More on dual pulse generator

[Jag Man]

(See thread " Special "dual" pulse generator circuit " and "Porblems with
NTE3083(4N32)" for recent discussion on this
project)

I have now modfied my circuit to trigger the pulse width setting 555s on the
leading edge of
the pulse from the decade counter. See the schematic at:
http://sowell.ecs.fullerton.edu/jag/fuelingsys/tester120404.jpg

The current problem is that at SOME frequencies, as set by the triggering
555 (leftmost
in the diagram), the pulse width of the outputs cannot be set any wider than
the width of the pulse out of the 4017 decade counter. That is, the circuit
is supposed to
allow me to set the output pulse width from something less than 1 ms to 10
or 11 ms
for triggering rates between 45 and 260 Hz coming out of the decade counter.
Sometimes
it works, but at certain freqencies the pulse width is limited to the pulse
width th the
decade counter output pins. For example, if I set the frequency low, e.g.,
50Hz, and then set the
pulse width of the channel 1 output (upper signal flow path in the diagram)
to some
high value, e.g., 10 ms, then slowly increase the frequency the output pulse
width will
decrerease, dropping off to 3.8 ms at 260 Hz. Channel 2 appears to be OK at
low and
high frequencies, but at certain intermediate frequencies the pulse width
does change with
frequency. None of this should happen; the pukse width should be rock solid
as frequency is changed.

I find this very strange, and cannot see why this is happening. I have
looked at the
signals at points all along both paths and things look pretty much as I
would expect.
For example, the the output pulses at the decade counter are correct for
the set frequency, and the triggering pulse at pin 2 of both pulse width
setting
555s is about 0.2 to 0.3 ms. The problem appears at pin 3 of the pulse
width setting 555s. It appears that this voltage is sometimes getting pulled
back to 0
at the end of the decade counter pulse, rather than the time determined by
the
555 RC product.

Any suggestions?

TIA

Ed

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:49:16 GMT, "Jag Man"
<Jag_Man653R-E-MOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:

(See thread " Special "dual" pulse generator circuit " and "Porblems with
NTE3083(4N32)" for recent discussion on this
project)

I have now modfied my circuit to trigger the pulse width setting 555s on the
leading edge of
the pulse from the decade counter. See the schematic at:
http://sowell.ecs.fullerton.edu/jag/fuelingsys/tester120404.jpg

The current problem is that at SOME frequencies, as set by the triggering
555 (leftmost
in the diagram), the pulse width of the outputs cannot be set any wider than
the width of the pulse out of the 4017 decade counter. That is, the circuit
is supposed to
allow me to set the output pulse width from something less than 1 ms to 10
or 11 ms
for triggering rates between 45 and 260 Hz coming out of the decade counter.
Sometimes
it works, but at certain freqencies the pulse width is limited to the pulse
width th the
decade counter output pins. For example, if I set the frequency low, e.g.,
50Hz, and then set the
pulse width of the channel 1 output (upper signal flow path in the diagram)
to some
high value, e.g., 10 ms, then slowly increase the frequency the output pulse
width will
decrerease, dropping off to 3.8 ms at 260 Hz. Channel 2 appears to be OK at
low and
high frequencies, but at certain intermediate frequencies the pulse width
does change with
frequency. None of this should happen; the pukse width should be rock solid
as frequency is changed.

I find this very strange, and cannot see why this is happening. I have
looked at the
signals at points all along both paths and things look pretty much as I
would expect.
For example, the the output pulses at the decade counter are correct for
the set frequency, and the triggering pulse at pin 2 of both pulse width
setting
555s is about 0.2 to 0.3 ms. The problem appears at pin 3 of the pulse
width setting 555s. It appears that this voltage is sometimes getting pulled
back to 0
at the end of the decade counter pulse, rather than the time determined by
the
555 RC product.

Any suggestions?

If you set the output 555s' output pulses to a width which becomes
greater than the time between 4017 pulses when you increase the
frequency of the 555 astable, then you're in trouble!

But... even more importantly, I've gone back to the beginning of this
thread trying to sort out what's been going on, and ISTM that this
whole thing has gotten really seriously out of hand.

If all you really want is two pulses 180° apart with a width you can
vary and which drive optoisolators, all you need is a 7555, two 555's,
two optos and a handful of discretes.

Use the 7555 to get a 50% duty cycle square wave, then invert that
output with a transistor to get another square wave 180° out of phase
with the first one. Differentiate the falling edges of the square
waves and use those edges to drive two 555's. Set the output widths
of those 555's to whatever you want (as long as it's not wider than
the distance between two consecutive triggers at the highest frequency
out of the astable) and use the 555 outputs to drive the optos
DIRECTLY! You've got a hundred milliamperes or so the 555 can source,
so just connect the outputs through suitable current limiting
resistors to the anodes of the opto LEDs, and there ya go!

Do you want a schematic?

--
John Fields

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jag Man wrote:

(See thread " Special "dual" pulse generator circuit " and "Porblems with
NTE3083(4N32)" for recent discussion on this
project)

I have now modfied my circuit to trigger the pulse width setting 555s on the
leading edge of
the pulse from the decade counter. See the schematic at:
http://sowell.ecs.fullerton.edu/jag/fuelingsys/tester120404.jpg

The current problem is that at SOME frequencies, as set by the triggering
555 (leftmost
in the diagram), the pulse width of the outputs cannot be set any wider than
the width of the pulse out of the 4017 decade counter. That is, the circuit
is supposed to
allow me to set the output pulse width from something less than 1 ms to 10
or 11 ms
for triggering rates between 45 and 260 Hz coming out of the decade counter.
Sometimes
it works, but at certain freqencies the pulse width is limited to the pulse
width th the
decade counter output pins. For example, if I set the frequency low, e.g.,
50Hz, and then set the
pulse width of the channel 1 output (upper signal flow path in the diagram)
to some
high value, e.g., 10 ms, then slowly increase the frequency the output pulse
width will
decrerease, dropping off to 3.8 ms at 260 Hz. Channel 2 appears to be OK at
low and
high frequencies, but at certain intermediate frequencies the pulse width
does change with
frequency. None of this should happen; the pukse width should be rock solid
as frequency is changed.

I find this very strange, and cannot see why this is happening. I have
looked at the
signals at points all along both paths and things look pretty much as I
would expect.
For example, the the output pulses at the decade counter are correct for
the set frequency, and the triggering pulse at pin 2 of both pulse width
setting
555s is about 0.2 to 0.3 ms. The problem appears at pin 3 of the pulse
width setting 555s. It appears that this voltage is sometimes getting pulled
back to 0
at the end of the decade counter pulse, rather than the time determined by
the
555 RC product.

Any suggestions?

TIA

Ed

Try decreasing the length of the output pulser by making the cap coming
out of the 4017 smaller, say 62nF. That should decrease the trigger
pulse coming into the 555 to something smaller than the output pulse you
are after. Also, I don't think you need that 5.1k resistor on the output
of the 4017.

Another thing is that the resistor/capacitor you are using for the
timing element in the right most 555s are pretty big. They require the
555 to sink alot of current when the trigger occurs. You could scale
them both down to 100th of their values, and the timing should be OK,
but the 555 will have to sink alot less charge to trigger.

Neither of these may fix the problem, but they may give you more
information about what is happening.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:58:36 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:21:51 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


Use the 7555 to get a 50% duty cycle square wave, then invert that
output with a transistor to get another square wave 180° out of phase
with the first one.

--- _________
Since you don't use the DISCHARGE output when you're running a 50%
duty cycle 7555 astable, you can use it as the inverted version of the
output by pulling it up to Vcc, so it looks like the transistor
inverter can go away as well.

---
No, you can't; they're in phase. Sorry.

--
John Fields

 

[Jag Man]

If you set the output 555s' output pulses to a width which becomes
greater than the time between 4017 pulses when you increase the
frequency of the 555 astable, then you're in trouble!

That can't happen. The capacitor, fixed resistor and pot at the astable 555
have been selected to limit the frequency between about 44 Hz and 270 Hz.
The decade counter outputs are 1/10 of that frequency, 4.4 to 27 Hz.
At 4.4 Hz the period is 227 ms, and at 27 Hz it is 37 ms. The capacitors
and pots on the monostable 555s are selected to limit pulse widths
between about 0.3 ms and 11 ms. Consequently, I should be able to
get the full output pulse width at any allowed frequency. So that's not
the problem.

But... even more importantly, I've gone back to the beginning of this
thread trying to sort out what's been going on, and ISTM that this
whole thing has gotten really seriously out of hand.

If all you really want is two pulses 180° apart with a width you can
vary and which drive optoisolators, all you need is a 7555, two 555's,
two optos and a handful of discretes.

Use the 7555 to get a 50% duty cycle square wave, then invert that
output with a transistor to get another square wave 180° out of phase
with the first one. Differentiate the falling edges of the square
waves and use those edges to drive two 555's. Set the output widths
of those 555's to whatever you want (as long as it's not wider than
the distance between two consecutive triggers at the highest frequency
out of the astable) and use the 555 outputs to drive the optos
DIRECTLY! You've got a hundred milliamperes or so the 555 can source,
so just connect the outputs through suitable current limiting
resistors to the anodes of the opto LEDs, and there ya go!

Do you want a schematic?

I have no doubt that it would work, but unles there is something
fundamentally
wrong with the circuit I have implemented I'm not inclined to start over.
I believe my problems have to do with the details, and my inexperience
with design of circuits, not the fundamental design. If this is indeed the
case,
I expect I'd have similar problems with the new approach. I admit that
there might be fewer if the component count could be reduced.

But you raise an interesting point regarding direct use of the 555 outputs
to
drive the optos. Are you saying to just ground pin 2 of the optos
and hook pin 1 to the output of the 555?

I very much appreciate your comments.

Ed

 

[Robert Monsen]

Robert Monsen wrote:

Jag Man wrote:

(See thread " Special "dual" pulse generator circuit " and "Porblems with
NTE3083(4N32)" for recent discussion on this
project)

I have now modfied my circuit to trigger the pulse width setting 555s
on the
leading edge of
the pulse from the decade counter. See the schematic at:
http://sowell.ecs.fullerton.edu/jag/fuelingsys/tester120404.jpg

The current problem is that at SOME frequencies, as set by the triggering
555 (leftmost
in the diagram), the pulse width of the outputs cannot be set any
wider than
the width of the pulse out of the 4017 decade counter. That is, the
circuit
is supposed to
allow me to set the output pulse width from something less than 1 ms
to 10
or 11 ms
for triggering rates between 45 and 260 Hz coming out of the decade
counter.
Sometimes
it works, but at certain freqencies the pulse width is limited to the
pulse
width th the
decade counter output pins. For example, if I set the frequency low,
e.g.,
50Hz, and then set the
pulse width of the channel 1 output (upper signal flow path in the
diagram)
to some
high value, e.g., 10 ms, then slowly increase the frequency the output
pulse
width will
decrerease, dropping off to 3.8 ms at 260 Hz. Channel 2 appears to be
OK at
low and
high frequencies, but at certain intermediate frequencies the pulse width
does change with
frequency. None of this should happen; the pukse width should be rock
solid
as frequency is changed.

I find this very strange, and cannot see why this is happening. I have
looked at the
signals at points all along both paths and things look pretty much as I
would expect.
For example, the the output pulses at the decade counter are correct for
the set frequency, and the triggering pulse at pin 2 of both pulse width
setting
555s is about 0.2 to 0.3 ms. The problem appears at pin 3 of the pulse
width setting 555s. It appears that this voltage is sometimes getting
pulled
back to 0
at the end of the decade counter pulse, rather than the time
determined by
the
555 RC product.

Any suggestions?

TIA

Ed




Try decreasing the length of the output pulser by making the cap coming
out of the 4017 smaller, say 62nF. That should decrease the trigger
pulse coming into the 555 to something smaller than the output pulse you
are after. Also, I don't think you need that 5.1k resistor on the output
of the 4017.

Another thing is that the resistor/capacitor you are using for the
timing element in the right most 555s are pretty big. They require the
555 to sink alot of current when the trigger occurs. You could scale
them both down to 100th of their values, and the timing should be OK,
but the 555 will have to sink alot less charge to trigger.

Er, rather, scale down the capacitor, scale up the resistor...

Neither of these may fix the problem, but they may give you more
information about what is happening.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:07:58 GMT, "Jag Man"
<Jag_Man653R-E-MOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you set the output 555s' output pulses to a width which becomes
greater than the time between 4017 pulses when you increase the
frequency of the 555 astable, then you're in trouble!

That can't happen. The capacitor, fixed resistor and pot at the astable 555
have been selected to limit the frequency between about 44 Hz and 270 Hz.
The decade counter outputs are 1/10 of that frequency, 4.4 to 27 Hz.
At 4.4 Hz the period is 227 ms, and at 27 Hz it is 37 ms. The capacitors
and pots on the monostable 555s are selected to limit pulse widths
between about 0.3 ms and 11 ms. Consequently, I should be able to
get the full output pulse width at any allowed frequency. So that's not
the problem.

---
Well, let's see...

Using

1.44
f = ------------
(Ra + 2rB)C


for the astable, I get fmax = 411Hz = 2.4ms,
and fmin = 61.3Hz = 16.3ms,

so, the input to and outputs from your 4017 will look something like
this:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CP _|1|_|2|_|3|_|4|_|5|_|6|_|7|_|8|_|9|_|0|_|1|_|2|_|3|_


|<------------------- t2 -------------->|
|___ |___
Q1 _| |___________________________________| |_______
->| |<--t1
___
Q6 _____________________| |___________________________
->| |<-t1



Where t1 can vary from 2.4 to 16.3ms and t2 can vary from 24 to 163ms.


Now, using


T = 1.1RC


for the one-shots gets us an output minimum pulsewidth of zero with
the pot set to zero resistance, and a maximum pulsewidth of 11ms with
the pot cranked to max, so your worst case timing would look like this
with the astable running at its highest frequency and the one-shot
outputting its longest period:


|<-----------------24ms---------------->|
|___ |___
4017 Q1 _| |___________________________________| |_______
->| |<--2.4MS
__________________ ___________
555 OUT__| |____________________|
|<------11ms------>|


Which isn't bad, but you don't have all that much extra room to play
around with; about 13ms.


Looking at your schematic, there's another area that worries me, that
being the differentiator you're using on the 4017 outputs. Even
ignoring the reactance of the capacitor at the edges of the output,
the 5.7k/750R divider is going to knock the output of the 4017 down to
about 1.6V even with the 4017 output at the 12V rail, which I don't
think it'll be at if you're pulling 1.8mA out of it.

A better way, I think, would be to drive the transistor directly and
do the differentiation at the collector of the transistor:

+12 +12 +12
| | |K
[1K] [10K] [1N4148]
| | | ____
+--[0.1]--+-------+---> TO 555 TRIG
|
|
C
4015 Qn>--[10K]---B
E
|
GND


[Re my redesign]:

I have no doubt that it would work, but unles there is something
fundamentally
wrong with the circuit I have implemented I'm not inclined to start over.
I believe my problems have to do with the details, and my inexperience
with design of circuits, not the fundamental design. If this is indeed the
case,
I expect I'd have similar problems with the new approach. I admit that
there might be fewer if the component count could be reduced.

---
Reduced to three timers, a transistor, and some passives, so that lets
you get rid of the 4017, three transistors, and some passives.

Basically, you'd wind up with a two chip (7555,556) solution!
---

But you raise an interesting point regarding direct use of the 555 outputs
to
drive the optos. Are you saying to just ground pin 2 of the optos
and hook pin 1 to the output of the 555?

---
Essentially, yes. You'd still need the current limiting resistor in
there, but you could get rid of the two bipolars.
---

I very much appreciate your comments.

---
You're welcome.

Just for grins, I'll post the schematic to abse sometime today. I'll
probably go ahead and build it too. I've got all the parts and it
sounds like a fun project for a slow Sunday. If I do, I'll post
pictures and waveforms on abse.

--
John Fields

 

[Jag Man]

Hey, John, come on now! This is my project! But, since I can't stop you,
maybe I ought to ask what is abse? Just in case I want to peek, you
understand.
No way I'm gunna copy you!

As for me, I've concluded there is an electronic conspiracy afoot. Now
matter
how I trigger the 555 off the 4017 there is this weird effect of the 4017
pulse width
limiting the 555 pulse width. I set up one of the 555s on a separtate board
to try
out some of Robert Monson's ideas. Whether the coupling is through a cap or
just
resistance the unwanted effect is there.

What is it that could be causing the 555 to ignor it's RC time constant and
obey
instead the width of the 4017 pulse, even if all it sees of it is the effect
of its
leading edge on a capacitor?

Ed

Just for grins, I'll post the schematic to abse sometime today. I'll
probably go ahead and build it too. I've got all the parts and it
sounds like a fun project for a slow Sunday. If I do, I'll post
pictures and waveforms on abse.

---
Got the design and the schematic done, but I didn't build or
simulate it yet. :-(

It's at abse as "More on dual pulse generator".

--
John Fields

 

[Jag Man]

Robert,

I tried leaving out the 5.1k in the triggering NPN. Could't get it to
trigger
that way, so I put it back and went to a 0.047 mF cap. Works, but same
frequency dependency of pulse width.

Also went to a 100k pot and 0.1 mf cap at one of the pulse width setting
555s.
Same problem.

In this regard, should I go to same configuration at the triggering 555,
i.e., the leftmost one? The reason I ask is that while said before that
the problem I'm having is that the pulse width is being limited to
no more than the pulse width at the outputs of the 4017, I could as
as well have said "limited to the period of the triggering 555, " leading
me to wonder if there is a problem with they way I've configured it.
Could it be that that 555 is somehow triggering a reset at the pulse width
555s, e.g., via RF or ground coupling?

Ed

Try decreasing the length of the output pulser by making the cap coming
out of the 4017 smaller, say 62nF. That should decrease the trigger
pulse coming into the 555 to something smaller than the output pulse you
are after. Also, I don't think you need that 5.1k resistor on the output
of the 4017.

Another thing is that the resistor/capacitor you are using for the
timing element in the right most 555s are pretty big. They require the
555 to sink alot of current when the trigger occurs. You could scale
them both down to 100th of their values, and the timing should be OK,
but the 555 will have to sink alot less charge to trigger.


Er, rather, scale down the capacitor, scale up the resistor...

Neither of these may fix the problem, but they may give you more
information about what is happening.

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jag Man wrote:

Hey, John, come on now! This is my project! But, since I can't stop you,
maybe I ought to ask what is abse? Just in case I want to peek, you
understand.
No way I'm gunna copy you!

As for me, I've concluded there is an electronic conspiracy afoot. Now
matter
how I trigger the 555 off the 4017 there is this weird effect of the 4017
pulse width
limiting the 555 pulse width. I set up one of the 555s on a separtate board
to try
out some of Robert Monson's ideas. Whether the coupling is through a cap or
just
resistance the unwanted effect is there.

What is it that could be causing the 555 to ignor it's RC time constant and
obey
instead the width of the 4017 pulse, even if all it sees of it is the effect
of its
leading edge on a capacitor?

Ed

I just had another thought (dangerous, I know... .

The transistions of the 4017 could be affecting the 555, causing it to
trigger improperly. Try a 1uF cap between the Vcc and GND pins of the
4017, and another between the power and ground pins of the 555. They
have to be close to the chips (preferably right between the pins).

If this is true, you can probably see it by scoping the power rail.

What happens is that when the cmos gates in the 4017 change state, they
can bounce the power if it isn't very stiff. This will cause other chips
near it to malfunction. The 555 also has this problem, sucking power
during transitions.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jag Man wrote:

Robert,

I tried leaving out the 5.1k in the triggering NPN. Could't get it to
trigger
that way, so I put it back and went to a 0.047 mF cap. Works, but same
frequency dependency of pulse width.

Also went to a 100k pot and 0.1 mf cap at one of the pulse width setting
555s.
Same problem.

In this regard, should I go to same configuration at the triggering 555,
i.e., the leftmost one? The reason I ask is that while said before that
the problem I'm having is that the pulse width is being limited to
no more than the pulse width at the outputs of the 4017, I could as
as well have said "limited to the period of the triggering 555, " leading
me to wonder if there is a problem with they way I've configured it.
Could it be that that 555 is somehow triggering a reset at the pulse width
555s, e.g., via RF or ground coupling?

Ed

Yes, see my other post.

Try decreasing the length of the output pulser by making the cap coming
out of the 4017 smaller, say 62nF. That should decrease the trigger
pulse coming into the 555 to something smaller than the output pulse you
are after. Also, I don't think you need that 5.1k resistor on the output
of the 4017.

Another thing is that the resistor/capacitor you are using for the
timing element in the right most 555s are pretty big. They require the
555 to sink alot of current when the trigger occurs. You could scale
them both down to 100th of their values, and the timing should be OK,
but the 555 will have to sink alot less charge to trigger.


Er, rather, scale down the capacitor, scale up the resistor...


Neither of these may fix the problem, but they may give you more
information about what is happening.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:28:09 GMT, "Jag Man"
<Jag_Man653R-E-MOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:

Robert,

I tried leaving out the 5.1k in the triggering NPN. Could't get it to
trigger
that way, so I put it back and went to a 0.047 mF cap. Works, but same
frequency dependency of pulse width.

---
Here's a SWCad schematic for my version you can look at and run if you
want to download their free simulator. It's at:

http://www.linear-tech.com/designtools/softwareRegistration.jsp



Version 4
SHEET 1 1460 1192
WIRE -704 -384 -704 -624 WIRE -704 -688 -464 -688 WIRE -704 -320 -704
-288 WIRE -464 -752 -800 -752 WIRE -800 -752 -800 -288 WIRE -800 -288
-704 -288 WIRE -704 -288 -704 304 WIRE -704 -688 -704 -864 WIRE -704
-864 -128 -864 WIRE -128 -864 -128 -624 WIRE -128 -624 -240 -624 WIRE
-240 -752 -176 -752 WIRE -800 -784 -800 -752 WIRE -800 -864 -800 -928
WIRE -800 -928 -16 -928 WIRE -16 -928 -16 -752 WIRE -240 -688 -64 -688
WIRE 192 -688 192 -752 WIRE -16 -928 192 -928 WIRE 192 -928 192 -832
WIRE 192 -688 256 -688 WIRE 320 -688 400 -688 WIRE 400 -688 400 -752
WIRE 192 -928 400 -928 WIRE 400 -928 400 -832 WIRE 400 -928 528 -928
WIRE 528 -928 528 -832 WIRE 400 -688 528 -688 WIRE 528 -688 528 -768
WIRE 528 -688 736 -688 WIRE 528 -928 1040 -928 WIRE 1040 -928 1040
-752 WIRE 1040 16 960 16
WIRE 960 -752 1040 -752 WIRE 1040 -752 1040 -480 WIRE 736 -752 656
-752 WIRE 656 -752 656 -448 WIRE 656 16 736 16

WIRE 736 80 528 80 WIRE 192 80 192 16 WIRE 192 -160 192 -64 WIRE 192
80 256 80 WIRE 320 80 400 80 WIRE 400 80 400 16 WIRE 192 -160 400 -160
WIRE 400 -160 400 -64 WIRE 400 -160 528 -160 WIRE 528 -160 528 -64
WIRE 400 80 528 80 WIRE 528 80 528 0
WIRE 528 -160 1040 -160 WIRE 1040 -160 1040 16 WIRE 192 80 192 144
WIRE 80 192 128 192 WIRE 0 192 -64 192

WIRE -64 192 -64 -688 WIRE -64 -688 192 -688 WIRE 656 16 656 304 WIRE
656 304 400 304 WIRE -704 304 -704 416 WIRE 192 240 192 304 WIRE 192
304 -704 304 WIRE 736 -624 544 -624 WIRE 464 -624 400 -624
WIRE 400 -624 400 -384 WIRE 400 -384 656 -384 WIRE 656 -384 656 16
WIRE 736 144 544 144 WIRE 464 144 400 144 WIRE 400 144 400 304 WIRE
400 304 192 304 WIRE 960 -688 1168 -688 WIRE 1168 -688 1168 -624 WIRE
960 -624 1168 -624 WIRE 1168 -624 1168 -576 WIRE 1040 -928 1168 -928
WIRE 656 -448 1168 -448 WIRE 656 -448 656 -384 WIRE 1168 -448 1168
-512 WIRE 1184 304 1184 240 WIRE 1040 -208 1184 -208 WIRE 1040 -208
1040 -160 WIRE 656 304 1184 304 WIRE 960 80 1184 80
WIRE 1184 80 1184 144 WIRE 960 144 1184 144 WIRE 1184 144 1184 176
WIRE -704 -624 -672 -624 WIRE -592 -624 -576 -624 WIRE -496 -624 -464
-624 WIRE -704 -624 -704 -688 WIRE 1168 -928 1168 -896 WIRE 1168 -720
1168 -688 WIRE 1168 -816 1168 -800 WIRE 1184 -208 1184 -160 WIRE 1184
-80 1184 -48 WIRE 1184 32 1184 80 WIRE -464 -560 -496 -560 WIRE -496
-560 -496 -432 WIRE -496 -432 -176 -432 WIRE -176 -432 -176 -752 WIRE
-176 -752 -16 -752 WIRE 736 -560 704 -560 WIRE 704 -560 704 -480 WIRE
704 -480 1040 -480 WIRE 1040 -480 1040 -208 WIRE 736 208 704 208 WIRE
704 208 704 272 WIRE 704 272 1040 272 WIRE 1040 272 1040 16 FLAG -704
416 0
SYMBOL res -576 -640 R90 WINDOW 0 68 62 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 70 63 VTop
0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 1e6

SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 -352 -656 R0 WINDOW 0 -98 -175 Center 0 WINDOW 3
-78 -149 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName U1
SYMBOL cap -720 -384 R0 WINDOW 0 30 4 Left 0 WINDOW 3 27 61 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value .1Ś
SYMBOL voltage -800 -880 R0 WINDOW 0 -74 53 Left 0 WINDOW 3 -76 24
Left 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0

SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value 12
SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 848 -656 R0 WINDOW 0 -94 -182 Center 0 WINDOW 3 -79
-153 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName U2
SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 848 112 R0 WINDOW 0 -97 -180 Center 0 WINDOW 3 -79
-153 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName U3

SYMBOL res 176 -848 R0 SYMATTR InstName R4 SYMATTR Value 1k
SYMBOL cap 320 -704 R90 WINDOW 0 49 63 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 50 66 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C2 SYMATTR Value .1Ś

SYMBOL res 384 -848 R0 SYMATTR InstName R5 SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL diode 544 -768 R180 WINDOW 0 -47 29 Left 0 WINDOW 3 -75 -6 Left
0 SYMATTR InstName D1 SYMATTR Value 1N4148 SYMBOL npn 128 144 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q1 SYMATTR Value 2N4401 SYMBOL res 176 -80 R0 SYMATTR
InstName R6 SYMATTR Value 10k

SYMBOL cap 320 64 R90 WINDOW 0 56 59 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 51 63 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C3 SYMATTR Value .1Ś
SYMBOL res 384 -80 R0 SYMATTR InstName R7 SYMATTR Value 10k SYMBOL
diode 544 0 R180 WINDOW 0 -40 32 Left 0 WINDOW 3 -72 0 Left 0 SYMATTR
InstName D2 SYMATTR Value 1N4148 SYMBOL res 96 176 R90
WINDOW 0 -34 56 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 -33 59 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 10k

SYMBOL res 560 -640 R90 WINDOW 0 62 59 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 60 55 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL res 560 128 R90 WINDOW 0
0 56 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R8 SYMATTR Value
1000 SYMBOL res 1152 -816 R0 SYMATTR InstName R9 SYMATTR Value 274
SYMBOL cap 1152 -576 R0 SYMATTR InstName C4 SYMATTR Value .1Ś
SYMBOL res 1168 -176 R0 SYMATTR InstName R10 SYMATTR Value 100k SYMBOL
cap 1168 176 R0 SYMATTR InstName C5 SYMATTR Value .1Ś
SYMBOL res -480 -640 R90 WINDOW 0 68 62 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 69 56 VTop
0 SYMATTR InstName R11 SYMATTR Value 267k SYMBOL res 1152 -912 R0
SYMATTR InstName R12 SYMATTR Value 100k SYMBOL res 1168 -64 R0 SYMATTR
InstName R13 SYMATTR Value 274

TEXT -674 256 Left 0 !.tran 0 .1s 0 .01s TEXT 1104 -856 Left 0 ;POT
TEXT 1112 -112 Left 0 ;POT TEXT -664 -528 Left 0 ;POT

--
John Fields

 

[Terry Pinnell]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:28:09 GMT, "Jag Man"
Jag_Man653R-E-MOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:

Robert,

I tried leaving out the 5.1k in the triggering NPN. Could't get it to
trigger
that way, so I put it back and went to a 0.047 mF cap. Works, but same
frequency dependency of pulse width.

---
Here's a SWCad schematic for my version you can look at and run if you
want to download their free simulator. It's at:

http://www.linear-tech.com/designtools/softwareRegistration.jsp



Version 4
SHEET 1 1460 1192
WIRE -704 -384 -704 -624 WIRE -704 -688 -464 -688 WIRE -704 -320 -704
-288 WIRE -464 -752 -800 -752 WIRE -800 -752 -800 -288 WIRE -800 -288
-704 -288 WIRE -704 -288 -704 304 WIRE -704 -688 -704 -864 WIRE -704

etc

I think your copy/paste was scrambled. I'm no LT Spice expert, but for
example I reckon all those WIRE lines should have a syntax like this:
WIRE -704 -384 -704 -624
WIRE -704 -688 -464 -688
etc
IOW, 1 per line, 4 co-ordinates each, ending with a Return character.

Running it as it stands gives error: "Unknown schematic syntax".

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Jag Man]

If I put the scope on the power rail and set it AC I see sort of
a square wave. It has a peak-to-peak of 4-5 mV and the same
period as the triggering 555!

Does this mean the caps should be between the VCC and GRD pins
of the 555 as well as the 4017, or instead of at teh 4107, or both?

I'm off to the electronics store to get come 1uF caps.

Ed

I just had another thought (dangerous, I know... .

The transistions of the 4017 could be affecting the 555, causing it to
trigger improperly. Try a 1uF cap between the Vcc and GND pins of the
4017, and another between the power and ground pins of the 555. They
have to be close to the chips (preferably right between the pins).

If this is true, you can probably see it by scoping the power rail.

What happens is that when the cmos gates in the 4017 change state, they
can bounce the power if it isn't very stiff. This will cause other chips
near it to malfunction. The 555 also has this problem, sucking power
during transitions.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:02:26 +0000, Terry Pinnell
<terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

I think your copy/paste was scrambled. I'm no LT Spice expert, but for
example I reckon all those WIRE lines should have a syntax like this:
WIRE -704 -384 -704 -624
WIRE -704 -688 -464 -688
etc
IOW, 1 per line, 4 co-ordinates each, ending with a Return character.

---
Yup, thanks...


Version 4
SHEET 1 1592 1192
WIRE -704 -384 -704 -624
WIRE -704 -688 -464 -688
WIRE -704 -320 -704 -288
WIRE -464 -752 -800 -752
WIRE -800 -752 -800 -288
WIRE -800 -288 -704 -288
WIRE -704 -288 -704 304
WIRE -704 -688 -704 -864
WIRE -704 -864 -128 -864
WIRE -128 -864 -128 -624
WIRE -128 -624 -240 -624
WIRE -240 -752 -176 -752
WIRE -800 -784 -800 -752
WIRE -800 -864 -800 -928
WIRE -800 -928 -16 -928
WIRE -16 -928 -16 -752
WIRE -240 -688 -64 -688
WIRE 192 -688 192 -752
WIRE -16 -928 192 -928
WIRE 192 -928 192 -832
WIRE 192 -688 256 -688
WIRE 320 -688 400 -688
WIRE 400 -688 400 -752
WIRE 192 -928 400 -928
WIRE 400 -928 400 -832
WIRE 400 -928 528 -928
WIRE 528 -928 528 -832
WIRE 400 -688 528 -688
WIRE 528 -688 528 -768
WIRE 528 -688 736 -688
WIRE 528 -928 1040 -928
WIRE 1040 -928 1040 -752
WIRE 1040 16 960 16
WIRE 960 -752 1040 -752
WIRE 1040 -752 1040 -480
WIRE 736 -752 656 -752
WIRE 656 -752 656 -448
WIRE 656 16 736 16
WIRE 736 80 528 80
WIRE 192 80 192 16
WIRE 192 -160 192 -64
WIRE 192 80 256 80
WIRE 320 80 400 80
WIRE 400 80 400 16
WIRE 192 -160 400 -160
WIRE 400 -160 400 -64
WIRE 400 -160 528 -160
WIRE 528 -160 528 -64
WIRE 400 80 528 80
WIRE 528 80 528 0
WIRE 528 -160 1040 -160
WIRE 1040 -160 1040 16
WIRE 192 80 192 144
WIRE 80 192 128 192
WIRE 0 192 -64 192
WIRE -64 192 -64 -688
WIRE -64 -688 192 -688
WIRE 656 16 656 304
WIRE 656 304 528 304
WIRE -704 304 -704 416
WIRE 192 240 192 304
WIRE 192 304 -704 304
WIRE 736 -624 592 -624
WIRE 656 -448 656 -304
WIRE 960 -688 1168 -688
WIRE 1168 -688 1168 -624
WIRE 960 -624 1168 -624
WIRE 1168 -624 1168 -576
WIRE 1040 -928 1168 -928
WIRE 656 -448 1168 -448
WIRE 1168 -448 1168 -512
WIRE 1184 304 1184 240
WIRE 1040 -208 1184 -208
WIRE 1040 -208 1040 -160
WIRE 656 304 1184 304
WIRE 960 80 1184 80
WIRE 1184 80 1184 144
WIRE 960 144 1184 144
WIRE 1184 144 1184 176
WIRE -704 -624 -672 -624
WIRE -592 -624 -576 -624
WIRE -496 -624 -464 -624
WIRE -704 -624 -704 -688
WIRE 1168 -928 1168 -896
WIRE 1168 -720 1168 -688
WIRE 1168 -816 1168 -800
WIRE 1184 -208 1184 -160
WIRE 1184 -80 1184 -48
WIRE 1184 32 1184 80
WIRE -464 -560 -496 -560
WIRE -496 -560 -496 -432
WIRE -496 -432 -176 -432
WIRE -176 -432 -176 -752
WIRE -176 -752 -16 -752
WIRE 736 -560 704 -560
WIRE 704 -560 704 -480
WIRE 704 -480 1040 -480
WIRE 1040 -480 1040 -208
WIRE 736 208 704 208
WIRE 704 208 704 272
WIRE 704 272 1040 272
WIRE 1040 272 1040 16
WIRE 1216 -400 896 -400
WIRE 816 -400 592 -400
WIRE 592 -400 592 -624
WIRE 656 -304 1216 -304
WIRE 656 -304 656 16
WIRE 736 144 592 144
WIRE 592 144 592 384
WIRE 592 384 832 384
WIRE 912 384 1232 384
WIRE 1232 480 528 480
WIRE 528 480 528 304
WIRE 528 304 192 304
WIRE 1168 -928 1440 -928
WIRE 1440 -928 1440 -544
WIRE 1440 -464 1440 -400
WIRE 1440 -400 1408 -400
WIRE 1184 -208 1472 -208
WIRE 1472 -208 1472 240
WIRE 1472 320 1472 384
WIRE 1472 384 1424 384
WIRE 1408 -336 1584 -336
WIRE 1584 -336 1584 448
WIRE 1584 448 1424 448
WIRE 528 480 528 560
WIRE 528 560 1584 560
WIRE 1584 560 1584 448
FLAG -704 416 0
SYMBOL res -576 -640 R90
WINDOW 0 68 62 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 70 63 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1e6
SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 -352 -656 R0
WINDOW 0 -98 -175 Center 0
WINDOW 3 -78 -149 Center 0
SYMATTR InstName U1
SYMBOL cap -720 -384 R0
WINDOW 0 30 4 Left 0
WINDOW 3 27 61 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value .1ľ
SYMBOL voltage -800 -880 R0
WINDOW 0 -74 53 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -76 24 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 12
SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 848 -656 R0
WINDOW 0 -94 -182 Center 0
WINDOW 3 -79 -153 Center 0
SYMATTR InstName U2
SYMBOL Misc\\NE555 848 112 R0
WINDOW 0 -97 -180 Center 0
WINDOW 3 -79 -153 Center 0
SYMATTR InstName U3
SYMBOL res 176 -848 R0
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 1k
SYMBOL cap 320 -704 R90
WINDOW 0 49 63 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 50 66 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value .1ľ
SYMBOL res 384 -848 R0
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL diode 544 -768 R180
WINDOW 0 -47 29 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -75 -6 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName D1
SYMATTR Value 1N4148
SYMBOL npn 128 144 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N4401
SYMBOL res 176 -80 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL cap 320 64 R90
WINDOW 0 56 59 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 51 63 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value .1ľ
SYMBOL res 384 -80 R0
SYMATTR InstName R7
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL diode 544 0 R180
WINDOW 0 -40 32 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -72 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName D2
SYMATTR Value 1N4148
SYMBOL res 96 176 R90
WINDOW 0 -34 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 -33 59 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL res 912 -416 R90
WINDOW 0 62 59 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 60 55 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL res 928 368 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R8
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL res 1152 -816 R0
SYMATTR InstName R9
SYMATTR Value 274
SYMBOL cap 1152 -576 R0
SYMATTR InstName C4
SYMATTR Value .1ľ
SYMBOL res 1168 -176 R0
SYMATTR InstName R10
SYMATTR Value 100k
SYMBOL cap 1168 176 R0
SYMATTR InstName C5
SYMATTR Value .1ľ
SYMBOL res -480 -640 R90
WINDOW 0 68 62 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 69 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R11
SYMATTR Value 267k
SYMBOL res 1152 -912 R0
SYMATTR InstName R12
SYMATTR Value 100k
SYMBOL res 1168 -64 R0
SYMATTR InstName R13
SYMATTR Value 274
SYMBOL Optos\\4N25 1312 -336 R0
SYMATTR InstName U4
SYMBOL Optos\\4N25 1328 448 R0
SYMATTR InstName U5
SYMBOL res 1424 -560 R0
SYMATTR InstName R14
SYMATTR Value 10000
SYMBOL res 1456 224 R0
SYMATTR InstName R15
SYMATTR Value 10000
TEXT -674 256 Left 0 !.tran 0 1s 0 .01s
TEXT 1104 -856 Left 0 ;POT
TEXT 1112 -112 Left 0 ;POT
TEXT -664 -528 Left 0 ;POT

--
John Fields

 

[Jag Man]

I took the IC components back to the breadboard so I could make changes
easier.
When I changed the input harness to the trirgering 555, multiplying all
resistors by 100
and dividing the capacitor by 100 the power rail voltage became clean.
However,
the bad behavior continued.

Nonetheless, I put the 1 mF cap between pins 15 & 16 on the 4017 and the bad
behavior
went away! The pulse width is completely independent of the triggering
frequency.
The circuit now works with purely resistive coupling at the base of the NPN
transistor,
and the RESET pin of the pulse width setting 555 tied to PIN 2, or with
an 0.047 mF capacitor and RESET tied to +12.

Thanks, Robert. You nailed it!

One other question. My original circuit used 10 mF caps and 1k pots in the
input harnesses
of the 555s, probably because the first 555 example I saw did it that way.
But as has been
pointed out here, I could as well have used smaller caps and larger pots
(and other resistors)
to get the same timings, and lower currents. As mentioned above, this cleans
up the
power rail voltage. May I assume that this is, in general, better practice?

Ed


"Jag Man" <Jag_Man653R-E-MOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newst4td.39381$6q2.12776@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

If I put the scope on the power rail and set it AC I see sort of
a square wave. It has a peak-to-peak of 4-5 mV and the same
period as the triggering 555!

Does this mean the caps should be between the VCC and GRD pins
of the 555 as well as the 4017, or instead of at teh 4107, or both?

I'm off to the electronics store to get come 1uF caps.

Ed

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jag Man wrote:

I took the IC components back to the breadboard so I could make changes
easier.
When I changed the input harness to the trirgering 555, multiplying all
resistors by 100
and dividing the capacitor by 100 the power rail voltage became clean.
However,
the bad behavior continued.

Nonetheless, I put the 1 mF cap between pins 15 & 16 on the 4017 and the bad
behavior
went away! The pulse width is completely independent of the triggering
frequency.
The circuit now works with purely resistive coupling at the base of the NPN
transistor,
and the RESET pin of the pulse width setting 555 tied to PIN 2, or with
an 0.047 mF capacitor and RESET tied to +12.

Thanks, Robert. You nailed it!

One other question. My original circuit used 10 mF caps and 1k pots in the
input harnesses
of the 555s, probably because the first 555 example I saw did it that way.
But as has been
pointed out here, I could as well have used smaller caps and larger pots
(and other resistors)
to get the same timings, and lower currents. As mentioned above, this cleans
up the
power rail voltage. May I assume that this is, in general, better practice?

Ed

(You really need to start bottom posting. Thats the convention here, and
it makes it easier for everybody to read the replies)

Are you talking about microfarad or millifarad caps? mF = millifarad
which is 1000x uF.

With larger resistors and smaller caps, there is far less charge and
thus current when it discharges. This causes less problems like the one
you were seeing. However, there is a limit, which is that at some point,
the leakage through the 555 may cause errors, leading up to it not
working at all.

The best advice I can give you is to read the datasheet. They understand
their device, and can give you advice based on their testing and
theoretical knowledge. Learning how to read datasheets is the best thing
you can do to learn how to use any chip.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Jag Man]

(You really need to start bottom posting. Thats the convention here, and
it makes it easier for everybody to read the replies)

I noticed that, but to me it's a nuisance to have to skip down through
several pages of
history to see what's new. But, when in Rome...

Are you talking about microfarad or millifarad caps? mF = millifarad
which is 1000x uF.

I was using m for Micro, having no "mu" on my keyboard. I do know the
difference.

With larger resistors and smaller caps, there is far less charge and
thus current when it discharges. This causes less problems like the one
you were seeing. However, there is a limit, which is that at some point,
the leakage through the 555 may cause errors, leading up to it not
working at all.

The best advice I can give you is to read the datasheet. They understand
their device, and can give you advice based on their testing and
theoretical knowledge. Learning how to read datasheets is the best thing
you can do to learn how to use any chip.

Guess the problem I have there is translating what I read there into
something actionable.
In this case, which datasheet limit should I use to set resistances for
acceptable current?
I know that my main problem is the transistor was still new technology and
the IC was
still 15 years away when I took my circuits class... IOW, I'm and interloper
here! Thanks
for your patience.

Anyway, my little box seems to be working well enough to use now, so maybe
wait a while
before going back and changing all those resistors and caps. I shouldn't
have been in such a hurry
to pick up the soldering iron.
and

Ed

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jag Man wrote:

(You really need to start bottom posting. Thats the convention here, and
it makes it easier for everybody to read the replies)


I noticed that, but to me it's a nuisance to have to skip down through
several pages of
history to see what's new. But, when in Rome...


Are you talking about microfarad or millifarad caps? mF = millifarad
which is 1000x uF.


I was using m for Micro, having no "mu" on my keyboard. I do know the
difference.

I know, I wasn't doubting that. However, typing mF means 1e-3F, so it
was confusing for me. Instead of mu, I use u, as in uF. That seems to be
unambiguous.

With larger resistors and smaller caps, there is far less charge and
thus current when it discharges. This causes less problems like the one
you were seeing. However, there is a limit, which is that at some point,
the leakage through the 555 may cause errors, leading up to it not
working at all.

The best advice I can give you is to read the datasheet. They understand
their device, and can give you advice based on their testing and
theoretical knowledge. Learning how to read datasheets is the best thing
you can do to learn how to use any chip.



Guess the problem I have there is translating what I read there into
something actionable.
In this case, which datasheet limit should I use to set resistances for
acceptable current?

Well, there doesn't seem to be one. (I have 4 different variants, and I
can't find any advice except the LM555 from national, which states that
the sum of Ra and Rb should be less than 20M).

I know that my main problem is the transistor was still new technology and
the IC was
still 15 years away when I took my circuits class... IOW, I'm and interloper
here! Thanks
for your patience.

Anyway, my little box seems to be working well enough to use now, so maybe
wait a while
before going back and changing all those resistors and caps. I shouldn't
have been in such a hurry
to pick up the soldering iron.
and

Good luck with it.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:36:03 GMT, "Jag Man"
<Jag_Man653R-E-MOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:

(You really need to start bottom posting. Thats the convention here, and
it makes it easier for everybody to read the replies)

I noticed that, but to me it's a nuisance to have to skip down through
several pages of
history to see what's new. But, when in Rome...

---
Whether it's a nuisance to _you_ is of no consequence when you're the
one asking for help.
---

Guess the problem I have there is translating what I read there into
something actionable.
In this case, which datasheet limit should I use to set resistances for
acceptable current?

---
Maximum currents into the trigger and threshold inputs.
---

I know that my main problem is the transistor was still new technology and
the IC was
still 15 years away when I took my circuits class... IOW, I'm and interloper
here! Thanks
for your patience.

---
You're not an interloper. This is, after all, sci.electronics.basic,
but you do seem to have an attitude.
---

Anyway, my little box seems to be working well enough to use now, so maybe
wait a while
before going back and changing all those resistors and caps.

---
Hey, if it works, don't fix it!

--
John Fields