There is such an application for example in the National’s LM340/LM78xx datasheet.carlosfm said:
Let's see...
Pedja had the idea of using a high-current positive regulator (LM338) for both rails, because there is no negative linear reg useful for this application.
I don't think there's an App Note with this.
He reported good results with the GC, as I did too (and others), later.
Otherwise, probably nobody would be doing this, and specially, selling this.
Everybody was very happy with low capacitance unregulated PSU.
Respect.
And once more, the circuit was on the Class A amplifier site before I have sorted it at all. And Fred Dieckmann was the first who reported to sort regulated supply for the GC (with LT1084 IIRC, so he must do that similar way).
That is it, now let me be immodest.
What I was the first was that I’ve reported it to be an improvement over the 1000uF approach that ruled up to then. I tried to give some explanation and consequently some tips on usage of LM338. For quite some times the reactions were still silent and then came a few guys confirming my findings (note that not all reports were positive) and reporting more about the usage of such setup. The same credit can go to them as it can go to me. I personally am proud on that not only the general idea but also general suggestions I gave stayed accepted till these days.
And aftermath, when the things received commercial weight we have the guy coming to “their own varied circuit” selling “their own boards” and, as we saw a few hours ago, kits are on the way as well.
Pedja
I think I understand your feelings Pedja. It is like when my siblings saying something to my parents they would not listen but when other kids of their friends saying the same thing they trusted them. When we say "see see" and then we got told to shutup!
May be from now on all groupbuy items must be etched with the Diyaudio.com logo and take a set percent per sale like paypal's 3 percent!
The Butcher
😀
May be from now on all groupbuy items must be etched with the Diyaudio.com logo and take a set percent per sale like paypal's 3 percent!
The Butcher
😀
A small hint from me is that you ask specificly for a 50 x 50 mm pcb. If a 100 x 160 mm costs 4USD doesn't mean that a 50 x 50 mm costs 0.63 USD. Small pcb's have higher area price.roibm said:
So my advice is that you check the size in mind first.
I didn't say how much it costs, but I am ready to bet it didn't cost more than $2/board.peranders said:
I have read this thread with great interest.
I have seen how "commercialism" has stifled DIY exchanges and led to unseamly arguments, much to my annoyance javascript:smilie('😡')
mad
I also think the following has much merrit:
"Solution:
Require all Group Buy projects to freely publish all project documentation here at DIYAudio.com including:
User / Instruction Manuals
PCB drawings / pdf files / gerber files / CAD files - all PCB files
Schematics
i.e. all documentation included in the Group Buy package and all documentation necessary to duplicate it EXACTLY, right down to the PCB manufacurer and specs.
In this way, anyone wishing to exactly duplicate the effort could easily do so without having to participate in the Group Buy. If a Group Buy organiser can not or will not publish everything here, then it's a commercial offering.
Also, I believe DIYAudio should restrict support questions related to group buy products to the Group Buy forum. It's not DIY to assemble a PCB - it's soldering!"
I would also make a rule that the originator of a thread or a schematic contributor should be given the chance to offer a group buy, or to give up that opportunity, at which point anybody would be able to offer such a group buy.
This should then be found in the appropriate location. Hopefully more than one person would offer such a group buy, so to dilute the attractiveness for purely commercial explotation.
On copywrite:
It is my understanding that under international treaty, any original work is copywrite to the author, whether or not copywrite has been applied for, or is expressly claimed. You can be pretty safe in assuming that if you did not author what you are copying then you are infringing someone elses copywrite, unless you have permission to do so.
However, ideas or methods can not be copywrited (these can be patented, but that stifles innovation and progression, and only protect the rich from competition, in my opinion).
Regards
Ivan😡
I have seen how "commercialism" has stifled DIY exchanges and led to unseamly arguments, much to my annoyance javascript:smilie('😡')
mad
I also think the following has much merrit:
"Solution:
Require all Group Buy projects to freely publish all project documentation here at DIYAudio.com including:
User / Instruction Manuals
PCB drawings / pdf files / gerber files / CAD files - all PCB files
Schematics
i.e. all documentation included in the Group Buy package and all documentation necessary to duplicate it EXACTLY, right down to the PCB manufacurer and specs.
In this way, anyone wishing to exactly duplicate the effort could easily do so without having to participate in the Group Buy. If a Group Buy organiser can not or will not publish everything here, then it's a commercial offering.
Also, I believe DIYAudio should restrict support questions related to group buy products to the Group Buy forum. It's not DIY to assemble a PCB - it's soldering!"
I would also make a rule that the originator of a thread or a schematic contributor should be given the chance to offer a group buy, or to give up that opportunity, at which point anybody would be able to offer such a group buy.
This should then be found in the appropriate location. Hopefully more than one person would offer such a group buy, so to dilute the attractiveness for purely commercial explotation.
On copywrite:
It is my understanding that under international treaty, any original work is copywrite to the author, whether or not copywrite has been applied for, or is expressly claimed. You can be pretty safe in assuming that if you did not author what you are copying then you are infringing someone elses copywrite, unless you have permission to do so.
However, ideas or methods can not be copywrited (these can be patented, but that stifles innovation and progression, and only protect the rich from competition, in my opinion).
Regards
Ivan😡
Adapt to commercialism or become extinct ....
I am a member of this site more than a year and read a few similar threads, started by other technically talented (ex)members. (BTW haven’t read anything of Fred Dieckmann recently).
The information on this site is interested for commercial reasons because of its content and the number of visitors. (that’s a fact of live, and comes for free)
Another fact is, that the technical talented people, who are IMO of vital importance to this site, should have a reason to post here. The ‘what is in their for me principle’.
So if someone posts an idea to share it with others, with the intention to learn from it, through feedback from others. It is quite irritating when that idea grabbed by another member, who’s intention isn’t to provide feedback, but (from a positive perspective) to provide others with a PCB/kit.
This is no problem IMO as long provide quality feedback. When that fails to occur, the foundation of this site is in danger. The moderator has a role of pioneer in this situation and must stimulate the discussion (a much more pro-active attitude than is currently shown). At least they should avoid any suspicion of commercialism. When that implies they need to be compensated otherwise for their work, we could consider a membership contribution and pay them from that.
However I wonder how long the success of this site will continue, without any change in its concept.
I am a member of this site more than a year and read a few similar threads, started by other technically talented (ex)members. (BTW haven’t read anything of Fred Dieckmann recently).
The information on this site is interested for commercial reasons because of its content and the number of visitors. (that’s a fact of live, and comes for free)
Another fact is, that the technical talented people, who are IMO of vital importance to this site, should have a reason to post here. The ‘what is in their for me principle’.
So if someone posts an idea to share it with others, with the intention to learn from it, through feedback from others. It is quite irritating when that idea grabbed by another member, who’s intention isn’t to provide feedback, but (from a positive perspective) to provide others with a PCB/kit.
This is no problem IMO as long provide quality feedback. When that fails to occur, the foundation of this site is in danger. The moderator has a role of pioneer in this situation and must stimulate the discussion (a much more pro-active attitude than is currently shown). At least they should avoid any suspicion of commercialism. When that implies they need to be compensated otherwise for their work, we could consider a membership contribution and pay them from that.
However I wonder how long the success of this site will continue, without any change in its concept.
Re: Adapt to commercialism or become extinct ....
At least Peter Daniel had the good sense to quit being a moderator.
Now we have Per-Anders...
Nothing personal, it just doesn't seam right.
Calimero said:
At least Peter Daniel had the good sense to quit being a moderator.
Now we have Per-Anders...
Nothing personal, it just doesn't seam right.
IPA said:
Yes. Copywrite is one of the few ownership rights that is granted automatically and immediately, just by putting it in tangible form. As I remember, to enforce it worldwide via legal proceedings it must be registered with the big C.
So a web page is protected via a copywrite once I create it. No one is legally allowed to copy it and place it on their site (assuming it is original and rights are not waived). People can link to the copywrited site however as long as it is clear that you are linked to the site. So the fact that I share my site publically, does not make the copywrited material (graphics, layout, sentences etc.) public domain.
But,
This does not mean the ideas expressed on the page are protected. If I describe some novel technique to attach a bike seat to a bike frame the fact that the actual words on the page have a copywrite does not provide any protection for the idea. This would have to come from other vehicles (patents, trade secrets, etc.) Trade secrets would not apply because I disclosed it publicly. As noted earlier, because I willfully provided the idea publicly, I would not be able to get a patent.
Interestingly, if I disclosed it to a third party under an agreement that they protect the information and they make the info public, I am likely still protected and can still apply for a patent. Disclosure by this third party does not make it public domain.
History note: Charles Dickens became enfuriated with the United States on his visit there in the late 1800s. His works were very popular but the US had no copywrite laws and did not honor England's. So he was getting no return on his books sold in the US. He had a fairly public spat over this with US papers etc. saying he was anti liberty etc. Mostly he just wanted to pay his mortages. Why he had two households? Well that is another story.
moving_electron said:
So, you can't save the web site to disk and publish it's content anywhere else, right?
You see a schematic there and you make "save picture as", but for your own use, not public use, not to spread, not to sell.
You can ask permission to the owner of the site, usually there's a contact e-mail.
Very easy.😉
Yes, this was discussed earlier here, © doesn’t protect expressed ideas from being used, whatever the purpose is, just a thing as such from being copied. (Well, for free, it is still not bad…) Yet under some circumstances (clearly marked source, presence of the link to the original location, usage for non-profit purposes) none will make problems if some part of the work which is anyway online is copied.moving_electron said:
However, my original intention wasn’t to talk about legal issues.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=516499#post516499
Pedja
I don't want to belabor the brief legal discussion but one last clarification in line with Pedja's post:
The artwork of a schematic on a website is protected. So you cannot take the actual gif etc. and put it on your site. (You can link to it though as long as it is clear the user is at the linked site when they get there).
But:
The copywrite does not protect the electrical aspects of the schematic. So someone else can legally redraw the schematic and post that to their site. The electrical design aspects would have to be protected in some other way to prevent this from a legal point of view.
Now back to the "what is good and acceptable behavior on group buys discussion".........
The artwork of a schematic on a website is protected. So you cannot take the actual gif etc. and put it on your site. (You can link to it though as long as it is clear the user is at the linked site when they get there).
But:
The copywrite does not protect the electrical aspects of the schematic. So someone else can legally redraw the schematic and post that to their site. The electrical design aspects would have to be protected in some other way to prevent this from a legal point of view.
Now back to the "what is good and acceptable behavior on group buys discussion".........
In all the discussion on this topic lets keep in mind that:
1) We now have two examples of big demand for PCBs and kit group buys. So there is a storng need for these. There were a great many individuals who purchased these and are building. Prices were considered to be very fair by those purchasing.
2) Lots of logistics. It is hard work.
So what ever results from the discussion on this thread, lets keep in mind that fulfilling the needs of "1)" above is a worthy goal and fulfills the needs of a large number of forum members.
1) We now have two examples of big demand for PCBs and kit group buys. So there is a storng need for these. There were a great many individuals who purchased these and are building. Prices were considered to be very fair by those purchasing.
2) Lots of logistics. It is hard work.
So what ever results from the discussion on this thread, lets keep in mind that fulfilling the needs of "1)" above is a worthy goal and fulfills the needs of a large number of forum members.
A different view
I think that the GainClone is probably the easiest DIY project of all time, so we are seeing a very high demand for GC related projects because everyone can make one. This is causing a lot of stress as members think about making a buck or two, or see thier design replicated across a wider audience. These people probably feel faulted in some way.
Keep in mind the primary purpose of this site is sharing information and helping others, at least that's how I see it. Unless you have a patent there is no IP in taking your circuit to a board (as mentioned already). I actually think this site should encourage that activity, it will allow people to build things easier and try more ideas. I've bought boards for projects like an Aleph-X that there is no way I could build without this help.
Anyway, just my opinion.
I think that the GainClone is probably the easiest DIY project of all time, so we are seeing a very high demand for GC related projects because everyone can make one. This is causing a lot of stress as members think about making a buck or two, or see thier design replicated across a wider audience. These people probably feel faulted in some way.
Keep in mind the primary purpose of this site is sharing information and helping others, at least that's how I see it. Unless you have a patent there is no IP in taking your circuit to a board (as mentioned already). I actually think this site should encourage that activity, it will allow people to build things easier and try more ideas. I've bought boards for projects like an Aleph-X that there is no way I could build without this help.
Anyway, just my opinion.
Re: A different view
It should.
For me it is.
It's always good to know what we can count on, thanks.
Mmmmm...
Talking GCs, most offers are still a copy of the Gaincard, nothing so new around here, after some years.
And if people is happy, it will remain this way.
Nobody will try new approaches unless there's a "flashy" PCB selling around here.
And those who have new ideas will (maby?) keep them for themselves.
That is the conclusion I can get here.
So let the guys that sell the PCBs (most of the times disguised as "Group Orders") have the ideas.
lgreen said:
It should.
For me it is.
lgreen said:
It's always good to know what we can count on, thanks.
lgreen said:
Mmmmm...
Talking GCs, most offers are still a copy of the Gaincard, nothing so new around here, after some years.
And if people is happy, it will remain this way.
Nobody will try new approaches unless there's a "flashy" PCB selling around here.
And those who have new ideas will (maby?) keep them for themselves.
That is the conclusion I can get here.
So let the guys that sell the PCBs (most of the times disguised as "Group Orders") have the ideas.
Re: Re: A different view
I don't think that is accurate. A number of folks tried the Regulated BIGC. More would try it though with a PCB.
They can of course but then they forego the feedback. They might delay discussing their idea if they were planning on producing boards of kits until they were sufficiently close. I am not sure that is even all that necessary. As far as I can tell a statement such as "and I am working on a board for this" would limit any other attempts and direct the PCB interest to them as long as the board is forthcoming.
If they are not interested in PCB buys then the only reason to not share is that they just don't want to share. Which is OK and certainly within their rights. They may perhaps do this if they just don't think there should be any large group buy. Otherwise what is the purpose of not sharing? (Not having time to explain/defend the idea is certainly a valid reason!)
In all the history of the world, the people with initial ideas are rarely the same as those who get it in use buy a wider audience. We need both efforts if you think better sound and more DIY projects is a worthy goal.
carlosfm said:
I don't think that is accurate. A number of folks tried the Regulated BIGC. More would try it though with a PCB.
carlosfm said:
They can of course but then they forego the feedback. They might delay discussing their idea if they were planning on producing boards of kits until they were sufficiently close. I am not sure that is even all that necessary. As far as I can tell a statement such as "and I am working on a board for this" would limit any other attempts and direct the PCB interest to them as long as the board is forthcoming.
If they are not interested in PCB buys then the only reason to not share is that they just don't want to share. Which is OK and certainly within their rights. They may perhaps do this if they just don't think there should be any large group buy. Otherwise what is the purpose of not sharing? (Not having time to explain/defend the idea is certainly a valid reason!)
carlosfm said:
In all the history of the world, the people with initial ideas are rarely the same as those who get it in use buy a wider audience. We need both efforts if you think better sound and more DIY projects is a worthy goal.
Re: Re: Re: A different view
Not having time and/or patience for senseless fights with those who sell boards and defend their implementation to death, being adverse to anything new or just different?
Not having time and/or patience to explain 1000 times what should be obvious?
Not having time and/or patience to make 1000 posts to make your point, knowing that those who doubt so much could test that deam resistor trick in 5 seconds?
Maby...
moving_electron said:
Not having time and/or patience for senseless fights with those who sell boards and defend their implementation to death, being adverse to anything new or just different?
Not having time and/or patience to explain 1000 times what should be obvious?
Not having time and/or patience to make 1000 posts to make your point, knowing that those who doubt so much could test that deam resistor trick in 5 seconds?
Maby...
IPA said:
I think this might be tricky to enforce and could be manipulated. I don't want to make the rules about who can offer a group buy.
IPA said:
Exactly!
One could still keep the provision that the design is for non-commercial use. If PCBs from group buys ended up in commercial products, someone might be able to take legal action.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.