Recent content by xconwing

@ the initial diagram: 1) where the box with "0 V", why is that zero volt, should that be Vcc? 2) can current travel from Vcc through R1 out of Q1 collector and into Q2 base? I thought current through transistor is unidirectional, from collector to emitter.

to berkeman: No, I still don't understand, the schematic that is. That is weird if they want to bring up the electron flows direction. quick question: a) A diode in reverse bias is treated as an open? b) No voltage to the base of transistor is open at collector node?

Hello all, Reading this article http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_4/chpt_3/2.html explaining NOT logic at component level. I'm not sure I understanding the arrow drawn in this figure: above sentence "This tells us that ..." Is the arrow depicted current? If so, would that make passing the...

@ jim hardy I was just letting the thread chill for a bit so that I could soak up (or recalling) some of the information mentioned. THANK YOU all for the replies.

That data is purrty data man. If you don't mind, can you point out what is not right about it?

So my initial thought was correct, whichever input is active will classify the op amp type? That is to say: signals going through non-inverting input will make that op amp "non-inverting" and vice versa. What if they both active?

Okay, so conceptually. This doesn't work in practice, but the textbook stating that this configuration is "inverting" is wrong, correct?

Hello, Like the title said, how can you tell if it's an inverting or non-inverting op amp just by looking the the schematic like this one. textbook said this is an inverting op amp. I thought whichever input node (+/-) the signal go through dictate the classification of an op amp if it's...

Nah brah, I'm extremely lazy so "trolling" is not something I do. However, I am curious about every detail of any particular concept. With your word and mine, shall we call this whole thing "curious" "trolling" Thanks for the inquired infos -X

No, I'm sober, are you?

Ugh, I see. They want to be fancy schmancy. :rolleyes: Okay, one last thing. That omega, the way they set it up seem like RP will ALWAYs be equal to capacitor impedance. Is that the case?

Okay, so far the algebra checked off their final equation against my. Though I still don't understand how they see R1 and R2 as being parallel, the v1 is in the way. If you say, turn v1 into a short, why?

I was trying out the method suggested by zokia85 in post #5

That is how they get the RP to be R1 and R2 parallel right? As for finding H(s), the path using system of equation is kind of tedious. My i2 came out to be pretty ugly, maybe the algebra is wrong somewhere or it just simply ugly. I try to use the voltage divider approach, where Rx is C and R2...

Okay, I understand eq.1-3, 2&3 are from KVL. i2 should express from which eq.? Why v1 become a short?