[Pease Porridge]
Bob's Mailbox: Readers Respond To Recent Columns
Bob Pease
|
ED Online ID #22065 |
October 29, 2009
Hello Bob!
Several years ago, probably more than I really want to recall, I was working as a lab technician for a company developing an ultrasonic liquid level control. It operated by oscillating a pair of piezo crystals when liquid contacted their surface in a sensor probe. The challenge at that time was to design a circuit that would have high enough gain at about 1 MHz to oscillate the crystals and then amplify this signal to saturation at the output so the signal could be reliably detected. In concept, it was a simple switch but needed to operate at this frequency with a 4- to 20-mA current loop. At the time, “high-speed” op amps were power hogs.
So to accomplish this, we decided to use a transistor array and direct-couple several stages to provide near rail-to-rail output oscillation. Since each was direct coupled, the succeeding stages’ bias point was determined by the previous stage output. Everything appeared to work well until the temperature started to dip to –20°C or so, then all oscillation would cease and the circuit would fail to operate.
After some head scratching over this, I remembered that VBE changes with temperature. Assuming a –2-mV/°C shift, I was able to calculate that the bias points were shifting and driving the amplifier stages into saturation. I re-calculated the resistors required to hold the bias points over the temperature range, replaced the old ones with new values, and the circuit worked great from –40°C to 70°C. This was by no means rocket science, but at the same time, I didn’t think it was too bad for a dumb ol’ technician!
John Kessinger
Hello, John,
Hey, that is pretty good engineering! Keep up the good work. And the good thinking! I had an old Heathkit radio with six (germanium) transistors that I built around 1958. It ran well for years. Then I took it out while I was shovelling snow. At 0°C, it sounded pretty bad. I replaced the transistors with decent silicon ones, and I biassed up the old class-AB stage with a diode, for temperature compensation, and it worked fine at –20°C.
RAP
Hi Bob,
I noted your design piece in the special issue of Electronic Design (“What’s All This Noise-Rejection Stuff, Anyhow?”). Of course, using an instrumentation amplifier to create a balanced input that rejects common-mode noise is a common practice in industrial audio circuit design. Unfortunately, it isn’t the case for consumer electronics. (I’m suggesting that it might be, if they had the big noise problem we’ve seen. /rap)
Yet we in the broadcast industry are often connecting consumer gear (CD players come to mind) to professional balanced audio inputs with mixed results. Your circuit is a clever way to connect unbalanced to balanced without resorting to magnetics. Audio isolation transformers are the quick and dirty way to fix ground loop noise issues, but high-quality magnetics are expensive and introduce their own distortion and bandwidth limitations on the low end.
Active balancing is considered by most audiophiles to be a superior solution. I tend to favor transformers when the longitudinal noise voltages can be extreme, i.e., telephone lines or long runs between buildings not served by the same power source. (Well, yeah. /rap)
Now, for more fun. Your piece on driving single-handed (“What’s All This Driving One-Handed Stuff, Anyhow?”), while it’s well and good to develop good coordination and teach both hands to be comfortable with each task that driving entails, I fear it would only encourage folks to multi-task beyond their abilities. I’ve always operated two-way radio gear while driving, microphone in one hand, sandwich in the other, steering wheel on its own. (Kidding!) (You do have two knees, right? /rap)
But most folks have real issues with using their cell phones or applying lipstick while driving. (Most folks are not very good drivers. Most folks are not very good at thinking. /rap) Both anecdotal and experimental data have proven a significant reduction in driving ability and safety when engaged in these multi-tasking activities. And most of those folks are driving automatics, not stick shifts!
Ira Wilner
Hi, Ira,
I understand the danger of crashing is increased N:1, where N may be 4. But on many roads, where the road is nearly empty, 4 × 0 is still 0.
RAP
Bob,
Ehem... N:1 on an empty road is not zero! Plenty of single-car accidents happen if the road is a bit curvy and the driver isn’t intimately familiar with it. It just happened a on the “East West Road,” as it is called in Dummerston, Vt., over the shoulder and into a tree at a curve. Granted, the tree was probably more aware of its surroundings than the driver.
Ira Wilner
Hi, Ira,
So the tree was drunk? Or was the tree using a cell phone?
I have long enjoyed reading your column and have occasionally found bits of wisdom in them. Without a doubt, the deepest, most profound statement you have made was in this column when you wrote "Most folks are not very good at thinking." This is so sadly true.
George -November 16, 2009
On Oct 6, I posted the following comment about the original article ... and still have had no response: "This subject is of great importance in professional audio systems and I'm glad to see it being discussed. However, Figure 1 and its discussion neglects an extremely important issue - the output impedance of the "Audio Signal Source". I know of no commercial device with an output impedance of zero. The entire output impedance of the source is in series with the upper left 4.02 k-ohm resistor, totally disrupting the carefully-trimmed matching of the resistors - and hijacking most of the CMRR. It is extremely important that the COMMON-MODE input impedances of a diff-amp are extremely high (if they were infinite, the source impedance wouldn't matter). That's the main reason (input)transformers have such good CMRR, regardless of source impedance. An alternative is the InGenius IC from THAT Corp. (www.thatcorp.com), which bootstraps its common-mode input impedances up into the 10 M-ohm range. CMRR in balanced audio inputs will rarely be the published "spec" because testing is also done unrealistically. I've written several AES papers about this and, in 1999, persuaded the IEC to change its test standard for CMRR in audio gear. The crap diff-amps in audio gear, as well as circuits promoted by TI and others, have tarnished the reputation of balanced audio interfaces! See my papers at www.jensen-transformers.com." Bill Whitlock, Life Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society and Life Senior Member of the IEEE
Anonymous -November 04, 2009
Hi Bob: I enjoy your column and hope to see you at the DeAnza/Foothill Flea Market next year. I have bought a few books from you in the past. In my large collection of vintage ICs I have some Teledyne Philbrick parts with the number 700836. It is a 24 pin ceramic package with a metal top. It looks like a hybrid A/D. Do you know what it is? Below the part number is printed 16-159426-1. They came from ESL. I bought everything when it was auctioned off several years ago.
Bill Ogilvie -November 02, 2009
Your Comments:
Enter the text from the image below
Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.
Search Electronic Design
Email Newsletter
Sponsored By:
Electronic Design UPDATE provides readers with late-breaking news, opinions from industry experts, and timely technology stories. It's a unique opportunity to get your product message in front of engineers, engineering managers, and corporate managers while they're reading about critical information online.
Reprints
