Splitting an error signal into DC and High Freq.

OK this is a bit of a silly question. (But what the heck better than thawing tundra.)

I want to split an error signal into HF and LF parts. I've wired this up as an RC filter, taking DC (LF) from the cap., and using an instrument amp to read the voltage across the resistor.

Error in----+---. | | R +--> Instrument R -->High Freq out. R +--> Amp.(Ground ref.) | | +---+ +---Opamp buffer--> DC out | C C C | GND

R = 300 to 10 k ohm. (300 is about most the opamp driving it can supply.) C = 2.2 uF. (About 10 Hz cross-over frequency at the low end.)

Is there anything wrong with this approach?

George H.

Reply to
George Herold
Loading thread data ...

Look up "cross-over networks". ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

You mean like an LC thing? (I'd have to set the Q.) I was thinking I could use an active filter. (S-V) and take the HP and LP outputs. But don't I get more phase shift that way?

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

No. Run the math.

[snip]

You can easily make cross-overs with active filters. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

What, you want me to work for a living? :^)

Did I say the output is for a control loop?

A two pole filter has to have 180 degree phase shift across the frequency band. RC has only 90 degree's. I don't know if that matters for a control loop.. and what happens in the cross-over region.

I did this ~10 years ago. I could go look in my notebook and (perhaps) find it. It's easier just to do it again from scratch.

Is there anything wrong with my RC approach? (I've got it wired up, I'll test it tomorrow.)

I may very well have used an active filter last time.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

It'll need buffering. But no instrument amps. Equal C, equal R.

Vin o--------------o-------------. | | .-. | | | --- | | --- '-' | | | o-------------------------------o LF out | | | o-----------------o HF out | | | .-. --- | | --- | | | '-' | | VVV VVV

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

Right I could have done that too. (I wanted an knob to change the x-over freq.... no dual ganged pots.) And this way I'm pretty much guaranteed that HF and LF will have the same time constant.

I screwed up the phase on the instrument amp the first time.

The sum of HF + LF was equal to the input. That's reassuring.

When I tired the same with a State Variable filter, the LP + HP summed to zero at the X-over. (I never knew that before.) I guess I'd have to add the BP too? (My 'scope can't sum three signals.)

(BP = band pass, HP = high pass, LP = low pass) ('cause Rick will ask.)

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

2nd-order? Of course -- think about it:

LP: w^2 / (s^2 + 2*zeta*w*s + w^2) HP: s^2 / (s^2 + 2*zeta*w*s + w^2)

LP + HP = (s^2 + w^2) / (etc.), which is a plain ol' notch filter.

Absent adjustability I belive my way is better (and they do sum to the original signal).

But yes, if you need to tweak things, an instrumentation amp is probably better than a dual pot.

--
www.wescottdesign.com
Reply to
Tim Wescott

I assume you mean me? Thanks for the consideration, but in this context those abbreviations were clear to me. I don't understand what you mean about the LP + HP summing to zero though. I assume you mean they sum to be the same as the input?

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

Right, it made sense afterwards. Hey, is this analogy correct? So in an SV filter with HP, BP and LP output, can I think it as a series LRC circuit, With HP the signal across an ideal inductor, BP that across the resistor, and LP across an ideal capacitor.

That seems right.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

No, the sum is zero.. no signal. at "resonance" the LP and HP amplitudes are equal, and the phase difference is 180 deg.

As Tim said I already knew this, 'cause you can make a notch by adding LP and HP... but for me knowing (book-wise) and doing are two different things.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Ok, I didn't get the resonance part.

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

Resonance is where the BP output is maximum.

GH

Reply to
George Herold

I'm saying that I didn't catch the use of the term crossover to refer to the point of equal attenuation of the two outputs. I was thinking of a physical crossover circuit.

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

At first flush yes -- I'd have to work it out to be sure.

Ditto for a current-driven parallel RLC with the signal being the currents involved.

--
www.wescottdesign.com
Reply to
Tim Wescott

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.