testing out the custom xx78L05xxx variant

amazingly -- worked from scratch -- no matter the blind guessed j-Fet and Zener values and much randomly chosen 2N2222 and 2N2907 for "tech."

but the OUTP voltage little drifts with INP voltage and the fold-back (from140mA) starts to work from 14V external supply ( ? wrong zeners . . . )

the model is currently adjusted to 5.0V at Abs.Max 35.0V input

as usual the component level model (78L05) is more stable than the .cir net-list model ( LT1761-5 )

NB! Not all the plotted parameters are relevant/consistent with the ↑↑ shown test
(they are relics from another grid that was used as a draft for these ones)

---

"Level 2" ::

. . . with custom LM324 CLM ( Component Level Model ) (( which i also needed to test ))

This is why the net-list models are not good at complex circuits ↓↓ (i actually didn't expect to get it "stable" . . .)

---

[Eop]

web buck-boost to custom (Spice-)experimental boost

src.::

mod.::

PS!!! -- Not proofed for startup or for a specific situation switching errors such as (switching fades or changes to too long cycle length = too high current through MOSFET . . .)

-- also it likely can be converted for better efficiency (87% - - might include and some conceptual changes next to just adjusting the inductor and frequency values)

-- target parameters INP : 5V (up to Lim.) 1.5A ; OUTP : about 12V (up to) 200+some mA

 

---

[Eop]

"LM301" test 2

Offset test ::
(was even "passed" to my surprise ? ** is a good Op Amp after all)

However since it's frequency capabilities set it more to audio range - a random internet bootstrapped Op Amp circuit test ::
((this is actually a good - better than expected - result . . . again! **))

---

[Eop]

prev. -- follow up

Stage.3 ::

no differential test yet . . . // now is ↓

 

---

Update! : 2018.03.04 -- Stage.4 ::

. . . Some clean-up ↓↓

After frequency pass ↓↓

In the old soviet literature it is said to be a good Op Amp ???
. . . for audio frequency operation ... perhaps ???

TEST ↑↑ TEST ↑↑ TEST

---

[Eop]

Yet a next attempt to make sense of the LM301

tThe experiment . . . adapted from :: National Semiconductor Corporation , SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics , Linear Technology Corporation , . . .

Still performing some 10x 5x worse than the d/s suggests . . .
-- but there is improvement since the prev. TEST

---

Related parts ::

1. http://www.chipinfo.ru/dsheets/ic/153/ud2.html (LM101)
2. http://www.chipinfo.ru/dsheets/ic/153/ud6.html (LM301A)
3. http://www.chipinfo.ru/dsheets/ic/157/157ud2.html (dual LM301)
4. http://tec.org.ru/board/k553ud2/93-1-0-2179 (LM301)

---

"Stage 2" ::

(compare → https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-010-electronic-feedback-systems-spring-2013/textbook/MITRES_6-010S13_chap03.pdf ←) the offset and operation of amplifying cfg. is unreasonably critical to R26 value -- if this is to be "normal" then tuning the real Item to work does not pay off using it instead of LM358 etc. + it's gain seems to vanish fast at higher frequencies (at transient pass even when driven to 10k load ??????) . . . as already said this thing only reacts on control currents R29,-6,10,12,3 -- even if i succeed to match this to d/s ?? will the real thing ever perform that good (not mentioning the wrong/misleading/"of a zero help" schematic diagrams on d/s-s) ... it is better to make your own poor op amp that you know how to tune than keep guessing what this thing suppose to be , how it suppose to perform/work , did it work in a first place (as in a sense of today's op amps)

---

"Stage 2.a" ::

-- the prev. "Setup" even verifies for 25kHz 12 to 42 V tot supply ???

---

[Eop]