General purpose shunt regulator

Lumba Ogir · 2009-01-28 5:59 pm

Hi,
poor man`s general purpose shunt regulator, precipitately drawn, simulated in the head. Omissions and errors reserved!

Zen Mod · 2009-01-28 7:14 pm

Lumba Ogir said:
Hi,
poor man`s general purpose shunt regulator, precipitately drawn, simulated in the head. Omissions and errors reserved!

poor man's ......... :rofl:

only if you replace 7 pcs of 2SK170 with 7 pcs of BF245(A/B/C) .......

joker .....

Lumba Ogir · 2009-01-28 7:34 pm

Zen Mod,
I liked that.

In fact, four more pieces in the high-budget version (current mirror).

Lumba Ogir · 2009-01-29 8:13 am

apassgear,
got disappointed and I sincerely apologize.

Thank you Zen Mod, I will remember your kind attitude.

Lumba Ogir · 2009-01-29 9:47 am

Dear Sirs,
it could be mentioned in parentheses that the sonic performance of shunt regulators cannot be compared to the 15kHz IC types, which have an immense circuit complexity and suffer from devastating GNF effects and other anomalies in audio use. Yet many seriously meant attempts for "improvement" have been made over the years. What a waste of resources. However, shunt regulators work in a kind of class A so power dissipation is a problem in some situations.

h_a · 2009-01-29 10:57 am

Hi Lumba,

that must be the first readable schematic I've seen from you

Nice toy! However, I do not get your attitude with respect to negative feedback and regulators; every regulator uses in principle 100% negative (voltage) feedback as it does not provide any gain.

Have fu, Hannes

jan.didden · 2009-01-29 11:25 am

h_a said:
[snip]However, I do not get your attitude with respect to negative feedback and regulators; every regulator uses in principle 100% negative (voltage) feedback as it does not provide any gain.

Have fun, Hannes

Exactly. The only way a regulator can regulate is via feedback. Shunt or series reg.

Jan Didden

Zen Mod · 2009-01-29 11:34 am

www.DiySemantic.com

:rofl:

be it any sort of zenner - follower ..... even that is feedback mechanismus .....

shall we proceed ...... either in constructive , either in joyful off topic manner ...

:clown:

PMA · 2009-01-29 11:49 am

Emitter follower = 100% voltage feedback

Lumba Ogir · 2009-01-29 11:58 am

Hannes,
right, I`m blaming my software, the only one I can handle.

Voltage followers use 100% feedback, like the CFP series pass element above. The number of stages has a vital importance in that regard, it`s about time. Feedback over not more than two stages is acceptable for me.

juma · 2009-01-29 2:01 pm

PMA said:
Emitter follower = 100% voltage feedback

Absolutely wrong - it is 100 % Emitter degeneration, which may have the same final effect as feedback mechanisms but it's clearly not the same thing.

No voltage is being "fed-back", it's just putting the resistor in emitter circuit so that current which flows through transistor can swing in rhythm with input signal. Having no gain has nothing to do with it, it's just a simple use of inherent, intrinsic property of the transistor itself.

Once more, there is no voltage that you take from somewhere and feed it to somewhere else - feedback means loop - it's not the case with degeneration.

Please, once and for all - let us use standard, scientifically determined terms in order to make a clear distinction between feedback and cathode/source/emitter degeneration.

PMA · 2009-01-29 2:18 pm

Please study, you are simplifying, feedback does not mean loop, only in amateur DIYer's minds.

One of possible links to study:

http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e84/lectures/ch4/node9.html

syn08 · 2009-01-29 2:23 pm

juma said:
Absolutely wrong - it is 100 % Emitter degeneration, which may have the same final effect as feedback mechanisms but it's clearly not the same thing.

No voltage is being "fed-back", it's just putting the resistor in emitter circuit so that current which flows through transistor can swing in rhythm with input signal. Having no gain has nothing to do with it, it's just a simple use of inherent, intrinsic property of the transistor itself.

Once more, there is no voltage that you take from somewhere and feed it to somewhere else - feedback means loop - it's not the case with degeneration.

Please, once and for all - let us use standard, scientifically determined terms in order to make a clear distinction between feedback and cathode/source/emitter degeneration.

Absolutely WRONG. Emitter degeneration IS NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_emitter

Ah, ok, this is Wikipedia, not reliable

And speaking about "let us use standard, scientifically determined terms in order to make a clear distinction between feedback and cathode/source/emitter degeneration", what about this one?

http://books.google.com/books?id=bk...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Paul Horowitz? Who's Paul Horowitz? I'll stop here, not before asking if you ever heard about current feedback and the four feedback topologies?

juma · 2009-01-29 2:58 pm

I won't get into personal defamation and name throwing, it's just colloquial use of term "feedback" that bothers me, creating a false impression of equality between essentially different physical phenomena/engineering techniques.

As far as I'm concerned the feedback/degeneration subject is closed.

syn08 · 2009-01-29 3:38 pm

juma said:
creating a false impression of equality between essentially different physical phenomena/engineering techniques.

WRONG AGAIN, emitter degeneration is NOT a physical phenomena. It's an engineering techniques also known as series-series negative feedback.

Zen Mod · 2009-01-29 3:42 pm

syn08 said:
WRONG AGAIN, emitter degeneration is NOT a physical phenomena. It's an engineering techniques also known as series-series negative feedback.

I couldn't imagine in my wildest dreams that I'll write this :

boyz - you're polluting the topic with that semantic mumbo jumbo

PMA · 2009-01-29 4:12 pm

Sadly, just for the marketing reasons, some reputable audio designers exclude all but "global feedback loop from output to input" from the true definition of feedback. Okay, I can live with this fact, but many amateurs are misleaded.

Lumba Ogir · 2009-01-30 8:05 am

Zen Mod,

boyz - you're polluting the topic with that semantic mumbo jumbo

It`s not a problem here as I look at it, the more colorful discussion the better.

jan.didden · 2009-01-30 8:38 am

PMA said:
Emitter follower = 100% voltage feedback

Let's try to think logically? I didn't say that feedback = regulator. I said that any regulator works based on feedback. Not the same.

Why is it so that everytime a new guy pops up he tries to re-define long-established definitions to fit his 'believe'?
Does being a diy-er somehow prevent people to think clearly and logically?

Jan Didden

PMA · 2009-01-30 8:44 am

I am not sure whom you address now, Jan.

The emitter follower is a circuit with deep negative feedback, i.e., all of its output Vout = Ve is fed back to
become part of its input Vbe.

Vbe is an "error voltage" then.

General purpose shunt regulator

Banned

Attachments

Official Court Jester

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

AX tech editor

Official Court Jester

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Official Court Jester

Member

Banned

AX tech editor

Member