audio recording on IC -help wanted

[Don Klipstein]

In article <11295445so5g311@corp.supernews.com>, RST Engineering \(jw\) wrote:

Sorry, dude, 50 years of designing with crystals, right from when I ground
my first surplus WWII rock on a piece of glass with toothpaste as the
abrasive says that what the original poster asked is correct.

Will the harmonic be precise? No. Will it be "close", which is what the
original poster asked? You bet. Depending on the oscillator circuit, can
it be "pulled" on frequency? Perhaps.

But to say that the crystal doesn't resonate anywhere near the harmonic is,
as I said, bullpuckey.

This reminds me of a colleague who can easily tell everyone
qualitatively that a situation deviates from theoretical ideals and as a
result (using my words and not his) "$#!+ (poop) will splatter!" But he
at least often in my experience have trouble saying this quantatively!

For one project, I decide to try something, and tell my boss what I am
trying. This colleague of mine says (using words of mine and not his),
"slop will spatter"! (As in light for adding optics to a light source for
a specific application. This application has multiple LEDs shining onto
an optical device with multiple elements.)
Boss tells me that what I delivered to him and he found working should
not have worked according to this colleague of mine, due to stray beams
forming. So what do I do - I send photos to the boss of the beam pattern
including the stray beams predicted by my colleague. I even named these
stray beams after my colleague. But they were minor due to most light
produced by the light source being on paths that resulted in adding to the
desired beam combination as opposed to the undesired stray beams.
Furthermore, my boss's industrial designer designed a baffling system
that blocked the small amount of light from the multi-element light source
that was on paths towards the stray beams as opposed to the desired rays
that were "on course" to be utilized by the multi-elemt optical assembly
as planned.

So beware that the situation may not be much worse than ideal when
someone can tell you how you are deviating from ideal!

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 01:41:06 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <ts6921d632jtuabnv9d0n9b0hv5mlb573i@4ax.com>, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:12:48 -0800, "RST Engineering \(jw\)"
jim@rstengineering.com> wrote:

Sorry, dude, 50 years of designing with crystals, right from when I ground
my first surplus WWII rock on a piece of glass with toothpaste as the
abrasive says that what the original poster asked is correct.

Will the harmonic be precise? No. Will it be "close", which is what the
original poster asked? You bet. Depending on the oscillator circuit, can
it be "pulled" on frequency? Perhaps.

But to say that the crystal doesn't resonate anywhere near the harmonic is,
as I said, bullpuckey.

---
Sorry, dude, no matter how much time you've got in, if you go back
and read my post, you'll find that I wrote:

"You can use a fundamental mode crystal as an overtone oscillator, but
even if you can get it to oscillate, it won't be generating an
overtone at 100MHz, since overtone modes of oscillation aren't
harmonically related to the fundamental."


and that you replied with:

"That is total and absolute bullpuckey."

Notice that I didn't say "near", I said "at".

If you can find fault with anything I wrote in that post, I'd
appreciate specific criticism instead of that broad brush you painted
with.

Now suppose someone makes a crystal oscillate in some overtone mode that
the crystal manufacturer recommends against and is predicted to be
"inharmonic" but turns out to be only a few hundred or even sometimes a
few 10's of KHz from a multiple of a frequency that results from being
used as directed?

---
If it's not an integer multiple of the fundamental then it won't be a
harmonic.
---

As I said in different words in a different post - correctly predicting
that $#!+ (AKA "slop") will spatter does not necessarily that much will
spatter nor that any will spatter far, and maybe in many cases it is
doubtful that both much will spatter and that much will spatter far.

---
If the prediction came true, then it came true.

--
John Fields

 

[Reg Edwards]

A solid slab of crystal naturally oscillates at frequencies at which one of
its three dimensions, length, breadth and thickness, is a mechanical
1/2-wavelength. It can easily be induced to oscillate at harmonics of the
fundamental.

It can also oscillate in one of several mechanical modes, eg., longitudinal,
breadth-wise or in torsion. And in shunt or series-resonant electrical
modes.

The circuit it is embedded in can encourage a preferred frequency. It is
easy to select harmonics. Self-preference is also given to the frequency
which has the highest Q, ie., the least mechanical loss. This is usually the
fundamental.

It does not oscillate EXACTLY at multiples simply because it has three
dimensions and Length, Breadth and Thickness slightly 'interfere' with each
other.

A poorly cut crystal, eg., lack of parallelism, at which there may be no
strong preference may jump erratically between two non-harmonically related
frequencies.

Frequency versus temperature curves depend on oscillation mode and on the
angle at which the slab is cut relative to the direction of the individual
crystals in the bulk material lattice as found by optical means. Cubic
curves are best because they contain a flat horizontal portion.

 

[Wolfgang Mahringer]

Hi Ken,

Ken Smith schrieb:

Well, this will work.
But imagine what happens if one the LED fails open...
*BOOM*


If one LED fails, the circuit is broken.
It isn't entirely. 3 LEDs are still working!

After the "BOOM" the circuit is
still broken.
Using your circuit, there will be no LEDs that are still working.

Actually there is no "BOOM" the back biased LEDs will fail shorted
How can you tell that? Any sources?

and the
series RC will still limit the current.
Yes, thats true.

Also, using a bridge rectifier gives you the advantage of less flicker
(120Hz) for all 6 LEDs. Your suggestion will flicker with 60Hz
alternatively.

Regards,
Wolfgang

--
From-address is Spam trap
Use: wolfgang (dot) mahringer (at) sbg (dot) at

 

[WA9FVP]

For more than a year I was searching the Internat for an obsolete
IC that's used in a Motorola S1344AAB Frequency Counter/Auto Tune
Deviation Meter. The Motorola part number 51-80329A60 is actually
a DM85L52 manufactuerd by National Semiconductor (the IC is
stamped 528 055178). I was able to get the data sheet from a
friend that had an old NS data book from the early 80's. The
part is a decade counter/latch with tristate outputs and will
cause readout or counting problems or an incorrect frequency
display. The counter also uses a DM85L51 that crosses to a
74LS173.


In the early 70's the unit was Manufactured by Systron Donner for
Motorola. Systron Donner's model number was SLN6407A-75. They also
manufactured a frequency counter model 6252 that's identical to the
counter section of the 1344AAB. Other SD frequency
counters, like the 6250 or 6202 use the same part.


If your looking for that part and you don't want to spend hundreds
of dollars buying a minimum quantity from a surplus dealer, Look
for any of the above SD models on Ebay. If your lucky and get one
for about $25, cannibalize it for parts.


Jack
WA9FVP



Mike Moravec wrote:

I am looking for a latching BCD output decade counter IC that goes in
a
Motorola s1344a rf frequency counter. the # in the books and on the
IC is
Ao55178. This is a ttl device and that is apparently a house #.
Motorola
quit supporting the s13xx line of test equipment in 1997 and says
this IC is
'no longer in stock, with no replacement or substitute available". I
have
checked all the generic brands I can find but the Ins/Outs don't
match up,
pins 3,4,5,& 6 appear to be the outputs while 12,13,14,& 15 are the
inputs,
this is somewhat reversed from what seems to be the norm among these
devices. any help or guidance appreciated
Mike

 

[WA9FVP]

For more than a year I was searching the Internat for an obsolete
IC that's used in a Motorola S1344AAB Frequency Counter/Auto Tune
Deviation Meter. The Motorola part number 51-80329A60 is actually
a DM85L52 manufactuerd by National Semiconductor (the IC is
stamped 528 055178). I was able to get the data sheet from a
friend that had an old NS data book from the early 80's. The
part is a decade counter/latch with tristate outputs and will
cause readout or counting problems or an incorrect frequency
display. The counter also uses a DM85L51 that crosses to a
74LS173.


In the early 70's the unit was Manufactured by Systron Donner for
Motorola. Systron Donner's model number was SLN6407A-75. They also
manufactured a frequency counter model 6252 that's identical to the
counter section of the 1344AAB. Other SD frequency
counters, like the 6250 or 6202 use the same part.


If your looking for that part and you don't want to spend hundreds
of dollars buying a minimum quantity from a surplus dealer, Look
for any of the above SD models on Ebay. If your lucky and get one
for about $25, cannibalize it for parts.


Jack
WA9FVP



Mike Moravec wrote:

I am looking for a latching BCD output decade counter IC that goes in
a
Motorola s1344a rf frequency counter. the # in the books and on the
IC is
Ao55178. This is a ttl device and that is apparently a house #.
Motorola
quit supporting the s13xx line of test equipment in 1997 and says
this IC is
'no longer in stock, with no replacement or substitute available". I
have
checked all the generic brands I can find but the Ins/Outs don't
match up,
pins 3,4,5,& 6 appear to be the outputs while 12,13,14,& 15 are the
inputs,
this is somewhat reversed from what seems to be the norm among these
devices. any help or guidance appreciated
Mike

 

[Tim Shoppa]

The "usual" way of getting a WWVB receiver chip is to buy a cheap WWVB
clock and rip out the chip and antenna. Some have external
chips/antenna connected via cable already.

A web page showing how to do this with a commonly available Sony WWVB
clock is at:

http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/sony-wwvb/

Tim.

 

[Tim Shoppa]

two crystals. These alone can cost more
than a whole clock.

Of the longwave radio frequencies used for time standards, 40kHz (JJY,
Japan), 77.5kHz (DCF, Germany) and 60 kHz (WWVB and MSF) crystals are
off-the-shelf items in the Digikey catalog at less than a dollar each.
I'm guessing their easy availability is because they are commonly used
in real receivers.

I've always noted with some curiosity that 77.503kHz, 60.002kHz, and
60.005kHz are off-the-shelf crystals too... used in a direct conversion
receiver for DCF/WWV to 3Hz, 2Hz, and 5Hz carrier-detect frequencies
maybe?

Tim.

 

[Tim Shoppa]

Or about half of what an atomic clock is at the discounters
and there the price includes a huge
display along with the receiver parts.

Oh, I'm all for cannibalizing the commercial clocks, what with their
pretuned ferrite loops, 60kHz receiver and demodulator, as a
cost-and-time-effective method. But if someone did want to roll their
own...

I have custom ordered tuning-fork style crystals down to 12kHz, and
they were way more than the mass-produced $1 jobbies! I think $30-$50
each in onesies. $1 is really cheap in comparison.

Tim.

 

From: "Henry Kolesnik" on Thurs,Apr 7 2005 10:15 pm

Get a nice piece of smooth round rod and tightly wind a little over a
lineal
inch of wire closely spaced as possible. Count the turns in one inch
and
divide the number of turns into one inch and you'll have a very good
measurement without any cost.

73
Hank WD5JFR

Albert> wrote in message
news:0s8b5190savvispr1ga5he5hih23dgm41k@4ax.com...
Does anyone know how to measure or determine the wire size. I have
tons of motors, solenoids, and similar items. I need some #24 wire
and
some #30 for a coil, but have to be sure regarding the wire diameter
as it's a critical ap and the author of the article says 'don't
substitute'.

I know I can weigh it, provided it's not on a spool or motor winding
already.

My local electrical shop has a wire gauge, but it stops at 18 gauge.

A microscope might work, but ones that have calibrated distance
measuring on the eyepiece are expensive.

Perhaps a milliohm meter might be able to measure the difference in
resistance of a foot of it or so, but that's hardly a standard item
either.

Any suggestions?

A non-destructive measurement is best. Along about
1946 my middle school (we called it "junior high" back
then) electric shop instructor demonstrated how to use
a mechanical caliper and how NOT to squeeze too hard in
doing so. Soft-drawn copper common to wire is fairly
easy to squash when using a caliper. Using one requires
a VERY light touch on the wire, just enough to be able
to pull it slightly through the caliper jaws. Even so,
pulling on soft-drawn copper wire is going to distort it
slightly so the measurement is going to be on the small
side. Snipping off ten or twenty short lengths, then
measuring the total width and dividing by the number of
lengths will be a bit better in accuracy.

A pocket optical comparator is handy for this and other
uses, especially when trying to get a measurement on
something already mounted with epoxy, varnish, etc. as
in windings of electric motors. While the "100-foot
resistance test" is a practical idea with a roll of
wire, it is hard to do when the wire comes from a
motor or transformer giving its all to the project.

As a practical matter, the wire size in small (such as
HF range) coils won't matter much on either the
inductance or Q tolerance. For example, Dropping from
30 AWG to 32 AWG isn't going to be a disaster in
cylindrical ("solenoidal") or toroidal forms. The
change in inductance will be aligned-out on trimming
in the circuit itself. Q is going to change much more
depending on the material of the coil former and the
presence of nearby conductive objects such as shields.

If a Twenty is too much for a pound or so of new wire
stock, then nobody can afford a Q Meter or inductance
meter to do an accurate measurement. Get with some
friends/acquaintences and share the cost of new stock.

Just some practical thoughts after doing a bit of
winding in my time...

LenAnderson@ieee.org

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Dave Platt" <dplatt@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:115ba7h4jis5k32@corp.supernews.com...

Does anyone know how to measure or determine the wire size. I have
tons of motors, solenoids, and similar items. I need some #24 wire
and
some #30 for a coil, but have to be sure regarding the wire diameter
as it's a critical ap and the author of the article says 'don't
substitute'.

A cautionary note - if it's that critical, then re-using wire which
has alread been wound might not be the best idea. You'd be starting
with wire which had already been bent/flexed, and if you aren't
careful this might put some kinks or irregularities in the winding of
your new coil which might affect its impedance or Q.

I know I can weigh it, provided it's not on a spool or motor winding
already.

My local electrical shop has a wire gauge, but it stops at 18 gauge.

A microscope might work, but ones that have calibrated distance
measuring on the eyepiece are expensive.

You might be able to do it with a vernier caliper.

24 gauge has a diameter of .511 mm or .0020"

30 gauge has a diameter of .255 mm or .001"

Man, are you _way_ off! By an order of magnitude! Put your glass on
and reread the wire tables.

Every 3 gauge numbers corresponds to a 2:1 ratio in wire area (amount
of copper). Every 6 gauge numbers corresponds to a 2:1 ratio in wire
diameter.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org
AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page:
http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:_TW5e.23174$zl.11527@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

Hello Watson,

Well, that's what a tap on the inductor is for. And a couple megs
at
100s of kHz is easy to do with a Germanium bootstrapped emitter
follower. And you include the shield by connecting it to the
emitter,
so much of the shield's capacitance is nulled out.

Problem is that Germanium RF transistors in the 60's had no beta to
speak of. So for a bootstrap scheme you needed several. Considering
that
it was an hour's job with cuts and bruises to pry two AF126 out of a
tuner these things became just too precious for that. Often they were
literally jammed into divider walls that were more than a millimeter
thick.

When I was a kid I tried to buy one. They wanted the equivalent of two
hours of hard work in a meat factory. No way.

Well, I did my fair share of scavenging, too. Trouble was that the
transistors were often from TV sets with house part numbers, like
Zenith. So it was a wild guess for me of what I was scrounging. I
had
enough sense to know that a transistor from the IF was a lot better
for
Rf work than one from the audio amp. ;-)

In Germany they used mostly regular issue transistors. In cases where
they didn't I placed them in bags and wrote down exactly which part of
the TV they came from.

Regards, Joerg

I remember when I was in the army, stationed in Wuerzburg in '68. Guys
would give me broken radios and cheap cassette tape recorders, etc. I
would scrounge parts out of them. But I didn't know squat about Euro
parts; up to then everything I had done was with JEDEC "1N" and "2N"
parts. So when I came across those AC or OC or whatever 'Euro' parts, I
didn't have a clue what they were. It wasn't until the Web came into
being that I realized how common they were in other parts of the world.

Ooh! Toobs! Check this out. Proves that wirewounds take a licking and
keep on ticking! I'd like to see the Klystron that goes with that PS!
http://epaper.kek.jp/p93/PDF/PAC1993_1294.PDF

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7dao515e5u64tj6fr3qu3phlofh2bagm3i@4ax.com...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:10:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:28:51 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:


** Convert resistance to frequency - since that is a dead easy to
measure
accurately.

A 555 oscillator ( using a polystyrene timing cap) running at 10kHz
to 20
kHz will allow you to compare the 400 ohm resistors with each other
and a
new 400 ohm 0.1% precision resistor for calibration.

---
But he doesn't _have_ a new 400 ohm 0.1% resistor. What he wants to
do is use what he has to make the measurement.

Basically, without accurate voltage *and* current measuring
facilities, he's screwed.

Well, I checked the two dozen on the Leeds & Northrup wheatstone bridge.
And contrary to what you just said, above, the wheatstone bridge does a
*comparison* of the unknown to an accurate known value, so it doesn't
really care what voltage or current you use. I used a 30VDC PS for the
batt. Most were within a few dvisions on the meter (I think five
divisions is an ohm at that range). I had two 'outliers' that were
greater, and one that was less than that. But the rest were fairly
close. I used heavy short leads to minimize their resistance and their
effect on the readings.

OTOH, if all four resistors measure exactly
the *same* (a much easier job than an absolute measurement), then it
boosts confidence that they are all very close to the nominal 400 ohms
absolute value.

--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[mc]

Got any old copies of _Electronics_ magazine? This one probably passed
through many of our hands...

http://wantitnow.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?WantItNowView&adid=6955863859

In fact it prompted one of our librarians to go and get our university's
copy of it and lock it away...

 

[Tim Shoppa]

But my concern is that the
measurements I'm making are comparing or measuring
resistances that are
close relative to each other, but
may be off from the absolute value.

An older 400 ohm 0.1% axial resistor is almost certainly a wire-wound
unit. Long-term stability is very good. If operated over the power
limit or in extreme humidity/temp there may be some irreversible shifts
in resistance, but if never used then you probably don't have to worry.

Tim.

 

[Henry Kolesnik]

I'm curious as to the application for 400 ohm 0.1% resistors might be
besides instrumentation?
tnx

--

73
Hank WD5JFR
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:115mee6eu4qsfd9@corp.supernews.com...

I acquired a couple dozen Micro-Ohm 400 ohm, 0.1% resistors, and some
other values. They've probably been around a decade or more, and/or may
have been culled. In any case, I would like to check them to make sure
they're within tolerance. I thought about doing this a couple ways:

Measuere them with a Fluke 4.5 digit meter, which hasn't been cal'd in
decades, but it could give me an idea of how close they are to a common
value, even if that value isn't exactly 400.

Measure them with a Leeds Northrup Wheatstone bridge. It's been around
decades and hasn't been cal'd in a long time. But it's a bridge, so if
there is any long-term drift, the resistors should drift the same way,
assuming the resistors are all the same. My guess is they're wirewound,
which is fairly stable. But there's grunge on the switch contacts, etc.

Make a bridge out of four of the 400 ohm resistors. Again, use this to
compare them to one another, to see if they are all about the same
resistance. If I apply a few dozen volts to the bridge, I should be
able to measure a few millivolts, as long as I don't heat up the
resistors too much and cause them to drift.

One other thought. I have a precision power supply with terminals on
the back to allow me to hook up a resistance in series with the 1.000 mA
constant current source. If it is 400 ohms, then I should measure 0.400
VDc output.

I realize that 0.1% is one part in a thousand, so that's 400 + or - 0.4
ohms. That's about the residual meter lead resistance I see in my
meters. I don't have a standard resistance, traceable to the NIST or
whatever. And I don't have a friend who's working at a cal lab. So I'm
trying to make do with what limited resources I have to get the most
accurate measurement. Any helpful advice would be appreciated. Thanks.



--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Barry Jones]

Henry Kolesnik wrote:

I too like to have accurate things to confirm something to the nth degree.
I'm still hoping that someone will come up with a trick to verify a precison
resistor with stuff you already may have as you initially asked. But by the
looks of it, it can't be done.


You really have to have *something* you trust to start with. Two

somethings makes it even easier.

I was thinking about finding *something*, and it seems to me, at least
theoretically, that you could make a large set of resistors (or other
things) of a given precision into a smaller set of resistors (or other
things) with higher precision.

For example, suppose you have 100 1 M resistors with a precision of 1%.
If you connect them all in parallel, you'd have an equivalent 10K
resistor, but it's standard deviation will have decreased by a factor of
sqrt(100). This is from the definition of Sample Normal Distribution.
Assuming the 1 M resistors had a mean of 1 M, and a somewhat normal
error distribution (it doesn't even have to be very close to normal),
this should increase the precision by a factor of 10. What say you to
the analysis?

Of course there may be other errors introduced in trying to connect 100
resistors in parallel. Details, details.

Now if I could just invent perpetual motion . . .

--
Barry

Heisenberg may have slept here.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:11:16 -0700, the renowned "Watson A.Name -
\"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:

Shame on you for not warning us that it would take 5 minutes to load
that image, even with the fuzzed out face.

Hey, Watt, it's 700K from a mini-snappy digital. That's a fraction of
a second on broadband. It's not like you're in Bangladesh or
something. I'll remember not to post links to any real hi-rez photos
from my digital SLR ;-)

Speaking of fuzzed out faces, I saw (not by choice, btw) the sketches of
Jacko's trial and they blurred out the faces of the witnesses. Pretty
sad when they have to go _that_ far.

I can see why the witnesses (or their parents/guardians if they were
minors) might not want to have their faces plastered all over the
papers.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[mike742]

I've always noted with some curiosity that 77.503kHz,
60.002kHz, and 60.005kHz are off-the-shelf crystals too...
used in a direct conversion receiver for DCF/WWV to 3Hz, 2Hz,
and 5Hz carrier-detect frequencies maybe?

Strange. Maybe another resonance mode?

I'd guess the specified frequency is parallel resonance with
the specified load capacitance.

I have some Digi-Key SE3320-ND 60 Khz xctls (C-2 60.000KC-P).

My best try at measuring the series resonant frequency shows
59998 Hz. Perhaps the 60.002 Khz ones are series resonant at
60000 Hz. I don't have any of those to measure.

 

My appologies for the late reply but what is a "PLL stabilized
Q-multiplier"?