• strange oscillator

    From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 07:27:32 2022
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    SHEET 1 1220 836
    WIRE 528 112 288 112
    WIRE 288 144 288 112
    WIRE 288 272 288 224
    WIRE 528 288 528 112
    WIRE 400 368 288 368
    WIRE 480 368 400 368
    WIRE 400 416 400 368
    WIRE 288 528 288 368
    WIRE 400 560 400 496
    WIRE 432 560 400 560
    WIRE 528 560 528 384
    WIRE 528 560 496 560
    WIRE 400 608 400 560
    WIRE 528 656 528 560
    WIRE 288 720 288 592
    WIRE 400 720 400 688
    WIRE 400 720 288 720
    WIRE 400 816 400 720
    WIRE 528 816 528 736
    FLAG 288 272 0
    FLAG 528 816 0
    FLAG 400 816 0
    SYMBOL voltage 288 128 R0
    WINDOW 0 68 58 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 59 97 Left 2
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName Vd
    SYMATTR Value 2.5
    SYMBOL mesfet 480 288 R0
    WINDOW 0 86 36 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 64 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName Z2
    SYMATTR Value SAV541
    SYMBOL ind 416 512 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 61 43 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL current 528 656 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName I1
    SYMATTR Value 10m
    SYMBOL cap 272 528 R0
    WINDOW 0 -59 14 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -61 49 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName C1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5p
    SYMBOL ind 416 704 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 41 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L2
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL cap 496 544 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName C2
    SYMATTR Value 5p
    TEXT -96 272 Left 2 !.tran 50n uic
    TEXT -232 368 Left 2 !.MODEL SAV541 NMF(vto=0.08, Beta=0.6,\n+
    Lambda=0.07, Alpha=4 B=0.8, Pb=0.7,\n+ Cgs=0.997E-12, Cgd=0.176E-12, Rd=0.084,\n+ Rs=0.054, Kf=5e-11, Af=2)
    TEXT -144 152 Left 2 ;SAV-541 2L Oscillator
    TEXT -120 216 Left 2 ;JL Feb 1 2022





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From piglet@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 1 15:47:58 2022
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    SHEET 1 1220 836
    WIRE 528 112 288 112
    WIRE 288 144 288 112
    WIRE 288 272 288 224
    WIRE 528 288 528 112
    WIRE 400 368 288 368
    WIRE 480 368 400 368
    WIRE 400 416 400 368
    WIRE 288 528 288 368
    WIRE 400 560 400 496
    WIRE 432 560 400 560
    WIRE 528 560 528 384
    WIRE 528 560 496 560
    WIRE 400 608 400 560
    WIRE 528 656 528 560
    WIRE 288 720 288 592
    WIRE 400 720 400 688
    WIRE 400 720 288 720
    WIRE 400 816 400 720
    WIRE 528 816 528 736
    FLAG 288 272 0
    FLAG 528 816 0
    FLAG 400 816 0
    SYMBOL voltage 288 128 R0
    WINDOW 0 68 58 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 59 97 Left 2
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName Vd
    SYMATTR Value 2.5
    SYMBOL mesfet 480 288 R0
    WINDOW 0 86 36 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 64 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName Z2
    SYMATTR Value SAV541
    SYMBOL ind 416 512 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 61 43 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL current 528 656 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName I1
    SYMATTR Value 10m
    SYMBOL cap 272 528 R0
    WINDOW 0 -59 14 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -61 49 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName C1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5p
    SYMBOL ind 416 704 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 41 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L2
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL cap 496 544 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName C2
    SYMATTR Value 5p
    TEXT -96 272 Left 2 !.tran 50n uic
    TEXT -232 368 Left 2 !.MODEL SAV541 NMF(vto=0.08, Beta=0.6,\n+
    Lambda=0.07, Alpha=4 B=0.8, Pb=0.7,\n+ Cgs=0.997E-12, Cgd=0.176E-12, Rd=0.084,\n+ Rs=0.054, Kf=5e-11, Af=2)
    TEXT -144 152 Left 2 ;SAV-541 2L Oscillator
    TEXT -120 216 Left 2 ;JL Feb 1 2022






    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to piglet on Tue Feb 1 10:59:09 2022
    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    SHEET 1 1220 836
    WIRE 528 112 288 112
    WIRE 288 144 288 112
    WIRE 288 272 288 224
    WIRE 528 288 528 112
    WIRE 400 368 288 368
    WIRE 480 368 400 368
    WIRE 400 416 400 368
    WIRE 288 528 288 368
    WIRE 400 560 400 496
    WIRE 432 560 400 560
    WIRE 528 560 528 384
    WIRE 528 560 496 560
    WIRE 400 608 400 560
    WIRE 528 656 528 560
    WIRE 288 720 288 592
    WIRE 400 720 400 688
    WIRE 400 720 288 720
    WIRE 400 816 400 720
    WIRE 528 816 528 736
    FLAG 288 272 0
    FLAG 528 816 0
    FLAG 400 816 0
    SYMBOL voltage 288 128 R0
    WINDOW 0 68 58 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 59 97 Left 2
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName Vd
    SYMATTR Value 2.5
    SYMBOL mesfet 480 288 R0
    WINDOW 0 86 36 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 64 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName Z2
    SYMATTR Value SAV541
    SYMBOL ind 416 512 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 61 43 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL current 528 656 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName I1
    SYMATTR Value 10m
    SYMBOL cap 272 528 R0
    WINDOW 0 -59 14 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -61 49 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName C1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5p
    SYMBOL ind 416 704 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 41 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L2
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL cap 496 544 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName C2
    SYMATTR Value 5p
    TEXT -96 272 Left 2 !.tran 50n uic
    TEXT -232 368 Left 2 !.MODEL SAV541 NMF(vto=0.08, Beta=0.6,\n+
    Lambda=0.07, Alpha=4 B=0.8, Pb=0.7,\n+ Cgs=0.997E-12, Cgd=0.176E-12,
    Rd=0.084,\n+ Rs=0.054, Kf=5e-11, Af=2)
    TEXT -144 152 Left 2 ;SAV-541 2L Oscillator
    TEXT -120 216 Left 2 ;JL  Feb 1   2022






    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet


    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that
    does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer
    action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical. on Tue Feb 1 08:07:50 2022
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 10:59:09 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.



    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet


    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that >does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer
    action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From piglet@21:1/5 to piglet on Tue Feb 1 16:17:15 2022
    On 01/02/2022 3:47 pm, piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    SHEET 1 1220 836
    WIRE 528 112 288 112
    WIRE 288 144 288 112
    WIRE 288 272 288 224
    WIRE 528 288 528 112
    WIRE 400 368 288 368
    WIRE 480 368 400 368
    WIRE 400 416 400 368
    WIRE 288 528 288 368
    WIRE 400 560 400 496
    WIRE 432 560 400 560
    WIRE 528 560 528 384
    WIRE 528 560 496 560
    WIRE 400 608 400 560
    WIRE 528 656 528 560
    WIRE 288 720 288 592
    WIRE 400 720 400 688
    WIRE 400 720 288 720
    WIRE 400 816 400 720
    WIRE 528 816 528 736
    FLAG 288 272 0
    FLAG 528 816 0
    FLAG 400 816 0
    SYMBOL voltage 288 128 R0
    WINDOW 0 68 58 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 59 97 Left 2
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName Vd
    SYMATTR Value 2.5
    SYMBOL mesfet 480 288 R0
    WINDOW 0 86 36 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 64 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName Z2
    SYMATTR Value SAV541
    SYMBOL ind 416 512 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 61 43 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL current 528 656 R0
    WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
    WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
    SYMATTR InstName I1
    SYMATTR Value 10m
    SYMBOL cap 272 528 R0
    WINDOW 0 -59 14 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 -61 49 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName C1
    SYMATTR Value 2.5p
    SYMBOL ind 416 704 R180
    WINDOW 0 70 75 Left 2
    WINDOW 3 62 41 Left 2
    SYMATTR InstName L2
    SYMATTR Value 2.5n
    SYMBOL cap 496 544 R90
    WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2
    WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2
    SYMATTR InstName C2
    SYMATTR Value 5p
    TEXT -96 272 Left 2 !.tran 50n uic
    TEXT -232 368 Left 2 !.MODEL SAV541 NMF(vto=0.08, Beta=0.6,\n+
    Lambda=0.07, Alpha=4 B=0.8, Pb=0.7,\n+ Cgs=0.997E-12, Cgd=0.176E-12,
    Rd=0.084,\n+ Rs=0.054, Kf=5e-11, Af=2)
    TEXT -144 152 Left 2 ;SAV-541 2L Oscillator
    TEXT -120 216 Left 2 ;JL  Feb 1   2022






    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet




    Found the book online, p145-146 were what I was thinking of ...

    <https://www.qsl.net/pa2efr/manuals/Doc/Practical%20Oscillator%20Handbook%201997-Irving%20M%20Gottlieb.pdf>

    piglet

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 1 12:05:49 2022
    On 2/1/2022 11:07 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 10:59:09 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.



    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet


    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that
    does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer
    action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.

    What about cross-coupled ECL-type oscillator

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 09:00:07 2022
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:17:15 +0000, piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet




    Found the book online, p145-146 were what I was thinking of ...

    <https://www.qsl.net/pa2efr/manuals/Doc/Practical%20Oscillator%20Handbook%201997-Irving%20M%20Gottlieb.pdf>

    piglet

    Nice. It's from 1997 but includes oldies like thyratrons, spark gaps,
    tunnel diodes.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Tue Feb 1 18:56:23 2022
    On 2022-02-01 16:59, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    [Deleted ... ]

    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that
    does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs


    To me, a Colpitts has two C's and one L in its tank. This one doesn't.
    A capacitive divider is also an impedance transformer.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Feb 1 09:59:12 2022
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:05:49 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 2/1/2022 11:07 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 10:59:09 -0500, Phil Hobbs
    <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.



    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there >>>> was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is >>>> no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet


    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that >>> does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer
    action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.

    What about cross-coupled ECL-type oscillator

    I could persuade a diff-in-out ecl gate or comparator to oscillate,
    but I'd have to try it. I don't have Spice models for those.

    I might get lucky and just connect a diff gate into itself, inverted.
    and watch it oscillate. Hey good idea! Might be fun to try.

    A MMIC is a great gain element, but it's basically 50 ohms in and out,
    the ideal tank Q killer. The best MMIC ocillator is probably
    delay-line, which will give me antiphase outputs. Again, gotta solder
    to test that.

    I wish ADI would include their ADCMP parts in LT Spice.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 1 18:52:15 2022
    On 2022-02-01 16:27, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    [Deleted...]

    To me, this classifies as a Hartley, because it has two L's
    and one C as its tank circuit. The fact that the L's aren't
    coupled, to my mind, is only a minor point.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Tue Feb 1 13:44:13 2022
    Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-02-01 16:59, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    [Deleted ... ]

    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that
    does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer
    action of the mutual inductance.


    To me, a Colpitts has two C's and one L in its tank. This one doesn't.
    A capacitive divider is also an impedance transformer.

    Not without the resonance, it isn't. The input is at the tap and the
    output is at the top of the tank, so it isn't a voltage divider.

    The math of a real Hartley is different from the Colpitts case, but with uncoupled inductors it's the same except for the sign of the reactance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Tue Feb 1 20:35:59 2022
    On 2022-02-01 19:44, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-02-01 16:59, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    Version 4
    [Deleted ... ]

    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank
    Q that does the impedance transformation, with no help from the
    transformer action of the mutual inductance.


    To me, a Colpitts has two C's and one L in its tank. This one
    doesn't. A capacitive divider is also an impedance transformer.

    Not without the resonance, it isn't. The input is at the tap and the
    output is at the top of the tank, so it isn't a voltage divider.

    The math of a real Hartley is different from the Colpitts case, but
    with uncoupled inductors it's the same except for the sign of the
    reactance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs


    The concepts of input and output are somewhat slippery in oscillators.
    One could choose any or none of the three terminals of a transconductance
    gain element as common, and inputs and outputs move about as a result. My
    point is that two of the three reactances that make up the tank are of
    the same sign, and one is opposite, and the low-Z node of the gain block connects to the node where the two equal-sign reactances connect. It's
    easier to draw than to describe.

    The signs of the reactances are to me what makes the difference between Colpitts and Hartley oscillators.

    Jeroen Belleman
    (Whose oscillators oscillate and whose amplifiers amplify. Usually,
    anyway. :-) )

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 15:23:55 2022
    On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:00:07 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:17:15 +0000, piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet




    Found the book online, p145-146 were what I was thinking of ...
    <https://www.qsl.net/pa2efr/manuals/Doc/Practical%20Oscillator%20Handbook%201997-Irving%20M%20Gottlieb.pdf>

    piglet

    Nice. It's from 1997 but includes oldies like thyratrons, spark gaps,
    tunnel diodes.

    Gottlieb's 'Understanding Oscillators' was in its 3rd Ed in 1971.

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 15:26:06 2022
    On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:00:07 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:17:15 +0000, piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there
    was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is
    no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet




    Found the book online, p145-146 were what I was thinking of ...
    <https://www.qsl.net/pa2efr/manuals/Doc/Practical%20Oscillator%20Handbook%201997-Irving%20M%20Gottlieb.pdf>

    piglet

    Nice. It's from 1997 but includes oldies like thyratrons, spark gaps,
    tunnel diodes.

    First published 1970. 4th Ed ?

    RL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 1 13:53:21 2022
    On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 8:08:02 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.

    Why bother? An IMPATT diode will do the oscillation (negative resistance) just fine, and antiphase is pretty easy; at 1.5 GHz, a few inches of transmission
    line is a hundred eighty phase shift. Tunnel diode type items are the bomb for this kind of thing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 15:35:43 2022
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:53:21 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 8:08:02 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.

    Why bother? An IMPATT diode will do the oscillation (negative resistance) >just fine, and antiphase is pretty easy; at 1.5 GHz, a few inches of transmission
    line is a hundred eighty phase shift. Tunnel diode type items are the bomb for
    this kind of thing.

    Have you built an impatt oscillator in this frequency range? Impatts
    are usually pulsed, high power at higher frequencies.

    Does anybody still sell TDs?

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arnie Dwyer@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 2 01:55:39 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You are right. You are not an analog guy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 1 19:56:00 2022
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You are >right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped
    inductors in that range.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arnie Dwyer@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 2 07:23:10 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You
    are right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped inductors in that range.

    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped
    capacitors. That means capacitors in series.

    The problems are obvious. You tried to make a colpitts with a hartley configuration. You ended up with parasitic oscillations and very poor
    control over the oscillator amplitude. This gives unwanted sidebands in the output and very poor phase noise.

    Just for you, I looked up my old xtalosc.zip file. Start with the
    readme.txt file. It is intended for colpitts oscillators but will work with
    any lc oscillator. Just start with an inductor impedance of 50 ohms at your target frequency and use a fast enough transistor or logic device.

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9yrxmy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 05:52:13 2022
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You >>>are right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped
    inductors in that range.

    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped >capacitors. That means capacitors in series.

    Sure. Colpitts has been around for about a century. This is a design
    group. Instant hostility to ideas is easy.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 2 10:45:42 2022
    On 2/1/2022 12:59 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:05:49 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 2/1/2022 11:07 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 10:59:09 -0500, Phil Hobbs
    <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.



    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz
    frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose
    coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there >>>>> was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is >>>>> no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet


    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that >>>> does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer
    action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.

    What about cross-coupled ECL-type oscillator

    I could persuade a diff-in-out ecl gate or comparator to oscillate,
    but I'd have to try it. I don't have Spice models for those.

    I might get lucky and just connect a diff gate into itself, inverted.
    and watch it oscillate. Hey good idea! Might be fun to try.

    A MMIC is a great gain element, but it's basically 50 ohms in and out,
    the ideal tank Q killer. The best MMIC ocillator is probably
    delay-line, which will give me antiphase outputs. Again, gotta solder
    to test that.

    If I recall there's a way to get a lil chain of D-type flip-flops to self-oscillate, functioning as a self-oscillating ring counter/delay
    line, but I'm not sure there's any e.g. TinyLogic-type parts that can be
    coaxed to 1+ GHz, as the minimum propagation time I think tends to be 2-3 ns

    I wish ADI would include their ADCMP parts in LT Spice.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 08:38:49 2022
    onsdag den 2. februar 2022 kl. 16.45.55 UTC+1 skrev bitrex:
    On 2/1/2022 12:59 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:05:49 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

    On 2/1/2022 11:07 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 10:59:09 -0500, Phil Hobbs
    <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.



    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz >>>>> frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose >>>>> coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there >>>>> was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is >>>>> no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet


    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that >>>> does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer >>>> action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.

    What about cross-coupled ECL-type oscillator

    I could persuade a diff-in-out ecl gate or comparator to oscillate,
    but I'd have to try it. I don't have Spice models for those.

    I might get lucky and just connect a diff gate into itself, inverted.
    and watch it oscillate. Hey good idea! Might be fun to try.

    A MMIC is a great gain element, but it's basically 50 ohms in and out,
    the ideal tank Q killer. The best MMIC ocillator is probably
    delay-line, which will give me antiphase outputs. Again, gotta solder
    to test that.
    If I recall there's a way to get a lil chain of D-type flip-flops to self-oscillate, functioning as a self-oscillating ring counter/delay
    line, but I'm not sure there's any e.g. TinyLogic-type parts that can be coaxed to 1+ GHz, as the minimum propagation time I think tends to be 2-3 ns


    https://hackaday.io/project/28833-microhacks/log/157535-just-how-fast-are-74auc-gates

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Feb 2 08:57:29 2022
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:45:42 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 2/1/2022 12:59 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:05:49 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 2/1/2022 11:07 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 10:59:09 -0500, Phil Hobbs
    <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    piglet wrote:
    On 01/02/2022 3:27 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.



    Yes, decades ago I built something similar using an NPN BJT at kHz >>>>>> frequencies. I used two molded chokes and had initially them loose >>>>>> coupled but was amazed that I could separate them or re-orient so there >>>>>> was no mutual couplling and still got oscillation.

    I think Irving Gottlieb described three types of Hartley in his
    Oscillator Handbook and this is one of his "type 2" Hartleys, there is >>>>>> no mutual coupling and the action is negative resistance.

    piglet


    With no coupling, it's a species of Colpitts--it's only the tank Q that >>>>> does the impedance transformation, with no help from the transformer >>>>> action of the mutual inductance.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    I was just fooling around. What I really want is a 1.5 GHz oscillator
    with two antiphase outputs. A MMIC might be a good gain element.

    What about cross-coupled ECL-type oscillator

    I could persuade a diff-in-out ecl gate or comparator to oscillate,
    but I'd have to try it. I don't have Spice models for those.

    I might get lucky and just connect a diff gate into itself, inverted.
    and watch it oscillate. Hey good idea! Might be fun to try.

    A MMIC is a great gain element, but it's basically 50 ohms in and out,
    the ideal tank Q killer. The best MMIC ocillator is probably
    delay-line, which will give me antiphase outputs. Again, gotta solder
    to test that.

    If I recall there's a way to get a lil chain of D-type flip-flops to >self-oscillate, functioning as a self-oscillating ring counter/delay
    line, but I'm not sure there's any e.g. TinyLogic-type parts that can be >coaxed to 1+ GHz, as the minimum propagation time I think tends to be 2-3 ns


    We use Eclips Lite gates, 3 GHz stuff, and the fast ADCMP series
    comparators. Even a few GigaComm parts, roughly 7 GHz.

    There is some really fast logic around, ballpark 10 ps, but it's like
    hundreds of dollars per gate.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arnie Dwyer@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 3 11:40:13 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You >>>>are right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped
    inductors in that range.

    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped >>capacitors. That means capacitors in series.

    Sure. Colpitts has been around for about a century. This is a design
    group. Instant hostility to ideas is easy.

    Instant hostility to idiotic ideas is easy. Did you know you tried to make
    an oscillator with inductor Q's of 20,420?

    Inductor reactance: 2*pi*2.5e-9*1.3e9 = 20.42 ohms

    You do not realize the inductor ESR defaults to 1 milliohm if it is not specified. I have told you about this many times but you consider advice to
    be an insult and you ignore it. The resulting Q is
    20.42/1e-3 = 20,420

    Where do you plan of getting inductors like that?

    Next problem. Have you looked at the waveform at the source pin of your oscillator? How do you plan on getting useful output from that?

    Again, you completely ignore helpful advice that could teach you how to go about designing a useful oscillator. The link I provided was a complete
    waste of time, but here it is again:

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9yrxmy

    I defy you to make a useful oscillator by ignoring these rules.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Arnie Dwyer on Thu Feb 3 13:44:49 2022
    Arnie Dwyer wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.
    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You >>>>> are right. You are not an analog guy.
    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped
    inductors in that range.
    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped
    capacitors. That means capacitors in series.
    Sure. Colpitts has been around for about a century. This is a design
    group. Instant hostility to ideas is easy.

    Instant hostility to idiotic ideas is easy. Did you know you tried to make
    an oscillator with inductor Q's of 20,420?

    Inductor reactance: 2*pi*2.5e-9*1.3e9 = 20.42 ohms

    You do not realize the inductor ESR defaults to 1 milliohm if it is not specified. I have told you about this many times but you consider advice to be an insult and you ignore it. The resulting Q is
    20.42/1e-3 = 20,420

    Where do you plan of getting inductors like that?

    Don't be silly. What matters is the loaded Q. And this oscillator
    will run just fine even with an effective Q below 10. The bare
    coil Q is mostly irrelevant.


    Next problem. Have you looked at the waveform at the source pin of your oscillator? How do you plan on getting useful output from that?

    Many oscillator designs let the transistor current hit zero in order
    to limit the amplitude. Inevitably, the signal at the source ends up
    looking nasty, at least in the simulation. In a real circuit, it won't
    look nearly as bad. If you need a purer output, you can always take it
    from the top of the tank.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Arnie Dwyer on Thu Feb 3 05:47:51 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 10:40:25 PM UTC+11, Arnie Dwyer wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You >>>>are right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped
    inductors in that range.

    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped >>capacitors. That means capacitors in series.

    Sure. Colpitts has been around for about a century. This is a design
    group. Instant hostility to ideas is easy.
    Instant hostility to idiotic ideas is easy. Did you know you tried to make
    an oscillator with inductor Q's of 20,420?

    Inductor reactance: 2*pi*2.5e-9*1.3e9 = 20.42 ohms

    You do not realize the inductor ESR defaults to 1 milliohm if it is not specified. I have told you about this many times but you consider advice to be an insult and you ignore it. The resulting Q is
    20.42/1e-3 = 20,420

    Where do you plan on getting inductors like that?

    He doesn't like thinking about inductors - too complicated - and buys them off the shelf when he has to use them.

    The business of designing a special purpose transformer and getting it wound strikes him as more trouble than it can possibly be worth (though he has wound a special purpose inductor around a pencil and made a lot of fuss about the result.)

    Next problem. Have you looked at the waveform at the source pin of your oscillator? How do you plan on getting useful output from that?

    Again, you completely ignore helpful advice that could teach you how to go about designing a useful oscillator.

    He's here to garner flattery, not to listen to advice, nor humiliate himself by admitting that it was useful.

    The link I provided was a complete
    waste of time, but here it is again:

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9yrxmy

    Your first inductor doesn't have any parallel capacitance which isn't all that physically realistic either.

    I defy you to make a useful oscillator by ignoring these rules.

    John Larkin's approach to design looks like evolution in action. He does seem to come up with useful - or least marketable - circuits, but if there is a design element in the development process he doesn't seem to be willing to talk about it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 3 06:19:49 2022
    On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. You >>>>>are right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped
    inductors in that range.

    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped >>>capacitors. That means capacitors in series.

    Sure. Colpitts has been around for about a century. This is a design
    group. Instant hostility to ideas is easy.

    Instant hostility to idiotic ideas is easy. Did you know you tried to make
    an oscillator with inductor Q's of 20,420?

    Inductor reactance: 2*pi*2.5e-9*1.3e9 = 20.42 ohms

    You do not realize the inductor ESR defaults to 1 milliohm if it is not >specified. I have told you about this many times but you consider advice to >be an insult and you ignore it. The resulting Q is
    20.42/1e-3 = 20,420

    I don't consider your advice to be an insult. But real inductor Qs are
    high enough that I can ignore them here; the phemt has gobs of gain.
    The first step of circuit design is topology.


    Where do you plan of getting inductors like that?

    Next problem. Have you looked at the waveform at the source pin of your >oscillator? How do you plan on getting useful output from that?

    I doubt we'd see those squiggles in real life. But we don't truly
    trust Spice models for things like this; As Mike say, Spice is for
    training your instincts. After futzing with a lot of sims, we pick the
    best ones and build them.



    Again, you completely ignore helpful advice that could teach you how to go >about designing a useful oscillator. The link I provided was a complete
    waste of time, but here it is again:

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9yrxmy

    I defy you to make a useful oscillator by ignoring these rules.

    I sell lots of products with oscillators. They always work. About the
    only rule I respect is Conservation of Energy. This biz is full of
    "Rules" that are wrong.


    --

    John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

    The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
    "Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Feb 3 06:47:37 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 1:20:06 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote: >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    I doubt we'd see those squiggles in real life. But we don't truly
    trust Spice models for things like this; As Mike say, Spice is for
    training your instincts.

    Of course you aren't all that picky about modelling your components carefully either.

    After futzing with a lot of sims, we pick the best ones and build them.

    A sim that has an inductor without any parallel capacitance may look better than one with a more realistic inductor.

    Again, you completely ignore helpful advice that could teach you how to go >about designing a useful oscillator. The link I provided was a complete >waste of time, but here it is again:

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9yrxmy

    I defy you to make a useful oscillator by ignoring these rules.

    I sell lots of products with oscillators. They always work. About the only rule I respect is Conservation of Energy. This biz is full of "Rules" that are wrong.

    If you understood the rules better, they'd look wrong a lot less often.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arnie Dwyer@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Feb 3 16:36:17 2022
    John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer
    <spamme@not.com> wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. >>>>>>You are right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped >>>>> inductors in that range.

    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped >>>>capacitors. That means capacitors in series.

    Sure. Colpitts has been around for about a century. This is a design
    group. Instant hostility to ideas is easy.

    Instant hostility to idiotic ideas is easy. Did you know you tried to
    make an oscillator with inductor Q's of 20,420?

    Inductor reactance: 2*pi*2.5e-9*1.3e9 = 20.42 ohms

    You do not realize the inductor ESR defaults to 1 milliohm if it is not >>specified. I have told you about this many times but you consider advice
    to be an insult and you ignore it. The resulting Q is 20.42/1e-3 =
    20,420

    I don't consider your advice to be an insult. But real inductor Qs are
    high enough that I can ignore them here; the phemt has gobs of gain.
    The first step of circuit design is topology.


    Where do you plan of getting inductors like that?

    Next problem. Have you looked at the waveform at the source pin of your >>oscillator? How do you plan on getting useful output from that?

    I doubt we'd see those squiggles in real life. But we don't truly
    trust Spice models for things like this; As Mike say, Spice is for
    training your instincts. After futzing with a lot of sims, we pick the
    best ones and build them.



    Again, you completely ignore helpful advice that could teach you how to
    go about designing a useful oscillator. The link I provided was a
    complete waste of time, but here it is again:

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9yrxmy

    I defy you to make a useful oscillator by ignoring these rules.

    I sell lots of products with oscillators. They always work. About the
    only rule I respect is Conservation of Energy. This biz is full of
    "Rules" that are wrong.

    Changing the Q of the inductors to 10 has little effect.

    However, adding 1pf stray capacitance across each inductor converts the squiggles into distorted sine waves suitable for driving a load.

    Adding mutual coupling of 0.1 between the inductors will smooth the
    waveform even more.

    However, these changes turn the circuit into a conventional Hartley, which nobody uses any more. Vastly improved perfomance is obtained with a conventional Colpitts. This requires fewer inductors which are expensive
    and adds one capacitor which is cheaper.

    Congratulations. You have invented a Hartley oscillator.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arnie Dwyer@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Thu Feb 3 17:07:18 2022
    Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    Arnie Dwyer wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    [...]

    You do not realize the inductor ESR defaults to 1 milliohm if it is not
    specified. I have told you about this many times but you consider
    advice to be an insult and you ignore it. The resulting Q is
    20.42/1e-3 = 20,420

    Where do you plan of getting inductors like that?

    Don't be silly. What matters is the loaded Q. And this oscillator
    will run just fine even with an effective Q below 10. The bare
    coil Q is mostly irrelevant.

    Ignoring the Q is plain sloppy.

    Next problem. Have you looked at the waveform at the source pin of your
    oscillator? How do you plan on getting useful output from that?

    Many oscillator designs let the transistor current hit zero in order
    to limit the amplitude.

    The waveform at the source pin is unusable. You should take a look for yourself.

    Most oscillators operate in class C, where the conduction angle is less
    than 50%. The transistor is biased off most of the time.

    Driving the oscillator into limiting means forward biasing the base-
    collector junction. This decreases the tank Q and generates unwanted
    harmonics. A much better option is to limit the energy fed into the tank so
    it equals the energy dissipated in the tank. This is normally achieved by reducing the current into the transistor.

    Inevitably, the signal at the source ends up
    looking nasty, at least in the simulation. In a real circuit, it won't
    look nearly as bad.

    The signal at the source should not look nasty. JL's circuit ignores
    component parasitics. This makes the sim irrelevant.

    If the real circuit does not resemble the simulation, the simulation is
    bad. At the frequencies where SPICE is usable, a close correlation between actual and simulation should be possible, otherwise you are fooling
    yourself.

    The signal at the source does not have to look ugly, even in the
    simulation. JL's oscillator can be made to look usable by adding 1pf caps across each inductor, and adding a bit of mutual coupling to smooth it even more. However, this turns it into a Hartley, which nobody uses any more.

    Inductors are expensive. Changing the circut into a Colpitts gives vastly better performance and eliminates one inductor.

    If you need a purer output, you can always take it
    from the top of the tank.

    Taking the output from the top of the tank destroys the Q.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 3 15:58:32 2022
    On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:36:17 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer
    <spamme@not.com> wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Not actually a Hartley, bacause the Ls are not coupled.

    [...]

    Without doubt, the worst oscillator I have ever seen anyone design. >>>>>>>You are right. You are not an analog guy.

    What's wrong with it? It worked first try.

    We have surface-mount inductors in stock, many values, but no tapped >>>>>> inductors in that range.

    You don't need tapped inductors. You make the feedback with tapped >>>>>capacitors. That means capacitors in series.

    Sure. Colpitts has been around for about a century. This is a design
    group. Instant hostility to ideas is easy.

    Instant hostility to idiotic ideas is easy. Did you know you tried to >>>make an oscillator with inductor Q's of 20,420?

    Inductor reactance: 2*pi*2.5e-9*1.3e9 = 20.42 ohms

    You do not realize the inductor ESR defaults to 1 milliohm if it is not >>>specified. I have told you about this many times but you consider advice >>>to be an insult and you ignore it. The resulting Q is 20.42/1e-3 =
    20,420

    I don't consider your advice to be an insult. But real inductor Qs are
    high enough that I can ignore them here; the phemt has gobs of gain.
    The first step of circuit design is topology.


    Where do you plan of getting inductors like that?

    Next problem. Have you looked at the waveform at the source pin of your >>>oscillator? How do you plan on getting useful output from that?

    I doubt we'd see those squiggles in real life. But we don't truly
    trust Spice models for things like this; As Mike say, Spice is for
    training your instincts. After futzing with a lot of sims, we pick the
    best ones and build them.



    Again, you completely ignore helpful advice that could teach you how to >>>go about designing a useful oscillator. The link I provided was a >>>complete waste of time, but here it is again:

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9yrxmy

    I defy you to make a useful oscillator by ignoring these rules.

    I sell lots of products with oscillators. They always work. About the
    only rule I respect is Conservation of Energy. This biz is full of
    "Rules" that are wrong.

    Changing the Q of the inductors to 10 has little effect.

    However, adding 1pf stray capacitance across each inductor converts the >squiggles into distorted sine waves suitable for driving a load.

    Adding mutual coupling of 0.1 between the inductors will smooth the
    waveform even more.

    We prefer to use parts that we have or can buy easily, so tapped
    inductors are not preferred. Possibly one could plop two 0603 Ls next
    to one another and get some coupling... that would depend on
    placement.

    Little surface-mount baluns can be fun, but the inductances are too
    high for a 1.5 GHz oscillator. A balun could do our phase splitting
    function if we use a single-ended oscillator.



    However, these changes turn the circuit into a conventional Hartley, which >nobody uses any more. Vastly improved perfomance is obtained with a >conventional Colpitts. This requires fewer inductors which are expensive
    and adds one capacitor which is cheaper.

    Congratulations. You have invented a Hartley oscillator.

    But you said it's not a Hartley! I knew that.

    I might do the oscillator with an ECL comparator, which gets me the differential output. That could be RC, or LC.

    Some of the fast comparators have resistor programmable hysteresis,
    which might be useful in an RC oscillator.

    --

    John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

    The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
    "Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Feb 3 18:01:29 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 10:58:50 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:36:17 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:40:13 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:23:10 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    We prefer to use parts that we have or can buy easily, so tapped inductors are not preferred. Possibly one could plop two 0603 Ls next to one another and get some coupling... that would depend on placement.

    It would also depend on the way the 0603 inductors had realised. Presumably there is going to be some kind of heical current path, but you have to know where the axis of the helix lies before you can place the parts in way that will let them couple.

    Making the inductor yourself, or getting somebody to make what you need takes more work, but at least you know what you have got.

    Little surface-mount baluns can be fun, but the inductances are too high for a 1.5 GHz oscillator. A balun could do our phase splitting function if we use a single-ended oscillator.

    At GHz frequencies you can make transmission line transformers on a printed circuit board. Buried stripline is less dispersive than microstrip on the surface of the board, tracked above a buried ground plane, and you'd probably need to pay for some kind
    of Rogers high-frequency substrate, rather than relying on FR4-epoxy resin bonded glass fibre.

    However, these changes turn the circuit into a conventional Hartley, which >nobody uses any more. Vastly improved perfomance is obtained with a >conventional Colpitts. This requires fewer inductors which are expensive >and adds one capacitor which is cheaper.

    Congratulations. You have invented a Hartley oscillator.

    But you said it's not a Hartley! I knew that.

    I might do the oscillator with an ECL comparator, which gets me the differential output. That could be RC, or LC.

    Some of the fast comparators have resistor programmable hysteresis,
    which might be useful in an RC oscillator.

    Probably not. Hysteresis is useful when the comparator is fast enough to switch a couple times as the input goes through the switching threshold. If you want a GHz oscillator the comparator probably isn't fast enough to generate problematic hash at cross-
    over.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com on Fri Feb 4 07:19:08 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:58:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in <l61ovg5sopebot77rkmtl61gsu0lu6vgp4@4ax.com>:

    I might do the oscillator with an ECL comparator, which gets me the >differential output. That could be RC, or LC.

    I have used the twisted wire oscillator, very stable too, tunable with a potmeter
    causing Vce changes that result in Ccb Cce changes etc:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/2.4GHz_twisted_oscillator_IMG_3629.GIF
    http://panteltje.com/pub/twisted_wire_oscillator_IMG_6629.JPG

    For lower frequencies the twisted part is longer,

    Chip specs may change. add that ECL to make differential output.
    There are probably a million types of oscillators, cavities come to mind too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sun Feb 6 09:54:32 2022
    On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:19:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:58:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in ><l61ovg5sopebot77rkmtl61gsu0lu6vgp4@4ax.com>:

    I might do the oscillator with an ECL comparator, which gets me the >>differential output. That could be RC, or LC.

    I have used the twisted wire oscillator, very stable too, tunable with a potmeter
    causing Vce changes that result in Ccb Cce changes etc:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/2.4GHz_twisted_oscillator_IMG_3629.GIF http://panteltje.com/pub/twisted_wire_oscillator_IMG_6629.JPG

    For lower frequencies the twisted part is longer,

    Chip specs may change. add that ECL to make differential output.
    There are probably a million types of oscillators, cavities come to mind too.

    We connected an MC10EP11 as a pecl gate, with pulldowns to ground. One
    diff outout pair was cross-connected to the input, and it oscillates
    at 1.5 GHz with a fairly square wave out the 2nd diff pair.

    Tempco is mediocre. An LC would probably help. Given that I currently
    need a 1.5 GHz clock, doing this might be risky.

    We'll try a comparator next.

    I could buy a commercial VCO, but they are expensive.


    --

    John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

    The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
    "Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sun Feb 6 11:05:53 2022
    On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    We connected an MC10EP11 as a pecl gate, with pulldowns to ground. One
    diff outout pair was cross-connected to the input, and it oscillates
    at 1.5 GHz with a fairly square wave out the 2nd diff pair.

    Tempco is mediocre. An LC would probably help. Given that I currently
    need a 1.5 GHz clock, doing this might be risky.

    Huh? What is wrong with temperature coefficient in this application?

    We'll try a comparator next.

    Logic isn't intended to oscillate without a network (because oscillation
    forces the inputs into the logic margin, not a logically valid state).
    The comparator DOES specify behavior at the threshold, so that's 'safe' in
    a sense.

    I could buy a commercial VCO, but they are expensive.

    So, now you want to make, not an oscillator, but a clock locked to a frequency standard? Every PC has something like that, like maybe this <https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/cypress-semiconductor-corp/CY2XP304BVC/12111211>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com on Sun Feb 6 19:11:27 2022
    On a sunny day (Sun, 06 Feb 2022 09:54:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in <sr9qvg5gc3rues8uvihhuop496q51dt7hv@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:19:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:58:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in >><l61ovg5sopebot77rkmtl61gsu0lu6vgp4@4ax.com>:

    I might do the oscillator with an ECL comparator, which gets me the >>>differential output. That could be RC, or LC.

    I have used the twisted wire oscillator, very stable too, tunable with a potmeter
    causing Vce changes that result in Ccb Cce changes etc:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/2.4GHz_twisted_oscillator_IMG_3629.GIF
    http://panteltje.com/pub/twisted_wire_oscillator_IMG_6629.JPG

    For lower frequencies the twisted part is longer,

    Chip specs may change. add that ECL to make differential output.
    There are probably a million types of oscillators, cavities come to mind too.

    We connected an MC10EP11 as a pecl gate, with pulldowns to ground. One
    diff outout pair was cross-connected to the input, and it oscillates
    at 1.5 GHz with a fairly square wave out the 2nd diff pair.

    Tempco is mediocre. An LC would probably help. Given that I currently
    need a 1.5 GHz clock, doing this might be risky.

    We'll try a comparator next.

    I could buy a commercial VCO, but they are expensive.

    Yes
    I have some Sirenza VCOs
    vco190-1572t.pdf
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/402975121352 about 17 canadian $
    payed half that in 2013

    There is a cheaper one at about 1.5 GHz on ebay, dont know how good it is:
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/19141762235 about USD 8

    And I have a 960 MHz vco190-964t.pdf

    The twisted wire is cheaper :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 6 14:59:42 2022
    On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 11:05:53 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    We connected an MC10EP11 as a pecl gate, with pulldowns to ground. One
    diff outout pair was cross-connected to the input, and it oscillates
    at 1.5 GHz with a fairly square wave out the 2nd diff pair.

    Tempco is mediocre. An LC would probably help. Given that I currently
    need a 1.5 GHz clock, doing this might be risky.

    Huh? What is wrong with temperature coefficient in this application?


    Huh?



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sun Feb 6 15:06:15 2022
    On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 19:11:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sun, 06 Feb 2022 09:54:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in ><sr9qvg5gc3rues8uvihhuop496q51dt7hv@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:19:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:58:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in >>><l61ovg5sopebot77rkmtl61gsu0lu6vgp4@4ax.com>:

    I might do the oscillator with an ECL comparator, which gets me the >>>>differential output. That could be RC, or LC.

    I have used the twisted wire oscillator, very stable too, tunable with a potmeter
    causing Vce changes that result in Ccb Cce changes etc:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/2.4GHz_twisted_oscillator_IMG_3629.GIF
    http://panteltje.com/pub/twisted_wire_oscillator_IMG_6629.JPG

    For lower frequencies the twisted part is longer,

    Chip specs may change. add that ECL to make differential output.
    There are probably a million types of oscillators, cavities come to mind too.

    We connected an MC10EP11 as a pecl gate, with pulldowns to ground. One
    diff outout pair was cross-connected to the input, and it oscillates
    at 1.5 GHz with a fairly square wave out the 2nd diff pair.

    Tempco is mediocre. An LC would probably help. Given that I currently
    need a 1.5 GHz clock, doing this might be risky.

    We'll try a comparator next.

    I could buy a commercial VCO, but they are expensive.

    Yes
    I have some Sirenza VCOs
    vco190-1572t.pdf
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/402975121352 about 17 canadian $
    payed half that in 2013

    Sirenza advertises GHz VCOs, but doesn't seem to want to sell tham in
    smallish quantities. MiniCircuits does, but expensive.


    There is a cheaper one at about 1.5 GHz on ebay, dont know how good it is:
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/19141762235 about USD 8

    And I have a 960 MHz vco190-964t.pdf

    Varil seems to be gone. I can't find them online.


    The twisted wire is cheaper :-)

    A PCB transmission line oscillator would be OK, I guess.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 6 17:06:25 2022
    On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:59:56 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 11:05:53 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    We connected an MC10EP11 ...d it oscillates
    at 1.5 GHz with a fairly square wave out the 2nd diff pair.

    Tempco is mediocre. An LC would probably help. Given that I currently
    need a 1.5 GHz clock, doing this might be risky.

    Huh? What is wrong with temperature coefficient in this application?
    Huh?

    Anything that oscillates that high probably has enough slew rate, and '1.5 GHz' usually
    means between 1.45 and 1.55 is good enough. What, if any, criterion is in danger of thermal
    drift out of compliance? Do you know that dependence isn't desirable? The target of this
    clock surely has some temperature coefficients too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 6 17:12:30 2022
    On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 11:06:00 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:

    ... a clock locked to a frequency
    standard? Every PC has something like that, like maybe this <https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/cypress-semiconductor-corp/CY2XP304BVC/12111211>

    Oops; I just read the fine print; it only does 500 MHz with direct crystal input.
    On the other hand, it has four outputs; you can combine them so the fundamental is cancelled but the third harmonic is enhanced. Kinda like a tripler, but no tank
    required, just resistors.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 6 17:43:55 2022
    On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 10:06:30 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 19:11:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Sun, 06 Feb 2022 09:54:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in <sr9qvg5gc3rues8uv...@4ax.com>:
    On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:19:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:58:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in <l61ovg5sopebot77r...@4ax.com>:

    <snip>

    The twisted wire is cheaper :-)

    A PCB transmission line oscillator would be OK, I guess.

    Jan wasn't exactly using a long length of twisted pair - it looked more like a capacitor than a delay line.

    Twisted pair delay line is cheaper (in small quantities) than a purpose built PCB, an would probably work at 1.5GHz.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 7 05:27:05 2022
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/174058719176

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 7 05:19:16 2022
    On a sunny day (Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:06:15 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <2ok00hhf4nvrtvhap8oakeo98lpmcsodtq@4ax.com>:

    A PCB transmission line oscillator would be OK, I guess.

    Probably.

    I am using the ADF4350 in some project,
    output frequency range: 137.5 MHz to 4400 MHz:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/download.html#ADF4350_test
    has differential RF out,
    10 for 9$49 on ebay
    ?

    complete evaluation board, I have it:
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/264492637509
    10 USD

    Chip needs some wires from your FPGA for programming though
    and some reference frequency around < 30MHz IIRC.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Mon Feb 7 07:20:29 2022
    On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 05:19:16 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:06:15 -0800) it happened >jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in ><2ok00hhf4nvrtvhap8oakeo98lpmcsodtq@4ax.com>:

    A PCB transmission line oscillator would be OK, I guess.

    Probably.

    I am using the ADF4350 in some project,
    output frequency range: 137.5 MHz to 4400 MHz:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/download.html#ADF4350_test
    has differential RF out,
    10 for 9$49 on ebay
    ?

    complete evaluation board, I have it:
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/264492637509
    10 USD

    Chip needs some wires from your FPGA for programming though
    and some reference frequency around < 30MHz IIRC.



    We use LMX2571, a really nice synthesizer. It only costs $7.50 but
    it's kind of a big deal to use. We had to write the driver from
    scratch and it was ugly. It wouldn't be so bad to program at one fixed frequency, but would still need a uP or an FPGA and code. I just want
    a tiny reasonably stable complementary 1.5 GHz clock.

    The 10EP11 naturally oscillates at about 1.5G, with outputs connected
    directly to inputs inverted, basically a prop delay oscillator. I
    wonder if it can be persuaded to oscillate more predictably with an LC
    tank in the loop. Maybe even above 1.5G.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)