The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Tony Williams
Subject: Re: zero-power toggle circuit; was, how to master electronics
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:29:42 +0000 (GMT)
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:30:44 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Pluto/1.14i (RISC-OS/3.60)
In article ,
Winfield Hill wrote:
> You mean TG2, right? Why not use the switch directly and
> eliminate TG2 entirely? Now two free TGs are available.
I suspect that using TG2 or not depends on how
far away the switch is from the circuit.
> I'm looking at the TG3 + 10k MOSFET driver, wishing that it
> provided robust drive for both HIGH and LOW. I'm looking at
> the two unused TGs; they could create a MOSFET driver. TG3
> can serve new duty as an inverter for one of the output TGs.
> Now I'm thinking about insuring a latency between one driver
> TG going off and the other turning on. Perhaps two series
> resistors can replace the TG1 toggle flop's 10k to assist in
> the task of creating nested pulses for the two driver TGs.
If you are heading in this sort of direction Win
have a look at the 4007A. There may be some
useful extra flexibility available.. the inverter
is already there, and a p-type pullup for TG1.
No TG2, but maybe a spare for TG4.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup