Chip with simple program for Toy

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:26:45 +0200, Olivier Scalbert
<olivier.scalbert@algosyn.com> wrote:

Olivier Scalbert wrote:
John Fields wrote:

I haven't found out how to do an FFT in LTspice yet, so there may be an
itermodulation problem lurking in there somewhere.

JF

Hi John,

For the FFT, just right click in the simulation screen and select FFT in
the popup menu.

Olivier
Also increase stop time in the simulation box to have more points.
---

OK, thanks.
---

BTW how to convert harmonic levels in FFT to distorsion in percentage ?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_harmonic_distortion

JF

 

[Olivier Scalbert]

John Fields wrote:

Plot the current through R1 and the voltage on the gate as a function of
time and you'll see what I mean.

Just for fun, you might also want to move R1 to between the drain and
--- ^^^^^
Oops... source


JF
Ok thanks !

Olivier

 

[Olivier Scalbert]

Hi,

In fact, how do you compute R5 and R8 ?
Olivier

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:32:07 +0200, Olivier Scalbert
<olivier.scalbert@algosyn.com> wrote:

Hi,

In fact, how do you compute R5 and R8 ?

---
Empirically.

In the simulator, what I did was (with 0V into R1) arbitrarily choose R6
and R8 at 1000 ohms and then adjusted R4 and R5 for 30mA of current
through both MOSFETs.

In the real world, what I'd do would be to replace the resistors with
1000 ohm pots, like this: (View in Courier)

+----------------------------+
| |
+V>---------------------|---+----------+-------+ |
| | | | |
| | | D |
[510] | [POT]<--G NCH |
| | | S |
| | [DIODE] | |
VIN>-------------[100]--+--|-\ |K | |
| >--------+ +-----+
+--|+/ |A | |
| | [DIODE] | [LOAD]
[82] | | S |
| | [POT]<--G PCH GND
GND | | D
| | |
-V>-------------------------+----------+-------+

Then, before applying power I'd make sure Vin was grounded and the pots
were cranked to zero ohms between the gates and the diodes.

After that, I'd apply power and crank one of the pots until I got 30mA
through the load and then crank the other pot until the current through
the load fell to zero.

That 30 mA will now be in both MOSFETs and will be the current causing
the stage to run AB which will kill crossover distortion. Also, the
load will be DC coupled to the input and will be at zero volts with zero
volts on Vin, which is what you want.

There also probably needs to be some soft-start circuitry in there
somewhere to protect the load and the MOSFETS against power-on
transients from the opamp. Something as simple as a relay momentarily
shorting the opamp's output to ground during power-on should work:


+V-----+--------+------+ NC
| | | |<-O------+
| [DIODE] [COIL]- - -| |
[R] |A | C O |
| +------+ | |+\ |
| | | | >--+-->TO DIODES
| C | |-/
+------B |
| E |
[C] | |
| | |
GND>---+--------+---------------+

JF

 

[Dan Beck]

"Dan Beck" <biscuitbecks@*nospam*cableone.net> wrote in message
news:gdm2pp$ob7$1@registered.motzarella.org...

Hello all,

years ago I installed a new Happ 13" CRT in a video game I own. The game
probably has about 20 hours on it since I changed the tube; my children
don't play it anymore...

Anyway, the image appears to be undulating, at all times. There is an
isolation transformer in the game that powers it, with a freshly repinned
power connector. A fellow suggested I unplug the degauss loop connector
from the main pcb; that resulted in no change. The electrical outputs
from the game mother board include repinned connectors and shiny "fingers"
on the board edge connector. The little pcb with the
horizontal/vertical/brightness/contrast pots I have fussed with, with no
dice.

Any other thoughts? Thank you in advance for reading, and any ideas you
may have!

Regards,
Dan

Hello all,

I am posting this as a follow up for the archive. I spoke with a tech at
Happ Controls about this model of monitor. It does not require an isolation
transformer. I removed the isolation transformer in my game, and I still
have the undulating image. The tech suggested that even thought the monitor
is only 8 years old with minimal use it probably needs a cap kit.

Thank you all for the suggestions and ideas!

Regards,
Dan

 

[Joerg]

Dan Beck wrote:

"Dan Beck" <biscuitbecks@*nospam*cableone.net> wrote in message
news:gdm2pp$ob7$1@registered.motzarella.org...
Hello all,

years ago I installed a new Happ 13" CRT in a video game I own. The game
probably has about 20 hours on it since I changed the tube; my children
don't play it anymore...

Anyway, the image appears to be undulating, at all times. There is an
isolation transformer in the game that powers it, with a freshly repinned
power connector. A fellow suggested I unplug the degauss loop connector
from the main pcb; that resulted in no change. The electrical outputs
from the game mother board include repinned connectors and shiny "fingers"
on the board edge connector. The little pcb with the
horizontal/vertical/brightness/contrast pots I have fussed with, with no
dice.

Any other thoughts? Thank you in advance for reading, and any ideas you
may have!

Regards,
Dan



Hello all,

I am posting this as a follow up for the archive. I spoke with a tech at
Happ Controls about this model of monitor. It does not require an isolation
transformer. I removed the isolation transformer in my game, and I still
have the undulating image. The tech suggested that even thought the monitor
is only 8 years old with minimal use it probably needs a cap kit.

Thank you all for the suggestions and ideas!

Sadly, the average quality of electrolytics (especially larger ones) has
deteriorated significantly. I have here a few radios from the 50's,
all with their original electrolytics and fully functional. These things
get hot in there and heat is the enemy #1 for electrolytics. Yet none
failed in about 60 years. I guess that's kind of impossible these days.
Or in plain English, not everything in electronics is progress :-(

If you put new caps in there make sure to get 105C grade. A few cents
more but well worth it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Since you can't apparently distiunguish traces on PCB boards from wiring - your
comments are totally null and void.

---
PCB traces _are_ wiring.

"It is also referred to as printed wiring board (PWB) or etched wiring
board."

---
A quote from Wikipedia, the reference to which you clipped.
---

Not here it isn't.

---
Then who's out of touch?

Certainly not the whole of the UK, so it must be just the sad, dreary
little donkey boy.
---

35 um copper foil hardly counts as wire in my book, it's a damn resistor. And you'd
be far better off thinking of it as such.

---
While it exhibits resistance, since it's ohmic, that's usually of little
importance when it's being used as a wire.

Try building an audio amp with that attitude ! LOL.

If it is of importance, then
one simply widens (or thickens) the trace until the increasing
cross-sectional area of the trace results in lowering the resistance of
the run to the resistance desired.

I'm surprised that your book

What book ?

doesn't mention that PCB traces also
exhibit inductive and capacitive characteristics which are often far
more import and to consider when laying out PCB wiring.

Well of course they can be. Loop are is espeially important.

Now stop playing the arse and grow up.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Joerg wrote:

Sadly, the average quality of electrolytics (especially larger ones) has
deteriorated significantly. I have here a few radios from the 50's,
all with their original electrolytics and fully functional. These things
get hot in there and heat is the enemy #1 for electrolytics.

True.

Yet none
failed in about 60 years. I guess that's kind of impossible these days.
Or in plain English, not everything in electronics is progress :-(

Yes but they were about ten times the size too !

If you put new caps in there make sure to get 105C grade. A few cents
more but well worth it.

Absolutely.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Robert Blass wrote:

I have a running debate with someone who claims those 22-watt compact
florescent bulbs which are rated as equal to regular 100 watt
incandescent bulbs.

Just by looking in the room where a new 22-watt compact florescent
bulb is located I can tell a dramatic decrease in lighting. I am being
told the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are the SAME as the old
rounded 100 watt incandescent bulbs in lumens.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I do not see them as being the same in
lighting power. The new 22-watt compact florescent bulbs seem to be
10-20% dimmer than the older 100 watt incandescent bulbs that were in
the same room.

Yes, that's because they cheat and compare them to a lower efficiency 100W
incandescent bulb that was once popular in various hues for 'mood
lighting'. There were several trade name for them but I don't recall them
now. It used to be in the small print on the boxes but I bet it's gone
now.

Also CFLs do lose brightness over their 6000-15000 hor lifetime.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bob Masta wrote:

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:27:38 -0700 (PDT), BobG
bobgardner@aol.com> wrote:

Whats your tolerance? 'Seems dimmer' isn't something you can measure.
Check you line voltage... CF might be more sensitive to lo line
voltage than the incandescent. Also Color Temperature is sort of
subjective... Get a photocell and stick it the same distance from both
and see which one is measureably brighter.

The problem with photocell measurements is that
they don't have the same color sensitivity as the
human eye. So two different light sources that
produce identical photocell outputs can have very
different apparent brightness.

I once found a Siemens photocell that claimed to have 'eye' sensitivity.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Michael Black wrote:

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.

In the UK they'll try to kid you 18W does it !

Graham

 

[Joerg]

Eeyore wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Sadly, the average quality of electrolytics (especially larger ones) has
deteriorated significantly. I have here a few radios from the 50's,
all with their original electrolytics and fully functional. These things
get hot in there and heat is the enemy #1 for electrolytics.

True.


Yet none
failed in about 60 years. I guess that's kind of impossible these days.
Or in plain English, not everything in electronics is progress :-(

Yes but they were about ten times the size too !

Not necessarily. As a kid I scrapped some smaller electrolytics out of
TV sets. Not to pinch pennies but because I didn't trust the stuff from
electronics dealers. Just for fun I measured a few with date codes from
the early 60's. Without exception all above their rated capacitance and
no leakage to write home about.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Eeyore]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day it happened Rich the Philosophizer wrote in
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

What I ment with 'religion' is that 'free will' is assumed as a given fact,
just like religions present ideas without proof.

And proof would deny faith. See associated conundrums in the Hitchiker's Guide
to the Galaxy.

Just the kind of attitude we need in a rational world.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Or God?

But who's God's God ?

Graham

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
While it exhibits resistance, since it's ohmic, that's usually of
little importance when it's being used as a wire.

Try building an audio amp with that attitude ! LOL.

oh dear....I once moved a wire from one point of tapped capacitor power
supply pair to another point. It was the difference between dreadful hum and
no hum.

Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Cosmic Debris]

The lumens should be listed on the box the CFLs or light bulbs came in.

Typical Electric Lamp Wattage and Lumen Ratings:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/lumen.htm

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:24:11 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Robert Blass wrote:

I have a running debate with someone who claims those 22-watt compact
florescent bulbs which are rated as equal to regular 100 watt
incandescent bulbs.

Just by looking in the room where a new 22-watt compact florescent
bulb is located I can tell a dramatic decrease in lighting. I am being
told the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are the SAME as the old
rounded 100 watt incandescent bulbs in lumens.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I do not see them as being the same in
lighting power. The new 22-watt compact florescent bulbs seem to be
10-20% dimmer than the older 100 watt incandescent bulbs that were in
the same room.

It's subjective. The light is a different tone of white. Soe people (or some conditions) perceive this to be dimmer.

I use LED lighting anyway.

Yes, that's because they cheat and compare them to a lower efficiency 100W
incandescent bulb that was once popular in various hues for 'mood
lighting'. There were several trade name for them but I don't recall them
now. It used to be in the small print on the boxes but I bet it's gone
now.

Don't you mean ones before "coiled coil" was invented?

Also CFLs do lose brightness over their 6000-15000 hor lifetime.

So do incandescents don't they?


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

A guy was playing golf at some fancy club, and just as he was about to tee off , a cart drives up. These two guys get out and hand him a note saying, "We are deaf, may we play through?"
The guy says, "Hell no!", and tees off anyway.
Later on (after six shots), he is on the green about to putt when a ball comes from out of nowhere and misses his head by an inch. "What the @#$%^&*?", he yells.
The deaf guys drive up and hand him a note. On the note is written, "FORE".

 

On Oct 5, 1:44 pm, Robert Blass <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote:

I have a running debate with someone who claims those 22-watt compact
florescent bulbs which are rated as equal to regular 100 watt
incandescent bulbs.

Just by looking in the room where a new 22-watt compact florescent
bulb is located I can tell a dramatic decrease in lighting. I am being
told the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are the SAME as the old
rounded 100 watt incandescent bulbs in lumens.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I do not see them as being the same in
lighting power. The new 22-watt compact florescent bulbs seem to be
10-20% dimmer than the older 100 watt incandescent bulbs that were in
the same room.

According to the charts, a 22-watt compact florescent bulb is suppose
to be the replacement for a 100 watt incandescent bulb.

What am talking about 22-watt compact florescent bulbs versus those
100 watt incandescent bulbs that have been around for 100+ years.

I realize that the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are suppose to
last longer than the 100 watt incandescent bulbs but it seems you take
a decrease in lighting.

And the cost of 100 watt incandescent bulbs are very cheap, so it's
hard for me to switch over. I also read where if you replaced ALL your
old 100 watt incandescent bulbs with the new 22-watt compact
florescent bulbs you might save about $80 per year, making the savings
taking more than 3-4 years to realize.

My friend says that the reason those 22-watt compact florescent bulbs
seem dimmer is because they take longer to heat up than those 100 watt
incandescent bulbs. If this is true then how long does this take. I've
noticed even after 5 minutes that the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs
still seems dimmer than the 100 watt incandescent bulbs.

So aren't those 22-watt compact florescent bulb dimmer than the 100
watt incandescent bulbs?

thanks

Fluorescents are not ideal in these situations:

1. You turn them on and off frequently throughout the day
2. They are on a dimmer switch
3. They are on a timer
4. They are in a humid environment (bathroom)
5. They are in an enclosed environment (no ventilation)

In those situations the light bulb will burn out faster, requiring you
to buy another bulb.

One house even burned down because of CFLs on a dimmer switch:

http://www.times-news.com/local/local_story_121093606.html

But if they are on for about an hour each day, continuously, they're
great.

Michael

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <r1JMk.331$Jv2.219@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Cosmic Debris wrote:

The lumens should be listed on the box the CFLs or light bulbs came in.

Typical Electric Lamp Wattage and Lumen Ratings:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/lumen.htm

That page mentions a lot, with exception of CFLs.

Now, in my experience, lumens for 120V shortest-common-life
"soft white", "standard" and clear incandescents,

and for CFLs "warmed up and in favorable conditions and broken in for
100 hours but otherwise brand-new" (my words and in my experience):

Incandescent:

15 watts: 105-125 lumens
25 watts: 180-235 lumens
40 watts: 445-505 lumens
60 watts: 845-890 lumens
75 watts: 1150-1190 lumens
100 watts: 1670-1750 lumens
150 watts: 2780-2880 lumens
200 watts: About 3800-3900 lumens
300 watts: 6200-6300 lumens

CFL, best I have known for various wattages:

9 watts: 450 lumens, "in 40 watt incandescent range"
10 watts: 500 lumens, "fully 40 watt incandescent equivalent"

13 watts: 850 lumens, "in 60 watt incandescent range"
14-15 watts: 900 lumens, "fully 60 watt incandescent equivalent"

18-20 watts: 1200 lumens at best, "full 75 watt equivalent" - but many of
these wattages achieve as low as 1100 lumens.

23-24 watts: 1600 lumens at best, "in 100 watt incandescent range"

25-26 watts, best examples in my experience: 1750 lumens, "full 100
watt incandescent equivalence" (Some ballastless 26 watt
ones - 26 watts *after ballast losses* - can achieve 1800
lumens.)

28 watts: I have yet to see doing better than 26 watts.

30 watts: About 2,000 lumens - closer to "100 watt equivalent" than to
"150 watt equivalent"

42-45 watts: 2600-2800 lumens, "in the range of 150 watt incandescent
equivalence"

Keep in mind that CFLs are prone to the following factors that have some
fair chance of derating their "effective incandescent equivalence" to that
of next-lower-wattage incandescent, or at least by half such extent:

* - The phosphor degrades with use, and the degradation can get a little
significant after a couple thousand operating hours. Figure actual lumens
"average throughout the CFL's life" about 10% less than that achieved
after the 100 operating hour break-in period.

* - The CFL may experience non-optimal ambient temperature that may cause
it to run a little dimmer than it is "supposed to".

* - Warmest color CFLs have scotopic/photopic ratio somewhat less than
that of shorter-life gas-filled incandescents, and at ilumination levels
typical of or less than that of typical home indoor ambient lighting this
can be significant. I figure mostly expect 5-8% less from CFL on that
count.

* - The CFL may not work as well with luminaire ("fixture") optical scheme
as an incandescent does if the luminaire was designed for incandescent.

Cooler color (higher color temperature) more-scotopic-favorable CFLs
tend to have slightly lower photometric/photopic output. Six of one,
half-dozen of the other!

So overall, to replace an incandescent with a CFL, you may want the CFL
to have wattage maybe 1/3 that of the incandescent rather than the 1/4
that they "should be good for". This means that a CFL of 18-20 watts may
successfully replace a 60 watt incandescent rather than a 75 watt
incandescent, or 18-20 watt CFL may replace a 60 watt incandescent instead
of 13-15 watt CFL replacing a 60 watt incandescent. And a 23-24 watt CFL
may replace a 75 watt incandescent rather than replacing a 100 watt one
(or rather than 18-20 watt CFL replacing a 75 watt incandescent).

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <op.ujldreyj4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:24:11 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Robert Blass wrote:

I have a running debate with someone who claims those 22-watt compact
florescent bulbs which are rated as equal to regular 100 watt
incandescent bulbs.

Just by looking in the room where a new 22-watt compact florescent
bulb is located I can tell a dramatic decrease in lighting. I am being
told the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are the SAME as the old
rounded 100 watt incandescent bulbs in lumens.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I do not see them as being the same in
lighting power. The new 22-watt compact florescent bulbs seem to be
10-20% dimmer than the older 100 watt incandescent bulbs that were in
the same room.

It's subjective. The light is a different tone of white. Soe people (or some conditions) perceive this to be dimmer.

I use LED lighting anyway.

Yes, that's because they cheat and compare them to a lower efficiency 100W
incandescent bulb that was once popular in various hues for 'mood
lighting'. There were several trade name for them but I don't recall them
now. It used to be in the small print on the boxes but I bet it's gone
now.

Don't you mean ones before "coiled coil" was invented?

Coiled-coil has been around at least since the early 1970's, probably at
least a decade or two longer than that!

Also CFLs do lose brightness over their 6000-15000 hor lifetime.

So do incandescents don't they?

Actually, CFLs and fluorescents in general tend to fade over their
life expectancy more than at least gas-filled incandescents do.

Watch for the "design lumens" specified separately from "initial lumens"
when both are specified in a "lamp catalog". Please keep in mind that
"initial lumens" is immediately after a 100 operating hour break-in
period. It appears to me that "design lumens" is what to expect at
roughly 40% of the way through "catalog value life expectancy" (my words).

And not only fluorescents (CFL or otherwise) - I find in my experience
that HID lamps fade more than incandescents do and many have "design
lumens" or "mean lumens" or the like.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)