Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Abate Holding Your Breath...Thompson's Design
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Jim Thompson
Jan 15, 2012, 1:25:07 PM1/15/12
to
Here you go...
http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
My experiments with using an auto-transformer would indicate that the
current capability of the hub dynamo (at least as presently modeled...
I'm suspicious of its accuracy)) falls off rapidly, almost acting like
a (near) constant power device.
I'd ask one of the local "pansies in spandex" to make experiments with
their hub dynamos, but I'm their enemy for suggesting publicly that
they should be required to be licensed, and be fined when they go
riding three-abreast down the middle of a thoroughfare, rather than
single-file in the bicycle lane :-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
My experiments with using an auto-transformer would indicate that the
current capability of the hub dynamo (at least as presently modeled...
I'm suspicious of its accuracy)) falls off rapidly, almost acting like
a (near) constant power device.
I'd ask one of the local "pansies in spandex" to make experiments with
their hub dynamos, but I'm their enemy for suggesting publicly that
they should be required to be licensed, and be fined when they go
riding three-abreast down the middle of a thoroughfare, rather than
single-file in the bicycle lane :-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
John Larkin
Jan 15, 2012, 2:02:08 PM1/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:25:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>Here you go...
>
>http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>
>I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>
>Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
>there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
>another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
>of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
>extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
>comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>
>http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>
>My experiments with using an auto-transformer would indicate that the
>current capability of the hub dynamo (at least as presently modeled...
>I'm suspicious of its accuracy)) falls off rapidly, almost acting like
>a (near) constant power device.
>
>I'd ask one of the local "pansies in spandex" to make experiments with
>their hub dynamos, but I'm their enemy for suggesting publicly that
>they should be required to be licensed, and be fined when they go
>riding three-abreast down the middle of a thoroughfare, rather than
>single-file in the bicycle lane :-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Good grief, this is just a fixed-duty-cycle nonregulating buck
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>Here you go...
>
>http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>
>I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>
>Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
>there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
>another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
>of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
>extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
>comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>
>http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>
>My experiments with using an auto-transformer would indicate that the
>current capability of the hub dynamo (at least as presently modeled...
>I'm suspicious of its accuracy)) falls off rapidly, almost acting like
>a (near) constant power device.
>
>I'd ask one of the local "pansies in spandex" to make experiments with
>their hub dynamos, but I'm their enemy for suggesting publicly that
>they should be required to be licensed, and be fined when they go
>riding three-abreast down the middle of a thoroughfare, rather than
>single-file in the bicycle lane :-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
switcher. I suggested this architecture days ago.
The 555 drains the battery all the time. If it doesn't, it won't start
up. And there's probably ways to blow out the gate of the p-fet, which
would take out the n-fet as a bonus. Amateur stuff.
You spent four days on *this* ?
John
Martin Riddle
Jan 15, 2012, 4:43:18 PM1/15/12
to
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
> Here you go...
>
> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>
> I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
> this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>
> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>
> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>
Component values included!
>
> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>
> I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
> this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>
> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>
> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>
Cheers
Ian Field
Jan 15, 2012, 4:51:48 PM1/15/12
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:gp76h7lk76sof6lr9...@4ax.com...
with a 3rd comparator as a UVLO, that's to prevent the buck from latchin up
in 100% MSR when it draws enough current to drag the generator voltage below
its optimum load curve.
Not put pen to paper yet, I'd rather find time to fully study the tables &
graphs from the link Marcell posted first.
John Larkin
Jan 15, 2012, 4:56:03 PM1/15/12
to
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 15, 2012, 5:03:14 PM1/15/12
to
an early post (I verbally provided the results, same as the sims now
posted... which got me "naa, naa, naa poo poo"), so I just let Larkin
run off at the mouth, just for the sport of it ;-)
Ian Field
Jan 15, 2012, 5:15:02 PM1/15/12
to
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:43:18 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
> <marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>in message news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>
>>> I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>>> this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>>>
>>> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
>>> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
>>> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
>>> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
>>> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
>>> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>>>
>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>>>
>>
>>Component values included!
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>
>
> I always do that. I had that info the very first day, as I alluded in
> an early post (I verbally provided the results, same as the sims now
> posted... which got me "naa, naa, naa poo poo"), so I just let Larkin
> run off at the mouth, just for the sport of it ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
You might impress a few simple people, but it certainly won't do what I set
> <marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>in message news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>
>>> I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>>> this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>>>
>>> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
>>> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
>>> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
>>> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
>>> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
>>> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>>>
>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>>>
>>
>>Component values included!
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>
>
> I always do that. I had that info the very first day, as I alluded in
> an early post (I verbally provided the results, same as the sims now
> posted... which got me "naa, naa, naa poo poo"), so I just let Larkin
> run off at the mouth, just for the sport of it ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
out to achieve.
I wasn't holding my breath, I wasn't expecting a useful result and I wasn't
disappointed.
John Larkin
Jan 15, 2012, 6:32:00 PM1/15/12
to
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 15, 2012, 6:53:16 PM1/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:32:00 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:15:02 -0000, "Ian Field"
><gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>>message news:b2j6h717i1jdjmke4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:43:18 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
>>> <marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
[snip]
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:15:02 -0000, "Ian Field"
><gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>>message news:b2j6h717i1jdjmke4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:43:18 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
>>> <marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Component values included!
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I always do that. I had that info the very first day, as I alluded in
>>> an early post (I verbally provided the results, same as the sims now
>>> posted... which got me "naa, naa, naa poo poo"), so I just let Larkin
>>> run off at the mouth, just for the sport of it ;-)
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>
>>You might impress a few simple people, but it certainly won't do what I set
>>out to achieve.
>>
>
>JF will love it, since it has a 555.
>
>John
Ian Field would best get what he "set out to achieve" by stuffing his
>>>>Component values included!
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I always do that. I had that info the very first day, as I alluded in
>>> an early post (I verbally provided the results, same as the sims now
>>> posted... which got me "naa, naa, naa poo poo"), so I just let Larkin
>>> run off at the mouth, just for the sport of it ;-)
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>
>>You might impress a few simple people, but it certainly won't do what I set
>>out to achieve.
>>
>
>JF will love it, since it has a 555.
>
>John
head up his own arse. However, the circuit I presented _will_ charge
the battery _and_ run the lamp. But Ian clearly has not the
competency to apply it to his bicycle.
Ian Field
Jan 16, 2012, 11:04:10 AM1/16/12
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
externally pulling the 5k/5k/5k divider, but it would be a huge comromise.
There's a schematic taking shape and tempting me to put pen to paper.
But I'm inclined not to do it all for the 2 principle knowitalls that in
reality don't know a fraction of what they'd like us to believe.
John Larkin
Jan 16, 2012, 12:01:48 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:04:10 -0000, "Ian Field"
I don't think the problem has been clearly stated. What is this
circuit supposed to do, and what is the user interface? Jim's circuit
leaves the lights on all the time, runs the 555 all the time, and
loads the alternator whenever it can, and probably blows out the fets
now and then. That doesn't sound like what anybody would want on their
bicycle.
And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor that dissipates a
couple of watts?
John
circuit supposed to do, and what is the user interface? Jim's circuit
leaves the lights on all the time, runs the 555 all the time, and
loads the alternator whenever it can, and probably blows out the fets
now and then. That doesn't sound like what anybody would want on their
bicycle.
And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor that dissipates a
couple of watts?
John
Ian Field
Jan 16, 2012, 12:30:24 PM1/16/12
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
A window comparator wired-or'ed to a bistable to switch the pass transistor,
a 3rd comparator also wired-or'ed to the bistable as UVLO so it can't go
100% at times of high demand.
.
>
> And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor that dissipates a
> couple of watts?
Eh! - that's more than the rated output of the 'dynamo'.
>
> And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor that dissipates a
> couple of watts?
I'm increasingly convinced the 2 trolls are playing the mischievious
misinformation game (even they can't be that thick)!
John Larkin
Jan 16, 2012, 3:04:02 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:30:24 -0000, "Ian Field"
How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>
>A window comparator wired-or'ed to a bistable to switch the pass transistor,
>a 3rd comparator also wired-or'ed to the bistable as UVLO so it can't go
>100% at times of high demand.
>.
>>
>> And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor that dissipates a
>> couple of watts?
>
>Eh! - that's more than the rated output of the 'dynamo'.
Yes. Let's build a sophisticated impedance matcher/current multiplier
to get more power out of the hub, then waste a bunch of that power in
the inductor.
John
>
>A window comparator wired-or'ed to a bistable to switch the pass transistor,
>a 3rd comparator also wired-or'ed to the bistable as UVLO so it can't go
>100% at times of high demand.
>.
>>
>> And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor that dissipates a
>> couple of watts?
>
>Eh! - that's more than the rated output of the 'dynamo'.
to get more power out of the hub, then waste a bunch of that power in
the inductor.
John
Ian Field
Jan 16, 2012, 4:12:29 PM1/16/12
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
As much as I can coax them into.
John Larkin
Jan 16, 2012, 4:13:53 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:12:29 -0000, "Ian Field"
OK, be that way.
John
John
Ian Field
Jan 16, 2012, 4:38:26 PM1/16/12
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
Jim Thompson
Jan 16, 2012, 5:23:15 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:01:48 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:04:10 -0000, "Ian Field"
><gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>news:beo6h79pqhktoco07...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:15:02 -0000, "Ian Field"
>>> <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>>>in
>>>>message news:b2j6h717i1jdjmke4...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:43:18 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
>>>>> <marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>>>>>in message news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> Here you go...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>>>>>>> this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
Ian, Take note-------^^^^^^^^^^
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:04:10 -0000, "Ian Field"
><gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>news:beo6h79pqhktoco07...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:15:02 -0000, "Ian Field"
>>> <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>>>in
>>>>message news:b2j6h717i1jdjmke4...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:43:18 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
>>>>> <marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>>>>>in message news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> Here you go...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>>>>>>> this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
>>>>>>> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
>>>>>>> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
>>>>>>> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
>>>>>>> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
>>>>>>> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Component values included!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I always do that. I had that info the very first day, as I alluded in
>>>>> an early post (I verbally provided the results, same as the sims now
>>>>> posted... which got me "naa, naa, naa poo poo"), so I just let Larkin
>>>>> run off at the mouth, just for the sport of it ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You might impress a few simple people, but it certainly won't do what I
>>>>set
>>>>out to achieve.
>>>>
>>>
>>> JF will love it, since it has a 555.
>>
>>It may have been possible to achieve something aproximating to regulation by
>>externally pulling the 5k/5k/5k divider, but it would be a huge comromise.
issues.
>>
>>There's a schematic taking shape and tempting me to put pen to paper.
>>
>>But I'm inclined not to do it all for the 2 principle knowitalls that in
>>reality don't know a fraction of what they'd like us to believe.
>>
>
>I don't think the problem has been clearly stated. What is this
>circuit supposed to do, and what is the user interface? Jim's circuit
>leaves the lights on all the time,
for daytime use.
I thought the object was to have the battery provide power when the
bicycle stops at an intersection, or do you prefer to be rear-ended by
a car when your tail-light goes out? Here in AZ a moonless night can
have you unable to see your own hand in front of your eyes.
>runs the 555 all the time,
drawing? Maybe use a DPDT switch and disconnect the dynamo during
daylight, though I'd opt to charge the battery during the day.
>and
>loads the alternator whenever it can,
whenever the dynamo voltage exceeds the battery voltage. (I'd
regulate using burst mode myself... easier to make completely stable.)
>and probably blows out the fets
Here's what the dynamo looks like open and shorted....
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/HubDynamoEvaluation.pdf
50s time point is same as 50kmph bicycle speed. PDF shows ramp up
from zero speed. Protecting gates is trivial.
>now and then. That doesn't sound like what anybody would want on their
>bicycle.
>
>And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor
at 0.5 Amp would be substantially smaller...
http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/CDI_Inductor.jpg
>that dissipates a
>couple of watts?
>
>John
>
John Larkin
Jan 16, 2012, 6:29:42 PM1/16/12
to
off. That will blow out the lights.
>
>>and
>>loads the alternator whenever it can,
>
>I don't know what you're harping about... it loads the alternator
>whenever the dynamo voltage exceeds the battery voltage. (I'd
>regulate using burst mode myself... easier to make completely stable.)
battery?
>
>>and probably blows out the fets
>
>"Probably" ??
unloads the thing but leaves the alternator connected can put lots of
voltage on the input. If you decide to switch the lights on (or off?)
blasting down a hill with 100 volts at the input, you could get lucky
and blow out the fets *and* the lights. When you design something with
hazards, they tend to manifest.
And it still doesn't regulate, so can overcharge the battery.
>
>Here's what the dynamo looks like open and shorted....
>
>http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/HubDynamoEvaluation.pdf
>
>50s time point is same as 50kmph bicycle speed. PDF shows ramp up
>from zero speed. Protecting gates is trivial.
>
>>now and then. That doesn't sound like what anybody would want on their
>>bicycle.
>>
>>And who wants to lug around a 20 mH power inductor
>
>Here's a 5mH, 5 AMP, yes AMPERES, inductor for my CDI ignition, 20mH
>at 0.5 Amp would be substantially smaller...
>
>http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/CDI_Inductor.jpg
>
>>that dissipates a
>>couple of watts?
>>
>>John
>>
>
>Tell us, John, how did you calculate that "couple of watts"?
into a 1 ohm inductor. 2 watts. But 20 mH is silly anyhow.
This thing hasn't been thought through and isn't practical. It was an
act of desperation, and not a very good one. How many hours did this
take?
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 16, 2012, 6:35:20 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:29:42 -0800, John Larkin
Barely an hour to proof of concept... but with reservations... read
the thread.
But hey, John! You win! You're the Obama of electronics, lord of the
99% who can't flip a light switch without an assistant.
You and Ian have dragged SED down to below SEB. Enjoy.
I give up.
the thread.
But hey, John! You win! You're the Obama of electronics, lord of the
99% who can't flip a light switch without an assistant.
You and Ian have dragged SED down to below SEB. Enjoy.
I give up.
John Larkin
Jan 16, 2012, 6:55:56 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:35:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
Naturally.
John
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 16, 2012, 7:07:53 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:55:56 -0800, John Larkin
Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
Bitrex
Jan 16, 2012, 7:12:50 PM1/16/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cope-and-marsh.png
John Larkin
Jan 16, 2012, 11:41:26 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:07:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
Sure, why not?
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
architecture first.
Let the discussion (or the whining, if that's what you're good at)
begin.
John
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
architecture first.
Let the discussion (or the whining, if that's what you're good at)
begin.
John
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 5:39:51 AM1/17/12
to
John Larkin wrote:
>
> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just one on the lights.
It's amazing how much consulting you can get for free here. Try getting
free solutions with this much effort on programming or IT groups.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 5:49:29 AM1/17/12
to
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>
> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
them.
And wouldn't it depend on which side of the 'diode' it is powered from?
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 9:57:52 AM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:39:51 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>
>The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves it away
>from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just one on the lights.
That's a _rim_ driven dynamo.
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>
>The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves it away
>from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just one on the lights.
>
>It's amazing how much consulting you can get for free here. Try getting
>free solutions with this much effort on programming or IT groups.
conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 10:01:29 AM1/17/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:41:26 -0800, John Larkin
I suggest that you recall that I said that the hub dynamo, at least as
we have a model for, doesn't give you the boost you claim.
But, indeed, the circuit you present cannot be challenged... as usual
it has no component types or values.
we have a model for, doesn't give you the boost you claim.
But, indeed, the circuit you present cannot be challenged... as usual
it has no component types or values.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 10:11:33 AM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:49:29 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
>> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
>> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
>> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
>> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
>> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>>
>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>
>Can a comparator really sense up to it's positive supply?
Remember the ripple detector post I made in response to _your_
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Diode D7 prevents some really weird behavior from back conduction. If
>> there were a need to tighten up the efficiency, I'd replace it with
>> another P-channel, body in the opposite direction from MP1 (for lack
>> of finding a suitable transistor, modeled as a 0.3 Ohm device
>> extrapolated from my vast CMOS device library :-). Then I'd use a
>> comparator to make the drop like a near ideal diode as in...
>>
>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/PerfectDiodeForChargerIsolation.pdf
>
>Can a comparator really sense up to it's positive supply?
question? That TLV3501 has a common mode range that extends about
0.3V beyond rails.
>Surely not all of
>them.
with CMOS. That latest chip design of mine had two rail-to-rail (I/O)
OpAmps and 8 rail-to-rail (I/O) comparators.
>
>And wouldn't it depend on which side of the 'diode' it is powered from?
to flow. From experience with those sims, I'd probably set it for +1V
of margin before I let the switcher go, with a resistive or diode
dropper,
amdx
Jan 17, 2012, 10:12:30 AM1/17/12
to
On 1/17/2012 4:39 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>
> The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves it away
> from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just one on the lights.
>
> It's amazing how much consulting you can get for free here. Try getting
> free solutions with this much effort on programming or IT groups.
>
>
Or alt.hvac they are the Rodney Dangerfield of technicians.
> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>
> The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves it away
> from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just one on the lights.
>
> It's amazing how much consulting you can get for free here. Try getting
> free solutions with this much effort on programming or IT groups.
>
>
The think they get no respect, they show how much they know by not
giving out their knowledge.
Mikek
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 10:15:18 AM1/17/12
to
"Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:jf3jan$ak3$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>
> The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves it away
> from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just one on the
> lights.
The original topic relates specifically to hub 'dynamo'.
> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>
> The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves it away
> from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just one on the
> lights.
Rubwheel 'dynamos' have huge drag when engaged and obviously won't be
topping off the battery when disengaged.
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 10:17:20 AM1/17/12
to
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 10:20:41 AM1/17/12
to
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
GAF anymore.
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 10:24:30 AM1/17/12
to
"Bitrex" <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VIGdnberYO-NIInS...@earthlink.com...
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 10:25:05 AM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
Of course I recall it. You're probably wrong. What's the difference
here between a step-down transformer and a fixed-duty-cycle buck
switcher? Both allow the alternator to deliver more power by better
impedance-matching the load.
>
>But, indeed, the circuit you present cannot be challenged... as usual
>it has no component types or values.
So challenge it on architecture and function. The things you got
wrong. There's no point in designing the little control block until we
agree on whather the overall concept is usable on a bicycle, in real
life. (Actually, it has one issue. See it?)
Whine or discuss. The world is watching.
John
here between a step-down transformer and a fixed-duty-cycle buck
switcher? Both allow the alternator to deliver more power by better
impedance-matching the load.
>
>But, indeed, the circuit you present cannot be challenged... as usual
>it has no component types or values.
wrong. There's no point in designing the little control block until we
agree on whather the overall concept is usable on a bicycle, in real
life. (Actually, it has one issue. See it?)
Whine or discuss. The world is watching.
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 10:45:17 AM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>>Sure, why not?
>>>
>>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
>>>
>>>The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
>>>The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
>>>happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
>>>from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
>>>takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
>>>
>>>This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
>>>drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
>>>
>>>The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
>>>SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
>>>
>>>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>>>architecture first.
Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
>>>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>>Sure, why not?
>>>
>>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
>>>
>>>The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
>>>The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
>>>happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
>>>from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
>>>takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
>>>
>>>This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
>>>drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
>>>
>>>The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
>>>SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
>>>
>>>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>>>architecture first.
switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?
You're just an asshole.
>>>
>>>Let the discussion (or the whining, if that's what you're good at)
>>>begin.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>I suggest that you recall that I said that the hub dynamo, at least as
>>we have a model for, doesn't give you the boost you claim.
>
>Of course I recall it. You're probably wrong.
understand.
>What's the difference
>here between a step-down transformer and a fixed-duty-cycle buck
>switcher? Both allow the alternator to deliver more power by better
>impedance-matching the load.
>
>>
>>But, indeed, the circuit you present cannot be challenged... as usual
>>it has no component types or values.
>
>So challenge it on architecture and function. The things you got
>wrong. There's no point in designing the little control block until we
>agree on whather the overall concept is usable on a bicycle, in real
>life. (Actually, it has one issue. See it?)
>
>Whine or discuss. The world is watching.
>
>John
total waste of time.
Anyone who wants to chime in and agree with Larkin shall be labeled
unemployable ;-)
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 11:48:41 AM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:45:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
waveforms. And it was a variable-duty-cycle switcher, which is *not*
what you ultimately posted. In other words, it was all show but
useless to the discussion at hand.
>
>You're just an asshole.
So, you have chosen whining over discussing electronics. I knew you
would.
>
>>>>
>>>>Let the discussion (or the whining, if that's what you're good at)
>>>>begin.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>I suggest that you recall that I said that the hub dynamo, at least as
>>>we have a model for, doesn't give you the boost you claim.
>>
>>Of course I recall it. You're probably wrong.
>
>Nope. I'm right. I even said why. But you're too dense to
>understand.
I don't recall you explaining why. Why?
>
>>What's the difference
>>here between a step-down transformer and a fixed-duty-cycle buck
>>switcher? Both allow the alternator to deliver more power by better
>>impedance-matching the load.
>
>Significant.
Explain why.
>
>>
>>>
>>>But, indeed, the circuit you present cannot be challenged... as usual
>>>it has no component types or values.
>>
>>So challenge it on architecture and function. The things you got
>>wrong. There's no point in designing the little control block until we
>>agree on whather the overall concept is usable on a bicycle, in real
>>life. (Actually, it has one issue. See it?)
>>
>>Whine or discuss. The world is watching.
>>
>>John
>
>Show component types and values. Otherwise "discussion" with you is a
>total waste of time.
You posted a useless, defect-filled simulation of a dumb buck
switcher, with values, that would be useless if built and put on a
bicycle. You won't even discuss the things that a real product would
need.
You probably don't even ride a bicycle, so you wouldn't appreciate the
issues. Like the biggest problem with my proposed design.
Things like component selection, values, packaging, and cost can't be
sensibly discussed without a definition of the problem and an
architectural approach to solving it. Probably, as a contract linear
IC designer, you're not used to working at that level.
John
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>>
>>>>Sure, why not?
>>>>
>>>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
>>>>
>>>>The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
>>>>The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
>>>>happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
>>>>from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
>>>>takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
>>>>
>>>>This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
>>>>drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
>>>>
>>>>The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
>>>>SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
>>>>
>>>>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>>>>architecture first.
>
>Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
>switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?
Because it was a trivial theoretical cartoon, in fact just some
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>>
>>>>Sure, why not?
>>>>
>>>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
>>>>
>>>>The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
>>>>The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
>>>>happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
>>>>from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
>>>>takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
>>>>
>>>>This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
>>>>drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
>>>>
>>>>The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
>>>>SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
>>>>
>>>>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>>>>architecture first.
>
>Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
>switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?
waveforms. And it was a variable-duty-cycle switcher, which is *not*
what you ultimately posted. In other words, it was all show but
useless to the discussion at hand.
>
>You're just an asshole.
would.
>
>>>>
>>>>Let the discussion (or the whining, if that's what you're good at)
>>>>begin.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>I suggest that you recall that I said that the hub dynamo, at least as
>>>we have a model for, doesn't give you the boost you claim.
>>
>>Of course I recall it. You're probably wrong.
>
>Nope. I'm right. I even said why. But you're too dense to
>understand.
>
>>What's the difference
>>here between a step-down transformer and a fixed-duty-cycle buck
>>switcher? Both allow the alternator to deliver more power by better
>>impedance-matching the load.
>
>Significant.
>
>>
>>>
>>>But, indeed, the circuit you present cannot be challenged... as usual
>>>it has no component types or values.
>>
>>So challenge it on architecture and function. The things you got
>>wrong. There's no point in designing the little control block until we
>>agree on whather the overall concept is usable on a bicycle, in real
>>life. (Actually, it has one issue. See it?)
>>
>>Whine or discuss. The world is watching.
>>
>>John
>
>Show component types and values. Otherwise "discussion" with you is a
>total waste of time.
switcher, with values, that would be useless if built and put on a
bicycle. You won't even discuss the things that a real product would
need.
You probably don't even ride a bicycle, so you wouldn't appreciate the
issues. Like the biggest problem with my proposed design.
Things like component selection, values, packaging, and cost can't be
sensibly discussed without a definition of the problem and an
architectural approach to solving it. Probably, as a contract linear
IC designer, you're not used to working at that level.
John
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 11:49:55 AM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:24:30 -0000, "Ian Field"
Actually, I do kind of look like the one on the right.
John
John
Nico Coesel
Jan 17, 2012, 12:09:29 PM1/17/12
to
John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:25:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>Here you go...
>>
>>http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>
>>I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>>this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>>
>>
>>I'd ask one of the local "pansies in spandex" to make experiments with
>>their hub dynamos, but I'm their enemy for suggesting publicly that
>>they should be required to be licensed, and be fined when they go
>>riding three-abreast down the middle of a thoroughfare, rather than
>>single-file in the bicycle lane :-)
>>
>
>Good grief, this is just a fixed-duty-cycle nonregulating buck
>switcher. I suggested this architecture days ago.
>
>The 555 drains the battery all the time. If it doesn't, it won't start
>up. And there's probably ways to blow out the gate of the p-fet, which
>would take out the n-fet as a bonus. Amateur stuff.
I agree. It looks overcomplicated. Besides that, over here bicycles
have AC dynamos.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:25:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>Here you go...
>>
>>http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>
>>I figure, if you had a mind to, you could add regulation by running
>>this dude in burst mode, by stopping the 555 via its RESETbar input.
>>
>>
>>their hub dynamos, but I'm their enemy for suggesting publicly that
>>they should be required to be licensed, and be fined when they go
>>riding three-abreast down the middle of a thoroughfare, rather than
>>single-file in the bicycle lane :-)
>>
>
>Good grief, this is just a fixed-duty-cycle nonregulating buck
>switcher. I suggested this architecture days ago.
>
>The 555 drains the battery all the time. If it doesn't, it won't start
>up. And there's probably ways to blow out the gate of the p-fet, which
>would take out the n-fet as a bonus. Amateur stuff.
I agree. It looks overcomplicated. Besides that, over here bicycles
have AC dynamos.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 12:23:19 PM1/17/12
to
Ian Field wrote:
> "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jf3jan$ak3$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > John Larkin wrote:
> > >
> > > How many switches do you want? What do they do?
> >
> > The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves
> > it away from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just
> > one on the lights.
>
> The original topic relates specifically to hub 'dynamo'.
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 12:25:17 PM1/17/12
to
Jim Thompson wrote:
> I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
> conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
P E Schoen
Jan 17, 2012, 12:49:23 PM1/17/12
to
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
[snip]
I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf (efficiency testing)
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html (a simple bike generator
charger/regulator)
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp (detailed discussion of these
German hubs)
And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
with antiques.
Nonetheless, there seem to be flaws in the design. Assume the full 6V at 3W,
for a current of 0.5A. Diode R7 should be a Schottky, which will reduce the
power loss from about 0.5W to 0.2W. The one ohm resistance of the inductor
kills another 0.5W. And the charging current of the battery is not really
controlled in any way, so any excess voltage will just be dumped into the
battery and the power of the lamp will depend on its state of charge, so a
low battery will limit the voltage to the lamp and/or cause possibly
excessive charging current.
Much more efficient, and simpler, would be a center tapped Schottky
rectifier which feeds the lamp from the greater of the generator voltage or
the battery voltage, and then a PIC could be added to charge the battery
using a buck regulator. The lamp should be an LED which entails having its
own buck switching supply which is available for less than a buck to drive a
3V white LED from 6V with at least 90% efficiency. The PIC can monitor the
dynamo voltage and current, and adjust the load for maximum power, while
charging the battery according to optimum current or voltage.
Such a system should give an efficiency of at least 85%, whereas the one
proposed is immediately crippled by losing 1W out of the available 3W, so
the efficiency must be less than 67%.
Anyone care to actually discuss this?
Paul
www.pstech-inc.com
news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
[snip]
I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf (efficiency testing)
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html (a simple bike generator
charger/regulator)
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp (detailed discussion of these
German hubs)
And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
with antiques.
Nonetheless, there seem to be flaws in the design. Assume the full 6V at 3W,
for a current of 0.5A. Diode R7 should be a Schottky, which will reduce the
power loss from about 0.5W to 0.2W. The one ohm resistance of the inductor
kills another 0.5W. And the charging current of the battery is not really
controlled in any way, so any excess voltage will just be dumped into the
battery and the power of the lamp will depend on its state of charge, so a
low battery will limit the voltage to the lamp and/or cause possibly
excessive charging current.
Much more efficient, and simpler, would be a center tapped Schottky
rectifier which feeds the lamp from the greater of the generator voltage or
the battery voltage, and then a PIC could be added to charge the battery
using a buck regulator. The lamp should be an LED which entails having its
own buck switching supply which is available for less than a buck to drive a
3V white LED from 6V with at least 90% efficiency. The PIC can monitor the
dynamo voltage and current, and adjust the load for maximum power, while
charging the battery according to optimum current or voltage.
Such a system should give an efficiency of at least 85%, whereas the one
proposed is immediately crippled by losing 1W out of the available 3W, so
the efficiency must be less than 67%.
Anyone care to actually discuss this?
Paul
www.pstech-inc.com
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 12:51:51 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:09:29 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:
>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
Before you get cutesy and snarky make sure you know what you are
talking about, rather than be a Larkin parrot.
wrote:
>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>Good grief, this is just a fixed-duty-cycle nonregulating buck
>>switcher. I suggested this architecture days ago.
>>
>>The 555 drains the battery all the time. If it doesn't, it won't start
>>up. And there's probably ways to blow out the gate of the p-fet, which
>>would take out the n-fet as a bonus. Amateur stuff.
>
>I agree. It looks overcomplicated. Besides that, over here bicycles
>have AC dynamos.
Of course they do. The problem presented was to add battery charging.
>>Good grief, this is just a fixed-duty-cycle nonregulating buck
>>switcher. I suggested this architecture days ago.
>>
>>The 555 drains the battery all the time. If it doesn't, it won't start
>>up. And there's probably ways to blow out the gate of the p-fet, which
>>would take out the n-fet as a bonus. Amateur stuff.
>
>I agree. It looks overcomplicated. Besides that, over here bicycles
>have AC dynamos.
Before you get cutesy and snarky make sure you know what you are
talking about, rather than be a Larkin parrot.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 12:53:49 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:25:17 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
>> conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
>
>I think there might have been a little provocation.
I have the full (provocation) thread in a separate directory. If you
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
>> conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
>
>I think there might have been a little provocation.
think I started this, I'll send you a copy.
Larkin is a self-admitted manic-depressive... once he goes off the
deep end, he never stops :-(
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 12:55:45 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:23:19 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Ian Field wrote:
>> "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:jf3jan$ak3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >
>> > John Larkin wrote:
>> > >
>> > > How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>> >
>> > The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves
>> > it away from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just
>> > one on the lights.
>>
>> The original topic relates specifically to hub 'dynamo'.
>
>I never saw one of those. Is it built into the wheel?
Either front or rear wheel HUB can be replaced with a hub dynamo.
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Ian Field wrote:
>> "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:jf3jan$ak3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >
>> > John Larkin wrote:
>> > >
>> > > How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>> >
>> > The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves
>> > it away from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just
>> > one on the lights.
>>
>> The original topic relates specifically to hub 'dynamo'.
>
>I never saw one of those. Is it built into the wheel?
Modern Shimano rear hubs even include a friction brake.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 1:04:35 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:48:41 -0800, John Larkin
Oh! Finally I see... if _I_ run an architectural behavioral
simulation showing that the scheme will work, it's a "cartoon".
On the other hand, if _you_ make a hand sketch, by _declaration_,
that's the only proper way?
John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:45:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>>>>>
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:45:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>>>>>architecture first.
>>
>>Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
>>switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?
>
>Because it was a trivial theoretical cartoon, in fact just some
>waveforms. And it was a variable-duty-cycle switcher, which is *not*
>what you ultimately posted. In other words, it was all show but
>useless to the discussion at hand.
>
[snip]
>>>>>architecture first.
>>
>>Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
>>switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?
>
>Because it was a trivial theoretical cartoon, in fact just some
>waveforms. And it was a variable-duty-cycle switcher, which is *not*
>what you ultimately posted. In other words, it was all show but
>useless to the discussion at hand.
>
Oh! Finally I see... if _I_ run an architectural behavioral
simulation showing that the scheme will work, it's a "cartoon".
On the other hand, if _you_ make a hand sketch, by _declaration_,
that's the only proper way?
John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 1:16:46 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
wrote:
>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>
>> Here you go...
>
>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>
>[snip]
>
>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
I used the Magdowski model, link posted by Marcel.
I've noted in several posts that I was suspicious of the accuracy of
that model.
I'll check out your links, out of curiosity... I won't be doing
anymore posts on this subject... there's no point :-(
>
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>
>http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf (efficiency testing)
>http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html (a simple bike generator
>charger/regulator)
>http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp (detailed discussion of these
>German hubs)
>
>And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
>generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
>amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
>incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
>with antiques.
Yep, Ian is certainly an antique :-)
I did point this out also, just change to LED, and you've "loosened
up" enough juice to charge an added battery.
Remember my post upon return from lunch at Ra, where I looked over a
modern bicycle parked there?
>
>Nonetheless, there seem to be flaws in the design. Assume the full 6V at 3W,
>for a current of 0.5A. Diode R7 should be a Schottky, which will reduce the
>power loss from about 0.5W to 0.2W. The one ohm resistance of the inductor
>kills another 0.5W. And the charging current of the battery is not really
>controlled in any way, so any excess voltage will just be dumped into the
>battery and the power of the lamp will depend on its state of charge, so a
>low battery will limit the voltage to the lamp and/or cause possibly
>excessive charging current.
You didn't read my text? Diode D7 was just for illustration
purposes... I suggested it be replaced by an active switch. I also
suggested regulation via burst mode control via the RESETbar of the
555.
>
>Much more efficient, and simpler, would be a center tapped Schottky
>rectifier which feeds the lamp from the greater of the generator voltage or
>the battery voltage, and then a PIC could be added to charge the battery
>using a buck regulator. The lamp should be an LED which entails having its
>own buck switching supply which is available for less than a buck to drive a
>3V white LED from 6V with at least 90% efficiency. The PIC can monitor the
>dynamo voltage and current, and adjust the load for maximum power, while
>charging the battery according to optimum current or voltage.
>
>Such a system should give an efficiency of at least 85%, whereas the one
>proposed is immediately crippled by losing 1W out of the available 3W, so
>the efficiency must be less than 67%.
>
>Anyone care to actually discuss this?
>
>Paul
>www.pstech-inc.com
I guess I seriously wasted my time finding out if the scheme had
potential?
I'll leave all the "designing" to Larkin... you all deserve it.
wrote:
>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>
>> Here you go...
>
>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>
>[snip]
>
>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
I've noted in several posts that I was suspicious of the accuracy of
that model.
I'll check out your links, out of curiosity... I won't be doing
anymore posts on this subject... there's no point :-(
>
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>
>http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf (efficiency testing)
>http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html (a simple bike generator
>charger/regulator)
>http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp (detailed discussion of these
>German hubs)
>
>And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
>generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
>amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
>incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
>with antiques.
I did point this out also, just change to LED, and you've "loosened
up" enough juice to charge an added battery.
Remember my post upon return from lunch at Ra, where I looked over a
modern bicycle parked there?
>
>Nonetheless, there seem to be flaws in the design. Assume the full 6V at 3W,
>for a current of 0.5A. Diode R7 should be a Schottky, which will reduce the
>power loss from about 0.5W to 0.2W. The one ohm resistance of the inductor
>kills another 0.5W. And the charging current of the battery is not really
>controlled in any way, so any excess voltage will just be dumped into the
>battery and the power of the lamp will depend on its state of charge, so a
>low battery will limit the voltage to the lamp and/or cause possibly
>excessive charging current.
purposes... I suggested it be replaced by an active switch. I also
suggested regulation via burst mode control via the RESETbar of the
555.
>
>Much more efficient, and simpler, would be a center tapped Schottky
>rectifier which feeds the lamp from the greater of the generator voltage or
>the battery voltage, and then a PIC could be added to charge the battery
>using a buck regulator. The lamp should be an LED which entails having its
>own buck switching supply which is available for less than a buck to drive a
>3V white LED from 6V with at least 90% efficiency. The PIC can monitor the
>dynamo voltage and current, and adjust the load for maximum power, while
>charging the battery according to optimum current or voltage.
>
>Such a system should give an efficiency of at least 85%, whereas the one
>proposed is immediately crippled by losing 1W out of the available 3W, so
>the efficiency must be less than 67%.
>
>Anyone care to actually discuss this?
>
>Paul
>www.pstech-inc.com
potential?
I'll leave all the "designing" to Larkin... you all deserve it.
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 1:18:10 PM1/17/12
to
need to multiply the alternator current. No switcher, no transformer.
A rechargable battery is a nice idea, to have lighting when you're
going slow or stopped. Simple linear electronics is probably all you
need.
A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
subjective effects of alternator drag.
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 1:26:17 PM1/17/12
to
[snip
>
>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
>
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf
>http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html
>
>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
>
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf
>http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp
I had found all those. The Magdowski model is best we have. Maybe
I'll buy a hub and measure it myself.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 1:27:31 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:18:10 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[snip]
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>
>John
>
So NOW it has drag?
>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>
>John
>
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 1:33:20 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:04:35 -0700, Jim Thompson
a generic set of buck switcher waveforms.
You never addressesed basic stuff like turning things on and off
without blowing up the semiconductors.
>
>On the other hand, if _you_ make a hand sketch, by _declaration_,
>that's the only proper way?
I never said that my sketch was the only proper way. I presented an
architecture for discussion. The question being, is that the
functionality that would work?
In fact, with good LEDs, there may be no need for current
multiplication at all.
>
>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
Another unsupported claim.
Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
John
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:48:41 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:45:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
>>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>
>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>>>>>>architecture first.
>>>
>>>Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
>>>switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?
>>
>>Because it was a trivial theoretical cartoon, in fact just some
>>waveforms. And it was a variable-duty-cycle switcher, which is *not*
>>what you ultimately posted. In other words, it was all show but
>>useless to the discussion at hand.
>>
>[snip]
>
>Oh! Finally I see... if _I_ run an architectural behavioral
>simulation showing that the scheme will work, it's a "cartoon".
It didn't even function like the thing you finally posted. It was just
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:48:41 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:45:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:25:05 -0800, John Larkin
>>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:01:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>
>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>>>>>>architecture first.
>>>
>>>Then why did you "diss" me when I immediately had a behavioral
>>>switcher architecture RUNNING in SIMULATION?
>>
>>Because it was a trivial theoretical cartoon, in fact just some
>>waveforms. And it was a variable-duty-cycle switcher, which is *not*
>>what you ultimately posted. In other words, it was all show but
>>useless to the discussion at hand.
>>
>[snip]
>
>Oh! Finally I see... if _I_ run an architectural behavioral
>simulation showing that the scheme will work, it's a "cartoon".
a generic set of buck switcher waveforms.
You never addressesed basic stuff like turning things on and off
without blowing up the semiconductors.
>
>On the other hand, if _you_ make a hand sketch, by _declaration_,
>that's the only proper way?
architecture for discussion. The question being, is that the
functionality that would work?
In fact, with good LEDs, there may be no need for current
multiplication at all.
>
>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
John
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 1:34:51 PM1/17/12
to
John
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 1:29:47 PM1/17/12
to
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:25:17 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> > > I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
> > > conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
> >
> > I think there might have been a little provocation.
>
> I have the full (provocation) thread in a separate directory. If you
> think I started this, I'll send you a copy.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 1:41:44 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:16:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[snip]
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
>>generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
>>amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
>>incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
>>with antiques.
>
[snip]
>>And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
>>generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
>>amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
>>incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
>>with antiques.
>
>
>I did point this out also, just change to LED, and you've "loosened
>up" enough juice to charge an added battery.
>
>Remember my post upon return from lunch at Ra, where I looked over a
>modern bicycle parked there?
>
[snip]
>I did point this out also, just change to LED, and you've "loosened
>up" enough juice to charge an added battery.
>
>Remember my post upon return from lunch at Ra, where I looked over a
>modern bicycle parked there?
>
Looks like modern bicycle lights run on 2 AA or 2 AAA, for
_100_hours_!
So. If you have a hub (or otherwise) dynamo, you'd need to regulate
down to 3V, which, if the Magdowski model is remotely correct,
improves the available current and makes the regulation (and charging
control) easy... actually overkill.
Perhaps Larkin will grace us with an actual working solution? Why
don't you lurkers DEMAND he put up or shut up? But you won't. Sad.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 1:44:48 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>
>Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
>lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
>
>John
But we don't... the current tails off significantly as you raise the
output voltage. If you'd bother to run the Magdowski model into real
loads you'd know that... but I don't think you know how to even run
LTspice.
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>
>>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
>
>Another unsupported claim.
Nope. By your personal illustration :-)
>>
>>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
>
>Another unsupported claim.
>
>
>Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
>lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
>
>John
output voltage. If you'd bother to run the Magdowski model into real
loads you'd know that... but I don't think you know how to even run
LTspice.
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 2:11:20 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:29:47 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
MIT press release (really, they do that a lot) and he responded by
saying vile and obscene things about my wife.
John
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:25:17 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Jim Thompson wrote:
>> > > I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
>> > > conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
>> >
>> > I think there might have been a little provocation.
>>
>> I have the full (provocation) thread in a separate directory. If you
>> think I started this, I'll send you a copy.
>
>Go ahead. I didn't read all of it.
The history is simple. I said something disrespectful about a silly
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:25:17 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Jim Thompson wrote:
>> > > I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
>> > > conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
>> >
>> > I think there might have been a little provocation.
>>
>> I have the full (provocation) thread in a separate directory. If you
>> think I started this, I'll send you a copy.
>
>Go ahead. I didn't read all of it.
MIT press release (really, they do that a lot) and he responded by
saying vile and obscene things about my wife.
John
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 2:23:48 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:44:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
>>
>>Another unsupported claim.
>
>Nope. By your personal illustration :-)
>
>>
>>
>>Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
>>lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
>>
>>John
>
>But we don't... the current tails off significantly as you raise the
>output voltage. If you'd bother to run the Magdowski model into real
>loads you'd know that... but I don't think you know how to even run
>LTspice.
I use LT Spice, probably not as often as you do, bacause I don't
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
>>
>>Another unsupported claim.
>
>Nope. By your personal illustration :-)
>
>>
>>
>>Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
>>lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
>>
>>John
>
>But we don't... the current tails off significantly as you raise the
>output voltage. If you'd bother to run the Magdowski model into real
>loads you'd know that... but I don't think you know how to even run
>LTspice.
design by fiddling. You always have component values available because
you do "design" by Spice fiddling.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
The corner frequency, the speed where the
constant-current-versus-speed region starts, will obviously move up as
the load impedance increases. But it's certainly not a constant-power
device in general. At any given speed, it's an AC voltage source
behind an impedance, and all the normal circuit theory applies.
If, at some speed, you plop the load impedance at the peak of the
power transfer curve, sure you'll be on the flat spot. Nothing unusual
about that, but that's not the general case. The point is that, at
reasonable bike speeds, there's more power available than the lamps
normally consume, and you can extract it if you match better. If
that's not true, your buck switcher makes no sense.
If you disagree, say something substantive.
John
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 2:30:21 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:27:31 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:18:10 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>>
>>John
>>
>
>So NOW it has drag?
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Conservation of Energy. Since a leisurely pedal down to the pub might
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:18:10 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>>
>>John
>>
>
>So NOW it has drag?
>
> ...Jim Thompson
take, say, 20 watts of leg power, a few watts of charger kicking on
and off might be noticable and annoying. People already complain about
hub generator vibration. A commercial product would get bad reviews if
it annoyed the rider with erratic loading, so a $1 ARM with ADCs and
PWMs and algorithms would be appropriate to control it smoothly. But
you don't do that sort of thing.
John
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 3:39:52 PM1/17/12
to
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
using LEDs - but he's just too thick for it to sink in!
He really is totally clueless and rambling on incoherently aboult what he
believes is his own agenda.
Its really sad!
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 3:41:39 PM1/17/12
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
misinformation.
Nico Coesel
Jan 17, 2012, 4:06:52 PM1/17/12
to
John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Here you go...
>>
>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Here you go...
>>
>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Anyone care to actually discuss this?
>>
>>Paul
>>www.pstech-inc.com
>
>
>If led's are so efficient that a couple of watts is enough, there's no
>need to multiply the alternator current. No switcher, no transformer.
>A rechargable battery is a nice idea, to have lighting when you're
>going slow or stopped. Simple linear electronics is probably all you
>need.
The tail light of my 15 year old bicycle uses a supercap to store
>>
>>Paul
>>www.pstech-inc.com
>
>
>If led's are so efficient that a couple of watts is enough, there's no
>need to multiply the alternator current. No switcher, no transformer.
>A rechargable battery is a nice idea, to have lighting when you're
>going slow or stopped. Simple linear electronics is probably all you
>need.
energy. It has enough storage to keep the led on for about a minute
after stopping. Ofcourse the tail light doesn't need to be very
bright.
I'd like to replace the front lamp with a led lamp though.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 4:47:08 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:23:48 -0800, John Larkin
programs that lack the speed-up needed for things like crystal
oscillators. But LTspice lacks the presentation-level graphics needed
for design reviews.
>bacause I don't
>design by fiddling.
You know I don't design by fiddling. Why do you keep persisting on
that lie? How many times have I said I design by pad and paper, then
_verify_ with PSpice. One might assume your lie is intentional to
kill off business that might come my way otherwise. My lawyer calls
that tortuous interference. Knock it off or meet my lawyer.
>You always have component values available because
>you do "design" by Spice fiddling.
>
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>The corner frequency, the speed where the
>constant-current-versus-speed region starts, will obviously move up as
>the load impedance increases. But it's certainly not a constant-power
>device in general. At any given speed, it's an AC voltage source
>behind an impedance, and all the normal circuit theory applies.
You clearly haven't analyzed, or Spiced, the model. I have.
>
>If, at some speed, you plop the load impedance at the peak of the
>power transfer curve, sure you'll be on the flat spot. Nothing unusual
>about that, but that's not the general case. The point is that, at
>reasonable bike speeds, there's more power available than the lamps
>normally consume, and you can extract it if you match better. If
>that's not true, your buck switcher makes no sense.
>
>If you disagree, say something substantive.
>
>John
>
>
Show us the "design" with values, so it can be verified.
If you keep up this nonsense I will sue you for tortuous interference.
If you think not, try me.
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:44:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
>>>
>>>Another unsupported claim.
>>
>>Nope. By your personal illustration :-)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
>>>lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>But we don't... the current tails off significantly as you raise the
>>output voltage. If you'd bother to run the Magdowski model into real
>>loads you'd know that... but I don't think you know how to even run
>>LTspice.
>
>I use LT Spice, probably not as often as you do,
I rarely use LTspice, I use it for running netlists generated by other
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:44:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>>John, You really do need to see a mental health professional.
>>>
>>>Another unsupported claim.
>>
>>Nope. By your personal illustration :-)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, why not arrange as many led's in series as you want, to get the
>>>lighting you like? After all, we do have a current source.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>But we don't... the current tails off significantly as you raise the
>>output voltage. If you'd bother to run the Magdowski model into real
>>loads you'd know that... but I don't think you know how to even run
>>LTspice.
>
>I use LT Spice, probably not as often as you do,
programs that lack the speed-up needed for things like crystal
oscillators. But LTspice lacks the presentation-level graphics needed
for design reviews.
>bacause I don't
>design by fiddling.
that lie? How many times have I said I design by pad and paper, then
_verify_ with PSpice. One might assume your lie is intentional to
kill off business that might come my way otherwise. My lawyer calls
that tortuous interference. Knock it off or meet my lawyer.
>You always have component values available because
>you do "design" by Spice fiddling.
>
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>The corner frequency, the speed where the
>constant-current-versus-speed region starts, will obviously move up as
>the load impedance increases. But it's certainly not a constant-power
>device in general. At any given speed, it's an AC voltage source
>behind an impedance, and all the normal circuit theory applies.
>
>If, at some speed, you plop the load impedance at the peak of the
>power transfer curve, sure you'll be on the flat spot. Nothing unusual
>about that, but that's not the general case. The point is that, at
>reasonable bike speeds, there's more power available than the lamps
>normally consume, and you can extract it if you match better. If
>that's not true, your buck switcher makes no sense.
>
>If you disagree, say something substantive.
>
>John
>
>
If you keep up this nonsense I will sue you for tortuous interference.
If you think not, try me.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 4:48:16 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:06:52 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:
>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Anyone care to actually discuss this?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>www.pstech-inc.com
>>
>>
>>If led's are so efficient that a couple of watts is enough, there's no
>>need to multiply the alternator current. No switcher, no transformer.
>>A rechargable battery is a nice idea, to have lighting when you're
>>going slow or stopped. Simple linear electronics is probably all you
>>need.
>
>The tail light of my 15 year old bicycle uses a supercap to store
>energy. It has enough storage to keep the led on for about a minute
>after stopping. Ofcourse the tail light doesn't need to be very
>bright.
>
>I'd like to replace the front lamp with a led lamp though.
Yep. Looking at modern bikes, everyone is using LED's.
wrote:
>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Anyone care to actually discuss this?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>www.pstech-inc.com
>>
>>
>>If led's are so efficient that a couple of watts is enough, there's no
>>need to multiply the alternator current. No switcher, no transformer.
>>A rechargable battery is a nice idea, to have lighting when you're
>>going slow or stopped. Simple linear electronics is probably all you
>>need.
>
>The tail light of my 15 year old bicycle uses a supercap to store
>energy. It has enough storage to keep the led on for about a minute
>after stopping. Ofcourse the tail light doesn't need to be very
>bright.
>
>I'd like to replace the front lamp with a led lamp though.
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 4:48:22 PM1/17/12
to
"Nico Coesel" <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:4f15de55....@news.kpn.nl...
> John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Anyone care to actually discuss this?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>www.pstech-inc.com
>>
>>
>>If led's are so efficient that a couple of watts is enough, there's no
>>need to multiply the alternator current. No switcher, no transformer.
>>A rechargable battery is a nice idea, to have lighting when you're
>>going slow or stopped. Simple linear electronics is probably all you
>>need.
>
> The tail light of my 15 year old bicycle uses a supercap to store
> energy. It has enough storage to keep the led on for about a minute
> after stopping. Ofcourse the tail light doesn't need to be very
> bright.
>
> I'd like to replace the front lamp with a led lamp though.
I bet whatever 'dynamo' you have is better than my old Sturmey archer AG hub
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Anyone care to actually discuss this?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>www.pstech-inc.com
>>
>>
>>If led's are so efficient that a couple of watts is enough, there's no
>>need to multiply the alternator current. No switcher, no transformer.
>>A rechargable battery is a nice idea, to have lighting when you're
>>going slow or stopped. Simple linear electronics is probably all you
>>need.
>
> The tail light of my 15 year old bicycle uses a supercap to store
> energy. It has enough storage to keep the led on for about a minute
> after stopping. Ofcourse the tail light doesn't need to be very
> bright.
>
> I'd like to replace the front lamp with a led lamp though.
which would only shift 1.8W loaded by the specified bulbs.
Currently I use it to charge a 1.2Ah SLA battery which powers a pair of
current sensing flyback converters that feed to series chains of LEDs, my
design was published in Elektor a few years ago.
The subject of my post on SED that triggered this thread here by JT was a
request on whether better load matching an old SA 'dynamo' could squeeze
more power from it - the consencus seems to be yes.
The extra power going into the battery would be handy for occasional use of
a 3W star LED "main beam" for unlit sections of cycleway.
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 5:04:27 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:47:08 -0700, Jim Thompson
Oh dear, he's given up on a fist fight, and on a road race, and is now
siccing his lawyer on me. Whatta man.
>
>>You always have component values available because
>>you do "design" by Spice fiddling.
>
>>
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>The corner frequency, the speed where the
>>constant-current-versus-speed region starts, will obviously move up as
>>the load impedance increases. But it's certainly not a constant-power
>>device in general. At any given speed, it's an AC voltage source
>>behind an impedance, and all the normal circuit theory applies.
>
>You clearly haven't analyzed, or Spiced, the model. I have.
>
>>
>>If, at some speed, you plop the load impedance at the peak of the
>>power transfer curve, sure you'll be on the flat spot. Nothing unusual
>>about that, but that's not the general case. The point is that, at
>>reasonable bike speeds, there's more power available than the lamps
>>normally consume, and you can extract it if you match better. If
>>that's not true, your buck switcher makes no sense.
>>
>>If you disagree, say something substantive.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>
>Show us the "design" with values, so it can be verified.
>
>If you keep up this nonsense I will sue you for tortuous interference.
>If you think not, try me.
If you don't want people to think that you are incompetant, say
something substantive about the power transfer issues here.
John
siccing his lawyer on me. Whatta man.
>
>>You always have component values available because
>>you do "design" by Spice fiddling.
>
>>
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>The corner frequency, the speed where the
>>constant-current-versus-speed region starts, will obviously move up as
>>the load impedance increases. But it's certainly not a constant-power
>>device in general. At any given speed, it's an AC voltage source
>>behind an impedance, and all the normal circuit theory applies.
>
>You clearly haven't analyzed, or Spiced, the model. I have.
>
>>
>>If, at some speed, you plop the load impedance at the peak of the
>>power transfer curve, sure you'll be on the flat spot. Nothing unusual
>>about that, but that's not the general case. The point is that, at
>>reasonable bike speeds, there's more power available than the lamps
>>normally consume, and you can extract it if you match better. If
>>that's not true, your buck switcher makes no sense.
>>
>>If you disagree, say something substantive.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>
>Show us the "design" with values, so it can be verified.
>
>If you keep up this nonsense I will sue you for tortuous interference.
>If you think not, try me.
something substantive about the power transfer issues here.
John
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 5:08:43 PM1/17/12
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
instruct a lawyer?
John Larkin
Jan 17, 2012, 5:13:12 PM1/17/12
to
John
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 5:26:20 PM1/17/12
to
Jim Thompson wrote:
> My lawyer calls that tortuous interference.
"Tortuous interference" is like in the scene in "The Princess Bride" where
the machine is attached to the hero's nipples.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 5:30:15 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:13:12 -0800, John Larkin
Isn't it funny that those questioning my "being of sound body and
mind" are of the most incompetent here, definitely Ian, or one who
_never_ shows full analysis or component types or values... everything
is a platitude.
Oh well. I'll win in the end. Watch me ;-)
mind" are of the most incompetent here, definitely Ian, or one who
_never_ shows full analysis or component types or values... everything
is a platitude.
Oh well. I'll win in the end. Watch me ;-)
Ian Field
Jan 17, 2012, 5:31:55 PM1/17/12
to
"Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:jf4si4$3ac$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> My lawyer calls that tortuous interference.
>
> Tortious interference.
>
> "Tortuous interference" is like in the scene in "The Princess Bride" where
> the machine is attached to the hero's nipples.
He'd probably enjoy that.
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> My lawyer calls that tortuous interference.
>
> Tortious interference.
>
> "Tortuous interference" is like in the scene in "The Princess Bride" where
> the machine is attached to the hero's nipples.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 5:35:18 PM1/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:26:20 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> My lawyer calls that tortuous interference.
>
>Tortious interference.
>
>"Tortuous interference" is like in the scene in "The Princess Bride" where
>the machine is attached to the hero's nipples.
I spelled it the first way, but the spellchecker had its way with
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> My lawyer calls that tortuous interference.
>
>Tortious interference.
>
>"Tortuous interference" is like in the scene in "The Princess Bride" where
>the machine is attached to the hero's nipples.
me.... :-(
But the machine on Larkin's nipples would work also ;-)
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 5:37:19 PM1/17/12
to
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 17, 2012, 5:48:57 PM1/17/12
to
Jim Thompson wrote:
> Perhaps Larkin will grace us with an actual working solution? Why
> don't you lurkers DEMAND he put up or shut up? But you won't. Sad.
since he wants to settle the argument at the functional level first before
getting into the details (which might be because he's used to being part of
a design team while you're solo) then it would be nice if we could just
proceed that way and get to the next step. I don't think you addressed his
diagram at that level. I'm curious about the fact that it looks like a
linear regulator (no inductor). And I wonder if the transformer does any
good. All these things could be discussed matter-of-factly without a single
slur and it would get somewhere.
Jim Thompson
Jan 17, 2012, 6:18:09 PM1/17/12
to
A block diagram _always_ "works" ;-) (But Larkin thinks only his
do... and my behavioral representations are just cartoons. Never mind
that my "blocks" actually do something rather than just lying there
pretending to be God's solution to all difficulties :-)
And I do design by block that way... most of the time, in fact.
This last chip design I did in NY was almost an extreme... I did the
WHOLE architecture in behavioral... Functionally working to
specification, then gradually replaced each behavioral block with a
device-level cell. I found it rather nice to work it out that way.
I don't think Larkin has a clue about behavioral modeling and
analysis. I find it useful because it's screamingly fast.
If anyone is interested, I've devised ways to interface behavioral to
analog or digital, specify levels, delays, rise and fall, etc., both
directions, as _little_ symbols that don't get in my way on the
schematic.
Next week is back on a new chip design. This week I'm cleaning up the
random clutter on my website. I'll announce when the re-index is
done, and where you can get these interfaces, if you want.
amdx
Jan 17, 2012, 8:54:35 PM1/17/12
to
On 1/17/2012 11:55 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:23:19 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian Field wrote:
>>> "Tom Del Rosso"<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:jf3jan$ak3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>>>>
>>>> The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves
>>>> it away from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just
>>>> one on the lights.
>>>
>>> The original topic relates specifically to hub 'dynamo'.
>>
>> I never saw one of those. Is it built into the wheel?
>
> Either front or rear wheel HUB can be replaced with a hub dynamo.
> Modern Shimano rear hubs even include a friction brake.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
They also build drive motors into the hubs for battery powered bikes.
I'm sure if you look on youtube, someone has a perpetual motion bike
with a generator on the front wheel and a drive motor on the back.
Mikek :-)
*tongue firmly in cheek
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:23:19 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian Field wrote:
>>> "Tom Del Rosso"<td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:jf3jan$ak3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>>>>
>>>> The bike dynamos I've seen have a mechanical disconnect that moves
>>>> it away from the wheel, so you don't need a switch on that. Just
>>>> one on the lights.
>>>
>>> The original topic relates specifically to hub 'dynamo'.
>>
>> I never saw one of those. Is it built into the wheel?
>
> Either front or rear wheel HUB can be replaced with a hub dynamo.
> Modern Shimano rear hubs even include a friction brake.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
They also build drive motors into the hubs for battery powered bikes.
I'm sure if you look on youtube, someone has a perpetual motion bike
with a generator on the front wheel and a drive motor on the back.
Mikek :-)
*tongue firmly in cheek
Spehro Pefhany
Jan 17, 2012, 11:13:15 PM1/17/12
to
play back on the uphills.
http://www.nycewheels.com/sanyo-eneloop-electric-bike.html
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 12:16:22 AM1/18/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0000, "Ian Field"
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>I'm thinking maximise the minimalist.
>>>
>>>As much as I can coax them into.
>>>
>>
>> OK, be that way.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Eh!
>
Ian, i think you are starting to see some new light.
Can you get an actual sample of the waveform coming out of your dynamo?
?-)
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>I'm thinking maximise the minimalist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>>>
>>>As few as I can get away with.
>>>>
>>>> How many switches do you want? What do they do?
>>>
>>>
>>>As much as I can coax them into.
>>>
>>
>> OK, be that way.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Eh!
>
Ian, i think you are starting to see some new light.
Can you get an actual sample of the waveform coming out of your dynamo?
?-)
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 12:19:07 AM1/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:57:52 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's amazing how much consulting you can get for free here. Try getting
>>free solutions with this much effort on programming or IT groups.
Just how much do you really have to respond in kind?
?-)
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's amazing how much consulting you can get for free here. Try getting
>>free solutions with this much effort on programming or IT groups.
>
>I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
>conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>I try, but Larkin is so full of hate that it makes it difficult to
>conduct a back-and-forth what-if discussion.
>
Just how much do you really have to respond in kind?
?-)
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 12:34:04 AM1/18/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:41:26 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>>Naturally.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Sure, why not?
>
>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
As usual, a topology, no component values whatsoever. Soo short of a
design. Why did you waste everyone's time with a wishful thinking
approach? Or are too innumerate to supply numbers / component values?
I hope this enlightens you on why some here devalue some of your
"contributions".
?-(
>
>The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
>The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
>happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
>from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
>takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
>
>This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
>drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
>
>The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
>SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
>
>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>architecture first.
>
>Let the discussion (or the whining, if that's what you're good at)
>begin.
>
>John
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>>Naturally.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Sure, why not?
>
>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
As usual, a topology, no component values whatsoever. Soo short of a
design. Why did you waste everyone's time with a wishful thinking
approach? Or are too innumerate to supply numbers / component values?
I hope this enlightens you on why some here devalue some of your
"contributions".
?-(
>
>The step-down transformer gives the roughly 2:1 power/current boost.
>The SSR (could be a pfet) is controlled to charge the battery to its
>happy voltage. The control circuit is powered from the generator, not
>from the battery. We only need to sense the battery voltage, which
>takes microamps, not a discharge issue.
>
>This is simple and very rugged. It can be switched off for minimum
>drag and the light can - special feature! - be turned on and off!
>
>The control block is simple: regulator, UVLO, comparator to drive the
>SSR. Transzorb for luck, like the way garlic keeps vampires away.
>
>Of course there are no values yet. One has to agree on function and
>architecture first.
>
>Let the discussion (or the whining, if that's what you're good at)
>begin.
>
>John
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 12:44:52 AM1/18/12
to
"wealthy eccentrics" for that.
?-)
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 12:55:25 AM1/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:24:30 -0000, "Ian Field"
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> So which one of you guys is Cope, and which is Marsh?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cope-and-marsh.png
>
>Is JT the hairy one?
>
Pissants. Wikipedia went dark over SOAP and ProIP legislation. Good luck
looking it up if Google and Yahoo go dark as well.
?>:-(((
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> So which one of you guys is Cope, and which is Marsh?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cope-and-marsh.png
>
>Is JT the hairy one?
>
Pissants. Wikipedia went dark over SOAP and ProIP legislation. Good luck
looking it up if Google and Yahoo go dark as well.
?>:-(((
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 1:00:06 AM1/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:34:51 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>I guess I seriously wasted my time finding out if the scheme had
>>potential?
>
>That *was* the intent.
>
>John
What a hateful thing to do. Guess that is part of who you really are.
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>I guess I seriously wasted my time finding out if the scheme had
>>potential?
>
>That *was* the intent.
>
>John
?-(
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 1:16:31 AM1/18/12
to
>
>The extra power going into the battery would be handy for occasional use of
>a 3W star LED "main beam" for unlit sections of cycleway.
>
Nice recap on what you have and where you want to go. Some others lost
>The extra power going into the battery would be handy for occasional use of
>a 3W star LED "main beam" for unlit sections of cycleway.
>
sight of that.
?-)
josephkk
Jan 18, 2012, 1:32:13 AM1/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:26:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>wrote:
>
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip
>>
>>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
>>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
>>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
>>
>>
>>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First, I
>>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may mean
>>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
>>
>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
>
>
>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>
>
>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>
>
>>http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf
>
>
>>http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html
>
>
>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>
>
>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>
>
>>http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf
>
>
This link above seems to have just what Ian is looking for.
>
>
>>http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp
>
>I had found all those. The Magdowski model is best we have. Maybe
>I'll buy a hub and measure it myself.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Nico Coesel
Jan 18, 2012, 1:43:25 AM1/18/12
to
John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:27:31 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:18:10 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>>>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>>So NOW it has drag?
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Conservation of Energy. Since a leisurely pedal down to the pub might
>take, say, 20 watts of leg power, a few watts of charger kicking on
>and off might be noticable and annoying. People already complain about
>hub generator vibration. A commercial product would get bad reviews if
>it annoyed the rider with erratic loading, so a $1 ARM with ADCs and
>PWMs and algorithms would be appropriate to control it smoothly. But
Using a controller makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking about a PFC
scheme (about 25V into a big cap) and a forward converter-ish output
to drive a big LED. IMHO a battery is a bad idea. Better use a big
capacitor.
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:27:31 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:18:10 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>>>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>>So NOW it has drag?
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Conservation of Energy. Since a leisurely pedal down to the pub might
>take, say, 20 watts of leg power, a few watts of charger kicking on
>and off might be noticable and annoying. People already complain about
>hub generator vibration. A commercial product would get bad reviews if
>it annoyed the rider with erratic loading, so a $1 ARM with ADCs and
>PWMs and algorithms would be appropriate to control it smoothly. But
Using a controller makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking about a PFC
scheme (about 25V into a big cap) and a forward converter-ish output
to drive a big LED. IMHO a battery is a bad idea. Better use a big
capacitor.
P E Schoen
Jan 18, 2012, 3:06:35 AM1/18/12
to
"Nico Coesel" wrote in message news:4f16681c....@news.kpn.nl...
> Using a controller makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking about a PFC
> scheme (about 25V into a big cap) and a forward converter-ish
> output to drive a big LED. IMHO a battery is a bad idea. Better
> use a big capacitor.
I have some 25 uF 2.7 VDC capacitors that could be used for this purpose.
Two in series would power a 3W 6V (12 ohm) incandescent lamp for a
time-constant of 12.5*12 or 150 seconds, although it would be much better to
use a boost converter and regulate the output so the brightness would be
more constant. Of course, you can get even more light from a 1 watt LED, so
even ONE of these UltraCaps would give at least 3-4 minutes of light without
needing the generator. These capacitors are only $5 each from Newark:
http://www.newark.com/illinois-capacitor/256dcn2r7q/supercapacitor-alum-elect-25f-2/dp/02P4416.
Paul
> Using a controller makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking about a PFC
> scheme (about 25V into a big cap) and a forward converter-ish
> output to drive a big LED. IMHO a battery is a bad idea. Better
> use a big capacitor.
Two in series would power a 3W 6V (12 ohm) incandescent lamp for a
time-constant of 12.5*12 or 150 seconds, although it would be much better to
use a boost converter and regulate the output so the brightness would be
more constant. Of course, you can get even more light from a 1 watt LED, so
even ONE of these UltraCaps would give at least 3-4 minutes of light without
needing the generator. These capacitors are only $5 each from Newark:
http://www.newark.com/illinois-capacitor/256dcn2r7q/supercapacitor-alum-elect-25f-2/dp/02P4416.
Paul
P E Schoen
Jan 18, 2012, 3:15:40 AM1/18/12
to
"josephkk" wrote in message
news:fhnch75aofg8tl9st...@4ax.com...
> Pissants. Wikipedia went dark over SOAP and ProIP legislation. Good luck
> looking it up if Google and Yahoo go dark as well.
Apparently the protests have done some good:
http://www.ecnmag.com/News/2012/01/U-S--online-piracy-bill-headed-for-major-makeover
I emailed Ben Cardin because he was/is a cosponsor and supporter of PIPA,
according to the following:
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
Paul
news:fhnch75aofg8tl9st...@4ax.com...
> Pissants. Wikipedia went dark over SOAP and ProIP legislation. Good luck
> looking it up if Google and Yahoo go dark as well.
http://www.ecnmag.com/News/2012/01/U-S--online-piracy-bill-headed-for-major-makeover
I emailed Ben Cardin because he was/is a cosponsor and supporter of PIPA,
according to the following:
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
Paul
JW
Jan 18, 2012, 6:02:39 AM1/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:55:25 -0800 josephkk <joseph_...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote in Message id: <fhnch75aofg8tl9st...@4ax.com>:
Wiki is still working. Just hit the Esc button when your page loads.
wrote in Message id: <fhnch75aofg8tl9st...@4ax.com>:
John Larkin
Jan 18, 2012, 9:44:55 AM1/18/12
to
John
John Larkin
Jan 18, 2012, 9:48:57 AM1/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:34:04 -0800, josephkk
<joseph_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:41:26 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>Naturally.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>Sure, why not?
>>
>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
>
>
>As usual, a topology, no component values whatsoever. Soo short of a
>design. Why did you waste everyone's time with a wishful thinking
>approach? Or are too innumerate to supply numbers / component values?
Any design starts with an architecture. If the functionality is wrong
<joseph_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:41:26 -0800, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>Naturally.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>Naturally you will now show us your stupendous solution ?:-)
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>Sure, why not?
>>
>>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hub_Alt_1.JPG
>
>
>As usual, a topology, no component values whatsoever. Soo short of a
>design. Why did you waste everyone's time with a wishful thinking
>approach? Or are too innumerate to supply numbers / component values?
(as JTs switcher was) what's the point of having parts values?
>
>I hope this enlightens you on why some here devalue some of your
>"contributions".
purchase orders followed by checks.
John
John Larkin
Jan 18, 2012, 9:51:12 AM1/18/12
to
John
John Larkin
Jan 18, 2012, 9:52:16 AM1/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:41:39 -0000, "Ian Field"
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:16:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>
>>>I've noted in several posts that I was suspicious of the accuracy of
>>>that model.
>>>
>>>I'll check out your links, out of curiosity... I won't be doing
>>>anymore posts on this subject... there's no point :-(
>>>>http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html (a simple bike generator
>>>>charger/regulator)
>>>>http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp (detailed discussion of these
>>>>German hubs)
>>>>
>>>>And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
>>>>generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
>>>>amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
>>>>incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
>>>>with antiques.
>>>
>>>Yep, Ian is certainly an antique :-)
>>>
>>>I did point this out also, just change to LED, and you've "loosened
>>>up" enough juice to charge an added battery.
>>>
>>>Remember my post upon return from lunch at Ra, where I looked over a
>>>modern bicycle parked there?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nonetheless, there seem to be flaws in the design. Assume the full 6V at
>>>>3W,
>>>>for a current of 0.5A. Diode R7 should be a Schottky, which will reduce
>>>>the
>>>>power loss from about 0.5W to 0.2W. The one ohm resistance of the
>>>>inductor
>>>>kills another 0.5W. And the charging current of the battery is not really
>>>>controlled in any way, so any excess voltage will just be dumped into the
>>>>battery and the power of the lamp will depend on its state of charge, so
>>>>a
>>>>low battery will limit the voltage to the lamp and/or cause possibly
>>>>excessive charging current.
>>>
>>>You didn't read my text? Diode D7 was just for illustration
>>>purposes... I suggested it be replaced by an active switch. I also
>>>suggested regulation via burst mode control via the RESETbar of the
>>>555.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Much more efficient, and simpler, would be a center tapped Schottky
>>>>rectifier which feeds the lamp from the greater of the generator voltage
>>>>or
>>>>the battery voltage, and then a PIC could be added to charge the battery
>>>>using a buck regulator. The lamp should be an LED which entails having
>>>>its
>>>>own buck switching supply which is available for less than a buck to
>>>>drive a
>>>>3V white LED from 6V with at least 90% efficiency. The PIC can monitor
>>>>the
>>>>dynamo voltage and current, and adjust the load for maximum power, while
>>>>charging the battery according to optimum current or voltage.
>>>>
>>>>Such a system should give an efficiency of at least 85%, whereas the one
>>>>proposed is immediately crippled by losing 1W out of the available 3W, so
>>>>the efficiency must be less than 67%.
>misinformation.
>
You give him too much credit. He actually thought that switcher
circuit was clever.
John
<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:7pfbh7h42jdv9ka7r...@4ax.com...
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:16:46 -0700, Jim Thompson
>> <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:49:23 -0500, "P E Schoen" <pa...@peschoen.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>>>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Here you go...
>>>>
>>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>>
>>>>news:rl46h7l10f6046gqr...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Here you go...
>>>>
>>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/SED/BicycleHubSwitcher.pdf
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>>>>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First,
>>>>I
>>>>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may
>>>>mean
>>>>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
>>>
>>>I used the Magdowski model, link posted by Marcel.
>>>>
>>>>I've only followed some of this "discussion" since it's become largely a
>>>>pissing match, but I see some questionable aspects of this design. First,
>>>>I
>>>>would want to examine the characteristics of the dynamo, and that may
>>>>mean
>>>>looking at several different models. The following websites list several:
>>>
>>>
>>>I've noted in several posts that I was suspicious of the accuracy of
>>>that model.
>>>
>>>I'll check out your links, out of curiosity... I won't be doing
>>>anymore posts on this subject... there's no point :-(
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
>>>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>>>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bikequarterly.com/VBQgenerator.pdf (efficiency testing)
>>>>
>>>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/shimano.html
>>>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/sturmey-archer-x-fdd.html
>>>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/lighting/schmidt.html
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~daniel/regulator.html (a simple bike generator
>>>>charger/regulator)
>>>>http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp (detailed discussion of these
>>>>German hubs)
>>>>
>>>>And most modern bicycle lamps are now LED, so the standard 6V 3W hub
>>>>generator can now produce a lot more light at the same power, or the same
>>>>amount of light with power left over to charge a battery. So the
>>>>incandescent lamp model is already obsolete, unless you insist on dealing
>>>>with antiques.
>>>
>>>Yep, Ian is certainly an antique :-)
>>>
>>>I did point this out also, just change to LED, and you've "loosened
>>>up" enough juice to charge an added battery.
>>>
>>>Remember my post upon return from lunch at Ra, where I looked over a
>>>modern bicycle parked there?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nonetheless, there seem to be flaws in the design. Assume the full 6V at
>>>>3W,
>>>>for a current of 0.5A. Diode R7 should be a Schottky, which will reduce
>>>>the
>>>>power loss from about 0.5W to 0.2W. The one ohm resistance of the
>>>>inductor
>>>>kills another 0.5W. And the charging current of the battery is not really
>>>>controlled in any way, so any excess voltage will just be dumped into the
>>>>battery and the power of the lamp will depend on its state of charge, so
>>>>a
>>>>low battery will limit the voltage to the lamp and/or cause possibly
>>>>excessive charging current.
>>>
>>>You didn't read my text? Diode D7 was just for illustration
>>>purposes... I suggested it be replaced by an active switch. I also
>>>suggested regulation via burst mode control via the RESETbar of the
>>>555.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Much more efficient, and simpler, would be a center tapped Schottky
>>>>rectifier which feeds the lamp from the greater of the generator voltage
>>>>or
>>>>the battery voltage, and then a PIC could be added to charge the battery
>>>>using a buck regulator. The lamp should be an LED which entails having
>>>>its
>>>>own buck switching supply which is available for less than a buck to
>>>>drive a
>>>>3V white LED from 6V with at least 90% efficiency. The PIC can monitor
>>>>the
>>>>dynamo voltage and current, and adjust the load for maximum power, while
>>>>charging the battery according to optimum current or voltage.
>>>>
>>>>Such a system should give an efficiency of at least 85%, whereas the one
>>>>proposed is immediately crippled by losing 1W out of the available 3W, so
>>>>the efficiency must be less than 67%.
>>>I guess I seriously wasted my time finding out if the scheme had
>>>potential?
>>
>> That *was* the intent.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>AFAICT - JT's intention is to screw everyone up with deliberate
>>>potential?
>>
>> That *was* the intent.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>misinformation.
>
You give him too much credit. He actually thought that switcher
circuit was clever.
John
John Larkin
Jan 18, 2012, 9:56:49 AM1/18/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:43:25 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:
>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:27:31 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:18:10 -0800, John Larkin
>>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>>>>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>
>>>So NOW it has drag?
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>Conservation of Energy. Since a leisurely pedal down to the pub might
>>take, say, 20 watts of leg power, a few watts of charger kicking on
>>and off might be noticable and annoying. People already complain about
>>hub generator vibration. A commercial product would get bad reviews if
>>it annoyed the rider with erratic loading, so a $1 ARM with ADCs and
>>PWMs and algorithms would be appropriate to control it smoothly. But
>
>Using a controller makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking about a PFC
>scheme (about 25V into a big cap) and a forward converter-ish output
>to drive a big LED. IMHO a battery is a bad idea. Better use a big
>capacitor.
It does make sense to ride the high end of the load curve, namely
rectify the alternator output to a high voltage and then switch down.
That's the opposite from the "nearly shorted/constant-current" place
they usually work. The switcher will have to work from, roughly, 10 to
100 volts input, maybe more. I'm thinking the downhill run from the
Rainbow Bridge to Lake Donner...
John
wrote:
>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:27:31 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:18:10 -0800, John Larkin
>>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>A uP would be good for sophisticated algorithms, like minimizing the
>>>>subjective effects of alternator drag.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>
>>>So NOW it has drag?
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>Conservation of Energy. Since a leisurely pedal down to the pub might
>>take, say, 20 watts of leg power, a few watts of charger kicking on
>>and off might be noticable and annoying. People already complain about
>>hub generator vibration. A commercial product would get bad reviews if
>>it annoyed the rider with erratic loading, so a $1 ARM with ADCs and
>>PWMs and algorithms would be appropriate to control it smoothly. But
>
>Using a controller makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking about a PFC
>scheme (about 25V into a big cap) and a forward converter-ish output
>to drive a big LED. IMHO a battery is a bad idea. Better use a big
>capacitor.
rectify the alternator output to a high voltage and then switch down.
That's the opposite from the "nearly shorted/constant-current" place
they usually work. The switcher will have to work from, roughly, 10 to
100 volts input, maybe more. I'm thinking the downhill run from the
Rainbow Bridge to Lake Donner...
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 18, 2012, 10:13:38 AM1/18/12
to
555, so just functional. The question _was_ will a buck buy some more
current. Answer: yes.
Ian Field
Jan 18, 2012, 10:16:48 AM1/18/12
to
"josephkk" <joseph_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:s8lch75hilt5326n7...@4ax.com...
My workshop is dismantled for refurb, my test gear is packed away in tea
chests at the back of the garage and the bicycle with the AG hub is chained
up behind the shed with a few snapped spokes.
Ian Field
Jan 18, 2012, 10:18:37 AM1/18/12
to
"Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
Ian Field
Jan 18, 2012, 10:28:37 AM1/18/12
to
news:mnoch7lb14i7le9vo...@4ax.com...
I've lost count how many times I've corrected JT that *I AM* using LEDs -
but he still persists in calling me an "antique" for using bulbs!
but he still persists in calling me an "antique" for using bulbs!
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 18, 2012, 11:24:21 AM1/18/12
to
Ian Field wrote:
> "Tom Del Rosso" <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> >
>
> TMI!
If you saw the movie you wouldn't take that seriously. It was a pain
machine.
John Larkin
Jan 18, 2012, 11:32:37 AM1/18/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:13:38 -0700, Jim Thompson
I told you that a fixed-duty-cycle buck switcher would do that,
stably, a week before you posted that silly and unreliable circuit.
You know, back when you were still "puzzled."
I can't imagine why you considered something that fundamental to be a
"question" , or had to simulate it to find out.
John
stably, a week before you posted that silly and unreliable circuit.
You know, back when you were still "puzzled."
I can't imagine why you considered something that fundamental to be a
"question" , or had to simulate it to find out.
John
Jim Thompson
Jan 18, 2012, 11:48:56 AM1/18/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:32:37 -0800, John Larkin
John, Is there some reason you have this need to be such a hateful
shit-headed bastard?
I was the one who _first_ posted that it wouldn't start as a usual
buck, which start (unless having a soft-start feature) at 100%... it
couldn't get over that initial "hump"... remember the "cartoon" you
made such a fuss over?
My puzzlement had to do with the dynamo's behavior, not how a buck
switcher works. I was, after all, designing buck switchers for
GenRad's portable products, while you were still a kid.
Why don't you knock it off?
And you're still clueless about why the dynamo won't work into an
auto-transformer.
But you'll still come screaming back with "say something technical",
rather than showing that you, yourself, have a clue... which you
don't, which is why you always revert to insults rather than facts...
and block diagrams supporting your cluelessness ;-)
But you'll remain a shiftless, hateful, narcissistic, shit-headed
bastard forever.
I await your next shiftless, hateful, narcissistic, shit-headed
bastardly insult :-)
shit-headed bastard?
I was the one who _first_ posted that it wouldn't start as a usual
buck, which start (unless having a soft-start feature) at 100%... it
couldn't get over that initial "hump"... remember the "cartoon" you
made such a fuss over?
My puzzlement had to do with the dynamo's behavior, not how a buck
switcher works. I was, after all, designing buck switchers for
GenRad's portable products, while you were still a kid.
Why don't you knock it off?
And you're still clueless about why the dynamo won't work into an
auto-transformer.
But you'll still come screaming back with "say something technical",
rather than showing that you, yourself, have a clue... which you
don't, which is why you always revert to insults rather than facts...
and block diagrams supporting your cluelessness ;-)
But you'll remain a shiftless, hateful, narcissistic, shit-headed
bastard forever.
I await your next shiftless, hateful, narcissistic, shit-headed
bastardly insult :-)
John Larkin
Jan 18, 2012, 12:35:40 PM1/18/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:48:56 -0700, Jim Thompson
Explain why. Say something technical.
John
John
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages