After yesterday’s failed attempt to generate a clean since wave, I started experimenting a bit further. How could the Op-amp book be so wrong about the quadrature oscillator circuit?

The nice thing about op-amps in DIP-8 packages, is that most of them use the same pinout, so it’s very easy to swap them out and test different brands and types. The TLV2472 only supports up to 6V as power supply, most of the other ones go much higher – usually above 30V, i.e. ±15V.

Here’s the list of op-amp chips I tried (yeah, got quite a bunch of them in my lab, for various reasons):

• TLV2474
• LM358N
• LM833N
• NE5532ANG
• OP2340
• NJM14558D
• MCP6023
• LT1413

All of them had similar behavior, i.e. clipping at both limits of the voltage range, except for the LT1413:

Still nowhere near a sine wave, BTW. But what’s more interesting, is the the voltage swing of this signal was just 4.5 Vpp, while the op-amp was being driven from a ±15V power supply in this particular case. So for some reason, it was “oscillating” at 1.25 KHz (about 8x higher than the other mode).

I have no idea what was going on. When trying to reproduce this a second time, I couldn’t get this behavior back. I suspect a loose connection, or perhaps some odd interaction due to the breadboard.

I’m not really interested in tracking down this issue, since it looks like this quadrature oscillator circuit is not suitable for a Component Tester – not without some sort of amplitude regulation anyway.

So there you have it – analog circuits also need to be debugged, as you can see!

Update – this issue has now been resolved, see the comments on yesterday’s weblog post.

After the recent pretty disappointing results with a transformer-based Component Tester, I’d like to try and generate a ± 10 V sine wave at approximately 50 Hz in some other way. Using as few components as possible.

This is where we enter, eh, squarely into the analog electronics domain. Yes, we could generate it with an ATmega, but frankly that sounds like a bit of overkill, would require a fair amount of filtering to remove residual switching effects, and besides we’d still have to amplify it up to 10 Vpp.

Time to introduce some new circuitry!

One of the most incredible electronic building blocks invented in the second world-war era was the Operational Amplifier, or “op-amp” in short.

There’s way too much to say about this amazingly universal circuit, which even has its own schematic symbol:

A positive and negative power supply pin, a positive and a negative input, and an output pin. That’s it.

I’ve only just started exploring op-amps, really – one superb resource on the web comes in the form of a free eBook from 2002 on the Texas Instruments site, titled “Op Amps For Everyone”, by Ron Mancini.

In his chapter on Sine Wave Oscillator, he mentions a “Quadrature Oscillator” built from two op-amps:

It uses very few components. This one was dimensioned for about 1.6 KHz, so I started with capacitors ten times as large, i.e. 0.1 µF, to lower the oscillation frequency. Here’s the result, using a TLV2472 dual op-amp:

Powered by a supply of ±2.5V (i.e. 0 / 2.5V / 5V), I see this result on the scope, when attached to the sine output:

Yeah, right. Clipping like crazy, i.e. overshooting into the limiting 0V and 5V power lines. The FFT shows it’s not anywhere near a pure sine wave, even though the shape vaguely resembles one:

A pure sine wave would have a single peak at the oscillating frequency.

Here’s the cosine output, again showing that it’s running way outside its linear range:

So yeah, we’re generating a 160 Hz signal, but it’s no sine wave and it would be useless as Component Tester.

Oh well, it was still an interesting first trial!

Welcome to the Thursday Toolkit series, about tools for building Physical Computing projects.

(this is again a bit of a side excursion, about checking the quality of a measuring instrument)

I recently visited a friend who had to get his frequency meter’s calibration verified to a fairly high precision. Thinking of the Rubidium clock I got from eBay, he came up with the idea of using a transfer standard.

The thing with accuracy, is that you have to have an absolute reference to compare against. One option is to go to a “calibration lab” and have them test, adjust, and certify that your instrument has a certain accuracy. Awkward, expensive, and usually a bit over the top for “simple” hobby uses.

So the other way to do things, is to “transfer” the calibration in some way. Buy or build a device which can keep the desired property stable, calibrate it to some standard, move it to where the instrument needing calibration is located, and compare the two. Or vice versa: match to instrument, then compare with a standard.

The latter is exactly what we ended up doing. First we created a little Arduino daughter board with a “VC-TCXO” on it: that’s a “Temperature Compensated Xtal Oscillator” which can be fine-tuned through a voltage. Here’s the setup, created and built by Rohan Judd:

On the left, an SPI-controlled digital potmeter, on the right a VC-TCXO running at 10 MHz.

Via a sketch, the VC-TCXO was fine-tuned to produce exactly 10.000,000 MHz readout on the frequency counter we wanted to verify. This was done at about 18°C, but a quick test showed that this VC-TCXO was indeed accurately keeping its frequency, even when cooled down by more than 10°C.

I took this device back home with me, and set up my frequency generator to use the Rubidium clock as reference. So now I had two devices on my workbench at JeeLabs, both claiming to run at 10 MHz …

Evidently, they are bound to differ to some degree – the question was simply: by how much?

Remember Lissajous? By hooking up both signals to the oscilloscope, you can compare them in X-Y mode:

Channel 1 (yellow) is the VC-TCXO signal, some sort of odd square wave – I didn’t pay any attention to proper HF wiring. Channel 2 (blue) is the sine wave generated by the frequency generator.

The resulting image is a bit messy, but the key is that when both frequencies match up exactly, then that image will stay the same. If they differ, then it will appear to rotate in 3D. It’s very easy to observe.

The last trick needed to make this work is simply to adjust the frequency generator until the image does indeed stop rotating. This is extra-ordinarily sensitive – the hard part is actually first finding the approximate setting!

After a bit of searching and tweaking, and after having let everything warm up for over an hour, I got this:

IOW, the frequency I transferred back to JeeLabs with me was 9.999,999,963 MHz. We’re done!

To put it all into perspective: that highlighted digit is 0.1 ppb (billion!). So the frequency counter appears to be 3.7 ppb slow. Assuming that the transfer standard did not lose accuracy during the trip, and that my Rubidium clock is 100% accurate. Which it isn’t of course, but since its frequency is based on atomic resonance properties, I’m pretty confident that it’s indeed accurate to more than 0.1 ppb.

The real story here, though, is that such breath-taking accuracy is now within reach of any hobbyist!