Re: 1kHz 130dB distortion sinewave oscillator.

On 3/02/2025 5:23 am, Edward Rawde wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vno724$oica$1@dont-email.me...

On 2/02/2025 8:23 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2025 01:02:22 +0000, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:26:28 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vnl3gl$30im$1@dont-email.me...

On 1/02/2025 4:37 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vnka4g$3ut8i$1@dont-email.me...

On 1/02/2025 1:34 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vnim5i$3hnrj$1@dont-email.me...

On 31/01/2025 5:47 am, Edward Rawde wrote:

Approaching 130dB now. Any suggestions for improvement?
It wouldn't be hard to add another four rectifier phases but then I'd have more components than Bill.

But at least I know what mine are doing.
>

This circuit was simulated in LTSpice 24.1.1 with all component updates as of 30th January 2025.
>
Take a sample near 20s and FFT on current zoom extent with Blackman-Harris window.
It's approaching 130dB at 2kHz and approaching 140dB everywhere else.
>
I do not know why C13/R28 and similar are needed but without them the simulation speed goes down to us/s
It appears that LT1115 doesn't like being simulated with very little load on its output.
Whether or not that's true in reality I've no idea and it may not be the case in earlier versions of LTSpice.
>
Simulation speed in 24.1.1 appears to be about twice as fast as earlier versions for this circuit.

>
This is a strange circuit.

>
It's also way more complex than it need be. Please see my most recent post.
I think you'll find the FET is operating conventionally. Roughly at the centre of its range when I last checked.
>

One problem with using an N-channel junction fet like J113 is that if you bias the gate at a higher voltage than the
source or
drain, it acts as a diode and feeds current into the channel.
>
I've downloaded and run the second version of the simulation, and the gate doesn't seem to end up more negative than the
source
or
drain.
>
It takes quite a lot of simulation time before the circuit starts acting as if were an amplitude controlled oscillator,
and
I'm
not interested enough to try and work how it is actually working.

>
I've modified the circuit to make sure that FET gate doesn't get forward-biased.

>
Why does it matter if the FET gate is forward biased during the first 10ms Bill?
That isn't going to make the FET explode is it?
>

>
As John May pointed out a long time ago, the J113 isn't a great choice for the application.

>
Did he say why?
>
    I've swapped in a J111. The integrator around U6

isn't well designed, and I've deleted a redundant resistor and added a huge damping resistor (R4). It means that there's a
lot
of
1kHz ripple on the gate voltage, and loads of harmonic content on the output - 2kHz is only 25dB below the fundamental.

>
Sorry bill but I don't get why you would sabotage the circuit like that.

>
You aren't a quick study.
>

Getting a low ripple rectified output to feed into the integrator isn't a trivial task. It's part of a negative feedback
control
problem which you seem to be reluctant to recognise.

>
Please see the most recent circuit I posted.
It doesn't bother with DC stabilization circuits but it does do 133dB down on harmonics with pretty much nothing at 2kHz at
all.

>
Perhaps if you measure the distortion only when the stabilisation circuit isn't feeding anything into the integrator wrapped
around U6.
>
The current feed to set the output level by balancing out  the inputs from the rectifiers was feeding in current when it
should
have been sucking it out, so it wasn't a well thought-out design.
>
Here's a version of that circuit  which does work sensibly, even if the harmonic content of the output is only about 60DB
below
the fundamental.

>
But that's completely nuts Bill.

>
And so is Bill! Sadly, Bill stopped making useful contributions to
this group many years ago and now spends his days attempting to appear
superior to everyone else.
>

If I really do want 1kHz with -133dB harmonic distortion in reality then I'm prepared to wait 20 seconds for it.
In fact I'm prepared to wait a minute or two if that's what it takes for the harmonic distortion to go down to -133dB.

>
Of course. Nothing unreasonable about that.
>
>

If there's a problem with the design around U6 then why doesn't that also apply to U7 and U9?
>
It's not intended as a volume production design. I might make two or three boards and test it.
But I don't have equipment capable of measuring -133dB harmonic distortion.
>
I would also be prepared to make adjustments to the circuit for minimum distortion.
This circuit might have up to six adjustments if built for real so it can be adjusted for correct output level and minimum
distortion.
>
The circuit included below might be my final offering on this matter.
There's nothing visible at 2kHz and 3kHz is barely visible.
It requires only a cheap quad op amp package in addition to the two LT1115 devices.
>
If you can show me a circuit which has -133dB harmonic distortion and also faster settling time then I'd like to see it but if
you're going to insist that it has to have only -60 dB harmonic distortion performance (which interestingly is about that of
your
own circuit) just because the settling time can be made shorter then I'm sorry but all that's going to do is make me wonder
about
your mental health.

>
I didn't insist on anything. I debugged Edward's simulation to the point where it started up properly

 What is the difference between starting up properly and starting up the way the unmodified circuit starts up?
If I didn't have LTSpice and tested a real circuit then I'd likely never know what this circuit does in the time before I've even
got my fingers off the power switch.
And I have no reason to care if the gate-source voltage goes a few mv positive during startup.
 

and settled down to a stable state fairly quickly, and reported that the changes that I'd made had upped the harmonic content.
After I'd found another bug in  his design I finally got the harmonic content closer to about 75dB below the fundamental.

 I designed a new piano today. I found a bug in the sustain pedal mechanism and polished the cabinet to over 80pB.
I can't understand why no musician wants to play it.
My friend said he'd buy one if I can tune it properly but I can't understand why that matters. All the other parameters are perfect.
You can even open the lid in less than 20ms.
 

>
My current mirror variation is stuck at a -60dB. Posting it here didn't get me any helpful suggestions about making it better.

 My piano design has 9 transistors per string and I haven't made even the slightest attempt to explain why this might lead to a
solution which is an improvement over using a FET.
I can't understand why no-one else cares but I have a PhD in string design so there must be something better about my piano when
compared with a piano produced by a designer who likes to try things out to see what works best as well as use PhD level theory when
it's needed.
 

>

Many of us here have been wondering about Bill's mental health for the
past 2 decades. Please try to remember you're dealing with SED's
biggest troll here (and he hasn't been fed well lately).

>
Cursitor Doom - who actually is an anonymous troll - does like to claim that people who object to his habit of posting fatuous
nonsense aren't to be taken seriously. One can understand why - it's just one more tranche of fatuous nonsense, and he gets some
kind of bizarre satisfaction from posting all sorts of different kinds of utter nonsense.

 Yeah well some people's facts are other people's utter nonsense.
Just ask Donald Trump.
So I don't see the point of getting so worked up about human nature which isn't going to change any time soon.
 

>
I really shouldn't go to the trouble of objecting one more example of his malicious fantasising, but I do find it irritating when
he starts sticking his oar into serious discussions.

 In that case I'd relax and just ignore anything which irritates you that much and which you can do nothing to change.

That's the Stoic philosophy, and I'm actually pretty good at following it in real life.

He does make me laugh sometimes (and so do you). The last example was something along the lines of aliens must be here because
unidentified objects have been seen in the sky.
But I don't get irritated by that, just amused.

You should. He was taking flying saucer stories seriously, and the evidence has been looked ito for years, and there's nothing in it.

There seem to be some people who think that the earth is flat or that it was once called teegeeack (at a time when there were no
people but let's not allow facts to distract us).

Religion is big on that sort of nonsense. Spinoza pointed out the problem a couple of hundred years ago, and there are still people who take it seriously - including a friend of mine who is a professor of theology.

And nothing is going to change their mind. Attempting to persuade them that they are nuts will just reinforce their belief that it's
you who must be nuts.

One of the local fringe religions has had a group of eleven people charged with murder. They were convinced that an eight-year-old type-1 diabetic really didn't need insulin, and she died.

If I let these things bother me (or worse, told the people who believe it that they were nuts) I'd never get anything done and it's
likely that plenty of people wouldn't like me very much and therefore they would not be inclined to offer me any help with my piano
(sorry current mirror) design.

There are some levels of irresponsibility that really can't be tolerated. John Larkin, Cursitor Doom and Donald Trump think that anthroppgenic global warming is a matter of opinion, and that is already killing people, and will probably kill a whole lot more.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney