Driver to drive?

[Robert Macy]

On Jan 28, 8:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:27:46 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:48 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:53:17 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au
wrote:

"John Larkin"
"Phil Allison"

"Tim Williams is so full of shit "

Yes, suffice it to say, even though (dry slug) tantalums tend to
have
ESR
comparable to (higher grade) electrolytics, they are far, far
simpler:

** Their failure modes are many and failures far more common too.

If you keep dV/dT down, they are very reliable.

** Absolute crap.

As fucking usual,  Larkin has no idea of what he speaks and does not
give
a shit either.

I've used well over 100,000 tantalum caps in the last 6 years or so.
53,000 of 2.2u 20v alone. The only ones that failed were loaded
backwards or were on power rails that had high dV/dT available.

** So you have  NOT  seen the general failure rates with all brands of
tants
and across all types of equipment.

  You know no-one who has and do not give a shit either.

   Fuck off to hell  -   you rabid, septic psychopath.

I see very low failure rates in the equipmennt I design. I'm sure
there is badly designed gear that blows tantalum caps.

I'm not a repair tech, so I don't deal with a lot of equipment
designed by somebody else.

**  SO  SHUT  THE   FUCK   UP

-    YOU   BLOODY   IMBECILE   !!!!!!!

 .... Phil

I think your ESR tester doesn't work very well with low-uF parts.

John

Use your SoundCard and a little fussing and you can get down to
milliohms between the ranges of 1000Hz to 90kHz. Actually, 89kHz, but
can't get to 100kHz.

A little software and your Soundcard 24bit? running at 192kS/s dual
channel

I don't suppose that you have the source code for that do you?  If so i
would like to have a copy.

?-)

My code has the WORST users interface ever made! Source Code contains
too many proprietary processes and algorithms from another project and
is approx 2MB and relies on four libraries to be installed.

Try a search first, there are many prepackaged programs that you can
use.

If you still want your own, get software that exercises your soundcard
and start modifying that.

I'm open to discussion once you're set up.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:15:53 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:18:13 -0800, My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do
Tzu@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:44:28 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Well, I do this for a living, and build stuff that works.

---
Yeah, but it's mostly paint by numbers.
---

Then why take a stupid stance that they do not need to be thermally
coupled?

I explained that. At low currents, diodes have negative TCs and can go
into thermal runaway if paralleled (and, obviously, poorly heat sunk.)

---
If that's true, and the array is driven by a voltage source, thermal
runaway at low current is kind of an oxymoron if increasing the
current through the diode tends to heat it up and drive its tempco,
and its resistance, more positive.

Such being the case, the diode's parallel neighbors will respond
independently and would be harmed by having to conform to a common
thermal base.
---

That's why people sell flashlights that have multiple LEDs and no
resistors. Because it works.

---
But you haven't really explained _why_ it works, you merely
pontificate.
---

And multiple diodes soldered to a common heatsunk baseplate really
aren't "thermally coupled" very well... not much better than if they
were separate diodes on the same heat sink.

---
Finally, you've lost your mind.
---

Whether diodes can be usefully paralleled is an engineering issue that
has to be evaluated for specific cases. But a hard rule to never
parallel diodes, because you heard it somewhere, doesn't make sense.

---
Thanks for the clue.
---

Thermal runaway is a bigger issue for transistors.

---
That issue was resolved long ago, don't you know?

--
JF

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-01-28, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold it in
half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long. Grab both ends
and tie the first loop of a square knot. That's it. It stays stuck
together in a much more compact and easy to manage form.


Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="tying cables.jpg"

That's not a square knot, that's an overhand knot.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-01-26, Tim Williams <tmoranwms@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 25, 9:55 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
I don't exactly understand the situation. Got a sketch?

Does this involve tantalum caps?

A description should suffice [rum disclaimer inserted here]:

Yes -- I have eight output transformers in parallel from the same
current-limited PWM driver. Now, under normal conditions, all eight
channels are working correctly, so the current shares evenly, and all
the caps are happy (the maximum supply is 5A, so they each see a
maximum of 5A / 8 = 0.6A peak, so the RMS ripple is under 0.42A, fine
for a chip tantalum, though I have ceramic specified at the moment).
But under fault, the whole 5A could flow into just one channel, which
makes things "interesting". I may implement a "max-of-channels"
current limit for this.

Under this fault condition in the fault current passing through the
tantalum cap, or just visiting the neighbourhood?

energy density detonates tantalums, don't get them hot and
charged at the same time.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

 

[josephkk]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:21:03 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
<robert.a.macy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 28, 8:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:27:46 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:48 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:53:17 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au
wrote:

"John Larkin"
"Phil Allison"

"Tim Williams is so full of shit "

Yes, suffice it to say, even though (dry slug) tantalums tend to
have
ESR
comparable to (higher grade) electrolytics, they are far, far
simpler:

** Their failure modes are many and failures far more common too.

If you keep dV/dT down, they are very reliable.

** Absolute crap.

As fucking usual,  Larkin has no idea of what he speaks and does not
give
a shit either.

I've used well over 100,000 tantalum caps in the last 6 years or so.
53,000 of 2.2u 20v alone. The only ones that failed were loaded
backwards or were on power rails that had high dV/dT available.

** So you have  NOT  seen the general failure rates with all brands of
tants
and across all types of equipment.

  You know no-one who has and do not give a shit either.

   Fuck off to hell  -   you rabid, septic psychopath.

I see very low failure rates in the equipmennt I design. I'm sure
there is badly designed gear that blows tantalum caps.

I'm not a repair tech, so I don't deal with a lot of equipment
designed by somebody else.

**  SO  SHUT  THE   FUCK   UP

-    YOU   BLOODY   IMBECILE   !!!!!!!

 .... Phil

I think your ESR tester doesn't work very well with low-uF parts.

John

Use your SoundCard and a little fussing and you can get down to
milliohms between the ranges of 1000Hz to 90kHz. Actually, 89kHz, but
can't get to 100kHz.

A little software and your Soundcard 24bit? running at 192kS/s dual
channel

I don't suppose that you have the source code for that do you?  If so i
would like to have a copy.

?-)

My code has the WORST users interface ever made! Source Code contains
too many proprietary processes and algorithms from another project and
is approx 2MB and relies on four libraries to be installed.

Try a search first, there are many prepackaged programs that you can
use.

If you still want your own, get software that exercises your soundcard
and start modifying that.

I'm open to discussion once you're set up.


No further comment is needed. You cannot provide, that is OK though.

Just asked in case you had something appropriately available.

?-)

 

[fungus]

On Jan 28, 11:41 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2012-01-28, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold it in
half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long. Grab both ends
and tie the first loop of a square knot. That's it. It stays stuck
together in a much more compact and easy to manage form.

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="tying cables.jpg"

That's not a square knot, that's an overhand knot.

Does it only work for four-foot wires? Mine are measured in metric.

What about two meters?

 

[John Doe]

fungus <tooby artlum.com> wrote:

Jasen Betts <jasen xnet.co.nz> wrote:
John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold
it in half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long.
Grab both ends and tie the first loop of a square knot. That's
it. It stays stuck together in a much more compact and easy to
manage form.

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="tying cables.jpg"

That's not a square knot, that's an overhand knot.

It's the first part of a square knot. But I practice concise
wording, so instead of "the first part of a square knot" I will
use "an overhand knot".

Does it only work for four-foot wires?

Plus or minus one foot.

What about two meters?

That might require another fold. The number of folds depends on
the length of the wire. One sticking point is that the last fold
occasionally leads to a wire that is too short and stiff to make
an overhand knot. So your tied up wire might be a little longer
than desirable. Sometimes I go to the trouble of folding the wire
into one thirds instead of the last two folds. That is a hassle,
but it makes for slightly more compact storage, still without
needing ties on hand.

 

[John Doe]

And by the way... You're welcome.

 

[fungus]

On Jan 30, 12:11 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

fungus <tooby artlum.com> wrote:
Jasen Betts <jasen xnet.co.nz> wrote:
John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold
it in half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long.
Grab both ends and tie the first loop of a square knot. That's
it. It stays stuck together in a much more compact and easy to
manage form.

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="tying cables.jpg"

That's not a square knot, that's an overhand knot.

It's the first part of a square knot.

Nope. A square knot isn't tehnically a 'knot' at all, it's
a 'bend' - used to joint two pieces of rope together
(or two ends of the same rope if it's wrapped around
something).

A 'knot' is tied in the center of piece of rope, usually
as a stopper to prevent the rope from passing through
a hole though which it's been threaded.

The 'overhand knot' is the correct term for what's
being tied here.

The more you know...

PS: The 'sheet bend' gets the terminology right and
is also far more secure than a 'square knot'
(which a dangerous knot and often unties itself
- do not use except for tying parcels).



===
The thing that bothers me most about this post is
that some numpty genuinely thinks he's invented
something new - tying knots in a cable!

He's only one step away from patenting his brilliant
new idea...

(and the way the patent office is run these days they'd
probably accept it as a new invention).

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:40:54 -0800, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:54:18 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:22:25 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9FE1C0DDF59A8zoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145:

[snip]

Ran your schematic... behavior is extraordinarily weird, output hangs
about 0.7V below ground when powered from +/-12V

Please recheck your netlist. Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

Is your test circuit in LTSpice form? I would like to fiddle with the
model in LTSpice.

?-)

I posted a model that Lostgallifreyan says is "peaky" in the negative
direction, but otherwise looks good. I posted I based it on data sheet,
choosing the largest of confusing "sink" terms. Suggested a tweak downward.
Haven't heard back yet.

...Jim Thompson
--
[On the Road, in New York]

| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Doe]

Nobody I have showed my method to has said that they have seen it before,
including people massively more experienced than this nym-shifting asshole.


fungus <tooby artlum.com> wrote:

Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: fungus <tooby artlum.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics
Subject: Re: Simple way to bind wires, without ties
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <24cdba95-3381-4170-b656-c984ac3e4836 q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
References: <4f236128$0$32059$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 news.astraweb.com> <jg0jc5$kdq$1 reversiblemaps.ath.cx> <039aeb06-570b-47e0-910f-13cff41fa53e bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4f267ae1$0$2163$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6 news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.221.151.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1327923783 17463 127.0.0.1 (30 Jan 2012 11:43:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=87.221.151.4; posting-account=gLolegoAAAC00kFSw5zQA_tVgjwJpNvY
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)

On Jan 30, 12:11˙pm, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
fungus <tooby artlum.com> wrote:
Jasen Betts <jasen xnet.co.nz> wrote:
John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold
it in half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long.
Grab both ends and tie the first loop of a square knot. That's
it. It stays stuck together in a much more compact and easy to
manage form.

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="tying cables.jpg"

That's not a square knot, that's an overhand knot.

It's the first part of a square knot.

Nope. A square knot isn't tehnically a 'knot' at all, it's
a 'bend' - used to joint two pieces of rope together
(or two ends of the same rope if it's wrapped around
something).

A 'knot' is tied in the center of piece of rope, usually
as a stopper to prevent the rope from passing through
a hole though which it's been threaded.

The 'overhand knot' is the correct term for what's
being tied here.

The more you know...

PS: The 'sheet bend' gets the terminology right and
is also far more secure than a 'square knot'
(which a dangerous knot and often unties itself
- do not use except for tying parcels).



===
The thing that bothers me most about this post is
that some numpty genuinely thinks he's invented
something new - tying knots in a cable!

He's only one step away from patenting his brilliant
new idea...

(and the way the patent office is run these days they'd
probably accept it as a new invention).

 

[Pueblo Dancer]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:04:41 -0800 (PST), fungus <tooby@artlum.com>
wrote:

On Jan 28, 11:41 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2012-01-28, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold it in
half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long. Grab both ends
and tie the first loop of a square knot. That's it. It stays stuck
together in a much more compact and easy to manage form.

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="tying cables.jpg"

That's not a square knot, that's an overhand knot.


Does it only work for four-foot wires? Mine are measured in metric.

What about two meters?

The modern folk use Velcro wrap ties.

http://www.amazon.com/Velcro-Reusable-Self-Gripping-Inches-91140/dp/B001E1Y5O6

Inside a chassis, the old mil way works, and I like it better than
nylon ties, because they generally have bulging, sharp protrusions at the
tie point.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jan 30, 2:32 am, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:21:03 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:27:46 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:48 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:53:17 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au
wrote:

"John Larkin"
"Phil Allison"

"Tim Williams is so full of shit "

Yes, suffice it to say, even though (dry slug) tantalums tend to
have
ESR
comparable to (higher grade) electrolytics, they are far, far
simpler:

** Their failure modes are many and failures far more common too.

If you keep dV/dT down, they are very reliable.

** Absolute crap.

As fucking usual,  Larkin has no idea of what he speaks and does not
give
a shit either.

I've used well over 100,000 tantalum caps in the last 6 years or so.
53,000 of 2.2u 20v alone. The only ones that failed were loaded
backwards or were on power rails that had high dV/dT available..

** So you have  NOT  seen the general failure rates with all brands of
tants
and across all types of equipment.

  You know no-one who has and do not give a shit either.

   Fuck off to hell  -   you rabid, septic psychopath.

I see very low failure rates in the equipmennt I design. I'm sure
there is badly designed gear that blows tantalum caps.

I'm not a repair tech, so I don't deal with a lot of equipment
designed by somebody else.

**  SO  SHUT  THE   FUCK   UP

-    YOU   BLOODY   IMBECILE   !!!!!!!

 .... Phil

I think your ESR tester doesn't work very well with low-uF parts.

John

Use your SoundCard and a little fussing and you can get down to
milliohms between the ranges of 1000Hz to 90kHz. Actually, 89kHz, but
can't get to 100kHz.

A little software and your Soundcard 24bit? running at 192kS/s dual
channel

I don't suppose that you have the source code for that do you?  If so i
would like to have a copy.

?-)

My code has the WORST users interface ever made! Source Code contains
too many proprietary processes and algorithms from another project and
is approx 2MB and relies on four libraries to be installed.

Try a search first, there are many prepackaged programs that you can
use.

If you still want your own, get software that exercises your soundcard
and start modifying that.

I'm open to discussion once you're set up.

No further comment is needed.   You cannot provide, that is OK though.
Just asked in case you had something appropriately available.

?-)

contact me offline
robert .DOT. a .DOT. macy .AT.

 

[John Doe]

Pueblo Dancer <Kachina AllHopiIsLost.org> wrote:

The modern folk use Velcro wrap ties.

I am impressed by how a person's big ego can prevent him (or her)
from showing appreciation for a good idea.

An intelligent person who might not be able to develop a better
method, but who can at least recognize one when they see it
(someone who is not inhibited by his own big ego), might notice
the benefit of using a method that does not require tools or ties.

Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold it in
half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long. Grab both ends
and tie an overhand knot. That's it. It stays stuck together in a
much more compact and easy to manage form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uf_Fe9VKGbY#t=61s

That one is more to the point, but if it don't work...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf_Fe9VKGbY

--

http://www.amazon.com/Velcro-Reusable-Self-Gripping-Inches-91140/dp/B001E1Y5O6

Inside a chassis, the old mil way works, and I like it better than
nylon ties, because they generally have bulging, sharp protrusions at the
tie point.



Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-03.inet.qwest.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Pueblo Dancer <Kachina AllHopiIsLost.org
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics
Subject: Re: Simple way to bind wires, without ties
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:13:14 -0800
Organization: Hopis-R-Seers
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <959di7hccs332tn6rd9dj17u49rs887kc1 4ax.com
References: <4f236128$0$32059$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 news.astraweb.com> <jg0jc5$kdq$1 reversiblemaps.ath.cx> <039aeb06-570b-47e0-910f-13cff41fa53e bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
Reply-To: The Time Is Near
NNTP-Posting-Host: PCDhjCI4k5fzcMFE9Hn1iQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118

 

[John Doe]

fungus <tooby artlum.com> wrote:

I've still got a big reel of waxy string somewhere...


I use it for tying up people who trespass on my lawn.

What for tying up your mother?

--











Nym-shifting troll
see also Google Groups

Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!s9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: fungus <tooby artlum.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics
Subject: Re: Simple way to bind wires, without ties
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <bf6f1435-4b20-451d-9684-f16173871344 s9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com
References: <4f236128$0$32059$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 news.astraweb.com> <jg0jc5$kdq$1 reversiblemaps.ath.cx> <039aeb06-570b-47e0-910f-13cff41fa53e bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <959di7hccs332tn6rd9dj17u49rs887kc1 4ax.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.221.151.76
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1327936306 16841 127.0.0.1 (30 Jan 2012 15:11:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:11:46 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: s9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=87.221.151.76; posting-account=gLolegoAAAC00kFSw5zQA_tVgjwJpNvY
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)

 

[John Larkin]

On 28 Jan 2012 20:48:21 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2012-01-26, Tim Williams <tmoranwms@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:55 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
I don't exactly understand the situation. Got a sketch?

Does this involve tantalum caps?

A description should suffice [rum disclaimer inserted here]:

Yes -- I have eight output transformers in parallel from the same
current-limited PWM driver. Now, under normal conditions, all eight
channels are working correctly, so the current shares evenly, and all
the caps are happy (the maximum supply is 5A, so they each see a
maximum of 5A / 8 = 0.6A peak, so the RMS ripple is under 0.42A, fine
for a chip tantalum, though I have ceramic specified at the moment).
But under fault, the whole 5A could flow into just one channel, which
makes things "interesting". I may implement a "max-of-channels"
current limit for this.

Under this fault condition in the fault current passing through the
tantalum cap, or just visiting the neighbourhood?

energy density detonates tantalums, don't get them hot and
charged at the same time.

What usually detonates them is high peak current, or equivalently high
dV/dT.


--

John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[John Doe]

fungus <tooby artlum.com> wrote:

John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Nobody I have showed my method to has said that they have seen
it before, including people massively more experienced than
this nym-shifting asshole.


This just gets funnier and funnier...

It's not funny, it's common. You can see it regularly illustrated
on YouTube. A talented person uploads a video showing off their
talent. Someone comes along and disses that person. So you take a
look at the troll's channel. And of course they have nothing to
show of their own. So even if you weren't a nym-shifting troll, I
wouldn't bother asking for evidence that you have ever come up
with anything innovative of your own, because I know better.

You're a talentless nym-shifting troll who enjoys dissing others
who have ideas of their own.

--

Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: fungus <tooby artlum.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics
Subject: Re: Simple way to bind wires, without ties
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:10:17 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <bd4d7189-75e2-48ee-964f-eacc65a9fe69 hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
References: <4f236128$0$32059$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 news.astraweb.com> <jg0jc5$kdq$1 reversiblemaps.ath.cx> <039aeb06-570b-47e0-910f-13cff41fa53e bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4f267ae1$0$2163$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6 news.astraweb.com> <24cdba95-3381-4170-b656-c984ac3e4836 q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <4f26a561$0$32221$c3e8da3$670ba073 news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.221.151.76
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1327936217 16028 127.0.0.1 (30 Jan 2012 15:10:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:10:17 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=87.221.151.76; posting-account=gLolegoAAAC00kFSw5zQA_tVgjwJpNvY
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)

 

[fungus]

On Jan 30, 3:12 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Nobody I have showed my method to has said that they have seen it before,
including people massively more experienced than this nym-shifting asshole.

This just gets funnier and funnier...

 

[fungus]

On Jan 30, 3:13 pm, Pueblo Dancer <Kach...@AllHopiIsLost.org> wrote:

Inside a chassis, the old mil way works, and I like it better than
nylon ties, because they generally have bulging, sharp protrusions at the
tie point.

I've still got a big reel of waxy string somewhere...


I use it for tying up people who trespass on my lawn.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Pueblo Dancer <Kachina@AllHopiIsLost.org> wrote in
news:959di7hccs332tn6rd9dj17u49rs887kc1@4ax.com:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:04:41 -0800 (PST), fungus <tooby@artlum.com
wrote:

On Jan 28, 11:41 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2012-01-28, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Take a wire of whatever sort that is about 4 feet long. Fold it in
half. Fold it in half again. Now it is 1 foot long. Grab both ends
and tie the first loop of a square knot. That's it. It stays stuck
together in a much more compact and easy to manage form.

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="tying cables.jpg"

That's not a square knot, that's an overhand knot.


Does it only work for four-foot wires? Mine are measured in metric.

What about two meters?

The modern folk use Velcro wrap ties.

http://www.amazon.com/Velcro-Reusable-Self-Gripping-Inches-91140/dp/B00
1E1Y5O6

Inside a chassis, the old mil way works, and I like it better than
nylon ties, because they generally have bulging, sharp protrusions at
the tie point.

Harbor Freight sells a 30' roll of doublesided Velcro tape,sticks to
itself.
it's very handy around the house.

I suppose in a pinch you could use dental floss,the waxed kind.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com