text:
Q: Incompatible type notation in JSDoc for Google Apps Script online vs locally Consider the following script
function caller(){
  getSpreadsheet1();// only the online IDE understands this
  getSpreadsheet2();// only the local IDE (VS Code) understands this
}

/**
 * @returns {SpreadsheetApp.Spreadsheet}
 */
function getSpreadsheet1(){
  var spreadsheet = SpreadsheetApp.openById('');
  return spreadsheet;
}

/**
 * @returns {GoogleAppsScript.Spreadsheet.Spreadsheet}
 */
function getSpreadsheet2(){
  var spreadsheet = SpreadsheetApp.openById('');
  return spreadsheet;
}

If you paste this script into the (new) Google Apps Script IDE, placing a period (.) after getSpreadsheet1() will trigger the IDE to display the member functions of class Spreadsheet, like addEditor(), for the sake of auto-completion. That is to say, the online IDE understands the type of getSpreadsheet1().
I have tried to achieve the same behaviour locally. I copied the script to a local file and I ran npm i -S @types/google-apps-script in the same folder, as per this guide. However, I get no autocompletion when placing a period after getSpreadsheet1(), but instead I only get it after placing the period after getSpreadsheet2().
Note that my local IDE (VS Code) does understand the type of SpreadsheetApp.openById(''), so that does seem to work correctly.
Is there a way to get my local IDE to understand the JSDoc comments that use the types like SpreadsheetApp.Spreadsheet required by the online IDE?

A: Besides removing the @returns completely to let Typescript infer the result type automatically it's possible to make it work in both cases with the following trick:
function caller() {
    getSpreadsheet1();// only the online IDE understands this
    getSpreadsheet2();// only the local IDE (VS Code) understands this
}

/**
 * @typedef {ReturnType<typeof SpreadsheetApp['openById']>} Spreadsheet
 */

/**
 * @returns {Spreadsheet}
 */
function getSpreadsheet1() {
    var spreadsheet = SpreadsheetApp.openById('');
    return spreadsheet;
}

/**
 * @returns {Spreadsheet}
 */
function getSpreadsheet2() {
    var spreadsheet = SpreadsheetApp.openById('');
    return spreadsheet;
}


text:
www.cavelti.com
Cavelti & Associates, Ltd.
Strategic Updates
Peter's Author Page
previousGovernment and Big Business
nextEsthetics Over Ethics
The Iraq War
by Peter C. Cavelti
A Questionable Enterprise
TheIraqWar-AQuestionableEnterprise-revDownload
What's next in the Middle East? According to people like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. According to much of the American political establishment, nothing of the kind.
One year after the tragedy of September 11, America's War On Terrorism is in tatters. The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating fast, US allies in Europe and the Middle East are openly criticizing Washington, the terrorists have broadened their reach and are said to be regrouping, and Saddam Hussein is as defiant as ever. And worst of all, America itself is at odds over what should happen.
I've written at length about what I think of the ever crabby allies and the despotic regimes of the Middle East. This time, let me dwell on the US itself. Earlier this week, Vice President Cheney stated that "the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action" and "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
What does the US know?
We can't expect the US to demonstrate to the public what evidence it has accumulated. Everyone understands that. But I would have expected that the Pentagon might show its closest allies what exactly it has on the vile Saddam– especially Britain, whose pilots have flown thousands of sorties over Iraq to enforce the no-fly zone. Maybe the Brits have actually looked at evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. But if they have, it can't have been too compelling; Prime Minister Blair's recent statements all argue against military action in Iraq.
Is a preemptive strike justifiable?
Even so, let's for a moment assume the Bush administration has the kind of information that can justify its warlike rhetoric. If Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other hawks in the cabinet are right and Saddam truly sits on whole arsenals of deadly chemical and biological agents (not to speak of his alleged readiness to deploy nuclear devices), then pre-emptive action should be taken immediately, shouldn't it? No one wants anthrax or smallpox unleashed on the West's urban centers, or see a "dirty nuke" exploded.
Under such circumstances, the deployment of US troops would also become justifiable, because the loss of life on the Iraqi battlefield would surely pale in comparison with what would befall US civilians in the event of a biological, chemical or nuclear attack.
The problem, of course, is that Dick Cheney doesn't know. When pressed on the subject, the Vice President becomes quite vague. He says that "firsthand testimony from defectors" suggests that the pursuit of nuclear arms is under way. When will Saddam be ready, the press wants to know? "Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances." There's the problem. Neither does the US know whether Saddam is fast approaching the ability to put the world on fire, nor can the nations opposing an attack on Iraq prove the opposite.
Where does that leave America? In the precarious position of having to justify something that might be an act of self-defense or, alternatively, constitute an act of great immorality. There is no good answer to this dilemma. £
The Iraq War – II
Three things go through my mind as I reflect on the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The first comes in the form of images— the graphic memories that I, and millions of others, will be condemned to remember as long as we live.
The thought that occurs soon after is that we should not dwell on last September's attack on innocent Americans without also paying respect to the innocent civilians slaughtered in so many other places—in Afghanistan, in the war between Israelis and Palestinians, and in Africa's epic conflicts, which are so far removed from our consciousness that hardly anyone pays attention.
Pax Americana, RIP
The third thing that goes through my mind is the extent to which 9/11 has altered our consciousness. It fundamentally and irreversibly changed the way we perceive geo-political realities and diminished the level of confidence we hold in our systems and markets. The notion Americans and most of the world held—that the United States is invulnerable—has been destroyed. The concept of Pax Americana, that Washington can in the post-Communist world guarantee global peace and security, has been cruelly challenged. As one of my European friends asks, must we now prepare for a world of preemptive strikes and retaliation? It's not a pleasant prospect.
"We created a United Nations Security Council, so that unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions more than wishes," President Bush said this week at the United Nations. He's absolutely right. The United Nations' record on Iraq has been one of atrocious ineffectiveness.
America's European allies, meanwhile, keep harping that any decision regarding Iraq must be approved by the unwieldy United Nations. What they don't say is that the UN already adopted what is called Resolution 687 in 1991. Its intent could not be more unambiguous. It says that "Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all …chemical, biological and ballistic weaponry". Saddam ended the United Nations effort to do just that when, several years ago, he disallowed weapons inspectors free movement inside his country.
It's instructive to weigh what the UN did in response. In a nutshell, it adopted additional resolutions. In 1998, UN Resolution 1205 condemned "the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease co-operation … as a flagrant violation of Resolution 687 and other relevant resolutions." And the year after, the world body adopted UN Resolution 1284 which established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). The commission, we were told by the United Nations bureaucracy, would ensure "the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations." In summary, the fact that Secretary Annan now asks for the matter of Iraq to be brought into the hands of the United Nations, is nothing short of bizarre. That he is backed in this demand by most European governments, as well as Security Council members Russia and China, is not surprising, but adds to the absurdity.
I think the US administration is right in saying that it will "go it alone" if necessary. Waging war by committee didn't work in the first move on Iraq, when NATO's mandate was restricted to the ejection of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, which effectively ended the campaign when Saddam's elite Republican Guard was chased back to the gates of Baghdad. The Kosovo campaign, under United Nations command, ended up being successful, but frustration abounded as French intelligence consistently leaked the UN bombing targets to Belgrade. Given such constraints, why not go it alone?
The need to demonstrate cause
None of which is to suggest that the US should carry out an attack on Iraq without demonstrating just cause to do so. I fervently believe that the concept of a preemptive strike against a regime that might have weapons of mass destruction or might be on the verge of developing them is profoundly immoral. The question, then, is with whom Washington should share the intelligence it has gathered? In the last issue I argued that the government cannot be expected to give the information it has to the public. One subscriber challenges that view. He writes that "The public should never be treated so dismissively and government secrecy is responsible for many of the world's ills," and "If there is hard evidence that Iraq has weaponry which constitutes a serious threat to world security, such evidence should be paraded for all to see."
I sympathize with that general viewpoint, but doubt the tactical and strategic wisdom of it. If the US knows what weapons of mass destruction Baghdad holds where, it has every justification to strike and no duty to disclose details until the enemy is vanquished. It would be noble to first share such evidence with the world and to seek its approval, but graciousness is not a virtue when it comes to warfare. Given the circumstances, and assuming US intelligence can demonstrate cause for an attack, a briefing of congressional leaders should suffice. £
The Iraq War – III
After the first Bush doctrine ("If you're not with us, you're against us"), the world is now digesting a second. It was tabled last week in a 33-page document entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States and states that the US will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged. "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary," the document says, "to exercise our right of self-defense pre-emptively." Terrorism and the ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction are mentioned as a possible, but not necessarily the only, excuse to justify such strikes.
Before going into the meat of the pre-emptive strike doctrine, let me dwell on the subject of weapons of mass destruction. Courtesy the Pentagon, we've learned that such weapons comprise nuclear devices, as well as the full spectrum of biological and chemical agents which, if unleashed upon humans, can kill them in large numbers. There's a key problem with that definition. Countless research facilities around the world work with biological agents like anthrax or smallpox, most pharmaceutical and chemical companies produce deadly chemical compounds, and finally, many large hospitals have sizeable stocks of radioactive isotopes, not to speak of the stores of enriched uranium and plutonium held by nuclear power plants. In short: all by itself, the scientific infrastructure of virtually any nation on earth provides a convenient excuse for a pre-emptive strike!
New doctrine transcends Bush era and Iraq problem
No one can know whether such callous thoughts are on the US President's mind. After all, George W. Bush may still share with US legislators and foreign allies knowledge of specific Iraqi installations or facilities which actually warrant a pre- emptive strike on Baghdad. But whether that will be the case or not is almost academic. By articulating his doctrine, Bush ushers in a new modus operandi which will transcend his administration and the context of the Iraq problem.
Some have dismissed George W. Bush's recent statements as nothing more than a continuation of a Republican tradition, drawing comparison to Ronald Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire". Such assessments are incorrect. President Reagan's legendary statement served notice on Moscow that the US could no longer engage in honest debate with a power that it and much of the world regarded as devoid of any morality. The current President's "Axis of Evil" comments were similar, which is why I never opposed them: they singled out known rogue regimes and served notice on them that any step in the wrong direction would have consequences.
What Bush has done with his most recent doctrine is different. The concept of a pre-emptive strike against anyone who is deemed to be an enemy no longer only defends the United States against attack, but promotes the protection of America's interests. Or, put differently, George W. Bush is no longer content with the principle that attacks on the US will be met with harsh retribution, but he's serving notice that the US will do what it needs to do in order to realize its ambitions. The most disconcerting aspect to this is that America will both be the judge of who should be targeted and the executor of the military strike. In declaring itself the sole arbiter of how the world order should be stacked, the US is matching the unrivalled power and influence it has enjoyed since the collapse of Communism with unrivalled arrogance. Why, I can hear the world community ask, should America be trusted with such a role? And why, I can hear the other major powers pipe in, should we not execute pre-emptive strikes against our possible enemies? What would happen if Russia and China adopted the same doctrine is best left to the imagination.
America the Empire
The announcement of the "preemptive strike" doctrine marks a defining point in time. It marks the end of the United States as a nation whose attention is directed internally and it marks the beginning of America the Empire. Depending on how the doctrine is applied, it may also mark the end of an age of moral leadership and the dawn of an era in which corporate interests dominate the militarily and economically most powerful nation. 20th century type democracy may be on its way out; oligarchy might become its logical successor.
Here is what troubles me the most. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans and most of the world agree that the test case for the new doctrine, Iraq, is motivated by oil and not by a credible threat to the United States. If the US now decides to strike, without being able to adequately demonstrate that Saddam was sitting, hand on the trigger, on a lethal arsenal, the conclusion will be that Big Oil is capable of determining America's new imperial foreign policy.
A more frightening thought and a distressing precedent could not have been invented by Washington's worst enemies. £
The Iraq War – IV
"The full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction will occur. The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how," said President Bush after the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favor of a new Iraq resolution. Let me say this first: I believe the US President, and I believe there will be war.
To begin with, George W. Bush has more domestic backing than any president could wish for. In addition to the pre- election Congressional resolution of support he obtained, he can now also claim control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. From a global perspective, opposition to the US stance is also waning. If Saddam does not fully cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, far fewer nations will stand opposed to a strike against Baghdad than was the case two months ago. China has virtually withdrawn its dissent and Russia seems amenable to a deal. Even some Middle Eastern players appear ready to jump off the Muslim train before it derails: it's very significant that Syria, the only Arab nation currently on the Security Council, decided to support the UN vote against Iraq.
How will it change our lives?
None of this means that war is inevitable. Both Russian and US intelligence are reportedly working on overthrowing Baghdad's current regime, presumably with the help of mutinous Iraqi generals. There is also an outside chance that Saddam will surprise everybody and mend his nefarious ways. Still, the odds for war are substantially larger than they were a few weeks ago, which is why the most pressing question of the moment is this: what geo-political impact will an attack on Iraq have and how will it change our lives? I'd like to devote today's comments to the first question and deal with the second one in a future issue.
On the geo-political front, one of the safest bets is that the Middle Eastern political map will be completely redrawn during the next five to ten years. The Arab nations themselves are facing internal revolt, as unemployed and uneducated youths make up a larger and larger percentage of the population. In most countries this disenfranchised group exceeds 30% of the total population; in several countries (Saudi Arabia included) it's 40% or more! While this explosive situation is largely the result of the repressive practices of brutal dictatorships, the wrath of the discontented is directed not at local despots alone, but also at the West. This is an entirely logical reaction, because the West was not only responsible for putting into power many of the Middle East's corrupt regimes, but is has also been guilty of protecting them, in order to maintain a stable and reasonably priced flow of energy.
Much of the non-American press places the fault for such policies squarely in Washington's lap, which is more than a bit hypocritical. Europe and Russia, in particular, are at least as guilty of carrying out the same cynical resource policies pursued by the United States. That's why the European Union's anti-US stance over the showdown with Saddam Hussein is suspect: Europe is far more concerned with curbing US power per se than with the principles at stake.
The importance of September 11
September 11 marked a dramatic change. By being attacked on its own soil, the American model was sorely tested. Protecting corrupt client states like Saudi Arabia no longer guaranteed anything—on the contrary, most of the terrorists received training at Saudi-financed madrassa schools and were of Saudi origin. Meanwhile, Middle Eastern demographics strongly suggest that worse lies ahead. In retrospect, it's amazing that it took the tragedy of September 11 to force Washington to seriously question its practice of propping up regimes that are not only hostile but unsustainable. On the other hand, America's reaction to 9/11 was far swifter than expected. The Bush administration quickly put its deemed alliances to the test and, where necessary, initiated strategic shifts. The first Bush doctrine ("if you're not with us, you're against us") set the theme; the second one ("we will carry out pre-emptive strikes when our security is threatened") took the premise to its next level.
The Bush administration's reaction brings immense risks to the world—I have commented on these at length in previous issues. But in some ways, it has also worked. The removal of the Taliban was not only a tactical step within a much larger script; it was also a highly symbolic act in that it did away with the worst Islamicism has to offer. From that perspective, a move on Iraq is the next logical step: after all, Saddam is now the most visible evil-doer. His track record as a repressive dictator capable of brutal aggression, genocide and environmental terrorism is undisputed, which is why attacking him is so saleable to the US public.
But Iraq is more than just Saddam—it's also home to the world's second largest oil reserves. Predictably, America's rivals feel as deeply uncomfortable about the idea of giving Washington control over Iraq's potential, as the Arab nations feel resentful that the fate of their region should once again be determined by a Western power. The US government is no doubt aware of such concerns and even understands them, but it knows that radical Islamicists threaten its security, that demographics virtually guarantee the overthrow of key oil producing states and that neither Russia, China nor the European Union will be able to do much about a US intervention.
While Washington is forced to discuss big issues, like the invasion of Iraq, with other world powers, its multi-pronged initiative in the Middle East, South Asia and the Far East continues unabated. On this front, diplomacy has been shelved in favor of forceful demands that governments cooperate with the US in its War On Terrorism. Most nations view this as an interference in their sovereign affairs, but have little choice but to grudgingly comply. If they don't, they risk being isolated, which will hasten internal turmoil and, eventually, their overthrow. If they cooperate, there are the benefits of increased US aid and, in turn, inflows of Western capital. Saudi Arabia is a regime that's being isolated; Oman and Qatar are being courted.
The US strategy, in essence, follows the model pioneered by British colonial policy: divide and conquer. Which is why the concept of Muslim unity, already a sham, is destined to completely crumble. At the same time, the continuous spreading of Islamicist terrorisms will ensure that much of the world will (albeit kicking and screaming), be forced to accept or at least tolerate the US agenda. Russia has already been drawn deep into the cauldron of terrorism and it's only a question of time before Al Qaida succeeds in attacking European targets. China is not directly threatened, but as its influence in places like Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia spreads, it will feel increasingly challenged by radical Islam. I wrote in October of 2001 that the current conflict would eventually become a "War on Islam" and I took a lot of heat for saying so. I still believe that this is exactly what will happen.
War is bad for markets
Several readers have asked me to comment on how the coming geo-political changes will impact financial markets. My viewpoint is in stark contrast to that of the many pundits who're suggesting that war is good for stocks. Not only is that a reckless notion, but there are numerous historical models which prove the opposite. War is a costly exercise that draws capital away from far more productive uses and basically wipes it out. It also frequently brings with it inflation, a prime destroyer of capital. This is not to say that war can't be a bonanza to specific stock sectors: the most notable examples are defense (early on) and reconstruction (after it's all over). But the idea that war brings benefits to the general economy and the stock market is mythical.
There's only one circumstance under which I can imagine tangible and lasting benefits to financial markets: a fast and flawlessly executed takeover of Iraq. The markets, which are gravely concerned with the possibility of a costly and protracted war, would breathe a sigh of relief, while oil prices would fall dramatically and thus boost the economy. The trouble with this scenario is that it would not likely last. The rest of the Middle East would likely be destabilized by an Iraq warandtheonlywaytheUScouldcontinuealongitsstrategicplanwouldbetocontainthenextpotential aggressors. Another problem is that the War On Terrorism, which has effectively become the War Against Al Qaida, will be sidetracked by a move on Iraq; the odds that the terrorist network will take advantage of that.
In short, the rearrangement of the Middle East and the War On Terrorism are likely be with us for a very long time and will consist of many phases. Any attempt at scenario construction risks being blindsided by countless uncertainties. One constant irritant along the path to changing the region's political map and lessening its monopolistic grip on energy will be the haggling between the US and other major powers. A lasting inconvenience in the War On Terrorism will be that, by definition, the terrorists control the agenda and are capable of striking anytime, anywhere. Such a fickle environment is guaranteed to weigh heavily on financial markets for some time. £
Publisher: Cavelti & Associates Ltd., Toronto, Canada. All rights reserved.
Gold Updates
The Real Threats
On Cynicism
Deviations from the Norm – II
A New Vocabulary
Webcast Interview
The Liberal World Order
Lies, Nothing But Lies
The Ministry of Truth
Webcast: Peter Cavelti and Doug Casey
The Unintended Consequences of Sanctions
The Ukraine Invasion: Implications
The Central Bank Dilemma
On Corruption, Propaganda and Autocracy
Of Generals and Central Bankers
Gold: Narrative and Reality
Gray Rhinos
An Update on Gold, A Primer on Cryptos
Tuiavii's Way
An Absence of Trust
Gold: Ready for Round Two
Of Fear and Fatigue
Gold and Money
The Next Seven Weeks
Gold: A Healthy, Sustainable Uptrend
A Second Catalyst
Receive Strategic Updates

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If you've never asked the right woman to marry you, one doubts you can understand what it is like. The powerful tension of your desire to please and be pleased is absolute, almost tangible. It swirls and swoops just outside the corner of your eye, invisible but felt without doubt, waiting to rush in like a sudden flood during the most special of moments you share with her. The air is alive and crackling with energy as the climactic moment of the first chapter of your lives together approaches. Are you really almost ready for the proposal? There's no noise except what you make yourself. Your breathing becomes loud in your own ears. Sweat trickles no matter the degree. Your heart thumps. And all the while there is the overwhelming knowledge that you're about to ask the woman of your dreams to spend the rest of your lives together.
Seal your everlasting commitment to love and cherish the woman of your dreams by presenting this stunning customizable 3-stone-style-plus-halo-and-pavé-band engagement ring, available with the following fantastic settings: Asscher Cut (as pictured and priced on this webpage), Cushion Cut, Emerald Cut, Marquise Cut, Oval Cut, Princess Cut, and Round Cut. Whichever you choose, we'll set both the center stone as the shape of your desire and the two accenting round-cut flank stones with the finest flawless 5A cubic zirconia commercially available. With triple the traditional center stone, does The Téa signify that your love for her is well beyond an average relationship? Maybe. Is it? The moment approaches. You ready for real? Get The Téa engagement ring as a stand-alone or together with the matching anniversary band to complete the cubic zirconia bridal set!
Buy this Tea engagement ring together with any anniversary band, ladies' wedding band, or gentlemen's wedding band and receive a nice two-ring discount applied at check-out.


Pierre Martin has made police history in Chicago for being the first offender caught as a result of using a facial biometrics system.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that police used a photo of Martin taken by one of the Chicago traffic authority's surveillance cameras to verify his identity after comparing it against a database with photos of offenders.
The image helped law enforcement officers bring Martin to justice after threatening someone with a gun and stealing a cell phone on a Pink Line city train.


In general a file package is created with --collection This will create an index document, which lists all embedded files.
It is possible to use own templates or normal PDF for embedding files. The standard for the file where other files will be embedded can be defined using the conversion target (see below). If no file is defined, an index file is created. Instead of using a destination file, also a folder containing a HTML-based Template with an index.html can be used as destination. The overview page of all embedded files will be created with the layout defined within this template then.
Also for files to embed a conversion target can be defined using the con-version target. For PDF/A-3 standards also a relationship entry for each embedded file can be set.
Alternatively, files can be embedded with defining an area in the contain-ing document, where a link to the contained file is created. No conversion will take place with the file to embed.
Defines a rectangular area, based on the lower left corner of the page, where a link to the embedded file is inserted. Default unit is pt.
Note: The "--embedwithlink" function is not supported when using an HTML-based template for the creation of the overview page.


text:
Bonded Cellular Technology for Wireless Video Transmission Available for Commercial UAS Operations
TRIDENT, from FlyMotion integrates LiveU's technology for live video acquisition, management and distribution over IP with FlyMotion's capabilities as a FAA 333 approved UAS solution provider.
Combining UAS with high-quality video transmission tools presents unmatched video-sharing capabilities for a wide range of end-users, including TV broadcasters, law-enforcement, search and rescue operators, security organizations and industrial inspectors.
With TRIDENT, these organizations can now fully pilot an unmanned aerial vehicle with optical or infra-red/thermal cameras from inside the mobile command and control vehicle. LiveU's hybrid bonded cellular technology enables resilient, live video captured by the UAV to be transmitted to any place in the world, making TRIDENT an indispensable solution in mission critical situations where reliable capture and transmission of live video is required.
"Several months ago, FlyMotion set out to design and engineer a UAS command and control vehicle that would become a new standard in the unmanned systems industry," said Maurice Cooley, FlyMotion's VP of Technology. "TRIDENT provides users with on-scene, rapid deployment functionality that allows for high-definition aerial scene analysis/monitoring in a matter of minutes. Coupled with LiveU's state-of the-art video transmission capabilities, video can be shared quickly and easily."
Citing TRIDENT's potential use for aiding first responders and relief organizations in a wide variety of natural disasters, Cooley explained that the command and control vehicle is capable of launching a UAV within minutes upon arriving on the disaster site. Low altitude aerial analysis and ongoing video can be transmitted to rescue teams guiding their efforts while helping to minimize risk.
TRIDENT integrates a LiveU LU500 cellular bonded unit, which provides resilient, live HD video transmission for on-the-move coverage, optimizing all available bandwidth to deliver broadcast-quality video. The FlyMotion solution also utilizes an LU700 hybrid video uplink solution and a LiveU Xtender external antenna solution that increases network reception and bandwidth, adding resiliency for transmissions in extreme situations, while reducing latency to less than one second.
The command and control system's layout and equipment eco-system, including a pair of 50-inch monitors with Smart board, are customized depending upon each client's needs and built into a range of different vehicular platforms. Drones utilizing optical or thermal imaging cameras complete the UAS solution.
"Working with FlyMotion has opened up new applications of our technology," said Avi Cohen, LiveU's Co-Founder and COO. "Today, our video capabilities are being applied to situations that require transmitting live visual intelligence vital to mission-critical decision making, from providing more visual coverage for law-enforcement to helping utilities better see and understand what is happening with their assets without having to send people to inspect them."
US Naval Research Lab Tests Stackable CICADA Microdrones Swarm
The U.S. Naval Research Lab has been working on its CICADA (Close-In Covert Autonomous Disposable Aircraft) drones since at least 2011. The tiny drones are designed to be carried aloft by other aircraft and dropped, whereupon they'll use GPS and little fins to glide to within 15 feet of their destination.
The Drone World Expo 2017 Interviews – Hector Ubiñas
In the third of a series of interviews with key figures involved in the success of Drone World Expo, we talked to for Hector Ubiñas, Aviation Services Manager, San Diego Gas and Electric. Hector joined SDG&E in September 2016 and has been overseeing the Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) program since starting with the company. In this role, Hector is responsible for the daily operations of the UAS program and continuing to develop new work methods for its application in the utility industry.
Swarms of Drones Test New Dogfighting Skills
Aerial dogfighting began more than a century ago in the skies over Europe with propeller-driven fighter aircraft carried aloft on wings of fabric and wood. An event held recently in southern California could mark the beginning of a new chapter in this form of aerial combat.
13 Takeaways from The White House Workshop
The White House launched a new effort Tuesday to help increase the use of drones and showcased how government agencies have become a proving ground for a wide array of new drone concepts and technologies.
New Report: Drones in Public Safety and First Responder Operations
It may not seem like it, but drones are still in their infancy and only proving themselves through the rigorous testing done privately, commercially, and by state and federal government agencies. Despite the tangible benefits that drones can provide, the public has mixed sentiments about their use by law enforcement, firefighting, and search & rescue operations.
Drone World Expo – Exclusive Interviews – Mark Bathrick
We wanted to find out more about the team behind Drone World Expo – what makes them tick, what motivates them and what are the secrets behind the success of the event. We interviewed Advisory Board member Mark L. Bathrick who directs a nationwide aviation services business for the U.S Department of the Interior (DOI) overseeing the safe operation of over 1,200 contracted and government-owned manned and unmanned aircraft across a wide range of business applications.
Rwanda Readies Life-Saving Drone Delivery System
This summer, small autonomous airplanes will begin carrying life-saving blood to 20 hospitals and healthcare centers across Western Rwanda, Africa, in one of the first-of-its-kind drone-based delivery demonstrations.
Tree-Planting Drones
Beaverton, Oregon-based drone startup DroneSeed created a drone with a device that fires seeds into the ground using compressed air in an effort to reforest the Pacific Northwest, and eventually forests around the world.
FAA Finalizes Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Today, the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration has finalized the first operational rules for routine commercial use of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or "drones"), opening pathways towards fully integrating UAS into the nation's airspace. These new regulations work to harness new innovations safely, to spur job growth, advance critical scientific research and save lives.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next


text:
KEYBOARD11 z n. n. »
Whine Cellar »
Stan whines about Rust
Stan whines about Rust¶
It's not something I've spent a lot of letters talking about, but when it comes to programming languages, I have a clear favorite in C++. But I don't think it's perfect, and I may eventually publish a language of mine that will show some potential improvement areas. This may seem like a similarly crazy task as making a competitor to Git from scratch instead of supporting one of existing alternatives, but guess what: the alternatives aren't exactly a net improvement.
There are two programming languages that are trying to position themselves as potential C++ replacements that I know of, Go and Rust. Go features mandatory garbage collection, which… you know, at that point you're not that far a way from Microsoft's .NET CLI setup, that's nowhere near C++. With Rust, well. It's definitely more honest. But it feels… thorny. It's a Giant, Friendly Yet Clumsy Crab of C++-like programming languages. I'm not going to pretend I'm a Rust expert; this post is a rant written mostly after reminding myself Rust exists and reading through "The Book" on rustlang.org once afterwards. It's likely that some points didn't come through to me, maybe they could be clarified.
The Friendly¶
Let's start by talking about Rust features which I like, and which I'm definitely considering to include in my language. Many of these are simply similar to C++ decisions, this includes a static typing system, equivalents of RAII, presence of object movement… However, it wouldn't be fair to assume that "fixing obvious C++ flaws" is where Rust's vision of improvement ends. The idea of compiler checking the lifetime of references seems somewhat obvious in retrospect, but that doesn't change usefulness of it. Sometimes it's interesting to see how some ideas at C++ Standardization Committee and in Rust are similar and wonder whether it's simply convergence, or was there an inspiration going one way or another, as visible with C++'s std::spans and Rust's slices as replacement for pointer arithmetic, or Herb Sutter's suggested try operator and Rust's question mark notation. The non-null notation is cool as well, though I wonder how well optimized it is - but that's a rant about the language, not the compiler.
The Giant¶
Some elements of Rust are what I would consider weird, in the sense that I'm not sure what were the authors thinking when they decided to make the language work like that, but I don't really dislike them as much as I am befuddled by the choices. Usage of postfix exclamation mark for demarking macros is one example; I have no idea why didn't they go with something else, but it's not ultimately a problem.
A larger feature is lack of direct inheritance, with dataless interfaces becoming the virtual option vehicles, and in fact apparently vtable pointers being moved into "fat pointers" within references. I really don't know what to think about this. It seems like it would result in a huge thought paradigm changes and this wasn't particularly well explained in the book, aside from "Go also does this and massive OOP is bad". There's probably a point in suggesting use of interfaces instead of inheritance when separate interface facility is available, but this doesn't leave much space for framework objects; maybe they can work differently.
The Clumsy¶
There's a few details that I'm not a huge fan of, but which I find ultimately understandable. All aspects of the Cargo build system feel more like something made because all the other "cool" languages have their own build systems which work similarly.
One thing that I want to focus on is lack of what I call "open typing". To the best of my knowledge no widely known statically typed language made it work yet, it's probably what one could call a "personal concept". I mention it since multiple impl blocks for structs are the first step towards that, and I was feeling a little teased about the possibility of doing the same thing with fields - but, it's not what I could really call a fault.
The Crab¶
So I sounded pretty happy with Rust so far. What's the problem with it, then?
Notation.
Oh dear Lord, the notation.
This is actually a bit of a multifaceted issue. Let me explain.
Move by default¶
You know how people criticize C++ for deeply copying stuff all the time by default? Well, Java's take on it was to involve a garbage collector and require explicit cloning of the values half the time. Rust is aligned to my interests enough to not involve a garbage collector, but deep copying of things still requires clone annotations. Instead, values are now moved by default, and proceed to disappear. This is slightly less of an issue than it sounds like since Rust encourages you to use references a lot, but it's a huge gotcha, especially since it doesn't apply to some types while applying to others.
But if you're using references for your function parameters:
Reffed up¶
You need an ampersand to convert an object to a reference.
If you come to Rust without going through C++ it's possible that you are squinting right now. So let's move straight to the next point:
A vocabulary problem¶
The Rust terminology is in significant collision with C++ one. Given the amount of programming languages, that wasn't completely avoidable, but some of the choices are extremely confusing. The best example is aforementioned reference, which is more like a C++ pointer than like a C++ reference in many ways. The Rust team could have tried to find a less used word for such an important element of the language, like they did with traits - there is a thing called a trait in C++, but it's significantly harder to mix up with the Rust one than the reference. Imagine if it was called a concept or an interface.
let mut revenge¶
Rust has decided to make its equivalent of const object less verbose. That's cool, given how cool const objects are in C++, and how Rust boosts their optimization potential by involving something similar to the C "restrict" business in its references. Unfortunately, the way they did it is simply taking the pain on all the non-const stuff by requiring a "mut" qualifier on it. Then, presumably due to the aforementioned "restrict" business, you have to reapply that keyword in parameter passes or it will go const again. Gently nudging me with a fork when I do a shadier thing instead of when I do a less shady thing still makes me angry about the fork, you know.
Generics, traits, and betrayal¶
Rust has a thing called a "trait" which is somewhere between a Java interface and C++-Wait-For-It-Edition concepts. Rust also has a thing called a generic which is supposed to work mostly like a C++ template. Unfortunately, while C++ Standards Committee decided to, at the last minute, pull concepts out of C++-Eventually-2011 due to how they required every template user to keep updating the bureaucratic declarations of conformance with concepts, Rust authors decided they were mostly fine with it, and in fact they forced generic authors to force their users to do it. In this case, C++ took… a while to come up with a suitable replacement, but the new concepts, in spite of the obvious handicaps, are a drastic improvement.
What is particularly hilarious is that Rust compiler comes with the ability of automatically making methods for some of the base traits, but you still have to tell it to do it in all cases.
absenceOf::improvementOf<sigils>¶
I have no idea how one must feel in order to copy the triangle brackets and the namespace operator, of all things, from C++. Why? Just… why?
The Crab Flips Me On My Back¶
At this point, Mozilla has an existing Rust codebase and I doubt they would be particularly receptive to suggestions of changing half of their language by one guy with no experience. Certain elements could probably be adapted out without much damage to existing code, but they like it as is. I guess if I get less lazy I'll roll out my own language over LLVM and we'll see how that goes. Maybe I'll even change my viewpoint on some of these.
The Friendly
The Clumsy
The Crab
Move by default
Reffed up
A vocabulary problem
let mut revenge
Generics, traits, and betrayal
absenceOf::improvementOf<sigils>
The Crab Flips Me On My Back
Stan whines about GUI vs. CLI
Stan whines about Zig
© Copyright 2020+, stan423321. Created using Sphinx 3.2.1.


text:
Half a Circus, Quakers and Shops
13 August 2014	| Updated 01 January 1970
Bristol AXA Real Estate has exchanged contracts with Land Securities to acquire a 50% stake in Bristol's Cabot Circus shopping centre, Quakers Friars and surrounding shops (on behalf of its clients), for £267.8million.
The assets currently produce a net rental income of £17.3million to Land Securities.
Cabot Circus was developed by Land Securities in a joint venture with Hammerson PLC and opened in 2008. Cabot Circus comprises a 830,000sq.ft covered shopping centre, Quakers Friars a 170,000sq.ft luxury goods and dining quarter, and 370,000sq.ft of adjoining high street shops. The development was hailed as one of the largest retail-led city centre urban regeneration projects in the UK and won accolades for its integration into the city centre and delivery of much needed amenities, public spaces and improved transport to the city.
Scott Parsons, Managing Director, Retail at Land Securities, said, "The sale of Cabot Circus, Quakers Friars and surrounding high street shops, coming so soon after the disposal of The Bridges in Sunderland and the acquisition of Bluewater in Kent, demonstrates the pace at which Land Securities is reshaping its retail portfolio. This reshaping is set to continue to reflect evolving consumer behaviour."
The sale is conditional on EU merger control approval.
Article written by Brian Shillibeer | Published 13 August 2014
Workman Appointed Property Manager for Heal's Building
Workman, the UK's largest independent commercial property management and building consultancy firm, has been appointed by General Projects as property manager for...
Landsec Purchases Additional 25% in Bluewater
Landsec has announced that it has acquired an additional 25 per cent share in Bluewater for £172 million. In a separate deal, Landsec will sell 25 per cent of...
Compass Group to Launch First 'Frictionless' Store
Compass Group has unveiled its plans to launch its first fully "frictionless" store in a workplace in early 2022. This store, a first for the foodservice...
Grosvenor Services Extends Contract with Westfield, London
FM company Grosvenor Services has announced that it will be continuing and expanding its partnership with Westfield London, Europe's largest shopping centre, in a...
Asda Trials IoT Sensor Technology
Asda has launched an innovative project at its Stevenage tech store as part of a series of trials in partnership with Hark and SeeChange. The project includes the use...
Plastic Free July – What's Covent Garden Doing?
In a quest for a more sustainable London this Plastic Free July, Covent Garden is making inspiring changes within its facilities. Brands including Aesop, DECIEM,...
ABM Wins FM Contract at Angel Central Shopping Centre, Islington
ABM has been appointed by commercial real estate consultants Lambert Smith Hampton for facilities management services at its Angel Central Shopping Centre...
Reconomy Group Acquires ReBOUND
Reconomy has acquired ReBOUND, the technology platform helping brands such as ASOS, Gymshark and Sweaty Betty manage their returns sustainably. ReBOUND will...
Industrial and Logistics Property in High Demand
The number of logistics and industrial property leasing deals was 70 per cent higher than usual in Q1 of this year. New data from Cushman & Wakefield suggests that...
Co-Op Collaborates With Mitie to Provide Forensic Spray for Staff
Co-op is the first major supermarket to see security guards equipped with a new forensic spray, designed to deter attacks on frontline shopworkers and curb rising levels...


text:
LIVE: COVID-19 IN THE PHILIPPINES
DPWH to close sections under Ayala Bridge
Evelyn Macairan (The Philippine Star) - December 24, 2015 - 9:00am
MANILA, Philippines - Sections beneath Ayala Bridge in Manila will be closed to prevent squatters from living under the structure.
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officer Ric de Vera said yesterday they are in the process of building a wall made of hollow blocks around piers and abutments of the bridge where newly installed dampers and bearing pads were also placed.
De Vera said this was a precaution undertaken by contractors Frey-Fil Corp. and EEI Corp. hired to retrofit the bridge.
He said while there were no reports of informal settlers occupying the lower portion of the bridge, it was decided that it would be sealed off because "we cannot conduct an inspection under the bridge if there are people living there."
The DPWH had earlier appealed to local government units and concerned barangay officials not to allow informal settlers to set up homes underneath bridges so as not to damage the bridge's structures.
In April 2014, a fire that reportedly originated from one of the shanties under the Quezon Bridge, resulted in the deformation and buckling of the steel structure of the bridge.
De Vera explained that even if they closed off some sections under the Ayala Bridge, they would still be able to access areas to check on the condition of the dampers and bearing pads by using a manhole at the top of the bridge.
He admitted that putting the wall was not part of the original design, but they "just asked them to put the wall to protect the bridge otherwise the contractors might have to return to check on the structure every now and then."
There is a one-year warranty wherein the contractors would shoulder the cost if repairs will be needed.
De Vera said the rehabilitation of the bridge would be finished by January next year.
ACIRC AYALA BRIDGE BRIDGE DE VERA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS FREY-FIL CORP IN APRIL NBSP QUEZON BRIDGE RIC VERA
Declaration of Luzon-wide state of calamity backed
November 19, 2020 - 12:00am
"Yes, ako pabor po ako d'yan. Mas mapapabilis ang rehabilitation efforts ng mga LGUs kapag isinailalim sa state of calamity and inaprubahan na po ng pangulo."


An output stage buffer circuit including a first P-channel Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor (MOSFET), first to third N-channel MOSFETs, a constant-voltage circuit and a bias circuit. A source of the first P-channel MOSFET is connected to a power supply terminal. A source and a drain of the first N-channel MOSFET are respectively connected to a ground terminal and an output terminal. The first N-channel and P-channel MOSFETs constitute a push-pull circuit. The second N-channel MOSFET is disposed between a drain of the first P-channel MOSFET and a connection point between the drain of the first N-channel MOSFET and the output terminal. A source and a drain of the third N-channel MOSFET respectively receive from the constant-voltage circuit a constant voltage lower than a voltage received at the power supply terminal, and from the bias circuit a constant current. The second and third N-channel MOSFETs constitute a current mirror circuit.
1. An output stage buffer circuit having a power supply terminal, a ground terminal and an output terminal, the circuit comprising: a first P-channel Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor (MOSFET), a source thereof being connected to the power supply terminal; a first N-channel MOSFET, a source and a drain thereof being respectively connected to the ground terminal and the output terminal, the first N-channel MOSFET and the first P-channel MOSFET constituting a push-pull circuit; a second N-channel MOSFET disposed between a drain of the first P-channel MOSFET and a connection point between the drain of the first N-channel MOSFET and the output terminal; a third N-channel MOSFET, a source thereof having applied thereto a constant voltage that is lower than a voltage received at the power supply terminal, a drain thereof being configured to receive a constant current, the second and third N-channel MOSFETs constituting a current mirror circuit; a constant-voltage circuit that supplies the constant voltage to the third N-channel MOSFET; and a bias circuit that supplies the constant current to the third N-channel MOSFET.
2. The output stage buffer circuit according to claim 1, wherein: the bias circuit includes a second P-channel MOSFET, a third P-channel MOSFET, and a bias source, wherein the second P-channel MOSFET and the third P-channel MOSFET constitute another current mirror circuit; a source of each of the second P-channel MOSFET and the third P-channel MOSFET is connected to the power supply terminal; and the bias source is connected to the third P-channel MOSFET.
3. The output stage buffer circuit according to claim 2, wherein the third P-channel MOSFET is in a diode configuration by connecting a gate and a source of the third P-channel MOSFET.
4. The output stage buffer circuit according to claim 1, further comprising a fourth P-channel MOSFET that is disposed between a source of the second N-channel MOSFET and the connection point between the drain of the first N-channel MOSFET and the output terminal, and that is operated by a gate signal that is identical to a gate signal for the first P-channel MOSFET.
5. The output stage buffer circuit according to claim 1, wherein the constant-voltage circuit includes a Zener diode that receives a current from the third N-channel MOSFET.
6. The output stage buffer circuit according to claim 1, wherein the constant-voltage circuit includes a resistor that receives a current from the third N-channel MOSFET.
7. The output stage buffer circuit according to claim 1, wherein the constant-voltage circuit has a low electric-potential side and a high electric-potential side, and a substrate electric potential of the second N-channel MOSFET and the third N-channel MOSFET is identical to an electric potential of the constant-voltage circuit on the low electric-potential side.
8. The output stage buffer circuit according to claim 1, wherein the third N-channel MOSFET is in a diode configuration by connecting a gate and a source of the third N-channel MOSFET.
This application is based upon and claims the benefit of priority of the prior Japanese Patent Application No. 2016-189447, filed on Sep. 28, 2016, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The embodiments discussed herein are related to an output stage buffer circuit that clamps an upper limit of an output voltage, which is outputted by a semiconductor device used to perform on-off drive on a switching power element, at a voltage lower than a power supply voltage.
A flyback converter is known which serves as a switching power supply apparatus that generates a direct-current voltage from a voltage from an alternating-current power supply. The flyback converter has a configuration in which a direct-current voltage obtained by rectifying the voltage from the alternating-current power supply is received by a series circuit constituted by a primary winding of an output transformer and a switching power element, and in which the switching power element is turned on and off. With this configuration, a pulsating current occurs in a secondary winding of the output transformer, and is rectified and smoothed to generate a direct-current voltage. To perform on-off control on the switching power element, an integrated semiconductor device is used as a control circuit. The semiconductor device has an output stage buffer circuit at its final stage, and the output stage buffer circuit outputs a signal used to perform on-off drive on the switching power element.
The output stage buffer circuit has a driver that receives an on-off control signal, and a drive circuit that is driven by the driver and outputs a signal used to drive the switching power element. For example, the drive circuit has two output transistors connected in series or two complementary output transistors. In the drive circuit, the two output transistors are turned on or off alternately, to output a signal with a voltage close to a power supply voltage or with an electric potential close to the ground potential, to an output terminal.
Commonly, the switching power element uses an N-channel power Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor (MOSFET, hereinafter referred to as a MOS transistor). The power MOS transistor is typically turned on when a gate voltage is higher than a threshold voltage, and is turned off when the gate voltage is lower than the threshold voltage. Here, the threshold voltage over which the power MOS transistor is turned on is less than 10 volts (V). To sufficiently reduce an on-resistance of the power MOS transistor, the gate voltage needs to be sufficiently higher than the threshold voltage, within a range of the withstand voltage between the gate and the source. By the way, power MOS transistors are classified into two groups: a group in which the withstand voltage between the gate and the source is 20V or less; and a group in which the withstand voltage between the gate and the source is higher than 20V. The power MOS transistors having a withstand voltage higher than 20V are expensive due to their structure.
In the case where a power supply voltage of 20V or less is supplied to the drive circuit of the output stage buffer circuit, an inexpensive power MOS transistor is usable. However, in the case where a power supply voltage of higher than 20V is supplied to the drive circuit, an expensive power MOS transistor is used.
For this, there is a demand for using an inexpensive power MOS transistor with a withstand voltage of 20V or less between the gate and the source, even in the case where a power supply voltage of higher than 20V is supplied to the drive circuit. For this demand, a technique is known which clamps a voltage, which is supplied to the drive circuit, at a voltage lower than the power supply voltage (for example, see Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication No. 7-202667).
FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a drive circuit of a conventional output stage buffer circuit.
The output stage buffer circuit illustrated in FIG. 7 is a main part of a circuit disclosed in Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication No. 7-202667. A power MOS transistor 100 that serves as the switching power element is driven by a drive circuit 101. A terminal of the drive circuit 101 on a power supply side is connected to a power supply line 103 via a clamp circuit 102. The clamp circuit 102 is constituted by two Darlington-connected NPN transistors 102a and 102b. The collectors of the NPN transistors 102a and 102b are connected to the power supply line 103; the emitter of the NPN transistor 102b is connected to the terminal of the drive circuit 101 on the power supply side. The base of the NPN transistor 102a is connected to the output terminal of a reference voltage circuit 104. The reference voltage circuit 104 outputs a voltage, as a reference voltage, which is generated from a power supply voltage from the power supply line 103 and which is lower than the power supply voltage.
When a control signal for turning on the power MOS transistor 100 is inputted to the drive circuit 101, a gate voltage is applied to the gate of the power MOS transistor 100. The gate voltage is not the power supply voltage, but a voltage clamped by the clamp circuit 102. Since the clamp circuit 102 is an emitter follower, the emitter of the NPN transistor 102b has a voltage obtained by subtracting a total voltage drop value of two diodes from the reference voltage that is outputted from the reference voltage circuit 104.
This allows the gate voltage of the power MOS transistor 100 to be 20V or less, by setting the reference voltage of the reference voltage circuit 104 at 20V or less, even in the case where the power supply voltage of the output stage buffer circuit, including the drive circuit 101, is higher than 20V.
By the way, if the clamp circuit is manufactured through a MOS semiconductor process mainly used today, merely replacing the Darlington-connected bipolar transistors by an N-channel MOS transistor causes the following problem. That is, because the N-channel MOS transistor is disposed on the power source side with respect to the drive circuit, and because a back gate (substrate) potential of the N-channel MOS transistor is lower than a source potential of the N-channel MOS transistor, the N-channel MOS transistor causes a substrate effect, which is not caused by the bipolar transistors. In the substrate effect, when a substrate (well) voltage is lower than a source voltage (in the case where an N-channel MOS transistor is used), the larger the voltage between the source and the substrate is, the larger the threshold voltage becomes.
Here, suppose that the power MOS transistor is to be turned on. Where an output voltage from an output stage buffer circuit is VOUT, the reference voltage of the reference voltage circuit is VREF (e.g. 15V), and the threshold voltage of the N-channel MOS transistor, used in place of the Darlington-connected bipolar transistors, is Vth, the output voltage VOUT is expressed as VOUT.apprxeq.VREF-Vth, because the N-channel MOS transistor constitutes a source follower circuit. In this case, since the substrate voltage equals 0V and the source voltage equals VOUT, the voltage between the source and the substrate is VOUT. If the gate voltage of the N-channel MOS transistor almost equals the reference voltage (VREF.apprxeq.15V), then the threshold voltage Vth almost equals 7V (Vth.apprxeq.7V) and the output voltage VOUT almost equals 8V (VOUT.apprxeq.8V) due to the substrate effect. Because an increased substrate effect considerably increases the voltage drop between the gate and the source, the output voltage VOUT is lowered. As a result, it becomes difficult to reliably turn on the power MOS transistor. Thus, the voltage between the source and the substrate, which produces the substrate effect, varies depending on the reference voltage VREF of the reference voltage circuit. So, the reference voltage VREF and the voltage between the source and the substrate, which produces the substrate effect, are adjusted (controlled) to each other. In addition, as the reference voltage VREF and the substrate effect are influenced by, for example, variations in a process, the output voltage VOUT is unavoidably varied. This increases possibility of the output voltage VOUT being outside a range in specifications, in which the power MOS transistor is turned on.
The substrate effect may be eliminated by connecting the source and the back gate of the N-channel MOS transistor. In this case, however, an electric potential of a semiconductor region (P-well) in which the N-channel MOS transistor is formed becomes equal to the electric potential of the back gate (substrate) of the N-channel MOS transistor. As a result, since the electric potential of the semiconductor region (P-well) becomes VOUT, only the semiconductor region, in which the N-channel MOS transistor is formed, is separated and electrically isolated from other semiconductor regions (i.e. P-wells connected to a power supply terminal on a lower potential side) in which other N-channel MOS transistors are formed. In this case, the chip size of the semiconductor device including the output stage buffer circuit will be increased, increasing the cost of the semiconductor device.
In one aspect of the embodiments, there is provided an output stage buffer circuit that includes a first P-channel MOSFET disposed on a power supply side; a first N-channel MOSFET disposed on a ground side and constituting a push-pull circuit along with the first P-channel MOSFET; a second N-channel MOSFET disposed between the drain of the first P-channel MOSFET and a connection point between the drain of the first N-channel MOSFET and an output terminal; a third N-channel MOSFET that is in a diode configuration and constitutes a current mirror circuit along with the second N-channel MOSFET; a constant-voltage circuit that supplies a constant voltage to a source of the third N-channel MOSFET, the constant voltage being lower than a power supply voltage; and a bias circuit that supplies a constant current to the third N-channel MOSFET.
Hereinafter, some embodiments will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings, with examples in which the embodiments are applied to a switching power supply apparatus that is constituted by a flyback converter and is controlled in a current mode. Note that each embodiment is embodied, partially combined with a plurality of other embodiments as long as there is no contradiction between them. In the following description, a name of an identical terminal, a voltage at an identical terminal, a signal from an identical terminal, and the like may be each denoted by an identical symbol.
FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a configuration of a switching power supply apparatus to which the embodiments discussed herein are applied. FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a configuration of a control circuit. FIG. 3 is a waveform diagram of main parts, illustrating an example of an operation of the control circuit.
In the switching power supply apparatus illustrated in FIG. 1, a commercial alternating-current power supply AC is connected to an alternating-current input terminal of a bridge diode BD1. The positive output terminal of the bridge diode BD1 is connected to one end of a capacitor C1, and the negative output terminal of the bridge diode BD1 is connected to the other end of the capacitor C1. The one end of the capacitor C1 is connected to one end of a primary winding Tn1 of an output transformer T1, and the other end of the primary winding Tn1 is connected to the drain of an N-channel power MOS transistor PT1. The gate of the power MOS transistor PT1 is connected to an output terminal OUT of the control circuit 1 via a resistor R1, and the source of the power MOS transistor PT1 is connected to a ground terminal GND of the control circuit 1 via a current detection resistor R2. A connection point between the source of the power MOS transistor PT1 and the current detection resistor R2 is connected to a current detection terminal CS of the control circuit 1.
One end of an auxiliary winding Tn3 of the output transformer T1 is connected to the anode of a diode D1, and the cathode of the diode D1 is connected to one end of a capacitor C2 and a power supply terminal VCC of the control circuit 1. The other end of the auxiliary winding Tn3 of the output transformer T1 is connected to the other end of the capacitor C2 and the ground terminal GND of the control circuit 1.
One end of a secondary winding Tn2 of the output transformer T1 is connected to the anode of a diode D2, and the cathode of the diode D2 is connected to one end of a capacitor C3 and the positive output terminal of the switching power supply apparatus. The other end of the secondary winding Tn2 of the output transformer T1 is connected to the other end of the capacitor C3 and the negative output terminal of the switching power supply apparatus. The positive output terminal and the negative output terminal of the switching power supply apparatus are connected to a load 2.
Also, the positive output terminal and the negative output terminal are connected to a voltage detection circuit 3. The voltage detection circuit 3 is connected to a light emitting diode of a photocoupler PC1. The collector of a phototransistor of the photocoupler PC1 is connected to a feedback terminal FB of the control circuit 1. The emitter of the phototransistor is connected to the ground terminal GND of the control circuit 1.
In the switching power supply apparatus, an alternating-current voltage from the commercial alternating-current power supply AC is full-wave rectified by the bridge diode BD1, and the full-wave rectified pulsating current is smoothed by the capacitor C1 into a direct-current voltage. The direct-current voltage is supplied to a series circuit constituted by the primary winding Tn1 of the output transformer T1 and the power MOS transistor PT1. The power MOS transistor PT1 is turned on and off by the control circuit 1, and thereby a pulsating current occurs in the secondary winding Tn2 of the output transformer T1. The pulsating current is converted into a direct current by the diode D2 and the capacitor C3, and supplied to the load 2.
An output voltage supplied to the load 2 is detected by the voltage detection circuit 3. The detected value is inputted, as a feedback voltage VFB, to the feedback terminal FB of the control circuit 1 via the photocoupler PC1.
The power supply terminal VCC of the control circuit 1 receives a direct-current voltage that is generated by the auxiliary winding Tn3 of the output transformer T1, the diode D1, and the capacitor C2. The direct-current voltage serves as a power supply voltage of the control circuit 1.
The current detection terminal CS of the control circuit 1 receives a signal generated by the current detection resistor R2 detecting a current that flows through the power MOS transistor PT1, and converting the detected current into a voltage. The signal serves as a current detection signal.
The control circuit 1 uses the feed-backed detection value of the output voltage and the detected current value of the power MOS transistor PT1 to perform pulse width control, and outputs a pulse-width-controlled signal from the output terminal OUT.
As illustrated in FIG. 2, the control circuit 1 contains a feedback circuit 11, an oscillator circuit 12, a pulse blanking circuit 13, a slope creation circuit 14, a comparator 15, a set-dominant RS flip flop 16, and an output stage buffer circuit 17.
As illustrated in FIG. 3, the oscillator circuit 12 outputs a signal, Clock, which has a fixed period dt. The pulse blanking circuit 13 outputs a signal, T_blank, which rises at a timing of a rising edge of the signal Clock. The RS flip flop 16 is set by the signal T_blank, to output a signal, IN, having a high level. The output stage buffer circuit 17 receives the signal IN, and outputs a voltage, VOUT, having a high level to the output terminal OUT to turn on the power MOS transistor PT1. At this time, a peak value of the voltage VOUT outputted by the output stage buffer circuit 17 is clamped at a voltage (e.g. 15V) lower than a voltage VCC (e.g. 30V) of the power supply terminal VCC of the control circuit 1. When the power MOS transistor PT1 is turned on, current flows through the power MOS transistor PT1, the current is converted into a voltage by the current detection resistor R2, and the voltage is applied to the current detection terminal CS. As illustrated in FIG. 3, a voltage VCS at the current detection terminal CS has a waveform that increases from 0V.
The feedback circuit 11 has an NPN transistor NPN1, resistors R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, and a diode D11. The collector of the NPN transistor NPN1 is connected to the power supply terminal VCC; the base of the NPN transistor NPN1 is connected to an internal power supply; and the emitter of the NPN transistor NPN1 is connected to the ground terminal GND via a series circuit constituted by the resistor R11, the diode D11, and the resistors R12, R13, R14, R15. A connection point between the resistor R11 and the diode D11 is connected to the feedback terminal FB; and a connection point between the resistors R14 and R15 is connected to the slope creation circuit 14. Here, since the resistors R12, R13, R14, and R15 have the same resistance value, a voltage inputted to the slope creation circuit 14 is expressed as (VFB-Vf)/4, where Vf is a forward voltage of the diode D11. The NPN transistor NPN1 is an emitter follower for the internal power supply.
As illustrated in FIG. 3, the slope creation circuit 14 generates and outputs a signal, V_slope, which decreases with a constant slope, from a voltage of (VFB-Vf)/4 obtained, as an initial value, at a timing of a falling edge of the signal Clock outputted from the oscillator circuit 12. Here, the voltage (VFB-Vf)/4 inputted to the slope creation circuit 14 decreases when the output voltage from the switching power supply apparatus increases with respect to a target voltage, and increases when the output voltage decreases with respect to the target voltage. The slope with which the voltage (VFB-Vf)/4 decreases is constant, and is not changed.
The comparator 15 receives the signal V_slope at an inversion input terminal of the comparator 15, and also receives the voltage VCS at a non-inversion input terminal of the same. The comparator 15 outputs a low-level output signal when the power MOS transistor PT1 is turned on and the voltage VCS starts increasing from 0V, and outputs a high-level output signal to reset the RS flip flop 16 when the voltage VCS reaches the level of the signal V_slope. This causes the RS flip flop 16 to output the signal IN having a low level, and causes the output stage buffer circuit 17 to output the voltage VOUT having a low level to the output terminal OUT to turn off the power MOS transistor PT1. With this, the current that flows in the power MOS transistor PT1 is stopped, and thereby the voltage VCS at the current detection terminal CS falls to 0V, as illustrated in FIG. 3.
As described above, the voltage VOUT is outputted from the output terminal OUT of the control circuit 1. With the voltage VOUT, the power MOS transistor PT1 is turned on at a timing of the rising edge of the signal Clock, and turned off at a timing at which the level of the signal V_slope and the voltage VCS become equal to each other. In addition, the voltage VOUT is a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal whose pulse width is decreased, when the output voltage is high (i.e. feedback voltage VFB is low), by the maximum value of the signal V_slope being decreased, and is increased, when the output voltage is low (i.e. feedback voltage VFB is high), by the maximum value of the signal V_slope being increased. This allows the output voltage from the switching power supply apparatus to be controlled so that the output voltage is kept at a target voltage.
Next, specific embodiments of the output stage buffer circuit 17 will be described.
FIG. 4 is a circuit diagram illustrating an example of a configuration of an output stage buffer circuit of a first embodiment.
The output stage buffer circuit 17 of the first embodiment includes a driver DR1 that receives the signal IN from the RS flip flop 16, and a drive circuit that is driven by signals p_drive and n_drive outputted by the driver DR1. The drive circuit is basically a push-pull circuit constituted by a P-channel MOS transistor P1 that receives the signal p_drive at the gate of the P-channel MOS transistor P1, and an N-channel MOS transistor N1 that receives the signal n_drive at the gate of the N-channel MOS transistor N1. The source of the MOS transistor P1 is connected to the power supply terminal VCC. The source of the MOS transistor N1 is connected to the ground terminal GND. The drain of the MOS transistor N1 is connected to the output terminal OUT.
In addition, a clamp circuit is interposed between a connection point between the drain of the MOS transistor N1 and the output terminal OUT and the drain of the MOS transistor P1. The clamp circuit has N-channel MOS transistors N2 and N3. The drain of the MOS transistor N2 is connected to the drain of the MOS transistor P1. The source of the MOS transistor N2 is connected to the drain of the MOS transistor N1 and the output terminal OUT. The gate of the MOS transistor N2 is connected to the gate and the drain of the MOS transistor N3. Thus, the MOS transistors N2 and N3 constitute a current mirror circuit. In the current mirror circuit, since the MOS transistors N2 and N3 are source followers and their gates are common to each other, source voltages of the MOS transistors N2 and N3 are equal to each other. In addition, the current mirror circuit is not intended to copy the reference current supplied to the MOS transistor N3 in a diode configuration. The MOS transistor N2 is formed almost as large in size as the MOS transistor N1 that flows a large amount of current. In contrast, the MOS transistor N3 is sized to flow a small amount of current. As a result, the current supplied to a load through the MOS transistor N2 is typically lower than a current copied from the current that flows through the MOS transistor N3 according to a size ratio. That is, a value of the current, copied from the current that flows through the MOS transistor N3 according to the size ratio, corresponds to a maximum value of the current that is supplied to a load through the MOS transistor N2. Here, back gates of the MOS transistors N2 and N3 are connected to the ground terminal GND of an integrated circuit that forms the control circuit 1.
The drain of the MOS transistor N3 is connected to a bias circuit that flows a reference current of 1 .mu.A. The bias circuit has P-channel MOS transistors P2 and P3, and a bias source B1. The drain of the MOS transistor P2 is connected to the gate and the drain of the MOS transistor N3. The source of the MOS transistor P2 is connected to the power supply terminal VCC. The gate of the MOS transistor P2 is connected to the gate and the drain of the MOS transistor P3. The source of the MOS transistor P3 is connected to the power supply terminal VCC. The gate and the drain of the MOS transistor P3 is connected to one terminal of the bias source B1, and the other terminal of the bias source B1 is connected to the ground terminal GND of the integrated circuit that forms the control circuit 1. The MOS transistors P2 and P3 are the same in size, and constitute a current mirror circuit. Thus, when a constant current (1 .mu.A) by the bias source B1 flows through the MOS transistor P3, the same amount of current flows in the MOS transistor P2 and is supplied to the MOS transistor N3 of the clamp circuit.
The source of the MOS transistor N3 is connected to the cathode of a Zener diode Zn, and the anode of the Zener diode Zn is connected to the ground terminal GND. The Zener diode Zn operates as a constant-voltage circuit, and is able to produce a stable Zener voltage by the constant current being supplied from the MOS transistor N3 to the Zener diode Zn. In the present embodiment, the Zener voltage across the Zener diode Zn is lower than the voltage VCC (30V) of the power supply terminal VCC, and is set at 15V in consideration of the gate voltage (20V or less) of the inexpensive power MOS transistor PT1. Thus, a source voltage Vs (N3) of the MOS transistor N3 is 15V.
In order to flow current from the power supply terminal VCC to the output terminal OUT by turning on the MOS transistor P1 and turning off the MOS transistor N1, the voltage Vgs(N2) needs to satisfy the following expression: Vgs(N2).gtoreq.Vth(N2) (6) where Vth(N2) is a threshold voltage of the MOS transistor N2. In equation (6), when zero amperes of current flows from the power supply terminal VCC to the output terminal OUT, Vgs (N2) equals Vth(N2).
By the way, the gate and the drain of the MOS transistor N3 are shorted, and the MOS transistor N3 is in a saturation state. In addition, the constant current of 1 .mu.A flows into the MOS transistor N3 from the MOS transistor P2. Thus, the MOS transistor N3 has its fixed parameters that satisfy the following equation: 1 .mu.A=[.mu.nCox(W/L)/2].times.[Vgs(N3)-Vth(N3)]^2 (7) where the above equation expresses the relationship between a saturation current of 1 .mu.A and the voltage Vgs(N3) between the gate and the source of the MOS transistor N3, and where .mu.n is a mobility of electrons, Cox is a gate oxide capacitance per unit area of the MOS transistor N3, W/L is a gate width divided by a gate length of the MOS transistor N3, and Vth(N3) is a threshold voltage of the MOS transistor N3.
When equation (6) of the MOS transistor N2 is substituted into equation (5), the voltage VOUT(H) is expressed as the following expression: VOUT(H).ltoreq.15V+Vgs(N3)-Vth(N2) (8) As is seen, the high-level voltage VOUT(H) at the output terminal OUT is not larger than a value calculated by 15V+Vgs(N3)-Vth(N2). Here, the voltage Vgs(N3), in equation (8), between the gate and the source of the MOS transistor N3 is determined to satisfy equation (7), based on a process, the constant current of 1 .mu.A that is set, and the value of W/L of the MOS transistor N3. In addition, the threshold voltage Vth(N2) of the MOS transistor N2 is determined based on the process. Furthermore, according to a simulation result, Vgs(N3)-Vth(n2) of equation (8) satisfies the following expression: |Vgs(N3)-Vth(N2)|<1V where the substrate effect of the MOS transistors N2 and N3 is considered. From the above, the high-level voltage VOUT(H) of the output terminal OUT is clamped at about 15V, which is lower than the voltage (VCC) of the power supply terminal VCC.
FIG. 5 is a circuit diagram illustrating an example of a configuration of an output stage buffer circuit of a second embodiment. In FIG. 5, a component which is identical or equivalent to a component illustrated in FIG. 4 is denoted by an identical symbol and the detailed description thereof will be omitted as appropriate.
An output stage buffer circuit 17a of the second embodiment includes a P-channel MOS transistor P4 added to the output stage buffer circuit 17 of the first embodiment. The MOS transistor P4 is provided between the MOS transistor N2 of the clamp circuit and the connection point between the drain of the MOS transistor N1 and the output terminal OUT. The MOS transistor P4 is provided such that: the source of the MOS transistor P4 is connected to the source of the MOS transistor N2; the drain of the MOS transistor P4 is connected to the connection point between the drain of the MOS transistor N1 and the output terminal OUT; and the gate of the MOS transistor P4 is connected to the gate of the MOS transistor P1. A back gate of the MOS transistor P4 is connected to the power supply terminal VCC.
In the output stage buffer circuit 17a, the MOS transistor P4 is turned on and off, by the signal p_drive outputted by the driver DR1, simultaneously with the MOS transistor P1 being turned on and off. With this, when the MOS transistor P1 is turned off from on, and when the MOS transistor N1 is turned on from off, the MOS transistor N2 and the output terminal OUT is separated from each other by the MOS transistor P4. This makes it possible to prevent unstable operation of the clamp circuit when the switching power supply apparatus performs high-speed switching operation.
In contrast, the output stage buffer circuit 17 of the first embodiment, which does not include the MOS transistor P4, operates as below. Suppose that the MOS transistor P1 is turned on; the MOS transistor N1 is turned off; and the output terminal OUT is in a high-level state where VOUT=H. Then, when the MOS transistor P1 is turned off, the MOS transistor N1 is turned on, and the output terminal OUT is changed into a low-level state where VOUT=L, the source voltage of the MOS transistor N2 changes rapidly. This is because the voltage VOUT serves also as the source voltage of the MOS transistor N2. With this, current flows through a capacitance (parasitic capacitance) between the gate and the source of the MOS transistor N2, rapidly lowering the gate voltage of the MOS transistors N2 and N3. Then, the constant current of 1 .mu.A from the MOS transistor P2 charges the capacitance between the gate and the source of the MOS transistor N2 and the capacitance between the gate and the source of the MOS transistor N3, gradually increasing the gate voltage of the MOS transistors N2 and N3. When high-speed switching is performed, the voltage VOUT turns to a high level (VOUT=H) before the gate voltage of the MOS transistors N2 and N3 fully rises. In this case, however, even when the MOS transistor P1 is turned on, a sufficient amount of current does not flow in the MOS transistor N2 because the gate voltage of the MOS transistor N2 has a low level. This causes delay of the rising edge of the voltage VOUT. When the switching frequency is high, the voltage VOUT falls to a low level (VOUT=L) before reaching a high level, causing its continuous low level state (VOUT=L).
In contrast to this, the MOS transistor P4 is able to prevent the above problem because, when the voltage VOUT is low (VOUT=L), the MOS transistor P4 is turned off so that the source voltage of the MOS transistor N2 does not become low.
FIG. 6 is a circuit diagram illustrating an example of a configuration of an output stage buffer circuit of a third embodiment. In FIG. 6, a component which is identical or equivalent to a component illustrated in FIG. 5 is denoted by an identical symbol and the detailed description thereof will be omitted as appropriate.
An output stage buffer circuit 17b of the third embodiment includes a resistor Rn in place of the Zener diode Zn, which is used as the constant-voltage circuit in the output stage buffer circuits 17 and 17a of the first and the second embodiments.
The current mirror circuit, constituting the clamp circuit, is supplied with the constant current of 1 .mu.A as the reference current. The constant current is further supplied to the resistor Rn. In the output stage buffer circuit 17b, the resistance value of the resistor Rn is 15 megaohms (M.OMEGA.) to produce a voltage drop value of 15V so that the source voltage of the MOS transistor N3 is set at 15V.
Although the voltage across the constant-voltage circuit is 15V in the above-described embodiment, the voltage is not limited to this value. Also, although the constant-voltage circuit is constituted by the Zener diode Zn or the resistor Rn, the constant-voltage circuit may be constituted by a more precise circuit. Examples of the more precise circuit include a bandgap reference circuit which uses a physical property, called bandgap voltage, of silicon, which is used as a material for integrated circuits.
The above-described output stage buffer circuit is configured such that the clamp circuit is constituted by the current mirror circuit, and that the components constituting the current mirror circuit have an identical substrate effect. With this, the output stage buffer circuit has an advantage in which an upper limit of the output voltage is easily and reliably clamped at a voltage of the constant-voltage circuit.