I've run into an interesting discussion recently. It centres around the new variety of heatsinks that are now available for cooling CPUs
The question is this: will a painted / anodized heatsink work better in a forced-air environment and if so, which kind of paint/anodizing?
I know that a black object radiates and absorbs heat far better than an equivalent object of any other colour. But raidiation accounts for a small fraction of what convection does in a forced air heatsink.
Intuitively it makes sense to me that the less you have between the air and the heatsink, the better conduction to the air you'd get. However, I know that where thermodynamics are concerned, my intuition is often wrong.
Given, like any program...main loop is running doing
some background tasks...collecting data, or whatever.
The ISR gets invoked, in my case by means of serial
traffic via the UART so of course the main is halted
and the ISR runs, then the PC is set back to where it
was interupted from and continues.
So, bad practice to ORG the main loop so when
returning from the ISR you always restart the MAIN
again, by forcing the PC to the main address?
The problem is, when the main is interutpted by the
data in the UART, sometimes there is delay on
responding to the command thats sitting there, because
if the main gets halted in the middle of a time delay
or something then it has to finish. I suppose the
other way around is to set a flag in the ISR to force
the MAIN loop to restart if that flag is ever set.
Might be a safer way to approach it?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 06:13 -0700, alan smith wrote:
> So, bad practice to ORG the main loop so when
> returning from the ISR you always restart the MAIN
> again, by forcing the PC to the main address?
You have no control over the return address from the ISR. It doesn't
matter where you ORG your main loop to, the return from interrupt will
go back to where it came from. If you are suggesting putting you main
loop at address 4 and then enabling interrupts, then I think this is
"Really Bad Idea" for many reasons.
I think you need to understand how to use interrupts properly, because
from your description you seem to have misunderstood the reason for
using them and how they work. I think you would be better off trying to
use polled I/O than trying to use interrupts in the way you seem to
think they should be used.
> The problem is, when the main is interutpted by the
> data in the UART, sometimes there is delay on
> responding to the command thats sitting there, because
> if the main gets halted in the middle of a time delay
> or something then it has to finish.
So don't use software loops for timing. Use one of the timers.
> I suppose the
> other way around is to set a flag in the ISR to force
> the MAIN loop to restart if that flag is ever set.
> Might be a safer way to approach it?
If your main code is going to sit polling this flag, it might as well
sit polling the status bits in the UART looking for incoming
characters.
I suggest you have a look at some of the examples on
www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/rs232.htm
for how to use interrupts properly.
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Coriolis wrote:
Project du jour is turning out to be a headache, it requires multiple tasks where the frequency is too high for RTCC method (interrupt overhead (6 cycles) would throw everything off). Anyways my solution is manually multithreaded modules which are strung together in order of need. Jmp + setting up jump value approaches the problem with ISR overhead. Can I do a "mov pc,w" to cause execution to jump to that location? What does jmp do that needs those 3 cycles (I know one additional is for the pipeline, but where is the other one)? Do I need to place a nop after the command because of the instruction pipeline? What Im trying to implement is a jmp ind.
---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=80151 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, g_daubach wrote:
Paul, Yes, provided that W contains the address of the jump target, you can use mov pc, w to jump to that target. jmp pc+w (or add pc, w) is another method which allows for relative jumps with w holding the offset.
Actually, all three cycles are caused due the instruction pipeline. This 4-level pipeline usually holds four instructions read from four consecutive locations in program memory. On a jmp (or call), three instructions in the pipeline must be discarded, and it takes three cycles until the first instruction of the code sequence at the jmp target reaches the end of the pipeline.
---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=80151#m80156 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Coriolis wrote:
hmm it was late last night when I posted, I forgot that the pipeline has a depth of 4. So does this mean "mov pc, w" will take 3 cycles before the code at that location is executed? What is done with the three intructions in the pipeline after "mov pc, w"? IE is it six one way, half a dozen the other when comparing jmp w vs. mov pc, w?
---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=80151#m80195 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Peter Van der Zee wrote:
Hi Paul; When your destination address is in w, and that destination is on the same page, the the mov pc,w executes the same as a jmp addr, timeings and all. It is 3 cycles for either one. By the way, this makes a great state machine:
Cheers, Peter (pjv) ---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=80151#m80212 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Coriolis wrote:
Thanks Peter, I had a feeling that was the case.
I think I've got the module switching code down to 5 cycles (+1 if fsr needs to be set), I should be able to squeeze that in, the fast process is 3.57 MHz or a state transistion every 7 cycles, leaving 6 cycles between the trailing edge of the clock to the leading edge of the clock. Man I thought calculating the timing of NTSC was tricky, thats childs play compared to organizing a 3.57 MHz process, a 450 kHz process (1/8th speed of the faster process) and stuffing a bunch of support functions to perform data manipulations during the "dead space" while keeping the fast proccess a rock steady frequency.
As I hinted, Im tackling it by writing the support functions, then lacing them with the fast and slow processes by hand, then stringing them in a fashion that the leading edge of the clock in the next module happens exactly 7 cycles after the previous module's last trailing edge of the clock. Ive thought about using a preprocessing framework to do the merging of the processes but I think that would take longer than doing it by hand. Does anyone know of a free generic, flexible preprocessor that is also easy to use?
---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=80151#m80222 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Peter Van der Zee wrote:
Hi Paul; Yes, that interleaved code writing (stuffing "dead" space) can get pretty tricky, but hey, once it's done and running, who cares. Years ago I had the need for that when I was doing 10 Mbit/sec bit-bang UARTing, and presently I'm doing it with 5 Mbit/sec UARTing interleaved with reading/writing serial memory at 12.5 MHz.
Could you descibe in more detail what your exact high speed requirements are?? I'm kinda interested in seeing what others are able to squeeze out of 50 Mips.
Cheers, Peter (pjv) ---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=80151#m80239 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Coriolis wrote:
I am attempting to construct an LCD controller with a SHIFTOUT compatible serial interface (synchrounous serial comm is faster than async (less overhead and no need for oversampling)). The LCD requires 8 bit values pumped into it at a speed of 3.57 MHz, I have chosen to support serial data at a rate upto 446 kbps (3.57/8). There will be a fast SRAM for the video buffer and EEPROM (or FRAM) to store fonts and user defined 8x8 blocks (tiles). Tiles can also be sent over the serial link. The first stage is to get the interface working, after that comes the sprite engine and graphics manipulation functions, and if there is space maybe some primative graphics routines (line, rectangle, ellipse etc). During each row, serial data is collected in a fifo and tasks on the task fifo are executed. At the end of each row and before the next, the comm fifo is processed and tasks are generated and placed on the task fifo. Since the tasks are dynamic in nature, I had to come up with this framework to achieve the 3.57 MHz refresh rate of the LCD while being able to perform any subfunction. This will be an interesting project since I have not had to perform RT multitasking with process requiring this speed.
---------- End of Message ----------
You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=80151#m80244 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)
Thought experiment for those with time on their hands :-)
Bipolar transistors are current amplifiers, so it almost always makes
sense to operate them with base current less than collector current -
usually much less . Some high voltage applications have forced Betas
not much more than 1 as the switched power (HV x Ic) is >> the
switching power Ib x Vbe.But, just sometimes, in low voltage
applications it can be useful to have base current > collector
current.
I have just designed a circuit with a small signal PNP bipolar
transistor with a forced Beta of about 0.5.
Suggest why?
Supply voltage is about 12 Volt. Transistor current is around 0.5 mA
(so base current is about 1 mA). (Final collector and base currents
may be reduced but this works OK for now).
The purpose of this 'challenge' is to
- Point out that some strange configurations may sometimes be useful.
- Point out one such.
- See if anyone else comes up with anything interesting.
I'll be away for a few days so may not comment further till early next
week.
You can use a bipolar "üpside down"with the collector & emitter reversed.
This results in a transistor with low beta - but I'm not sure if it is
less than 1.
I have used this arrangement in the past to reduce the sensitivity of
a "SCR" type circuit made up of an NPN and a PNP transistor. Otherwise
the leakage current through the input device can be enough to trigger
the output device at high temperatures.
Makes people scratch their heads when they check the circuit however.
> Thought experiment for those with time on their hands :-)
>
> Bipolar transistors are current amplifiers, so it almost always makes
> sense to operate them with base current less than collector current -
> usually much less . Some high voltage applications have forced Betas
> not much more than 1 as the switched power (HV x Ic) is >> the
> switching power Ib x Vbe.But, just sometimes, in low voltage
> applications it can be useful to have base current > collector
> current.
>
> I have just designed a circuit with a small signal PNP bipolar
> transistor with a forced Beta of about 0.5.
>
> Suggest why?
>
> Supply voltage is about 12 Volt. Transistor current is around 0.5 mA
> (so base current is about 1 mA). (Final collector and base currents
> may be reduced but this works OK for now).
>
> The purpose of this 'challenge' is to
>
> - Point out that some strange configurations may sometimes be useful.
>
> - Point out one such.
>
> - See if anyone else comes up with anything interesting.
>
> I'll be away for a few days so may not comment further till early next
> week.
>
>
> Russell McMahon
>
>
> You can use a bipolar "üpside down"with the collector & emitter reversed.
> This results in a transistor with low beta - but I'm not sure if it is
> less than 1.
>
> I have used this arrangement in the past to reduce the sensitivity of
> a "SCR" type circuit made up of an NPN and a PNP transistor. Otherwise
> the leakage current through the input device can be enough to trigger
> the output device at high temperatures.
>
> Makes people scratch their heads when they check the circuit however.
>
> RP
>
> This results in a transistor with low beta - but I'm not sure if it
> is
less than 1.
In my case it's a "forced Beta" of less than one.
Forced Beta is where you purposefully drive the base harder than it
may need to ensure the transistor is turned on as hard as it can be.
eg for many power transistors you see Vcesat (CE voltage when fully
on) specified for a base current of 10% of the collector current. ie a
forced beta of 10. It MAY be that the transistor would turn on just as
hard if Ic/Ib was 20 or 30 or 50:1 but the 10:1 spec usually ensures
it is well and truly hard fully on.
In my case the collector current is about 0.5 mA and the base current
is about 1 mA so forced Beta = 0.5/1 = 0.5 :-)
Most unusual.
> I have used this arrangement [[reverse C & E]] in the past to reduce
> the sensitivity of
a "SCR" type circuit made up of an NPN and a PNP transistor. ...
> Makes people scratch their heads when they check the circuit
> however.
Indeed :-)
But you need to watch Vce (or Vec in this case :-) ?) breakdown when
C&E are reversed. Many traansistors break down into a really nicely
noisy and not very sharp zener around 8-12 volts when reverse biase
with base open. People use this configuration as a noise generator. .
At 03:14 PM 1/9/2006 +1300, you wrote:
>Thought experiment for those with time on their hands :-)
>
>Bipolar transistors are current amplifiers, so it almost always makes
>sense to operate them with base current less than collector current -
>usually much less . Some high voltage applications have forced Betas
>not much more than 1 as the switched power (HV x Ic) is >> the
>switching power Ib x Vbe.But, just sometimes, in low voltage
>applications it can be useful to have base current > collector
>current.
>
>I have just designed a circuit with a small signal PNP bipolar
>transistor with a forced Beta of about 0.5.
>
>Suggest why?
One obvious (?) purpose would be to have very low Vce (perhaps in the
single or low-double-digit mV range), and to avoid the need for a low
Rds(on) small-signal p-channel MOSFET.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I have just designed a circuit with a small signal PNP bipolar
> transistor with a forced Beta of about 0.5.
>
> Suggest why?
Basically, your question comes down to "why would I use way more base
current then necessary to saturate the transistor?".
One reason that comes to mind is that the extra base current is just a
byproduct of wanting a low value base resistor to allow for higher switching
speed. There are also some common base configurations where base current
can exceed collector current over normal operating parameters.
We could sit here and list more, but that seems rather pointless idle
speculation as you've given no information which one of the many reasons
might be the one that actually applied in your case.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> One obvious (?) purpose would be to have very low Vce (perhaps in the
> single or low-double-digit mV range), and to avoid the need for a low
> Rds(on) small-signal p-channel MOSFET.
But that's pretty much true as long as the transistor is saturated. You
don't get much more by oversaturating the transistor.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
On Jan 9, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> In my case it's a "forced Beta" of less than one.
Aside from current amplification, transistors do voltage conversion
as well. It's gotta be pretty common to operate transistors at
low current betas when driving high voltage loads. For instance,
I'm working on a "HV" H-bridge for driving EL "stuff" from a micro,
and while I fully expect to drive the bases with the typical 5-10mA
in the base circuit, I expect the HV current to less than that most
of the time. Even driving a 12V relay with a transistor would
involve very low betas (what; 20-50mA @ 12V from 5-10mA base current?)
> In my case it's a "forced Beta" of less than one.
Long, long ago, before computers, before I could calculate a
(transistor) current at all, I used an AD149 as off-hook detection in a
telephone circuit: the loop current went through the BE, the EC current
switched a relais that disconnected a second telephone. My mother
required that my second telephone would not listen in on her calls. I
had no idea at all what the loop current would be, but I reasoned that a
stury-looking TO3 transistor could probably take it, and that the ~ 0.3V
drop of a Ge BE junction would not be detected by the telco. I don't
reqcall how old I was at that time, probably 10. The circuit worked for
years.
Maybe this does not count as a <1 B, but the possibility that the
collector current was much lower than the B current was certainly within
the design specs of this circuit.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
At 08:57 AM 1/9/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> > One obvious (?) purpose would be to have very low Vce (perhaps in the
> > single or low-double-digit mV range), and to avoid the need for a low
> > Rds(on) small-signal p-channel MOSFET.
>
>But that's pretty much true as long as the transistor is saturated. You
>don't get much more by oversaturating the transistor.
Errr... I don't think so!
Quick test with a jellybean TO-92 PNP transistor shows a 3:1 improvement
going from forced beta of 5 to forced beta of 0.5 (11mV to 3.2mV) @ 0.5mA IC.
That's a very respectable 6 ohms equivalent Rds(on)- similar to a much
more expensive BSS84, and using a 8550 wot is so common you can find them
stuck into the bottom of your shoe from a short walk around Taipei or
Shenzhen. Also it will not be as temperature-sensitive. At 50 forced beta
there's a whopping 57mV of drop, (still well saturated of course).
... still not quite gone on holiday.
Wife several days gone.
Texts and calls from the Far North beckon.
Sleep but a distant memory ....
This better work first time ... :-)
...
> I'm working on a "HV" H-bridge for driving EL "stuff" from a micro,
> and while I fully expect to drive the bases with the typical 5-10mA
> in the base circuit, I expect the HV current to less than that most
> of the time. Even driving a 12V relay with a transistor would
> involve very low betas (what; 20-50mA @ 12V from 5-10mA base
> current?)
Yes. WhenVce > V_base-drive low Beta is valid as I mentioned.
In my case it's all low voltage. In fact both base and collector
current are sourced from the same supply so not only Beta but also
power ratios are 0.5:1. I could say what's happening (and somebody has
been reading my mind)(and someone else utterly failed to) BUT this is
producing such a diverse range of useful and interesting comment that
I'll leave it a while longer - or until I come back if I ever get
away. Today ... .
Looks at airline schedules. Decides MR2 will fly there about as fast
and cheaper and more fun and more convenience.
R zzzzzzzzzzzz M
(Yes, I'll sleep a bit b4 I drive/fly)
Russell has (finally) left the building (or will do so in the next 10
minutes).
See yous (youse?) all Monday (here) = Sunday some places. Keep the <1
forced Beta comments coming - it's shaping up as a tutorial :-)
Back from holiday ....
3000+ photos later ... :-)
I'll leave all the quoted material in as its useful:
The question was ~ : Suggest why am I using a forced beta of < 1 with
base and collector supplies powered from the same voltage so there is
no current, power or voltage gain:
> wrote:
>> > One obvious (?) purpose would be to have very low Vce (perhaps in
>> > the
>> > single or low-double-digit mV range), and to avoid the need for a
>> > low
>> > Rds(on) small-signal p-channel MOSFET.
>>But that's pretty much true as long as the transistor is saturated.
>>You
>>don't get much more by oversaturating the transistor.
> Errr... I don't think so!
> Quick test with a jellybean TO-92 PNP transistor shows a 3:1
> improvement
> going from forced beta of 5 to forced beta of 0.5 (11mV to 3.2mV) @
> 0.5mA IC.
> That's a very respectable 6 ohms equivalent Rds(on)- similar to a
> much
> more expensive BSS84, and using a 8550 wot is so common you can find
> them
> stuck into the bottom of your shoe from a short walk around Taipei
> or Shenzhen.
Around here it's BC327s and their preferred gravitating place is the
washing machine.
Target location for final; product is Taichung, 2nd largest ROC city
after Taipei.
> Also it will not be as temperature-sensitive. At 50 forced beta
> there's a whopping 57mV of drop, (still well saturated of course).
Give the man a virtual Pepsi / Dr Peppers / whatever ... .
100% correct.
The application is switching the divider chain from a 12v SLA battery
(deja vu) to an AVR ADC. Higher enough values of resistor chain to
begin to affect the accuracy * still impact the battery life
adversely. eg 1 megohm at 12 volts is ~~ 12 uA or ~0.1 amp-hour in a
year. A more realistic and almost too high 100k gives 1 AH in a year -
far too high. One could use a much higher divider value and an opamp.
It's a cost / space / other trade-off between using a high side switch
to turn off the divider or adding an amplifier IC. In this case the
divider won.
Using a high side P Channel FET is the obvious choice and the circuit
will support that if it proves to be a hassle free and cost
advantageous decision. BUT there are reasons why this may not be so.
Using a PNP high side switch works BUT for "normal" Beta levels in the
say 10-100 range the switch saturation is significant wrt the measured
voltage. As Spehro notes, it can be 10's of mV. BUT using a Beta of
0.5 (Ic ~= 0.5 mA, Ib ~= 1 mA) drops the saturation voltage to under
10 mV. As base current is readily available when the circuit is
running I am happy to use the 1 mA. I get about 5 mV 'saturation'.
When measuring 12 volts 10 mV = 1/1200 ~= < 1 bit error in 10 bits. As
noted in the SLA discussion, a 0.1 volt error would be excessive
(1/120 or about 7 bits).
(10:1 = 3.32 BITS FWIW). Actual improvement will be somewhere in
between depending on transistor, actual beta etc).
My first attempt used a single floating transistor but this (stupidly)
included the base drive in the lower divider resistor. Usually that's
reasonably irrelevant. Here it's fatal. So I now have two transistors
in a classic bipolar high side drive.
A factor in the switch/amplifier decision is the elimination of 12v
"sneak paths" when the system is off. These have been the source of
problems in other instances and the switched divider based system
eliminates these. Use of an op-amp would allow small but potentially
[pun only vaguely intended] off currents into the opamp and thereby
into the processor and thereby ... 'all for the want of a horse-shoe
nail' (Google knows). Also, if an eg smaller capacity alkaline battery
is used the whole system off current will be zero (<< 1 uA) and off
battery life will be years.
* Increasing input impedance first affects the dynamic response due to
time constant effects and these are not overly crucial here, but still
higher values impact accuracy due to bias currents.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:51:55 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
> Back from holiday ....
Welcome back! It's been quiet around these parts. Too quiet...
> 3000+ photos later ... :-)
Will you be publishing?
I have learned a lot from your messages on this topic (I'd always assumed that "saturated" was pretty-much a
single constant state, and it never occurred to me that there could be such a change in Vce).
However, this:
> (10:1 = 3.32 BITS FWIW).
is one of the daftest things I've seen you write! :-)
> My first attempt used a single floating transistor but this (stupidly)
> included the base drive in the lower divider resistor. Usually that's
> reasonably irrelevant. Here it's fatal. So I now have two transistors
> in a classic bipolar high side drive.
Are you going to publish the circuit, for those of us lacking in classical education? :-) To my rather
simplistic understanding, Gain (Beta) is Collector current / Base current. To get this < 1, Ic must be less
than Ib. Where does the "extra" Base current go? (I was never any good at transistor electronics - digital
is my thing :-)
> * Increasing input impedance first affects the dynamic response due to
> time constant effects and these are not overly crucial here, but still
> higher values impact accuracy due to bias currents.
Is significant settling time needed between turning on the divider and measuring the voltage? (You don't
actually say you're measuring battery voltage, but this sort-of falls out from the fact that you're connecting
it to an ADC).
>> My first attempt used a single floating transistor but this (stupidly)
>> included the base drive in the lower divider resistor. Usually that's
>> reasonably irrelevant. Here it's fatal. So I now have two transistors
>> in a classic bipolar high side drive.
>
> Are you going to publish the circuit, for those of us lacking in
> classical education? :-) To my rather simplistic understanding, Gain
> (Beta) is Collector current / Base current. To get this < 1, Ic must be
> less than Ib. Where does the "extra" Base current go?
In such a circuit, usually both the base current and the collector current
flow into the emitter.
part 1 3202 bytes content-type:text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; (decoded 7bit)
> I have learned a lot from your messages on this topic (I'd always
> assumed that "saturated" was pretty-much a
> single constant state, and it never occurred to me that there could
> be such a change in Vce).
>
> However, this:
>
>> (10:1 = 3.32 BITS FWIW).
>
> is one of the daftest things I've seen you write! :-)
That's as maybe :-).
Entirely correct though :-)
( ie 1 / log10(2) = 3.32 ...)
(to 3, excessive in the context , significant figures.)
I was attempting to forestall the inevitable comment about ratios when
my two preceding 'bits of accuracy' related comments were compared.
>> My first attempt used a single floating transistor but this
>> (stupidly)
>> included the base drive in the lower divider resistor. Usually
>> that's
>> reasonably irrelevant. Here it's fatal. So I now have two
>> transistors
>> in a classic bipolar high side drive.
> Are you going to publish the circuit, for those of us lacking in
> classical education? :-)
Possibly useful, so, OK.
Very simple but still needs a little design.
For battery ~= 12 V.
RBatt3 could be eg 100k - value non critical.
Rbatts ensures that base current of QBatt1 is about (12-Vbe) / 10k ~=
1 mA.
Ic of QBatt1 is about 12/78k ~= 0.15 mA so Beta =~ 0.15/1 = about 0.1
ish in this instance.
Rbatt5 & Rbatt4 divide the 12 volts to put it in the ADC conversion
range.
68k/10k chosen for my application. Alter as needed.
The combination has impedance < 10k so meets ADC conversion speed spec
(which is not overly important here as voltage only varies
verrrrrrrrrrry slowly).
QBatt2 is shown with NO base pulldown resistor - turns off fine when
if uP drive is active low BUT if the uP is fully powered off it should
have a large value R to ground (1 M or 100k OK) to ensure transistor
stays off when it oughta.
Output UVBAT is never outside processor allowable range (by design)
and there is no applied voltage and no current drain when off.
> To my rather
> simplistic understanding, Gain (Beta) is Collector current / Base
> current. To get this < 1, Ic must be less
> than Ib. Where does the "extra" Base current go? (I was never any
> good at transistor electronics - digital
> is my thing :-)
See diagram. Battery supplies Ie = Ic + Ib.
Output divider sees just Ic while the rest exits stage left (here) via
RBatt2.
Battery load is of no import here as main load is >> divider load.
> Is significant settling time needed between turning on the divider
> and measuring the voltage? (You don't
> actually say you're measuring battery voltage, but this sort-of
> falls out from the fact that you're connecting
> it to an ADC).
I haven't done any actual ADC measurements yet, but no. The input will
come up to voltage in a small time compared to processing speed. (10k
and 1 NF has a time constant of 10 uS. Actual pin capacitanmce will be
<< 1 NF so N Tcs settling allowed. Also, once on it can (& will) be
left on while uP is operating so it is fully transparent.
Russell McMahon
part 2 2569 bytes content-type:image/gif; (decode) part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)
A British firefighter who donated his sperm so a lesbian
couple could have two babies is being forced to pay
thousands of pounds in child support.
Andy Bathie, 37, initially agreed to help Sharon and Terri
Arnold after being assured he would not have to be involved
in the upbringing of their young boy and girl or have any
financial responsibility towards them.
But the British government's Child Support Agency has begun
docking his pay to force him to contribute to the children's
upbringing because the lesbian couple have split up. ...
Sue for custody. If the original parents are unable to care for the
child independantly, then he should have a reasonable case (except for
the whole never having been part of the child's life thing).
If either of them want custody, they have to fully adopt the child and
let him relinquish his rights and obligations.
Of course, that's a fighting fire with fire type defense, and one has
to be prepared for the possibility that one ends up with the child.
Ohterwise, yeah, everything should be checked out with a family law
attorney. I doubt a simple handwritten contract could absolve one of
parental obligations, it would have to comply with certain aspects of
family law, which I expect is quite labrynthian.
-Adam
On Dec 4, 2007 7:03 PM, Mario Mendes Jr <EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmmendes.com> wrote:
> Ah, yes, one of the real reasons (few of them) why you should get everything
> on paper and checked out by a competent attorney.
>
>
> -Mario
>
>
>
> {Original Message removed}
>But the British government's Child Support Agency has begun
>docking his pay to force him to contribute to the children's
>upbringing because the lesbian couple have split up. ...
The problem goes deeper than that when you read a full article. Part of it
is that the lesbian 'father' did not adopt the child.
> >But the British government's Child Support Agency has
> >begun
>>docking his pay to force him to contribute to the
>>children's
>>upbringing because the lesbian couple have split up. ...
>
> The problem goes deeper than that when you read a full
> article. Part of it
> is that the lesbian 'father' did not adopt the child.
The problem certainly does go far deeper than that.
There are so many potential social, moral, legal, societal
and ethical issues here that you could keep a whole society
busy with such issues fir millenia. So far anyway :-).
Well, people, you get to have it one way or the other. Either gay marriage
is NOT legal and the partner has no liability, or gay marriage IS legal and
the partner DOES have liability. Right now the former is true, so live with
it, or...
>> An interesting aspect is that the other lesbian
>> ex-partner
>> has no legal liabilities in the matter.
> Well, people, you get to have it one way or the other.
> Either gay marriage
> is NOT legal and the partner has no liability, or gay
> marriage IS legal and
> the partner DOES have liability. Right now the former is
> true, so live with
> it, or...
That's not logical. People.
Nor even what the latter article says.
But, most discussions involving sexual matters aren't
logical ones :-).
And, fwiw, the term "marriage" and "relationship with
advantages and obligations conferred by law" are not by any
means identical. There are many matters covered outside law
which are not covered by marriage and there is no reason at
all (IMHO) to assume that an arrangement is obligation free
if the partners are not married.
What would happen in a similar situation where the original
relationship had been a heterosexual one? Maybe the same.
Maybe not. In my country any relationship of this sort which
lasts for more than a certain period automatically results
in certain legal obligations. Flitting from nest to nest can
seem the best option for some.
> Well, people, you get to have it one way or the other.
> Either gay marriage
> is NOT legal and the partner has no liability, or gay
> marriage IS legal and
> the partner DOES have liability. Right now the former is
> true, so live with
> it, or...
Actually in the UK (where this particular case that sparked the discussion
occurred) gay marriage is legal (as of about 2-3 years ago). It isn't
actually a marriage ceremony, but a 'civil partnership' ceremony that is
performed to recognise the relationship. It gives the couple many of the
benefits for home ownership and transfer of assets on death (among others)
that married couples get.
> Actually in the UK (where this particular case that
> sparked the discussion
> occurred)
> gay marriage is legal ... It isn't actually a marriage
> ceremony,
Oxymoron.
> but a 'civil partnership' ceremony that is
> performed to recognise the relationship. It gives the
> couple many of the
> benefits for home ownership and transfer of assets on
> death (among others)
> that married couples get.
>
> --
> So then why is the Lesbian partner not legally responsible for the child?
> Were they not in a "civil partnership"?
I don't think such a civil partnership has directly implications on
responsibilities for offspring. It seems the problem is not whether or not
the two lesbian partners are in a legal union, but that the sperm donor did
give his sperm without any contract or other legal protection (e.g. through
an official sperm donor organization), and therefore is legally the father
of the child, with all responsibilities that come with that --
independently of any partnership or civil union the mother is living in.
It's just that as long as the partnership (legal or not) was ok, the mother
didn't think of asking the father for financial help. As I see it, she
could have, she just didn't.
> It's just that as long as the partnership (legal or not)
> was ok, the mother
> didn't think of asking the father for financial help. As I
> see it, she
> could have, she just didn't.
The second of the two articles indicated that she claims
that in fact he was substantially involved with the child
for an extended period.
Also of note is the complex web of moral and ethical and
societal (choose some) aspects here. The assumption of
obligation of the father by the mother seems to have
depended significantly on her other relationships and how
she in turn was being treated by the state. Not at all
unexpected but interesting.
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> James Newton wrote:
>
>> So then why is the Lesbian partner not legally responsible for the
>> child?
>> Were they not in a "civil partnership"?
>
> I don't think such a civil partnership has directly implications on
> responsibilities for offspring. It seems the problem is not whether
> or not
> the two lesbian partners are in a legal union, but that the sperm
> donor did
> give his sperm without any contract or other legal protection (e.g.
> through
> an official sperm donor organization), and therefore is legally the
> father
> of the child, with all responsibilities that come with that --
> independently of any partnership or civil union the mother is
> living in.
>
> It's just that as long as the partnership (legal or not) was ok,
> the mother
> didn't think of asking the father for financial help. As I see it, she
> could have, she just didn't.
>
> Gerhard
My unwanted opinion is that no one should be responsible for a child
unless
they sign a contract stating that is their intention. Having the
state write
contracts for people is ludicrous in my view. If the mother doesn't
want to
sign such a contract then the state takes the child and gives it to
someone
who is willing to sign on the dotted line that they will care for the
child.
And there should be penalties for lousy parenting.
My unwanted opinion is that this discussion is venturing into the
religious, hate, and political arena, and as such may be more
profitably entertained elsewhere. :-P
On 12/7/07, M. Adam Davis <stienmanspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> My unwanted opinion is that this discussion is venturing into the
> religious, hate, and political arena, and as such may be more
> profitably entertained elsewhere. :-P
>
Agreed. I think [WOT] should be banned. But then again even
James himself is enjoying discussing these kind of issues.
So what can we do?
> > It's just that as long as the partnership (legal or not)
> was ok, the
> > mother didn't think of asking the father for financial
> help. As I see
> > it, she could have, she just didn't.
> >
>
> My unwanted opinion is that no one should be responsible for
> a child unless they sign a contract stating that is their
> intention. Having the state write contracts for people is
> ludicrous in my view. If the mother doesn't want to sign
> such a contract then the state takes the child and gives it
> to someone who is willing to sign on the dotted line that
> they will care for the child.
> And there should be penalties for lousy parenting.
Tsk, a few flaws with that. I'll toss in rape for starters.
...and you can't have it both ways, either the State makes the rules, or it
doesn't. Pick one.
I'll agree with lousy parenting, but how (who?) to punish? Anyway,
punishment is the wrong angle, education is the key, perhaps along the lines
of the 'make teenagers cart around a doll for a few weeks to see how they
like it' schemes that apparently work reasonably well.
May not works in all areas, the town of Wellington in Australia is (was)
famous for having the highest ratio of teenaged mothers. Due to boredom,
apparently. I guess a child would solve that. No mention of what the
teenage boys do to relieve their boredom, but perhaps that's better left
unsaid.
> is that this discussion is venturing into the
> religious, hate, and political arena, and as such may be
> more
> profitably entertained elsewhere. :-P
Is that a reference to where the thread started out or where
it has got to. While in this case the progression was not
totally unpredictable, one often finds that threads mutate
out of all recognition (as several current ones have) and
the "fault" is often with people failing to relabel and
retag the renegade thread.
Re Xiaofan's comment on banning [WOT]. - [WOT] does not, of
course exist. I use it as an add on to the valid [WOT] label
when I suspect that some few may run screaming from the room
but think that many may be interested.
In this case, where, in the original is the explicit or even
first order implicit religion, hate or politics? I can
certainly see how they can be added in, but that's true of
many subjects.
And, fwiw, most and possibly all of what I've seen others
post on this thread seemed very largely free of religion or
hate. And who can be rid of politics? :-).
On 12/7/07, Apptech <@spam@apptechKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > is that this discussion is venturing into the
> > religious, hate, and political arena, and as such may be
> > more
> > profitably entertained elsewhere. :-P
>
> Is that a reference to where the thread started out or where
> it has got to. While in this case the progression was not
> totally unpredictable, one often finds that threads mutate
> out of all recognition (as several current ones have) and
I used the word "venturing" to indicate that the thread is travelling
into piclist forbidden topics, not to imply that it started there,
though I'm certain that this was the only logical outcome of such a
thread.
> the "fault" is often with people failing to relabel and
> retag the renegade thread.
In cases like these, the fault is people failing to hold their tongue
when they desire to post something that is too emotional to be
objectively and civilly approached.
The original post is interesting, but given the circumstances and a
brief understanding of the law, could anyone have truly believed that
the man wouldn't be considered the child's father? In other words,
the article needn't even have been posted. One could do a thought
experiment on the matter and discover the outcome with little trouble.
Of course the discussion is going to move into impassioned areas.
> Re Xiaofan's comment on banning [WOT]. - [WOT] does not, of
> course exist. I use it as an add on to the valid [WOT] label
> when I suspect that some few may run screaming from the room
> but think that many may be interested.
I have no problem with the WOT tag, and actually appreciate it. I had
no problem with the original post - in fact I'm interested in the
discussion, and would participate if it were appropriate for this
list.
But it's not, so I won't.
> In this case, where, in the original is the explicit or even
> first order implicit religion, hate or politics? I can
> certainly see how they can be added in, but that's true of
> many subjects.
As indicated, the original is not implicitly or explicitly religion,
hate, or politics, though it has the flavor of religion and politics,
and given time to ripen (ie, natural progression of the thread) it
would necessarily taste very much like one, the other, or both.
> And, fwiw, most and possibly all of what I've seen others
> post on this thread seemed very largely free of religion or
> hate.
I agree - everyone is mostly tempering their posts on this subject,
but the reality is that it is getting into the area where people have
very strong feelings both for religious reasons, and public policy
reasons. Therefore it's not something that _will_ be approached and
discussed in a civil and logical matter. Eventually it'll degrade due
to the passion with which some people will approach the issue.
> And who can be rid of politics? :-).
Oh we have politics discussions on Piclist all the time, but generally
they center around piclist politics. :-D
I vote James Newton, President for Life! Long live James! (because
no one else wants to do it
>
> On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
>
>>> Ditto!
>>
>> Y' gonna hafta trim the old messages just a tad less for your
>> meaning to be understood :-)
>
>
> Ditto!
>
> Tony
>
>
> Currently deciding on whether I should trim more, and envisioning a
> thread
> consisting of a series of dittos.
>
> Ditto?
> Ditto!
> DITTO!!!!
> Ditto :)
> Ditto ;-)
> D.I.T.T.O!
> http://www.ditto.com
> Ditto1
> Ditto
> >>> Ditto!
> >>
> >> Y' gonna hafta trim the old messages just a tad less for
> your meaning
> >> to be understood :-)
> >
> >
> > Ditto!
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > Currently deciding on whether I should trim more, and envisioning a
> > thread consisting of a series of dittos.
> >
> > Ditto?
> > Ditto!
> > DITTO!!!!
> > Ditto :)
> > Ditto ;-)
> > D.I.T.T.O!
> > http://www.ditto.com
> > Ditto1
> > Ditto
>
> I do not agree
> Cedric
On Dec 7, 2007 11:04 PM, M. Adam Davis <KILLspamstienmanKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> > Re Xiaofan's comment on banning [WOT]. - [WOT] does not, of
> > course exist. I use it as an add on to the valid [WOT] label
> > when I suspect that some few may run screaming from the room
> > but think that many may be interested.
>
> I have no problem with the WOT tag, and actually appreciate it. I had
> no problem with the original post - in fact I'm interested in the
> discussion, and would participate if it were appropriate for this
> list.
>
> But it's not, so I won't.
I agree that this is not an appropriate topic for PIClist.
> > In this case, where, in the original is the explicit or even
> > first order implicit religion, hate or politics? I can
> > certainly see how they can be added in, but that's true of
> > many subjects.
>
> As indicated, the original is not implicitly or explicitly religion,
> hate, or politics, though it has the flavor of religion and politics,
> and given time to ripen (ie, natural progression of the thread) it
> would necessarily taste very much like one, the other, or both.
> > And, fwiw, most and possibly all of what I've seen others
> > post on this thread seemed very largely free of religion or
> > hate.
>
> I agree - everyone is mostly tempering their posts on this subject,
> but the reality is that it is getting into the area where people have
> very strong feelings both for religious reasons, and public policy
> reasons. Therefore it's not something that _will_ be approached and
> discussed in a civil and logical matter. Eventually it'll degrade due
> to the passion with which some people will approach the issue.
Agreed.
> > And who can be rid of politics? :-).
>
> Oh we have politics discussions on Piclist all the time, but generally
> they center around piclist politics. :-D
>
> I vote James Newton, President for Life! Long live James! (because
> no one else wants to do it
Yup, they've been doing rotating strikes for the past week, and as of 2
days ago the union was locked out, so it's fully shut down.
The federal government has said they will table back to work
legislation, so I don't see the strike lasting very long.
TTYL
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:52 -0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> We received an email from Amazon warning that any packages we shipped via
> USPS may get stuck. They also suggested using alternative shipping methods.
>
> clients.infopost.ca/en/2011/06/canada-post-forced-to-shut-down-urban-operations-nationwide/
>
> http://clients.infopost.ca/en/2011/06/lockout-at-canada-post-what-it-means-to-customers/
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Herbert Graf <spamBeGonehkgrafspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The federal government has said they will table back to work
>> legislation, so I don't see the strike lasting very long.
>>
>
> What is that?
It is where the government passes a law that says they have to go back to work, although I think the prison system is so over crowded that they wouldn't be able to deal with the workers if they stayed on strike. Currently, the workers are locked out.
Veronica Merryfield wrote:
>>> The federal government has said they will table back to work
>>> legislation, so I don't see the strike lasting very long.
>>>
>>
>> What is that?
>
> It is where the government passes a law that says they have to go back to
> work, although I think the prison system is so over crowded that they
> wouldn't be able to deal with the workers if they stayed on strike.
> Currently, the workers are locked out.
You cannot be seriously implying that the Canadian government will put the workers in jail. :) The legislation you are referring to, will offer them a choice of "report to work, or find work somewhere else". All of the jobs I've had, worked that way, except it didn't take federal legislation for my boss to fire me if I decided not to show up for a few days.
At 07:23 PM 17/06/2011, you wrote:
>Veronica Merryfield wrote:
> >>> The federal government has said they will table back to work
> >>> legislation, so I don't see the strike lasting very long.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What is that?
> >
> > It is where the government passes a law that says they have to go back to
> > work, although I think the prison system is so over crowded that they
> > wouldn't be able to deal with the workers if they stayed on strike.
> > Currently, the workers are locked out.
>
>You cannot be seriously implying that the Canadian government will put the
>workers in jail. :) The legislation you are referring to, will offer them a
>choice of "report to work, or find work somewhere else". All of the jobs
>I've had, worked that way, except it didn't take federal legislation for my
>boss to fire me if I decided not to show up for a few days.
>
>Vitaliy
Here is a FAQ on Canadian back-to-work legislation: