High Noise Immunity Logic - Update 2

When you go round and round improving the circuit you may forget to keep track on some relevant parameters . . . such as the Threshold Voltage and the very Noise Immunity . . . while i improved the speed and the supply range

so - i had to make a new zenerless central threshold variant with reduced speed A5►Q5 below
/// the problem with V_TH being near the one of the rails is that if the rail is noisy it may interfere with low/high threshold level , then again - when the V_TH is near the center the logic may "hang in the middle" or wave around it . . . randomly -- but near the center is more secure from the rail noise

thus - it would be wise to increase the hysteresis . . . but also this has..

• ..a disadvantage in "wave"/signal propagation speed -- as each gate has to complete the hysteresis size transition before the information propagates;
  it must be tested by practice  and decided (oriented to the target application) how much is optimal --or-- least error prone --or-- other
• ..a disadvantage as it adds up to required component count , budget , build time/-space ...

a Falstad Simulation of the oscillator suggests the lower voltage limit to use for OSC. is about 3.5V ? or below → a modified oscillator ← requires a kick start (a RESET in Falstad)

---

[Eop]

High Immunity Logic - web circuit mod.

src. ::

Simulated with the zener  and it's substiute

The substitute

Update for wider supply range -- with "doable" alternate for the questionable (6.2V) zener -- questionable as ? does it actually behave as it simulates . . .

---

[Eop]

Lo-Vo VCO dev. (prev. follow-up)

the ?? std. ?? VCO from LM139 d/s does not perform too good nor stable.fnOf(control voltage)

so needed to retail one for 3.3V ...

... in prior of what picking the Op Amp model capable for this task was essential

. . . & the result ordered by relative change in frequency ::

---

In "practice" the controls eat off much like half the power -- e.g. -- the LED-s need to be multiplied by the factor of 10x to get the normal efficiency out of it --or-- the controls need to be replaced by the lower power ones . . . a tricky part . . . also (in case of increasing the number of LED-s) it requires more battery power so the step up conversion is a better approach (and more efficient and easier to control by default)

---

[Eop]

regulated switched LED regulator designs (experimental)

the thing ::

how to set it up in practice . . . involves a number of tests ::

1. Detach the mosfet and the feedback Mod line -- from simulation and from build
   Regulate the frequency and duty to match those of the simulation
2. Re-attach the mosfet , ( /!\ /!\ /!\ ) set some 20Ω or greater in series with the 6LF22 to limit the current through LED-s --and-- set electrical fuse or limitting resistor in series with the LED-s --or-- double the number of LED-s ( /!\ /!\ /!\ ) - - - - - - - - - we are going to verify the transformer ::
   do the same mods on the simulation and test for the differences . . .
   -- if the real build performs worse you need to recalculate and rebuild the transformer accounting for resistance not present in ↑this↑ circuit
   -- if the build performs better then the primary side is "over-driven" the timing of the switching wave-forms has to be re-evaluated and adjusted
3. Attach the Mod line --and-- ( /!\ /!\ /!\ ) set the regulation to be greater than in simulation (!! dont remove electrical fuse or extra LED-s !!) ( /!\ /!\ /!\ ) ,
   -- regulate it bit below the desired LED current (in case the regulation failure -- the regulator has to be re-designed --or-- replaced with better known one)
4. if everything worked out so far the additional tests are required such as ::
• test for bit higher than simulated input voltage (the Cl batteries may have up to 1.8V per cell e.g. 10.8V for fresh 6LF22)
• test for battery contact strobe !!!
  -- here everything can fail -- use fuses and perhaps build a protective controller that can fast switch off the circuit under test
• test for the lower than in simulation input voltage !!!
  -- may result in oscillations failure and the MOS-FET being "constantly ON" (attempting to remain in conduction mode) . . .
• etc. ...

---

Basic simple ::

add VCO , Mod2 divider , the 2 to 4 decoder and a current sense / +integrator -- and it's basically done . ..

---

[Eop]

Couple of osc.-s based on LM339 planned for 2x AA voltage converter

the bad thing with the next is the threshold levels're floating with the supply voltage and specific set of components (makes it difficult to wick the reliable PWM out of it) . . . the concept design → ▼

INPUT below Negative rail - oscillator ▼

---

[Eop]

theoretical experiment of 3 to 12 V boost converter

Simple , minimal ::

. . . with error as switch gets near constant 18mA to it's base due xa should be xi

however using cascade drive for switch poses problems -- also a good definition method for vc2 (LMx39/x93 OUTP)

some fixes -- no change . . . need to opt. the drive power usage


[Eop]

Osc. Circuit Remake/Test

src:: http://wilf.solarbotics.net/Altbeam/Altbeam_files/Altbeam.html

The remake also has some deficiencies

---

[Eof]

Random CMOS oscillators

a phenomenal TTL osc. at fig.3 in the previous post caused me to check if it's a specific or general situation . . . as expected it was a specific occurrence - - which left me time to play around with some new cmos RC osc. setups

what follows is a quick tune of such into operation to find out some of their speciffics . . .

it didn't get closer than that

random trivia ... this starts up pulsating - no data if that fades or not

capacitor only ver.

random reasoning - - min. "offsets" for R or C alone merged ???

---

[Eop]

3V constant current LED Flasher concept designs

the 2N2222 2N2907 1N4148 1N5817 based White LED (with 3+ V voltage drop) flashers - occasionally utilizing the Red LED-s as zeners

constant current mode up to 2.5Ω - a SUM of the internal resistances for 2x 1.5V batteries

constant current mode up to 2.2Ω
note! : that these are concept design simulations that are not been optimized nor built/tested in real

---

[Eop]

another CMOS 32k osc.

. . . a lot of head ace to get to this in simulation (i wonder how the "textbooks" promote such a big number of the simplified versions of that kind of oscillator - some of which actually even simulate but with insufficient output amplitude ??? ...  ,  near/above 1MHz X-tals likely have lesser issues)

the src.

[EoP]

another 32768cps osc.

the resistor values can be varied** from R.c ~50k(perhaps less) ÷ 4M Ω , increasing the X-Tal coupling capacities (keep Qz→Base > Qz←Collector better result in most cases) boosts startup also degrades waveforms , increasing R.e shunting capacities gives better fq. responce below the target fq. (it likely dosent boost startup) , adding C-R chain from base to ground kills some unwanted amplification ? improves waveforms especially I.qz ? adjusts/stabilizes the osc.fq. (it takes a lot of playing around to specify the type of oscillator better - i just found such frustrating at this time) -- the main point -- it uses trivial & flexy range of capacities !!! ((if you dont much change the C8,9,2 - the operating power / other component values  - can be widely modified**))

the prev. v.-s ::
32768kHz Qz-resonator osc. test-dev.
hfhfhf2Bspcfd