Chip with simple program for Toy

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:36:40 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com>
wrote:

If they are close together, the electrons will be accelerated
more and take less time to arrive, but their final velocity will be the same
when they hit and the resulting energy of the impact will be the same.

By the way, this "final velocity" won't be the same if you were propelling a
Coulomb's worth of protons instead of electrons, as they are nearly 2000 times
as massive and the force will impress a much lower acceleration on them. But
the net energy at impact should be the same. Since potential energy is
proportional to M*V^2, I'd anticipate that the velocity of the protons at
arrival would be about the square root of the ratio of the mass of the electron
to the mass of the proton, or about sqrt(1/1836.15266) = .02334 times as fast.
A little more than 2% of the speed that the electrons would achieve. (Assuming
neither case was approaching relativistic speeds, of course.) Same energy,
though.

Jon

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"vicebay" <vsebay@edsamail.com> schreef in bericht
news:d25006a5.0410261729.2699aec4@posting.google.com...

Hi, I would like to ask if anyone know a circuit or an IC that has
the following characteristic.

single input -- single output

The output should only be triggered by a positive (1) input and will
not change even if the input changed it state to 0. But when the
input changed in state to 1 again, the output should change in state.

I would like to implement this on my design in a sequential light.

TIA

-vicebay

The circuit you describe is known as a divide by two circuit. It's a part of
almost all counters but can be made easily out of a single flipflop. One of
the oldest and wellknown is the 74LS74. Although this days a CMOS successor
like a CD4013B may be a better choice. Just connect the inverted output of
the flipflop - /Q or an "overscored" Q - to its D-input. Then the Clock
input of the flipflop is your input and the Q output of the flipflop is your
output. Hope you have the skills to build your sequential light.

petrus bitbyter


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 15-10-2004

 

[Geir Klemetsen]

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> skrev i melding

- cut -

Here's a circuit using Jamie's suggested approach:
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/4013FF.gif

And this is an alternative:


.---------------------.
| |
| | Output
| .--o--. |
.-----. | .-----|J S Q|-----o--------o
| G | | | -|> | __ __
|_-_-_|----------o---)-----|K R Q|o ---. __ __ __
| | | '--o--' |
'-----'Input | |
| |
'-----------------'
(created by AACircuit v1.28 beta 10/06/04 www.tech-chat.de)

 

In alt.engineering.electrical "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:

| Say for instance you had four 25 watt bulbs and you needed only 25 watts
| of light. Well, you switch on only one. and you get 25 watts of light
| and pay for 25 watts of power. But if you dim your 100W lamp to get 25
| watts of light, then you might be paying for 50 watts of power. You get
| less light per watt when it is dimmed.

The 100 watt bulb in this condition has a lower color temperature. This
results in far more infrared output relative to light output compared to
normal operation. It's that "orange look".

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In alt.engineering.electrical Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

| LEDs for light seem to come up a lot - I very seldom see an incandescent
| red stop light, for example. But are they really more efficient, like
| lumens per watt, or however that's measured? 'Cause if so, it seems like
| a no-brainer, although the one "white" LED flashlight I've seen was very
| blue, and would have been icky for general room lights. Maybe a reading
| lamp...

"white" LEDs are more like fluorescent lights. They are a blue LED with
some kind of phosphors for other colors.

I've seen a light with multiple LEDs in various colors, with separate
dimmers for each color. Choose your own color. It was expensive.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Rich Webb]

What goes Erg! ? A dyn' centimeter, of course.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:02:51 +0100, James Varga wrote:

Okay - I've started trying to make some d/s boards and have run into
another
funny. It seem that the image after developing is 'smudged' - its not
actually smudged but it looks like that. It looks like the image is
missing
an area like it has been rubbed off or something.

This is as good as I've gotten it so far - as you can see there is still a
problem with the second side, although the one side is perfect. Each step is
done vertically so I'm really struggling to figure out whats going wrong.

http://www.jamesvarga.com/projects/beblu/pcbtest3.jpg

Any ideas?

If you exposed it vertically, I'd check for air gaps, if I understand
the question. I don't really see what's wrong with Side 2 in your pix,
unless you mean the blurry traces toward the bottom. If that's it, it's
from a light leak, unless your negatives are blurry, in which case, of
course, fix your photo process. ;-)

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:31:23 GMT, "Don Kelly" <dhky@peeshaw.ca> wrote:

I note that now the ampere is now defined as the basic element in the SI
system - the coulomb is then an ampere-second. I got jumped on once for
using the coulomb.

Yes, I'm aware of it. I still prefer to think in terms of countable things,
though. Penchant of mine. Still, there are a variety of commensurate systems
to the SI system. One I like is a relativistic mapping, which makes length and
time the same, describing everything in a 'pure' number of light-seconds.

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On 28 Oct 2004 06:03:21 -0700, egd.bydalen@swipnet.se (Erik Durling)
wrote:

We're a couple of students doing an electronics project. We are to
construct a battery indicator circuit. We had a finished circuit on
paper and we had simulated it with Multisim 7. But when we tested the
circuit in real life, it didn't work at all like we had planned (or
according to simulation). The circuit was based upon the idea of
zenerdiodes having a constant voltage drop, and not conducting if the
circuit isn't able to supply the needed voltage across it. But the
zener-diodes doesn't stop conducting at all, and the voltage drop is
far from constant.

This is the main circuit: http://ersker.com/circuit.gif

The zener diodes used in real life are: BZX55 and not BZC55, but that
ought not change anything (right?).

We did a DC Transfer Analysis in the simulator and got three nice
curves showing the voltage at the three collectors (compared to
ground) as the voltage from the source goes from 0-4.5 volts, and
everything seems right there: http://ersker.com/dctrans.gif

So, the problem we're having with our real circuit is that the LEDs
never turn off (the transistors are always saturated). The zener
diodes doesn't stop conducting when the voltage across them goes under
their specified value.

What's our mistake/misconception?

Do the zeners only operate correctly at a certain current?

Low voltage zeners, below maybe 5 volts, are terrible. Their
conduction knee is sloppy as hell, which your simulator probably
doesn't model accurately. And your open bases are *very* sensitive to
small leakages; open bases are considered bad form by most designers.

Add b-e resistors to divert some of the leakage current, and maybe go
to bandgap pseudo-zeners (LM4040 types) which behave much better.

But I'm impressed that you're actually verifying your simulations by
experiment; some people just quit when the sim works.


John

 

[John Popelish]

Erik Durling wrote:

We're a couple of students doing an electronics project. We are to
construct a battery indicator circuit. We had a finished circuit on
paper and we had simulated it with Multisim 7. But when we tested the
circuit in real life, it didn't work at all like we had planned (or
according to simulation). The circuit was based upon the idea of
zenerdiodes having a constant voltage drop, and not conducting if the
circuit isn't able to supply the needed voltage across it. But the
zener-diodes doesn't stop conducting at all, and the voltage drop is
far from constant.

This is the main circuit: http://ersker.com/circuit.gif

The zener diodes used in real life are: BZX55 and not BZC55, but that
ought not change anything (right?).

We did a DC Transfer Analysis in the simulator and got three nice
curves showing the voltage at the three collectors (compared to
ground) as the voltage from the source goes from 0-4.5 volts, and
everything seems right there: http://ersker.com/dctrans.gif

So, the problem we're having with our real circuit is that the LEDs
never turn off (the transistors are always saturated). The zener
diodes doesn't stop conducting when the voltage across them goes under
their specified value.

What's our mistake/misconception?

Do the zeners only operate correctly at a certain current?

How low does the battery voltage have to go before the LEDs turn
essentially off? I am suspicious that you may have the zeners
backward.

That said, such low voltage zeners are not really switches that
suddenly conduct when the voltage across them rises above the zener
knee voltage, but are exponential devices, much like forward biased
junctions. In fact, you may get a better knee out of a green LED,
forward biased. To improve the switching effect, you could load
(parallel) the base emitter junction with some resistance to divert
zener current while keeping the base ot emitter voltage below about .5
volts up to the supply voltage that you want the LED to light.

But using a comparator (comparing your divider voltage to a fixed
reference instead of a transistor sensing zener current) would give a
lot cleaner threshold.

--
John Popelish

 

[Mike]

Did you use a new switch? Sounds like some voltage is draining to ground...

Mike

"Sonny" <jsnjmc5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbfad08d.0410281026.3940b2dc@posting.google.com...

Our house is 7 years old and there's a GFCI outlet (always on)
installed in our garage. I wanted to tap into the GFCI outlet to have
electricity for the new fluorescent lights I installed in the garage.
I didn't want to tear up the drywall so all I did was take an old
heavy duty extension cord and cut-off the female side, stripped the
wires and connect to the new outlet and plugged the male side of the
extension cord to the GFCI outlet. After doing so, I tested to see if
the new outlet would provide power and it did, also checking with a
tester and everything was ok. I then proceeded to connect the new
outlet to the switch (middle of the run) that controls the fluorescent
lights using 14/2 NM gauge wiring. Every step of the way, I made sure
the wiring was done properly by using the tester. Now after all this
was done, I plugged the extension cord to the GFCI outlet and turned
on the lights using the switch. And long behold, I have light in the
garage.
However, once in a while (and it seems to be random), when I turn-off
the lights using the switch, the GFCI would trip. Then I would have
to reset and all is well again. I read in previous posting (back in
2000), someone had a similar problem, but his GFCI was tripping when
the lights were turned on. And it would seem that if I did the wiring
incorrectly, the GFCI would also trip when I turn on the lights NOT
when I turn them off. And again, it would be random. Also, to check
if the extension cord was the culprit, I changed the wiring using 14/2
NM gauge, and the problem still exists. What did I do wrong? Is the
GFCI that sensitive to detect a very small variance?

Thanks.

 

[John Larkin]

On 28 Oct 2004 06:03:21 -0700, egd.bydalen@swipnet.se (Erik Durling)
wrote:

We're a couple of students doing an electronics project. We are to
construct a battery indicator circuit. We had a finished circuit on
paper and we had simulated it with Multisim 7. But when we tested the
circuit in real life, it didn't work at all like we had planned (or
according to simulation). The circuit was based upon the idea of
zenerdiodes having a constant voltage drop, and not conducting if the
circuit isn't able to supply the needed voltage across it. But the
zener-diodes doesn't stop conducting at all, and the voltage drop is
far from constant.

This is the main circuit: http://ersker.com/circuit.gif

The zener diodes used in real life are: BZX55 and not BZC55, but that
ought not change anything (right?).

We did a DC Transfer Analysis in the simulator and got three nice
curves showing the voltage at the three collectors (compared to
ground) as the voltage from the source goes from 0-4.5 volts, and
everything seems right there: http://ersker.com/dctrans.gif

So, the problem we're having with our real circuit is that the LEDs
never turn off (the transistors are always saturated). The zener
diodes doesn't stop conducting when the voltage across them goes under
their specified value.

What's our mistake/misconception?

Do the zeners only operate correctly at a certain current?

This brings up some interesting issues:

Why would anyone simulate a circuit this simple?

If something this simple doesn't simulate correctly, what hope is
there for a serious circuit?

Did your instructor deliberately give you a circuit that would
simulate correctly but not work in real life? If you're very lucky,
yes.

Why not look at a zener data sheet?

When you built it and it didn't work, why did you resort to a
newsgroup for help? Why not measure and analyze the voltages and
currents and figure out what's actually happening? The methodology
here is: fiddle with the simulation until it works; then fiddle with
the circuit until it works, or ask for help; no thinking required.

John

 

[Jack Hayes]

"Kirk Leach" <roadrunnerhonduras@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9bf2e3ef.0410281143.44327482@posting.google.com...

Hello,

I live in Latin America and am having a problem with refrigeration in
my house that I think must be related to the electrical supply.

The refrigerator works properly for a period of time, several days,
and then does not, for several days at a time, with the temperatures
going into the 50s. Obviously unacceptable. We have tried six
different refriegerators, and it is happening with them all, so we
highly doubt the problem is the refrigerator.

We have had the electricity checked by three different electricians
and all get 110V from the socket, even when the fridge is not working
properly. They have check various other things, to no avail.

I have never had this kind of problem before, and that includes living
in Latin America for several years.

Anyone have any ideas what could be going on?

Thanks!

Any chance it is running way off frequency?

Jack

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"Erik Durling" <egd.bydalen@swipnet.se> schreef in bericht
news:32840f19.0410280503.4de75f7b@posting.google.com...

We're a couple of students doing an electronics project. We are to
construct a battery indicator circuit. We had a finished circuit on
paper and we had simulated it with Multisim 7. But when we tested the
circuit in real life, it didn't work at all like we had planned (or
according to simulation). The circuit was based upon the idea of
zenerdiodes having a constant voltage drop, and not conducting if the
circuit isn't able to supply the needed voltage across it. But the
zener-diodes doesn't stop conducting at all, and the voltage drop is
far from constant.

This is the main circuit: http://ersker.com/circuit.gif

The zener diodes used in real life are: BZX55 and not BZC55, but that
ought not change anything (right?).

We did a DC Transfer Analysis in the simulator and got three nice
curves showing the voltage at the three collectors (compared to
ground) as the voltage from the source goes from 0-4.5 volts, and
everything seems right there: http://ersker.com/dctrans.gif

So, the problem we're having with our real circuit is that the LEDs
never turn off (the transistors are always saturated). The zener
diodes doesn't stop conducting when the voltage across them goes under
their specified value.

What's our mistake/misconception?

Do the zeners only operate correctly at a certain current?

You made some wrong assumptions about the zeners. They indeed need some
current for the function you want them to fulfil but there is more. One
thing you can do to get a better insight is making a real life I-V plot of
(one of) the zeners you used. Pay special attention to the part below zener
voltage. You will measure microamps but that's still current. Multiplied by
beta (or Hfe) will give enough current through the LED to make it light.
Keep in mind that although a general purpose LED likes a 20mA for optimal
funtioning most of them start to light already at 1mA.

For a circuit like this I would use one zener or bandgap as a reference
voltage. A comparator (an LM339 contains four of them) and a voltage
divider. The reference voltage can be used for all three comparators. The
voltage divider will set the voltage at which the comparator will switch.

Below I give an idea to make something like that using discretes. Beware
it's just an idea.


+-------+--------+
| | |
.-. .-. .-.
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
'-' '-' '-'
| | |
| | |
| | V LED
| | -
| | |
| | |
| | |/
+-------|------| Si
| | |>
| | |
| +---->|--+
| | Si |
.-. | .-.
| | - | |
| | \ Z | |
'-' ^ '-'
| | |
+-------+--------+
created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.24.140803 Beta www.tech-chat.de

petrus bitbyter








---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 15-10-2004

 

[Rich Webb]

On 27 Oct 2004 23:59:51 -0700, prince_nsa@yahoo.com wrote:

why sms is only 160 characters?

Because 160 = 2^5 * 5. "SMS" actually stands for "Salute Master Satan"
and the 5's refer to the Pentagram of Evil. The 2, obviously, is in
reference to Zorastrian Duality.

No, wait... Halloween isn't for another three days. Never mind...

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[John Fields]

On 28 Oct 2004 12:43:20 -0700, roadrunnerhonduras@yahoo.com (Kirk
Leach) wrote:

Hello,

I live in Latin America and am having a problem with refrigeration in
my house that I think must be related to the electrical supply.

The refrigerator works properly for a period of time, several days,
and then does not, for several days at a time, with the temperatures
going into the 50s. Obviously unacceptable. We have tried six
different refriegerators, and it is happening with them all, so we
highly doubt the problem is the refrigerator.

We have had the electricity checked by three different electricians
and all get 110V from the socket, even when the fridge is not working
properly. They have check various other things, to no avail.

I have never had this kind of problem before, and that includes living
in Latin America for several years.

Anyone have any ideas what could be going on?

---
It sounds like you may be getting an intermittent or a high-resistance
connection at the breaker panel or perhaps in the socket the
refrigerator is plugged into. If the electricians unplugged the
refrigerator and then measured the voltage at the socket that could
give them the 110V reading they got because there'd be no appreciable
load and therefore no appreciable voltage drop across the
socket/breaker. Since the fridge sometimes works and sometimes
doesn't, what I'd do to isolate the problem even further would be to
run the fridge from an outlet fed by another breaker for a while and
see what happens. If it runs with no problems for say, a couple of
weeks, then I'd start checking the wiring.

--
John Fields

 

[me]

But I'm impressed that you're actually verifying your simulations by
experiment; some people just quit when the sim works.


John

Don't be. If they didn't have to build it to demonstrate it in the lab
they would have called it good after the simulation.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

In <c1a4a495.0410282019.685c3794@posting.google.com>, on 10/28/04 at 09:19 PM,
tek1940@hotmail.com (George) said:

I'm not understanding this.
Are you saying there is a Resistor within the battery?

I probably should question Radio Shack.

Heee hee hee hee!!

Let us know what they say <g>

John

 

[Tom Biasi]

"George" <tek1940@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1a4a495.0410282019.685c3794@posting.google.com...

I'm not understanding this.
Are you saying there is a Resistor within the battery?

There is a 'resistance' within the battery.

The battery is not a perfect device, it can not supply voltage with
unlimited current to a load.

You seem to know this already. What does limit the battery's ability to
supply current to a load?

The main factor is the internal resistance. You are testing the battery at
levels beyond its capability and are seeing the output drop as you heat up
the battery and increase the internal resistance even more.

Regards,

Tom

 

[Graham Knott]

Tom Biasi wrote:

"George" <tek1940@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1a4a495.0410282019.685c3794@posting.google.com...
I'm not understanding this.
Are you saying there is a Resistor within the battery?

There is a 'resistance' within the battery.

The battery is not a perfect device, it can not supply voltage with
unlimited current to a load.

You seem to know this already. What does limit the battery's ability
to supply current to a load?

The main factor is the internal resistance. You are testing the
battery at levels beyond its capability and are seeing the output
drop as you heat up the battery and increase the internal resistance
even more.

Regards,

Tom

--

Have a look at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.knott/elect75.htm