The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3DDED492.2B9873B0@webaccess.net> <0lGD9.514$pN1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DDF7F94.25D6A972@webaccess.net>
Subject: Re: Phase locked loops and confusion.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:10:47 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:11:02 GMT
Chuck Simmons wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> Chuck Simmons wrote:
>>> PLLs are fairly common and seem fairly simple but I found over the
>>> past week that confusion abounds and since I have seen this
>>> confusion before, I wonder if it is common.
>>> Our digital team (yes, 2 engineers) has a need for a PLL but for
>>> various reasons, an all digital loop could not be considered and,
>>> therefore, I was dragged in as resident analog stuff guru. The y
>>> showed me the loop they were proposing which consisted of digital
>>> equivalents (pretty exact really) of a phase detector driving up and
>>> down charge pumps dumping into a capacitor followed by a filter
>>> followed by the VCO (which is analog). I was asked what the filter
>>> needed to be and I mumbled that they had two integrators so it
>>> should probably be a classic lead/lag and proceeded to draw
>>> response curves on the whiteboard indicating what was needed.
>>> The next day, I was told that all of the papers they could find on
>>> the web used a low pass filter. My comment was an unenthusiastic
>>> "Oh." I was correctly interpreted and a printed article soon
>>> appeared on my desk. Suddenly I saw the confusion. The proposed
>>> loop had a phase detector, charge pumps and capacitor which is
>>> Kp/s. The article used a phase detector that was Kp. So the article
>>> loop has Kp*Kf/s while the proposed loop has Kp*Kf/s^2. A low pass
>>> is perfectly fine for the article loop but not workable for the
>>> proposed loop.
>> I don't understand what you are actually illustrating here. What
>> exact terms are going with what. Where is every "s" term in what
>> block, explicitly.
> The blocks are a VCO which can be considered an integrator (Kf/s)
> pretty obviously.
No problem here.
>There ia a phase detector block which can have an
> integrator lumped into it.
I don't follow this. The phase detector block itself does not have a 1/s
>There is a filter block which, for
> convenience, is between the phase detector and the VCO. If the phase
> detector has no lumped integrator,
Which it dont?
> the filter can be a wire because
> the 1st order loop is stable.
Agreed, if there is no filter, the VCO 1/s is enough (but poor) to lock
> It is usually a low pass filter. If the
> phase detector has a lumped integrator,
>charge pumps and cap, the
> filter needs to be a lead/lag or something of the sort to stabilize
Yes, If there is a filter, then this filter (1/(1+s.tau), with the vco
1/s will require a lead in the filter.
>Generally, I am talking about the confusion I see that
> comes about because a fairly common phase detector strategy lumps an
> integrator becoming Kp/s instead of Kp. This leads to confusion about
> how to stabilize the loop.
Well I'm confused on what you mean by having a phase detector lumped
as/with an integrator.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup