Reply by glen herrmannsfeldt October 20, 20122012-10-20
In comp.dsp Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
> On 2012-10-14, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
>> Speaking of which, while I have it fresh on me mind, I've been wondering >> how one of those cheap laser diodes would behave in PV or PR mode and
> not sure how receptive they are.
>> would they survive another laser of equal type pointed into them?
> they should do, I've never seen one with a warning against pointing it at a > mirror.
Most lasers don't like seeing their own reflection, though it normally won't hurt them, but it does interfere with the LASER action. Mostly a problem on an optical bench, though. Now, pointing one at a phase conjugate mirror is a different question. Actually, any shiny object near a phase conjugate mirror can get interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics#Optical_phase_conjugation In the DSP sense, consider a device that, given a sequence of samples, returns the sequence in the opposite order. (And, I believe, for complex samples the complex conjugate.) -- glen
Reply by Jasen Betts October 20, 20122012-10-20
On 2012-10-14, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

> Speaking of which, while I have it fresh on me mind, I've been wondering > how one of those cheap laser diodes would behave in PV or PR mode and
not sure how receptive they are.
> would they survive another laser of equal type pointed into them?
they should do, I've never seen one with a warning against pointing it at a mirror. -- &#9858;&#9859; 100% natural --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Reply by Tim Wescott October 17, 20122012-10-17
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:59:01 -0700, josephkk wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:02:48 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> > wrote: > >>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:08:46 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >> >>> On 2012-10-12 11:04, Robert Baer wrote: >>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >>>>> "Tim Wescott"<tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>>>> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", "type >>>>>> II", "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? >>>>> >>>>> IMO this terminology is used only in Gardner's book; there is no >>>>> universal >>>>> meaning. >>>>> It is about P, PI, or PII control loop. Remnants of old times, when >>>>> they used to mix the details of implementation with the type of the >>>>> transfer function. >>>>> >>>>>> I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with bullshit nor >>>>>> leave >>>>>> out handy terms... >>>>> >>>>> Since nobody is going to read it anyway, why would that matter? >>>>> >>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky >>>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Consultant >>>>> www.abvolt.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Do not know but my wild uneducated guess is that "P" stands for >>>> regular feedback as in a standard op-amp circuit, "PI" stands for >>>> first derivative (eg: "P dot") and "PII" stands for second derivative >>>> (eg: "P double dot"). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> 'I' stands for an Integral term, not a derivative one. >>> >>> I think that PLL designs should be classified by the number of >>> significant poles and zeroes of their transfer functions. This 'type' >>> business only introduces an extra layer of obscurity. >> >>Both the number of poles (order), and the number of nekkid integrators >>(type) have relevance in telling you how the loop is going to behave. >> >>It's not obscurity if you know what it means. > > Then it becomes your job as author to clarify the use consistently and > extensively. > > ?-)
Which is exactly what I did. -- My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by josephkk October 16, 20122012-10-16
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:02:48 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:08:46 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: > >> On 2012-10-12 11:04, Robert Baer wrote: >>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >>>> "Tim Wescott"<tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>>> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", "type >>>>> II", "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? >>>> >>>> IMO this terminology is used only in Gardner's book; there is no >>>> universal >>>> meaning. >>>> It is about P, PI, or PII control loop. Remnants of old times, when >>>> they used to mix the details of implementation with the type of the >>>> transfer function. >>>> >>>>> I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with bullshit nor >>>>> leave >>>>> out handy terms... >>>> >>>> Since nobody is going to read it anyway, why would that matter? >>>> >>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky >>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Consultant >>>> www.abvolt.com >>>> >>>> >>> Do not know but my wild uneducated guess is that "P" stands for regular >>> feedback as in a standard op-amp circuit, "PI" stands for first >>> derivative (eg: "P dot") and "PII" stands for second derivative (eg: "P >>> double dot"). >>> >>> >>> >> 'I' stands for an Integral term, not a derivative one. >> >> I think that PLL designs should be classified by the number of >> significant poles and zeroes of their transfer functions. This 'type' >> business only introduces an extra layer of obscurity. > >Both the number of poles (order), and the number of nekkid integrators >(type) have relevance in telling you how the loop is going to behave. > >It's not obscurity if you know what it means.
Then it becomes your job as author to clarify the use consistently and extensively. ?-)
Reply by October 15, 20122012-10-15
On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:36:55 AM UTC+13, Tim Wescott wrote:
> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", "type II", > > "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? > > > > I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with bullshit nor leave > > out handy terms... > > > > -- > > My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. > > My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. > > Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? > > > > Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software > > http://www.wescottdesign.com
Yes, it's do do with the number of pure integrators in the design. Of course many PLLs don't have pure integrators at all but only lag-lead compensators in which case they should be referred to as type0!
Reply by George Herold October 15, 20122012-10-15
On Oct 14, 11:01&#4294967295;pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.please> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:24:22 -0700, George Herold wrote: > > On Oct 14, 5:16&#4294967295;pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:10:49 -0700, George Herold wrote: > >> > On Oct 13, 12:27&#4294967295;am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:01:00 +0200, Jeroen wrote: > >> >> > On 2012-10-12 19:02, Tim Wescott wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:08:46 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: > > >> >> >>> On 2012-10-12 11:04, Robert Baer wrote: > >> >> >>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > >> >> >>>>> "Tim Wescott"<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", > >> >> >>>>>> "type II", "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? > > >> >> >>>>> IMO this terminology is used only in Gardner's book; there is > >> >> >>>>> no universal meaning. > >> >> >>>>> It is about P, PI, or PII control loop. Remnants of old times, > >> >> >>>>> when they used to mix the details of implementation with the > >> >> >>>>> type of the transfer function. > > >> >> >>>>>> I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with > >> >> >>>>>> bullshit nor leave out handy terms... > > >> >> >>>>> Since nobody is going to read it anyway, why would that > >> >> >>>>> matter? > > >> >> >>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Consultant > >> >> >>>>>www.abvolt.com > > >> >> >>>> Do not know but my wild uneducated guess is that "P" stands for > >> >> >>>> regular feedback as in a standard op-amp circuit, "PI" stands > >> >> >>>> for first derivative (eg: "P dot") and "PII" stands for second > >> >> >>>> derivative (eg: "P double dot"). > > >> >> >>> 'I' stands for an Integral term, not a derivative one. > > >> >> >>> I think that PLL designs should be classified by the number of > >> >> >>> significant poles and zeroes of their transfer functions. This > >> >> >>> 'type' business only introduces an extra layer of obscurity. > > >> >> >> Both the number of poles (order), and the number of nekkid > >> >> >> integrators (type) have relevance in telling you how the loop is > >> >> >> going to behave. > > >> >> > Well yes, in essence that's what I said. We know what the poles > >> >> > and zeroes do. Introducing superfluous terminology like 'type' > >> >> > does not make it any clearer. I'd say: Drop the type. > > >> >> A type 0 loop can have a bazillion poles and still be type 0. > > >> >> A type 2 loop can have only two poles. > > >> >> Poles and type are _different_. > > >> >> -- > >> >> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative > >> >> friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have > >> >> found common ground? > > >> >> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & > >> >> Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com-Hidequoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> > OK Well I thought I was getting the type 'thing', but I'm confused > >> > again. > > >> > First what's type zero? > >> > I was thinking about a (type I?) loop with just gain control that > >> > I've used to lock a diode laser to the side of an absorption line. > >> > &#4294967295;You've got to put a (single pole) lowpass between the error signal > >> > and the gain, or it's pretty much an oscillator. > > >> > George H. > > >> Type 0 is a loop that has no naked integrators (a low-pass isn't > >> considered a naked integrator in this context, as it has finite DC > >> gain). > > >> -- > >> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. > >> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. > >> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? > > >> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & > >> Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com-Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Hmmm OK, &#4294967295;For the diode laser locking thing, the piezo (plant) has a > > resonance a bit above 3kHz. &#4294967295;Say I use a low pass filter with a 1 second > > time constant, and then crank up the gain til it's just below the > > oscillation point.... how 'naked' does the integrator need to be? > > (would 10 seconds and more gain count?) > > If you're calling it a low pass filter and not an integrator, then you're > saying that it has finite DC gain. &#4294967295;Therefore your loop is type 0.
Certainly whatever I 'call' it can't make a difference. (I may give it the wrong name.) Sure it's got finite gain at DC. But so does every integrator I've ever made. There's after all some leakage in my cap, pcb, solder and flux 'cocktail'. George H. (DC is just a myth anway.)
> > -- > Tim Wescott > Control system and signal processing consultingwww.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Reply by George Herold October 15, 20122012-10-15
On Oct 14, 8:39&#4294967295;pm, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 7:49 PM, George Herold wrote: > > > > > On Oct 14, 6:58 pm, Phil Hobbs > > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 10/14/2012 6:24 PM, George Herold wrote: > > >>> On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:10:49 -0700, George Herold wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 13, 12:27 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:01:00 +0200, Jeroen wrote: > >>>>>>> On 2012-10-12 19:02, Tim Wescott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:08:46 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 2012-10-12 11:04, Robert Baer wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> "Tim Wescott"<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", > >>>>>>>>>>>> "type II", "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? > > >>>>>>>>>>> IMO this terminology is used only in Gardner's book; there is no > >>>>>>>>>>> universal > >>>>>>>>>>> meaning. > >>>>>>>>>>> It is about P, PI, or PII control loop. Remnants of old times, > >>>>>>>>>>> when they used to mix the details of implementation with the type > >>>>>>>>>>> of the transfer function. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with bullshit > >>>>>>>>>>>> nor leave > >>>>>>>>>>>> out handy terms... > > >>>>>>>>>>> Since nobody is going to read it anyway, why would that matter? > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky > >>>>>>>>>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Consultant > >>>>>>>>>>>www.abvolt.com > > >>>>>>>>>> Do not know but my wild uneducated guess is that "P" stands for > >>>>>>>>>> regular feedback as in a standard op-amp circuit, "PI" stands for > >>>>>>>>>> first derivative (eg: "P dot") and "PII" stands for second > >>>>>>>>>> derivative (eg: "P double dot"). > > >>>>>>>>> 'I' stands for an Integral term, not a derivative one. > > >>>>>>>>> I think that PLL designs should be classified by the number of > >>>>>>>>> significant poles and zeroes of their transfer functions. This > >>>>>>>>> 'type' business only introduces an extra layer of obscurity. > > >>>>>>>> Both the number of poles (order), and the number of nekkid > >>>>>>>> integrators (type) have relevance in telling you how the loop is > >>>>>>>> going to behave. > > >>>>>>> Well yes, in essence that's what I said. We know what the poles and > >>>>>>> zeroes do. Introducing superfluous terminology like 'type' does not > >>>>>>> make it any clearer. I'd say: Drop the type. > > >>>>>> A type 0 loop can have a bazillion poles and still be type 0. > > >>>>>> A type 2 loop can have only two poles. > > >>>>>> Poles and type are _different_. > > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative > >>>>>> friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have > >>>>>> found common ground? > > >>>>>> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & > >>>>>> Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com-Hidequotedtext - > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>> OK Well I thought I was getting the type 'thing', but I'm confused > >>>>> again. > > >>>>> First what's type zero? > >>>>> I was thinking about a (type I?) loop with just gain control that I've > >>>>> used to lock a diode laser to the side of an absorption line. &#4294967295;You've > >>>>> got to put a (single pole) lowpass between the error signal and the > >>>>> gain, or it's pretty much an oscillator. > > >>>>> George H. > > >>>> Type 0 is a loop that has no naked integrators (a low-pass isn't > >>>> considered a naked integrator in this context, as it has finite DC gain). > > >>>> -- > >>>> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. > >>>> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. > >>>> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? > > >>>> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com-Hidequoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> Hmmm OK, &#4294967295;For the diode laser locking thing, the piezo (plant) has a > >>> resonance a bit above 3kHz. &#4294967295;Say I use a low pass filter with a 1 > >>> second time constant, and then crank up the gain til it's just below > >>> the oscillation point.... how 'naked' does the integrator need to be? > >>> (would 10 seconds and more gain count?) > > >>> George H. > > >> If you put in a notch filter, you can get the loop BW a lot closer to > >> the piezo resonance, like 0.3 f_0 vs 0.03 f_0. > > >> Cheers > > >> Phil Hobbs > > >> -- > >> Dr Philip C D Hobbs > >> Principal Consultant > >> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC > >> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics > > >> 160 North State Road #203 > >> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA > >> +1 845 480 2058 > > >> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net-Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Grin, &#4294967295;OK I'm not saying that a single pole low pass and then gain, is > > in any way optimal. &#4294967295;But it works... is it type 0 or type I? > > > (Does notching out the piezo resonace work? &#4294967295;I've never tried that.) > > > George H. > > Notching works great, if the resonator Q is high. &#4294967295;The notch filter's > phase shift goes away on the scale of its bandwidth rather than its > centre frequency, so it has almost no effect beyond a few times delta-f. > > In my atomic force microscope days, I used that trick to get a factor of > 10 in loop bandwidth with a piezo bimorph whose Q was right around 30. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > > -- > Dr Philip C D Hobbs > Principal Consultant > ElectroOptical Innovations LLC > Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics > > 160 North State Road #203 > Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA > +1 845 480 2058 > > hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Cool thanks, I don't know the Q, but I'd guess it's above 10. A multi layer stack from a Japanesse company whose name is escaping me now... (~4 um at 100V with a SRF of ~400kHz.) Driving an Al (7075) flexure with a grating attached. It'd be nice to get above 3kHz since there's still mucho vibrations up there. (This is a bit of a 'throw away' part of the diode laser, it's mostly a student insturment and they're happy to get it tuned to an Rb line and see the SAS.) George H.
Reply by Phil Hobbs October 15, 20122012-10-15
On 10/13/2012 07:25 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> > > Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:52:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhobbsSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:29:55 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>>> <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Oct 11, 4:36 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>>>> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", "type II", >>>>>> "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with bullshit nor leave >>>>>> out handy terms... >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. >>>>>> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. >>>>>> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits& Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com >>>>> >>>>> Nice thread, thanks Tim. >>>>> >>>>> I assume "Phaselock Techniques" by Flyod M. Gardener is the right >>>>> book. (Making my Xmas wish list.) Any advantage of the third edition >>>>> over the second? >>>>> >>>>> So in a type III system the error signal is integrated twice? >>>>> Does anyone have an example where double integration is used? >>>>> It doesn't have to be a PLL application any type of control loop would >>>>> be fine. >>>>> >>>>> George H. >>>> >>>> I am a fan of the D-flop bang-bang phase detector. It has, in theory, >>>> an infinite phase-error gain, which makes it interesting to analyze. >>>> That's the way to go if you want to lock an oscillator to an external >>>> input with picosecond long-term stability. >>> >>> The metastability problem is for real, though. Many moons ago (actually in the same DBS >>> system I mentioned in the H parameters thread) I used a 75S74 as a frequency mixer in an >>> offset loop to generate the pilot tones for the satellite uplink. Even with very clean >>> input signals, when I looked at the d-flop output on a spectrum analyzer, the peak looked >>> like one of those old-fashioned drinking fountains that ran all the time--it wobbled and >>> bounced all over, especially at low modulation frequency. >>> >>> I'm really surprised that you can get good stability out of something that ugly. Or has the >>> metastability issue somehow gone away since 1982? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >> >> A D-flop, by itself, is only good with a VCO that's constrained to >> less than 2:1 tuning range. Otherwise you can get harmonic locking... >> not necessarily bad, I've used it to advantage... see my patents. > > My application was a pilot tone generator that needed to make 70 +- > 10/11 MHz pilot tones. (Don't ask me why, that's what the system > engineers came up with.) Instead of using two synthesizers, I made 70 > MHz from the 10 MHz system clock, then used a 74LS92 plus a couple of > gates (or some such thing) to divide the 10 MHz by 11, and then used the > two halves of a 74S74 to generate the pilot tones. Because the mixing > was so ugly, I wound up using a couple of crystal oscillators locked 1:1 > to the d-flop outputs. It eventually worked fine, but the extreme > ugliness of the output spectrum from those d-flops has stayed with me! > > Even if I'd used a nice diode-bridge mixer for the job, I'd probably > still have needed the crystal oscillators, because the jitter spec was > ridiculous. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs
I find that I misspoke. I looked up the schematic, and I actually used the S74 as a harmonic mixer, clocked at 10 MHz and sampling the 70+-0.454545... MHz crystal oscillators. I then locked those to the output of a divide-by-22 counter running off the same 10 MHz. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by Tim Wescott October 15, 20122012-10-15
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:24:22 -0700, George Herold wrote:

> On Oct 14, 5:16&nbsp;pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:10:49 -0700, George Herold wrote: >> > On Oct 13, 12:27&nbsp;am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:01:00 +0200, Jeroen wrote: >> >> > On 2012-10-12 19:02, Tim Wescott wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:08:46 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 2012-10-12 11:04, Robert Baer wrote: >> >> >>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >> >> >>>>> "Tim Wescott"<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", >> >> >>>>>> "type II", "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? >> >> >> >>>>> IMO this terminology is used only in Gardner's book; there is >> >> >>>>> no universal meaning. >> >> >>>>> It is about P, PI, or PII control loop. Remnants of old times, >> >> >>>>> when they used to mix the details of implementation with the >> >> >>>>> type of the transfer function. >> >> >> >>>>>> I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with >> >> >>>>>> bullshit nor leave out handy terms... >> >> >> >>>>> Since nobody is going to read it anyway, why would that >> >> >>>>> matter? >> >> >> >>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Consultant >> >> >>>>>www.abvolt.com >> >> >> >>>> Do not know but my wild uneducated guess is that "P" stands for >> >> >>>> regular feedback as in a standard op-amp circuit, "PI" stands >> >> >>>> for first derivative (eg: "P dot") and "PII" stands for second >> >> >>>> derivative (eg: "P double dot"). >> >> >> >>> 'I' stands for an Integral term, not a derivative one. >> >> >> >>> I think that PLL designs should be classified by the number of >> >> >>> significant poles and zeroes of their transfer functions. This >> >> >>> 'type' business only introduces an extra layer of obscurity. >> >> >> >> Both the number of poles (order), and the number of nekkid >> >> >> integrators (type) have relevance in telling you how the loop is >> >> >> going to behave. >> >> >> > Well yes, in essence that's what I said. We know what the poles >> >> > and zeroes do. Introducing superfluous terminology like 'type' >> >> > does not make it any clearer. I'd say: Drop the type. >> >> >> A type 0 loop can have a bazillion poles and still be type 0. >> >> >> A type 2 loop can have only two poles. >> >> >> Poles and type are _different_. >> >> >> -- >> >> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative >> >> friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have >> >> found common ground? >> >> >> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & >> >> Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com-Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > OK Well I thought I was getting the type 'thing', but I'm confused >> > again. >> >> > First what's type zero? >> > I was thinking about a (type I?) loop with just gain control that >> > I've used to lock a diode laser to the side of an absorption line. >> > &nbsp;You've got to put a (single pole) lowpass between the error signal >> > and the gain, or it's pretty much an oscillator. >> >> > George H. >> >> Type 0 is a loop that has no naked integrators (a low-pass isn't >> considered a naked integrator in this context, as it has finite DC >> gain). >> >> -- >> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. >> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. >> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? >> >> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & >> Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Hmmm OK, For the diode laser locking thing, the piezo (plant) has a > resonance a bit above 3kHz. Say I use a low pass filter with a 1 second > time constant, and then crank up the gain til it's just below the > oscillation point.... how 'naked' does the integrator need to be? > (would 10 seconds and more gain count?)
If you're calling it a low pass filter and not an integrator, then you're saying that it has finite DC gain. Therefore your loop is type 0. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by Phil Hobbs October 14, 20122012-10-14
On 10/14/2012 7:49 PM, George Herold wrote:
> On Oct 14, 6:58 pm, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> On 10/14/2012 6:24 PM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:10:49 -0700, George Herold wrote: >>>>> On Oct 13, 12:27 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:01:00 +0200, Jeroen wrote: >>>>>>> On 2012-10-12 19:02, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:08:46 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 2012-10-12 11:04, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Tim Wescott"<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> How commonly do you see PLL designs referred to as "type I", >>>>>>>>>>>> "type II", "type III", etc.? Do the terms make sense to you? >> >>>>>>>>>>> IMO this terminology is used only in Gardner's book; there is no >>>>>>>>>>> universal >>>>>>>>>>> meaning. >>>>>>>>>>> It is about P, PI, or PII control loop. Remnants of old times, >>>>>>>>>>> when they used to mix the details of implementation with the type >>>>>>>>>>> of the transfer function. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm writing a report; don't want to either baffle with bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>> nor leave >>>>>>>>>>>> out handy terms... >> >>>>>>>>>>> Since nobody is going to read it anyway, why would that matter? >> >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky >>>>>>>>>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Consultant >>>>>>>>>>> www.abvolt.com >> >>>>>>>>>> Do not know but my wild uneducated guess is that "P" stands for >>>>>>>>>> regular feedback as in a standard op-amp circuit, "PI" stands for >>>>>>>>>> first derivative (eg: "P dot") and "PII" stands for second >>>>>>>>>> derivative (eg: "P double dot"). >> >>>>>>>>> 'I' stands for an Integral term, not a derivative one. >> >>>>>>>>> I think that PLL designs should be classified by the number of >>>>>>>>> significant poles and zeroes of their transfer functions. This >>>>>>>>> 'type' business only introduces an extra layer of obscurity. >> >>>>>>>> Both the number of poles (order), and the number of nekkid >>>>>>>> integrators (type) have relevance in telling you how the loop is >>>>>>>> going to behave. >> >>>>>>> Well yes, in essence that's what I said. We know what the poles and >>>>>>> zeroes do. Introducing superfluous terminology like 'type' does not >>>>>>> make it any clearer. I'd say: Drop the type. >> >>>>>> A type 0 loop can have a bazillion poles and still be type 0. >> >>>>>> A type 2 loop can have only two poles. >> >>>>>> Poles and type are _different_. >> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative >>>>>> friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have >>>>>> found common ground? >> >>>>>> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & >>>>>> Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com-Hidequoted text - >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>> OK Well I thought I was getting the type 'thing', but I'm confused >>>>> again. >> >>>>> First what's type zero? >>>>> I was thinking about a (type I?) loop with just gain control that I've >>>>> used to lock a diode laser to the side of an absorption line. You've >>>>> got to put a (single pole) lowpass between the error signal and the >>>>> gain, or it's pretty much an oscillator. >> >>>>> George H. >> >>>> Type 0 is a loop that has no naked integrators (a low-pass isn't >>>> considered a naked integrator in this context, as it has finite DC gain). >> >>>> -- >>>> My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. >>>> My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. >>>> Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? >> >>>> Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Softwarehttp://www.wescottdesign.com-Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> Hmmm OK, For the diode laser locking thing, the piezo (plant) has a >>> resonance a bit above 3kHz. Say I use a low pass filter with a 1 >>> second time constant, and then crank up the gain til it's just below >>> the oscillation point.... how 'naked' does the integrator need to be? >>> (would 10 seconds and more gain count?) >> >>> George H. >> >> If you put in a notch filter, you can get the loop BW a lot closer to >> the piezo resonance, like 0.3 f_0 vs 0.03 f_0. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs >> >> -- >> Dr Philip C D Hobbs >> Principal Consultant >> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC >> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics >> >> 160 North State Road #203 >> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA >> +1 845 480 2058 >> >> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Grin, OK I'm not saying that a single pole low pass and then gain, is > in any way optimal. But it works... is it type 0 or type I? > > (Does notching out the piezo resonace work? I've never tried that.) > > George H. >
Notching works great, if the resonator Q is high. The notch filter's phase shift goes away on the scale of its bandwidth rather than its centre frequency, so it has almost no effect beyond a few times delta-f. In my atomic force microscope days, I used that trick to get a factor of 10 in loop bandwidth with a piezo bimorph whose Q was right around 30. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA +1 845 480 2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net