Ale..chenski

@FabioBarone, why you are grilling on transmitter? The question is about receiver.. @BradenYonano, did you verify that the 6mV is coming from your transmitter, and not from a nearby cluster of TV/Radio broadcast towers?

Ok, not +-6, but +-1V. Still there is a gap

But you are trying a differential between two signals, which can be anything and well below 6V. So you will need to switch from +6V to -6V to start reversing the motion. Please try to read the article in the link I posted, to get an idea of "tuned tank circuit" made of transistors,

Wait a bit. Do you know that motors usually have some threshold to start moving? They are not "linear devices" working in proportion to signal level. So you might need some post-processing of the input signals to control the motors. In other words, you might need to study elements of control theory and DSP. In a week...

electronicsforu.com/electronics-projects/simple-fm-receiver

No it is wrong. With proper bias any small signal can be amplified, you might need several stages of amplification.

@BradenYonano, "they require at least 700mV to operate" - where did you get this from? How then you think all TV and AM/FM radio and RF modems operate if the signal over the air is in microvolt range?

"The end goal is just to have the signal amplified enough to rectify it so that it can" - this function is called "radio receiver", and use of broadband OPA is not a solution to this problem. Check "transistor radio" circuitry from 80'.

@NickAlexeev, their equipment might be decent, but they failed to teach how to formulate technical specifications/requirement before trying a possibly wrong solution.

So it looks like you want to control a 5V motor via some radio receiver, right? How the 6mV signal gets generated in first place>

@BradenYonano, you didn't tell if your requirements include broadband amplification, or some narrow band around 110MHz

@FabioBarone, or the OP can build a one-transistor amplifier with resonance tank load... UHF radio schematics may help

There ate tons of OPA with >1GHz bandwidth. Don't you try Digi-Key parametric search? However, breadboarding won't get you to this level, and you must use SMT components. But you can try a copper-clad two layer board and carve necessary patterns with Dremel tool.

First, you didn't say how much you want to amplify the 6mV signal, and how accurate it should be (distortion %). I am afraid if you didn't learn basic theory of OPA operation, one week might be not enough to embark on 100MHz analog issue. To begin, to get 10X at 100 MHz, you will need an OPA with 1 GHz unit bandwidth.

Why your LTspice model has (IN-) grounded? It means infinite amplification.

The AD829 has 120MHz bandwidth at gain -1. You can't amplify much of 110MHz with this setup.

@AJ_Smoothie, with ~70 years of dealing with electronics, I've heard of nearly everything :-)

I used to use a 30AWG "hook-up" wire with Kevlar insulation for perfboarding. With move to SMT and 0.4mm pin pitch of some ICs, this is no longer a feasible technology.

Terminology needs to be adjusted here - the OP means "perfboard", but uses cold-plugged jumpers for "breadboard".

Wires on a breadboard are not supposed to sustain any heat. The jumpers are not made for soldering.

@Justme, I mean construed, not constructed. My remark was also not about that particular product nor its particular (and likely poor) implementation, but about your adamant position regarding legality of this kind of devices.

@Justme, as I said, you treat the specs too narrowly. The "cable" shown by OP can be construed as a "vendor-specific USB device with captive Type-C cable", see last paragraph in section 3.1.2, and corresponding section 3.4.3.

@Justme, could you please provide a reference to specification section where it says the other configurations are "not allowed" or "prohibited"? More, the proposed setup can qualify as reduced version of "USB Type-C Multiport Charger", which does have downstream receptacle. I think you treat specifications too narrowly.

When VBUS gets off, the HUSB238 will nearly short both CC1 and CC2, so the drain is assured. If you mean to disconnect CC1 and CC2, it might work as well leaving VBUS power connected, I don't know. Looks like a good idea, and you have all means to do these experiments... and you might need to eliminate D+/D- connection to exlude all goofy alternative charging.

This is a good question - how to simulate "mechanical cut-off" on a PD-controllable link without unplugging the cable. Obviously a simple VBUS off switch won't do the job, since CC wires will drain the source over 5.1k pull-down. It looks like you will also need two more switches to disconnect CC1 and CC2. Again, you will need some power to control these switches if FETs are used. Looks like a triple-pole mechanical switch might do the job.

"USB being both hardware-simple" - that's a very funny statement, LOL.

The whole answer is a mess. Pretty much everything is inaccurate or wrong. "There is a huge list of generic identifications" - the list of identifications is "huge", but they are about specific Vendor information, and have very little to do with ability of device to function in generic environment. The functionality is defined by USB CLASS, and there are just few USB classes defined. The keyword here is "USB Class", not particular vendor or product ID.

If 7264 is trying hard but output stage can't deliver, then you need to check 7272 and down to 7276 and to the pair of 7280/7284.

If the drive down is weak under load, you need to check more carefully voltages around 7264 and 7258. Also you can try smaller loads, not just full speaker. It might reveal where the signal gets insufficient drive down.

Did you check all voltages as they are shown on schematics? Do you see any deviations?

@pipe, this is a trivial question for anyone who have ever deal with Class-AB audio amplifiers when one of drivers for power transistors is dead.

And how did you get the floating generator (V2) connected?

Actually, the AD820 spec says 3 V/us, not 1v/3us. Another 10X factor is missing...

Yes, color of paint is determined by visible spectrum, but the thermal emission at room temperature is in deep IR, and the emissivity/reflectivity spectrum could vary. So Ok, we all are fine. Peace :-)

Look up "black body cavity design"

So that's why the results from painting are a bit less than anticipated.

Regarding paint: white paint likely has the same emissivity in infrared area as black paint, not much difference. However, the whole emissivity issue is a little overblown. The reason is that the channels between fins are acting a sort of "blackbody cavity", due to multitude of ray reflections (even if reflectivity is high) they act as black bodies, sort of. So if the bare aluminum surface has emisivity under 0.1, finned "surface" has maybe 0.6-0.7 effetively

I usually like Master and PhD dissertation sources, because they usually have the best unbiased review of prior work (since there is not much else they can do :-( ). In this particular study the heat sink had only 4 mm spacing between fins, so no reasonable free convection can develop in the channels (boundary layers quickly merge and not very effective in moving "free air". So the result is BS too.

Do you mean the Master Thesis?

Flow in tight channels between fins, especially in horizontal plate position, can't be "two-dimensional". Their computational scheme has no proof of convergence, and again, "fin elements" looks like a low-level jargon. I have no further comments about all this baloney.

The results of calculations by "Sauna" thermal software are essentially equivalent that the plate has perforations all around the bottom, allowing the air entry in the same way as for free fin, which is not true, thus their "horizontal/vertical" result is highly misleading.

And yes, free "natural" convection also produces boundary layers, and viscous sublayer plays the limiting role, forming linear temperature gradient near the surface, which determines the rate of heat exchange. In the case of horizontal plate the air flow in the most thermally challenging area - plate center - must come from sides, and the hydrodynamic impedance of channels works against buoyancy, which is alreadt weak.

Where is this from? This is from PhD studies that I successfully completed exactly 40 years ago, although the subject was not about engineering approximation of heat transfer (it was already done before my time, but in more academic matters of hydrodynamic instabilities, pattern formation, and transition to turbulence. I left academia 25 years ago, so please forgive me if my terminology might sound outdated

Natural convection (aka "free") also produces air movement with certain velocity, which can be associated with corresponding pressure difference. In some sense it is not much different from "forced convection", just occurs "naturally". The enhancement in heat transfer is precisely due to this velocity. Therefore any obstacles (like having no easy entry of air into the "channel" between fins impedes the ability of air to move up. Thus the velocity is smaller, and heat transfer is smaller.

... and thus develops substantial velocity outside the viscous sublayer, due to buoyancy. In the horizontal position the air is stalled, and the approximate formula doesn't apply. That's where their mistake is.

Let me try to explain why the first linked article ("Sauna" thermal software) is in error. They show that horizontally-placed (fins up) 150x150mm plate has nearly the same efficiency as vertical/vertical orientation. Their problem is that they use approximation formulas derived for a free-standing fin (with all boundary layer things). In free-standing fin the air enters the channel between fins freely, from below...

@Misunderstood , try this, open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/24/1.0074423/1

@Misunderstood, okay, you got me. I managed to read the article. This paper is fairly bad. First, it is not based on 3-D solid-fluid solver, it uses approximation formulas obtained 50 years ago, with unknown materials and measuring methods. So all conclusions are fishy. Here is another largely ignorant article (Master Thesis), where 4mm fin gaps were used, with absurd results as well. file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/ubc_2015_may_Rana_Md.%20Ruhul.‌​pdf All research of this kind was done 50-60 years ago, before Internet era, and new generation is re-discovering the stuff in a funny wrong way.

@Misunderstood, horizontally-oriented plate makes no sense whatsoever for free convection mode, there could be no "design criteria" for nonsense. Please stop. If you are overly concerned, use omnidirectional heat sinks, cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1538/8585/products/…