R
Rod Speed
Guest
Meindert Sprang wrote:
Doesnt have to be anything like that much of a drop.
D
Doug Jewell
Guest
Rod Speed wrote:
--
What is the difference between a duck?
voltage drop eh Rod? Name the model #
--
What is the difference between a duck?
A
atec77
Guest
On 6/07/2010 6:32 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
name the device you are thinking of by number to prove your claim thanks
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
laws of physics ?
name the device you are thinking of by number to prove your claim thanks
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
of a 4x4, trying to navigate on paper maps using the light of
a head-torch during a hidden-transmitter hunt, and you need to
change 3 AAA batteries in the round cartridge, you have to get
all three right and do it *now*... while juggling the torch,
the maps, the cartridge, the old batteries, the new batteries...
well, you can see why it's easier just to take a spare head-torch ;-)
But this tech would often be a help, and personally I'd pay a
little extra for it!
Right. And when you're bouncing along a bush track in the back
of a 4x4, trying to navigate on paper maps using the light of
a head-torch during a hidden-transmitter hunt, and you need to
change 3 AAA batteries in the round cartridge, you have to get
all three right and do it *now*... while juggling the torch,
the maps, the cartridge, the old batteries, the new batteries...
well, you can see why it's easier just to take a spare head-torch ;-)
But this tech would often be a help, and personally I'd pay a
little extra for it!
J
Joe Pfeiffer
Guest
Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> writes:
dig for the reading glasses...."
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Geez, I was just at the level of "which way was that again? Aw, crap,
dig for the reading glasses...."
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
R
Rod Speed
Guest
Doug Jewell wrote
> Name the model #
Didnt say anything about power diodes.
> Name the model #
J
Joe Pfeiffer
Guest
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Then what are you talking about?
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
M
Meindert Sprang
Guest
"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
news:1bfwzxdwg7.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
Meindert
news:1bfwzxdwg7.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
MOSFETS
Meindert
R
Rob Horton
Guest
Don McKenzie wrote:
What a waste of money.
A
atec7 7
Guest
Rod Speed wrote:
argument
number of the semi conductor that's practical AND supports your failed
argument
J
John Tserkezis
Guest
atec77 > wrote:
depending on flavour. Though, IMO even that would be too much.
You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the feature you're
getting, is way more than gross luxury. So technically it's certainly
very possible, but the economics will be below ordinary at best, and
broke at worst. When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of
a product that's destined for serious mass production at a minimal cost,
every fraction of a cent counts.
It's just not worth it.
Pick any Schotkky diode. .1something to .4something volts drop
depending on flavour. Though, IMO even that would be too much.
You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the feature you're
getting, is way more than gross luxury. So technically it's certainly
very possible, but the economics will be below ordinary at best, and
broke at worst. When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of
a product that's destined for serious mass production at a minimal cost,
every fraction of a cent counts.
It's just not worth it.
J
John Tserkezis
Guest
Rob Horton wrote:
be fair, the problem *does* exist, it's just that it's not a very big
problem.
The cost verses benefit thing is skewed against their favour. So
they've picked the lowest possible cost for a problem that most people
perceive as negligible. No surprise it's a costless royalty.
We've been conditioned to how things are for a bloody long time, so, to
be fair, the problem *does* exist, it's just that it's not a very big
problem.
The cost verses benefit thing is skewed against their favour. So
they've picked the lowest possible cost for a problem that most people
perceive as negligible. No surprise it's a costless royalty.
R
Rod Speed
Guest
John Tserkezis wrote
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.
Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.
Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.
Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.
Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.
A
Andrew Smallshaw
Guest
On 2010-07-06, Meindert Sprang <ms@NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> wrote:
- it is not for nothing than MOSFETs are often drawn with a parasitic
reverse biased diode.
I've actually done this kind of thing using BJTs in the past although
the intent there was to reduce heat dissipation rather than voltage
drop although that pretty much means the same thing at the end of
the day. The drop is reduced to two collector-emitter losses.
You do need to watch the voltage though since my experience is that
BJTs can breakdown far faster than you might expect when reverse
biased. However that is unlikely to be a problem for battery
powered equipment particularly when you are having one circuit per
cell as here.
Actually, thinking about that I'll have to go through it and see
if the system I used would actually work in that arrangement. It's
just possible the other cells could interfere with the biasing and
I don't have a schematic in front of me to consider that possibility.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
I was thinking along similar lines albeit BJTs rather than MOSFETs
- it is not for nothing than MOSFETs are often drawn with a parasitic
reverse biased diode.
I've actually done this kind of thing using BJTs in the past although
the intent there was to reduce heat dissipation rather than voltage
drop although that pretty much means the same thing at the end of
the day. The drop is reduced to two collector-emitter losses.
You do need to watch the voltage though since my experience is that
BJTs can breakdown far faster than you might expect when reverse
biased. However that is unlikely to be a problem for battery
powered equipment particularly when you are having one circuit per
cell as here.
Actually, thinking about that I'll have to go through it and see
if the system I used would actually work in that arrangement. It's
just possible the other cells could interfere with the biasing and
I don't have a schematic in front of me to consider that possibility.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
J
John Tserkezis
Guest
Rod Speed wrote:
same feature at a lower cost that way instead of hobbling the design as
an afterthought.
However, at the end of the day, battery polarity is perceived as rather
pointless by the users, compared to the cost. In other words, the user
is paying more for something they didn't care about from the onset.
when it comes to buyer awe.
LEDs are a very favourable cost verses benefit addition.
If I had my way, I'd have lots of buttons so I can do things without
fucking with 18 level deep menus that don't make sense, while reading a
manual written in chinglish. And a simple display system that shows
what I need to know when I need to know it. If something flashes
because an American farted in New York, it's precisely because I wanted
it that way.
It would be the the most magnificent device that mere humans would
every hope to hold in their hands. It would do everything, quickly,
easily and effectively. Productivity on the device would improve
tenfold compared to traditional designs.
And it would be called the "Homer". It would be expensive, ugly and
no-one free of brain damage would actually consider buying it.
*That's* the reason.
Not so. I was presuming it was designed in from the start, you can the
same feature at a lower cost that way instead of hobbling the design as
an afterthought.
However, at the end of the day, battery polarity is perceived as rather
pointless by the users, compared to the cost. In other words, the user
is paying more for something they didn't care about from the onset.
Sure. Fewer buttons, and more flashing on-and-off bits is priceless
when it comes to buyer awe.
LEDs are a very favourable cost verses benefit addition.
No, that's not the reason.
If I had my way, I'd have lots of buttons so I can do things without
fucking with 18 level deep menus that don't make sense, while reading a
manual written in chinglish. And a simple display system that shows
what I need to know when I need to know it. If something flashes
because an American farted in New York, it's precisely because I wanted
it that way.
It would be the the most magnificent device that mere humans would
every hope to hold in their hands. It would do everything, quickly,
easily and effectively. Productivity on the device would improve
tenfold compared to traditional designs.
And it would be called the "Homer". It would be expensive, ugly and
no-one free of brain damage would actually consider buying it.
*That's* the reason.
A
Andrew Smallshaw
Guest
On 2010-07-06, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
to change the habit of a lifetime and start _justifying_ your
pronouncements instead of simply endlessly repeating them as if
that alone is enough to make them true?
Not that it really matters, this kind of circuitry is basically
invisible to the rest of the system aside from any voltage drop.
You can put it in at the start or before laying out the final
production board - it doesn't make that much difference
is worth including. It's a standard design trade off, cost vs.
functionality. For some devices, those indicator LEDs are the
_only_ sign of life that is not dependent on connected equipment.
in right at the start" in parrot-like fashion. The way I'd do this
would use four transistors and four resistors, plus a bit of board
space, extra soldering, possibly extra drilling, more faults etc.
I don't see it costing much less than about 8p even with a reasonable
production run. For some sectors that is unacceptable even on
equipment going for three figures. If the device is supposed to
sell for a fiver it is unacceptable anywhere.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
Yes, even when it's designed right in from the start. Do you want
to change the habit of a lifetime and start _justifying_ your
pronouncements instead of simply endlessly repeating them as if
that alone is enough to make them true?
Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start.
Not that it really matters, this kind of circuitry is basically
invisible to the rest of the system aside from any voltage drop.
You can put it in at the start or before laying out the final
production board - it doesn't make that much difference
Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start.
Because a cost/benefit analysis (however informal) shows that LED
is worth including. It's a standard design trade off, cost vs.
functionality. For some devices, those indicator LEDs are the
_only_ sign of life that is not dependent on connected equipment.
It was more of a proof than simply spouting "not when it's designed
in right at the start" in parrot-like fashion. The way I'd do this
would use four transistors and four resistors, plus a bit of board
space, extra soldering, possibly extra drilling, more faults etc.
I don't see it costing much less than about 8p even with a reasonable
production run. For some sectors that is unacceptable even on
equipment going for three figures. If the device is supposed to
sell for a fiver it is unacceptable anywhere.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
R
Rod Speed
Guest
Andrew Smallshaw wrote
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
So much for his stupid claim.
Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
You're so stupid that it isnt worth the trouble.
Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
It happens to be what is being discussed.
It makes a considerable difference when its all in a special purpose ic.
Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
Just as true of allowing the batterys to go in any way the user likes.
So his original claim is just plain wrong, as I said.
And they are included anyway even when they arent.
So much for his stupid claim.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
Anyone with even half a clue would include whats needed in the special purpose ic.
And it wouldnt cost anything like that when its included in the special purpose ic.
Have fun explaining how the absolute vast bulk of those have a led or lcd.
R
Rod Speed
Guest
John Tserkezis wrote
purpose ic that always used in any mass market design....
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.
Tis so.
And when its designed right from the start in the special
purpose ic that always used in any mass market design....
You dont know that. And their opinion is irrelevant anyway.
Like hell they are when its included in the design of the special purpose ic right from the start.
You dont know that either.
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Corse it is.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.
Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.
Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.
Pathetic.
R
Rod Speed
Guest
Andrew Smallshaw wrote
POWERED devices actually being discussed dont actually use those much.
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
and allows for little kids not needing to be taught that etc.
sorts of things that have only recently become common.
Those use ASICs designed for motherboards, stupid.
They certainly are to the BATTERY POWERED devices being discussed.
No one said a word about free except you.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the BATTERY
POWERED devices actually being discussed dont actually use those much.
Everyone can see for themselves that I said nothing like that.
I did that, and replied to that bit as well.
Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
And that patent was about allowing the user to ignore that
and allows for little kids not needing to be taught that etc.
Irrelevant to the obvious advantage with that approach.
The same stupid claim could have been made about all
sorts of things that have only recently become common.
Not when the device needs that already, fool.
Not when the device has some already, fool.
Like hell you have.
Everyone can see you are lying, as always.
Put me back, then we wont have to see any more of your pathetic excuse for mindless bullshit.
A
Andrew Smallshaw
Guest
On 2010-07-06, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
motherboards) that use no custom ASICs are a complete irrelevence,
are they?
be free. I suspect you would be looking long and hard for a foundry
to even entertain the idea. It is competely impossible with the
sea of gates ASICs for a start.
to how much it costs. If you had continued to read the very
sentence you truncated you would have seen that _that_ makes no
real difference.
How many devices out there have this kind of any-way-will-do
circuitry? If there was a massive demand for it it would have been
addressed long ago.
would probably be at least a capital cost of Ł100,000 for the ASIC
and another Ł1 per unit to accommodate those on chip power transistors.
of reading it. Now I remember why you were in my killfile.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
So, the 99.9+% of designs (including, for example, most computer
motherboards) that use no custom ASICs are a complete irrelevence,
are they?
Adding _power_ transistors to your typical ASIC will certianly not
be free. I suspect you would be looking long and hard for a foundry
to even entertain the idea. It is competely impossible with the
sea of gates ASICs for a start.
It was your assertion that when it is designed in is somehow pivotal
to how much it costs. If you had continued to read the very
sentence you truncated you would have seen that _that_ makes no
real difference.
The user is accustomed to ensuring battery polarities are correct.
How many devices out there have this kind of any-way-will-do
circuitry? If there was a massive demand for it it would have been
addressed long ago.
No, of course it wouldn't cost anything like that. Instead it
would probably be at least a capital cost of Ł100,000 for the ASIC
and another Ł1 per unit to accommodate those on chip power transistors.
I already have. You chose to invent a new economic reality instead
of reading it. Now I remember why you were in my killfile.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org