audio recording on IC -help wanted

[JeffM]

b <bojan.ded@ fsb.hr> wrote:

Could someone tell me what kind of a component is TAG 8730

If you are going to spew your question all over Usenet,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=insubject:TAG8730&scoring=d&filter=0
this is the least obnoxious way:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:qHhBKJ-sXKYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-post+adequately.answered+corrected+with.commas+individually+Disclaimers+*-*-*-marked-as-Read-in-ALL-*-groups+Newsgroups.line

 

[dooj]

Hi all, i'm trying to find info on a couple of delay lines pulled from
an old philips VCR. I've not been able to find any data sheets on the
web for these devices so hopefully someone here can give me a hint.

I have two of these delay lines both with a KSS logo -

Delay line MS -19 400030 82H34, blue plastic package, (34x24x6mm),
with four pins

&

Delay line MS -18 400040 82J14, cream/white plastic package,
(64x28x6mm), with five pins

Any info about the pinout/function/usage of these devices would be
appreciated. Or point me to a more suitable group if i'm asking in the
wrong place.

 

http://www.ok-shopping.co.uk/battery.php/CASIO-Battery,Charger-699

NP-40, BC-30LDCA, BC-30L, Exilim EX-Z30, Exilim Zoom EX-Z50 for CASIO
Battery Charger

Products Feature:

Weight: 283.2g
Dimension: 106.50x69.00x37.00mm


Description:
This is a NP-40, BC-30LDCA, BC-30L, Exilim EX-Z30, Exilim Zoom EX-
Z50 for CASIO Battery Charger. Which can replacement CASIO Battery
Charger etc. It's precision-engineered and rigorously tested for
voltage, capacity, compatibility and safety to exceed original
equipment manufacturer specifications. Full 1 year warranty!


Package includes High Performance Turbo Charger, AC Power Adapter and
12.00V Car Cord
Turbo Charger must be used with our AC Adapter or our Car Cord
Designed to charge batteries quickly and safely
Convenient LEDs indicate the charging status

This Battery Charger can replace the following Part Numbers:

CASIO
NP-40, BC-30LDCA, BC-30L

This Battery Charger is also compatible with the following models:

CASIO
Exilim EX-Z30, Exilim Zoom EX-Z750, Exilim Zoom EX-Z50, Exilim EX-
P600, Exilim Zoom EX-Z57, Exilim Pro EX-P700, Exilim EX-Z40, Exilim
Zoom EX-Z55, Exilim Pro EX-P505

 

Sporge flooding of sci.electronics.components will commence in a few hours.

This will render sci.electronics.components useless. For an example, see Sci.Crypt.

Supernews filters out this sporgery spam. Get a better Usenet
experience. Sign up for our risk-free trial today!

https://www.supernews.com/signup

--
Frederic, still accusing, ceases almost either, as the owner hosts towards their error.

 

[grunged]

Hello,
I need a SSM2120 (like this):
www.icphotos.org/photo/SSM2120.html
Does anybody know if substitutes exist ?
Bye

 

[Fred Bartoli]

Joerg a écrit :

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:17:15 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:
Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Brief question: Are the BFS17 and the old BFW92 the same or
nearly the
same die? Many Spice models for the BFS17 use BFW92 parameters (for
example NXP).
http://www.nxp.com/models/spicespar/data/BFS17.html#0
The BFS17 is a nice transistor, fast but not too fast.
And cheap. I am just puzzled about the Spice model for it. So far I
have
always just built the stuff but this time some of the "miscellaneous"
parts are not right here on my desk so it has to be a sim.
How does this model compare?

.MODEL BFS17 NPN BF=93 BR=25 CJC=1.54E-12 CJE=1.18E-12
+ IKF=.055 IKR=.01 IRB=5E-4 IS=4.9E-16 ISC=4.5E-15 ISE=1E-14
+ ITF=2.3 MJC=.25 MJE=.4 NC=1.2 NE=1.800 NF=.993 NR=1.005
+ RB=7 RBM=.5 RC=2.0 RE=.5 TF=5E-11 TR=2.4E-8 VAF=90 VAR=6
+ VJC=.559 VJE=1.12 XTF=100

Really close to the Zetex model but farther away from the NXP model.

Please post all three... I like to amuse myself seeing how each was
derived ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Ok, Win's is right above.

Zetex:
.MODEL BFS17 NPN IS =4.9E-16 NF =.993 BF =93 VAF=90 IKF=.055
+ ISE=1E-14 NE =1.800 BR =25 VAR=6 NR =1.005 IKR=.01
+ ISC=4.5E-15 NC =1.2 RB =7 RBM=.5 IRB=5E-4 RE =.5
+ RC =2.0 TF =5E-11 XTF=100 ITF=2.3 TR =2.4E-8
+ CJE=1.18E-12 CJC=1.54E-12 VJC=.559 MJC=.25 VJE=1.12
+ MJE=.4

Philips/NXP:
.MODEL DBFS17 NPN
+ IS = 3.157E-16
+ BF = 102
+ NF = 0.9953
+ VAF = 28
+ IKF = 0.12
+ ISE = 4.184E-15
+ NE = 1.623
+ BR = 46
+ NR = 0.9952
+ VAR = 9
+ IKR = 0.022
+ ISC = 1.004E-15
+ NC = 1.108
+ RB = 4
+ IRB = 8E-05
+ RBM = 4
+ RE = 0.55
+ RC = 2
+ XTB = 0
+ EG = 1.11
+ XTI = 3
+ CJE = 9.45E-13
+ VJE = 0.676
+ MJE = 0.2361
+ CJC = 1.1E-12
+ VJC = 0.5166
+ MJC = 0.2761
+ XCJC = 0.4
+ TF = 6.7E-11
+ XTF = 150
+ VTF = 0.6
+ ITF = 0.75
+ PTF = 21
+ TR = 1E-09
+ FC = 0.96

Both parameter sets seem pretty close to me (there's probably more
variations from unit to unit) but it seems NXP have been more careful:
they got the trouble to model Ft dependency on Vce which not so frequent
and excess phase which I find extremly rare.

You can run two benches and compare with the DS.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

[Joerg]

Fred Bartoli wrote:

Joerg a écrit :
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:17:15 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:
Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Brief question: Are the BFS17 and the old BFW92 the same or
nearly the
same die? Many Spice models for the BFS17 use BFW92 parameters (for
example NXP).
http://www.nxp.com/models/spicespar/data/BFS17.html#0
The BFS17 is a nice transistor, fast but not too fast.
And cheap. I am just puzzled about the Spice model for it. So far
I have
always just built the stuff but this time some of the "miscellaneous"
parts are not right here on my desk so it has to be a sim.
How does this model compare?

.MODEL BFS17 NPN BF=93 BR=25 CJC=1.54E-12 CJE=1.18E-12
+ IKF=.055 IKR=.01 IRB=5E-4 IS=4.9E-16 ISC=4.5E-15 ISE=1E-14
+ ITF=2.3 MJC=.25 MJE=.4 NC=1.2 NE=1.800 NF=.993 NR=1.005
+ RB=7 RBM=.5 RC=2.0 RE=.5 TF=5E-11 TR=2.4E-8 VAF=90 VAR=6
+ VJC=.559 VJE=1.12 XTF=100

Really close to the Zetex model but farther away from the NXP model.

Please post all three... I like to amuse myself seeing how each was
derived ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Ok, Win's is right above.

Zetex:
.MODEL BFS17 NPN IS =4.9E-16 NF =.993 BF =93 VAF=90 IKF=.055
+ ISE=1E-14 NE =1.800 BR =25 VAR=6 NR =1.005 IKR=.01
+ ISC=4.5E-15 NC =1.2 RB =7 RBM=.5 IRB=5E-4 RE =.5
+ RC =2.0 TF =5E-11 XTF=100 ITF=2.3 TR =2.4E-8
+ CJE=1.18E-12 CJC=1.54E-12 VJC=.559 MJC=.25 VJE=1.12
+ MJE=.4

Philips/NXP:
.MODEL DBFS17 NPN
+ IS = 3.157E-16
+ BF = 102
+ NF = 0.9953
+ VAF = 28
+ IKF = 0.12
+ ISE = 4.184E-15
+ NE = 1.623
+ BR = 46
+ NR = 0.9952
+ VAR = 9
+ IKR = 0.022
+ ISC = 1.004E-15
+ NC = 1.108
+ RB = 4
+ IRB = 8E-05
+ RBM = 4
+ RE = 0.55
+ RC = 2
+ XTB = 0
+ EG = 1.11
+ XTI = 3
+ CJE = 9.45E-13
+ VJE = 0.676
+ MJE = 0.2361
+ CJC = 1.1E-12
+ VJC = 0.5166
+ MJC = 0.2761
+ XCJC = 0.4
+ TF = 6.7E-11
+ XTF = 150
+ VTF = 0.6
+ ITF = 0.75
+ PTF = 21
+ TR = 1E-09
+ FC = 0.96



Both parameter sets seem pretty close to me (there's probably more
variations from unit to unit) but it seems NXP have been more careful:
they got the trouble to model Ft dependency on Vce which not so frequent
and excess phase which I find extremly rare.

You can run two benches and compare with the DS.

NXP's datasheet is a bit skimpy but they usually do take care of their
models. Now if they only got a better web design team.

It's a marvelous transistor, very cheap, has been good to me since the
80's. I noticed that it did creep up in price since then but definitely
still worth it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote in
news:a4Gdna_IA_hoYufUnZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@megapath.net:

Neon lamps are (roughly) constant voltage, typically about 60 volts
for small ones.

For UK 240V, (with usually assumed voltage of 90V for the neon start voltage)
a 270K resistor in series with it (Though I've also seen 470K and as low as
150K). But you could just as easily use an LED, if you calculate on RMS
voltage minus Vf of LED to get the resistance needed for a given current
(usually 20 to 40 mA for a signalling LED), and don't mind it lighting up
only on alternate half cycles. So long as your LED mounting is properly
specified to operate on a mains supply, the worst you could do is burn out a
cheap LED.

 

[alan]

Basically, my boss wants me to build a testing system for an IC, which
has an absolute maximum rating of 1.5V to 6.5V VCC.

So my boss wants me to apply some digital signals to the IC and read
some feedback (at up to 20MHz clock). With a variable VCC from 1.5V
to 6.5V (and other features besides, such as being low power). And I
need to be able to apply 1.5V to 6.5V voltage at high, based on my
current VCC.

However the only level shifters I've found are either 1.5V to 5.5V
supply voltages or 4V to very high supply voltages. Nothing quite
fits the 1.5V to 6.5V range.

The best I've managed to come up with is to use a bunch of
(mechanical) relays to select between two level shifters, one for 1.5V
to 5.5V range, the other for 5.5V to 6.5V range. I'm not sure if
solid-state relays will work, because I'm almost sure that the
propagation delay of actual metal is much faster than propagation
delay of semiconductor.

Is this the best solution? Might I have missed a level shifter
capable of reaching the required range?

My controlling device is an FPGA, which can have a VOH of 1.2V, 1.5V,
3.0V and 3.3V (1.5V and 3.3V being the preferred, because our FPGA
prototyping board has only those voltages). The maximum recommended
VIH for the FPGA is 4.1V, with the minimum obviously varying according
to the I/O VCC I select.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:17:15 -0800, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:
Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Brief question: Are the BFS17 and the old BFW92 the same or nearly the
same die? Many Spice models for the BFS17 use BFW92 parameters (for
example NXP).
http://www.nxp.com/models/spicespar/data/BFS17.html#0
The BFS17 is a nice transistor, fast but not too fast.
And cheap. I am just puzzled about the Spice model for it. So far I have
always just built the stuff but this time some of the "miscellaneous"
parts are not right here on my desk so it has to be a sim.

How does this model compare?

.MODEL BFS17 NPN BF=93 BR=25 CJC=1.54E-12 CJE=1.18E-12
+ IKF=.055 IKR=.01 IRB=5E-4 IS=4.9E-16 ISC=4.5E-15 ISE=1E-14
+ ITF=2.3 MJC=.25 MJE=.4 NC=1.2 NE=1.800 NF=.993 NR=1.005
+ RB=7 RBM=.5 RC=2.0 RE=.5 TF=5E-11 TR=2.4E-8 VAF=90 VAR=6
+ VJC=.559 VJE=1.12 XTF=100


Really close to the Zetex model but farther away from the NXP model.

Please post all three... I like to amuse myself seeing how each was
derived ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

 

[Joerg]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:17:15 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:
Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Brief question: Are the BFS17 and the old BFW92 the same or nearly the
same die? Many Spice models for the BFS17 use BFW92 parameters (for
example NXP).
http://www.nxp.com/models/spicespar/data/BFS17.html#0
The BFS17 is a nice transistor, fast but not too fast.
And cheap. I am just puzzled about the Spice model for it. So far I have
always just built the stuff but this time some of the "miscellaneous"
parts are not right here on my desk so it has to be a sim.
How does this model compare?

.MODEL BFS17 NPN BF=93 BR=25 CJC=1.54E-12 CJE=1.18E-12
+ IKF=.055 IKR=.01 IRB=5E-4 IS=4.9E-16 ISC=4.5E-15 ISE=1E-14
+ ITF=2.3 MJC=.25 MJE=.4 NC=1.2 NE=1.800 NF=.993 NR=1.005
+ RB=7 RBM=.5 RC=2.0 RE=.5 TF=5E-11 TR=2.4E-8 VAF=90 VAR=6
+ VJC=.559 VJE=1.12 XTF=100

Really close to the Zetex model but farther away from the NXP model.

Please post all three... I like to amuse myself seeing how each was
derived ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Ok, Win's is right above.

Zetex:
..MODEL BFS17 NPN IS =4.9E-16 NF =.993 BF =93 VAF=90 IKF=.055
+ ISE=1E-14 NE =1.800 BR =25 VAR=6 NR =1.005 IKR=.01
+ ISC=4.5E-15 NC =1.2 RB =7 RBM=.5 IRB=5E-4 RE =.5
+ RC =2.0 TF =5E-11 XTF=100 ITF=2.3 TR =2.4E-8
+ CJE=1.18E-12 CJC=1.54E-12 VJC=.559 MJC=.25 VJE=1.12
+ MJE=.4

Philips/NXP:
..MODEL DBFS17 NPN
+ IS = 3.157E-16
+ BF = 102
+ NF = 0.9953
+ VAF = 28
+ IKF = 0.12
+ ISE = 4.184E-15
+ NE = 1.623
+ BR = 46
+ NR = 0.9952
+ VAR = 9
+ IKR = 0.022
+ ISC = 1.004E-15
+ NC = 1.108
+ RB = 4
+ IRB = 8E-05
+ RBM = 4
+ RE = 0.55
+ RC = 2
+ XTB = 0
+ EG = 1.11
+ XTI = 3
+ CJE = 9.45E-13
+ VJE = 0.676
+ MJE = 0.2361
+ CJC = 1.1E-12
+ VJC = 0.5166
+ MJC = 0.2761
+ XCJC = 0.4
+ TF = 6.7E-11
+ XTF = 150
+ VTF = 0.6
+ ITF = 0.75
+ PTF = 21
+ TR = 1E-09
+ FC = 0.96


--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:43:20 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:17:15 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:
Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Brief question: Are the BFS17 and the old BFW92 the same or nearly the
same die? Many Spice models for the BFS17 use BFW92 parameters (for
example NXP).
http://www.nxp.com/models/spicespar/data/BFS17.html#0
The BFS17 is a nice transistor, fast but not too fast.
And cheap. I am just puzzled about the Spice model for it. So far I have
always just built the stuff but this time some of the "miscellaneous"
parts are not right here on my desk so it has to be a sim.
How does this model compare?

.MODEL BFS17 NPN BF=93 BR=25 CJC=1.54E-12 CJE=1.18E-12
+ IKF=.055 IKR=.01 IRB=5E-4 IS=4.9E-16 ISC=4.5E-15 ISE=1E-14
+ ITF=2.3 MJC=.25 MJE=.4 NC=1.2 NE=1.800 NF=.993 NR=1.005
+ RB=7 RBM=.5 RC=2.0 RE=.5 TF=5E-11 TR=2.4E-8 VAF=90 VAR=6
+ VJC=.559 VJE=1.12 XTF=100

Really close to the Zetex model but farther away from the NXP model.

Please post all three... I like to amuse myself seeing how each was
derived ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Ok, Win's is right above.

Zetex:
.MODEL BFS17 NPN IS =4.9E-16 NF =.993 BF =93 VAF=90 IKF=.055
+ ISE=1E-14 NE =1.800 BR =25 VAR=6 NR =1.005 IKR=.01
+ ISC=4.5E-15 NC =1.2 RB =7 RBM=.5 IRB=5E-4 RE =.5
+ RC =2.0 TF =5E-11 XTF=100 ITF=2.3 TR =2.4E-8
+ CJE=1.18E-12 CJC=1.54E-12 VJC=.559 MJC=.25 VJE=1.12
+ MJE=.4

Philips/NXP:
.MODEL DBFS17 NPN
+ IS = 3.157E-16
+ BF = 102
+ NF = 0.9953
+ VAF = 28
+ IKF = 0.12
+ ISE = 4.184E-15
+ NE = 1.623
+ BR = 46
+ NR = 0.9952
+ VAR = 9
+ IKR = 0.022
+ ISC = 1.004E-15
+ NC = 1.108
+ RB = 4
+ IRB = 8E-05
+ RBM = 4
+ RE = 0.55
+ RC = 2
+ XTB = 0
+ EG = 1.11
+ XTI = 3
+ CJE = 9.45E-13
+ VJE = 0.676
+ MJE = 0.2361
+ CJC = 1.1E-12
+ VJC = 0.5166
+ MJC = 0.2761
+ XCJC = 0.4
+ TF = 6.7E-11
+ XTF = 150
+ VTF = 0.6
+ ITF = 0.75
+ PTF = 21
+ TR = 1E-09
+ FC = 0.96

Thanks, I'll churn them thru my checker.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

 

[sparks]

Hi,
Does anyone know if a piezo horn tweeter with a response to 30Khz say,
would work as a microphone also to 30Khz? aka cheap ultrasonic mic.
In particular, the CTS KSN1141A horn tweeter.
thanks,
JEFF

 

[Mook Johnson]

"legg" <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:l2s114pbrj0afase9smn9troe0p8n5q1f6@4ax.com...

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:19:17 -0500, "Mook Johnson" <mook@mook.net
wrote:

I'm looking for some other choices in the 800-1200V MOSFET with a fast
antiparallel diode (trr less than 300nS)

The application is a 150Khz full bridge SMPS running off 300 - 600VDC at
~150Watts.

Why would you use a full bridge at that power level?
Is this a typo?

RL

Yes we are using a full bridge at this power level because that is how the
design was originally made.
The MOSFETs used in the original design are hard to get (long lead time) and
I'm looking for suitable replacements.

Is there anything wrong with using full bridge for lower power levels with
high voltage?

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:04:03 -0000, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <pan.2008.12.26.22.20.34.347564@example.net>,
rich@example.net says...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:37:16 +0000, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:33:33 -0000, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <op.umr889dw4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, none@spam.com says...
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:17:35 -0000, William Sommerwerck
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

But the Duracells were lasting only 6 months. They're cheap smoke
alarms.

That's pretty bad. I've been using leftover Toshibas, and they last
at least a year.

I bought 6 smoke alarms at once, so I went for cheap ones. 99p on ebay
I believe.

Oh, *that's* a smart move. Expected though.

I did of course test them. They detect smoke perfectly well.

Ignore krw. He's a nincompoop.

It figures. PHucker and Grease make a fine pair. Add in the Dumb
Donkey, DimBulb, and Slowman and you likely have the entire market
for .99 smoke alarms. Real brains there, Grease.

Try putting some substance into your argument. If I want a conversation like this, I'll go talk to a 6 year old.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

The teacher had given the class an assignment. He stresses the importance of this particular assignment, and that no excuses will be accepted except illness (with a medical certificate) or a death in the immediate family (with
a note from that member).
A smart-ass student pipes up: "What about extreme sexual exhaustion, sir?"
The class breaks up laughing, and when they settle down the teacher responds with: "Well, I guess you'll have to learn to write with your other hand."

 

[Baron]

Eeyore wrote:

Baron wrote:

h.godavari@shaw.ca wrote:

I am trying to replace some leaky capacitors from an Abit
motherboard. Can I substitute the electrolytics with some other
kind of similar values? Thanks for your help.


Farnell supply exact replacements. In any case you want low ESR ones
with 105C temp. Just watch out for the pin spacings.

They don't actually need to be 105C types.

Graham

No I agree they don't. However from a commercial point of view
replacements should match the originals.

Your later comment on can sizes is very relevant though.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[robb]

what equipment might i find a MOSFET to reuse so that i do not
need to buy one .

i have lots of electronics equipment just for purpose of hobby
electronic-ing

(vcr, clock radios,various ISA boards {modems, network cards,
router, repeaters, memory expansion, I/O cards, old HDs (not
SMT), wireless messaging phones, TV/monitor PCBs, etc )

any of these more likely to house a MOSFET to be used as MOSFET
buffer for O-scope measure of crystal resonantor (i.e. to avoid
loading due to capacitance of probe)

thanks for any help,

robb

 

[Kevin McMurtrie]

I finally got my post-recall strip of LXML-PWC1-0100 (brightest
cool-white Rebel) from Future Electronics and got back to work on my
mega-flashlight. I've had 7 LEDs fail in a project that uses 21. It's
just like before the recall - everything passes tests then defects
develop a day or two later. It's NOT fun removing surface mounts after
the board is glued to a heatsink, and it's not fun throwing out $7 LEDs.
Are these LEDs still having problems?

I built a prototype using LXML-PWN1-0080 and had no problems at all.

--
Google is a pro-spamming service. I will not see your reply if you use Google.

 

[JeffM]

Franc Zabkar wrote:

Why not experiment with one of them by connecting 4K7 pullup resistors
to each of the input and output pins? Then do the same with pulldown
resistors. In this way you'll construct a partial truth table.

This assumes that it is, in fact, a digital device
and that it doesn't use registers.

I'm still waiting to see a photo of it.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in
news:fe83b31unnrpdlohr4brt074ffo4eaogm5@4ax.com:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:40:30 GMT, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

I don't get it... What is 'deadness'? It's not a state than any cell
capable of taking a full charge is likely to 'avalanche' into.


Know much about cells, boy?

There is a useful life curve they all have. It varies from one cell
technology to another.

Alkalines keep their full voltage (FAIAP) right up until they AVALANCHE
down to near zero volts.

Other cell types have different curves.

ALL cells exhibit a different internal resistance when fully charged
than they do when discharged, and beginning a charge cycle, and also at
the point at which they avalanche.

The sentence was quite simple, and it takes a real dipshit not to see
what was meant by it.

The original poster asked about the reaching of full charge, so one cell
could be charged. He said his charger uses NDV to detect full charge. That
has nothing to do with the cell resistance at discharge. Focus on what was
asked, and be a bit more explanatory too, if you want to justify your
asshat attitude. Talking like a teacher slapping a pupil fopr innattention,
saying as little as possible, strining in unrelated issues the moment you
do speak of more. You're no teacher. Any teacher who was that bad at it
wouldn't last long in a class.