BBD-MN3010 and MN3011- is a MN3101 clock necessary?

[Harry Bissell]

I don't know that the MN3101 has any dead-zone between pulses... and the
4013 is
certainly closer that the "cascaded inverter" approach that is also used.
The 4013 has been used in many clock circuits... although it is probably not
optimum. I'd like more drive, thank you.

The non-overlapping clock (with dead zone...) has been proposed before
(maybe it was you, Tony... I don't remember.) I think it is worth
investigating... but I don't plan on it anytime soon (like in the next 100
years....). To be honest I don't do BBD's but IF I did..
I d try this idea.

H^) harry

Tony Allgood wrote:

> >...the old standby is to make the clock run a 2X the frequency you
> need, and then
> use a 4013 D flip-flop as a divide by 2 circuit. The Q and notQ outputs
> are non-overlapping.
>
> Although this may seem true, I do not think they are non overlapping
> when you drive the BBD chip. Capacitance in the BBD's clock inputs will
> produce a certain degree of overlap. I think you really need some dead
> time between the two trains. I have a chorus unit made from two TDA1022s
> and I used a 4013 to derive my clocks. I will be redoing this board at
> some time to see if the amount of dead time can have a significant
> effect on the amount of noise. Currently, the unit is not very useful
> since it is too noisy. Its not companded either, which doesn't help
> matters.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, UK
>
> Modular synth circuits, TB303 clone and Filter Rack
>
> http://www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm