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: BlindBaby on 11 Jun 2010 12:09 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:37:43 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:15:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman ><jeroen(a)nospam.please> wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> I like the way it works with a very high turns ratio, very small AC >>> drive at the emitter. But at lower ratios, it gets very nonlinear and >>> becomes, if that means anything, a tuned blocking oscillator. The base >>> capacitor value would be lowered so that the cap recharges a bunch >>> during a oscillatory cycle. >>> >>> I'm sure JT and JF will spend the next week diligently searching for a >>> set of values that will make my circuit not work. Then they'll crow, >>> or rather, cluck about it. That's OK: as Woody Allen says, we need the >>> eggs. >> >>I made it squeg. Maybe that will please them. >> >>Jeroen Belleman > > >Sloman is our resident squegging expert. > >John We should take a poll as to what attribute you are an expert in. I don't think it would result in the same determination that you obviously think it would.
From: John Larkin on 11 Jun 2010 12:14 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:09:29 -0700, BlindBaby <BlindMelonChitlin(a)wellnevergetthatonethealbumcover.org> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:37:43 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:15:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >><jeroen(a)nospam.please> wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>> I like the way it works with a very high turns ratio, very small AC >>>> drive at the emitter. But at lower ratios, it gets very nonlinear and >>>> becomes, if that means anything, a tuned blocking oscillator. The base >>>> capacitor value would be lowered so that the cap recharges a bunch >>>> during a oscillatory cycle. >>>> >>>> I'm sure JT and JF will spend the next week diligently searching for a >>>> set of values that will make my circuit not work. Then they'll crow, >>>> or rather, cluck about it. That's OK: as Woody Allen says, we need the >>>> eggs. >>> >>>I made it squeg. Maybe that will please them. >>> >>>Jeroen Belleman >> >> >>Sloman is our resident squegging expert. >> >>John > > > We should take a poll as to what attribute you are an expert in. > > I don't think it would result in the same determination that you >obviously think it would. Do you know what squegging means? Tell us. There are maybe two usages, both electronic, but one of them is obscure, and the other is even more obscure. John
From: YD on 11 Jun 2010 12:37 Late at night, by candle light, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen(a)nospam.please> penned this immortal opus: >John Larkin wrote: >> >> I like the way it works with a very high turns ratio, very small AC >> drive at the emitter. But at lower ratios, it gets very nonlinear and >> becomes, if that means anything, a tuned blocking oscillator. The base >> capacitor value would be lowered so that the cap recharges a bunch >> during a oscillatory cycle. >> >> I'm sure JT and JF will spend the next week diligently searching for a >> set of values that will make my circuit not work. Then they'll crow, >> or rather, cluck about it. That's OK: as Woody Allen says, we need the >> eggs. > >I made it squeg. Maybe that will please them. > Yes, the tank's Q must be kept high. Increasing La's series R makes it squegg in a rather amusing way. Might be fun capturing it to a .wav. JL: Can you recall ballpark the values of the inductors and associated frequencies in the physical circuit? High valued Ls tend to be rather resistive unless they're grossly oversized. - YD. -- File corruption detected. Select option: 1 - Call the cops 2 - Call the press 3 - Bribe it Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: BlindBaby on 11 Jun 2010 12:49 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:14:34 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:09:29 -0700, BlindBaby ><BlindMelonChitlin(a)wellnevergetthatonethealbumcover.org> wrote: > >>On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:37:43 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:15:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>><jeroen(a)nospam.please> wrote: >>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I like the way it works with a very high turns ratio, very small AC >>>>> drive at the emitter. But at lower ratios, it gets very nonlinear and >>>>> becomes, if that means anything, a tuned blocking oscillator. The base >>>>> capacitor value would be lowered so that the cap recharges a bunch >>>>> during a oscillatory cycle. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure JT and JF will spend the next week diligently searching for a >>>>> set of values that will make my circuit not work. Then they'll crow, >>>>> or rather, cluck about it. That's OK: as Woody Allen says, we need the >>>>> eggs. >>>> >>>>I made it squeg. Maybe that will please them. >>>> >>>>Jeroen Belleman >>> >>> >>>Sloman is our resident squegging expert. >>> >>>John >> >> >> We should take a poll as to what attribute you are an expert in. >> >> I don't think it would result in the same determination that you >>obviously think it would. > >Do you know what squegging means? Tell us. I have characterized a lot of oscillator circuits at the bench, John. Remember... power supplies... That was years ago. Now it is what the power supplies power. Still lots of oscillators though. > >There are maybe two usages, both electronic, I have very little faith in your word derivative/origin declarations, John. That is aside from the fact that I am familiar with the word. Remember? I work in this industry. > but one of them is >obscure, Perhaps only in your thinking. > and the other is even more obscure. Certainly only in your thinking.
From: John Fields on 11 Jun 2010 12:56
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:47:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:02:44 -0500, "Tim Williams" ><tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: > >>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in >>message news:1q3316tr0ak2u8rdhr974agci3svmobtjo(a)4ax.com... >>> Isn't there some young buck out there who can analyze circuits ?:-( >> >>Me? >> >>Go do it yourself Jim. >> >>Tim > >I like the way it works with a very high turns ratio, very small AC >drive at the emitter. But at lower ratios, it gets very nonlinear and >becomes, if that means anything, a tuned blocking oscillator. The base >capacitor value would be lowered so that the cap recharges a bunch >during a oscillatory cycle. > >I'm sure JT and JF will spend the next week diligently searching for a >set of values that will make my circuit not work. --- What a lying, insolent wretch you are. You don't even have the good grace to place component values on the sketch and here, after I've gone to all the trouble of prettying it up so it'll run at an audible frequency, simulating it, and even getting a .wav file so the gong sound can be heard, you have nothing but lies, insults, and, of course, no acknowledgement of the work and time spent on your behalf. I thought Sloman was a particularly nasty piece of work, but you take the cake. --- > Then they'll crow, >or rather, cluck about it. That's OK: as Woody Allen says, we need the >eggs. --- You better keep your day job. |