Driver to drive?

[dp]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:19:28 AM UTC+2, Don Y wrote:

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/10/2014 11:50 PM, dp wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 11:13:40 PM UTC+2, Don Y wrote:

E.g., a "smart" charger (for some definition of "smart") can look to
see *how* the battery is accepting charge under various conditions
and, presumably, deduce the condition of the battery (not just how
much charge it is holding but how close to replacement it is, etc.).

Consider the efforts that laptop makers already make to try to eek
a bit more performance out of a given battery pack. Anything they
can glean about the battery's performance could enable them to
boast of higher nominal run times. Or, downsize the battery for
a given runtime.

Well I don't know how much of this they do in laptops nowadays.

Dunno. But one thing is for sure -- the trend is towards smarter
battery interfaces! The days of resistive trickle charging are
long gone...

Oh yes, this is certain - 20 years ago for me for instance.
But there still are appliances (e.g. a haircutter machine I use
to do my turtle-head hairstyle) which have exactly that,
a simple current limited source, likely resistive (turtle-head
meaning no hair , I opted for it about a year ago when
my hair got too greyish and raggy, http://tgi-sci.com/misc/turtle1.gif ).

I did practically all of it still on the first nukeman (20 years ago).
Used to measure battery resistance during charge/discharge etc., its
change is pretty indicative to its age.
Under the score it did not buy me much if anything, once the battery
needed replacement I had to replace it - and it is easy to see without
all the subtleties. I had (still have) even two charge currents,
one could set either of them to a signed value and both could
be set to different durations. Thought this might lengthen the battery
life; if it did I did not notice it.

I think it takes a boatload of "research" before you can come up
with definite "wins" and "losses". And, you probably need to
have a close relationship with the battery vendor to ensure you
have some consistency in the "batteries" that you are provided
for these experiments!

I.e., you're either a huge battery consumer *or* a battery manufacturer
to be able to get these sorts of data.

This is not necessarily the case. Being small we have used just 3 types
of batteries on the nukeman - first it was NiCD, then Varta NiMH and
eventually a no-name NiMH came into use. I can say the Varta
did not change noticeably over a course of 5+ years, don't know about
the others. But there was no noticeable difference between the Varta
and the noname ones. Whatever such a huge research might buy you will
be within a 10% gain - if you are lucky, that is. I would consider
betting even at 5% depending on current mood . (before betting
remember I have played a lot with these settings once I had the
setup implemented 20 years ago, here is a recent snapshot of it on
my personal nukeman, its battery being dead for years (i.e. ignore
the values, just look at the parameter names):
http://tgi-sci.com/misc/pnsetup.gif )

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

 

[Don Y]

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/10/2014 11:50 PM, dp wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2014 11:13:40 PM UTC+2, Don Y wrote:

E.g., a "smart" charger (for some definition of "smart") can look to
see *how* the battery is accepting charge under various conditions
and, presumably, deduce the condition of the battery (not just how
much charge it is holding but how close to replacement it is, etc.).

Consider the efforts that laptop makers already make to try to eek
a bit more performance out of a given battery pack. Anything they
can glean about the battery's performance could enable them to
boast of higher nominal run times. Or, downsize the battery for
a given runtime.

Well I don't know how much of this they do in laptops nowadays.

Dunno. But one thing is for sure -- the trend is towards smarter
battery interfaces! The days of resistive trickle charging are
long gone...

I did practically all of it still on the first nukeman (20 years ago).
Used to measure battery resistance during charge/discharge etc., its
change is pretty indicative to its age.
Under the score it did not buy me much if anything, once the battery
needed replacement I had to replace it - and it is easy to see without
all the subtleties. I had (still have) even two charge currents,
one could set either of them to a signed value and both could
be set to different durations. Thought this might lengthen the battery
life; if it did I did not notice it.

I think it takes a boatload of "research" before you can come up
with definite "wins" and "losses". And, you probably need to
have a close relationship with the battery vendor to ensure you
have some consistency in the "batteries" that you are provided
for these experiments!

I.e., you're either a huge battery consumer *or* a battery manufacturer
to be able to get these sorts of data.

And all of this is done in firmware, the hardware part it takes
is on the circuit I posted formerly. Well measuring the battery
temp is not shown there.

... E.g., I suspect it is only a matter of time
before these sorts of devices start "learning" their usage
patterns: "When MSOffice is running, the user will tend to have
longer sessions than when, for example, browsing Facebook."

May be but just measuring the battery current& voltage while knowing
its internal resistance (and its initial value when the battery was
new) is enough to give a precise enough assessment of the % charge
(i.e. time before shutdown) you have left (I would consider 10% for
that almost good enough, 5% would be quite OK; I don't remember how
precise I was doing on the nukeman, it's been a while since, then we
did not sell that many units to have a very broad view on that).

I think the incentive, nowadays (with CPUs) is to decide how best to
*consume* that power. The goals being to get the most usable charge
from the battery *and* to get the most cycles out of the battery.

In a casual sense, you can consider (actual) instruction cycles as
a measure of *effort* (towards a goal). This is related (by some
magical formula) to power consumption. Which, in turn, impacts
battery life and usable charge.

But, "effort" doesn't correspond to "work done". For example, a burst
of a million instruction cycles in a tenth of a second every second
(10% duty) is the same effort as those same one million cycles spread
out over the entire second (100% duty). But, they may not achieve
the same amount of *work* (e.g., if they are waiting on an external
event and the event doesn't occur "while they were looking", then
they've accomplished nothing).

I think the same sort of things apply to, e.g., electric vehicles;
burning power when it won't immediately produce results is just
"waste".

I'm opting for inductive coupling in current projects (best fits the
application domain). While it doesn't guarantee immunity from these
sorts of issues, I think its relative obscurity works in my favor.
Certainly enough to offset the risks of exposing "bare conductors" and
hoping nothing "crawls in" that way! :

This makes good sense for your current project. It will add some
complexity but once you get it right it will make your life a lot
easier with many related things I guess.

 

[Robert Baer]

Greegor wrote:

It's a good thing you didn't ask anybody to explain hysteresis!
That was not in his "domain".

 

[Don Y]

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/12/2014 10:51 PM, dp wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:19:28 AM UTC+2, Don Y wrote:
On 1/10/2014 11:50 PM, dp wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 11:13:40 PM UTC+2, Don Y wrote:

E.g., a "smart" charger (for some definition of "smart") can look to
see *how* the battery is accepting charge under various conditions
and, presumably, deduce the condition of the battery (not just how
much charge it is holding but how close to replacement it is, etc.).

Consider the efforts that laptop makers already make to try to eek
a bit more performance out of a given battery pack. Anything they
can glean about the battery's performance could enable them to
boast of higher nominal run times. Or, downsize the battery for
a given runtime.

Well I don't know how much of this they do in laptops nowadays.

Dunno. But one thing is for sure -- the trend is towards smarter
battery interfaces! The days of resistive trickle charging are
long gone...

Oh yes, this is certain - 20 years ago for me for instance.
But there still are appliances (e.g. a haircutter machine I use
to do my turtle-head hairstyle) which have exactly that,
a simple current limited source, likely resistive (turtle-head

Yes. But those appliances tend not to be concerned with battery
performance! E.g., I would never expect such a naive approach in
a cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc. -- things where the user is
keenly aware of battery life and likely to compare between brands.

meaning no hair , I opted for it about a year ago when
my hair got too greyish and raggy, http://tgi-sci.com/misc/turtle1.gif ).

I'm still at the stage between "wanting it long and NEEDING it long" :>
But, then again, I've been at that stage for almost 20 years, now... :<

I did practically all of it still on the first nukeman (20 years ago).
Used to measure battery resistance during charge/discharge etc., its
change is pretty indicative to its age.
Under the score it did not buy me much if anything, once the battery
needed replacement I had to replace it - and it is easy to see without
all the subtleties. I had (still have) even two charge currents,
one could set either of them to a signed value and both could
be set to different durations. Thought this might lengthen the battery
life; if it did I did not notice it.

I think it takes a boatload of "research" before you can come up
with definite "wins" and "losses". And, you probably need to
have a close relationship with the battery vendor to ensure you
have some consistency in the "batteries" that you are provided
for these experiments!

I.e., you're either a huge battery consumer *or* a battery manufacturer
to be able to get these sorts of data.

This is not necessarily the case. Being small we have used just 3 types
of batteries on the nukeman - first it was NiCD, then Varta NiMH and
eventually a no-name NiMH came into use. I can say the Varta
did not change noticeably over a course of 5+ years, don't know about
the others. But there was no noticeable difference between the Varta
and the noname ones.

But you are just looking at lifetime (or capacity?) in a given set
of circumstances (you probably also don't "see" how the devices
are used day-to-day, in detail, once they leave your hands?).

My point is that you need to be assured that the units you subject
to any rigorous "life testing" have a relatively small variance
(in whatever parameters you *ultimately* deem to be responsible for
the characteristics you seek) in production. I.e., if each unit
from the manufacturer has wide variations between them, its really
hard to determine if the effects you observe (from different
charging and usage strategies) are attributable to the effect or
to some variation in the "supply".

Whatever such a huge research might buy you will
be within a 10% gain - if you are lucky, that is. I would consider

I think 10% would be something that manufacturers (of battery powered
devices) would *jump* at! E.g., in electric vehicles, the battery
often comprises half the cost/weight of the vehicle. In a laptop,
weight is important -- as is runtime (these are the same folks who
will pinch pennies in a design so if they could save 25c in battery
selection, they'll jump at the chance!)

betting even at 5% depending on current mood . (before betting
remember I have played a lot with these settings once I had the
setup implemented 20 years ago, here is a recent snapshot of it on
my personal nukeman, its battery being dead for years (i.e. ignore
the values, just look at the parameter names):
http://tgi-sci.com/misc/pnsetup.gif )

Personally, I loathe battery powered products -- because the battery
always ends up dead when the device is needed. :< It took a fair
bit of work to find electric devices that didn't require batteries
when I put together our bug-out bags!

When batteries were nice, standardized, available-from-corner-store
products, this wasn't a problem -- just an inconvenience. Now, too
many are "specials" and/or not designed to be replaced. Or, the
products aren't designed to be cosmetically disassembled (e.g., just
replaced the battery in a cordless mouse. Having removed the labels
that covered all the access screws, I now have "openings" in the
bottom of the mouse that I'll have to cover with opaque tape as the
labels fall apart during removal)

 

[Robert Baer]

monyksynthite@gmail.com wrote: <nothing>

"extra cream in my coffee, please?"

 

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:22:18 PM UTC-5, Bob E. wrote:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin. It's

almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With both a

temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I finally

tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid opposite the

iron.



I've applied some Kester rosin paste flux as well using my trusty Kester

60/40 lead-based rosin core solder. No joy. I'm not holding the braid against

the PCB now, I'm just trying to tin the braid and then deal with melting the

2 solders (on the PCB and the braid) together later.



My first attempt--before I realized that I was overheating it--I melted the

dielectric insulation.



The mesh is made from some silver-colored braid which I thought is tinned

copper but now I'm of the opinion that it's steel; it's certainly not

aluminum. There is also foil which is probably aluminum but I've trimmed that

back and it's not part of this frustrating process right now.



What's the trick to getting this braid to take solder? I've never seen this

before.



Thanks.

With these copper braided wires, the heat
is sucked away fast-- cannot defy Mother
Nature. Also, too much heat might damage
some nearby device, -- the damage becomes apparent after board is fired up the first
time. In the past, to connect 4 millimeter diameter stranded copper wire to 10A rectifier diodes, I have used a small scorer to open
a small hole in the middle of the copper
strands and then used 1 millimeter diameter stainless steel nuts and bolts. This was
done about 3 years ago, but the circuit
works fine even now. Hope that helps.

 

[gregz]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:35:10 -0800, Bob E. <bespoke@invalid.tv> wrote:

Thank you for disclosing what you're trying to accomplish. Context is
always important.

You're going to have corrosion problems.

Continuing disclosure: it's indoors, wall-mounted.

Ok. You won't need to deal with anti-corrosion precautions.

If you have a PCB, why not use a PCB mounted F connector?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111244951312
http://www.ebay.com/itm/261373960762

It was my call (based on almost no RF expertise) that any solder connection
was much better than the best crimp and that crimps are used strictly for
convenience. I'm beginning to doubt these presumptions...

I consider crimping better than soldering mostly because soldering
requires some skill, but crimping can be learned by almost anyone.
With ratcheting crimpers, it is possible to guarantee that the degree
of compression is both sufficient and uniform. Crimp and compression
connectors also will survive the SCTE IPS-TP-401 40 lb pull test,
while soldered connectors often fail this test. In general, crimp and
compression connectors are much better at keeping water out. I've
seen much better reliability after switching to crimp type connectors.
They're also cheaper. I can't think of a single advantage to soldered
RF connectors.

It would be helpful if you could provide any markings on your cable so
that it can be identified.

http://www.cables.com/Products/92003.aspx

Bingo. Aluminum braid over aluminum foil shield. You can't solder to
the aluminum. Find a different cable with a copper braid (or use a
connector as I previously suggested).

PS, a police helicopter just flew over the neighborhood at a few hundred
feet. The digital channel I was watching blanked out completely. This at
about 50 miles from the broadcast site, as the crow files (Sutro Tower).

Can I guess(tm)? I don't think the helicopter is large enough to
complete block out the signal unless the TV station signal strength
from Mt Sutro to your PCB antenna is rather weak. That's about what I
would expect at 50 miles with a small PCB TV indoor antenna. Digital
is ummm... digital and tends to deliver either a very good picture, or
nothing. At 50 miles, I would have recommended a bigger, better and
possibly amplified (to compensate for the coax cable losses) antenna.
You might want to check your location with:
http://www.tvfool.com
to see if the indoor PCB antenna is adequate, and if a bigger antenna
will be of any benefit. Otherwise, the police helicopter might have
been transmitting video on some frequency to the ground which
overloaded your TV receiver front end.

I'm not going to argue about crimp, except a poor crimp is no good. I think
crimped coax connectors early on, did have issues. Forgot the details of
how or why, but at a NASA tracking stations, they pretty much went around
converting the crimp to old fashioned solder and twist. This was in the
late 70's. It was on the receiver equipment. I was there watching them
build cables. This was after some installation of new receivers. I don't
remember if they were pre made cables, or made with given crimpers and
connectors.

Greg

 

[Bob E.]

> <http://www.davisrf.com/articles/crimp-vs-solder.pdf>

"Jacket, braid and dielectric should be stripped at 90 degrees."

I don't know what that means.

Thanks.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:56:34 +0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net>
wrote:

>I'm not going to argue about crimp, except a poor crimp is no good.

Agreed. There are plenty of ways to screw up a crimp or compression
connection.
<http://www.davisrf.com/articles/crimp-vs-solder.pdf>
Let's just say there are fewer ways to produce a bad crimp (or
compression) connection, than there are to produce a lousy solder
connection.

I think
crimped coax connectors early on, did have issues.

Yep. In the mid 1970's, I helped design two direction finders for the
USCG that used crimped BNC connectors. Prior to that, BNC connectors
were soldered UG-88/u. You decide if you want to deal with the mess:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DFsYDSQvM>
However, the USCG was skeptical, so we had to arrange a demonstration
and a few tests. The final decision was made by the service people
who took one look at the crimp connectors and decided that they would
be much easier to deal with. Soldering a connector on top of a mast
is not they're idea of fun.

Forgot the details of
how or why, but at a NASA tracking stations, they pretty much went around
converting the crimp to old fashioned solder and twist.

Solder and twist? As in PL-259? Yech. I hate those.

This was in the
late 70's. It was on the receiver equipment. I was there watching them
build cables. This was after some installation of new receivers. I don't
remember if they were pre made cables, or made with given crimpers and
connectors.

I can guess(tm) what might have been the problem. During the same
time period, connector manufacturers were experimenting with various
connector platings, trying to get away from using expensive silver.
Some of these produced some rather weird PIM (passive intermodulation)
effects, which were not really understood until many years later. I
also ran into the problem and had to switch back to silver plated
connectors:
<http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/rf-technology-design/passive-intermodulation-pim/basics-tutorial.php>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:51:47 -0800, Bob E. <bespoke@invalid.tv>
wrote:

http://www.davisrf.com/articles/crimp-vs-solder.pdf

"Jacket, braid and dielectric should be stripped at 90 degrees."

I don't know what that means.

Thanks.

---
Perpendicular to the axis of the cable.

 

[Bob E.]

Perpendicular to the axis of the cable.
[John Fields]

As in "Do not use a pocket knife to strip these"? It's so obvious as to be
thought not worthy of mentioning. But I guess that's what specs are for...

Thanks.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

dakupoto@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:22:18 PM UTC-5, Bob E. wrote:
I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin. It's

almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With both a

temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I finally

tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid opposite the

iron.



I've applied some Kester rosin paste flux as well using my trusty Kester

60/40 lead-based rosin core solder. No joy. I'm not holding the braid against

the PCB now, I'm just trying to tin the braid and then deal with melting the

2 solders (on the PCB and the braid) together later.



My first attempt--before I realized that I was overheating it--I melted the

dielectric insulation.



The mesh is made from some silver-colored braid which I thought is tinned

copper but now I'm of the opinion that it's steel; it's certainly not

aluminum. There is also foil which is probably aluminum but I've trimmed that

back and it's not part of this frustrating process right now.



What's the trick to getting this braid to take solder? I've never seen this

before.



Thanks.

With these copper braided wires, the heat
is sucked away fast-- cannot defy Mother
Nature.

Sure you can, but it takes brains. You need plenty of heat, and to
work fast. I still have the 175W iron I used to use to assemble PL-259
connectors. I would tin the braid, trim it with a tubing cutter, then
drill the nickel plating out of the weep holes in the connector body
before I soldered it to the braid. I never had one of those pull off
without damaging at least several inches of coax.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:32:56 -0800, Bob E. <bespoke@invalid.tv> wrote:

Perpendicular to the axis of the cable.
[John Fields]

As in "Do not use a pocket knife to strip these"? It's so obvious as to be
thought not worthy of mentioning. But I guess that's what specs are for...

If you're careful, a common stainless pocket knife will work. More
likely, cutting through wire will dull the blade quickly and score the
center conductor which will eventually break at the cut line. You
really want a high carbon steel blade or razor blade, which stay sharp
much longer (but tend to rust). Plan on ruining a connectors learning
how it's done.

To do it easily and correctly, use a wire stripping tool (or a thermal
stripper for Teflon cable). For F-connectors and RG-6/u:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/400525856013>
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/360806269903>
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/221217815702>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 15:22:27 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

Maybe this will be less power hungry for that little 6 volt supply. this example uses no more than 2 ma's over the output, give or take a little.

Not perfect but close enough for a smooth sine ramp output.

Distinctly imperfect. The output at the emitter of Q2 bottoms
on every cycle.

It's easy enough to fix - see below - but the harmonic content
is still pretty high. This class of oscillators always gets its
amplitude control by clipping at the rails, and this always
introduces harmonic content - and fairly high frequency harmonic
content at that.

Baxandall's paper on his Class-D oscillator reviews class-C
oscillators, and makes much the same point.

http://sophia-elektronica.com/0344_001_Baxandal.pdf

Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE 176 -144 -128 -144
WIRE 256 -144 176 -144
WIRE 352 -144 256 -144
WIRE 176 -112 176 -144
WIRE 256 -96 256 -144
WIRE 176 -16 176 -32
WIRE 256 -16 256 -32
WIRE 256 -16 176 -16
WIRE 176 0 176 -16
WIRE -128 16 -128 -144
WIRE 352 64 352 -144
WIRE -16 80 -48 80
WIRE 64 80 48 80
WIRE 128 80 64 80
WIRE -128 112 -128 96
WIRE 128 112 128 80
WIRE 176 112 176 80
WIRE 176 112 128 112
WIRE 256 112 256 -16
WIRE 288 112 256 112
WIRE 176 128 176 112
WIRE -48 144 -48 80
WIRE -48 144 -144 144
WIRE 112 176 96 176
WIRE -144 208 -144 144
WIRE -128 208 -144 208
WIRE -112 208 -128 208
WIRE -16 208 -48 208
WIRE 64 208 64 160
WIRE 64 208 48 208
WIRE 96 208 96 176
WIRE 96 208 64 208
WIRE -128 224 -128 208
WIRE -16 224 -16 208
WIRE 352 240 352 160
WIRE 176 320 176 224
WIRE -128 336 -128 304
WIRE -16 336 -16 304
WIRE 176 336 176 320
FLAG -128 112 0
FLAG -16 336 0
FLAG -128 336 0
FLAG 176 320 0
FLAG 352 320 0
SYMBOL res 48 64 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 130k
SYMBOL voltage -128 0 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 6
SYMBOL cap 48 192 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value 5ľ
SYMBOL res 160 -128 R0
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 390
SYMBOL res -32 208 R0
WINDOW 0 55 52 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 470
SYMBOL cap -48 192 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 5ľ
SYMBOL res -144 208 R0
WINDOW 0 41 51 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value 470
SYMBOL cap 48 64 R90
WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 5ľ
SYMBOL npn 112 128 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL npn 288 64 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q2
SYMATTR Value 2N2222
SYMBOL res 336 224 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 100
SYMBOL cap 240 -96 R0
SYMATTR InstName C4
SYMATTR Value 5ľ
SYMBOL res 160 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 68
TEXT -96 -168 Left 2 !.tran 1 startup

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 09:27:26 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <5aed79bd-55d6-472c-b574-f27bdf1f0e51@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 15:22:27 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

Maybe this will be less power hungry for that little 6 volt supply. this example uses no more than 2 ma's over the output, give or take a little..

Not perfect but close enough for a smooth sine ramp output.

Distinctly imperfect. The output at the emitter of Q2 bottoms
on every cycle.

So ? This is to drive something that won't see the flats.. but that can be fixed, even though it isn't required.

The OP has been remarkably unspecific about what he is doing with the output. Claiming that "he won't see the flats" is pure guesswork.

It's easy enough to fix - see below - but the harmonic content is still pretty high. This class of oscillators always gets its amplitude control by clipping at the rails, and this always introduces harmonic content - and fairly high frequency harmonic content at that.

Jesus, it wasn't meant to be perfect, but it's a far better replacement than taking a square wave and trying to get something close to a sine wave...

That depends on the application, about which we know very little. Filtering a square wave does get rid of the higher harmonics very effectively, and at least with a square wave these higher harmonics are well-defined.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 11:43:25 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <56144bc9-c493-4500-8cee-20e2ca663061@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 09:27:26 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
In article <5aed79bd-55d6-472c-b574-f27bdf1f0e51@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 15:22:27 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

Maybe this will be less power hungry for that little 6 volt supply. this example uses no more than 2 ma's over the output, give or take a little.

Not perfect but close enough for a smooth sine ramp output.

Distinctly imperfect. The output at the emitter of Q2 bottoms on every cycle.

So ? This is to drive something that won't see the flats.. but that can be fixed, even though it isn't required.

The OP has been remarkably unspecific about what he is doing with the output. Claiming that "he won't see the flats" is pure guesswork.

It's easy enough to fix - see below - but the harmonic content is still pretty high. This class of oscillators always gets its amplitude control by clipping at the rails, and this always introduces harmonic content - and fairly high frequency harmonic content at that.

Jesus, it wasn't meant to be perfect, but it's a far better replacement than taking a square wave and trying to get something close to a sine wave..

That depends on the application, about which we know very little. Filtering a square wave does get rid of the higher harmonics very effectively, and at least with a square wave these higher harmonics are well-defined.

<snipped unnecessary suggestion>

> All you do is find fault, and I happen to know more about what the op is doing than you do.

How? Your fabled intuition, which can't even detect when your output is hitting the rail? Didn't you look at that output from your simulation?

<snipped unecessary suggestion>

> At least I can come up with something usable, unlike that oscillator you keep boasting about. How's that piece of shit of doing lately?

It's doing nothing, in the absence of anybody who can see a use for it. The market for really low distortion sine wave oscillators is limited, and adding the feature that you can lock the frequency to an external reference hasn't made it any bigger.

As for you coming up with something useable - dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <5aed79bd-55d6-472c-b574-f27bdf1f0e51@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 15:22:27 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
Maybe this will be less power hungry for that little 6 volt supply. this example uses no more than 2 ma's over the output, give or take a little.

Not perfect but close enough for a smooth sine ramp output.

Distinctly imperfect. The output at the emitter of Q2 bottoms
on every cycle.

So ? This is to drive something that won't see the flats.. but that
can be fixed, even though it isn't required.

It's easy enough to fix - see below - but the harmonic content
is still pretty high. This class of oscillators always gets its
amplitude control by clipping at the rails, and this always
introduces harmonic content - and fairly high frequency harmonic
content at that.

Jesus, it wasn't meant to be perfect, but it's a far better
replacement than taking a square wave and trying to get something
close to a sine wave..

Jamie

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <56144bc9-c493-4500-8cee-20e2ca663061@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 09:27:26 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
In article <5aed79bd-55d6-472c-b574-f27bdf1f0e51@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 15:22:27 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

Maybe this will be less power hungry for that little 6 volt supply. this example uses no more than 2 ma's over the output, give or take a little.

Not perfect but close enough for a smooth sine ramp output.

Distinctly imperfect. The output at the emitter of Q2 bottoms
on every cycle.

So ? This is to drive something that won't see the flats.. but that can be fixed, even though it isn't required.

The OP has been remarkably unspecific about what he is doing with the output. Claiming that "he won't see the flats" is pure guesswork.

It's easy enough to fix - see below - but the harmonic content is still pretty high. This class of oscillators always gets its amplitude control by clipping at the rails, and this always introduces harmonic content - and fairly high frequency harmonic content at that.

Jesus, it wasn't meant to be perfect, but it's a far better replacement than taking a square wave and trying to get something close to a sine wave..

That depends on the application, about which we know very little. Filtering a square wave does get rid of the higher harmonics very effectively, and at least with a square wave these higher harmonics are well-defined.

Why don't you go jack off somewhere if you can even get it up any more,
or ever did.

All you do is find fault, and I happen to know more about what the op
is doing than you do.

So poke a finger in a dike somewhere will you please!

At least I can come up with something usable, unlike that oscillator
you keep boasting about. How's that piece of shit of doing lately?
Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 14:00:11 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <2421137f-4e31-4cbd-bd9d-ff683224dce8@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

As for you coming up with something useable - dream on.

Like you and your OSC.,.. useless..

Nothing is useful until it finds an application.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <2421137f-4e31-4cbd-bd9d-ff683224dce8@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

As for you coming up with something useable - dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Like you and your OSC.,.. useless..

Jamie