Driver to drive?

sir i am designing a circuit for wireless transfer of energy, i need to design the circuit on pspice , but the problem is i can't find transistor bd139 in pspice library, can u tell me an equivalent transistor which is available in library or how to download a new library..
i shall b highly thankful to you
thanks

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <33543721-add3-4d80-9efd-9d34dafb25de@googlegroups.com>,
prishu21feb@gmail.com says...

sir i am designing a circuit for wireless transfer of energy, i need to design the circuit on pspice , but the problem is i can't find transistor bd139 in pspice library, can u tell me an equivalent transistor which is available in library or how to download a new library..
i shall b highly thankful to you
thanks

http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/search.do?query=BD139
&basic=yes&param1=type&param1_val=document

You need to try harder than that!

Jamie

 

On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:03:29 PM UTC-4, Robert Wade wrote:

OK. I am still looking for closure on this question, and have

attempted to word it correctly this time.



When a 900MHz signal passes through a container of salt water the

wavelength changes from about 33.3cm to 23.8cm.



This figure is derived by dividing the wavelength by the refractive

index of salt water which is 1.4.



Is this correct?



Let's say the container is a 23.8cm diameter sphere. At what

wavelength would the contained salt water resonate, assuming the same

900MHz signal.



Thank you for your patience.



Robert Wade

From good old electromagnetism and optics,
the refractive index of water depends on
its molecular properties, and as light is
a form of electromagnetic radiation, its
velocity is affected when it enters water.
So, wavelength of light changes in water
but is frequency remains unaltered, so
light slows down in water. As salt water
is an ionic fluid(as compared to sweet
water) the effect is more. The question
with regard making salt water resonate
is not clear. Specifically, what would
you expect to see if the water goes
into resonance ? As an analogy, please
consider what happens in a microwave
oven - microwaves(electromagnetic
radiation) excite the water molecules
in food, which in turn return to their
ground state(quantum mechanics) by
releasing energy absorbed from the
microwaves to the surrounding food
molecules -- food is cooked. So if
you aim to heat the salt water, the
mechanism already exists. Hope that
helps.

 

[Robert Baer]

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

The variance in refractive indeces is what makes color corrected lenses possible.

Wwhere di you get a figure for the refractive index at 90 mHz ? Refractive inceces are given for things that are to pass light, evren UV or IR, but llight.

No material is going to act the same at 900 mHz as at Angstroms and shit. Ain't happenin.

Are you trying to make some kind of focusable UHF transmitter or someting ? That might be illegal. If so, count me in.
Again SPELLING; also quote correctly, 90 DOES NOT EQUAL 900

 

[Martin Brown]

On 14/10/2014 23:46, Mike Perkins wrote:

On 14/10/2014 23:03, Robert Wade wrote:

OK. I am still looking for closure on this question, and have
attempted to word it correctly this time.

When a 900MHz signal passes through a container of salt water the
wavelength changes from about 33.3cm to 23.8cm.

This figure is derived by dividing the wavelength by the refractive
index of salt water which is 1.4.

Is this correct?

Let's say the container is a 23.8cm diameter sphere. At what
wavelength would the contained salt water resonate, assuming the same
900MHz signal.

Thank you for your patience.

The refractive of salt water at 900MHz is not going to be 1.4.

It will be a complex value from having a substantial loss component.

The extent of the losses dependent on the concentration of the brine.

If you were considering an acrylic ball, then I'm sure you can find
figures for its dielectric properties, but I doubt you would get much
"resonance".

There would be a bit as the impedance mismatch at the surface would tend
to reflect a standing wave back across the interior, but I think you
would be wiser to make the sphere effective lambda/2 across. There will
certainly be some geometry fudge factors for the object being of the
same order as the wavelength and spherical. It is not for nothing that
undergraduates do the maths for particle in a square box first.

The OP might find it useful to read Agilents presentation on dielectric
spectroscopy so that he has some idea about how the dielectric constant
of water with and without salt actually varies with frequency.

http://www.keysight.com/upload/cmc_upload/All/MWDielectricSpectroscopyWS.pdf?&cc=GB&lc=eng

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:59:22 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 10/14/2014 5:03 PM, Robert Wade wrote:

OK. I am still looking for closure on this question, and have
attempted to word it correctly this time.

When a 900MHz signal passes through a container of salt water the
wavelength changes from about 33.3cm to 23.8cm.

This figure is derived by dividing the wavelength by the refractive
index of salt water which is 1.4.

Is this correct?

Let's say the container is a 23.8cm diameter sphere. At what
wavelength would the contained salt water resonate, assuming the same
900MHz signal.

Thank you for your patience.

Robert Wade


As you were informed in your last thread, the velocity factor in water
is V = 1/sqrt(Er) where V is the relative velocity (velocity factor) and
Er is the effective relative permeability (dielectric constant), which
for salt water is about 81. This results in a V of 1/9. The wavelength
now becomes 33.3/9cm. That is, about 3.7cm.

The resonance of a sphere of salt water is something I can't help you with.

Spherical cavity resonators exist, they were used in the microwave
feed for the LEP collider at CERN (LHCs precursor). So there should be
data for them somewhere.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:03:29 PM UTC-7, Robert Wade wrote:

When a 900MHz signal passes through a container of salt water the
wavelength changes from about 33.3cm to 23.8cm.

This figure is derived by dividing the wavelength by the refractive
index of salt water which is 1.4.

The refractive index will depend on frequency, of course.

Let's say the container is a 23.8cm diameter sphere. At what
wavelength would the contained salt water resonate, assuming the same
900MHz signal.

Salt water is conductive, so there's a LOT of damping, and it's unlikely you
can use any resonance that may occur. Computing the resonance is
a boundary-value problem in differential equations, so you need to know
if the boundary is metal, or air (like, a salt-water balloon, you can
ignore the small thickness of latex rubber). Then, you pull out a book
on wave physics...

_Methods of Theoretical Physics_, Morse & Feshbach (especially chapter 11)

and look at the roots of spherical Bessel functions (that's where resonances occur)
1.0, 1.4303, 1.8346, 2, 2.2243...
are the roots that apply to a metal sphere enclosure with a small hole to
inject power (a Helmholtz sphere).
That corresponds to resonances at wave-length-in-medium of

lambda = pi * R, pi * R/1.4303, pi * R/1.8346...

Now,comes the tricky part. Some of those resonances mightn't couple at
all to an RF input, depending on things like polarization.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:03:29 PM UTC-7, Robert Wade wrote:

When a 900MHz signal passes through a container of salt water the
wavelength changes from about 33.3cm to 23.8cm.

This figure is derived by dividing the wavelength by the refractive
index of salt water which is 1.4.

The refractive index will depend on frequency, of course.

Let's say the container is a 23.8cm diameter sphere. At what
wavelength would the contained salt water resonate, assuming the same
900MHz signal.

Salt water is conductive, so there's a LOT of damping, and it's unlikely you
can use any resonance that may occur. Computing the resonance is
a boundary-value problem in differential equations, so you need to know
if the boundary is metal, or air (like, a salt-water balloon, you can
ignore the small thickness of latex rubber). Then, you pull out a book
on wave physics...

_Methods of Theoretical Physics_, Morse & Feshbach (especially chapter 11)

and look at the roots of spherical Bessel functions (that's where resonances occur)
1.0, 1.4303, 1.8346, 2, 2.2243...
are the roots of j_n(pi*x) that apply to a metal sphere enclosure with a small hole to
inject power (a Helmholtz sphere).
That corresponds to resonances at wave-length-in-medium of

lambda = 2 * R, 2 * R/1.4303, 2 * R/1.8346...

Now,comes the tricky part. Some of those resonances mightn't couple at
all to an RF input, depending on things like polarization.

[ignore previous post, I mixed up the constants]

 

[rickman]

On 10/15/2014 3:56 AM, Robert Baer wrote:

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
The variance in refractive indeces is what makes color corrected
lenses possible.

Wwhere di you get a figure for the refractive index at 90 mHz ?
Refractive inceces are given for things that are to pass light, evren
UV or IR, but llight.

No material is going to act the same at 900 mHz as at Angstroms and
shit. Ain't happenin.

Are you trying to make some kind of focusable UHF transmitter or
someting ? That might be illegal. If so, count me in.
Again SPELLING; also quote correctly, 90 DOES NOT EQUAL 900

You are nitpicking and didn't pick up on the fact that he wrote 900
*millihertz* rather than 90 MHz?

--

Rick

 

[Anand P. Paralkar]

On 19-09-2014 10:06, Chris Jones wrote:

On 19/09/2014 14:20, Anand P. Paralkar wrote:
Hello everyone,

Has anybody read the book "Introduction to Semiconductor Devices" by
Robert J. Widlar (Bob Widlar)?

I am enthused by the comments about this book by Bo Lojek, (author of
History of Semiconductor Engineering) that:

"he was more artist than an engineer ..." and more importantly,

"The very first Widlar publication was a crispy clear textbook
"Introduction to Semiconductor Devices" (Fig 8.9). When reading this
text, I realized why Bob Widlar was so successful in his future work. He
had an extraordinary capability to simplify complex problems."

Would like to know your opinion about this book and ANY INFORMATION
WHERE I CAN BUY THIS BOOK. (No amount of Googling shows where this book
is available. No reviews or previews available.)

Regards,
Anand

Is this what you are after?
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2014/05/102718662-05-01.acc.pdf

Thank you Chris Jones and miso@sushi.com! Thanks a tonne!! Didn't know
one has to look there.

Regards,
Anand

 

On Friday, October 22, 1999 10:00:00 AM UTC+3, Terry Pinnell wrote:

"Richard Leblanc" <richard.leblanc@sympatico.ca> wrote:

Has anyone seen where I could find a SPICE model for a voltage regulator
such as 78L05, 78L12, LM317, etc...

Here's a paste from my CircuitMaker Pro, for
78L05 x5V 100mA Voltage Regulator pkg:TO-92 3,2,1:

Terry
=================================

*5V 100mA Voltage Regulator pkg:TO-92 3,2,1
.SUBCKT X78L05 1 2 3
Q1 5 5 1 QPNP
Q2 10 5 1 QPNP
Q3 1 11 12 QNPN
Q4 1 10 11 QNPN
Q5 10 13 14 QNPN
Q6 1 4 20 QNPN
Q7 10 19 21 QNPN
Q8 9 9 2 QNPN
Q9 18 9 22 QNPN OFF
Q10 8 18 2 QNPN
Q11 5 7 17 QNPN
Q12 5 16 17 QNPN
Q13 10 15 17 QNPN
C1 15 10 20E-12
D1 2 4 DZ5V
Q14 2 8 7 QPNP
R17 2 17 4E3
R16 4 1 20E3
R15 16 20 4E3
R14 19 16 700
R13 2 19 300
R12 2 21 100
R11 9 7 1E3
R10 18 7 10E3
R9 7 3 2.2E3
R8 2 22 1E3
R7 8 7 2E3
R6 2 15 1.4E3
R5 15 3 4.5E3
R4 3 14 100
R3 3 12 2
R2 13 11 500
R1 13 12 200

.MODEL QPNP PNP(IS=1.05E-15 BF=220 VAF=240 IKF=0.1 ISE=1.003E-9
+ NE=4 ISC=1.003E-9 NC=4 RB=3 RE=0.5 RC=0.2 CJE=5.7E-12 VJE=0.75
TF=3.35E-10
+ CJC=4.32E-12 VJC=0.75 TR=1.7E-7 VJS=0.75 KF=4E-15 )

.MODEL QNPN NPN(IS=8.11E-14 BF=205 VAF=113 IKF=0.5 ISE=1.06E-11
+ NE=2 BR=4 VAR=24 IKR=0.225 RB=1.37 RE=0.343 RC=0.137 CJE=2.95E-11
+ TF=3.97E-10 CJC=1.52E-11 TR=8.5E-8 XTB=1.5 )

.MODEL DZ5V D(IS=1E-11 RS=7.708 N=1.27 TT=5E-8 CJO=4.068E-10 VJ=0.75
+ M=0.33 BV=4.946 IBV=0.01 )
.ENDS X78L05

I have just tried that model on my Multisim 12.0.1 and it works !! Thanks

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 18 October 2014 16:45:03 UTC+11, isoc...@gmail.com wrote:

<snipped more or less sensible - if pointless - history of the development of the idea of quantised energy levels>

Best wishes.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Two questions. What do you think you are trying to tell us?
Why did you bother posting it here?

It's not obviously cross-posted, though it reads as if was
primarily intended for a physics group.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Robert Wade]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:52:27 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

Let's say the container is a 23.8cm diameter sphere. At what
wavelength would the contained salt water resonate, assuming the same
900MHz signal.

Salt water is conductive, so there's a LOT of damping, and it's unlikely you
can use any resonance that may occur. Computing the resonance is
a boundary-value problem in differential equations, so you need to know
if the boundary is metal, or air (like, a salt-water balloon, you can
ignore the small thickness of latex rubber). Then, you pull out a book
on wave physics...

_Methods of Theoretical Physics_, Morse & Feshbach (especially chapter 11)

and look at the roots of spherical Bessel functions (that's where resonances occur)
1.0, 1.4303, 1.8346, 2, 2.2243...
are the roots of j_n(pi*x) that apply to a metal sphere enclosure with a small hole to
inject power (a Helmholtz sphere).
That corresponds to resonances at wave-length-in-medium of

lambda = 2 * R, 2 * R/1.4303, 2 * R/1.8346...

Thank you for your explanation. I also found this book helpful.

"Practical Electromagnetics: From Biomedical Sciences to Wireless
Communication"

The reelvant part can be read on Google Books beginning page 267.

Robert Wade

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 19 October 2014 11:40:50 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <2150b1c4-2350-48e5-93b9-b90b336a0424@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 16:45:03 UTC+11, isoc...@gmail.com wrote:

snipped more or less sensible - if pointless - history of the development of the idea of quantised energy levels.

Two questions. What do you think you are trying to tell us?
Why did you bother posting it here?

It's not obviously cross-posted, though it reads as if was
primarily intended for a physics group.

It got your attention!

But then again, I can't say if that is a valid indicator.

With your reading comprehension issues, that goes without saying.
So why did you say it?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <2150b1c4-2350-48e5-93b9-b90b336a0424@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Saturday, 18 October 2014 16:45:03 UTC+11, isoc...@gmail.com wrote:

snipped more or less sensible - if pointless - history of the development of the idea of quantised energy levels

Best wishes.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Two questions. What do you think you are trying to tell us?
Why did you bother posting it here?

It's not obviously cross-posted, though it reads as if was
primarily intended for a physics group.

It got your attention!

But then again, I can't say if that is a valid indicator.

Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 20 October 2014 07:48:17 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <9335332e-a2ff-4f2b-a6cd-8bc62773221f@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Sunday, 19 October 2014 11:40:50 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.
wrote:
In article <2150b1c4-2350-48e5-93b9-b90b336a0424@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 16:45:03 UTC+11, isoc...@gmail.com wrote:


snipped more or less sensible - if pointless - history of the development of the idea of quantised energy levels.

Two questions. What do you think you are trying to tell us?
Why did you bother posting it here?

It's not obviously cross-posted, though it reads as if was
primarily intended for a physics group.

It got your attention!

But then again, I can't say if that is a valid indicator.

With your reading comprehension issues, that goes without saying.
So why did you say it?

Just to irritate you.

Since I take a certain malicious pleasure in reminding the rest of the group of your cognitive defects, providing me with a legitimate excuse to do so more or less compensates for the irritation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 20 October 2014 10:19:31 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:

In article <8210094f-a074-4c49-b193-bab343105854@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Monday, 20 October 2014 07:48:17 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.
wrote:
In article <9335332e-a2ff-4f2b-a6cd-8bc62773221f@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Sunday, 19 October 2014 11:40:50 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.
wrote:
In article <2150b1c4-2350-48e5-93b9-b90b336a0424@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 16:45:03 UTC+11, isoc...@gmail.com wrote:

snipped more or less sensible - if pointless - history of the development of the idea of quantised energy levels.

Two questions. What do you think you are trying to tell us?
Why did you bother posting it here?

It's not obviously cross-posted, though it reads as if was
primarily intended for a physics group.

It got your attention!

But then again, I can't say if that is a valid indicator.

With your reading comprehension issues, that goes without saying.
So why did you say it?

Just to irritate you.

Since I take a certain malicious pleasure in reminding the rest of the group of your cognitive defects, providing me with a legitimate excuse to do so more or less compensates for the irritation.

I am just getting started..

And will soon fall flat on your face ... as usual.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <9335332e-a2ff-4f2b-a6cd-8bc62773221f@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Sunday, 19 October 2014 11:40:50 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
In article <2150b1c4-2350-48e5-93b9-b90b336a0424@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 16:45:03 UTC+11, isoc...@gmail.com wrote:

snipped more or less sensible - if pointless - history of the development of the idea of quantised energy levels.

Two questions. What do you think you are trying to tell us?
Why did you bother posting it here?

It's not obviously cross-posted, though it reads as if was
primarily intended for a physics group.

It got your attention!

But then again, I can't say if that is a valid indicator.

With your reading comprehension issues, that goes without saying.
So why did you say it?

Just to irritate you.

Jamie

 

[Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.]

In article <8210094f-a074-4c49-b193-bab343105854@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Monday, 20 October 2014 07:48:17 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
In article <9335332e-a2ff-4f2b-a6cd-8bc62773221f@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Sunday, 19 October 2014 11:40:50 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.
wrote:
In article <2150b1c4-2350-48e5-93b9-b90b336a0424@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 16:45:03 UTC+11, isoc...@gmail.com wrote:


snipped more or less sensible - if pointless - history of the development of the idea of quantised energy levels.

Two questions. What do you think you are trying to tell us?
Why did you bother posting it here?

It's not obviously cross-posted, though it reads as if was
primarily intended for a physics group.

It got your attention!

But then again, I can't say if that is a valid indicator.

With your reading comprehension issues, that goes without saying.
So why did you say it?

Just to irritate you.

Since I take a certain malicious pleasure in reminding the rest of the group of your cognitive defects, providing me with a legitimate excuse to do so more or less compensates for the irritation.

I am just getting started..

Jamie

 

Hi Mr B1ack,

I am suffering the same pain as you did a few months ago. I could not agree more with you. Would you care for sharing the design you made using the UC3906N?

Regards, MP