The good, the bad, and the ugly of zero trims

Designing an amplifier nulling circuit that allows for the attenuation of the supply voltages without hurting the PSRR of the amplifier. The post The good, the bad, and the ugly of zero trims appeared first on EDN.

The good, the bad, and the ugly of zero trims

ARE YOU TIRED OF LOW SALES TODAY?

Connect to more customers on doacWeb

Post your business here..... from NGN1,000

WhatsApp: 09031633831

ARE YOU TIRED OF LOW SALES TODAY?

Connect to more customers on doacWeb

Post your business here..... from NGN1,000

WhatsApp: 09031633831

ARE YOU TIRED OF LOW SALES TODAY?

Connect to more customers on doacWeb

Post your business here..... from NGN1,000

WhatsApp: 09031633831

Manual amplifier nulling circuits are simple topologies, typically consisting of just a trimmer pot and a couple of fixed resistors intended to allow offset adjustment by a (usually small) symmetrical fraction of bipolar supply voltages. So, it’s surprising how many variations exist, some very good, some very not. Figure 1 is an example of the latter case.

Figure 1 The bad: Attenuation of the supply voltages is done with subtraction instead of division, destroying the PSRR of the amplifier.

Wow the engineering world with your unique design: Design Ideas Submission Guide

This zero trim is a bad idea because attenuation of the supply voltages is done with (V+ – V) subtraction instead of division. This virtually destroys the PSRR of the amplifier. That’s pretty bad.

Figure 2 corrects this serious defect, achieving attenuation with a proper (R3/R2) voltage divider instead of PSRR-robbing subtraction. But it still isn’t very pretty. Here’s why.

Figure 2 The ugly: An attempt to correct for the destroyed PSRR can be done by achieving attenuation with a voltage divider instead; however, the supply rails must be symmetrical, leading us back to our PSRR problem.

 Figure 2 can only give the (usually) desirable symmetrical trim range if the supply rails are likewise symmetrical (and vice versa). You could add a series resistor between R1 and the larger rail voltage to fix the problem, but that would (at least partly) revive the PSRR shortcoming of Figure 1. Ugly.

Figure 3 fixes both problems.

Figure 3 The good: Setting R2 = R3(-V+/ V)/2 to get a symmetrical trim range.

All you have to do is set R2 = R3(-V+/ V)/2 to get a symmetrical trim range regardless of the actual supply rail voltage ratio.

And I think that’s pretty good.

Stephen Woodward’s relationship with EDN’s DI column goes back quite a long way. Over 100 submissions have been accepted since his first contribution back in 1974.

Related Content

The post The good, the bad, and the ugly of zero trims appeared first on EDN.

What's Your Reaction?

like

dislike

love

funny

angry

sad

wow