On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:53:11 +0000,
said...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:46:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:48:47 +0000, Paul Burridge
wrote:

What's the maximum multiplication factor it's practical and sensible
to attempt to achieve in one single stage of multiplication? (Say from
a 7Mhz square wave source with 5nS rise/fall times.)

You ought to be able to answer that yourself... what's the spectral
roll-off of a square wave ??

I suppose it boils down to how much signal is left in the mush as the
harmonics get higher and higher. Knew I shoulda held on to that
spectrum analyser I used to have. :-(
I suppose that's the proper answer though: get the rise/fall times as
small and possible, measure the specral output and pick a suitable
harmonic with enough energy in it to set it 'comfortably' above the
noise floor?

Gee. I could have sworn Jim was hinting at the math approach.
Wouldn'tcha just love to predict that roll-off on paper and *then*
see it in real life? Starts with an "F", looks like a number,
sounds like a frog.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:05:58 GMT, Active8
,invalid wrote:


Gee. I could have sworn Jim was hinting at the math approach.
Wouldn'tcha just love to predict that roll-off on paper and *then*
see it in real life? Starts with an "F", looks like a number,
sounds like a frog.

Fourier? I wouldn't trust it. Sounds French. :-

--

The BBC: Licensed at public expense to spread lies.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:05:58 GMT, Active8
,invalid wrote:


Gee. I could have sworn Jim was hinting at the math approach.
Wouldn'tcha just love to predict that roll-off on paper and *then*
see it in real life? Starts with an "F", looks like a number,
sounds like a frog.

Fourier? I wouldn't trust it. Sounds French. :-

--

The BBC: Licensed at public expense to spread lies.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:51:42 +0000,
said...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:05:58 GMT, Active8
,invalid wrote:


Gee. I could have sworn Jim was hinting at the math approach.
Wouldn'tcha just love to predict that roll-off on paper and *then*
see it in real life? Starts with an "F", looks like a number,
sounds like a frog.

Fourier? I wouldn't trust it. Sounds French. :-


Then do a wavelet.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:51:42 +0000,
said...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:05:58 GMT, Active8
,invalid wrote:


Gee. I could have sworn Jim was hinting at the math approach.
Wouldn'tcha just love to predict that roll-off on paper and *then*
see it in real life? Starts with an "F", looks like a number,
sounds like a frog.

Fourier? I wouldn't trust it. Sounds French. :-


Then do a wavelet.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

In article ,
Paul Burridge wrote:
What's the maximum multiplication factor it's practical and sensible
to attempt to achieve in one single stage of multiplication? (Say from
a 7Mhz square wave source with 5nS rise/fall times.)

Depends on what you call "practical".

I know that one type of atomic clock uses a one stage frequency multiplier
to go from about 10MHz to about 9.1GHz.

A slow edged square wave follows the 1/N rule to about the point where the
rise or fall time is equal to half a cycle of the harmonic frequency.
From that point up, the spectrum falls off at a rate of at least 1/n^2.
Usually it is faster than that.

If we assume that the 5nS rise time is the input to a stage, we can use a
fast transistor to effectively speed the edge up.
--
--
forging knowledge

In article ,
Paul Burridge wrote:
What's the maximum multiplication factor it's practical and sensible
to attempt to achieve in one single stage of multiplication? (Say from
a 7Mhz square wave source with 5nS rise/fall times.)

Depends on what you call "practical".

I know that one type of atomic clock uses a one stage frequency multiplier
to go from about 10MHz to about 9.1GHz.

A slow edged square wave follows the 1/N rule to about the point where the
rise or fall time is equal to half a cycle of the harmonic frequency.
From that point up, the spectrum falls off at a rate of at least 1/n^2.
Usually it is faster than that.

If we assume that the 5nS rise time is the input to a stage, we can use a
fast transistor to effectively speed the edge up.
--
--
forging knowledge

Avery Fineman wrote:
. . .
Making practical, reproducible active multipliers in the home shop
is, practically, a trial-and-error process involving playing with cut-
off bias of the active device input, energy and harmonic content of
the source, and Q of the multiplier's output stage. In the past I've
made tripling-in-the-plate pentode crystal oscillators using
fundamental frequency quartz but those were highly dependent on
getting the highest impedance tuned plate circuit and needed
scope viewing to check output waveforms. Not very reproducible.
There's no "easy" way to do it that will "work every time" despite
the claims of many. :-)
. . .

While that's certainly true of multipliers in general, I've certainly
found it very easy to make repeatable doublers with a two transistor
push-push stage. Driving it with about zero bias and a large enough
signal to get it to conduct on at least a good fraction of each cycle
gives plenty of harmonic energy. A collector circuit with decent Q will
take care of most higher harmonics, although a simple filter following
the stage is usually adequate for more demanding applications. The
fundamental can be nulled out reasonably well with a pot between
emitters with a grounded center tap. I'd think a push-pull tripler would
be nearly as easy, but I haven't had occasion to make one.

Several simple diode and transistor multipliers are described in Chapter
5 of _Experimental Methods in RF Design_, which I heartily recommend for
the homebrewer and experimenter.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Avery Fineman wrote:
. . .
Making practical, reproducible active multipliers in the home shop
is, practically, a trial-and-error process involving playing with cut-
off bias of the active device input, energy and harmonic content of
the source, and Q of the multiplier's output stage. In the past I've
made tripling-in-the-plate pentode crystal oscillators using
fundamental frequency quartz but those were highly dependent on
getting the highest impedance tuned plate circuit and needed
scope viewing to check output waveforms. Not very reproducible.
There's no "easy" way to do it that will "work every time" despite
the claims of many. :-)
. . .

While that's certainly true of multipliers in general, I've certainly
found it very easy to make repeatable doublers with a two transistor
push-push stage. Driving it with about zero bias and a large enough
signal to get it to conduct on at least a good fraction of each cycle
gives plenty of harmonic energy. A collector circuit with decent Q will
take care of most higher harmonics, although a simple filter following
the stage is usually adequate for more demanding applications. The
fundamental can be nulled out reasonably well with a pot between
emitters with a grounded center tap. I'd think a push-pull tripler would
be nearly as easy, but I haven't had occasion to make one.

Several simple diode and transistor multipliers are described in Chapter
5 of _Experimental Methods in RF Design_, which I heartily recommend for
the homebrewer and experimenter.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

In article , Roy Lewallen
writes:

Avery Fineman wrote:
. . .
Making practical, reproducible active multipliers in the home shop
is, practically, a trial-and-error process involving playing with cut-
off bias of the active device input, energy and harmonic content of
the source, and Q of the multiplier's output stage. In the past I've
made tripling-in-the-plate pentode crystal oscillators using
fundamental frequency quartz but those were highly dependent on
getting the highest impedance tuned plate circuit and needed
scope viewing to check output waveforms. Not very reproducible.
There's no "easy" way to do it that will "work every time" despite
the claims of many. :-)
. . .

While that's certainly true of multipliers in general, I've certainly
found it very easy to make repeatable doublers with a two transistor
push-push stage. Driving it with about zero bias and a large enough
signal to get it to conduct on at least a good fraction of each cycle
gives plenty of harmonic energy. A collector circuit with decent Q will
take care of most higher harmonics, although a simple filter following
the stage is usually adequate for more demanding applications. The
fundamental can be nulled out reasonably well with a pot between
emitters with a grounded center tap. I'd think a push-pull tripler would
be nearly as easy, but I haven't had occasion to make one.

Okay. I can't agree that they are "easy" after having enough
occasions to make several. :-)

Your mileage, of course, varies.

Several simple diode and transistor multipliers are described in Chapter
5 of _Experimental Methods in RF Design_, which I heartily recommend for
the homebrewer and experimenter.

A diode doubler using a toroid transformer, pair of diodes and a tuned
circuit in the output works fine right off the paper pad and slide-rule (or
calculator) numbers. Typically the source is a distorted sinewave
from either another multiplier or an oscillator. Rocket science it ain't.

BREADBOARD. A most handy part of the bench tools. Recommended
first. Especially for those purist hobbyists who think that digital
circuits
aren't "real radio." :-)

Playing with bias on a transistor multiplier stage is fine for optimizing a
multiplication but all it is is play when there's nothing to compare one
bias setting with another as to power output at the desired multiple.
A spectrum analyzer isn't an absolute need, by the way, there's other
ways to measure the harmonic content. Is that in "Experimental
Methods..." published by the ARRL? [I'm pushing work-on-the-bench,
not books, pardon my attitude that has resulted from years of having
to produce hardware results, not paper reports]

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineering person