market.
Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real >>>>> inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly
general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads.
Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and
inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may
well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic
- they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
It's easy to buy a hunk of iron and some power resistors and stuff it
all into a big rackmount box with some fans. Just apply time and
money.
We are developing the synthesized RL loads precisely because a biggish organization got tired of doing that a zillion different ways. It
turns out that rack space is very valuable to them too.
The problem with real power inductors is making them programmable. One
winds up with nightmares of tapped inductors switched in series or
parallel with a mess of relays. The electrical issues are ghastly.
Play with it some.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 10/3/25 15:36, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:16:24 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe aOmnipedance?
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance. >>>>>>>>>>
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy >>>>>> load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount >>>>>> of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors, >>>>>> and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power >>>>>> 4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat. >>>>>>
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power >>>>>> from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power >>>>>> resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake) >>>>>> stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store >>>>>> his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
Obviously.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a >>>>>> cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real
challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And
stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Most circuit design has lots of tedious constraints, which you can't >>>>> boast about getting around because they are tedious.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real >>>>>> motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all >>>>>> tangled.
Obviously. If you learned a bit more about magnetics you might be able >>>>> to get into designing your own transformers, rather than insisting on >>>>> using parts that you can buy of the shelf.
Buying 90 cent surface-mount transformers make sense.
If they do what you want. Winding your own - or getting your own
windings printed - gives you a lot more flexibility.
Right now we are
waiting for another batch of kapton things from JLC, windings for fast >>>> high-voltage planar transmission-line transformers.
Avtech Electrosystems abruptly went out of business and we've had some >>>> enquiries about high-voltage pulsers.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
None. Most of yours seem to have trouble understanding their problems >>>>> clearly enough to be able to go out and buy off the shelf solutions.
We like to do stuff that has no competition. That's interesting and
avoids bidding wars.
But does restrict you to niche markets, which aren't big.
Big enough, but more importantly fun. Yes, jet engines are a niche
market.
Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real >>>>>> inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly
general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads.
Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and >>>>>> inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may
well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic
- they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
It's easy to buy a hunk of iron and some power resistors and stuff it
all into a big rackmount box with some fans. Just apply time and
money.
We are developing the synthesized RL loads precisely because a biggish
organization got tired of doing that a zillion different ways. It
turns out that rack space is very valuable to them too.
The problem with real power inductors is making them programmable. One
winds up with nightmares of tapped inductors switched in series or
parallel with a mess of relays. The electrical issues are ghastly.
Play with it some.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
The old way to obtain variable inductance that could be changed
under load would be a variometer, a rotable coil inside a fixed
coil, wired in series.
What kind of power are you dealing with?
Jeroen Belleman
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:16:24 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may
well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic
- they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
It's easy to buy a hunk of iron and some power resistors and stuff it
all into a big rackmount box with some fans. Just apply time and
money.
We are developing the synthesized RL loads precisely because a biggish organization got tired of doing that a zillion different ways. It
turns out that rack space is very valuable to them too.
The problem with real power inductors is making them programmable. One
winds up with nightmares of tapped inductors switched in series or
parallel with a mess of relays. The electrical issues are ghastly.
Play with it some.
On 3/10/2025 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:16:24 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may
well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic
- they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
It's easy to buy a hunk of iron and some power resistors and stuff it
all into a big rackmount box with some fans. Just apply time and
money.
We are developing the synthesized RL loads precisely because a biggish
organization got tired of doing that a zillion different ways. It
turns out that rack space is very valuable to them too.
Bean counters do get excited about rack space. They have to pay rent on
the space to accommodate the racks.
The problem with real power inductors is making them programmable. One
winds up with nightmares of tapped inductors switched in series or
parallel with a mess of relays. The electrical issues are ghastly.
Play with it some.
Curious. I've used linear differential transformers as position sensors. >They depend on moving the core inside a complex winding to vary the >coupling. You can move it continuously. There are angle sensors that
rotate the core to achieve the same effect.
I've not seen the approach used to make variable inductors.
nductors
are cranky enough without trying to make them variable, so there
wouldn't be a mass market for the sort of off-the-shelf parts that you'd >like to buy.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:52:36 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/3/25 15:36, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:16:24 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe aOmnipedance?
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance. >>>>>>>>>>>
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy >>>>>>> load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount >>>>>>> of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors, >>>>>>> and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power >>>>>>> 4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat. >>>>>>>
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power >>>>>>> from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power >>>>>>> resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake) >>>>>>> stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store >>>>>>> his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
Obviously.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a >>>>>>> cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real >>>>>>> challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And
stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Most circuit design has lots of tedious constraints, which you can't >>>>>> boast about getting around because they are tedious.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real >>>>>>> motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all >>>>>>> tangled.
Obviously. If you learned a bit more about magnetics you might be able >>>>>> to get into designing your own transformers, rather than insisting on >>>>>> using parts that you can buy of the shelf.
Buying 90 cent surface-mount transformers make sense.
If they do what you want. Winding your own - or getting your own
windings printed - gives you a lot more flexibility.
Right now we are
waiting for another batch of kapton things from JLC, windings for fast >>>>> high-voltage planar transmission-line transformers.
Avtech Electrosystems abruptly went out of business and we've had some >>>>> enquiries about high-voltage pulsers.
We like to do stuff that has no competition. That's interesting and
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
None. Most of yours seem to have trouble understanding their problems >>>>>> clearly enough to be able to go out and buy off the shelf solutions. >>>>>
avoids bidding wars.
But does restrict you to niche markets, which aren't big.
Big enough, but more importantly fun. Yes, jet engines are a niche
market.
Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real >>>>>>> inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly
general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads. >>>>>>> Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and >>>>>>> inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may >>>> well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic >>>> - they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
It's easy to buy a hunk of iron and some power resistors and stuff it
all into a big rackmount box with some fans. Just apply time and
money.
We are developing the synthesized RL loads precisely because a biggish
organization got tired of doing that a zillion different ways. It
turns out that rack space is very valuable to them too.
The problem with real power inductors is making them programmable. One
winds up with nightmares of tapped inductors switched in series or
parallel with a mess of relays. The electrical issues are ghastly.
Play with it some.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
The old way to obtain variable inductance that could be changed
under load would be a variometer, a rotable coil inside a fixed
coil, wired in series.
What kind of power are you dealing with?
Jeroen Belleman
One board is eight channels, each programmable 10mH to 10H. It
simulates small solenoids and relays and torque motors. The customer
only needs to go to 2H, but it's easy to go up to 10.
I'm designing a higher power version, 4 channels with a CPU cooler. A
good copper cooler bolted onto a board can dump 150 or maybe 200
watts, depending on how hot you allow the parts to get.
Torque motors are interesting. Many are 2-part, one bit bolted to a
rotating shaft and a fixed coil assembly outside that. Sort of a
3-phase stepper.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 10/3/25 17:54, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:52:36 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/3/25 15:36, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:16:24 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
My dilemma is what to call it. "Memristor" was invented to describe aOmnipedance?
resistor whose value was a function of its current history. Memristors
have been revolutionizing memory technology regularly for decades now.
A series RLV with all three values arbitrarily modulated by anything
needs a suitably grand name. I was thinking Frankimpedance. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Fantasy electronics?
https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P978
Twelve watts per output is pretty pathetic.
Inputs, not outputs. An arbitrary impedance is usually used as a dummy >>>>>>>> load, and a load absorbs power from the customer, an unlimited amount >>>>>>>> of energy over time.
We're mostly simulating relay coils and solenoids and torque motors, >>>>>>>> and eight channels at 12 watts is good. I'm designing a higher power >>>>>>>> 4-channel version with a gigantic copper CPU cooler to dump the heat. >>>>>>>>
Each channel has a bidirectional class-D amp. Usually it accepts power >>>>>>>> from the customer and pushes it uphill, into the pair of ceramic power >>>>>>>> resistors. But we also simulate an inductor that has to return (fake) >>>>>>>> stored energy back to the customer for a while. We can't really store >>>>>>>> his energy because we've burned it up long ago; we fake it.
Obviously.
A real, even ideal, gyrator would have to store inductive energy in a >>>>>>>> cap, and the cap would not be a reasonable PCB component when
simulating 10 henries.
The concept is fairly simple. The actual circuit isn't. The real >>>>>>>> challenge is making it wideband but unconditionally stable. And >>>>>>>> stuffing eight channels into the available area.
Most circuit design has lots of tedious constraints, which you can't >>>>>>> boast about getting around because they are tedious.
Things like this keep engineering interesting. Learning about real >>>>>>>> motors and things. Then circuits, thermals, magnetics, PCB design, all >>>>>>>> tangled.
Obviously. If you learned a bit more about magnetics you might be able >>>>>>> to get into designing your own transformers, rather than insisting on >>>>>>> using parts that you can buy of the shelf.
Buying 90 cent surface-mount transformers make sense.
If they do what you want. Winding your own - or getting your own
windings printed - gives you a lot more flexibility.
Right now we are
waiting for another batch of kapton things from JLC, windings for fast >>>>>> high-voltage planar transmission-line transformers.
Avtech Electrosystems abruptly went out of business and we've had some >>>>>> enquiries about high-voltage pulsers.
We like to do stuff that has no competition. That's interesting and >>>>>> avoids bidding wars.
It's clearly a specific response to a specific customer. Vanity electronics.
You have some objection to customers?
None. Most of yours seem to have trouble understanding their problems >>>>>>> clearly enough to be able to go out and buy off the shelf solutions. >>>>>>
But does restrict you to niche markets, which aren't big.
Big enough, but more importantly fun. Yes, jet engines are a niche
market.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.Yes. They have been building big boxes full of real resistors and real >>>>>>>> inductors, faking specific loads. But the concept looks fairly >>>>>>>> general. I don't know of anyone who sells programmable R+L loads. >>>>>>>> Well, a few people will build you a box full of relays and caps and >>>>>>>> inductors.
OK, say something nasty now.
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option. >>>>>>
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may >>>>> well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic >>>>> - they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
It's easy to buy a hunk of iron and some power resistors and stuff it
all into a big rackmount box with some fans. Just apply time and
money.
We are developing the synthesized RL loads precisely because a biggish >>>> organization got tired of doing that a zillion different ways. It
turns out that rack space is very valuable to them too.
The problem with real power inductors is making them programmable. One >>>> winds up with nightmares of tapped inductors switched in series or
parallel with a mess of relays. The electrical issues are ghastly.
Play with it some.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
The old way to obtain variable inductance that could be changed
under load would be a variometer, a rotable coil inside a fixed
coil, wired in series.
What kind of power are you dealing with?
Jeroen Belleman
One board is eight channels, each programmable 10mH to 10H. It
simulates small solenoids and relays and torque motors. The customer
only needs to go to 2H, but it's easy to go up to 10.
I'm designing a higher power version, 4 channels with a CPU cooler. A
good copper cooler bolted onto a board can dump 150 or maybe 200
watts, depending on how hot you allow the parts to get.
Torque motors are interesting. Many are 2-part, one bit bolted to a
rotating shaft and a fixed coil assembly outside that. Sort of a
3-phase stepper.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
I don't suppose you're actually switching tapped inductors, are
you? I'd rather take a power amplifier driven by a DAC and with
output current read through an ADC, and with some FPGA code in
between to simulate the actual impedance. Switching real inductors
is nasty, as you say. You can't open the circuit because it would
spark, and you can't short sections because the energy stored in
them would vanish.
Talking of relays, the coil current on pull-in is interesting:
The current actually briefly drops. And when you switch it off
and the armature moves to open, the current briefly rises.
Will your device simulate that?
The torque motors I'm familiar with were just DC motors driven
with a constant current. They were used as tape tensioners in a
computer tape drive. Pretty low-power stuff, is true.
Jeroen Belleman
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 02:43:12 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 11:36 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:16:24 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 3/10/2025 5:23 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 02:48:34 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/10/2025 1:08 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 14:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/10/2025 3:42 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:46:59 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 2:09 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Faking specific loads with real components is a much safer option.
Real inductors and resistors? That has big problems.
If you don't know enough about transformers to design your own, you may >>>> well run into problems with inductors. Resistors are rarely problematic >>>> - they do get hot, which does have to be dealt with - but everybody
knows how to deal with that.
It's easy to buy a hunk of iron and some power resistors and stuff it
all into a big rackmount box with some fans. Just apply time and
money.
We are developing the synthesized RL loads precisely because a biggish
organization got tired of doing that a zillion different ways. It
turns out that rack space is very valuable to them too.
Bean counters do get excited about rack space. They have to pay rent on
the space to accommodate the racks.
Some of these test systems go into control rooms or out on a factory
floor, where real estate is valuable. Some go into flying test beds,
even more valuable.
Saving, say, 2U can mean the difference between two racks and three.
The problem with real power inductors is making them programmable. One
winds up with nightmares of tapped inductors switched in series or
parallel with a mess of relays. The electrical issues are ghastly.
Play with it some.
Curious. I've used linear differential transformers as position sensors.
They depend on moving the core inside a complex winding to vary the
coupling. You can move it continuously. There are angle sensors that
rotate the core to achieve the same effect.
I've not seen the approach used to make variable inductors.
GR used to make motorized Variacs, before electronics was invented I
guess.
Inductors
are cranky enough without trying to make them variable, so there
wouldn't be a mass market for the sort of off-the-shelf parts that you'd
like to buy.
I guess they won't be on the shelf at Walgreens.
The torque motors I'm familiar with were just DC motors driven
with a constant current. They were used as tape tensioners in a
computer tape drive. Pretty low-power stuff, is true.