Zener diode below-threshold reverse current

He's unforgiving of mine.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That is one of the most childish responses from you I've seen. If you think you are more mature than him, you would have just let it pass. I know you don't care, but my respect for you just diminished to nearly zero.

"all them"???

If I wanted to be respected, I wouldn't post here. Neither would you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

isn't 100% reliable.

You've implicitly defined a range of applications. I don't know exactly how big it is - my feeling is that it isn't worth thinking about precisely how many separate applications someone could come up with - but its very likel y there will be more tomorrow."All" works for me. Your problems with senten ce comprehension may make it problematic for you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Can you cite an example supporting your claim, please?

--
Then, by posting here, you want to be disrespected? 

Congratulations; your strategy seems to be working... 

John Fields

te:

lot

l

Since I never ran into a situation where a 555 was a remotely viable choice , I'm relying on your testimony that such situations still exist at all.

My claim is more that a demented enthusiast like you will keep on seeing si tuations where he might use a 555, despite the fact that anybody else would chose to do the job some other way.

ng isn't 100% reliable.

how big it is - my feeling is that it isn't worth thinking about precisely how many separate applications someone could come up with - but its very li kely there will be more tomorrow."All" works for me. Your problems with sen tence comprehension may make it problematic for you.

It looks fine to me. "All of them" might have pleased a purist more.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

No. It's more that I don't organise my life on the basis that I'm looking for respect.

There are some people around whose respect one might care about - not all that many - and few of them post here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
So say you, but if I post an article, with data proving that a 555 is 
the best choice for the application at hand, you have no compunction 
with trying to eviscerate fact and supplant it with fiction which will 
serve your purpose.

e:

g

org

ow

a

ice, I'm relying on your testimony that such situations still exist at all.

You haven't posted it yet, and probably never will, so your prediction abou t how I'd react to it is the product of your diseased imagination. There ar e circuits that you have posted which included interesting fictions like a

500mH inductor with no parallel capacitance.

When I dug up a couple of off-the shelf inductors with that sort of inducta nce, the parallel capacitance of the 500mH part meant that it couldn't work , but I was able to make the circuit simulate with a smaller real inductor.

So there's a least one historical example of the boot being on the other fo ot.

,

situations where he might use a 555, despite the fact that anybody else wo uld chose to do the job some other way.

The world is full of better than 555 designs, so the nonsense is all yours.

I can survive being corrected when I've actually got something wrong, and t here are posts where I thank people for it. There aren't many of them, but they do exist. Search on "oops".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
>  
> John Fields

--- So you want the gloves to be off?

---

--- Pretty much like a mass being moved across a frictional surface with no spring attached to the mass, but so what?

Instead of just insinuation, why don't you just repost the article with which you have issues?

---

--- So, once you trimmed the circuit, it worked?

---

--- Not until you prove your point.

John Fields.

ons

As I demonstrated, you can pull the parallel capacitance out of the data sh eets for off-the-shelf inductors, and with a real parallel capacitance, you r circuit wouldn't oscillate at 100kHz.

If I remember right it was a thread on a low power 100kHz oscillator. You can run the google search engine if you think I'm misrepresenting the t hread.

ctance, the parallel capacitance of the 500mH part meant that it couldn't w ork, but I was able to make the circuit simulate with a smaller real induct or.

Sort of. Once I replaced your imaginary part with one of the same inductanc e that one could buy, it didn't work, but I was able to change the circuit so that it would work with a somewhat smaller inductor (with a higher self- resonant frequency) out of the same series.

You posted a circuit that wouldn't work in real life. I made the minimum ch ange that allowed it to work more or less as you had intended.

foot.

I've done it. The fact that you can't remember the incident nor dig it out of google groups doesn't make it go away.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 3:33:22 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

I can't find it. Google groups has changed it's search engine again.

What I could find - dated 2/01/2012 - was my rather simpler low-powered 100 kHz oscillator. There are other, similar, files dated 3/07/2008, which is m ore likely the date when the thread was active.

Version 4 SHEET 1 2904 1276 WIRE -576 576 -736 576 WIRE -112 576 -576 576 WIRE -576 608 -576 576 WIRE -112 608 -112 576 WIRE -576 704 -576 688 WIRE -464 704 -576 704 WIRE -384 704 -464 704 WIRE -240 704 -320 704 WIRE -112 704 -112 688 WIRE -112 704 -240 704 WIRE -736 720 -736 576 WIRE -464 736 -464 704 WIRE -240 736 -240 704 WIRE -576 832 -576 704 WIRE -112 832 -112 704 WIRE -496 880 -512 880 WIRE -464 880 -464 816 WIRE -464 880 -496 880 WIRE -448 880 -464 880 WIRE -384 880 -320 704 WIRE -320 880 -384 704 WIRE -240 880 -240 816 WIRE -240 880 -256 880 WIRE -208 880 -240 880 WIRE -176 880 -208 880 WIRE -208 912 -208 880 WIRE -496 928 -496 880 WIRE -576 1008 -576 928 WIRE -496 1008 -496 992 WIRE -496 1008 -576 1008 WIRE -208 1008 -208 976 WIRE -112 1008 -112 928 WIRE -112 1008 -208 1008 WIRE -736 1040 -736 800 WIRE -576 1040 -576 1008 WIRE -112 1040 -112 1008 FLAG -112 1040 0 FLAG -576 1040 0 FLAG -736 1040 0 SYMBOL RES -592 592 R0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 1000K SYMBOL res -128 592 R0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 1000K SYMBOL cap -384 864 R90 WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2 WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 1.5p SYMBOL cap -256 864 R90 WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2 WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2 SYMATTR InstName C2 SYMATTR Value 1.5p SYMBOL VOLTAGE -736 704 R0 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value 5 SYMBOL npn -176 832 R0 SYMATTR InstName Q1 SYMATTR Value BFR92A SYMBOL npn -512 832 M0 SYMATTR InstName Q2 SYMATTR Value BFR92A SYMBOL res -256 720 R0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 4700K SYMBOL res -480 720 R0 SYMATTR InstName R4 SYMATTR Value 4700.1K SYMBOL cap -512 928 R0 SYMATTR InstName C3 SYMATTR Value 0.68p SYMBOL cap -224 912 R0 SYMATTR InstName C4 SYMATTR Value 0.68p TEXT -768 1176 Left 2 !.tran 0 150u 50u startup TEXT -480 1176 Left 2 !.model BFR92A NPN(IS=0.1213E-15 VAF=30 BF=94.7

3 IKF=0.46227 XTB=0 BR=10.729 CJC=946.47E-15 CJE=10.416E-15 TR =1.2744E-9 TF=26.796E-12 ITF=0.0044601 VTF=0.32861 XTF=0.3817 RB=14.998 RC=0.13793 RE=0.29088 Vceo=15 Icrating=4m mfg=Infineo n)

It doesn't have any immediate relevance to the problem with your solution, but it might jog your memory.

Difficult, but I've now found the thread

"Re: micro power square wave oscillator"

My initial contribution

suggested the BFR92 but didn't provide a circuit.

I was house-sitting in my brother's house in Sydney at the time, and posting via a telephone modem. Luxurious house but primitive net-connection, so I wasn't all that keen to do anything that involved down-loading much data.

The search engine isn't all that user-friendly, so I couldn't get it to track all that far down the thread - apparently you posted something offensive enough to have been removed, breaking the thread.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
It's its, not it's.  

It's amazing how often that 'typo' occurs in your posts; almost like 
your fingers' muscle memory has been, somehow, denied access to 
conventional reality.

You can't find it either.

The bit of thread I could - eventually - access, did include the point where I mouse-trapped you with a misleading reference to behaviour of an emitter-coupled oscillator. I can see why you might have repressed the memory.

I'm not so much capitulating as gloating.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
I'm not even remotely interested in doing your legwork, but you seem 
to be the one in a pickle since you can't back up your claims with 
anything even faintly resembling reality.

You were the one who ended up with a certain amount of egg on your face, so you clearly aren't interested in doing the leg-work.

The archive does exist, but finding a way to dig out the relevant posts may take some time. Rest assured, you will eventually be moderately embarrassed.

That's a sophisticated response, but doesn't negate your original pratfall.

She's been dead for a bit over 2000 years, so your claim is somewhat silly, even by your standards.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney