Re: Detector/diode question

[reach me through the sonic server]

Many detectors using diodes have an active bias voltage/current applied.
An Autek WM-1 peak reading watt meter is a great circuit of said.

cheers
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu

: Clifton T. Sharp Jr. > wrote:
: I was going through my bookmarks when I came upon one about diodes
: (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>). In his
: third paragraph, the author asserts:

: For RF diode detectors to work, one needs a device that has a
: non-linear V/I curve. In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
: must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
: steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
: at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.

: If there's any truth to this, someone please enlighten me. I've always
: been of the belief that an envelope detector diode would be most perfect
: if the diode was a perfect switch, i.e. zero attoamps reverse current
: and perfectly linear forward current (as though the diode was a wire
: during the forward conduction period). I don't see how a changing slope
: during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
: demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.

: --
: The function of an asshole is to emit quantities of crap. Spammers do
: a very good job of that. However, I do object to my inbox being a
: spammer's toilet bowl. -- Walter Dnes

[Joe McElvenney]

Hi,

> For RF diode detectors to work, one needs a device that has a
> non-linear V/I curve. In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
>
> If there's any truth to this, someone please enlighten me. I've always
> been of the belief that an envelope detector diode would be most perfect
> if the diode was a perfect switch, i.e. zero attoamps reverse current
> and perfectly linear forward current (as though the diode was a wire
> during the forward conduction period). I don't see how a changing slope
> during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.

You believe correctly! A diode detector is nothing much more than a
rectifier and should be characterised accordingly. Curvature of the
forward characteristic has to be lived with and is not something generally
to be desired. There are exceptions to this where the law of the initial
curvature is employed in certain instruments but not usually in
demodulating an AM signal.

However, with very weak signals a small degree of forward biassing is
sometimes employed to obtain the greatest recovered audio. This comes
about because the positive peaks are driven onto the greatest slope while
the negative ones, which would normally distract from the charge on the
load capacitor, are placed on the flatter part below the bias point and so
not recovered so well.


Cheers - Joe

[Joe McElvenney]

Hi,

> For RF diode detectors to work, one needs a device that has a
> non-linear V/I curve. In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
>
> If there's any truth to this, someone please enlighten me. I've always
> been of the belief that an envelope detector diode would be most perfect
> if the diode was a perfect switch, i.e. zero attoamps reverse current
> and perfectly linear forward current (as though the diode was a wire
> during the forward conduction period). I don't see how a changing slope
> during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.

You believe correctly! A diode detector is nothing much more than a
rectifier and should be characterised accordingly. Curvature of the
forward characteristic has to be lived with and is not something generally
to be desired. There are exceptions to this where the law of the initial
curvature is employed in certain instruments but not usually in
demodulating an AM signal.

However, with very weak signals a small degree of forward biassing is
sometimes employed to obtain the greatest recovered audio. This comes
about because the positive peaks are driven onto the greatest slope while
the negative ones, which would normally distract from the charge on the
load capacitor, are placed on the flatter part below the bias point and so
not recovered so well.


Cheers - Joe

[John R. Strohm]

"Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote in message
...
> I was going through my bookmarks when I came upon one about diodes
> (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>). In his
> third paragraph, the author asserts:
>
> For RF diode detectors to work, one needs a device that has a
> non-linear V/I curve. In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
>
> If there's any truth to this, someone please enlighten me. I've always
> been of the belief that an envelope detector diode would be most perfect
> if the diode was a perfect switch, i.e. zero attoamps reverse current
> and perfectly linear forward current (as though the diode was a wire
> during the forward conduction period). I don't see how a changing slope
> during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.

Dude, you and they are talking about the exact same thing.

Think about the V-I curve on an ideal diode. Observe that, if the diode is
reverse-biased, no conduction takes place. In principle, you can crank the
reverse voltage up as high as you like, and STILL no conduction takes place.
(In practice, you run into avalanche and zener breakdown.) If the diode is
forward-biased, the diode conducts like crazy. There is a CORNER in the
curve, i.e. a change in the slope of the V/I curve, at NOMINALLY V=0V.
(Actually, V=0.7V for silicon, V=0.3V for germanium, V=1.7V for red LEDs,
about 2.2V for yellow, about 2.4V for green, and so on and so forth...)

[John R. Strohm]

"Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote in message
...
> I was going through my bookmarks when I came upon one about diodes
> (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>). In his
> third paragraph, the author asserts:
>
> For RF diode detectors to work, one needs a device that has a
> non-linear V/I curve. In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
>
> If there's any truth to this, someone please enlighten me. I've always
> been of the belief that an envelope detector diode would be most perfect
> if the diode was a perfect switch, i.e. zero attoamps reverse current
> and perfectly linear forward current (as though the diode was a wire
> during the forward conduction period). I don't see how a changing slope
> during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.

Dude, you and they are talking about the exact same thing.

Think about the V-I curve on an ideal diode. Observe that, if the diode is
reverse-biased, no conduction takes place. In principle, you can crank the
reverse voltage up as high as you like, and STILL no conduction takes place.
(In practice, you run into avalanche and zener breakdown.) If the diode is
forward-biased, the diode conducts like crazy. There is a CORNER in the
curve, i.e. a change in the slope of the V/I curve, at NOMINALLY V=0V.
(Actually, V=0.7V for silicon, V=0.3V for germanium, V=1.7V for red LEDs,
about 2.2V for yellow, about 2.4V for green, and so on and so forth...)

[Clifton T. Sharp Jr.]

John R. Strohm wrote:
> "Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote...
> > (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>).
> >
> > In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> > must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> > steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> > at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
> >
> > I don't see how a changing slope
> > during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> > demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.
>
> Think about the V-I curve on an ideal diode. Observe that, if the diode is
> reverse-biased, no conduction takes place. In principle, you can crank the
> reverse voltage up as high as you like, and STILL no conduction takes place.
> (In practice, you run into avalanche and zener breakdown.) If the diode is
> forward-biased, the diode conducts like crazy. There is a CORNER in the
> curve, i.e. a change in the slope of the V/I curve, at NOMINALLY V=0V.
> (Actually, V=0.7V for silicon, V=0.3V for germanium, V=1.7V for red LEDs,
> about 2.2V for yellow, about 2.4V for green, and so on and so forth...)

I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
my detector diode is the noncontinuous function

| Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
Vout = |
| 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts

....while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,

"The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
operating point."

Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
distort the output envelope.

He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.

--
The function of an asshole is to emit quantities of crap. Spammers do
a very good job of that. However, I do object to my inbox being a
spammer's toilet bowl. -- Walter Dnes

[Clifton T. Sharp Jr.]

John R. Strohm wrote:
> "Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote...
> > (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>).
> >
> > In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> > must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> > steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> > at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
> >
> > I don't see how a changing slope
> > during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> > demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.
>
> Think about the V-I curve on an ideal diode. Observe that, if the diode is
> reverse-biased, no conduction takes place. In principle, you can crank the
> reverse voltage up as high as you like, and STILL no conduction takes place.
> (In practice, you run into avalanche and zener breakdown.) If the diode is
> forward-biased, the diode conducts like crazy. There is a CORNER in the
> curve, i.e. a change in the slope of the V/I curve, at NOMINALLY V=0V.
> (Actually, V=0.7V for silicon, V=0.3V for germanium, V=1.7V for red LEDs,
> about 2.2V for yellow, about 2.4V for green, and so on and so forth...)

I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
my detector diode is the noncontinuous function

| Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
Vout = |
| 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts

....while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,

"The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
operating point."

Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
distort the output envelope.

He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.

--
The function of an asshole is to emit quantities of crap. Spammers do
a very good job of that. However, I do object to my inbox being a
spammer's toilet bowl. -- Walter Dnes

[Clifton T. Sharp Jr.]

reach me through the sonic server wrote:
> : Clifton T. Sharp Jr. > wrote:
> : (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>).
> :
> : For RF diode detectors to work, one needs a device that has a
> : non-linear V/I curve. In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> : must change as a function of applied Voltage.
>
> : If there's any truth to this, someone please enlighten me. I've always
> : been of the belief that an envelope detector diode would be most perfect
> : if the diode was a perfect switch, i.e. zero attoamps reverse current
> : and perfectly linear forward current (as though the diode was a wire
> : during the forward conduction period). I don't see how a changing slope
> : during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> : demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.
>
> Many detectors using diodes have an active bias voltage/current applied.
> An Autek WM-1 peak reading watt meter is a great circuit of said.

And that removes a lot of the nonlinearity (especially by no longer
chopping the bottom 0.2V off the input signal). But this author seems to
be saying that detection can't work without that nonlinearity.

--
The function of an asshole is to emit quantities of crap. Spammers do
a very good job of that. However, I do object to my inbox being a
spammer's toilet bowl. -- Walter Dnes

[Clifton T. Sharp Jr.]

reach me through the sonic server wrote:
> : Clifton T. Sharp Jr. > wrote:
> : (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>).
> :
> : For RF diode detectors to work, one needs a device that has a
> : non-linear V/I curve. In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> : must change as a function of applied Voltage.
>
> : If there's any truth to this, someone please enlighten me. I've always
> : been of the belief that an envelope detector diode would be most perfect
> : if the diode was a perfect switch, i.e. zero attoamps reverse current
> : and perfectly linear forward current (as though the diode was a wire
> : during the forward conduction period). I don't see how a changing slope
> : during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> : demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.
>
> Many detectors using diodes have an active bias voltage/current applied.
> An Autek WM-1 peak reading watt meter is a great circuit of said.

And that removes a lot of the nonlinearity (especially by no longer
chopping the bottom 0.2V off the input signal). But this author seems to
be saying that detection can't work without that nonlinearity.

--
The function of an asshole is to emit quantities of crap. Spammers do
a very good job of that. However, I do object to my inbox being a
spammer's toilet bowl. -- Walter Dnes

[Roy Lewallen]

You're right. The author is wrong.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
> my detector diode is the noncontinuous function
>
> | Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
> Vout = |
> | 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
>
> ...while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
> just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,
>
> "The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
> shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
> operating point."
>
> Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
> that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
> envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
> distort the output envelope.
>
> He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
> I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.
>

[Roy Lewallen]

You're right. The author is wrong.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
> my detector diode is the noncontinuous function
>
> | Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
> Vout = |
> | 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
>
> ...while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
> just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,
>
> "The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
> shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
> operating point."
>
> Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
> that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
> envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
> distort the output envelope.
>
> He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
> I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.
>

[Frank Dresser]

"Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
> my detector diode is the noncontinuous function
>
> | Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
> Vout = |
> | 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
>
> ...while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
> just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,
>
> "The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
> shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
> operating point."

Am I missing the contradiction? Say you have a quiescent operating point of
0V. An ideal diode would have an infinately high slope above that point and
a 0 slope below that point. Or vice-versa. That seems to fit the given
statement.

Real world diodes have differing ideal q-points and variable slopes. And
most of the other articles seem to be aimed at getting the most out of such
diodes.

>
> Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
> that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
> envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
> distort the output envelope.

I think your perfect diode analysis is correct. I think the only
nonlinearity the author requires is around a q-point. I don't get the
impression the author requires a diode to have a variable slope
characteristic at other voltages.

>
> He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
> I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.

The author's last revision was on 07/2/2003, so he must still have an
interest. I suppose you could send him an e-mail. The address is the first
item in article #1.
>
> --
Frank Dresser

[Frank Dresser]

"Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
> my detector diode is the noncontinuous function
>
> | Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
> Vout = |
> | 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
>
> ...while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
> just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,
>
> "The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
> shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
> operating point."

Am I missing the contradiction? Say you have a quiescent operating point of
0V. An ideal diode would have an infinately high slope above that point and
a 0 slope below that point. Or vice-versa. That seems to fit the given
statement.

Real world diodes have differing ideal q-points and variable slopes. And
most of the other articles seem to be aimed at getting the most out of such
diodes.

>
> Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
> that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
> envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
> distort the output envelope.

I think your perfect diode analysis is correct. I think the only
nonlinearity the author requires is around a q-point. I don't get the
impression the author requires a diode to have a variable slope
characteristic at other voltages.

>
> He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
> I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.

The author's last revision was on 07/2/2003, so he must still have an
interest. I suppose you could send him an e-mail. The address is the first
item in article #1.
>
> --
Frank Dresser

[Tom Bruhns]

"Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote in message >...
> John R. Strohm wrote:
> > "Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote...
> > > (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>).
> > >
> > > In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> > > must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> > > steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> > > at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
> > >
> > > I don't see how a changing slope
> > > during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> > > demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.
> >
> > Think about the V-I curve on an ideal diode. Observe that, if the diode is
> > reverse-biased, no conduction takes place. In principle, you can crank the
> > reverse voltage up as high as you like, and STILL no conduction takes place.
> > (In practice, you run into avalanche and zener breakdown.) If the diode is
> > forward-biased, the diode conducts like crazy. There is a CORNER in the
> > curve, i.e. a change in the slope of the V/I curve, at NOMINALLY V=0V.
> > (Actually, V=0.7V for silicon, V=0.3V for germanium, V=1.7V for red LEDs,
> > about 2.2V for yellow, about 2.4V for green, and so on and so forth...)
>
> I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
> my detector diode is the noncontinuous function
>
> | Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
> Vout = |
> | 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
>
> ...while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
> just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,
>
> "The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
> shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
> operating point."
>
> Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
> that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
> envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
> distort the output envelope.
>
> He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
> I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.

I think you and the author are saying the same thing. Consider that
in your ideal diode case, the quiescent operating point is zero volts.
Above that, the slope of your diode is infinte (zero ohms) and below
that it's zero (infinite ohms). The author is suggesting that you do
NOT need it to be so sharp, and in fact, I find that I can detect RF
down to below 100 microvolts or so with a Schottky diode designed for
zero-bias detector service, though the output voltage is very tiny
down there. If I could buy one of your perfect diodes, 100uV (RMS) of
RF would give me around 141uV of output, instead of the sub-microvolt
I do get. The low output is the result, of course, of the fact that
the diode dynamic resistance at -140uV is only very slightly different
from its dynamic resistance at +140uV.

In a real diode, the change in slope is gradual with no sharp corners,
but if you could find a diode which looked like, say, 1000 ohms in the
reverse direction for all voltages and 1000.1 ohms in the forward
direction, it would still work as a detector, albeit a poor one.

Cheers,
Tom

[Tom Bruhns]

"Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote in message >...
> John R. Strohm wrote:
> > "Clifton T. Sharp Jr." > wrote...
> > > (<http://uweb.superlink.net/bhtongue/7diodeCv/7diodeCv.html>).
> > >
> > > In other words, the slope of the V/I curve
> > > must change as a function of applied Voltage. The slope must be
> > > steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and shallower (or steeper)
> > > at lower voltages than at the quiescent operating point.
> > >
> > > I don't see how a changing slope
> > > during forward conduction could do anything other than distort the
> > > demodulated waveform, especially on tiny signals.
> >
> > Think about the V-I curve on an ideal diode. Observe that, if the diode is
> > reverse-biased, no conduction takes place. In principle, you can crank the
> > reverse voltage up as high as you like, and STILL no conduction takes place.
> > (In practice, you run into avalanche and zener breakdown.) If the diode is
> > forward-biased, the diode conducts like crazy. There is a CORNER in the
> > curve, i.e. a change in the slope of the V/I curve, at NOMINALLY V=0V.
> > (Actually, V=0.7V for silicon, V=0.3V for germanium, V=1.7V for red LEDs,
> > about 2.2V for yellow, about 2.4V for green, and so on and so forth...)
>
> I'm not sure I was clear on my question. The only nonlinearity I want in
> my detector diode is the noncontinuous function
>
> | Vin when Vin >= 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
> Vout = |
> | 0 when Vin < 0.000000 micronanofemtoattovolts
>
> ...while the author seems to be saying that the nonlinearity which exists
> just above the barrier voltage is essential to detection. He does say,
>
> "The slope must be steeper (or shallower) at higher voltages and
> shallower (or steeper) at lower voltages than at the quiescent
> operating point."
>
> Given my perfect diode and (let's say) a 0.25V peak signal, I contend
> that my output envelope will be an exact reproduction of the input
> envelope; but (see his graph #2) his required nonlinearity will seriously
> distort the output envelope.
>
> He seems to be saying that without that, you can't demodulate the signal.
> I assert that without that, I demodulated it better than he did.

I think you and the author are saying the same thing. Consider that
in your ideal diode case, the quiescent operating point is zero volts.
Above that, the slope of your diode is infinte (zero ohms) and below
that it's zero (infinite ohms). The author is suggesting that you do
NOT need it to be so sharp, and in fact, I find that I can detect RF
down to below 100 microvolts or so with a Schottky diode designed for
zero-bias detector service, though the output voltage is very tiny
down there. If I could buy one of your perfect diodes, 100uV (RMS) of
RF would give me around 141uV of output, instead of the sub-microvolt
I do get. The low output is the result, of course, of the fact that
the diode dynamic resistance at -140uV is only very slightly different
from its dynamic resistance at +140uV.

In a real diode, the change in slope is gradual with no sharp corners,
but if you could find a diode which looked like, say, 1000 ohms in the
reverse direction for all voltages and 1000.1 ohms in the forward
direction, it would still work as a detector, albeit a poor one.

Cheers,
Tom

[Rob Judd]

Tom Bruhns wrote:
> In a real diode, the change in slope is gradual with no sharp corners,
> but if you could find a diode which looked like, say, 1000 ohms in the
> reverse direction for all voltages and 1000.1 ohms in the forward
> direction, it would still work as a detector, albeit a poor one.

Son, that's called a Selenium rectifier.

Goddam newbies. :)

Rob

[Rob Judd]

Tom Bruhns wrote:
> In a real diode, the change in slope is gradual with no sharp corners,
> but if you could find a diode which looked like, say, 1000 ohms in the
> reverse direction for all voltages and 1000.1 ohms in the forward
> direction, it would still work as a detector, albeit a poor one.

Son, that's called a Selenium rectifier.

Goddam newbies. :)

Rob

[Tom Bruhns]

Rob Judd > wrote in message >...
> Tom Bruhns wrote:
> > In a real diode, the change in slope is gradual with no sharp corners,
> > but if you could find a diode which looked like, say, 1000 ohms in the
> > reverse direction for all voltages and 1000.1 ohms in the forward
> > direction, it would still work as a detector, albeit a poor one.
>
> Son, that's called a Selenium rectifier.
>
> Goddam newbies. :)

Now if you'd mentioned copper oxide, I might have been mildly
impressed... ;-) Seems like there were some iron based ones, too.
And then there's the coherer...

Not all early detectors were insensitive, however. Have a look at the
Marconi detector which uses a moving magnetic band. Seems like we had
a thread here about it a few years ago, and there was a nice article
about it in EW+WW.

All the seleniums I ever used ('cept for the shorted ones) worked a
whole lot better than 10001:10000!

Cheers,
Tom

[Tom Bruhns]

Rob Judd > wrote in message >...
> Tom Bruhns wrote:
> > In a real diode, the change in slope is gradual with no sharp corners,
> > but if you could find a diode which looked like, say, 1000 ohms in the
> > reverse direction for all voltages and 1000.1 ohms in the forward
> > direction, it would still work as a detector, albeit a poor one.
>
> Son, that's called a Selenium rectifier.
>
> Goddam newbies. :)

Now if you'd mentioned copper oxide, I might have been mildly
impressed... ;-) Seems like there were some iron based ones, too.
And then there's the coherer...

Not all early detectors were insensitive, however. Have a look at the
Marconi detector which uses a moving magnetic band. Seems like we had
a thread here about it a few years ago, and there was a nice article
about it in EW+WW.

All the seleniums I ever used ('cept for the shorted ones) worked a
whole lot better than 10001:10000!

Cheers,
Tom

[Clifton T. Sharp Jr.]

Tom Bruhns wrote:
> All the seleniums I ever used ('cept for the shorted ones) worked a
> whole lot better than 10001:10000!

All the seleniums I noticed (in TV service, that is) didn't... which
leads us to that unforgettable smell from a failed one. Ghufph.

--
The function of an asshole is to emit quantities of crap. Spammers do
a very good job of that. However, I do object to my inbox being a
spammer's toilet bowl. -- Walter Dnes

[Clifton T. Sharp Jr.]

Tom Bruhns wrote:
> All the seleniums I ever used ('cept for the shorted ones) worked a
> whole lot better than 10001:10000!

All the seleniums I noticed (in TV service, that is) didn't... which
leads us to that unforgettable smell from a failed one. Ghufph.

--
The function of an asshole is to emit quantities of crap. Spammers do
a very good job of that. However, I do object to my inbox being a
spammer's toilet bowl. -- Walter Dnes

[Bill Higdon]

Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote:
> Tom Bruhns wrote:
>
>>All the seleniums I ever used ('cept for the shorted ones) worked a
>>whole lot better than 10001:10000!
>
>
> All the seleniums I noticed (in TV service, that is) didn't... which
> leads us to that unforgettable smell from a failed one. Ghufph.
>

Ah yes, that "bad" Garlic smell, great trouble shooting aid.
Bill Higdon

[Bill Higdon]

Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote:
> Tom Bruhns wrote:
>
>>All the seleniums I ever used ('cept for the shorted ones) worked a
>>whole lot better than 10001:10000!
>
>
> All the seleniums I noticed (in TV service, that is) didn't... which
> leads us to that unforgettable smell from a failed one. Ghufph.
>

Ah yes, that "bad" Garlic smell, great trouble shooting aid.
Bill Higdon