goofy PWM

May 29, 2015 45 Replies

Higher order filters give more attenuation at higher frequencies, but with PWM the worst case gets to be the PWM repeat frequency - 200Hz in this case - and more than two or three poles isn't worth the effort

There's nothing goofy about using more than two transitions per PWM period. The more you divide up your marks and spaces, the lower the amplitude of the repetition rate ripple - 200Hz in this case. Breaking up your 1,000,000 clock edges into chunks that would mostly be 1024 clock edges long drops the worst case 200Hz ripple component by a factor of 1000, which helps the filter design no end.

There no linearity error except at the top and bottom ends where individual - nominally 1024 clock edge long - chunks start vanishing or fusing, so the number of transitions per cycle moves away from 2000 - at the bottom of the range, from 0% to 0.1% of full scale and at the top, from 99.9% of full scale to 100%.

You could always re-synchronise to a local clock on the other side of the isolation barrier ...

Bill Sloman, Sydney

The ripple waveform for a given code is known. Why not S/H the filtered PWM waveform, sampling at the precise time the waveform is/will be at the correct voltage for that code?

That is, effectively, adaptively sample the ripple 'ramp' in lieu of PWM 'boogering.' Sort of the opposite of a time-to-digital converter.

Even a first-order filter settles to zip ripple, quickly.

Cheers, James Arthur

I believe that's exactly what I described back in 1996, and more recently here.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

I believe that's exactly what I described back in 1996, and more recently here.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's hard to make a really accurate and stable s/h. And it's a bunch of parts.

I may just use the DAC1220 and feed it clk/data/stb through a quad isolator, and not do the ADC feedback. But the goofy PWM was fun to think about.

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com

It's hard to compete with the DAC1220 for parts count. The PWM's advantage would be $6-$7 per channel savings.

The DAC1220 makes sense. You can crank it out, no delay, no technical risk. And if you sell zillions, we'll make you a nice PWM version.

Cheers, James

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required