EveryCircuit - Another doubler

8 years ago

With a slight change it looks good to me.

8 years ago

.... and what change would you make?

8 years ago

Maybe this way is better for snale hunting 😵 I exchanged the bad push pull stage driven by again a bad 555 push pull stage were both are loosing droping some voltage to Vcc with an inverter in mosfet. @BillyT might have some more ideas. http://everycircuit.com/circuit/5680694720462848

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

Hurz, thanks for looking at this. I will look at your suggested improvements and await @BiilyT'S input too. It may be a language issue but you can suggest improved circuitry without needing to describe my circuits as 'bad'.

hurz

8 years ago

But its "bad" from technical point of view. As niki also noticed, you get realy to sensitive personaly triggered and see only agression. Start being a electronic developer and get inputs of ideas improments not paranoid. And argue in electronic arguments!!!!!! Holy shot.

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

I do understand what you are saying. Try to see my view also. A circuit can be a bad design - it could be configured incorrectly, have wrong component values etc. etc. and may not perform as intended. But a circuit can be 'not bad' but may be able to be improved, made more efficient etc. So this is why I say it is not always appropriate to label a circuit as bad, although there are many, many on EC that could rightly labelled bad! That's all I am saying:-)

hurz

8 years ago

Then keep this "bad" shit private if you do not want honest comments.

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

As usual you choose not to understand. There is nothing wrong with what I've said. You have a problem.

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

It is not about honesty. If a circuit is not bad it is not bad! To call it so is nonsense. So Mr Logical Herz, be logical. Full stop!

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

@BillyT, looking forward to your input when you have the time.

hurz

8 years ago

<techmode-on-for-robbi> Ok, being honest and logic, your lousy implementation has a 76,7% voltage efficency to your headline promise of "doubler" you are 23% away. My glorias improvments are in voltages efficency under identical load 95.4% and only 5% away from the word "doubler". <techmode-off-for-robbi>

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

Hurz, you take life too seriously. In any form the circuit does not double the supply voltage yet the circuits are universally referred to as doublers. I so nearly put the word doubler in quotes just so you wouldn't start by telling me it doesn't double the voltage. Then I thought, what the heck - why bother.

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

As for your improvement - thanks for your effort. It is however the most obvious improvement and I've seen the circuit done this way many times before.

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

I'm hoping BillyT may have other ideas.

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

Finally, you are a nasty bit of work. Why do you need to call my circuit a lousy implementation? It's completely unnecessary. After all the circuit has been used and available on the internet for many years. It's not mine anyway. But you have to be aggressive and unfriendly.

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

Look out for what's about.

brian_boris

8 years ago

Do not comment on this circuit this is a copied and published derivative of LeButch's work

brian_boris

8 years ago

Do not comment on this circuit this is a copied and published derivative of LeButch's work

Robert_Kidd

8 years ago

@LeButch will verify the above (2) comments are garbage.

kiani

6 years ago

Gibberish