I agree with acrimonious on all points.
And this is not the thread to talk about this is it?
Great guide.
I do think there needs to be a guide with more explination on exactly how the voltage-drop in LEDs works and how to use it properly to design efficient LED circuits.
Originally Posted by ZapWizard I agree with acrimonious on all points.
And this is not the thread to talk about this is it?
Great guide.
I do think there needs to be a guide with more explination on exactly how the voltage-drop in LEDs works and how to use it properly to design efficient LED circuits.
Thanks.
In the coming parts I intend to extend case light project by adding more LEDs and using this as an oppertunity to talk about that.
A good example of how to apply the fact that the PN junction in a LED is what fixes the forward voltage is using CC regulators (Such as a basic LM317 circuit configured for constant current)- which don't regulate voltage - to drive a LED array. (Also great for Luxeon LED's or similar!)
Originally Posted by acrimonious Because, due to past experience of teaching and writing about electronics, I feel that people grasp the concept better if you explain it in terms of something tangable that they already have an idea of - like electrons - rather than a more imaginary quantity that arises due to them.
I completely disagree that I am wrong not to include "positive" charge in my definition of current. So much so that you've gone and made me get my dictionary of electronics out - shesh. It has this to say on the subject:
Furthermore, The Art Of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill 2nd Edition - generally considered to be the bible of electronics - says on current:
I see no further point in arguing this, though I still know that you are quite mistaken in the matter. I see no reason why you can't just say positive charge - I mean for the level that this is being written those people won't know what electrons are either, and this way they won't be confused when they look at more advanced guides, ones that don't have blatantly wrong parts. I'm still amazed you are even arguing this - this is common sense... Your guide has a mistake. That is unarguable.
edit: forgot to mention that what IS arguable is whether or not it is best to lie to people to keep things as easy to understand as possible. I don't think it is - but you seem to think differently for some reason which I don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0th Conventional current, such as when it is drawn in on a schematic, is the direction positive charge carriers would flow, if they were able to flow.
I say briefly mention this idea, and mention that in a circuit with solid conductors, it's really electrons that flow, in the oppisite direction (electron current), but leave it at that. That's more than adequate for our purposes.
Originally Posted by nleahcim I see no reason why you can't just say positive charge - I mean for the level that this is being written those people won't know what electrons are either, ....
acrim: nice one. would love to see a noobs guide to not screwing up soldering. especially explaining to people how bigger isnt better - that 130w weller gun you stole from your dad is going to kill your pcb, no matter how many sinks you use. and meter usage for morons would be nice - i plan on getting a new one soon, and havent had one for years, i may need a refresher course ... i plan on re-wiring my bass soon, as i have a house now and can finish refinishing the body now - and i wish to upgrade the pickups and mayber slip a 3band eq in the mix, and i dont think that it would be worth the hassle to even try it without a decent meter.
everyone else: if you disagree with him or zap, write your own guide.
Originally Posted by nleahcim I see no further point in arguing this, though I still know that you are quite mistaken in the matter. I see no reason why you can't just say positive charge - I mean for the level that this is being written those people won't know what electrons are either, and this way they won't be confused when they look at more advanced guides, ones that don't have blatantly wrong parts. I'm still amazed you are even arguing this - this is common sense... Your guide has a mistake. That is unarguable.
edit: forgot to mention that what IS arguable is whether or not it is best to lie to people to keep things as easy to understand as possible. I don't think it is - but you seem to think differently for some reason which I don't understand.
That's ridiculous - the fact that protons, neutrons and electrons make up atoms is PRE-GCSE stuff. This is a guide to anyone who doesn't know a lot about electronics, it's common knowledge that atoms are made of these things.
The fact that acrim decided to use the term of the movement of electrons, which is a correct statement, to associate the flow of charge with something tangeable that builds upon other knowledge is a perfect aid to learning. Why you chose to persue this further is beyond me - you decided to use a similar term, which ends up being more technical as you have to imagine a quantity.
What's more, you're being very confrontational and aggressive to someone who's made an article to help people, and not chosen to use your more complicated analogy. Why should someone use a more technical term for these things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapWizard And this is not the thread to talk about this is it?
Why's that then Zap? Surely this is article feedback?
Comments 26 to 33 of 33
And this is not the thread to talk about this is it?
Great guide.
I do think there needs to be a guide with more explination on exactly how the voltage-drop in LEDs works and how to use it properly to design efficient LED circuits.
Thanks.
In the coming parts I intend to extend case light project by adding more LEDs and using this as an oppertunity to talk about that.
Looking forward to the next part.
edit: forgot to mention that what IS arguable is whether or not it is best to lie to people to keep things as easy to understand as possible. I don't think it is - but you seem to think differently for some reason which I don't understand.
Lets start a thread....
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=89525
http://linear1.org/ckts/led.php
acrim: nice one. would love to see a noobs guide to not screwing up soldering. especially explaining to people how bigger isnt better - that 130w weller gun you stole from your dad is going to kill your pcb, no matter how many sinks you use. and meter usage for morons would be nice - i plan on getting a new one soon, and havent had one for years, i may need a refresher course ... i plan on re-wiring my bass soon, as i have a house now and can finish refinishing the body now - and i wish to upgrade the pickups and mayber slip a 3band eq in the mix, and i dont think that it would be worth the hassle to even try it without a decent meter.
everyone else: if you disagree with him or zap, write your own guide.
That's ridiculous - the fact that protons, neutrons and electrons make up atoms is PRE-GCSE stuff. This is a guide to anyone who doesn't know a lot about electronics, it's common knowledge that atoms are made of these things.
The fact that acrim decided to use the term of the movement of electrons, which is a correct statement, to associate the flow of charge with something tangeable that builds upon other knowledge is a perfect aid to learning. Why you chose to persue this further is beyond me - you decided to use a similar term, which ends up being more technical as you have to imagine a quantity.
What's more, you're being very confrontational and aggressive to someone who's made an article to help people, and not chosen to use your more complicated analogy. Why should someone use a more technical term for these things?