Methods
- using a unity gain inverting amplifier to provide an inverted copy of its input signal;
- a split-load amplifier (also known as "concertina phase splitter"); a transistor implementation is shown in the diagram;
- a differential pair amplifier can form a phase splitter in two ways:
- if the shared emitter (or cathode or source, for triodes or FETs) connection is fed from something approximating a constant current sink (for example, a relatively large value resistor with a significant voltage drop, i.e. a long-tailed pair) then only one input (base, grid or gate) need be driven with signal; the shared connection will vary in voltage with half the amplitude of the input, becoming an input to the second device (which acts as a common-base, or common-grid/gate amplifier). The sum of the currents in each of the collectors (or anodes or drains) will be almost constant, hence an increase in one will be matched by an equal decrease in the other, giving rise to equal, but opposite phase, voltages on the outputs.
- if the shared emitter (or cathode or source) resistor is relatively small, total current will vary with signal, and the signal will not be evenly split across both outputs, so a fraction of the first device's output will have to be fed to the second device's base or grid or gate to balance the amplitudes at the two outputs. Effectively, the second device is acting now as an inverting unity-gain amplifier.
- A transformer with two equal secondary windings can be used (often with an amplifier stage to drive the primary).
Read more about this topic: Phase Splitter
Famous quotes containing the word methods:
“A writer who writes, “I am alone” ... can be considered rather comical. It is comical for a man to recognize his solitude by addressing a reader and by using methods that prevent the individual from being alone. The word alone is just as general as the word bread. To pronounce it is to summon to oneself the presence of everything the word excludes.”
—Maurice Blanchot (b. 1907)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)
“How can you tell if you discipline effectively? Ask yourself if your disciplinary methods generally produce lasting results in a manner you find acceptable. Whether your philosophy is democratic or autocratic, whatever techniques you use—reasoning, a “star” chart, time-outs, or spanking—if it doesn’t work, it’s not effective.”
—Stanley Turecki (20th century)