On 3/8/2015 9:53 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 3/8/2015 7:35 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Jeff wrote:

I will finally point out that your use of the term "slope detecting ADC"
is invalid. Google returns exactly 4 hits when this term is entered
with quotes. The name of this converter may have slope in it, but that
is because the circuit generates a slope, not because it is detecting a
slope. Please look up the circuit and use a proper name for it such as
integrating ADC or dual slope ADC. The integrating converter is not at
all sensitive to the slope of the input signal, otherwise it would not
be able to measure a DC signal which has a slope of zero.

I'm only replying so that others are not confused by your misstatements.



He is probably referring to a CVSD, otherwise known as a Delta Modulator.

Jeff

I don't think so. In fact, I have to say Jerry seems a bit confused in this
particular area, perhaps I have missed something.

ADC tend to have a sample and hold prior to the actual ADC convertor, thus
the value converted is that at the beginning of the sample period OR if
another approach to conversion is used, you get some kind of average over
the conversion period. (There are other techniques but those are the main
ones.)

If you think about, a S/H is required if the rate of change of the input
signal means it can change by 1/2 lsb during the conversion time for a SAR
ADC. This limits the overall BW of the ADC process. (I recall spending
some time convincing a 'seat of the pants engineer' of this when his design
wouldn't work. Even when he adopted the suggested changes he insisted his
design would have worked if the ADC was more accurate. In fact, it would
have made it worse.)


No, Brian, I am not confused. It is a form of delta modulation, but is
used in an ADC. Two samples are taken, 2 or more times the sample rate
(i.e. if the sample rate were 20us, the first sample would be taken
every 20us, with the second sample following by 10us or less). The
difference is converted to a digital value for transmission. On the
other end, the reverse happens.

Yes, the signal can change by 1/2 lsb - but that's true of any ADC.

For any sufficiently high sample rate (i.e. 3x input signal or more),
this method is never less accurate than a simple voltage detecting ADC,
and in almost every case is more accurate. However, it is a more
complex circuit (on both ends), samples a much smaller analog value and
requires more exacting components and a higher cost (which is typically
the case for any circuit improvements).

As I said - we studied them in one of my EE coursed back in the 70's. I
played with them for a while back then, but at the time the ICs were
pretty expensive for a college student.


Ok Jerry. You can, of course, find the rate of change (slope) by that
method if you know ( or assume) the signal is either only increasing or
decreasing between the samples. (A Nyquist matter).


Even if the slope is neither increasing nor decreasing, it still has a
slope. That slope happens to be zero.

And with a sufficiently small time between samples, you will be very
close, even if the amplitude is not just increasing or decreasing. But
then sampling just the voltage assumes the voltage increases or
decreases linearly between samples. Again, the shorter the time between
samples (successive samples in this case), the closer that will be to
the actual signal.

However, the 1/2 lsb matter I mentioned is more for during the conversion,
rather that for different samples. It is particularly important for slower
ADC types, such as SAR implementations.


It's a problem with any ADC converter, and one to which there is no
answer. To perfectly recreate an analog signal you would have to have
an infinite number of bits (actually, some current physics theories
suggest everything can be broken into discreet pieces - even time, but
that's beyond this discussion). Anything short of an infinite number of
bits would always suffer from 1/2 lsb error.

It may well be that we are talking at crossed purposes. I'm not making an
issue of it.


Not really; you are correct with the 1/2 lsb, as I indicated.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================