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.
Subject: Re: How to increase PLL order?
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:21:49 +1300
Organization: Attica Communications
References: <3DF99AEF.80FA3424@NAESPAM.yahoo.com> <%QhK9.email@example.com> <3DFA3DAA.E103628F@NAESPAM.yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 03:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
Kevin Aylward wrote:
> tom wrote:
> > Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >> tom wrote:
> >>> "Christopher R. Carlen" wrote:
> >>>> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >>>>> A frequency/phase detector is a digital logic detector, of which
> >>>>> there are various implementations. In contrast to multipliers and
> >>>>> ex-or type that lock on at 90 deg for the center frequency only,
> >>>>> frequency/phase types always lock exactly in phase (ideally) no
> >>>>> mater what the centre frequency is.
> >>>> I think that depends on what the transfer function of the VCO is.
> >>>> Of course, we are used to Kvco/s, but for motors things go haywire.
> >>>> I am using the Z-state detector from a 4046, and it doesn't produce
> >>>> zero phase error with a motor, though it most certainly does with a
> >>>> normal VCO.
> >>>> The reasons are in the control theory, at which I am not yet good
> >>>> enough to explain why this happens. But I have observed it
> >>>> nonetheless. A crude attempt at my explaining it would go
> >>>> something like:
> >>>> The motor/VCO transfer function is wierd, so that the loop filter
> >>>> transfer function is not that of a simple low pass filter with a
> >>>> finite high frequency gain. Instead it is a "zero-pole" as I have
> >>>> OPed. This filter doesn't integrate. Phase error is thus some
> >>>> non-zero constant.
> >>> I have just seen this post and apologise for not reading all the
> >>> other posts but many of them. You seem to be adding a phase-lead at
> >>> unity gain which is quite common in closed-loop systems. What you
> >>> need to do is add a lag at low frequencies so you have a lag-lead
> >>> filter - like this
> >> Actually, this is one of those rare occasions that you might not
> >> really need to add a lag. In most cases one is usually stuck with:
> >> "The only guaranteed way to make a small fortune, is to start with a
> >> large one, and lose some of it."
> >> e.g.
> >> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/feedbackstability/feedbackstability.html
> >> In most cases (e.g. amplifiers), you don't have any high frequency
> >> gain left to bring the system into a 20db/dec roll off at the unity
> >> gain point. So what you do is deliberately roll off the gain and
> >> then take it back out again. i.e. a lag-lead. However, in a motor
> >> control system the response is usually so slow that you can simple
> >> add an op-amp with sufficient BW to give a simple lead around the
> >> zero x-ing point, without having to throw away gain at low
> >> frequencies.
> > Not sure what you mean by throwing away gain at low frequencies.
> > Usually with a lag you increase the overall gain of the loop
> Nahh... your definition of lag is non standard. A lag is an extra
> 20db/dec roll off from the existing roll off. It is a pole, which
> reduces the gain of the loop.
> > maintain the same unity gain crossover frequencies.
> But that's not the point of a lag. Its point is to reduce the gain
> before the unity gain frequency, so you can increase it back up again at
> the unity frequency, as I explained in my paper. It needs to do this
> before other poles kick in.
> >In text books
> > they make great play of reducing gain at low freuencies with a lag
> Because its a useful thing to do if you want to stabilise the loop.
> > but it is not comparing oranges with
> > oranges - for comparison you have to maintain the same bandwidth
> > each time you do a modification of the compensator (where possible).
> That's simple not the point of the lag. Sure, it would be nice if you
> *could* keep the same BW, but the main idea of compensation is to
> stabilise the loop, which usually means restricting the BW as a given
> > It is always possible to squeeze a lag or integrator (P+i) into a loop
> > but at the expense of phase margin of course.
> Not at all. The *deliberate* gain roll off of a lag is what *allows*
> you, in general, to un roll off the gain near the zero x-ing point. e.g.
> just slap a capacitor across a node with a small resistor in series with
> it, it will roll off the gain until the resistor kicks in. The resistor
> kicking in will *correct* the phase margin. That's its point. Its to
> obtain the phase margin that you require.
> >That is where bandwidth
> > is important
> > - you must know the limiting factor on bandwidth.
> And this is exactly what I *explicitly* addressed above. You claimed
> that one usually used a lag-lead filter, and this, of *course*, rolls of
> the gain, i.e. limits the BW. To the contrary, I pointed out that in
> slow systems, it is quite possible to have a lead on its own that can
> stabilise the loop, with the advantage that it obviously keeps the BW
> up, i.e. no lag.
> Kevin Aylward
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
I am afraid you have similar ideas to the textbooks! The reason for a lag is
increase the gain at low frequencies ie an integrator over a limited
range. You always keep the bandwidth the same othrwise no
comparison can be made.That is how I have always done it - I respect your
point of view.For instance in text books they say that a lag reduces the
response time but this is rubbish. It only reduces the response time as
they have in fact reduced the bandwidth - pretty obvious. So for a lag
with a span of 1:10 (20dB attenuation) you need to increase the overall
loop gain by 20dB and all is well.A lag increases gain in a limited range
of frequencies at low frequencies and this increases disturbance rejection,
gives better tracking etc. The converse is thrue of course when you put a
phase lead into a system - you need to lower the gain to maintain
the same bandwidth. The bandwidth is dictated by the resonance normally
where motors are concerned - oh and that is another thing missed in all the
books - they never say what limits bandwidth - you could have infinite
bandwidth for all they care!
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup