Hi all, Just doing some experiments with PWM on my 16f84 ,I have a 3k/3k coupling transformer connected to RB0 in series to ground , As I am teaching myself electronics and pic programming out of books I am not sure if there should be a current limiting resister in there somewhere?? ( there is already 3k in the transformer)how do i find out how much current it can take?) I have not fried anything YET . ;-) but the point is I want to know how to do it properly!!
When I have an example like a LED ,ohms laws etc. I can get along ,but I have not been able to find an example for this ..
______
RB0-----------[ c/t ]----------- [3kohms] *probes output side
gnd------------[______]-----------
I am trying to emulate the output of a reluctor wheel on a output shaft which is a sinewave(hope I am on the right track!)
100 ohm to ground instead of input coil directly to ground.
Using a scope may find the value of your current measuring the voltage
across resistor.
Compensate then by computation your 100 ohm error induced in system.
BTW, don't forget the load and a clamp diode protection on input coil.
Vasile
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Paul Smith wrote:
> Hi all, Just doing some experiments with PWM on my 16f84 ,I have a 3k/3k
coupling transformer connected to RB0 in series to ground , As I am teaching myself electronics and pic programming out of books I am not sure if there should be a current limiting resister in there somewhere?? ( there is already 3k in the transformer)how do i find out how much current it can take?) {Quote hidden}
> I have not fried anything YET . ;-) but the point is I want to know how to do it properly!!
>
> When I have an example like a LED ,ohms laws etc. I can get along ,but I have not been able to find an example for this ..
>
> ______
> RB0-----------[ c/t ]-----------
> [3kohms] *probes output side
> gnd------------[______]-----------
>
> I am trying to emulate the output of a reluctor wheel on a output shaft which is a sinewave(hope I am on the right track!)
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>
>
Thanks for the reponses. I'll respond to a bunch of them here....
- The sender is a fuel sender, GM style (240-33 ohm). I use a 240 ohm
resistor for the upper part of the voltage divider (between the PIC A/D input
and +5V), and the fuel sender forms the lower part of the voltage divider.
So the max A/D input signal voltage is 2.5V, and the impedance is 120 ohms
max.
- Although I am calculating this for a fuel sender, a similar arrangement will
be used for an oil-pressure sender.
- Vref is 2.5V and is externally supplied to the PIC, using 2 equal-valued
resistors that form another voltage divider between +5V and ground. This
makes the whole arrangement ratiometric.
- Now that I think about it a bit more, since the A/D voltage is only up to
2.5V, I should change the proposed zener a 4.7V or 4.3V type. I'll download
and look at some zener datasheets after this to see what effects I can expect
up to 2.5V.
- Good point on using a schottky for D2 so it would conduct before the
internal protection diode. I've got some BATxx types around here somewhere,
so I'll check what I have specifically. IIRC, the internal protection diodes
on the PIC A/D inputs are 0.6V types, so I'll have to ensure that it's below
that.
- If I were to use a current-limiting resistor on the inputs, then that will
have some effect on the actual measured value at the input pin, and the
charging time for the internal hold capacitor, right? How would I calculate
for the effects of this?
>> How about using a standard RC low pass, with a resistor that's bigger
>> than the PIC ADC input likes, but with a capacitor that's big enough to
>> load the PIC's internal cap with an error that's below your
>> requirements?
>
> The capacitor does nothing about the PIC A/D input leakage currents times
> the source resistance causing an offset. In addition the capacitor low pass
> filters the sample and hold capacitor charge current, so the voltage at the
> pin becomes a function of the average charge current, which is a function of
> the voltage on the sample and hold cap before the acquitision, which is a
> function of the voltage on the previously selected analog channel. In other
> words, you have no created a charge pump from the previous analog channel to
> this one, requiring much longer acquisition times than usual to get around.
Hm...
Imagine a 100n cap at the input (5 V, 8 bit, 20 mV/digit). It's about 2000
times the ADC capacitor (50p), which means that charging the ADC sampling
cap to either end of the range doesn't change the total voltage by more
than 1/2000 of the maximum voltage difference, or < 3 mV. This seems
negligible.
During the sample period of max 15 us, the voltage at the input changes by
less than 500 nA * 15 us / 100 nF < 100 uV, so that's negligible too.
Then there's the input leakage current of 500 nA. With 0.5 LSB max error,
that would be a max input resistor of 20k.
In summary, it seems the really limiting factor for the input resistor is
the input leakage current (as Russell said), and otherwise the capacitor
works well as a low impedance voltage source for the ADC input.
PicDude wrote:
> - The sender is a fuel sender, GM style (240-33 ohm). I use a 240 ohm
> resistor for the upper part of the voltage divider (between the PIC
> A/D input and +5V), and the fuel sender forms the lower part of the
> voltage divider.
> So the max A/D input signal voltage is 2.5V, and the impedance is 120
> ohms max.
Since fuel level changes slowly, you can (and should) low pass filter it
heavily. You can easily ignore frequencies above 100mHz without missing any
real data.
> - Although I am calculating this for a fuel sender, a similar
> arrangement will be used for an oil-pressure sender.
There you might want to heavily filter above 1Hz. That still gives lots of
opportunity for noise reduction.
> - Vref is 2.5V and is externally supplied to the PIC, using 2
> equal-valued resistors that form another voltage divider between +5V
> and ground. This makes the whole arrangement ratiometric.
This is silly. The 2.5V reference is still relative to the +5V supply, only
that it has additional error due to the divider resistors. Your reading is
rationmetric because the same +5V sources the current for the resistive
sensor, not because you divided it to make the A/D reference. It would
still be ratiometric if the +5V was used as the PIC Vdd, which was used as
the A/D reference. The main difference is that you now have a 5V A/D input
range, a good place to clamp the incoming signal to, and no error on the A/D
reference with respect to the pullup voltage on the resistive sensor.
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Imagine a 100n cap at the input (5 V, 8 bit, 20 mV/digit). It's about
> 2000 times the ADC capacitor (50p), which means that charging the ADC
> sampling
> cap to either end of the range doesn't change the total voltage by
> more
> than 1/2000 of the maximum voltage difference, or < 3 mV. This seems
> negligible.
Yes, for one sample. You are really moving a fixed charge every time the
input channel is sampled. That charge times the sample frequency is a
current. That current times the source resistance is an offset voltage.
Note that the capacitor value doesn't enter into this equation as long as
it's big enough to carry most of the accumulated charge from one sample to
the next. Your logic above only holds when there is no "memory" from one
sample to the next.
Of course this is assuming the A/D channel is being switched, in other words
two or more analog voltages being constantly sampled. If the A/D channel is
left fixed, then there is no charge pump between channels.
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> Again, assume that the wire coming in will have occasional short
>> spikes of 200V and figure out what that will do.
>
> When you say "short spikes", do you have an idea what "short" means?
> ns, us, ms range?
I would want it to survive at 200V for a few 100uS. You can assume the
repition of these events are low so that the average power can be ignored,
but the instantaneous spike must not damage anything.
> Since fuel level changes slowly, you can (and should) low pass filter it
> heavily. You can easily ignore frequencies above 100mHz
= 0.1 Hz
> without missing any real data.
> > - Although I am calculating this for a fuel sender, a similar
> > arrangement will be used for an oil-pressure sender.
> There you might want to heavily filter above 1Hz. That still gives lots
of
> opportunity for noise reduction.
I agree that filtering is wise. But I would probably reverse those filter
time constants myself.
Petrol level in a normal tank does not vary significantly over seconds and
hardly so over minutes.
However, an oil pressure gauge can tell you useful things over periods of
well under a second. If yours ever DOES tell you useful things in such short
periods your engine is probably in deep trouble, but that's the whole point.
I once, long ago, had a vehicle where both the above applied! :-)
For example: The time the oil pressure takes to rise to a steady value on
startup, the behaviour on idling and throttle blipping and the time to fall
when the engine is turned off all tell you things about engine condition.
Oil systems using a positive displacement pump have a pressure relief valve
and a vehicle in good condition will have the oil pressure sit at the relief
vale setting under almost all conditions. When the pressure reduces while
operating eg between gear changes you know you have problems :-)
While running the oil above minimum on the dip stick is the norm, it doesn't
always happen that way. Despite years of knowing better I dipped a sump
yesterday where the oil level was almost off the bottom of the dipstick. As
sump level drops to critical an engine may oil starve when cornering one way
or the other or while braking/accelerating, with a sudden but usually brief
drop in oil pressure. While this is an extreme and undesirable condition, it
is nice if the oil gauge indicates it visually.
> - If I were to use a current-limiting resistor on the inputs, then that will
> have some effect on the actual measured value at the input pin, and the
> charging time for the internal hold capacitor, right? How would I calculate
> for the effects of this?
In the ADC section of the datasheets they usually give the formulas
involved and an example calculation for the effect of an input resistor on
the required acquisition time.
Regarding the effect of the input leakage current on the measured voltage,
you simply multiply your input resistor with the maximum leakage current,
which gives you the maximum voltage error for this resistor.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I agree that filtering is wise. But I would probably reverse those
> filter time constants myself.
> Petrol level in a normal tank does not vary significantly over
> seconds and hardly so over minutes.
>
> However, an oil pressure gauge can tell you useful things over
> periods of well under a second.
Right. I suggested 100mHz = .1Hz low pass for the fuel and 1Hz low pass for
oil pressure. In other words, around 10 second response to fuel and 1
second response to oil pressure.
>
>Right. I suggested 100mHz = .1Hz low pass for the fuel and 1Hz low pass for
>oil pressure. In other words, around 10 second response to fuel and 1
>second response to oil pressure.
If your fuel is changing faster than that, you have LARGE problems! :)
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:24:46 -0400, Olin Lathrop
<spam_OUTolin_piclistTakeThisOuTembedinc.com> wrote:
> PicDude wrote:
> > - The sender is a fuel sender, GM style (240-33 ohm). I use a 240 ohm
> > resistor for the upper part of the voltage divider (between the PIC
> > A/D input and +5V), and the fuel sender forms the lower part of the
> > voltage divider.
> > So the max A/D input signal voltage is 2.5V, and the impedance is 120
> > ohms max.
I have a similar project that uses 240 ohm fuel senders, but I did not
run that high of a voltage to the sender. The divider from 5v is a
24K resistor so that the voltage at the sender is 0-50mV, not 2.5V.
In an automotive environment the load dump conditions are horrendous
(example: turn off the headlights and the regulator overshoots by 300
volts for a few uS). With that in mind I thought it was a safe idea
to use a very low voltage in the sender/divider circuit (not that it
would really matter since my supply is filtered), then use opamps to
isolate and scale/offset for .5-4.5 volt range at the adc. Any
voltages above or below that means there's a fault in the system. I
believe 0-50mV is the "standard" for automotive senders.
Actually I have helped modify a fuel injection system for a mud-race-truck,
it's fuel cell holds enough fuel for 90 - 180 seconds
but you do not have time to read a gauge anyway.
If you can not burn the fuel up in 3 minutes you are going to be coming in
dead last anyway.
These guys really push those trucks hard.
Some use a Nitrous oxide tank combined with a "divers air tank"
to keep from pulling muddy water into the intake
and often run 30psi+ manifold pressure.
KF4HAZ - Lonnie
----- From: "Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@
> >
> >Right. I suggested 100mHz = .1Hz low pass for the fuel and 1Hz low pass
for
> >oil pressure. In other words, around 10 second response to fuel and 1
> >second response to oil pressure.
>
> If your fuel is changing faster than that, you have LARGE problems! :)
At 10:57 AM 9/10/2004, Falcon Wireless Tech Support - KF4HAZ wrote:
>Actually I have helped modify a fuel injection system for a mud-race-truck,
>it's fuel cell holds enough fuel for 90 - 180 seconds
> but you do not have time to read a gauge anyway.
>If you can not burn the fuel up in 3 minutes you are going to be coming in
>dead last anyway.
>These guys really push those trucks hard.
>Some use a Nitrous oxide tank combined with a "divers air tank"
>to keep from pulling muddy water into the intake
>and often run 30psi+ manifold pressure.
Like I said, in that case you have larger problems to worry about.
Pretty much, you would just need something to check that you're starting with a full tank.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:55:59 -0500, Dave VanHorn <.....dvanhornKILLspam@spam@dvanhorn.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >Right. I suggested 100mHz = .1Hz low pass for the fuel and 1Hz low pass for
> >oil pressure. In other words, around 10 second response to fuel and 1
> >second response to oil pressure.
>
> If your fuel is changing faster than that, you have LARGE problems! :)
And knowing now versus knowing in 10 seconds is unlikely to give you
time enough to do anything constructive about it anyway. ;-)
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>>> Again, assume that the wire coming in will have occasional short
>>> spikes of 200V and figure out what that will do.
>>
>> When you say "short spikes", do you have an idea what "short" means?
>> ns, us, ms range?
>
> I would want it to survive at 200V for a few 100uS. You can assume the
> repition of these events are low so that the average power can be ignored,
> but the instantaneous spike must not damage anything.
'my' clamp with 2 pnp + 2 npn transistors ? How close does the input have
to get to the power rails and still not be distorted ? The clamp allows
you to go to within 50mV of each rail for reasonably low input impedance.
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> > I agree that filtering is wise. But I would probably reverse those
> > filter time constants myself.
> > Petrol level in a normal tank does not vary significantly over
> > seconds and hardly so over minutes.
> >
> > However, an oil pressure gauge can tell you useful things over
> > periods of well under a second.
>
> Right. I suggested 100mHz = .1Hz low pass for the fuel and 1Hz low pass for
> oil pressure. In other words, around 10 second response to fuel and 1
> second response to oil pressure.
This fractional-Hertz thing is really hard on the grey matter - I made the same mistake as (I think) Russell
did - and you're right of course, 0.1Hz is ten seconds, not a tenth of a second! :-)
But I agree with Russell that a 1-second response on an oil-pressure gauge is too slow - watching the needle
in the good old days could tell you a lot about the state of the engine and of the oil itself. I had a Ford
Corsair (V4 2litre, early 70's vintage) which would show a much faster drop-to-zero on engine stop when the
oil was due for changing than otherwise, and this was probably a *difference* of only 0.1S, but which was
detectable by eye.
A 10-second response for fuel level on a road car is probably only going to matter when you're filling it up,
unless you're driving one of those famous cars where the fuel tank had a tendency to drop off... :-)
I wonder if there's a market for an add-on fuel gauge corrector device using a PIC? The gauge on my car is
reliable, but terribly non-linear, and it would be nice if half-full on it represented just that.
>> Imagine a 100n cap at the input (5 V, 8 bit, 20 mV/digit). It's about
>> 2000 times the ADC capacitor (50p), which means that charging the ADC
>> sampling cap to either end of the range doesn't change the total
>> voltage by more than 1/2000 of the maximum voltage difference, or < 3
>> mV. This seems negligible.
>
> Yes, for one sample. You are really moving a fixed charge every time the
> input channel is sampled. That charge times the sample frequency is a
> current. That current times the source resistance is an offset voltage.
I did miss that effect. But OTOH, there's usually not much use in sampling
the channel more often than the frequency of the low pass formed by the
100n cap and the input resistor, in which case the current through the
input resistor would compensate the charge current from the sample cap.
> Note that the capacitor value doesn't enter into this equation as long as
> it's big enough to carry most of the accumulated charge from one sample to
> the next.
It enters through the low pass formed by the input resistor and the
capacitor.
> Your logic above only holds when there is no "memory" from one
> sample to the next.
Which could also be achieved by sampling with a low enough frequency, as
stated above. I haven't calculated that limit, or simulated, but probably
will do either. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>>> Again, assume that the wire coming in will have occasional short
>>>> spikes of 200V and figure out what that will do.
>>>
>>> When you say "short spikes", do you have an idea what "short" means?
>>> ns, us, ms range?
>>
>> I would want it to survive at 200V for a few 100uS. You can assume the
>> repition of these events are low so that the average power can be ignored,
>> but the instantaneous spike must not damage anything.
>
> 'my' clamp with 2 pnp + 2 npn transistors ? How close does the input have
> to get to the power rails and still not be distorted ? The clamp allows
> you to go to within 50mV of each rail for reasonably low input impedance.
I'd say in most automotive analog sensor applications, 50 mV is close
enough. They usually don't reach the rails for usable input.
> > Right. I suggested 100mHz = .1Hz low pass for the fuel and 1Hz low pass
for
> > oil pressure. In other words, around 10 second response to fuel and 1
> > second response to oil pressure.
>
> This fractional-Hertz thing is really hard on the grey matter - I made the
same mistake as (I think) Russell
> did -
What! Me make mistakes ??? !
Er, yes. I did.
Even after noting what Olin was doing i still stupidly got it wrong.
I do find such nomenclature less than useful, but I still shouldn't get it
wrong :-(
I also dislike mF for millifarads even though it is an "emgineering
standard" designation. It's not common enough to fit comfortably with many
people and cause errors.
> But I agree with Russell that a 1-second response on an oil-pressure gauge
is too slow - watching the needle
> in the good old days could tell you a lot about the state of the engine
and of the oil itself. I had a Ford
> Corsair (V4 2litre, early 70's vintage) which would show a much faster
drop-to-zero on engine stop when the
> oil was due for changing than otherwise, and this was probably a
*difference* of only 0.1S, but which was
> detectable by eye.
I agree about the oil gauge response time for cases like yours, and the one
I mentioned. In my case the vehicle was a 2 litre Austin A70, 1950 vintage
:-). I haven't owned a vehicle with an oil pressure gauge for decades now.
> I wonder if there's a market for an add-on fuel gauge corrector device
using a PIC? The gauge on my car is
> reliable, but terribly non-linear, and it would be nice if half-full on it
represented just that.
Worth a thought. Easily calibrated. Put constant increment amounts of fuel
in tank and tell processor after each input. A good question is, given the
state of modern electronics, why does anyone make non-linear fuel gauges.
> I wonder if there's a market for an add-on fuel gauge
> corrector device using a PIC? The gauge on my car is
> reliable, but terribly non-linear, and it would be nice if
> half-full on it represented just that.
Hi.
My car beeps and lits a symbol on the dashboard when there
is aprox 10 liters left, so I just stop the the pump station and
fill it up. I couldn't care less if half-full actualy is 40% or 60% :-)
There is a Swedish stand-up comedian that once said :
"Now, when I'm over 40, there isn't much excitment left in life. To at
least get *some* excitment, I usualy take an extra turn around the
block when the fule gauge is on red..." :-)
> I also dislike mF for millifarads even though it is an "emgineering
> standard" designation. It's not common enough to fit comfortably with many
> people and cause errors.
I think the SI is highly underrated -- at least in some countries, and it
seems predominantly in English-speaking countries. But there is good
material about the SI in English; even good US government material (where
the SI is the legal standard :).
> A good question is,
> given the state of modern electronics, why does anyone make non-linear
> fuel gauges.
The state of modern automotive electronics still means that the display
in the BA Falcon XR6 that says you have 24km range left, can have an
error of 25km. Grrr !
go to national.com or other op amp maker and see how they suggest
protecting inputs, most of it applies to any input. there are also
chips designed to do this that have series fets that limit the fault
current in addition to voltage clamping. you should also always clamp
to the +5 or other supply rails, this also protects you when ground is lost.
"dr. Imre Bartfai" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> a can't see the point of the D2 unless u're using Schottky as for reverse
> voltage D1 is forward biased, too. However, I would suggest a voltage
> follower with an input resistor of some kohms and - better yet - a
> well-calculated antialiasing filter (e.g. Sallen-Key one). It's input
> could be protected with Zeners after the input resistor. I am not sure BTW
> Zeners are fast enough to cut short spikes.
--------
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
> The state of modern automotive electronics still means
that the display in the BA Falcon XR6 that says you have
24km range left, can have an error of 25km. Grrr !
Ah, the old "inappropriate resolution" problem! :-)
This tends to happen with digital displays - with a
needle readout gauge there's always the built in
resolution diluters of the width of the needle and the
markings, and parallax. Putting a magnifying glass over
the fuel gauge so you can see *exactly* when it's empty
isn't something any sane manufacturer would do...
I have a GPS that gives (among other things) altitude to
a resolution of 1ft. The best horizontal accuracy it
has ever claimed is 23ft, and vertical accuracy is
generally no better than half as good, so it's showing a
figure to 1ft resolution that has a possible error
getting on for 50ft!
"How many Vulcans does it take to change a lightbulb,
Mr.Spock?" "Approximately 1.0000000000000000, Captain"
>Ah, the old "inappropriate resolution" problem! :-)
>This tends to happen with digital displays - with a
>needle readout gauge there's always the built in
>resolution diluters of the width of the needle and the
>markings, and parallax. Putting a magnifying glass over
>the fuel gauge so you can see *exactly* when it's empty
>isn't something any sane manufacturer would do...
>
>
Of course they don't. Instead they use a deceptive scale - mine has
markings at each 1/4, but is the tank half empty when it points to the
1/2 mark? No, it's closer to 1/3 full. It appears that they use a
logarithmic type sensor with a linear display (or vice versa). I
suppose they assume people want more resolution the closer to empty the
tank becomes, but for me I'd like to know that since I can go 240 miles
on one tank then I have 0, 60, 120, 180, 240 at each mark.
>I have a GPS that gives (among other things) altitude to
>a resolution of 1ft. The best horizontal accuracy it
>has ever claimed is 23ft, and vertical accuracy is
>generally no better than half as good, so it's showing a
>figure to 1ft resolution that has a possible error
>getting on for 50ft!
>
>
Well, you also must account for precision and repeatability (nevermind a
host of other factors). It may not have a good accuracy, but if you
move it upwards 100 ft, then is it relatively accurate? Absolute
accuracy is poor, but perhaps relative accuracy matches the resolution.
A device I'm building displays a tenth of a degree inclination, but due
to temperature variations is only absolutely accurate to +/- 1 degree.
This application, however, only needs relative accuracy (zeroed each
use) and it provides a much greater relative accuracy.
>"How many Vulcans does it take to change a lightbulb,
>Mr.Spock?" "Approximately 1.0000000000000000, Captain"
>
>
Fortunately spock knew what his error was, else captian would have
sacked him. ;-)
it comes from how they cheaply and simply implemented the fuel sensor. i forget what the typical circuit and mechanical arraignment are, but
that's where the nonlinearity comes from, i don't think anyone planed it
that way, they may have realized that's what would happen, but didn't
care given that it basically works (on a plane of course you need
absolute accuracy since running out is really bad and to save
weight/fuel they often don't put in much more than they need for the
planed trip). the accuracy problems are also from cheap uncalibrated
sensors and equally cheap meters that aren't particularly calibrated
other than usually setting the full scale and/or empty (interestingly i
once had a former state patrol car, it ran out of gas with a 1/4 tank
still left! seems they'd diddled with it to help if someone stole the
car, i.e. they'd keep driving away thinning they still had plenty of gas
and then run out early, a very clever idea i thought though learning it
the hard way was annoying). it just happens to turn out that you get
more resolution and stronger feedback that you need gas soon towards the
end. i have however seen cars with fairly linear and accurate fuel
gauges so you really want to know how they work in the particular model
you are driving, with many cars E means E, not hurry up and get gas
within 10-20 miles, it can be a rude surprise.
"M. Adam Davis" wrote:
------
> Of course they don't. Instead they use a deceptive scale - mine has
> markings at each 1/4, but is the tank half empty when it points to the
> 1/2 mark? No, it's closer to 1/3 full. It appears that they use a
> logarithmic type sensor with a linear display (or vice versa). I
> suppose they assume people want more resolution the closer to empty the
> tank becomes, but for me I'd like to know that since I can go 240 miles
> on one tank then I have 0, 60, 120, 180, 240 at each mark.
--------
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
I've always suspected it was because the sensor is an arm - little
response at the high end, heavy response at the low end. Don't care
enough to fix it or even investigate it.
I'm just pleased that the cruise control increases by exacly one mph per
click on the set, and decrease by exactly 1mph per click on the cruise.
Want to go 3mph faster? click, click, click...
>it comes from how they cheaply and simply implemented the fuel sensor.
>i forget what the typical circuit and mechanical arraignment are, but
>that's where the nonlinearity comes from, i don't think anyone planed it
>that way, they may have realized that's what would happen, but didn't
>care given that it basically works (on a plane of course you need
>absolute accuracy since running out is really bad and to save
>weight/fuel they often don't put in much more than they need for the
>planed trip). the accuracy problems are also from cheap uncalibrated
>sensors and equally cheap meters that aren't particularly calibrated
>other than usually setting the full scale and/or empty (interestingly i
>once had a former state patrol car, it ran out of gas with a 1/4 tank
>still left! seems they'd diddled with it to help if someone stole the
>car, i.e. they'd keep driving away thinning they still had plenty of gas
>and then run out early, a very clever idea i thought though learning it
>the hard way was annoying). it just happens to turn out that you get
>more resolution and stronger feedback that you need gas soon towards the
>end. i have however seen cars with fairly linear and accurate fuel
>gauges so you really want to know how they work in the particular model
>you are driving, with many cars E means E, not hurry up and get gas
>within 10-20 miles, it can be a rude surprise.
>
>"M. Adam Davis" wrote:
>------
>
>
>>Of course they don't. Instead they use a deceptive scale - mine has
>>markings at each 1/4, but is the tank half empty when it points to the
>>1/2 mark? No, it's closer to 1/3 full. It appears that they use a
>>logarithmic type sensor with a linear display (or vice versa). I
>>suppose they assume people want more resolution the closer to empty the
>>tank becomes, but for me I'd like to know that since I can go 240 miles
>>on one tank then I have 0, 60, 120, 180, 240 at each mark.
>>
>>
>--------
>
>
>
i love millifarads and nanofarads. i never liked micro-microfarads, as
picofarads were once called. i greatly prefer proper engineering units
with the proper si prefixes. it's odd the first time you see it, but
it's pretty easy to adjust to if you have done any physics work. in any
case i greatly prefer it to part values that are less than 1 prefixed
unit, i.e. .001 microfarad rather than 1 nanofarad which seems much
nicer to me. the last place i did electronics work i converted my boss
and the other electronics "engineer" to using the engineering prefixes. of course you often have to convert when looking parts up in catalogs
but that's not hard either. i'd be so happy if we could chuck english
units, they really do make the math ugly when you get into complex
problems and it's a lot harder to carry the units through the
calculation which you should be able to do with a correct formula. hell, i think benjamin franklin even wanted to dump the english units
and go metric, instead we in the u.s. who do any technical work have to
learn both and convert constantly, other than when it's -40 degrees of
course ;).
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> > I also dislike mF for millifarads even though it is an "emgineering
> > standard" designation. It's not common enough to fit comfortably with many
> > people and cause errors.
>
> I think the SI is highly underrated -- at least in some countries, and it
> seems predominantly in English-speaking countries. But there is good
> material about the SI in English; even good US government material (where
> the SI is the legal standard :).
---------
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
> i love millifarads and nanofarads. i never liked
> micro-microfarads, as picofarads were once called.
Hi.
I have never heard or seen "micro-micro-farad".
Do you have any reference ?
> i greatly prefer proper engineering units
> with the proper si prefixes.
>From an SI perspective. it's not *wrong* to say
"10 000 microfarad" instead of "10 millifarad", is it ?
> i'd be so happy if we could chuck english units,...
But YES, but then we are not speaking about capacitors, right ?
> hell, i think benjamin franklin even wanted to dump the english units
> and go metric,...
Sure, the French was well on their way to get the US with them on
the metric project, but then they (the French) sent an ambassador to
the US that was, well, a bit to much "French", so to speak. :-)
The US president at the time get mad at him, and leaved the metric
project. And there we (or rather they, the US'ers) are with that
inch/feet/oz/lb/mph/gallon/whatever mess... :-)
Must be hard to be all alone in the whole big world beeing "different" :-)
Most standards are there for a reason. It's the same with, just to
take one right out-of-the-blue, writing rules telling you when to use
proper upper/lower case. It *could* be a readability thing... :-)
> > > I also dislike mF for millifarads even though it is an "engineering
> > > standard" designation. It's not common enough to fit comfortably with
many
> > > people and cause errors.
> i greatly prefer proper engineering units
> with the proper si prefixes. it's odd the first time you see it, but
> it's pretty easy to adjust to if you have done any physics work.
I have no trouble with "proper" units personally (at least most of the time
until I get tripped up my Olin's perfectly correct use of milli-Hz).
My point was what I said. It causes erros. It causes confusion. One can
argue standards and "correct" units and nomenclature as much as one likes.
And i agree that standards should be the norm. But there are occasions where
one should be aware that one's "correct" stand is liable to lead to
undesired outcomes. If this is acceptable then lay on.
The main problems with "milliFarad" are, I think the relative uncommon-ness
of values in this range and the use of a Greek character for "micro" which
encourages the use of the "m" prefix for micro. In eg ASCII text the only
(arguably) safe way for microFarad is uF - which is non standard. One may
attempt to use alternate character sets in email at one's peril.
* While popular usage is almost entirely against me, I'm unsure that eg
millifarad should be correct.
The fundamental unit is, of course, the Farad and should be capitalised when
written as it was named after Faraday. Similarly Amp, Ohm, Erlang, Volt,
Kelvin etc. But not, of course, eg second, minute, metre, foot, pound,
kilogram.
So, while millisecond is permissible I suspect we should have milliFarad or
milli-Farad (or even milli Farad).
> ... instead we in the u.s. who do any technical work have to
> learn both and convert constantly, other than when it's
> -40 degrees of course ;).
> case i greatly prefer it to part values that are less than 1 prefixed
> unit, i.e. .001 microfarad rather than 1 nanofarad which seems much
> nicer to me. the last place i did electronics work i converted my boss
> and the other electronics "engineer" to using the engineering prefixes.
> of course you often have to convert when looking parts up in catalogs
> but that's not hard either. i'd be so happy if we could chuck english
> units, they really do make the math ugly when you get into complex
> problems and it's a lot harder to carry the units through the
> calculation which you should be able to do with a correct formula.
> hell, i think benjamin franklin even wanted to dump the english units
> and go metric, instead we in the u.s. who do any technical work have to
> learn both and convert constantly, other than when it's -40 degrees of
> course ;).
>
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> >
> > > I also dislike mF for millifarads even though it is an "emgineering
> > > standard" designation. It's not common enough to fit comfortably with
many
> > > people and cause errors.
> >
> > I think the SI is highly underrated -- at least in some countries, and
it
> > seems predominantly in English-speaking countries. But there is good
> > material about the SI in English; even good US government material
(where {Quote hidden}
> > the SI is the legal standard :).
> ---------
>
> --
> Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
> didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
> Jew.
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
> wasn't a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
> Protestant.
> Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
> -- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
> Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
> i greatly prefer proper engineering units with the proper si prefixes.
> it's odd the first time you see it, but it's pretty easy to adjust to if
> you have done any physics work.
When I started with electronics, that's how I learned it. It seems so
obvious and natural. And I didn't have to re-learn anything when I got
deeper into physics. Gladly electronics is, even in the USA, very much
"metric" already, being a rather new field of technology.
> in any case i greatly prefer it to part values that are less than 1
> prefixed unit, i.e. .001 microfarad rather than 1 nanofarad which seems
> much nicer to me.
Oh yes, and especially on faxes or other bad copies...
> i'd be so happy if we could chuck english units, they really do make the
> math ugly when you get into complex problems and it's a lot harder to
> carry the units through the calculation which you should be able to do
> with a correct formula.
This thing with the units is the real beauty of the SI. I think that
whoever "tasted" this once on any interdisciplinary problem wouldn't want
to miss it again. It's not only about carrying the units through the
calculation (a very good double-check whether your calculation makes sense,
and which rarely works with the English units). It's also about using
always the same units for the same physical entity, like power or energy,
independently of the problem domain. It's very relaxing being able to talk
to energy and mechanical engineers in kW (and not in BTUs and whatnot :)
> hell, i think benjamin franklin even wanted to dump the english units
> and go metric, instead we in the u.s. who do any technical work have to
> learn both and convert constantly, other than when it's -40 degrees of
> course ;).
Whoever wants to read about the legal standard of measurements in the USA
(in 75 a goal was set to put all public organizations on metric by 92 --
not for any arbitrary reason, but because going metric would save the US
industry a bundle in the long run and would increase its competitiveness on
the international markets), and a good guide about how to properly use the
SI, can peruse this paper: physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/contents.html
or this page http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/index.html
> hell, i think benjamin franklin even wanted to dump the english units
> and go metric, instead we in the u.s. who do any technical work have to
> learn both and convert constantly, other than when it's -40 degrees of
> course ;).
> > hell, i think benjamin franklin even wanted to dump the english units
> > and go metric, instead we in the u.s. who do any technical work have to
> > learn both and convert constantly, other than when it's -40 degrees of
> > course ;).
Or zero of just about any other unit. (ie: 0 feet = 0 meters, etc).
> So, while millisecond is permissible I suspect we should have milliFarad or
> milli-Farad (or even milli Farad).
THE SEX LIFE OF THE ELECTRON
by D.C. Current
One night when his charge was pretty high, Micro-Farad decided to seek a
cute little coil to let him discharge.
He picked up Millie-Amp and took her for a ride on his Megacycle. They
rode across the Wheatstone Bridge, around the sine waves and stopped in
the magnetic field by a flowing current.
Micro-Farad, attracted by Millie-Amps characteristic curves, soon had
her fully charged and excited her resistance to a minimum. He laid her
on the ground potential, raised her frequency and lowered her reluctance.
He pulled out his high voltage probe and inserted it in her socket
connecting them in parallel, and began short circuiting her resistance
shunt. Fully excited, Millie-Amp mumbled, "OHM - OHM - OHM - OHM".
With his tube operating at a maximum and her field vibrating with his
current flow, caused her shunt to overheat and Micro-Farad was rapidly
discharged and drained of every electron.
They fluxed all night, trying various connections and sockets, until his
magnet had a soft core and lost all of it's field strength.
Afterwards, Millie-Amp tried self induction and damaged her selenoids.
With his battery fully discharged, Micro-Farad was unable to excite his
field, so they spent the rest of the night reversing polarity and
blowing each other's fuses.
>>> micro-microfarads, as picofarads were once called.
>
>> I have never heard or seen "micro-micro-farad".
>> Do you have any reference ?
>
> micro micro Farad or uuF (or even mmf !) was the standard term in the days
> of valve / steam powered radio.
> I grew up with micro micro farad :-)
Well, Phillip, I can't address anything but what I've personnally
experienced. I had a Ford pickup truck that was also "uncalibrated" as
far as the fuel gauge was concerned.
Late 70's and early 80 Ford pickups used a fuel sensor that had an arm
with a float on the end. The pivot point was a wirewound rheostat with
the least resistance when the tank was full (the arm was primarily
horizontal at FULL). As the fuel went down, so did the arm, until the
EMPTY position was reached as the arm neared vertical. I know this,
since I've personally replaced one and "fixed" another when I couldn't
get a replacement at a reasonable cost.
Now, I do NOT believe FORD used a non-linear wirewound rheostat,
although I didn't check it's linearity. Assuming it was linear, the arm
would nominally be at a 45 degree angle to INDICATE 1/2 full on the
gauge, which, if you remember Trig, translates to 0.707 times the total
vertical travel distance of the arm. If this is correct, this means the
tank is over 2/3 empty by the time the gauge reads HALF!!
All this assumes linearity - both of the rheostat and the gauge. Never
having calibrated either, I am making the assumption that they are
linear, since the results of my truck seem consistent with the theory
just proposed.
>it comes from how they cheaply and simply implemented the fuel sensor.
>i forget what the typical circuit and mechanical arraignment are, but
>that's where the nonlinearity comes from, i don't think anyone planed it
>that way, they may have realized that's what would happen, but didn't
>care given that it basically works (on a plane of course you need
>absolute accuracy since running out is really bad and to save
>weight/fuel they often don't put in much more than they need for the
>planed trip). the accuracy problems are also from cheap uncalibrated
>sensors and equally cheap meters that aren't particularly calibrated
>other than usually setting the full scale and/or empty (interestingly i
>once had a former state patrol car, it ran out of gas with a 1/4 tank
>still left! seems they'd diddled with it to help if someone stole the
>car, i.e. they'd keep driving away thinning they still had plenty of gas
>and then run out early, a very clever idea i thought though learning it
>the hard way was annoying). it just happens to turn out that you get
>more resolution and stronger feedback that you need gas soon towards the
>end. i have however seen cars with fairly linear and accurate fuel
>gauges so you really want to know how they work in the particular model
>you are driving, with many cars E means E, not hurry up and get gas
>within 10-20 miles, it can be a rude surprise.
>
>"M. Adam Davis" wrote:
>------
>
>
>>Of course they don't. Instead they use a deceptive scale - mine has
>>markings at each 1/4, but is the tank half empty when it points to the
>>1/2 mark? No, it's closer to 1/3 full. It appears that they use a
>>logarithmic type sensor with a linear display (or vice versa). I
>>suppose they assume people want more resolution the closer to empty the
>>tank becomes, but for me I'd like to know that since I can go 240 miles
>>on one tank then I have 0, 60, 120, 180, 240 at each mark.
>>
>>
>--------
>
>
>
yep, the units do still have to be the same type, i.e. not pounds and
meters (in most cases) or say volts and days. that's one of the neet
things you learn in physics (physicist are nuts about using correct
units), that you can carry units through an equation and treat them just
like numbers and find out what units the answer is in. this often helps
spot mistakes when the units you wind up with are not the correct units
for the quantity you were trying to calculate. it sometimes also really
helps see the logic in things, or convince you they may be right until
you play with them enough to more fully understand it. doing algebra on
"units of measure" has often suggested other relationships to me.
>
> [OT:] Misc ramblings <= Re: [PIC] Protecting PIC A/D inputs
>
> That should keep it on topic for just about anything :-)
>
> > Or zero of just about any other unit. (ie: 0 feet = 0 meters, etc).
>
> Or infinity of EVERY unit :-)
> You can even mix units :-)
>
> (That will get me a comment about not understanding infinity AND units)
--------
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
that's a classic i haven't heard for a long time! thanks, it's wonderful.
Robert Rolf wrote:
>
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > So, while millisecond is permissible I suspect we should have milliFarad or
> > milli-Farad (or even milli Farad).
>
> THE SEX LIFE OF THE ELECTRON
>
> by D.C. Current
>
> One night when his charge was pretty high, Micro-Farad decided to seek a
> cute little coil to let him discharge.
--------
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
yeah, cm is a bastard child, as are all units derived from it like
angstroms, now replaced my nanometers in more civilized circles though
still encountered on occasion. i'd have to look up what's after pico, i
think it's atto and then femto, but i don't have that handy either, my
newer crc handbook is still to be unpacked. i'd definitely have to check.
"Peter L. Peres" wrote:
-----
>
> So what's a cm ? 0.82 pF ?
-----
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
the type of fuel gauge you describe is i believe how most of them have
worked traditionally, doubtless the trig is a large part of the
nonlinearity. i had forgotten that the trig was part of it when i
pictured it in my mind, for some reason i thought half full would be
half of the total rotation. just one of the hazards of thought
experiments, like any simulation mistakes can be made. i'm sure
nonlinearity of the rheostat and the gauge also have some effect, though
it's probably largely swamped by the trig involved.
i know making good linear analog movements is not trivial, and for the
better ones specific scales are fitted to them that match the
particularly meter closely, i.e. they make up a number of scales with
various degrees of the common distortions away from linearity and use a
scale that most closely matches a particular movement. my dad worked on
such precision gear at one time, before i was born and i'm fortunate to
have some of that knowledge.
like all just starting to learn there was a time when i just assumed
analog movements were very linear and easy to make, experience shows
that it's a little more difficult to approach the ideal. that's also
where i learned that soapy water is good for making plastic antistatic
as they had to use it on meter faces to reduce the attraction between
the pointer and the meter face on plastic faced meters and i think the
glass faced as well.
>
> Well, Phillip, I can't address anything but what I've personnally
> experienced. I had a Ford pickup truck that was also "uncalibrated" as
> far as the fuel gauge was concerned.
>
> Late 70's and early 80 Ford pickups used a fuel sensor that had an arm
> with a float on the end. The pivot point was a wirewound rheostat with
> the least resistance when the tank was full (the arm was primarily
> horizontal at FULL). As the fuel went down, so did the arm, until the
> EMPTY position was reached as the arm neared vertical. I know this,
> since I've personally replaced one and "fixed" another when I couldn't
> get a replacement at a reasonable cost.
-------
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
> > Or infinity of EVERY unit :-)
> > You can even mix units :-)
> > (That will get me a comment about not understanding infinity AND units)
> yep, the units do still have to be the same type, i.e. not pounds and
> meters (in most cases) or say volts and days.
That was a joke of sorts. (Two smileys on two lines).
What i meant was that after you get to say infinite mass, you may as well
have infinite time as well for all the difference it will make to a real
world situation (or zero time or anything in between).
I am aware that mathematicians think otherwise ;-)
> that's a classic i haven't heard for a long time! thanks, it's wonderful.
I was a classmate of the guy who claims to have
written it back in 1976 at NAIT technical college.
I probably have one of the original LA30 copies printed out way back
then, before internet and e-mail were common.
When I saw 'milli Farad', I was reminded of it, and was amazed that
google turned it up these decades later.
It's been refined a bit from his initial version.
Now if only I could find the old CP/M file (pgmmr.txt) that has the line:
" If a programmer is indispensable, get rid of him as quickly as possible."
Lots of references to Weinberg's book, but no link to the
whole collection of quotes.
>
> Robert Rolf wrote:
>
>>Russell McMahon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, while millisecond is permissible I suspect we should have milliFarad or
>>>milli-Farad (or even milli Farad).
>>
>> THE SEX LIFE OF THE ELECTRON
>>
>>by D.C. Current
>>
>>One night when his charge was pretty high, Micro-Farad decided to seek a
>>cute little coil to let him discharge.
>
> --------
>
> > > Or infinity of EVERY unit :-)
> > > You can even mix units :-)
>
> > > (That will get me a comment about not understanding
> > > infinity AND units)
Hi.
You are probaly correct (in the first sentence! I don't know
about the second... :-) )
One just have to be a bit carefull when doing calculations
then includes infinity. Like the fact that :
sum(all whole numbers) = sum(all squares of all whole numbers) Or
sum(1,2,3,4...) = sum(1,4,9,16...)
(first descibed by Galilei and formalized by George Cantor.)
*but*
sum(all whole numbers) < (sum(all real numbers).
the sum of all whole numbers is one infinity called "aleph-zero" and
the sum of all real numbers is a *larger infinity* called "aleph-one"...
> * While popular usage is almost entirely against me, I'm unsure that eg
> millifarad should be correct.
> The fundamental unit is, of course, the Farad and should be capitalised when
> written as it was named after Faraday. Similarly Amp, Ohm, Erlang, Volt,
> Kelvin etc. But not, of course, eg second, minute, metre, foot, pound,
> kilogram.
> So, while millisecond is permissible I suspect we should have milliFarad or
> milli-Farad (or even milli Farad).
The NIST suggests to use the unit abbreviations (with they proper
capitalization, of course) in technical and scientific texts, for clarity.
But in an example, they also write "60 watts" with a lower case first
letter... even though that should be, according to you, "60 Watt" (or "60
Watts"?). But then, the NIST is in the USA :) I guess they're right about
that it's better to use the correct unit abbreviations.
One interesting thing is their suggestion to drop ppm etc, especially ppb.
Instead of these they suggest something like (uA/A), which adds some
information that ppm doesn't have. And the specific problem with ppb is
that "billion" is quite an ambiguous expression.
> The NIST suggests to use the unit abbreviations (with they proper
> capitalization, of course) in technical and scientific texts, for clarity.
> But in an example, they also write "60 watts" with a lower case first
> letter... even though that should be, according to you, "60 Watt" (or "60
> Watts"?). But then, the NIST is in the USA :) I guess they're right about
> that it's better to use the correct unit abbreviations.
The convention is that units which are named after a person have their first
letter capitalised.
Most unit names are unique so failure to capitalise will usually not cause
errors.
Correct capitalisation often leads to strange appearance.
km, m/s, Ws, kWh, MWh, mWh (which would be unusual), mAh, Nm, Nm/s, kPa
(two letters in unit name), kPa/m^2 ...
Failure to correctly capitalise the multiplier can lead to error - but often
not one that will easily be over looked.
> Correct capitalisation often leads to strange appearance.
>
> km, m/s, Ws, kWh, MWh, mWh (which would be unusual), mAh,
> Nm, Nm/s, kPa (two letters in unit name), kPa/m^2 ...
Hi.
I don't know, but I can't see anything strange here.
They are exactly as I'm used to see them...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:38:26 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
>...<
> The fundamental unit is, of course, the Farad and should be capitalised when
> written as it was named after Faraday. Similarly Amp, Ohm, Erlang, Volt,
> Kelvin etc. But not, of course, eg second, minute, metre, foot, pound,
> kilogram.
I think you mean "gram" :-)
> So, while millisecond is permissible I suspect we should have milliFarad or
> milli-Farad (or even milli Farad).
>
> > ... instead we in the u.s. who do any technical work have to
> > learn both and convert constantly, other than when it's
> > -40 degrees of course ;).
>
> Kelvin ? :-)
Bring back Rankine, I say (that's the temperature scale which starts with 0 at ablolute zero, and has degrees
the same size as Farehheit)!
"You learn something new every day" item for today: "Byte" is spelled with a "y" so that a single typing
error (omitting or adding the "e" by mistake) would not give a valid but wrong alternative, so byt and bite
would be easy to spot as errors. Foresight unusual in those setting standards! :-) It's just a shame that
milli and micro have the same initial letters...
One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
KF4HAZ - Lonnie
<snip>
> "You learn something new every day" item for today: "Byte" is spelled
with a "y" so that a single typing
> error (omitting or adding the "e" by mistake) would not give a valid but
wrong alternative, so byt and bite
> would be easy to spot as errors. Foresight unusual in those setting
standards! :-) It's just a shame that
> milli and micro have the same initial letters...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:02:02 -0500, Falcon Wireless Tech Support - KF4HAZ wrote:
> One easy trick is to use m for milli and for micro,
> to type the mu " "- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
That may be an easy way to type it, but not everyone will be able to read it! The two places that I think you
typed the mu character are blank at this end. I don't know where it went astray, but it doesn't actually
matter - the point is you can't assume that it will travel.
As a matter of interest, does the following character between the quotes: " " show as the "Euro" symbol for
others?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Howard Winter
>Sent: 14 September 2004 16:32
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [PIC] Protecting PIC A/D inputs
>
>
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:02:02 -0500, Falcon Wireless Tech
>Support - KF4HAZ wrote:
>
>> One easy trick is to use m for milli and for micro,
>> to type the mu " "- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
>
>That may be an easy way to type it, but not everyone will be
>able to read it! The two places that I think you
>typed the mu character are blank at this end. I don't know
>where it went astray, but it doesn't actually
>matter - the point is you can't assume that it will travel.
>
>As a matter of interest, does the following character between
>the quotes: " " show as the "Euro" symbol for
>others?
No. I guess this is a disadvantage of plain text encoding.
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________ http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 11:02, Falcon Wireless Tech Support - KF4HAZ
wrote:
> One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
> to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
>
> KF4HAZ - Lonnie
Which is fine if the person reading your message is using the same font
as you are, or using another font that happens to map 181 to the mu
character. If you are using windows open up the character map and have a
look and see how often this is the case... hint, it's not much.
ASCII does NOT cover the mu character, therefore MANY fonts don't have
it, or have it in a different spot. There is NO standard that is
followed universally when it comes to this sort of thing.
The wisest course of action IMHO is to use u, with a note following it's
first usage (i.e. 300uF (micro-Farads)). TTYL
> "You learn something new every day" item for today: "Byte" is
> spelled with a "y" so that a single typing
> error (omitting or adding the "e" by mistake) would not give a
> valid but wrong alternative, so byt and bite
> would be easy to spot as errors.
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
>
sorry, forgot to add smileys, i was joking back in a rather dry way i
suppose, then again sleep deprivation may have affected my humor as well
;), much better today, though i feel another nap coming on. i pray for
a time when i can sleep in a half way normal pattern again, as it is,
when i am sleeping you never know when i'll be up or down.... ;) ok, i
am still too tired, i'm not only misspelling but mis typing at a high
rate, back to bed.
>
> > > Or infinity of EVERY unit :-)
> > > You can even mix units :-)
>
> > > (That will get me a comment about not understanding infinity AND units)
>
> > yep, the units do still have to be the same type, i.e. not pounds and
> > meters (in most cases) or say volts and days.
>
> That was a joke of sorts. (Two smileys on two lines).
> What i meant was that after you get to say infinite mass, you may as well
> have infinite time as well for all the difference it will make to a real
> world situation (or zero time or anything in between).
> I am aware that mathematicians think otherwise ;-)
>
> RM
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
> On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 11:02, Falcon Wireless Tech Support - KF4HAZ
> wrote:
> > One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
> > to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
> >
> > KF4HAZ - Lonnie
>
> Which is fine if the person reading your message is using the same font
> as you are, or using another font that happens to map 181 to the mu
> character. If you are using windows open up the character map and have a
> look and see how often this is the case... hint, it's not much.
>
> ASCII does NOT cover the mu character, therefore MANY fonts don't have
> it, or have it in a different spot. There is NO standard that is
> followed universally when it comes to this sort of thing.
>
> The wisest course of action IMHO is to use u, with a note following it's
> first usage (i.e. 300uF (micro-Farads)). TTYL
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 14:47, Falcon Wireless Tech Support - KF4HAZ
wrote:
> Guess we will have to stick to m for milli and u for micro in plain text/7
> bit situations
> µf Works for Web pages.
>
> KF4HAZ - Lonnie
Maybe for your browser it "works fine", but NOT for everybody. Some
browsers allow for html to specify which font is to be used, but even
that is dependant on that font being available on the host system.
Otherwise you are at the mercy of what default font the person reading
you page has, which often doesn't include mu in the same spot as you
think.
About the ONLY way I can think of getting around this problem
universally is to have the mu symbol as an image, that way as long as
the browser supports images it'll come out as a mu. But even THAT won't
work with non graphical web browsers (i.e. lynx). TTYL
-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff: http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
y suggest something like (uA/A), which adds some
> information that ppm doesn't have. And the specific problem with ppb is
> that "billion" is quite an ambiguous expression.
HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
gazillion1E12E12 <G>? dollars of US debt.
What is ambiguous about billion? Or do other countries have a
different value?
Robert
who spells colour and labour and cheque differently than those
'muricans.
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> y suggest something like (uA/A), which adds some
>
>> information that ppm doesn't have. And the specific problem with ppb is
>> that "billion" is quite an ambiguous expression.
>
>
> HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
> gazillion1E12E12 <G>? dollars of US debt.
> What is ambiguous about billion? Or do other countries have a
> different value?
> Robert
> who spells colour and labour and cheque differently than those
> 'muricans.
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> > "billion" is quite an ambiguous expression.
>
> HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
> gazillion1E12E12 <G>? dollars of US debt.
> What is ambiguous about billion? Or do other countries have a
> different value?
> Robert
> who spells colour and labour and cheque differently than those
> 'muricans.
... but who defines "billion" just the same as all those dumb
Americans.
In the UK (and elsewhere, maybe?), 1E6=million, 1E9=thousand
million, 1E12=billion.
-Andy
=== Andrew Warren - @spam@aiwKILLspamcypress.com
===
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
"BUT the = C2 = B5 used above in uF (and which I copied here)
displays as a = C2 = B5 for me."
So the "mu" character gets "quoted" into the sequence "= C2 = B5",
which is all plain ASCII of course (quite natural, since SMTP can only
send 7-bit ASCII anyway without special coding...).
Then it's up to the actual mail tool to interpret and display this in
the "right" way.
Now, there was an earlier post where the "mu" was replaced
with a space. That might have happend at the sending end...
Note that I've added three spaces in the "= C2 = B5" string so
it will display that way in *our* mail tool. :-)
> > > f Works for Web pages.
>
> Now that's very interesting.
> The original " " that someone posted turned into a space ($20) in my
> browser.
>
> BUT the used above in uF (and which I copied here) displays as a for me.
>
> If you cant see three "mu's" above then it doesn't work for you ;-)
>
> Is there anyone who CAN'T see a mu between the following pair of quotation
> marks ? => " "
Well yes, that would be me! I see a line-drawing character that's like a half-height "T" with the horizontal
at mid-character, followed by a space.
> > Is there anyone who CAN'T see a mu between the following pair of
quotation
> > marks ? => " "
> Well yes, that would be me! I see a line-drawing character that's like a
half-height "T" with the horizontal
> at mid-character, followed by a space.
And when it gets back to me it has turned into an empty space in all
instances. I think that that well demonstrates the point that various of us
have made.
> Is there anyone who CAN'T see a mu between the following pair of
> quotation marks ? => "µ"
Yeah. I see a two-character pair: an "A" with a circumflex over it,
followed by a "mu".
-Andy, who vaguely remembers having this conversation only a few
weeks ago on the list...
=== Andrew Warren - RemoveMEaiwTakeThisOuTcypress.com
=== === Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
>> But in an example, they also write "60 watts" with a lower case first
>> letter... even though that should be, according to you, "60 Watt" (or "60
>> Watts"?).
> The convention is that units which are named after a person have their first
> letter capitalised.
It seems you are pretty alone with that convention. I did a Google search
for "unit capitalization watt volt", and came up with a number of links
about units, nothing (from a quick look through them) really definitive in
terms of a standard, but a few that seem quite serious, and they /all/
write units -- when spelled out -- with lower case (except Celsius and
Fahrenheit, but there the unit itself is "degree" and that is lower case
also).
Also the Wikipedia seems to spell units with lower case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI
> Correct capitalisation often leads to strange appearance.
>
> km, m/s, Ws, kWh, MWh, mWh (which would be unusual), mAh, Nm, Nm/s, kPa
> (two letters in unit name), kPa/m^2 ...
That depends... since I've never seen it differently until I went to the
USA, neither in the amateur electronics literature with which I started in
the 60ies, nor in school or later university, nor in commercial
correspondence (like electricity bills), this doesn't look strange to me at
all.
"Strange appearance" to me is "ma" or "MA" for milliampere... :)
> Failure to correctly capitalise the multiplier can lead to error - but often
> not one that will easily be over looked.
Often the problem is not exactly overlooking it, the problem is seeing it,
and assuming what it should mean. And assuming wrong...
> 1 mF = 0.001 Farad
> 1 MF = 1,000,000 Farad :-)
More in our common range is mOhm vs MOhm... (which is the other case where
the standard calls for a greek letter).
> Maybe for your browser it "works fine", but NOT for everybody. Some
> browsers allow for html to specify which font is to be used, but even
> that is dependant on that font being available on the host system.
> Otherwise you are at the mercy of what default font the person reading
> you page has, which often doesn't include mu in the same spot as you
> think.
This is not completely true. The web has this kind of thing pretty nicely
standardized. (Email has, too, but many seem to be reluctant to use
software that supports more recent -- say the last 10 years -- standards...
:) Of course you are free to use a non-standard browser, but then you are
really on your own and shouldn't be surprised about anything. (PIC Assembly
as client side script language is not impossible, but there will be few
sites -- besides your own -- that will work with that... :)
The named entity µ is well supported since pre-HTML4 times in most
browsers (anybody knows one that doesn't?), and as a named entity it is
independent of any specific font selection.
It says which character set is is using -- and that /is/ a standard (and a
pretty commonly used one at that) --, and it says how this 8 bit character
set is encoded into 7 bit -- and that is also a (pretty commonly used)
standard.
The raw text looks like this:
"One easy trick is to use m for milli and =B5 for micro,
to type the mu "=B5"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad."
There's nothing non-ASCII in there. The =B5 is the quoted-printable
encoding for that character in the ISO-8859-1 font. This is such a common
standard font that any email software should have at least a translation
table for it.
It's up to the email processing software to be compliant with email
standards and decode and display such a message correctly, with whatever
font it uses. Some have trouble with email standards, but most don't.
>> One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
>> to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
>
> How do you do that on a Mac or a SUN workstation ?
There must be a way to use Unicode or common ISO fonts on a Mac or SUN system. Otherwise, I'd say they are about 10 years behind the curve...
You better get used to international standards soon... China is on the way to being a world power, and if one thing is sure, it is that they will /not/ use 7 bit ASCII :) (Not speaking of the fact that most outside the USA don't use 7 bit ASCII today.)
Must be on the senders email client as some of the senders reach some of the
receivers.
Or it may have something to do with the senders font settings.
KF4HAZ - Lonnie
----- From: "Russell McMahon" <apptech@
> > As a matter of interest, does the following character between the
quotes:
> " " show as the "Euro" symbol for
> > others?
>
> No - it's a blank for me.
> And it's a $20 character - a genuine space.
> So something in the email pipeline has wiped it out completely.
>
>
> RM
At 08:56 AM 9/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> >HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
>...
> >What is ambiguous about billion? Or do other
> >countries have a different value?
>
>That is the exact problem. A UK billion is 1E12 ...
The UK has pretty much given in to the US influence on that, from what
I can see by reading the Financial Times.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspam_OUTmit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Spehro Pefhany
>Sent: 15 September 2004 15:32
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [PIC] Protecting PIC A/D inputs. SI units
>
>
>At 08:56 AM 9/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>> >HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
>>...
>> >What is ambiguous about billion? Or do other
>> >countries have a different value?
>>
>>That is the exact problem. A UK billion is 1E12 ...
>
>The UK has pretty much given in to the US influence on that,
>from what I can see by reading the Financial Times.
Which makes it even worse over here, as you never know exactly what is meant
by a billion anymore!
Regards
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________ http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 02:01, Robert Rolf wrote:
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> y suggest something like (uA/A), which adds some
> > information that ppm doesn't have. And the specific problem with ppb is
> > that "billion" is quite an ambiguous expression.
>
> HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
> gazillion1E12E12 <G>? dollars of US debt.
> What is ambiguous about billion? Or do other countries have a
> different value?
> Robert
The fact that "billion" is not the same in all the world. In North
America billion is 10e9. In Britain (and many other places) billion is
10e12.
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 10:34, Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 02:01, Robert Rolf wrote:
> > Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> > y suggest something like (uA/A), which adds some
> > > information that ppm doesn't have. And the specific problem with ppb is
> > > that "billion" is quite an ambiguous expression.
> >
> > HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
> > gazillion1E12E12 <G>? dollars of US debt.
> > What is ambiguous about billion? Or do other countries have a
> > different value?
> > Robert
>
> The fact that "billion" is not the same in all the world. In North
> America billion is 10e9. In Britain (and many other places) billion is
> 10e12.
Woops, brain fart, of course I meant 1e9 and 1e12, NOT 10e9 and 10e12.
Sorry about that. TTYL
Bravo Gerhard, now lets see if we can decipher the TAP protocol ;-)
Obviously if you get a large enough group of µcontroller programmers
together they will figure out how a particular communication protocol works,
and why it sometimes does not.
> > Which is fine if the person reading your message is using the same font
> > as you are
>
> The font is not the issue. The important things are encoded in the headers
> of the email:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> (from Lonnie's original message).
>
> It says which character set is is using -- and that /is/ a standard (and a
> pretty commonly used one at that) --, and it says how this 8 bit character
> set is encoded into 7 bit -- and that is also a (pretty commonly used)
> standard.
>
> The raw text looks like this:
> "One easy trick is to use m for milli and =B5 for micro,
> to type the mu "=B5"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad."
>
> There's nothing non-ASCII in there. The =B5 is the quoted-printable
> encoding for that character in the ISO-8859-1 font. This is such a common
> standard font that any email software should have at least a translation
> table for it.
>
> It's up to the email processing software to be compliant with email
> standards and decode and display such a message correctly, with whatever
> font it uses. Some have trouble with email standards, but most don't.
>
>
> The problem with Howard's message is this:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> His email software assumes an 8 bit transmission path (which obviously
> wasn't given), Lonnie's email software doesn't.
>
> Gerhard
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:06:05 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> The problem with Howard's message is this:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> His email software assumes an 8 bit transmission path (which obviously wasn't given),
Actually, not guilty! I have my software set to the character set as shown, but "Quoted Printable" as the
encoding format. If it arrived set to 8-bit, then something on the way has changed it...
...and in fact I just checked my reply to Russell as it left me (in this thread which I renamed "[OT]
Character sets") and it has this:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pch.mit.edu id
i8FBQ0WM017884
So pch.mit.edu (Mailman?) is the culprit! Nice of it to confess... :-)
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:33:59 +0100, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
> >>That is the exact problem. A UK billion is 1E12 ...
> >
> >The UK has pretty much given in to the US influence on that,
> >from what I can see by reading the Financial Times.
>
> Which makes it even worse over here, as you never know exactly what is meant
> by a billion anymore!
I seem to remember that a former Prime Minister some time ago (Heath, perhaps?) declared that we would use the
US definition for a billion thenceforth. Personally I have never had enough money for it to worry me either
way, but I was a bit peeved that he thought he (or she?) could just decide something like this for the country
without even discussing it.
The Art of Electronics, 2nd Edition, indicates that unit names are not capitalized when spelled out and used with a prefix, only when abbreviated. "Thus: hertz and kilohertz, but Hz and kHz; watt, milliwatt, and megawatt, but W, mW, and MW". tera, giga, and mega are capitalized (T, G, and M) whereas kilo, milli, micro, nano, pico, and femto are not. Thus, MW is different from mW (except in spice, where the case is insignificant !)
Here is this NIST page describing unit usage, which appears to agree with the above:
> > The convention is that units which are named after a person have their
first
> > letter capitalised.
> It seems you are pretty alone with that convention.
It seems you are right.
But it seems I am right too ! :-)
(We both win (or lose)).
eg From the reasonably prestigious http://www.sae.org we get an SI
standards paper which rigorously follows the nomenclature I mentioned. This
doesn't mean it is CORRECT or even standardised - just recognised and used
by (some) professional organisations who rigorously apply a rule set to
their publications. This is principally a document which rigorously
decsribes the usage of SI units in SAE publications. It takes the
capitalisation of abbreviations for units which are based on proper names as
a given without comment.
>>>The convention is that units which are named after a person have their
>
> first
>
>>>letter capitalised.
>
>
>>It seems you are pretty alone with that convention.
>
>
> It seems you are right.
> But it seems I am right too ! :-)
> (We both win (or lose)).
>
> eg From the reasonably prestigious http://www.sae.org we get an SI
> standards paper which rigorously follows the nomenclature I mentioned. This
> doesn't mean it is CORRECT or even standardised - just recognised and used
> by (some) professional organisations who rigorously apply a rule set to
> their publications. This is principally a document which rigorously
> decsribes the usage of SI units in SAE publications. It takes the
> capitalisation of abbreviations for units which are based on proper names as
> a given without comment.
>
> www.sae.org/standardsdev/aerospace/parte.pdf
>
> Suimilarly, this IEE Inspec 'Numerical data Indexing Thesaurus" agrees
>
>
> www.iee.org/publish/support/inspec/document/ChemNum/ndithes.pdf
>
> However, the majority of informally controlled usage does not use this
> standard :-(
>
> Note that when the full name of the unit is used it is in lower case, even
> wnehna proper name.
> eg 1.3 A 1.3 ampere. 6.4 V 6.4 volt
>
>
>
> RM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
On Sep 15, 2004, at 6:06 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> There's nothing non-ASCII in there. The =B5 is the quoted-printable
> encoding for that character in the ISO-8859-1 font. This is such a
> common
> standard font that any email software should have at least a
> translation
> table for it.
>
Yah, sure. It showed up consistantly in your email as "equals B 5"
8bit characters are not in ascii, and not promised to make it through
smtp or other mail programs...
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:16:52AM -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: {Quote hidden}
> >> One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
> >> to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
> >
> > How do you do that on a Mac or a SUN workstation ?
>
> There must be a way to use Unicode or common ISO fonts on a Mac or SUN
> system. Otherwise, I'd say they are about 10 years behind the curve...
>
> You better get used to international standards soon... China is on the way
> to being a world power, and if one thing is sure, it is that they will
> /not/ use 7 bit ASCII :) (Not speaking of the fact that most outside the
> USA don't use 7 bit ASCII today.)
>
> Gerhard
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 11:02, Falcon Wireless Tech Support - KF4HAZ
> wrote:
>> One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
>> to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
>>
>> KF4HAZ - Lonnie
>
> Which is fine if the person reading your message is using the same font
> as you are, or using another font that happens to map 181 to the mu
> character. If you are using windows open up the character map and have a
> look and see how often this is the case... hint, it's not much.
>
> ASCII does NOT cover the mu character, therefore MANY fonts don't have
> it, or have it in a different spot. There is NO standard that is
> followed universally when it comes to this sort of thing.
>
> The wisest course of action IMHO is to use u, with a note following it's
> first usage (i.e. 300uF (micro-Farads)). TTYL
Fyi the original message showed a correct mu character on my X11 display, but your quote of it changed it to a dichar: "A-circumflex" followed by the "mu" character (this is what I see in the first paragraph quoted above, between the quotes)
I aggree thta it's best to send only ascii characters. Special characters can be represented in many ways, f.ex. using html &name; entities or TeX-like "\mu \kappa \eta " etc. Sending non-human-readable codes is probably a bad idea because they could be rendered differently or not at all at the reciving end.
Peter
part 2 194 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)
part 1 711 bytes content-type:TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed (decoded quoted-printable)
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Falcon Wireless Tech Support - KF4HAZ wrote :
>
>> One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
>> to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
Fyi, this quote shows a single mu character between the quotes, unlike the other quote sent by someone else I commented on in a previous email.
> How do you do that on a Mac or a SUN workstation ?
On *nix you load a suitable keyboard map and it exists as a key o you use a utility not unlike 'character map' in windows and cut & paste. You also need to use a suitable font while doing this.
Peter
part 2 194 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> suggest something like (uA/A), which adds some
>> information that ppm doesn't have. And the specific problem with ppb is
>> that "billion" is quite an ambiguous expression.
>
> HUH? million=1E6, billion=1E9, trillion=1E12,
> gazillion1E12E12 <G>? dollars of US debt.
> What is ambiguous about billion?
My text in the message from which you cited started with "The NIST suggests
...".
I have posted that link before, and Russell just posted it again... good
reading, and it includes the reason for their suggestion:
"In keeping with Ref. [6: ISO 31-0], this Guide takes the position that the
language-dependent terms part per million, part per billion, and part per
trillion, and their respective abbreviations "ppm," "ppb," and "ppt" (and
similar terms and abbreviations), are not acceptable for use with the SI to
express the values of quantities. Forms such as those given in the
following examples should be used instead.
"Examples: a stability of 0.5 (µA/A)/min but not: a stability of 0.5
ppm/min
...
"Because the names of numbers 10^9 and larger are not uniform worldwide, it
is best that they be avoided entirely (in most countries, 1 billion = 1 ×
10^12, not 1 × 10^9 as in the United States); the preferred way of
expressing large numbers is to use powers of 10. This ambiguity in the
names of numbers is one of the reasons why the use of ppm, ppb, ppt, and
the like is deprecated. ..."
Yes. Even though it seems that Britain has recently adopted the use of
"billion" for both 10^9 and 10^12 (which doesn't really diminish the
ambiguity :), many other (also non-English speaking) countries have
expressions similar to "billion" that mean 10^12 there.
Gerhard
>>> µf Works for Web pages.
>
> Now that's very interesting.
> The original "µ" that someone posted turned into a space ($20) in my
> browser.
>
> BUT the µ used above in uF (and which I copied here) displays as a µ for me.
>
> If you cant see three "mu's" above then it doesn't work for you ;-)
>
> Is there anyone who CAN'T see a mu between the following pair of quotation
> marks ? => "µ"
I see a mu preceded by a A-circumflex
Peter
part 2 194 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)
>>>> µf Works for Web pages.
>>
>> Now that's very interesting.
>> The original "µ" that someone posted turned into a space ($20) in my
>> browser.
>>
>> BUT the µ used above in uF (and which I copied here) displays as a µ for me.
>>
>> If you cant see three "mu's" above then it doesn't work for you ;-)
>>
>> Is there anyone who CAN'T see a mu between the following pair of quotation
>> marks ? => "µ"
>
> I see a mu preceded by a A-circumflex
>
> Peter
In finding out whether it's your client or something in the transmission
path, it's a good thing to look at the message source. What I received from
you, looks like this (slightly snipped):
-----------------------------
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
>>> =C2=B5f Works for Web pages.
>
> Now that's very interesting.
> The original "=C2=B5" that someone posted turned into a space ($20) in my
> browser.
> Is there anyone who CAN'T see a mu between the following pair of quotatio=
n
> marks ? =3D> "=C2=B5"
I see a mu preceded by a A-circumflex
-----------------------------
The message is in UTF-8. UTF-8 encodes several characters in more than one
byte. For example, the B5 character that's the mu in the original (and very
common ISO-8859-1 character set, would be encoded as C2B5 in UTF-8.
When I look at what comes from you, this is all correct (and my email
program shows it as a single mu). The message header shows that it is UTF-8
encoded as quoted-printable, and in the body source I see the =C2=B5
sequence, which is the quoted-printable encoding of the C2B5 character,
which again in UTF-8 is the encoding of the Unicode character B5, which is
the lower case mu.
However, if your program doesn't know how to deal with UTF-8 and interprets
the message as if it was ISO-8859-1 (or something similar), then it would
in fact see two characters, C2 and B5 -- which happen to be A-circumflex
and mu in ISO-8859-1.
This seems to indicate that your email program can't read UTF-8 properly.
You could verify this by looking at the message source and check whether
what I describe above is what you see locally (I only see what I receive
from you, which may or may not be what you have there).
>>> One easy trick is to use m for milli and µ for micro,
>>> to type the mu "µ"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
>
> Fyi, this quote shows a single mu character between the quotes, unlike the
> other quote sent by someone else I commented on in a previous email.
Again, a look at the raw source reveals this (slightly snipped):
------------------------
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
>> One easy trick is to use m for milli and =B5 for micro,
>> to type the mu "=B5"- hold [ALT} and type 0181 on the numeric keypad.
Fyi, this quote shows a single mu character between the quotes, unlike
the=
=20
other quote sent by someone else I commented on in a previous email.
------------------------
No character set defined, but the source encoded as something similar to
ISO-8859-1 -- where the mu character is a single byte B5. This is
consistent with what I wrote to you in this thread just now in another
reply.
When looking at the headers of the different emails, it seems that most of
the problems stem from email clients that don't know how to deal with
several Unicode forms and other common character sets.
In my application there is a chance that the user gives more than
the maximum 5.5 volt to the PIC (10F200). It is very tiny app, so I do not
want to put voltage regulator if possible. The question is what do you think
if I just put a 4.7 zener in between the Vdd and Vss?
Thanks
Tamas
> The question is what do you think if I just put a 4.7 zener in
> between the Vdd and Vss?
You'll need a series resistor too. It needs to be small enough to
make the zener break down (otherwise the excessive Vin may
get to the PIC and kill it), and large enough to limit current through
the zener when/if it does break down
Probably 5mA would be enough through the zener to keep it
regulating, but you'd have to check its datasheet, and also have a
think about how high the careless Vin might be to determine the
resistor and zener wattage rating
>
> > The question is what do you think if I just put a 4.7 zener in
> > between the Vdd and Vss?
>
> You'll need a series resistor too. It needs to be small enough to
> make the zener break down (otherwise the excessive Vin may
> get to the PIC and kill it), and large enough to limit current through
> the zener when/if it does break down
>
> Probably 5mA would be enough through the zener to keep it
> regulating, but you'd have to check its datasheet, and also have a
> think about how high the careless Vin might be to determine the
> resistor and zener wattage rating
>
> http://www.opamplabs.com/zenerreg.htm
>
> For example, enter 10 (volts in), 4.7 (zener voltage), 10 (mA load)
> and click Solve -> 265ohms 0.1W resistor, 0.1W zener
>
Jinx wrote:
> For example, enter 10 (volts in), 4.7 (zener voltage), 10 (mA load)
> and click Solve -> 265ohms 0.1W resistor, 0.1W zener
Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all the time when the load is 10mA,
even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's supposed to be. That means the
PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F will operate down to 2V, so maybe
that's OK, but the OP should at least be aware of this limitation.
If this is not acceptable, you could try a 5.6V zener with emitter follower
as a crude regulator. That requires one additional NPN transistor from the
plain shunt regulator described above, but will only drop about 700mV when
the input voltage is below about 5.7V. Above that it will regulate
reasonably well to 5V up to the C-E voltage limit of the transistor. The
extra $.03 for the MMBT4401 or whatever will be worth it in many
applications.
By the way, 10mA is quite high for a 10F itself, although the whole circuit
could easily draw that. The OP needs to provide some real specs.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
On 10/08/06, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistEraseMEEraseMEembedinc.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all the time when the load is 10mA,
> even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's supposed to be. That means
> the
> PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F will operate down to 2V, so
> maybe
> that's OK, but the OP should at least be aware of this limitation.
The output has to be around TTL level so even if 10F works in 2V the result
might not be acceptable.
If this is not acceptable, you could try a 5.6V zener with emitter follower
> as a crude regulator. That requires one additional NPN transistor from
> the
> plain shunt regulator described above, but will only drop about 700mV when
> the input voltage is below about 5.7V. Above that it will regulate
> reasonably well to 5V up to the C-E voltage limit of the transistor. The
> extra $.03 for the MMBT4401 or whatever will be worth it in many
> applications.
OK, thanks for the tip.
By the way, 10mA is quite high for a 10F itself, although the whole circuit
> could easily draw that. The OP needs to provide some real specs.
The specs said the max is 80mA but I am not sure in what circumstances?
> Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all the time when the load is 10mA,
> even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's supposed to be. That means
> the
> PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F will operate down to 2V, so
> maybe
> that's OK, but the OP should at least be aware of this limitation.
Surely the best way to deal with this is an LDO regulator ? Single
component, 5V output when the input is only minimal above 5V, but holds it
at 5V as the input rises to the max the regulator will take.
> Jinx wrote:
> > For example, enter 10 (volts in), 4.7 (zener
> voltage), 10 (mA load)
> > and click Solve -> 265ohms 0.1W resistor, 0.1W
> zener
>
> Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all the time
> when the load is 10mA,
> even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's
> supposed to be. That means the
> PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F will
> operate down to 2V, so maybe
> that's OK, but the OP should at least be aware of
> this limitation.
>
> If this is not acceptable, you could try a 5.6V
> zener with emitter follower
> as a crude regulator. That requires one additional
> NPN transistor from the
> plain shunt regulator described above, but will only
> drop about 700mV when
> the input voltage is below about 5.7V. Above that
> it will regulate
> reasonably well to 5V up to the C-E voltage limit of
> the transistor. The
> extra $.03 for the MMBT4401 or whatever will be
> worth it in many
> applications.
>
> By the way, 10mA is quite high for a 10F itself,
> although the whole circuit
> could easily draw that. The OP needs to provide
> some real specs.
>
>
>
However..... just thinking what if the Vdd regulated to 5V and the input pin
does not? The doc says should not exceed by more than Vdd+0.3V... That leads
to other problems as I suppose if the Vdd is much more than 5V (7 for
example) then the data line also pretty much the same or might be just a bit
less.
So two options come into my mind:
1. regulate somehow the input as well which may or may not alter the signal
a bit
2. leave it as it is and pray :-)
Opinions?
(3. use optocoupler or whatever? But then the additional components will
cost more than the chip itself...)
>
> Took me some time to understand your idea.
>
> http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/regulators_noise3_e.html
>
> A picture of what it is suppose to be(based on your
> description.)
>
> John
>
> --- Olin Lathrop <EraseMEolin_piclistspamspamBeGoneembedinc.com> wrote:
>
> > Jinx wrote:
> > > For example, enter 10 (volts in), 4.7 (zener
> > voltage), 10 (mA load)
> > > and click Solve -> 265ohms 0.1W resistor, 0.1W
> > zener
> >
> > Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all the time
> > when the load is 10mA,
> > even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's
> > supposed to be. That means the
> > PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F will
> > operate down to 2V, so maybe
> > that's OK, but the OP should at least be aware of
> > this limitation.
> >
> > If this is not acceptable, you could try a 5.6V
> > zener with emitter follower
> > as a crude regulator. That requires one additional
> > NPN transistor from the
> > plain shunt regulator described above, but will only
> > drop about 700mV when
> > the input voltage is below about 5.7V. Above that
> > it will regulate
> > reasonably well to 5V up to the C-E voltage limit of
> > the transistor. The
> > extra $.03 for the MMBT4401 or whatever will be
> > worth it in many
> > applications.
> >
> > By the way, 10mA is quite high for a 10F itself,
> > although the whole circuit
> > could easily draw that. The OP needs to provide
> > some real specs.
> >
> >
> >
> ******************************************************************
> > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.
> > #1 PIC
> > consultant in 2004 program year.
> > http://www.embedinc.com/products
> > --
There are a lot of pictures there. The last is the only one that is series
instead of a shunt regulator. If you lose R13, R14, and R17 you have what I
suggested. You said you wanted something simple and cheap, so why are you
adding parts, especially when they make the circuit worse?
Take a look at the schematic for my QuickProto-01 PIC prototyping board at http://www.embedinc.com/products/qprot01/qprot2.pdf. The circuit I
described powers the power supply control processor on page 2. It only have
4 parts, R6, D4, C6, and Q5.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
The input is clamped to the zener value which is
suppose to be 5.6V . So the Vdd from the supply must
be greater than 5.6 . If the Vdd is less or equal to
5.6 V than the zener is not activated(not above the
breakdown value).
Summary: The base input is affected by the voltage
across R1 and DZ. If the voltage across them is
greater than 5.6 than the zener fix the voltage on the
input pin,NPN base .But it is less than 5.6 than the
input voltage is the voltage across the zener(value
now dependant on Vdd). But the voltage is not clamp
by the zener b'cos it is not above the breakdown
value.
> Thanks for the link. Also found this one on the
> wiki:
>
>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regulator#Simple_zener_regulator {Quote hidden}
>
> However..... just thinking what if the Vdd regulated
> to 5V and the input pin
> does not? The doc says should not exceed by more
> than Vdd+0.3V... That leads
> to other problems as I suppose if the Vdd is much
> more than 5V (7 for
> example) then the data line also pretty much the
> same or might be just a bit
> less.
>
> So two options come into my mind:
>
> 1. regulate somehow the input as well which may or
> may not alter the signal
> a bit
>
> 2. leave it as it is and pray :-)
>
> Opinions?
>
> (3. use optocoupler or whatever? But then the
> additional components will
> cost more than the chip itself...)
>
> Thanks,
> Tamas
>
>
>
> On 11/08/06, John Chung <kravnusSTOPspamspam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Took me some time to understand your idea.
> >
> >
>
> >
> > A picture of what it is suppose to be(based on
> your
> > description.)
> >
> > John
> >
> > --- Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistSTOPspamEraseMEembedinc.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Jinx wrote:
> > > > For example, enter 10 (volts in), 4.7 (zener
> > > voltage), 10 (mA load)
> > > > and click Solve -> 265ohms 0.1W resistor, 0.1W
> > > zener
> > >
> > > Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all the
> time
> > > when the load is 10mA,
> > > even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's
> > > supposed to be. That means the
> > > PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F will
> > > operate down to 2V, so maybe
> > > that's OK, but the OP should at least be aware
> of
> > > this limitation.
> > >
> > > If this is not acceptable, you could try a 5.6V
> > > zener with emitter follower
> > > as a crude regulator. That requires one
> additional
> > > NPN transistor from the
> > > plain shunt regulator described above, but will
> only
> > > drop about 700mV when
> > > the input voltage is below about 5.7V. Above
> that
> > > it will regulate
> > > reasonably well to 5V up to the C-E voltage
> limit of
> > > the transistor. The
> > > extra $.03 for the MMBT4401 or whatever will be
> > > worth it in many
> > > applications.
> > >
> > > By the way, 10mA is quite high for a 10F itself,
> > > although the whole circuit
> > > could easily draw that. The OP needs to provide
> > > some real specs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
I understand and fully agree, but the question now is that if I regulate Vdd
I have to regulate Pin as well, haven't I?
So Vdd is 7V then Pin is around 7V -- but I have to measure it for sure and
will as soon as I will have a chance. I can only regulate the Vdd for my
chip, has no intention on the other parts. Now if I regulate my Vdd to 5V,
then Pin is still 7V and that's problem I suppose :-)
>
> Based on this picture
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Series_reg.gif
>
> The input is clamped to the zener value which is
> suppose to be 5.6V . So the Vdd from the supply must
> be greater than 5.6 . If the Vdd is less or equal to
> 5.6 V than the zener is not activated(not above the
> breakdown value).
>
> Summary: The base input is affected by the voltage
> across R1 and DZ. If the voltage across them is
> greater than 5.6 than the zener fix the voltage on the
> input pin,NPN base .But it is less than 5.6 than the
> input voltage is the voltage across the zener(value
> now dependant on Vdd). But the voltage is not clamp
> by the zener b'cos it is not above the breakdown
> value.
>
>
> John
>
> --- Tamas Rudnai <EraseMEtamas.rudnaiEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the link. Also found this one on the
> > wiki:
> >
> >
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regulator#Simple_zener_regulator
> >
> > However..... just thinking what if the Vdd regulated
> > to 5V and the input pin
> > does not? The doc says should not exceed by more
> > than Vdd+0.3V... That leads
> > to other problems as I suppose if the Vdd is much
> > more than 5V (7 for
> > example) then the data line also pretty much the
> > same or might be just a bit
> > less.
> >
> > So two options come into my mind:
> >
> > 1. regulate somehow the input as well which may or
> > may not alter the signal
> > a bit
> >
> > 2. leave it as it is and pray :-)
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > (3. use optocoupler or whatever? But then the
> > additional components will
> > cost more than the chip itself...)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tamas
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/08/06, John Chung <@spam@kravnus@spam@spam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Took me some time to understand your idea.
> > >
> > >
> >
> www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/regulators_noise3_e.html
> > >
> > > A picture of what it is suppose to be(based on
> > your
> > > description.)
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > --- Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistKILLspamembedinc.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jinx wrote:
> > > > > For example, enter 10 (volts in), 4.7 (zener
> > > > voltage), 10 (mA load)
> > > > > and click Solve -> 265ohms 0.1W resistor, 0.1W
> > > > zener
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all the
> > time
> > > > when the load is 10mA,
> > > > even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's
> > > > supposed to be. That means the
> > > > PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F will
> > > > operate down to 2V, so maybe
> > > > that's OK, but the OP should at least be aware
> > of
> > > > this limitation.
> > > >
> > > > If this is not acceptable, you could try a 5.6V
> > > > zener with emitter follower
> > > > as a crude regulator. That requires one
> > additional
> > > > NPN transistor from the
> > > > plain shunt regulator described above, but will
> > only
> > > > drop about 700mV when
> > > > the input voltage is below about 5.7V. Above
> > that
> > > > it will regulate
> > > > reasonably well to 5V up to the C-E voltage
> > limit of
> > > > the transistor. The
> > > > extra $.03 for the MMBT4401 or whatever will be
> > > > worth it in many
> > > > applications.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, 10mA is quite high for a 10F itself,
> > > > although the whole circuit
> > > > could easily draw that. The OP needs to provide
> > > > some real specs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ******************************************************************
> > > > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978)
> > 742-9014.
> > > > #1 PIC
> > > > consultant in 2004 program year.
> > > > http://www.embedinc.com/products
> > > > --
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> There are a lot of pictures there. The last is the only
> one that is series instead of a shunt regulator. If you
> lose R13, R14, and R17 you have what I suggested.
> You said you wanted something simple and cheap,
> so why are you adding parts, especially when they
> make the circuit worse?
Cheap PIC16HV785 aready got built-in shunt voltage regulator.
Anyway, extra parts, PCB place and work would cost more than the price
difference to PIC10Fxxx controllers, I'd suggest.
I assume the Pin is on the PIC. One of the i/o pins.
The voltage must not go over the Vdd supplied to the
PIC. In short you are right. You now have to regulated
the voltage to the pins.
> Thanks Olin and John,
>
> I understand and fully agree, but the question now
> is that if I regulate Vdd
> I have to regulate Pin as well, haven't I?
>
> So Vdd is 7V then Pin is around 7V -- but I have to
> measure it for sure and
> will as soon as I will have a chance. I can only
> regulate the Vdd for my
> chip, has no intention on the other parts. Now if I
> regulate my Vdd to 5V,
> then Pin is still 7V and that's problem I suppose
> :-)
>
> Thanks again,
> Tamas
>
>
> On 12/08/06, John Chung <TakeThisOuTkravnus.....TakeThisOuTyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Based on this picture
> >
>
> >
> > The input is clamped to the zener value which is
> > suppose to be 5.6V . So the Vdd from the supply
> must
> > be greater than 5.6 . If the Vdd is less or equal
> to
> > 5.6 V than the zener is not activated(not above
> the
> > breakdown value).
> >
> > Summary: The base input is affected by the voltage
> > across R1 and DZ. If the voltage across them is
> > greater than 5.6 than the zener fix the voltage on
> the
> > input pin,NPN base .But it is less than 5.6 than
> the
> > input voltage is the voltage across the
> zener(value
> > now dependant on Vdd). But the voltage is not
> clamp
> > by the zener b'cos it is not above the breakdown
> > value.
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> > --- Tamas Rudnai <TakeThisOuTtamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the link. Also found this one on the
> > > wiki:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > >
> > > However..... just thinking what if the Vdd
> regulated
> > > to 5V and the input pin
> > > does not? The doc says should not exceed by more
> > > than Vdd+0.3V... That leads
> > > to other problems as I suppose if the Vdd is
> much
> > > more than 5V (7 for
> > > example) then the data line also pretty much the
> > > same or might be just a bit
> > > less.
> > >
> > > So two options come into my mind:
> > >
> > > 1. regulate somehow the input as well which may
> or
> > > may not alter the signal
> > > a bit
> > >
> > > 2. leave it as it is and pray :-)
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > (3. use optocoupler or whatever? But then the
> > > additional components will
> > > cost more than the chip itself...)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tamas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/08/06, John Chung <.....kravnusRemoveMEyahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Took me some time to understand your idea.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > A picture of what it is suppose to be(based on
> > > your
> > > > description.)
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > --- Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistspamBeGoneembedinc.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jinx wrote:
> > > > > > For example, enter 10 (volts in), 4.7
> (zener
> > > > > voltage), 10 (mA load)
> > > > > > and click Solve -> 265ohms 0.1W resistor,
> 0.1W
> > > > > zener
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but the resistor will drop 2.65V all
> the
> > > time
> > > > > when the load is 10mA,
> > > > > even when the input voltage is the 5.0V it's
> > > > > supposed to be. That means the
> > > > > PIC Vdd will be 2.35V with 5V in. The 10F
> will
> > > > > operate down to 2V, so maybe
> > > > > that's OK, but the OP should at least be
> aware
> > > of
> > > > > this limitation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is not acceptable, you could try a
> 5.6V
> > > > > zener with emitter follower
> > > > > as a crude regulator. That requires one
> > > additional
> > > > > NPN transistor from the
> > > > > plain shunt regulator described above, but
> will
> > > only
> > > > > drop about 700mV when
> > > > > the input voltage is below about 5.7V.
> Above
> > > that
> > > > > it will regulate
> > > > > reasonably well to 5V up to the C-E voltage
> > > limit of
> > > > > the transistor. The
> > > > > extra $.03 for the MMBT4401 or whatever will
> be
> > > > > worth it in many
> > > > > applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, 10mA is quite high for a 10F
> itself,
> > > > > although the whole circuit
> > > > > could easily draw that. The OP needs to
> provide
> > > > > some real specs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
I was trying to help Tamas on how it should look like.
I did not find a better picture. Thanks for clearing
up the picture! I did not find a better one at that
time.
> John Chung wrote:
> > Took me some time to understand your idea.
> >
> >
>
www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/regulators_noise3_e.html {Quote hidden}
> >
> > A picture of what it is suppose to be(based on
> your
> > description.)
>
> There are a lot of pictures there. The last is the
> only one that is series
> instead of a shunt regulator. If you lose R13, R14,
> and R17 you have what I
> suggested. You said you wanted something simple and
> cheap, so why are you
> adding parts, especially when they make the circuit
> worse?
>
> Take a look at the schematic for my QuickProto-01
> PIC prototyping board at
> www.embedinc.com/products/qprot01/qprot2.pdf.
> The circuit I
> described powers the power supply control processor
> on page 2. It only have
> 4 parts, R6, D4, C6, and Q5.
>
>
>
embedinc.com> wrote:
