View Single Post
  #26   Report Post  
Old August 5th 17, 04:01 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,uk.rec.models.engineering,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Peter Fairbrother Peter Fairbrother is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2017
Posts: 2
Default A mechanical phase locked loop!

On 05/08/17 14:34, Chris wrote:
On 08/05/17 09:45, Jeff wrote:


Rubbish, the function of a phase locked loop is to keep the phase of the
2 signals the same, within the constraints of the loop filter.

The clock *never* achieves this, it is open loop and applies a 'kick' to
one pendulum the amplitude of which is NOT related to the difference in
phase of the 2 pendulums.


The amplitude is not, but the frequency is - why do you think the
amplitude should be related to the difference in phase?

A fixed kick is given without any knowledge that it will be of the
correct amplitude to achieve an in phase or near in phase condition.
There is NO feedback of an error signal that relates to the phase
difference between the 2 pendulums.


Ah, yes there is, see below.

The only time phase comes into the picture is the timing of when the
'kick' is given, so as not to disrupt the normal swing of the pendulum,
and whether or not to give a kick at all.


Are you referring to the kick given to the master pendulum? That is not
part of the PLL system. The kicks given to the master pendulum are
specifically designed not to affect the phase of the master pendulum at all.

If not, if you are referring to the kick given to the slave pendulum
(these are quite different kicks) that is not how the clock works.

The slave pendulum is kicked from time to time, ad kicked a little more
often when the phases get too far apart - the difference in phases is
the error signal mentioned above - and these kicks do affect the phase
of the slave pendulum.



Exactly. The control is single path, master to slave, with no feedback
to the reference, making it an open loop design. The master has no
knowledge of the state of the slave at any time.


That is exactly what a PLL is - and it is almost (though not quite) what
this clock does. It is certainly what the slave does.

In a pll, there is continuous


Not necessarily continuous - a bang-bang action is allowable, and does
not prevent a system from being a PLL.

feedback from the vco to the phase
detector, closing the loop and keeping the phase offset constant,


A PLL does not necessarily keep the phase offset constant, just within
the interval =/- 2pi.

The phase is continuously updated every cycle,


Not necessarily continuously updated, or updated every cycle - as long
as the offset is continuously within the range -2pi to 2pi, the phases
are locked.

whereas the Shortt
clock can have significant accumulated error in the time between
corrections...


Yes - but that doesn't mean it is not a PLL, as long as the error is
less than +/- 2pi.



A phase-locked loop is a system which produces a (slave) vibration the
integral of whose phase in comparison to the phase of another (master)
vibration is continuously between -2pi and 2pi over long periods.

A last requirement is that the phase-locked loop system should have no
effect whatsoever on the master vibration. That's it.

If it does that, the phases are locked - they may not be tightly locked,
but the vibrations do not skip or add beats.

More advanced PLLs might keep the difference between phases much
smaller, as in this clock - but that is not a requirement of a PLL.
There is no such thing as absolutely tightly locked, there is only
unlocked or locked.

Neither is continuous updating necessary, though the integral should be
continuously in that interval.

In this clock the hit-and-miss synchroniser action undoubtedly does act
as a PLL.

However it might be argued that the slave does subsequently have some
(very small) input to the master, when it operates the gravity drive
(whuzzat? I am not a clockmaker).

That certainly has an effect on the amplitude of the master; although as
the idea an intention and practical effect is that it has no effect
whatsoever on the phase of the master, thus the slave clock action
overall most definitely should be considered a PLL.

-- Peter Fairbrother

ps; the +/- 2pi bit is not really a requirement either, as long as the
system can keep count of the missing/extra beats - but as most systems
don't do that we shall just gracefully ignore that for now ..