Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Isolated, regulated, toroidal step down transformer AC power supply design.

B

Bob Parker

I can see your questions Bob.

The problem wasn't caused by the recapping, it pre-existed.

It was one of the motivations for recapping the applications power supply.

Finally - a little bit of clarity in an ocean of half-truths,
paranoid secrecy and babble about 'Philophiles'. :-(
I suppose it would be hoping for a miracle to get an answer to the
next question a technician would ask:

Did it have this problem from the very beginning?
 
P

Poxy

Mark said:
I can see your questions Bob.

The problem wasn't caused by the recapping, it pre-existed.

It was one of the motivations for recapping the applications power
supply.

Have you measured any voltages within the powers supply yet, as advised by
many people here? This is something you should have done before starting to
arbitrarily replacing capacitors.

Oh, and thanks for the term "recapping" I hadn't heard it used in such a
manner before.
 
M

Mark

Whatever, Poxy. It's a term I use. You are welcome to make whatever of it
you will.

No I haven't measured it yet. I haven't even had the lid off, YET!

I think I can do it but I am always cautious about poking around inside
electrical equipment when it is LIVE.
 
P

Phil Allison

"Poxy"
Oh, and thanks for the term "recapping" I hadn't heard it used in such a
manner before.


** Must be what fools do in panic after the Genie escapes from the bottle.




........ Phil
 
P

Poxy

Mark said:
No I haven't measured it yet. I haven't even had the lid off, YET!

I think I can do it but I am always cautious about poking around
inside electrical equipment when it is LIVE.

Surely you had the lid off when you went all "recap" on it?

If the only power coming into the device is from the output of a 9V AC
plugpack, it is quite safe to poke about inside while it's on, but you need
to be careful not to short-circuit anything with your meter probes.

As I've mentioned before, you need to check the incoming AC voltage, the DC
voltage at the input of each regulator relative to its ground pin, and the
output of each regulator. You should check the pinouts of the regulators
from their respective datasheets.

While I realise the problem only presents itself occasionally, getting
steady-state measurements will give us some idea of how the power supply is
likely to behave as the supply voltage varies.
 
B

Bob Parker

That would be the meaning of 'pre-existing', Bob.

No it wouldn't. You are a twit and I give up. I'll just watch from
now on, or maybe killfile you and this absurd thread.
 
M

Mark

**** me. That logic is so convoluted as to hardly even bare consideration.

'Difficult' questions might be asked out of pure ignorance. In fact,
'difficult' questions might be asked for any reason what-so-ever. If a
question poses a difficult answer, it would be pure folly to make
ASSUMPTIONS about the expertise of the person putting the question.

As to your suggestion that 'top-posting' is arrogant, that presupposes that
top-posting amounts to a pretension of superior importance. I regard it as a
subjective judgement of style. I honestly have no objection to any
particular topography of posting and do not make assumptions about a persons
pretentions based on it.

Rather, such persistent objections to any particular topography of posting
are childish in the extreme. You might just as well say "I don't like you
because you're wearing green today"

Phil-O-phile's are a community, not a conspiracy. Nor are they entirely
composed of "dysfunctional sociopaths" and I have already made this
distinction perfectly clear (maybe about 3 times already!).

Some of them are cowards, some of them are perfectly decent people who
tolerate Phil's bullying [of others] so as to free-up their own spare time.

That I might discover other classifications of 'Phil-O-phile's is one of
deep interest the Cyber-anthropologist.

Poxy said:
Mark said:
Duh!

I've NEVER claimed to have any electronics expertise, what-so-ever.
Never.

Of course you did - the first thing you asked was about something that
produced a regulated AC voltage. A person with a reasonable background in
elecronics would assume you know what you're talking about to even
consider
a relatively complex device.

As for the rest of your top-post, I don't know what this rant is in
reference to, as it's top posted.

Virtually every person who has responded to you has asked, mostly quite
kindly, to refrain from top posting. You refuse, arrogantly despite the
fact
that you're seeking help and advice. Rude.

People who are honestly trying to help you - people who do have experience
and expertise - ask you what the device is and other questions, and you
come
back with nothing, except the horribly arrogant attitude that they don't
need to know this. They are trying to help you for heaven's sake!

Finally, while you regard this as one big nasty conspiracy by a bunch of
dysfunctional sociopaths, you should possibly consider the more obvious
conclusion: a bunch of people have tried to help you, and one by one
they've
all come to the same conclusion: you're behaving like a bit of a tool.

Chances are...


So this would be an oft used Usenet tactic, Vis-à-vis;

a) First, manufacture a claim and then infer that the other combatant
made it.

b) Then others may use that false claim as a justification for further
criticisms, attacks and/or allegations of arrogance, pseudo
intellectualism, whatever. At this point it is open slather.

c) Never-ever concern yourself with the truth of what claims the other
combatant did ACTUALLY make about their expertise or lack of it. This
would be sheer folly and may lead to the loss of the argument.

Regarding your suggested methodology. Making the suggested
measurements reveals nothing unless it is done during periods of
voltage overload. So OK, I could pull the DMM and quietly sit there
and wait for a hours, perhaps days, poised with my probes at exactly
the correct location and angle and just wait for something to happen.

Yes, I could do that, if I was a creation. Well done.

Regarding your assertion that I don't know "how challenging it is to
design and implement what you wanted". Well I certainly don't know
how difficult it is for YOU.

As it happens, I am one of the few contributors here who has ACTUALLY
suggested a viable and cost effective solution to my own request. Go
on, look back. I DARE YOU.

I am not being conceited here, I actually EXPECTED that I could get a
better solution from someone here.

Re: Your analogy. Could I suggest you reproduce it in another post
and I will go over it with you, point-by-point. This post is already
approaching an unmanageable size and in any case your 'analogy'
amounts to little more than 'white noise'.

Re: Bob's advice. It may be good advice. The likelihood of getting any
useable information from a .Usenet thread is inversely proportional
to its length. So the longer this goes on, the more likely it is good
advice.

Also, I don't know where you got that 'Pre-amp' presumption.
Certainly not from me.

You reckoned that if I was being honest I would say "Actually, I
built the engine, it's running badly, does anyone want to buy some
really good fuel filters?"

The natural presumption from that statement is, according to you at
least, that I would be dishonest if I claimed:

a) Not to have built it,
b) That it is running well (except during periods of over supply)
c) That I don't want to sell my caps.

However, all those things are true. So that is the first reason why
your analogy is fucked up and arse about.

I made no claim about making it, or designing it for that matter. I
did tell you that I had swapped some capacitors, which is only a
minor modification at best. I was a little surprised that nobody
suggested checking for dry joint(s) on the caps, but hey, that is
your prerogative.

Regarding this statement: "I thought my insightful analogy would help
you understand why people responded to you with derision".

I developed my own theory, days ago. Read my functional description
of the supposed club of 'deciders' that I have dubbed
'Phil-o-philes'. My theory much stronger that yours because, like all
good theories, my theory is based on verifiable, empirical
observations of facts. (i.e. when Phil inferred that the power to
"get to decide what others accept or believe" exists as a right that
some people may hold others not. To make such a distinction, he must
believe that the power a) ACTUALLY exits b) is assignable to various
individuals and to the exclusion of others, which is as much as
saying, he believes it exists as a RIGHT. He didn't say on what basis
this right might be bestowed on individuals, but we can only assume
it is earned by displaying superior knowledge or experience.

On the other had, your analogy is based on what? Three complete
falsehoods for a start and then no empirical observations that you
have elucidated thus far.

Your analogy is NOTHING more than OPINION, masquerading as analysis.
Perhaps you may develop it into something more useful, but thus far
it has the appearance of analogy by a 'petrol head', and nothing more.

Regarding your apology: I will give it my consideration.


Poxy said:
Well, I didn't think of searching for the '7815 datasheet', so
fucking sue
me.

That shows that you are not experienced in working with electronics -
anybody who regularly does searches for component numbers would
automatically add "datasheet". Furthermore, anyone with electronics
experience would understand the operating characteristics of a common
linear
regulator without needing to refer to a datasheet - it's really
common, basic stuff.

Either way, the cheapest solution is sounding like I should
exchange the 7815 /7915 pair, for a pair that DOES have that 30V
spec. and in so doing,
eliminate the possible cause of the observed clipping during voltage
overloads.

The first thing to do is measure voltages at key points - at the
output of the AC plugpack at the input of the regulators, at the
output of the regualtors etc. Boring I know, but that is how you
start the diagnosis a power supply problem. That you don't appear to
realise that really basic fact demonstrates a lack of knowledge and
experience with simple power supplies and suggests that you're not
equipped to diagnose nor fix the problem.

Also, I take umbrage (offence, to you) at your trite analogy. It
isn't an
accurate portrayal of what happened or my actions or my motivations
or my attitude. I would welcome a point-by-point comparison of your
analogy and my behaviour.

My analogy, horribly misspelt as it probably was, was reasonable, if
not as
amusing as I would have liked. You clearly don't get how challenging
it is to design and implement what you wanted - it's *really*
complex stuff. By comparison, getting a standard dual-rail, linear
regulator power supply to behave is trivial.

The more I think about it, Bob's advice is correct - you should get
someone
with a solid background in electronics to fix your preamp for you.

Your PRESUMPTION that I must pay too much for my Black Gates is
based on what? An ASSUMPTION that I pay foolish prices. That is
both insulting AND ignorant (of how cheaply Black Gates can be
purchased).

Hey, if they give the sparkling audio performance you like, fair
enough. I probably haven't paid enough attention to the musicality
of the caps I buy.

I also take umberage to your allegation that I am not "being
straight-up with [this group]".

You reckon that if i was being honest I would say "Actually, I
built the engine, it's running badly, does anyone want to buy some
really good fuel filters?" Here is why I wouldn't say such a thing:

a) I didn't build the application, I modified it.

You never said that. It does explain a lot. In my analogy, it would
be like
revealing that you'd modified your engine while at the same time
giving the
strong impression you don't really know how engines work.

b) It isn't running badly (under nominal conditions), it sounds
superb. c) I am not SELLING anything.

That was a joke. Sorry. I was kind of thinking that if your "thing"
didn't end up working, you could recover some cash-money by Ebaying
them fancy caps.

I look forward to our point-by-point comparison of your analogy
with my behaviour. I can't find many comparisons at all. Do you do
this often? (that is: make up stupid analogies that just don't
work).

Look, I've got nothing to add. I thought my insightful analogy would
help you understand why people responded to you with derision.
Obviously you still don't get it, and that seems to be because you
don't have the knowledge and experience in electronics to diagnose
and solve the fault - everything you say reinforces that fact.

Get someone who knows what they are doing to look at your device. If
it's a
power supply problem they'll diagnose and fix it very quickly.

And you might be able to pay them in capacitors :)
 
S

swanny

Mark said:
9 VAC in, 15 VDC out, after regulation.

How is that NOT a voltage DOUBLING design?

Or is it because you believe that such a design is impossible?

It must be one or the other.

That's not what you have got. It's what you think you have got.
You have 30VDC out (+/-15VDC).

You have a wall wart transformer with poor load regulation. I'm guessing it's
about 15VAC you have coming out of your wall wart. I also suspect the original
design is relying on this to work.

Try taking some measurements rather than quoting the info that's printed on it.
swanny said:
Mark said:
Some of my assumptions may well have been incorrect, but they are ALL
THERE
in the thread and that was ALL I claimed about them.

..but you retorted "No it isn't. You simply spout a whole lot of hogwash
in
your thread."

So you can probably understand my frustration (about being asked to
repeat
things over and over again) and my futher presumptions that:

a) You didn't read (or understand) the thread. You got it wrong.

b) Having not read (or understood) the thread, decided that I was
"spout[ing] a whole lot of hogwash in [my] thread."

So, you came to a conclusion on a wrong basis. I.E. Having not read or
understood the thread.

I HAVE read the thread. ALL of it. And I know that you have made little
contibution to what has already been written.

Yes, it is a pair of half-wave rectifiers which DOUBLE the voltage. 9 VAC
in
and +/-15 VDC out AFTER regulation. Before regulation it MUST be
something
less than 18 VDC, but the schematic does not specify this. The diodes
look
like Schottkys to me, I haven't replaced them.
No, it must be more than that or the regulators won't regulate. Once
again, you
have no idea what you are talking about.
I would say that these simple features (9 VAC in, 15 VAC out, after
regulation) qualify the rectifier as a "voltage DOUBLING design". It is
in
the SCHEMATIC and I can reproduce it.

I am calling your BLUFF. It is a "voltage DOUBLING design".
No it isn't. You don't have a clue. You've said so previously. It's a pair
of
half wave rectifiers, one for the +DC rail and one for the -DC rail.
Wolf in a sheep's clothing.


Mark wrote:
Yes it is.

Because I believed the voltage of the AC domestic supply was straying
outside the operating range of the existing regs (after transformation
and
voltage doubling rectification) and because I wanted to replace an
existing
wall-wart AC power supply with a regulated AC power supply and because
the
application displays errant behaviour during times of over voltage
supply.

Once again, your assumptions appear incorrect. The AC mains moves around
a
bit,
usually to within +/-10%. Manufacturers know this and product is
designed
to
handle it.

You have a little 9VAC wall wart transformer and these small
transformers
usually have poor load regulation so its output when lightly loaded is
probably
around 15VAC.

You don't have a voltage doubler, you have a pair of half-wave
rectifiers
which
give you a bipolar DC supply which is unregulated. The unregulated DC
supply is
a good place to put those super caps, so as to smooth out the ripple in
the
supply to the regulators.

The regulators will accept a minimum of around +/-17VDC to regulate
properly.
With your wall wart, you probably have about 20VDC on their inputs so it
works
OK, until you load it down a bit. Then the wall wart AC output will drop
and the
inputs to the regulators will drop below 17V. Now your regulators will
not
be
able to regulate. Your mystery circuit may not like this very much.

If you replace your wall wart with a better 9VAC transformer then your
regulators may have an input below 17VDC most of the time and fail to
regulate.
You should probably replace the wall wart with a 12-15VAC transformer
with
good
load regulation specs. Then your regulators will be happy with their
input
voltage and regulate all the time.

However, you must be aware that linear regulators get hot if they have a
large
voltage drop across them when under load, so you may need to make sure
they are
mounted to a heatsink to dissipate this heat.

All of this has been spelt out to you many times here by many people. Is
there
anything here you don't follow?
 
M

Mark

pffffft... The CLAIM to the possession of a SPECIFIC piece of knowledge (or
the lack of it) does not equate to expertise (or the lack of it).

Shoddy post, Jasen.
 
P

Poxy

Mark said:
'Difficult' questions might be asked out of pure ignorance. In fact,
'difficult' questions might be asked for any reason what-so-ever. If a
question poses a difficult answer, it would be pure folly to make
ASSUMPTIONS about the expertise of the person putting the question.

You have purposely supplied so incredibly little information that we've had
to make the best assumptions we could in an attempt to help. Even when told
what you're asking is complex, impractical and most likely not required,
you've responded in such a dismissive manner that one could only assume you
must have a clue what you're talking about.

Interestingly, the only person who immediately picked you for what you are
is Phil - I'm not the biggest fan of Phil's choice of interpersonal manner
sometimes, but he did work you out in an accurate and timely fashion.
As to your suggestion that 'top-posting' is arrogant, that
presupposes that top-posting amounts to a pretension of superior
importance. I regard it as a subjective judgement of style. I
honestly have no objection to any particular topography of posting
and do not make assumptions about a persons pretentions based on it.

No, top posting in a forum where bottom posting is the convention *AND*
asking for help *AND* ignoring repeated requests to not top post is arrogant
and rude, as is your general manner.
Rather, such persistent objections to any particular topography of
posting are childish in the extreme. You might just as well say "I
don't like you because you're wearing green today"

No, because you are being rude and inconsiderate towards the people *YOU ARE
ASKING FOR HELP*.
Phil-O-phile's are a community, not a conspiracy. Nor are they
entirely composed of "dysfunctional sociopaths" and I have already
made this distinction perfectly clear (maybe about 3 times already!).

Some of them are cowards, some of them are perfectly decent people who
tolerate Phil's bullying [of others] so as to free-up their own spare
time.

That I might discover other classifications of 'Phil-O-phile's is one
of deep interest the Cyber-anthropologist.

I couldn't give rat's about your considered analysis of the group dynamic -
you came here ostensibly asking for assistance in solving some issue with
some device that remains a mystery. I've tried to help you as have many
others and you've rudely snubbed our efforts despute our good intentions.

You should be ashamed of your behaviour.





Poxy said:
Mark said:
Duh!

I've NEVER claimed to have any electronics expertise, what-so-ever.
Never.

Of course you did - the first thing you asked was about something
that produced a regulated AC voltage. A person with a reasonable
background in elecronics would assume you know what you're talking
about to even consider
a relatively complex device.

As for the rest of your top-post, I don't know what this rant is in
reference to, as it's top posted.

Virtually every person who has responded to you has asked, mostly
quite kindly, to refrain from top posting. You refuse, arrogantly
despite the fact
that you're seeking help and advice. Rude.

People who are honestly trying to help you - people who do have
experience and expertise - ask you what the device is and other
questions, and you come
back with nothing, except the horribly arrogant attitude that they
don't need to know this. They are trying to help you for heaven's
sake!

Finally, while you regard this as one big nasty conspiracy by a
bunch of dysfunctional sociopaths, you should possibly consider the
more obvious conclusion: a bunch of people have tried to help you,
and one by one they've
all come to the same conclusion: you're behaving like a bit of a
tool.

Chances are...


So this would be an oft used Usenet tactic, Vis-à-vis;

a) First, manufacture a claim and then infer that the other
combatant made it.

b) Then others may use that false claim as a justification for
further criticisms, attacks and/or allegations of arrogance, pseudo
intellectualism, whatever. At this point it is open slather.

c) Never-ever concern yourself with the truth of what claims the
other combatant did ACTUALLY make about their expertise or lack of
it. This would be sheer folly and may lead to the loss of the
argument.

Regarding your suggested methodology. Making the suggested
measurements reveals nothing unless it is done during periods of
voltage overload. So OK, I could pull the DMM and quietly sit there
and wait for a hours, perhaps days, poised with my probes at
exactly the correct location and angle and just wait for something
to happen.

Yes, I could do that, if I was a creation. Well done.

Regarding your assertion that I don't know "how challenging it is to
design and implement what you wanted". Well I certainly don't know
how difficult it is for YOU.

As it happens, I am one of the few contributors here who has
ACTUALLY suggested a viable and cost effective solution to my own
request. Go on, look back. I DARE YOU.

I am not being conceited here, I actually EXPECTED that I could get
a better solution from someone here.

Re: Your analogy. Could I suggest you reproduce it in another post
and I will go over it with you, point-by-point. This post is already
approaching an unmanageable size and in any case your 'analogy'
amounts to little more than 'white noise'.

Re: Bob's advice. It may be good advice. The likelihood of getting
any useable information from a .Usenet thread is inversely
proportional to its length. So the longer this goes on, the more
likely it is good advice.

Also, I don't know where you got that 'Pre-amp' presumption.
Certainly not from me.

You reckoned that if I was being honest I would say "Actually, I
built the engine, it's running badly, does anyone want to buy some
really good fuel filters?"

The natural presumption from that statement is, according to you at
least, that I would be dishonest if I claimed:

a) Not to have built it,
b) That it is running well (except during periods of over supply)
c) That I don't want to sell my caps.

However, all those things are true. So that is the first reason why
your analogy is fucked up and arse about.

I made no claim about making it, or designing it for that matter. I
did tell you that I had swapped some capacitors, which is only a
minor modification at best. I was a little surprised that nobody
suggested checking for dry joint(s) on the caps, but hey, that is
your prerogative.

Regarding this statement: "I thought my insightful analogy would
help you understand why people responded to you with derision".

I developed my own theory, days ago. Read my functional description
of the supposed club of 'deciders' that I have dubbed
'Phil-o-philes'. My theory much stronger that yours because, like
all good theories, my theory is based on verifiable, empirical
observations of facts. (i.e. when Phil inferred that the power to
"get to decide what others accept or believe" exists as a right that
some people may hold others not. To make such a distinction, he must
believe that the power a) ACTUALLY exits b) is assignable to various
individuals and to the exclusion of others, which is as much as
saying, he believes it exists as a RIGHT. He didn't say on what
basis this right might be bestowed on individuals, but we can only
assume it is earned by displaying superior knowledge or experience.

On the other had, your analogy is based on what? Three complete
falsehoods for a start and then no empirical observations that you
have elucidated thus far.

Your analogy is NOTHING more than OPINION, masquerading as analysis.
Perhaps you may develop it into something more useful, but thus far
it has the appearance of analogy by a 'petrol head', and nothing
more.

Regarding your apology: I will give it my consideration.



Well, I didn't think of searching for the '7815 datasheet', so
fucking sue
me.

That shows that you are not experienced in working with
electronics - anybody who regularly does searches for component
numbers would automatically add "datasheet". Furthermore, anyone
with electronics experience would understand the operating
characteristics of a common linear
regulator without needing to refer to a datasheet - it's really
common, basic stuff.

Either way, the cheapest solution is sounding like I should
exchange the 7815 /7915 pair, for a pair that DOES have that 30V
spec. and in so doing,
eliminate the possible cause of the observed clipping during
voltage overloads.

The first thing to do is measure voltages at key points - at the
output of the AC plugpack at the input of the regulators, at the
output of the regualtors etc. Boring I know, but that is how you
start the diagnosis a power supply problem. That you don't appear
to realise that really basic fact demonstrates a lack of knowledge
and experience with simple power supplies and suggests that you're
not equipped to diagnose nor fix the problem.

Also, I take umbrage (offence, to you) at your trite analogy. It
isn't an
accurate portrayal of what happened or my actions or my
motivations or my attitude. I would welcome a point-by-point
comparison of your analogy and my behaviour.

My analogy, horribly misspelt as it probably was, was reasonable,
if not as
amusing as I would have liked. You clearly don't get how
challenging it is to design and implement what you wanted - it's
*really* complex stuff. By comparison, getting a standard
dual-rail, linear regulator power supply to behave is trivial.

The more I think about it, Bob's advice is correct - you should get
someone
with a solid background in electronics to fix your preamp for you.

Your PRESUMPTION that I must pay too much for my Black Gates is
based on what? An ASSUMPTION that I pay foolish prices. That is
both insulting AND ignorant (of how cheaply Black Gates can be
purchased).

Hey, if they give the sparkling audio performance you like, fair
enough. I probably haven't paid enough attention to the musicality
of the caps I buy.

I also take umberage to your allegation that I am not "being
straight-up with [this group]".

You reckon that if i was being honest I would say "Actually, I
built the engine, it's running badly, does anyone want to buy some
really good fuel filters?" Here is why I wouldn't say such a
thing:

a) I didn't build the application, I modified it.

You never said that. It does explain a lot. In my analogy, it would
be like
revealing that you'd modified your engine while at the same time
giving the
strong impression you don't really know how engines work.

b) It isn't running badly (under nominal conditions), it sounds
superb. c) I am not SELLING anything.

That was a joke. Sorry. I was kind of thinking that if your "thing"
didn't end up working, you could recover some cash-money by Ebaying
them fancy caps.

I look forward to our point-by-point comparison of your analogy
with my behaviour. I can't find many comparisons at all. Do you do
this often? (that is: make up stupid analogies that just don't
work).

Look, I've got nothing to add. I thought my insightful analogy
would help you understand why people responded to you with
derision. Obviously you still don't get it, and that seems to be
because you don't have the knowledge and experience in electronics
to diagnose and solve the fault - everything you say reinforces
that fact.

Get someone who knows what they are doing to look at your device.
If it's a
power supply problem they'll diagnose and fix it very quickly.

And you might be able to pay them in capacitors :)
 
M

Mark

I think I already answered it Bob. Twice, in fact.

What is your obsession with people repeating things. Over and over and over.
 
P

Phil Allison

"swanny"
That's not what you have got. It's what you think you have got.
You have 30VDC out (+/-15VDC).

You have a wall wart transformer with poor load regulation. I'm guessing
it's
about 15VAC you have coming out of your wall wart. I also suspect the
original
design is relying on this to work.


** Nope.

From the copious schizoid ramblings of this delusional bush maggot - I now
surmise the PSU he has operates from a nominal 9 volt AC plug pack with a
couple of amps capacity. One side of the secondary goes directly to circuit
ground.

Then come four diodes and four electros ( values not described) that act
together as " charge pump" voltage multipliers. This will generate maybe
+/- 23 volts DC ( plus ample ripple) at the input to the 7815 / 7915 regs.

Load regulation will be mediocre - at best.

What he ought to do is get a new AC supply tranny ( toroidal is OK) with a
18-0-18 volt secondary of circa 2.5 amps and use a bridge rectifier and
filter electros of say 6,800 uF or a parallel combo to that same sort of
value.

This will have good load regulation and low ripple.

But you will never tell HIM that !!



....... Phil
 
M

Mark

Whatever Poxy, I really don't give a hoot.

Poxy said:
I think you'll find that you've offended Mark in many, many ways. What you
think is logical, sensible advice based on the operating principles of the
components involved is in fact a bitter, unjustified attack on him.

He's TOLD you what you need to know to help him, so stop crapping on about
irrelvant thigs like "voltages" and "drop outs" and "specifications" and
so-called "facts" and start agreeing that he's clearly suffering from a
bad
pair (!) of regulators and the one dual-rail power supply design in the
world that only functions correctly with an insanely complex thing that
generates regulated AC.
 
B

Bob Parker

I think I already answered it Bob. Twice, in fact.

What is your obsession with people repeating things. Over and over and over.

You haven't clearly answered anything.
What I can't understand is why people (even Phil) are continuing to
try to give you useful advice despite your arrogant smug delusional
attitude and total absense of knowledge of what you're babbling about.
What a waste of bandwidth.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Mark said:
It's irrelevant, actually.

**No, it is not irrlevant.
240 VAC in (nominal) , 9 VAC out (+/- 1%), about 2 amps (but you can make
it 10 amps or 1 amp, I don't care), toroidal transformer.

**Why do you specify a toroidal transformer?
I've already given you sufficient information on the type of circuit it
supplies.

**No, you have not. You have STILL not answered the many important questions
I've asked either.

Here's one:

What is the input Voltage on the regulators?
 
P

Phil Allison

"Trevor Wilson"
Here's one:

What is the input Voltage on the regulators?



** Wake up - TW !!!

The schizo bush maggot has not even got a DMM.






........ Phil
 
B

Bob Parker

"Trevor Wilson"




** Wake up - TW !!!

The schizo bush maggot has not even got a DMM.


....... Phil


Even if he did, he'd probably try to measure how many ohms were
coming out of his plugpack.
 
T

Two Bob

..noitasrevnoc a fo wolf lacigol eht wollof ot drah ti sekam ylno gnitsop poT

When you read a book, you start at page one and normally read from the top
left to the bottom right. An author will sell
next person follows on from there, not the answer first then the question.
scattered throughout the rest of the book. That is why top posting is
totally illogical. eg. someone poses a question, the very few books if he
wrote the beginning in chapter 15, then the ending in chapter 2 with the
body of the story spread and
 
T

Two Bob

With great difficulty.
However, it is a problem with the thread structure of most readers, not
with the order of my statements.

BINGO!!!!
You have just solved the riddle of why you shouldnt top post.
 
Top