On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 20:06 -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
I blew out the only 74HC (74HC04 NAND) part in my junk box, so I cut my
charge pump circuit down to this:
~
_ _
Buffer Card Output _| |_| |_
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 17:00 +0200, fi wrote:
... snip
(Hope is not to late...)
Why don't you use one of Mariss Freimanis circuits ?!?
http://www.artofcnc.ca/ChargePumpSafety.pdf
or this from EDN
Hardware watchdog timer accepts range of frequencies
Kirk Wallace wrote:
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 12:28 -0500, John Kasunich wrote:
Sorry to be so chatty, but...
... snip
But if the cylinder is too small, pumped too slowly, or the leak
is too big, then the pumping might not be able to keep up with
the leak. In that case, make the leak
Am 13.12.2010 15:56, schrieb Stephen Wille Padnos:
I don't think this is a concern. People who have hardware that removes
the need for a base thread very likely also have a watchdog feature in
their hardware. I know the Mesa and Pico products do, and I believe the
Pluto does as well.
On 12/12/2010 01:49 PM, emc-users-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
There is then a lot to be said for removing IC1C, so the slow input is
discriminated only once. If pins 1 3 are then connected, any small
same-chip threshold variation will have negligible effect, because here
the
Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
(I'm not sure about Motenc and STG)
STG does not have a complete watchdog. Years ago I used the STG. It
produces
a pulse that cycles when there is input to the various DAC channels.
You need to
provide an external circuit of the missing pulse detector sort
I don't know if it's been pointed out, but those caps on the regulator are
in the wrong place. (on the diagram below)
and a trivial point; I don't know how you selected which gate where, but
when it comes to laying the board, change inverter number 1-6 to suit the
mechanics, and choose tie-up or
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:39 +0200, Roland Jollivet wrote:
I don't know if it's been pointed out, but those caps on the regulator are
in the wrong place. (on the diagram below)
Oops. That's such a bad mistake, I made myself laugh. Err... I was just
testing to see if anyone would notice.
This
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 16:36 +0100, dambacher-retrofit.de wrote:
Am 13.12.2010 15:56, schrieb Stephen Wille Padnos:
I don't think this is a concern. People who have hardware that removes
the need for a base thread very likely also have a watchdog feature in
their hardware. I know the
Back in the '80s, we used to do something similar that also took care of the reset pulse width.
(See attached). The values of the C's and Rs set the reset pulse width and wtdog time.
We needed to have an ultra reliable system, but problem was that some power glitches could hang up
processors.
Am 13.12.2010 22:52, schrieb Kirk Wallace:
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 16:36 +0100, dambacher-retrofit.de wrote:
Am 13.12.2010 15:56, schrieb Stephen Wille Padnos:
I don't think this is a concern. People who have hardware that removes
the need for a base thread very likely also have a watchdog
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 18:08 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
... snip
there is much greater risk of slightly
different input thresholds causing the outputs to contest, thereby
trying to short +5v to ground, when the input is slowly changing.
(Counted in nanoseconds)
There is then a lot to be
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:49:33AM -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
I need to add a voltage regulator and filter caps, but there is no magic
there. I've noticed Matt's circuit is leaner because it doesn't need
one. My circuit might be improved with some I/O protection, but that
will make
Hello gentlemen,
lately, I saw a lot of attempts to get schematic drawings of circuitry
over the email line using ordinary sign characters, e.g. backslash or
underscore or the like.
Please keep in mind that these signs may make up a sensible sketch on
your screen as you send it down the line,
Peter,
As long as the list accepts attachments, that would work.
Anybody have the definitive answer on whether the list is
set up to accept attachments?
Mark
At 06:29 AM 12/11/2010, you wrote:
Hello gentlemen,
lately, I saw a lot of attempts to get schematic drawings of
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:51:51 -0800
Kirk Wallace kwall...@wallacecompany.com wrote:
Here is my latest stab at an all analog charge pump:
http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/EMC2/chpmp-5a.png
I'm thinking the opto-isolator on the input might be a good thing, but
using an IC for one
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:29 +0100, Peter Blodow p.blo...@dreki.de
wrote:
Hello gentlemen,
lately, I saw a lot of attempts to get schematic drawings of circuitry
over the email line using ordinary sign characters, e.g. backslash or
underscore or the like.
Please keep in mind that these
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 17:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
... snip
Adding a pull-down resitor to OK1's emitter, followed by the 3 spare
CMOS gates, wired in parallel, will provide the required push-pull drive
to C1. (And remove the problem of wasted gates.)
Thanks Erik. I to study what
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Blodow wrote:
Hello gentlemen,
lately, I saw a lot of attempts to get schematic drawings of circuitry
over the email line using ordinary sign characters, e.g. backslash or
underscore or the like.
The ASCII art is just me getting lazy. I was hoping
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:12 -0800, Kirk Wallace
kwall...@wallacecompany.com wrote:
The circuit works properly to detect non-AC input. It's just when the +5
input is connected, there is a one pump charge that gets through which
is large enough to bring the output cap up a couple of volts in a
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:37:03AM -0500, John Kasunich wrote:
Email is a pure text medium. Not HTML, not rich-text, not
formatted text, just plain text. That includes using non-'
proportional fonts. If your email client is using proportional
fonts, you should be able to tell it not to.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 09:12:24AM -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 17:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
... snip
Adding a pull-down resitor to OK1's emitter, followed by the 3 spare
CMOS gates, wired in parallel, will provide the required push-pull drive
to C1. (And
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 15:59 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
... snip
That's controlled by the C1/C2 ratio. Consider the
charge Q tranferred from C1 to C2 on one pulse:
C1*V1 = Q = C2*V2
If C2 = 10*C1, then V2 = V1/10 , minus diode drops.
I found that even without a resistor across
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:06:29PM -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 15:59 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
... snip
That's controlled by the C1/C2 ratio. Consider the
charge Q tranferred from C1 to C2 on one pulse:
C1*V1 = Q = C2*V2
If C2 = 10*C1, then V2 = V1/10
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:26 -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 20:06 -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
Some corrections:
74HC04=Hex Inverter, I tried a 2in NOR, but it's all the same.
I blew out the only 74HC (74HC04 NAND) part in my junk box, so I cut my
... snip
I also wired this
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 20:51 -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
... snip
I changed C2 from .1uF to .33uF. The 1kHz pumped voltage is now a little
higher, ~4 V with very little ripple, and the decay rate is about the
same.
... snip
Oops, I forgot to mention, the larger cap helped with the DC high input
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:51:51PM -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:26 -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 20:06 -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
... snip
I also wired this up:
+- O'Scope
_ _ |
_| |_| |
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 20:06 -0800, Kirk Wallace wrote:
Some corrections:
74HC04=Hex Inverter, I tried a 2in NOR, but it's all the same.
I blew out the only 74HC (74HC04 NAND) part in my junk box, so I cut my
... snip
I also wired this up:
+- O'Scope
_ _
28 matches
Mail list logo
