9V 1A schematic needed

Yes. $30. They sent the next guy that came through the drive-thru (they knew we were on the same job) to the hotel to get me to bring it back :( The american bank we had in Germany used to nickle and dime us to death and could make their adding machines show they were right.

Ok

Fortune teller said she could guess the state I was born in and how many birthdays I've had for $1 ... something like that. I let her try.

"You were born in the state of ignorance and you've only had one birthday, the rest were anniversaries."

Sorry.

"Fred Bloggs" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com...

.....

Let's see if he can solve the new puzzle. It's easier than the first. No, don't waste your time, it isn't worth it ;)

"J-vibe" schreef in bericht news:369%d.341$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Yeah. I have a puzzle for you. After all, the 'AMATUER COMEDY NIGHT' show needs a few more 'AMATUERS'.

Our mysterious processor spits out:

What is the next sequence? I guarantee there is a next sequence and you will be able to check it.

"Frank Bemelman" schreef in bericht news:423ded1c$0$144$ snipped-for-privacy@news.xsall.nl...

And I expect an answer in less than an hour of course ;)

algebraically related.

That so-called "constraint" makes the one variable *dependant* on the other. Iac is a function of the other circuit parameters as well as Im too in some complicated way.

Well let's see if they're not independent of the original signal then that means that are dependent on the original signal and therefore dependent on each other mathematically known as implicitly.

one independent variable that defines Irms through

It is understood that we are talking about a rectified ac- with a sinusoidal variation with time.

It's a real worry when Phil starts getting international fame!

I could not read the whole thread. It got too tedious and personal for me.

I am noticing, however, that threads you actively participate in sometimes get very long and eventually degenerate into accusations and counter-accusations. Something to think about!

--Mac

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about the average value of anything, except insofar as 'm' in 'rms' stands for 'mean.' And in the context, I don't think I am incorrect, technically or otherwise.

I said, in effect, that the area under the 'I' curve for 'I' going into the capacitor and regulator from the bridge is constant and equal to the area of the curve for 'I' going out of the regulator into the load. And if we shorten the duration where the integral is non-zero but keep the area constant, we will never produce a lower RMS.

If you can come up with a counterexample *consistent with the context*, I would like to see it so I can understand my mistake. You can't postulate some wild waveform. This is just a bridge charging up a cap.

Then why not just leave it at that? ;-)

--Mac

Oh! A rogue processor on a spitting rampage!!!!

Let's see.....

Do I get a pair of tickets to the show?

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote (in )

same

(For

bridge

the

Why should the range of filter values be restricted for negligible ripple? Or you mean they'd be excessively high.

High ripple circuits due to their advantages are realistic. For power maximisation and increase of dc current I've see many converters connected directly to the ac mains purposely to increase the conduction angle with rectifying capacitors below 1uF. At the output of these though the large ripple removing capacitor(s) is placed.

are, the

mode

low

heating.

period

period.

linear

when

John is right. You and Larry are missing the fact that by changing the conduction angle you are actually changing the exact instance in time when the capacitor starts conducting and thats going to change the values of your charge and integration intervals in your equation above.

the

mode

low

heating.

This is

in

"simulation"

simulation

light on

Its normal the that Irms goes up with increase in capacitance value. Higher capacitance means less ripple which means higher average current (Idc). As Idc is directly proportional to Irms and hence is DEPENDENT (and not independent as someone claims) on Irms... Irms also increases.

Higher capacitance though means you're dissipating more power in the there so your efficiency goes down.

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields wrote (in ) about '9V 1A schematic needed', on Sun, 20 Mar 2005:

It isn't the mains supply that matters, it's the waveforms of the current through the diodes. If there is only resistance in the supply voltage circuit, this waveform is nearly sinusoidal pulses, but of duration corresponding to a higher frequency than the mains supply, which is just another way of saying that the conduction angle is less than 180 degrees (usually a lot less). However, the peak of this pulse is not at the same time as the peak of the supply voltage waveform; the effect of this is rather small but does exist.

If there is inductance in series with the rectifier, then current waveform is no longer approximately sinusoidal, and algebraic analysis is very difficult. It is necessary to use simulation.

The most-often cited modern papers on low-power single-phase rectifiers appear to be:

Lieders A, Single-phase rectifiers with CR filters, Part 1 - Theory, Electronic Components and Applications, Vol 1 No.3 pp. 153-163 (May

Lieders A, Single-phase rectifiers with CR filters, Part 2 - Design procedure, Electronic Components and Applications, Vol 1 No.4 pp.

....

That is true, in the strictest sense. But people who have studied this issue or observed real instances of the circuit for that effect know that the Irms value approaches a definite limit as the capacitance value approaches infinity.

Huh? If you hold everything else constant, (including the DC current taken from the cap by the regulator/load), then Idc stays constant and so does the amount of charge transferred per line cycle.

Whatever makes you think Idc = K * Irms where K is a constant? Anybody who analyzes this correctly can see that, if Idc is held constant, Irms increases as the conduction angle decreases. This is all very fundamental.

As for "(and not independent as someone claims)", you have (apparently) misunderstood and misconstrued my remarks. Since they make sense in their original context, I won't explain that here. You need to learn that there is a real difference between RMS and mean. If you knew the difference, you would have a much better chance of understanding the independence concept.

Yes, but how could that happen when Idc is constant and Irms is "directly proportional to" Irms, holding Irms constant? You are writing riddles here. Please try to get those sorted out before adding new ones.

Indeed, $400 was about my week's pay in those days.

I notified the bank monthly, each time I received a statement... in person, at the desk of the branch manager.

If there's a thief in the world, it's Frank. He's stolen an identity that claims to have a brain ;-)

Yep. The bank always had possession. I never drew into those funds until I closed the account. I eventually just concluded it was a stupidity fee ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I got a check for over $500 from an insurance company. It was meant for someone else. They sent me a promisory note to pay it back which I never signed. That was like a free premium payment.

In my case the owner was no longer the owner because they gave me the money - IMO at the time. If they felt they had legal precedent to collect the money, they wouldn't have needed to try to get me to sign a promissory note which would have been an admission of debt.