¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Re: Weird results DC operating point for Tube amplifier


 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

That's why the old incandescent? 'fairy lights' were so unreliable. From the point of view of any one lamp, the much higher resistance of all the others in series means that it is current-driven, so the lamp with the highest resistance is in danger of thermal runaway.

On 2025-02-18 19:09, Jerry Lee Marcel via groups.io wrote:

In real life, the problem with current drive is that it may result in thermal runoff. As the temperature of the filament increase, the resistance increases, resulting in voltage (and power) increase, which in turn increases temperature, and so on.Heating time is excessive, because at start-up, the resistance (and power) is low.
Not a good idea.

Le 18/02/2025 ¨¤ 19:40, Carlo a ¨¦crit?:
Yes, exactly. The 12AU7 model includes only one-half of the heater (pin H1 & H2 in subckt model). Therefore the current through it should be designed to be about 150mA. Indeed the ratio 1.25/7.5 for LM317 in "current source" configuration is 166 mA.
?
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:53 AM, Jerry Lee Marcel wrote:
Actually, it is not "driven" by a current source.
It is rather "biased" with a current source, which is a perfectly legit way of operating a 12AU7.
The actual signal source is a voltage source.
Since only half of the dual triode is used, it's rather normal to use only one-half of the heater, hence a 6V connection. Again a quite common arrangement.
UIC flag for .TRAN analysis skips the initial DC operating point solution step (aka ITS). All energy storage components (i.e. capacitors & inductors) by default start transient with 0 stored energy.
?
Therefore, do you think that the difference w.r.t. .TRAN without UIC comes down to the fact that in the latter the initial ITS step picks as stable operating point a nonsensical one for the 12AU7's heater (as you said where the 12AU7's heater generates energy from (very) thin air) ?
?
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 07:16 AM, Andy I wrote:
With UIC, and no other changes:
Normal solver -> 1.165 V @ 186 mA into the heater.? That's somewhat better.? But still not right.
Alternate solver -> 1.165 V @ 186 mA into the heater.
--
OOO - Own Opinions only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion

Virus-free.

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.