Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On 17/07/2024 4:02 am, john larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:50:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
<pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
 

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 07:10:47 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:
>

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:01:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
<pommyb@aol.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>

On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:
>

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
>

On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:
>

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
<patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:
>

On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

Gosh, I can remember when SED had intelligent people who could discuss
electronic design.

John Larkin's contributions to his "Re: another fast one-shot thread"
included this impressive example of "discussion" about the emitter coupled monostable circuit that I'd posted as .asc file.
"> It's really a slow diffamp, not a one-shot.
 > It will make a nice clean 1 second output, given a 1 second trigger input."
My response wasn't as helpful as it might have been
"It isn't. John could have tried to simulate his "one second trigger
input", if he could have worked out what he meant by that.
And it is hard to make a really slow differential amplifier out of a
BFR92  long-tailed pair."
When I went to the trouble of simulating the circuit with wider trigger pulse - which he hadn't bothered to do - I could see exactly what he meant.
The emitter coupled monostable is a great pulse stretcher, but it no use if the input pulse is wider than output pulse you want to generate - it then just makes a pulse that is a little wider than the input pulse.
The usual application for pulse stretchers is in circuits that get very narrow input pulses.
Ghiggino, K.P., Phillips, D., and Sloman, A.W. "Nanosecond pulse stretcher",Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, 12, 686-687 (1979).
stretched a narrow light pulse  - about 1nsec wide - coming out of a pulsed laser to 10nsec which was wide enough to rigger the hardware we were using , back in 1978.
I didn't go into any of that because the emitter-coupled monostable is a classic circuit that has been around forever, and I didn't imagine that this was worth spelling out - and spelling it out takes work.
There are ways around this problem - you can run your input pulse through a delay line, and compare two successive taps on the delay. If the taps on the delay are closer together than the desired output pulse width, the emitter coupled monostable will react to the differential output to give you the output pulse width that you want.
It's essentially differentiating the signal, which is to say it amplifies high frequency noise, which can shown up other problems.
A proper discussion might have teased all that out.
John's decidedly dismissive contribution wasn't a good way to initiate that kind of discussion.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com