Designer’s Guide Community

rfmems

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 121

noise folding in VCO
Dec 16^th, 2006, 2:59pm

According to my calculation and also other publications. The noise contribution of differential pair to VCO phase noise doesnot change with W/L if Gm of this pair considered a square wave-like.

But in spectreRF simulation, the noise V^2/Hz decreases when W/L is inreased. My simulation was always in current-limted region a square-wave like Iout. Also the frequency changes from parasitics of the transistors are compensated with ideal caps so all the simulations oscillate at same freq. Tail current is also kept same therefore a almost same vout amplitude.

Does anyone know why? Thanks

Back to top

IP Logged

sheldon Community Fellow Offline Posts: 751	Re: noise folding in VCO Reply #1 - Dec 16^th, 2006, 3:13pm Chen, Could you provide the reference you are referring to by the statement, "The noise contribution of a differential pair to VCO phase noise does not change with W/L if the Gm of this pair ...". It makes it easier to respond to your question. Best Regards, Sheldon
Back to top	IP Logged

rfmems Senior Member Offline Posts: 121	Re: noise folding in VCO Reply #2 - Dec 17^th, 2006, 7:20am Sheldon, You can find this statement in "The designer's guide to high-purity oscillators" by Hegazi on page 57. Although the deduction is somehow wrong and unclear, but this statement however fits my calculation too. Best regards Chen
Back to top	IP Logged

neoflash

Community Fellow

Offline

Mixed-Signal
Designer

Posts: 397

Re: noise folding in VCO
Reply #3 - Jan 1^st, 2007, 1:10am

I guess Emad's book contains something to reply your question.

1. larger W/L increase harmonics, the more harmonics, the more phase noise we have.
2. larger W/L increase Ctail, thus more upconversion of low frequency tail noise.

MIT published a new paper on it 2005 JSSCC Feb. You can go and have a look.

rfmems wrote on Dec 17^th, 2006, 7:20am:

Sheldon,

You can find this statement in "The designer's guide to high-purity oscillators" by Hegazi on page 57.

Although the deduction is somehow wrong and unclear, but this statement however fits my calculation too.

Best regards
Chen

Back to top

IP Logged