another 1.2V DTL variant

trivial random inverter osc. test

2N2222 OUTP , a composite "diode" from 2N2907 1N4148 -- NAND logic
designed for up to 1...2 MHz operation at 1.2V supply
at lesser speeds it can work starting from 620mV supply ...
... which has much no point in practice coz below ??? say 850mV (good battery types) usually 1.13V (most battery types) the terminal voltage drops fast (some minutes even seconds -- tough -- during that some startup circuits can be driven) and deceases -- so below 1.13V (unloaded) terminal voltage the 1.2V battery is basically empty

counters compared XC , JK , Pulse , T

---

[Eop]

5V regulator variants for 6F22

LDO utilizing a low R.DS of a MOSFET

a switchng variant of the prev. LDO !! no current limiting nor other specific situation handling !!

( !note : of course the OUTP loading is inverse proportional to R.int.BATT )
Component count optimized v. of EF regulator

Max. precision v. of prev.

-- the fold-back v.

---

[Eop]

3-transistor "precision" LDO

Left-Below is the ® , Below-Right is over current-(/SC-) proof advance of it (as usual -- not tested as a real thing !)

---

[Eop]

TTL test 4 7404 74192 74193

5x ring osc. (Simplified resistive responce I/O Model)

Simplified versus "Real" Model -- osc. test

---

Update!: revised the RRIO-model though there's no any indication yet that it's to a better direction -- the fig. below , left


amazingly or not amazingly -- the datasheet's 7404 inverter schematic does not enable to re-produce the I/O sink/source currents (and voltage levels) -- (1-st) the input sink of ~5.2µA from positive OUTP requires an additional diode shunted with over 1MΩ resistor but then the V.th drops 700 to 800 mV below the actual 1.62V (from what we can conclude the input transistor or it's E junction being something very different from conventional NPN) so what i utilized in my New CLM (component level model) was using a darlington for the input NPN of the "video amplifier"

that set the V.th and input source to OUTP low near correct - not minding about excessive input sink from OUTP high -- ignore (do not use) the schematic coz it is obviously not "the thing" . . . as in fact it does not have to be the thing -- what is required is something that in oscillators and crystal drivers would simulate near to real . . . i doubt any of the above 4 does good enough for X-tal osc. simulations . . .

---

Since there's no schematic/spec. avail for inner T-trigger -- the crap can't be fully validated -- "What's it worth ..." . . .

Cascading . . .

---

[Eop]

HiFq Flasher revisited + SCR alternate

somewhat unusual LED-driver that i doubt will startup with 2N2222-s but might with single MJE13005 or with it's higher frequency v.

the following appears to be an in series (or in parallel) self-powering/-delimiting supply for power control -- a concept / feature-research design for . . . !!!

PS! -- it quite likely is not secure to build and use as shown e.g. one must realize the principles and shortcomings here , also extensive additional testing is needed to verify such as secure or not -- there were studied a special situations where the supply failed to lock up / delimit itself -- i haven't collected enough data on it yet !!!

---

[Eop]

"Flasher" revisited , DB3 spice programmatic model Test

The inverter v. of LED-Flasher . . . at various dev. stg.-s

The boost converter v. with new voltage reference

the new voltage reference

---

the next thing i actually built (*with protective fuse - not in simulation) - WYCIWYG . . . almost

. . . at both modes you mostly perceive the thing "blinking" - only the after-flash at second mode makes it some different from simple blinking . . . donno

! Note : * it is . . . wise to fuse the mains equipment  also as dumb as that coz - such being experimental you never be too careful to predict weld failure either caused by heating components or bad quality weld/materials . . . . . . . . . also when whatever fails and op.-l parameters exceed the intended design values they won't all burn off - extra to that i got the elongation wire with switch - so i can cut it manually every time there's even a slight suspicion something is about to go wrong

---

[Eop]

Depletion mode MOSFET - macro model - some essencial tests

about BSS139 -- R_DSON

10MHz - random drive (i donno any specifics about these devices)

---

[Eop]

Random Op Amp Voltage References

as it shows -- first required for CC-sink -- next it will be used to adjust 78L05 and further

The above circuits are a modification of double R-Diode input "bridge"

---

Next the voltage reference at -- aa dumps it's excess to Op Amp.-s negative input -- bb

Another 2x R~D bridge that seems to have a capability to stand up to frequency variations ?

---

Insane

---

Positive feedback shunting regulator or custom zener

---

[Eop]

testing textbook voltage regulators

the src. A (fig. ⓐ) - won't start up with higher ß , silica "western" transistors

if we add a "startup**" it won't be overload proof -- it is possible to set there a time constant based startup "boost" that charges the output capacitor to near nominal output at no or moderate load connected . . . why all this fuzz - i just studied the circuit for it's simplicity . . .
. . . the next is what i came out as a near reasonable practical solution for the type of regulator (or what's left of that type)

---

update: an alternate "startup**" v. that is still overload proof only it requires extra "Discharge" button to get off the "output disabled mode" -- to make it also "user proof" requires a special discharge or power button so that the discharge engages only when external supply can't charge the caps. -- all cool the simlpe things are not simple . . .

---

the src. B (the leftmost fig.) -- works good as shown as long the input voltage is higher the output plus NPN-s BE vtg. drop + Op Amp-s incapability to reach positive rail some 1 to 2 V

if we power the regulator control circuitry from separate supplies - we get the foldback v. of the above src.

---

[Eop]

component level model for C-MOS inverter

Revised the R.DS.ON data for C-MOS inverters

thought to complete the set by scanning the threshold levels
1-st came out with an over complicated setup -- that however worked fine at least for 3-shold meter circuit

analysing the problem revealed the alternate more simple 3-shld. metering possibilities -- however i can't tell witch of those is more reliable - as by simply measuring the current through opening FET gives us lower 3-shld. points than any of these metering grids . . .

so shit - started from the middle using approximate initial values and tuned the CLM (component level model) on a run . . .

i had previously done some measurements that suited the purpose - of tuning the CLM

the apx. src. fn. for the prev. graphs

! note that the SPICE uses "randomly" RAD-s and DEG-s (as why to make life easier by using phs. std. radians -- as it is a scientific application ? - perhaps another computer game ....)

the ↓next↓ is how we got to ↑above↑

confirming/testing/simulating a threshold metering variant

it seems i should have made the NOT gate to use more power (to be faster) -- &shit -- it'll do for testing as low speed MOS inverter -- so here some test follow :
at your Left -- 5x ring osc. has !usually! enough  delay for digital levels to settle e.g. 5x ring osc. generates "square" trapezoid wave while 3x ring osc. does sine or triangle
at your Right -- a "std." digital R-C CLK circuit

at your Left -- synchronizing 5x & 7x ring osc.-s
at your Right -- setting up something resembling to a quadrature osc.

at your Left -- the same "quadrature osc." at lower speed
at your Right -- . . . as the RA is less than RB -- then here we reference the inverter to a digital threshold point and feeding the output of the inverter to inverting threshold reference . . . after "optimizing" this type of oscillator we got the schematic shown on the fig.

at your Left -- some oscillator i came up with before starting to use the Spice simulator (. . . "what's it worth")
at your Right -- another variant of something i used with experimental DTL gates

at your Left -- an experimental X-tal driver -- when it stabilizes there is still some effect from a near square wave output . . . which is not good . . . i assume
at your Right -- more simple v. of an experimental X-tal driver has even worse sq.wave mix-in -- there must be some sort of dynamic attenuation of the feedback as the crystal charges up (at too strong fixed attenuation the crystal won't likely start up at all . . .)

---

[Eop]