Transistor as a current limiter

[Lauri Alanko]

Thanks again for your explanations. You went into a bit more detail
than I really needed, but it is no doubt valuable to some other
readers.

In article <js3ht8hda912bfj73r7sq7aklhe9cpii4t@4ax.com>,
Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

So let's look at a revised (I renumbered the parts) version
of the last circuit, which can handle several series chains
of LEDs all operating at the same current:

: Vcc +V +V
: | | |
: | | |
: | --- ---
: | \ / Dan \ / Dbn
: \ --- ---
: / Rset | |
: \ | |
: / . .
: | . .
: | . .
: | more more
: | LEDs LEDs
: Q1 | here here
: |<e Vcc . .
: PWM-----| | . .
: |\c | . .
: | | . .
: | | | |
: | Q3 | | |
: | |/c --- ---
: +---| \ / Da1 \ / Db1
: | |>e --- ---
: | | | |
: | | | |
: | | | |
: Q2 c\| | |/c Qa |/c Qb ... Qz
: |---++--| ,--|
: e<| | |>e | |>e
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: gnd | gnd | gnd
: | |
: '---------+------- ... Qz


So, yes. Q1 and Rset determine the current.

I haven't yet tried this out (I'm away from my components) but in
Falstad's simulator this doesn't seem to work unless there is a
resistor in Q1's base. Otherwise the (ideal, zero-impendance)
low-level pin will drain all current through the base. In real world
things might work differently.

Anyway, since the current reference is now shared by the entire
circuit, I might as well use some more expensive current source, e.g.
one based on an op-amp or voltage regulator:

gnd---(-&gt----- to current mirror
|
|/c
PWM---R1--|
|>e
|
gnd

Is there some advantage here over the simple resistor-transistor
current source? It would seem that here the PWM control isn't draining
any of our meticulously measured current. Which current source
would be most suitable for a fast switching load?

Let's pause a moment. I'm sure you recall one of the BJT
equations:

1. Ic = Is * ( e^(Vbe/(kT/q)) - 1 )

Actually I had forgotten about this before I saw the current mirror
design. I remembered BJTs as current-controlled devices, and had
forgotten that they can also be viewed as voltage-controlled.

The most crucial thing, evidently, is that the exact ratio of current
control is unpredictable, whereas voltage control is much more
reliable (given that the current mirror depends on the same voltage
producing exactly the same current on both transistors).

One idea that is sometimes applied in cases where wasting the
same LED current on Q1 and Q2 (means that if you have 5
chains of LEDs, each at 20mA, you are using 120mA from the
supply with 20mA of it NOT going to LEDs),

This is not a problem, since I'm going to have tens of chains. The
scalability outweighs the constant costs.

Besides, it's not wasting the same _power_: I will generate the
current reference from +5V, whereas the leds will use +12V.

But you could certainly consider the idea of dropping your
Rset current downward to 2mA, for example, using a factor of
10 multiplier (which means you need a Q2 emitter resistor
that drops 60mV at 2mA, or a value of 30 ohms at a guess.)

Neat trick. I might consider that if I only had a few leds in a
battery-powered device.


Lauri

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> schreef in bericht
news:7pait8ln0k0hibknrolom6m321nn5t42c2@4ax.com...

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 08:13:30 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko
la@iki.fi> wrote:

I haven't yet tried this out (I'm away from my components) but in
Falstad's simulator this doesn't seem to work unless there is a
resistor in Q1's base.

That's my fault. I was just spinning this out without a brain
in my head. Q1's base should never go below two Vbe's above
ground in the circuit I provided.

Your PWM output is ground-referenced and the circuit I gave
you really wants the output to be Vcc-referenced, which isn't
going to happen. If you turn the entire circuit upside down,
though, then things work (if your micro Vcc is at least 1.2V
less than your LED driving rail) because then your micro PWM
signal is properly referenced.

Sorry about that.

Here's the reversed method:

: ,---------+------------MORE
: | |
: +V | +V | +V
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: Q2 c\| | |<e Qa | |<e Qb
: |----+--+--| '--|
: e>| | |\c |\c
: | | | |
: | | | |
: | |<e Q3 | |
: +----| | |
: | |\c | |
: | | --- ---
: | | \ / Da1 \ / Db1
: | | --- ---
: | | | |
: |/c Q1 gnd | |
: PWM-----| | |
: |>e | |
: | | |
: | | |
: \ | |
: / R1 | |
: \ | |
: / | |
: | | |
: | --- ---
: | \ / Dan \ / Dbn
: | --- ---
: gnd | |
: | |
: gnd gnd

Note again that your PWM voltage should NOT rise above about
+V minus about 1.2V or more. So if +V is 5V then you want a
micro supply rail of no more than 3.6V or so. Or if Vcc is
5V, you want at least 6.5V for your LED rail.

I shouldn't have spoken before thinking more.

Jon

Suppose Q2 slipped through non reversed?

Don't worry about your brains. Without them you couldn't make a mistake

petrus bitbyter

 

[Lauri Alanko]

In article <krbask$ef6$1@dont-email.me>, P E Schoen <paul@peschoen.com> wrote:

If you want bottom line best efficiency and lowest cost, especially for
something that may be used in production, some of the single chip LED
drivers are really amazing:

Of course there are ICs for every purpose nowadays, but "buy this
chip" is kind of a boring solution to anything.

Besides, I'm not convinced that the examples you show are ideal for my
purposes.

http://www.linear.com/product/LT3465

This is a boost converter intended for Li-ion batteries. I don't think
step-up conversion buys me very much if I work with a 12 V power
supply, already enough to drive several leds in a series.

Here's one for about $1 that can work from 20-450 VDC and 20 mA:
http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/391/HV9921-26434.pdf

This is a switching current limiter. It sounds great, but since it's
expensive relative to leds, one would ideally run it from mains to
ensure it runs a maximal number of leds. Unfortunately dabbling with
mains power directly is illegal for hobbyists where I live. (Also, I
wouldn't dare touch it even if it weren't.)

This looks more like what I need:

http://www.linear.com/product/LT3746

It controls 32 led chains of 13 V each. However, it has lots of extra
features and costs 10 bucks, far more than 32 cheapo transistors.
Also, it's surface mount. I'll stay with through-hole for the time
being.

Thanks for the suggestions, anyway.


Lauri

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:17:59 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
<petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> schreef in bericht
news:7pait8ln0k0hibknrolom6m321nn5t42c2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 08:13:30 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko
la@iki.fi> wrote:

I haven't yet tried this out (I'm away from my components) but in
Falstad's simulator this doesn't seem to work unless there is a
resistor in Q1's base.

That's my fault. I was just spinning this out without a brain
in my head. Q1's base should never go below two Vbe's above
ground in the circuit I provided.

Your PWM output is ground-referenced and the circuit I gave
you really wants the output to be Vcc-referenced, which isn't
going to happen. If you turn the entire circuit upside down,
though, then things work (if your micro Vcc is at least 1.2V
less than your LED driving rail) because then your micro PWM
signal is properly referenced.

Sorry about that.

Here's the reversed method:

: ,---------+------------MORE
: | |
: +V | +V | +V
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: | | | | |
: Q2 c\| | |<e Qa | |<e Qb
: |----+--+--| '--|
: e>| | |\c |\c
: | | | |
: | | | |
: | |<e Q3 | |
: +----| | |
: | |\c | |
: | | --- ---
: | | \ / Da1 \ / Db1
: | | --- ---
: | | | |
: |/c Q1 gnd | |
: PWM-----| | |
: |>e | |
: | | |
: | | |
: \ | |
: / R1 | |
: \ | |
: / | |
: | | |
: | --- ---
: | \ / Dan \ / Dbn
: | --- ---
: gnd | |
: | |
: gnd gnd

Note again that your PWM voltage should NOT rise above about
+V minus about 1.2V or more. So if +V is 5V then you want a
micro supply rail of no more than 3.6V or so. Or if Vcc is
5V, you want at least 6.5V for your LED rail.

I shouldn't have spoken before thinking more.

Suppose Q2 slipped through non reversed?

I actually caught that mistake, right away. Note my
self-reply shortly after?

Don't worry about your brains. Without them you couldn't
make a mistake

Hmm. An argument for being a machine, perhaps.

Jon

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 08:13:30 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi>
wrote:
..
..
..

This is not a problem, since I'm going to have tens of chains. The
scalability outweighs the constant costs.

---
If you're going to be using tens of chains in order to turn on some
total number of LEDs, then you'd be well advised to use a higher LED
supply voltage with more LEDs in each chain than for 12V.

For example, with a 24V supply and 2.2V LEDs, you could string ten
LEDs in series, drive them from the 24V supply, and still have about
1.7V of headroom if you used the common emitter circuit I posted
earlier where Vce(sat) for the switch was <= 0.3V.

Just for grins, can you post a link to the LED data sheet and tell us
how many you want to use in your application, please?

--
JF

 

[Lauri Alanko]

In article <175mt8p4iclso30sbedh4f7125tg712ban@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

If you're going to be using tens of chains in order to turn on some
total number of LEDs, then you'd be well advised to use a higher LED
supply voltage with more LEDs in each chain than for 12V.

I understand the advantages of higher voltage, but I have decided to
stick with 12 V, since 12 V power supplies are cheap and ubiquitous,
and I'm not comfortable dabbling with higher voltages yet.

Just for grins, can you post a link to the LED data sheet and tell us
how many you want to use in your application, please?

I don't even know which leds I'm going to use yet. The ones I have
currently are too directional. I also don't know yet how many I'm
going to need. I intend to experiment and see how many I need to add
until it looks good to my eyes.

The idea is to make gadget that glows in different colors. The leds
will be surrounded by a diffusion shell. It doesn't need to illuminate
an entire room, but I certainly want the light to be noticeable.

I'm now considering using 0.5 W leds. They are probably a bit less
efficient, and won't spread the RGB colors quite as evenly, but at
least there's less wiring. Heat might be a problem, though. We shall
see.


Lauri

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi>
wrote:

In article <175mt8p4iclso30sbedh4f7125tg712ban@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
If you're going to be using tens of chains in order to turn on some
total number of LEDs, then you'd be well advised to use a higher LED
supply voltage with more LEDs in each chain than for 12V.

I understand the advantages of higher voltage, but I have decided to
stick with 12 V, since 12 V power supplies are cheap and ubiquitous,
and I'm not comfortable dabbling with higher voltages yet.

Just for grins, can you post a link to the LED data sheet and tell us
how many you want to use in your application, please?

I don't even know which leds I'm going to use yet.

---
Then you've wasted our time by asking for help by stating that they'll
drop 2.2V?


--
JF

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:56:44 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi
wrote:

In article <175mt8p4iclso30sbedh4f7125tg712ban@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
If you're going to be using tens of chains in order to turn on some
total number of LEDs, then you'd be well advised to use a higher LED
supply voltage with more LEDs in each chain than for 12V.

I understand the advantages of higher voltage, but I have decided to
stick with 12 V, since 12 V power supplies are cheap and ubiquitous,
and I'm not comfortable dabbling with higher voltages yet.

Just for grins, can you post a link to the LED data sheet and tell us
how many you want to use in your application, please?

I don't even know which leds I'm going to use yet.

---
Then you've wasted our time by asking for help by stating that they'll
drop 2.2V?

"Not knowing" which LEDs may be used emphasizes the need to
be able to support more than one series chain, since you
don't know how many you can get into one series chain and the
lighting effect may drive the total number of LEDs needed. A
flexible design approach may then be an option worth
considering.

So I don't think time was entirely wasted. Though a better
focus would certainly help select between design tradeoffs.

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 16:31:43 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi>
wrote:

Hello.

I need to wire some leds, and I figure that a transistor for each
series is a good way to ensure that the leds get constant current,
with the additional benefit that I can run PWM through the base of the
transistor to control the brightness.

However, I'm unsure about the best way to do this. The most common
design I see is this:

V1 ---- LOAD ---- \Q1-> ---- R1 ---- GND
-----
|
V2

That is, Q1 is NPN, and the load is connected to its collector, V2 to
the base, and R1 to the emitter. This limits the collector current to
about:

Ic = (V2 - Vbe) / R1

I see how this works, but adding a resistor under the load seems
to increase the minimal voltage dropout (and thus lower the maximum
current limit) unless V2 is very low. Another approach is the following:

V1 ---- LOAD ---- \Q1-> ---- GND
-----
|
V2 ---- R1

That is, we just limit the base current directly. Here the collector
current is:

Ic = beta ((V2 - Vbe) / R1)

This seems better to me. We can use an arbitrary voltage at V2 (a 5V
PWM signal should be fine), and the minimum dropout is just the
transistor's Vce at saturation.

However, I haven't seen the second circuit anywhere. Is there some
non-obvious problem with it?

Thanks,


Lauri

Here's a mosfet version of the generic current limiter:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Current_Limiters/LED_Ilim.JPG

R1 can be most anything, 5K maybe. The current into the LEDs is about
0.65/R2. The supply voltage and LED stack should keep Vd above maybe
+2 worst case.

The mosfet needs to be a logic-threshold part. What PWM voltage do you
have available?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:17:10 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko
<la@iki.fi> wrote:

In article <k81pt8hv7o0bjbsn6sn577bhihcelgkmb7@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi
wrote:
I don't even know which leds I'm going to use yet.

---
Then you've wasted our time by asking for help by stating that they'll
drop 2.2V?

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I merely gave an example
calculation, with realistic sample values, to demonstrate my concern
with the circuit in question. I hoped to emphasize that this was
merely hypothetical by using words such as "suppose", "load would be",
"if we designed" etc.

Besides, in the same example the supply voltage was 12 V, and that
didn't prevent you from suggesting otherwise. Surely there was nothing
to prevent you from suggesting different leds, as well?

In any case, I don't see how anyone's time has been wasted. All the
replies I've received have been most pertinent and educational, and
the circuits I've seen seem useful regardless of whether one plugs in
four 2.2 V leds or three 3.6 V leds per series.

I didn't feel misaligned. (Well, I'm a hobbyist anyway.)

In any case, this is the 'basics' group. Does a question have
be asked as though it were framed by an expert here? No. And
you framed the question better than many I've seen (and some
that I've asked.)

....

So... are you going to try something out? Or will this remain
hypothetical for a while?

Jon

 

[Lauri Alanko]

In article <k81pt8hv7o0bjbsn6sn577bhihcelgkmb7@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi
wrote:
I don't even know which leds I'm going to use yet.

---
Then you've wasted our time by asking for help by stating that they'll
drop 2.2V?

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I merely gave an example
calculation, with realistic sample values, to demonstrate my concern
with the circuit in question. I hoped to emphasize that this was
merely hypothetical by using words such as "suppose", "load would be",
"if we designed" etc.

Besides, in the same example the supply voltage was 12 V, and that
didn't prevent you from suggesting otherwise. Surely there was nothing
to prevent you from suggesting different leds, as well?

In any case, I don't see how anyone's time has been wasted. All the
replies I've received have been most pertinent and educational, and
the circuits I've seen seem useful regardless of whether one plugs in
four 2.2 V leds or three 3.6 V leds per series.


Lauri

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> schreef in bericht
news:smhjt8tn6rjs61esale74fo2d0ikknc1gm@4ax.com...

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:17:59 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Suppose Q2 slipped through non reversed?

I actually caught that mistake, right away. Note my
self-reply shortly after?

Missed it completely. That's to say my newsserver did. Now you mentioned it,
I found it in Google groups.

My IP, though "the best IP of the country," considers its newsserver as
experimental so it comes without any guaranty at all. Sometimes my own
postings do not show up even if wrote on that actual server.

Don't worry about your brains. Without them you couldn't
make a mistake

Hmm. An argument for being a machine, perhaps.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:34:35 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
<petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> schreef in bericht
news:smhjt8tn6rjs61esale74fo2d0ikknc1gm@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:17:59 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Suppose Q2 slipped through non reversed?

I actually caught that mistake, right away. Note my
self-reply shortly after?

Missed it completely. That's to say my newsserver did. Now you mentioned it,
I found it in Google groups.

Thanks for the note about it. Yeah, I get it. Nice you caught
it, too. I might have missed it myself and that's a good
catch from you!

After my internet service (Verizon) decided to remove from
their contract, unilaterally and without my permission of
course, NNTP services... I pretty much was forced to "go find
something." I'm paying 10 euros (despite being in the US) per
year for a service offered in Europe and it appears to be
working well these last years (fast.) news.individual.net.

Seems to get everything I care about, perhaps except for
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic. I have to just live with
that for now.

My IP, though "the best IP of the country," considers its newsserver as
experimental so it comes without any guaranty at all. Sometimes my own
postings do not show up even if wrote on that actual server.

Well, at least you HAVE a newsserver with your internet
service.

I grew used to the idea that my internet service is supposed
to provide the usual suite, including domain name services,
mail, and NNTP. Traditional, I had thought. You take the good
with the bad to get the business. But it's really a monopoly,
so... they can take the good with the good and sell off the
bad.

Jon

Don't worry about your brains. Without them you couldn't
make a mistake

Hmm. An argument for being a machine, perhaps.

Jon

 

[Ian Field]

"Lauri Alanko" <la@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:krc7nr$aqh$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...

In article <krbask$ef6$1@dont-email.me>, P E Schoen <paul@peschoen.com
wrote:
If you want bottom line best efficiency and lowest cost, especially for
something that may be used in production, some of the single chip LED
drivers are really amazing:

Of course there are ICs for every purpose nowadays, but "buy this
chip" is kind of a boring solution to anything.

Besides, I'm not convinced that the examples you show are ideal for my
purposes.

http://www.linear.com/product/LT3465

This is a boost converter intended for Li-ion batteries. I don't think
step-up conversion buys me very much if I work with a 12 V power
supply, already enough to drive several leds in a series.

Here's one for about $1 that can work from 20-450 VDC and 20 mA:
http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/391/HV9921-26434.pdf

This is a switching current limiter. It sounds great, but since it's
expensive relative to leds, one would ideally run it from mains to
ensure it runs a maximal number of leds. Unfortunately dabbling with
mains power directly is illegal for hobbyists where I live. (Also, I
wouldn't dare touch it even if it weren't.)

This looks more like what I need:

http://www.linear.com/product/LT3746

It controls 32 led chains of 13 V each. However, it has lots of extra
features and costs 10 bucks, far more than 32 cheapo transistors.
Also, it's surface mount. I'll stay with through-hole for the time
being.

Thanks for the suggestions, anyway.

Having read some of the suggestions, I notice very few of the minimalist
solutions I favour.

The minimalist 1 transistor current source: give the transistor a fixed base
bias (like the Vf of a LED) and ground the emitter via a resistance (the
value of which determines collector current). If current tries to increase;
the voltage on the emitter resistor creeps upward and cancels some of the
fixed base bias - which acts to regulate the current.

Its that simple.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:33:08 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

snip
Having read some of the suggestions, I notice very few of the minimalist
solutions I favour.

The minimalist 1 transistor current source: give the transistor a fixed base
bias (like the Vf of a LED) and ground the emitter via a resistance (the
value of which determines collector current). If current tries to increase;
the voltage on the emitter resistor creeps upward and cancels some of the
fixed base bias - which acts to regulate the current.

Its that simple.

I think that was already in the OP's original, very first
post... along with some comments from the OP in that same
post that showed thinking going on about it.

Jon

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-07-10, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:34:35 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> schreef in bericht
news:smhjt8tn6rjs61esale74fo2d0ikknc1gm@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:17:59 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Suppose Q2 slipped through non reversed?

I actually caught that mistake, right away. Note my
self-reply shortly after?

Missed it completely. That's to say my newsserver did. Now you mentioned it,
I found it in Google groups.

Thanks for the note about it. Yeah, I get it. Nice you caught
it, too. I might have missed it myself and that's a good
catch from you!

After my internet service (Verizon) decided to remove from
their contract, unilaterally and without my permission of
course, NNTP services... I pretty much was forced to "go find
something." I'm paying 10 euros (despite being in the US) per
year for a service offered in Europe and it appears to be
working well these last years (fast.) news.individual.net.

Seems to get everything I care about, perhaps except for
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic. I have to just live with
that for now.

perhaps next year send $50 to astraweb and receive a terrabyte
of usenet with no use-before date.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On 11 Jul 2013 07:30:08 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz>
wrote:

On 2013-07-10, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:34:35 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> schreef in bericht
news:smhjt8tn6rjs61esale74fo2d0ikknc1gm@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:17:59 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Suppose Q2 slipped through non reversed?

I actually caught that mistake, right away. Note my
self-reply shortly after?

Missed it completely. That's to say my newsserver did. Now you mentioned it,
I found it in Google groups.

Thanks for the note about it. Yeah, I get it. Nice you caught
it, too. I might have missed it myself and that's a good
catch from you!

After my internet service (Verizon) decided to remove from
their contract, unilaterally and without my permission of
course, NNTP services... I pretty much was forced to "go find
something." I'm paying 10 euros (despite being in the US) per
year for a service offered in Europe and it appears to be
working well these last years (fast.) news.individual.net.

Seems to get everything I care about, perhaps except for
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic. I have to just live with
that for now.

perhaps next year send $50 to astraweb and receive a terrabyte
of usenet with no use-before date.

Hmm. On first blush, that sounds like a lot. But when I think
about what a terrabyte will likely mean to me... hmm. Do they
carry binaries like alt.binaries.schematics.electronic? (I
guess I can go look and find out... but if you already know,
I wouldn't mind your opinion about it, too.)

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:46:04 -0700, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On first blush, that sounds like a lot.

I meant "a lot of money." In case that wasn't clear.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On 11 Jul 2013 07:30:08 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz>
wrote:

snip
perhaps next year send $50 to astraweb and receive a terrabyte
of usenet with no use-before date.

Just looked at the site and it's not clear what they carry
and what they don't carry. I'll have to email them about
details, I suppose.

Also, I used to get unlimited NNTP, a few email accounts,
access to their dial-up "56k" modems, and a shell account for
$10/month in a bundle. (Did NOT include my ground line at the
home, of course.) The ground line cost me $45 per month,
then. (And I had to buy my own modem, of course.) That was
more than 15 years ago.

Now I still pay for home fiber on three optical wavelengths
if I can believe what they told me. Phone service, broadband,
and internet access. Then I pay for NNTP, separately. And pay
for shell accounts, a name on name servers, and email as a
bundle, separately. And I pay more, of course.

My NNTP access has to be around a megabyte or so per day.
Unless the protocol is totally stupid and intentionally
inflates packets with random garbage, it can't exceed 10 meg
per day. I don't do news server binaries, except perhaps the
electronics one. 1000 gig would last me a while, I imagine. I
might die before I get my money's worth.

Jon

 

[Ian Field]

"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote in message
news:jiost81cvb7ll2s60iorlhfbum1blg9k6b@4ax.com...

On 11 Jul 2013 07:30:08 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz
wrote:

On 2013-07-10, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:34:35 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Jon Kirwan" <jonk@infinitefactors.org> schreef in bericht
news:smhjt8tn6rjs61esale74fo2d0ikknc1gm@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:17:59 +0200, "petrus bitbyter"
petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Suppose Q2 slipped through non reversed?

I actually caught that mistake, right away. Note my
self-reply shortly after?

Missed it completely. That's to say my newsserver did. Now you mentioned
it,
I found it in Google groups.

Thanks for the note about it. Yeah, I get it. Nice you caught
it, too. I might have missed it myself and that's a good
catch from you!

After my internet service (Verizon) decided to remove from
their contract, unilaterally and without my permission of
course, NNTP services... I pretty much was forced to "go find
something." I'm paying 10 euros (despite being in the US) per
year for a service offered in Europe and it appears to be
working well these last years (fast.) news.individual.net.

Seems to get everything I care about, perhaps except for
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic. I have to just live with
that for now.

perhaps next year send $50 to astraweb and receive a terrabyte
of usenet with no use-before date.

Hmm. On first blush, that sounds like a lot. But when I think
about what a terrabyte will likely mean to me... hmm. Do they
carry binaries like alt.binaries.schematics.electronic?

ABSE is pretty much a dead group with occasional political rants from JT -
even JF is having trouble finding people to rag on!