Recent content by DaveE

Great suggestion! Still, you've jumped to the advanced level. This guy isn't there yet. Plus we don't know what he really wants out of this thing.

Sounds like a 4:1 balun would get you pretty close to a match then. PS: or is that 1:4? I'll never get that part right, LOL.

It's hard for me to believe your load is constant 10 ohms from 100KHz to 20MHz, but whatever. Yes the amplifier will have a 50 ohm output impedance.

I would respond with two answers, one for the series RLC and one for the parallel version. They have very different responses. You don't need a different method, you need a clearer problem description...

It sounds like you can, it says it's protected from opens and shorts and is unconditionally stable. But it will work better with an impedance transformer to better match the very low load impedance to the 50ohm output. It's not clear how much current you'll get out of it when it's output is...

Henceforth there will be one more addition to the amusement park ticket purchase disclaimer; "you may be hit by a bird which could result in serious injury or death"... problem solved. But seriously, anyone in the USA can file a lawsuit for anything. But that doesn't mean they will win. Yet...

Can you write a simple equation for ##{V_{out}(\omega)}## / ##{V_{in}(\omega)}## using complex impedance values (phasors, et. al.)? Have you studied that yet? Hint: it's a voltage divider.

The resistance (the losses) in the circuit control the filter response at/near resonance. EEs call this Q, others use damping. I wouldn't ask your code to choose this, it's easy enough with simple formulas to do it based on what you want your filter response (bode plot, etc.) to look like. That...

Yep. Stuck on the tile though. I don't know if I should do it myself or pay someone. Apparently thinking about it harder doesn't actually work. However, it is the path of least resistance (the least usable bathroom, too). One year+ on this project, I don't think I'd make it as a remodel contractor.

Yes, that makes sense. It's not standard nomenclature, but the alternative is ridiculous. But then they shouldn't have values attached. It's not 1A if the switches are open. https://www.kandh.com.tw/uploadfiles/592/images/Poster/electrical-schematic-symbols.pdf

More like 1,000 ft in 20 seconds, I think. The truth is out there... https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Report_DCA25LA276_200672_9_9_2025-3_42_57-PM.pdf Also, while not ideal, overspeed at high altitude in an event like this isn't too hard to do. You can search...

BTW, in the language of schematics, this smells like AI generated. I've never known a human EE that would create this. As Pauli is reputed to have said 'It's not even wrong'.

Sorry to be blunt, but this problem is nonsensical. There are a few things you should never see in an idealized circuit schematic. 1) A loop that only contains voltage sources. Because KVL says they must sum to zero, which only allows for trivial solutions where they just happen to sum to zero...

In these troubled times it wouldn't hurt to spend more time playing with your dog. It works for me anyway.

The velocity must match that of the EM wave which is ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon \mu}}##. If your derivation doesn't produce that then I think it's wrong.