I built three six-digit clocks using that chip and B7971 nixies.  I was 
inspired by the article “Behold the Giant Nixie Clock - using a minimum of 
new parts” that appeared on page 70 of the July 1976 issue of 73 magazine.  
This 
can be found on the internet.  That was more than 40 years ago, and all 
three clocks have continued working with zero nixie failures, one failed 
power transformer, two failed electrolytic capacitors, and one failed 
CT7001 chip.

 

>From memory, here are some important differences from the article:

 

The magazine article used a MM5314 clock chip.  The polarities and levels 
for the digit and segment drives are different in the CT7001 (common 
cathode versus common anode configurations), but it was straightforward to 
do the necessary level shifting and polarity inversion.  You need to study 
the data sheets for the two chips.  I vaguely recall that my design 
involved discrete transistors and cascode amplifiers, but that TI later 
came out with suitable HV drivers (75468).

 

I did document my circuit, but after 40+ years and several moves, I doubt 
that I could find it.  Since the clocks all continued to work with only 
easy and obvious repairs, I was never motivated to refer to it.

 

The MM5314 derives its timing from the mains.  Using the circuit in the 
data sheet, it tends to run fast; I think that is because it is susceptible 
to counting any noise spikes on the power line (this might be reduced by 
adding a low-pass filter onto the line reference input).  The CT7001 can 
run slightly fast or slightly slow, depending on the MUX frequency; I 
believe that it uses a PLL and the free‑running frequency of the display 
MUX pulls it.  If I were to do it over again, I would use a variable 
resistor to set the MUX rate and adjust it to minimize the drift.

 

Both of these chips “forget” after a power outage, but the CT07001 will try 
to keep time if there is a battery backup by using its internal MUX 
oscillator.  As far as I know, there is no shortcut in either chip to set 
the time directly, so you have to go through the whole procedure of 
incrementing each digit from its initial state.

 

One additional feature of the CT7001 is the 365-day calendar.  It does not 
automatically do February 29, but setting it manually makes you good for 
the next four years.

 

The nixies in all of my clocks produce acoustic noise and RFI at the MUX 
rate.  Someone suggested it was from my switching power supply, but this 
explanation was unlikely since I used linear power supplies and the noise 
was clearly emanating from the tubes.

 

I was roundly criticized for using the B7971 as “only” seven-segment 
displays since they were so expensive and capable of so much more, while 
the critics considered seven-segment displays to be ugly.  When I bought 
mine, they were $1 each (including sockets) and were cheaper than Monsanto 
MAN-1 displays.

 

An interesting (to me) alternative would be to find a CT7002 and use a 
74141 to drive regular nixies with formed characters.  A more ambitious 
approach would be to use a CT7001 and build a seven-segment-to-BCD decoder 
(this would be an interesting exercise for the student, and I can think of 
at least two different approaches).



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 11:11:41 AM UTC-7, Dekatron42 wrote:
>
> I've come across a few of the CT7001/FCM7001 clock chips which were 
> designed to be used with LED displays and I've been looking for a Nixie 
> clock design with this chip but I haven't found any yet - does anyone here 
> know about such a circuit diagram?
>
> /Martin
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"neonixie-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to neonixie-l+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to neonixie-l@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neonixie-l/96dc2782-fe03-4c96-8bb9-efeef2f10b35%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to