Korn&Korn, 1956
misremembered the reference
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=627658#post627658
a differential input 3/4 tube "op amp" controlled paralleled pass tubes, the amplifier and the voltage reference "bootstrap" powered from the regulated output V
all of the elements of the "super regulator", including use of the name "super regulator"
Nelson's permitting "personal use" of his patented designs is the only meaningful "grant" that can be offered, because he has the right to control the use of the IP of his patents during their term
published but unpatented circuits are not controllable IP, they become “prior art” - if the authors really wanted to control it their only options were patenting or attempting to practice as a trade secret - and reverse engineering has long been recognized as legal, a sale of a device employing a patentable technology is for the patent office the same as publication
this is how technology advances; circuits, techniques, patterns of problem solving are published and become available for all to use
misremembered the reference
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=627658#post627658
a differential input 3/4 tube "op amp" controlled paralleled pass tubes, the amplifier and the voltage reference "bootstrap" powered from the regulated output V
all of the elements of the "super regulator", including use of the name "super regulator"
Nelson's permitting "personal use" of his patented designs is the only meaningful "grant" that can be offered, because he has the right to control the use of the IP of his patents during their term
published but unpatented circuits are not controllable IP, they become “prior art” - if the authors really wanted to control it their only options were patenting or attempting to practice as a trade secret - and reverse engineering has long been recognized as legal, a sale of a device employing a patentable technology is for the patent office the same as publication
this is how technology advances; circuits, techniques, patterns of problem solving are published and become available for all to use
Let's get the history right
There's one earlier yet than Korn and Korn 2d ed., (Fig. #?) as I had noted some time back, here:
US claiming IP on feedback regulators? Why not? For example, see the 1946 MIT Rad Lab series #21, "Electronic Instruments", section 16-6, 'Practical Regulator Design / Precision DC Voltage Supplies', in Fig. 16-27 for example. A tube based feedback regulator with the VR105 reference tube fed from the regulated output. A 6SL7 differential input amplifier is used, with a 6Y6 pass tube. This section was authored by A. Jacobsen and J. V. Holdam, Jr.
This clearly predates any solid state/op amp based feedback regulators, which as far as I know came about in the 1960s and 1970s. It is very interesting to see just how much the early technology had been optimized. The circuit in question had an output impedance of 0.8 ohms, and a regulation of 0.05%. But these were serious times indeed, there was a war ongoing.
Don't look for this work online (except perhaps a purchase via www.abebooks.com , where I got my copy). Not everything of value exists on the internet, and never will. Some very good stuff still takes some hard work and digging. When one goes through this process, the knowledge gained and subsequently absorbed has greater staying power than that which is simply dropped into one's lap.
Walt Jung
I cannot help but note the irony of some comments on the developments of these regulators. The "nothing new" I find extremely odd, as if to imply that anything beyond the very first instance in a developmental chain is unworthy. By that line of thought, a 747 isn't an improvement over the Wright brother's flyer, right?
There's also some very fuzzy attributions along the way. FYI, it is Mike Sulzer, not Dave. Reading his articles does reveal this.
WaltJ
There's one earlier yet than Korn and Korn 2d ed., (Fig. #?) as I had noted some time back, here:
US claiming IP on feedback regulators? Why not? For example, see the 1946 MIT Rad Lab series #21, "Electronic Instruments", section 16-6, 'Practical Regulator Design / Precision DC Voltage Supplies', in Fig. 16-27 for example. A tube based feedback regulator with the VR105 reference tube fed from the regulated output. A 6SL7 differential input amplifier is used, with a 6Y6 pass tube. This section was authored by A. Jacobsen and J. V. Holdam, Jr.
This clearly predates any solid state/op amp based feedback regulators, which as far as I know came about in the 1960s and 1970s. It is very interesting to see just how much the early technology had been optimized. The circuit in question had an output impedance of 0.8 ohms, and a regulation of 0.05%. But these were serious times indeed, there was a war ongoing.
Don't look for this work online (except perhaps a purchase via www.abebooks.com , where I got my copy). Not everything of value exists on the internet, and never will. Some very good stuff still takes some hard work and digging. When one goes through this process, the knowledge gained and subsequently absorbed has greater staying power than that which is simply dropped into one's lap.
Walt Jung
I cannot help but note the irony of some comments on the developments of these regulators. The "nothing new" I find extremely odd, as if to imply that anything beyond the very first instance in a developmental chain is unworthy. By that line of thought, a 747 isn't an improvement over the Wright brother's flyer, right?
There's also some very fuzzy attributions along the way. FYI, it is Mike Sulzer, not Dave. Reading his articles does reveal this.
WaltJ
Certainly the concept has deep roots and has been modified, adapted and improved in multiple incarnations, that is my point, the topology has been improved by people likely selling for profit their implementations while allowing them to become part of the published ”art” for future engineers to build on.
With no innovations the articles on your website would be a valuable contribution to teaching the “art” to new engineers, the real improvements are great to have too.
If authors in a hobby magazine were themselves selling the circuit in question I can see the courtesy of buying their version in the face of competing copies, but I don’t see how anyone could expect a published circuit to be restricted to “personal use only” forever forward.
With no innovations the articles on your website would be a valuable contribution to teaching the “art” to new engineers, the real improvements are great to have too.
If authors in a hobby magazine were themselves selling the circuit in question I can see the courtesy of buying their version in the face of competing copies, but I don’t see how anyone could expect a published circuit to be restricted to “personal use only” forever forward.
Guys,
I am not sure why this thread now seems to gyrate to the legality or not of building each other's circuits. Let me clarify my point. That was that a poster started to throw around offhand 'improvements' to the 'Jung regulator' without (as became clear quickly) even understanding how it worked. That's a great disservice to unsuspecting members that ask questions, and who are completely misled. That's not to say I or anybody else have a patent to The Trvth (tm), but at least we should engage our brain before operating the keyboard and do our homework.
I don't want to speak for Walt, and I am sure he will correct me if necessary, but at least for me it was not a point of building that design. After all, copying is the sincerest form of flattery
Jan Didden
I am not sure why this thread now seems to gyrate to the legality or not of building each other's circuits. Let me clarify my point. That was that a poster started to throw around offhand 'improvements' to the 'Jung regulator' without (as became clear quickly) even understanding how it worked. That's a great disservice to unsuspecting members that ask questions, and who are completely misled. That's not to say I or anybody else have a patent to The Trvth (tm), but at least we should engage our brain before operating the keyboard and do our homework.
I don't want to speak for Walt, and I am sure he will correct me if necessary, but at least for me it was not a point of building that design. After all, copying is the sincerest form of flattery
Jan Didden
Super Regulator
Hi,
" TOO MUCH COOK SPOILED THE SOUP "
Am I the cook? from my point of view, I was not offhand to give " suggestion " on Jung reg. I was based on theoretical point, and no intention to disservice one's design. This is forum, we utilize it to discuss circuitry, design, as well as parts. Mainly to exchange the idea from each other, learn from each other.
No suggestions, there will be no improvement. As an engineer, he targets on technical, invention, new products as their goal to research, to find out the truth.
If any suggestion that came from us and cause your inconvenience, we say sorry about that.
PS: what is the purpose of this forum for? technical argument?
LEARN FROM EACH OTHER IS ANOTHER WAY OF LEARNING
Hi,
" TOO MUCH COOK SPOILED THE SOUP "
Am I the cook? from my point of view, I was not offhand to give " suggestion " on Jung reg. I was based on theoretical point, and no intention to disservice one's design. This is forum, we utilize it to discuss circuitry, design, as well as parts. Mainly to exchange the idea from each other, learn from each other.
No suggestions, there will be no improvement. As an engineer, he targets on technical, invention, new products as their goal to research, to find out the truth.
If any suggestion that came from us and cause your inconvenience, we say sorry about that.
PS: what is the purpose of this forum for? technical argument?
LEARN FROM EACH OTHER IS ANOTHER WAY OF LEARNING
Re: Let's get the history right
Walt, when you talk about improvements I think noone really has ment electrical improvement, more like practical improvement such as easier mounting, smaller pcb, more options for different parts.
I think you missundestand me at least. There is a basic idea and the time has made this idea better and better by small changes in design and _big_ improvements in parts. Since I don't have the whole story from the tube regulator over to Mr. Kaneda in 1977 over to the Jung/Didden incarnation I can't really judge who made what. What I can see is that a resistor is changed to a constant current generator which certianly is smart and a real improvement. Changing from a 709 to an AD825 has to do with time only.WaltJ said:
Walt, when you talk about improvements I think noone really has ment electrical improvement, more like practical improvement such as easier mounting, smaller pcb, more options for different parts.
Back to topic...Depending of desired output current you can use almost any small signal transistor with sufficient ratings. Hfe should be >100, better with 300 or more. fT should be > 100 MHz or more.MaxS said:Hello
After readings about regulatots, I have Jung super regulator ( schematics attached ) but I'd get your advice about some substitions parts.
AD 825
I want to replace it with TL 071 but i'm afraid by a low output current of this one which makes the transistor didn't provide too much current in the case of an HFE around 40. Otherwise, i canuse a most expensive one as OPA 13x.
- JFET input
- High output current
2N5087
I've read I can replace it with 2N2907, so I can replace it with a BC 327. Am I wrong ?
BC327/337/54x/55x/560 are OK examples. I have used BC550C and BC5560C with good results. The power transistor should be fast, D44H11/D45H11 are excellent but BD139/140 are also OK for smaller currents.
Jung regulator
Andrew T:
Thanks your support on our suggestion on the reg. improvement, Those points we suggested are base on theoretical background, and experiences.
As another member just pointed out his schematic which the ccs is replaced by a resistor, and the op-amp is replaced by 709. of cause, we haven't done this experiment, we can't say any thing on it. We suggested this item several threads before, due to we have seen this type of design several times. but this is the first time I saw design using ccs. And also the first time heard about Jung regulator.
On our market, we do know Lambda, Kepco, KDK, that's what the argue started with.
We do things not by venturing! We must have or get technical background to support what we have said. By the meantime, we are working on another project, and have to idle the regulator research, it may take some time to do it, we don't want to reveal the result without being done the test. By the time when we have done the reg. analysis and evaluation, we will announce it.
WE ANNOUNCE BY FACTS
Andrew T:
Thanks your support on our suggestion on the reg. improvement, Those points we suggested are base on theoretical background, and experiences.
As another member just pointed out his schematic which the ccs is replaced by a resistor, and the op-amp is replaced by 709. of cause, we haven't done this experiment, we can't say any thing on it. We suggested this item several threads before, due to we have seen this type of design several times. but this is the first time I saw design using ccs. And also the first time heard about Jung regulator.
On our market, we do know Lambda, Kepco, KDK, that's what the argue started with.
We do things not by venturing! We must have or get technical background to support what we have said. By the meantime, we are working on another project, and have to idle the regulator research, it may take some time to do it, we don't want to reveal the result without being done the test. By the time when we have done the reg. analysis and evaluation, we will announce it.
WE ANNOUNCE BY FACTS
Re: Jung Super Regulator
Hi Mit,
AND
Now completely the opposite.
Are you TELLING Janneman how to design it better or ASKING how it works and IF there MAY be room for improvement?
You came barging in telling everyone this and that and how it will be better and why parts were redundant.
Keep in mind readers of all levels of expertise read your posts and some may infer from your language that you know what you claim to understand.
Then when we probe you crawl out and admit you know nothing. In the meantime someone may have picked up the advice in your first post and gone and---well how bad can it get?
Make up your mind!
Are you an expert or student?
Hi Mit,
mitwrong said:
AND
mitwrong said:
Now completely the opposite.
mitwrong said:
Are you TELLING Janneman how to design it better or ASKING how it works and IF there MAY be room for improvement?
You came barging in telling everyone this and that and how it will be better and why parts were redundant.
Keep in mind readers of all levels of expertise read your posts and some may infer from your language that you know what you claim to understand.
Then when we probe you crawl out and admit you know nothing. In the meantime someone may have picked up the advice in your first post and gone and---well how bad can it get?
Make up your mind!
Are you an expert or student?
I am being rude.
Mit made out HE was the EXPERT and told us all how to do it and what bits to miss out.
My last post compared his first with his last and suddenly we see he has built nothing like it and even admits that it is beyond his experience.
That annoys me.
I hope he got the message.
I and many others go to some lengths to explain how something works, we expect newcomers to join us and we provide help and advice willingly.
I too am a relative newcomer & I get help, repeatedly. I appreciate all those efforts.
Mit could do with modifying his attitude, or I'll be rude again.
Mit made out HE was the EXPERT and told us all how to do it and what bits to miss out.
My last post compared his first with his last and suddenly we see he has built nothing like it and even admits that it is beyond his experience.
That annoys me.
I hope he got the message.
I and many others go to some lengths to explain how something works, we expect newcomers to join us and we provide help and advice willingly.
I too am a relative newcomer & I get help, repeatedly. I appreciate all those efforts.
Mit could do with modifying his attitude, or I'll be rude again.
Jung reg
Andrew T, and other members:
No need to care who I am, I never said I am an expert, as I replied in post 26, I gave out was " SUGGESTION ", not order! if you trust the suggestion, try it, this is FORUM, is not in court, this place is for discussion, may have arguments, anybody can give suggestion on here, right?
Is that any suggestion or ideas given in MUST BE CORRECT OR ACCURATE? I think everybody may have mistake, I am not an exception. Every body has his own knowledge, what happen if he got his knowledge out dated, or with mistake. You guys will blame him for it? is it fair? I think Mr. Andrew is a teacher, in school, is that teacher always right? no mistake at all? If a teacher has done something wrong or mistake in teaching, will the education board take immediately action?
On post 26, I already say " sorry " due to my suggestion, You guys don't know how to " forgive ". If I still see some message pin point on me, I will never show up at this forum again.
FORGIVE BETTER THAN BLAME ON SOMEONE
Andrew T, and other members:
No need to care who I am, I never said I am an expert, as I replied in post 26, I gave out was " SUGGESTION ", not order! if you trust the suggestion, try it, this is FORUM, is not in court, this place is for discussion, may have arguments, anybody can give suggestion on here, right?
Is that any suggestion or ideas given in MUST BE CORRECT OR ACCURATE? I think everybody may have mistake, I am not an exception. Every body has his own knowledge, what happen if he got his knowledge out dated, or with mistake. You guys will blame him for it? is it fair? I think Mr. Andrew is a teacher, in school, is that teacher always right? no mistake at all? If a teacher has done something wrong or mistake in teaching, will the education board take immediately action?
On post 26, I already say " sorry " due to my suggestion, You guys don't know how to " forgive ". If I still see some message pin point on me, I will never show up at this forum again.
FORGIVE BETTER THAN BLAME ON SOMEONE
Responsibility
Mr. SY ( moderator }
One thing I want to make clarify, is anybody give in " SUGGESTIONS ' must be accurate and correct, must have evidence, or have done the test or experiment ahead on it? How about by knowledge, or passed experience?
Is it possible to have done the test, or certified the circuitry before provide " SUGGESTION ".
In other forum, that is a place where members exchange their ideas and discuss on everything. How about here? ( SAY WITH RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY)
Another thing I wanted to clarify. I am an Asian, not that good in English, may be I used incorrect wordings, every time when I reply a post, there must be a dictionary I consulted with. That's why I join in this forum to learn Technical and English. I am a new member, not that clear about the rules although I have read thru.
LEARNING IS ENDLESS
Mr. SY ( moderator }
One thing I want to make clarify, is anybody give in " SUGGESTIONS ' must be accurate and correct, must have evidence, or have done the test or experiment ahead on it? How about by knowledge, or passed experience?
Is it possible to have done the test, or certified the circuitry before provide " SUGGESTION ".
In other forum, that is a place where members exchange their ideas and discuss on everything. How about here? ( SAY WITH RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY)
Another thing I wanted to clarify. I am an Asian, not that good in English, may be I used incorrect wordings, every time when I reply a post, there must be a dictionary I consulted with. That's why I join in this forum to learn Technical and English. I am a new member, not that clear about the rules although I have read thru.
LEARNING IS ENDLESS
Hi everyone, Walt, Jan, et al;
I think this is my first post here, I hope you will be tolerant of my really dumb questions, I am a student with no pretenses whatsoever of more than the most rudimentary knowledge. Watching me trace a circuit with my fingers is kinda like Math teachers watch a kid count on his fingers. I will try hard, however, to keep my questions as few as possible and comments scarce.
The Jung Super Regulator has me fascinated and impressed, I've spent two days now going through the circuit and I think I understand all of it except the CCS part, always a thorn in my paw, and I am about to build it up for a 6GM8 25 Volt guitar preamp aikido-incorporated project I'm working on.
I have three questions:
My first, big $64,000 question is this: what about using a MOSFET for the pass device?
I realize the driver circuitry would undoubtedly have to change....which I would not know how to do.
My desire to use a MOSFET rather than a transistor is admittedly irrational and emotional; I have been told that MOSFET'S are closer to tubes, and since the pass device is unavoidably well within the audio path of the amp, I would much rather the pass device be a tube - but needing at least 50 mA at 25 V, a tube as pass device doesn't seem, even to me, practical.
So, would anyone humor me with info on how to use a MOSFET instead, OR if using a MOSFET instead is a really bone-head idea, then I would appreciate knowing it and finding out why.
2nd big $64,000 question: if I stick with the design as-is, would someone mind guiding me to the "best" version, using opamps that are readily available from digikey?
3rd and final: why are the two opamps paralleled? Is it simply to source enough current for the driver stage?
best regards to all, charles
I think this is my first post here, I hope you will be tolerant of my really dumb questions, I am a student with no pretenses whatsoever of more than the most rudimentary knowledge. Watching me trace a circuit with my fingers is kinda like Math teachers watch a kid count on his fingers. I will try hard, however, to keep my questions as few as possible and comments scarce.
The Jung Super Regulator has me fascinated and impressed, I've spent two days now going through the circuit and I think I understand all of it except the CCS part, always a thorn in my paw, and I am about to build it up for a 6GM8 25 Volt guitar preamp aikido-incorporated project I'm working on.
I have three questions:
My first, big $64,000 question is this: what about using a MOSFET for the pass device?
I realize the driver circuitry would undoubtedly have to change....which I would not know how to do.
My desire to use a MOSFET rather than a transistor is admittedly irrational and emotional; I have been told that MOSFET'S are closer to tubes, and since the pass device is unavoidably well within the audio path of the amp, I would much rather the pass device be a tube - but needing at least 50 mA at 25 V, a tube as pass device doesn't seem, even to me, practical.
So, would anyone humor me with info on how to use a MOSFET instead, OR if using a MOSFET instead is a really bone-head idea, then I would appreciate knowing it and finding out why.
2nd big $64,000 question: if I stick with the design as-is, would someone mind guiding me to the "best" version, using opamps that are readily available from digikey?
3rd and final: why are the two opamps paralleled? Is it simply to source enough current for the driver stage?
best regards to all, charles
radianceaudio said:Hi everyone, Walt, Jan, et al;
I think this is my first post here, I hope you will be tolerant of my really dumb questions, I am a student with no pretenses whatsoever of more than the most rudimentary knowledge. Watching me trace a circuit with my fingers is kinda like Math teachers watch a kid count on his fingers. I will try hard, however, to keep my questions as few as possible and comments scarce.
The Jung Super Regulator has me fascinated and impressed, I've spent two days now going through the circuit and I think I understand all of it except the CCS part, always a thorn in my paw, and I am about to build it up for a 6GM8 25 Volt guitar preamp aikido-incorporated project I'm working on.
I have three questions:
My first, big $64,000 question is this: what about using a MOSFET for the pass device?
I realize the driver circuitry would undoubtedly have to change....which I would not know how to do.
My desire to use a MOSFET rather than a transistor is admittedly irrational and emotional; I have been told that MOSFET'S are closer to tubes, and since the pass device is unavoidably well within the audio path of the amp, I would much rather the pass device be a tube - but needing at least 50 mA at 25 V, a tube as pass device doesn't seem, even to me, practical.
So, would anyone humor me with info on how to use a MOSFET instead, OR if using a MOSFET instead is a really bone-head idea, then I would appreciate knowing it and finding out why.
2nd big $64,000 question: if I stick with the design as-is, would someone mind guiding me to the "best" version, using opamps that are readily available from digikey?
3rd and final: why are the two opamps paralleled? Is it simply to source enough current for the driver stage?
best regards to all, charles
Hi Charles,
Welcome to the forum! Hope you like it here.
That ccs is not a mystery. Do you understand that it sets up a constant current that feeds the base of the pass transistor? That the opamp siphons off any part of this constant current that is too much for the load current and that would drive up the output voltage?
So, about the mosfet. Yes, you can do it. I am not an expert in mosfets, but off the bat I see two issues:
- you will more voltage between the rectified 'raw' DC and the output voltage of the reg (the in/out difference) because the mosfet needs more drive voltage than the bjt which needs basically 0.65 V Vbe or so. On the other hand, there are mosfets that work with 3 or 4 V between gate and source so the delta is not that much and it can anyway be taken care off with enough rectified voltage. I guess you want 25VDC regulated output? So you would want at least 30VDC input or a transformer that gives off some 20VAC (or 20 x 20VAC centertapped).
- a mosfet has less gain/transconductance than a bjt, so the total loop gain available for the control loop is less with a mosfet so the measured performance will be not as good. Things like Zout, ripple rejection, rejection of ripple impressed by the load, will be up to 10 times worse. So, whatever 'magic' the mosfet brings to the circuit has to offset this. I don't know how this all would be audible.
The matter of opamps is whatever you like. I also read the reports that this or that opamp sounds more this or that, honestly I take that with a big bag of salt, but precisiely because this is all so subjective my or anybody's opinion can be opposite to your opinion. My only advice would be to stay away from the AD797 as it is prone to instability here.
Opamps paralleled: There are no opamps paralleled in this circuit. What you may have seen is peranders' circuit board for this reg where you see two different patterns for two types of opamps; you can use either one but of course NOT both at the same time.
Cheers,
Jan Didden
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.