Talk:Voltage-to-current converter

Transconductance amplifier is a voltage to current converter.

Well, you might now insert this assertion into the article. By the way, add your signature at the end of the talk. Regards, Circuit-fantasist 11:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Scenario for the article

Hi everybody! I begin creating this story about voltage-to-current converter following the scenario below. I draw inspiration to do that from the lessons with my students at the university. Circuit-fantasist 11:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea behind a voltage-to-current converter

Electrical domain: Voltage causes current

Building the circuit.

Visualizing the circuit operation by using: voltage bars and current loops, superimposed IV curves, transfer characteristic, voltage diagram. floating load voltage to current converter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.87.100 (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Applications

V-to-I converter acting as an output device

Voltage-controlled current source.

V-to-I converter acting as an input device

Compound voltmeter.

Compound passive converters: RC passive integrator, RL passive differentiator, RD passive logarithmic converter

Transistor base resistor.

Op-amp inverting amplifier (an input part).

This page needs to be removed

None of this is useful to anyone. This page is not needed. A Resistor is a voltage to current converter. If you want to get more fancy then you are talking about a Current_source. That page, on the other hand is very well written.Zen-in (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that this page is not useful to anyone, or is not needed. I agree that the page could use some work to bring it up to the standard of other pages (Current_source is a good example). However, this page provides useful information - with passive and active examples - of a linear voltage-to-current converter. Tob nrug (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree too. Recent High-Speed AD/DA converters (100MHz and above) have current inputs and outputs, the concept of "voltage to current" and "current to voltage" conversion is the intuitive and correct approach to design matching interfaces to "voltage-controlled" circuits. Also I cannot see any "original research", all mentioned concepts and ideas are state of the art at least since the invention of opamps, but rarely collected and explained in a compact manner. If you want to add a reference, you would probably have to cite Kirchhoff's original publications. -- 89.247.60.249 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, these articles (e.g. this and voltage-to-current converter) need so much copyediting it's not funny. And by "copyediting", I mean "removing all the original research and non-encyclopaedic stuff". The actual content of this article could be expressed in about 3 paragraphs. I'm going to tackle this over the weekend. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'm tempted simply to redirect to transconductance. Any objections? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone could write a decent, short article on this subject, but there's probably too much OR in this one to salvage it. No objection from me. -Roger (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oli Filth, obviously, you do not see any difference between conductance (the first part of the article) and transconductance (the second part) as you want "simply to redirect the page". Then I suggest to you "simply to redirect" conductance to transconductance page:) Any objections?

This was "simply humor" but I would like to say something serious to you. You and your likes have cognitive, emotional and moral problems predestining your behavior here, in Wikipedia. Your great problem is that you do not see the concepts behind circuits; you do not see the forest behind the trees. You know perfectly the specific circuit implementations but you can't generalize them into a functional block-diagram and a universal operational algorithm. Simply, you know circuits but you do not understand them; as a result, you can't explain them to readers so that they to understand them. The main reason for this behavior is your unwillingness to see the existing connection between apparently different phenomena (both electrical and non-electrical) in this world, to establish associations between them, to use analogies...

Besides this cognitive problem you have emotional problems as well. Actually, you do not like circuits; circuitry is more job than favorite pursuit for you. Contrary to you, I like circuits and great ideas behind them; I love them; I adore them. Circuitry is my vocation, my pet pursuit. I created this page three years ago with plenty of love placing all the best of my abilities here. To show the truth behind these legendary circuits, I show their evolution from passive to active version: first, I have introduced passive versions looking at Ohm's law from two viewpoints; then, I have considered their imperfections and finally, I have found a remedy converting the passive versions into active ones. Later, I realized that, in this form, the article did not match the specific encyclopedic Wikipedia style and it had to be rewritten. Then I gave this opportunity to wikipedians and began creating a series of Circuit idea stories about them (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). I agree with you the form has to be changed but the main points of the content have to be kept. As all you can (already) see, both the V-to-I and I-to-V op-amp inverting configurations are based on the same powerful Miller's idea - modifying (zeroing) the impedance by adding a proportional voltage. I have discerned this common great idea in these specific circuits and I would like to share this simple truth with people. Will you keep it in your "about 3 paragraphs"? No, you will remove it; you will remove the truth about these circuits and will leave only banal, specific and formal "explanations" that do not explain anything; you will hide the forest behind the trees.

You have boasted of your famous tutors at university. Well, it is wonderful that they were teaching perfectly circuit analysis to their alumni. But it would be also very well if they were showing concepts behind circuits and finally, if they were bringing up some elementary human ethics to them. Because, if you had such morals, when encountering a mind that excels (in some respect) yours, you would not consider his/her success as your unsuccess; you would not destroy else's creations or (worse) instigate stupidity and mediocrity to do this and then enjoy seeing the results... You would try to rise to his/her level instead to pull down him/her to your level; you would admire his/her achievements; you would join and improve them (what is the great Wikipedia idea); you would be wikipedian, not the opposite. If you respect the elementary Wikipedia ethics, you would restore the link to the most popular op-amp Miller integrator or current integrator in the Miller effect page that you have removed absolutely intentionally.

As a conclusion, I approve of rewriting the articles but only if you retain the main points and if you do not prevent me from placing links to the related wikibooks modules. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 10:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've skipped all the ad hominem material in your reply... in summary:

• this article is not written in an encyclopaedic fashion.
• a network that takes a voltage input and presents a current output is, by definition, a transconductance. We do not need two articles on the same topic, so my suggestion is to redirect to the transconductance article, as it's better-written. Any material that can be salvaged from this article should be merged there!
• linking to your Wikibooks modules is still inappropriate, for reasons that I've explained previously.

Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea. There is no need for two articles on the same subject and there isn't much in this version that should be retained. You should not take it personally C-F. The goal is to create an encyclopedia. Zen-in (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)