Isolated, regulated, toroidal step down transformer AC power supply design. - Page 9

Chase it Kittty ...chase it!

"Mark" snipped-for-privacy@dodo.com.au wrote:-


Chase it Kittty ...chase it!

****** Oh dear oh dear!!!

Wotta wanker!!

Brian g

As Phil surmised; no that isn't it. The schematic calls for only 9 VAC
input. The wall-wart measures at only 11.2 VAC, unloaded.

Mark said he had 4 diodes in the rectifier, that's not a normal doubler.
or rather that's two doublers one going up and one going down.

Bye.
   Jasen

Correct. It is two Half-wave Voltage Doublers.

it is but it's all upside down.

how about you select the relevant bits and bring them all together.

With great difficulty.

However, it is a problem with the thread structure of most readers, not with
the order of my statements.

BINGO!!!!
You have just solved the riddle of why you shouldnt top post.

What a stupendously stupid proposition to make.

The topographic particulars of any individual post has NO IMPACT whatsoever
on the chronology or the EXTERNAL thread structure of any given subject of
conversation on Usenet, AFAIK.

If you have a reader that CAN thread conversations based on the internal
topographic details of the text of individual posts, then good for you, but
you can't expect others to adjust their habits for the peculiar capabilities
of your reader.

   "To get attention, causing disruptions, *annoy people*, or general
chaos are almost always at the top of a troll's agenda."

Pfffft....

You make some of the most inane suggestions, dress them up as cognisant
arguments and then call ME the Troll!??

Bob, ANYONE can see through you.

  Get back under your bridge, troll.

  http://www.bygonebyways.com/99-WA-Seattle-Aurora_Bridge_Troll_2.jpg

**Oh yeah? See if you can find anyone who disagrees with Bob. Bob has you
nailed.

I'll wait.

While I do, go to one of the following newsgroups:

rec.audio.tech
sci.electronics.repair

Maybe they'll help you.

Oh, OK.  So why should I try to deny any allegation of success!

Yup, you got me: This is a successful Troll.

I've fooled you all, *except that wise-old-sage Bob* of course. He saw right
through me from the beginning.

Oh, and Phil of course, although I appear to have him turned around, I know
he'll come good. He should have trusted his instincts and never budged an
inch.

Oh, and you of course. Bob has set you strait.

Yup, you got me so nailed I can't scratch my arse for trying.

does that make sense to you?

    It's the same 'Mark logic' which has applied to all his other postings.

    It makes sense to him but not us. :-(

The plain ordinary sense of what I said and the truth of the matter are both
in my favour.

Internal topography makes no difference to the thread structure of Usenet
topics on most software 'Readers'. If there is such a 'Reader' that can
thread conversations based on the internal topography of individual
messages, I've yet to see it.

Therefore, the topography I choose makes absolutely no difference to the
ORDER in which individual messages are read.  However, the ORDER in which
the conversations are presented by the software 'Reader' are not necessarily
chronological.

This was what seemed to be confusing "Swanny", originally. When he retorted
"No it isn't." to my claim that I had already given the explanation he
requested about 1/2 dozen times in the same thread. I had. Possibly all the
explanations (which are still there) appear BELOW this point. IE. 'Reader'
software does not necessarily present statements in chronological order.

no matter,
no favour.


true but there are optiona available to the author that can help.


Bye.
   Jasen

In this case, as indeed in ALL cases, the topography I chose would have made
ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to Swanny's dilemma.

ALL my explainations would STILL appear BELOW this point, irrespective of
the internal topography of the individual postings.

Is that clear?

makes absolutely no difference t

top postings are rarely clear.