The resistance of the test leads is maybe 10 milli-Ohm. At a 3 A current, the error in the Drain-Source voltage would be 0.01 x 3 = 0.03 V. I'd say that's negligible. If you don't agree, it would be trivial to correct the numbers by calculating the voltage drop across the test leads.
The 0.03 V offset may be relevant for the Gate-Drain voltage, if the second power supply for the Gate voltage is referenced to the Source with a wire to the output terminal of the first power supply. This can easily be avoided by wiring the second power supply directly to the Source pin of the DUT, so the 0.03 V drop will not affect the Gate voltage.
Sorry, that should read Gate-SOURCE voltage, of course. I could not fix my mistake because the timeout to edit my post has expired.
Sure. I'll add a feature to PyPSUcurvetrace to correct for the (small) voltage drops. I don't think it's necessary, but I know some people will like it.
But we disgress... let's see what @lhquam has to say about his fools gold.
What amplifier circuit topologies benefit from triode behavior vs. pentode behavior? Here is my limited understanding.
- Topologies that benefit from triode behavior:
- Single Ended Triode (SET) common source with little or no feedback.
- Triode common source mu-follower with little or no feedback.
- Topologies where triode behavior has little or no benefit:
- Source Followers
- Common source with high feedback
Last edited:
I revised my sims from post #31 with a 220uF cap, the 10uF was too low and rolling off the low end early.
Yep, it'll be SET driving efficient loudspeakers when I try this in vivo... I think I'll like the sound even better at half the distortion.
I inverted the scope plots to show speaker polarity inversion, maintaining -H2 for the triode mod.
Yep, it'll be SET driving efficient loudspeakers when I try this in vivo... I think I'll like the sound even better at half the distortion.
I inverted the scope plots to show speaker polarity inversion, maintaining -H2 for the triode mod.
Why 45 degs? Isn't that depending on the chosen graphical scaling?
Aren't those not calculated / measured to their respective units: (kilo-) ohm and (m-) A/V?
Are you referring to output or input curves?
Holy Grail turns into Fools Gold
I thought I had something really interesting when I first simulated the Vds range expanding LU1014D modulated cascode and discovered that it preserved the triode behavior of the LU. The Holy Grail?
What I didn't consider at that time were the resulting triode parameters and their effect when used in an actual power amplifier.
Recently I have run simulations of the LU1014D modulated cascode in a SIT-1 style amplifier, shown in folowing posts. As discussed in posts #105-#107, triode behavior most benefits common source amplifiers such as the FirstWatt SIT-1 and SIT-2. The simulations agree precisely with the circuit equations shown in post #63.
I have also performed bench tests of the same SIT-1 style circuit, obtaining triode parameter values that differ from the simulations in ways that are not unexpected.
The First Watt SIT-1 Owners Manual https://firstwatt.com/pdf/prod_sit1_man.pdf "Nominal Specifications" show a gain of 18dB (7.94) with an 8 Ohm load and an output impedance (Zout) of 4 Ohms. From these values, the Voltage gain with no load (Vgain[inf]) is estimated to be 11.9. Vgain[inf]=(Vgain_1*(Zout+Rload_1))/Rload_1. From Vgain[inf] and Zout the triode parameters are:
The triode parameters derived from the simulated LU10146 modulated cascode amplifier are:
The triode parameters derived from the bench test LU10146 modulated cascode amplifier are:
Main problem with this modulated cascode is that the voltage gain μ[casc] is way to high, being magnified by a factor A = 1/k = 9.15 in these examples. The amplifier works, but the distortion and noise level is considerably higher than that of the FirstWatt SIT-1.
The only ways I know of for reducing the amplifier gain are global negative feedback and source degeneration, both of which defeat the purpose for having a triode. A FET with pentode behavior will work quite well, as with the First Watt F3 and F8.
I thought I had something really interesting when I first simulated the Vds range expanding LU1014D modulated cascode and discovered that it preserved the triode behavior of the LU. The Holy Grail?
What I didn't consider at that time were the resulting triode parameters and their effect when used in an actual power amplifier.
Recently I have run simulations of the LU1014D modulated cascode in a SIT-1 style amplifier, shown in folowing posts. As discussed in posts #105-#107, triode behavior most benefits common source amplifiers such as the FirstWatt SIT-1 and SIT-2. The simulations agree precisely with the circuit equations shown in post #63.
I have also performed bench tests of the same SIT-1 style circuit, obtaining triode parameter values that differ from the simulations in ways that are not unexpected.
The First Watt SIT-1 Owners Manual https://firstwatt.com/pdf/prod_sit1_man.pdf "Nominal Specifications" show a gain of 18dB (7.94) with an 8 Ohm load and an output impedance (Zout) of 4 Ohms. From these values, the Voltage gain with no load (Vgain[inf]) is estimated to be 11.9. Vgain[inf]=(Vgain_1*(Zout+Rload_1))/Rload_1. From Vgain[inf] and Zout the triode parameters are:
μ[SIT1]=11.9
Rd[SIT1]=4R
gm[SIT1]=2.98S
The triode parameters derived from the simulated LU10146 modulated cascode amplifier are:
μ[casc] = 73.4
Rd[casc] = 5.6R
gm[casc] = μ[casc]/Rd[casc] = 13.1S
The triode parameters derived from the bench test LU10146 modulated cascode amplifier are:
μ[casc] = 80.3
Rd[casc] = 8.31R
gm[casc] = μ[casc]/Rd[casc] = 9.67S
Bottom Line:Main problem with this modulated cascode is that the voltage gain μ[casc] is way to high, being magnified by a factor A = 1/k = 9.15 in these examples. The amplifier works, but the distortion and noise level is considerably higher than that of the FirstWatt SIT-1.
The only ways I know of for reducing the amplifier gain are global negative feedback and source degeneration, both of which defeat the purpose for having a triode. A FET with pentode behavior will work quite well, as with the First Watt F3 and F8.
I have performed both simulations and bench tests of the LU1014D modulated cascode in a SIT-1 style amplifier, shown in the first image below, where a constant current source (CCS) is used in place of a chain of resistors, primarily because I didn't have suitable resistors for the bench tests.
It is easy to measure the voltage gain of an amplifier driving different output load resistances. From those gain measurements one can calculate the output impedance (Zout), and the voltage gain without a load (Vgain[inf]) as follows:
Zout=(Rload_1*Rload_2*(Vgain_1-Vgain_2))/(Rload_1*Vgain_2-Rload_2*Vgain_1)
Vgain[inf]=((Rload_1-Rload_2)*Vgain_1*Vgain_2)/(Rload_1*Vgain_2-Rload_2*Vgain_1)
Measurements:
Simulation:
Bench Tests:
It is easy to measure the voltage gain of an amplifier driving different output load resistances. From those gain measurements one can calculate the output impedance (Zout), and the voltage gain without a load (Vgain[inf]) as follows:
Zout=(Rload_1*Rload_2*(Vgain_1-Vgain_2))/(Rload_1*Vgain_2-Rload_2*Vgain_1)
Vgain[inf]=((Rload_1-Rload_2)*Vgain_1*Vgain_2)/(Rload_1*Vgain_2-Rload_2*Vgain_1)
Measurements:
Simulation:
30.6 gain with 4R load
43.2 gain with 8R load
Zout = 5.6R
Vgain[inf] = 73.4
μ[casc] = 73.4
Rd[casc] = 5.6R
gm[casc] = μ[casc]/Rd[casc] = 13.1S
Bench Tests:
26.1 gain with 4R load
39.4 gain with 8R load
Zout = 8.31R
Vgain[inf] = 80.3
μ[casc] = 80.3
Rd[casc] = 8.31R
gm[casc] = μ[casc]/Rd[casc] = 9.67S
Attachments
Isn't this because lack of source degen~ necessitates global neg fb, whereas with s-degen the triode behaviour disappears...
It should be self-controlled without s-degen or gnfb.
Here I posted a recent simulation of my alternative. There's only one other active element involved.
I'll make another one with a J-fet as input to match current sit's.
Will that be a N-ch or a P-ch? With a high voltage p-mos as protecting top cascode, the P-ch J version can become the complementary of a vacuum triode.
Agreed. What's a little voltage feedback between friends? Besides, the transfer function is the transfer function. There's no pixie dust, everything is encoded in that waveform that pops out the other end of the amp. If you're happy, Bob's you're uncle. It's a nice bit of analysis you did there.
How much is "a little degeneration or feedback"? Is 12dB more than a little?I have encountered examples where you can have a small amount of degeneration and/or feedback
and get good results. I don't actually see these as a religious issue...
