N
N
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Hi,
Note to view the schematic below, change your font to fixed Courier.
I have a problem I am trying to work out on simple Op Amps gain,
and I am having trouble trying to prove what the gain is.
I know what the gain is supposed to be (see below), but
I am stumped as to how to actually go about proving it. When
I try to setup the Kirchoff node equations I get a really
ugly polynomial.
I can put the design into a spice deck and prove it, but I want to
understand the design from an analytical point of view.
Gain = 2*R2/R1 * (1 + R2/Rg)(V2-V1) (GAIN FOR THE OP AMP BELOW)
Now looking at the above equation it is obvious if you
eliminate resistor Rg, the equation becomes a simple
differential amplifier gain, which I can easily solve and
prove. However when you add the positive feedback from
the output, you get a different Beta for the loop gain
that is hard to figure out.
Anybody want to take a stab at proving this?
Nick ------------
| |
V1---------R1-----------------------R2-------R2---| |
| | |
| ___ | |
| | \ | |
|--Vn| \ | |
| \ Vout | Rg
| |------------------ |
|--Vp| / |
| | _ / -----------
| |
| |
V2----------R1-----------------------R2-------R2---|GND
Note to view the schematic below, change your font to fixed Courier.
I have a problem I am trying to work out on simple Op Amps gain,
and I am having trouble trying to prove what the gain is.
I know what the gain is supposed to be (see below), but
I am stumped as to how to actually go about proving it. When
I try to setup the Kirchoff node equations I get a really
ugly polynomial.
I can put the design into a spice deck and prove it, but I want to
understand the design from an analytical point of view.
Gain = 2*R2/R1 * (1 + R2/Rg)(V2-V1) (GAIN FOR THE OP AMP BELOW)
Now looking at the above equation it is obvious if you
eliminate resistor Rg, the equation becomes a simple
differential amplifier gain, which I can easily solve and
prove. However when you add the positive feedback from
the output, you get a different Beta for the loop gain
that is hard to figure out.
Anybody want to take a stab at proving this?
Nick ------------
| |
V1---------R1-----------------------R2-------R2---| |
| | |
| ___ | |
| | \ | |
|--Vn| \ | |
| \ Vout | Rg
| |------------------ |
|--Vp| / |
| | _ / -----------
| |
| |
V2----------R1-----------------------R2-------R2---|GND