"Avery Fineman" wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve Nosko"
writes:
Len,

This is actually _not_ the case as Joe (W3JDR), says.

Heh heh, another one of those "long days..." :-)


Sorry. Wasn't trying to even get some smoldering embers, Len. My
purpose was simply to report that the charge pump concept changes the loop
operation from what you had been describing to what Joe had been describing.
I, indeed, did jump into this somewhere in the middle as, thinking back
now, I don't recall having read the OP... Typical, eh?


I'm not going into control loops per se or argue formalized "types"
here.

Yes, as I was typing my 'type stuff' , I was also thinking..."Gee, this
is a typical go-off-and get-into-areas/detail-not-required-by-the-original
(as I thought it was) subject.


... "inarguable" case......and no other argument is allowed. :-)

Yea. I didn't care for the strong wording Joe used. Joe's description was
in line with my experience, just his delivery...well. Sorry Joe. I hope I
didn't say something to that effect...


... Was not
the time to rub it in that my "unworkable" design did, indeed,
work. :-)

But must have been hard to resist...


[if anyone thinks control loops are an "easy" thing describable in a
few words...well, I don't think they've been really involved with such
hardware...but that's only my opinion]

My standard saying in control theory was something to the effect that
you had to put your normal fundamental sense about what is going on in
electronic theory in your back pocket.
I've spent months fighting spurs (well one anyway--I'm not that
bad--besedes it was early in my career), with everything filtered
imaginable, just to cut some ground plating in desparation to solve the
problem...


Still an Engineer and still cant spel, 73 & have a shorter day, Steve K 9 D
C I