On 11/11/2015 01:52 PM, Bruce S wrote:> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 11/11/2015 12:29 PM, Bruce S wrote: > >>> The F/2 signal is merely an artifact of the startup transient. The >>> circuit does not generate a continuous F/2 signal. > >> I invite you to read the paper I linked, about how to optimize a >> circuit that you appear to be claiming is impossible. > >> Because that one is behind a paywall, I've posted a several-page >> excerpt from the ARRL VHF Handbook, First Ed. (1965) about how paramps >> work and how to build them. 'taint rocket surgery. > >> http://electrooptical.net/www/sed/ARRLparamps.pdf > > Parametric amplifiers are well-known. The paper you reference talks about > a down converter that requires a signal input, a pump signal, and the > output. That requires two input signals to generate the lower output > frequency, similar to a mixer. > > They do not have a single varactor and inductor with a single input > frequency as shown in Jeroen's circuit. > > I don't understand your statement that I claim the circuit is impossible. > Of course you can run anything in LTspice. You don't have to include > realistic stray capacitances and impedances. That doesn't mean it will > work on the bench. > > The circuit I posted shows the F/2 signal dies out in a few cycles when > you include realistic ESR and stray capacitances. > > Please post a circuit showing how to optimize a single varactor and > inductor as in Jeroen's circuit to produce a sub-multiple of a single > input signal.LMGTFY. "Degenerate parametric amplifier" varactor Result #2: <https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/43613/Gray_Blake_R_201205_phd.pdf> See Figure 23 on P. 66 for an interesting degenerate paramp circuit, and Section 2.3.2 starting on P. 30 for discussion. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Magamp oscillator
Started by ●November 3, 2015
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:10:45 -0500, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:13 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:23:26 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:02:39 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>> >>>>On 10/11/15 21:53, legg wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:16:51 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 09/11/15 13:08, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>> The paper I linked to (paywall unfortunately) talks about optimizing >>>>>>> frequency halvers based on varactors and schottkys. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All you need is a nonlinear capacitance, which all diodes have, and >>>>>>> low enough loss. >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, I give in. Here is a simple circuit that generates a strong and >>>>>> persistent f/2 from an input at frequency f. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeroen Belleman >>>>> >>>>> Check your source impedance/current. Is it a fair trade? >>>>> >>>>> RL >>>>> >>>> >>>>Not the point. The argument was about using parametric effects to >>>>make oscillators. >>>> >>>>Come to think of it, I posted about another such thing, in an >>>>argument over using mains-frequency driven magnet coils to sustain >>>>a pendulum swinging at a ~1s period. That was a parametric >>>>oscillator too. >>>> >>>>Jeroen Belleman >>> >>>It's not gain. >>> >>>RL >> >>Sure it is. The pendulum will swing forever, as long as the 60 Hz pump >>is there, overcoming frictional losses. >> >I don't see any gain. Wout = Win * ?The active element of an oscillator, fed from a power supply, adds enough energy to overcome losses in the resonator. A parametrically pumped resonator does that. The words that you use don't change the reality. If you define an oscillator as not having a gain element, then it doesn't for you. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
On 11/11/2015 02:18 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:> On 11/11/2015 01:52 PM, Bruce S wrote: >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> On 11/11/2015 12:29 PM, Bruce S wrote: >> >>>> The F/2 signal is merely an artifact of the startup transient. The >>>> circuit does not generate a continuous F/2 signal. >> >>> I invite you to read the paper I linked, about how to optimize a >>> circuit that you appear to be claiming is impossible. >> >>> Because that one is behind a paywall, I've posted a several-page >>> excerpt from the ARRL VHF Handbook, First Ed. (1965) about how paramps >>> work and how to build them. 'taint rocket surgery. >> >>> http://electrooptical.net/www/sed/ARRLparamps.pdf >> >> Parametric amplifiers are well-known. The paper you reference talks about >> a down converter that requires a signal input, a pump signal, and the >> output. That requires two input signals to generate the lower output >> frequency, similar to a mixer. >> >> They do not have a single varactor and inductor with a single input >> frequency as shown in Jeroen's circuit. >> >> I don't understand your statement that I claim the circuit is impossible. >> Of course you can run anything in LTspice. You don't have to include >> realistic stray capacitances and impedances. That doesn't mean it will >> work on the bench. >> >> The circuit I posted shows the F/2 signal dies out in a few cycles when >> you include realistic ESR and stray capacitances. >> >> Please post a circuit showing how to optimize a single varactor and >> inductor as in Jeroen's circuit to produce a sub-multiple of a single >> input signal. > > LMGTFY. "Degenerate parametric amplifier" varactor > > Result #2: > <https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/43613/Gray_Blake_R_201205_phd.pdf> > > > See Figure 23 on P. 66 for an interesting degenerate paramp circuit, and > Section 2.3.2 starting on P. 30 for discussion. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs >And this one works down to a Q of 10, and works well at a Q of 19 (as shown). Cheers Phil Hobbs =============== Version 4 SHEET 1 880 680 WIRE 416 80 272 80 WIRE 512 80 416 80 WIRE 512 96 512 80 WIRE 272 112 272 80 WIRE 416 144 416 80 WIRE 64 192 -32 192 WIRE 272 192 272 176 WIRE 272 192 144 192 WIRE 512 192 512 176 WIRE -32 208 -32 192 WIRE 272 272 272 256 WIRE 416 272 416 208 WIRE 416 272 272 272 WIRE 512 272 416 272 WIRE -32 304 -32 288 WIRE 416 304 416 272 FLAG 416 304 0 FLAG -32 304 0 SYMBOL varactor 256 112 R0 SYMATTR InstName D1 SYMATTR Value KV1471 SYMBOL varactor 288 256 R180 WINDOW 0 24 64 Left 2 WINDOW 3 24 0 Left 2 SYMATTR InstName D2 SYMATTR Value KV1471 SYMBOL cap 400 144 R0 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 1000p SYMBOL ind 496 80 R0 SYMATTR InstName L1 SYMATTR Value 10u SYMBOL res 48 208 R270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 2 WINDOW 3 0 56 VBottom 2 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 100 SYMBOL voltage -32 192 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value SINE(5 10 3meg 1u) SYMBOL res 496 176 R0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 5R TEXT 40 88 Left 2 !.tran 100u -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:> On 11/11/2015 01:52 PM, Bruce S wrote: >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>>> On 11/11/2015 12:29 PM, Bruce S wrote:>>>> The F/2 signal is merely an artifact of the startup transient. The >>>> circuit does not generate a continuous F/2 signal.>>> I invite you to read the paper I linked, about how to optimize a >>> circuit that you appear to be claiming is impossible.>>> Because that one is behind a paywall, I've posted a several-page >>> excerpt from the ARRL VHF Handbook, First Ed. (1965) about how >>> paramps work and how to build them. 'taint rocket surgery.>>> http://electrooptical.net/www/sed/ARRLparamps.pdf>> Parametric amplifiers are well-known. The paper you reference talks >> about a down converter that requires a signal input, a pump signal, >> and the output. That requires two input signals to generate the lower >> output frequency, similar to a mixer.>> They do not have a single varactor and inductor with a single input >> frequency as shown in Jeroen's circuit.>> I don't understand your statement that I claim the circuit is >> impossible. Of course you can run anything in LTspice. You don't have >> to include realistic stray capacitances and impedances. That doesn't >> mean it will work on the bench.>> The circuit I posted shows the F/2 signal dies out in a few cycles >> when you include realistic ESR and stray capacitances.>> Please post a circuit showing how to optimize a single varactor and >> inductor as in Jeroen's circuit to produce a sub-multiple of a single >> input signal.> LMGTFY. "Degenerate parametric amplifier" varactor > > Result #2: > <https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/43613/Gray_Blake_R_2 > 01205_phd.pdf> > > See Figure 23 on P. 66 for an interesting degenerate paramp circuit, > and Section 2.3.2 starting on P. 30 for discussion.I don't know why you include his thesis. He is talking about standard parametric upconverters using two input signals, similar to a mixer. These are well-known and understood. We are talking about frequency halver using a single input frequency. I refer you to Jeroen or Legg's circuits. I am waiting for a list of commercial vendors of frequency halvers that you said could be bought with no problem. I am not talking about a standard parametric down converter that requires a pump signal.> Cheers> Phil Hobbs
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:38:33 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>On 11/11/2015 02:18 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 11/11/2015 01:52 PM, Bruce S wrote: >>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/11/2015 12:29 PM, Bruce S wrote: >>> >>>>> The F/2 signal is merely an artifact of the startup transient. The >>>>> circuit does not generate a continuous F/2 signal. >>> >>>> I invite you to read the paper I linked, about how to optimize a >>>> circuit that you appear to be claiming is impossible. >>> >>>> Because that one is behind a paywall, I've posted a several-page >>>> excerpt from the ARRL VHF Handbook, First Ed. (1965) about how paramps >>>> work and how to build them. 'taint rocket surgery. >>> >>>> http://electrooptical.net/www/sed/ARRLparamps.pdf >>> >>> Parametric amplifiers are well-known. The paper you reference talks about >>> a down converter that requires a signal input, a pump signal, and the >>> output. That requires two input signals to generate the lower output >>> frequency, similar to a mixer. >>> >>> They do not have a single varactor and inductor with a single input >>> frequency as shown in Jeroen's circuit. >>> >>> I don't understand your statement that I claim the circuit is impossible. >>> Of course you can run anything in LTspice. You don't have to include >>> realistic stray capacitances and impedances. That doesn't mean it will >>> work on the bench. >>> >>> The circuit I posted shows the F/2 signal dies out in a few cycles when >>> you include realistic ESR and stray capacitances. >>> >>> Please post a circuit showing how to optimize a single varactor and >>> inductor as in Jeroen's circuit to produce a sub-multiple of a single >>> input signal. >> >> LMGTFY. "Degenerate parametric amplifier" varactor >> >> Result #2: >> <https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/43613/Gray_Blake_R_201205_phd.pdf> >> >> >> See Figure 23 on P. 66 for an interesting degenerate paramp circuit, and >> Section 2.3.2 starting on P. 30 for discussion. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs >> > >And this one works down to a Q of 10, and works well at a Q of 19 (as >shown). > >Cheers >That does have DC current in the diodes, as do some of the other circuits posted here. There may be something else going on, some SRD effect maybe. Especially in the divide by 2 or 3 circuits that output the occasional big spike. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:> And this one works down to a Q of 10, and works well at a Q of 19 (as > shown).> Cheers> Phil HobbsThanks! Now we are talking. I had come across several dual varactor frequency halvers using microstrip transmission lines at GHz frequencies. Your circuit moves this down to a lower frequency where standard components can be used. Note that ordinary diodes won't work. It needs the varactors. And it needs two of them, not just one like Jeroen and Legg's circuits. It works only at half the input frequency. It won't work at F/3 or F/4. Now the trick will be to find the phase noise. If it can divide the input frequency with lower phase noise than a regular d-flop, it could have some significant application in my work. Single varactor or diode circuits : Out. Hobbs Halver : In. Thanks.
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:38:26 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:10:45 -0500, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:13 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:23:26 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:02:39 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>>><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 10/11/15 21:53, legg wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:16:51 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 09/11/15 13:08, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>> The paper I linked to (paywall unfortunately) talks about optimizing >>>>>>>> frequency halvers based on varactors and schottkys. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All you need is a nonlinear capacitance, which all diodes have, and >>>>>>>> low enough loss. >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, I give in. Here is a simple circuit that generates a strong and >>>>>>> persistent f/2 from an input at frequency f. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman >>>>>> >>>>>> Check your source impedance/current. Is it a fair trade? >>>>>> >>>>>> RL >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not the point. The argument was about using parametric effects to >>>>>make oscillators. >>>>> >>>>>Come to think of it, I posted about another such thing, in an >>>>>argument over using mains-frequency driven magnet coils to sustain >>>>>a pendulum swinging at a ~1s period. That was a parametric >>>>>oscillator too. >>>>> >>>>>Jeroen Belleman >>>> >>>>It's not gain. >>>> >>>>RL >>> >>>Sure it is. The pendulum will swing forever, as long as the 60 Hz pump >>>is there, overcoming frictional losses. >>> >>I don't see any gain. Wout = Win * ? > >The active element of an oscillator, fed from a power supply, adds >enough energy to overcome losses in the resonator.OK, there is no feedback and no gain.> >A parametrically pumped resonator does that. The words that you use >don't change the reality. If you define an oscillator as not having a >gain element, then it doesn't for you.It doesn't. Words mean things.
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:05:45 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>On 11/11/2015 07:03 AM, krw wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:01:54 -0800, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:46:10 -0500, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:23:26 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:02:39 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/11/15 21:53, legg wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:16:51 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 09/11/15 13:08, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>> The paper I linked to (paywall unfortunately) talks about optimizing >>>>>>>>> frequency halvers based on varactors and schottkys. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All you need is a nonlinear capacitance, which all diodes have, and >>>>>>>>> low enough loss. >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, I give in. Here is a simple circuit that generates a strong and >>>>>>>> persistent f/2 from an input at frequency f. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Check your source impedance/current. Is it a fair trade? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RL >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not the point. The argument was about using parametric effects to >>>>>> make oscillators. >>>>>> >>>>>> Come to think of it, I posted about another such thing, in an >>>>>> argument over using mains-frequency driven magnet coils to sustain >>>>>> a pendulum swinging at a ~1s period. That was a parametric >>>>>> oscillator too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeroen Belleman >>>>> >>>>> It's not gain. >>>>> >>>> It's not an oscillator, either. >>> >>> The 60 Hz pump trick adds energy to the resonant device, the pendulum, >>> just as a transistor (or a varicap pump) adds energy to an LC. Adding >>> energy keeps the oscillation from dying out. >>> >>> A pumped resonator is an oscillator. As a bonus, the parametric >>> oscillator is phase-locked to the pump. >>> >> You obviously consider the pendulum an oscillator but I think you're >> alone. I see it as nothing more than a tank. There is no >> amplification or feedback. What's the transfer equation? >> > >You don't think that something that oscillates is an oscillator? >Well...
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:17:28 -0500, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:>On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:38:26 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:10:45 -0500, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:13 -0800, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:23:26 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:02:39 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>>>><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On 10/11/15 21:53, legg wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:16:51 +0100, jeroen Belleman >>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 09/11/15 13:08, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>> The paper I linked to (paywall unfortunately) talks about optimizing >>>>>>>>> frequency halvers based on varactors and schottkys. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All you need is a nonlinear capacitance, which all diodes have, and >>>>>>>>> low enough loss. >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, I give in. Here is a simple circuit that generates a strong and >>>>>>>> persistent f/2 from an input at frequency f. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Check your source impedance/current. Is it a fair trade? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RL >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Not the point. The argument was about using parametric effects to >>>>>>make oscillators. >>>>>> >>>>>>Come to think of it, I posted about another such thing, in an >>>>>>argument over using mains-frequency driven magnet coils to sustain >>>>>>a pendulum swinging at a ~1s period. That was a parametric >>>>>>oscillator too. >>>>>> >>>>>>Jeroen Belleman >>>>> >>>>>It's not gain. >>>>> >>>>>RL >>>> >>>>Sure it is. The pendulum will swing forever, as long as the 60 Hz pump >>>>is there, overcoming frictional losses. >>>> >>>I don't see any gain. Wout = Win * ? >> >>The active element of an oscillator, fed from a power supply, adds >>enough energy to overcome losses in the resonator. > >OK, there is no feedback and no gain.The active element certainly has gain. The oscillator itself has no definable gain because it has no input.>> >>A parametrically pumped resonator does that. The words that you use >>don't change the reality. If you define an oscillator as not having a >>gain element, then it doesn't for you. > >It doesn't. Words mean things.Yes, and you can play with them endlessly. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●November 11, 20152015-11-11
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:03:15 GMT, Bruce S <nope@lst.com> wrote: <snip>>In Legg's circuit, as soon as you add realistic ESR and stray capacitance >across the inductor, the F/2 signal disappears >This is a joke version of the circuit offered by Jeroen. It uses a generic rectifier with low Cj. Realistic source impedance in the 'pump' is enough to kill it. Aren't models great? RL
