Sujet : Re: squeezing a field
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 27. Oct 2024, 05:01:34
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vfkdv0$3mnp$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
squeezing a field
Re: squeezing a field