About Jung super regulator - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Power Supplies

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd November 2006, 02:42 PM   #21
AndrewT is online now AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Hi,
for "Personal use" is completely different from for "commercial gain".

We have to take your word for we have no way to police your final intention.

Was the original series published in Audio Amateur?
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2006, 05:08 PM   #22
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
Default Korn&Korn, 1956

misremembered the reference

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...658#post627658

a differential input 3/4 tube "op amp" controlled paralleled pass tubes, the amplifier and the voltage reference "bootstrap" powered from the regulated output V

all of the elements of the "super regulator", including use of the name "super regulator"


Nelson's permitting "personal use" of his patented designs is the only meaningful "grant" that can be offered, because he has the right to control the use of the IP of his patents during their term

published but unpatented circuits are not controllable IP, they become “prior art” - if the authors really wanted to control it their only options were patenting or attempting to practice as a trade secret - and reverse engineering has long been recognized as legal, a sale of a device employing a patentable technology is for the patent office the same as publication

this is how technology advances; circuits, techniques, patterns of problem solving are published and become available for all to use
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2006, 05:47 PM   #23
WaltJ is offline WaltJ  United States
diyAudio Member
 
WaltJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Default Let's get the history right

Quote:
misremembered the reference

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...7658#post627658

a differential input 3/4 tube "op amp" controlled paralleled pass tubes, the amplifier and the voltage reference "bootstrap" powered from the regulated output V

all of the elements of the"super regulator", including use of the name "super regulator"
There's one earlier yet than Korn and Korn 2d ed., (Fig. #?) as I had noted some time back, here:


US claiming IP on feedback regulators? Why not? For example, see the 1946 MIT Rad Lab series #21, "Electronic Instruments", section 16-6, 'Practical Regulator Design / Precision DC Voltage Supplies', in Fig. 16-27 for example. A tube based feedback regulator with the VR105 reference tube fed from the regulated output. A 6SL7 differential input amplifier is used, with a 6Y6 pass tube. This section was authored by A. Jacobsen and J. V. Holdam, Jr.

This clearly predates any solid state/op amp based feedback regulators, which as far as I know came about in the 1960s and 1970s. It is very interesting to see just how much the early technology had been optimized. The circuit in question had an output impedance of 0.8 ohms, and a regulation of 0.05%. But these were serious times indeed, there was a war ongoing.

Don't look for this work online (except perhaps a purchase via www.abebooks.com , where I got my copy). Not everything of value exists on the internet, and never will. Some very good stuff still takes some hard work and digging. When one goes through this process, the knowledge gained and subsequently absorbed has greater staying power than that which is simply dropped into one's lap.

Walt Jung


I cannot help but note the irony of some comments on the developments of these regulators. The "nothing new" I find extremely odd, as if to imply that anything beyond the very first instance in a developmental chain is unworthy. By that line of thought, a 747 isn't an improvement over the Wright brother's flyer, right?

There's also some very fuzzy attributions along the way. FYI, it is Mike Sulzer, not Dave. Reading his articles does reveal this.

WaltJ
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2006, 06:37 PM   #24
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
Certainly the concept has deep roots and has been modified, adapted and improved in multiple incarnations, that is my point, the topology has been improved by people likely selling for profit their implementations while allowing them to become part of the published ”art” for future engineers to build on.

With no innovations the articles on your website would be a valuable contribution to teaching the “art” to new engineers, the real improvements are great to have too.

If authors in a hobby magazine were themselves selling the circuit in question I can see the courtesy of buying their version in the face of competing copies, but I don’t see how anyone could expect a published circuit to be restricted to “personal use only” forever forward.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2006, 08:30 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Guys,

I am not sure why this thread now seems to gyrate to the legality or not of building each other's circuits. Let me clarify my point. That was that a poster started to throw around offhand 'improvements' to the 'Jung regulator' without (as became clear quickly) even understanding how it worked. That's a great disservice to unsuspecting members that ask questions, and who are completely misled. That's not to say I or anybody else have a patent to The Trvth (tm), but at least we should engage our brain before operating the keyboard and do our homework.

I don't want to speak for Walt, and I am sure he will correct me if necessary, but at least for me it was not a point of building that design. After all, copying is the sincerest form of flattery

Jan Didden
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2006, 02:27 AM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
mitwrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Send a message via AIM to mitwrong Send a message via MSN to mitwrong Send a message via Yahoo to mitwrong
Default Super Regulator

Hi,

" TOO MUCH COOK SPOILED THE SOUP "

Am I the cook? from my point of view, I was not offhand to give " suggestion " on Jung reg. I was based on theoretical point, and no intention to disservice one's design. This is forum, we utilize it to discuss circuitry, design, as well as parts. Mainly to exchange the idea from each other, learn from each other.
No suggestions, there will be no improvement. As an engineer, he targets on technical, invention, new products as their goal to research, to find out the truth.
If any suggestion that came from us and cause your inconvenience, we say sorry about that.

PS: what is the purpose of this forum for? technical argument?



LEARN FROM EACH OTHER IS ANOTHER WAY OF LEARNING
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2006, 07:59 AM   #27
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
Default Re: Let's get the history right

Quote:
Originally posted by WaltJ
The "nothing new" I find extremely odd, as if to imply that anything beyond the very first instance in a developmental chain is unworthy.
I think you missundestand me at least. There is a basic idea and the time has made this idea better and better by small changes in design and _big_ improvements in parts. Since I don't have the whole story from the tube regulator over to Mr. Kaneda in 1977 over to the Jung/Didden incarnation I can't really judge who made what. What I can see is that a resistor is changed to a constant current generator which certianly is smart and a real improvement. Changing from a 709 to an AD825 has to do with time only.

Walt, when you talk about improvements I think noone really has ment electrical improvement, more like practical improvement such as easier mounting, smaller pcb, more options for different parts.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2006, 09:19 AM   #28
AndrewT is online now AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Hi Mit,
you offered improvements, whether in performance or parts simplification.

We asked you to post them with the test results of your research.

I am still waiting.
Maybe the other readers are too.
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2006, 11:32 AM   #29
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
Default Re: About Jung super regulator

Quote:
Originally posted by MaxS
Hello

After readings about regulatots, I have Jung super regulator ( schematics attached ) but I'd get your advice about some substitions parts.

AD 825
  • JFET input
  • High output current
I want to replace it with TL 071 but i'm afraid by a low output current of this one which makes the transistor didn't provide too much current in the case of an HFE around 40. Otherwise, i canuse a most expensive one as OPA 13x.

2N5087
I've read I can replace it with 2N2907, so I can replace it with a BC 327. Am I wrong ?
Back to topic...Depending of desired output current you can use almost any small signal transistor with sufficient ratings. Hfe should be >100, better with 300 or more. fT should be > 100 MHz or more.

BC327/337/54x/55x/560 are OK examples. I have used BC550C and BC5560C with good results. The power transistor should be fast, D44H11/D45H11 are excellent but BD139/140 are also OK for smaller currents.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2006, 01:35 PM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
mitwrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Send a message via AIM to mitwrong Send a message via MSN to mitwrong Send a message via Yahoo to mitwrong
Default Jung regulator

Andrew T:

Thanks your support on our suggestion on the reg. improvement, Those points we suggested are base on theoretical background, and experiences.
As another member just pointed out his schematic which the ccs is replaced by a resistor, and the op-amp is replaced by 709. of cause, we haven't done this experiment, we can't say any thing on it. We suggested this item several threads before, due to we have seen this type of design several times. but this is the first time I saw design using ccs. And also the first time heard about Jung regulator.
On our market, we do know Lambda, Kepco, KDK, that's what the argue started with.
We do things not by venturing! We must have or get technical background to support what we have said. By the meantime, we are working on another project, and have to idle the regulator research, it may take some time to do it, we don't want to reveal the result without being done the test. By the time when we have done the reg. analysis and evaluation, we will announce it.




WE ANNOUNCE BY FACTS
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB: Jung Super Regulator PCB's vadimgal Swap Meet 4 29th May 2005 07:04 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:58 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2