> It's still a SMPS as the controlling element is operating in switch 
> mode
> not linear, certainly not phase control

It's a SMPS by basic definition ie SWITCHED mode power supply.
BUT it differs from what people almost always MEAN when they say SMPS.
SMPS means to most a device that uses reactive storage as a means of 
transferring energy at one impedance level to another impedance level. 
eg High voltage low current to lower voltage higher current.
His is EFFECTIVELY a resistive switch. ie it does not transform the 
energy to a different impedance level by storing it in a reactive 
element and then using the element differently. Instead it JUST chops 
the input voltage to decrease it. Iin to the switch block = Iout.
By that measure it is not a SMPS as we usually understand the term.
It suffers the large disadvantage of needing a conventional main 
transformer as well as a switch. This disadvantage is accepted by some 
in exchange for the advantages.

> I did propose a phase controlled very simple low cost solution which
> seemed to fit most of his requirements

He isn't really after a phase controlled solution - that is an 
unfortunate terminology which he probably picked up from others using 
the technique. The waveform is chopped multiple times per phase, not 
once only per half cycle as in traditional techniques. The method has 
several advantages over conventional phase control.

> He didn't even bother to comment
> Seems more intent on complaining how misunderstood he is.

I think that if you put yourself in his position and read the full 
thread that you would feel a bit got at as well. If you have grown a 
thick Olin proof skin, or have an Olin proof filter or are one of his 
mates who he never attacks then its easy to not see how someone new 
feels about it. He WAS misunderstood, and improperly. He was also rude 
and sarcastic in exchange (and technuically wrong in ctriticisng Olins 
advice). He initially gave a clear technical description of what he 
wanted to achieve and most did not bother to try to understand the 
technical description. (I have the advantage of having used this basic 
method previously). Olin admits that he didn't understand it so he 
skipped the description. If he had also skipped comment and gone on to 
be incredibly helpful to someone else, as he often is, then all may be 
well. Better to ignore than to wrongly criticise technical input. It 
makes you look silly and doesn't help anyone.

> I wonder if there is a hidden agenda

Doubt it. It think he's just a bit like me and Olin :-). A bit 
pig-headed and not willing to be pushed around without reacting in 
some way or other. We all react differently - Olin gets rude and stops 
listening to good input, I spout long diatribes, others .... .

If we keep this up much longer you can cut another notch on Olin's gun 
barrel - maybe not a full kill but certainly a powerful assist.



        Russell McMahon

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist