Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71   Report Post  
Old June 16th 04, 07:46 PM
RHF
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Curmudgeon,

Since you are using a "Forged Header" )
.. . . Will Anybody Listen ?

ho, Ho. HO ! - Makes One Wonder ~ RHF
..
..
= = = curmudg@eon (Curmudgeon) wrote in message
= = = ...
On 15 Jun 2004 07:43:12 -0500, Dan wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:44:35 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
Jon Noring wrote:

I'm the one who started and cross-posted the related topics (of
building a tube-based AM receiver) to the three newsgroups, including
rec.radio.shortwave.


Nevertheless, I believe the threads are sufficiently on-topic to
r.r.s. to not warrant some pro-active effort to try to stop.

I've sent a complaint to your news provider. We will see if they think
the same way you do.


I just sent two complaints to about Telamon trying
to disrupt an on-topic discussion. I suggest everyone involved in
this thread do the same. Include a complete, abusive or threatening
messsage from Telamon including headers. They're not hard to find.

Dan
Grundig S800, S650, S700, YB400, YB550PE
Degen DE1102, Kaito KA1102
Drake R8, Radio Shack DX-440
E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1936)


I just sent 50 complaints to
.
Heh heh. That'll get their attention about the troll.

..
  #72   Report Post  
Old June 17th 04, 06:33 AM
Telamon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Steven Dinius) wrote:

Telamon wrote in message
...
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Dan wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:44:35 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
Jon Noring wrote:

I'm the one who started and cross-posted the related topics (of
building a tube-based AM receiver) to the three newsgroups,
including
rec.radio.shortwave.


Nevertheless, I believe the threads are sufficiently on-topic to
r.r.s. to not warrant some pro-active effort to try to stop.

I've sent a complaint to your news provider. We will see if they think
the same way you do.

I just sent two complaints to
about Telamon trying
to disrupt an on-topic discussion. I suggest everyone involved in
this thread do the same. Include a complete, abusive or threatening
messsage from Telamon including headers. They're not hard to find.

Heck, post it again!


Some people just don't know how to play nice.


You couldn't have said it better it yourself. Most of the sex groups
are in alt. Go jerk off in that corner.


You sound pretty knowledgeable about the sex groups and jerking off. Go
take your own advice.

Oh man. I just took a look at your posting history.

Besides being an expert on sex groups and jerking off you are also a
complete antisocial jackass. It will forever be a mystery to me how a
person demonstratively sociopathic as you make it through life. I mean
who the hell would have anything to do with you. Maybe this forum is the
only way you can get anyone to interact with you.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
  #73   Report Post  
Old June 17th 04, 06:50 AM
Telamon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Dan wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:34:08 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

Some people just don't know how to play nice.


No, some people don't, do you?


Generally yes but you don't.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
  #74   Report Post  
Old June 17th 04, 03:00 PM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven Swift" wrote in message
...

Hey, don't worry about the rrs gripers. We've discussed detectors there
before, and we will again.



Take a look at RDH4 page 1073.

Even with extreme design precautions you can't get much better than about

2%
(see page 1080-1081).


This guy calculates 0.4% distortion at 50% modulation and 1.6% distortion at
100% modulation.

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm

In a typical diode detector test circuit he measured 0.32% distortion at 50%
modulation and 2% distortion at 100% modulation.



To work, a diode detector has to "cut-off" for 1/2 the carrier cycle. This
requires that the diode always go through the "knee". A tube diode has a
voltage to the three-halves characteristic. A semiconductor diode has an
exponential characteries. Expand into a Taylor series, and look at the
first couple of terms. Distortion! Diodes as "multipliers" can be made

better.


How would a precision rectifier do?


I'll look for the analysis.

BTW, if you trickle current in a tube diode and keep the signal small, you
have built a "square-law" detector.


It's been my impression that the "knee" area of the curve is the
"square-law" area of the curve. Again, it's my impression that the crystal
set guys use foreward bias to get their detectors out of the "square-law"
area of the diode's curve in order to maximize sensitivity and minimize
distortion.


Not a diode detector. You can also see
this in the Taylor series.

Steve


Why isn't a forward biased diode not a diode detector?

Frank Dresser


  #75   Report Post  
Old June 17th 04, 04:57 PM
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Why isn't a forward biased diode not a diode detector?

Frank Dresser


It can be a detector.
The germanium diodes can have a tiny current to keep about
0.25 volts across them even with no signal.
the presence of a carrier with modulation or no modulation will cause a ripple
voltage into a cap, just like the signal at a power supply rectifier.

The ripple voltage is created by a small % of the 455kHz signal cycle
charging the C1 of the filter.

The amplitude of the carrier voltage varies at a slow speed of audio, and the
ripple voltage
stays the same value, and the detector audio signal closely follows the
shape of the modulation, ie, the audio is recovered linearly.

If you don't have any idle current in the diode, and drive the diode
off the end of a grounded IFT coil, then the ripple voltage varies a lot at low
signal,
when the R discharging the C1 of the filter has very little voltage across it.
So low level signals are very distorted by cut off distortion on the audio
cycles.

Patrick Turner.




  #76   Report Post  
Old June 24th 04, 12:57 PM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

The analysis on this web page is complete nonsense, at least for the type
of diode detector we are discussing here. We are concerned with
High-Fidelity envelope detectors, while the web page analyzes a perfect
square law detector. It starts the analysis of by giving the complete
diode equation, but then quickly says we will forget that and consider the
diode to be a perfect square law device, and not only that, but that it
will be used in some sort of unspecified circuit that maintains the
perfect square law response for the complete detector. I didn't check all
the math after the perfect square law assumption was made, but I will
assume he got it all correct. This type of analysis may have some
application to crystal set design, but not to the type of detectors we are
discussing.

He did compare his results with the results from a test circuit, but I
could find no indication of the signal level he made the measurements at,
perhaps I missed that. Even though the test circuit did include an RC
network type load as used in a peak detector, if he made the measurements
at low levels in the square law region of the diode, the capacitor would
not cause the diode to act as a linear peak detector.

The whole analysis on this web page is too simplistic and is irrelevant to
the subject at hand.


Regards,

John Byrns


He came up with actual numbers, which is more than most do. Anyway, I also
noticed that there was no mention of the actual voltages the detector was
being driven at.

As far as the square law stuff goes, Terman says a the distortion of a true
square law detector will be m/4. So 80% modulaton will result in 20%
distortion. He might have derived that number, I don't remember. I do
remember the bigger point, that is, that operation in the square law region
is to be minimized for AM radio detectors.

Although I do remember reading that any part of a diodes curve can be
characterized as part of a parabola. I don't know if that's really true or
not, or if I'm actually remembering it correctly. But such an assumption
works fine with the usual rules of diode detectors. Run the diode at a
reasonably high voltage to minimize operation below the knee area of the
curve. Run the diode into a reasonably high resistance to minimize the
effects of the variation in the straighter part of the curve. Keep the DC
and AC resistances in balance.

Frank Dresser



  #77   Report Post  
Old June 24th 04, 06:19 PM
John Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

The analysis on this web page is complete nonsense, at least for the type
of diode detector we are discussing here. We are concerned with
High-Fidelity envelope detectors, while the web page analyzes a perfect
square law detector. It starts the analysis of by giving the complete
diode equation, but then quickly says we will forget that and consider the
diode to be a perfect square law device, and not only that, but that it
will be used in some sort of unspecified circuit that maintains the
perfect square law response for the complete detector. I didn't check all
the math after the perfect square law assumption was made, but I will
assume he got it all correct. This type of analysis may have some
application to crystal set design, but not to the type of detectors we are
discussing.

He did compare his results with the results from a test circuit, but I
could find no indication of the signal level he made the measurements at,
perhaps I missed that. Even though the test circuit did include an RC
network type load as used in a peak detector, if he made the measurements
at low levels in the square law region of the diode, the capacitor would
not cause the diode to act as a linear peak detector.

The whole analysis on this web page is too simplistic and is irrelevant to
the subject at hand.


Regards,

John Byrns


He came up with actual numbers, which is more than most do. Anyway, I also
noticed that there was no mention of the actual voltages the detector was
being driven at.

As far as the square law stuff goes, Terman says a the distortion of a true
square law detector will be m/4. So 80% modulaton will result in 20%
distortion. He might have derived that number, I don't remember.


Yes, that's exactly what I thought, given the analysis methodology he
seemed to be using on the web page, the distortion seemed way too low to
me. You have inspired me to take a closer look and see exactly what he
did, and where he went wrong, or if I have just misinterpreted his
methodology. I will report back in a few days time.

I do
remember the bigger point, that is, that operation in the square law region
is to be minimized for AM radio detectors.


Exactly, which is why I said that the apparent square law analysis given
on the web page was "complete nonsense" in the context of a High-Fidelity
AM receiver.

Although I do remember reading that any part of a diodes curve can be
characterized as part of a parabola.


Yes, I think that is essentially correct.

I don't know if that's really true or
not, or if I'm actually remembering it correctly. But such an assumption
works fine with the usual rules of diode detectors. Run the diode at a
reasonably high voltage to minimize operation below the knee area of the
curve. Run the diode into a reasonably high resistance to minimize the
effects of the variation in the straighter part of the curve. Keep the DC
and AC resistances in balance.


Some people say there is no "knee" in the diode curve, which follows from
your observation "that any part of a diodes curve can be characterized as
part of a parabola."

There is one more thing that contributes to linear operation of a diode
detector, and that is the peak hold capacitor. As long as the capacitor
charges to the peak envelope voltage, the shape of the diode curve getting
there doesn't matter much, whereas if you take the output of the raw diode
and average it by putting it through a low pass filter, then the curvature
of the diode characteristic greatly affects the linearity of the output.
Of course even with the peak hold capacitor there are still problems at
very low signal levels, and also with high negative modulation, and the
peak hold capacitor does introduce problems of its own like tangential
clipping when the modulation at high frequencies is high.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/
  #78   Report Post  
Old June 25th 04, 05:25 PM
John Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(John Byrns) wrote:

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

The whole analysis on this web page is too simplistic and is irrelevant to
the subject at hand.


He came up with actual numbers, which is more than most do. Anyway, I also
noticed that there was no mention of the actual voltages the detector was
being driven at.

As far as the square law stuff goes, Terman says a the distortion of a true
square law detector will be m/4. So 80% modulaton will result in 20%
distortion. He might have derived that number, I don't remember.


Yes, that's exactly what I thought, given the analysis methodology he
seemed to be using on the web page, the distortion seemed way too low to
me. You have inspired me to take a closer look and see exactly what he
did, and where he went wrong, or if I have just misinterpreted his
methodology. I will report back in a few days time.


OK, I have taken a closer look at the analysis on the web page at this URL:
http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm
and it is more screwed up than I thought.

The analysis starts with the Shockley diode equation, and then the
exponential power series equivalent to the Shockley equation is stated as
equation #2. At this point the author "examines" the second power
component of the equation, not quite making it clear that is all he is
going to examine, and will base the entire analysis on only the second
power component of the diode characteristic. An equation for the output
of a square law diode is given as equation #4, which is derived by
squaring the equation representing a carrier AM modulated by a single
tone. Equation #4 actually represents the V/I characteristic of a square
law diode, and does not necessarily represent the output of such a diode,
but we will accept it as such for the purposes of this analysis.

After considerable mathematical manipulation and six more equations the
author comes to the final diode output in equation #9, and after low pass
filtering to eliminate the carrier and carrier terms in the output he
comes to equation #10 which represents the demodulated signal output from
the detector. The author's equation #10 is:

(10) m(t) = (m**2)/4 + m*cos wmt + (m**2)/8[cos 2wmt]

The authors derivation of equation #9 from equation #4 was too convoluted
for me to easily follow, so I did my own derivation which required only
two intermediate steps rather than the 5 steps the author required, my
result for equation #10 was:

(10) m(t) = 1/2 + (m**2)/4 + m*sin wmt - (m**2)/4[cos 2wmt]

Neglecting the sin in place of cos for the main modulation term, and the
sign on the second harmonic term, we notice that the author lost the DC
term somewhere, and his second harmonic term is half of mine with an 8 in
the denominator rather than the 4 I derived. These differences could be
due to errors in my derivation, which often happen on the first pass, but
considering that my distortion result, discussed next, is the same as
Terman's, it seems likely that 4 is the correct value for the denominator
of the second harmonic term. I plan to eventually try to plow through the
authors derivation of equation #9 to see where he made his errors.

The error in the denominator would only account for a factor of two in the
distortion percentage, but he compounds the error when he calculates
distortion as power ratio rather than a voltage ratio which I believe is
conventional.

Taking the ratio between the amplitude of the fundamental, m*cos wmt, and
the amplitude of the second harmonic, (m**2)/8[cos 2wmt] and squaring the
author comes up with his equation #12 for percent distortion:

(12) THD (%) = (((m**2)/8)**2)/(m**2)) * 100, or ((m**2)/64) *100

which yields 1% distortion at 80% modulation and 1.5625% distortion at
100% modulation.

My version of equation #12, based on the ratio of the fundamental, m*sin
wmt, and the amplitude of the second harmonic, (m**2)/4[cos 2wmt] becomes:

(12) THD (%) = ((m**2)/4)/m) * 100, or (m/4) *100

which yields 20% distortion at 80% modulation and 25% distortion at 100%
modulation. These results show distortion more than an order of magnitude
greater than the distortion figures calculated on the web page. Note that
my result is in agreement with Terman's result at 80% modulation, as
quoted above, which leads me to suspect that I didn't make any serious
mathematical errors in my derivation. The errors in the web page author's
analysis stem from two sources, first the amplitude of the second harmonic
term is too small by a factor of two due to an error or some sort in the
derivation of the equation. The second cause of the error is due to the
fact that the web page author expresses distortion as a power ration
rather than the conventional voltage ratio.

Now of course all this is for a perfect square law detector, which does
not apply to what we have been talking about, which is a peak envelope
detector. The peak envelope detector which is considerably more difficult
to analyze, which probably explains why the author of the web page didn't
even try, and some authorities have gone so far as to say the problem is
so complex that it is basically intractable to rigorous mathematical
analysis.

I hope I didn't make too many typos in this, please let me know if I did
so I can correct them when I post the results of my analysis of exactly
where the author's derivation went wrong.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/
  #79   Report Post  
Old June 25th 04, 10:51 PM
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default


OK, I have taken a closer look at the analysis on the web page at this URL:
http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm
and it is more screwed up than I thought.


snip a vastly complex and incomprehensible disputation of the
largely incomprehensible text and formulae at
http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm

About all we want is low distortion detection, and it matters noe that we
cannot follow all this mathematical analysis.

There is no mention of the output voltages measured with respect to
the % of modulation.

But anyway, a table at the conclusion of the article
gives the thd at various %m, :-

Modulation
Index (%) THD
(%)
10 1.02
25 0.08
50 0.32
100 2.0
150 6.3

Table 2 - Measured Total
Harmonic Distortion Versus
Modulation Index

But we dunno what the output voltages are, and no doubt the
thd results would be very different if the output voltage was 10v instead of say 1v
at 10% modulation, especially with a solid state diode.

From the test circuit shown, there is no bias current flow in the diode to keep it
turned on even
without an RF signal to demodulate.
This would also reduce thd.

Nobody needs to know math involved with diode detectors
to get much lower thd than is realised in most old fashioned and attrocious tube
detector stages in
conventional AM radios.

Patrick Turner

  #80   Report Post  
Old June 26th 04, 05:24 PM
John Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Patrick Turner
wrote:


OK, I have taken a closer look at the analysis on the web page at this URL:
http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm
and it is more screwed up than I thought.


snip a vastly complex and incomprehensible disputation of the
largely incomprehensible text and formulae at
http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/diodedistortion.htm

About all we want is low distortion detection, and it matters noe that we
cannot follow all this mathematical analysis.


Indeed, my original point was simply that the analysis on that web page,
which had been mentioned in this thread as being somehow relevant, was
actually totally irrelevant because it dealt with a square law detector,
not a linear diode peak envelope detector as is commonly used in
High-Fidelity AM receivers. It was then pointed out in this thread that
the conclusion of the web page did not agree with Treman's calculations
for the square law detector. My "incomprehensible disputation" was simply
to tie up the loose ends and show where the web page went wrong on its
square law detector analysis, which would still have been irrelevant to
High-Fidelity designs even if it had been done correctly.

There is no mention of the output voltages measured with respect to
the % of modulation.


I pointed out that very fact in my first post about this web page, that no
details were given of the operational under which the experimental results
were measured.

With respect to the square law detector analysis, the voltage level
doesn't matter, square law is square law irrespective of the carrier
level, so the distortion doesn't change with signal level in an ideal
square law detector, it only changes with the modulation percentage.

From the test circuit shown, there is no bias current flow in the diode

to keep it
turned on even
without an RF signal to demodulate.
This would also reduce thd.


You have still haven't enlightened us with some concrete information about
how much, if at all, your biased diode detector really helps reduce the
distortion of the diode peak envelope detector. I haven't looked at
biased diodes as AM detectors myself, although I am given to understand
that the proper bias can reduce the distortion of a diode peak envelope
detector, but I am also given to understand that the proper bias is
dependent on signal level, which requires a complex circuit to cause the
bias to maintain the proper relationship to the signal level. Although I
haven't seen it mentioned, I would assume that a very tight AGC circuit
would also serve to allow a fixed bias to be applied to the diode. I
would think that if a simple bias scheme such as yours really
significantly helped lower the detector distortion, we would have seen
more implementations of this idea in high quality receivers over the
years. There have certainly been plenty of expensive AM receivers built
over the years, that didn't skimp on the parts count, where an extra
resistor or two, to bias the diode wouldn't break the bank. That is not
to say that I haven't seen cheap transistor radios that had biased
detectors, but it never seemed to be actively pursued in the better AM
receivers of the tube era.

You could better make your point if you posted a couple of graphs for
distortion vs. signal level for a diode detector, with and without bias,
and for several modulation levels, maybe 80% and 100%.

Nobody needs to know math involved with diode detectors
to get much lower thd than is realised in most old fashioned and

attrocious tube
detector stages in
conventional AM radios.


Well you are probably right about that, but for a completely different
reason than you have in mind.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems Paul Policy 0 January 10th 05 06:41 PM
Drake TR-3 transceiver synthesizer upgrade Gene Gardner Homebrew 2 January 15th 04 03:17 AM
Drake TR-3 transceiver synthesizer upgrade Gene Gardner Homebrew 0 January 13th 04 06:28 PM
a page of motorola 2way 2 way portable and mobile radio history john private smith Policy 0 December 22nd 03 03:42 AM
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? lbbs Antenna 16 December 13th 03 04:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017