On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 1:22:23 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:> lørdag den 8. oktober 2022 kl. 19.12.59 UTC+2 skrev Fred Bloggs: > > On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 12:43:34 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:52:12 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: > > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:41:24 PM UTC-4, John Walliker wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 18:25:51 UTC+1, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:50:15 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip gibberish> > > > > > > > > > That's not clear. Got a schematic? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's wasting his time, there's nothing wrong with the original circuit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just one of those people who, when they can't understand something, think something is wrong. > > > > > > > > LS doesn't have ESD clamp diodes on its outputs, and, in fact, nothing is being avalanched by applying a very current limited 20V to its outputs. Maybe an insignificant elevated leakage is all that happens. The original circuit is well-designed and should be left as is. > > > > > > > I can see that the original circuit might work fine, but it does depend on parameters that > > > > > > > are not specified in the data sheet like the breakdown voltage of the output pull-down > > > > > > > transistor, so I wouldn't be comfortable calling it "well designed". > > > > > > Well I would and here's why. The ultra-fast (for its day) rise/fall times of the logic family brought transmission line effects into standard logic design. If the typical LS output gate transitioned a typical high impedance interconnecting trace to 5V, and that 5V pulse meets a high impedance input of another LS gate as its only load. The signal will be reflected 100% positively for 5V traveling back down the trace to the driver. Since the driver pulled high is high impedance, the returning pulse again is reflected positively 100% making the voltage at the driver output 10V. The new +5V transition sends a 10V edge traveling down the line to the LS input and gets clamped at 5V which is a full negative reflection to return back to the driver and reduce the 10V at the output node ideally to 5V etc. So we know for a *fact* the process has to be designed to withstand a repetitive 10V applied to the output. And that's not just withstand to survive, that's withstand with no internal circuit disruption. Typical margins are factor of 2x or more, making a withstanding voltage of 20V a done deal, and that can be verified for the part. That's why I'm saying it's a good design. > > > > > I thought I was following this ok, until I got to the point of the second wave being clamped at the LS input to the 5V rail. Is that were the case, how could the first reflection be above 5V? > > > > > > > > > > That aside, your whole description is pretty off track. The LS output driving the "high impedance" trace, does not pull up to 5V in the first place. The "high impedance" trace is not high enough to be ignored. The reality is the driver output will only drive hard to maybe 3.5V. Combine that with the trace impedance loading of around 110 ohms, and you get something like a 2V initial edge on the trace. This will be doubled at the far end reflection at the LS input, to about 4V. So there's no need to worry about over voltage from reflections. > > > > Not going to get into those details. Theoretically your 4V return pulse would get doubled to 8V at the LS OUT pin, but it doesn't, and here's why. When the LS totem pole gets pushed into back bias, its current is immediately cut off, inducing the superposition of a 2.0V negative going pulse on the line. So the 4V incoming combined with that gets you back to your original 2V, and then the load sees a negative 2V step one line length delay later. > > > Except this is not what is seen. If the line at the receiver spent any time at 2V, we would see all manner of misbehavior in the circuit. Imagine this being a clock line or an edge sensitive chip enable. > > > > Stuff like shows why you're okay using unterminated lines most of the time for combinatorial inputs- it's the clocked inputs that are the weak link, unterminated line reflections cause the infamous glitchy double clocking problems. TTL drive levels are too weak for a DC termination but they're good enough for an AC termination. The AC termination is a series R+C shunting the line to signal COM at the load. The R is the interconnecting trace/wire characteristic impedance, and C is selected for an RC time constant equal to signal transition time. That one works pretty well. It's only needed in extreme situations where the line has to be run over 18" or so for some reason. > > > Funny, I've worked on tons of TTL circuits that were not terminated and had no problems with glitchy clocks. Well, maybe not tons, but at least many pounds. > > What's funny is that you're so knowledgeable on the basis of such limited experience. Try using signal coming in over a cable LPT port for clocks. There an AC termination into a Schmitt is advisable. > > > > > > It was always the ECL that required termination. But talk about power dissipation! Whew! We had machines that could overheat a high bay factory just from running the machines! The air conditioners were not designed to run in the winter, so we had to open doors. > > The design rules were to use termination on distances greater than 0.8-1.4 inch depending on family- and that was to keep reflection below 20%. Terminations to 2V were the norm, and the 82/130 Thevenin split for 50R was pretty common. That adds up to a lot of current draw. > 1 inch of trace is a few hundred picosecondsGuess I should add that recommendation was for the DIP packaging for which lead inductance was significant. It may not apply to the surface mount package.
Emulating Open-Collector operation with TTL 74LS138...
Started by ●October 6, 2022
Reply by ●October 8, 20222022-10-08
Reply by ●October 8, 20222022-10-08
On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 1:14:05 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:31:36 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > >Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > >> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 20.04.09 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: > >>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > >>>> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 18.51.13 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: > >>>>> John Robertson wrote: > >>>>>> On 2022/10/06 4:41 a.m., Phil Hobbs wrote: > >>>>>>> John Robertson wrote: > >>>>>>>> Have a circuit that needs repair. Uses a TIP125 (NPN, Darlington) > >>>>>>>> emitter tied to Vbb (~20VDC). Collector to load, then to ground. 1K > >>>>>>>> resistor (R1) pullup on Base to Vbb, and a second 1KR (R2) to the TTL > >>>>>>>> controller. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Problem is of course, that R2 puts the ~20VDC to the TTL output gate > >>>>>>>> on a 74LS138. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Trying to solve this without a driver transistor. The circuit is for > >>>>>>>> a 1ms ~20V strobe pulse repeated every ten ms. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I thought of putting a 10ufd cap in series with R2, but don't like > >>>>>>>> electrolytics as they fail after a few thousand hours. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Possible to use a 15V or so Zener Diode, but the Vbb is not regulated > >>>>>>>> so that won't work reliably. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Anyone have a single component in mind that will essentially emulate > >>>>>>>> (isolate) an Open-Collector output for the 138? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> John :-#)# > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Switch it to a 139 and use a 2N7002? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Phil Hobbs > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, this is to fix 5 x PCBs we are stuck with at the moment, next run > >>>>>> will fix the drives - either 7445s or 138 with P-Channel MOSFETs and > >>>>>> drivers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Circuit I am trying to fix with fewest components - one x two legged > >>>>>> device preferred per 138 output: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://www.flippers.com/images/delete/74LS138_Lamp_Driver.png > >>>>>> > >>>>>> VLAMP is roughly 20VDC. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> John :-#)# > >>>>> The MOSFET cascode thing is pretty good actually, if you put a diode to > >>>>> the supply or want to live dangerously and rely on the ESD protection to > >>>>> discharge the gate. If it's a matter of using the boards or tossing > >>>>> them, there's not much to lose by using barefoot FETs. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> '138 is push-pull, though very wimpy high side > >>>> > >>> Sure, but anything above +4ish reverse-biases the upper output transistor. > >>> Cheers > >> > >> with the upper transistor on does it ever get there? > >> > >> > > > >Sure, it's an NPN emitter. If it were a NFET, it would be fine. > > > >Cheers > > > >Phil Hobbs > > LS has a darlington with 110 ohms in the drain and probably no ESD > diode to +5.It's much more than that. It's the so-called totem-pole optimized for switching which mainly meant low impedance circuit paths for quick base saturation discharge and preventing shoot- through spiking.> > It's shocking how poorly specified all those old TTL parts were. > Modern logic isn't much better. We have to measure stuff like Zout and > rise/fall times. Sometimes the results are startling. > > We just yesterday decided that an efinix FPGA output was a pretty good > 50 ohm source termination, so made the traces 50 ohms and deleted some > r-packs.
Reply by ●October 8, 20222022-10-08
On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 1:12:59 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 12:43:34 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: > > On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:52:12 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:41:24 PM UTC-4, John Walliker wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 18:25:51 UTC+1, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:50:15 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip gibberish> > > > > > > > > That's not clear. Got a schematic? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's wasting his time, there's nothing wrong with the original circuit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just one of those people who, when they can't understand something, think something is wrong. > > > > > > > LS doesn't have ESD clamp diodes on its outputs, and, in fact, nothing is being avalanched by applying a very current limited 20V to its outputs. Maybe an insignificant elevated leakage is all that happens. The original circuit is well-designed and should be left as is. > > > > > > I can see that the original circuit might work fine, but it does depend on parameters that > > > > > > are not specified in the data sheet like the breakdown voltage of the output pull-down > > > > > > transistor, so I wouldn't be comfortable calling it "well designed". > > > > > Well I would and here's why. The ultra-fast (for its day) rise/fall times of the logic family brought transmission line effects into standard logic design. If the typical LS output gate transitioned a typical high impedance interconnecting trace to 5V, and that 5V pulse meets a high impedance input of another LS gate as its only load. The signal will be reflected 100% positively for 5V traveling back down the trace to the driver. Since the driver pulled high is high impedance, the returning pulse again is reflected positively 100% making the voltage at the driver output 10V. The new +5V transition sends a 10V edge traveling down the line to the LS input and gets clamped at 5V which is a full negative reflection to return back to the driver and reduce the 10V at the output node ideally to 5V etc. So we know for a *fact* the process has to be designed to withstand a repetitive 10V applied to the output. And that's not just withstand to survive, that's withstand with no internal circuit disruption. Typical margins are factor of 2x or more, making a withstanding voltage of 20V a done deal, and that can be verified for the part. That's why I'm saying it's a good design. > > > > I thought I was following this ok, until I got to the point of the second wave being clamped at the LS input to the 5V rail. Is that were the case, how could the first reflection be above 5V? > > > > > > > > That aside, your whole description is pretty off track. The LS output driving the "high impedance" trace, does not pull up to 5V in the first place. The "high impedance" trace is not high enough to be ignored. The reality is the driver output will only drive hard to maybe 3.5V. Combine that with the trace impedance loading of around 110 ohms, and you get something like a 2V initial edge on the trace. This will be doubled at the far end reflection at the LS input, to about 4V. So there's no need to worry about over voltage from reflections. > > > Not going to get into those details. Theoretically your 4V return pulse would get doubled to 8V at the LS OUT pin, but it doesn't, and here's why. When the LS totem pole gets pushed into back bias, its current is immediately cut off, inducing the superposition of a 2.0V negative going pulse on the line. So the 4V incoming combined with that gets you back to your original 2V, and then the load sees a negative 2V step one line length delay later. > > Except this is not what is seen. If the line at the receiver spent any time at 2V, we would see all manner of misbehavior in the circuit. Imagine this being a clock line or an edge sensitive chip enable. > > > Stuff like shows why you're okay using unterminated lines most of the time for combinatorial inputs- it's the clocked inputs that are the weak link, unterminated line reflections cause the infamous glitchy double clocking problems. TTL drive levels are too weak for a DC termination but they're good enough for an AC termination. The AC termination is a series R+C shunting the line to signal COM at the load. The R is the interconnecting trace/wire characteristic impedance, and C is selected for an RC time constant equal to signal transition time. That one works pretty well. It's only needed in extreme situations where the line has to be run over 18" or so for some reason. > > Funny, I've worked on tons of TTL circuits that were not terminated and had no problems with glitchy clocks. Well, maybe not tons, but at least many pounds. > What's funny is that you're so knowledgeable on the basis of such limited experience. Try using signal coming in over a cable LPT port for clocks. There an AC termination into a Schmitt is advisable.LOL, I see why Bill gives you such a hard time. You deserve it. Sure, you can construct any of a dozen scenarios where termination might be needed. Your prior posts didn't talk about those. You blame it all on the inherent structure of the LSTTL output stage. So this one is BUSTED! -- Rick C. +-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●October 8, 20222022-10-08
On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 1:12:59 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 12:43:34 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:52:12 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: > > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:41:24 PM UTC-4, John Walliker wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 18:25:51 UTC+1, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:50:15 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip gibberish> > > > > > > > > > That's not clear. Got a schematic? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's wasting his time, there's nothing wrong with the original circuit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just one of those people who, when they can't understand something, think something is wrong. > > > > > > > > LS doesn't have ESD clamp diodes on its outputs, and, in fact, nothing is being avalanched by applying a very current limited 20V to its outputs. Maybe an insignificant elevated leakage is all that happens. The original circuit is well-designed and should be left as is. > > > > > > > I can see that the original circuit might work fine, but it does depend on parameters that > > > > > > > are not specified in the data sheet like the breakdown voltage of the output pull-down > > > > > > > transistor, so I wouldn't be comfortable calling it "well designed". > > > > > > Well I would and here's why. The ultra-fast (for its day) rise/fall times of the logic family brought transmission line effects into standard logic design. If the typical LS output gate transitioned a typical high impedance interconnecting trace to 5V, and that 5V pulse meets a high impedance input of another LS gate as its only load. The signal will be reflected 100% positively for 5V traveling back down the trace to the driver. Since the driver pulled high is high impedance, the returning pulse again is reflected positively 100% making the voltage at the driver output 10V. The new +5V transition sends a 10V edge traveling down the line to the LS input and gets clamped at 5V which is a full negative reflection to return back to the driver and reduce the 10V at the output node ideally to 5V etc. So we know for a *fact* the process has to be designed to withstand a repetitive 10V applied to the output. And that's not just withstand to survive, that's withstand with no internal circuit disruption. Typical margins are factor of 2x or more, making a withstanding voltage of 20V a done deal, and that can be verified for the part. That's why I'm saying it's a good design. > > > > > I thought I was following this ok, until I got to the point of the second wave being clamped at the LS input to the 5V rail. Is that were the case, how could the first reflection be above 5V? > > > > > > > > > > That aside, your whole description is pretty off track. The LS output driving the "high impedance" trace, does not pull up to 5V in the first place. The "high impedance" trace is not high enough to be ignored. The reality is the driver output will only drive hard to maybe 3.5V. Combine that with the trace impedance loading of around 110 ohms, and you get something like a 2V initial edge on the trace. This will be doubled at the far end reflection at the LS input, to about 4V. So there's no need to worry about over voltage from reflections. > > > > Not going to get into those details. Theoretically your 4V return pulse would get doubled to 8V at the LS OUT pin, but it doesn't, and here's why. When the LS totem pole gets pushed into back bias, its current is immediately cut off, inducing the superposition of a 2.0V negative going pulse on the line. So the 4V incoming combined with that gets you back to your original 2V, and then the load sees a negative 2V step one line length delay later. > > > Except this is not what is seen. If the line at the receiver spent any time at 2V, we would see all manner of misbehavior in the circuit. Imagine this being a clock line or an edge sensitive chip enable. > > > > Stuff like shows why you're okay using unterminated lines most of the time for combinatorial inputs- it's the clocked inputs that are the weak link, unterminated line reflections cause the infamous glitchy double clocking problems. TTL drive levels are too weak for a DC termination but they're good enough for an AC termination. The AC termination is a series R+C shunting the line to signal COM at the load. The R is the interconnecting trace/wire characteristic impedance, and C is selected for an RC time constant equal to signal transition time. That one works pretty well. It's only needed in extreme situations where the line has to be run over 18" or so for some reason. > > > Funny, I've worked on tons of TTL circuits that were not terminated and had no problems with glitchy clocks. Well, maybe not tons, but at least many pounds. > > What's funny is that you're so knowledgeable on the basis of such limited experience. Try using signal coming in over a cable LPT port for clocks. There an AC termination into a Schmitt is advisable. > LOL, I see why Bill gives you such a hard time. You deserve it. Sure, you can construct any of a dozen scenarios where termination might be needed. Your prior posts didn't talk about those. You blame it all on the inherent structure of the LSTTL output stage. So this one is BUSTED!Have it your way, Einstein.> > -- > > Rick C. > > +-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging > +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●October 8, 20222022-10-08
On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 5:54:38 AM UTC-4, John Walliker wrote:> On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 05:07:50 UTC+1, whit3rd wrote: > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:10:22 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:41:24 PM UTC-4, John Walliker wrote: > > > > On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 18:25:51 UTC+1, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > LS doesn't have ESD clamp diodes on its outputs, and, in fact, nothing is being > > > > >avalanched by applying a very current limited 20V to its outputs. Maybe an insignificant > > > > >elevated leakage is all that happens. The original circuit is well-designed and should be left as is. > > > > > > I can see that the original circuit might work fine, but it does depend on parameters that > > > > are not specified in the data sheet like the breakdown voltage of the output pull-down > > > > transistor, so I wouldn't be comfortable calling it "well designed". > > > > > Well I would and here's why. The ultra-fast (for its day) rise/fall times of the logic family brought > > > transmission line effects into standard logic design. If the typical LS output gate transitioned > > >a typical high impedance interconnecting trace to 5V, and that 5V pulse meets a high > > >impedance input of another LS gate as its only load. The signal will be reflected 100% positively ... > > >Typical margins are factor of 2x or more, making a withstanding voltage of 20V > > >a done deal, and that can be verified for the part. That's why I'm saying it's a good design. > > Actually, would substituting a 74HCT138 or 74ACT138 be a good solution? > > There's certainly protection diodes built into its outputs (MOS body diode). > > 74ACT138 can take 50 mA into its output pin. > > > > <https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd74act138.pdf> > The problem with that is that the darlington would never turn off.One of my original thoughts on the circuit was exactly that. The circuit was implementing a filament warmer to prevent exceeding the TIP-125 pulsed power limits turning on a cold filament at a relatively high voltage. The original post was pretty much devoid of enough information to look at that.> > John
Reply by ●October 8, 20222022-10-08
On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:>l�rdag den 8. oktober 2022 kl. 19.14.05 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin: >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:31:36 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >> >Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >> >> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 20.04.09 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: >> >>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >> >>>> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 18.51.13 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: >> >>>>> John Robertson wrote: >> >>>>>> On 2022/10/06 4:41 a.m., Phil Hobbs wrote: >> >>>>>>> John Robertson wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Have a circuit that needs repair. Uses a TIP125 (NPN, Darlington) >> >>>>>>>> emitter tied to Vbb (~20VDC). Collector to load, then to ground. 1K >> >>>>>>>> resistor (R1) pullup on Base to Vbb, and a second 1KR (R2) to the TTL >> >>>>>>>> controller. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Problem is of course, that R2 puts the ~20VDC to the TTL output gate >> >>>>>>>> on a 74LS138. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Trying to solve this without a driver transistor. The circuit is for >> >>>>>>>> a 1ms ~20V strobe pulse repeated every ten ms. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I thought of putting a 10ufd cap in series with R2, but don't like >> >>>>>>>> electrolytics as they fail after a few thousand hours. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Possible to use a 15V or so Zener Diode, but the Vbb is not regulated >> >>>>>>>> so that won't work reliably. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Anyone have a single component in mind that will essentially emulate >> >>>>>>>> (isolate) an Open-Collector output for the 138? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> John :-#)# >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Switch it to a 139 and use a 2N7002? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Cheers >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Phil Hobbs >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Well, this is to fix 5 x PCBs we are stuck with at the moment, next run >> >>>>>> will fix the drives - either 7445s or 138 with P-Channel MOSFETs and >> >>>>>> drivers. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Circuit I am trying to fix with fewest components - one x two legged >> >>>>>> device preferred per 138 output: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://www.flippers.com/images/delete/74LS138_Lamp_Driver.png >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> VLAMP is roughly 20VDC. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> John :-#)# >> >>>>> The MOSFET cascode thing is pretty good actually, if you put a diode to >> >>>>> the supply or want to live dangerously and rely on the ESD protection to >> >>>>> discharge the gate. If it's a matter of using the boards or tossing >> >>>>> them, there's not much to lose by using barefoot FETs. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> '138 is push-pull, though very wimpy high side >> >>>> >> >>> Sure, but anything above +4ish reverse-biases the upper output transistor. >> >>> Cheers >> >> >> >> with the upper transistor on does it ever get there? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Sure, it's an NPN emitter. If it were a NFET, it would be fine. >> > >> >Cheers >> > >> >Phil Hobbs >> >> LS has a darlington with 110 ohms in the drain and probably no ESD >> diode to +5. >> >> It's shocking how poorly specified all those old TTL parts were. >> Modern logic isn't much better. We have to measure stuff like Zout and >> rise/fall times. Sometimes the results are startling. > >it should be in the IBIS fileIt's quicker and funner to measure. More believable too. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mjrpofcgwgkhyc4/AABdMuqHdBNRcUOMZzCE-CT2a?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gyn0nz486fmqp1s/AAB5kwDWJ1VR8EXMjGRHs4iEa?dl=0 That NC7SV74 rise time was really unexpected. There must be a use for that. The actual data setup time is not specified.
Reply by ●October 8, 20222022-10-08
On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:54:38 AM UTC-7, John Walliker wrote:> On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 05:07:50 UTC+1, whit3rd wrote: > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:10:22 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:41:24 PM UTC-4, John Walliker wrote: > > > > On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 18:25:51 UTC+1, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > LS doesn't have ESD clamp diodes on its outputs, and, in fact, nothing is being > > > > >avalanched by applying a very current limited 20V to its outputs. Maybe an insignificant > > > > >elevated leakage is all that happens. The original circuit is well-designed and should be left as is. > > > > > > I can see that the original circuit might work fine, but it does depend on parameters that > > > > are not specified in the data sheet like the breakdown voltage of the output pull-down > > > > transistor, so I wouldn't be comfortable calling it "well designed"....> > >Typical margins are factor of 2x or more, making a withstanding voltage of 20V > > >a done deal, and that can be verified for the part. That's why I'm saying it's a good design. > > Actually, would substituting a 74HCT138 or 74ACT138 be a good solution? > > There's certainly protection diodes built into its outputs (MOS body diode). > > 74ACT138 can take 50 mA into its output pin. > > > > <https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd74act138.pdf>> The problem with that is that the darlington would never turn off.Yeah, you still need to do the cascode thing. It does solve the maybe-feedthrough-happens concerns Phil was raising.
Reply by ●October 9, 20222022-10-09
On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 3:08:22 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote: > > >lørdag den 8. oktober 2022 kl. 19.14.05 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin: > >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:31:36 -0400, Phil Hobbs > >> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> > >> >Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > >> >> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 20.04.09 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: > >> >>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > >> >>>> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 18.51.13 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: > >> >>>>> John Robertson wrote: > >> >>>>>> On 2022/10/06 4:41 a.m., Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> >>>>>>> John Robertson wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> Have a circuit that needs repair. Uses a TIP125 (NPN, Darlington) > >> >>>>>>>> emitter tied to Vbb (~20VDC). Collector to load, then to ground. 1K > >> >>>>>>>> resistor (R1) pullup on Base to Vbb, and a second 1KR (R2) to the TTL > >> >>>>>>>> controller. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Problem is of course, that R2 puts the ~20VDC to the TTL output gate > >> >>>>>>>> on a 74LS138. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Trying to solve this without a driver transistor. The circuit is for > >> >>>>>>>> a 1ms ~20V strobe pulse repeated every ten ms. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> I thought of putting a 10ufd cap in series with R2, but don't like > >> >>>>>>>> electrolytics as they fail after a few thousand hours. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Possible to use a 15V or so Zener Diode, but the Vbb is not regulated > >> >>>>>>>> so that won't work reliably. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Anyone have a single component in mind that will essentially emulate > >> >>>>>>>> (isolate) an Open-Collector output for the 138? > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Thanks! > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> John :-#)# > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Switch it to a 139 and use a 2N7002? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Cheers > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Phil Hobbs > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Well, this is to fix 5 x PCBs we are stuck with at the moment, next run > >> >>>>>> will fix the drives - either 7445s or 138 with P-Channel MOSFETs and > >> >>>>>> drivers. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Circuit I am trying to fix with fewest components - one x two legged > >> >>>>>> device preferred per 138 output: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> https://www.flippers.com/images/delete/74LS138_Lamp_Driver.png > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> VLAMP is roughly 20VDC. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thanks, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> John :-#)# > >> >>>>> The MOSFET cascode thing is pretty good actually, if you put a diode to > >> >>>>> the supply or want to live dangerously and rely on the ESD protection to > >> >>>>> discharge the gate. If it's a matter of using the boards or tossing > >> >>>>> them, there's not much to lose by using barefoot FETs. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> '138 is push-pull, though very wimpy high side > >> >>>> > >> >>> Sure, but anything above +4ish reverse-biases the upper output transistor. > >> >>> Cheers > >> >> > >> >> with the upper transistor on does it ever get there? > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >Sure, it's an NPN emitter. If it were a NFET, it would be fine. > >> > > >> >Cheers > >> > > >> >Phil Hobbs > >> > >> LS has a darlington with 110 ohms in the drain and probably no ESD > >> diode to +5. > >> > >> It's shocking how poorly specified all those old TTL parts were. > >> Modern logic isn't much better. We have to measure stuff like Zout and > >> rise/fall times. Sometimes the results are startling. > > > >it should be in the IBIS file > It's quicker and funner to measure. More believable too. > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mjrpofcgwgkhyc4/AABdMuqHdBNRcUOMZzCE-CT2a?dl=0 > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gyn0nz486fmqp1s/AAB5kwDWJ1VR8EXMjGRHs4iEa?dl=0 > > That NC7SV74 rise time was really unexpected. There must be a use for > that.Well you have much more attenuation, and probably overcompensation, than in the 10EP setup. If the scope Cin is 3pF then anything more than 50/300x or 0.5pF across the series 300R is an overcompensation ( and ringing). You say it's a "CC type"- meaning a carbon composition I presume. For the 10EP08 differential, it would be interesting to see your common mode transient measurement setup for that output. It's so brief nothing will respond to it anyway.> > The actual data setup time is not specified.
Reply by ●October 9, 20222022-10-09
On 2022/10/07 10:25 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:50:15 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > > <snip gibberish> > >> That's not clear. Got a schematic? >>> > > He's wasting his time, there's nothing wrong with the original circuit. > > He's just one of those people who, when they can't understand something, think something is wrong. > LS doesn't have ESD clamp diodes on its outputs, and, in fact, nothing is being avalanched by applying a very current limited 20V to its outputs. Maybe an insignificant elevated leakage is all that happens. The original circuit is well-designed and should be left as is.The 'original circuit' doesn't work. It was a modification of the actual original design (which used a 7445) from the 70s. The designer forgot that the 48s were open collector and figured a 138 would work fine. It doesn't as the outputs won't go over Vcc (5V) and the TIPs require higher voltage to switch in this circuit. We are going back to the 7445 as a working solution as it is the simplest answer and the number of boards to be made is likely under 100 for the lifetime production. Looked at other solutions and that was the easiest in terms of real estate and cost. If the board sells more than 50 or so, chances are it will be totally redone and MOSFETs, GALs, etc will be added to bring it more up to date and simplify it further. John :-#)# -- (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
Reply by ●October 10, 20222022-10-10
John Larkin wrote:> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: > >> lørdag den 8. oktober 2022 kl. 19.14.05 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin: >>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:31:36 -0400, Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>>>> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 20.04.09 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: >>>>>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>>>>>> torsdag den 6. oktober 2022 kl. 18.51.13 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs: >>>>>>>> John Robertson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2022/10/06 4:41 a.m., Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>> John Robertson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Have a circuit that needs repair. Uses a TIP125 (NPN, Darlington) >>>>>>>>>>> emitter tied to Vbb (~20VDC). Collector to load, then to ground. 1K >>>>>>>>>>> resistor (R1) pullup on Base to Vbb, and a second 1KR (R2) to the TTL >>>>>>>>>>> controller. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Problem is of course, that R2 puts the ~20VDC to the TTL output gate >>>>>>>>>>> on a 74LS138. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Trying to solve this without a driver transistor. The circuit is for >>>>>>>>>>> a 1ms ~20V strobe pulse repeated every ten ms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I thought of putting a 10ufd cap in series with R2, but don't like >>>>>>>>>>> electrolytics as they fail after a few thousand hours. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Possible to use a 15V or so Zener Diode, but the Vbb is not regulated >>>>>>>>>>> so that won't work reliably. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone have a single component in mind that will essentially emulate >>>>>>>>>>> (isolate) an Open-Collector output for the 138? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John :-#)# >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Switch it to a 139 and use a 2N7002? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, this is to fix 5 x PCBs we are stuck with at the moment, next run >>>>>>>>> will fix the drives - either 7445s or 138 with P-Channel MOSFETs and >>>>>>>>> drivers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Circuit I am trying to fix with fewest components - one x two legged >>>>>>>>> device preferred per 138 output: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.flippers.com/images/delete/74LS138_Lamp_Driver.png >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> VLAMP is roughly 20VDC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John :-#)# >>>>>>>> The MOSFET cascode thing is pretty good actually, if you put a diode to >>>>>>>> the supply or want to live dangerously and rely on the ESD protection to >>>>>>>> discharge the gate. If it's a matter of using the boards or tossing >>>>>>>> them, there's not much to lose by using barefoot FETs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> '138 is push-pull, though very wimpy high side >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, but anything above +4ish reverse-biases the upper output transistor. >>>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> with the upper transistor on does it ever get there? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, it's an NPN emitter. If it were a NFET, it would be fine. >>> >>> LS has a darlington with 110 ohms in the drain and probably no ESD >>> diode to +5. >>> >>> It's shocking how poorly specified all those old TTL parts were. >>> Modern logic isn't much better. We have to measure stuff like Zout and >>> rise/fall times. Sometimes the results are startling. >> >> it should be in the IBIS file > > It's quicker and funner to measure. More believable too. > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mjrpofcgwgkhyc4/AABdMuqHdBNRcUOMZzCE-CT2a?dl=0 > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gyn0nz486fmqp1s/AAB5kwDWJ1VR8EXMjGRHs4iEa?dl=0 > > That NC7SV74 rise time was really unexpected. There must be a use for > that. > > The actual data setup time is not specified.Sure thing--driving a sampler, for instance (assuming the jitter is good). Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
