Describe types of feedback and determine the effects of circuit Lab Report

Describe types of feedback and determine the effects of circuit performance when feedback is applied,Describe the circuit conditions and the methods used to achieve sinusoidal oscillation - Lab Report Example The two types of amplifier are the positive and the negative feedback. The two differ in terms of whether the signal is described as being in phase or out of phase with the input signal. The two types of feedback can also be referred to as regenerative or direct feedbacks. Regenerative feedback or negative feedback occurs whenever a signal is said to be 180 degrees out of phase to the input signal (Musrt 89). A widely cited, negative feedback is appropriate since it helps in creating a practical circuit given that it can create rates and gains. It can also be used in making circuits stable, as well as self-creating and it has an output that can characteristically create equilibrium condition. In an op-amp, a negative feedback is used for purposes of creating a corrective mechanism (Musrt 67). Moreover, it limits the amplifier’s input signal hence improving the fidelity of an amplifier. By and large, it increases the frequency response of any given amplifier through preventing the decreasing in the gain of an amplifier. During the application of an amplifier, the feedback signal reduces with the increasing input signal (Musrt 76). On the other hand, in the positive feedback, the voltage or current feedback is often applied for purposes of increasing the input voltage (Musrt 47). When a positive feedback is applied in an inverting signal circuit, a portion of an output signal is fed back to the input. It is worth noting lacking a positive feedback in any circuit causes a slowdown in the detectors of the open loop. Positive feedback can lead to an increase in the amplifier gain. More often than not, feedback is used in electronic circuits for various reasons. First, circuit characteristics can be controlled and made independent of wide variations in most of the active device parameters (Musrt 34). Second, using feedback, it is possible to make circuit characteristics relatively independent of

The importance of Mens Rea in current criminal law Essay

The importance of Mens Rea in current criminal law - Essay Example Murder required a malicious state of mind, whereas larceny required a felonious state of mind. Mens Rea is generally used along with the words general intent, however this creates confusion since general intent is used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. On the other hand specific intent describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required. [1] To secure a conviction, the prosecution side must prove that the defendant committed the crime while in a certain state of mind. The definition is specified of every crime before a person can be convicted as a prerequisite for Mens Rea. There are three states of mind which constitute the necessary Mens Rea for a criminal offence. These are intention, recklessness and negligence and are described below. [3] Direct intent is the normal situation where the consequences of a person's actions are desired. Oblique intent comes in the situation where the consequence is known by the defendant as virtually certain, although it is not desired for its own sake, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions anyway. The law states that foresight of consequences can only be evidence of intention if the accused knew that those consequences would definitely happen. Therefore just a possibility of a particular occurrence is not sufficient. "A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances. Consequently, where foresight needs to be established a person is not to be taken as intending the natural and probable consequences of his act simply because they were natural and probable, although a jury may infer that from looking at all the evidence. The test is therefore subjective and a jury is to decide what the defendant's intention was from considering all the evidence." The cases where they were applied are: The relationship between foresight and intention was considered by the House of Lords in: Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025 R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 2 WLR 257. It is important to note that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention but only evidence of intention: R v Scalley [1995] Crim LR 504. The most recent case in this area is the decision of the House of Lords in: R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103. The law says - To require proof that it was the defendant's purpose to bring about a particular consequence may involve placing a very heavy evidential burden on the prosecution (R v Moloney, 1985). Criminal law normally only requires proof of oblique intent (foresight intent) as opposed to direct intent Recklessness Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk. In most cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused predicted but did not desire the particular