nandopg
Full Member level 4
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2001
- Messages
- 205
- Helped
- 8
- Reputation
- 16
- Reaction score
- 3
- Trophy points
- 1,298
- Location
- Over the Rainbow
- Activity points
- 2,521
Dear Cray,
> Under what circumstances does the negative resistance approach fail?
First fails because the start up condition is guaranteed by a S21>0dB at the zero crossing of the ang of S21. A positive mag of S11 is a necessary condition but not sufficient. In addition the phase noise got from the real circuit is unpredictable and generally poor.
>....to guarantee the start up conditions. A negative resistance at the input terminal doesn't means your oscillator will necessarily start up. You need to analyze S21 in open loop instead.
See above.
> why a negative resistance at the input terminal doesn't mean the oscillator will start up? isn't the startup can trigger by surrounding noise?
Yes, but you have to have enough gain to sustain the oscillation. And the negative resistance approach doesn't offer this kind of analysis.
>...to predict the loaded Q of the resonator used and so to estimate the phase noise. The loaded Q is readily available analyzing the group delay of S21 in open loop.
how to find loaded Q from group delay of S21?
Ql=(W*Td)/2 => Please, refer to the book by Rhea (Oscillator Design and Computer Simulation)
>If you try to use the open loop approach instead of the negative resistance approach you will get an oscillator with a reasonable agreement with your simulations.
What simulation you use to compare with your measured result? transient or harmonic balance?
Normally I use time domain simulation
Last words:
By using the virtual ground approach described in previous post you are able to analyze any topology using the open loop even if you are using strays or intrinsic properties of the active device.
Please refer to the articles mentioned in previous post.
NandoPG
> Under what circumstances does the negative resistance approach fail?
First fails because the start up condition is guaranteed by a S21>0dB at the zero crossing of the ang of S21. A positive mag of S11 is a necessary condition but not sufficient. In addition the phase noise got from the real circuit is unpredictable and generally poor.
>....to guarantee the start up conditions. A negative resistance at the input terminal doesn't means your oscillator will necessarily start up. You need to analyze S21 in open loop instead.
See above.
> why a negative resistance at the input terminal doesn't mean the oscillator will start up? isn't the startup can trigger by surrounding noise?
Yes, but you have to have enough gain to sustain the oscillation. And the negative resistance approach doesn't offer this kind of analysis.
>...to predict the loaded Q of the resonator used and so to estimate the phase noise. The loaded Q is readily available analyzing the group delay of S21 in open loop.
how to find loaded Q from group delay of S21?
Ql=(W*Td)/2 => Please, refer to the book by Rhea (Oscillator Design and Computer Simulation)
>If you try to use the open loop approach instead of the negative resistance approach you will get an oscillator with a reasonable agreement with your simulations.
What simulation you use to compare with your measured result? transient or harmonic balance?
Normally I use time domain simulation
Last words:
By using the virtual ground approach described in previous post you are able to analyze any topology using the open loop even if you are using strays or intrinsic properties of the active device.
Please refer to the articles mentioned in previous post.
NandoPG