On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:04:35 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:48:41 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:45:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

[snip]

Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
architecture first.

Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?

Because it was a trivial theoretical cartoon, in fact just some
waveforms. And it was a variable-duty-cycle switcher, which is *not*
what you ultimately posted. In other words, it was all show but
useless to the discussion at hand.

[snip]

Oh! Finally I see... if _I_ run an architectural behavioral
simulation showing that the scheme will work, it's a "cartoon".

It didn't even function like the thing you finally posted. It was just
a generic set of buck switcher waveforms.

You never addressesed basic stuff like turning things on and off
without blowing up the semiconductors.



On the other hand, if _you_ make a hand sketch, by _declaration_,
that's the only proper way?

I never said that my sketch was the only proper way. I presented an
architecture for discussion. The question being, is that the
functionality that would work?

In fact, with good LEDs, there may be no need for current
multiplication at all.


John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.

Another unsupported claim.


Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.

John