Driver to drive?

[Mike Monett]

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jon Slaughter wrote:

[...]

FS---FDD8424H---Dual N & P Channel half-bridge 40V@20A 54mOhm.pdf

Thanks, Jon. Although they conduct already quite well between 2-3V
Vgs so there'll still be considerable cross conduction. I am
operating at 12V. Maybe I'll place zeners in the gate drive to
burn off some drive level.

You could also put a small inductor in the positive leg to limit the
max current while both FETs are on.

Say the cross conduction current was a rectangular pulse, and you
wanted to limit the current spike to 1A from your 12V supply. If the
conduction overlap was 40ns, a rough calculation give an inductance
of

L = E * dt / di
= 12 * 40e-9 / 1
= 480nH

If you knew the actual pulse shape, a simulation in LTspice would
give a more accurate value. But it would be lower than the above
calculation.

A value this small would have little or no effect on the operation
at 100KHz. But limiting the current spike would greatly reduce EMI
to the rest of the circuit.

Best Regards,

Mike Monett

 

[Kris Krieger]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:8707f751-0da7-4d32-9b33-d5fe0aa2e1e8@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 21, 2:42 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote in news:1b32a290-b3da-4da4-9a39-
8cfb9aa37...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 21, 7:55 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[snip]

If everyone abstained before marriage, and was monogamous after, as
the Pope recommends, there would be no AIDS.

And if wishes were horses beggars would ride. Abstinence and fidelity
don't seem to be accessible to a significant proportion of the
population, and they are the people who spread AIDS.

In all fairness, JL merely pointed out that "If X, then Y".    

Impracticable advice is bad advice.

sigh

Did I say it was the end-all and be-all of human behavior? No. I merely
said that, as a simple statement of probability, it's reasonably accurate.

I did not say it's an adequate basis for social behaviors or rules or
anyhting; I've never been a proponent of strict religious law precisely
becasue it *doesn't* allow for common human behaviors. I'm not making a
judgement about the behaviors, or even about the religion.

Don't read more into it than was there.

The main point of contention IMO is "as the Pope recommends", becasue
teh fact is that *most* Eurasian cultures tend to frown upon premarital
and extramarital sex.  (I don't know enough about early Native American
culture to make any intelligent statement about them, so I won't.)  The
only
cultures I know of which are fairly casual re: sex are a few
Polynesian- based island cultures that were isolated from Eurasia and
therefore had n
o
exposure to, hence no experience with, Eurasian diseases, or IIRC even
lice, until the Europeans brought them.

And even that opinion probably relies on what Margaret Mead was told
by a bunch of mischievious adolescents.

What "opinion"? Do you think I'm just making everything up out of the
blue? Are you so upset merly becasue I said that, on the surface of it,
a couple of JL's obervations are probably correct, that you're now
accusing me of merely inventing things?

I use hedge words when I don't know all the facts, I specify gaps in my
knoweldge, and I say "IMO" when something is largely just my opinion. SO
I hope you are not implying that I'm merley making stuff up, merely
because I said that I think one little statement seems to be accurate.

 I can't recall the refernces now,
but these Eurasian diseases evolved as humans began domesticating
animals
,
and increasing numbers of humans and animals were living in very close
proximity.  (The reason that new flu strains so often erupt in China is
due
to the degree to which the Chinese peasantry still live in intimate
proximity with domesticated fowl.  Look it up if you doubt me.)  

I don't doubt you, though you left out the proximity to domesticated
pigs - the "Spanish" flu of 1918 had also adapted to pigs on its way
to learning how to infect humans.

Yes, I did not to mention pigs. I kind of assumed that people watched the
news as the recent Avian FLu broke out, and already know the process...

So, rather than only stating "the Pope", John should have said "most
leaders of religions which have their roots in Eurasia".

Except that the Pope is prety much unique in proscibing access to
mechanical precautions for those who can't manage abstinence and
fidelity.

I am not absolutely certain that he is unique in that, therefore, I did
not state such uniqueness. I still am not absolutely certain that he is
thusly unique, so I still am not goign to state it. And it wasn't the
point I was trying to make.

The error most peopel make today is in assuming that, simply becasue
ancient people had no cell phones or cars, they were stupid.  They
weren't, and probably had to be much smarter to survive than do today's
coddled masses. So no, they did not know what 'vibrio cholerae' was,
but they could certainly observe that someone ate oysters ro clams, and
developed a lethal case of the shits - *and* they could observe that
there was no way to tell *which* shellfish were deadly (becuase tehre
is no way to visually discern which are or are nto infected).  So,
being smart, they said, "Hell, *I'* not gonna eat that stuff, and
neither is my family!"

THings such as the laws about what can be planted, and when, and wher,
were rooted in observation; laws about not eating meat with dairy were
to pervent waste in an unforgiving environment; laws re: what to use
for weaving cloth could have ben related to observing what made
forstronger cloth versus weaker cloth.  

Same goes for sex.  Even aside from issues of human jealousy and questi
ons
of who will suport kids (i.e. paternity questions), the same principles
o
f
observation applied to the spread of STDs.

THe problem is that cause-and-effect are not always observable, leading
t
o
errors in discerning what causes something.  So, if someone spat over h
is
left shoulder during a hunt, and then narrowly missed getting gored by
a wild boar, he might decide that he escaped harm becaus ehe spit over
his left shoulder.  That is part of the cause behind religious errors.

Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

That probably needs to be put the other way around; the religions
that had adopted sexuall restrictive rules prospered because fewer of
their followers suffered from sexually transmitted diseases;
evolution dictated which religions were successful rather than the
rules that they adopted.

Sorry, but that's simply not the generally-accepted thesis.  Observatio
n of
effect, followed by a "don't do that, it's dangerous" rule also just
make
s
a lot more sense.  

John is right on this one.

He's not. Religious rules don't evolve separately. Each religion comes
with its own packet of rules - some useful and some nuts - and you
can't pick and choose the ones you are going to follow.

Uh, this stuff goes back a couple thousand years before religion as we
know it developed. I'm talking about the development of ruels from
observations, and how those rules become incorporated into religion.

WHat happened after the formation of recognizably-modern religion is a
differnt matter.

The only way a particular packet of rules is going to come to dominate
a society is by demonstating superior evolutionary fitness; the group
that follows the best set of rules becomes more numerous, richer and
more powerful than the groups that have been stuck with less
satisfactory sets of rules by their founders

"Evolutionary fitness"? observation-based health laws weren't a byproduct
of religion, but the other way around. It's not the case that someone
invents a belief system, and then looks around for events that fit into it
- as humans developed mentally, they developed spiritual ideas that
eventually developed into religions (meaning, rules regarding rituals and
behaviors and integrated into a sandardized definition of teh non-physical
world/universe). It's similar to how seomthing someone did might become a
story, that's embellished with each retelling until it becomes Mythology.

The power of a religion lies in how many followers it can gain. Some of
that numberical increase is due to birth rates, but aeven abrief glance at
Christianity shows birth rate was insignificant compared with conversions
and, later on, conquest. Given that Christians dispensed with most Jewish
cleanliness laws, if a religion's spread was related to "evolutionary
fitness", Judaism ought to be far more dominant than Christianity. It
isn't, and history, plus a comparison of the relative degree of
evangelistic tenets in Christianity versus Judaism, explain the reasons
for that. And related to evangalism is the fact that Christianity, far
more than any previous religion, specifically addressed the "average joes"
and, more importantly, the poor and the enslaved, and in addition even to
that, also incorporated various rituals and symbols from the poeples being
converted - that's how we got Christmas trees, teh Easter Bunny, and
various otehr symbologies - the early Evangelists were very clever when ti
came to putting a Christian interpretation on a people's perexisting pagan
symbols and rituals, which lent even more authority to Christianity but
"showing" that it had presaged even those symbols/rituals. Prior to that,
spreading a religion was merely a matter of conquest, which inevitably
failed as conquest breeds resentment. Christianity's incorporation of
many existing festivals/symbols sidestepped that resentment, thereby
gaining converts at a tremendous rate.

Sex/drugs/rock-and-roll spread sixty or so nasty viruses and at
least a dozen unpleasant bacteria, all of which are working on their
drug resistance.

Rest and recreation - in the military sense - does just as well.
Check out the epidemiological consequences of the US tropps onrest
and recreation in Australia during the Vietnam war.

Same difference.  Casual intimate physical contact is risky.   [snipped
due to bad wrapping] I've never been, and never will be, much of a
proponent of casual sex, for the same reason that I'm not a proponent
of sticking one's hand into the garbage disposal and turning it on.


Neither am I, and I'm not inclined to go in for risk-taking behaviour.
Plenty of people are. The Pope's attitude is that allowing access to
devices that make risk-taking behaviour less dangerous is condonimg
immorality, which is not a useful attitude.

Don't imply I think his absolutist strictures make sense, because that
goes against everything I've ever written, and against my personal
beliefs, and against my understanding of psychology/socieology/human
nature.

My *only* point was that certain behaviors were observed to be risky, then
rules/laws were developed (by people who did not modern sceintific methods
at heir disposal) to try to avoid those observed risks, and rules/laws
became integrated into religions.

Do not imply that I think, or believe, or have ever said - or even
*hinted* - that I think it's in any way "good" or "smart" to try to ban
birth control, because that is not the truth, or even close to it.

I was raised Catholic, and I've done some studying re: the Church, sex,
and the methods used by Power Hierarchies to control people and accumulate
wealth. It's one thing to say "if people don't do X, Y will probably not
happen", but a vastly different thing to imply that such a statement
equates to "everyone can, should, and must do X".

As a general rule, the church is more interested in appearing to be
moral than it is in the interests of its parishioners.

Which is precisely why I am no longer a Catholic.

But the facts remain - risky behavior is just that, risky. Do/Will people
engage in risky behavior? Yes. Which is a very good reason to have
separation of Church and State - a religion might consider risky sex as a
"sin", but the law looks at who was harmed - if the behavior did not harm
another or cause another to lose property, then the law metes out no
punishment and leaves the matter of "sin" as being between the individual
and their own soul.

At the same time, if an individual does choose to live his individual life
in accordance with the Pope's strictures, that is their choice, and I do
not condemn people for that choice - many of them are very decent poeple.
I know some Catholics, and most do question some things, and don't merely
hate or condemn people regardless of Catholicism's stated
prejudices/condemnations. The only thing I condemn, althou a mroe
accurate word woudl be "reject", is Person A trying to force Person B to
live in accordance with A's religious beliefs.

(Ethics is a different matter - ethical principles are nto the same thign
as religious tenets; the two can and do exist independently. Btu that's a
different matter.)

There's a fascinating correspondence on record from the 13th century
between the Vatican and the congregation of Zurich. The congregation
wanted their priest to have a concubine (to distract him from their
wives and daughters) while the Vatican wouldn't hear of it.

This pretty much parallels the attitude on display in the current
church when it comes to dealing with sexually predatory priests, where
the emphasis has been on keeping the scandal out of the public eye,
rather than on protecting the parishioners from the offenders.

I know. I know what priests did to certain of my family members. I've
seen/experienced *way* more than my fair share of sh*t, and I've seen the
results of verious priests' actions and how those actions were covered up.
I also had my jaw infured when a nun gave me a right cross for being "out
of step" during practice for first communion. I really don't need to
rehash moer church history than I've already done to know that great
hypocrisy has existed and still exists, and that great harm has been done.

But not even that changes the fact the risky behavior is risky. SO
*technically*, yes, it is correct that, if people did not engage in risky
sexual behaviors, remained virgins until marriage and monogamous
thereafter, they'd have an astronimocally high chance of avoiding HIV and
other STDs.

I didn't say I thought that this restrictive view makes any sense given
human psychology and human nature - I merely said that, *technically*, JL
was correct that "if X, then Y". No additional or hidden implications
"between the lines".

HTH

 

[Nico Coesel]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Now, only a little while back I said I never breadboard, I go straight
to pcb.

This one's different though. The client wants to do the layout as part
of a larger scheme and I want to be double sure of stability in practice
as opposed to simulation because if he messes up, I can show mine
working fine.

As I'll be using a 65MHz ? op-amp I don't trust perfboard / Veroboard
for this.

I recall some self adhesive 'pre-etched shapes' that you could stick on
a ground plane. The name Wainwright comes to mind but google isn't
helping much.

Any suggestions ?

In these kind of situations I create a small PCB to test the circuit.

--
Programmeren in Almere?
E-mail naar nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)

 

[hank alrich]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I think that to a large extent the USA is beyond money.

You really think so? Witness:

-----

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Sep 2008 at 07:05:46 PM GMT is:
$ 9 , 6 7 1 , 7 9 0 , 2 9 3 , 0 7 7 . 6 2

The estimated population of the United States is 304,775,541
so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,734.14.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.84 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

-----

If were beyhond money, why do we need to borrow so much money?

Note also that we manufacture not much compared to what we did in the
fairly recent past, and that leads to a tremendous imbalance in our
national trade.

-----

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

-----

We're down about 230 billion $.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:epqfd4phjdfdub0fl69h5c5fov3asjvjp8@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT), Greg Thomas
gjthomas@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Sep 21, 8:22 pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:

Face it, trickle-down economics doesn't
work, because the rich don't always re-invest in
new businesses. Often they just keep the money
in a bank.


Or under their mattress.

How do you keep $30 billion under a matress?

by the time you have 30 billion you will know

George

 

[amdx]

"Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote in
message newsan.2008.09.20.23.30.34.808818@doubleclick.net...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:36:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q&feature=related

Having the pervy kind of mind I do, I read that as nipple rings
initially.

Do dolphins have nipples ? They are mammals after all.


Yeah, they just don't stick out like human ones do.
You'd have known this if you'd done a google on "dolphin breasts",
but that's not any fun, right? ;-)

I find this somewhat remarkable:
http://elephantreintroduction.blogspot.com/2006/08/elephant-breasts.html

Grama, is that you?

Mike

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:i90gd41d5t28322fvvnga7o8if3oafh3l7@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:14:52 -0700, walkinay@nv.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I think that to a large extent the USA is beyond money.

You really think so? Witness:

-----

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Sep 2008 at 07:05:46 PM GMT is:
$ 9 , 6 7 1 , 7 9 0 , 2 9 3 , 0 7 7 . 6 2

The estimated population of the United States is 304,775,541
so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,734.14.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.84 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

-----

If were beyhond money, why do we need to borrow so much money?

Note also that we manufacture not much compared to what we did in the
fairly recent past, and that leads to a tremendous imbalance in our
national trade.

-----

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

-----

We're down about 230 billion $.


The US per-capita public debt is lower than a lot of European
countries, and well below Japan's.

so fucking what? do you think I care that the guy next door has 20,000$ in
auto loans, no I care about what I owe

And governments never pay back national debts anyhow.

Of course they don't Government don't have any money

the TAXPAYERS have all the money and if a debt is going to be repaid guess
who pocket the money comes from
that's right, mine and yours.
and if we spend money on wars we don't have those dollars to spend doing
something useful
George

 

[George's ProSound Company]

Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.

this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read
Mints stop issueing money along time ago
now they issue IOU's that people , in good times, accept as money, in tough
times they head for the GOLD
but the USA does not back it's IOU's with gold, haven't done so in decades,
in effect the "money" is only as good as the taxpayers willingness to send
thier taxes in for redistribution by thier government

george

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:kicgd4dskm6at0dthidbaaqmosrhd43jot@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:56:00 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote:



Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.

this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read

What, they don't have mints? They can't print money?


no they do not

they issue currency


but for people at your level of education I guess "printing money" is as
close as you'll get to this concept

 

[Geezer]

Any GUITAR discussion out there???


Geezer

 

[George's ProSound Company]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:jjegd4dvbhe2iomfsk4pmnupisu0t9qm3k@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:22:40 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:kicgd4dskm6at0dthidbaaqmosrhd43jot@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:56:00 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote:



Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.

this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read

What, they don't have mints? They can't print money?


no they do not
they issue currency

Currency isn't money?



but for people at your level of education I guess "printing money" is as
close as you'll get to this concept


BSEE, Tulane University. That included some economics. And you?

John

Multi Millionaire
and you?

 

[Steve Hawkins]

"Geezer" <geezer51@somewhere.net> wrote in news:gb9dm3$kuq$1@aioe.org:

Any GUITAR discussion out there???


Geezer

I practiced for about two hours today.

Steve Hawkins

 

[Geezer]

"Steve Hawkins" <res0pf02@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:Xns9B21B6FC7186Ares0pf02verizonnet@199.45.49.11...

"Geezer" <geezer51@somewhere.net> wrote in news:gb9dm3$kuq$1@aioe.org:


Any GUITAR discussion out there???


Geezer

I practiced for about two hours today.

Steve Hawkins

GREAT!

NOW we're getting somewhere!

Geezer

 

[Mitch]

"Zeke Skarland" <zekeskar@yahoo.com> wrote....

I'm finding that right wing extremists are so locked into
"my party right or wrong" that they can't admit any mistakes by their
leaders.

I'm finding that right OR left wing extremists are so locked into "my part
right or wrong" that not only can't they admit any mistakes by their
leaders, but they think everyone, everywhere must is a potential target for
conversion to their particular political persuasion.

May some zealous wingnut similarly hammer them in some venue they deem
inappropriate.

M-

 

[Guy Macon]

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Richard Henry wrote:

Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:

mkr5000 wrote:

I have always grounded the shield but to EARTH ground.

I tried that, but the aircraft manufacturer objected to the practice.

Go figure.  

Gas tanker trucks used to drag a chain on the road to limit static
buildup.

That's what I told them! But just *try* to get any major
aircraft manufacturer to install a 50,000 foot long chain.
They won't do it! So how am I supposed to do what mkr5000
says to do and "always ground the shield to EARTH ground?"
Oh well, maybe I will have better luck with a satellite
or space probe manufacturer...


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Larkin"

But they were tough triple-diffused parts. Some other peoples' 3055's,
like the Fairchilds, were epitaxials, very fast but very fragile, and
about half the silicon area.

** Fairchild were making silicon transistors here in Australia in the early
1970s including their "fast" 2N3055. There were also several imported 3055s
around at the time like " Power Physics " which were bog standard spec as
well as the similar Philips type BDY20.

One of my jobs back in 1973 was to "de-bug" kits built by customers of an
electronics parts store and one of the most popular kits was a basic " CDI
Ignition " module based on a magazine article. This consisted of a self
oscillating inverter with two 3055s driving a pot core transformer whose
secondary produced around 300 volts DC after rectification which then
charged a 2 uF Mylar cap. The energy from the cap was periodically dumped
into the ignition coil primary by firing an SCR that simply shorted out the
300 volt rail.

The idea was that self oscillation ( at an audible 5 kHz ) of the 3055s
would automatically cease due to the short on the secondary when the SCR was
triggered and so allow it to commutate off ready for the next triggering.

Unfortunately, the store owner has purchased a large stock of locally made *
Fairchild 2N3055s * and filled the kits with them.Those damn Fairchilds had
enough HF gain to keep on oscillating despite the short ( at about 35 kHz as
seen on a scope ) when the SCR fired, so preventing it turning off.

The 3055s then just sat there in total silence getting hotter and hotter.




....... Phil

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <6ed83b8f-b0d3-483a-9b21-cd9f2bdf6dda@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
James Arthur wrote in part:

I agree the U.S. is getting close to the "Star Trek" society, where
stuff is cheap and everyone has plenty. I thought about this day some
30 years ago and worked out some of the ramifications.

But the main reasons people are poor today are
a) having kids out of wedlock,
b) not finishing high school as a result of a), and
c) getting low-paying jobs as a result of b).

Many people in high poverty neighborhoods are not finishing high school
even if they don't have children to raise - they are single men. They
just don't value education. And in public schools in high poverty black
neighborhoods, a black student that dares to study hard and do well in
school is typically ridiculed and harassed by fellow students for "acting
white".

In high poverty neighborhoods, it is common for many people to not
finish high school due to not valuing education.
They complain how the schools are terrible, but too many kids cut
classes or skip school for the day a lot, and later drop out entirely.
They also have a high rate of not studying at home and not doing their
homework. Their households often have number of books countable on one
hand. The parents often do not teach the children to read but expect
schools to do all of the teaching.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Mike Monett]

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

[...]

A back of the envelope calc showed if I paralleled four and one
would really exhibit the 30nsec worst case delay veer versus the
other three that one would quickly mutate into a puff of smoke.

Phssst. *BANG*

That's exactly what a small inductor in the top FET will prevent.
Check it out. You might be surprised how effective it can be.

You really have to get off this Phssst. *BANG* habit. It makes too
much noise, and everyone gets nervous. Plus it stinks up the place

Best Regards,

Mike Monett

 

[Steve Hawkins]

Ed Maier <evmaiertakethisout@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:Kj8Ck.1328
$YU2.349@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:

(I was bored.)

Ed Maier

heh, heh.....maybe they should card for Dems at the door and expose the
hypocrites.

Steve Hawkins

 

[Mike Monett]

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

I tried the inductor and wasn't too enthused. With a small damper
resistor inparallel it was kind of ok but still cost efficiency. But
it's done, I just lashed up the usual discrete concoction that provides
proper dead time and all that. Now it's moving on to the dreaded
packaging design. As much fun as eating pea soup and I don't like pea
soup. Ok, with some Johnsonville Brats in there I'll eat it.

Joerg, I'm surprised it affected the efficiency enough to make a
difference. Did you simulate it or try it on the bench? And did you use the
smallest inductor needed to limit the current? Did it somehow drastically
increase the turnoff times?

With the FETs that were mentioned, the overlap is only 40 or 50 ns or so.
At 100KHz, it occurs every 5uS. That is only 1% of the duty cycle, so it's
not clear how that can cause a significant loss of efficiency. If you have
the time, I'd like to learn more how you did the test.

Xnews chopped the rest of your post, and I can't figure out how to make it
put it back. So I'll have to trust that most people know you

Best Regards,

Mike Monett