TI-H: 92 acceleration
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
TI-H: 92 acceleration
More crashproof way of TI-92 acceleration explained at end...
_____________________________________________________________
>:adding capacitors in series adds their capacitance in the following
way:
>: 1
>: --------------------------
>: 1/C1 + 1/C2 + ... + 1/CN
>:
>:Putting the capacitors in parallel would add their capacetance C1 + C2
+ C3..
> switch
| | |
> 8pf | 22pf \
> | | 16pf - total (or so I thought) of 47 in series
> | | 7pf /
> | | |
| (C11) \_
\___|______| (8pf and 47pf total join here
| | leading to other side of C11)
> | | (from middle pole of switch)
> | \____________
> | \
> \_________0 (C11) 0__/
>
>
If you're doing that, then why not put C11 (old one) where the three are
and the 8 pf where it is.
like this:
> switch
| | |
> 8pf | 47pf (C11, the original cap)
> | | |
| | \_
\___|______| (8pf and 47pf total join here
| | leading to other side of C11)
> | | (from middle pole of switch)
> | \____________
> | Board \
> \_________0 (C11) 0__/
But I'm not sure if the switch arrangement is wise. Less than 8 pf is
not good, but there is a split second where there is no capacitor
connected when you switch between speeds. Is this safe??? I think it
would be wise to connect like this:
__8pf_ 8+30=38. Add the 8 that's always connected
> |_30pf_| and it becomes 38+8=46. The wires add a
| | little capacitance, so it's about 47pf!
switch |
| | This way, you NEVER have less than 8pf!
> |_8pf__|______
> | \ Use a SPST switch, not the SPDT.
| Board | (cheaper & DIP can be used)
> \__0 (C11) 0__/
Richard Piotter
E-Mail:
richfiles1@hotmail.com
richfiles@usa.net
The Richfiles:
<A
HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/5081/Richfiles.html">The
Richfiles TI Page</A>
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/8510/Richfiles.html">The
Richfiles Model Building Page</A>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com