Re: squeezing a field

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:01:34 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

On 27/10/2024 2:20 am, legg wrote:

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:08:08 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 
<snip>

He was remarkably good, just not totally perfect.
>
His footnote reference to "squegging" in the 1959 class-D oscillator
paper is another minor drop-off. He can't be blamed for it, but a
super-hero might have done better.

 
What's wrong with 'squegging' ? It's a simple word that covers
a host of faults that all give the same approximate symptom . .

>
With the advantage of 65 years of hindsight, it looks as if what he was
seeing was gain in bipolar transistors running in the inverted mode.
>
"Squegging" was mostly used for  weird oscillations in resonant circuits.
>
Class-D oscillators built with MOSFet switches don't squeg. Class-D
oscillators built with bipolar transistors in LTSpice don't squeg either
- the Gummel-Poon transistor model doesn't model inverted mode behavior
all that well.

Squegging in any oscillatory circuit, driven or otherwise, 
describes widely varying amplitudes that typically approach
self-quenching and can otherwise approach unintentional
overstess in the 'wobulating' cycle.

Not what the doctor ordered, or the designer anticipated.

Only blocking oscillators do it on purpose.

RL