Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA

"Genome" wrote in message
...
Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA




Ahhhhh......

DNA

Genome a écrit :
Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?


That's a multiplier, given that Ic(Q21) is your output.

One pb I see is that you want to current drive your Q7-Q8 and the Q9-Q10
logging pairs as well as the Q11-Q12 diff pair tail, which is posing
some pb for the collectors/bases nodes voltage that have to you fix
through R16-R17-R6-R9.

What I'd do is to set the Q7-Q8 and Q9-Q10 collectors voltage, which
will in turn establish the Q11-Q12 and Q13-Q14 diff pairs base voltages.
And also I'd directly bias Q21 with an emitter current source, instead
of using the R12/R13=2 to bias it at 100uA which will run the diff pairs
at different collector currents.



--
Thanks,
Fred.

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:03 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:

Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA


Since it has five inputs and no output, it doesn't do anything!

John


Kind of like Homer?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:03 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:

Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA


Since it has five inputs and no output, it doesn't do anything!

John


Circuit thing in development..... It is meant to do something useful but if
you are thick..... unsure about the application, then it is just a pretty
picture.

Fred is on the ball, but you'd expect that from an Eyetalien who knows about
proper sport.

The porty things with their pointy stuff sort of indicate inputs and
outputs. The three on the left with their pointy stuff going into the
circuit might be inputs from some other part of the circuit. The two on the
right with their pointy things going out of the circuit might be outputs to
some other part of the circuit......

I'm 15st 6lb and you must have a full head of hair.

DNA

"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?


That's a multiplier, given that Ic(Q21) is your output.

One pb I see is that you want to current drive your Q7-Q8 and the Q9-Q10
logging pairs as well as the Q11-Q12 diff pair tail, which is posing some
pb for the collectors/bases nodes voltage that have to you fix through
R16-R17-R6-R9.

What I'd do is to set the Q7-Q8 and Q9-Q10 collectors voltage, which will
in turn establish the Q11-Q12 and Q13-Q14 diff pairs base voltages.
And also I'd directly bias Q21 with an emitter current source, instead of
using the R12/R13=2 to bias it at 100uA which will run the diff pairs at
different collector currents.



--
Thanks,
Fred.

Yup! Part of it is.... Don't lose sleep though. I most definately don't
really know what I am doing other than poking at stuff to find an answer.

I am using the said resistors to set operating points...

Hang on..... are you having a bash?

DNA

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:03 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:

Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA


Since it has five inputs and no output, it doesn't do anything!

John

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:03 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:

Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA


Lose the Q15, Q16, Q18 current mirrors and replace with diodes or
resistors to set the common-mode operating range.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

That's a multiplier, given that Ic(Q21) is your output.

One pb I see is that you want to current drive your Q7-Q8 and the Q9-Q10
logging pairs as well as the Q11-Q12 diff pair tail, which is posing some
pb for the collectors/bases nodes voltage that have to you fix through
R16-R17-R6-R9.

What I'd do is to set the Q7-Q8 and Q9-Q10 collectors voltage, which will
in turn establish the Q11-Q12 and Q13-Q14 diff pairs base voltages.
And also I'd directly bias Q21 with an emitter current source, instead of
using the R12/R13=2 to bias it at 100uA which will run the diff pairs at
different collector currents.



--
Thanks,
Fred.

Yup! Part of it is.... Don't lose sleep though. I most definately don't
really know what I am doing other than poking at stuff to find an answer.

I am using the said resistors to set operating points...

Hang on..... are you having a bash?


Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...

Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out of bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.

DNA

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:03 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:

Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA


Lose the Q15, Q16, Q18 current mirrors and replace with diodes or
resistors to set the common-mode operating range.

...Jim Thompson

Sir! Yes! Sir!

Uhm..... ********, Q17 has become a Red Herring.

DNA

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:34:16 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:03 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:

Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA


Since it has five inputs and no output, it doesn't do anything!

John


Circuit thing in development..... It is meant to do something useful but if
you are thick..... unsure about the application, then it is just a pretty
picture.

Fred is on the ball, but you'd expect that from an Eyetalien who knows about
proper sport.

The porty things with their pointy stuff sort of indicate inputs and
outputs. The three on the left with their pointy stuff going into the
circuit might be inputs from some other part of the circuit. The two on the
right with their pointy things going out of the circuit might be outputs to
some other part of the circuit......


Forgive my ignorance; I see it now. The two on the right are fixed
outputs, 7.5 and 15 volts DC. The three on the left are inputs that do
nothing. So it's a power supply.

Hey, with a little work, you could maybe turn this into one of those
power factor thingies.


I'm 15st 6lb and you must have a full head of hair.

155 lbs this morning, and roger the hair.

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:34:16 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
. ..
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:50:03 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:

Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA


Since it has five inputs and no output, it doesn't do anything!

John


Circuit thing in development..... It is meant to do something useful but
if
you are thick..... unsure about the application, then it is just a pretty
picture.

Fred is on the ball, but you'd expect that from an Eyetalien who knows
about
proper sport.

The porty things with their pointy stuff sort of indicate inputs and
outputs. The three on the left with their pointy stuff going into the
circuit might be inputs from some other part of the circuit. The two on
the
right with their pointy things going out of the circuit might be outputs
to
some other part of the circuit......


Forgive my ignorance; I see it now. The two on the right are fixed
outputs, 7.5 and 15 volts DC. The three on the left are inputs that do
nothing. So it's a power supply.

Hey, with a little work, you could maybe turn this into one of those
power factor thingies.


I'm 15st 6lb and you must have a full head of hair.

155 lbs this morning, and roger the hair.

John


Well, there you go then.

Short bloke.

DNA

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Genome wrote:


"Genome" wrote in message
...
Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA




Ahhhhh......

DNA

Would it matter if R12, Q17, R13, Q18, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q4, Q3, R5 and
R4
were all omitted? Then you could connect the bases of Q13 and Q14 to the
place where you used to connect the bases of Q11 and Q12 (but the proper
way around), and nobody will be any the wiser. Of course I have not
simulated it so I could be wrong.

Chris

Sounds good to me.

I suppose I'll have to wake up in the morning and have a cup of tea before I
delete the extraneous stuff.

DNA

Genome wrote:


"Genome" wrote in message
...
Here's something I'm hacking.

Unlike Jim I am scum.

However, what is it and am I wasting my time?

DNA




Ahhhhh......

DNA

Would it matter if R12, Q17, R13, Q18, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q4, Q3, R5 and R4
were all omitted? Then you could connect the bases of Q13 and Q14 to the
place where you used to connect the bases of Q11 and Q12 (but the proper
way around), and nobody will be any the wiser. Of course I have not
simulated it so I could be wrong.

Chris

Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out of bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea, but
since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and you
probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Version 4
SHEET 1 1724 900
WIRE 144 -320 -208 -320
WIRE 1264 -320 560 -320
WIRE 1456 -320 1264 -320
WIRE -880 -352 -912 -352
WIRE 640 -352 -880 -352
WIRE 928 -288 736 -288
WIRE 1408 -288 1168 -288
WIRE 1456 -288 1408 -288
WIRE -752 -256 -752 -320
WIRE 144 -256 144 -320
WIRE 736 -256 736 -288
WIRE 928 -256 928 -288
WIRE -752 -144 -752 -176
WIRE 144 -144 144 -176
WIRE 736 -144 736 -176
WIRE 928 -144 928 -176
WIRE -608 -96 -688 -96
WIRE 80 -96 -608 -96
WIRE 832 -96 800 -96
WIRE 864 -96 832 -96
WIRE -752 -16 -912 -16
WIRE -752 -16 -752 -48
WIRE -608 -16 -608 -96
WIRE -608 -16 -752 -16
WIRE 736 -16 736 -48
WIRE 832 -16 832 -96
WIRE 832 -16 736 -16
WIRE -880 16 -880 -352
WIRE -752 16 -752 -16
WIRE -16 -48 -112 -48
WIRE -304 -48 -208 -48
WIRE 304 -320 208 -320
WIRE 464 -320 304 -320
WIRE 560 -320 464 -320
WIRE 928 96 928 -48
WIRE -16 -16 -16 -48
WIRE -304 -16 -304 -48
WIRE 304 -288 304 -320
WIRE 464 -288 464 -320
WIRE 1088 128 1088 96
WIRE -112 32 -112 -48
WIRE -80 32 -112 32
WIRE -208 32 -208 -48
WIRE -208 32 -240 32
WIRE 208 -240 208 -320
WIRE 240 -240 208 -240
WIRE 560 -240 560 -320
WIRE 560 -240 528 -240
WIRE 1264 592 1264 176
WIRE -880 128 -880 96
WIRE -752 128 -752 96
WIRE -752 128 -880 128
WIRE -880 160 -880 128
WIRE 464 144 464 -192
WIRE 1024 144 464 144
WIRE 304 176 304 -192
WIRE 608 176 304 176
WIRE 304 448 304 176
WIRE 464 448 464 144
WIRE 736 272 736 -16
WIRE 928 272 928 96
WIRE 608 320 608 176
WIRE 672 320 608 320
WIRE 1024 320 1024 144
WIRE 1024 320 992 320
WIRE 464 592 464 544
WIRE 736 400 736 368
WIRE 832 400 736 400
WIRE 928 400 928 368
WIRE 928 400 832 400
WIRE -880 432 -912 432
WIRE -816 432 -880 432
WIRE -704 432 -736 432
WIRE -608 432 -704 432
WIRE 240 416 144 416
WIRE 640 432 640 -352
WIRE 736 432 640 432
WIRE -704 464 -704 432
WIRE 144 448 144 416
WIRE 640 464 640 432
WIRE 832 464 832 400
WIRE -608 512 -608 432
WIRE -608 512 -640 512
WIRE -576 512 -608 512
WIRE 240 496 240 416
WIRE 240 496 208 496
WIRE 736 512 736 432
WIRE 736 512 704 512
WIRE 768 512 736 512
WIRE -880 592 -880 432
WIRE -704 592 -704 560
WIRE -512 592 -512 560
WIRE 144 592 144 544
WIRE 304 592 304 544
WIRE 640 592 640 560
WIRE 832 592 832 560
WIRE 1408 592 1408 -288
WIRE -880 704 -880 672
WIRE -704 704 -704 672
WIRE -704 704 -880 704
WIRE -512 704 -512 672
WIRE -512 704 -704 704
WIRE 144 704 144 672
WIRE 144 704 -16 704
WIRE 304 704 304 672
WIRE 304 704 144 704
WIRE 640 704 464 704
WIRE 640 704 640 672
WIRE 832 704 832 672
WIRE 832 704 640 704
WIRE 1088 704 832 704
WIRE 1088 704 1088 224
WIRE 1264 704 1264 672
WIRE 1264 704 1088 704
WIRE 1408 704 1408 672
WIRE 1408 704 1264 704
WIRE -880 736 -880 704
WIRE 464 704 464 672
WIRE 464 704 304 704
WIRE 144 -48 144 416
WIRE 208 -320 144 -320
WIRE -224 384 -224 352
WIRE -160 384 -224 384
WIRE -208 -48 -112 -48
WIRE -160 704 -304 704
WIRE -160 624 -160 384
WIRE -96 176 304 176
WIRE 464 144 -224 144
WIRE -224 144 -224 256
WIRE -304 304 -288 304
WIRE -304 80 -304 304
WIRE -96 256 -96 176
WIRE -16 80 -16 304
WIRE -16 304 -32 304
WIRE -208 -320 -304 -320
WIRE -304 -288 -304 -320
WIRE -208 -240 -208 -320
WIRE -208 -240 -240 -240
WIRE -304 -320 -752 -320
WIRE -304 -192 -304 -48
WIRE -304 624 -304 304
WIRE -160 384 -96 384
WIRE -96 384 -96 352
WIRE -304 704 -512 704
WIRE -16 704 -160 704
WIRE -16 304 -16 464
WIRE 1088 96 928 96
WIRE 240 496 400 496
WIRE 1264 176 1264 -320
WIRE 1168 16 1168 176
WIRE 1168 176 1152 176
WIRE 1184 176 1168 176
WIRE 1168 -64 1168 -288
WIRE 1168 -288 1088 -288
WIRE 1088 -192 1088 -288
WIRE 1088 -288 928 -288
WIRE 1088 -112 1088 96
WIRE -512 464 -16 464
WIRE -16 464 -16 624
FLAG -912 432 VVEA
IOPIN -912 432 In
FLAG 1456 -320 7V5
IOPIN 1456 -320 Out
FLAG -880 736 0
FLAG 1456 -288 15V
IOPIN 1456 -288 Out
FLAG -912 -16 VFF
IOPIN -912 -16 In
FLAG -912 -352 IAC
IOPIN -912 -352 In
FLAG -880 160 0
SYMBOL npn -80 -16 R0
WINDOW 0 56 37 Left 0
WINDOW 3 56 59 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q7
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL npn -240 -16 M0
WINDOW 0 98 38 Left 0
WINDOW 3 49 59 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q8
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL npn 672 272 R0
WINDOW 3 56 56 Left 0
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMATTR InstName Q13
SYMBOL npn 992 272 M0
WINDOW 0 93 32 Left 0
WINDOW 3 53 56 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q14
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL pnp 800 -48 R180
WINDOW 0 83 58 Left 0
WINDOW 3 49 37 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q19
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL pnp 864 -48 M180
WINDOW 0 53 58 Left 0
WINDOW 3 57 35 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q20
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL pnp 1152 224 R180
WINDOW 0 5 -22 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -27 -45 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q21
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL res 720 -272 R0
SYMATTR InstName R14
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res 912 -272 R0
SYMATTR InstName R15
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL pnp -688 -48 R180
WINDOW 0 91 63 Left 0
WINDOW 3 55 37 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q15
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL pnp 80 -48 M180
WINDOW 0 53 58 Left 0
WINDOW 3 51 33 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q16
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL res -768 -272 R0
SYMATTR InstName R10
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res 128 -272 R0
SYMATTR InstName R11
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL npn 704 464 M0
WINDOW 0 80 35 Left 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q5
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL npn 768 464 R0
WINDOW 3 42 54 Left 0
WINDOW 0 43 34 Left 0
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMATTR InstName Q6
SYMBOL res 624 576 R0
WINDOW 0 40 47 Left 0
WINDOW 3 44 70 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R7
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res 816 576 R0
WINDOW 0 43 44 Left 0
WINDOW 3 38 70 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R8
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL voltage 1264 576 R0
WINDOW 0 36 44 Left 0
WINDOW 3 38 71 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName VREF
SYMATTR Value 7.5
SYMBOL voltage 1408 576 R0
WINDOW 0 38 37 Left 0
WINDOW 3 38 61 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName VCC
SYMATTR Value 15V
SYMBOL npn -640 464 M0
WINDOW 0 92 35 Left 0
WINDOW 3 43 58 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL npn -576 464 R0
WINDOW 3 59 54 Left 0
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMATTR InstName Q2
SYMBOL res -720 576 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res -528 576 R0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res -720 416 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 50K
SYMBOL current -880 96 R180
WINDOW 0 -76 51 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -90 31 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName IAC
SYMATTR Value 200µ
SYMBOL current -752 16 R0
WINDOW 0 40 27 Left 0
WINDOW 3 40 49 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName IDIV
SYMATTR Value 200µ
SYMBOL current -880 672 R180
WINDOW 0 -69 42 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -93 30 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName IIN
SYMATTR Value PULSE(100u 0 0 1 0 10 11)
SYMBOL npn 240 448 R0
WINDOW 3 70 15 Left 0
WINDOW 0 71 -14 Left 0
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMATTR InstName Q11
SYMBOL npn 400 448 R0
WINDOW 0 78 32 Left 0
WINDOW 3 40 56 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q12
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL npn 208 448 M0
WINDOW 0 92 35 Left 0
WINDOW 3 43 58 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q3
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL res 160 576 M0
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL res 288 576 R0
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL npn 240 -288 R0
WINDOW 0 56 37 Left 0
WINDOW 3 56 59 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q9
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL npn 528 -288 M0
WINDOW 0 89 38 Left 0
WINDOW 3 52 59 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q10
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL res 448 576 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL npn -288 256 R0
WINDOW 3 56 56 Left 0
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMATTR InstName Q4
SYMBOL npn -32 256 M0
WINDOW 0 -15 112 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -47 140 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q17
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL current -160 624 R0
WINDOW 0 40 27 Left 0
WINDOW 3 40 49 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName IBIAS1
SYMATTR Value 200µ
SYMBOL npn -240 -288 M0
WINDOW 0 89 38 Left 0
WINDOW 3 52 59 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName Q18
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL current -304 624 R0
WINDOW 0 40 27 Left 0
WINDOW 3 40 49 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName IBIAS2
SYMATTR Value 200µ
SYMBOL current -16 624 R0
WINDOW 0 40 27 Left 0
WINDOW 3 40 49 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName IBIAS3
SYMATTR Value 200µ
SYMBOL H:\Applis\LTC\SwCADIII\lib\sym\res 1280 160 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R9
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL H:\Applis\LTC\SwCADIII\lib\sym\res 1184 32 R180
WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0
WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R12
SYMATTR Value 1K
SYMBOL current 1088 -192 R0
WINDOW 0 -75 84 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -57 107 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName IBIAS4
SYMATTR Value 0µ
TEXT -912 360 Left 0 !.tran 0 1 10u 10m
TEXT -912 312 Left 0 !.STEP IDIV LIST 10U 20U 40U 80U 100u
TEXT -912 336 Left 0 ;.op

"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out of
bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea, but
since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and you
probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


It's good of you to have a play with things. I'll have to study that lot for
quite a while, there's probably some tricks I should be using. I'm having a
go at simplifying what I've got.

It's meant to be the multiplier/divider circuit for a power factor
correction circuit.

The output of the voltage error amplifier, ideally, should be multiplied by
a value proportional to the rectified line voltage and divided by the square
of the average line voltage. The output of the multiplier goes to the
current error amplifier which controls line current.

Proportional to the rectified line voltage makes the current drawn follow
the voltage, giving a resistive load.

Divided by the square of the average line voltage 'normalises'(?) the power
circuit gain. If the rectified line doubles then the current draw should be
halved and then you have to halve it again because the rectified line
voltage used for the first multiplication doubled as well.......

I'm doing this because I'm almost, sometime, never, going to get around to
implementing a semi discrete PFC circuit and none of what is available as an
IC really does the job I think I want to do and I've just got bored with
them.

Thanks for looking but your time might be better spent on other things since
I'm prone to ignoring advice and generally just beat my head against stuff.
Mind you some of this might filter into my head.

If I come up with something I'll post it....

DNA

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:17:32 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free .fr_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote
in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out of
bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about
with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea, but
since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and you
probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


It's good of you to have a play with things. I'll have to study that lot
for
quite a while, there's probably some tricks I should be using. I'm having
a
go at simplifying what I've got.

It's meant to be the multiplier/divider circuit for a power factor
correction circuit.

The output of the voltage error amplifier, ideally, should be multiplied
by
a value proportional to the rectified line voltage and divided by the
square
of the average line voltage. The output of the multiplier goes to the
current error amplifier which controls line current.

Proportional to the rectified line voltage makes the current drawn follow
the voltage, giving a resistive load.

Divided by the square of the average line voltage 'normalises'(?) the
power
circuit gain. If the rectified line doubles then the current draw should
be
halved and then you have to halve it again because the rectified line
voltage used for the first multiplication doubled as well.......

I'm doing this because I'm almost, sometime, never, going to get around to
implementing a semi discrete PFC circuit and none of what is available as
an
IC really does the job I think I want to do and I've just got bored with
them.

Thanks for looking but your time might be better spent on other things
since
I'm prone to ignoring advice and generally just beat my head against
stuff.
Mind you some of this might filter into my head.

If I come up with something I'll post it....

DNA



This sort of design, like most everything else, is eventually going
digital. Some crap 75 cent uP with on-chip mux'd ADC could run a tight
loop doing nothing but this algorithm maybe 20,000 times a second and
output PWM directly. It could do all sorts of rampup, duty-cycle
limiting, feedforward tricks, current sensing, loop compensation...
there's no limit. It's almost tragic.

John



.........

You are probably not wrong.....

It depends on how much people are prepared to dumb down the specs to cope
with the new age of dumbness. Who am I to speak? I'd be tempted to have a
bash myself (thought about it) but then again I wouldn't.....

Hmmmmm, there is going to be some sort of division of labour involved in
such a solution. Can we talk synergy? No, beyond some final year thesis, I
don't think it's going to happen.......

One day PID control will rule the world....... bummer.

DNA

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:17:32 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free. fr_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out of
bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea, but
since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and you
probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


It's good of you to have a play with things. I'll have to study that lot for
quite a while, there's probably some tricks I should be using. I'm having a
go at simplifying what I've got.

It's meant to be the multiplier/divider circuit for a power factor
correction circuit.

The output of the voltage error amplifier, ideally, should be multiplied by
a value proportional to the rectified line voltage and divided by the square
of the average line voltage. The output of the multiplier goes to the
current error amplifier which controls line current.

Proportional to the rectified line voltage makes the current drawn follow
the voltage, giving a resistive load.

Divided by the square of the average line voltage 'normalises'(?) the power
circuit gain. If the rectified line doubles then the current draw should be
halved and then you have to halve it again because the rectified line
voltage used for the first multiplication doubled as well.......

I'm doing this because I'm almost, sometime, never, going to get around to
implementing a semi discrete PFC circuit and none of what is available as an
IC really does the job I think I want to do and I've just got bored with
them.

Thanks for looking but your time might be better spent on other things since
I'm prone to ignoring advice and generally just beat my head against stuff.
Mind you some of this might filter into my head.

If I come up with something I'll post it....

DNA



This sort of design, like most everything else, is eventually going
digital. Some crap 75 cent uP with on-chip mux'd ADC could run a tight
loop doing nothing but this algorithm maybe 20,000 times a second and
output PWM directly. It could do all sorts of rampup, duty-cycle
limiting, feedforward tricks, current sensing, loop compensation...
there's no limit. It's almost tragic.

John

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:22:40 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:17:32 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_fre e.fr_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote
in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out of
bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about
with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea, but
since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and you
probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


It's good of you to have a play with things. I'll have to study that lot
for
quite a while, there's probably some tricks I should be using. I'm having
a
go at simplifying what I've got.

It's meant to be the multiplier/divider circuit for a power factor
correction circuit.

The output of the voltage error amplifier, ideally, should be multiplied
by
a value proportional to the rectified line voltage and divided by the
square
of the average line voltage. The output of the multiplier goes to the
current error amplifier which controls line current.

Proportional to the rectified line voltage makes the current drawn follow
the voltage, giving a resistive load.

Divided by the square of the average line voltage 'normalises'(?) the
power
circuit gain. If the rectified line doubles then the current draw should
be
halved and then you have to halve it again because the rectified line
voltage used for the first multiplication doubled as well.......

I'm doing this because I'm almost, sometime, never, going to get around to
implementing a semi discrete PFC circuit and none of what is available as
an
IC really does the job I think I want to do and I've just got bored with
them.

Thanks for looking but your time might be better spent on other things
since
I'm prone to ignoring advice and generally just beat my head against
stuff.
Mind you some of this might filter into my head.

If I come up with something I'll post it....

DNA



This sort of design, like most everything else, is eventually going
digital. Some crap 75 cent uP with on-chip mux'd ADC could run a tight
loop doing nothing but this algorithm maybe 20,000 times a second and
output PWM directly. It could do all sorts of rampup, duty-cycle
limiting, feedforward tricks, current sensing, loop compensation...
there's no limit. It's almost tragic.

John



.........

You are probably not wrong.....

It depends on how much people are prepared to dumb down the specs to cope
with the new age of dumbness. Who am I to speak? I'd be tempted to have a
bash myself (thought about it) but then again I wouldn't.....

Hmmmmm, there is going to be some sort of division of labour involved in
such a solution. Can we talk synergy? No, beyond some final year thesis, I
don't think it's going to happen.......

One day PID control will rule the world....... bummer.

DNA


Digital power supplies are the future...

http://powerelectronics.com/digital_power/


But it's 100x easier for a power supply designer to learn to program
than it is for a programmer to understand power supplies. Well, maybe
1000x.


John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:22:40 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:17:32 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_fr ee.fr_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote
in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out
of
bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about
with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea,
but
since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and you
probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


It's good of you to have a play with things. I'll have to study that lot
for
quite a while, there's probably some tricks I should be using. I'm
having
a
go at simplifying what I've got.

It's meant to be the multiplier/divider circuit for a power factor
correction circuit.

The output of the voltage error amplifier, ideally, should be multiplied
by
a value proportional to the rectified line voltage and divided by the
square
of the average line voltage. The output of the multiplier goes to the
current error amplifier which controls line current.

Proportional to the rectified line voltage makes the current drawn
follow
the voltage, giving a resistive load.

Divided by the square of the average line voltage 'normalises'(?) the
power
circuit gain. If the rectified line doubles then the current draw should
be
halved and then you have to halve it again because the rectified line
voltage used for the first multiplication doubled as well.......

I'm doing this because I'm almost, sometime, never, going to get around
to
implementing a semi discrete PFC circuit and none of what is available
as
an
IC really does the job I think I want to do and I've just got bored with
them.

Thanks for looking but your time might be better spent on other things
since
I'm prone to ignoring advice and generally just beat my head against
stuff.
Mind you some of this might filter into my head.

If I come up with something I'll post it....

DNA



This sort of design, like most everything else, is eventually going
digital. Some crap 75 cent uP with on-chip mux'd ADC could run a tight
loop doing nothing but this algorithm maybe 20,000 times a second and
output PWM directly. It could do all sorts of rampup, duty-cycle
limiting, feedforward tricks, current sensing, loop compensation...
there's no limit. It's almost tragic.

John



.........

You are probably not wrong.....

It depends on how much people are prepared to dumb down the specs to cope
with the new age of dumbness. Who am I to speak? I'd be tempted to have a
bash myself (thought about it) but then again I wouldn't.....

Hmmmmm, there is going to be some sort of division of labour involved in
such a solution. Can we talk synergy? No, beyond some final year thesis, I
don't think it's going to happen.......

One day PID control will rule the world....... bummer.

DNA


Digital power supplies are the future...

http://powerelectronics.com/digital_power/


But it's 100x easier for a power supply designer to learn to program
than it is for a programmer to understand power supplies. Well, maybe
1000x.


John



Mumble. All you need is a TCP gargle stack and you are set to download the
latest malicious siftware removal tool.

Interesting point though..... although I would have problims explaining why.

DNA

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:22:40 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:17:32 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_fr ee.fr_AndThisToo wrote in
message ...
Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo wrote
in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out
of bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about
with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea,
but since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and
you probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


It's good of you to have a play with things. I'll have to study that lot
for
quite a while, there's probably some tricks I should be using. I'm
having a
go at simplifying what I've got.

It's meant to be the multiplier/divider circuit for a power factor
correction circuit.

The output of the voltage error amplifier, ideally, should be multiplied
by
a value proportional to the rectified line voltage and divided by the
square
of the average line voltage. The output of the multiplier goes to the
current error amplifier which controls line current.

Proportional to the rectified line voltage makes the current drawn
follow
the voltage, giving a resistive load.

Divided by the square of the average line voltage 'normalises'(?) the
power
circuit gain. If the rectified line doubles then the current draw should
be
halved and then you have to halve it again because the rectified line
voltage used for the first multiplication doubled as well.......

I'm doing this because I'm almost, sometime, never, going to get around
to implementing a semi discrete PFC circuit and none of what is
available as an
IC really does the job I think I want to do and I've just got bored with
them.

Thanks for looking but your time might be better spent on other things
since
I'm prone to ignoring advice and generally just beat my head against
stuff.
Mind you some of this might filter into my head.

If I come up with something I'll post it....

DNA



This sort of design, like most everything else, is eventually going
digital. Some crap 75 cent uP with on-chip mux'd ADC could run a tight
loop doing nothing but this algorithm maybe 20,000 times a second and
output PWM directly. It could do all sorts of rampup, duty-cycle
limiting, feedforward tricks, current sensing, loop compensation...
there's no limit. It's almost tragic.

John



.........

You are probably not wrong.....

It depends on how much people are prepared to dumb down the specs to cope
with the new age of dumbness. Who am I to speak? I'd be tempted to have a
bash myself (thought about it) but then again I wouldn't.....

Hmmmmm, there is going to be some sort of division of labour involved in
such a solution. Can we talk synergy? No, beyond some final year thesis, I
don't think it's going to happen.......

One day PID control will rule the world....... bummer.

DNA


Digital power supplies are the future...

http://powerelectronics.com/digital_power/


But it's 100x easier for a power supply designer to learn to program
than it is for a programmer to understand power supplies. Well, maybe
1000x.


John

It opens up the possibility for some truly spectacular software bugs.

Somehow I think it will increase the importance of having a good hardware
crowbar at the output and probably a hardware cycle-by-cycle current limit,
and a handy fire extinguisher.

Chris

Chris Jones wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:22:40 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:17:32 GMT, "Genome"
wrote:


"Fred Bartoli"
fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_f ree.fr_AndThisToo wrote
in message ...
Genome a écrit :
"Fred Bartoli"
r_AndThisToo
wrote in
message ...
Would you post the .asc file so that I don't have to redo it all?


--
Thanks,
Fred.

Here you go.....

I can't tell you what I am trying to do because Jim has just got out
of bed
in IC design mode (?).

The last one might do what I am looking for but I have to crap about
with
things for longer to find out other stuff.

Honest, don't waste too much time on it. I'm not going to pay (much)
attention.


Here it is.
As I don't know what you're trying to do (well I have a bit of idea,
but since you don't want to tell :-) this is probably not ideal and
you probably can simplify things a bit, but you get the idea.


--
Thanks,
Fred.


It's good of you to have a play with things. I'll have to study that
lot for
quite a while, there's probably some tricks I should be using. I'm
having a
go at simplifying what I've got.

It's meant to be the multiplier/divider circuit for a power factor
correction circuit.

The output of the voltage error amplifier, ideally, should be
multiplied by
a value proportional to the rectified line voltage and divided by the
square
of the average line voltage. The output of the multiplier goes to the
current error amplifier which controls line current.

Proportional to the rectified line voltage makes the current drawn
follow
the voltage, giving a resistive load.

Divided by the square of the average line voltage 'normalises'(?) the
power
circuit gain. If the rectified line doubles then the current draw
should be
halved and then you have to halve it again because the rectified line
voltage used for the first multiplication doubled as well.......

I'm doing this because I'm almost, sometime, never, going to get around
to implementing a semi discrete PFC circuit and none of what is
available as an
IC really does the job I think I want to do and I've just got bored
with them.

Thanks for looking but your time might be better spent on other things
since
I'm prone to ignoring advice and generally just beat my head against
stuff.
Mind you some of this might filter into my head.

If I come up with something I'll post it....

DNA



This sort of design, like most everything else, is eventually going
digital. Some crap 75 cent uP with on-chip mux'd ADC could run a tight
loop doing nothing but this algorithm maybe 20,000 times a second and
output PWM directly. It could do all sorts of rampup, duty-cycle
limiting, feedforward tricks, current sensing, loop compensation...
there's no limit. It's almost tragic.

John



.........

You are probably not wrong.....

It depends on how much people are prepared to dumb down the specs to cope
with the new age of dumbness. Who am I to speak? I'd be tempted to have a
bash myself (thought about it) but then again I wouldn't.....

Hmmmmm, there is going to be some sort of division of labour involved in
such a solution. Can we talk synergy? No, beyond some final year thesis,
I don't think it's going to happen.......

One day PID control will rule the world....... bummer.

DNA


Digital power supplies are the future...

http://powerelectronics.com/digital_power/


But it's 100x easier for a power supply designer to learn to program
than it is for a programmer to understand power supplies. Well, maybe
1000x.


John

It opens up the possibility for some truly spectacular software bugs.

Somehow I think it will increase the importance of having a good hardware
crowbar at the output and probably a hardware cycle-by-cycle current
limit, and a handy fire extinguisher.

Chris
Not to mention some good quality fuses to backup the fancy stuff.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller