Hi, I don't understand the use of the original research or unverified claims tag here. This is everyday electronic engineering stuff that has been very well presented. Sfrahm11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Light current! Thank you for the willingness of cooperation. I had just begun thinking about your last discussions on the page of negative resistance when I noted your changes in the page of transimpedance amplifier.
Of course, my insertions need improving by a native English speaker(s). I have realized that I have only roughly exposed the topic. I promise you that I will assist you (in return for your editorial help), if you ever decide to join the BG Wikipedia :) Circuit-fantasist08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diagrams
I know it's a pain, but the word 'harmful' in your diagrams gives the wrong impression to readers. Maybe you could change it to 'unwanted' 8-)--Light current01:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say that something is bad as it impedes, embarrasses, hampers, enervates the excitation input voltage when it strives to create a current. Also, I would like to say that the "bad thing" decreases, diminishes the effective (actual) current-creating voltage VRi = VIN - VR (in this arrangement, the resistor Ri actually acts as a voltage-to-current converter).
"...effectively modifies the excitation voltage VIN..."
According to the considerations abov, we have to write, "...effectively modifies the actual current-creating voltage VRi..." By the way, can you "unearth" some simpler single word (like decrease, diminish etc.) instead the combination "effectively modify"?
What is 'harmful' - resistance, voltage or the both?
Only, beginning to think about your word substitutions (I agree them) I have gradually realized that actually only the resistance is the "bad thing" in this arrangement (discuss). The voltage drop VR is not a 'harmful' quantity; instead, it is a useful quantity as it is created by the input voltage source, in order to overcome the resistance! In other words, the voltage drop VR is the reaction of the excitation source to the impeding resistance; it is its voltage, not resistance's voltage! So, if you allow me, I will apply the adjective 'undesired' only to the resistance R.
Maybe, this discussion is also suitable for Ohm's law where it is more precisely to say, "...the voltage source develops a voltage drop across the terminal conductors of the resistors..." instead, "...resistors develop a voltage across their terminal conductors..."
The basic idea behind the passive current-to-voltage converter
I have inserted a para about the basic (non-electrical) idea of the passive version (similarly the active version). The idea is simple and well-known from our life: the impidements cause a pressure; so, in order to create a pressure, an impediment has to be applied.
A new page about the passive current-to-voltage converter?
I suppose to open a new page about passive current-to-voltage converter; IMO, it deserves attention. Then, we may remove the part about the passive version from this page to the new one.
I would like to come up for discussion the title. Actually, transimpedance amplifier and current-to-voltage converter are the same device. Only, I don't know why the first name is more frequently used although
transimpedance amplifier is more meaningless than current-to-voltage converter
current-to-voltage converter is more general than transimpedance amplifier as there are two versions (passive and active one) for it.
Actually, I would suggest going with the one that is more frequently used which is transimpedance. Also, to say that transimpedance is more meaningless would show a lack of understanding of an transimpedance amplifier. The gain of a transimpedance amplifier is ohms. Hence the name transimpedance. I can't tell if the trans is like transconductance in which that article says it stands for transfer but the same concept. Transconductance means the gain is going to be in Siemens. 155.33.109.14822:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the cleanup tag because of formatting and layout. It's rather choppy with very short paragraphs each with a heading. (Information looks good during a cursory look but the layout just makes it hard to follow). RJFJR21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transimpedance Amplifier vs. Current to Voltage Converter
A C2VA is not always a TIA but a TIA is always a C2VA.
Example: A resistor converts current to voltage, but its not a TIA. The TIA is an idealized model, just like the voltage opamp is an idealized model for simplified calculations. Steve11020:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current-to-voltage converter (the most popular circuit implementation)
Current-to-voltage converter is the most general term including both the passive current-to-voltage converter (a bare resistor) and active current-to-voltage converter (transimpedance amplifier). There is a close interrelation between the two versions - the active version is come from the passive one; the more complex active version consists of a passive version and a compensating op-amp. The passive version is reversible (it may act as the reverse voltage-to-current converter); the active version is not reversible. Current-to-voltage converter is more natural, clear and meaningful word than transimpedance maplifier. Really, the transimpedance amplifier is an idealized model but the circuit showed on the right is one of the possible practical circuit implementations (maybe, the most popular one). Circuit-fantasist17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing pictures
The pictures in this article have so many layers of annotation in multiple colors that they are extremely confusing. They look like the end result of a lecture, rather than an illustration for an article in an encyclopedia. A simpler set of schematics would be a valuable replacement.
Kevin k (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The pictures are of low quality, they are too verbose and they don't clearly explain the matter at hand. If someone can simplify the article & pictures - please do it!
