Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
I'm running PSS, PAC-Rapid IP2 analysis on a frontend circuity. I can plot result through Direct Plot->Main Form -> PAC -> Rapid IP2, and I can read result directly from the plot. However, If I want to save this result, especially for a Monte Carlo simulation, how to do it? Thanks!
So...
My bad...I was referring to a 50% duty cycle LO-driven passive mixer, which would come at about -8dB conversion gain. So -1.9dB would be quite an improvement.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, you are right on it!
According to this patent, B. Butaye, M. Camus, "New RF sampling mixer with enhanced gain and good linearity", FR 06 10288, applying less than 1/4 duty cycle LO removes the overlapping of the "on" state of both channels, and reduces the averaging window of the RF voltage. But this improvement is...
In theory a 3dB voltage improvement should be expected when using 25% duty cycle I-Q LO to drive a passive mixer compared with 50% duty cycle. Yet in my simple simulation, the output from 25% is actually smaller than from 50%, what could be wrong? Thanks for any advice.
Thanks! I think another reason is the single-to-diff conversion doubles input signal swing, which is especially important for the faint RF signal input from antenna.
Thanks! But for less even mode harmonics, is it necessary? For example, 2.4GHz RF signal will put 2nd order harmonic at 4.8GHz, which is far beyond operation range, do we still need to care about it?
I see some designs use a balun to convert antenna input to differential inputs for LNA, can someone tell me what's the benefit for doing this? Doesn't it add extra cost? If for 2nd order harmonic reduction, isn't it unnecessary at this point? Thanks!
I was able to build a spiral coil using VeloceRF's Inductor->Spiral Wizard, and then there's no problem running simulation on this coil from VeloceRF, since it's a basically PCell. Now I flatten this coil, and then regroup all layers again using Make Cell command, then VeloceRF will not be able...
There are 3 frequencies in my circuit: frf = 1955MHz, LO1 = 1960MHz, and LO2 = 1950MHz.
I'm setting up a 2-tone HB analysis:
hb hb oversample = [2 1] fundfreqs=[(lo1) (frf)] maxharms = [10 5]
When the simulation runs, it keeps telling me:
ERROR (SPCRTRF-15268): The source V63 couldn't find...
There are 3 frequencies in my circuit: frf = 1955MHz, LO1 = 1960MHz, and LO2 = 1950MHz.
I'm setting up a 2-tone HB analysis:
hb hb oversample = [2 1] fundfreqs=[(lo1) (frf)] maxharms = [10 5]
When the simulation runs, it keeps telling me:
ERROR (SPCRTRF-15268): The source V63 couldn't...
Thanks! Per my understanding, g is the gain imbalance, phi is the phase imbalance, but what about alphaI and alphaQ? What values should I put in my MATLAB code to generate the same plot? Thanks!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
