XNOR circuit - Can any one build XNOR circuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
The circuits in post #41 are XOR not XNOR.
Their main disadvantage is they they waste more than more than normal lamp current when one one input is on, and more than twice the lamp current when both inputs are on.
 
Last edited:
The point of the post, which I should have stated, was simplicity of
logic w/o active components. And yes they are not a low power design.

And XNOR switch in one leg the R and switch.

Regards, Dana.
 
Last edited:
The point of the post, which I should have stated, was simplicity of
logic w/o active components. And yes they are not a low power design.
Okay.
It would appear that the bottom two circuits are the same except one uses four discrete diodes and the other uses a four-diode bridge.

So you don't consider diodes to be an active component?
 
Last edited:
I'm using a PNP to drive the LED, not an NPN.
Hm. You're using PNPs (2N3906) for ALL 3 transistors. Which I recognised, and tried, and decided must be a mistake as that was even less 'working' than with NPNs:


Of course, if you'd shared your LTSpice implementation, I wouldn't have had to try recreate it myself.
 
Last edited:
Hey sxy, if you find all this as confusing and unhelpful as I do, let's continue via PM and let the one-uppers play amongst themselves.
 
 
Just use an LED model that you have in your LTspice library.
I have an LTSpice library?

That's why I used Falstad to demo for sxy; no dependancies. (Nor steep learning curve; nor stupid UI;...)
(+ visual indication of current flows and rates; mouse over scoping;...)
 
Last edited:
sxy,

See here for a working Falstad implementation of Crutschow's XOR/XNOR circuits. Note that the XNOR version is the XOR + a NOT gate to invert the output.
 
Last edited:
Okay.
It would appear that the bottom two circuits are the same except one uses four discrete diodes and the other uses a four-diode bridge.

So you don't consider diodes to be an active component?







Regards, Dana.
 
That states a diode is an active device.

So take your pick.
 
As you can see there is no biblical definition of active versus passive.

But that guys def leaves one to wonder why he considered diodes as active

In a nutshell, active components can, generally speaking, inject power into a circuit and are capable of electrically controlling and amplifying the flow of electrical current, whereas passive components cannot.

Of course we can spend a year or two debating what applies to what in the above def.....UGH.

Here they are considered passive, but then broadly classify tube's as active, would that
also be true of tubes with no elements, no connections. Silly.



But then -





Lets debate this until neither of us is breathing anymore.


Regards, Dana.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…