I read it that Pete has two problems and I have one of them - poor
triggering in the dark which we understand and have fixes for based on
UV from LEDs (a semiconductor solution) or a pond UV lamp (i.e a "valve"
solution). But Pete has a second problem that I do not see which is
misfiring under lit conditions. Pete has issues with his construction
density perhaps; mine is not very small. I'm at a loss to suggest
anything; Pete seems to have a triggering sensistivity on the rings far
higher than mine and the only substantive component change is that Pete
has changed one of the cathode resistors and I change the common anode
resistor to account for a higher supply voltage. Our source of XC18s
was the same.
I have the XC18 rings running with 180V (Dance) and I have a Z700U ring
running as well (this runs in complete darkness as each has a primer
electrode) :D
Grahame
On 01/04/2014 15:02, Nick wrote:
For the last Lord knows how many years I've been intending to
follow in Grahame's footsteps and build an XC-18 clock - I picked
up 300 of these many years back when the guy in Southampton only
wanted about 10p each for them - hopefully enough for two clocks.
I'm impressed with Pete's results - it's good that the theory is being
tested and the results quantified as the "triggering in the dark"
issue has been around for a while - Kr85, as has been pointed out, was
used for specifically this reason, but is no longer viable. Let's hope
that Pete's experiments results are repeatable - do you have the
details of the emission characteristics of those LEDs?
Cheers
Nick
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"neonixie-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neonixie-l/533ACA78.7010501%40googlemail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
