Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz >Any suggestions for improvement?
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz >> Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz >>Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
On 4/11/2024 5:31 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz >>> Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
He did. The .asc file is a circuit diagram. I've looked at it and run the simulation - if only for 200 seconds rather than 300
seconds.
The FFT says that sine wave is as good as he claims.
The circuit diagram doesn't make it clear what it's various parts are there to do - it makes sense to group the components in a
way that lets somebody looking at the circuit diagram get some feel for what the components are doing.
And it you are using the LT1994 it makes sense to read the data sheet carefully enough to notice that the Icom pin 2 should be
bypassed with at least 100nF to ground.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1994fb.pdf
John May's circuit makes it clear that the second FET isn't strictly necessary. There are cheaper ways of getting rid of the
even-order harmonics.
I've managed to dig out the precision, full wave rectifier that I used in my circuit, which is a half-wave rectifier to which you
add just enough of the full sine wave to deliver both halves of the sine wave (one of them inverted) at it's output, which calls
for a couple 10k 0.1% thin-film precision resistors on a common substrate, which you can buy off the shelf.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vga6jh$suru$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/11/2024 5:31 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
He did. The .asc file is a circuit diagram. I've looked at it and run the simulation - if only for 200 seconds rather than 300
seconds.
The FFT says that sine wave is as good as he claims.
The circuit diagram doesn't make it clear what it's various parts are there to do - it makes sense to group the components in a
way that lets somebody looking at the circuit diagram get some feel for what the components are doing.
And it you are using the LT1994 it makes sense to read the data sheet carefully enough to notice that the Icom pin 2 should be
bypassed with at least 100nF to ground.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1994fb.pdf
Yes there's no way I would use a part without reading the data sheet.
Pass 1 fount the 0.1uF but I hadn't got around to adding it.
Pass 2 found that I couldn't go above +/- 6V
Pass 3 which I haven't done yet would take a lot more time and I probably won't do it because I doubt I'll be able to build this for
real.
Please see also my reply to Jan.
John May's circuit makes it clear that the second FET isn't strictly necessary. There are cheaper ways of getting rid of the
even-order harmonics.
Does his circuit have better performance?
Just curious, it's not a competition.
I've managed to dig out the precision, full wave rectifier that I used in my circuit, which is a half-wave rectifier to which you
add just enough of the full sine wave to deliver both halves of the sine wave (one of them inverted) at it's output, which calls
for a couple 10k 0.1% thin-film precision resistors on a common substrate, which you can buy off the shelf.
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz >>>Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz >>>>Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
On 5/11/2024 3:46 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vga6jh$suru$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/11/2024 5:31 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
He did. The .asc file is a circuit diagram. I've looked at it and run the simulation - if only for 200 seconds rather than 300
seconds.
The FFT says that sine wave is as good as he claims.
The circuit diagram doesn't make it clear what it's various parts are there to do - it makes sense to group the components in a
way that lets somebody looking at the circuit diagram get some feel for what the components are doing.
And it you are using the LT1994 it makes sense to read the data sheet carefully enough to notice that the Icom pin 2 should be
bypassed with at least 100nF to ground.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1994fb.pdf
Yes there's no way I would use a part without reading the data sheet.
Pass 1 fount the 0.1uF but I hadn't got around to adding it.
Pass 2 found that I couldn't go above +/- 6V
Pass 3 which I haven't done yet would take a lot more time and I probably won't do it because I doubt I'll be able to build this
for
real.
Please see also my reply to Jan.
John May's circuit makes it clear that the second FET isn't strictly necessary. There are cheaper ways of getting rid of the
even-order harmonics.
Does his circuit have better performance?
The version I got privately certainly did.
Just curious, it's not a competition.
Actually, I've decided that the second FET is a bad idea. Two different FETs need two different gate drive voltages to give the
right channel resistance, and the only guide you've got to that is the amplitude of the single sine wave you are producing. A
large number of different pairs of FET gate drive voltages could give you the same stable amplitude.
If you monitored the second harmonic component of the output you would have a second independent output which could let you
optimise both gate dries at the same time, but that would be an unnecessary refinement.
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits?
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits?
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits?
As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use?
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used.
I stopped using it long ago (years).
My stuff works.
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
On 11/6/24 03:39, Edward Rawde wrote:
[Snip!]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
You are chasing ghosts. Simulation doesn't prove anything at this
level. Build it and measure it.
Jeroen Belleman
On 6/11/2024 6:07 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits?
As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use?
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used.
Not all that different, and you can test a new idea in LTSpice a lot
faster than you can cobble stuff together on the bench.
I stopped using it long ago (years).
My stuff works.
Because you don't try anything new?
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Hollywood movies are expensive. LTSpice is free.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
Sci.electronics.design does seem to be a genius-free space.
There are
quite a few competent people who post here, but genius is rare, and most
of the people who are called geniuses have exploited a stroke of luck
that let them look better than they deserve, though as Pasteur said,
chance does favour the prepared mind.
Plowing through a lot of circuit variations quickly with LTSpice does
give you more chances to win that particular lottery.
Bit elated I am as Trump is winning :-)
Maybe ends the ByeThen war making for money game.
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
Bit elated I am as Trump is winning :-)
Maybe ends the ByeThen war making for money game.
Don't believe anything a politician tells you. That applies to Trump -
only more so.
On a sunny day (Wed, 6 Nov 2024 20:06:20 +1100) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vgfbii$21t2e$1@dont-email.me>:
On 6/11/2024 6:07 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits? >>>
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use?
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used.
I sometimes compare the ElTeaSPrites to a mathematician trying to play tennis Faster all the things.. The human neural net plays score after score
while the mathemtician is still simulating the first backhand..
Bit elated I am as Trump is winning :-)
Maybe ends the Biden war making for money game.
Not all that different, and you can test a new idea in LTSpice a lot
faster than you can cobble stuff together on the bench.
I stopped using it long ago (years).
My stuff works.
Because you don't try anything new?
Very little is 'new'.
My neural net has been trained on electronics since the early fifties of last century.
ELTheaSPice is just a word...
Used it once to check some filter curves, but there are better filter programs.
It gave the wrong results on a simple amplifier I tried on it.
It is extremely limited and again compare it to the tennis player that trained a lifetime
a joke basically.
Get into the very high frequency domain, did a lot of that stuff, it is then more about layout and wavelength and similar stuff
how circuits behave.
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Hollywood movies are expensive. LTSpice is free.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
Sci.electronics.design does seem to be a genius-free space.
It is design, if it works what is cooked up here, great!
Sure got some interesting ideas from here that I tried.
There are
quite a few competent people who post here, but genius is rare, and most
of the people who are called geniuses have exploited a stroke of luck
that let them look better than they deserve, though as Pasteur said,
chance does favour the prepared mind.
My interests are much wider than electronics
worked in many fields
from electronics to TV to power stations to medical to aircraft to satellite ..what not.
Plowing through a lot of circuit variations quickly with LTSpice does
give you more chances to win that particular lottery.
Sounds like gambling...
these days AI is using that method to try a zillion variation in medicine related creations.
It may or may not work.
But _understanding_comes first and is always the winner.
Lucky shot may help too.
There is nothing you can not do if you are sufficiently motivated.
LTSpice - in the right hands -
can help you understand what's going on on the bench quite a lot faster
than bench work on it's own.
On 11/6/24 03:39, Edward Rawde wrote:
[Snip!]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
You are chasing ghosts. Simulation doesn't prove anything at this
level. Build it and measure it.
Jeroen Belleman
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
LTSpice - in the right hands -
can help you understand what's going on on the bench quite a lot faster
than bench work on it's own.
It can help you understand what *should* be going on but bench work shows
you what is really going on and it is up to you to understand why.
learning by benchwork is slower because it is complicated by having to
deal with reality.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:04:42 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/6/24 03:39, Edward Rawde wrote:
[Snip!]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
You are chasing ghosts. Simulation doesn't prove anything at this
level. Build it and measure it.
Jeroen Belleman
Simulation won't asolutely prove what circuits would produce low THD,
but it will pretty definitely show which circuits won't.
Of course, a sim like this needs good opamp models.
If one builds it and measures it, what would you use to measure the distortion?
On 11/6/24 03:39, Edward Rawde wrote:
[Snip!]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
You are chasing ghosts. Simulation doesn't prove anything at this
level. Build it and measure it.
Jeroen Belleman
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
LTSpice - in the right hands -
can help you understand what's going on on the bench quite a lot faster
than bench work on it's own.
It can help you understand what *should* be going on but benchwork shows
you what is really going on and it is up to you to understand why.
learning by benchwork is slower because it is complicated by having to
deal with reality.
On 11/6/24 17:26, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:04:42 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/6/24 03:39, Edward Rawde wrote:
[Snip!]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
You are chasing ghosts. Simulation doesn't prove anything at this
level. Build it and measure it.
Jeroen Belleman
Simulation won't asolutely prove what circuits would produce low THD,
but it will pretty definitely show which circuits won't.
Of course, a sim like this needs good opamp models.
If one builds it and measures it, what would you use to measure the
distortion?
I'm old school: A passive notch filter. It's likely to be fiddly.
Jeroen Belleman
On 7/11/2024 1:50 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
LTSpice - in the right hands -
can help you understand what's going on on the bench quite a lot faster
than bench work on it's own.
It can help you understand what *should* be going on but bench work shows you what is really going on and it is up to you to understand why.
But quite a lot of what you need to understand in bench work is captured
by a decent simulation, and a whole lot faster than you can capture it
on the bench.
learning by benchwork is slower because it is complicated by having to
deal with reality.
Simulations capture quite a lot of what is going on on the bench.
Sometimes the reality you have to deal with is easier to dig out of a well-set up simulation because you can fiddle with stuff in the
simulation that you can't twiddle on the bench.
A great deal of electronic design is getting the right concepts
together, and while bench work is usually a safer way of doing that, it
can also be quite a lot slower.
The subjectivist audio people get quite sentimental about what their
golden ears tell them. Peter Baxandall was an objectivist.
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits?
As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use?
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used
I stopped using it long ago (years)
My stuff works.
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgf4jc$7vn5$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits?
As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use?
Well, Bessel came up with his functions long before FM broadcasting. Ok you can use Carson's rule but Wikipedia says:
"In 1922 he published a mathematical treatment of frequency modulation (FM), which introduced the Carson bandwidth rule."
Which pre dates FM broadcasting.
While designing my circuit I found this document very useful: >https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Field+Effect+Transistor+as+a+Voltage+Controlled+Resistor
It doesn't mention doing anything in a lab.
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used
Reality is always different from models because models can never have everything that reality has.
But this does not mean that models aren't useful.
Simulation can do a lot to tell you you're going in the right direction.
This can save a lot of time when you get to do it in reality.
I stopped using it long ago (years)
My stuff works.
My sync separators worked too, back when I needed one.
They weren't quite like yours, I think I got an idea from Video Handbook by someone, I forget who.
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
Well you should.
Anyone who claims to be a genius might as well be telling you that they aren't.
Just one more thing.
Writing PC as peesee is fine if you're composing something like this: >https://www.google.com/search?q=I+halve+a+spelling+chequer
But doing it repeatedly with every other word starts to make your perceived age go down.
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
Chebychef did his calculations on the mechancal lnkages used to operate
the valves of steam locomotives, generating linear motion and sharp
movement from the superimposed effects of rotary motions.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:40:08 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/6/24 17:26, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:04:42 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/6/24 03:39, Edward Rawde wrote:
[Snip!]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
You are chasing ghosts. Simulation doesn't prove anything at this
level. Build it and measure it.
Jeroen Belleman
Simulation won't asolutely prove what circuits would produce low THD,
but it will pretty definitely show which circuits won't.
Of course, a sim like this needs good opamp models.
If one builds it and measures it, what would you use to measure the
distortion?
I'm old school: A passive notch filter. It's likely to be fiddly.
Jeroen Belleman
LC? Just make sure that the inductors and capacitors are all linear.
Even twin tee can generate distortion.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
Chebychef did his calculations on the mechancal lnkages used to operate
the valves of steam locomotives, generating linear motion and sharp
movement from the superimposed effects of rotary motions.
On 11/6/24 17:42, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:40:08 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/6/24 17:26, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:04:42 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/6/24 03:39, Edward Rawde wrote:
[Snip!]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this experimental circuit.
You'll want to find something else to do while it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Version 4
[Deleted....]
You are chasing ghosts. Simulation doesn't prove anything at this
level. Build it and measure it.
Jeroen Belleman
Simulation won't asolutely prove what circuits would produce low THD,
but it will pretty definitely show which circuits won't.
Of course, a sim like this needs good opamp models.
If one builds it and measures it, what would you use to measure the
distortion?
I'm old school: A passive notch filter. It's likely to be fiddly.
Jeroen Belleman
LC? Just make sure that the inductors and capacitors are all linear.
Even twin tee can generate distortion.
Twin tee is what I was thinking of, indeed. Of course, it's essential
to use carefully matched components of good quality. It would be
fiddly, yes.
In some distant past, I've used a box we called a 'Null Detector'
which did just that. You'd null out the fundamental, and what was
left was the distortion. I don't recall if it was good enough for
-80dB though.
Jeroen Belleman
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:15:38 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
Chebychef did his calculations on the mechancal lnkages used to operate
the valves of steam locomotives, generating linear motion and sharp
movement from the superimposed effects of rotary motions.
I think the general idea is that if you truncate a power series, here
is a better set of coefficients than just chopping off the infinite
set.
That mattered when math tables were computed by hand. Nowadays, a
computer can just use the first 150 terms.
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgf4jc$7vn5$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits?
As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use?
Well, Bessel came up with his functions long before FM broadcasting. Ok you can use Carson's rule but Wikipedia says:
"In 1922 he published a mathematical treatment of frequency modulation (FM), which introduced the Carson bandwidth rule."
Which pre dates FM broadcasting.
While designing my circuit I found this document very useful: >https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Field+Effect+Transistor+as+a+Voltage+Controlled+Resistor
It doesn't mention doing anything in a lab.
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used
Reality is always different from models because models can never have everything that reality has.
But this does not mean that models aren't useful.
Simulation can do a lot to tell you you're going in the right direction.
This can save a lot of time when you get to do it in reality.
I stopped using it long ago (years)
My stuff works.
My sync separators worked too, back when I needed one.
They weren't quite like yours, I think I got an idea from Video Handbook by someone, I forget who.
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
Well you should.
Anyone who claims to be a genius might as well be telling you that they aren't.
Just one more thing.
Writing PC as peesee is fine if you're composing something like this: >https://www.google.com/search?q=I+halve+a+spelling+chequer
But doing it repeatedly with every other word starts to make your perceived age go down.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 7/11/2024 1:50 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
LTSpice - in the right hands -
can help you understand what's going on on the bench quite a lot faster >> >> than bench work on it's own.
It can help you understand what *should* be going on but bench work shows >> > you what is really going on and it is up to you to understand why.
But quite a lot of what you need to understand in bench work is captured
by a decent simulation, and a whole lot faster than you can capture it
on the bench.
learning by benchwork is slower because it is complicated by having to
deal with reality.
Simulations capture quite a lot of what is going on on the bench.
Sometimes the reality you have to deal with is easier to dig out of a
well-set up simulation because you can fiddle with stuff in the
simulation that you can't twiddle on the bench.
A great deal of electronic design is getting the right concepts
together, and while bench work is usually a safer way of doing that, it
can also be quite a lot slower.
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make, it is slower but safer and
more comprehensive.
The subjectivist audio people get quite sentimental about what their
golden ears tell them. Peter Baxandall was an objectivist.
Most of the fundamental progress in quality audio has been done by >objectivists. Subjectivists enjoy playing about with it, but they
rarely discover more than a small part of the truth and usually
misunderstand the fundamentals of the process.
When PGAH Voigt invented the moving coil cutterhead (which was later
'stolen' by Arthur Haddy to become the Decca FFRR system and then
'stolen' again by Arnold Sugden to become the Connoisseur cutterhead),
he didn't have a signal generator or an objective source of sound.
Rather than rely on subjective effects, he equipped a piano with a
weight which could be dropped on the keys to generate a consistent sound
so that he could make objective measurements.
The BBC did a great deal of objective research on loudspeakers because
they found that different studios and microphones sounded better on
different loudspeakers and they weren't content to just accept this as >subjective audio folklore. That research gave us a step improvement in
the quality of loudspeaker drive units.
I recently did a great deal of work to get the best bass response from a >loudspeaker in a small cabinet. When I demonstrated it to a group of
record enthusiasts, one of them complained that it was playing notes
that weren't on the records. I eventually discovered that he had always >listened to those records on a clockwork gramophone which, in spite of
its huge exponential acoustic transformer,. lost the bottom couple of >octaves.
On a sunny day (Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:21:39 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <vgg8j4$k3i$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgf4jc$7vn5$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
Speakers and room acoustics...
I have some, everything is different, should be.
I liked the Quad electrostats,
just have some chaep bass-reflex boxes now.
On 11/6/24 23:15, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
Chebychef did his calculations on the mechancal lnkages used to operate
the valves of steam locomotives, generating linear motion and sharp movement from the superimposed effects of rotary motions.
Did he indeed? Interesting. Do you perchance have a reference?
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[...]
Speakers and room acoustics...
I have some, everything is different, should be.
I liked the Quad electrostats,
You needed a lot of space and good room acoustics to get the best out of >them.
just have some chaep bass-reflex boxes now.
Bass-reflex looks good on paper but sounds horrible. The human ear
hears the 6dB/octave roll off as 'natural' but with an unnatural 'honk' >superimpose on it. Bass transients are coloured by the honk and give >hang-over effects.
It may not matter for synthetic pop music, but bass-reflex speakers can
give misleading results if they are used for monitoring acoustic music >recordings.
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/6/24 23:15, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
Chebychef did his calculations on the mechancal lnkages used to operate
the valves of steam locomotives, generating linear motion and sharp
movement from the superimposed effects of rotary motions.
Did he indeed? Interesting. Do you perchance have a reference?
I remembered reading about his work on steam engines several decades
ago, but can't give you a reference. Apparently the maths he developed
for sharp steam valve movement was later found to be applicable to
electronic filter cutoffs as well. The linkages for linear motion were something I didn't know about until I looked it up on Wikipedia.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:15:38 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
Chebychef did his calculations on the mechancal lnkages used to operate
the valves of steam locomotives, generating linear motion and sharp >>movement from the superimposed effects of rotary motions.
I think the general idea is that if you truncate a power series, here
is a better set of coefficients than just chopping off the infinite
set.
That mattered when math tables were computed by hand. Nowadays, a
computer can just use the first 150 terms.
In article <n5unijlr25iffo7v22eb3rhg5pcnrk87nv@4ax.com>,
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:15:38 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
It's interesting that the classic filters (Butterworth, Chebychev,
Cauer) are based on mathematical approximations that pre-date
electronics. They were used to compose tables for artillery or
something.
Chebychef did his calculations on the mechancal lnkages used to operate >>>the valves of steam locomotives, generating linear motion and sharp >>>movement from the superimposed effects of rotary motions.
I think the general idea is that if you truncate a power series, here
is a better set of coefficients than just chopping off the infinite
set.
That mattered when math tables were computed by hand. Nowadays, a
computer can just use the first 150 terms.
They can, but don't do that. Wasting computer time for using a
lot of terms is just wasteful. Minimax polynomials and the likes
(rational approximations) are used all over the place, thanks
Tsjebisjof.
Groetjes Albert
On a sunny day (Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:21:39 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" ><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in ><vgg8j4$k3i$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgf4jc$7vn5$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits? >>>
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use?
Well, Bessel came up with his functions long before FM broadcasting. Ok you can use Carson's rule but Wikipedia says:
"In 1922 he published a mathematical treatment of frequency modulation (FM), which introduced the Carson bandwidth rule."
Which pre dates FM broadcasting.
While designing my circuit I found this document very useful: >>https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Field+Effect+Transistor+as+a+Voltage+Controlled+Resistor
It doesn't mention doing anything in a lab.
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used
Reality is always different from models because models can never have everything that reality has.
But this does not mean that models aren't useful.
Simulation can do a lot to tell you you're going in the right direction. >>This can save a lot of time when you get to do it in reality.
I stopped using it long ago (years)
My stuff works.
My sync separators worked too, back when I needed one.
They weren't quite like yours, I think I got an idea from Video Handbook by someone, I forget who.
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
Well you should.
Anyone who claims to be a genius might as well be telling you that they aren't.
Just one more thing.
Writing PC as peesee is fine if you're composing something like this: >>https://www.google.com/search?q=I+halve+a+spelling+chequer
But doing it repeatedly with every other word starts to make your perceived age go down.
I use my spell shaker
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 05:57:24 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:21:39 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in >><vgg8j4$k3i$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgf4jc$7vn5$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:00:42 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde" >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote inWell, Bessel came up with his functions long before FM broadcasting. Ok you can use Carson's rule but Wikipedia says:
<vgdffb$ibt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vgccvm$6jk3$1@solani.org...As I pointed out, am reading Usenet on a Raspbeery Pi4 8GB
On a sunny day (Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:31:01 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vgass6$28u2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
"Jan Panteltje" <alien@comet.invalid> wrote in message news:vg9pnu$ekhh$1@solani.org...
On a sunny day (Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:06:04 -0500) it happened "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<vg9h7b$277o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted
harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz
Any suggestions for improvement?
Publish a circuit diagram.
Not that hard to make !
If you mean ASCII art, no thanks in the case of this circuit.
Easy to make a screen shot of your spice circuit and upload it one of those free image publication sites
You do not seriously expect readers to start ancient peesees and use millisoft widows emulators to run tea spices
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/scope_tv/diagram.jpg
https://panteltje.nl/pub/swr_bridge_hl_lt_spice.gif
These appear to be LTSpice, so why can't you use it to view my circuits? >>>>
Does everything here from spectrum analyzing to audio to video play
Why boot up an acient peesee to start a millisoft widows emulator
to look up some 80 deebee thingy that likely never has a practical use? >>>
"In 1922 he published a mathematical treatment of frequency modulation (FM), which introduced the Carson bandwidth rule."
Which pre dates FM broadcasting.
While designing my circuit I found this document very useful: >>>https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Field+Effect+Transistor+as+a+Voltage+Controlled+Resistor
It doesn't mention doing anything in a lab.
In any case if you can't simulate my circuits you won't be able to appreciate how brilliant a designer I am like Bill does.
80 deebee makes me wonder if you not better spend your time on making e-bikes from vipes...
com/gadgets/2024/11/disposable-vapes-from-a-music-festival-can-power-a-beefy-e-bike-20-miles/
And elteasprites simu is not worth a thing, reality is different from the models used
Reality is always different from models because models can never have everything that reality has.
But this does not mean that models aren't useful.
Simulation can do a lot to tell you you're going in the right direction. >>>This can save a lot of time when you get to do it in reality.
I stopped using it long ago (years)
My stuff works.
My sync separators worked too, back when I needed one.
They weren't quite like yours, I think I got an idea from Video Handbook by someone, I forget who.
ElTeaSprites is a bit like Hollowwood movies.
Burb .. I mean Kirk.. well
I do not question your genius,
Well you should.
Anyone who claims to be a genius might as well be telling you that they aren't.
Just one more thing.
Writing PC as peesee is fine if you're composing something like this: >>>https://www.google.com/search?q=I+halve+a+spelling+chequer
But doing it repeatedly with every other word starts to make your perceived age go down.
I use my spell shaker
Your posts are getting ever more annoying and unreadable.
Thst is a 90 degrees phase shifter over the speech audio range for
generating I and Q signals for SSB modulation. design is not mine, used trimpots to test it :-)
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[...] > >https://panteltje.nl/pub/audio_90_degrees_phase_shifter_circuit_diagram_ >IMG_6958.JPG
Thst is a 90 degrees phase shifter over the speech audio range for
generating I and Q signals for SSB modulation. design is not mine, used
trimpots to test it :-)
After reading through some back issues of 'Rad Com', I had been thinking >along similar lines for generating SSB. I was also intrigued by the
Weaver method and wondered if modern multi-stage filters between the
inverted and non-inverted audio sidebands could reduce the audio notch >effect and allow a wider frequency response.
I let my licence lapse many years ago and had been thinking about taking
it out again before the call-sign got issued to someone else. The
problem is that they need to see my certificate to prove I passed the
Radio Amateurs' Exam and I don't know where to find it.
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[...] > >https://panteltje.nl/pub/audio_90_degrees_phase_shifter_circuit_diagram_ >IMG_6958.JPG
Thst is a 90 degrees phase shifter over the speech audio range for
generating I and Q signals for SSB modulation. design is not mine, used
trimpots to test it :-)
After reading through some back issues of 'Rad Com', I had been thinking >along similar lines for generating SSB. I was also intrigued by the
Weaver method and wondered if modern multi-stage filters between the
inverted and non-inverted audio sidebands could reduce the audio notch >effect and allow a wider frequency response.
I let my licence lapse many years ago and had been thinking about taking
it out again before the call-sign got issued to someone else. The
problem is that they need to see my certificate to prove I passed the
Radio Amateurs' Exam and I don't know where to find it.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:41:18 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[...] > >https://panteltje.nl/pub/audio_90_degrees_phase_shifter_circuit_diagram_ >IMG_6958.JPG
Thst is a 90 degrees phase shifter over the speech audio range for
generating I and Q signals for SSB modulation. design is not mine, used
trimpots to test it :-)
After reading through some back issues of 'Rad Com', I had been thinking >along similar lines for generating SSB. I was also intrigued by the
Weaver method and wondered if modern multi-stage filters between the >inverted and non-inverted audio sidebands could reduce the audio notch >effect and allow a wider frequency response.
I let my licence lapse many years ago and had been thinking about taking
it out again before the call-sign got issued to someone else. The
problem is that they need to see my certificate to prove I passed the
Radio Amateurs' Exam and I don't know where to find it.
You'd ace it. It's been dumbed down so much over the years you'd have
to be some kind of imbecile not to pass. I'm not sure if they still
have it in two parts: technical and legal. However, the legal bit is
pretty Janet & John as well.
I let my licence lapse many years ago and had been thinking about taking
it out again before the call-sign got issued to someone else. The
problem is that they need to see my certificate to prove I passed the
Radio Amateurs' Exam and I don't know where to find it.
On 11/8/2024 7:41 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
I let my licence lapse many years ago and had been thinking about taking
it out again before the call-sign got issued to someone else. The
problem is that they need to see my certificate to prove I passed the
Radio Amateurs' Exam and I don't know where to find it.
Maybe here:
HamCall.net
ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/8/2024 7:41 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
Maybe here:
I let my licence lapse many years ago and had been thinking about taking >> > it out again before the call-sign got issued to someone else. The
problem is that they need to see my certificate to prove I passed the
Radio Amateurs' Exam and I don't know where to find it.
HamCall.net
That site is really only or checking current licences, it doesn't even
have a record of my old callsign. Ofcom wants to see the actual paper >certificate I was awarded at the time.
On a sunny day (Fri, 8 Nov 2024 22:33:45 +0000) it happened liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in <1r2q6ij.1axeqad74faeaN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:
ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/8/2024 7:41 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
Maybe here:
I let my licence lapse many years ago and had been thinking about taking >> > it out again before the call-sign got issued to someone else. The
problem is that they need to see my certificate to prove I passed the
Radio Amateurs' Exam and I don't know where to find it.
HamCall.net
That site is really only or checking current licences, it doesn't even
have a record of my old callsign. Ofcom wants to see the actual paper >certificate I was awarded at the time.
Over here you could do a request to the government agency that issued the
licence for a paper copy I would think.
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this
experimental circuit. > You'll want to find something else to do while
it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this >>experimental circuit. > You'll want to find something else to do while
it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
At 1 Kc/s, a distortion figure of 90dB represents one cycle in 10^9, so
you would have to run it for 1000 seconds before the startup transient
became insignificant.
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r37pyc.1bodve2fz5t4wN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
Edward
Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...] >
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this >>experimental circuit. > You'll want to find something else to do while
it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
At 1 Kc/s, a distortion figure of 90dB represents one cycle in 10^9, so
you would have to run it for 1000 seconds before the startup transient became insignificant.
The startup transient was not included in the FFT but in any case the
circuit has other issues so here is a circuit which works as intended. Harmonics are approaching 100dB down and 1k c/s is below 90dB. Simulate overnight then stop. It will be at about 250 seconds. Select roughly the
last 50 seconds and FFT on current zoom extent. Number of data points may need increasing.
We could probably have a discussion here about why c/s is better than Hz
Version 4
SHEET 1 2196 932
WIRE -64 -576 -96 -576
WIRE 48 -576 16 -576
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1r37pyc.1bodve2fz5t4wN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
Edward
Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...] >
Now approacing 90dB if you believe the simulation with with this
experimental circuit. > You'll want to find something else to do while
it simulates.
How to inprove it further?
At 1 Kc/s, a distortion figure of 90dB represents one cycle in 10^9, so
you would have to run it for 1000 seconds before the startup transient
became insignificant.
The startup transient was not included in the FFT but in any case the
circuit has other issues so here is a circuit which works as intended.
Harmonics are approaching 100dB down and 1k c/s is below 90dB. Simulate
overnight then stop. It will be at about 250 seconds. Select roughly the
last 50 seconds and FFT on current zoom extent. Number of data points may
need increasing.
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may
set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of
the finite length of the sample.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer
cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample
length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they
don't exist in reality.
[...]
We could probably have a discussion here about why c/s is better than Hz
I don't know if it is 'better' but it suits me - and nobody seems to
have any difficulty understanding it. By using a descriptive term,
rather than a commemorative one, beginners find it easier to understand
as it sounds less like jargon intended to exclude the uninitiated.
(I have nothing against H.Hertz, it's just the principle that worries
me).
Version 4[...]
SHEET 1 2196 932
WIRE -64 -576 -96 -576
WIRE 48 -576 16 -576
I don't use Spice, so the rest doesn't convey anything to me.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...[...]
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may
set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you
start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of
the finite length of the sample.
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer
cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample
length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they
don't exist in reality.
On 11/19/24 17:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message[...]
news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may
set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you >>> start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of
the finite length of the sample.
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer
cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample
length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they
don't exist in reality.
An FFT implicitly connects the end of the recording back to the
beginning. It's sufficient that the number of periods is integer.
Jeroen Belleman
On 11/19/24 17:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...[...]
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may
set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you >>> start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of
the finite length of the sample.
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer
cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample
length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they
don't exist in reality.
An FFT implicitly connects the end of the recording back to the
beginning. It's sufficient that the number of periods is integer.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:12:18 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/19/24 17:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...[...]
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may >>>> set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you >>>> start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of >>>> the finite length of the sample.
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer
cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample
length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they >>>> don't exist in reality.
An FFT implicitly connects the end of the recording back to the
beginning. It's sufficient that the number of periods is integer.
If testing with sine waves that all fit with an integral number of
cycles per window, the FFT noise floor will be determined by the
precision of the arithmetic used.
But there is often a splice error at that join because the fit into
the window is approximate, which is a good reason to use a window
function. The default choice in the radar world is Taylor.
Joe Gwinn
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:50:46 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:12:18 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/19/24 17:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...[...]
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may >>>>> set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you >>>>> start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of >>>>> the finite length of the sample.
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer
cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample >>>>> length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they >>>>> don't exist in reality.
An FFT implicitly connects the end of the recording back to the >>>beginning. It's sufficient that the number of periods is integer.
If testing with sine waves that all fit with an integral number of
cycles per window, the FFT noise floor will be determined by the
precision of the arithmetic used.
But there is often a splice error at that join because the fit into
the window is approximate, which is a good reason to use a window
function. The default choice in the radar world is Taylor.
Joe Gwinn
I wouldn't trust LT Spice for simulating a low-distortion oscillator.
Run a sim and zoom up on the top of some sine wave. It looks all
segmented and ratty.
I was just simulating something and had a KHz range loop oscillation
that refused to be compensated. Turns out I had a BI behavioral
current source driving an inductor, and that oscillated all by itself.
A G current source does the same thing.
At really low distortion, the opamp models can getcha too.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:16:05 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:50:46 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:12:18 +0100, Jeroen Belleman >>><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/19/24 17:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message[...]
news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may >>>>>> set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you >>>>>> start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of >>>>>> the finite length of the sample.
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer >>>>>> cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample >>>>>> length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they >>>>>> don't exist in reality.
An FFT implicitly connects the end of the recording back to the >>>>beginning. It's sufficient that the number of periods is integer.
If testing with sine waves that all fit with an integral number of
cycles per window, the FFT noise floor will be determined by the >>>precision of the arithmetic used.
But there is often a splice error at that join because the fit into
the window is approximate, which is a good reason to use a window >>>function. The default choice in the radar world is Taylor.
Joe Gwinn
I wouldn't trust LT Spice for simulating a low-distortion oscillator.
Run a sim and zoom up on the top of some sine wave. It looks all
segmented and ratty.
I was just simulating something and had a KHz range loop oscillation
that refused to be compensated. Turns out I had a BI behavioral
current source driving an inductor, and that oscillated all by itself.
A G current source does the same thing.
At really low distortion, the opamp models can getcha too.
Oh yeah. I don't use spice simulations unless I'm designing a
circuit, which is rare these days.
Mostly, I use Wolfram Mathematica, often with Bessel window functions
(for phase linearity across the passband).
On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:55:11 -0500) it happened Joe Gwinn ><joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in <102qjjh5n2hr9b3mkmuibol68r4glc4fon@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:16:05 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:50:46 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:12:18 +0100, Jeroen Belleman >>>><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/19/24 17:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... >>>>>[...]
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may >>>>>>> set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements. Even if you
start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of >>>>>>> the finite length of the sample.
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer >>>>>>> cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave. As the sample >>>>>>> length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they >>>>>>> don't exist in reality.
An FFT implicitly connects the end of the recording back to the >>>>>beginning. It's sufficient that the number of periods is integer.
If testing with sine waves that all fit with an integral number of >>>>cycles per window, the FFT noise floor will be determined by the >>>>precision of the arithmetic used.
But there is often a splice error at that join because the fit into
the window is approximate, which is a good reason to use a window >>>>function. The default choice in the radar world is Taylor.
Joe Gwinn
I wouldn't trust LT Spice for simulating a low-distortion oscillator.
Run a sim and zoom up on the top of some sine wave. It looks all >>>segmented and ratty.
I was just simulating something and had a KHz range loop oscillation
that refused to be compensated. Turns out I had a BI behavioral
current source driving an inductor, and that oscillated all by itself.
A G current source does the same thing.
At really low distortion, the opamp models can getcha too.
Oh yeah. I don't use spice simulations unless I'm designing a
circuit, which is rare these days.
Mostly, I use Wolfram Mathematica, often with Bessel window functions
(for phase linearity across the passband).
Yep,
and Wolfram Language and Mathematica are free on every Raspberry Pi computer:
<https://www.wolfram.com/raspberry-pi/>
Simulation isn't fast but if you let it complete and do an FFT on the last 30 seconds, it's 80dB down at all unwanted harmonics.
There do however seem to be unwanted sidebands close in either side of 1KHz Any suggestions for improvement?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 418 |
Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
Uptime: | 03:29:07 |
Calls: | 8,787 |
Calls today: | 14 |
Files: | 13,296 |
Messages: | 5,965,648 |