[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [N8VEM-S100:2417] 6502 CPU Board V1 components question
- To: n8vem-s100@googlegroups.com
- Subject: Re: [N8VEM-S100:2417] 6502 CPU Board V1 components question
- From: Fabio Battaglia <hkzl...@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:50:57 +0100
- Authentication-results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hkzl...@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4013:c01::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=hkzl...@gmail.com; dkim=pass head...@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gjdcozfOXx4UssElh0PY1xOV1GJ6CoYrAZ1HT/5ELJo=; b=vnePskzRQ35AztFp7Z/W3JOIaco7mTfgaY68FsiDnFW1JhRHEFK4992D6EggQxdnty ZmqO4CDZn80DlABkg5nQwqzSustfXzmvAfLHkT/P6ZsWfdbHdFkRF+DX5zOrhqj3/T9Q Rh9JC14r9Idx9kDnKA3QhlJTplD0zaV3btMHWrvf1PcExJnDO9Q0Aba+AMNmn9Zwb8aY CB5Vv5etl8h4rIBbe9lX9IsH6mT4zKaih8oxVrWt6VC8IxEQebmx6effnUMHgpGhUIw+ TsSAXhswT70RWr3Yq0A2P2Pg6iU8Q/TtSF3BUZ1vdyNAVrAPFnIbOMjFPCB1WULgLfWL 2FJA==
- In-reply-to: <12C36C55-02FC-476D-977E-EEB4870A1F01@gmail.com>
- References: <e3eccd44-763a-40cb-9ad2-bcee5951ebe2@googlegroups.com> <12C36C55-02FC-476D-977E-EEB4870A1F01@gmail.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
On 17/02/14 19:31, David Riley wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Fabio Battaglia <hkzl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 5% should be fine; 5% was actually the "expensive" grade of resistor
> when these parts were new. 1K, more or less, is generally just a
> nominal value unless it's for a termination network (e.g. for SCSI),
> in which case you usually want the given value with a 5% tolerance to
> match the characteristic impedance of the transfer medium. The
> recommended value in the datasheet should probably be fine; you don't
> want an output cap that's too big on a 78xx part, because when you cut
> off the power supply, you could end up reverse-biasing the regulator
> if there's a lot of stored energy in the cap, and my recollection is
> that the 78xx regulators don't have much in the way of protection. You
> can always drop a diode from output to input to protect it, though
> that's obviously not ideal if the PCB doesn't already allow for that.
> - Dave
Yep, I've seen 7805 being destroyed by reverse voltage caused by a big
cap discharging. It shouldn't be an issue on this case though: I don't
have the datasheet handy, but I remember that the reccomended value
wasn't that much distant from 1.0uF (probably less). 1.2uF just struck
me as a weird value though.
While the diode is probably not needed, It might not be a bad idea
either if no one advices against: It's not hard to solder on the back of
the board and I have plenty of good-enough silicon diodes...