Activity for Andy aka
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #291295 |
Where did the image of the PCB layout come from? It's not in the mini-circuits document you linked. Please also show the schematic as an image. (more) |
— | 16 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291238 |
Then send it back to the supplier and demand a new one. (more) |
— | 20 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291213 |
1) Use a white back ground
2) Crop so that wasted image spaces are minimized
3) Use a decent resolution
4) Remove information from the image that doesn't relate to the question
5) Check that your posted images are clear and concise. (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291110 |
The PLC is meant to be weather protected so there's no way that it should see humidity levels that low. (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291085 |
Nevertheless, the TVS diodes are offering no protection and, they would likely protect the device if chosen to be the right voltage rating (irrespective of root cause). (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291025 |
You have to make sure that the op-amp doesn't deliver significantly more than a 90 degrees open loop phase shift at loop gains greater than unity. Most op-amps will be fine but, if you really push things too far to get a rapid response you might come unstuck. Source followers do not have the "only on... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290591 |
You asked about inner layers and, to answer that, the number of layers and secondary voltage need specifying. (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290533 |
I guess I'm used to isolators for bespoke SMPSs that need tens of kV/us dv/dt withstand capability in their barrier. (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290533 |
The ADI devices have very small clearance and, no doubt not zero barrier capacitance so, depending what voltage is rattling around on one side of the isolator relative to the other might mean quite significant barrier currents. I'm mentioning this in case you over-looked it. A device may be protected... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290448 |
The graph on the website you linked doesn't tell you anything other than current reduces in an inductor by a factor of ten when the frequency rises by a factor of ten. In other words it's useless padding by Magnetics to make their page look impressive. When current reduces by ten, flux density reduce... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290448 |
**I think this calculation is wrong. The website that I mentioned before mentions the max flux density in ferrites at 400 kHz as being close to 0.04 T. Is this correct?** That is not correct and neither do I see that being mentioned on the link to the magnetics website. Also, why are you using an LLC... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290284 |
Maybe your capacitors are acting microphonically and some (that are more microphonic) take longer to get a settled reading. It's a long shot but, it's all I could think of. I think it might also be related to the triboelectric effect. (more) |
— | 5 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290231 |
It's too broad. Any answers will become out of date. What the OP asks for may be country specific. It shows virtually no details of what the OP may have done already. (more) |
— | 6 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290047 |
Links within your link show how they work and should answer your question. Please explain what it is that you don't understand after working your way through those links. (more) |
— | 6 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289574 |
Please provide a link to the **pdf** data sheet for the supply (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289570 |
What does this mean --> open the gate (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #287196 |
Tony, why would I want to do what you did? It's a formulaic solution I require and not numbers. (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289473 |
A different way to mine and the other solved answer (in fact all 3 are different) but, I guess it's telling me that there is no insightful method to solve this. Thanks for your hard work. (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #276295 |
That's a bit of a bugger but, you can't always rely on external websites!!! (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #276200 |
Lorenzo, I just drew the pictures by hand in word or paint or both. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289186 |
Thanks. That's cleared it up. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289186 |
Are you saying that previous accumulated votes gained on meta have now been deducted? (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288688 |
Low audio is not 5000 kHz; neither is it 5 kHz. 0 Hz is impossible too so, be reasonable on this vital specification. (more) |
— | 10 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288222 |
The block diagram is meaningless. The words that follow it appear to describe a circuit; don't do that; draw it. Where is the link to the product's data sheet or manual? (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288159 |
How can you do an open circuit test of a motor or any device that acts as an electrical load. It doesn't make sense. (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288153 |
Your upper picture of the phasors shows \$I_2\$ and \$I'_2\$ <-- they don't appear in the equivalent circuit shown below. Consistency is needed to give an answer. Neither do the loads (if I read the phasor diagrams correctly), match truly capacitive or truly inductive loads. The resistive load scenar... (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288027 |
A CDCS is an ideal component. A current mirror is a real circuit with real flaws and errors. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287801 |
I'm not buying it. Anyone who gets deleted should have their questions closed to prevent further new answers or comments and thus benefit the original (but now deleted) user. If you want to keep them as records in the question list (as per other closed questions) then so be it but, closing is needed... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287801 |
In "another place", when this happens, the question gets locked pretty immediately when a fake ID is reported. [This one](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/651563/can-a-50mm2-cable-handle-350-amps) was locked within 20 minutes of the question being flagged. Olin, you have the ability to... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287746 |
Draw a schematic of what you tried. How did you measure 350 amperes? This sort of current requires very specialized equipment and power supplies. Maybe you meant 350 mA? (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287728 |
That is NOT the circuit you posted initially. How can you expect decent help when you post half a circuit? What Olin said about your original circuit being a mess is very true. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287726 |
Except for the very useful case of the flyback converter!! (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287678 |
The AD9850 module is eveywhere on google: https://www.google.com/search?q=ad9850&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB999GB999&oq=AD9850&aqs=chrome.0.0i512l10.1043j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287532 |
There is no formula because what you expect to happen actually does not happen. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287532 |
What, you want examples of crucibles so that you can make your coil? (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287480 |
You say radiation in your title but, you mention cables in the body of your question so, which is it; RF radiated emissions or cable-conducted emissions? (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287434 |
You said "voltage 18v" but your circuit shows 5 volts. You need to explain what you mean. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287302 |
The whole basis of this question is something apparently misunderstood in college and, is unable to be confirmed by Miss Mulan. It should now be closed. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287302 |
Your first assertion about S needs to be linked to where you read that. The information in your text book needs to be shown as a picture so it can be double checked. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287257 |
I have no idea why you made this comment Tony. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287262 |
Try directly connecting the lines without any hinderance and see what the result is. Proceed with that situation until its fixed then, move onto coupling via the power rails. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287262 |
Try a direct communication to rule out DC filters affecting the comms. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287262 |
Data sheet links needed for the ceramic parts. Circuit diagram of the low pass-filters on the DC bus needed. Have you tried connecting two units directly to see that they work on an exclusive connection? (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287257 |
It's a dc output that is unspecified but about 1 kW. The input supply is around +/-250 volts DC. There is no 3-phase connection. Output is variable between 300 volts and 600 volts. Thanks for asking. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287257 |
No, I just don't want to use a transformer. Sure there's current sensing and voltage sensing and specialty drivers but these are beyond what I'm asking about. Basically, how would you configure the single ended power supply version to work with split input supplies is what I'm asking. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287258 |
+1 for the obvious work round. I'm going to edit my question (with full respect to your answer) asking for non-transformer solutions. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287232 |
Not trying to be picky here; just trying to clarify when you say \$R_{23}\$ is the resistance at point X seen from the input, wouldn't it be easier on the eyes if you said it's the resistance at point x with the input disconnected. Maybe I have misinterpreted. Similar story for \$R_{13}\$. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287232 |
OK cheers. I thought afterwards it must be. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287232 |
OK I understand R23 and R13 now. Just k I didn't follow. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287232 |
There are no mainline on stream calculators that get it right except 1 (mine). They all show daft maths that appears to have been copied from the originator to all the rest hence, why I did my own. In your answer, I'm not sure what R23 or R13 is meant to mean and ditto k. I appreciate the work but yo... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |