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: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:20:59 +1300
Organization: Attica Communications
References: <3DF99AEF.80FA3424@NAESPAM.yahoo.com> <%QhK9.email@example.com> <3DFA3DAA.E103628F@NAESPAM.yahoo.com> <3DFBF54D.778230B7@NAESPAM.yahoo.com> <3DFCDF61.C5F12685@NAESPAM.yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 03:20:22 +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:
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >> evil.
> > >>
> > >>> 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.
> > >>
> > > I am afraid you have similar ideas to the textbooks! The reason for a
> > > lag is to
> > > increase the gain at low frequencies ie an integrator over a limited
> > > frequency
> > > range.
> > This discrepancy would appear to be due in part, to differing
> > terminologies in amplifier design and control theory, and differing
> > goals. Furthermore, there is a misunderstanding of what "low frequency"
> > means. It seems that your referring to DC to some lower bound, where as
> > reducing frequency in amplifier terms means the frequency response in
> > general.
> > I agree, that you can use a gain roll off to increase the DC to low
> > frequency gain. However, this aspect is really secondary to the main
> > goal in *amplifier* design. The fundamental point is to stabilise the
> > amplifier. To do this one rolls of the gain before any of the millions
> > of other HF poles kick in. Rolling it of faster, than taking it back out
> > again at the zero x-ing point can achieve this goal. This is simply not
> > debatable. Its how it is.
> > >You always keep the bandwidth the same othrwise no
> > > comparison can be made.
> > Conceptually, that's not how its actually perceived. What one has is an
> > amplifier, set of with some required gain, and low and behold its
> > oscillating. This is the starting state of affairs. One than either
> > rolls of the gain to stabilise it, or trie to add a lead, e.g. a
> > capacitor across a feedback resister to increase the loop gain.
> > >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 step
> > > response time but this is rubbish. It only reduces the response time
> > > as they have in fact reduced the bandwidth - pretty obvious.
> > A gain roll off will reduce the response, however, your interpretation
> > of what a lag does is based on what one can do in a lagged *system*, not
> > the lag by itself.
> > >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.
> > This wording is poor. The lag does not increase the gain in a limited
> > region, it *allows* for increased gain at low frequencies if associated
> > design measures are taken in the system.
> > Consider a system with a basic single pole roll off, and some other
> > poles at HF. This roll off has to ensure that the unity gain point is
> > achieved prior to the HF poles. If you now add n times roll offs at some
> > frequency, after that frequency the gain will roll of much more rapidly.
> > This additional roll of is then knocked out around the o-xing point.
> > This means that you can increase the low frequency gain from what it was
> > and still have it intersect to 0 db point, prior to those other HF
> > poles.
> > >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.
> > Again, the issue her is one of definitions and starting assumptions. If
> > I have an oscillating system as a *given*, then add a zero (a pure lead)
> > it can stabilise the system and it don't reduce the BW one iota.
> Down to definitions - a zero is strictly not a lead - it needs a pole to
> to go with it. Of course if there is a natural roll-off anyway then the
> pole arises naturally (or poles).Your application are for amplifiers
> on the whole - for control systems a phase advance has a zero and pole
> and a lag has a pole and zero. Yes they would reduce and increase gain.
> For example consider a phase advance on an op-amp at the inverting input.
> A C in series with an R1 and a parallel R2 into the - input with an
> R2 on the feedback path.This has a dc gain of unity but a 'high freq' gain
> of 1+R1/R2 off the top of my head so the bandwidth would increase with
> this active network.Often it is not possible to add passive networks
> due to loading considerations but I am sure you are well aware of this.
> A lag (with a pole and zero) is just an integrator over a limited freq range
> ie -6dB/octave - not often thought as that but nevertheless that is what it
> It also performs the exact same function though is less expensive on phase
> margin than the pure integrator (or P-I). Also it is not as good as the
> from the point of view of step error coefficients or ramp error
> I have often used a P-I and a phase lag at low frequencies.This is like a
> double integrator over a limited freq range.
> As for definitions in general - well a pole is often called a simple lag but
> should not be confused in my book with a phase-lag which is a pole-zero
> network.Similalry with a zero - a simple lead but not a phase-lead which
> is a zero - then pole.Of course then people talk of a pole-zero network
> as a lag-lead which confuses matters further!Everything in my book needs to
> be band-limited.We cannot have a pure zero in an analogue system on its own
> in any case unless you mean a pure diferrentiator which is unpractical.I
> suppose if you put a series resistor it isthen ok but it is just an
> amplifier for noise.
> Also it has a pole at s=0 too.So when you talk about putting in a pure
> zero you are relying on the natural properties (ie the generic poles) of the
> system to supply the pole to go with it - whats the difference?
oops - I meant a zero at s=0 and a pole at higher frequencies :)
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup