How about sticking with something that is published rather than your own.

What I was trying to say was each person interprets their own definition. Yes, fundamentally the published definition is the same to everyone, but if you ask 10 people what the definition of something is, you can't tell me all 10 will have a different definition surrounding the "published" definition.

tbinder3 - OK, agreed.
Thus, we can use the following description/definition:
* In a passive filter the frequency-dependence is caused by passive elements only (R,L,C). Amplifiers - if any - are used for decoupling or amplification purposes only.
* In active filters there are amplifiers with frequency-dependent feedback, which mainly determine the filter characteristic. It is the main advantage of these filters that inductors can be avoided.

I like this, well put together. Everyone in basic intro AC courses can understand I'm sure.

If you agree with me then there should be no "buts". Whether "they" understand what an active filter is or not is beside the point. If they don't know the meaning then they need to learn it. It's fine to break it down to simpler terms to explain it but you don't change the meaning. Technical terms do not have arbitrary meanings as determined by someones "own definition". That's the road to technical anarchy. Technical terms have precise definitions that are generally agreed to by all to minimize ambiguity in conveying technical information.

Lol, there were no buts with what you were saying? You are coming across like I think every definition in an Intro course should be basic and simplistic. That's not the case. I'm simply saying, they should supply the technical term, and then break it down into terms that they are already familiar with (Exactly what everyone was doing). Like in your example, they are looking for what an active filter is in definition, but that person is now looking to define multiple words just to get to the basic of 1 definition. It is possible to agree with someone, and bring up problems that arise. If you just want to argue cause you don't like what I had to contribute, cool, do your thing child.

 

What I was trying to say was each person interprets their own definition. Yes, fundamentally the published definition is the same to everyone, but if you ask 10 people what the definition of something is, you can't tell me all 10 will have a different definition surrounding the "published" definition.

If they say "in essence" the correct definition, I would not have a problem with that. The mere presence of the OP Amps in your example does not constitute an Active Filter. What book was your source of that schematic and question?

 

......................
Lol, there were no buts with what you were saying? You are coming across like I think every definition in an Intro course should be basic and simplistic. That's not the case. I'm simply saying, they should supply the technical term, and then break it down into terms that they are already familiar with (Exactly what everyone was doing). Like in your example, they are looking for what an active filter is in definition, but that person is now looking to define multiple words just to get to the basic of 1 definition. It is possible to agree with someone, and bring up problems that arise. If you just want to argue cause you don't like what I had to contribute, cool, do your thing child.

No need for personal insults.

I didn't argue with you because I didn't like what you had to contribute. I was arguing because what you said seemed to allow anyone to interpret a technical definition in a loose fashion. If that's not what you meant then that's fine.

 

I hate everything about this!

We are apparently meant to assume that the 100kHz "carrier" is Amplitude Modulated by the 20kHz signal,but this is not stated. anywhere.
Apart from the use of the word "carrier" we could just as easily assume both signals were present at the input.

What Modulation Percentage? 10%,50%,100%,120%?
The rectified wave shape will be different in amplitude,& slightly different in shape for the first three,& very different for the over modulation case of 120%.

Of course,there are other forms of modulation,which will deliver completely different rectified wave shapes.

As an "RF person",I have often noticed the tendency of "Non-RF" folks to play "fast & loose" with terminology when dealing with modulation.

 

If they say "in essence" the correct definition, I would not have a problem with that. The mere presence of the OP Amps in your example does not constitute an Active Filter. What book was your source of that schematic and question?

I'm not the original poster, was just trying to contribute.

 

I should not have used your in the sentences. Sorry for inferring you were the OP. I'm thinking the OP won't return and tell us the source of the question.