On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:27:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:29:45 -0700, life imitates life
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:32:15 +0100, "ian field"
"John Larkin" wrote in
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:14:26 -0700, life imitates life

You do know what pond scum predominantly is, right?

Algae. Small plants powered by sunlight.

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/inde...ond/index.html

That is what LIVES in the pond. The "pond scum" is the refuse and
corpses of what lives/lived in the pond.

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/pondscum.htm

Your talent for being AlwaysWrong is holding up nicely. As is your
affection for the by-products of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxVtM...eature=related

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:31:32 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:27:34 -0700, life imitates life

No, dumbass. Algae is algae. Pond scum is fish feces. It is at the
bottom of the pond. The algae is up at the surface depths.

Your fascination with poop - now fish poop - is really weird. Poop is
mentioned, often featured, in almost every thing you post.

That's really sick.


And he (or she) doesn't even know what s/he's talking about. First,
"algae" is plural, i.e., algae ARE algae.

And apparently he/she is unaware of the simple fact that "scum" is
what floats to the top, much like the political system. :-

Cheers!
Rich

yeah, what you said!

Rich the Newsgroup Wacko wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:27:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:29:45 -0700, life imitates life

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:32:15 +0100, "ian field"

"John Larkin" wrote in

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:14:26 -0700, life imitates life

You do know what pond scum predominantly is, right?

Algae. Small plants powered by sunlight.


http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/inde...ond/index.html


That is what LIVES in the pond. The "pond scum" is the refuse and
corpses of what lives/lived in the pond.

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/pondscum.htm

Your talent for being AlwaysWrong is holding up nicely. As is your
affection for the by-products of life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxVtM...eature=related

Cheers!
Rich

I guess that puts it into prospective.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:27:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

Your talent for being AlwaysWrong is holding up nicely. As is your
affection for the by-products of life.

John


Maybe that is why I tolerate total retards that do not even know how to
properly operate a vapor phase parts washer.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:40:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:31:32 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:27:34 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:44:15 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:14:26 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:58:55 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:43:49 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:35:07 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:35:56 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:16:06 -0400, "Garberstreet Electronics"
wrote:


"life imitates life"
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:01:59 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

Jim designs custom IC's,

All IC designs are "custom". Duh!

And, Jim designs them, with the help of some of the members
here at A.B.S.E., and I imagine some of the students at the
University. ;-))) ( ducking )

Bill


Where are your relay coil driver stimulus release spike abatement ideas
at then, asswipe (slings **** your way)? I fart in your direct
direction!

That was three fecal references in 24 words, 12.5%. I think 10% is the
threshold for nether-region obsession.

John

Don't count 'em up and attribute them to a single person, you **** for
brains dumb****!

I made ONE reference (slings **** your way). Not that a retarded wuss
like you could grasp the fact that he wrote (ducking), much less what it
refers to.

An "asswipe" is a wipe for the ass. There is no fecal reference there
at all. The fart reference is "bathroom humor" not fecal, you pathetic,
cringing, wussified milksop.

So **** OFF yet again with your retarded claims that you make
incessantly. You're a goddamned idiot, as well as being stupid for
thinking that some number validates your retarded claim.

It doesn't get any more pathetic than that, Johnny. Somebody should
drop a burning paper bag on your doorstep.

"I think 10%... blah blah blah." You're an idiot, Johnny. We only
needed ONE occurrence of your stupid **** in the groups to validate that
FACT. Give it up, you **** for brains dumb****.

It's like this... If I am "obsessed with it", then you are made of it.
So make up your mind. If your claim is valid, you are made of it. If
you are a lying idiot that has zero psychological knowledge, much less
qualifications, then... you are STILL made of it.

You lose, either way, Johnny boy.

I think most people derive more enjoyment from the input end of their
digestive system than from the output. Buy hey, whatever turns you on.

John


AGAIN, you retarded ****, NOBODY said a goddamned thing about enjoying
ANY ****ing input(s) or output(s) of any kind on any part of anyone, you
goddamned won't ****ing let it go sub-human pond scum!

You do know what pond scum predominantly is, right?


Algae. Small plants powered by sunlight.

John


No, dumbass. Algae is algae. Pond scum is fish feces. It is at the
bottom of the pond. The algae is up at the surface depths.

Your fascination with poop - now fish poop - is really weird. Poop is
mentioned, often featured, in almost every thing you post.

That's really sick.

John

And it's sick that your keep feeding this troll.

I have to puzzle over troll feeders and why they waste everyone's
time replying to such obnoxious jerks. Are you lacking a person
with which to pleasantly correspond? Or are you just feeding your
own ego ?:-)

...Jim Thompson


As if a ****tard like you has any clue as to what "pleasant
correspondence" is.

Back in your face, ****head.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:40:46 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

"algae" is plural, i.e., algae ARE algae.


Since we do not normally gaze under a scope at a mere single specimen,
in any normal context, they will always get a plural reference, and
properly so. However, since we always know that we are referring to the
mass itself, the remark algae is algae would not be completely incorrect
as it generally refers to a cluster as a whole as opposed to the
technicality that it is several individual specimens.

I'll bet you think that "a bud" is only one flower as well, when in
fact, "a bud" is many many actual individual flowers. No need to
confirm... you know I just busted you. "A bud is a bud."?? No, but you
never said "a bud are a bud" either, didja? A bud is a cluster of
flowers. So, "a bud is a bud" is not completely incorrect. One is not
saying "those flowers are flowers". Essentially, what one is saying is
"That cluster is a cluster."

So that algae over there is algae. Works, as would the term "are" as
well.

So, it is YOU that doesn't know what you are talking about.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:59:53 -0700, Rich the Newsgroup Wacko
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:27:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:29:45 -0700, life imitates life
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:32:15 +0100, "ian field"
"John Larkin" wrote in
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:14:26 -0700, life imitates life

You do know what pond scum predominantly is, right?

Algae. Small plants powered by sunlight.

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/inde...ond/index.html

That is what LIVES in the pond. The "pond scum" is the refuse and
corpses of what lives/lived in the pond.

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/pondscum.htm

Your talent for being AlwaysWrong is holding up nicely. As is your
affection for the by-products of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxVtM...eature=related

Cheers!
Rich

Lick my salty chocolate balls.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:01:59 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


Note that you contradicted yourself.

You're an idiot.

Note also that you are an ignorant berk.

You're a retarded idiot.

Note also that you have no clue as to how inductive circuits behave.

I was playing with using old car generators to power my go-carts and
playing with automotive coils and rebuilding lawn mower engines before
you were even born.

I know what a flux field collapse spike is. Your father must have
zapped you upside da haed a few times. You act like you have had to much
electro-shock therapy in your life.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:31:56 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:01:59 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


Note that you contradicted yourself.

You're an idiot.

Note also that you are an ignorant berk.

You're a retarded idiot.

Note also that you have no clue as to how inductive circuits behave.

I was playing with using old car generators to power my go-carts and
playing with automotive coils and rebuilding lawn mower engines before
you were even born.

I know what a flux field collapse spike is. Your father must have
zapped you upside da haed a few times. You act like you have had to much
electro-shock therapy in your life.


Which of the following two statements is correct.

First statement:
"The coil's flux collapses and creates a spike. The diode clamping
that spike does NOT slow the spring loaded return time of the plate
which is attached to the contact(s) as it pulls away from the solenoid
core end face.
So, the answer is NO. The magnetic field is collapsing, as in NOT
"holding in" the relay any longer. The plate begins to pull away as
soon as the power is removed, and the clamping diode does nothing to
slow that process."

Second statement:
"Note also that the diode is also the best at suppressing the spike.
Note also that UNsupressed is the only way to get it fast. ALL the
other methods slow it."

I repeat, you are an ignorant berk.

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.

The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

you seem to be saying that it doesn't.


Then you haven't read the thread.

I read the pdf. I know where all the methods fall on the table.

With that in mind, re-read what I just wrote, and note that TIME is
what I refer to, not voltages or diode thresholds, which you seem to be
stuck on, even though the relationship is not even linear.

If the TIME numbers are smaller, then NONE of the methods affect
operation enough to matter, since the numbers are ALL faster than the 12V
class numbers.

If the speed does matter that ****ing much, ****can the hard switches,
then he should design a direct driven circuit (custom SSRs) that switches
his signals with FETs or the like. You can even opto-isolate it. Hell,
he can opto-isolate this so he won't get any current back through his
precious chip. He could incorporate optos as a rule.

I have done all this on HV supplies that feed a huge industrial laser
printer. We even made our own HV SSRs that had strings of FETs to handle
the 6kV it was switching. The supply had like 8 different HV supplies on
it, and all were Mpu managed. An 8150C IIRC. I have photos around here
somewhere. There were like two patents filed on it. I think one may have
been the HV SSR. It was hand potted in hard stycast, and then
conformally coated. After all the boards were treated like this, they
were attached to the main motherboard, and the edge leads soldered in.
Then those nodes were also doped and coated.

We had to overcome multiple corona issues since there were several HV
leads under use at any given time that tracked near each other to the
egress side other supply. It was quite a menagerie, and we learned a lot
about corona and HV wire types, and how corona can even migrate a pinhole
through hot Teflon insulation... etc.

WOW. memories. I thought all those were gone already...

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.


The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John

Reading for who ever cares!

http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/le...figuration.asp

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:23:57 -0400, Jamie
t wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.


The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John

Reading for who ever cares!

http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/le...figuration.asp


AlwaysWrong should read it! Especially the part about the clamp diode.

John

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

you seem to be saying that it doesn't.

You keep saying that, dumb****. I never did. So like I said, READ THE
THREAD. I already know where the diode clamp falls in the list.

I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you;

I never said you should. Thre already numbers out there.

you wouldn't believe me if
I did,

I do not think you can make proper observations. Hell, you do not even
know how to observe the operating instructions for a ****ing parts
washer.

or you'd find a way to weasel.

You're a slug.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:38:47 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:23:57 -0400, Jamie
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.


The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John

Reading for who ever cares!

http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/le...figuration.asp


AlwaysWrong should read it! Especially the part about the clamp diode.

John

When was the last time you ever saw a relay double flop?

Never.

Also, you stupid twit, the word "clamp" is not even in the document.

"amdx" wrote in message
...

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!

---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF

Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.

---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF

ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.


That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"amdx" wrote in message
. ..

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!

---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF

Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.

---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF

ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.


That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


My OP was concerning a relay driver for a custom ASIC on a CMOS
process where I couldn't tolerate more than 7V "kick" and flyback
diodes are "unobtanium".

Of course the thread had deviated far afield ;-)

Turns out I have no need...the customer accepts the high OFF
capacitance of a large PMOS switch.

...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 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"amdx" wrote in message
. ..

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!

---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF

Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.

---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF

ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.


That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


BTW: My A/C contactors have a magnet assembly to pull the arc out of
the contact gap. I understand there are literally contactors that
"blow" the arc away ;-)

...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 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Jim Thompson a écrit :
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

"amdx" wrote in message
...
"ian field" wrote in message
...
"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!
---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF
Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.
---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF
ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.

That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


BTW: My A/C contactors have a magnet assembly to pull the arc out of
the contact gap. I understand there are literally contactors that
"blow" the arc away ;-)

...Jim Thompson

A friend of mine is working on 'medium' power 'contactors' (I think at
this MW power level there's another word).
To open the contacts, they 'coil gun' a metallic mass that slaps the
contacts open. You'd better not being on the trajectory.
Oh, the device is not designed to be opened under load and it just saves
the network once.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:17:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"amdx" wrote in message
.. .

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!

---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF

Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.

---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF

ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.


That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


My OP was concerning a relay driver for a custom ASIC on a CMOS
process where I couldn't tolerate more than 7V "kick" and flyback
diodes are "unobtanium".

Of course the thread had deviated far afield ;-)

Turns out I have no need...the customer accepts the high OFF
capacitance of a large PMOS switch.

...Jim Thompson


In other words, a custom SSR, just like I said.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:17:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"amdx" wrote in message
.. .

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!

---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF

Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.

---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF

ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.


That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


My OP was concerning a relay driver for a custom ASIC on a CMOS
process where I couldn't tolerate more than 7V "kick" and flyback
diodes are "unobtanium".

Of course the thread had deviated far afield ;-)

Turns out I have no need...the customer accepts the high OFF
capacitance of a large PMOS switch.

...Jim Thompson


In other words, a custom SSR, just like I said.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:20:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"amdx" wrote in message
.. .

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!

---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF

Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.

---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF

ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.


That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


BTW: My A/C contactors have a magnet assembly to pull the arc out of
the contact gap. I understand there are literally contactors that
"blow" the arc away ;-)

...Jim Thompson

And those that insert an insulative blade in between them as it opens.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:20:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:


"amdx" wrote in message
.. .

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!

---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF

Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.

---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF

ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.


That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


BTW: My A/C contactors have a magnet assembly to pull the arc out of
the contact gap. I understand there are literally contactors that
"blow" the arc away ;-)

...Jim Thompson

And those that insert an insulative blade in between them as it opens.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Do you accept that your two previous statements are contradictory?

What would be the purpose of a clamp diode if not to conduct current
when the relay drive voltage is instantaneously removed?

Where does that current come from if not from the relay coil?

Do you understand that a relay coil's hold-in current is less than the
pull-in current?

Why do you contend that the relay drops out before the coil current
falls below the hold-in current?

Why do you behave like an ignoramus?

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:35:07 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:35:56 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:16:06 -0400, "Garberstreet Electronics"
wrote:


"life imitates life"
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:01:59 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

Jim designs custom IC's,

All IC designs are "custom". Duh!

And, Jim designs them, with the help of some of the members
here at A.B.S.E., and I imagine some of the students at the
University. ;-))) ( ducking )

Bill


Where are your relay coil driver stimulus release spike abatement ideas
at then, asswipe (slings **** your way)? I fart in your direct
direction!

That was three fecal references in 24 words, 12.5%. I think 10% is the
threshold for nether-region obsession.

John

This person is clearly an expert in such matters.

It probably comes from the toilet cleaning part of his role as a
janitor.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.

The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John

He wouldn't know where to start. Besides, to try it for himself, he'd
need some equipment. He wouldn't get far with his broom.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:07:29 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Do you accept that your two previous statements are contradictory?

What would be the purpose of a clamp diode if not to conduct current
when the relay drive voltage is instantaneously removed?

Where does that current come from if not from the relay coil?

Do you understand that a relay coil's hold-in current is less than the
pull-in current?

Why do you contend that the relay drops out before the coil current
falls below the hold-in current?

Why do you behave like an ignoramus?

Ignoramus is as ignoramus does ;-)

...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 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Pomegranate ******* wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.

The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John


He wouldn't know where to start. Besides, to try it for himself, he'd
need some equipment. He wouldn't get far with his broom.

Wait, He made have a degree in this field. No Equipment needed, just
sit back put a happy smile on, knowing every one below him will do his
work so that he can take credit for it.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:57:49 +0200, Fred Bartoli " " wrote:

Jim Thompson a écrit :
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:06:16 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

"amdx" wrote in message
...
"ian field" wrote in message
...
"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:03:51 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:48:41 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I haven't done a relay driver circuit for, literally, eons.

Where do I look for reed relays that work on 3.3V supplies with
specications for the coil inductance?

Thanks!
---
That's a toughie.

I can't recall ever seeing inductance data on a spec sheet; I think
you'll probably have to go to the manufacturer for that one.

JF
Would not the real question be why would someone concern himself with
the
solenoid inductance of a miniature relay? I could see it if it were
huge.
---

L di
E= ------,
dt

so the diode damping the "spark" when the driver went open would slow
down the opening of the contacts, maybe?

Or maybe the magnetic field building up and breaking down might affect
some nearby component?

Dunno...

JF
ISTR an appnote floating about on the net that recommends using a
combination of diode and zener to clamp the back emf, apparently if you
just clamp it with a single diode, the back emf drives a current round
the diode/solenoid circuit which causes hesitant unlatching.
Probably this one?
http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
Note, life imitates life finds no wisdom in a ten year old document.

That's one of them, there's one that describes using a zener as well as a
back emf diode to prevent shunting the spike current back into the coil and
slowing down de-latching and one appropriately titled for the thread subject
line.

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf

http://www.kilovac.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3344.pdf


BTW: My A/C contactors have a magnet assembly to pull the arc out of
the contact gap. I understand there are literally contactors that
"blow" the arc away ;-)

...Jim Thompson

A friend of mine is working on 'medium' power 'contactors' (I think at
this MW power level there's another word).
To open the contacts, they 'coil gun' a metallic mass that slaps the
contacts open. You'd better not being on the trajectory.
Oh, the device is not designed to be opened under load and it just saves
the network once.

Some big breakers blow a supersonic blast of gas, SF6 maybe, into the
contacts from a pressurized cylinder. I think there are also
explosives used to quench arcs.

John

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:39:03 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:38:47 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:23:57 -0400, Jamie
t wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.


The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John

Reading for who ever cares!

http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/le...figuration.asp


AlwaysWrong should read it! Especially the part about the clamp diode.

John

When was the last time you ever saw a relay double flop?

Never.

Actually, I have seen the NO contact open and briefly reclose on some
small signal-level relays.

Wrong as always.

John

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:33:02 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

you seem to be saying that it doesn't.

You keep saying that, dumb****. I never did. So like I said, READ THE
THREAD. I already know where the diode clamp falls in the list.

I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you;

I never said you should. Thre already numbers out there.

you wouldn't believe me if
I did,

I do not think you can make proper observations. Hell, you do not even
know how to observe the operating instructions for a ****ing parts
washer.


I don't follow rules, I make rules.

John

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:32:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:33:02 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

you seem to be saying that it doesn't.

You keep saying that, dumb****. I never did. So like I said, READ THE
THREAD. I already know where the diode clamp falls in the list.

I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you;

I never said you should. Thre already numbers out there.

you wouldn't believe me if
I did,

I do not think you can make proper observations. Hell, you do not even
know how to observe the operating instructions for a ****ing parts
washer.


I don't follow rules, I make rules.

John

We are so proud of our oldest son, now 39 years old...when he was in
elementary school he had some kind of an altercation with his teacher.
She chided him about showing respect. His response upset her so much,
she called me, he said, "My parents taught me to question authority."

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

All hail Barack Hussein Obama, our first "snarky" President ;-)

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:19 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:35:07 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:35:56 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:16:06 -0400, "Garberstreet Electronics"
wrote:


"life imitates life"
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:01:59 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

Jim designs custom IC's,

All IC designs are "custom". Duh!

And, Jim designs them, with the help of some of the members
here at A.B.S.E., and I imagine some of the students at the
University. ;-))) ( ducking )

Bill


Where are your relay coil driver stimulus release spike abatement ideas
at then, asswipe (slings **** your way)? I fart in your direct
direction!

That was three fecal references in 24 words, 12.5%. I think 10% is the
threshold for nether-region obsession.

John

This person is clearly an expert in such matters.

It probably comes from the toilet cleaning part of his role as a
janitor.

I always find it funny when a total retard bases his claims of
superiority on his fantasy that the other person has some menial job.

Sorry, PomTard, but even a lowly janitor puts a twit like you under the
table.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:54:13 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.

The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John

He wouldn't know where to start. Besides, to try it for himself, he'd
need some equipment. He wouldn't get far with his broom.

I probably have more electronic test gear than you do.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:43:08 -0400, Jamie
t wrote:

Pomegranate ******* wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:


The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.

The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John


He wouldn't know where to start. Besides, to try it for himself, he'd
need some equipment. He wouldn't get far with his broom.

Wait, He made have a degree in this field. No Equipment needed, just
sit back put a happy smile on, knowing every one below him will do his
work so that he can take credit for it.


I'll bet that I spent more time researching in the lab, at the bench,
on a breadboard with relays and relay circuits in the last ten years than
you have, you mouthy little *******.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:32:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:


I don't follow rules, I make rules.

John

Sure... in your fantasies.

Aside from that, you are still just another idiot.

Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:43:08 -0400, Jamie
t wrote:


Pomegranate ******* wrote:


On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:



On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:12:12 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:



On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:27:12 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:



On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:05:27 -0700, life imitates life
wrote:



On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:47 +0100, Pomegranate *******
wrote:



The relay will drop out only when the coil current falls below the
hold-in current. Any suppression method allows the coil current to
gradually decay to zero and must lengthen the drop-out time.


Wrong. You're an idiot. A diode does NOTHING to reduce current via some
gradual decay, you dumb****.

It is a surge device, It eats the entire current, at its maximum rate.

That is not decay, you stupid ****.

The relay coil would drop out immediately by your retarded definition
because the current is removed instantly in most wave forms from the
drivers. The diode clamps the collapsing field's spike. That spike has
no energy to provide the coil with anything that keeps the latch plate on
it.

So you not only know nothing about the "inductive circuit", you also
know nothing about the mechanical operation of the relay assembly either.

Your wrongness is becoming a work of art. Nobody could be this
consistently wrong by mere chance.

The Fujitsu small telecom-type relays that we use have about a 3:1
dropout time ratio, as measured at the contacts, for diode clamped
versus unclamped coil drive respectively.

Try it on some real relays yourself.

John

Give the numbers, asshole, not your "about" ratio.

How many milliseconds?

Note that if the numbers for 3.3 V relays show significantly faster
performance than those 12V numbers that were given showed, all this crap
discussion is moot because it no longer matters, as all methods are fast
enough.

The coil voltage won't affect armature speed for a given relay type,
except that the diode clamp voltage to coil voltage ratio will affect
dropout if you're diode clamping: 0.7 volts is a bigger fraction of
3.3 than it is a fraction of 12.

I suggested that *you* try it, to see if a clamp diode changes dropout
time; you seem to be saying that it doesn't. I'm sure not going to set
up an experimant to prove anything to you; you wouldn't believe me if
I did, or you'd find a way to weasel.

John


He wouldn't know where to start. Besides, to try it for himself, he'd
need some equipment. He wouldn't get far with his broom.

Wait, He made have a degree in this field. No Equipment needed, just
sit back put a happy smile on, knowing every one below him will do his
work so that he can take credit for it.



I'll bet that I spent more time researching in the lab, at the bench,
on a breadboard with relays and relay circuits in the last ten years than
you have, you mouthy little *******.

Do you really think so?



10 years? You bring a smile to my face.