Twin T circuit wanted
in [Basics]
|
From: John Larkin on 11 Jun 2010 11:02 On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:34:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jun 10, 11:45�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> John Larkin wrote: >> > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> > >John Larkin �wrote: > >> > >> The transformer ratio gets involved some, too. >> >> > >Yep, but to a 1rst order: average emitter voltage = 0, ignore the >> > >swing 'cause it's small, and that gets you pretty close. �V(b) = 120mV >> > >in my 5KHz example. >> >> > How much p-p voltage on the emitter? >> >> 1 volt. �That might be a bit hot, as I noted in the post. �I did that >--^^^^^^ > >Ooops. That was for another sim, which uses 1mH and 10uH. The posted >5 KHz ckt used 1mH / 25uH, so the emitter swing was about 1.8v p-p. > >James Arthur That's savage. John
From: BlindBaby on 11 Jun 2010 11:58 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:00:28 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Can you quantify that? Round off the the nearest millisecond. > >John Maybe your problem is the rounding off part. You rounded off the important parts and left yourself with the remainder. You took a high resolution subject and rounded off the details. We can quantify that.
From: YD on 11 Jun 2010 13:01 Late at night, by candle light, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> penned this immortal opus: >On 10 Jun 2010 17:55:23 -0700, Winfield Hill ><Winfield_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote... >>> >>> I have never called myself a "judge", and Win has never called >>> himself a "master." You and JT call us that, so you can then >>> abuse us for saying things we never said. How lame. >> >> That's correct. I work hard at what I do, but I'm always >> on the lookout for mistakes I may make, or more often, >> things I don't yet understand. Hopefully I'll not pipe >> up about something I don't yet understand, but oops, oops, >> sometimes one doesn't yet know that they don't understand >> something, or they may just make a silly thoughtless mistake. > >--- >Typical Larkinese tactic; poisoning the well. > >Better watch out, Win, if you disagree with him he'll more than likely >have something nasty and untrue to say about you, too. Can't say I've seen JL do that unless provoked. OTOH, you and JT are the real champs. Usually a symptom of inferiority complex. It's real easy on usenet since you can froth away without chancing a punch in the nose. - YD. -- File corruption detected. Select option: 1 - Call the cops 2 - Call the press 3 - Bribe it Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: Robert Baer on 11 Jun 2010 13:21 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:03:28 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:53:53 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:50:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 9:18 pm, Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>> Picky, picky. To my mind, the base current robbed by the >>>>>>> collector starves the base, lowering the CE stage's gain, >>>>>>> until the exact equilibrium is achieved. ALC, AGC, pick >>>>>>> your name as you like. Either way it gets the job done >>>>>>> rather nicely, and is a bit different from what we've seen >>>>>>> elsewhere, such as in old radio circuits. I see that it >>>>>>> has been analyzed as a possible RF oscillator technique. >>>>>>> But it seems to me that, working as we imagine, Vce(sat) >>>>>>> and all, this trick would be limited to far far below fT. >>>>>> Just to clarify, the RF versions I posted are similar to, but not the >>>>>> same as John's. They're standard UHF designs, Class A, without John's >>>>>> precision AGC. I don't think they can use John's AGC method directly-- >>>>>> if saturated, the transistors would be too slow--but maybe a Baker-ish >>>>>> clamp thing would do the job. >>>>> In my oscillator, a c-b schottky diode would keep the transistor c-b >>>>> junction from conducting, and keep the transistor out of saturation. >>>>> Tempco would still be low. That simplifies things considerably. Not >>>>> bad. >>>> Good idea. >>>> >>>>>> Oh, and John's oscillator really swings ~ 2* (Vcc + Vbe), not 2* (Vcc >>>>>> - Vbe). Reason being, the AGC operates as the average base voltage >>>>>> gets sucked down to near 0v, killing the gain. >>>>> I seem to recall the DC base voltage being about +.6. So the collector >>>>> swings to just about zero, and the AC output is 2*Vcc p-p. Somebody >>>>> could Spice this, if they were interested, and see exactly what >>>>> happens. >>>> I Spice'd all the circuits I posted. >>>> >>>>> The transformer ratio gets involved some, too. >>>> Yep, but to a 1rst order: average emitter voltage = 0, ignore the >>>> swing 'cause it's small, and that gets you pretty close. V(b) = 120mV >>>> in my 5KHz example. >>>> >>>> James >>> How much p-p voltage on the emitter? >>> >>> That low a DC base voltage suggests more like class-C action. With >>> less turns on the emitter winding, the thing gets more class A-ish, >>> and I'd expect the DC base voltage to go up some. I think. >>> >>> I wonder what happens to the DC base voltage as the base bias resistor >>> changes. I'm not even sure which direction things will go. >>> >>> Complicated, for 5 parts. >> --- >> So, _there's_ a "circuit designer" who can't even figure out how a >> circuit which he's put into the world works, > > It works fine the way I designed it to work. I admit I don't > understand all the possible variations, and the entire possible > operating envelope, because it didn't matter 35 years ago, and it > doesn't matter now. It's just sort of interesting to discuss. > > Discussion sort of requires that you don't assume you know everything. > > > and yet wants to elevate >> himself into the position of a judge of circuit designs? > > I have never called myself a "judge", and Win has never called himself > a "master." You and JT call us that, so you can then abuse us for > saying things we never said. How lame. > > Tell us more about tuning fork oscillators. > > John > OK, tuning fork oscillators.. It is my understanding that they are mechanical in nature and the ?slab? of material is slotted to make a "Y" like shape, and the "arms" are what moves (vibrates is the term usually used). The preferred motion is that those arms move together then apart at the same time; not both back and forth not movement of either or both perpendicular to the "Y" shape (reminiscent of TE and TM modes in microwave anyone?). So, given the preferred motion and no other, these shapes/systems are rather non-linear and get worse as the amplitude increases. Forgive me for my stupidity but cannot that non-linearity be used as THE amplitude limiter - exclusive of any other scheme? That is to say, with care, the oscillation approaches monotone sinewave in a limit. Has this been tried?
From: Robert Baer on 11 Jun 2010 13:25
YD wrote: > Late at night, by candle light, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> penned this immortal opus: > >> On 10 Jun 2010 17:55:23 -0700, Winfield Hill >> <Winfield_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>> John Larkin wrote... >>>> I have never called myself a "judge", and Win has never called >>>> himself a "master." You and JT call us that, so you can then >>>> abuse us for saying things we never said. How lame. >>> That's correct. I work hard at what I do, but I'm always >>> on the lookout for mistakes I may make, or more often, >>> things I don't yet understand. Hopefully I'll not pipe >>> up about something I don't yet understand, but oops, oops, >>> sometimes one doesn't yet know that they don't understand >>> something, or they may just make a silly thoughtless mistake. >> --- >> Typical Larkinese tactic; poisoning the well. >> >> Better watch out, Win, if you disagree with him he'll more than likely >> have something nasty and untrue to say about you, too. > > Can't say I've seen JL do that unless provoked. > > OTOH, you and JT are the real champs. Usually a symptom of inferiority > complex. It's real easy on usenet since you can froth away without > chancing a punch in the nose. > > - YD. ....is that why one does not get to see a pool of red electrons forming below the keyboard? |