9V 1A schematic needed

Alan · Mar 20, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:03:51 GMT, "Chris" <not@work.com> wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:423C9072.3020802@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:
[...snip garbage...]
You haven't done a f_ucking thing, pseudo-intellectual- you stopped
short because you're a f_ucking phony piece of loudmouthed trash-
spewing a bunch of 4ktrb trash. What is clear is that you are a sorry
assed sack of shit NG troll.

Fred, you're running out of ammo, scroll down here and get some more

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

It's a real worry when Phil starts getting international fame!

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jenal Communications
Manufacturers and Suppliers of HF Selcall
P O Box 1108, Morley, WA, 6943
Tel: +61 8 9370 5533 Fax +61 8 9467 6146
Web Site: http://www.jenal.com
Contact: http://www.jenal.com/?p=1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim Thompson · Mar 20, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 06:12:20 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:29:21 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:24:34 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:55:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:48:33 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:12:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

(1) I doubt seriously if Fred HAS a wife, but he is, at the very
minimum, mentally deranged.

(2) I resent your mis-use of the term "Old Timer"... a great many of
the posters here are Old Timers... I just passed the conventional age
of retirement in the US, but have no intent of ever retiring.

---
You kids...

Now John, IIRC you're just a year or so older then I am. (If you're
having trouble with the math I just did my 16-1/4 birthday (base 4

---
On 29 Feb?

'Tweren't any this year, that's why the 1/4 ;-)

I thought it was 26 Feb.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Mar 20, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:03:51 GMT, "Chris" <not@work.com> wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:423C9072.3020802@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:
[...snip garbage...]
You haven't done a f_ucking thing, pseudo-intellectual- you stopped
short because you're a f_ucking phony piece of loudmouthed trash-
spewing a bunch of 4ktrb trash. What is clear is that you are a sorry
assed sack of shit NG troll.

Fred, you're running out of ammo, scroll down here and get some more

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Mar 20, 2005

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:36:57 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:17:06 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

In the case of the OP292 thread, the motivation was to make a dead
certain diagnosis of the Nazi Clarence and his problem- and that is what
I did- also ordered some OP292's and played around with it some more.
But you go ahead with your trumped up bullshit claiming to understand
someone's motivation- and your PhD in Psychoanalysis is from where?
There is a name for your kind of sickness where you *know* what people
are thinking-pathetic.

You actually ordered parts and built circuits to prove somebody from a
newsgroup to be wrong? That's pushing the top range of the
getalifeometer!

qed

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Fred Bloggs · Mar 20, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:36:57 -0800, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:17:06 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

In the case of the OP292 thread, the motivation was to make a dead
certain diagnosis of the Nazi Clarence and his problem- and that is what
I did- also ordered some OP292's and played around with it some more.
But you go ahead with your trumped up bullshit claiming to understand
someone's motivation- and your PhD in Psychoanalysis is from where?
There is a name for your kind of sickness where you *know* what people
are thinking-pathetic.

You actually ordered parts and built circuits to prove somebody from a
newsgroup to be wrong? That's pushing the top range of the
getalifeometer!

qed

John

Probably ordered at his EMPLOYER'S expense. That's part of the reason
I plan to "out" Fred... get his scum-bag ass unemployed.

...Jim Thompson

More of your slander, PLONK-AND-RUN PUSSY?

Larry Brasfield · Mar 20, 2005

"Mac" <foo@bar.net> wrote in message news

an.2005.03.20.06.45.23.616732@bar.net...

I put together a spreadsheet to calculate Irms for a power supply. This is
a bit like a simulation, I guess, and like any simulation, you have to
decide what to model and what to ignore. I chose to ignore resistance in
the transformer and filter caps. I did this because I figured it would
just over-estimate the RMS current, which was the main thing I wanted
to find.

Anyway, unless I made some kind of mistake, the result of my "simulation"
is that Irms goes up significantly with capacitor value. In my simulation
I hold Idc constant, since the intent was to design a regulated power
supply. So the efficiency goes down with increasing capacitor value.

I am definitely interested in this topic, so if you can shed some light on
it, I would be appreciative.

Include the effect of winding resistance in your
simulation or analysis. It will do more than just
get the result better aligned with real circuits. It
will also show the limiting value of Irms as the
filter capacitance approaches infinity. That does
not show up at all without the resistance. If you
search my posts on rec.audio.tech, you could
find that analysis already done, if you're not doing
this for fun or education.

Have fun.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

Larry Brasfield · Mar 20, 2005

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:423D7B0A.1010905@nospam.com...

Chris wrote:
[snip Fred spew]
Fred, you're running out of ammo, scroll down here and get some more

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

Phil is/was much more creative and somewhat less repetitive
as a spew generator. I've tried to shame Fred into improving
his repetoire, but he is too educated already to go for that.

I don't waste time playing games with these smart-mouthed trolls like Larry Brasfield. In order to keep the response time to 100ms
or less, I first scan the post for any technical content whatsoever by looking for words like noise, gain, level etc...this takes
no time because there are none.

From somebody who refuses to point out any specific
errors in my recent noise analysis in the "amplify 40kHz"
thread, which definitely contains the words "noise" and
"gain", that is a comical lie. As for the "100ms" [sic],
your copy and paste efforts are unlikely to impress any
sane individual. That you brag about it marks you.

Failing this preliminary test, I snip the whole mass of worthless gibberish and paste in the main response which succinctly states
he should get to the technical gist of the thread or just shut up and go away. I refuse to waste any time decoding any type of
subjective and off topic idiocy coming from that deranged nobody- he sticks to the technical topic or gets slapped-period.

LMAO. So far, you have refused every invitation to
say why the additional noise sources you yammer [1]
about could possibly be detected within the input
noise you natter at me about. Likewise, your guess
at a 115 dB gain for the circuit, which nobody else
can replicate, and which I politely challenged, remains
as yet another instance of your unadmitted errors.

If you *could* stick to the technical topic, you would
be more appreciated and appear less foolish.

[1. See thread titled "amplify 40kHz audio signal using
TL082: first two stages are fine, but high noise from
the third stage", around March 17 2005.]

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

John Woodgate · Mar 20, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that Larry Brasfield <donotspam_larry_b
rasfield@hotmail.com> wrote (in <cGh%d.24$SP2.598@news.uswest.net&gt

about '9V 1A schematic needed', on Sun, 20 Mar 2005:

"Mac" <foo@bar.net> wrote in message newsan.2005.03.20.06.45.23.616732@bar.net
...
I put together a spreadsheet to calculate Irms for a power supply. This is
a bit like a simulation, I guess, and like any simulation, you have to
decide what to model and what to ignore. I chose to ignore resistance in
the transformer and filter caps. I did this because I figured it would
just over-estimate the RMS current, which was the main thing I wanted
to find.

I didn't receive this from 'Mac', so please excuse me responding here.
If you ignore the resistances in the circuit, you get absurdly low
conduction angles and huge peak diode currents.

Anyway, unless I made some kind of mistake, the result of my "simulation"
is that Irms goes up significantly with capacitor value.

It does if you start from small values, giving unrealistically high
ripple levels at the output. 60 to 80% with resistances included; you
would get much larger values.

In my simulation
I hold Idc constant, since the intent was to design a regulated power
supply. So the efficiency goes down with increasing capacitor value.

I chose an inappropriate measure of efficiency for most purposes.
Pout/Pin is better.

I am definitely interested in this topic, so if you can shed some light on
it, I would be appreciative.

Include the effect of winding resistance in your
simulation or analysis. It will do more than just
get the result better aligned with real circuits. It
will also show the limiting value of Irms as the
filter capacitance approaches infinity. That does
not show up at all without the resistance.

Agreed.

If you
search my posts on rec.audio.tech, you could
find that analysis already done, if you're not doing
this for fun or education.

Have fun.

Yes; whatever else you do.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Fred Bloggs · Mar 20, 2005

Larry Brasfield wrote:
[..snip...]

From somebody who refuses to point out any specific
errors in my recent noise analysis in the "amplify 40kHz"
thread, which definitely contains the words "noise" and
"gain", that is a comical lie. As for the "100ms" [sic],
your copy and paste efforts are unlikely to impress any
sane individual. That you brag about it marks you.

LMAO. So far, you have refused every invitation to
say why the additional noise sources you yammer [1]
about could possibly be detected within the input
noise you natter at me about. Likewise, your guess
at a 115 dB gain for the circuit, which nobody else
can replicate, and which I politely challenged, remains
as yet another instance of your unadmitted errors.

If you *could* stick to the technical topic, you would
be more appreciated and appear less foolish.

[1. See thread titled "amplify 40kHz audio signal using
TL082: first two stages are fine, but high noise from
the third stage", around March 17 2005.]

You're the dodger pretending to have not understood that you were called
due to complete the thresholding of the circuit. No one was saying that
your trivial 4KTRB trash was in error- you were asked to do something
with it, and you could not. But go ahead and revise the history- that
would be typical of a total farce and sham like you.

Fred Bloggs · Mar 20, 2005

Larry Brasfield wrote:

Include the effect of winding resistance in your
simulation or analysis. It will do more than just
get the result better aligned with real circuits. It
will also show the limiting value of Irms as the
filter capacitance approaches infinity. That does
not show up at all without the resistance.

No kidding, Sherlock, do ya' think? What a damned sorry-assed p.o.s.

If you
search my posts on rec.audio.tech, you could
find that analysis already done, if you're not doing
this for fun or education.

Why don't you post a copy here- so we can have a good laugh.

Larry Brasfield · Mar 20, 2005

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote
in message news:BGq1XFBAWUPCFwLx@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Larry Brasfield <donotspam_larry_b
rasfield@hotmail.com> wrote (in <QUX_d.14$te2.382@news.uswest.net&gt
about '9V 1A schematic needed', on Sat, 19 Mar 2005:
That statement really makes no sense to me. How can you crowd the same
charge transfer into less time and get its RMS value to decrease? (For
conceptual simplification, assume the DC current taken from the bridge
is constant, so that the charge, (Idc * (2 f)), is held constant.
(That should be Idc / (2 f), incidentally.)

I re-examined my models. With a refinement of one, I can predict the
*small* increase reported by someone else. The original model assumed
that the output ripple was negligible, thus restricting the range of
filter capacitor values. If you include in the range of capacitor
values, those so small that very large amounts of ripple occur, and the
conduction angle approaches 180 degrees, you get much more change of
r.m.s current, but so much ripple is not normally realistic.

Your analysis is consistent with one assuming infinite
capacitance. I more or less agree that this can be a
reasonable assumption in many cases. But there is a
case that I believe will often benefit from the finite C
model (and analysis). That is where the unregulated
supply is expected to have significant ripple because
some switching converter(s) follow(s) it. You do
not have to get close to the 180 degree conduction
angle to get significant RMS current reduction when
more ripple is allowed. As I recall, the RMS value
of the charging current, (when holding DC current
constant), varies close to inversely with conduction
angle. (The charging pulse shape changes a bit, so
the relationship is not exact, but it is good enough
for deciding where to initially set things.)

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

John Fields · Mar 20, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 06:45:21 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:23:47 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote (in <1tqlrx73frjuz.dlg@ID-222894.news.individual.net&gt about '9V
1A schematic needed', on Sun, 20 Mar 2005:

I'm curious. Who are the morons that write the sofware that does this:

I've left out of town jobs and just withdrew whatever money was left in
the bank or wrote a check to my permanent account.

I may leave a few
pennies. The bank decides to charge a service fee each month for being
below the minimun balance. The account goes negative and the program
charges a fee for non-sufficient funds. Then I can't open an account
elsewhere until I wake them up.

I don't know what happens in USA, but you could get the same aggro in UK
if you wrote a cheque instead of instructing the bank to 'close the
account and transfer the funds to ...'. That way, the account is erased
from the computer, so it can't send you daft messages (probably).

I use mail forwarding services and nothing ever gets addressed to my
out of town addr except the temporary stuff. I'd never get the daft
messages. What happens is they report you to Check Systems which
makes it look like you wrote a bad check and owe the bank. So other
banks won't let you open an account. I wouldn't bitch if I really
had written a bad check.

The reason I didn't close the account is because of the bad taste
left in my mouth in the past. They want to see all checks that
haven't cleared, meaning that if you don't save any voided checks,
they can't account for them and won't close the account.

I'd love to find a better solution, but for now, I save every voided
check.

It's a PITA, but what's worked for me in the past is to make sure that
the last check drawn on the account takes it down to _precisely_
$0.00.

--
John Fields

Jim Thompson · Mar 20, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:23:20 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 06:45:21 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

[snip]

I'd love to find a better solution, but for now, I save every voided
check.

It's a PITA, but what's worked for me in the past is to make sure that
the last check drawn on the account takes it down to _precisely_
$0.00.

That seems to work in the states.

I wrote checks on my account, exactly down to zero while paying bills,
thinking nothing of it.

Went to the bank to make a deposit and was told the account
automatically closed.

They reinstated the account, but I've very careful to avoid hitting
exactly zero again.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Larry Brasfield · Mar 20, 2005

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:423DAF62.5040302@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:

Include the effect of winding resistance in your
simulation or analysis. It will do more than just
get the result better aligned with real circuits. It
will also show the limiting value of Irms as the
filter capacitance approaches infinity. That does
not show up at all without the resistance.

No kidding, Sherlock, do ya' think?

That was not posted to impress you, great one.
It was posted to help Mac further develop his
own understanding, an effort he appears to be
earnestly making. Would that you could do as
well. But you are far to exaltable for that. <g>

[invective cut]

If you
search my posts on rec.audio.tech, you could
find that analysis already done, if you're not doing
this for fun or education.

Why don't you post a copy here- so we can have a good laugh.

Mainly because Mac now knows where to find it
if he is interested and I have no need or desire
to prove anything to you. What is really funny is
that if I did go dredge up that analysis, you would
be carping about my effort to impress folks.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

Mac · Mar 20, 2005

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:52:21 -0800, Larry Brasfield wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote
in message news:+vZqtVBIt9OCFw3u@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mac <foo@bar.net> wrote (in
pan.2005.03.19.07.11.50.951783@bar.net&gt about '9V 1A schematic
needed', on Sat, 19 Mar 2005:

Choosing capacitor values is a bit tricky, too. The bigger they are, the
more they force the transformer into a low duty-cycle, high-current mode
of operation.

In fact, the overall efficiency, measured as Idc/Irms, is higher at low
rectifier conduction angles, even though the peak diode current is
higher. A large filter capacitor doesn't increase transformer heating.

That statement really makes no sense to me.
How can you crowd the same charge transfer
into less time and get its RMS value to decrease?

[snip]

I'm with Larry on this one. If we draw a box around the capacitor and
regulator, then the charge going into the box, integrated over one period
has to equal the charge coming out of the box, integrated over one period.
This is just conservation of charge.

The integral of the charge going out is fixed, because we have a linear
regulator. So as we reduce the conduction angle, we must have a larger
current for a shorter time, and because of the nature of the RMS
calculation, it seems to me that it is impossible for Irms to go down when
we do this. What am I missing?

--Mac

Fred Bloggs · Mar 20, 2005

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:423DAF62.5040302@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:

Include the effect of winding resistance in your
simulation or analysis. It will do more than just
get the result better aligned with real circuits. It
will also show the limiting value of Irms as the
filter capacitance approaches infinity. That does
not show up at all without the resistance.

No kidding, Sherlock, do ya' think?

That was not posted to impress you, great one.
It was posted to help Mac further develop his

Mac doesn't need any help from the likes of you.

If you
search my posts on rec.audio.tech, you could
find that analysis already done, if you're not doing
this for fun or education.

Why don't you post a copy here- so we can have a good laugh.

Mainly because Mac now knows where to find it
if he is interested and I have no need or desire
to prove anything to you. What is really funny is
that if I did go dredge up that analysis, you would
be carping about my effort to impress folks.

I don't think "impress" is the word for it- elementary trig integration
is not all that arcane. Post it here and let us all have a looksee.
What I can see so far from your generalizations of the results is that
it is not very sophisticated and your understanding is pretty basic-
like along the lines of "this gets longer makes this smaller"
descriptive crap to be expected of a nobody.

Larry Brasfield · Mar 20, 2005

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:423DAEBE.4000307@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:
[snip]
From somebody who refuses to point out any specific
errors in my recent noise analysis in the "amplify 40kHz"
thread, which definitely contains the words "noise" and
"gain", that is a comical lie. As for the "100ms" [sic],
your copy and paste efforts are unlikely to impress any
sane individual. That you brag about it marks you.

LMAO. So far, you have refused every invitation to
say why the additional noise sources you yammer [1]
about could possibly be detected within the input
noise you natter at me about. Likewise, your guess
at a 115 dB gain for the circuit, which nobody else
can replicate, and which I politely challenged, remains
as yet another instance of your unadmitted errors.

If you *could* stick to the technical topic, you would
be more appreciated and appear less foolish.

[1. See thread titled "amplify 40kHz audio signal using
TL082: first two stages are fine, but high noise from
the third stage", around March 17 2005.]

You're the dodger pretending to have not understood that you were called due to complete the thresholding of the circuit.

I have patiently explained the rationale for that,
Fred. Is there any specific part of it you do not
understand or believe to be irrelevant? There
is more, if you truly need the persuasion. <g>
And how do believe I could pretend to have
not understood that invitation when I not only
turned it down, but explained why, relating some
(but not all) reasons a detector is premature?

No one was saying that your trivial 4KTRB trash was in error-

I did not claim that anybody said that. You ranted
about how I omitted some noise sources, implying
that they were significant. They are not and you
will have a hard time showing they are. (And, as I
suspect you now realize, <wink>, that includes the
contribution of the dreaded unused op-amp.)

you were asked to do something with it, and you could not.

Are you truly going on about how a detector is
now the right contribution?? Please make my
day and tell me it's true. Pretty Please! <g>

But go ahead and revise the history- that would be typical of a total farce and sham like you.

More unsubstantiated allegation.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

John Woodgate · Mar 20, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <t8cr31dq63l0asne3h84n7ds67g503gmtp@4ax.com&gt

about
'9V 1A schematic needed', on Sun, 20 Mar 2005:

It's a PITA, but what's worked for me in the past is to make sure that
the last check drawn on the account takes it down to _precisely_ $0.00.

Again, in UK, asking to 'close the account' gives the bank the problem
of making sure it goes to exactly 0.00, even if at 23:59:59 they add
bank charges.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

John Fields · Mar 20, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:38:38 -0800, "Larry Brasfield"
<donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you search my posts on rec.audio.tech, you could
find that analysis already done, if you're not doing
this for fun or education.

---
So, instead of referring the OP to a particular post or thread
containing the salient information, (if, indeed, such a post or thread
exists) you would have him wallow in your offal. To what end? Why,
in order to force him to read the ***GREAT*** Larry Brasfield, of
course and, in the process, expose him to the ***UNIVERSAL TRUTHS***
revealed by diligent study of the subtleties to be found in that
offal.

--
John Fields

Larry Brasfield · Mar 20, 2005

"Mac" <foo@bar.net> wrote in message news

an.2005.03.20.17.45.41.593055@bar.net...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:52:21 -0800, Larry Brasfield wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote
in message news:+vZqtVBIt9OCFw3u@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mac <foo@bar.net> wrote (in
pan.2005.03.19.07.11.50.951783@bar.net&gt about '9V 1A schematic
needed', on Sat, 19 Mar 2005:

Choosing capacitor values is a bit tricky, too. The bigger they are, the
more they force the transformer into a low duty-cycle, high-current mode
of operation.

In fact, the overall efficiency, measured as Idc/Irms, is higher at low
rectifier conduction angles, even though the peak diode current is
higher. A large filter capacitor doesn't increase transformer heating.

That statement really makes no sense to me.
How can you crowd the same charge transfer
into less time and get its RMS value to decrease?

[snip]

I'm with Larry on this one.
Thanks.

If we draw a box around the capacitor and
regulator, then the charge going into the box, integrated over one period
has to equal the charge coming out of the box, integrated over one period.

That's a fine way to approach it. The concept
you just outlined of some components grouped
together for simpler analysis is known as a "cutset".

....

The integral of the charge going out is fixed, because we have a linear
regulator. So as we reduce the conduction angle, we must have a larger
current for a shorter time, and because of the nature of the RMS
calculation, it seems to me that it is impossible for Irms to go down when
we do this.

Actually, as you state this, (and I also suggested),
we are both a bit incorrect, hypertechnically.
The average value and the RMS value of a signal
taken over a fixed period are independent except
for the constraint |Savg| <= Srms .

But for the signals in question, you are correct.

What am I missing?

Your newsfeed appears to be little slow.
There have been several posts on this over
the last hour or so.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

9V 1A schematic needed

Alan

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Larry Brasfield

Guest

Larry Brasfield

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Larry Brasfield

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Larry Brasfield

Guest

Mac

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Larry Brasfield

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Larry Brasfield

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor