
- Square + triangle = sine (almost)
- 03-06-2010
![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Phil Allison | 03-06-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Phil Allison | 03-06-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| =?ISO-8859-15?Q... | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Phil Allison | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Muzaffer Kal | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Jim Thompson | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Jim Thompson | 03-09-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Jim Thompson | 03-12-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Don Klipstein | 03-10-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Jim Thompson | 03-10-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Robert Baer | 03-10-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Don Klipstein | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Richard Henry | 03-07-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Robert Baer | 03-07-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Tim Williams | 03-07-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Robert Baer | 03-07-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Tim Williams | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Tim Williams | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Don Klipstein | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Tim Williams | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| George Herold | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Tim Williams | 03-09-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Fred Bartoli | 03-09-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Don Klipstein | 03-10-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Jim Thompson | 03-10-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Tim Williams | 03-10-2010 |
![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| George Herold | 03-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Don Lancaster | 03-09-2010 |
![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Kevin McMurtrie | 03-07-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Jim Thompson | 03-09-2010 |
![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Martin Brown | 03-07-2010 |
![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Robert Baer | 03-07-2010 |
![]() Re: Square + triangle = sine (almost)
| Robert Baer | 03-07-2010 |
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:29:27 -0500, Phil Hobbs
an active filter version on my very first modem design (300 Baud,
"muff" coupled to a telephone :-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
MooseFET wrote:
This is indeed a very cute circuit, in fact I had built something similar,
but with one more opamp.
ciao Ban
<SNIP to here>
A little over a decade ago, I worked along with 2 partners on what we
hoped would be a patentable significant on an "electric guitar fuzzbox".
As in able to get a patent for improvement over prior art in US patents
by Pittman and Scholz (sp).
"Our" device received rave reviews where we showed it off.
"We" abandoned the project after determining that "we" could make a
majority as much money working at entry level at a big-name fast-food
restaurant as "we" could getting this device manufactured and selling it,
even should (unlikely) sales volume get the cost of patenting it to be
negligible-per-unit, let alone battling whoever tries their hand at
infringing "our patent" in a case likely costing upper 10's of kilobucks
to hundreds of kilobucks (I can't rule out megabucks) in a court battle.
One of "us" (we 3) even schmoozed the likely examiner of the
prospective patent application to extent of hearing from the likely
examiner that a patent would likely be granted.
This "improved fuzzbox" never went to any actually filed patent
application. It was since published on the web, at least significantly
where web searching for it or major segments of it are best found by
AND-ing search terms of "LXH2" and either of the 2 major brands of British
electric guitar amplifiers - Fender or Marshall.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:36:12 -0500, Bitrex
wrote:
done.
think
Yep, It's the sort of circuit arrangement where you can continue
pretty much forever :-)
Possibly.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
- Square to Sine Wave
- July 8, 2006, 10:29 pm
- Sine to square wave converter
- March 24, 2005, 1:19 pm
- Sine to square wave conversion
- November 4, 2005, 6:35 am
- signal converter FROM SINE TO SQUARE WAVE
- August 10, 2006, 9:49 am
- UPS sine wave vs square wave output?
- February 22, 2005, 8:04 pm
- 0-5V square wave to sine wave with zero crossing?
- October 25, 2005, 4:38 pm
- Regarding Square Wave versus Sine wave
- August 30, 2006, 6:36 pm
- Variable Square Wave to Sine Wave
- March 8, 2010, 10:29 am
- Square wave to psuedo-sine wave?
- March 23, 2010, 3:39 pm
- AoE page 23 and 24
- March 15, 2006, 3:22 pm
- just look this new page
- August 19, 2007, 3:52 pm
- web page
- December 27, 2007, 12:00 am
- Help translating page
- March 1, 2005, 4:35 am
- Re: OT The page cannot be displayed
- February 13, 2007, 5:57 am
- Reformating a page?
- October 31, 2006, 8:11 am








>> On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, Phil Hobbs
>> [....]
>>>>>> At lowish frequencies, you can do this:
>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------/\/\---+----Out
>>>>>> ! !
>>>>>> +-----------------/\/\----+-/\/\---+---/\/\----+
>>>>>> ! ! ! !
>>>>>> ! --!-\ ! !
>>>>>> In ---+--------!+\ !>-- !
>>>>>> !>---+--/\/\--+---!+/ !
>>>>>> --!-/ ! ! !
>>>>>> ! ! ---/\/\--GND !
>>>>>> GND--/\/\--+--/\/\---+------------------------/\/\--
>>>
>>>>>> With rail to rail op-amps, you can get a total of 6 knees from Vee to
>>>>>> Vcc in the output
>>>>>> swing.
>>
>> [....]
>>> Plessey used to sell packaged RF amps that worked a bit like that--they
>>> were meant to be cascaded to form logarithmic IF strips. They had a
>>> gain of 10 dB for small signals, dropping to 0 dB when they saturated.
>>> With a string of them in series, upping the signal input by 10 dB railed
>>> another amplifier, and so reduced the overall gain by 10 dB.
>>>
>>> That way, the differential gain was dVout/dVin ~ 1/Vin, which makes it
>>> approximately logarithmic. These were different from the usual
>>> successive-detection DLVAs, because they actually performed logarithmic
>>> compression on the RF, not just the detected signal.
>>
>> I have often thought that the same sort of thing would be good in an
>> FM IF
>> strip. In that case, the 3rd power part of the series is what does
>> the most
>> to remove the noise. The odd numbered terms are less effective. As a
>> result,
>> it would be very nice to be able to make the limiting stage have the
>> right
>> amount of 3rd power and less of all the others.
>>
>If you use an FM detector that's insensitive to AM, e.g. a wideband PLL,
>it'll work better than a limiter at low SNR. Essentially all reasonable
>demodulation schemes work equivalently at high SNR, where the AM and PM
>fluctuations are linear functions of the additive noise amplitude.
>At low SNR, limiters start suppressing the signal in favour of the
>noise. That leads to dropouts--periods during which the signal
>disappears and only the noise is left--which really set the threshold
>for detection. PLLs using wideband AGC instead of limiting don't
>exhibit threshold, although the detected signal does get noisier as the
>SNR declines. (You need the AGC to keep the loop bandwidth reasonably
>constant.)
>The Plessey scheme can be thought of as a kind of ultrawideband AGC, I
>suppose--as long as the compression comes after the narrowest IF filter,
>it should be nearly equivalent.
>The only other problem there would be AM-PM conversion. Most kinds of
>amplifiers slow down when you rail them, which leads to phase errors.
>(The good news for FM is that this needs only a 1-D calibration, instead
>of 2-D as in I/Q schemes.)
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs