Re: Low distortion sinewave oscillator without big capacitor.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 10:15:27 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vsqeh2$1emr4$1@dont-email.me...

On 5/04/2025 1:48 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vsq3um$107nb$1@dont-email.me...

On 5/04/2025 5:32 am, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 18:03:19 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 03 Apr 2025 13:08:20 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
>

On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 05:14:44 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 4/04/2025 4:02 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:54:56 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

Not long ago JM posted a 1KHz sinewave oscillator with very low distortion.
It used a 470uF non polarized capacitor which in practice would probably be made from two 1000uF capacitors.
There's nothing wrong with that but I wanted to see whether I could make a working circuit without needing such a large
capacitor.
>
What I have so far is below.
>
Any comments?

>
Suppose you built an oscillator and had a switch that varied the loop
gain between 0.98 and 1.02. Now measure the amplitude of N cycles and
flip the switch if it's too high or too low. Switch at the zero
crossing.
>
I wonder what distortion would be like.

>
Why not measure it? LTSpice could probably give you a sine wave whose
amplitude ramped up linearly for a bit, and ramped back down again.
>
Do a DFT on that and you'd have your answer. It wouldn't be good.
>

(I wouldn't really do that. It's just an idea to play with.)

>
Only if you don't know what you are talking about.

>
An idea is like a cute baby puppy. Some people want to feed it and
play with it and some people want to club it to death.

>
"Please don't feed the troll."

>
The point here is that some people, especially fatheads with advanced
degrees, are incapable of having ideas, and react by being hostile to
ideas and to people who have them.

>
I've got my name three patents, so I'm demonstrably capable of having ideas.
>
I am hostile to people who tout bad ideas.

>
Don't you think it would be better to just explain why you think an idea is bad Bill?

>
I usually do.
>

And also, if necessary, to just explain how and why you think it should be done.

>
I have been known to do that. You should know - I've done it to you, here, and I'm about to do it to John May whom I really like
and approve of.
>

Being hostile doesn't make you look good and it does the opposite of persuading others that their ideas are bad.

>
Few people can ever be persuaded that their ideas are bad. John Larkin definitely isn't one of them.
>

So why be hostile at all?

>
The same mechanism that persuades people that their bad ideas aren't too bad allows them to gloss over any criticism that isn't
thoroughly explicit.

>
You can be critical without being hostile.
>

He can't. He lives to be nasty.

The super low distortion oscillator thing is just another venue to
call people stupid. It's a Spice-as-game thing, totally unrealistic in
real life.