High voltage diode blowing mysteriously
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 7 Jul 2010 01:37 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:25:15 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:89cg7iFchaU3(a)mid.individual.net... >> I don't see any snubbers of clamps on the upper right transformer where >> it says 102T. > >Ran out of room to draw them. The note just above indicates the nature of said snubbers. > >> BTW, it helps to turn on designators. TR1, Q5, R6, and so on. > >"Turn on"? I draw these in Paint. Refdes are a hassle ;) > >Call 'em "high voltage diodes", and not "low voltage schottky", "EHV diodes" or "FWB". I'll know exactly what you're referring to, just as well as "D17-D20" or whatever. > >Tim I know you have heard to heard of LTSpice. Not too bad for schematic capture alone.
From: Neanderthal on 7 Jul 2010 01:49 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:31:18 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >You have a bit of hoof in mouth i see. CR was once used for Crystal >Rectifier, a reflection of its solid state nature and variety of chemical >compositions. Ever heard of copper oxide or selenium rectifiers? I owned a '66 Honda Dream in the early 70s. http://www.vf750fd.com/blurbs/brochures/1959-1969/ca77305.jpg The old bikes had Selenium rectifiers in 'em. That was just the earliest exposure I had to them.
From: Neanderthal on 7 Jul 2010 01:52 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:37:37 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >I know you have heard to heard of LTSpice. Not too bad for schematic >capture alone. Hard to model multiple output winding transformers though. Even with the 'real pro' sim packages, it is not a simple chore.
From: JosephKK on 7 Jul 2010 01:54 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 07:54:58 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Jul 5, 3:09 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:57:32 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Nunya >> <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote in >> <1e46800c-4459-4386-a7a9-6ec556667...(a)e29g2000prn.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >On Jul 4, 1:52 pm, "Tim Williams" <tmoran...(a)charter.net> wrote: >> >> I have a >> >> > STOP posting text with greater than 72 character line length, you >> >retarded Usenet abusing IDIOT! >> >> What is your problem, there is no limit to line length in Usenet, so it >>is up to the artistic capabilities of the creator of the posting to format >>the text anyway they want, in fact newsreaders who garble that text >> by reformatting violate the principle of conservation of of creativity, >> so take that. >> > You're an idiot. Usenet has always been that way. You not knowing >that after all these years, shows everyone just how little attention >you >pay to the details. Nope None-yah. BTW I have been on Usenet since the time before "Big 8". Word wrap has always been a client issue, for good reason. If your client is too incompetent to handle long lines get a better client (or better user wetware). > > The "that" which "you take", Jan, is the fact that you are an utter >idiot >where knowing about Usenet is concerned. You also lack skill in >electronics. Oh Great Whizzard, post some of your electronics "skill". >We already knew that, however. All the blank lines >after >your stupidity is more proof that you do not know anything about that >which you blather on about. So, FOAD, Blather boy.
From: Tim Williams on 7 Jul 2010 06:16
"Neanderthal" <dance(a)gottafindawomanrighton.org> wrote in message ... ^^^^ Typo. Oh, and plonk, of course. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |