Netlist said:
i have my reasons NOT TO POST MY SCH, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO take a Patent of it . sorry for that
i think a mine is more important than a sch
thanks for ur post
BTW: doesn’t answer (or very vaguely) any technical question
I DONT THINK SO
a pic
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Attachments
FYI.
I had a communication from NXP last week stating that the UCD patent rights have been transferrrd from Philips to NXP.
This isn't surprising given that the Philips chip business is now NXP.
I had a communication from NXP last week stating that the UCD patent rights have been transferrrd from Philips to NXP.
This isn't surprising given that the Philips chip business is now NXP.
Ouroboros said:
i had called nxp(china), but they dont know about the ucd
who can tell me how to do🙁
We use Arrow here at work as our main parts supplier. I got the NXP info through them in the UK.
The message I got through Arrow is pasted below.
"Sorry for the delay - Basically the situation is such that the UcD patent can be used free of charge if NXP semiconductors are implemented in the UcD amplifier. So, for the customer, there's effectively no change in the licensing situation.
The Patent now belongs to NXP and the NXP components, not Philips Semiconductors any longer. "
The message I got through Arrow is pasted below.
"Sorry for the delay - Basically the situation is such that the UcD patent can be used free of charge if NXP semiconductors are implemented in the UcD amplifier. So, for the customer, there's effectively no change in the licensing situation.
The Patent now belongs to NXP and the NXP components, not Philips Semiconductors any longer. "
Ouroboros said:
thanks a lot🙂
if u can give me the email about NXP ?
i'd like to recieve a mail from NXP
fumac said:
Actually, your schematic - if it's based off of the Phillips/whoever UCD chips - is not patentable under US law, or, as far as I know, the law of any other country. That's like patenting a toaster: You can make a new kind of toaster, but they've been around for decades.
You could, however, claim copyright on your schematics and PCB design. You don't need to register for it, either - by publishing something and saying "not for commercial use", you're automatically entitled to sue the crap out of anyone who proceeds to steal from you. While someone might base their own design on your amplifier, he is not permitted to make money selling it.
An example is Nelson Pass. He's published his designs for hobbyist use, but if anyone tries to use or copy them for commercial use, he is then able to sue them.
Besides, we'll just reverse-engineer anything you sell anyway - it's what we do. 🙂
----------------Spasticteapot said:
i'm thinking about this
thanks ur post
we have 3 ver now, in the UCD_LIKE
one very like ucd(bruno's),can up to 1Mhz(800k~1M)
i think, we'll sell it used NXP chips
2nd ver, not like ucd, up to 1.5Mhz~2Mhz ,it can used NXP CHIPS ,but if used chipS from IR , it will be better
3rd ver,more diffrent with ucd,not self osc, it can work on 2~4Mhz ,I CANT FINE A FET can work at the freq from nxp. but 6665 from IR is ok.
I think the true protek is upgrade the product(not like mswin🙂),
not just a patent.
So this is a commercial venture and you're implementing several UCD style designs and will eventually go over to use IRF6665.
Not a bad idea, but why hamper the performance by trying to run at stupid speeds like 2MHz? What is the benefit other than lower efficiency and higher distortion?
You could concentrate on using the SMD FETS to run at 400kHz and make the output stage super efficient, and make it ultra low distortion open loop so that the UCD feedback system could give you class leading THD performance. The beauty of UCD is the simplicity of the design. If you can produce an output driver stage that doesn;t fry eggs like the rest of the implementations do then you'd be onto a winner.
I'd be interested in talking to you about this off topic. Please email me.
f.
Not a bad idea, but why hamper the performance by trying to run at stupid speeds like 2MHz? What is the benefit other than lower efficiency and higher distortion?
You could concentrate on using the SMD FETS to run at 400kHz and make the output stage super efficient, and make it ultra low distortion open loop so that the UCD feedback system could give you class leading THD performance. The beauty of UCD is the simplicity of the design. If you can produce an output driver stage that doesn;t fry eggs like the rest of the implementations do then you'd be onto a winner.
I'd be interested in talking to you about this off topic. Please email me.
f.
FuriousD said:
some time stupid is better than all time stupid🙂 do u think so
up to 2mhz is just to test some thing ,not for biz now,
if we just look at the audio ,is a stupid,
but if we look at 30k~200k, 🙂.....
I never just look at audio.
a winner is today better then yesterday,
in chinese it call:good good study ,dayday up.
perhaps u dont know the meaning🙂
I'd be interested in talking to you about this off topic. Please email me.
----------------------
i dont know what the meaning of this🙂 my english still poor
but i'll mail u🙂
Sorry! That user has specified that they do not wish to receive emails through this board. If you still wish to send an email to this user, please contact the administrator and they may be able to help
icant mail to u
mail me :FUMAC1#GMAIL#COM,
icant mail to u
mail me :FUMAC1#GMAIL#COM,
Thats not very socialable of me not receiving emails!
I have emailed you now.
I understand the purpose of proving that the output stage will run at 2MHz with the SMD parts. It is useful to prove the speed of the output driver stage.
The key to a good UCD is to get the PWM switching right. Efficiency tends to go hand in hand with nicely shaped PWM and hence the area under the curve is right. Which in turn gives good distortion.
I'm glad you're doing this. How anyone can attempt a design using TO220 parts is beyond me. The lead inductances alone will kill any chance of truly great performance.
f.
I have emailed you now.
I understand the purpose of proving that the output stage will run at 2MHz with the SMD parts. It is useful to prove the speed of the output driver stage.
The key to a good UCD is to get the PWM switching right. Efficiency tends to go hand in hand with nicely shaped PWM and hence the area under the curve is right. Which in turn gives good distortion.
I'm glad you're doing this. How anyone can attempt a design using TO220 parts is beyond me. The lead inductances alone will kill any chance of truly great performance.
f.
If you enable your email button people can email you without revealing your own email address. If you answer then your email is revealed. This is a very nice feature. Other forums don't keep your email address private.FuriousD said:
thank u peranders
i have a new test with my mcd-II
if u like pls goto
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96501
🙂
i have a new test with my mcd-II
if u like pls goto
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96501
🙂
fumac said:
You are not logged in. Fill in the form at the bottom of this page and try again.
You do not have permission to access the page that you were trying to. Are you trying to edit someone else's post or trying to access administrative features? Check that you are allowed to perform this action in the Forum Rules.
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
??????????????????????????????????????????
Your amp measurements look good, very good!
I see you sell also a boxed model.
But I cant find the price!
PLZ tell me how much do they cost!
I see you sell also a boxed model.
But I cant find the price!
PLZ tell me how much do they cost!
Phobos said:
thanku
i have send u a mail
out target: low price good sound
we r designing a smps power with mhz damp in one board.
something diffrent with others
keep connetion
rg
fumac
- Status
- Not open for further replies.