[Solderless breadboards] encourage 'fiddle until
it seems to work'
designing,
That's not what I'm talking about. [...]
My apologies.
Actually, I didn;'t think you would do something like
that...
I have done it, actually, though I think without the "no real
understanding of why" part. For example, I once built a phase-shift
oscillator out of three RC phase-shift stages and an op-amp. But I
wanted something as close as feasible to a sine wave. So I put a
variable resistor in the op-amp fedback, to control the gain. Then I
fiddled with that. Crank the gain up and I got a severely clipped
waveform; crank it down and it wouldn't oscillate (neither of which was
surprising in the least). I fiddled with it until I found a setting
that made the amplitude just barely grow, growing until it just barely
clipped, at which point it stabilized. (It grew fairly slowly; it took
multiple seconds to reach the point of clipping and stabilizing.)
Finding the exact resistor value theoretically would have required
knowing precise values for the components in the R-C network, the other
resistor in the op-amp feedback, loading from parasitic capacitance
(actually, the frequency - something in the audio range, I think - was
low enough that one might have been ignorable), etc.
I feele this is actually a poor deisgn, in that the gain from the op-amp
(and thus the exact value of the resistor you are tweking) that you need
depends on Wein bridge network components how well balanaced they are, for
example).
It may work on the breadboard while you're watching it, but it could
drift one way or the other with temperature changes, etc. It's not
somethign I'd do in anything I wxpected to keep on working.
I considered trying to build some kind of AGC for it,
but never
actually got the round tuits for that.
The normal trick is a light bulb (or a suitable vacuum-encased
thermistor) to act as a non-linear element. IIRC mo purely linear system
can produce stable oscillations (any small change will either cause said
oscilaltiosn to colalpse to zero or to grow ithout limit (or more
practically untyil the signal hits the supply rails).
I am sure we all know the stroy of Fred Terman and a certain research
student.
It fits the "fiddle until it seems to work" words you used, but I don't
think it's the kind of design-without-understanding you appear to have
meant to be (correctly, IMO) castigating.
It is and it isn't. You certainly knew what uou were doing annd why
(settign the gai nof the amplifier correctly yto just compensate for the
loss in the RC network), but for the reasons given aboove, I don't think
this a good design practice.
For simialr reasons I am wary about the uses of resistor and capacitor
substitution boxes 9essentially boxes with all the prefered values of
R's or C's in them with switches to seleect them). The have 'proper' uses
(e.g. to see how a circuit's behaviour is canged when a componnet is
varied, they have an 'improper' use ('Lets fiddle with this component and
see if we can get it to work). But then all tools can be misused.
-tony