3 phase from func.gen. IC
in [Design]
|
Prev: Durofix RL435
Next: Summing analog signals
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 17 Mar 2010 19:14 VWWall wrote: > > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: > > Kevin Lang wrote: > >> What would be the simplest way to derive a simultaneous three phase > >> output from a sine wave produced by a single function generator IC ... > >> that does not change as the frequency is varied? > >> > >> Specifically, two additional sinewaves remaining 120 and 240 degrees > >> out of phase with the original as the frequency is varied between > >> 100Hz and 1KHz. > >> > >> Kevin Lang > > > > Google "Scott Tee Transformer" and then figure out how to generate a > > sine wave in quadrature to the reference. > > > From my reply in the same thread,3/11/2010 03:03PM: > > "Once you've got two sine waves in quadrature, getting three phase is > simple. Just use a Scott-T transformer. These were once used for power > applications, but since two phase power is almost extinct, they are now > used for connecting servos that use synchros to those with resolvers." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott-T_transformer > > Glad to see another old time power guy! :-) Yeah. These electronic types loose me when they start talking about 61 Hz or higher. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Free the Mallocs!
From: John Larkin on 17 Mar 2010 20:56 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:37:47 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>Yes, he and JT are unusually vulgar today. I figure they were cuddling >>for warmth and the shawl fell off their knees. > >--- >Geez, John, one of us finding you wrong and the other agreeing with that >finding doesn't represent "cuddling" in my book, just statement of, and >agreement on, objective fact. > >Of course being found wrong is "mea maxima culpa" when viewed through >your deranged set of values and can't be allowed to coexist with what >you hold precious; your infallibility, Mr. "Infinity only means >something very large.", so you'll try to do whatever you can to fool all >of the people all of the time even though all you do is fool yourself >since you think you've gotten everyone to goose-step along with you. > >JF Let's see, your brilliant corrections include Disputing whether unboundedly large things can be properly referred to as "infinite" and Correcting me when I said a divisor can be programmed from 1 to 128, without specifying the programming step size. I did say that three pins did the selection, which some people would take as a clue. And JT calls me prissy! John
From: Jim Thompson on 17 Mar 2010 21:42 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:56:02 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:37:47 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >>>Yes, he and JT are unusually vulgar today. I figure they were cuddling >>>for warmth and the shawl fell off their knees. >> >>--- >>Geez, John, one of us finding you wrong and the other agreeing with that >>finding doesn't represent "cuddling" in my book, just statement of, and >>agreement on, objective fact. >> >>Of course being found wrong is "mea maxima culpa" when viewed through >>your deranged set of values and can't be allowed to coexist with what >>you hold precious; your infallibility, Mr. "Infinity only means >>something very large.", so you'll try to do whatever you can to fool all >>of the people all of the time even though all you do is fool yourself >>since you think you've gotten everyone to goose-step along with you. >> >>JF > > >Let's see, your brilliant corrections include > >Disputing whether unboundedly large things can be properly referred to >as "infinite" > >and > >Correcting me when I said a divisor can be programmed from 1 to 128, >without specifying the programming step size. I did say that three >pins did the selection, which some people would take as a clue. > > >And JT calls me prissy! > >John > Would you prefer "pompous" ?:-) Please post a schematic. I need a field day. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Michael A. Terrell on 18 Mar 2010 00:10 "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote: > > Yeah. These electronic types loose me when they start talking about 61 > Hz or higher. How loose? ;-) -- Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'
From: John Fields on 18 Mar 2010 09:41
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:56:02 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:37:47 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >>>Yes, he and JT are unusually vulgar today. I figure they were cuddling >>>for warmth and the shawl fell off their knees. >> >>--- >>Geez, John, one of us finding you wrong and the other agreeing with that >>finding doesn't represent "cuddling" in my book, just statement of, and >>agreement on, objective fact. >> >>Of course being found wrong is "mea maxima culpa" when viewed through >>your deranged set of values and can't be allowed to coexist with what >>you hold precious; your infallibility, Mr. "Infinity only means >>something very large.", so you'll try to do whatever you can to fool all >>of the people all of the time even though all you do is fool yourself >>since you think you've gotten everyone to goose-step along with you. >> >>JF > > >Let's see, your brilliant corrections include > >Disputing whether unboundedly large things can be properly referred to >as "infinite" --- Even in the original context, where you claimed that switching relays exhibit infinite gain, they _cannot_ because the power used to switch them is non-zero. --- >and Correcting me when I said a divisor can be programmed from 1 to 128, >without specifying the programming step size. --- Well, in reality it was originally: "We're using one part that's pin strappable for 8-4-2-1 MHz." Then, when you got called on that it changed to: "It's basically an 8 MHz oscillator with three pins that can be strapped to divide by 1 through 128." Now, I know you're from Louisiana, so English isn't your first language, but when most of the rest of us read: "1 through 128", we generally tend to include all of the counting numbers between 1 and 128. Just for your future reference, if it's: "1 through 128, inclusive", that includes the numbers on the ends. --- >I did say that three >pins did the selection, which some people would take as a clue. --- And, believing mistakenly that you were right, some people would take that "clue" to consider that with 128 output frequencies available, those pins would be for a serial data input, a clock, and a latch which would select any one of the 128 output frequencies you said were available. To your credit, though, you did finally manage to post a link which cleared up the confusion you initially caused. --- >And JT calls me prissy! --- And he's right! JF |