Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?
From: John Larkin (jjSNIPlarkin_at_highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX)
Date: 03/18/05
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: Looking for consultant"
- Previous message: JeffM: "Re: OT: Search Engines for PC Searching?"
- In reply to: Terry Given: "Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?"
- Next in thread: Terry Given: "Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?"
- Reply: Terry Given: "Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:20:14 -0800
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:49:03 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org>
wrote:
>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:44:33 GMT, "Genome" <ilike_spam@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jkvj311eeujkg4gu2nqctaqdlems2nusmc@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:03:50 GMT, "Genome" <ilike_spam@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>>
>>>message
>>>
>>>>>news:rnmj3195n36dh5cqhcrgkimbmkjoef3m2p@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:44:31 GMT, "Genome" <ilike_spam@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But sure, if the divider delay is significant, then it's significant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is that better?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>Being thick I miss the meaning of,
>>>>>
>>>>>U' = U / S
>>>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>W' = W / S
>>>>>
>>>>>DNA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh. I meant that the 'new' VCO frequency (after substituting the black
>>>>box) is the old one scaled by the divisor thing, and likewise W' is
>>>>the effective new VCO constant (Hz/volt or whatever) after the
>>>>substitution. It's just like wrapping a dotted line around the
>>>>VCO+divider and replacing the whole mess with a slower, scaled VCO.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sort of used to a notation where
>>>>
>>>> G' is the new/scaled/denormalized/fudged value of G
>>>>
>>>>which is what the filter folks do. But maybe that's not an accepted
>>>>convention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, so S is the number by which things are divided, the divisor, and has
>>>nothing to do with that Laplace stuff?
>>>
>>>DNA
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I did specify that Somethingorother was the divider in the loop,
>> so it was perfectly obvious to me that S = divider ratio. There's only
>> 26 letters on my keyboard, and it's not my fault that some lunatic
>> Frenchman decided to use S for something else.
>>
>> Actually, I never use that Laplace stuff. I must have learned it once
>> in ancient times, because I didn't flunk very many of my EE courses,
>> but nowadays a quickie Bode plot is enough to stabilize simple loops,
>> and if it gets more complicated, or gets nonlinear, I just simulate.
>>
>> I had an engineer a while back who was a whiz at this stuff... pages
>> of equations, root locus, polynomials in s-domain, all neatly solved.
>> But the answers usually made no sense, and when I pointed it out to
>> him he got pissed off (ie, angry in American.) As soon as I finished
>> paying for the legal fees to get him a green card, he quit.
>>
>> John
>
>I aint your brother, so I p all over my equations.
>
>(perhaps too cryptic?)
>
>Cheers
>Terry
Absolutely too cryptic.
John
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: Looking for consultant"
- Previous message: JeffM: "Re: OT: Search Engines for PC Searching?"
- In reply to: Terry Given: "Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?"
- Next in thread: Terry Given: "Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?"
- Reply: Terry Given: "Re: Can PLL Freq Error be zero?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
