🚀 go-pugleaf

sOn Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:07:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 8:12�pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:15:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Nov 8, 4:47�pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:06:58 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>
>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 7, 2:23�pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >Your attempts at sarcasm are noted, but they are on a par with your
>> >attempts at logic.
>
>> Which you don't get, either.
>
>I understand what you think you are demonstrating but since your logic
>isn't actually valid, there's no real content to get.
>
>> >The fact that I don't need to work doesn't mean that I don't want to
>> >work, but it does mean that I can reject boring work, like stacking
>> >shelves at the local supermarket. The local employment situation has
>> >perked up enough that I fianlly found a local job I could apply for
>> >earlier this week, not that I think that I've got much chance of
>> >getting it.
>>
>> Wishful thinking, perhaps?
>
>Experience.
>
>> >> Since your unfamiliarity with the device itself from a hands-on point of
>> >> view suggests that you only learned about the problem from Kamenzind's
>> >> book, I suggest you're the one suffering from a lack of circuit design
>> >> experience since the rest of us generally solved the problem by
>> >> connecting an adequate reservoir capacitor across the chip's supply
>> >> terminals.
>>
>> >How very clever of you. What do you do when that isn't enough?
>>
>> ---
>> Read the next sentence.
>> ---
>>
>> >> With the advent of CMOS 555s, however, (Maxim's ICM7555 for instance)
>> >> the problem has been eliminated.
>>
>> >Idiot.
>>
>> ---
>> The problem _hasn't_ been eliminated, then???
>>
>> Check page 6 of:
>>
>> http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/ICM7555-ICM7556.pdf
>>
>> For Maxim's take on it.
>
>Right. If you aren't switching any load current - and the Maxim output
>switch is remarkably pathetic for something that is touted as a
>substitute for a 555, the monostable/bistable part of the circuit is
>less likely to be messed up by switching spikes. This isn't
>eliminating the problem, merely just avoiding the more flagrant
>examples of it.

---
Total nonsense.

Even with no load on the output, the supply current spike exhibited by
the original 555 was due to the time it spent with the totem pole
shorted during either transition.

With the advent of the very much faster and cleaner CMOS 555s, that
dwell time was reduced and the role of the high current switch was
delegated to an external transistor or MOSFET.

If you have a production bipolar 555 in your posession and, say, a 7555,
I'd be interested in seeing the data you can get about the differences
in their unloaded and loaded transition currents.
 
If you don't, I do and, if you like, I'll send you one of each so you
can make some real-life measurements and report back on what you find.

You'll decline, of course , with an excuse like "I have no test
equipment" and then you'll continue to spew opinion instead of fact
while proclaiming your opinions to be fact, yes?

JF