Hi,

by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?

JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .

It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.

But that does not work out too well either:

1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.

3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.

FYI:

I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.

Nobody here could.

So how the hell did I know ?
Cos I has dealt with real ones and bench tested them.
Or else the flaws had become evident in the field.

The flaws concerned were ones that caused serious misbehaviour in real use or instant self destruction.

The upshot of these observations is that this NG is pretty useless.
Just like arguing over all the OT stuff is.

....... Phil

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:11:27 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>
> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>
> It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
> However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
>
> But that does not work out too well either:
>
> 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
>
> 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
>
> 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
>
> FYI:
>
> I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
> I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
>
> Nobody here could.
>
> So how the hell did I know ?
> Cos I has dealt with real ones and bench tested them.
> Or else the flaws had become evident in the field.
>
> The flaws concerned were ones that caused serious misbehaviour in real use or instant self destruction.
>
> The upshot of these observations is that this NG is pretty useless.
> Just like arguing over all the OT stuff is.

Why should any of this interest anyone else??? Or are you just ranting for some unexplained reason? I guess there weren't enough posts the last few days for you to vent over?

The group is a sum total of all the contributions. I'm sure you think your contributions are a net positive. Perhaps it would illustrative to ask what you expect from this group, but I'm sure that will only result in a stream of profanity as is typically the case.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Guano posted
===========
>
> >
> > I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
> > I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
> >
> > Nobody here could.
> >
> > So how the hell did I know ?
> > Cos I has dealt with real ones and bench tested them.
> > Or else the flaws had become evident in the field.
> >
> > The flaws concerned were ones that caused serious misbehaviour in real use or instant self destruction.
> >
> > The upshot of these observations is that this NG is pretty useless.
> > Just like arguing over all the OT stuff is.
>
> Why should any of this interest anyone else???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** LOL - what an *appalingly stupid* question.

FYI: my post comes in reply to the " OT: topic " thread.

Do keep up.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 10:08:45 PM UTC, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:11:27 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> > by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> > Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
> > JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> > But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
> > It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
> > However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
> > But that does not work out too well either:
> > 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
> > 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
> > 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
> > FYI:
> > I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
> > I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
> >
> > Nobody here could.
> >
> > So how the hell did I know ?
> > Cos I has dealt with real ones and bench tested them.
> > Or else the flaws had become evident in the field.
> >
> > The flaws concerned were ones that caused serious misbehaviour in real use or instant self destruction.
> >
> > The upshot of these observations is that this NG is pretty useless.
> > Just like arguing over all the OT stuff is.

> Why should any of this interest anyone else??? Or are you just ranting for some unexplained reason? I guess there weren't enough posts the last few days for you to vent over?
y.
> The group is a sum total of all the contributions. I'm sure you think your contributions are a net positive. Perhaps it would illustratae to ask what you expect from this group, but I'm sure that will only result in a stream of profanity as is typically the case.
>

Hey, I sympathize with Phil. And I actually like the 'experiments' in technical
social exchange that Phil & others have tried.

I *also* realize a usenet group is a imperfect channel for doing
some things, such as those stated. We should expect less-
than-ideal "S/N ratio" :-) And to be fair, sometimes the
schematics don't always tell the 'whole story' - but then
it turns into real work just to post full-topic here?

If someone wants higher S/N, go to electronics.stackexchange.com
or www.eevblog.com/forum

But here, I wouldn't give up on these & any other experiments.

I see no "rules" that we have to stick to pure & new design issues.
We (collectively) certainly break that rule, > 50% of the time.

To get the 'generally-on-topic ' to 'way-off-topic' Ratio >> 0.5, let see....

Brainstorming here.. some on going series of topics...

* odd old parts from the drawers - You post a picture of an old or
odd looking part, challenge us to figure out what it is

* design from the past - post original design, and suggest
how it would best be done today.

* lesson learned - honesty required. Ad hominens would be
admonished! What design error 'someone' did, you see a
lesson to be learned & can share.

* baffled by the readings - equipment reading told you one
thing but your gut was telling you something else. What did
you do to resolve the conflict?
Any more?

Rich S wrote:
============
>
> Hey, I sympathize with Phil. And I actually like the 'experiments' in technical
> social exchange that Phil & others have tried.
>

** Crikey - no-one has ever posted that idea here before.

Sympathy ..... for Phil A ??

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:35:24 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Guano posted
> ==========> >
> > >
> > > I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
> > > I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
> > >
> > > Nobody here could.
> > >
> > > So how the hell did I know ?
> > > Cos I has dealt with real ones and bench tested them.
> > > Or else the flaws had become evident in the field.
> > >
> > > The flaws concerned were ones that caused serious misbehaviour in real use or instant self destruction.
> > >
> > > The upshot of these observations is that this NG is pretty useless.
> > > Just like arguing over all the OT stuff is.
> >
> > Why should any of this interest anyone else???
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ** LOL - what an *appalingly stupid* question.
>
> FYI: my post comes in reply to the " OT: topic " thread.
>
> Do keep up.

The fact that your post is off topic and labeled as such does not answer the question. Why is this of interest to anyone else who might read it??? You make a few ego-centric claims, describe the insipid posts that most conversations here are full of (which is very obvious to nearly anyone) and act as if you have produced a pearl of wisdom. Finally you fail to explain why anyone else would be interested in this observation.

I think your response is much like the elephant and the lion.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Bat Gauno
===========
>
> The fact that your post is off topic ...

** FFS you bloody idiot -

it could not possibly be MORE ON TOPIC !!!!
=====================================

...... PHIL

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 7:25:14 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bat Gauno
> ===========
> >
> > The fact that your post is off topic ...
>
> ** FFS you bloody idiot -
>
> it could not possibly be MORE ON TOPIC !!!!
> =====================================

And yet he still can not respond to the point of the post. Clearly delusional... literally. He can't understand anything anyone says. He only responds to the noises inside his own head.

Yep... The irony is Phil is talking about himself in the third person.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>
>JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .

Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
that way.

>
>It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
>However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
>
>But that does not work out too well either:
>
>1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
>
>2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
>
>3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.

Too many issues are presented without much detail, or described
ambiguously. Interpreting a fuzzy word question is too much work...
there are too many possibilities.

Schematics are better.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

Bat Gauno
===========
>> >
> > > The fact that your post is off topic ...
> >
> > ** FFS you bloody idiot -
> >
> > it could not possibly be MORE ON TOPIC !!!!
> > =====================================
>
> And yet he still can not respond to the point of the post.
>

** Because it was entirely FALSE!!.

Made up shit direct from you arse hole

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
===============================

> >
> >by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> >Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
> >
> >JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> >But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>
> Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
> that way.
>

** Shame you did not notice the duality before this.

> >It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
> >However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
> >
> >But that does not work out too well either:
> >
> >1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
> >
> >2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
> >
> >3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
>
> Too many issues are presented without much detail, or described
> ambiguously. Interpreting a fuzzy word question is too much work...
> there are too many possibilities.
>

** Why I ask questions - instead of posting guesses.

>
> Schematics are better.
>

** I just explained the stark fallacy of that idea.

Or maybe you think salt water is better than none when dying of thirst ??

..... Phil

On 11/27/2021 7:14 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
> <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>>
>> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>
> Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
> that way.

The Navajo language is almost entirely verbs, pretty cool huh.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bat Gauno
> ===========
> >> >
> > > > The fact that your post is off topic ...
> > >
> > > ** FFS you bloody idiot -
> > >
> > > it could not possibly be MORE ON TOPIC !!!!
> > > =====================================
> >
> > And yet he still can not respond to the point of the post.
> >
> ** Because it was entirely FALSE!!.
>
> Made up shit direct from you arse hole

You don't even understand what it said!

LOL

Phil, the incredible thinking machine.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The Bat Guano FUCKWIT
==================
> > >
> > > > > The fact that your post is off topic ...
> > > >
> > > > ** FFS you bloody idiot -
> > > >
> > > > it could not possibly be MORE ON TOPIC !!!!
> > > > =====================================
> > >
> > > And yet he still can not respond to the point of the post.
> > >
> > ** Because it was entirely FALSE!!.
> >
> > Made up shit direct from you arse hole
>
> You don't even understand what it said!

** Because it was entirely FALSE!!.

Made up shit, direct from your arse hole

Where your head permantently lives ....

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 16:32:26 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>===============================
>
>> >
>> >by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>> >Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>> >
>> >JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>> >But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>>
>> Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
>> that way.
>>
>
>** Shame you did not notice the duality before this.
>

Don't be absurd. Or at least do it more skillfully.

>
>> >It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
>> >However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
>> >
>> >But that does not work out too well either:
>> >
>> >1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
>> >
>> >2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
>> >
>> >3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
>>
>> Too many issues are presented without much detail, or described
>> ambiguously. Interpreting a fuzzy word question is too much work...
>> there are too many possibilities.
>>
>
>** Why I ask questions - instead of posting guesses.
>
>>
>> Schematics are better.
>>
>
>** I just explained the stark fallacy of that idea.

OK, I don't have to fix many beer-soaked wa-wa pedals without
schematics.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:14:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> >Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
> >
> >JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> >But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
> Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
> that way.
> >
> >It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
> >However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
> >
> >But that does not work out too well either:
> >
> >1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
> >
> >2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
> >
> >3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
> Too many issues are presented without much detail, or described
> ambiguously. Interpreting a fuzzy word question is too much work...
> there are too many possibilities.
>
> Schematics are better.

But hard to make sense of if you don't know what the designer had in mind. Bitrex posted a .asc file which I eventually managed to cut and paste into LTSpice, and I got thrown by the fact that he wanted to generate two floating rails and didn't care where they sat vis-a-vis the driver ground.

I'll have to think a bit more about the circuit now I've got a slightly better idea of what is it designed to do. What is was intended to do would be even better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
=====================================
>
> >** Shame you did not notice the duality before this.
> >
> Don't be absurd.

** Not one bit absurd.

You have always * insisted *that people must post only about their own designs here.
Which is of course total bullshit.

Plus you failed *hopelessly* at all my simple quiz questions.
As fully expected.

> >** I just explained the stark fallacy of that idea.

> OK, I don't have to fix many beer-soaked wa-wa pedals without
> schematics.

** Go fuck yourself - you vile, ASD fucked, shit for brains septic.

On 28/11/21 11:14 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
> <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>>
>> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>
> Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
> that way.

And some can be both, at the same time. Gerunds.

Personally, I like swimming. And designing.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:50:53 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> =====================================
> >
> > >** Shame you did not notice the duality before this.
> > >
> > Don't be absurd.
> ** Not one bit absurd.
>
> You have always * insisted *that people must post only about their own designs here.
> Which is of course total bullshit.
>
> Plus you failed *hopelessly* at all my simple quiz questions.
> As fully expected.
> > >** I just explained the stark fallacy of that idea.
>
> > OK, I don't have to fix many beer-soaked wa-wa pedals without
> > schematics.
> ** Go fuck yourself - you vile, ASD fucked, shit for brains septic.

Dude, you are without a doubt the strangest person in this group of Mensa wannabe misfits. In this group, that is quite a statement! My hat is off to you.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:21:07 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 28/11/21 11:14 am, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
> > <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> >> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
> >>
> >> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> >> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
> >
> > Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
> > that way.
> And some can be both, at the same time. Gerunds.
>
> Personally, I like swimming. And designing.

A gerund is a noun made from a verb. It is no longer a verb and no longer functions as a verb. In your butchered example "swimming" is a noun and "like" is the verb. The verb form would be "swim".

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 11/27/2021 11:27 PM, Rick C wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:50:53 PM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> =====================================
>>>
>>>> ** Shame you did not notice the duality before this.
>>>>
>>> Don't be absurd.
>> ** Not one bit absurd.
>>
>> You have always * insisted *that people must post only about their own designs here.
>> Which is of course total bullshit.
>>
>> Plus you failed *hopelessly* at all my simple quiz questions.
>> As fully expected.
>>>> ** I just explained the stark fallacy of that idea.
>>
>>> OK, I don't have to fix many beer-soaked wa-wa pedals without
>>> schematics.
>> ** Go fuck yourself - you vile, ASD fucked, shit for brains septic.
>
> Dude, you are without a doubt the strangest person in this group of Mensa wannabe misfits. In this group, that is quite a statement! My hat is off to you.
>

I think the strangest person is someone who went to a Mensa meeting more
than once

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 19:50:51 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>=====================================
> >
>> >** Shame you did not notice the duality before this.
>> >
>> Don't be absurd.
>
>** Not one bit absurd.
>
> You have always * insisted *that people must post only about their own designs here.

Absurd again. Bidenesque even. I have never insisted anything like
that. I'm always happy to assist decent amateurs to understand things.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >=====================================
> >
> >> >** Shame you did not notice the duality before this.
> >> >
> >> Don't be absurd.
> >
> >** Not one bit absurd.
> >
> > You have always * insisted *that people must post only about their own designs here.
>
> Absurd again.

** Complete fact - you are blatantly lying.

> I have never insisted anything like that.

** YOU have CONSTANTLY insisted on it :

" ... post one of *your* designs so we can all criticise it ..."

Not as a polite invitation - but a thinly disguised *threat*.

> I'm always happy to assist decent amateurs to understand things.

** Yawnnnnnnnnn.......

A massive, self aggrandising straw man fallacy.

Wot a complete asshole you are.

...... Phil

On 11/27/2021 9:56 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:14:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
>> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>>> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>>>
>>> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>>> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>> Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
>> that way.
>>>
>>> It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
>>> However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
>>>
>>> But that does not work out too well either:
>>>
>>> 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
>>>
>>> 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
>>>
>>> 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
>> Too many issues are presented without much detail, or described
>> ambiguously. Interpreting a fuzzy word question is too much work...
>> there are too many possibilities.
>>
>> Schematics are better.
>
> But hard to make sense of if you don't know what the designer had in mind. Bitrex posted a .asc file which I eventually managed to cut and paste into LTSpice, and I got thrown by the fact that he wanted to generate two floating rails and didn't care where they sat vis-a-vis the driver ground.
>
> I'll have to think a bit more about the circuit now I've got a slightly better idea of what is it designed to do. What is was intended to do would be even better.
>

Make small voltage big with lower duty cycle than a boost and a
continuous input current, so you can regulate current on the input side.

Might be good for driving an LED string or something.

On 11/29/2021 10:46 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 11/27/2021 9:56 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:14:19 AM UTC+11,
>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:11:24 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
>>> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>>>> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>>>>
>>>> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>>>> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>>> Lots of words can be nouns or verbs, or adjectives. English is funny
>>> that way.
>>>>
>>>> It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a
>>>> schematic and this NG is non binary.
>>>> However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the
>>>> web, allowing discussion of them.
>>>>
>>>> But that does not work out too well either:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist
>>>> in practice.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact
>>>> hopelessly flawed.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding
>>>> how it works or even what it does.
>>> Too many issues are presented without much detail, or described
>>> ambiguously. Interpreting a fuzzy word question is too much work...
>>> there are too many possibilities.
>>>
>>> Schematics are better.
>>
>> But hard to make sense of if you don't know what the designer had in
>> mind. Bitrex posted a .asc file which I eventually managed to cut and
>> paste into LTSpice, and I got thrown by the fact that he wanted to
>> generate two floating rails and didn't care where they sat vis-a-vis
>> the driver ground.
>>
>> I'll have to think a bit more about the circuit now I've got a
>> slightly better idea of what is it designed to do. What is was
>> intended to do would be even better.
>>
>
> Make small voltage big with lower duty cycle than a boost and a
> continuous input current, so you can regulate current on the input side.

The boost has continuous input current in CCM too but its gain isn't so
good.