Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #452764
| Path | csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!news.glorb.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn |
|---|---|
| From | Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> |
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: bad, better delay circuits |
| Date | 20 Mar 2017 12:22:18 -0700 |
| Organization | Rowland Institute |
| Lines | 25 |
| Message-ID | <oapa5a01coe@drn.newsguy.com> (permalink) |
| References | <1roqcclua35sdrn6jduc9q0folr3fg8oqu@4ax.com> <58cf33fb$0$62260$b1db1813$65575428@news.astraweb.com> |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | p34077a65cd45e41d20f0fddd6ce12f8532abf837aae78b62.newsdawg.com |
| User-Agent | Direct Read News 5.60 |
| X-Received-Bytes | 1291 |
| X-Received-Body-CRC | 4013387611 |
| Xref | csiph.com sci.electronics.design:452764 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Clifford Heath wrote...
>
>On 20/03/17 11:54, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> John Larkin wrote...
>>>
>>> The problem is the mosfet. Its turn-off
>>> behavior is ugly in a very complex way.
>>> Diodes are easier to understand.
>>
>> The nice thing about tri-state gates, they have
>> awesome optimized low-voltage 3.3V mosfets to
>> pull down the cap, and optimized gate drive
>> to turn them off. Can't match w/ a discrete.
>
> You don't lose anything by having a high-side
> MOSFET connected (though off)?
The issue would only be the gate output node's
off capacitance. I found it to be quite small,
although I haven't measured it, should do so.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 10:04 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-18 12:29 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 16:15 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-18 19:08 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-18 17:02 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 16:25 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 19:40 -0400
Re: bad, better delay circuits dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-19 10:42 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 15:37 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-19 22:24 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-20 08:58 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-20 09:42 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-03-20 23:55 -0800
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-21 00:46 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-21 22:54 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-22 02:10 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 18:47 -0400
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-20 09:55 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 16:12 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-19 10:32 -0500
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 13:36 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 19:44 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 15:58 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 15:43 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-19 17:54 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-20 12:44 +1100
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-20 12:22 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-20 15:49 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 23:51 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-19 08:22 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-20 17:55 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 08:54 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 16:02 +0000
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 09:47 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-22 10:31 -0700
Re: bad, better delay circuits John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-22 10:52 -0700
csiph-web