Clapp oscillator
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Andrew Holme on May 18, 2005, 7:11 am
Please log in for more thread options I found this surrey.ac.uk past paper whilst surfing: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Teaching/Exams/pastpapers/01-02/Spring/Level4/EE4.rfs02.pdf I'm a bit confused by the 0.5 ohm loss resistance shown in figure A1 on page 2. The capacitive reactances add up to -j160. If the inductor was +j160 to resonate, the unloaded Q would be 160/0.5 = 320, which sounds a bit high even for unloaded Q. It says Q=80 on the diagram, which is more like it. Did they calculate 80/160=0.5 by mistake? Is 80 supposed to be the loaded Q? What am I missing?? BTW if you go up a few directories on that URL, you can browse all their past papers. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by John Popelish on May 18, 2005, 2:28 pm
Please log in for more thread options Andrew Holme wrote: >
> I'm a bit confused by the 0.5 ohm loss resistance shown in figure A1 on > page 2. I don't see where the .5 ohm resistor is labeled as being a loss resistance. I think it is probably the internal series resistance of the varactor. > The capacitive reactances add up to -j160. If the inductor
> was +j160 to resonate, the unloaded Q would be 160/0.5 = 320, which > sounds a bit high even for unloaded Q. It says Q=80 on the diagram, > which is more like it. Did they calculate 80/160=0.5 by mistake? Is > 80 supposed to be the loaded Q? What am I missing?? > > > BTW if you go up a few directories on that URL, you can browse all > their past papers. > | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Joe McElvenney on May 19, 2005, 11:57 am
Please log in for more thread options
Hi, > I'm a bit confused by the 0.5 ohm loss resistance shown in figure A1 on
> page 2. The capacitive reactances add up to -j160. If the inductor > was +j160 to resonate, the unloaded Q would be 160/0.5 = 320, which > sounds a bit high even for unloaded Q. It says Q=80 on the diagram, > which is more like it. Did they calculate 80/160=0.5 by mistake? Is > 80 supposed to be the loaded Q? What am I missing?? By giving you the inductor's Q (= 80), they are indirectly telling you its total loss resistance (RF and DC) which I make to be 2 ohms. Add- in the 0.5 ohm parasitic and you finish up with Q(tot) = 64. This value doesn't include any loading by the bias and emitter resistors but then that is the beauty of the Clapp. This oscillator dates back to the 30's but J. K. Clapp published an article on it in QST as late as October 1948. > BTW if you go up a few directories on that URL, you can browse all
> their past papers. What I love about these old exam papers is that they remind one just how much has been forgotten over the years and forces you to dig out the books once again - good old Terman, et al... Cheers - Joe | |||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Clapp oscillator | May 18, 2005, 7:11 am |
| oscillation of Clapp LC circuit | March 19, 2005, 9:08 am |
| PUT Oscillator? | April 5, 2005, 9:12 am |
| LC oscillator | January 29, 2006, 3:14 am |
| oscillator | June 24, 2006, 1:46 pm |
| 12kHz oscillator cct anybody? | May 13, 2005, 1:29 am |
| Infrared RC oscillator | January 11, 2006, 3:05 pm |
| oscillator basic | April 5, 2006, 1:39 am |
| crystal oscillator | October 18, 2006, 9:18 am |
| variable HF oscillator | June 1, 2007, 2:07 pm |
| Re: oscillator needed | November 26, 2007, 11:03 pm |
| Re: oscillator needed | November 27, 2007, 3:55 pm |
| Quartz oscillator | December 29, 2007, 7:18 am |
| Crystal oscillator | May 15, 2008, 9:52 am |
| crystal oscillator question...thx | October 27, 2004, 1:11 am |
>
>