Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #488995 > unrolled thread

Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why?

Started byJoerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
First post2017-12-21 15:48 -0800
Last post2017-12-28 00:50 -0800
Articles 3 on this page of 43 — 12 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 15:48 -0800
    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-12-21 18:53 -0800
      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 09:31 -0800
    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-12-21 19:48 -0800
      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 09:34 -0800
      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-12-24 09:37 -0800
    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-21 19:55 -0800
    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-21 19:59 -0800
      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 09:39 -0800
    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 12:07 -0800
      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-22 12:54 -0800
        Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 13:29 -0800
          Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-22 14:06 -0800
            Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 14:19 -0800
              Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-22 14:40 -0800
                Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 15:16 -0800
                  Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-22 16:30 -0800
                    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 16:57 -0800
                      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-22 20:33 -0800
                        Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 08:21 -0800
                          Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-23 10:20 -0800
                            Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 11:33 -0800
                  Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-12-23 13:56 -0500
                    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-23 11:08 -0800
                      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-12-23 14:11 -0500
                        Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 11:42 -0800
    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? LM <sala.nimi@mail.com> - 2017-12-23 21:36 +0200
      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 12:18 -0800
    Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-25 00:56 -0800
      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 08:51 -0500
        Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-25 07:26 -0800
          Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 10:46 -0500
            Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-25 07:51 -0800
              Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 12:53 -0500
                Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-25 09:58 -0800
                Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-25 11:39 -0800
                  Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 17:16 -0800
                    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-27 16:17 -0800
                      Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-12-27 19:06 -0800
                        Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-28 00:47 -0800
                    Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-12-27 16:38 -0800
          Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-12-27 18:03 -0800
            Re: Diff amps spec at 500ohms plus, why? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-28 00:50 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#489423

FromLasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk>
Date2017-12-27 16:38 -0800
Message-ID<5977f91f-cef2-4e31-af17-5300566b98fc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#489305
Den tirsdag den 26. december 2017 kl. 02.16.29 UTC+1 skrev whit3rd:
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:39:52 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
> > On 2017-12-25 09:53, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> 
> > > So you want power but no heat.  That is an interesting problem.  Ya
> > > think it's time to change the question, yet?
> 
> > No, I want linearity with a modest quiescent current. Power during 
> > signal peaks is not a problem because they will be short burst 
> > transmissions.
> 
> Are there any solutions using class G amplifiers?  If you have dual-rail
> plus ground, max heat is at 0.5 V+ and 0.5 V-; if you have six-rails plus
> ground, max heat is at (V+-) * (2N+1)/6 , and the maxima are smaller.
> 
> But, the output circuit gets rather more complicated; does anyone
> make an IC version?

TI has a number of dual rail class-G xDSL drivers, but I think they are all 
too slow to do 100MHz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489429

FromGeorge Herold <gherold@teachspin.com>
Date2017-12-27 18:03 -0800
Message-ID<9fc08950-0c9e-4b47-bafe-6f177af632ad@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#489287
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-12-25 05:51, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 00:56:23 -0800 (PST), Klaus Kragelund
> > <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Add a transformer to get low output impedance and wrap the feedback loop around that?
> >
> 
> We need this to work down to DC.
> 
> 
> > He already stated that he needs to drive several volts, for some
> > strange reason.  A transformer just means he has to drive even higher
> > levels out of the amp.  Seems counterproductive.  I'd look at the
> > assumptions.  High line levels are the problem.  See if something can
> > be done about that.  If you don't like the answer, change the
> > question.  ;-)
> >
> 
> High line levels are customary in industrial environments. You also have 
> those with DSL and such and there are nice chips for it. They are 
> single-supply though (can be hacked if needed) and have huge power 
> dissipation which would be a serious problem in this case. Those are 
> meant to drive at >10Vpp.
> 
So what are people using for the drivers on sig. gens.?  
I've got a cheap rigol 25MHz.  Surely that make a 200 MHz for 
more money.  (DG4202, ~$1k on amazon, maybe there's a teardown vid.)

George H. 
> Anyhow, it's the customer's wish and the customer is always king.
> 
> -- 
> Regards, Joerg
> 
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489447

FromJoerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Date2017-12-28 00:50 -0800
Message-ID<fajpj3F3dr2U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#489429
On 2017-12-27 18:03, George Herold wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-12-25 05:51, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 00:56:23 -0800 (PST), Klaus Kragelund
>>> <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add a transformer to get low output impedance and wrap the feedback loop around that?
>>>
>>
>> We need this to work down to DC.
>>
>>
>>> He already stated that he needs to drive several volts, for some
>>> strange reason.  A transformer just means he has to drive even higher
>>> levels out of the amp.  Seems counterproductive.  I'd look at the
>>> assumptions.  High line levels are the problem.  See if something can
>>> be done about that.  If you don't like the answer, change the
>>> question.  ;-)
>>>
>>
>> High line levels are customary in industrial environments. You also have
>> those with DSL and such and there are nice chips for it. They are
>> single-supply though (can be hacked if needed) and have huge power
>> dissipation which would be a serious problem in this case. Those are
>> meant to drive at >10Vpp.
>>
> So what are people using for the drivers on sig. gens.?
> I've got a cheap rigol 25MHz.  Surely that make a 200 MHz for
> more money.  (DG4202, ~$1k on amazon, maybe there's a teardown vid.)
>

The ones I have seen use discretes in the final stage.

[...]

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web