Isolated, regulated, toroidal step down transformer AC power

[Phil Allison]

"Mark Ilsley = UTTER FUCKWIT "


( snip some of the CRAZIEST verbal garbage ever seen on this NG )


** Fucking, know nothing IDIOTS like this arrogant * PIG *

NEVER get to decide what others should accept or believe.


ROTFLMAO - this is absolutely bloody CLASSIC !!!

This ASININE, TOP POSTING, PITA BLOODY FOOL

has just gotta be another ADD fucked PIC programmer !!!!


What a bloody HOOOT & A HALF !!!!!!!

Lets all keep the CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What TOP entertainment !!





......... Phil

That is an astounding case of the Kettle calling the Pot, "black".

You just accused me of "arrogance" for NOT supplying information (on my
application for the requested design) whilst arguing that your own
arrogance is in fact a power to "decide what others should accept or
believe", earned on the basis of what?

You will claim superior knowledge and experience, but YOUR superior
knowledge experience CAN NOT make ME arrogant, and that is by definition.

Quite to the contrary, it makes your statement look arrogant because you
appear to believe that the power to "decide what others should accept or
believe" is something that can be EARNED by superior knowledge and
experience. That is; it exists AS A RIGHT that can be earned.

No doubt this proposition is TRUE inside THIS newsgroup or it may even be
true inside ALL newsgroups, but it is not true in the wider realm of human
relations or the law, because it is in conflict with the basic tenant of
an individuals free will.

In exercising that free will, I have the right NOT to divulge any
information I consider private (or for any other undisclosed reason) and I
will not let you twist the exercise of that option into an allegation of
arrogance, just as you have attempted to do.

To make that accusation under these specific circumstances is an
abomination.

To infer, by the argument that you have made, that the power to "decide
what others should accept or believe" exists at all as a RIGHT, which can
be earned, is an intrinsically arrogant position to take. It is one that
suppresses all decent.

Can you think of anyone in this newsgroup who suppresses all decent?


"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:56u5ltF287ut2U1@mid.individual.net...
"Mark Ilsley = UTTER FUCKWIT "


I see, and you do? (decide what others should accept or believe)


** Fucking, know nothing IDIOTS like this arrogant * PIG *

NEVER get to decide what others should accept or believe.

ROTFLMAO - this is absolutely bloody CLASSIC !!!

This ASININE, TOP POSTING, PITA DAMN FOOL

has just gotta be another ADD fucked PIC programmer !!!!

What a bloody HOOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep the CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What top entertainment !!




........ Phil

 

[Mark]

To take exception to the style of postings is such an enormously trivial and
childish position to take that I hardly feel deprived of your advice.

You may consider yourself excused of offering and advice.



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4609d1a6$0$16313$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

"Mark" <marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4609d90e$0$24862$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
I am not compelled to explain anything more than what I already have and
what I have explained is more than sufficient for my purpose.

**You don't have to explain anything. You won't get any help, either.


This isn't rocket science. A minimal design AC source can be achieved
with only ONE component but the output is then at the mercy of the
vagaries of the input voltage.

**Correct.


A better design might involve transformation to a nominal VAC (+/- x%) ,
then rectification and regulation to a nominal DC (+/- y%<x) , filtering
and decoupling and then inversion back to 9 VAC (+/- 1%).

**Except that it is ridiculously complex and unnecessary. If you would
explain what you are trying to do, then we can help you.


Even Google'sperts should be able to understand that.

**I suggest you Google the following: 'Top poster'.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Mark]

Incapable of argument.

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:56ud2nF2altogU1@mid.individual.net...

"Mark Ilsley = UTTER FUCKWIT "


( snip some of the CRAZIEST verbal garbage ever seen on this NG )


** Fucking, know nothing IDIOTS like this arrogant * PIG *

NEVER get to decide what others should accept or believe.


ROTFLMAO - this is absolutely bloody CLASSIC !!!

This ASININE, TOP POSTING, PITA BLOODY FOOL

has just gotta be another ADD fucked PIC programmer !!!!


What a bloody HOOOT & A HALF !!!!!!!

Lets all keep the CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What TOP entertainment !!





........ Phil









That is an astounding case of the Kettle calling the Pot, "black".

You just accused me of "arrogance" for NOT supplying information (on my
application for the requested design) whilst arguing that your own
arrogance is in fact a power to "decide what others should accept or
believe", earned on the basis of what?

You will claim superior knowledge and experience, but YOUR superior
knowledge experience CAN NOT make ME arrogant, and that is by definition.

Quite to the contrary, it makes your statement look arrogant because you
appear to believe that the power to "decide what others should accept or
believe" is something that can be EARNED by superior knowledge and
experience. That is; it exists AS A RIGHT that can be earned.

No doubt this proposition is TRUE inside THIS newsgroup or it may even be
true inside ALL newsgroups, but it is not true in the wider realm of
human relations or the law, because it is in conflict with the basic
tenant of an individuals free will.

In exercising that free will, I have the right NOT to divulge any
information I consider private (or for any other undisclosed reason) and
I will not let you twist the exercise of that option into an allegation
of arrogance, just as you have attempted to do.

To make that accusation under these specific circumstances is an
abomination.

To infer, by the argument that you have made, that the power to "decide
what others should accept or believe" exists at all as a RIGHT, which can
be earned, is an intrinsically arrogant position to take. It is one that
suppresses all decent.

Can you think of anyone in this newsgroup who suppresses all decent?


"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:56u5ltF287ut2U1@mid.individual.net...
"Mark Ilsley = UTTER FUCKWIT "


I see, and you do? (decide what others should accept or believe)


** Fucking, know nothing IDIOTS like this arrogant * PIG *

NEVER get to decide what others should accept or believe.

ROTFLMAO - this is absolutely bloody CLASSIC !!!

This ASININE, TOP POSTING, PITA DAMN FOOL

has just gotta be another ADD fucked PIC programmer !!!!

What a bloody HOOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep the CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What top entertainment !!




........ Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Mark Ilsley = ASININE FUCKWIT "

Incapable of argument.

( snip some of the CRAZIEST verbal garbage ever seen on this NG )


** Fucking, know nothing IDIOTS like this arrogant * PIG *

NEVER get to decide what others should accept or believe.


ROTFLMAO - this is absolutely bloody CLASSIC !!!

This ASININE, TOP POSTING, PITA BLOODY FOOL

has just gotta be another ADD fucked PIC programmer !!!!


What a bloody HOOOT & A HALF !!!!!!!

Lets all keep the CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What TOP entertainment !!




......... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Mark Ilsley = ASININE FUCKWIT "

To take exception to the style of postings is such an enormously trivial
and childish position to take that I hardly feel deprived of your advice.

Incapable of argument.

( snip some of the CRAZIEST verbal garbage ever seen on this NG )


** Fucking, know nothing IDIOTS like this arrogant * PIG *

NEVER get to decide what others should accept or believe.


ROTFLMAO - this is absolutely bloody CLASSIC !!!

This ASININE, TOP POSTING, PITA BLOODY FOOL

has just gotta be another ADD fucked PIC programmer !!!!


What a bloody HOOOT & A HALF !!!!!!!

Lets all keep the CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What TOP entertainment !!




......... Phil

 

[Mark]

It's irrelevant, actually.

240 VAC in (nominal) , 9 VAC out (+/- 1%), about 2 amps (but you can make it
10 amps or 1 amp, I don't care), toroidal transformer.

I've already given you sufficient information on the type of circuit it
supplies.



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:46097308$0$16400$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

"Mark" <marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:46090d62$0$24861$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
I am trying to build a 240 VAC in (or even 110 VAC in, I really don't
care) 9 VAC out, regulated (to 9 VAC) , isolated (from transformer), step
down transformer and AC power supply.

Input fused (at about 2 amps) but I could adapt just about any design to
about that current.

There...but I think I already said it, didn't I ..Let's see?

**WHAT IS THE APPLICATION?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Two Bob]

What a bloody HOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep this CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What entertainment !!

You cruel bastard!!

 

[Two Bob]

I am not compelled to explain anything more than what I already have and
what I have explained is more than sufficient for my purpose.

YOU are the idiot asking for help here! If you cant give more info, I doubt
you will get more help.

 

[James]

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a162b_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

What a bloody HOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep this CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What entertainment !!

You cruel bastard!!

But it's true

No only did the OP not say in the beginning what he's really trying to
acheive, but he is off on a completely wrong tangent arguing that he is
correct.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat, but the OP is trying to do it by
blindfolded shoving his fist fair up the cats arsehole and turning it inside
out and hopefully when he takes the blindfold off he'll relise it wasn't a
cat he had in the first place.

OK...well i guess thats a pretty fucked up comparison, but not far off the
Mark.

James

 

[Phil Allison]

"James"
"Two Bob"

What a bloody HOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep this CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What entertainment !!

You cruel bastard!!

But it's true

No only did the OP not say in the beginning what he's really trying to
acheive, but he is off on a completely wrong tangent arguing that he is
correct.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat, but the OP is trying to do it by
blindfolded shoving his fist fair up the cats arsehole and turning it
inside out and hopefully when he takes the blindfold off he'll relise it
wasn't a cat he had in the first place.

OK...well i guess thats a pretty fucked up comparison, but not far off the
Mark.

** ROTFL


Nice one....



.......... Phil

 

[Mark]

The way I understand it, the regulation that already occurs within the
application can only operate within a tolerance of the regulating IC's
nominal input voltage. The application is using 15 Volt DC regulators
(output), after the bridge rectifier, and can only operate (+/- x%) of 15
volts DC input.

The rectification of (nominally) 9 VAC I understood to result in 18 VDC
(ignoring any small voltage drop across the diodes). So even when the input
voltage is nominal,
the input voltage to the regulating IC's is only within 20% of their nominal
output.

Now what happens if the domestic supply voltage is not nominal?

If the domestic supply comes in at 264 VAC (+10%), the existing linear
regulator now supplies 9.9 VAC to the application, the bridge rectifier
doubles that to 19.8 VAC. The input voltage to the regulating IC's is now
only within 40% of their nominal output!

I monitor the domestic supply and regularly see voltages coming into our
house outside the range of +/- 10%.

One solution, of course, would be to redesign the power supply within the
application's case, including upgrading the regulating IC's input voltage
tolerance to at least 40% of its output, if such an IC can be found!

However space within the applications case would not allow for a toroidal
transformer, which I consider to be the optimum solution for a number of
reasons that I don't need to explain here (or maybe they will insist that I
do that as well?!!), and I have already invested considerable effort (and a
small amount of money) in upgrading the capacitors within the existing
application's power supply and really don't want to loose out on the already
considerable improvements I have made therein.

Quite frankly, I am astounded and reviled that such a simple request has
generated such a vile reaction from this group. I can only assume that it is
because they, like me, were unable to Goggle a suitable design. So as to
maintain their allusion of expertise and so they hide their inability to
self-design a suitable solution, with insults!

I wonder what would happen if I took a simular request for such a simple
thing to another newsgroup, say 'us.electronics', and pointed out to them
that 'aus.electronics' does not have a single contributor who can satisfy
the request. I wonder what they would say. "Too difficult", do you think?



"rebel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:9cfj03lh21i2v84iq298n08u61ththollf@4ax.com...

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:59:44 +1000, "Mark"
marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au
wrote:

Yes, I really do need 9 VAC for my application.

Within the application, the 9 VAC is rectified, filtered, regulated (to
+15
VDC and -15 VDC) and then filtered again.

which removes the need for any tight regulation of the 9VAC.

So the input needs to be regulated to within about (+ or -) 1% 9 VAC.

Nah, THAT's bullshit. (Hint: Just think for a moment what effect an
increase or
decrease of 0.5V in your AC 9V will have on the REGULATED DC rails.)

 

[James]

"Mark" <marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a28af$0$24860$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

The way I understand it, the regulation that already occurs within the
application can only operate within a tolerance of the regulating IC's
nominal input voltage. The application is using 15 Volt DC regulators
(output), after the bridge rectifier, and can only operate (+/- x%) of 15
volts DC input.

The rectification of (nominally) 9 VAC I understood to result in 18 VDC
(ignoring any small voltage drop across the diodes).

**** Is that right? I would have thought it closer to 12.7v (minus the
forward drop of the diodes), and from one 12Vdc supply how are you going to
achieve +/- 15V. Of course you could use half wave rectification for
+/-12Vdc but if you want to achieve a very stable supply?????

So even when the input

voltage is nominal,
the input voltage to the regulating IC's is only within 20% of their
nominal output.

**** Nope....and an input 20% below the desired output wont work will it?
Assuming (because you wont tell) you are talking about 7815 / 7915
regulators or similar you'd want a good few volts above the output if you
want any sort of regulation.

Now what happens if the domestic supply voltage is not nominal?

If the domestic supply comes in at 264 VAC (+10%), the existing linear
regulator now supplies 9.9 VAC to the application, the bridge rectifier
doubles that to 19.8 VAC. The input voltage to the regulating IC's is now
only within 40% of their nominal output!

I monitor the domestic supply and regularly see voltages coming into our
house outside the range of +/- 10%.

One solution, of course, would be to redesign the power supply within the
application's case, including upgrading the regulating IC's input voltage
tolerance to at least 40% of its output, if such an IC can be found!

However space within the applications case would not allow for a toroidal
transformer, which I consider to be the optimum solution for a number of
reasons that I don't need to explain here (or maybe they will insist that
I do that as well?!!), and I have already invested considerable effort
(and a small amount of money) in upgrading the capacitors within the
existing application's power supply and really don't want to loose out on
the already considerable improvements I have made therein.

Quite frankly, I am astounded and reviled that such a simple request has
generated such a vile reaction from this group. I can only assume that it
is because they, like me, were unable to Goggle a suitable design. So as
to maintain their allusion of expertise and so they hide their inability
to self-design a suitable solution, with insults!

I wonder what would happen if I took a simular request for such a simple
thing to another newsgroup, say 'us.electronics', and pointed out to them
that 'aus.electronics' does not have a single contributor who can satisfy
the request. I wonder what they would say. "Too difficult", do you think?



"rebel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:9cfj03lh21i2v84iq298n08u61ththollf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:59:44 +1000, "Mark"
marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au
wrote:

Yes, I really do need 9 VAC for my application.

Within the application, the 9 VAC is rectified, filtered, regulated (to
+15
VDC and -15 VDC) and then filtered again.

which removes the need for any tight regulation of the 9VAC.

So the input needs to be regulated to within about (+ or -) 1% 9 VAC.

Nah, THAT's bullshit. (Hint: Just think for a moment what effect an
increase or
decrease of 0.5V in your AC 9V will have on the REGULATED DC rails.)

 

[Mark]

So your presumption may be that asking for help at 'aus.electronics' is an
idiotic thing to do? Can't really disagree with you there.

I am all too aware of the inherent perils involved in asking for help on any
newsgroup inhabited by the likes of Phil and his 'Phil-o-philes'.

That reason alone is enough to make me cautious of providing any more
information than I need to. My perception of Phil is that the more
information you give him to analize (sic), the deeper your own exposure to
his vile hatred of (just about) everybody on the planet.

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a1756_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

I am not compelled to explain anything more than what I already have and
what I have explained is more than sufficient for my purpose.

YOU are the idiot asking for help here! If you cant give more info, I
doubt you will get more help.

 

[Mark]

Well, according to the schematic it is +/- 15VDC after regulation. And I
believe it.

Yes, I believe it is half wave rectification. Something above +/- 15VDC,
after rectification of the 9VAC. The schematic does not say, probably it is
assumed knowledge.

I have already employed high ripple current Backgate capacitors after the
regulators, and in coupling the Op-amps, and at quite a few other points
throughout the power supply. Worked a treat in improving the sound.

Yes they are 7815 / 7915 regulators. I remember reading the spec for them
(not that I can find it now).

The case is simply stuffed full of large caps throughout the power supply
and analogue section, and it would simple break my hart to have to pull them
out and start over again (to eliminate the half wave rectification)

Which is why I made my objective the replacement of the 9VAC wall wart power
supply.

Too much to ask?


"James" <dotatdot@tpigglet.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a2be0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Mark" <marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a28af$0$24860$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
The way I understand it, the regulation that already occurs within the
application can only operate within a tolerance of the regulating IC's
nominal input voltage. The application is using 15 Volt DC regulators
(output), after the bridge rectifier, and can only operate (+/- x%) of 15
volts DC input.

The rectification of (nominally) 9 VAC I understood to result in 18 VDC
(ignoring any small voltage drop across the diodes).

**** Is that right? I would have thought it closer to 12.7v (minus the
forward drop of the diodes), and from one 12Vdc supply how are you going
to achieve +/- 15V. Of course you could use half wave rectification for
+/-12Vdc but if you want to achieve a very stable supply?????

So even when the input
voltage is nominal,
the input voltage to the regulating IC's is only within 20% of their
nominal output.

**** Nope....and an input 20% below the desired output wont work will it?
Assuming (because you wont tell) you are talking about 7815 / 7915
regulators or similar you'd want a good few volts above the output if you
want any sort of regulation.



Now what happens if the domestic supply voltage is not nominal?

If the domestic supply comes in at 264 VAC (+10%), the existing linear
regulator now supplies 9.9 VAC to the application, the bridge rectifier
doubles that to 19.8 VAC. The input voltage to the regulating IC's is now
only within 40% of their nominal output!

I monitor the domestic supply and regularly see voltages coming into our
house outside the range of +/- 10%.

One solution, of course, would be to redesign the power supply within the
application's case, including upgrading the regulating IC's input voltage
tolerance to at least 40% of its output, if such an IC can be found!

However space within the applications case would not allow for a toroidal
transformer, which I consider to be the optimum solution for a number of
reasons that I don't need to explain here (or maybe they will insist that
I do that as well?!!), and I have already invested considerable effort
(and a small amount of money) in upgrading the capacitors within the
existing application's power supply and really don't want to loose out on
the already considerable improvements I have made therein.

Quite frankly, I am astounded and reviled that such a simple request has
generated such a vile reaction from this group. I can only assume that it
is because they, like me, were unable to Goggle a suitable design. So as
to maintain their allusion of expertise and so they hide their inability
to self-design a suitable solution, with insults!

I wonder what would happen if I took a simular request for such a simple
thing to another newsgroup, say 'us.electronics', and pointed out to them
that 'aus.electronics' does not have a single contributor who can satisfy
the request. I wonder what they would say. "Too difficult", do you think?



"rebel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:9cfj03lh21i2v84iq298n08u61ththollf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:59:44 +1000, "Mark"
marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au
wrote:

Yes, I really do need 9 VAC for my application.

Within the application, the 9 VAC is rectified, filtered, regulated (to
+15
VDC and -15 VDC) and then filtered again.

which removes the need for any tight regulation of the 9VAC.

So the input needs to be regulated to within about (+ or -) 1% 9 VAC.

Nah, THAT's bullshit. (Hint: Just think for a moment what effect an
increase or
decrease of 0.5V in your AC 9V will have on the REGULATED DC rails.)

 

[Two Bob]

What a bloody HOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep this CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What entertainment !!

You cruel bastard!!

But it's true

No only did the OP not say in the beginning what he's really trying to
acheive, but he is off on a completely wrong tangent arguing that he is
correct.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat, but the OP is trying to do it by
blindfolded shoving his fist fair up the cats arsehole and turning it
inside out and hopefully when he takes the blindfold off he'll relise it
wasn't a cat he had in the first place.

OK...well i guess thats a pretty fucked up comparison, but not far off the
Mark.

LOL

After reading the rest of the thread, all I can say is "Go for it Phil"!!

 

[Poxy]

"Mark" <marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a28af$0$24860$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
The way I understand it, the regulation that already occurs within the
application can only operate within a tolerance of the regulating IC's
nominal input voltage. The application is using 15 Volt DC regulators
(output), after the bridge rectifier, and can only operate (+/- x%) of
15
volts DC input.

A common 7815 regulator will put out a stable 15v for input voltages between
17.5v and 30v. That's plenty of headroom for any overvoltage situation on
the mains side.

 

[Mark]

I realise that my breath is wholly wasted on this Philistine, but:

A regulated circuit can benefit from the pre-regulation of the incoming AC.

Specifically, where the incoming AC strays outside the operating range of
the regulating IC's output voltage, the benefits may include, for example,
not having any blue smoke emanating from the unit.

Regulating IC's aren't expensive, so it seems a common sense precaution to
make, particularly where other work, (the replacement of the existing
wall-wart with a toroidal step down transformer) is envisaged. Which is
EXACTLY what I originally indicated.

Hey Philthy, we miss you over at 'aus.hifi'.



"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:56u72fF2acgo9U1@mid.individual.net...

"Mark Ilsley = UTTER FUCKWIT LIAR "


The reason WHY I need 9 VAC is because the application needs it and for
reasons that I have already explained.


** YOU have not explained any such thing -

YOU STINKING AUTISTIC LIAR


I may post a schematic of the applications rectification, regulation and
filtering circuit, but I don't think this is necessary.


** If it already has a " regulation " circuit, the incoming AC does not
also need regulation

- YOU FUCKING TENTH WIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Most people can understand a statement like "240 VAC in, 9 VAC out",
regulated to a fine tolerance (Say 1%) and isolated from the toroidal
step down transformer.


** It's purest gobbledegook.


ROTFLMAO - this is absolutely bloody CLASSIC !!!

This ASININE, TOP POSTING, PITA DAMN FOOL

has just gotta be another ADD fucked PIC programmer !!!!

What a bloody HOOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep the CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What top entertainment !!




........ Phil

 

[Mark]

It certainly would be reassuring to know that I have more head room than I
remember.

Show me your spec please. I remember reading something less (much less), but
I haven't got it in front of me.

I am sure that you can appreciate that since I am replacing a wall-wart
power supply with a toroidal step down transformer, the cost of an
additional IC regulator is rather trivial when compared to the cost of the
rest of the project.

It may turn out that the particular IC's that I have in place don't regulate
to a 30 VDC input, either by design or circumstance.

The application certainly occasionally behaves erratically (on/off clipping
of output) and I know that this behaviour coincides with over voltage supply
problems. I monitor the domestic supply using software which queries and
records data from an UPS. So there is no doubt about the cause. 100%
correlation.

If the cost of certainty (solving the problem by putting in a bigger, better
IC regulator) is about 10 bucks (and, apparently, putting up with a few
arse-clowns because I was foolish enough to ask for help @
'aus.electronics') then I can go the extra distance, I guess.

"Poxy" <pox@poxymail.com> wrote in message
news:MIqOh.2795$M.1126@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Mark" <marknospampleaseilsley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a28af$0$24860$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
The way I understand it, the regulation that already occurs within the
application can only operate within a tolerance of the regulating IC's
nominal input voltage. The application is using 15 Volt DC regulators
(output), after the bridge rectifier, and can only operate (+/- x%) of
15
volts DC input.

A common 7815 regulator will put out a stable 15v for input voltages
between
17.5v and 30v. That's plenty of headroom for any overvoltage situation on
the mains side.

 

[Mark]

What "tangent" would that be?

"James" <dotatdot@tpigglet.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a17c8@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a162b_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
What a bloody HOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep this CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What entertainment !!

You cruel bastard!!

But it's true

No only did the OP not say in the beginning what he's really trying to
acheive, but he is off on a completely wrong tangent arguing that he is
correct.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat, but the OP is trying to do it by
blindfolded shoving his fist fair up the cats arsehole and turning it
inside out and hopefully when he takes the blindfold off he'll relise it
wasn't a cat he had in the first place.

OK...well i guess thats a pretty fucked up comparison, but not far off the
Mark.

James

 

[Mark]

When people ask anything from me, they must display to me the same respect
that I gave to them, when I asked something from them, or I will not submit
to their demands.

If the cost of this personal policy is not receiving the help I requested
then I would much prefer not to receive it. The price of self-respect is
inestimable. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

The direct inference from your comments here and elsewhere on this thread is
that you expect me (and possibly all newcomers) to submit to this bulling in
order to receive the help that they need.

That is the definitive behaviour of a 'Phil-o-phile'.

You are a 'Phil-o-phile' and I expect nothing from you.



"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a374c_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

What a bloody HOOT !!!!!!!

Lets all keep this CRETIN on the fishing line as long as possible !!

What entertainment !!

You cruel bastard!!

But it's true

No only did the OP not say in the beginning what he's really trying to
acheive, but he is off on a completely wrong tangent arguing that he is
correct.

Theres more than one way to skin a cat, but the OP is trying to do it by
blindfolded shoving his fist fair up the cats arsehole and turning it
inside out and hopefully when he takes the blindfold off he'll relise it
wasn't a cat he had in the first place.

OK...well i guess thats a pretty fucked up comparison, but not far off
the Mark.

LOL

After reading the rest of the thread, all I can say is "Go for it Phil"!!