Simple Open-source Random Pulse Amplifier

[John Fields]

Hi Don Foreman,

Thanks for your questions.

The pulse distribution would be as close as possible to being a mirror
of the randomness of the Zener current.

A Zener is a quantum tunnel device as I understand it, true?

The "randomnes" of the source of quantum fuzziness is the character of
the pulse distribution.

The amplitude and duration is not yet realized. The project circuit is
posted as a suggestion, and as such has already weeded out many
antagonists from well meaning protagonistic advise.

I understand the Zener clamping diode (spike protection) is backwards,
true?
---
No.
---

As I learn details (and perhaps I should be in a beginners forum
rather that with the august big dogs) I'd hope to link words to
definition pages... this is toward helping the novice realize the
design components purposes.

There is a lot of scientific research outside of electronics in the
science of system dynamics. Search the http://groupkos.com/eso wiki
for "chaos and bifurcation" for various links. A frog's ear uses Hopf
bifurcation effect to couple with faint sound and ignore louder sounds
(a faint insect buzz in the raucous din of pond life). A PA system
turned up to the threshold of feed-back is a course analogy of Hopf ^^^^^^
coarse

bifurcation. There is a couple of good articles on randomness ^^
are

stabilizing determinant systems in the Esoterica Articles.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Mitch wrote...

The white noise of the Zener current is a nice source
of randomness... as I understand from my amateur level
of electronics.

That's wrong as well, add it to the list.

 

[ehsjr]

Tell me how to fix whats wrong, please... the obvious problems first,
then round-trip through design tests and subsequent versions.

Ok. Start over in something unrelated to electronics.

Ed

 

[Mitch]

This has been all very amusing.

I'm not going to attempt to pursue any further assistance in this
forum.

Regards,

DonEMitchell

 

[Don Foreman]

This has been all very amusing.

I'm not going to attempt to pursue any further assistance in this
forum.

Regards,

DonEMitchell

Ain't it a bitch when designer cretins ask that you say what you
want?

 

[John Fields]

This has been all very amusing.

I'm not going to attempt to pursue any further assistance in this
forum.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Mitch wrote...

The pulse distribution would be as close as possible to
being a mirror of the randomness of the Zener current.

But, as I pointed out, which you ignored, zener noise isn't
random in the manner most would think. So it wouldn't be a
good idea to mirror that, if you want a good noise source.
Or a good random-time or random-value generator either. But
you weren't able to clearly tell us what you really want.

A Zener is a quantum tunnel device as I understand it, true?

No. An STM tip exhibits quantum-mechanical tunneling. A
zener does not, instead it exhibits avalanche breakdown.

Each breakdown is a single event, creating a microplasma
channel someplace within the diode, generally at preferred
locations, conducting a discrete current, typically 40uA,
and lasting long enough to slightly discharge the diode's
capacitance at that location, e.g. 5 to 200us. More than
one microplasma may occur at a time, so that instantaneous
stepped current levels are seen, e.g. 0, 40, 80 and 120uA.

One who's casually looking at zener diode noise may not see
the underlying microplasma behavior because it's masked by
the zener diode's capacitance, but it's not hard to create
a setup to observe it (lookup the s.e.d. zener oscillation
thread). Clearly this kind of discontinuous mechanism is
not conducive to what most consider good noise properties.

The "randomnes" of the source of quantum fuzziness is the
character of the pulse distribution.

That's randomness. Please! Exactly how would you propose to
have the zener's behavior control the quantum fuzziness of the
character of your pulse distribution? Whatever that means.

Good questions, Don, but I don't think Mitch understands them.

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Fields wrote...

... [ snip ] ... A frog's ear uses Hopf bifurcation effect to
couple with faint sound and ignore louder sounds (a faint insect
buzz in the raucous din of pond life). A PA system turned up to
the threshold of feed-back is a course analogy of Hopf ^^^^^^
coarse

bifurcation. There is a couple of good articles on randomness ^^
are

stabilizing determinant systems in the Esoterica Articles.

The coupling with the illusive gravity wave and piezocrystals (saphire) ^^^^^^^^
elusive

(saphire) is a current project in Australia.

---
It's "sapphire", and sapphire isn't piezoelectric.
---

A friend in Alaska has repeated the success of Wilbert Smith
of Canada, circa 1950s using piezo-magnetic resonance.

Back to bad electronics... can you suggest corrections for version
two, with a focus on selection of practical and affordable components?

---
As someone else has posted, if you tell us what you want this
device to do, we'll help get you there.

Also, please top-post.

[ sigh ]

I'm not going to attempt to pursue any further assistance
in this forum.

Indeed.

I'm afraid the gap between Mitch's understanding of electronics
(as illustrated with the drawing he posted) and his inability to
explain what he wants, or to even understand it himself, is simply
too great for our more literal, more precise minds. Clearly, in
engineering, as in computer programming, you have to first know
precisely what you want so you can create a specification, as we
call it. We pride ourselves in being able to design from that,
in a focused creative effort that's filled with precision and
detail, oriented to the precise goal in the first place.* That's
what I meant by "literal precise minds." Mitch is going off in
every direction, e.g., piezo-magnetic resonance or whatever, and
appears unable to focus his mind sufficiently to think about the
problem at hand with the level of precision and detail we employ.

Now, with respect to a specification, as engineers we're completely
familiar with the painful issue of trying to reduce the fuzziness
in our customer's thinking, by posing questions, by educating them
and by trying to extract even modest details, and then we often go
ahead and fill in the gaps with our own creativity, all to create
a specification. It's only at that point that we can work at the
level of precision and detail we enjoy. But we know the success or
failure of a project often depends less on our ability to create a
successful design to the specification, than it does in our ability
to first refine, extract or create an appropriate specification.

* And usually employing obscure but important knowledge, along with
flashes of outright brilliance, or at least extreme cleverness!

 

[Winfield Hill]

Winfield Hill wrote...

Mitch wrote...


No. An STM tip exhibits quantum-mechanical tunneling. A
zener does not, instead it exhibits avalanche breakdown.

Each breakdown is a single event, creating a microplasma
channel someplace within the diode, generally at preferred
locations, conducting a discrete current, typically 40uA,
and lasting long enough to slightly discharge the diode's
capacitance at that location, e.g. 5 to 200us. More than
one microplasma may occur at a time, so that instantaneous
stepped current levels are seen, e.g. 0, 40, 80 and 120uA.

Sorry, I meant to write ns, not us.

 

[John Woodgate]

I'm afraid the gap between Mitch's understanding of electronics
(as illustrated with the drawing he posted) and his inability to
explain what he wants, or to even understand it himself, is simply
too great for our more literal, more precise minds.

I am really surprised that anyone took him seriously. There is enough
pseudo-science about 'zero-point energy', 'bifilar coil' and
'piezo-magnetic' to put him firmly in the tinfoil hat/green ink brigade.
Surely we've had enough experience with the Flavoured Coffee Guy's
capacitor-driven vehicle and News2020 (of happy memory - I hope he was
eventually rescued from himself).

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Mitch wrote:
[..snip babble..]

Okay- that response makes you one of those audio bs-heads. Get the hell
lost.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

I'm not going to attempt to pursue any further assistance in this
forum.

Good riddance! You're about as interesting as any incoherent babbling
resident of any asylum with internet access.

 

[John Woodgate]

But, as I pointed out, which you ignored, zener noise isn't
random in the manner most would think.

Bruel and Kjaer found that the difference between the noise signals form
two similar avalanching 'zeners' IS good-quality white noise.

I'm interested in how the noise from a single zener is different from
thermal noise (as the ultimate 'good' noise). The only property that
seems to be inherent is the amplitude-probability distribution. Is this
seriously non-Gaussian? I ask, because 'pink noise' from a single zener
is used for testing audio equipment, and I'd like to know how wrong the
results could be (assuming the pinking filter is OK).

 

[John Woodgate]

Okay- that response makes you one of those audio bs-heads. Get the hell
lost.

Hey, what's with the 'audio'? Just because you're a bs-head, doesn't
mean you are into audio.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Hey, what's with the 'audio'? Just because you're a bs-head, doesn't
mean you are into audio.

I'm sure the OP is the kind of individual who believes in all that
incredible materials oriented cabling and cabinetry and whatever else to
improve sound quality, anything but science. He's obviously looking for
a pink noise source to calibrate his perfection.

 

[John Woodgate]

I'm sure the OP is the kind of individual who believes in all that
incredible materials oriented cabling and cabinetry and whatever else
to improve sound quality, anything but science. He's obviously looking
for a pink noise source to calibrate his perfection.

No, according to the web site he wants the noise source to do something
with, or about, zero-point energy. Exactly what, deponent sayeth not.

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Woodgate wrote...

Bruel and Kjaer found that the difference between the noise signals
from two similar avalanching 'zeners' IS good-quality white noise.

I'm interested in how the noise from a single zener is different from
thermal noise (as the ultimate 'good' noise). The only property that
seems to be inherent is the amplitude-probability distribution. Is this
seriously non-Gaussian? I ask, because 'pink noise' from a single zener
is used for testing audio equipment, and I'd like to know how wrong the
results could be (assuming the pinking filter is OK).

The sub us timescale mechanisms of zener-diode avalanche may
not have good random properties, at least in the usual way we
think about that, but I'm guessing that averaged down to audio
frequencies they may not be too bad. However, since the zener
noise characteristics I have examined change dramatically with
current, they don't look like a very good choice. Perhaps if
selected parts are used at carefully-defined zener currents.

 

[John Woodgate]

However, since the zener
noise characteristics I have examined change dramatically with
current, they don't look like a very good choice. Perhaps if
selected parts are used at carefully-defined zener currents.

Thank you. Your classic thread on the subject is difficult to retrieve
(I have no success). Assuming that the current is not very small, e.g.
it is around 5 mA, what sort of changes occur? Can they be investigated
without an APD analysis?

It isn't difficult, of course, to use a current mirror or a long-tailed
pair to operate two zeners at the same current, and to control that
current, but in order to select the zeners, one needs to know what to
select for. Can that be defined?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

This has been all very amusing.

I'm not going to attempt to pursue any further assistance in this
forum.

Can you take Eeyore and Rich with you?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Rich Grise]

Thank you. Your classic thread on the subject is difficult to retrieve
(I have no success). Assuming that the current is not very small, e.g.
it is around 5 mA, what sort of changes occur? Can they be investigated
without an APD analysis?

It isn't difficult, of course, to use a current mirror or a long-tailed
pair to operate two zeners at the same current, and to control that
current, but in order to select the zeners, one needs to know what to
select for. Can that be defined?

What would happen if you put, say, a 1N4148 right next to the amerecium
capsule of a smoke detector?

Thanks,
Rich