Jargon

I've never liked Rockwell's approach towards using bilateral modial interaction for alternate means of harnessing an inverse reactive current. Voltage derived from magneto reluctance is not nearly as efficient as linear triphase panels which pull power from differential, non-inverting 741 op-amps...which obviously not only contain a lower impedance ratio but also have a much higher return on pins 3 and 5. Placed in a Darlington pair it takes care of the problem Rockwell seems to be having with spurving bearings...making older V34 models of no use anymore.

I won't even begin to mention what this would do for crossover distortion in relation to the Class-C emitters :rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bennychico11 said:
I've never liked Rockwell's approach towards using bilateral modial interaction for alternate means of harnessing an inverse reactive current. Voltage derived from magneto reluctance is not nearly as efficient as linear triphase panels which pull power from differential, non-inverting 741 op-amps...which obviously not only contain a lower impedance ratio but also have a much higher return on pins 3 and 5. Placed in a Darlington pair it takes care of the problem Rockwell seems to be having with spurving bearings...making older V34 models of no use anymore.

I won't even begin to mention what this would do for crossover distortion in relation to the Class-C emitters :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:bang :laughpound

 
bennychico11 said:
I've never liked Rockwell's approach towards using bilateral modial interaction for alternate means of harnessing an inverse reactive current. Voltage derived from magneto reluctance is not nearly as efficient as linear triphase panels which pull power from differential, non-inverting 741 op-amps...which obviously not only contain a lower impedance ratio but also have a much higher return on pins 3 and 5. Placed in a Darlington pair it takes care of the problem Rockwell seems to be having with spurving bearings...making older V34 models of no use anymore.

I won't even begin to mention what this would do for crossover distortion in relation to the Class-C emitters :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Excuse me, I'll be over here shoving an ice pick in my eye. :blink:

 
sarge87 said:
bennychico11 said:
I've never liked Rockwell's approach towards using bilateral modial interaction for alternate means of harnessing an inverse reactive current. Voltage derived from magneto reluctance is not nearly as efficient as linear triphase panels which pull power from differential, non-inverting 741 op-amps...which obviously not only contain a lower impedance ratio but also have a much higher return on pins 3 and 5. Placed in a Darlington pair it takes care of the problem Rockwell seems to be having with spurving bearings...making older V34 models of no use anymore.

I won't even begin to mention what this would do for crossover distortion in relation to the Class-C emitters :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Excuse me, I'll be over here shoving an ice pick in my eye. :blink:
Click to expand...
I'm right there with ya, I'll be using a letter opener.

 
Back
Top