Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
Actually even single ended digital inputs don't have much hysteresis unless they are designed for that. Well, as a proportion if they only go high above soem fairly close approach to V+, then low when close to 0V, then the dead band could be wide, the aim was to eliminate false states so they ARE usually designed for it. ![]() your point on very low volt systems, if the actual difference is small even though proportionally it may not be. Anyway, now I know that the supply is so small, your suggestion of discrete transistors is almost certainly the way to go, unless there is enough similar demand out there to have cause an off-shelf part to be made. Normally I'd just look at how others are solving similar problems, so I guess the question I can ask is: what is the signficant difference in this case that prevents the nearest off-shelf answer from working? |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/29/2014 3:06 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : Actually even single ended digital inputs don't have much hysteresis unless they are designed for that. Well, as a proportion if they only go high above soem fairly close approach to V+, then low when close to 0V, then the dead band could be wide, the aim was to eliminate false states so they ARE usually designed for it. ![]() your point on very low volt systems, if the actual difference is small even though proportionally it may not be. Anyway, now I know that the supply is so small, your suggestion of discrete transistors is almost certainly the way to go, unless there is enough similar demand out there to have cause an off-shelf part to be made. Normally I'd just look at how others are solving similar problems, so I guess the question I can ask is: what is the signficant difference in this case that prevents the nearest off-shelf answer from working? What off the shelf answer? I have not seen any all digital receivers for any frequency. I think it may only be practical for this case and I"m not sure of that. lol This signal is very unique in that it has a very low data rate. This allows integration in the digital domain over a large number of samples. Theoretically the signal would be detectable with a negative SNR. There are actually a number of issues I need to solve to get a prototype working. The big one is being able to get a large enough signal that even statistically it is noticeable at the receiver input. -- Rick |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
What off the shelf answer? I just meant in terms of interfacing. ![]() might be far more useful. While you can integrate digitally, why do so? It seems to me (if I haven't missed something I shouldn't) that you might get away with much less gain before analog integration, then you can boost the resulting slow signals with much less struggle with gand bandwidth products and slew rates for low power and such. If you can do it this way, the resulting slow pulses can be boosted with CMOS which at those speeds will be pretty much nanopower. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/29/2014 4:41 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : What off the shelf answer? I just meant in terms of interfacing. ![]() might be far more useful. While you can integrate digitally, why do so? It seems to me (if I haven't missed something I shouldn't) that you might get away with much less gain before analog integration, then you can boost the resulting slow signals with much less struggle with gand bandwidth products and slew rates for low power and such. If you can do it this way, the resulting slow pulses can be boosted with CMOS which at those speeds will be pretty much nanopower. Before integration comes demodulation. How would you demodulate and integrate in the analog domain on a 100 uW power budget? The signal is PSK. But that is not the real reason. My goal is to show it is possible to do this entirely in the digital domain. The devices I have available are not 100% optimized for low power at low clock rates, but they are pretty good. If I can find devices that have lower quiescent current the digital design has potential of being lower power than the analog approach. -- Rick |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
Before integration comes demodulation. How would you demodulate and integrate in the analog domain on a 100 uW power budget? The signal is PSK. But that is not the real reason. My goal is to show it is possible to do this entirely in the digital domain. Low Vf diode in feedback loop of op-amp? I'm curious though, it's an interesting thought, doing it all in digital equipment, but why? The main drive behind me 'off-shelf' remark is that I suspect the best answer already exists in many forms. I'm curious about what makes a need to keep searching. ![]() do something, I'm just not sure what the differentiating factor is in this case. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/30/2014 1:02 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : Before integration comes demodulation. How would you demodulate and integrate in the analog domain on a 100 uW power budget? The signal is PSK. But that is not the real reason. My goal is to show it is possible to do this entirely in the digital domain. Low Vf diode in feedback loop of op-amp? I'm curious though, it's an interesting thought, doing it all in digital equipment, but why? The main drive behind me 'off-shelf' remark is that I suspect the best answer already exists in many forms. I'm curious about what makes a need to keep searching. ![]() do something, I'm just not sure what the differentiating factor is in this case. I don't know about "best" but you can buy a time code receiver chip that spits out a demodulated signal to be decoded by an MCU. At that point the data rate is pretty low so an MCU can run at very low power levels, likely dominated by the quiescent current. When you suggest an op amp, we already covered that ground and they aren't low power enough. I'm curious how they amplify the signal in the receiver chip with the whole circuit drawing a very low power level. -- Rick |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/30/2014 01:27 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/30/2014 1:02 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: rickman wrote in : Before integration comes demodulation. How would you demodulate and integrate in the analog domain on a 100 uW power budget? The signal is PSK. But that is not the real reason. My goal is to show it is possible to do this entirely in the digital domain. Low Vf diode in feedback loop of op-amp? I'm curious though, it's an interesting thought, doing it all in digital equipment, but why? The main drive behind me 'off-shelf' remark is that I suspect the best answer already exists in many forms. I'm curious about what makes a need to keep searching. ![]() do something, I'm just not sure what the differentiating factor is in this case. I don't know about "best" but you can buy a time code receiver chip that spits out a demodulated signal to be decoded by an MCU. At that point the data rate is pretty low so an MCU can run at very low power levels, likely dominated by the quiescent current. When you suggest an op amp, we already covered that ground and they aren't low power enough. I'm curious how they amplify the signal in the receiver chip with the whole circuit drawing a very low power level. Motorola's app notes on the old 4000 series CMOS included various analog circuits, including use of a CMOS inverter as an amplifier. I'm enough of a packrat that I keep those things. 4000 series may not be useful in your case, but the circuits or variants of them may apply in newer CMOS implementations. 'Course calling it all digital may be just a game if your input stage is a digital circuit biased to operate in an analog mode. George |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
The signal is PSK. I missed that bit. ![]() signal (after feedback diode demod) differ enough in amplitude (or AC content) with frequency, threshold detection might be enough. I'm just pondering it though, I have no idea if it can be done with less power than you can give it. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/30/2014 1:23 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : The signal is PSK. I missed that bit. ![]() signal (after feedback diode demod) differ enough in amplitude (or AC content) with frequency, threshold detection might be enough. I'm just pondering it though, I have no idea if it can be done with less power than you can give it. The signal is also AM, but the PSK is supposed to be detectable at lower signal levels. -- Rick |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
The signal is PSK. My sight isn't very good. That's Psk, not Fsk... Phase? What did I miss. ![]() I've been hung up on the notion that this is an MSF time signal thing, and I just looked at the spec for the UK one which is a simple switch on/off of a carrier, so easy to detect efficiently. Yours is something else entirely, but what? You may need to lay a lot more cards down before you find an answer you can use, unless you hunt in the dark. (No reason not to, I usually do, on most things I do, as the net usually makes some light at greatest need). |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|