Finally?
.... finally, the results are getting reasonable...
It is not the results that were unreasonable as much as some of the posters...... a basic understanding how an emitter follower works and how to bias it, close reading of the LM317 data sheet (and preferably ap notes), and comparing Spice results to the measured data for the circuits shown in the data sheet.
Adjustable three terminals have been around for quite awhile and are excellently documented as to performance. Data sheets and Spice programs do not a designer make without a good grasp of fundamentals. Comparison of data sheet curves and Spice model results are necessary to make sure you of pretty close results from all three.
There are many things to still be covered to examine ways to improve the performance of three terminal regulators which could be explored, but I hesitate to go in to them after the three ring circus this thread became. A Spice demo with a model of the LM317 exist at http://www.micro-cap.co.uk/focmc7.asp for those that would like to pursue Spice modeling of the regulator.
It is very simple to build a test fixture for output impedance and PSRR with a couple of IRF 510s and a fairly low noise op amp configured for an AC gain of 60 dB (1000). A signal source and scope are the only test equipment required. A PC based FFT program is also useful if one knows the circuit is stable. Maybe a new thread on design, simulation, and test of high performance three terminal regulators would be worth starting, free and clear of the morass this thread became.
.... finally, the results are getting reasonable...
It is not the results that were unreasonable as much as some of the posters...... a basic understanding how an emitter follower works and how to bias it, close reading of the LM317 data sheet (and preferably ap notes), and comparing Spice results to the measured data for the circuits shown in the data sheet.
Adjustable three terminals have been around for quite awhile and are excellently documented as to performance. Data sheets and Spice programs do not a designer make without a good grasp of fundamentals. Comparison of data sheet curves and Spice model results are necessary to make sure you of pretty close results from all three.
There are many things to still be covered to examine ways to improve the performance of three terminal regulators which could be explored, but I hesitate to go in to them after the three ring circus this thread became. A Spice demo with a model of the LM317 exist at http://www.micro-cap.co.uk/focmc7.asp for those that would like to pursue Spice modeling of the regulator.
It is very simple to build a test fixture for output impedance and PSRR with a couple of IRF 510s and a fairly low noise op amp configured for an AC gain of 60 dB (1000). A signal source and scope are the only test equipment required. A PC based FFT program is also useful if one knows the circuit is stable. Maybe a new thread on design, simulation, and test of high performance three terminal regulators would be worth starting, free and clear of the morass this thread became.
less is more
Hi Fred!
Well, I love simple solutions. Only if the results
are not satisfying I am chosing more complex
solutions. So I would use the LM317 in some standard
configuration with cap between Adj and ground....
...spending some more time on proper ground structure...
... less is more ....
It took me ten years to learn this. During the last
7 years this became more and more some sort
of life philosophy for me.
In fact I am also a little bit amazed about the ongoing
personal attacks here.
Cheers
Markus
Hi Fred!
Well, I love simple solutions. Only if the results
are not satisfying I am chosing more complex
solutions. So I would use the LM317 in some standard
configuration with cap between Adj and ground....
...spending some more time on proper ground structure...
... less is more ....
It took me ten years to learn this. During the last
7 years this became more and more some sort
of life philosophy for me.
In fact I am also a little bit amazed about the ongoing
personal attacks here.
Cheers
Markus
Does anyone have any doubt about if the circuit is incorrectly implemented?
Maybe no one cares.
Soft start.......slow turn-on......floor wax.......dessert topping.........who really cares what it is called?
Only one person who copied it and did not understand it tries to tell us that it improves the regulator.
Too bad he is not here so that we can make fun of him.
Jocko
Maybe no one cares.
Soft start.......slow turn-on......floor wax.......dessert topping.........who really cares what it is called?
Only one person who copied it and did not understand it tries to tell us that it improves the regulator.
Too bad he is not here so that we can make fun of him.
Jocko
When you increase Radj to increase the output voltage, the voltage across the BE junction may - depending on the magnitude and speed of change - start conducting, and the transistor will clamp the voltage on ADJ, until the slow start capacitor is charged.
How much of a problem this is in reality I can't say, but it's something to consider. If you don't need a slow start, why include the circuit?
Another thing to consider with the slow start circuit in a positive/negative combination. The polarities might have substantially different startup times, which may or may not be a problem...
Rune
How much of a problem this is in reality I can't say, but it's something to consider. If you don't need a slow start, why include the circuit?
Another thing to consider with the slow start circuit in a positive/negative combination. The polarities might have substantially different startup times, which may or may not be a problem...
Rune
If I've understood you right, this means that if I fix my Radj once and for all, and then switch off and switch on the circuit, there will be no such problem? In that case, I'm not worried, because this circuit is meant to sit inside a closed box, sealed from human contact, once it's been set up. A bit like the bias pot of a Class B amp.runebivrin said:
I was told that it would be nice to have one if I don't lose anything else in the process. Apparently, it can reduce audible glitches which come from the preamp output at switch-on. Is this true?
Good point. In fact, I guess that in the extreme case, if one rail comes up and the other doesn't at all, then we risk damaging some downstream circuitry, right? But then I guess in typical setups, since the rail voltages will be equal on both rails, and the component values will be the same, the RC time constants will be equal to +/-25% or so, I should think? That should be safe enough, right?
Thanks for the inputs, though. When I finally get to building the amp, I may choose to not populate the soft-start part for one or two prototypes. Let's see...
Tarun
I'm out of the country for a couple of days and so I missed most of the fun here.
Seeing this develop was better than Twin Peaks, although from the moment I saw Millwood's original simulations I knew who killed Laura Palmer.
You may find this link slightly interesting:
TNT measurements of LM317 noise versus Cadjand Cout
Seeing this develop was better than Twin Peaks, although from the moment I saw Millwood's original simulations I knew who killed Laura Palmer.
jcarr said:
You may find this link slightly interesting:
TNT measurements of LM317 noise versus Cadjand Cout
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.