In Reply to: Re: test for transients posted by john curl on July 15, 2003 at 12:52:48:
Hi,>not to get yourself into a confusing situation, where you will have
>everybody and his/her brother interpreting your results in different
>ways.Including my own misinterpretations of the data on simple cathode
followers. I need to clear two statements where I incorrectly
interpreted my own data.First, prior to Kurt's derivation, I was using the term "B" or Beta
incorrectly in the general feedback equation. Previously I'd thought
there were hi-feedback and lo-feedback cathode followers and that
lo-feedback cathode followers could be well below the harmonic
multiplication hump. Now I realize that all cathode followers are
relatively hi-feedback circuits (as Scott has pointed out), thus they
are way beyond the harmonic multiplication hump, and into
territory were phase shift relative to gain becomes important.Also because of the misinterpretation of "B", I incorrectly stated
that the Load was a primary component of the feedback in a follower.
This is not true. If Gm is high, the load basically cancels out of
the equation. It does influence the stability of the circuit however,
and I'd like to investigate this sometime.One property of followers that still holds true is that harmonics
start to increase as load or signal swing is increased. They seem to
do best with low signal swings and/or light loads (which is a
relative term, because an 8 ohm load may be a light load to a
beefy transistor). I don't think this is too earth shattering of a
statement as it seems to hold for any circuit I've looked at.So much for that, now charge onward!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: test for transients - mfc 16:42:30 07/15/03 (0)