[sdiy] Possible New Waveform Generator Circuits

[WeAreAs1 at aol.com]

Listen schmuck,

Go figure out how to design circuits yourself.  Start with Ohm's law, then 
work your way up from there.  You got dissed over in AH because you're a 
pathetic self-absorbed fuckhead.  Get the fuck off of our list.  Now.

Michael Bacich, nitpicker-in-cheif

P.S. to the rest of the DIY list:  If you're wondering why I'm so pissed at 
this fuck, take a look at this wonderful exchange that occurred on the AH list 
(this is Ralph Karsten's very generous and polite response to Einstein's first 
post, then the immediate reply that Ralph's message recieved):

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:22:07 -0600
To: analogue at hyperreal.org
From: Ralph Karsten <ralph at atma-sphere.com>
Subject: Re: [AH] Possible New Waveform Generator Circuits
Message-Id: <20040330162207.1c5618de.ralph at atma-sphere.com>

Hi tuj,

I spent some time trying to draw a schematic of the circuits you propsed 
based on the schematic rules that you defined. It leaves the resulting circuit 
with some ambiguities, such as sources, drains, emitters and collectors being 
undefined. Additionally, things in the theory, like: 

>the potentiometer is set such that it allows voltage to flow through

are ambiguous as well (in the above case 'current' is what is allowed to 
flow).
As a consequence of this, diode polarity is undefined as well.

The definition of what defines a 'spiral waveform' is a bit terse. Since you 
say it is not as shown on the website with the computor generation program (a 
'profile' of  spiral on a flat surface), then I am guessing that the slope of 
the waveform is changing at a rate that is non-periodic with the waveform or 
for that matter, any other waveform that could otherwise be considered a 
modulation source.

Consequently I could not see an oscillation even occuring in the first 
circuit, but came to the conclusion that I probley had no idea what youwere getting 
at anyway, given over 9 variables intorduced due to the ambiguities. 

I'm not dissing you here, I'm just interested in what exactly you mean. Could 
you elaborate?

-Ralph

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:14:58 +0200
To: analogue at hyperreal.org
From: "Steven J" <g546 at mailbox.co.za>
Subject: Re: [AH] Possible New Waveform Generator Circuits
Message-ID: <web-271858716 at mail01.infosat.net>

You're nitpicking. My schematics are easy to understand,
especially with the explanations of their operation, so I
will not respond to your weak criticisms. I'd rather not
have your help.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:22:07 -0600
 Ralph Karsten <ralph at atma-sphere.com> wrote:
> Hi tuj,
> 
> I spent some time trying to draw a schematic of the
> circuits you propsed based on the schematic rules that
> you defined. It leaves the resulting circuit with some
> ambiguities, such as sources, drains, emitters and
> collectors being undefined. Additionally, things in the
> theory, like: 
>