Talk:Amplifier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleAmplifier is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 22, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
August 22, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
January 21, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Example Circuit[edit]

The example circuit in the introduction needs a capacitor (or some other high-pass filter) connected between the collector and base of Q3 in order to provide frequency compensation. The circuit as drawn without the aforementioned capacitor has way too much open loop gain in the VA stage especially at high frequencies. This will cause distortion and instability. Relying solely on the Ccb or so called "Miller" capacitance of Q3 to provide adequate local negative feedback is usually considered a poor choice in design practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.178.56 (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: It would also help if the diagram indicated that both bias diodes and both output transistors must be physically tied to the same spreader bar in order to provide proper thermal Vbe compensation and thus avoid thermal runaway in Q4 and Q5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.178.56 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It also needs a capacitor in series with R7. Without it the output can not settle to mid-rail, which is required for maximum voltage swing and minimum distortion.88.247.150.46 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class E/F[edit]

I've merged (from a different IP) and then completely rewritten the introduction to class E/F. i hope it clearer now. I've left the remaining description, although in my opinion it is not clear at all, and at time absolutely WRONG (seems to be a transcription from some source by someone who doesn't understand all the details). I recommend removing most of the remaining part in class E/F except my introduction ;)

I didn't remove any existing errors in the old text, because someone is stupidely reverting all my changes when i 'remove' anything... the blantant errors are: class E doesn't output square wave. it is possible to modulate the signal with class E. the text on class F is complete crap. i would remove it completely.

Your IP changed. See User talk:217.132.20.249 for your edits on electronic amplifiers. You should just get an account. — Omegatron 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The description of both classes is so poor that is incomprehensible. It misses the basic concepts while concentrating on secondary issues.

In Class-E amplifier the key is that , and resonate at a frequency slightly higher than the carrier and with a well defined damping. The goal is to shape the voltage across the switch in such a way that it drops back to 0 just before the switch is closed. This minimizes losses in the switch as it always operates at zero current, zero voltage or both.

The function of , is simply to filter out anything except the first harmonic of the carrier as usually we don't want to put any rubbish in the load (especially if that's an antenna). Other than that these devices are not a necessary part of the Class-E amplifier.

just provides a DC current (and power) to the circuit and does not contribute to the circuit operation at RF frequencies. Some implementations choose otherwise (i.e. performs the function of ) but the key is operation not the circuit structure.

Adding some voltage and current waveforms would make this section much clearer.

As for Class-F amplifier - again it misses the key idea, which is to block 3rd harmonic so that the voltage waveform across the active device becomes more rectangular, which reduces power losses (the device spends less time in transitions, where both voltage and current values are high).

Also, why not add the schematic of the Class-F amplifier? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Classe_F.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.37.105.127 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class A amplifier problems[edit]

I think class A amplifier section is wrong. Firstly, a class A amplifier is not another name for an operational amplifier, as the text may suggest. And the diagram is misleading, drawing a BJT connected without any base-emitter current limiter. A BJT with a current generator in the emitter and a load in parallel is the standard way to depict it.

If people agree, I can modify the section.

Romano (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the mention of op-amps is unhelpful, so just remove it. There is an "Operational amplifiers (op-amps)" section, and I do not think it needs any mention of "class". The diagram is problematic: yes, it's wrong, but exactly what alternative would be better? The point of the diagram is to give a very vague overview, while showing accurate i/o waveforms. I cannot think of any simple improvement that would not reduce its accessibility for general readers. There perhaps could be some mention like "bias circuit not shown", but the same applies to some extent in all the "class" diagrams. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology of "Class A"[edit]

Who first used "Class A" "Class B" etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.72.5 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Valve vs. vacuum tube[edit]

The article uses both terms rather randomly and sometimes confusingly. It would clean things up if we chose one or the other. Can we do that? I don't care which really. --Kvng (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A C distinction[edit]

The circuit diagrams for A and C are the same. Why do they differ? Is the transistor driven in another manner? Could someone write a sentence to clarify this? -- 178.83.12.182 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tet does explain the difference. The waveforms would be more illustrative if they were properly referenced to 0 volts. It's hard to see how teh Class C amp can have an output that swings negative with respect to ground... --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added citation-needed for op-amp claim[edit]

I put a citation needed on the claim that most "quality" op amps have class A output stages. Op-amps, even very good ones, have push-pull output stages. When we use a word like "quality", we create the start of a No True Scotsman argument. What kind of quality? Can we put some kind of number on it? This is someone's opinion that op-amps have to have class A output stages to have good quality. Whoever believes this claim should be easily able to cite part numbers and data sheets to substantiate it, as well as other third-party documentation which shows that those op-amps are of superior quality: measured low noise and distortion figures, and other relevant qualities, like good power-supply rejection ratios, low offset currents and voltages, decent slew rates, etc. 192.139.122.42 (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class A can be implemented push/pull and still remain class A. This is not mentioned anywhere in the text, and adds to the confusion about op amps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article moved from Electronic amplifier[edit]

This article was moved from Electronic amplifier to Amplifier per Talk:Amplifier_figures_of_merit#Amplifier_topic_organization. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is still sorting on "electronic amplifier". Is that what people want? Not sure what the best decision is here. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

amp always increase power?[edit]

This may be my being to pedantic but the article begins

"An electronic amplifier, amplifier, or (informally) amp is an electronic device that increases the power of a signal."

But I can imagine a circuit where the loaded voltage of a circuit is multiplied but then fed into a high impedance load so it draws very low power (consider attaching an amplifier to an oscilloscope, negligible power out of the amplifier but the voltage has increased.) Is it therefore accurate to say that it is power that is increased? RJFJR (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, most definitions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 don't seem to limit "amplifier" to devices that increase the power of a signal, but also include devices with voltage or current gain. One that I like says "a device that uses an external power source to increase the strength or magnitude (power, voltage or current) of an electrical signal". --ChetvornoTALK 20:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I entirely agree. Which is why I am changing the opening section of this article, to make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatNip48 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of amplification[edit]

The term Amplification redirects here. Wikipedia should include somewhere a history of the important concept of amplification. The invention of the amplifying vacuum tube (the Audion or triode) in 1906 created the field of "electronics" (the study of active (amplifying) electrical devices) and made possible all of information technology: long distance telephone lines, practical radio broadcasting, television, talking motion pictures, audio recording, telemetry, computers, networking, etc. I'm prepared to write such a history, but I don't know where it should go. This article is already bloated, and it focuses on a narrower topic: electronic amplifiers, rather than the concept of amplification in general. Gain focuses narrowly on definitions of voltage and power gain. Does anyone have any thoughts about where this history should go? Should there be a new Amplification or History of amplification article? --ChetvornoTALK 07:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your proposed information should go into amplification which would therefore be changed from a redirect into an article. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I think that's probably the best idea. Another possibility that occurred to me is to include it in the Electronics article, since the invention of amplifying devices was pretty much synonymous with the birth of electronics. --ChetvornoTALK 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sick and tired of reading about ideal amplifiers . the problem with the explanation of Ideal amplifiers is it is poorly explained all for the sake of high fidelity this is true for books and websites on amplifiers as well as electronic website and webpages online I know there are simpler amplifiers out there that can be easier to explain I once bought a electronics lab kit that had circuits you could build by connecting wires to springs that had electronic components attached to the springs one of the circuits was a basic real world simple amplifier that consisted of one npn transistor one capacitor one resistor a piezoelectric buzzer that double as a microphone a matching transformer and a piezoelectric earpiece although this simple real world amplifier had a lot hissing in it It's still was an amplifier even if it was not a ideal high fidelity one I cannot find this basic simple amplifier or it's explanation on the internet anywhere If human beings continual to give ideal explanations instead of real world explanations human beings will have to go back to living in caves this includes explanations electronics and science richardstephens99@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6044:2:6D51:6199:568C:E550 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what you mean. Non-ideality is reality. Like that broken "period" key on your keyboard that almost never works. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heart / nervous system[edit]

I deleted 'The amplifier is often described as the heart or the nervous system of a microphone or loudspeaker' since

  1. in a lifetime of electrical & electronic engineering I've never heard anyone say it
  2. a newspaper is a long way from being a reliable or accurate source
  3. its typical journalistic fiction

86.29.7.158 (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I see that the dubious text was added as part of a series of edits on 23 February 2015, and some of the other text should be examined. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The history of amplifiers is missing.[edit]

There should be a section dealing with the history of amplifiers, such as when the amplifier was invented. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sprucing this article up[edit]

I'm going to (slowly) start to clean this article up, feel free to help if you want to. The things I think need work:

  • What are we actually talking about? Is just a transistor an amplifier? Is a single op amp an amplifier? A transistor or op-amp with the surrounding circuitry to make it function? Is an entire audio power amplifier an amplifier? I suspect the answer to all these questions is yes, but we need to constrain the scope of the article: I think it would be best to write the article about circuit level or smaller (where circuit level is around the size of File:Amplifier Circuit Small.svg)
  • How are amplifiers categorised? Surely solid state/valve/magnetic isn't the same sort of categorisation as op-amp/fully differential or video/oscilloscope vertical/microwave? I propose splitting into categorisation by active device (solid state, valve, magnetic, negative resistance), {categorisation by architecture [wrong word?] (op-amp, differential amp, distributed)} (not sure about this) and examples of application specific amplifiers with their ideal properties (video, oscilloscope, microwave, instrument).
  • Reduce redundancy: some of the article repeats other parts - there are two sections containing functions of amplifier.
  • References: it would be nice to have more of the article referenced, including the bits that are (to experts) obvious

What does anyone think? I'm going to go ahead and start to implement some of these changes, feel free to either help or stop me! —  crh 23  (Talk) 19:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically, I'd like to get this up to the good article criteria. #1 should be achievable without too much effort, #2 is currently a fair way from achievement (see scientific citation guidelines, #3 is close, maybe needing a little more attention paid to summary style in some section (maybe not). I doubt #4 will be much trouble, nor will #5 (judging from recent activity, unless everyone suddenly gets very passionate about amplifier design). As to #6, we could do with a nice image to place at the top, maybe File:Operational amplifier.svg or something like File:LM741CN.jpg (which is already included in the page). —  crh 23  (Talk) 20:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amplifier. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All amplifiers do/don't provide power gain[edit]

Today user:Chetvorno reverterd my edit. They provided as arguments:

 Incomprehensible for general readers (what is the "value" of a "signal"), has factual errors (all amps increase the power of a signal), is not an adequate summary of article

I would like to discuss this here. First, the statement "all amps increase the power of the signal" seems incorrect to me. I will explain my reasoning with an example. Say I have a current source as input to a system (eg, photodiode). I would like to turn this into a voltage. To do such, I use a shunt resistor and feed the voltage over this resistor into a voltage amplifier with voltage gain of 100. For the sake of the example, let's say that I have a 1mA input current. I use a 5ohm shunt resistor. I find a voltage drop of 5mV. This would mean that the input signal is providing me with 1ma*5mV=5uW of power. My voltage amplifier has an output of Av*Vin=100*5mV=0.5V . If this is then fed into a second voltage amplifier stage, with a very high input resistance (as you desire with a voltage signal) of say 10Mohm (quite a reasonable number for say a MOSFET gate at a not-to-high frequency). This means we get a current of 0.5V/10Mohm=50nA. The power would hence be 50nA*0.5V=25nW. In other words, even though my amplifier has a voltage gain of 100, it has a negative power gain - we go from 5uW to 25nW of power. Unless you can disprove my calculations, I thus don't see why "not all amplifiers provide power gain" is a factual error.

As for your other arguments: I can agree with you on "value" of a "signal" being somewhat abstract, but this can be improved then by adding examples. The fact of the matter is that amplification is the increase of a value of a signal (and not neccesaraly power, we like to keep that as low as possible for as long as possible because power means heat), in the case of a voltage amplfifier it is the voltage of the input signal... I feel like the current introduction implies first that only voltage, current, transconductance and transimpedance amplifiers exist. At the same time, it also seems to suggest we only ever care about power, which is not correct (see my example above). Even if we come to the conclusion of my changed introduction being bad, I feel it still requires a rewrite. I would thus like to open discussion about this topic, to avoid getting into a revert war. Regards, TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that defining an amplifier as a device that increases the power of a signal is fairly well-motivated. The problem with defining something that can't increase the power of a signal as an amplifier is that it means you have to define a transformer as an amplifier, which I personally would be uncomfortable with. Indeed, we would have to call a boost converter an amplifier, which again doesn't seem right to me. —  crh 23  (Talk) 17:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Here is TheUnnamedNewbie's proposed introduction:
An amplifier, electronic amplifier or (informally) amp is an electronic device designed to increase the value of a signal. The amount of increase, as a ratio of the output signal over input signal is called the gain of the amplifier. The signal is often a voltage, electric current or power signal. The input and output signal must not necessaraly be of the same type. An amplifier is the opposite of an attenuator: while an amplifier provides gain, an attenuator provides loss.
Amplifiers are found both as separate pieces of equipment, such as a stereo amplifiers in audio applications, or as building blocks in larger systems. Amplifiers are one of the fundamental building blocks in electronics. Not all amplifiers are designed to provide a larger output power.
Here are my objections to it: As Crh23 says, engineering sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] define an amplifier as a circuit which for some sources and loads can give power gain - the output power is greater than the input power. It is an active circuit, not just any circuit which has voltage or current gain; otherwise a transformer would be an amplifier. Thus the definition is in error. Obviously, as in TheUnnamedNewbie's example above, with some sources and loads an amplifier will not have power gain - any amplifier with its output terminals left unconnected will have zero output power and thus no power gain. The statement "Not all amplifiers are designed to produce a larger output power" is true, but the potential for power gain is an essential part of the definition, and thus all amplifiers require a power source. The original intro included this essential stuff.
Also the lead sentence leaves undefined the terms "value" and "signal". This sentence is going to be incomprehensible to the many non-technically-educated readers who come to the intro for a simple explanation. Yes, TheUnnamedNewbie, you could try to define them by giving examples, which will take a lot of space. Why not simply use the words "voltage" and "current" as in the original sentence? Also the intro does not touch on the history or different categories of amplifiers, so I don't think it meets the burden of MOS:INTRO to provide an "adequate summary" of the article.
I agree there was some unnecessary and/or awkward content in the original intro, such as the description of an amplifier as "modulating" a power supply, and division of amplifiers into voltage, current, transconductance and transimpedance amps, which should be corrected. But I think the original intro is a better place to begin. --ChetvornoTALK 17:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class B Amplifier description is erroneous.[edit]

Class B has two active gain devices. One providing gain for for positive excursions of the signal from zero. The other providing gain for negative excursions. Each device theoretically operates for 180 degrees of the signal and is off for the other 180 degrees, effectively a rectifier for the signal. In practice, near zero signal level, both gain devices are off, which causes the output signal to be distorted.

The article is describing a class C amplifier, which has only one gain device and amplifies for 1/2 the period. This is probably because the cited source is a poor reference.

For example, an NPN transistor does not turn on and begin to amplify until the base voltage reaches the threshold voltage. Typically the threshold voltage is around .65 volts. Likewise, a PNP transistor turns on at -.65 volts. Thus when the input voltage is between -1 and 1 volts, significant distortion occurs as both devices are off. To correct the problem of the B amplifier, the AB amplifier was developed. The transistors are biased so that both are in their active zone when the input signal is near zero. --74.46.101.158 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In radio frequency applications, the amplifier load is a tuned circuit stage and so a single device can be used in Class B. The "ringing" effect of the tuned circuit fills in the missing portion of the waveform, if the Q factor is high enough. Such amplifiers are used in radio transmitters to increase the power of a modulated signal from an exciter to a level desired to feed a transmission antenna. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost. A single active amplifying device can be operated in class B (Classes A to C merely define the manner in which the stage is biased). Such an amplifier will only amplify the positive (or negative) parts of the input wave. A class B amplifier can be used in RF applications where it energises a tuned circuit which oscillates with the full sine wave, though a class C biased stage is more likely to be encountered. For audio applications, it is wrong to state that a class B stage consists of two active devices. A class B "push-pull" amplifier consists of two class B stages, one to handle the positive parts of the input and one to handle the negative.
You have managed to make so much of the article incorrect and coupled with your inability to write good English, I have taken the brutal approach and just reverted the article to the point before you savaged it. Your standard of English is such that you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. 86.153.129.112 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Amplifier received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.Reply[reply]
There were basically two things wrong with the article before I started editing it. First - the efficiency of class A amplifiers is 25% for capacitive and resistive coupling. This is normally the way this type of amplification class is used. But because it is used mainly in low power portions of a circuit, the efficiency hit is minimal, on the order of milliwatts. If, however, inductive or transformer coupling is not used on high power stages, the efficiency is 25% max. With inductive or transformer coupling it rises to 50%. A cite for this information was given in the article.
Secondly, the references I looked at said that a class B amplifier has two active devices and operates in a push-pull mode. This change was also provided with a citation. Wtsham..ski made an edit after mine which indicated that class B may be single ended and provided and excellent cite. He also made the comment that you normally see class B with two active devices. I thought those changes to my edits were good.
So all in all, you revert back to the original leave the article with uncited information and with phrasing that misleads the reader on what class A and class B are.
Finally, I am a native speaker and I'm seeing no grammatical errors in my edits. If you're finding one, please specify exactly the problem and discuss here. My IP address may have changed since yesterday's edit, but I am the guy who made the changes. --74.46.101.158 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This edit of yours changed perfectly good English into bad English.
Whilst most implementations of class B utilise two devices in push-pull, such an application consists of two devices both of which are operated in class B. It is thus wrong to claim that a class B amplifier can only have two active devices in it. As has been stated above, a single class B device can be used in RF applications. The current illustration of a class B stage correctly illustrates an transistor operating in class B. The illustration that you moved into the class B section was of two class AB stages operating in push pull and was not the correct diagram as you claimed.
I don't understand your insistence that a class A amplifies has an efficiency of 25% max as this is precisely what the article stated before you changed it. It also notes that two class A stages used in push-pull has a maximum efficiency of 50% (which is the case even if they are not transformer coupled to the load - this is because one active device acts as the internal load (to the amplifier) for the other). If you are able to draw out the Thevanin equivalent circuit for the amplifier stage and understand the maximum power transfer theorem, you would understand why this is the case.
This edit claimed to remove incorrect information which was in fact, entirely correct and half of it was covered in the preceding reference which you removed in an earlier edit (although you did provide a replacement, it was a poorer reference as it was not an online reference and therefore harder for anyone to verify). 86.153.129.112 (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overview, overview, overview[edit]

This is a deep subject. "Electronics Engineers' Handbook" has a 146 page chapter on amplifiers and oscillators, and *that* is still an overview (ok, so maybe 40 of those pages are about oscillators). Any specific details must be spun out to other articles, and this article should be only a 20,000 foot overview of the field. Even so, there's so much that hasn't been touched on here - stability, load lines, economics! Luckily a lot of the details are available already in other articles, we don't have to go on about tube sound here, for example, just point at it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amplifier. 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:

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) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why mention carbon repeater in intro?[edit]

The 3rd paragraph of the introduction was recently changed from:

"The first practical electronic device that could amplify was the triode vacuum tube, invented in 1906 by Lee De Forest, which led to the first amplifiers around 1912."

to:

"After electro-mechanical signal repeaters, such as the Shreeve repeater of 1904, the first practical and entirely electronic device that could amplify was the triode vacuum tube, invented in 1906 by Lee De Forest, which led to the first amplifiers around 1912."

The reference to "electro-mechanical signal repeaters" is to speakers driving carbon microphones to make a crude electroacoustic amplifier, which had very limited use as telephone line repeaters during the first two decades of the 20th century.

While they are quite properly described in the History section, I think mentioning them in the introduction gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to this trivial dead-end technology. Carbon repeaters were truly horrible amplifiers, being insensitive, having sharp resonance peaks, DC offset problems, and introducing noise (the "carbon roar"). They were only used in a limited way in telephone lines, and had almost no usage in other applications of amplification. There are many more notable points about amplifiers in the article which should be mentioned in the introduction before mentioning this device. --ChetvornoTALK 21:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also think it is blatant WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to put mechanical repeaters on a par with tubes by saying in the History section "The Shreeve mechanical repeater and the vacuum tube were the only amplifying devices, other than specialized power devices such as the magnetic amplifier and amplidyne, for 40 years." Even if it lingered on in a few specialty applications like hearing aids, the mechanical repeater was virtually obsolete by the early 1920s, replaced by tubes. --ChetvornoTALK 03:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 8 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 07:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


AmplifierElectronic amplifier – Some people make the mistake of thinking that Electrical Amplifiers are the only type of amplifier, but please see Amplifier (disambiguation)#Other amplifier types - mainly Magnetic amplifier, Mechanical amplifier, Optical amplifier, Pneumatic amplifier 83.137.6.117 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:PTOPIC. The ample entries for types of electronic amplifier indicate this is the most common meaning, and the page views only amplify the fact. The disambiguation page would need its hits amplified sevenfold to equal those of the other topics suggested: few readers are clicking through the hatnote to find the other meanings.
Incidentally, this request is malformed if (as I assume) the intent is to move the disambiguation page over per WP:NOPRIMARY. Nominators should request all associated moves explicitly. 178.164.139.126 (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I'm wondering whether to include acoustic mirror at the DAB page, mainly because I can never remember what they are called and go searching for "sonic amplifier", "echo amplifier" and suchlike. (I found the term via a Google search for "concrete amplifier"). I do realise that they are not individually amplifiers. 178.164.139.126 (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per common name. Any confusion should be explained in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 4 September 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)MaterialWorks 20:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


AmplifierElectronic amplifier – 1) The article opens with the hatnote: This article is about electronic amplifiers... 2) Then begins with an immediate disambiguation: An amplifier, electronic amplifier, ... 3) It is the main article of Category:Electronic amplifiers 4) The category Category:Amplifiers is subdivided into the two subcats Category:Electronic amplifiers and Category:Mechanical amplifiers, the latter of which has its own main article. Summary: All of the above indicates that the best title for this article is "Electronic amplifier" Gjs238 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. The electronic sense still seems like the most common topic, in terms of what readers might be looking for--certainly more than mechanical, probably(?) more than biochemical--and what is named this without further qualification. WP:DAB says that therefore it can have the undisambiguated name (PRIMARYTOPIC), especially since the other variants seem to have easy nat-dab names available, and MOS says that providing at least some sort of pointer for readers to the other meanings is entirely appropriate. Has anything changed in the past three years since the last req-move? However, Category:Amplifiers should really have a third subcat for the biochemical sense, since almost all of the 28 pages in that higher-level cat are specifically about that subtopic. DMacks (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Electronic amplifiers are overwhelmingly the most commonly discussed and read-about amplifiers, making it sensible for amplifier without any qualifications to be an article about the electronic one. It's what a reader would expect to find here. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose and time to impose a moratorium until a much, much more convincing proposal is created. Red Slash 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.