OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Electronics Fundamentals/Electronic Oscillator/Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator
## Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator

Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator is an Electronics device that generate Sinusoidal Wave Oscillation

### Configuration

LC connected in series has the capability to generate Sinusoidal Wave Oscillation at equilibrium

### Mathematical Analysis

    $L{\frac {d}{dt}}i+{\frac {1}{C}}\int idt=0$
    ${\frac {d}{dt}}i+{\frac {1}{LC}}\int idt=0$
    $s^{2}+{\frac {1}{LC}}=0$
    $s=\pm j{\sqrt {\frac {1}{LC}}}t$
    $s=\pm j\omega t$
    $i=e^{j\omega t)+e^{-j\omega t)$
    $i=ASin\omega t$

## Summary

LC series has the capabilty to generate oscillation of sinusoidal wave oscillate at frequency
    $\omega ={\sqrt {\frac {1}{LC}}}$
# Electronics Fundamentals/Electronic Oscillator/Standing Wave Oscillator
## Standing Wave Oscillator
### Configuration

LC connected in series has the capability to generate Sinusoidal Standing Wave Oscillation at Resonance

### Mathematical Analysis

At Resonance
    $Z_{L}-Z_{C}=0$
    $V_{L}+V_{C}=0$
$Z_{L}-Z_{C}=0$
    $Z_{L}=Z_{C}$
    $\omega L={\frac {1}{\omega C}}$
    $\omega ={\sqrt {\frac {1}{LC}}}$
$V_{L}+V_{C}=0$
    $V_{C}=-V_{L}$

## Summary

LC series operates in resonance has the capability to generate oscillation of Standing Wave of frequency
    $\omega ={\sqrt {\frac {1}{LC}}}$
# Electronics Fundamentals/Electronic Rectifier
## Rectifier

Rectifier is a Device that converts AC Electricity to DC Electricity
# Electronics Fundamentals/Passive Components
## Passive Components

Passive Components are components made from conductors
* Resistor
* Inductor
* Capacitor
* Switches
# Electronics Fundamentals/Electronic Oscillator
## Electronic Oscillator

Electronic Oscillator is an electronic Device that can generate wave oscillation

## Type of Oscillation

| Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator | $I(t)=ASin\omega t$ |
| Stading Wave Oscillator | $v(\theta )=ASin(\omega _{o}t+2\pi )-ASin(\omega _{o}t-2\pi )$ |
| Exponential Decreasing Amplitude Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator | $I(t)=A(\alpha )Sin\lambda t$ |
# Electronics Fundamentals/Electronic Oscillator/Exponential Decreasing Amplitude Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator
## Exponential Decreasing Amplitude Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator

Exponential Decreasing Amplitude Sinusoidal Wave Oscillator is an Electronics Device that has the capability to generate oscillation of an Exponential Decreasing Amplitude Sinusoidal Wave

### Configuration

    RLC connected in series

## Mathematical Analysis

    $L{\frac {di}{dt}}i+{\frac {1}{C}}\int idt+{\frac {1}{LC}}=0$
    ${\frac {d^{2}i}{dt^{2}}}++{\frac {R}{L}}{\frac {di}{dt}}+{\frac {1}{LC}}=0$
    $s^{2}+{\frac {R}{L}}s+{\frac {1}{LC}}=0$
    $s=(-\alpha \pm \lambda )t$
    $\alpha ={\frac {R}{2L}}$
    $\beta ={\frac {1}{LC}}$
    $\lambda ={\sqrt {\alpha ^{2}-\beta ^{2}}}$
* $\lambda <0$
    $i=e^{-\alpha t)[e^{j\omega t)+e^{-j\omega t)]$

## Summary

RLC series has the capability to generate oscillation of Exponential decreased sinusoidal wave when solving the characteristic equation to give complex roots i.e.
    $\lambda <0$
    $\alpha ^{2}<\beta ^{2}$
    $({\frac {R}{2L}})^{2}<({\frac {1}{LC}})^{2}$
    $R<{\sqrt {\frac {L}{C}}}$
# Electronics Fundamentals/Integrated circuit/Operational Amplifier
## Operational Amplifier or Op Amp

An Operational amplifier is an Integrated circuit, which has a number of electronic components inside a single "chip" or package. Many of these devices are packaged in eight-pin packages, but there are also some devices which are provided in smaller or larger packages. There are also versions which contain multiple op amps in a single package. A typical example of the former is the extremely common 741, for which the specifications are shown below. An example of the latter type is the 324, which contains four op amp circuits in a single 14-pin package.

## Symbol

    Pin NumberFunction IC 741 1Null Offset 2Inverted Voltage 3Non-Inverted Voltage 4Negative Voltage Source 5Not Used 6Output 7Positive Voltage Source 8Not Used
    op-amp
* V+: (non-inverting input)
* V$_−$: (inverting input)
* V$_{out}$: (output
* V$_{S+}$: (positive power supply)
* V$_{S−}$: (negative power supply)

## Operation

Operational Amplifier is used to amplify the difference of two input voltages.
    $V_{o}=A(V_{+}-V_{-})$
Op Amp can also be used as Inverting or Non Invering Voltage Amplifier
    $V_{o}=AV_{+}withV_{-}=0$
    $V_{o}=AV_{-}withV_{+}=0$
Or as a Voltage Comparator of the two input voltages
    If $V_{+}>V_{-}$ Then $V_{o}=V_{s}s$
    If $V_{+}<V_{-}$ Then $V_{o}=-V_{s}s$
    If $V_{+}=V_{-}$ Then $V_{o}=0$
# Electronics Fundamentals/Integrated circuit/Timer
## Multivibrator 555

The 555 timer IC provides a very versatile, effective, and easy-to-use astable mode. By changing component values, one can get frequencies from a maximum of about 300kHz to as low as limited by the leakage of the capacitors used in the circuit. It can also have the mark-space ratio altered almost limitlessly.
* print string 1fst and 4th character
* print string 5th 6th 3rd and 7th 8th 9th 10th character

## Variable mark-space ratio

This variation allow much easier control of the mark-space ratio without too much impact on the frequency. The only difference is a diode petween Pins 6 and 7, with the cathode at Pin 6. The effect of this is to shunt resistor R2 when charging C1. This means that C1 charges though R1 only. This removes R2 from the "high-time" equation, and make calculating the mark-space ratio easier and prevents the frequency from being altered excessively by changes in the mark-space ratio ( although this still happens to a certain extent).

### Design equations

       $f={\frac {1.44}{\left(R_{1}+R_{2}\right)\times C}}$.
       This is different to the design equation for the standard 555 Astable. (R$_2$ instead of 2R$_2$)
       ${\mbox{High time}}=0.69\times R_{1}\times C$
       ${\mbox{Low time}}=0.69\times R_{2}\times C$
       ${\mbox{Mark-space ratio}}={\frac {R_{1}}{R_{2}}}$

## Mini-astable

This astable uses fewer components than the basic astable, and requires only the IC, one resistor and one capacitor, plus the Pin 5 capacitor for final versions.
This astable has a MSR of approximately 1:1, but this tends to increase under heavy current load, as the output does not swing fully to the power supply. This astable is not a reliable source of frequency, and should never be used where an accurate, stable clock is needed.

### Design equations

       $f={\frac {0.72}{R_{1}\times C}}$.
       ${\mbox{High time}}={\mbox{Low time}}=0.69\times R_{1}\times C$

## Pin 4 Enable

Pin 4 is normally held high, and in this state it does nothing. However, when Pin 4 is brought low, the 555 is disabled, and the output is held low. This can be used to turn an astable on when desired. An example of this is the double-astable bleeper, which uses the output from one astable to enable another, faster astable.
Pin 8 should not be used as the enable pin, as this will draw all the current needed to run the device from the triggering circuit.

## Other astable circuits

* Frequency Modulation
* Diminishing Frequency

## Units of Design Equations

The units that the component values and frequency are measured in are the standard base units: ohms, farads and hertz. This is often inconvenient, as the values for components are usually several orders of magnitude away from the base unit. It is possible to use more convenient units to calculate the frequency, and the common combinations are given below:
| Resistance | Capacitance | Period | Frequency |
| Ω | F | s | Hz |
| MΩ | μF | s | Hz |
| kΩ | μF | ms | kHz |

## See Also

* 555 Astable "plugin"
* 555 Astable Frequency Calculator
* 555 Astable
# Electronics Fundamentals/Integrated circuit
## Integrated Circuit

An integrated circuit is a circuit of more than one component already configured inside a chip.
* Operational Amplifier
* Timer
# Electronics Fundamentals/Parallel Circuit
## Parallel Circuits

Parallel Circuits are circuits that have components connected in parallel include
* Parallel Resistors
* Parallel Inductors
* Parallel Capacitors
* Parallel RL
* Parallel RC
* Parallel LC
* Parallel RLC
# Economic Sophisms/78

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"workmen run after one master, wages fall; they rise when two masters run after one workman.
For the sake of brevity, allow me to make use of this formula, more scientific, although, perhaps, not quite so clear. The rate of wages depends on the proportion which the supply of labour bears to the demand for it
Now, on what does the supply of labour depend?
On the number of men waiting for employment; and on this first element protection can have no effect.
On what does the demand for labour depend?
On the disposable capital of the nation. But does the law which says. We shall no longer receive such or such a product from abroad, we shall make it at home, augment the capital? Not in the least degree. It may force capital from one employment to another, but it does not increase it by a single farthing. It does not then increase the demand for labour.
We point with pride to a certain manufacture. Is it established or maintained with capital which has fallen from the moon? No; that capital has been withdrawn from agriculture, from shipping, from the production of wines. And this is the reason why, under the régime of protective tariffs, there are more workmen in our mines and in our manufacturing towns, and fewer sailors in our ports, and fewer labourers in our fields and vineyards.
I could expatiate at length on this subject, but I prefer to explain what I mean by an example.
A countryman was possessed of twenty acres of land, which he worked with a capital of £400. He divided his land into four parts, and established the following rotation of crops:—1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; 4th, rye. He required for his own family only a moderate portion of the grain, meat, and milk which his farm produced, and he sold the surplus to buy oil, flax, wine, etc. His whole capital was expended each year in wages, hires, and small payments to the working classes in his neighbourhood. This capital was returned to him in his sales, and even went on increasing year by year; and our countryman, knowing very well that capital produces nothing when it is unemployed, benefited the working classes by devoting
the annual surplus to enclosing and clearing his land, and
# Economic Sophisms/82

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"Template:Hwe in the public mind; they run counter to no pecuniary interest; and this is the reason why without any felt inconvenience they may endure for a thousand years. The physical world goes on as if they did not exist. But of errors in the moral world, can the same thing be said? Can we conceive that a system of administration, found to be absolutely false and therefore hurtful, should be followed out among many nations for centuries, with the general approval of all well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a system could coexist with the constantly increasing prosperity of nations? M. Say admits that the argument which he combats is fitted to make a profound impression. Yes, indeed; and the impression remains; for M. Say has rather deepened than done away with it."
Let us hear what M. de Saint-Chamans says on the same subject:—
"It was only in the middle of the last century, of that eighteenth century which handed over all subjects and all principles without exception to free discussion, that these speculative purveyors of ideas, applied by them to all things without being really applicable to anything, began to write upon political economy. There existed previously a system of political economy, not to be found in books, but which had been put in practical operation by governments. Colbert, it is said, was the inventor of it, and it was adopted as a rule by all the nations of Europe. The singular thing is, that in spite of contempt and maledictions, in spite of all the discoveries of the modern school, it still remains in practical operation. This system, which our authors have called the mercantile system, was designed to … impede, by prohibitions or import duties, the entry of foreign products, which might ruin our own manufactures by their competition. Economic writers of all schools have declared this system untenable, absurd, and calculated to
impoverish any country. It has been banished from all their
# Economic Sophisms/81

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"
AS advocates of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and of not taking practice sufficiently into account.
"What fearful prejudices were entertained against M. Say," says M. Ferrier, "by that long train of distinguished administrators, and that imposing phalanx of authors who dissented from his opinions; and M. Say was not unaware of it. Hear what he says:—'It has been alleged in support of errors of long standing, that there must have been some foundation for ideas which have been adopted by all nations. Ought we not to distrust observations and reasonings which run counter to opinions which have been constantly entertained down to our own time, and which have been regarded as sound by so many men remarkable for their enlightenment and their good intentions? This argument, I allow, is calculated to make a profound impression, and it might have cast doubt upon points which we deem the most incontestable, if we had not seen, by turns, opinions the most false, and now generally acknowledged to be false, received and professed by everybody during a long series of ages. Not very long ago all nations, from the rudest to the most enlightened, and all men, from the street-porter to the savant, admitted the existence of four elements. No one thought of contesting that doctrine, which, however, is false; so much so, that even the greenest assistant in a naturalist's class-room would be ashamed to say that he regarded earth, water, and fire as elements.'"
On this M. Ferrier remarks:—
"If M. Say thinks to answer thus the very strong objection which he brings forward, he is singularly mistaken. That men, otherwise well informed, should have been mistaken for centuries on certain points of natural history is easily understood, and proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and fire, whether elements or not, are not the less useful to man.… Such errors
are unimportant: they lead to no popular commotions, no Template:Hws
# Economic Sophisms/84

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh""You should buy from others what you cannot make for yourself but at a greater expense."
And they say,
"It is better to make things for yourself, although they cost you more than the price at which you could buy them from others."
Now, gentlemen, throwing aside theory, argument, demonstration, all which seems to affect you with nausea, which of these two assertions has on its side the sanction of universal practice?
Visit your fields, your workshops, your forges, your warehouses; look above, below, and around you; look at what takes place in your own houses; remark your own everyday acts; and say what is the principle which guides these labourers, artisans, and merchants; say what is your own personal practice.
Does the farmer make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the corn he consumes? Does your housekeeper continue to have your bread made at home, after she finds she can buy it cheaper from the baker? Do you resign the pen for the brush, to save your paying tribute to the shoeblack? Does the entire economy of society not rest upon the separation of employments, the division of labour—in a word, upon exchange? And what is exchange, but a calculation which we make with a view to discontinuing direct production in every case in which we find that possible, and in which indirect acquisition enables us to effect a saving in time and in effort?
It is not you, therefore, who are the men of practice, since you cannot point to a single human being who acts upon your principle.
But you will say, we never intended to make our principle a rule for individual relations. We perfectly understand that this would be to break up the bond of society, and would force men to live like snails, each in his own shell All that we con- tend for is, that our principle regulates de facto, the regulations which obtain between the different agglomerations of the human family.
Well, I affirm that this principle is still erroneous. The family, the commune, the canton, the department, the province,
are so many agglomerations, which all, without any exception,
# Economic Sophisms/80

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"Template:Hwe the same, but as the means of remunerating that labour fell off, the ultimate result was a forcible reduction of wages.
On a greater scale, this is exactly what takes place in the case of a nation which isolates itself by adopting a prohibitive régime. It multiplies its branches of industry, I grant, but they become of diminished importance; it adopts, so to speak, a more complicated industrial rotation, but it is not so prolific, because its capital and labour have now to struggle with natural difficulties. A greater proportion of its circulating capital, which forms the wages fund, must be converted into fixed capital What remains may have more varied employment, but the total mass is not increased. It is like distributing the water of a pond among a multitude of shallow reservoirs—it covers more ground, and presents a greater surface to the rays of the sun, and it is precisely for this reason that it is all the sooner absorbed, evaporated, and lost.
The amount of capital and labour being given, they create a smaller amount of commodities in proportion as they encounter more obstacles. It is beyond doubt, that when international obstructions force capital and labour into channels and localities where they meet with greater difficulties of soil and climate, the general result must be, fewer products created—that is to say, fewer enjoyments for consumers. Now, when there are fewer enjoyments upon the whole, will the workman's share of them be augmented? If it were augmented, as is asserted, then the rich—the men who make the laws—would find their own share not only subject to the general diminution, but that diminished share would be still further reduced by what was added to the labourers' share. Is this possible? Is it credible? I advise you, workmen, to reject such suspicious generosity.
# Economic Sophisms/83

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"books, and forced to take refuge in the practical legislation of all nations. They cannot conceive why, in measures relating to national wealth, governments should not follow the advice and opinions of learned authors, rather than trust to their experience of the tried working of a system which has been long in operation. Above all, they cannot conceive why the French government should in economic questions obstinately set itself to resist the progress of enlightenment, and maintain in its practice those ancient errors, which all our economic writers have exposed. But enough of this mercantile system, which has nothing in its favour but facts, and is not defended by any speculative writer."
Such language as this would lead one to suppose that in demanding for every one the free disposal of his property, economists were propounding some new system, some new, strange, and chimerical social order, a sort of phalanstère, coined in the mint of their own brain, and without precedent in the annals of the human race. To me it would seem that if we have here anything factitious or contingent, it is to be found, not in liberty, but in protection; not in the free power of exchanging, but in customs duties employed to overturn artificially the natural course of remuneration.
But our business at present is not to compare, or pronounce between, the two systems; but to inquire which of the two is founded on experience.
The advocates of monopoly maintain that the facts are on their side, and that we have on our side only theory.
They flatter themselves that this long series of public acts, this old experience of Europe, which they invoke, has presented itself as something very formidable to the mind of M. Say; and I grant that he has not refuted it with his wonted sagacity. For my own part, I am not disposed to concede to the monopolists the domain of facts, for they have only in their favour facts which are forced and exceptional; and we oppose to these, facts which are universal, the free and voluntary acts of mankind at large.
What do we say; and what do they say?
We say,
# Economic Sophisms/77

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"classes are flattered—fulsomely, servilely flattered; they are represented as in the condition of slaves, and men of common sense will soon be ashamed publicly to espouse their cause, for how can common sense make itself heard in the midst of all this insipid and empty declamation?
Far from us be this cowardly indifference, which would not be justified even by the sentimental affectation which prompts it Workmen! your situation is peculiar! They make merchandise of you, as I shall show you immediately.... But no; I withdraw that expression. Let us steer clear of strong language, which may be misapplied; for spoliation, wrapt up in the sophistry which conceals it, may be in full operation unknown to the spoliator, and with the blind assent of his victim. Still, you are deprived of the just remuneration of your labour, and no one is concerned to do you justice. If all that was wanted to console you were ardent appeals to philanthropy, to impotent charity, to degrading almsgiving; or if the grand words, organization, communism, phalanstère, were enough for you, truly they would not be spared. But justice, simple justice, no one thinks of offering you. And yet, would it not be just that when, after a long day's toil, you have received your modest wages, you should have it in your power to exchange them for the greatest amount of satisfactions and enjoyments which you could possibly obtain for them from any one in any part of the world?
Some day I may have occasion also to talk to you of association and organization, and we shall then see what you have to expect from those chimeras which now mislead you.
In the meantime, let us inquire whether injustice is not done you by fixing legislatively the people from whom yon are to purchase the things you have need of—bread, meat, linens, or cloth; and in dictating, if I may say so, the artificial scale of prices which you are to adopt in your dealings.
Is it true that protection, which admittedly makes you pay dearer for everything, and entails a loss upon you in this respect, raises proportionally your wages?
On what does the rate of wages depend?
One of your own class has put it forcibly, thus: When two