Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460255 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-14 13:50 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-05-16 14:05 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 13:50 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 11:27 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-14 19:19 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 15:24 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 12:54 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 16:02 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 13:10 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 16:16 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 16:18 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 14:14 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 19:51 +0100
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 13:17 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:14 +1000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 16:26 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-17 02:04 -0500
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-14 20:26 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 16:31 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 16:43 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 14:17 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-14 21:53 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 16:14 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 19:59 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 20:06 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 00:16 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 20:10 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 03:28 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 20:48 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 04:17 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 07:56 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 06:58 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 12:59 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-15 07:01 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 10:09 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 10:18 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-15 08:56 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 16:02 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 10:33 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 18:15 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 14:25 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 14:26 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 16:24 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 16:36 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 17:18 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 13:30 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 18:07 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 19:19 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 19:45 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 08:33 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 19:13 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 15:33 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 08:16 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-16 22:10 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 19:10 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-15 08:55 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 12:51 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 12:56 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 13:05 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 10:28 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 13:38 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 11:29 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 18:41 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 13:19 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 20:46 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 13:56 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 21:00 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 16:46 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 01:22 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 11:16 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 12:21 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 20:33 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 14:00 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 21:21 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 16:15 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 23:58 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 17:51 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 16:30 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-17 00:16 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 18:05 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 20:05 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-25 01:13 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-24 21:43 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-30 03:16 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> - 2017-05-17 02:26 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-05-17 08:34 +0200
Re: Fast buffer idea Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> - 2017-05-17 14:31 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-17 10:39 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:02 +0800
Re: Fast buffer idea Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-05-16 21:24 +0200
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 20:12 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-25 04:38 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-25 07:28 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-26 08:54 -0500
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-26 14:14 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-26 07:21 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 20:27 +0100
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 15:05 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 15:19 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-15 13:21 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 20:56 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 17:37 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 19:50 +0100
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 19:25 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 20:19 +0100
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 14:33 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 13:15 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 19:05 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-15 15:38 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 08:12 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 18:47 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-16 21:52 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-25 05:05 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-25 05:42 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-25 05:49 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-25 08:10 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-05-25 15:01 +0200
Re: Fast buffer idea "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 18:53 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-15 02:45 +0000
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 15:23 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 20:28 +0100
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 16:00 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 16:10 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-14 17:58 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 23:13 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-16 17:27 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-16 17:34 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-14 20:14 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 19:42 +0100
Re: Fast buffer idea "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-16 03:29 -0500
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 06:57 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-16 22:47 -0400
Re: Fast buffer idea John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 20:18 -0700
Re: Fast buffer idea "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-17 02:22 -0500
Re: Fast buffer idea Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 14:05 +0000
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qoohhct3d12od74tmv1g3p4887mvrilebb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460288 |
On Sun, 14 May 2017 21:53:32 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote: >John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >> The TI THS series really screams. There are parts with 1.8 GHz GBW and >> huge output currents. Or the Analog Devices AD800x parts. > >Both are slow. 2GHz or so. But the TI parts have huge voltage swing and current capability. Everyone else is ratcheting down voltage as speed goes up. > >These look interesting: > > LTC6268 4GHz > http://www.linear.com/docs/46371 Impressive, except for the 5 volt supply. > > LTC6409 10GHz 1.1nV/rt(Hz) > http://www.linear.com/docs/29893 > > I used a similar part, LTC6402 differential ADC driver. It was flakey, so we had to redesign with an ADA4950. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 19:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Wb6SA.117727$ef.47896@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #460297 |
On 05/14/2017 07:14 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 14 May 2017 21:53:32 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote: > >> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>> The TI THS series really screams. There are parts with 1.8 GHz GBW and >>> huge output currents. Or the Analog Devices AD800x parts. >> >> Both are slow. 2GHz or so. > > But the TI parts have huge voltage swing and current capability. > Everyone else is ratcheting down voltage as speed goes up. > >> >> These look interesting: >> >> LTC6268 4GHz >> http://www.linear.com/docs/46371 > > Impressive, except for the 5 volt supply. > >> >> LTC6409 10GHz 1.1nV/rt(Hz) >> http://www.linear.com/docs/29893 >> >> > > I used a similar part, LTC6402 differential ADC driver. It was flakey, > so we had to redesign with an ADA4950. > > For 6 bucks they better be hand-crafted by the Gnomes of Zurich!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qo6ihc5diuu084u5kf2d5uhl5rskiipuh6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460298 |
On Sun, 14 May 2017 19:59:50 -0400, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 05/14/2017 07:14 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 14 May 2017 21:53:32 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote: >> >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The TI THS series really screams. There are parts with 1.8 GHz GBW and >>>> huge output currents. Or the Analog Devices AD800x parts. >>> >>> Both are slow. 2GHz or so. >> >> But the TI parts have huge voltage swing and current capability. >> Everyone else is ratcheting down voltage as speed goes up. >> >>> >>> These look interesting: >>> >>> LTC6268 4GHz >>> http://www.linear.com/docs/46371 >> >> Impressive, except for the 5 volt supply. >> >>> >>> LTC6409 10GHz 1.1nV/rt(Hz) >>> http://www.linear.com/docs/29893 >>> >>> >> >> I used a similar part, LTC6402 differential ADC driver. It was flakey, >> so we had to redesign with an ADA4950. >> >> > >For 6 bucks they better be hand-crafted by the Gnomes of Zurich! A part like that would generally feed an $80 ADC. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA775CE41D90Aidtokenpost@69.16.179.22> |
| In reply to | #460297 |
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> LTC6409 10GHz 1.1nV/rt(Hz) >> http://www.linear.com/docs/29893 > I used a similar part, LTC6402 differential ADC driver. It was flakey, > so we had to redesign with an ADA4950. The LTC6402 is nowhere near similar to the LTC6409. Fixed 20db gain, 300MHz BW vs unity gain stable, 10GHz GBW. Totally different devices. I'm surprised you had problems with LTC. They usually have a petty good reputation for quality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 20:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <us6ihc15rjpaoj4iumashjhu8gicgi8n1g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460300 |
On Mon, 15 May 2017 00:16:33 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote: >John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>> LTC6409 10GHz 1.1nV/rt(Hz) >>> http://www.linear.com/docs/29893 > >> I used a similar part, LTC6402 differential ADC driver. It was flakey, >> so we had to redesign with an ADA4950. > >The LTC6402 is nowhere near similar to the LTC6409. > >Fixed 20db gain, 300MHz BW vs unity gain stable, 10GHz GBW. Totally >different devices. 12 db gain. It tended to oscillate at large swings. > >I'm surprised you had problems with LTC. They usually have a petty good >reputation for quality. We were surprised too. And annoyed that we had to spin the board. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA775EEDFA105Aidtokenpost@69.16.179.22> |
| In reply to | #460312 |
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > 12 db gain. It tended to oscillate at large swings. Are you talking about a different device? There doesn't seem to be any way to change the gain of the LTC6402 except by adding external feedback. This may cause enough phase shift to produce the oscillations. >>I'm surprised you had problems with LTC. They usually have a petty good >>reputation for quality. > We were surprised too. And annoyed that we had to spin the board. Did you send your data to LTC?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 20:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <039ihch59phkovcecuolghnoi1lnmevvvt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460316 |
On Mon, 15 May 2017 03:28:56 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote: >John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >> 12 db gain. It tended to oscillate at large swings. > >Are you talking about a different device? There doesn't seem to be any way >to change the gain of the LTC6402 except by adding external feedback. This >may cause enough phase shift to produce the oscillations. We used the LT6402-12. > >>>I'm surprised you had problems with LTC. They usually have a petty good >>>reputation for quality. > >> We were surprised too. And annoyed that we had to spin the board. > >Did you send your data to LTC? No, we just spun the board. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 04:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA77630C34193idtokenpost@69.16.179.23> |
| In reply to | #460318 |
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > We used the LT6402-12. Aha! I didn't even know that version existed. Thanks. The response curves show peaking around 200MHz, especially with capacitive load. The small signal and large signal response shows severe ringing and overshoot with square wave input on Page 7 and Page 8 in http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/640212fa.pdf Looks like there is enough information in the datasheet to steer you away from this device.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 07:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofbmuh$s3t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460267 |
On a sunny day (Sun, 14 May 2017 12:54:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in <auchhcp4h0898t9hatrh3017esf6dve1n5@4ax.com>: >If the object is to buffer a logic level, some 13-cent TinyLogic gate, >like an NL37WZ16US or something. > >If it needs to be linear, there are tons of opamps to consider: >THS4222, AD8007, whatever. THS4222 datasheet says open loop gain 0dB at 100 MHz? With a free 80 degrees phase shift? Fig 17, see also Fig 1 for 500 Ohm load. It won't drive a 50 Ohm coax either.. Maybe good for a 5 to 10 MHz wide video amp... But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 06:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cRfSA.95424$se.10515@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #460328 |
On 05/15/2017 03:56 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Sun, 14 May 2017 12:54:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in > <auchhcp4h0898t9hatrh3017esf6dve1n5@4ax.com>: > >> If the object is to buffer a logic level, some 13-cent TinyLogic gate, >> like an NL37WZ16US or something. >> >> If it needs to be linear, there are tons of opamps to consider: >> THS4222, AD8007, whatever. > > THS4222 datasheet says open loop gain 0dB at 100 MHz? > With a free 80 degrees phase shift? > Fig 17, see also Fig 1 for 500 Ohm load. > > It won't drive a 50 Ohm coax either.. > Maybe good for a 5 to 10 MHz wide video amp... > > > But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, > > Yeah, and a fast diamond buffer has a very small amount of phase shift, maybe a couple 10s of degrees in the worst case. You can certainly wrap a a fast unity gain op-amp feedback loop around such a structure without any extra compensation; it doesn't even need to be a blindingly-fast $7 op-amp, just a regular-fast op amp. It'll handle DC to 5MHz say, and then anything higher gets bypassed around it and pushed straight through.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofc8o2$1s4b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460332 |
On a sunny day (Mon, 15 May 2017 06:58:15 -0400) it happened bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote in <cRfSA.95424$se.10515@fx38.iad>: >On 05/15/2017 03:56 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote: >> On a sunny day (Sun, 14 May 2017 12:54:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in >> <auchhcp4h0898t9hatrh3017esf6dve1n5@4ax.com>: >> >>> If the object is to buffer a logic level, some 13-cent TinyLogic gate, >>> like an NL37WZ16US or something. >>> >>> If it needs to be linear, there are tons of opamps to consider: >>> THS4222, AD8007, whatever. >> >> THS4222 datasheet says open loop gain 0dB at 100 MHz? >> With a free 80 degrees phase shift? >> Fig 17, see also Fig 1 for 500 Ohm load. >> >> It won't drive a 50 Ohm coax either.. >> Maybe good for a 5 to 10 MHz wide video amp... >> >> >> But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, >> >> > >Yeah, and a fast diamond buffer has a very small amount of phase shift, >maybe a couple 10s of degrees in the worst case. > >You can certainly wrap a a fast unity gain op-amp feedback loop around >such a structure without any extra compensation; it doesn't even need to >be a blindingly-fast $7 op-amp, just a regular-fast op amp. It'll handle >DC to 5MHz say, and then anything higher gets bypassed around it and >pushed straight through. For video, out of habit let's say: From: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/hud.html the circuit diagram: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/quadcopter/hud-0.1_circuit_diagram_IMG_5984.JPG bottom left: that has a gain of 2, so can drive a 75 Ohm cable with reasonable Zi. The DC path requires an other 75 Ohm at the end of the cable. No specs.. What's a few MHz among video freaks...:-) I had it in spice once and it oscillated.... Not in reality :-). That was actually the first time I ever used spice.... many decades ago. Wonder how high it would go with some of them modern transistors. Spice not online here ATM... Now I was in the garden sitting in the sun, the wind, good time to get a sailboat and forget about it all. <disclaimer> </disclaimer>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dpcjhclpajjafaf2nq0q7l7nt17jl40spo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460328 |
On Mon, 15 May 2017 07:56:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Sun, 14 May 2017 12:54:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in ><auchhcp4h0898t9hatrh3017esf6dve1n5@4ax.com>: > >>If the object is to buffer a logic level, some 13-cent TinyLogic gate, >>like an NL37WZ16US or something. >> >>If it needs to be linear, there are tons of opamps to consider: >>THS4222, AD8007, whatever. > >THS4222 datasheet says open loop gain 0dB at 100 MHz? Where does it say that? >With a free 80 degrees phase shift? >Fig 17, see also Fig 1 for 500 Ohm load. > >It won't drive a 50 Ohm coax either.. >Maybe good for a 5 to 10 MHz wide video amp... > BW is 230 MHz as a unity-gain buffer. Each half of the dual will source and sink 88 mA. And there are lots of faster THS-series parts. > >But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, > Post it. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 10:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <EEiSA.74451$bl5.68044@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #460337 |
On 05/15/2017 10:01 AM, John Larkin wrote: > BW is 230 MHz as a unity-gain buffer. Each half of the dual will > source and sink 88 mA. And there are lots of faster THS-series parts. > >> >> But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, >> > > Post it. With discretes you can have: 1) wide bandwidth 2) low parts count 3) low quiescent current draw Pick two.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 10:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <IMiSA.118013$ef.91898@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #460340 |
On 05/15/2017 10:09 AM, bitrex wrote: > On 05/15/2017 10:01 AM, John Larkin wrote: > >> BW is 230 MHz as a unity-gain buffer. Each half of the dual will >> source and sink 88 mA. And there are lots of faster THS-series parts. >> >>> >>> But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, >>> >> >> Post it. > > With discretes you can have: > > 1) wide bandwidth > > 2) low parts count > > 3) low quiescent current draw > > Pick two. The two transistor circuit Jan posted does have a pretty wide bandwidth and a low parts count. It has a pretty nice small signal output impedance, but its large-signal output impedance is bad. It also draws a relatively large amount of quiescent current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6sjjhc1mm6atuu3ovmnnmtpke1iu2t4fgh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460343 |
On Mon, 15 May 2017 10:18:16 -0400, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 05/15/2017 10:09 AM, bitrex wrote: >> On 05/15/2017 10:01 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> BW is 230 MHz as a unity-gain buffer. Each half of the dual will >>> source and sink 88 mA. And there are lots of faster THS-series parts. >>> >>>> >>>> But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, >>>> >>> >>> Post it. >> >> With discretes you can have: >> >> 1) wide bandwidth >> >> 2) low parts count >> >> 3) low quiescent current draw >> >> Pick two. > >The two transistor circuit Jan posted does have a pretty wide bandwidth >and a low parts count. It has a pretty nice small signal output >impedance, but its large-signal output impedance is bad. It also draws a >relatively large amount of quiescent current. Iq is undefined, and this is a poster child for thermal runaway. It needs more parts! -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofcjfa$jc6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460356 |
On a sunny day (Mon, 15 May 2017 08:56:58 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in <6sjjhc1mm6atuu3ovmnnmtpke1iu2t4fgh@4ax.com>: >On Mon, 15 May 2017 10:18:16 -0400, bitrex ><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On 05/15/2017 10:09 AM, bitrex wrote: >>> On 05/15/2017 10:01 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> BW is 230 MHz as a unity-gain buffer. Each half of the dual will >>>> source and sink 88 mA. And there are lots of faster THS-series parts. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, >>>>> >>>> >>>> Post it. >>> >>> With discretes you can have: >>> >>> 1) wide bandwidth >>> >>> 2) low parts count >>> >>> 3) low quiescent current draw >>> >>> Pick two. >> >>The two transistor circuit Jan posted does have a pretty wide bandwidth >>and a low parts count. It has a pretty nice small signal output >>impedance, but its large-signal output impedance is bad. It also draws a >>relatively large amount of quiescent current. > >Iq is undefined, and this is a poster child for thermal runaway. It >needs more parts! ???? TWO transistor ????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pipjhc9dhi9ma87kr2s9mldcgdtm8osav1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460359 |
On Mon, 15 May 2017 16:02:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Mon, 15 May 2017 08:56:58 -0700) it happened John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in ><6sjjhc1mm6atuu3ovmnnmtpke1iu2t4fgh@4ax.com>: > >>On Mon, 15 May 2017 10:18:16 -0400, bitrex >><bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>On 05/15/2017 10:09 AM, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 05/15/2017 10:01 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> BW is 230 MHz as a unity-gain buffer. Each half of the dual will >>>>> source and sink 88 mA. And there are lots of faster THS-series parts. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But indeed you can do that with a few NPNs of the old days, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Post it. >>>> >>>> With discretes you can have: >>>> >>>> 1) wide bandwidth >>>> >>>> 2) low parts count >>>> >>>> 3) low quiescent current draw >>>> >>>> Pick two. >>> >>>The two transistor circuit Jan posted does have a pretty wide bandwidth >>>and a low parts count. It has a pretty nice small signal output >>>impedance, but its large-signal output impedance is bad. It also draws a >>>relatively large amount of quiescent current. >> >>Iq is undefined, and this is a poster child for thermal runaway. It >>needs more parts! > >???? >TWO transistor ???? I was referring to this one: http://panteltje.com/pub/maybe_this_amp_IMG_6183.JPG -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA7769101ADEA8idtokenpost@69.16.179.23> |
| In reply to | #460379 |
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >>TWO transistor ???? > I was referring to this one: > http://panteltje.com/pub/maybe_this_amp_IMG_6183.JPG Old idea. I used that in a product in 1979, which won the admiration of engineers at HP, and some orders. The drive capability depends on the pullup resistors in the bases. Quescent current depends on the output emitter resistors, which are not shown in the link. These issues could be observed in a simple LTspice analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 14:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <XomSA.86613$sS7.31036@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #460390 |
On 05/15/2017 02:15 PM, Steve Wilson wrote: > John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: > >>> TWO transistor ???? > >> I was referring to this one: > >> http://panteltje.com/pub/maybe_this_amp_IMG_6183.JPG > > Old idea. I used that in a product in 1979, which won the admiration of > engineers at HP, and some orders. The drive capability depends on the > pullup resistors in the bases. Quescent current depends on the output > emitter resistors, which are not shown in the link. > > These issues could be observed in a simple LTspice analysis. > "Diamond buffers are kind of cool, emitter feedback makes them linear and they don't have much phase shift, but they kind of suck balls whenever you want to actually move appreciable current with them which unfortunately is exactly what you'd want to do with a buffer." The circuit I posted is exactly the same topology, except with the following "refinements" MOSFET first stage for higher input impedance Feedback taken to MOSFET drains from the output collectors to keep their Vds approximately constant Output quiescent current is primarily set by the (bypassed for AC) input stage source resistors, not the output emitter resistors "Boosting transistors" which slide the bias up in response to signal so it doesn't draw 150mA sitting around doing nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 14:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <opmSA.86614$sS7.18389@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #460394 |
On 05/15/2017 02:25 PM, bitrex wrote: > Feedback taken to MOSFET drains from the output collectors to keep their > Vds approximately constant Output emitters, rather
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web