Except that most of the stock you found is only available in the USA without paying a one time shipping fee. Farnell actually have only 4 (FOUR) "Rheostats" as stock items in the UK and physically they are actually three terminal devices with high power ratings.
It is you who is thrashing about. Rheostat is almost never used here. It does seem to be used a little more often over the pond.
You would not be serving me, but yourself - as long as you don't provide the quote on which you base your claim that I am a liar, the suspicion has to be that you made a mistake and are too dishonest to admit it.
e
d
nt that
tasheet
find the
ion is
Keil make development systems for microprocessors. You claimed to have got your data sheet from the Intel web-site. There seems to be more than ten seconds of searching involved in bridging that difference.
I also note that datasheet is labelled preliminary, and dated December
1995 - which is fifteen years ago, not twenty. It seems that your claim about a twenty year-old micro was based on a misapprehension, in much the same way as your claim about me being a liar.
Depends what you are doing - in Mark Weaver's circuit it would save you the resistors. His application would work fine with an H-bridge, though you'd need to measure the coil inductance and figure it into a low pass filter structure.
Yes, if you already had an H-bridge that would work.
Here's John Fields' circuit with the 2-resistor thing. I threw in an integrator too to make a segmented approximation to a sinewave, then fed into John's lowpass.
I railed the integrator lightly to get 8 segments--two extra segments and flat tops for free.
Even harmonics are suppressed, 3rd harmonic is 40bB down, 5th and higher harmonics all lower.
You'd have done better on the 3rd harmonic - which is the hardest to filter - if you'd set R11 to 300k rather than 200k. Clipping is not your friend when it comes to the third harmonic. I had to drop R13 to
56k to see the 3rd harmonic at 80dB down, as well as throwing away most of the "integration" by reducing C6 to 33nF. The fifth harmonic ended up at 40dB down and the seventh at 50dB down. Increasing C6 above 33nF makes the 3rd harmonic content higher and doesn't make much difference to the 5th and 7th harmonics.
An extra couple of poles of output filtering would get the 5th and 7th down to the -80dB level too.
Don Lancaster's "magic sine" binary sequences could probaby do quite a lot better. They can be concocted to suppress the first 20 harmonics.
You may know how to design - though we've not seen any evidence of it here - but this is notrelevant at this point. What you need to understand is that if you make a claim and can't - or don't - supply the obvious evidence that would support your claim, objective observers will find your claim less than credible, and will also become sceptical about every other claim that you make where supporitng evidence may be harder to come by.
One wonders what you are actually interested in. Granting your enthusiasm for calling me a liar in every alternative sentence, there does seem to be some evidence of personal animosity, and there's not much evidence of anything else.
that
datasheet
True. I can't imagine why I thought that you said that you'd found it on the Intel web-site. You aren't only one who suffers from occasional misapprehensions.
But that data sheet clearly doesn't apply to a device that you used in a product that you shipped in 1990. So you haven't found the data sheet for the part that you used. The part number that you have been touting clearly wasn't available in 1990, if the data sheet was still preliminary in December 1995
A preliminary data sheet from 1995 for a device that you claim to have used in 1990? It's not me who is peddling implausible bullshit here. You may think that the rest of the world is composed of gullible nitwits, but we aren't as gullible as that.
I'm burning the past-midnight AND early morning oil right now, so I thank you for experimenting with it.
ISTM a pseudo-sine made of line segments into the final filter will give purer output than a stair-stepped approximation into the same 2- pole filter, because the filter isn't very tight. I don't know though--I haven't given it much thought.
I know it's possible to perfectly cancel the 3rd harmonic by choosing the ideal resistor ratio, and meant to go 3:1 due to the Fourier weightings. The 2:1 value ratio did that as a resistive divider, but I lost that ratio when I threw in the integrator, since that turned the node from a divider into a summing junction--good catch.
I can get your results with no integrator at all--just chop it out, use my original resistor ratio, and the harmonic content is the same.
I still suspect a line-segment approximation using the integrator is much better, since the harmonic content going into the filter is sooo much better, but I just can't think about it right now.
Thanks for the comments and the tweaks.
Yes, but can you do *that* with six flip flops? I'd like to see it!
I couldn't resist a tweak myself--change my 3rd harmonic canceller resistor R11 to 300k into the integrator, as you noticed, and increase the integrating cap slightly to prevent the integrator clipping.
The 3rd harmonic is then gone, 5th harmonic is 57dB down, everything else is in the dirt, and the trick is done.
The URL I posted talks about 24 pulses, but I suspect that they aren't equally spaced - it probably needs programmable read only memory.
Six flip-flops is something of an under-kill when you can buy cheap plds - Farenll don't even stock the 32-macrocell Xilinx CoolRunner, and the 64-macrocell and 128-macrocell parts are tolerably cheap.
But a micro is an over-kill for this application. A dead-simple all-in- one-package over-kill, if you are familiar with a suitable micro, but still quite a lot more computing power than the problem needs, which is to say more transistors switching than you really need, which is an extra current drain, though apparently a fairly minor extra current drain with the right micro.
We have a certain product where there's a microcontroller whose sole purpose in life is to... flash an LED. :-) OK, it does some "fancy" LED flashing, but still... I kinda cringe knowing that we threw in hundreds of thousands of transistors to flash an LED... but it's hard to argue with a part that's
--
The OP was clear in that he wasn't looking for bang-bangish into the
coils, but rather for three 10Hz _sinusoids_, separated in time by 120
degrees, in order to create a smoothly rotating magnetic field.
I don't have to supply the evidence that you're a liar. You do that well enough daily.
incompetent that
datasheet
is
No, it's not surprising that you tried to get away with yet another lie.
Clueless. If you could read, you would have learned that that datasheet replaced the FA, FB, and FC datasheets. When? Who cares? The part came out in early '89. I had them in my hands in January or February.
I kinda prefer 74xx123's for blinking LEDs in response to fast trigger lines, actually. :-)
The software in that LED flasher micro was even written in C, amazingly enough.
But at least no RTOS.
Hey, I've finally been noticing all the Clear-Com Tempest units strapped to the college football guys as you had mentioned. Now *there's* a product that someone probably wanted to use an RTOS for!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.