Paul,

The AutoCad drawing file was 8k in size.
Many people have no way to read DWG files.

The PDF file at 600 dpi was 18k in size.
The PDF file at 150 dpi was 17k in size.
There are free readers available for all platforms.

The GIF file came to 181k. I was able to reduce it to
57k monochrome.

I also prefer the PDF files because the PDF writer
is accessible the same as a printer, and so I can
produce PDF files from ANY of my applications.

I find the quality of the PDF files superior. I
normally produce 600 dpi PDF files, as they
reproduce excellently on laser printers, and the
increase in file size is very small.

I might be able to get something readable from
an 18k GIF, but that same 18k of file space
in PDF format gives me a MUCH better result
when printed out on paper.

In general I have found the PDF files to be
smaller than the comparable quality GIF files,
plus I can incorporate word processor elements,
and in that case people can extract the text
if they desire.

I was initially suprised to find that if I
include a GIF file into a PDF document, the
resulting PDF document is often actually smaller!

Fr. Tom McGahee

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul B. Webster VK2BZC <paulb@MIDCOAST.COM.AU>
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thursday, April 06, 2000 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Constant-current cap charging


>Thomas McGahee wrote:
>
>> See the attached PDF file for a very simple constant current source
>> that might work for you.
>
>  That or the two-transistor version beat the pants off the LM317 or
>constant-current diode suggestions (the latter if only as they are hens
>teeth at higher currents, though minimum voltage drop is also higher).
>
>  Tom, why must you post PDFs?  GIFs inline into the mail much easier so
>we can see them straight off in the navigator.  Your PDFs appear to
>incorporate GIFs, including text, anyway.
>
>  Your other suggestion of the transformer - would be far better off
>to use the second transformer to power the PIC as well I should think.
>I would think though that the space needed to add *any* second
>transformer would be better utilised fitting a decent transformer in the
>first place - possibly a C-core or toroidal.
>--
>  Cheers,
>        Paul B.
>