Component Reliability: 9V Battery, LM334Z, 33ohm Resistor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psyop
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Component
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the reliability of a circuit using a 9V battery, an LM334Z current regulator, and a 33-ohm resistor to limit output to 2.0mA. Concerns about component failure rates are raised, with references to MTBF and empirical data indicating a significant chance of failure for the LM334Z. The user seeks safer alternatives and advice on configuring the circuit for the DIY tDCS community, which self-administers low current for mental health issues. However, the forum moderator emphasizes the importance of safety standards, specifically UL 544 for medical equipment, and ultimately closes the thread due to the nature of the discussion. The conversation highlights the need for expert guidance in ensuring user safety in DIY electronics projects.
Psyop
Messages
2
Reaction score
6
I have very little experience with electronics so I have come here to hopefully gain your insight into an issue that is currently being discuss amongst people who seem to have no clear answers.

The circuit I am interested in utilizes a 9V battery run through a LM334Z current regulator, with a 33ohm resistor to limit the output of the device to 2.0mA .
Can and do these components fail and what is the probability of failure considering only a 9V battery as a power source? Are there better components to use?
Any empirical references to component failure would also be appreciated.
Hopefully that will be enough to get the subject off the ground.
Thank you.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Component reliability is expessed by MTBF (mean time between failures) and/or FIT (failures in time). You can use google to understand MTBF and ask furthur questions.
It is a pretty deep subject, actually.

Here is the reliabilty page for the LM334Z

It has a 50% chance of failure in 66 9.122* 107
hours. But I don't know about the space between 66 and 9.
Or, 11% failures in 10**9 hours.

http://focus.ti.com/quality/docs/singlesearchresults.tsp?&templateId=5909&navigationId=11213&appType=folders&searchType=orderableOption&partialSearch=false&mtbfType=true&orderablePartNumber=LM334Z/NOPB

Basically you use the MTBF for all components to determine the circuit failure rate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Psyop said:
Are there better components to use?

We would need to know more about the problem you're trying to solve to answer that question sensibly. What's the purpose of the circuit? What's the operating environment? How long must it function? How many units are you building?
 
This is already a good start with the MTBF link. Thank you, I appreciate a forum with serious thinkers, it's just what I was looking for.
To be clear I am not building these devices, my hope is to better inform the community who is, sort of a public service in the interest of safety. The community I refer to is the DIY tDCS community they are self treating for a wide range of mental issues by applying a current of 2.0mA through electrodes places on various parts of the cranium, there is lots of empirical medical data on its effectiveness, I do not wish to have any part in the medical recommendation of treatment. These people are going to do this regardless, because clinical application is expensive and not available in most places.
My interest and purpose here on this forum is for experts in how electricity works to just take a look and see what is the safest way these devices could be configured to protect a user. I believe these devices to be fairly harmless when limited to 2.0mA. So that's the situation, what is the safest way to limit a 9V battery to a maximum output of 2.0mA? Are CRD a better choice.
I humbly ask the electronically enlightened people for there input.
Thank you.
 
No, sorry. We do not discuss dangerous activities here on the PF. Please refer to safety standard UL 544 for medical equipment design. Thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes dlgoff
I used to be an HVAC technician. One time I had a service call in which there was no power to the thermostat. The thermostat did not have power because the fuse in the air handler was blown. The fuse in the air handler was blown because there was a low voltage short. The rubber coating on one of the thermostat wires was chewed off by a rodent. The exposed metal in the thermostat wire was touching the metal cabinet of the air handler. This was a low voltage short. This low voltage...
Thread 'How Does Jaguar's 1980s V12 Dual Coil Ignition System Enhance Spark Strength?'
I have come across a dual coil ignition system as used by Jaguar on their V12 in the 1980's. It uses two ignition coils with their primary windings wired in parallel. The primary coil has its secondary winding wired to the distributor and then to the spark plugs as is standard practice. However, the auxiliary coil has it secondary winding output sealed off. The purpose of the system was to provide a stronger spark to the plugs, always a difficult task with the very short dwell time of a...
Back
Top