Scott Bairstow and Talk:Voltage source: Difference between pages

Revision as of 22:52, 30 June 2005

Revision as of 10:44, 8 August 2005

Line 1:

Added some voltage source circuits. Page may need wiki''fying''. -- [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 9 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

'''Scott Hamilton Bairstow''', born April 23, [[1970]] in [[Steinbach, Manitoba]], [[Canada]], is an actor. He played the character ''Ned'' on the dramatic American television series [[Party of Five]].

== Voltage Source ==

In 1994 he married Marty Rich and together they had two sons, Casey William (1995) and Dalton (1998). In 2000 they divorced.

Does any one want to explain what this para is about before I alter it mercilessly or delete it? Even the grammar does not make sense#!!

==Guilty of rape==

In December 2003, Bairstow pled guilty to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl related to his ex-wife back in 1998, continuing the relationship with her until 2001. As a result, he was sentenced to 4 months in jail in Washington state and also agreed to undergo a sexual deviancy evaluation and to be under supervision for one year after his release. He was originally charged with second-degree [[rape]] when initially accused of having sex with the girl.

''In class-AB amplifier applications, a shortcoming of this circuit causes it to act as a "bias servo". Since VBE decreases with increasing temperature, thereby reducing the VBE multiplier's output voltage, this circuit when used to bias the output stage of a class-AB amplifier also doubles up as a compensator for increase in the temperature of the output devices - increase in temperature causes the bias voltage to decrease thereby causing the output devices to run at a lower current and in turn produce less heat.''

[[User:Light current|Light current]] 18:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

==Filmography==

* Dead in the Water (2002)

* New Best Friend (2002)

* Tuck Everlasting (2002)

* Black Circle Boys (1997)

* Killing Mr. Griffin (1997)

* The Postman (1997)

* Wild America (1997)

* White Fang II: Myth of the White Wolf (1994)

:What don't you understand? It seems relatively clear to me. Please don't delete things like this. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 18:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

==External links==

* [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000282/ Scott Bairstow on IMDb]

::Should we revert back to the original version?? [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 15:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

{{actor-stub}}

:::The paragraph's still there. I think it's better now. I'm trying to curb this new(?) user's deletionist tendencies. ;-) - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 15:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

=== Class AB Amplifier biassing ===

''Copied from my talk page'' - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 16:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Never heard it called a "bias-servo" before. This is a non standard term in electronics and may confuse the readers.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

:If you follow the link that you have reinstated it lead to a description of a mecahanical servo mechanism. The term 'servo' is not used in electronic circuit design terminology. [[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

::It ''is'' a standard term in amplifier terminology: [http://www.google.com/search?&q=bias+servo google search] Again, please don't delete things just because you don't understand them or haven't heard of them. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 16:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

:::All the links you have sent either refer to amateur electronics designers or maunufacturers of Hi FI audio amps who are known to have their own (sometimes incorrect) terminlogy. I still maintain that this is not a standard electronics term in the field of electronic ''circuit'' design. Can you point to some electronics text books that use this term rather than web sites. As you know, you can find any combination of words you like on the web.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

::::I added "in the field of audio amplifiers". - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 16:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

:::::I'm going to agree to this compromise to save time. But this sort of argument is always likely to start when some user puts in something that is basically not relevant to the topic. Then it has to be fiddled with ad nauseam to get it to fit ( when it shouldnt be ther in the first place). I delete or modify, you revert it . There must be a better way. Are there any sensible suggestions out there try to resolve this inherent problem.??[[User:Light current|Light current]] 17:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::: See projects/articles on [http://sound.westhost.com ESP web-site] for "bias servo". Just because the link to "servo" leads to something that doesn't relate to electronics, it doesn't make the term "bias-servo" incorrect. A servo is anything that uses the output of the system to stabilise the system - so even negative feedback is a type of servo mechanism. Most text books are meant for electronics in general and do not treat audio amplifiers as a special class of electronic circuits, and hence do not have terms specific to audio amplifiers, which are used by professional audio amplifier designers. [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 19:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::In addition, if you delete the link, you force someone else to re-add it later when they make the link target relevant. If you leave the link, people will click on it, see that it's not relevant, and expand on the target article. Deleting the link makes the Wikipedia worse. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 20:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

''Moved from my talk page. [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 10:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)''

I think I have managed to make it make sense now. Have a look . let me know what U think:)[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

:It's OK now. Thanks :-)

== Infinite power during short circuit? ==

I reverted your edit to [[voltage source]]. The power in a resistor driven by a voltage source is V²/R. As R approaches 0, P approaches infinity. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 19:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

:If the power is infinite, where is it dissipated?? (Not in the resistor: that is zero and P=I^2*R)

:Also, when shorted, the output voltage is zero, so V^2/R=0 doesnt it?? or does it?

:What is 0/0 these days??[[User:Light current|Light current]] 19:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously such a circuit cannot exist, since the rule about the voltage across a resistor conflicts with the rule about the voltage across a voltage source. But take the limit of the power function as R approaches zero:

*(1 V)²/1 Ω = 1 W

*(1 V)²/0.1 Ω = 10 W

*(1 V)²/0.01 Ω = 100 W

*(1 V)²/0.001 Ω = 1000 W

*(1 V)²/.000000000001 Ω = 1000000000000 W

It's obvious that the power dissipated in the resistor increases as the resistance decreases, which is all we can really say since such a circuit cannot exist. It's just the value of y(x) = 1/x for x=0. It's definitely not 0. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 19:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

::: Having pondered this question over a few pints of fizzy coloured liquid, I now see that we are BOTH RIGHT and BOTH WRONG at the same time. I'm afraid that we have both fallen into the trap of considering the paradox of the Irresitible Force against the Immovable Object. Neither can win. Neither of us can win. What we need here is a compromise solution that is satisfactory to everyone. I think the clue lies in your statement that both an ideal voltage source AND a perfect short circuit cannot exist. In fact I believe that neither can exist. Hence, we are conducting a sterile argument. I think that the way out of this is to say that an ideal voltage source (or current source for that matter) cannot exist so it is pointless talking abut what happens when they are open or short circuited. We must remove the reference to ideal voltage or current sources that involve calculations of load power from the definitions of voltage source and current source. Is this acceptable to you??:)[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

== Potential divider "source"?? ==

How can a potential divider be a voltage source?? It is far too dependent on the supply and load resistance/impedance to qualify as a voltage source. In fact the potential divider's o/p voltage is given by,

<math>

V_O = \frac{V_{S}.(R_2 || R_{load})}{R_1 + (R_2 || R_{load})}

</math>

Where R₁ is the upper resistor, R₂ is the lower resistor, R_load is the load connected across R₂, V_O is the o/p voltage across the load and V_S is the supply voltage.

The only condition where the voltage across the load will be constant is when R₁ = 0 '''and''' V_S is constant. This only implies '''''no''''' potential divider!!

[[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:Nevertheless a potential divider is very commonly used as a practical voltage source in electronic circuitry where a zener or voltage reg would be too expensive. THe fact that it may have a high Rout and is not as stable as other sources is niether here nor there. I think it does fit within the description (if the divider is supplied by another constant voltage source). If this is removed then all the other examples of practical voltage sources should go because they are not ideal. I think it is te definition that needs changing to cover both ideal and practical sources. Shall we amend to say "when supplied by a source of constant voltage"? These ARE used so please do not delete , modify instead (as someone once told me):-))Comments?? [[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:I also disagree with a voltage divider being classified as a source. ''Any'' circuit containing an impedance can be [[thevenin's theorem|thevenized]] into a voltage source and series impedance, including any of the circuits from [[current source]]. But we call them current sources because they approximate the behavior of an ideal current source. A voltage divider does not approximate the behavior of an ideal voltage source (0 output impedance). - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 16:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

::THe title of the page is 'Voltage Sources' (not ''ideal voltage sources''). A potential divider is a source of voltage ( not perfect, but then none are)commonly used maybe just as much as zener source, or amplified diode (neither of these is perfect either. So what have you got agaist the humble divider. Would the person who deleted it please reinstate this device ASAP until agreement has been agreed. on it. DO NOT DELETE MODIFY [[User:Light current|Light current]] 17:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:::It doesn't behave very similarly to a voltage source, though. It's really not the same as a battery or generator or zener source.

:::I didn't delete it, silly; I moved it here &dArr; &dArr; &dArr; :-) - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 17:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

'''Removed to talk:'''

=== Potential divider source ===

: Ok lets leave it as I wrote it and see if anyone else wants to comment before I modify it some more before reinserting.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

::I already modified it before I moved it here. Your version was this:

''A simple way of achieving a voltage source is by means of a potential divider applied to another voltage source. The voltage is available across the lower of the two resistors. The source resistance of the source is then R1 in parallel with R2. To achieve a low output impedance at high frequencies, a capacitor can be connected across R2.''

:You should not have modified it before moving it here: Your version is this:

''A simple way of achieving a desired voltage is by means of a [[potential divider]] applied to another voltage source. The voltage is available across the lower of the two impedances. The [[source impedance]] of the source is then R1 in parallel with R2. If using resistors, a capacitor can be connected across R2 to achieve a low output impedance at high frequencies. The output voltage will vary depending on the load, and will exhibit any non-idealities of the actual source, so this isn't very close to an ''ideal'' voltage source.''

Let the readers decide which is better. I repeat, the page title is NOT '''IDEAL''' voltage sources is it, so why should it have to refer only to ideal sources. THe other sources quoted are not ideal. Can you not see this?? [[User:Light current|Light current]] 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:None of those sources are ideal. But they are designed to approximate an ideal source. A voltage divider is not. I don't think this section should even be in the article, your version or mine. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 21:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

:: You did not have a version until I wrote the original! Please stop playing with words and reinstate this para before we get into an edit war. [[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Why is it relevant that I edited the paragraph before deciding it shouldn't be there? - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 00:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

:::Some time ago you wrote: to me :

''In the future, when you feel like deleting something (other than obvious vandalism or nonsense), please copy and paste it to the talk page and mention why you deleted it, or better yet, ask on the talk page if it should be deleted in the first place. - Omegatron 15:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)''

Why don't you follow your own rules?? This includes removing things from the active poage to the talk page. That is equivalent to deletion in a readers eyes becaus it is not there on the page they have dialled up!![[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:I followed my rules exactly! :-) I cut and pasted it to the talk page and then mentioned why I thought it should be deleted. How did I not do that?

:Yes, it is deleted from the reader's view, for things like this that a person doesn't think belongs in the article, but wants some input on before deleting it entirely. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 00:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

::Would you like to rephrase the last statement using standard English please?? [[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, it is deleted from the reader's viewpoint. I think this section should be deleted entirely, but I want to get some input before I do so because it is a "gray area", so I delete it from the article but copy it to the talk page with a comment asking for discussion. This way readers aren't mislead, but there is a chance to talk about it before deletion. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 00:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

::::Rewritten substantially para on voltage divider. and reinserted for more comments. BTW is a pot div not also the '''dual''' of a resitor ''current'' source?. These are certainly used and no one complains about their non ideality. Any way, page now covers both ideal and practical sources so there should be no argument. If it gets bigger it could then be split into Theoretical and Practical (or real world) sources but this may create other difficulties.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 18:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::The article has always been about ideal and practical voltage sources. Voltage dividers are not either.

:::::What do you mean by "resistor current source"? - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 20:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

::::::What do you mean be 'what do you mean by "resistor current source"? I wolud have thought that every electronics engineer would have heard of a current source made from a highish voltage and a large value resistor. They ere used all the time. I have quoted the case of a current mirror where the 'primary' current is solely defined by the voltage supply and a resistor. Read some books on IC op-amps.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:How is that a current source?? That's just a current traveling through a resistor. You're saying that in this circuit:

::[[Image:Source and load circuit.png]]

:R_source is a current source? As soon as R_load changes, the current will change. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 22:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

::: If Rsource is much larger than Rload then, yes, it behaves as a current source in conjuction with the power supply: (everything needs a power supply: even the transistor source, zener diode source etc).If Rload changes , the current changes but not much if RS>>RL. I didnt say it was an Ideal source!!

:::And in the case of Rload being zero, it '''is''' an '''ideal''' I source.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

::::That's not a current source; it's a resistor. Likewise a voltage divider is not a voltage source, ideal or otherwise. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 13:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you dont think a potential divider should be included in voltage sources,then ALL other practical votage sources should be removed to their own page. How can you discriminate between a zener voltage source (dependent for operation on supply voltage) with a divider (also dependent on supply voltage )?? Remember we are talking about PRACTICAL sources, not theoretical ones. Just take some time to think about it before replying (PLEASE!!)Light current 20:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

:* Ideal voltage source - maintains constant voltage regardless of loading

:* Zener voltage source - approximates an ideal voltage source by maintaining constant voltage regardless of fluctuations in Vs or changes in load resistance R2

:* VBE multiplier voltage source - approximates an ideal voltage source by maintaining constant voltage regardless of fluctuations in Vs or changes in load resistance

:* Voltage divider - Output voltage changes proportionally to changes in Vs or load resistance - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 20:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

== "Battery" or "cell"? ==

Changed "battery" to "cell" - cells are what batteries are made of and are the basic voltage sources. This is more a terminology related issue and both terms are often used interchangeably.

== Title of Page ==

Could people interested in this page please decide whether thry want to call it '''voltage sources''' or '''ideal voltage sources''' as this affects the content that we are now arguing about.

If the page title is Ideal voltage sources I have no objection to the para on potential diveders coming out as long as the paras on zener voltage sources , vbe multipiers etc also come out.

On the other hand, if this page is about voltage sources in general, then all the sources above should be included.

Can we have some comments PLEASE. [[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:There's not enough information to split it. It should be called Voltage sources and treat both in the same article. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 01:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

== Mains Electricity ==

''This is the most familiar form of AC voltage source known to '''the Western world'''. Generally its output impedance is very low (much less than one ohm).''

Mains electricity is a source of electrical power (voltage & current). But I think this article deals with voltage sources used within (and in the context of) electronic circuits. So IMHO, mains electricity should not be included in this article (as also cell or battery). These could be included under perhaps a "sources of electrical power" article.

In addition, what is the relevance of '''''"the western world"''''' here?? [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 20:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

:IT may not be the most familiar source of AC to some people living in under developed parts of the world such as Africa, India, China etc. etc but I did not want to say 'civilsed' world as that may be offensive to some.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 20:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

== Neutrality ==

Who put this neutrality warning on? THis is '''inappropriate''' as this article is not showing any bias on way or the other. Is this what Wikis do when they cant win an argument any other way?[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:Check the edit history to see who put it there.

:Yes, this is what we do when there is a dispute about which content belongs in a page. We don't want to mislead readers. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 22:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

::''This is the most familiar form of AC voltage source known to the developed world''

::Again, what is the relevance of "developed world" to voltage sources? Does it add any value to the article? Information presented on wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and this particular statement is NOT neutral. Light current, please get consensus from atleast 3-4 more wiki-users or else I will mark that portion as "npov".

::''Is this what Wikis do when they cant win an argument any other way?''

::What's this? Why are you taking things personally? We are supposed to present information in as unbiased a way as possible, and it's not to be taken personally if someone disputes what you have written. After all, you yourself would like to question/change/delete what others have written, isn't it? [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 09:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

''Moved from my talk page. [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]] 10:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)''

I really do not understand what your objection to this article is. Please modify the bit you find not to have NPOV and I will see if I agree or not.[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

:I do not have objection to the article - just to the particular statement that says "...in the western world..." or "...in the developed world...". It does not add any value to the article and is not at all relevant to "voltage sources". Yes, mention of "western world" or "developed world" has meaning in the articles that deal with, say, the history of technological development in the world - but in this case too, accepted international norms of referring to different countries or country groups must be used.

== Sources used in electronic circuitry ==

''Many techniques for producing sources of emf in electronic devices/circuits exist.''

Although they are called voltage sources, they definitely do not ''produce'' EMF. IMHO, all electronic voltage sources (other than mains, batteries) convert some voltage (from a battery or main) to a lower, constant level - and most are used as regulators or references. Should the statement be re-worded to something like:

''Many techniques to derive fixed voltages in electronic devices/circuits exist. Circuits which do this are known as "voltage sources" if the voltages are at low currents and "[[voltage regulator|voltage regulators]]" if voltages are at high currents. The distinction between the two is, however, not very well-defined.''