mroberds@att.net wrote>Yeah, I understand why the money people like patents. To me it just >seems like a road to spending a lot of money on activities that do not >tend to make cool new things appear in the world, which seems like a >moderately silly road to take.You need to file patents to get VC funding. The patents can be bogus (prior art, etc) - doesn't matter. Most patents are worthless. VCs can't tell the difference.
new 30MHz to 300MHz switcher - worlds smallest laptop adapter
Started by ●December 25, 2013
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Dec 2013 00:31:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in <b539eee1-5cc9-4fbf-b489-9b89c1a10e6e@googlegroups.com>:>JA > The picture showed a line-operated >JA > "plug," which suggests they've >JA > got galvanic isolation. > >They're taking PRE-ORDERS on their website.. >This 65W laptop adapter is to be out in mid 2014. >At CES 2014 in Las Vegas Jan 7-10 >Venetian Level 1 Booth #74113 >Anybody here going to CES? > >FINsix is supposedly based in Menlo Park, CA >ASIC work is to be at: 27 Drydock Avenue, Boston, MA 02210 >Venture capital backed. > >http://www.finsix.com/products/adapter.html > >http://www.finsix.com/company/team.html > >(Impressive) > >Their other product: > >http://www.finsix.com/products/led.html > >LED Driver (In Development) > >I just hope it's not another vaporware..So it seems to be resonant after all...: http://www.finsix.com/technology/advantages.html :-) And no efficiencey numbers given, must be really bad. Only advantage small size? Only 110 V? How about RF interference at VHF? with DTV, cellphones? Normal switchers are already bad enough, I have one radiating 250 kHz. And to say, here: http://www.finsix.com/products/led.html " Highest Performance Blinking, instability, noise and LED lamps that just refuse to turn on are history." Well that is almost like saying: "Our cars start every time, unlike noisy other ones that just refuse to start..." Gimme a break. :-)
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On 12/30/2013 02:24 AM, mroberds@att.net wrote:> dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:14:31 PM UTC-5, mrob...@att.net wrote: >>> >>> A patent makes it even easier... People's Shining Switching Power >>> Supply Factories 1 through 37 can start working on it as soon as they >>> can get a copy of the patent! >> >> True, but you can sue. > > Let me know how that lawsuit against People's Shining Switching Power > Supply Factories 1 through 37 works out. Step 1: Figure out whom to sue > and which court to do it in... :) > >> That's all a patent really boils down to-- the right to sue someone >> for copying your <gadget>. > > Yeah, I understand why the money people like patents. To me it just > seems like a road to spending a lot of money on activities that do not > tend to make cool new things appear in the world, which seems like a > moderately silly road to take. > > Matt Roberds >The money people aren't wrong about it. If you want to be able to keep making cool new things appear, you have to make a profit at it sometime or other, and preventing people from eating your lunch is a good start. And you aren't necessarily entirely on your own. At least in the US, it's possible to sue before the International Trade Commission, which has the power to direct Customs to prevent the importing of infringing goods. (See e.g. http://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/index.htm .) ITC cases have been described as "like a district court on <dangerous illegal stimulant of the week>." They go less than a year from start to finish, are a whole lot of work, and AFAICT almost always wind up going to trial. I had to turn one down in the fall, because I had too much other stuff going on, but it would have been interesting in some ways. It was some guy living in a flat over a shop, suing half of the Japanese and Korean electronics industries, apparently with the benefit of some outside money. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On 12/30/2013 03:52 AM, Peter wrote:> > mroberds@att.net wrote > >> Yeah, I understand why the money people like patents. To me it just >> seems like a road to spending a lot of money on activities that do not >> tend to make cool new things appear in the world, which seems like a >> moderately silly road to take. > > You need to file patents to get VC funding. > > The patents can be bogus (prior art, etc) - doesn't matter. Most > patents are worthless. VCs can't tell the difference. >I read a lot of crappy patents, it's true. And if a worthless patent is just one that doesn't repay what you spend on it, I agree. But there's usually some non-obvious wrinkle in there somewhere, and it doesn't have to be very big to make the patent valid, if not necessarily lucrative. Patents also have value apart from their actual content. These days it costs real money to get a patent thrown out, even by the USPTO. (Reexamination used to be more of an administrative matter, but now it's more like litigation.) There's a strong presumption in law that an issued patent is valid, so challenging it is an uphill argument. 'Tisn't at all impossible, but just showing up with what is apparently prior art doesn't always do it, not by a long shot. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:25:06 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:13:00 -0800, josephkk ><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:42:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> >>>> Oh I see lots of problems, this cap switcher, when in series with the buck, >>>> may charge smoothly, but then putting those caps in parallel >>>> on the next step, would require precise equal caps (so they were charged to the same voltage), >>>> else you get big spikes (at that 1MHz) in the switching FETS to equalize the cap voltages, >>> >>>Agreed--any cap mismatch produces dV(c), making spikey spikes when >>>switching from series to parallel configuration, same as a >>>conventional charge-pump. >>> >>>> If on chip caps then they could be equal, in any case what would aging do with external caps? >>> >>>I haven't bothered with any numbers, but I rather doubt they could >>>use on-chip caps. The capacitances and voltages needed are too high. >>>So says my gut, anyhow. >>> >>>Let's see...if we wanted 60w (input) worth of charge packets at >>>1MHz at 170VDC input, >>>c=60W/(.5*v^2*1Mhz)= 4nF for the series string, or 12nF each for >>>a string of 3, at 57 volts each. >>> >>>That would be quite a chip. >> >>I would hope to shout. Dang, that would be massive caps on chip. Mebbe >>one of our IC design capable persons could enlighten us on the kind of >>area needed. These would have to be relatively good quality (for on chip) >>caps as well. >> >>?-) > >Realistically, the max easily obtainable is about 1pF/um^2At 57V? Isolated? Realistically? ;-)
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:42:42 -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:25:06 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:13:00 -0800, josephkk >><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:42:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> Oh I see lots of problems, this cap switcher, when in series with the buck, >>>>> may charge smoothly, but then putting those caps in parallel >>>>> on the next step, would require precise equal caps (so they were charged to the same voltage), >>>>> else you get big spikes (at that 1MHz) in the switching FETS to equalize the cap voltages, >>>> >>>>Agreed--any cap mismatch produces dV(c), making spikey spikes when >>>>switching from series to parallel configuration, same as a >>>>conventional charge-pump. >>>> >>>>> If on chip caps then they could be equal, in any case what would aging do with external caps? >>>> >>>>I haven't bothered with any numbers, but I rather doubt they could >>>>use on-chip caps. The capacitances and voltages needed are too high. >>>>So says my gut, anyhow. >>>> >>>>Let's see...if we wanted 60w (input) worth of charge packets at >>>>1MHz at 170VDC input, >>>>c=60W/(.5*v^2*1Mhz)= 4nF for the series string, or 12nF each for >>>>a string of 3, at 57 volts each. >>>> >>>>That would be quite a chip. >>> >>>I would hope to shout. Dang, that would be massive caps on chip. Mebbe >>>one of our IC design capable persons could enlighten us on the kind of >>>area needed. These would have to be relatively good quality (for on chip) >>>caps as well. >>> >>>?-) >> >>Realistically, the max easily obtainable is about 1pF/um^2 > >At 57V? Isolated? Realistically? ;-)57V is right on the edge of processes I'm familiar with, but 1pF/um^2 is a good number. And there are other passivation layers under experimentation that have both HV _and_ high pF/um^2. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 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.
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:> However annoying patents are, these things are always patented, and > have to be. These guys filed in 2009. Without patents it wouldn't > make sense to do all that work--make all that investment--only > to have it ripped off the nanosecond you ship.There's two schools of thought regarding patents with my energy extraction clients. One school believes that patents are better than nothing to protect a new gadget. The other school believes that patents only reveal the inner workings of a new gadget to pirates. What one believes seems to hinge on what happened to one's father. In the former case, the father-in-law of one my clients invented a new gadget and did not patent it. The inner workings of the gadget got ripped off soon after it hit the oil field. In the latter case, the father of one of my clients got ripped off by pirates who used the father's patent as a blueprint. So the son did not file a patent on a new invention. Instead the son housed his new gadget in a virtual vault made of steel. Black box virtual vaults (that are not always painted black) are common in the oil field. One client suspected that a black box rented by him contained little more than a PC. But the "if we detect that you opened our black box you own it" clause in the rental contract along with a sky high sticker price kept the enigma intact. RCA profited mightily from its guerrilla hold on radio patents. So "General" Sarnoff reckoned that RCA was entitled to own all of the newfangled television patents too. But an unknown named Philo Farnsworth invented television first. That set up a "David versus Goliath" struggle, but instead of a sword the Goliath named RCA wielded a bunch of off-the-wall patents. Apparently the "General" thought that, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!" Unfortunately this time around Goliath used its legal might to win by dragging things out in court until Farnsworth's patents expired. -- __ __/ \ / \__/ \__/ Don Kuenz / \__ \__/ \ \__/
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:57:53 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:>On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:42:42 -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > >>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:25:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:13:00 -0800, josephkk >>><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:42:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Oh I see lots of problems, this cap switcher, when in series with the buck, >>>>>> may charge smoothly, but then putting those caps in parallel >>>>>> on the next step, would require precise equal caps (so they were charged to the same voltage), >>>>>> else you get big spikes (at that 1MHz) in the switching FETS to equalize the cap voltages, >>>>> >>>>>Agreed--any cap mismatch produces dV(c), making spikey spikes when >>>>>switching from series to parallel configuration, same as a >>>>>conventional charge-pump. >>>>> >>>>>> If on chip caps then they could be equal, in any case what would aging do with external caps? >>>>> >>>>>I haven't bothered with any numbers, but I rather doubt they could >>>>>use on-chip caps. The capacitances and voltages needed are too high. >>>>>So says my gut, anyhow. >>>>> >>>>>Let's see...if we wanted 60w (input) worth of charge packets at >>>>>1MHz at 170VDC input, >>>>>c=60W/(.5*v^2*1Mhz)= 4nF for the series string, or 12nF each for >>>>>a string of 3, at 57 volts each. >>>>> >>>>>That would be quite a chip. >>>> >>>>I would hope to shout. Dang, that would be massive caps on chip. Mebbe >>>>one of our IC design capable persons could enlighten us on the kind of >>>>area needed. These would have to be relatively good quality (for on chip) >>>>caps as well. >>>> >>>>?-) >>> >>>Realistically, the max easily obtainable is about 1pF/um^2 >> >>At 57V? Isolated? Realistically? ;-) > >57V is right on the edge of processes I'm familiar with, but 1pF/um^2 >is a good number. And there are other passivation layers under >experimentation that have both HV _and_ high pF/um^2.So you can really stack them to 170V at 1pF/um^2?
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 13:26:19 -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:>On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:57:53 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:42:42 -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:25:06 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:13:00 -0800, josephkk >>>><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:42:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh I see lots of problems, this cap switcher, when in series with the buck, >>>>>>> may charge smoothly, but then putting those caps in parallel >>>>>>> on the next step, would require precise equal caps (so they were charged to the same voltage), >>>>>>> else you get big spikes (at that 1MHz) in the switching FETS to equalize the cap voltages, >>>>>> >>>>>>Agreed--any cap mismatch produces dV(c), making spikey spikes when >>>>>>switching from series to parallel configuration, same as a >>>>>>conventional charge-pump. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If on chip caps then they could be equal, in any case what would aging do with external caps? >>>>>> >>>>>>I haven't bothered with any numbers, but I rather doubt they could >>>>>>use on-chip caps. The capacitances and voltages needed are too high. >>>>>>So says my gut, anyhow. >>>>>> >>>>>>Let's see...if we wanted 60w (input) worth of charge packets at >>>>>>1MHz at 170VDC input, >>>>>>c=60W/(.5*v^2*1Mhz)= 4nF for the series string, or 12nF each for >>>>>>a string of 3, at 57 volts each. >>>>>> >>>>>>That would be quite a chip. >>>>> >>>>>I would hope to shout. Dang, that would be massive caps on chip. Mebbe >>>>>one of our IC design capable persons could enlighten us on the kind of >>>>>area needed. These would have to be relatively good quality (for on chip) >>>>>caps as well. >>>>> >>>>>?-) >>>> >>>>Realistically, the max easily obtainable is about 1pF/um^2 >>> >>>At 57V? Isolated? Realistically? ;-) >> >>57V is right on the edge of processes I'm familiar with, but 1pF/um^2 >>is a good number. And there are other passivation layers under >>experimentation that have both HV _and_ high pF/um^2. > >So you can really stack them to 170V at 1pF/um^2?I have no idea what the concept requires, but I regularly work with as many as 5-layers of metalization on-chip. Perhaps they're using Silicon Nitride as the dielectric? And XFAB's XDM10 process has 350V devices. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 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.
Reply by ●December 30, 20132013-12-30
On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:57:13 PM UTC+2, Jim Thompson wrote:> I have no idea what the concept requires, but I regularly work with as > > many as 5-layers of metalization on-chip. Perhaps they're using > > Silicon Nitride as the dielectric? And XFAB's XDM10 process has 350V > > devices. >The IRF has 1200V Gate drivers.IR22141 But I'm not sure that it can work at 300Mhz.
