John Larkin's LC oscillator
in [Design]
|
Prev: Skybuck's Universal Code Version 6 (The Fast Version)
Next: CCt to converter 24Vdc signals to 12Vdc signals
From: Jim Thompson on 14 Jun 2010 20:30 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:36:19 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:15:09 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:01:55 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Jun 14, 4:41�pm, John Larkin >>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >> Q1 doesn't conduct in reverse with your values, but no >>>>> >> Schottky... the current is always out of the emitter... though it does >>>>> >> get awfully close to zero: -376uA and -12.5mA peak. >>>>> >>>>> >Huh. �LTSpice says Q1 does conduct in reverse, a nasty little 5mA >>>>> >spike's worth. �The schottky feedback prevents that by cutting the >>>>> >base bias enough to make sure the collector never gets that low. >>>>> >>>>> Right; the schottly is a more pure AGC mode. The reverse emitter >>>>> conduction depends on the inverse beta of the transistor. If the model >>>>> includes inverse beta, when the collector dips down to close to >>>>> ground, and the c-b junction forward biases, it essentially flips >>>>> ends: collector becomes emitter, emitter becomes collector, emitter >>>>> current flows upwards. >>>>> >>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/LC_YDx.gif >>>>> >>>>> Either way, the base cap gets discharged. >>>> >>>>It's interesting that Jim's PSpice doesn't show the same spike. >>> >>>He blames it on defects in LT Spice. That's crazy. I suspect it's >>>actually different transistor models. Note that in my sim, the emitter >>>current reverses exactly at the points in time when Vc swings through >>>Ve. >>> >>>John >>> >> >>I didn't say that at all. I said I don't see it in PSpice, AND it's >>an advertised feature of LTspice that models are tweaked for speed. >> >>However I suspect it's that I assigned a resistance to the feedback >>winding proportionate to the Q assigned to the primary. You two did >>not. >> >>PSpice does model BR, so it's not that. It could also be that I'm >>looking way out at 1 second, where the loop is steady, and loop >>"replenishment current" is very small. It's quite possible that, >>during loop closure, you have some inverse transistor action. It's >>certainly not there at 1 second... and the spectral analysis does not >>show it either. >> >>However, it is dead clear, there is no AGC action controlling >>TRANSCONDUCTANCE :-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >I re-measured: IE is _never_ less than 376uA OUT of the emitter... no >reverse transistor action. > > ...Jim Thompson On closer examination I _am_ seeing some kind of burble on the emitter current. Applying a Schottky _does_ reduce the burble, but not completely, since you load the bias cap. No real change in spectrum. Perhaps tie base of Q1 to the juncture of R1/D1? Or a Baker clamp would certainly provide the isolation. But I doubt the ROI :-) ...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: Jim Thompson on 14 Jun 2010 20:38 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:30:55 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:36:19 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:15:09 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:01:55 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Jun 14, 4:41�pm, John Larkin >>>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >> Q1 doesn't conduct in reverse with your values, but no >>>>>> >> Schottky... the current is always out of the emitter... though it does >>>>>> >> get awfully close to zero: -376uA and -12.5mA peak. >>>>>> >>>>>> >Huh. �LTSpice says Q1 does conduct in reverse, a nasty little 5mA >>>>>> >spike's worth. �The schottky feedback prevents that by cutting the >>>>>> >base bias enough to make sure the collector never gets that low. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right; the schottly is a more pure AGC mode. The reverse emitter >>>>>> conduction depends on the inverse beta of the transistor. If the model >>>>>> includes inverse beta, when the collector dips down to close to >>>>>> ground, and the c-b junction forward biases, it essentially flips >>>>>> ends: collector becomes emitter, emitter becomes collector, emitter >>>>>> current flows upwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/LC_YDx.gif >>>>>> >>>>>> Either way, the base cap gets discharged. >>>>> >>>>>It's interesting that Jim's PSpice doesn't show the same spike. >>>> >>>>He blames it on defects in LT Spice. That's crazy. I suspect it's >>>>actually different transistor models. Note that in my sim, the emitter >>>>current reverses exactly at the points in time when Vc swings through >>>>Ve. >>>> >>>>John >>>> >>> >>>I didn't say that at all. I said I don't see it in PSpice, AND it's >>>an advertised feature of LTspice that models are tweaked for speed. >>> >>>However I suspect it's that I assigned a resistance to the feedback >>>winding proportionate to the Q assigned to the primary. You two did >>>not. >>> >>>PSpice does model BR, so it's not that. It could also be that I'm >>>looking way out at 1 second, where the loop is steady, and loop >>>"replenishment current" is very small. It's quite possible that, >>>during loop closure, you have some inverse transistor action. It's >>>certainly not there at 1 second... and the spectral analysis does not >>>show it either. >>> >>>However, it is dead clear, there is no AGC action controlling >>>TRANSCONDUCTANCE :-) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>I re-measured: IE is _never_ less than 376uA OUT of the emitter... no >>reverse transistor action. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >On closer examination I _am_ seeing some kind of burble on the emitter >current. Applying a Schottky _does_ reduce the burble, but not >completely, since you load the bias cap. No real change in spectrum. >Perhaps tie base of Q1 to the juncture of R1/D1? Or a Baker clamp >would certainly provide the isolation. But I doubt the ROI :-) > > ...Jim Thompson But it's weird, and counterproductive. The "burble" smoothes some, but at the price of peak emitter current going up to 20mA. Weird :-( ...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: Jim Thompson on 14 Jun 2010 20:45 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:30:55 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:36:19 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:15:09 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:01:55 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Jun 14, 4:41�pm, John Larkin >>>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >> Q1 doesn't conduct in reverse with your values, but no >>>>>> >> Schottky... the current is always out of the emitter... though it does >>>>>> >> get awfully close to zero: -376uA and -12.5mA peak. >>>>>> >>>>>> >Huh. �LTSpice says Q1 does conduct in reverse, a nasty little 5mA >>>>>> >spike's worth. �The schottky feedback prevents that by cutting the >>>>>> >base bias enough to make sure the collector never gets that low. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right; the schottly is a more pure AGC mode. The reverse emitter >>>>>> conduction depends on the inverse beta of the transistor. If the model >>>>>> includes inverse beta, when the collector dips down to close to >>>>>> ground, and the c-b junction forward biases, it essentially flips >>>>>> ends: collector becomes emitter, emitter becomes collector, emitter >>>>>> current flows upwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/LC_YDx.gif >>>>>> >>>>>> Either way, the base cap gets discharged. >>>>> >>>>>It's interesting that Jim's PSpice doesn't show the same spike. >>>> >>>>He blames it on defects in LT Spice. That's crazy. I suspect it's >>>>actually different transistor models. Note that in my sim, the emitter >>>>current reverses exactly at the points in time when Vc swings through >>>>Ve. >>>> >>>>John >>>> >>> >>>I didn't say that at all. I said I don't see it in PSpice, AND it's >>>an advertised feature of LTspice that models are tweaked for speed. >>> >>>However I suspect it's that I assigned a resistance to the feedback >>>winding proportionate to the Q assigned to the primary. You two did >>>not. >>> >>>PSpice does model BR, so it's not that. It could also be that I'm >>>looking way out at 1 second, where the loop is steady, and loop >>>"replenishment current" is very small. It's quite possible that, >>>during loop closure, you have some inverse transistor action. It's >>>certainly not there at 1 second... and the spectral analysis does not >>>show it either. >>> >>>However, it is dead clear, there is no AGC action controlling >>>TRANSCONDUCTANCE :-) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>I re-measured: IE is _never_ less than 376uA OUT of the emitter... no >>reverse transistor action. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >On closer examination I _am_ seeing some kind of burble on the emitter >current. Applying a Schottky _does_ reduce the burble, but not >completely, since you load the bias cap. No real change in spectrum. >Perhaps tie base of Q1 to the juncture of R1/D1? Or a Baker clamp >would certainly provide the isolation. But I doubt the ROI :-) > > ...Jim Thompson Baker clamp does the trick without as much rise in peak IE. But, if your definition of class-A is current not passing thru zero, it doesn't matter... it already was "class-A" :-) And your definition of "is" :-) ...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: Phil Hobbs on 14 Jun 2010 23:38 On 6/14/2010 11:04 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:37:20 -0400, JW<none(a)dev.null> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:03:24 -0500 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in Message id: >> <lcf7165d59talqrbbsejrdgv947dsre53r(a)4ax.com>: >> >>> AlwaysWrong shifting goal posts when he's wrong, as always. >>> > [snip] > > Like Larkin ?:-) > > ...Jim Thompson PITA alert. Why not stick to electronics instead of pissing contests? Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Jim Thompson on 14 Jun 2010 23:46
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:38:55 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 6/14/2010 11:04 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:37:20 -0400, JW<none(a)dev.null> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:03:24 -0500 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in Message id: >>> <lcf7165d59talqrbbsejrdgv947dsre53r(a)4ax.com>: >>> >>>> AlwaysWrong shifting goal posts when he's wrong, as always. >>>> >> [snip] >> >> Like Larkin ?:-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >PITA alert. Why not stick to electronics instead of pissing contests? > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs Sure. As soon as Larkin sticks to facts instead of BS. Otherwise it's open season. BTW, Are you an independent observer, or are you still on his payroll ?:-) ...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 |