Basic science has failed me. I've tried to make a basic astable multivibrator circuit with the exact same components on the left and right side but one side lasts way longer than the other.
I'm using the following components: 2×1k resistors 2×1M resistors 2×10 uF 63V capacitors 2×NPN transistors (C337 W6d) 2×Red 5mm LED's
It's on 5V all in a breadboard.
Pic related, it's the circuit diagram of what I've made.
Any way to debug this or tell what's wrong etc? How come the theory fails me?
Ok I tried the calculator but the signals I can get from it are unusable for my purposes.
I basically need the following signals: 128 seconds low with a blip high, that switches a monostable circuit to run for just under a second. The other one the same but with 225 seconds instead of 128.
This is why the astable multivibrator one was so appealing, I could just use the blip once it switches to switch a monostable circuit that runs for just under a second. I'm not sure how to do that with the 555.
Dylan Jackson
I'm not sure I understand the waveforms you're looking for. Do you think you could post a sketch and also explain how your circuit above was supposed to achieve it?
John Butler
I'll draw something out, hang on.
Jeremiah Rivera
You're probably running one transistor in reverse because the circuit looks more 'symmetric' that way.
Grayson Butler
I hope this makes sense.
The astable multivibrator to the left infinitely switches every 128 seconds. On every switch, I want to trigger a monostable circuit that is "on" for slightly less than one second.
The other signal is the same except for 225 seconds.
Julian Hughes
the "Use each switch to trigger" basically means that every time the hi/low sides switch that it should trigger the monostable to the right.
Jaxson Foster
the first signal is achievable with an astable 555, and the second likewise with a FET on the output the invert the signal.
The same applies for the last one.
David Green
Will try, though I still don't understand why my original multivibrator doesn't work proper. All components are exactly the same.
Liam Flores
you checked that your circuit is wired correctly?
like suggested it's very easy to have the transistors in the wrong order which (depending on the pin config) could mean that it's in reverse active and would probably account for difference.
Landon Barnes
Yes, I've run through the circuit several times, including the transistors and the LED's. Heck, even the voltages and operating temperatures on the capacitors. It's really weird and discouraging.
Jonathan Sanders
Can you post a picture of your breadboard setup?
Bentley Reed
Lemme see what I can do. It'll be a webcam pic so I hope it'll be good enough.
Julian Clark
analogue is difficult m8, I wouldn't worry about it.
there's a reason 555s are so popular and timing circuits are a pain in the arse generally.
Justin Rodriguez
Here ya go. The inner two resistors are 1M, the outer ones are 1k. The rest is as described earlier.
Charles Martinez
Ok with the 555 timer I've calculated the following: C = 100uF R1 = 0 Ohm, but I doubt this is a healthy decision R2 = ~3.25 kOhm (of course I won't work towards that many significant digits).
Juan Baker
From the picture, it looks like the left capacitor's positive end isn't in the same row as the 1 Meg
Julian Sanders
Thanks for the catch. I've fixed it. The reason that was the case that just before I put it away I tried different capacitors and misplaced this last one.
After the fix the problem persists though. Meaning, this wasn't the error that caused the different intervals.
Jason Torres
Is the right LED really connected to the emitter of the right transistor? Looks like it goes to the base.
So this pretty lame, but if you haven't already, try switching out left components to the right and vice versa to see which component brings the problem to the other side. Transistors first, then capacitors
Jose Sullivan
That'actually something I hadn't even considered. I just swapped components with my outside resources. All equivalent parts of course.
Result of your advice: no effect.
I feel like I might be able to solve it if I just understood the practice of electronics and not just some superficial and basic theory.
Jonathan Watson
As a rule of thumb for stable operation the ratio Rb/Rc should not exceed the B of the transistors used. In your case it is 1000 and the BC337 has a rather low B at such low currents. I would replace the 1M resistors with 100K and increase the capacitors to 100µF and see if that works. A better suited transistor for low currents is the BC550C (or BC548C or BC549C).
Jaxon Brooks
Wow! That greatly helped. They're just about equally timed now. I don't need this particular circuit, however, I did need to know why the theory broke up at the values I used initially.
I'll be sure to look into transistor specifications on next builds.
Any tips on how to be more weary?
Gavin Allen
>about equally timed now Don't forget that this type of capacitor has a rather large tolerance, like ±20%. If you exchange the two you might see the effect. >why the theory broke up I don't think it did. What looks like a symmetric circuit is in reality a two stage 'linear' amplifier with positive feedback. This needs a certain loop gain for stable operation. If it is barely larger than 1 (like with the 1M resistors and the small B transistors) you probably will not arrive at the expected behavior.
Julian Ramirez
I suppose the biggest lesson then is that basic tutorials are just that: basic and overly simplified.