Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Is a current-dependent current source and a current mirror the same thing?

Post

Is a current-dependent current source and a current mirror the same thing?

+3
−0

I have a 4-20 mA digital air pressure regulator which is controlled by and reports its pressure by being the current sink in two independent 4-20 mA current loops.

Our control system utilizes Analog Devices AD4111 ADC which itself sinks current.

I've ran into numerous roadblocks in trying to develop a converter or circuit to allow us to adapt to this regulator which sinks instead of sources current. For example, we've unsuccessfully attempted to add a simple opamp + BJT circuit to act as a repeater of sorts.

Researching this further, I've been trying to determine what the correct terminology would be for a circuit that fulfills this purpose.

Would a "current-dependent current source" (CDCS?) be the correct circuit for this? (I've also seen "current-controlled current source (CCCS).) Is a "current mirror" the same thing? Does the terminology change when the controlling-side current is sinked (sunk?) by an external device versus within the CDCS itself?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

Show block diagram (4 comments)
CDCS vs mirror (1 comment)
Show block diagram
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote over 1 year ago

It's a bit unclear which blocks are sending and receiving and how they are connected. I tried to follow the link to your chip, but got a page with popups instead of the datasheet.

JYelton‭ wrote over 1 year ago

The link is the official Analog product page. I opened it in a new browser session and the pop-up is one of those annoying "cookies settings" BS things that all the web sites are doing these days. Suffice to say, for the purposes of this question, the IC isn't that important, I probably should have edited this question down a lot to focus on the nomenclature. (I posted a new question which is about the actual circuit, though.)

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote over 1 year ago

I really don't want to follow links in the first place. Any information pertinent to the question must be directly in the question. Posting a link to a datasheet is valid, but then it must go directly to the datasheet. There is no excuse.

No, I'm not gonna even read what a popup says. And, I'm certainly not gonna dig around on some page to find the datasheet. Again, unless I need to see specifics of a part, I shouldn't have to follow a link to a datasheet. At the very least, say what the part does in a few words. Is it an A/D, D/A, opamp, some modern version of a 555 timer, etc?

JYelton‭ wrote over 1 year ago

To be fair, I did include "ADC" in the text. I completely agree with your frustration with popups; the web isn't nearly as friendly as it used to be. I've had some issues with Analog/Linear/Maxim datasheet links breaking because of all the acquisitions and mergers. I thought it best to link to the product page directly, from which the datasheet (and other documentation) are directly linked. Unfortunately they have to bombard us with all the stupid cookie acceptance nonsense. Ultimately, for this question, I probably should have omitted the IC entirely.