it looks like the LT1122 goes better for Amplifier-X testing than my prev. preference '1012
and here if why ::
many attempts to reduce output offset (to Zero adj. the Amp.) - or - what was tested ::
update 2017-09-19
verifying LM324 CLM-s´ variants ....
.... so the operation of G and J ver.-s is somewhat predictable.
[Eop]
and here if why ::
| LT1012 | LT1122 |
 |  |
 |  |
 no much difference until here "we" had to compensate the .CiR model ('s why i preffer the macro 1-s) |  ! The LT1122 can still handle the mess ? (supposedly thanks to "fast output settling"? and/or 14x higher band with) |
many attempts to reduce output offset (to Zero adj. the Amp.) - or - what was tested ::
 the 1-st modification - G ( IS = 3.66mA ) |  the 2-nd modification - H ( IS= 813µA ) |
 the 3-rd modification - J ( IS = 3.66mA ) |  onsemi source ( IS = 1.2(3) mA : VS = ±2.5(±15) V : RL = ∞ ) |
update 2017-09-19
verifying LM324 CLM-s´ variants ....
.... so the operation of G and J ver.-s is somewhat predictable.
[Eop]
No comments:
Post a Comment