Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447169 > unrolled thread

An old "500MC biquinary counter"

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  An old "500MC biquinary counter" bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-10 11:39 -0500
    Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-10 09:10 -0800
      Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-10 13:24 -0500
        Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800
          Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 12:36 -0800
            Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 14:15 -0800
              Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-10 13:16 -0500
                Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 16:14 -0800
                  Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-10 19:19 -0500
      Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 10:23 -0800
        Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-10 11:16 -0800
          Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 11:27 -0800
          Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 12:32 -0800
            Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 16:05 -0800
            Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-11 10:28 -0600
      Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:32 +0000
        Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-10 13:26 -0800
          Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-10 12:50 -0500
            Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-10 14:55 -0800
              Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1) Dave M <dgminala at mediacombb dot net> - 2017-02-10 18:41 -0600
                Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1) "Dave M" <dgminala@mediacombb.net> - 2017-02-10 18:50 -0600
                  Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1) Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-10 16:58 -0800
                    Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1) Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-11 14:29 +1100
                    Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1) whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 02:48 -0800
              Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 11:00 +0000
            Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-11 20:57 -0500
              Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 22:07 -0500
              Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-12 18:21 +1100
                Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:04 -0500
        Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 14:40 -0700
          Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-10 17:59 -0500
          Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-10 18:04 -0500
            Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-11 06:41 -0800
    Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:10 -0500
      Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-11 11:36 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#447251 — Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1)

Dave M wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:55:27 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-02-10 09:50, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2017 04:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2017-02-10 12:32, Piglet wrote:
>>>>> On 10/02/2017 17:10, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-02-10 08:39, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> What are D1-D5?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.seekic.com/uploadfile/ic-circuit/s2009713233931554.gif
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could they be Shockley diodes? Those are similar to SCRs but
>>>>>> without a gate connection and can only be triggered via
>>>>>> avalanche breakdown or dv/dt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah could be Shockley diodes (aka 4-layer diodes) but last time
>>>>> I saw one in a schematic the symbol was different. However they
>>>>> are not hi-speed parts and even in their heyday would not have
>>>>> seen use at 00s of kilohertz let alone megahertz.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Schematic symbols in the olden days were often weird. Take a look
>>>> at the potmeter representations here (9th and 10th left from the
>>>> top):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/133/Symbols_2_590.png
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Diac is a still-available kindof breakover diode but higher
>>>>> voltage and bidirectional. 4-layer diodes I saw were made with
>>>>> breakover voltages from 8 to 22V and 5-10% tolerance. TC was
>>>>> remarkable good and they made good semi-precise timers (but not
>>>>> for nano-seconds). Diacs typically breakover 28-35V and are not
>>>>> tightly specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another option is that is just an old symbol for a zener diode?
>>>>>
>>>>> But for those speeds I reckon they must be tunnel diodes. That
>>>>> would tie in with the emitter coupled logic and 10mA tail
>>>>> current. Tunnel diodes are fast. Due to the very high doping some
>>>>> older ones have now diffused themselves into mush.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That IC could be from an era where a few hundred kHz was considered
>>>> blazingly fast. Shockley diodes would offer the nice advantage of
>>>> introducing hysteresis which improves the noise robustness of this
>>>> counter.
>>>>
>>>> With tunnel diodes I wouldn't know who they'd integrate those onto
>>>> a chip.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it does say "500MC biquinary counter". ;)
>>>
>>> I suspect it was never an actual IC.
>>>
>>
>> With 2k resistors and stuff in there it would never even get into the
>> VHF range :-)
>
>
> Here's a copy of the circuit as it appeared in Electronics magazine
> back in 1966.  The diodes are 1N752A Zeners.   It's redrawn here so
> it's easier to understand.  Just a divide-by-5 ring counter.  Looks
> like the Zeners are there to protect the B-E junctions of the
> right-hand transistor of each stage.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave M

OK... I thought this NG could accept small attachments... Guess not.
See the image at http://www.ge.tt/2BYDBli2

Sorry for the confusion,
Dave M 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447252 — Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1)

On 2017-02-10 16:50, Dave M wrote:
> Dave M wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:55:27 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-02-10 09:50, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/2017 04:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-02-10 12:32, Piglet wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 17:10, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2017-02-10 08:39, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>>> What are D1-D5?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.seekic.com/uploadfile/ic-circuit/s2009713233931554.gif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could they be Shockley diodes? Those are similar to SCRs but
>>>>>>> without a gate connection and can only be triggered via
>>>>>>> avalanche breakdown or dv/dt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah could be Shockley diodes (aka 4-layer diodes) but last time
>>>>>> I saw one in a schematic the symbol was different. However they
>>>>>> are not hi-speed parts and even in their heyday would not have
>>>>>> seen use at 00s of kilohertz let alone megahertz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Schematic symbols in the olden days were often weird. Take a look
>>>>> at the potmeter representations here (9th and 10th left from the
>>>>> top):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/133/Symbols_2_590.png
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Diac is a still-available kindof breakover diode but higher
>>>>>> voltage and bidirectional. 4-layer diodes I saw were made with
>>>>>> breakover voltages from 8 to 22V and 5-10% tolerance. TC was
>>>>>> remarkable good and they made good semi-precise timers (but not
>>>>>> for nano-seconds). Diacs typically breakover 28-35V and are not
>>>>>> tightly specified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another option is that is just an old symbol for a zener diode?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for those speeds I reckon they must be tunnel diodes. That
>>>>>> would tie in with the emitter coupled logic and 10mA tail
>>>>>> current. Tunnel diodes are fast. Due to the very high doping some
>>>>>> older ones have now diffused themselves into mush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That IC could be from an era where a few hundred kHz was considered
>>>>> blazingly fast. Shockley diodes would offer the nice advantage of
>>>>> introducing hysteresis which improves the noise robustness of this
>>>>> counter.
>>>>>
>>>>> With tunnel diodes I wouldn't know who they'd integrate those onto
>>>>> a chip.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it does say "500MC biquinary counter". ;)
>>>>
>>>> I suspect it was never an actual IC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With 2k resistors and stuff in there it would never even get into the
>>> VHF range :-)
>>
>>
>> Here's a copy of the circuit as it appeared in Electronics magazine
>> back in 1966.  The diodes are 1N752A Zeners.   It's redrawn here so
>> it's easier to understand.  Just a divide-by-5 ring counter.  Looks
>> like the Zeners are there to protect the B-E junctions of the
>> right-hand transistor of each stage.
>>


Thanks, they are indeed zeners and it is indeed a 500MHz circuit. I'd 
never thought that.


>> Cheers,
>> Dave M
>
> OK... I thought this NG could accept small attachments... Guess not.
> See the image at http://www.ge.tt/2BYDBli2
>

Sometimes it does but most news servers clip that away. Most also won't 
let people subscribe to binary groups so a.b.s.e. has outlived its 
usefulness.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447271 — Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1)

On 11/02/17 11:58, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-10 16:50, Dave M wrote:
>> Dave M wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:55:27 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-02-10 09:50, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>> On 02/10/2017 04:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-02-10 12:32, Piglet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 17:10, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2017-02-10 08:39, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What are D1-D5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.seekic.com/uploadfile/ic-circuit/s2009713233931554.gif
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could they be Shockley diodes? Those are similar to SCRs but
>>>>>>>> without a gate connection and can only be triggered via
>>>>>>>> avalanche breakdown or dv/dt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah could be Shockley diodes (aka 4-layer diodes) but last time
>>>>>>> I saw one in a schematic the symbol was different. However they
>>>>>>> are not hi-speed parts and even in their heyday would not have
>>>>>>> seen use at 00s of kilohertz let alone megahertz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Schematic symbols in the olden days were often weird. Take a look
>>>>>> at the potmeter representations here (9th and 10th left from the
>>>>>> top):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/users/133/Symbols_2_590.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diac is a still-available kindof breakover diode but higher
>>>>>>> voltage and bidirectional. 4-layer diodes I saw were made with
>>>>>>> breakover voltages from 8 to 22V and 5-10% tolerance. TC was
>>>>>>> remarkable good and they made good semi-precise timers (but not
>>>>>>> for nano-seconds). Diacs typically breakover 28-35V and are not
>>>>>>> tightly specified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another option is that is just an old symbol for a zener diode?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But for those speeds I reckon they must be tunnel diodes. That
>>>>>>> would tie in with the emitter coupled logic and 10mA tail
>>>>>>> current. Tunnel diodes are fast. Due to the very high doping some
>>>>>>> older ones have now diffused themselves into mush.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That IC could be from an era where a few hundred kHz was considered
>>>>>> blazingly fast. Shockley diodes would offer the nice advantage of
>>>>>> introducing hysteresis which improves the noise robustness of this
>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With tunnel diodes I wouldn't know who they'd integrate those onto
>>>>>> a chip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it does say "500MC biquinary counter". ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect it was never an actual IC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With 2k resistors and stuff in there it would never even get into the
>>>> VHF range :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a copy of the circuit as it appeared in Electronics magazine
>>> back in 1966.  The diodes are 1N752A Zeners.   It's redrawn here so
>>> it's easier to understand.  Just a divide-by-5 ring counter.  Looks
>>> like the Zeners are there to protect the B-E junctions of the
>>> right-hand transistor of each stage.
>>>
>
>
> Thanks, they are indeed zeners and it is indeed a 500MHz circuit. I'd
> never thought that.

Being a ring counter means it only has to toggle at 1/5 the input frequency?

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447278 — Re: An old "500MC biquinary counter" - 500 MC Bi-Quinary Counter.gif (0/1)

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-10 16:50, Dave M wrote:
> > Dave M wrote:

> >> Here's a copy of the circuit as it appeared in Electronics magazine
> >> back in 1966.  The diodes are 1N752A Zeners.

> Thanks, they are indeed zeners and it is indeed a 500MHz circuit. I'd 
> never thought that.

There's some details missing, though: the input, I guess, has to be pulses.

And, it has to change polarity every five inputs (so, a flip/flop following
divides by two, its Q and /Q outputs can gate that behavior).

Or, am I missing something?   It certainly doesn't have any provision for
reset...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447279

On 10/02/2017 22:55, Joerg wrote:
> With 2k resistors and stuff in there it would never even get into the
> VHF range :-)
>

The 2K resistors never see a current change. ECL was neat.

piglet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447358

Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
> Well, it does say "500MC biquinary counter". ;)

What is biquinary anyway?  The name suggests the operation of the 7490.


> I suspect it was never an actual IC.

Could it have been discreet?  I don't see how it could count anyway, 
unless those 'diodes' are very exotic things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447364

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:57:09 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

>Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>
>> Well, it does say "500MC biquinary counter". ;)
>
>What is biquinary anyway?  The name suggests the operation of the 7490.

It's a non-standard standard decimal encoding scheme.  Generally there
is a two and a five portion (hence bi-quinary) of the digit.  The two
is just a ff and often the five portion is a ring counter for maximum
speed.  Sometimes not.

Another solution/coding is a five-bit Johnson counter.

>> I suspect it was never an actual IC.
>
>Could it have been discreet?  I don't see how it could count anyway, 
>unless those 'diodes' are very exotic things.

I don't see a reset.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447386

On 12/02/17 12:57, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Well, it does say "500MC biquinary counter". ;)
> What is biquinary anyway?  The name suggests the operation of the 7490.
>> I suspect it was never an actual IC.
> Could it have been discreet?

Semiconductors are not known for being talkative, whether or not they're 
discrete.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447463

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:21:26 +1100, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

>On 12/02/17 12:57, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> Well, it does say "500MC biquinary counter". ;)
>> What is biquinary anyway?  The name suggests the operation of the 7490.
>>> I suspect it was never an actual IC.
>> Could it have been discreet?
>
>Semiconductors are not known for being talkative, whether or not they're 
>discrete.

Joerg sure seems to have some that aren't very quiet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447210

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:37 +0000, Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[snip]
>
>Another option is that is just an old symbol for a zener diode?
>
[snip]
>
>
>piglet

I also think they're zeners.

The sideways schematic presentation obscures the Schmitt operation.  

I suspect the zeners are for level shifting.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447225

On 02/10/2017 04:40 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:37 +0000, Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Another option is that is just an old symbol for a zener diode?
>>
> [snip]
>>
>>
>> piglet
>
> I also think they're zeners.
>
> The sideways schematic presentation obscures the Schmitt operation.
>
> I suspect the zeners are for level shifting.
> 		
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
>

Looks like they're using them as a "solid-state neon lamp"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447228

On 02/10/2017 04:40 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:37 +0000, Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Another option is that is just an old symbol for a zener diode?
>>
> [snip]
>>
>>
>> piglet
>
> I also think they're zeners.
>
> The sideways schematic presentation obscures the Schmitt operation.
>
> I suspect the zeners are for level shifting.
> 		
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
>

Looks like the circuit is a chain of a variation on this with whatever 
that thing is replacing R1:

http://ok-t.ru/doclecturenet/baza1/408756094135.files/image028.gif

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447286

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:04:38 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
> On 02/10/2017 04:40 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:37 +0000, Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Another option is that is just an old symbol for a zener diode?
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >>
> >> piglet
> >
> > I also think they're zeners.
> >
> > The sideways schematic presentation obscures the Schmitt operation.
> >
> > I suspect the zeners are for level shifting.
> > 		
> >                                         ...Jim Thompson
> >
> 
> Looks like the circuit is a chain of a variation on this with whatever 
> that thing is replacing R1:
> 
> http://ok-t.ru/doclecturenet/baza1/408756094135.files/image028.gif

No, that's just a Schmitt-trigger. Not the same.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447281

On 2/10/2017 11:39 AM, bitrex wrote:
> What are D1-D5?
>
> http://www.seekic.com/uploadfile/ic-circuit/s2009713233931554.gif

Could it be a step recovery diode?  I'm not sure how that would be of 
use in this circuit.

BTW, why do you say this is a bi-quinary counter?  It looks to me like a 
ring counter, but without an inversion, so just a shift register.  But 
then I can't figure out how the durn thing works, so I'm not sure what 
it is.  Is this the quinary part of a bi-quinary counter?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447298

On 02/11/2017 07:10 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 2/10/2017 11:39 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> What are D1-D5?
>>
>> http://www.seekic.com/uploadfile/ic-circuit/s2009713233931554.gif
>
> Could it be a step recovery diode?  I'm not sure how that would be of
> use in this circuit.
>
> BTW, why do you say this is a bi-quinary counter?  It looks to me like a
> ring counter, but without an inversion, so just a shift register.  But
> then I can't figure out how the durn thing works, so I'm not sure what
> it is.  Is this the quinary part of a bi-quinary counter?
>

Just going off the title of the original post on that "SeekIC" schematic 
dumping-ground site.

I'm trying to pull up that post but unfortunately I'm not having any 
luck finding it again... :-(

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web