Driver to drive?

[John Fields]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem.

---
Of course there is, since "obvious" is relative and the annotation is
incorrect and requires disambiguation from the reader before the
proper value can be discerned.
---

My job is to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

---
If you enjoy designing stuff, then that's what you should do, instead
of freezing in your tracks any time you're corrected and feel forced
by your insecurities to mount an offensive defense.
---

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves.

---
I think that devices which are advertised as 1N4148's have to adhere
to the limits of the JEDEC spec for 1N4148's, so if one stays within
the recommended limits, then the spec's for devices which claim to be
1N4148's will be equivalent.
---

So I certainly wouldn't design a circuit that
depends on the high-current I-V curve without making sure we'd
purchase only one vendors's parts, and even then it would be risky.

---
Well, 1N4148's _aren't_ 1N4001's, so your trepidation is justified.
---

I wouldn't depend on their capacitance or reverse leakage behavior,
either.

---
Why not?

As a servoed varactor or a voltage variable resistor (in either
forward or reverse mode) it might just be the perfect part for the
application, for much less than pennies per unit.
---

1N4148 is a very sloppy part.

---
A poor workman blames his tools.
---

All of which is aside from the issue of paralleling LEDs, which lots
of people seem to do.

---
Sure they do, but the issue isn't about paralleling LEDs, it's about
paralleling LEDs without the use of current limiting resistors.

So far, your position has been that, even though LEDs have a negative
temperature coefficient of resistance at low currents, the tempco goes
positive at higher currents and can, thus, protect the LED array from
burnout from a voltage source.

What current are you talking about where the tempco goes positive?
---

It must be hell to be manic depressive.

---
Heaven or Hell, as I understand it.

--
JF

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:56:08 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem.

---
Of course there is, since "obvious" is relative and the annotation is
incorrect and requires disambiguation from the reader before the
proper value can be discerned.
---

My job is to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

---
If you enjoy designing stuff, then that's what you should do, instead
of freezing in your tracks any time you're corrected and feel forced
by your insecurities to mount an offensive defense.
---

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves.

---
I think that devices which are advertised as 1N4148's have to adhere
to the limits of the JEDEC spec for 1N4148's, so if one stays within
the recommended limits, then the spec's for devices which claim to be
1N4148's will be equivalent.
---

So I certainly wouldn't design a circuit that
depends on the high-current I-V curve without making sure we'd
purchase only one vendors's parts, and even then it would be risky.

---
Well, 1N4148's _aren't_ 1N4001's, so your trepidation is justified.
---

I wouldn't depend on their capacitance or reverse leakage behavior,
either.

---
Why not?

As a servoed varactor or a voltage variable resistor (in either
forward or reverse mode) it might just be the perfect part for the
application, for much less than pennies per unit.
---

1N4148 is a very sloppy part.

---
A poor workman blames his tools.
---

All of which is aside from the issue of paralleling LEDs, which lots
of people seem to do.

---
Sure they do, but the issue isn't about paralleling LEDs, it's about
paralleling LEDs without the use of current limiting resistors.

So far, your position has been that, even though LEDs have a negative
temperature coefficient of resistance at low currents, the tempco goes
positive at higher currents and can, thus, protect the LED array from
burnout from a voltage source.

What current are you talking about where the tempco goes positive?
---

It must be hell to be manic depressive.

---
Heaven or Hell, as I understand it.

Which part are we being subjected to ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| 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.

 

[FigureItOut]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:22:14 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

The datasheets I linked to go to 500 and 800 mA. Presumably those were
pulsed measurements, but don't say so.

But what is a 1N4148 anyhow? I suppose JEDEC specs exist, but I've
never seen one. And if JEDEC defines the part, where's the
enforcement? What keeps some Chinese chop shop from shipping anything
they care to call a 1N4148?

Ummm... Performance.

We have a number of cases where we have stock numbers for, say, a
generic 2N7002, and another stock number for a Fairchild 2N7002,
because sometimes it matters. It's safer to use a house number than a
1N or 2N number, if performance really matters.

You need to wonder?

I remember the classic 2N3055 fiasco, when people started selling tiny
epitaxial parts in aluminum cans as "2N3055", and they tended to blow
up.

That was a completely different animal. Money was to be made from that
differential. It is a bit harder to make the smallest form factor glass
diode (from the axial days). They have to fit inside the package and they
have to work. It is a pretty tight window.

Hmmm, I don't seem to use many 1N4148s.

It, and the specs it had are one of the most commonly used diodes there
is. It is a "small signal" purpose device, so all you surface mount and
even integrated diodes would follow its spec to a degree as the switch
from discreet TTL to integrated devices came to being. Of course the
elements are far smaller now.

They appear on only about 10
of our 800 BOMs.

But the effect they had on the industry made its way into nearly
everything you have.

The MELF version on even fewer. We do use a ton of
BAV types.

Is it the 1N4148?

Anybody know how, say, a BAV99 is defined and enforced?

It is certain that the original maker released a spec and the contract
fabs follow(ed) it. To easy to shoot oneself in the foot these days.

I doubt there is so much actual fakery going on as there used to be.
Nowadays, they sell you outright failures that had zero cost attached.

Don't see many chips being reverse engineered anymoreeither.By the time
they chop off the lid and analyze it, it is obsolete and the next great
chip is out. It costs far too much to risk so many assets trying to
reverse engineer a chip.

But a diode isn't a chip.

But a 1N4148 isn't that hard to make and get right either.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:08:18 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:08:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:03:59 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:



Actually, I did peruse two of those sites and found that with the
voltage drop across the diode, at the currents you mentioned, both
cases resulted in real-world power dissipation in excess of the limits
allowed.

Now you are weaseling.

---
Nope, just stating a fact.
---

In addition, the Fairchild site which, in figure 5, clearly plots the
ordinate in millivolts, is wrong.

Apparently not having noticed that, I suspect you'll now make excuses
and bitch on forever about how unimportant accuracy is.

It's not a matter of "accuracy", it's an obvious typo. The axis is
obviously volts.

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem. My job is
to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves. So I certainly wouldn't design a circuit that
depends on the high-current I-V curve without making sure we'd
purchase only one vendors's parts, and even then it would be risky. I
wouldn't depend on their capacitance or reverse leakage behavior,
either. 1N4148 is a very sloppy part.

All of which is aside from the issue of paralleling LEDs, which lots
of people seem to do.

It must be hell to be manic depressive.

...Jim Thompson


So far, life has been a huge amount of fun. But what does that have to
do with diodes?
---

At the end, you can't go back.

--
JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:13:38 -0800, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:09:10 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:28:15 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:42:27 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


I don't really think an "arbitrary" definition is necessary, since the
location of the knee has been with us for decades.

John, I told you there are people who believe there is a "knee" in an
exponential function. ;-)

And there are people who think that the only kind of resistance is
E/I.

Some famous person once said "When all you know is Ohm's Law,
everything looks like a resistor."

Well, that was me, actually.


Switch famous to infamous and the description of yourself is all too apt.

?-)

After almost a week of brooding, that's all you can come up with?

Naw, it is all you are worth. But it is fun to rag on your vainglory.

?-)

That took three days?


--

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 Larkin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:06:09 -0800, FigureItOut
<LocusPocus@magicregion.org> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:22:14 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



The datasheets I linked to go to 500 and 800 mA. Presumably those were
pulsed measurements, but don't say so.

But what is a 1N4148 anyhow? I suppose JEDEC specs exist, but I've
never seen one. And if JEDEC defines the part, where's the
enforcement? What keeps some Chinese chop shop from shipping anything
they care to call a 1N4148?

Ummm... Performance.

We have a number of cases where we have stock numbers for, say, a
generic 2N7002, and another stock number for a Fairchild 2N7002,
because sometimes it matters. It's safer to use a house number than a
1N or 2N number, if performance really matters.

You need to wonder?

I remember the classic 2N3055 fiasco, when people started selling tiny
epitaxial parts in aluminum cans as "2N3055", and they tended to blow
up.

That was a completely different animal. Money was to be made from that
differential. It is a bit harder to make the smallest form factor glass
diode (from the axial days). They have to fit inside the package and they
have to work. It is a pretty tight window.

Hmmm, I don't seem to use many 1N4148s.

It, and the specs it had are one of the most commonly used diodes there
is. It is a "small signal" purpose device, so all you surface mount and
even integrated diodes would follow its spec to a degree as the switch
from discreet TTL to integrated devices came to being. Of course the
elements are far smaller now.

They appear on only about 10
of our 800 BOMs.

But the effect they had on the industry made its way into nearly
everything you have.

The MELF version on even fewer. We do use a ton of
BAV types.

Is it the 1N4148?

Rohm RLS4148 is the MELF we use. But production prefers SOT-23 parts,
and you get two per can, with the second diode free or less.

MELFs do have essentially zero inductance and good thermals.


--

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

 

[josephkk]

On 31 Jan 2012 06:23:38 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Drunken troll

BarnCat <BarnCat keepingthevermindownatthebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Nym-shifting
changes subject line
See also:
BarnCat <BarnCat keepingthevermindownatthebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
Hellequin <Hellequin yourpipesaremypipes.org
Numer0 Un0 <Numer0Un0 abettermanthanyou.org
Pueblo Dancer <Kachina AllHopiIsLost.org
scorpius <scorpius thewormholethatemptiesontheothersideoftheuniverse.org
UltimatePatriot <UltimatePatriot thebestcountry.org> wrote:
...and counting

Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!mpls-nntp-01.inet.qwest..net!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-07.inet.qwest.net!feeder.erje.net!de-l..enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BarnCat <BarnCat keepingthevermindownatthebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics
Subject: Re: John Doe, the biggest, dumbest, spamming retard in Usenet
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:04:33 -0800
Organization: allyourcatsarebelongtous.org
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <c11fi7tu2b9am8mqs636j2euniq9atr93t 4ax.com
References: <4f267ae1$0$2163$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6 news.astraweb.com> <24cdba95-3381-4170-b656-c984ac3e4836 q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <4f26a561$0$32221$c3e8da3$670ba073 news.astraweb.com> <bd4d7189-75e2-48ee-964f-eacc65a9fe69 hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <UoJVq.2577$Cs3.1170 newsfe22.iad> <4f277edf$0$20326$c3e8da3$9deca2c3 news.astraweb.com> <r00fi7lv4e63dep11vbcu7i6u71mn9absp 4ax.com> <4f2781a4$0$28030$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com
Reply-To: your cat, we are connected
NNTP-Posting-Host: PCDhjCI4k5fzcMFE9Hn1iQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118

On 31 Jan 2012 05:52:37 GMT, John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:


GO AWAY, you little 7 year old mentality CHILD!

GO AWAY, CHILD!

Over 100 nyms, all vulgar, arrogant, ignorant, and clueless. Reply to
NymNoNutz at your own risk.

?-)

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:56:08 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem.

---
Of course there is, since "obvious" is relative and the annotation is
incorrect and requires disambiguation from the reader before the
proper value can be discerned.

Do you talk like that in real life?

I didn't even notice the [mv] typo. It was obvious from the numbers
that the value was volts.

---

My job is to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

---
If you enjoy designing stuff, then that's what you should do, instead
of freezing in your tracks any time you're corrected and feel forced
by your insecurities to mount an offensive defense.

Well, that hasn't happened in this thread.

---

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves.

---
I think that devices which are advertised as 1N4148's have to adhere
to the limits of the JEDEC spec for 1N4148's, so if one stays within
the recommended limits, then the spec's for devices which claim to be
1N4148's will be equivalent.

But what does "have to" mean? Is there any enforcement?

---

So I certainly wouldn't design a circuit that
depends on the high-current I-V curve without making sure we'd
purchase only one vendors's parts, and even then it would be risky.

---
Well, 1N4148's _aren't_ 1N4001's, so your trepidation is justified.

1N4001's are at least as bad. It looks like many vendors only make two
wafers, a roughly 200 volt part and a PIN-like 1000 volt part, and
sell them as 1N4001 through 1N4007.

---

I wouldn't depend on their capacitance or reverse leakage behavior,
either.

---
Why not?

As a servoed varactor or a voltage variable resistor (in either
forward or reverse mode) it might just be the perfect part for the
application, for much less than pennies per unit.

How would you use it a a VVR in reverse mode?

---

1N4148 is a very sloppy part.

---
A poor workman blames his tools.

A diode isn't a tool, it's a part. And the curves are all over the
place.

---

All of which is aside from the issue of paralleling LEDs, which lots
of people seem to do.

---
Sure they do, but the issue isn't about paralleling LEDs, it's about
paralleling LEDs without the use of current limiting resistors.

So far, your position has been that, even though LEDs have a negative
temperature coefficient of resistance at low currents, the tempco goes
positive at higher currents and can, thus, protect the LED array from
burnout from a voltage source.

The tempco isn't the issue so much as the repeatability. But most LEDs
have low or positive TCs at operating current. Many of the modern
white super-bright LEDs are many chips on a common aluminum substrate,
in series-parallel arrays, with no resistors.

What current are you talking about where the tempco goes positive?

If you look at Fairchild's fig 6, you can see the lines converging.
This plot stops at 20 mA so they don't show you where the lines cross,
namely the zero TC current.

http://www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/1N4148_1N4448.pdf

On NXP's fig 3, the typicals cross at about 1.3 volts, 450 mA. I
wonder if most silicon PN junctions have their zero TC point around
1.3 volts. Some small-signal schottkies have zero TC at 10 mA or so,
which can be useful, like for clamping timing ramps.

---

It must be hell to be manic depressive.

---
Heaven or Hell, as I understand it.

It works for me!


--

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 Larkin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:00:08 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:56:08 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem.

---
Of course there is, since "obvious" is relative and the annotation is
incorrect and requires disambiguation from the reader before the
proper value can be discerned.
---

My job is to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

---
If you enjoy designing stuff, then that's what you should do, instead
of freezing in your tracks any time you're corrected and feel forced
by your insecurities to mount an offensive defense.
---

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves.

---
I think that devices which are advertised as 1N4148's have to adhere
to the limits of the JEDEC spec for 1N4148's, so if one stays within
the recommended limits, then the spec's for devices which claim to be
1N4148's will be equivalent.
---

So I certainly wouldn't design a circuit that
depends on the high-current I-V curve without making sure we'd
purchase only one vendors's parts, and even then it would be risky.

---
Well, 1N4148's _aren't_ 1N4001's, so your trepidation is justified.
---

I wouldn't depend on their capacitance or reverse leakage behavior,
either.

---
Why not?

As a servoed varactor or a voltage variable resistor (in either
forward or reverse mode) it might just be the perfect part for the
application, for much less than pennies per unit.
---

1N4148 is a very sloppy part.

---
A poor workman blames his tools.
---

All of which is aside from the issue of paralleling LEDs, which lots
of people seem to do.

---
Sure they do, but the issue isn't about paralleling LEDs, it's about
paralleling LEDs without the use of current limiting resistors.

So far, your position has been that, even though LEDs have a negative
temperature coefficient of resistance at low currents, the tempco goes
positive at higher currents and can, thus, protect the LED array from
burnout from a voltage source.

What current are you talking about where the tempco goes positive?
---

It must be hell to be manic depressive.

---
Heaven or Hell, as I understand it.

Which part are we being subjected to ?

...Jim Thompson

No content, as usual.

--

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

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:50:10 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

I blacklisted Motorola's version of the
LM324 as absolute crap.

But their JAN version was probably fine.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:04:17 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:57:00 -0800, Bart!
B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig***!.org> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:47:40 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I don't know either.


The first time you have spoken the truth in this group in quite some
time.

He should tell us how his flashlight regulates
current.

I would, but only if it is MY desire, you pathetic, cringing little
milksop.

Or, if he doesn't know (which he doesn't)


Back to the lying horseshit behavior already, I see. There was a time
when a man would simply drop you where you stand for pathetic, uncivil
behavior like that. That is where the Colt motto came from.

Which Colt motto? There seem to be a number of them.

I assume "It works every time!" (*)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*)
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2009/06/warning_it_works_every_time_colt_45_ads_now_come_with_disclaimer.php

http://www.youtube.com/audiusa?csref=62111648239202277

Hey, YouTube lets you see the Super Bowl commercials without making
you watch the game!


--

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

 

[Herbert John \"Jackie\" G]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:18:05 -0800, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Over 100 nyms, all vulgar,

Joseph Krudy Kretinous Kunt from the KKK is a child.

They are far from vulgar.

You could not, in fact name even one that is.

You are truly clueless. You dumb sumbitch.

 

[Winston]

josephkk wrote:

Over 100 nyms, all vulgar, arrogant, ignorant, and clueless. Reply to
NymNoNutz at your own risk.

___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

--Winston

 

[John Devereux]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:56:08 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem.

---
Of course there is, since "obvious" is relative and the annotation is
incorrect and requires disambiguation from the reader before the
proper value can be discerned.

Do you talk like that in real life?

I didn't even notice the [mv] typo. It was obvious from the numbers
that the value was volts.


---

My job is to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

---
If you enjoy designing stuff, then that's what you should do, instead
of freezing in your tracks any time you're corrected and feel forced
by your insecurities to mount an offensive defense.

Well, that hasn't happened in this thread.


---

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves.

---
I think that devices which are advertised as 1N4148's have to adhere
to the limits of the JEDEC spec for 1N4148's, so if one stays within
the recommended limits, then the spec's for devices which claim to be
1N4148's will be equivalent.

But what does "have to" mean? Is there any enforcement?

I don't see how there could be. It just has to comply with its *own*
datasheet, it is surely up to you to compare the datasheets of the
various manufacturers.

I have just now been trying to spot the difference between two LT1013
opamps, TI and (the original, presumably) LTC,

<http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/10134fd.pdf>
<www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lt1013.pdf>

The LTC one is 3 times the cost. It seems to have a couple of guaranteed
limits that the TI one does not.

[...]

ICs could be a different situation from generic diodes, I suppose there
is more likelihood the actual design is licensed there. Jim and miso
would know.


--

John Devereux

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:22:14 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:39:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:08:18 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:08:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:03:59 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:



Actually, I did peruse two of those sites and found that with the
voltage drop across the diode, at the currents you mentioned, both
cases resulted in real-world power dissipation in excess of the limits
allowed.

Now you are weaseling.

---
Nope, just stating a fact.
---

In addition, the Fairchild site which, in figure 5, clearly plots the
ordinate in millivolts, is wrong.

Apparently not having noticed that, I suspect you'll now make excuses
and bitch on forever about how unimportant accuracy is.

It's not a matter of "accuracy", it's an obvious typo. The axis is
obviously volts.

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem. My job is
to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves. So I certainly wouldn't design a circuit that
depends on the high-current I-V curve without making sure we'd
purchase only one vendors's parts, and even then it would be risky. I
wouldn't depend on their capacitance or reverse leakage behavior,
either. 1N4148 is a very sloppy part.

All of which is aside from the issue of paralleling LEDs, which lots
of people seem to do.

It must be hell to be manic depressive.

...Jim Thompson


So far, life has been a huge amount of fun. But what does that have to
do with diodes?

The same as talking amps of current in a 1N4148.

...Jim Thompson

The datasheets I linked to go to 500 and 800 mA. Presumably those were
pulsed measurements, but don't say so.

But what is a 1N4148 anyhow? I suppose JEDEC specs exist, but I've
never seen one.

---
And whose fault is that?
---

And if JEDEC defines the part, where's the
enforcement?

---
There is none, so rogues exist which, if you're stupid enough to fall
for their tricks, deserve what you get.
---

What keeps some Chinese chop shop from shipping anything
they care to call a 1N4148?

---
Nothing.
---

We have a number of cases where we have stock numbers for, say, a
generic 2N7002, and another stock number for a Fairchild 2N7002,
because sometimes it matters. It's safer to use a house number than a
1N or 2N number, if performance really matters.

---
All of that has nothing to do with diodes.
---

I remember the classic 2N3055 fiasco, when people started selling tiny
epitaxial parts in aluminum cans as "2N3055", and they tended to blow
up.

---
Got a link?
---

Hmmm, I don't seem to use many 1N4148s. They appear on only about 10
of our 800 BOMs. The MELF version on even fewer. We do use a ton of
BAV types.

Anybody know how, say, a BAV99 is defined and enforced?

---
If you're as sagacious as you claim to be WRT parts selection, then
you should have the answer in hand, so it seems that question is
designed to set the stage for you to deliver yet another pointless
rant.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:45:33 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:13:38 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:09:10 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:28:15 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:42:27 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


I don't really think an "arbitrary" definition is necessary, since the
location of the knee has been with us for decades.

John, I told you there are people who believe there is a "knee" in an
exponential function. ;-)

And there are people who think that the only kind of resistance is
E/I.

Some famous person once said "When all you know is Ohm's Law,
everything looks like a resistor."

Well, that was me, actually.


Switch famous to infamous and the description of yourself is all too apt.

?-)

After almost a week of brooding, that's all you can come up with?

Naw, it is all you are worth. But it is fun to rag on your vainglory.

?-)

That took three days?

---
Of course, you're so important that responses to you must take
precedence over any other activity.

--
JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:22:31 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:45:33 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:13:38 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:09:10 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:28:15 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:42:27 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


I don't really think an "arbitrary" definition is necessary, since the
location of the knee has been with us for decades.

John, I told you there are people who believe there is a "knee" in an
exponential function. ;-)

And there are people who think that the only kind of resistance is
E/I.

Some famous person once said "When all you know is Ohm's Law,
everything looks like a resistor."

Well, that was me, actually.


Switch famous to infamous and the description of yourself is all too apt.

?-)

After almost a week of brooding, that's all you can come up with?

Naw, it is all you are worth. But it is fun to rag on your vainglory.

?-)

That took three days?

---
Of course, you're so important that responses to you must take
precedence over any other activity.

It sure looks that way.


--

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 Larkin]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:56:07 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:22:14 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:39:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:08:18 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:08:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:03:59 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:



Actually, I did peruse two of those sites and found that with the
voltage drop across the diode, at the currents you mentioned, both
cases resulted in real-world power dissipation in excess of the limits
allowed.

Now you are weaseling.

---
Nope, just stating a fact.
---

In addition, the Fairchild site which, in figure 5, clearly plots the
ordinate in millivolts, is wrong.

Apparently not having noticed that, I suspect you'll now make excuses
and bitch on forever about how unimportant accuracy is.

It's not a matter of "accuracy", it's an obvious typo. The axis is
obviously volts.

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem. My job is
to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves. So I certainly wouldn't design a circuit that
depends on the high-current I-V curve without making sure we'd
purchase only one vendors's parts, and even then it would be risky. I
wouldn't depend on their capacitance or reverse leakage behavior,
either. 1N4148 is a very sloppy part.

All of which is aside from the issue of paralleling LEDs, which lots
of people seem to do.

It must be hell to be manic depressive.

...Jim Thompson


So far, life has been a huge amount of fun. But what does that have to
do with diodes?

The same as talking amps of current in a 1N4148.

...Jim Thompson

The datasheets I linked to go to 500 and 800 mA. Presumably those were
pulsed measurements, but don't say so.

But what is a 1N4148 anyhow? I suppose JEDEC specs exist, but I've
never seen one.

---
And whose fault is that?
---

And if JEDEC defines the part, where's the
enforcement?

---
There is none, so rogues exist which, if you're stupid enough to fall
for their tricks, deserve what you get.
---

What keeps some Chinese chop shop from shipping anything
they care to call a 1N4148?

---
Nothing.
---

We have a number of cases where we have stock numbers for, say, a
generic 2N7002, and another stock number for a Fairchild 2N7002,
because sometimes it matters. It's safer to use a house number than a
1N or 2N number, if performance really matters.

---
All of that has nothing to do with diodes.
---

I remember the classic 2N3055 fiasco, when people started selling tiny
epitaxial parts in aluminum cans as "2N3055", and they tended to blow
up.

---
Got a link?
---

Hmmm, I don't seem to use many 1N4148s. They appear on only about 10
of our 800 BOMs. The MELF version on even fewer. We do use a ton of
BAV types.

Anybody know how, say, a BAV99 is defined and enforced?

---
If you're as sagacious as you claim to be WRT parts selection, then
you should have the answer in hand, so it seems that question is
designed to set the stage for you to deliver yet another pointless
rant.

Crazy old hen.

--

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 Larkin]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:40:51 +0000, John Devereux
<john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:56:08 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem.

---
Of course there is, since "obvious" is relative and the annotation is
incorrect and requires disambiguation from the reader before the
proper value can be discerned.

Do you talk like that in real life?

I didn't even notice the [mv] typo. It was obvious from the numbers
that the value was volts.


---

My job is to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

---
If you enjoy designing stuff, then that's what you should do, instead
of freezing in your tracks any time you're corrected and feel forced
by your insecurities to mount an offensive defense.

Well, that hasn't happened in this thread.


---

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves.

---
I think that devices which are advertised as 1N4148's have to adhere
to the limits of the JEDEC spec for 1N4148's, so if one stays within
the recommended limits, then the spec's for devices which claim to be
1N4148's will be equivalent.

But what does "have to" mean? Is there any enforcement?

I don't see how there could be. It just has to comply with its *own*
datasheet, it is surely up to you to compare the datasheets of the
various manufacturers.

Things like 1N4148 are JEDEC numbers. I was wondering if compliance is
entirely voluntary, and if anyone here knew how the JEDEC standards
thing works.

I have just now been trying to spot the difference between two LT1013
opamps, TI and (the original, presumably) LTC,

http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/10134fd.pdf
www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lt1013.pdf

The LTC one is 3 times the cost. It seems to have a couple of guaranteed
limits that the TI one does not.

[...]

ICs could be a different situation from generic diodes, I suppose there
is more likelihood the actual design is licensed there. Jim and miso
would know.

Under US law, a part number can't be copyrighted. Absent patent
protection, nothing stops anyone from making and selling LT1013's.


--

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:40:51 +0000, John Devereux
<john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:56:08 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:38:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:24:56 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
If the axis was correctly annotated, would that not be more accurate
than if it were annotated incorrectly?

The y-axis on that fig 5 graph is obviously volts, and the "m" is
obviously a typo. Given that, there's no accuracy problem.

---
Of course there is, since "obvious" is relative and the annotation is
incorrect and requires disambiguation from the reader before the
proper value can be discerned.

Do you talk like that in real life?

I didn't even notice the [mv] typo. It was obvious from the numbers
that the value was volts.


---

My job is to design stuff, not freeze in my tracks at the slightest excuse.

---
If you enjoy designing stuff, then that's what you should do, instead
of freezing in your tracks any time you're corrected and feel forced
by your insecurities to mount an offensive defense.

Well, that hasn't happened in this thread.


---

If you look at a smattering of 1N4148 data sheets, there's a huge
spread of I-V curves.

---
I think that devices which are advertised as 1N4148's have to adhere
to the limits of the JEDEC spec for 1N4148's, so if one stays within
the recommended limits, then the spec's for devices which claim to be
1N4148's will be equivalent.

But what does "have to" mean? Is there any enforcement?

I don't see how there could be. It just has to comply with its *own*
datasheet, it is surely up to you to compare the datasheets of the
various manufacturers.

I have just now been trying to spot the difference between two LT1013
opamps, TI and (the original, presumably) LTC,

http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/10134fd.pdf
www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lt1013.pdf

The LTC one is 3 times the cost. It seems to have a couple of guaranteed
limits that the TI one does not.

[...]

ICs could be a different situation from generic diodes, I suppose there
is more likelihood the actual design is licensed there. Jim and miso
would know.

I could be licensed, or it could be a functional look-alike. Once
upon a time I designed an SSI look-alike for a National hard-drive
controller chip, strictly black-box... I had no knowledge of the
actual circuitry of the National part, and absolutely no prior
experience in designing hard-drive controllers

Working strictly from a performance specification I exceeded the
National chip's performance in all respects ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| 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.