Talk:Gain–bandwidth product

Explanation of the Filled Parameters in the Added WikiProject Electronics Template

I added the WikiProject Electronics template since this article pertains to this WikiProject.

Class: I rated this article as a stub-class article because it has absolutely no sources. According to the WikiProject Electronics assessment page, if an article has no listed sources, it is a stub, regardless how informative, well-written, or long it is. This is simply because such articles are not verifiable, which Wikipedia holds in very high regard. Importance: The article falls we under the description of mid importance from the WikiProject Electronics assessment page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics/Assessment).

I also added this article to the Electronics portal because I thought it was obviously befitting. --Some Old Man (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Addition of {{Refimprove|article|{{subst:DATE}}|talk=y}} to the Article Page

Since the article requires sources for verification, I added the template noting in on the article page.

--Some Old Man (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Added graph

Added one graph --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Example changed from "minimum" to "maximum"

I have changed the last example so it reads, "Further, if the <emph>maximum<emph> frequency of operation is 1 Hz, then the maximum gain that can be extracted from the device is 1 x 10⁶" for an op-amp with a GBWP of 1 MHz (emphasis added). That is what the article used to say. On 25 August 2009, someone at IP address 132.68.50.34 changed "maximum" to "minimum." I do not believe this is correct, and no explanation was given, so I changed it back to "maximum." I would welcome a discussion if others think "minimum" is correct. -- WakingLili (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You did good. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bogosity

I rewrote the lead since what it said was not right in general, using the 3 dB bandwidth. I added one source; it would be good to find more.

I think the theory section is also very bogus. Looks like someone's WP:OR. I think I'll remove it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't explain the origin or underlying mechanism of the GBP. I learned here in the Talk section about the older version of the article that had a theory section that you removed. I went back to the Jan 2011 version to find said theory section and therein lied the answer to my confusion. Well, it wasn't totally elucidating but there was a seed of truth that I found helpful. Conclusion: A bad theory section is better than no theory section at all. Please don't remove such things without replacing it with something better.

And for anyone wondering, the theory section of the old article states this:

"In practice, [perfect conversion of bias voltage to output voltage] is never achieved since the DC bias circuitry supplies DC current as well as DC voltage, and the DC current flows through resistors which convert some of the available electrical energy into heat energy. So, [entropic losses result in] a theoretical upper limit on how much amplification (i.e., gain) can be obtained from the device."2620:10D:C091:480:0:0:1:2CDE (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Define everything, please!

For those people who are not electrical engineers, and for any article, please define ALL variables, constants, etc. w (omega) is frequency in radians per second, wc is cutoff frequency in radians per second etc. I think the spirit of these articles should be that a person can just read them cold, without having to already know the jargon! 71.139.173.203 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Image

Why does the image show a low frequency roll off? Op-amps don't have that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.172 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gain–bandwidth product. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630045749/http://www.dplibrary.org/ to http://www.dplibrary.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Need to elaborate on expansion

It is not clear how A1(w) was expanded using taylor's series.

Aditya 08:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya8795 (talk • contribs)