Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Charles Steinmetz]

donald wrote:


Question : In the 74HCT9046BCN - does a high on the inhibit line Knobble
the P/F detectors as well as the VCO?


I've never had occasion to use the INH pin.  The 2009 NXP datasheet says 
it shuts down the whole circuit:


"The inhibit function differs. For the 74HCT4046A a HIGH-level at the 
inhibit input
(pin INH) disables the VCO and demodulator, while a LOW-level turns both 
on. For
the 74HCT9046A a HIGH-level on the inhibit input disables the whole 
circuit to

minimize standby power consumption."

Best regards,

Charles


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[donald collie]

Question : In the 74HCT9046BCN - does a high on the inhibit line Knobble
the P/F detectors as well as the VCO?

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:34 PM, donald collie 
wrote:

> Thankyou to all who responded to my querie - I`ve got 5  74HCT9046BCN on a
> slow boat from China. They will retrofit the projects where I used a 4046
> without much pcb surgery. PLL`s are fun, especially when yo can watch them
> lock on a Tek 7834   :-) I interloaned the weighty tome again, and am
> having another read - it is "Phase Locked Loops : Design, Simulation, and
> Applications" sixth edition - a good bedtime read!
> Cheers!.Don
> C. ZL4GX
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_8054078827359710951_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Magnus Danielson <
> mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Charles,
>>
>> On 05/06/2018 06:08 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
>> > Magnus wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you use it without care and knowledge, beware. That goes for any
>> >> tool we apply
>> >
>> > Indeed!  The Cardinal Rule of design!  (So often unfollowed)
>> >
>> > "An engineer is someone who can figure out what questions need to be
>> > asked, figure out how to answer them, and tell when they are correctly
>> > answered."
>>
>> Indeed. I don't claim to be expert on the 4046 family of PLL chips, but
>> at least I can share my experience and let you know about the things I
>> learned from being bitten.
>>
>> Then, reading Gardners book, and advancing to full PI loop, I feel more
>> comfortable about mixer or S/R-gate loops. The "magic" of some detectors
>> have become less of a benefit for many designs. In general, most of my
>> designs have become much simpler and robust. However, it's always good
>> to have alternatives.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m
>> ailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[donald collie]

Thankyou to all who responded to my querie - I`ve got 5  74HCT9046BCN on a
slow boat from China. They will retrofit the projects where I used a 4046
without much pcb surgery. PLL`s are fun, especially when yo can watch them
lock on a Tek 7834   :-) I interloaned the weighty tome again, and am
having another read - it is "Phase Locked Loops : Design, Simulation, and
Applications" sixth edition - a good bedtime read!
Cheers!.Don
C. ZL4GX


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Magnus Danielson  wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> On 05/06/2018 06:08 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
> > Magnus wrote:
> >
> >> If you use it without care and knowledge, beware. That goes for any
> >> tool we apply
> >
> > Indeed!  The Cardinal Rule of design!  (So often unfollowed)
> >
> > "An engineer is someone who can figure out what questions need to be
> > asked, figure out how to answer them, and tell when they are correctly
> > answered."
>
> Indeed. I don't claim to be expert on the 4046 family of PLL chips, but
> at least I can share my experience and let you know about the things I
> learned from being bitten.
>
> Then, reading Gardners book, and advancing to full PI loop, I feel more
> comfortable about mixer or S/R-gate loops. The "magic" of some detectors
> have become less of a benefit for many designs. In general, most of my
> designs have become much simpler and robust. However, it's always good
> to have alternatives.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Magnus Danielson]

Hi Charles,

On 05/06/2018 06:08 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
> Magnus wrote:
> 
>> If you use it without care and knowledge, beware. That goes for any
>> tool we apply
> 
> Indeed!  The Cardinal Rule of design!  (So often unfollowed)
> 
> "An engineer is someone who can figure out what questions need to be
> asked, figure out how to answer them, and tell when they are correctly
> answered."

Indeed. I don't claim to be expert on the 4046 family of PLL chips, but
at least I can share my experience and let you know about the things I
learned from being bitten.

Then, reading Gardners book, and advancing to full PI loop, I feel more
comfortable about mixer or S/R-gate loops. The "magic" of some detectors
have become less of a benefit for many designs. In general, most of my
designs have become much simpler and robust. However, it's always good
to have alternatives.

Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Charles Steinmetz]

Magnus wrote:


If you use it without care and knowledge, beware. That goes for any tool we 
apply


Indeed!  The Cardinal Rule of design!  (So often unfollowed)

"An engineer is someone who can figure out what questions need to be 
asked, figure out how to answer them, and tell when they are correctly 
answered."


Best regards,

Charles


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Magnus Danielson]

Hi,

On 05/06/2018 01:02 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
> 
>> but as I wrote a while ego ADI has a bit different chip which is free of
>> dead zone and much faster
> 
> Hell, there are literally hundreds of PLL chips, lots of them better at
> various things than the 4046.  I did not suggest that the 4046/7046/9046
> is the best PLL for any particular purpose (and I did say I rarely use
> them).  My points were just (i) that the 4046 doesn't perform as
> terribly as a lot of people seem to think if you know a few easy tricks,
> and (ii) that the 9046 is better on all counts without the need for such
> tricks.
> 
> It seems that lots of people like the 4046 series chips (including the
> 7046 and 9046), partly due to familiarity, partly because there are
> thousands of published circuits that use them and not everybody wants to
> completely redesign circuits that are already known to work, and
> certainly because they are dirt cheap (unlike the fancier Analog Devices
> parts, some of which are quite pricey).  I thought these folks might
> like to know how to optimize performance with the 4046/7046/9046 series,
> and to be reminded about the design tools available for them.

Well, my point was that I have seen it bite, but there is other
occasions where it doesn't bite. Still, better options can many times be
used, and many designs it can be good enough. If you use it without care
and knowledge, beware. That goes for any tool we apply, so bringing up
attention is already there a step on the way.

Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Charles Steinmetz]

Alexander wrote:


but as I wrote a while ego ADI has a bit different chip which is free of
dead zone and much faster


Hell, there are literally hundreds of PLL chips, lots of them better at 
various things than the 4046.  I did not suggest that the 4046/7046/9046 
is the best PLL for any particular purpose (and I did say I rarely use 
them).  My points were just (i) that the 4046 doesn't perform as 
terribly as a lot of people seem to think if you know a few easy tricks, 
and (ii) that the 9046 is better on all counts without the need for such 
tricks.


It seems that lots of people like the 4046 series chips (including the 
7046 and 9046), partly due to familiarity, partly because there are 
thousands of published circuits that use them and not everybody wants to 
completely redesign circuits that are already known to work, and 
certainly because they are dirt cheap (unlike the fancier Analog Devices 
parts, some of which are quite pricey).  I thought these folks might 
like to know how to optimize performance with the 4046/7046/9046 series, 
and to be reminded about the design tools available for them.


Charles


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Alexander Pummer]

but as I wrote a while ego ADI has a bit different chip which is free of 
dead zone and much faster, I used it for low phase-noise clock generator 
for 3,1Gb/s fiber optic systems of C-Cor/Comlux in the end of the past 
century, now I am on vacation and do not have my engineering note books 
with me, but 1) I already posted it in the past 2) I will post it again 
after I returned home,

73
KJ6UHN
On 5/6/2018 1:03 AM, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
See below for further information on working with the 4046/7046/9046 
PLL families, including must-have design tools for anyone designing 
with these devices.


I wrote:


The "flaw" in the 4046 is a dead zone around zero error in Phase
Comparator 2 (the PC one generally uses).


Magnus responded:


It is very bad indeed. Someone chose to use the 4046 to lock up a 155,52
MHz VCXO to a 8 kHz reference, using a 4046 as a core. The charge-pump
was then "accelerated" with a supposedly better charge-pump with a ton
of passives. Turns out that the dead-band was still there to haunt the
designers. The 155,52 MHz was further multiplied to become the 2,48832
Gb/s clock, and as they measured this they had problems with the
jitter/wander of it


Of course the dead zone was still there -- it is built into the 
4046/7046 phase comparator, and nothing you do after-the-fact can 
eliminate it (but see below re: linearizing the 4046/7046 phase 
comparator). Most of what is wrong with the circuit you describe above 
is simply bad system design, not any fault of the 4046.


While it is true that some people call the PC2 output of the 4064 a 
"charge pump," as a voltage source it is, at best, a very poor one. 
The 9046 has a real, current-mode charge pump with tri-state outputs. 
The attached charts show the difference in linearity [1].


There are tricks one can pull to linearize the PC2 output of a 4046 or 
7046.  In particular, (i) injecting current into the PC2 output node 
biases the detector away from the dead zone at the price of a static 
phase error, and (ii) instead of using a passive RC filter, run the 
PC2 output through the resistor to the virtual-ground input of an 
active filter, which effectively turns the PC2 voltage output into a 
bipolar current output.  Still, however, the 4046/7046 PC2 cannot 
overlap positive and negative steering pulses as the 9046 PC2 can, and 
the 9046 thresholds are established by a real voltage reference, so 
the 9046 will always be better than the best that can be done with a 
4046 or 7046.


I do not use 4046-type devices very often, but ever since the 9046 
became available I have used it exclusively in preference to the 4046 
and 7046.


Best regards,

Charles


[1]  The attached charts are taken from the Philips CMOS PLL 
Designer's Guide (1995), which is an absolute must-have for anyone 
designing with the 4046/7046/9046 PLL families.  List member Daniel 
Mendes pried the Guide and supporting files out of Philips a couple of 
years ago, and list member Oz from DFW hosts them on his site.  I 
cropped the pages of the Design Guide to eliminate the large white 
borders and re-posted it all as a zip file to Didier's site: 
. 
Enjoy!




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Charles Steinmetz]

See below for further information on working with the 4046/7046/9046 PLL 
families, including must-have design tools for anyone designing with 
these devices.


I wrote:


The "flaw" in the 4046 is a dead zone around zero error in Phase
Comparator 2 (the PC one generally uses).


Magnus responded:


It is very bad indeed. Someone chose to use the 4046 to lock up a 155,52
MHz VCXO to a 8 kHz reference, using a 4046 as a core. The charge-pump
was then "accelerated" with a supposedly better charge-pump with a ton
of passives. Turns out that the dead-band was still there to haunt the
designers. The 155,52 MHz was further multiplied to become the 2,48832
Gb/s clock, and as they measured this they had problems with the
jitter/wander of it


Of course the dead zone was still there -- it is built into the 
4046/7046 phase comparator, and nothing you do after-the-fact can 
eliminate it (but see below re: linearizing the 4046/7046 phase 
comparator). Most of what is wrong with the circuit you describe above 
is simply bad system design, not any fault of the 4046.


While it is true that some people call the PC2 output of the 4064 a 
"charge pump," as a voltage source it is, at best, a very poor one. The 
9046 has a real, current-mode charge pump with tri-state outputs. The 
attached charts show the difference in linearity [1].


There are tricks one can pull to linearize the PC2 output of a 4046 or 
7046.  In particular, (i) injecting current into the PC2 output node 
biases the detector away from the dead zone at the price of a static 
phase error, and (ii) instead of using a passive RC filter, run the PC2 
output through the resistor to the virtual-ground input of an active 
filter, which effectively turns the PC2 voltage output into a bipolar 
current output.  Still, however, the 4046/7046 PC2 cannot overlap 
positive and negative steering pulses as the 9046 PC2 can, and the 9046 
thresholds are established by a real voltage reference, so the 9046 will 
always be better than the best that can be done with a 4046 or 7046.


I do not use 4046-type devices very often, but ever since the 9046 
became available I have used it exclusively in preference to the 4046 
and 7046.


Best regards,

Charles


[1]  The attached charts are taken from the Philips CMOS PLL Designer's 
Guide (1995), which is an absolute must-have for anyone designing with 
the 4046/7046/9046 PLL families.  List member Daniel Mendes pried the 
Guide and supporting files out of Philips a couple of years ago, and 
list member Oz from DFW hosts them on his site.  I cropped the pages of 
the Design Guide to eliminate the large white borders and re-posted it 
all as a zip file to Didier's site: 
. 
Enjoy!


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[EB4APL]

Hi,

When I was going to build a Brooks Shera's GPSDO in 2009, I ordered from 
him some parts that I needed. He graciously added a couple of Texas 
Instruments' 74HC4046AE that was used in the phase detector because, 
according to him, these parts from other manufacturers would not work 
correctly.


Regards,

Ignacio, EB4APL



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Jim Harman]

While we are on the subject of the 74HC4046, I would like to point out a
confusing error in the TI datasheet for this part, found at
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd74hc4046a.pdf

The waveform diagram for Phase Comparator 3, Fig. 7 on p. 5, has inverted
waveforms for PC3out and VCOin. PC3out should rise at the leading edge of
SIGin and fall at the leading edge of COMPin. The corresponding diagram in
the NXP/Phillips datasheet, Fig. 11, is correct.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:28 AM, Clint Jay  wrote:

> Why not try one, the 74HC4046 is pin compatible I think, you may need to
> make some changes to use the '7046 version but you can then make a value
> judgement if the flaw had in fact mainfested itself as a problem in your
> design?
>
>
--Jim Harman
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Steve Wilson]

>On 4/18/2018 4:34 AM, John Miles wrote:

>> Ulrich Rohde's book indicates that this problem was first documented in 1978 
>> in an EDN article by some authors named Egan and Clark.  Newer PFDs 
>> implement the 'antibacklash' logic that Rohde mentions.  If you really must 
>> use a 4046, I'd look for a newer version whose data sheet explicitly 
>> addresses this problem.  Better still, use a newer part.

>The book is incorrect.  A patent issued in 1976 (US4023116A)
>covering the Fairchild 11C44 developed by Eric Breeze predates
>the EDN article by several years.  I still remember the big
>splash the 11C44 made when it was introduced in 1976. The Fairchild
>ECL data book had a famous graph comparing it to the MC4044
>in the dead zone.  In those days, Fairchild and Motorola
>were going head to head.  I worked on a synthesizer in 1975
>that used their brand new at the time 11C90 prescaler.

>You can still get 11C44's of a sort by ordering NTE974's
>that claim to be a replacement.

>Rick N6RK

I filed patent 3,810,234 on Aug 21, 1972. It includes a dual-d pfd with
variable delay in the feedback path to eliminate deadband. The term
deadband is not included in the patent since it did not exist at the time.
The google url is

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/fc/f0/26d83e477e999a/US3810234.pdf

The dual-d is items 24 and 26 on page 4. The feedback is item 58, and the
variable delay is item 28 on the same page. It turns out the delay was not
needed in production since there was no deadband when it was shorted out.

I recall finding an article on the dual-d pfd that was earlier than my
patent but I forget where I found it.

Ignore the name Steve Wilson. That is my online name to foil id theft and
malware.

Mike Monett
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 4/18/2018 3:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:


The real benefit of the 4044 and 4046 lies in that they where CMOS
devices and integrated well with other CMOS devices, and could help to


The original MC4044 is TTL, not CMOS.  There is a CMOS "CD4044"
but it is something completely different, not even a phase detector at all.

Rick N6RK
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Magnus Danielson]

Hi,

On 04/18/2018 10:57 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> 
>> The book is incorrect.  A patent issued in 1976 (US4023116A)
>> covering the Fairchild 11C44 developed by Eric Breeze predates
>> the EDN article by several years.  I still remember the big
>> splash the 11C44 made when it was introduced in 1976. The Fairchild
>> ECL data book had a famous graph comparing it to the MC4044
>> in the dead zone.
> 
> The attached graph is the one I remember.  Note that, while the 11C44
> was better than the MC4044, neither one was really very linear near zero
> error.  Good multichip PFD designs of the era outperformed both of them.

Gardner thrown at them and suggested to use a mixer instead, as it has
better performance.

The real benefit of the 4044 and 4046 lies in that they where CMOS
devices and integrated well with other CMOS devices, and could help to
make designs more compact. If fills a purpose, but does not necessarily
give you optimum performance.

BTW, as you add noise to the signal, much of the behavior of the
triangle or sawtooth shape of the phase-detector average out to that of
a sine, which is no better than that of a mixer, but what happen in the
process is that the phase detector gain changed, and thus the loop
parameters. If you use a mixer, the phase detector gain becomes less
dependent on the S/N and thus a more stable system behavior.

Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Charles Steinmetz]

Rick wrote:


The book is incorrect.  A patent issued in 1976 (US4023116A)
covering the Fairchild 11C44 developed by Eric Breeze predates
the EDN article by several years.  I still remember the big
splash the 11C44 made when it was introduced in 1976. The Fairchild
ECL data book had a famous graph comparing it to the MC4044
in the dead zone.


The attached graph is the one I remember.  Note that, while the 11C44 
was better than the MC4044, neither one was really very linear near zero 
error.  Good multichip PFD designs of the era outperformed both of them.


Best regards,

Charles


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Magnus Danielson]

On 04/18/2018 03:17 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote:
> donald wrote:
> 
>> HEF4046BCN`s, but have
>> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better
>> chip to retrofit?
> 
> As Bill said, the HCT9046 is the improved version of the 4046.
> 
> The "flaw" in the 4046 is a dead zone around zero error in Phase
> Comparator 2 (the PC one generally uses).

It is very bad indeed. Someone chose to use the 4046 to lock up a 155,52
MHz VCXO to a 8 kHz reference, using a 4046 as a core. The charge-pump
was then "accelerated" with a supposedly better charge-pump with a ton
of passives. Turns out that the dead-band was still there to haunt the
designers. The 155,52 MHz was further multiplied to become the 2,48832
Gb/s clock, and as they measured this they had problems with the
jitter/wander of it, as they measured on a rented instruments. Then they
called me in for it. I looked at it and could quickly conclude that the
problem was the dead-band, so that the VCXO coasted up and down after
the push in either side due to the deadband, creating jitter/wander
breaking the standard limits. I concluded that a more continuous
approach was needed, and then they went back to the S/R FF I had
originally proposed, which they natually had ignored and overengineered
something else, and well, look and behold it locked and was well within
margin.

4046 can be cool and nice little critters, but use them wisely where
they work. I try to steer clear from the charge-pump whenever I can.

>  PC2 in the HCT9046 uses
> charge-pump outputs that are biased to avoid the dead zone.  It also
> uses an internal voltage reference, rather than fraction-of-Vdd, to
> minimize drift.

I was about to recommend having a look at the HCT4046, HCT7046 and
HCT9046 series, if one needs something in that family.

Rather than doing charge-pump, an op-amp setup for a integrator in a
PI-loop and a reasonable continuous waveform comparator of choice do
really well. XOR, S/R FF or mixer. The more I work on PLLs, the simpler
they become and the robuster they seem to become.

Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Tisha Hayes]

I too would recommend the  74HCT9046A instead of the 4046.

The data sheet is here;
https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/74HCT9046A.pdf

*Ms. Tisha Hayes*


On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Bob kb8tq  wrote:

> Hi
>
> If this is a new build, why use a 4046 in the first place? There are many
> newer parts
> that will do all sorts of things. If this is a repair of something that
> has been running
> for years, is it > 5V supply to the chips? If so, you are pretty much
> stuck with 4000
> series CMOS.
>
> There are no fatal flaws in the 4046, but there are basic design
> limitations. Those
> have been well documented over the years and here on the list. Going to a
> better
> part is the answer for that stuff ( = get away from  any 4046 IC).
>
> Bob
>
> > On Apr 18, 2018, at 4:04 AM, donald collie 
> wrote:
> >
> > I have 4  frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but
> have
> > recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better
> > chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s if it
> > doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. Both
> these
> > chips are more-or-less pin compatable TIA for any
> > advice!.
> ..Don
> >
> >  utm_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avg.com
> >  utm_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > ___
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 4/18/2018 6:27 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:

Hi

If this is a new build, why use a 4046 in the first place? There are many newer 
parts
that will do all sorts of things. If this is a repair of something that has 
been running
for years, is it > 5V supply to the chips? If so, you are pretty much stuck 
with 4000
series CMOS.

There are no fatal flaws in the 4046, but there are basic design limitations. 
Those
have been well documented over the years and here on the list. Going to a better
part is the answer for that stuff ( = get away from  any 4046 IC).

Bob



Any 4000 series CMOS, besides being extremely slow (prop
delay measured in MICROseconds), have a totem pole output
that momentarily short circuits the power supply when
switching and generates tremendous EMI.

I once wasted several weeks of time running down a spur
problem that I eventually traced to a 4XXX frequency divider.

Rick N6RK

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 4/18/2018 4:34 AM, John Miles wrote:


Ulrich Rohde's book indicates that this problem was first documented in 1978 in 
an EDN article by some authors named Egan and Clark.  Newer PFDs implement the 
'antibacklash' logic that Rohde mentions.  If you really must use a 4046, I'd 
look for a newer version whose data sheet explicitly addresses this problem.  
Better still, use a newer part.


The book is incorrect.  A patent issued in 1976 (US4023116A)
covering the Fairchild 11C44 developed by Eric Breeze predates
the EDN article by several years.  I still remember the big
splash the 11C44 made when it was introduced in 1976. The Fairchild
ECL data book had a famous graph comparing it to the MC4044
in the dead zone.  In those days, Fairchild and Motorola
were going head to head.  I worked on a synthesizer in 1975
that used their brand new at the time 11C90 prescaler.

You can still get 11C44's of a sort by ordering NTE974's
that claim to be a replacement.

Rick N6RK
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

If this is a new build, why use a 4046 in the first place? There are many newer 
parts
that will do all sorts of things. If this is a repair of something that has 
been running
for years, is it > 5V supply to the chips? If so, you are pretty much stuck 
with 4000
series CMOS.

There are no fatal flaws in the 4046, but there are basic design limitations. 
Those
have been well documented over the years and here on the list. Going to a better
part is the answer for that stuff ( = get away from  any 4046 IC).

Bob

> On Apr 18, 2018, at 4:04 AM, donald collie  wrote:
> 
> I have 4  frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but have
> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better
> chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s if it
> doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. Both these
> chips are more-or-less pin compatable TIA for any
> advice!...Don
> 
> 
> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Charles Steinmetz]

donald wrote:


HEF4046BCN`s, but have
recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better
chip to retrofit?


As Bill said, the HCT9046 is the improved version of the 4046.

The "flaw" in the 4046 is a dead zone around zero error in Phase 
Comparator 2 (the PC one generally uses).  PC2 in the HCT9046 uses 
charge-pump outputs that are biased to avoid the dead zone.  It also 
uses an internal voltage reference, rather than fraction-of-Vdd, to 
minimize drift.


Note that the 9046 is HCT only (no HC version), meaning that its input 
transition points are TTL standard (not 1/2 Vdd, like normal CMOS logic 
such as HC).


Also note that the HCT9046 has only two phase comparators (PC1 and PC2), 
and does not have  the 4046's PC3 (this is true also of the various 7046 
chips, although they do not share the dead-zone improvement of the 9046).


Best regards,

Charles


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Tim Shoppa]

There is no dead time issue at all with 4046 PLL's using the built-in XOR
(Type I) phase detector.

There can be a dead-time issue with 4046 PLL's using the built-in type II
(flip-flop) edge detector.

The 74HCT9046A uses current sources instead of voltage sources in its type
II (flip-flop) edge detector to avoid dead-time issues with this phase
detector.

The Type I phase detector was most commonly used in most 4046 narrowband
PLL applications.

The Type II was mostly used for the applications where the VCO had to track
over most of an octave or more than an octave. Most of these Type II
applications were relatively insensitive to dead time. (Otherwise the
phase-nuts 40 years ago would've noticed. Yes you can hear phase noise even
if they didn't have a good systematic way to measure it back then.)

If your original 4046 circuit has been working fine for the past 40 years
(the 4046 must be 40+ years old now) I see no reason to rip it out and
replace it with the newer variant. You may have trouble finding
through-hole (non-surface mount) 74HCT9046A's at this date anyway.

Tim N3QE

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:40 AM, donald collie 
wrote:

> Thankyou Attila. I remember reading a book on PLL theory, recently,writen
> by a very knowledgable fellow, but I didn`t think to make a copy of his
> critique of the 4046. I recall that the nub of it was that the 4046 isn`t
> suitable for some applications because of a design flaw. Perhaps somebody
> in this group could explain further.
> Thankyou Bill, for the datasheet on the 74HCT9046, and your comments
> Cheers!.
> .Don
> jnr ZL4GX
>
>  utm_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
>  utm_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:28 PM, wb6bnq  wrote:
>
> > Hi Donald,
> >
> > You could consider the NXP 74HCT9046A as a replacement.  It is an
> improved
> > version of 4046.  However, you do need to study the spec sheet as it is a
> > bit different, but in a good way.
> >
> > I have included an attached PDF of the spec sheet, if it makes through
> the
> > mail list server.
> >
> > BillWB6BNQ
> >
> >
> > donald collie wrote:
> >
> > I have 4  frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but
> have
> >> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a
> better
> >> chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s if it
> >> doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. Both
> these
> >> chips are more-or-less pin compatable TIA for any
> >> advice!.
> >> ..Don
> >>
> >>  >> source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> >> Virus-free.
> >> www.avg.com
> >>  >> source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >> ___
> >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> >> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m
> >> ailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> >> and follow the instructions there.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> > mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
> >
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[John Miles]

> -Original Message-
> From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of
> donald collie
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:40 AM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement
> 
> Thankyou Attila. I remember reading a book on PLL theory, recently,writen
> by a very knowledgable fellow, but I didn`t think to make a copy of his
> critique of the 4046. I recall that the nub of it was that the 4046 isn`t
> suitable for some applications because of a design flaw. Perhaps somebody
> in this group could explain further.
> Thankyou Bill, for the datasheet on the 74HCT9046, and your comments
> Cheers!..Don
> jnr ZL4GX

The tristate phase/freq comparator in the original 4046 had a dead-band problem 
that caused its gain to vary widely as it approached its normal operating point 
in a stable loop.  This wasn't so much a 'bug' as it was a consequence of the 
fact that there's effectively no gain when there's no phase error to correct.  

Ulrich Rohde's book indicates that this problem was first documented in 1978 in 
an EDN article by some authors named Egan and Clark.  Newer PFDs implement the 
'antibacklash' logic that Rohde mentions.  If you really must use a 4046, I'd 
look for a newer version whose data sheet explicitly addresses this problem.  
Better still, use a newer part.

Another workaround is to force the PFD to stay out of its dead zone by loading 
the output lightly, e.g. with a 1M resistor.  You can never compensate for this 
effect perfectly, though.  You can probably expect some downsides like worse 
reference suppression.  

-- john, KE5FX
Miles Design LLC

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[REEVES Paul]

Hi Donald,

I've just had this problem - the 'signal' input (p14) to the phase detectors is 
a 'bodge' linear amplifier built around standard CMOS stages and it doesn’t 
work right. A resistor around a CMOS inverter was a good old recipe to get a 
'linear' amplifier stage but this design appears to have a voltage variable 
resistor of sorts and it gives very strange results. It is fine if used as a 
CMOS level i/p stage but its use as an  ac coupled low level i/p is problematic 
and may need additional loading. Manufacturer's documentation is scarce and I 
have only seen one reference to the internal design of this stage. There's 
quite a bit about it in several places on the net.

Regards,
Paul   Reeves  G8GJA

-Original Message-
From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of donald collie
Sent: 18 April 2018 10:40
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Thankyou Attila. I remember reading a book on PLL theory, recently,writen by a 
very knowledgable fellow, but I didn`t think to make a copy of his critique of 
the 4046. I recall that the nub of it was that the 4046 isn`t suitable for some 
applications because of a design flaw. Perhaps somebody in this group could 
explain further.
Thankyou Bill, for the datasheet on the 74HCT9046, and your comments 
Cheers!..Don
jnr ZL4GX

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:28 PM, wb6bnq <wb6...@cox.net> wrote:

> Hi Donald,
>
> You could consider the NXP 74HCT9046A as a replacement.  It is an 
> improved version of 4046.  However, you do need to study the spec 
> sheet as it is a bit different, but in a good way.
>
> I have included an attached PDF of the spec sheet, if it makes through 
> the mail list server.
>
> BillWB6BNQ
>
>
> donald collie wrote:
>
> I have 4  frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but 
> have
>> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a 
>> better chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s 
>> if it doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. 
>> Both these chips are more-or-less pin compatable TIA for any 
>> advice!.
>> ..Don
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_
>> source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
>> Virus-free.
>> www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_
>> source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to 
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m ailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow 
>> the instructions there.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to 
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow 
> the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to 
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[donald collie]

Thankyou Attila. I remember reading a book on PLL theory, recently,writen
by a very knowledgable fellow, but I didn`t think to make a copy of his
critique of the 4046. I recall that the nub of it was that the 4046 isn`t
suitable for some applications because of a design flaw. Perhaps somebody
in this group could explain further.
Thankyou Bill, for the datasheet on the 74HCT9046, and your comments
Cheers!..Don
jnr ZL4GX


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:28 PM, wb6bnq  wrote:

> Hi Donald,
>
> You could consider the NXP 74HCT9046A as a replacement.  It is an improved
> version of 4046.  However, you do need to study the spec sheet as it is a
> bit different, but in a good way.
>
> I have included an attached PDF of the spec sheet, if it makes through the
> mail list server.
>
> BillWB6BNQ
>
>
> donald collie wrote:
>
> I have 4  frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but have
>> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better
>> chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s if it
>> doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. Both these
>> chips are more-or-less pin compatable TIA for any
>> advice!.
>> ..Don
>>
>> > source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
>> Virus-free.
>> www.avg.com
>> > source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m
>> ailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Clint Jay]

Why not try one, the 74HC4046 is pin compatible I think, you may need to
make some changes to use the '7046 version but you can then make a value
judgement if the flaw had in fact mainfested itself as a problem in your
design?

On 18 April 2018 at 09:04, donald collie  wrote:

> I have 4  frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but have
> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better
> chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s if it
> doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. Both these
> chips are more-or-less pin compatable TIA for any
> advice!.
> ..Don
>
>  utm_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
>  utm_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>



-- 
Clint. M0UAW IO83

*No trees were harmed in the sending of this mail. However, a large number
of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.*
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

[Attila Kinali]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:04:02 +1200
donald collie  wrote:

> I have 4  frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but have
> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better
> chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s if it
> doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. Both these
> chips are more-or-less pin compatable TIA for any

What design flaw are you talking about?

Attila Kinali

-- 
It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All 
the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no 
use without that foundation.
 -- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.