SV: Re: SV: Re: [sdiy] QVCO schemo up

[karl dalen]

Harry!
It seams that we have been decived by these con artists! :)

What do you say,do we still get that comic relief? :)

KD
 
--- harrybissell <harrybissell at prodigy.net> skrev:

> Then I retract the nomination of Jim Patchell.
> 
> Jim is ~barred~ for life from any FURTHER accolades involving the
> CA3280   :^P
> 
> H^) harry
> 
> James Patchell wrote:
> 
> > I originally took the circuit from AD when I wrote my article...and changed
> > the multipliers to CA3280E's...I would say the credit goes to AD... :-)
> >
> > If you look at my article...I give three references...the top one being
> > Analog Devices.
> >
> > At 01:40 AM 11/12/2005 +0100, karl dalen wrote:
> > >So, to whom shall i give the DIY nobel price? Ian, Jim, AD?
> > >
> > >KD?
> > >--- Ian Fritz <ijfritz at earthlink.net> skrev:
> > >
> > > > At 03:00 PM 11/11/05, James Patchell wrote:
> > > > >But not very different from the one in the Nov/Dec issue of Polyphony
> > > 1980
> > > > >on page 26 .... :-).... or on page 80 of the Analog Devices Nonlinear
> > > > >Circuits Handbook...
> > > >
> > > > Yep, there it is.  Fig. 9, p.80, NCH.  Exactly the same circuit.
> > > >
> > > > (I didn't save my Polyphonies.  Was that one of your contributions,
> > > > Jim?  Is it up anywhere?)
> > > >
> > > > I had another, cruder version in ENotes #82 (1977). It limited against
> the
> > > > supply rails and had a fair bit of distortion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > >    Ian
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >          -Jim
> > ***************************************************************
> > http://www.oldcrows.net/~patchell
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> 
>