Read the thread, dumbfuck. It has already been discussed, and you are wrong, as usual.
You jump in at the ass end of a thread and ASSume that you know f*ck all about it.
The facts are always glaringly apparent that you do not.
Still trying to move the goal posts. Not going to work, AlwaysWrong.
I *know* what it's about, AlwaysWrong. ...and I *know* you're (always) wrong.
The fact is that you are *WRONG*, AlwaysWrong, and are still trying to cover up by moving the goal posts. Poor AlwaysWrong, always *so* wrong.
Now, back to mommy's hamper, and off her computer.
Go to the site, idiot. The release date for 4.07z was yesterday. It states so right there on their site.
You lose... again... as usual.
Idiot, you said the release date for version *4* was yesterday and now you're trying to cover your stupidity with lies, a typical DimBulb move.
It may say that but *you* didn't, DimBulb.
Nope. You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:04:42 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
---
Speaking of real world parts and more-or-less realistic bong frequencies, L1 here is a Caddell-Burns 5.6mH 2.9 ohm choke (P/N
7200-34), C1 is 10µF with an ESR of an ohm or less, and the thing oscillates at about 675Hz.Version 4 SHEET 1 936 680 WIRE -864 48 -1072 48 WIRE -800 48 -864 48 WIRE -576 48 -704 48 WIRE -448 48 -576 48 WIRE -352 48 -448 48 WIRE -448 64 -448 48 WIRE -352 64 -352 48 WIRE -864 96 -864 48 WIRE -576 96 -576 48 WIRE -928 144 -976 144 WIRE -448 160 -448 128 WIRE -352 160 -352 144 WIRE -352 160 -448 160 WIRE -976 176 -976 144 WIRE -1072 192 -1072 48 WIRE -752 192 -752 112 WIRE -752 192 -864 192 WIRE -448 192 -448 160 WIRE -576 240 -576 176 WIRE -512 240 -576 240 WIRE -864 272 -864 192 WIRE -752 272 -752 192 WIRE -976 288 -976 256 WIRE -576 304 -576 240 WIRE -448 320 -448 288 WIRE -352 320 -448 320 WIRE -448 336 -448 320 WIRE -352 336 -352 320 WIRE -1072 432 -1072 272 WIRE -976 432 -976 368 WIRE -976 432 -1072 432 WIRE -864 432 -864 352 WIRE -864 432 -976 432 WIRE -752 432 -752 336 WIRE -752 432 -864 432 WIRE -576 432 -576 368 WIRE -576 432 -752 432 WIRE -448 432 -448 416 WIRE -448 432 -576 432 WIRE -352 432 -352 416 WIRE -352 432 -448 432 WIRE -1072 528 -1072 432 FLAG -1072 528 0 SYMBOL ind2 -368 48 R0 SYMATTR InstName L1 SYMATTR Value 5.6e-3 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=2.9 SYMBOL ind2 -368 432 M180 WINDOW 0 36 80 Left 0 WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName L2 SYMATTR Value 500e-6 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=.1 SYMBOL npn -512 192 R0 SYMATTR InstName Q1 SYMATTR Value 2N3904 SYMBOL res -592 80 R0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 100k SYMBOL cap -464 64 R0 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 10e-6 SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=1 SYMBOL cap -592 304 R0 SYMATTR InstName C2 SYMATTR Value 1e-7 SYMBOL voltage -1072 176 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 SYMATTR Value 5 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMBOL pnp -928 192 M180 SYMATTR InstName Q2 SYMATTR Value 2N4403 SYMBOL voltage -976 272 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 SYMATTR Value PULSE(5 0 0 1e-6 1e-6 .01) SYMATTR InstName V3 SYMBOL npn -800 112 R270 SYMATTR InstName Q3 SYMATTR Value 2N3904 SYMBOL cap -768 272 R0 SYMATTR InstName C3 SYMATTR Value 7.5e-6 SYMBOL res -880 256 R0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 2e6 SYMBOL res -992 160 R0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL res -464 320 R0 SYMATTR InstName R4 SYMATTR Value 1000 TEXT -432 184 Left 0 !K1 L1 L2 1 TEXT -1048 464 Left 0 !.tran 2.5 uic TEXT -1048 496 Left 0 !.wave .\\bong.wav 8 10000 N008
JF
Yes, those changes to C2 and L2 cut the p-p signal at emitter from about
525 mV to 50, but the currents at c, b, and e change only a little - eg peak currents (mA) Ib 1.22 vs 1.20, Ic -5.14 vs -5.34, Ie 3.91 vs 4.15.The FFT with YD's C2, L2 values is fairly clean, but with the C2, L2 that you suggest above, there are a lot of signal components only
20dB down from the 1.581kHz fundamental, vs at least 44dB down from the 1.578kHz fundamental in YD's.One can click the 'Select which traces are visible' icon (just below the help button; looks like a miniature graph), or right-click in a Plot window and click 'Visible traces', and then click Ie(Q1).
Xl of 5.6 mH at 675 Hz is 23.8 ohms. So, ignoring core losses, the inductor's Q is just over 8. Your model, with the 1K across L2, has an inductor Q of about 470.
If you model with a Q of 8, it's pretty awful. And if you play with the base bias resistor, you can make something that looks fairly chaotic, sort of ratty like a superregen.
The operating mode I originally described is pretty close to class A. Most people who have modeled this have used small base caps and huge amounts of drive into the emitter, heavy class C stuff. That's probably what JT is so panty-bunched about.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/LC_YDx.gif
I suppose the emitter could be grounded, with the feedback winding in the base. The AGC effect would be similar, and the operating Q would be better. I think.
John
Late at night, by candle light, John Larkin penned this immortal opus:
Just hover the pointer over the terminal until it looks like a clampmeter. One of those things I found quite by accident, and nicely surprised.
- YD.
-- File corruption detected. Select option: 1 - Call the cops 2 - Call the press 3 - Bribe it Remove HAT if replying by mail.
I caught it right away. I'm a 'prober' by nature.
I know that, but I had a hard time hitting the emitter current. The resistor is a bigger target. Maybe I should buy more pixels or something.
John
Oh, I see the 2.9 ohms in the box off to the side. I must be pulling the Q down to about 4. But even at 8, the oscillation is loaded pretty bad. It's hard to get good inductors at these frequencies.
So what's R4 for?
John
-- So, what you're saying is that because of the feedback from L2, my model refreshes the tank irrespective of its own losses and gives it an apparent Q of about 470? Lucky me!
...
Yes, it was 4.07v, now it's 4.07z, after seeing 'z' was available here and doing a manual update :)
Grant.
-- http://bugs.id.au/
That is John, 'squegging' on the group.
Yeah.. Now tell krw just how stupid he is. Oh, wait... you just did that!
Bwuahahahahahhaa!
You're a lair as well as being wrong, AlwaysWrong. Always.
You are pitiful, not funny.
You stay the f*ck away from my lair.
You are sluggiful, not human.
I did the charge pump, which works. I posted this oscillator, which works. I posted a boost converter, a couple of clamp circuits, an isolated fet driver, lots of things. Have I posted anything that doesn't work? But this is a discussion group; it's perfectly reasonable to conjecture, and post things that don't work, so people can discuss them.
But you confused me with R4. What's it for?
John
Late at night, by candle light, John Larkin penned this immortal opus:
Yeah, the "sensitive" area is quite small, apparently only a few pixels across. Another way is to use a 0 V source instead of the resistor, then you can be sure of polarity too. I recall doing that in some ancient SPICE from the DOS daze.
- YD.
-- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
The sim runs but i cannot find the wave file. Where do you think it gets put when in wine?
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.