| ??? 12/03/09 21:26 Read: times |
#171450 - That's not what was said Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Per Westermark said:
Always switching the subject when cornered.
Do you remember what you said earlier? Richard said:
No current-source can perform well without a really solid, well regulated, low-noise, properly decoupled, low-impedance voltage source. You can feed one from another current source, but you can't start the process with a dodgy supply such as is found in a PC ... not even from a good LED driver. A CC regulator do not need to be fed from a CV regulator. I didn't say it had to be fed from an external one, but, rather, that it required a precise voltage at some point in the circuit. Erik insists that it needn't have any voltage control at any point. I think that might have been a poor choice of wording, but I disagreed, in the hope he'd correct himself, or show that it was, in fact, the case. So far, he's not done that, nor have you. No one have been discussing what physical property a CC regulator will use internally for the control loop. That is totally irrelevant to the concept.
But there is no physical property that requires a CC regulator to be fed by a constant voltage, i.e. that you stack the CC regulator after a voltage regulator. I didn't say it had to be external. I implied that it had to be part of the overall circuit. I'd point out, too, that current sources are not relevant to this thread. Erik jumped in with his <laser-diodes are current devices> rant which Kai quickly pointed out was irrelevant since no laser diodes were being implemented. The laser diode was in a module which dealt with those matters on its own. As for changing the subject ... I simply recommended a common adjustable voltage regulator when Chico had indicated he was having trouble generating the correct supply voltage. Either stay on one subject, or respond with "oops, I was wrong" or "oops, I may have been unclear". But do not constantly start by saying something ridiculous, and when cornered trying to pretend that you were talking about something else, and blame everyone else for having starting the debate with a ridiculous claim. As I've already stated in another post, I'm just trying to drag some useful information out of you and Erik with this otherwise irrelevant bit of this thread. You claim to have a current source design that requires no voltage regulation of any sort at any point in the circuit. Remember, the wild-hare-chase began with the voltage regulation matter. Where's the useful information that you've provided? RE |
