1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage[english]{babel}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb,bm}\interdisplaylinepenalty=2500
4: \usepackage{longtable}
5: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
6: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
7: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
8: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
9: \mathchardef\epsilon="0122 \mathchardef\varepsilon="010F
10: \mathchardef\theta="123 \mathchardef\vartheta="0112
11: \mathchardef\rho="125 \mathchardef\varrho="011A
12: \mathchardef\phi="127 \mathchardef\varphi="011E
13: \ifx\undefined\degrees\def\degrees{\ensuremath{^{\circ}}}\fi
14: \ifx\undefined\celsius\def\celsius{\ensuremath{^{\circ}\mathrm{C}}}\fi
15: \ifx\undefined\unit\def\unit#1{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,#1}}}\fi
16: \ifx\undefined\micro\def\micro{\ensuremath{\mu}}\fi
17: \ifx\undefined\sups\def\sups#1{\ensuremath{^{\mathrm{#1}}}}\fi
18: \ifx\undefined\subs\def\subs#1{\ensuremath{_{\mathrm{#1}}}}\fi
19: \ifx\undefined\ohm\def\ohm{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Omega}}}\fi
20: \def\req#1{(\ref{#1})}
21: \raggedbottom
22:
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%%% SHOULD PUT ORDER IN THIS !!!! %%%%%%%%%%
25: \def\dr{\vrule width 0pt height 1.2ex depth 1.2ex}
26: \def\ur{\vrule width 0pt height 2.5ex depth 0.0ex}
27: \def\vr{\vrule width 0pt height 2.5ex depth 1ex}
28: \ifx\undefined\p\def\p#1{\ensuremath{_\textsc{#1}}}\fi
29: \def\shrinklist{\itemsep-0.3ex}
30: \newenvironment{xitemize}{\begin{itemize}\shrinklist}{\end{itemize}}
31: \newenvironment{xenumerate}{\begin{enumerate}\shrinklist}{\end{enumerate}}
32: \newtheorem{rremark}{Remark}%[chapter]
33: \newenvironment{remark}{%
34: \begin{rremark}\normalfont}{%
35: \mbox{}\hfill$\blacktriangle$\end{rremark}}
36: \newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof.~~]{%
37: \vspace{1ex}\noindent\textsc{#1}}{\mbox{}\hfill$\blacktriangle$}
38: \newenvironment{subproof}[1]{\noindent\emph{#1}}{}
39: \newtheorem{eexample}{Example}%[chapter]
40: \newenvironment{example}{%
41: \begin{eexample}\normalfont}{\mbox{}%
42: \hfill$\blacktriangle$\end{eexample}}
43: \newtheorem{pproperty}{Property}%[chapter]
44: \newenvironment{property}[1]{\begin{pproperty}%
45: \noindent\textbf{\upshape#1}}{\end{pproperty}}
46: \newenvironment{statement}[1]{\vspace{1ex}%
47: \noindent\textbf{#1}\itshape}{}
48: \newtheorem{ddefinition}{\noindent\bfseries\itshape}
49: \newenvironment{definition}[1]{%
50: \begin{ddefinition}{\bfseries#1.}\normalfont}{\end{ddefinition}}
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52: % FIGURES
53: %\DeclareGraphicsRule{.pstex}{eps}{*}{}
54: %\DeclareGraphicsRule{.pdftex}{pdf}{*}{}
55: \def\PrintGraphicFileNeme{1}
56: \newcommand{\includefig}[2]{% % COMBINED LATEX-PS/PDF FIGURES
57: \centering\scalebox{#1}{% % % scale
58: \input{\includefigpath#2.pstex_t}}}
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60:
61: \usepackage{graphicx,color} % for including graphics
62: \usepackage{rotating}
63: %\usepackage[nativepdf,backref,bookmarks]{hyperref} % dvips
64:
65: \setcounter{tocdepth}{1}
66: %\graphicspath{{figs/}}
67: \def\includefigpath{}
68: \def\hugescale{1}\def\LARGEscale{0.917}\def\Largescale{0.841}\def\largescale{0.771}
69: \def\normalscale{0.707}
70: \def\smallscale{0.648}\def\footnotescale{0.595}\def\tinyscale{0.545}\def\ttinyscale{0.50}
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72:
73: \title{Tutorial on the double balanced mixer}
74: \author{Enrico Rubiola\\
75: \small web page \texttt{http://rubiola.org}
76: \\[4em]\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{logo-femto-st}\\[0.5em]
77: \small FEMTO-ST Institute\\[-0.5ex]
78: \small CNRS and Universit\'e de Franche Comt\'e,
79: \small Besan\c{c}on, France\\[1.5em]}
80: \date{\small\today}
81: \markboth{\hfill E. Rubiola~~Tutorial on mixers\hfill\today}{\today\hfill E. Rubiola~~Tutorial on mixers\hfill}
82: %\markright{E. Rubiola,~The meas.\ of AM noise of oscillators.~~\today}
83: \pagestyle{myheadings}
84:
85: \raggedbottom
86: \begin{document}
87: \maketitle
88: %===========================================
89: \begin{abstract}
90: %===========================================
91: Smart use of mixers is a relevant issue in radio engineering and in instrumentation design, and of paramount importance in phase noise metrology. However simple the mixer seems, every time I try to explain to a colleague what it does, something goes wrong. One difficulty is that actual mixers operate in a wide range of power (150 dB or more) and frequency (up to 3 decades). Another difficulty is that the mixer works as a multiplier in the time-domain, which is necessary to convert frequencies. A further difficulty is the interaction with external circuits, the input sources and the load. Yet far the biggest difficulty is that designing with mixers requires a deep comprehension of the whole circuit at \emph{system} level and at a \emph{component} level.
92: As the electronic-component approach is well explained in a number of references, this tutorial emphasizes the system approach, aiming to provide \emph{wisdom} and \emph{insight} on mixes.
93: \end{abstract}
94:
95:
96: \clearpage
97: \begin{center}\begin{small}
98: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Most used symbols}
99: \begin{longtable}{ll}\hline
100: %\begin{tabular}{ll}\hline
101: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\textbf{\large\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.5ex}Most used symbols}}\\\hline
102: \rule{0pt}{2.5ex}%
103: $A(t)$ & slow-varying (baseband) amplitude\\
104: $h_{lp}$, $h_{bp}$ & impulse response of lowpass and bandpass filters\\
105: $h$, $k$, $n$, $p$, $q$& integer numbers\\
106: $i(t)$, $I$ & current\\
107: I (goes with Q) & in-phase in/out (of a two-phase mixer/modulator)\\
108: IF & intermediate frequency\\
109: $j$ & imaginary unit, $j^2=-1$\\
110: $\ell$ & mixer voltage loss, $1/\ell^2=P_i/P_o$\\
111: LO & local oscillator\\
112: $P$ & power\\
113: $P_i$, $P_o$ & power, input and output power \\
114: $P_p$, $P_S$ & LO (pump) power and internal LO saturation power\\
115: Q (goes with i) & quadrature in/out (of a two-phase mixer/modulator)\\
116: $R$ & resistance\\
117: $R_0$ & characteristic resistance (by default, $R_0=50$ \ohm)\\
118: $R_G$ & source resistance (Th\'evenin or Norton model) \\
119: $U$ & dimensional constant, $U=1$\unit{V}\\
120: $v(t)$, $V$ & voltage\\
121: $v'$, $v''$ & real and imaginary, or in-phase and quadrature part\\
122: $v_i(t)$, $v_o(t)$ & input (RF) voltage, and output (IF) voltage\\
123: $v_p(t)$ & LO (pump) signal \\
124: $v_l(t)$, $V_L$ & internal LO signal\\
125: $V_O$ & saturated output voltage\\
126: $V_S$ & satureted level of the internal LO signal $v_l(t)$\\
127: $x(t)$ & real (in-phase) part of a RF signal\\
128: $y(t)$ & imaginary (quadrature) part of a RF signal\\
129: $\varphi$, $\varphi(t)$ & static (or quasistatic) phase\\
130: $\phi(t)$ & random phase\\
131: $\omega$, $f$ & angular frequency, frequency\\
132: $\omega_i$, $\omega_l$
133: & input (RF) and pump (LO) angular frequency\\
134: $\omega_b$, $\omega_s$ & beat and sideband angular frequency\\
135: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\small\bfseries note: \boldmath $\omega$ is used as a shorthand for $2\pi f$}%
136: \rule[-1ex]{0pt}{0ex}\\\hline
137: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\textbf{\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.5ex}Most used subscripts}}\\\hline
138: $b$ & beat, as in $|\omega_s-\omega_i|=\omega_b$\\
139: $i$, $I$ & input\\
140: $l$, $L$ & local oscillator (internal signal)\\
141: $o$, $O$ & output\\
142: $p$, $P$ & pump, local oscillator (at the input port)\\
143: $s$ & sideband, as in $|\omega_s-\omega_i|=\omega_b$\\
144: $S$ & saturated\\
145: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\small\bfseries\boldmath note: in reverse modes, $i$ is still the input, and $o$ the output}\\\hline
146: \end{longtable}
147: \end{small}\end{center}
148: \clearpage\tableofcontents
149: \cleardoublepage
150:
151: %===========================================
152: \section{Basics}
153: %===========================================
154: It is first to be understood that the mixer is \emph{mainly intended}, and \emph{mainly documented}, as the frequency converter of the superheterodyne receiver (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-superhet}).
155: The port names, LO (local oscillator, or \emph{pump}), RF (radio-frequency), and IF (intermediate frequency) are clearly inspired to this application.
156: \begin{figure}[hb]
157: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-superhet}
158: \caption{Superheterodyne receiver.}
159: \label{fig:mix-superhet}
160: \end{figure}
161:
162: The basic scheme of a mixer is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-dbm}. At microwave
163: frequencies a star configuration is often used, instead the diode ring.
164: \begin{figure}[ht]
165: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-dbm}
166: \caption{Double balanced mixer and its switch-network equivalent.}
167: \label{fig:mix-dbm}
168: \end{figure}
169: Under the basic assumptions that $v_p(t)$ is large as compared to the diode threshold, and that $v_i(t)$ is small, the ring acts a switch.
170: During the positive half-period of $v_p(t)$ two diodes are reverse biased and the other two diodes are forward biased to saturation. During the negative half-period the roles are interchanged. For the small RF signal, the diodes are open circuit when reverse biased, and small resistances when forward biased. As a result, the IF signal $v_o(t)$ switches between $+v_i(t)$ and $-v_i(t)$ depending on the sign of $v_p(t)$. This is equivalent to multiplying $v_i(t)$ by a square wave of amplitude $\pm1$ that takes the sign from $v_p(t)$.
171: In most practical cases, it is sufficient to describe the frequency conversion mechanism as the product between $v_i(t)$ and the first term of the Fourier expansion of the square wave.
172: More accurate models account for the higher-order Fourier terms, and for the dynamic resistance and capacitance of the diodes.
173:
174: At the RF and LO sides, a balun is necessary in order to convert the unbalanced inputs into the balanced signals required for the ring to operate as a switch. Conversely, no adapter is needed at the IF output, which is already unbalanced.
175: In low-frequency mixers (from a few kHz to 2--3 GHz) the baluns are implemented with power iron tore transformers. At higher frequencies, up to some tens of GHz, transformers are not available, for microstrip networks are the preferred balun types.
176: The typical LO power is of 5--10 mW (7--10 dBm), whereas in some cases a power up to 1 W (30 dBm) is used for highest linearity. The RF power should be at least 10 dB lower than the LO power. The diodes are of the Schottky types, because of the low forward threshold and of the fast switching capability. The characteristic impedance to which all ports should be terminated is $R_0=50$~\ohm, with rare exceptions.
177:
178: The mixer can be used in a variety of modes, each with its ``personality'' and peculiarities, listed in Table~\ref{tab:mix:modes}, and detailed in the next Sections. In short summary, the mixer is (almost) always used with the LO input saturated at the nominal power. Then, the main parameters governing the behavior are:
179: \begin{description}
180: \item[Input power.] The input (RF) power is usually well below the saturation level, as in Figures \ref{fig:mix-superhet}--\ref{fig:mix-dbm}. Yet, the input can be intentionally saturated.
181: \item[Frequency degeneracy.] When the input (RF) and LO frequency overlap, the conversion product also overlap.
182: \item[Interchanging the RF and IF ports.] The difference is that the RF port is coupled in ac, while the IF port is often coupled in dc.
183: \end{description}
184: Additionally, the mixer is sometimes used in a \textbf{strange mode}, with both LO and RF inputs not saturated.
185:
186: \def\clwa{6ex}\def\clwb{38ex}%normalsize
187: %\def\clwa{6ex}\def\clwb{42ex}%small
188: \begin{table}[t]
189: \centering
190: \caption{Operating modes of the double balanced mixer.\dr}
191: \label{tab:mix:modes}
192: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|cc|l|}\hline
193: &mode&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\ur condition} & note \\
194: &\dr & frequency & $P$ or $I$ & \\\cline{2-5}
195: %----------------------------------------------------------------
196: &LC & $\nu_i\ne \nu_l$ & $P_i\ll P_S$
197: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Linear} frequency \emph{Converter}.
198: Typical of the superetherodyne radio receiver.\dr}
199: \\\cline{2-5}
200: &SD & $\nu_i=\nu_l$ & $P_i\ll P_S$
201: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Synchronous Detector}. Used
202: the lock-in amplifiers, in coherent receivers, and
203: in bridge noise measurements.\dr}
204: \\\cline{2-5}
205: &SC & $\nu_i\ne\nu_l$ & $P_i\ge P_S$
206: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Saturated} frequency \emph{Converter}.\\
207: Mainly used in frequency synthesis.\dr}
208: \\\cline{2-5}
209: &DC & \parbox{\clwa}{\centering$\nu_l{=}p\nu_0$\\[-0.3ex]
210: $\nu_i{=}q\nu_0$\\\mbox{$p$, $q$ small integers}}
211: &\raisebox{1.5ex}{$\smash{P_i\ge P_S}$}
212: & \parbox{\clwb}{%
213: \ur\emph{Degenerated} frequency \emph{Converter}.\\
214: Only used in some cases of metrology and frequency
215: synthesis.\dr}
216: \\\cline{2-5}
217: \hspace*{1ex}\begin{rotate}{90}
218: \hspace*{11ex}Normal Modes\end{rotate}
219: &PD & $\nu_i=\nu_l$ & $P_i\ge P_S$
220: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Phase Detector}.
221: RF and LO signals are to be in quadrature.\dr}
222: \\\hline
223: %----------------------------------------------------------------
224: &LM & $\nu_i\approx0$ & $I_i\ll I_S$
225: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Linear Modulator}, driven with
226: a near-dc input current $I_i(t)$.\dr}
227: \\\cline{2-5}
228: &RLC & $\nu_i\gg0$ & $P_i\ll P_S$
229: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Reverse Linear Converter},
230: driven with a narrowband signal at $\nu_i$.\dr}
231: \\\cline{2-5}
232: &DM & $\nu_i\approx0$ & $P_i\ge P_S$
233: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Digital Modulator}.
234: Information is located close to dc.\dr}
235: \\\cline{2-5}
236: &RSC & $\nu_i\gg0$ & $P_i\ge P_S$
237: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Reverse Saturated Converter}.
238: Some cases of in frequency synthesis.\dr}
239: \\\cline{2-5}
240: \hspace*{1ex}\begin{rotate}{90}
241: \hspace*{6ex}Reverse Modes\end{rotate}
242: &RDC & \parbox{8ex}{%
243: \centering$\nu_l{=}p\nu_0$\\[-0.3ex]$\nu_i{=}q\nu_0$\\
244: \mbox{$p$, $q$ small integers}}
245: &\raisebox{1.5ex}{$\smash{P_i\ge P_S}$}
246: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Reverse Degenerated Converter}.
247: Similar to the DC mode, and only used in some odd cases.\dr}
248: \\\hline
249: \hspace*{1ex}\begin{rotate}{90}\hspace*{-3ex}Strange\end{rotate}
250: &AD & $\nu_i=\nu_l$
251: & \parbox{\clwa}{\centering$P_i{<}P_S$\\[0.5ex]$P_l{<}P_S$}
252: & \parbox{\clwb}{\ur\emph{Amplitude-modulation detector}.\\
253: Scarce information. Used at NIST for the measurement of AM noise.\dr}
254: \\\hline
255: \end{tabular}
256: \end{table}
257:
258:
259:
260:
261: %----------------------------------------------------------------
262: \subsection{Golden rules}
263: %----------------------------------------------------------------
264: \begin{enumerate}
265: \item First and foremost, check upon saturation at the LO port and identify the operating mode (Table \ref{tab:mix:modes}).
266:
267: \item Generally, all ports should be reasonably impedance matched, otherwise reflected waves result in unpredictable behavior.
268:
269: \item When reflected waves can be tolerated, for example at low frequencies or because of some external circuit, impedance plays another role.
270: In fact, the appropriate current flow is necessary for the diodes to switch.
271:
272: \item In all cases, read carefully Sections \ref{ssec:mix:lc-mode} to \ref{ssec:mix:linearity}.
273: \end{enumerate}
274:
275:
276:
277: %----------------------------------------------------------------
278: \subsection{Avoid damage}\label{sec:mix:safe-op}
279: %----------------------------------------------------------------
280: However trivial, avoid damage deserves a few words because the device can be pushed in a variety of non-standard operation modes, which increases the risk.
281: %
282: \begin{enumerate}
283: \item Damage results from excessive \emph{power}.
284: Some confusion between maximum power for linear operation and the absolute maximum power to prevent damage is common in data sheets.
285:
286: \item The nominal LO power (or range) refers to best performance in the linear conversion mode. This value can be exceeded, while the absolute maximum power can not.
287:
288: \item The maximum RF power is specified as the maximum power for linear operation. When linearity is not needed this value can be exceeded, while the absolute maximum power can not.
289:
290: \item Voltage driving may result in the destruction of the mixer for two reasons. The diode $i=i(v)$ characteristics is exponential in $v$, for the current tend to exceed the maximum when the diode is driven by a voltage source. The thin wires of the miniature transformers tend to blow up as a fuse if the current is excessive.
291:
292: \item In the absence of more detailed information, the absolute maximum power specified for the LO port can be used as the \emph{total dissipated power}, regardless of where power enters.
293:
294: \item The absolute maximum LO power can also be used to guess the \emph{maximum current through one diode}. This may be useful in dc or degenerated modes, where power is not equally split between the diodes.
295: \end{enumerate}
296: %
297: Better than general rules, a misfortunate case occurred to me suggests to be careful about subtle details. A \$\,3000 mixer used as a phase detector died unexpectedly, without being overloaded with microwave power. Further analysis showed that one rail of a dc supply failed, and because of this the bipolar operational amplifier (LT-1028) connected to the IF port sank a current from the input (20 mA?).
298:
299:
300:
301: %=============================================
302: \section{Signal representations}\label{sec:mix:multiplication}
303: %=============================================
304: The simple sinusoidal signal takes the form
305: \begin{align}
306: \label{eqn:mix:simple-sinusoid}
307: v(t)=A_0\cos(\omega_0t+\varphi)~.
308: \end{align}
309: This signal has rms value $A_0/\sqrt2$ and phase $\varphi$.
310: An alternate form often encountered is
311: \begin{align}
312: \label{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid1}
313: v(t) &=V_\text{rms}\sqrt2\cos(\omega_0t+\varphi) \\
314: \label{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid2}
315: &= V'\sqrt2\cos(\omega_0t) - V''\sqrt2\sin(\omega_0t)~,
316: \end{align}
317: with
318: \begin{align}
319: V' &= V_\text{rms}\cos\varphi\\
320: V'' &= V_\text{rms}\sin\varphi\\
321: V_\text{rms} &=\sqrt{(V')^2+(V'')^2}\\
322: \varphi&=\arctan(V''/V')~.
323: \end{align}
324: The form \req{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid1}-\req{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid2}
325: relates to the \emph{phasor} representation\footnote{This is also known as the \emph{complex} representation, or as the \emph{Fresnel vector} representation.}\begin{align}
326: \label{eqn:mix:phasor-sinusoid}
327: V=V'+jV''=|V|e^{j\varphi}~,
328: \end{align}
329: which is obtained by freezing the $\omega_0$ oscillation, and by turning the amplitude into a complex quantity of modulus
330: \begin{align}
331: |V|=\sqrt{(V')^2+(V'')^2} = V_\text{rms}
332: \end{align}
333: equal to the rms value of the time-domain sinusoid, and of argument
334: \begin{align}
335: \varphi=\arctan\frac{V''}{V'}
336: \end{align}
337: equal to the phase $\varphi$ of the time-domain sinusoid. The ``$\sin\omega_0t$'' term in Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid2} has a sign ``$-$'' for consistency with Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:phasor-sinusoid}.
338:
339: Another form frequently used is the \emph{analytic} (complex) signal
340: \begin{align}
341: \label{eqn:mix:analytic-signal}
342: v(t) = Ve^{j\omega_0t}~,
343: \end{align}
344: where the complex voltage $V=V'+jV''$ is consistent with Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:phasor-sinusoid}.
345: The analytic signal has zero energy at negative frequencies, and double energy at positive frequencies.
346:
347: The product of two signals can only be described in the time domain [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:simple-sinusoid}, \req{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid1}, \req{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid2}].
348: In fact, the phasor representation \req{eqn:mix:phasor-sinusoid} is useless, and the analytic signal \req{eqn:mix:analytic-signal} hides the down-conversion mechanism. This occurs because
349: $e^{j\omega_at}e^{j\omega_bt}=e^{j(\omega_a+\omega_b)t}$,
350: while the product of two sinusoids is governed by
351: \begin{align}
352: \label{eqn:mix:product-1}
353: \cos(\omega_at) \cos(\omega_bt)
354: &= \frac12\cos\bigl(\omega_a-\omega_b\bigr)t+\frac12\cos\bigl(\omega_a+\omega_b\bigr)t\\
355: \label{eqn:mix:product-2}
356: \sin(\omega_at) \cos(\omega_bt)
357: &= \frac12\sin\bigl(\omega_a-\omega_b\bigr)t+\frac12\sin\bigl(\omega_a+\omega_b\bigr)t\\
358: \label{eqn:mix:product-3}
359: \sin(\omega_at) \sin(\omega_bt)
360: &= \frac12\cos\bigl(\omega_a-\omega_b\bigr)t-\frac12\cos\bigl(\omega_a+\omega_b\bigr)t~.
361: \end{align}
362: Thus, the product of two sinusoids yields the sum and the difference of the two input frequencies (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-up-down-conversion}).
363: \begin{figure}[t]
364: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-up-down-conversion}
365: \caption{Frequency conversion. Negative frequencies are not shown.}
366: \label{fig:mix-up-down-conversion}
367: \end{figure}
368: A pure sinusoidal signal is represented as a pair of Dirac delta function $\delta(\omega-\omega_0)$ and $\delta(\omega+\omega_0)$ in the spectrum, or as a single $\delta(\omega-\omega_0)$ in the case of the analytic signal.
369: All the forms \req{eqn:mix:simple-sinusoid}, \req{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid1}, \req{eqn:mix:cos-sin-sinusoid2}, \req{eqn:mix:phasor-sinusoid}, and \req{eqn:mix:analytic-signal} are also suitable to represent (slow-varying) modulated signals.
370: A modulated signal can be represented\footnote{The factor $\sqrt2$ is dropped, for $A$ is a peak amplitude. Thus, $A'(t)$ and $A''(t)$ are the time-varying counterpart of $V'\sqrt2$ and $V''\sqrt2$.} as
371: \begin{align}
372: \label{eqn:mix:modulated-sinusoid}
373: v(t)=A'(t)\cos(\omega_0t)-A''(t)\sin(\omega_0t)~.
374: \end{align}
375: $A'(t)$ and $A''(t)$ are the low-pass signals that contain information. They may include a dc term, which accounts for the carrier, like in the old AM and PM\@. Strictly, it is not necessary that $A'(t)$ and $A''(t)$ are narrow-band.
376: The time-depencence of $A'(t)$ and $A''(t)$ spreads the power around $\omega_0$. The spectrum of the modulated signal is a copy of the two-side spectrum of $A'(t)$ and $A''(t)$ translated to $\pm\omega_0$. Thus, the bandwidth of the modulated signal \req{eqn:mix:modulated-sinusoid} is twice the bandwidth of $A'(t)$ and $A''(t)$.
377: Not knowing the real shape, the spectrum can be conventionally represented as a rectangle centered at the carrier frequency, which occupies the bandwidth of $A'$ and $A''$ on each side of $\pm\omega_0$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-conv}).
378:
379: Of course, Equations \req{eqn:mix:product-1}--\req{eqn:mix:product-3} also apply to the product of modulated signals, with their time-dependent coefficients $A'(t)$ and $A''(t)$.
380: Using mixers, we often encounter the product of a pure sinusoid [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:simple-sinusoid}] multiplied by a modulated signal [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:modulated-sinusoid}]. The spectrum of such product consists of two replicas of the modulated input, translated to the frequency sum and to the frequency difference (IF signal Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-conv}).
381:
382:
383:
384: %=============================================
385: \section{Linear modes}\label{sec:mix:lin-modes}
386: %=============================================
387: For the mixer to operate in any of the linear modes, it is necessary that
388: \begin{itemize}
389: \item the LO port is saturated by a suitable sinusoidal signal,
390: \item a small (narrowband) signal is present at the RF input.
391: \end{itemize}
392: The reader should refer to Sec.~\ref{ssec:mix:linearity} for more details about linearity.
393:
394: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
395: \subsection{Linear frequency converter (LC) mode}\label{ssec:mix:lc-mode}
396: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
397: The additional condition for the mixer to operate as a linear frequency converter is that the LO and the RF signals are separated in the frequency domain (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-conv}).
398: \begin{figure}[ht]
399: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-lc-conv}
400: \caption{Frequency domain representation of the linear converter mode. Negative frequencies are not shown.}
401: \label{fig:mix-lc-conv}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404: It is often convenient to describe the mixer as a system (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-model}), in which the behavior is modeled with functional blocks.
405: \begin{figure}[ht]
406: \centering\includefig{0.7}{mix-lc-model}
407: \caption{Model of the double balanced mixer operated
408: as a linear converter.}
409: \label{fig:mix-lc-model}
410: \end{figure}
411: The clipper at the LO input limits the signal to the saturation level
412: $V_S$, while the clipper at the RF port is idle because this port is
413: not saturated. The overall effect is that the internal LO voltage
414: $v_l(t)$ is approximately a trapezoidal waveform that switches between the
415: saturated levels ${\pm}V_S$. The value of $V_S$ is a characteristic parameter of the specific mixer.
416: The effect of higher LO power is to shrink the fraction of period taken by the slanted edges, rather than increasing $V_S$.
417: The asymptotic expression of $v_l(t)$ for strong saturation is
418: \begin{align}
419: v_l(t)&=\frac{4}{\pi}V_S\sum_{\mathrm{odd}~k\ge1}%
420: \Big(\!-1\Big)^{\textstyle\frac{k-1}{2}}~~%
421: \frac{1}{k}\;\cos(k\omega_lt)
422: \label{eqn:mix:multih-lo}\\
423: &=\frac{4}{\pi}V_S\left[\cos\omega_lt-\frac{1}{3}\cos3\omega_lt
424: +\frac{1}{5}\cos5\omega_lt-\ldots+\ldots\;\right]
425: \nonumber
426: \end{align}
427: The filters account for the bandwidth limitations of the actual mixer.
428: The IF output is often coupled in dc. As an example,
429: Table~\ref{tab:mix-example} gives the main characteristics of two
430: typical mixers.
431: \begin{table}[ht]
432: \centering
433: \caption{Example of double balanced mixers.\dr}
434: \label{tab:mix-example}
435: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
436: port & HF-UHF mixer & microwave mixer \\ \hline
437: LO & 1--500 MHz & 8.4--18 GHz \\
438: & 7 dBm $\pm1$ dB & 8--11 dBm \\
439: & $\textsc{swr}<1.8$ & $\textsc{swr}<2$ \\\hline
440: RF & 1--500 MHz & 8.4--18 GHz \\
441: & 0 dBm max & 0 dBm max \\
442: & $\textsc{swr}<1.5$ & $\textsc{swr}<2$ \\\hline
443: IF & dc -- 500 MHz & dc -- 2 GHz \\
444: & 0 dBm max & 0 dBm max \\
445: & $\textsc{swr}<1.5$ & $\textsc{swr}<2$ \\
446: & \textsc{ssb} loss 5.5 dB max & \textsc{ssb} loss 7.5 dB max \\\hline
447: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{all ports terminated to 50 \ohm} \\\hline
448: \end{tabular}
449: \end{table}
450:
451: A simplified description of the mixer is obtained by approximating the internal LO waveform $v_l(t)$ with the first term of its Fourier expansion
452: \begin{equation}
453: v_l(t) = V_L\cos(\omega_lt)~~.
454: \label{eqn:mix:lo}
455: \end{equation}
456: The input signal takes the form
457: \begin{equation}
458: v_i(t) = A_i(t)\cos\left[\omega_it+\varphi_i(t)\right]~~,
459: \end{equation}
460: where $A_i(t)$ and $\varphi_i(t)$ are the slow-varying signals in which
461: information is coded. They may contain a dc term. The output signal is
462: %
463: \begin{align}
464: v_o(t) & = \frac{1}{U}~v_i(t)\,v_l(t) \\
465: & = \frac{1}{U}~A_i(t)\cos\bigl[\omega_it+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]%
466: ~~V_L\cos(\omega_lt) \\
467: & = \frac{1}{2U}\,V_LA_i(t)\:\Bigl\{
468: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l-\omega_i)t-\varphi_i(t)\bigr]+
469: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]\Bigr\}~~.
470: \label{eqn:mix:lc-vo}
471: \end{align}
472: %
473: The trivial term $U=1$~V is introduced for the result to
474: have the physical dimension of voltage.
475:
476: An optional bandpass filter, not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-model},
477: may select the upper sideband (USB) or the lower sideband (LSB). If
478: it is present, the output signal is
479: %
480: \begin{align}
481: v_o(t) &= \frac{1}{2U}\,V_LA_i(t)\,
482: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l-\omega_i)t-\varphi_i(t)\bigr]
483: \qquad\mbox{LSB} \\
484: v_o(t) &= \frac{1}{2U}\,V_LA_i(t)\,
485: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]
486: \qquad\mbox{USB}~~.
487: \end{align}
488:
489:
490: \paragraph{Image frequency.}
491: %----------------------------------------------------------------
492: \begin{figure}[t]
493: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-lc-image}
494: \caption{Image frequency in a conversion circuit.}
495: \label{fig:mix-lc-image}
496: \end{figure}
497: Let us now consider the inverse problem, that is, the identification of the input signal by observing the output of a mixer followed by a band-pass filter (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-image}~top). In a typical case, the output is a band-pass signal
498: \begin{equation}
499: v_o(t) = A_o(t)\cos\big[\omega_bt+\varphi_o(t)\big]~~,
500: \label{eqn:mix:image}
501: \end{equation}
502: centered at $\omega_b$, close to the filter center frequency.
503: It is easily proved that there exist two input signals
504: \begin{align}
505: v_L(t) &= A_L(t)\cos\bigl[(\omega_l-\omega_b)t+\varphi_L(t)\bigr]&&\text{LSB}
506: \label{eqn:mix:image-1}\\
507: v_U(t) &= A_U(t)\cos\bigl[(\omega_l+\omega_b)t+\varphi_U(t)\bigr]&&\text{USB}~~,
508: \label{eqn:mix:image-2}
509: \end{align}
510: that produce a signal that passes through the output filter, thus
511: contribute to $v_o(t)$. It is therefore impossible to ascribe a given
512: $v_o(t)$ to $v_L(t)$ or to its \emph{image} $v_U(t)$ if no a-priori
513: information is given. Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-image}~(middle) gives the explanation in terms of spectra.
514: The USB and the LSB are image of one another with respect to $\omega_l$. In most practical cases, one wants to detect one signal, so the presence of some energy around the image frequency is a nuisance.
515: In the case of the superheterodyne receiver, there results ambiguity in the frequency at which the receivers is tuned. Even worse, a signal at the image frequency interferes with the desired signal.
516: The obvious cure is a preselector filter preceding the mixer input.
517:
518: More generally, the input signal can be written as
519: \begin{equation}
520: v_i(t) = \sum_n A_n'(t)\cos(n\omega_0t)-A_n''(t)\sin(n\omega_0t)~~,
521: \label{eqn:mix:image-3}
522: \end{equation}
523: which is a series of contiguous bandpass processes of bandwidth
524: $\omega_0$, centered around $n\omega_0$, and spaced by $\omega_0$.
525: The output is
526: \begin{equation}
527: v_o(t) = \frac{1}{U}\big[v_l(t)\,v_i(t)\big]*h_{bp}(t)~~,
528: \end{equation}
529: where ``$*$'' is the convolution operator, and $h_{bp}(t)$ the impulse
530: response of the bandpass IF filter. The convolution ${}*h_{bp}(t)$ defines the pass-band filtering. Accordingly, the terms of $v_i(t)$ for which $|n\omega_0-\omega_l|$ is in the pass-band of the filter
531: contribute to the output signal $v_o(t)$. Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-image}~(bottom) shows the complete conversion process.
532:
533:
534:
535:
536: \paragraph{Multi-harmonic conversion.}
537: %----------------------------------------------------------------
538: In usual conditions, the LO port is well saturated. Hence it makes sense to account for several terms of the Fourier expansion \req{eqn:mix:multih-lo}
539: of the LO signal.
540: Each term of Eq.\ \req{eqn:mix:multih-lo} is a sinusoid of frequency
541: $k\omega_l$ that converts the portions of spectrum centered at
542: $|k\omega_l+\omega_b|$ and $|k\omega_l-\omega_b|$ into $\omega_b$
543: (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-harm}), thus
544: \begin{align}
545: v_o(t) & = \frac{1}{U}~v_i(t)\,v_l(t) \\[1ex]
546: & = \frac{1}{U}~A_i(t)\cos\bigl[\omega_it+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]%
547: ~~\frac{4}{\pi}V_S\!\!\!\sum_{\mathrm{odd}~k\ge1}%
548: \!\!\Big(-1\Big)^{\textstyle\frac{k-1}{2}}%
549: \;\frac{1}{k}\,\cos(k\omega_lt) \\[1ex]
550: & = \frac{1}{2U}\,\frac{4}{\pi}V_S\,A_i(t)%
551: \!\!\!\sum_{\mathrm{odd}~k\ge1}%
552: \!\!\!\Big(-1\Big)^{\textstyle\frac{k-1}{2}}%
553: \;\frac{1}{k}\Bigl\{
554: \cos\bigl[(k\omega_l-\omega_i)t-\varphi_i(t)\bigr]+{}
555: \Bigr.\nonumber\\
556: &\hspace{32ex}\Bigl.
557: {}+\cos\bigl[(k\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]\Bigr\}~~.
558: \label{eqn:mix:lc-vo-multih}
559: \end{align}
560: With $k=1$, one term can be regarded as the signal to be detected, and the other one as the image. All the terms with $k>1$, thus $3\omega_0$, $5\omega_0$, etc., as stray signals taken in because of distortion. Of course, the mixer can be intentionally used to convert some frequency slot through multiplication by one harmonic of the LO, at the cost of lower conversion efficiency. A bandpass filter at the RF input is often necessary to stop unwanted signals. Sampling mixers are designed for this specific operation. Yet their internal structure differs from that of the common double-balanced mixer.
561:
562: In real mixers the Fourier series expansion of $v_l(t)$ can be written as
563: \begin{equation}
564: v_l(t)=\sum_{\mathrm{odd}~k\ge1}%
565: \Big(-1\Big)^{\textstyle\frac{k-1}{2}}%
566: V_{L,k}\cos(k\omega_lt+\varphi_k)~~,
567: \label{eqn:mix:multih-lo-1}
568: \end{equation}
569: for Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:lc-vo-multih} becomes
570: \begin{align}
571: v_o(t) & = \frac{1}{2U}\,A_i(t)%
572: \!\!\!\sum_{\mathrm{odd}~k\ge1}%
573: \!\!\!\Big(-1\Big)^{\textstyle\frac{k-1}{2}}%
574: V_{L,k}\,\Bigl\{
575: \cos\bigl[(k\omega_l-\omega_i)t-\varphi_i(t)\bigr]+{}
576: \Bigr.\nonumber\\
577: &\hspace{32ex}\Bigl.
578: {}+\cos\bigl[(k\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]\Bigr\}~~.
579: \label{eqn:mix:lc-vo-multihreal}
580: \end{align}
581: The first term of Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:multih-lo-1} is equivalent to \req{eqn:mix:lo}, thus $V_{L,1}=V_L$.
582: Equation \req{eqn:mix:multih-lo-1} differs from Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:multih-lo} in the presence of the phase terms $\varphi_k$, and in
583: that the coefficient $V_{L,k}$ decrease more rapidely than $1/k$. This due to non-perfect saturation and to bandwidth limitation. In weak saturation conditions the coefficient $V_{L,k}$ decrease even faster.
584:
585: \begin{figure}[t]
586: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-lc-harm}
587: \caption{Multi-harmonic conversion.}
588: \label{fig:mix-lc-harm}
589: \end{figure}
590:
591: Looking at Eq.\ \req{eqn:mix:multih-lo}, one should recall that frequency multiplication results in phase noise multiplication. If the LO signal contains a (random) phase $\phi(t)$, the phase $k\phi(t)$ is present in the $k$-th term.
592:
593: For a more accurate analysis, the diode can no longer be modeled as a switch.
594: The diode forward current $i_F$ is governed by the exponential law
595: \begin{equation}
596: i_F=I_s\left(e^{\textstyle\frac{v_F}{\eta V_T}}-1\right)
597: \end{equation}
598: where $V_F$ is the forward voltage, $I_s$ the inverse saturation
599: current, $\eta\in[1\ldots2]$ a technical parameter of the junction, and
600: $V_T=kT/q$ the thermal voltage at the junction temperature.
601: At room temperature, it holds that $V_T=kT/q\simeq25.6$~mV\@.
602: The term ``$-1$'' is negligible in our case. In the presence of a sinusoidal pump signal, the exponential diode current can be expanded using the identity
603: \begin{equation}
604: e^{z\cos\varphi} = I_0(z)
605: +2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}I_k(z)\cos(k\varphi)~~,
606: \end{equation}
607: where $I_k(\cdot)$ is the modified Bessel function of order $k$.
608: As a consequence of the mixer symmetry, the even harmonics are canceled and the odd harmonics reinforced. Ogawa~\cite{ogawa80mtt} gives an expression of the IF output current
609: %
610: \begin{equation}
611: i_o(t)=4I_s\frac{V\p{rf}}{\eta V_T}
612: \sum_{\text{odd}~k\ge1}
613: I_k\left(\frac{V\p{lo}}{\eta V_T}\right)
614: \Big[\cos(k\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\cos(k\omega_l-\omega_i)t\Big]~~.
615: \label{eqn:mix:ogawa}
616: \end{equation}
617: %
618: Equation \req{eqn:mix:ogawa} is valuable for design purposes. Yet, it is of limited usefulness in analysis because some
619: parameters, like $I_s$ and $\eta$ are hardly available.
620: In addition, Eq.\ \req{eqn:mix:ogawa} holds in quasistatic conditions and does not account for a number of known effects, like stray inductances and capacitances, varactor effect in diodes, bulk resistance of the semiconductors, and other losses. Nonetheless, Eq.\ \req{eqn:mix:ogawa} provides insight in the nature of the coefficients $V_{L,k}$.
621:
622:
623:
624: \paragraph{Rules for the load impedance at the IF port.}\label{par:mix-if-load-impedance}
625: %----------------------------------------------------------------
626: The product of two sinusoids at frequency $\omega_i$ and $\omega_l$, inherently, contains the frequencies $\omega_i\pm\omega_l$.
627: At the IF port, current flow must be allowed at both these frequencies, otherwise the diodes can not switch. The problem arises when IF selection filter shows high impedance in the stop band. Conversely, low impedance $Z\ll R_0$ is usually allowed.
628: \begin{figure}[t]
629: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-if-filter}
630: \caption{The mixer is followed by a filter that selects the $|\omega_i-\omega_l|$ frequency.}
631: \label{fig:mix-if-filter}
632: \end{figure}
633: Figure \ref{fig:mix-if-filter} shows three typical cases in which a filter is used to select the $|\omega_i-\omega_l|$ signal at the IF output, and to reject the image at the frequency $|\omega_i+\omega_l|$.
634: The scheme A is correct because the image-frequency current can flow through the diodes (low impedance). The scheme B will not work because the filter is nearly open circuit at the image frequency. The scheme C is a patched version of B, in which an additional $RC$ cell provides the current path for the image frequency.
635: The efficient use of a mixer as a multi-harmonic converter may require a specific analysis of the filter.
636:
637: In microwave mixers, the problem of providing a current path to the image frequency may not be visible, having been fixed inside the mixer.
638: This may be necessary when the image frequency is out of the bandwidth, for the external load can not provide the appropriate impedance.
639:
640: Rules are different in the case of the \emph{phase detector} because the current path is necessary at the $2\omega_l$ frequency, not at dc.
641:
642:
643: \paragraph{Can the LO and RF ports be interchanged?}
644: %----------------------------------------------------------------
645: With an ideal mixer yes, in practice often better not.
646: Looking at Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-dbm}, the center point of the LO transformer is
647: grounded, which helps isolation. In the design of microwave mixers,
648: where the transformers are replaced with microstrip baluns,
649: optimization may privilege isolation from the LO pump, and low loss in
650: the RF circuit.
651: This is implied in the general rule that the mixer is designed and documented for the superheterodyne receiver. Nonetheless, interchanging RF and LO can be useful in some cases, for example to take benefit from the difference in the input bandwidth.
652:
653:
654:
655: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
656: \subsection{Linear Synchronous Detector (SD) Mode}\label{ssec:mix:sd-mode}
657: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
658: \begin{figure}[t]
659: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-sd-conv}
660: \caption{Frequency-domain sketch of the linear synchronous
661: detection.}
662: \label{fig:mix-sd-conv}
663: \end{figure}
664: The general conditions for the linear modes are that the LO port is saturated by a suitable sinusoidal signal, and that a small (narrowband) signal is present at the RF input. The additional conditions for the mixer to operate in the SD mode are: (1) the LO frequency $\omega_l$ is tuned at the center of the spectrum of the (narrowband) RF signal, and (2) the IF output is low-passed.
665:
666: The basic mixer operation is the same of the frequency conversion
667: mode, with the diode ring used as a switch that inverts or not the
668: input polarity dependig on the sign of the LO\@. The model of
669: Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-model} is also suitable to the SD mode. Yet, the
670: frequency conversion mechanism is slightly different.
671: Figure~\ref{fig:mix-sd-conv} shows the SD mode in the frequency
672: domain, making use of two-sided spectra. Using one-sided spectra, the
673: conversion products of negative frequency are folded to positive
674: frequencies.
675: \begin{figure}[t]
676: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-ld-harm}
677: \caption{Signals are converted to IF by the harmonics at frequency multiple than the LO frequency.}
678: \label{fig:mix-ld-harm}
679: \end{figure}
680: Of course, the multi-harmonic frequency conversion mechanism, due to the harmonics multiple of the LO frequency still works (Figure~\ref{fig:mix-ld-harm}).
681:
682:
683: \begin{figure}[t]
684: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-lc-scalar}
685: \caption{Linear synchronous detection.}
686: \label{fig:mix-lc-scalar}
687: \end{figure}
688: The simplest way to understand the synchronous conversion is to
689: represent the input and the internal LO signal $v'_l(t)=V_L\cos(\omega_0t+\varphi_L)$ in Cartesian coordinates\footnote{In this Section we use $x$ and $y$ in order to emphasize some properties of the synchronous detection tightly connected to Cartesian-coordinate representation. Here, $x$ and $y$ are the same thing of $A'$ and $A''$ of Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:modulated-sinusoid}.}
690: \begin{align}
691: \label{eqn:mix:x-y-signal}
692: v_i(t)&=x(t)\cos\omega_0t-y(t)\sin\omega_0t\\
693: v'_l(t)&=V_L\left[\cos\varphi_L\cos\omega_0t-\sin\varphi_L\sin\omega_0t\right]
694: \end{align}
695: The signal at the output of the low-pass filter is\footnote{Once again, we emphasize the properties connected with the Cartesian-coordinate representation. $X(t)$ is the same thing of $v_o(t)$ of other sections.} (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-scalar})
696: %
697: \begin{align}
698: X(t)
699: & = \frac{1}{U}\,v_i(t)\,v'_l(t) * h_{lp}\\
700: & = \frac{1}{U}\,\bigl[x\cos\omega_0t-y\sin\omega_0t\bigr]
701: \:V_L\bigl[\cos\varphi_L\cos\omega_0t-\sin\varphi_L\sin\omega_0t\bigr]*h_{lp}\\
702: & = \frac{1}{2U}\,V_L
703: \Big[x\cos\varphi_L+y\sin\varphi_L + \text{($2\omega$ terms)}\Big]*h_{lp}~,\\
704: \intertext{thus,}
705: X(t)
706: &= \frac{1}{2U}\,V_L
707: \Big[x(t)\cos\varphi_L+y(t)\sin\varphi_L\Big]~~.
708: \label{eqn:mix:scalar-product-x}
709: \end{align}
710: Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:scalar-product-x} can be interpreted as the scalar product
711: \begin{align}
712: X = \frac{1}{2U}\,V_L (x,y)\cdot(\cos\varphi_L,\sin\varphi_L)~,
713: \end{align}
714: plus a trivial factor $\frac{1}{2U}V_L$ that accounts for losses.
715:
716: Let us now replace the LO signal $v'_l(t)$ with
717: \begin{align}
718: v''_l(t)=-V_L\sin(\omega_0t+\varphi_L) =
719: -V_L\left[\sin\varphi_L\cos\omega_0t-\cos\varphi_L\sin\omega_0t\right]~.
720: \end{align}
721: In this conditions, the output signal is
722: \begin{align}
723: Y(t)
724: & = \frac{1}{U}\,v_i(t)\,v''_l(t) * h_{lp}\\
725: & = \frac{1}{U}\,\bigl[x\cos\omega_0t-y\sin\omega_0t\bigr]
726: \:V_L\bigl[-\sin\varphi_L\cos\omega_0t-\cos\varphi_L\sin\omega_0t\bigr]*h_{lp}\\
727: & = \frac{1}{2U}\,V_L
728: \Big[-x\sin\varphi_L+y\cos\varphi_L + \text{($2\omega$ terms)}\Big]*h_{lp}~,\\
729: \intertext{thus,}
730: Y(t) &= \frac{1}{2U}\,V_L\Big[-x(t)\sin\varphi_L+y(t)\cos\varphi_L\Big]~~.
731: \label{eqn:mix:scalar-product-y}
732: \end{align}%
733: \begin{figure}[t]
734: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-frame-rotation}
735: \caption{Cartesian-frame rotation. The coefficient $\frac{1}{2U}V_L$ is implied.}
736: \label{fig:mix-frame-rotation}
737: \end{figure}%
738: Finally, by joining Equations \req{eqn:mix:scalar-product-x} and \req{eqn:mix:scalar-product-y}, we find
739: \begin{align}
740: \label{eqn:mix:iq-frame-rotation}
741: \left[\begin{array}{c}X(t)\\Y(t)\end{array}\right] & =
742: \frac{1}{2U}\,V_L
743: \left[\begin{array}{cc}\cos\varphi_L&\sin\varphi_L\\-\sin\varphi_L&\cos\varphi_L\end{array}\right]
744: \left[\begin{array}{c}x(t)\\y(t)\end{array}\right]~.
745: \end{align}
746: Equation~\req{eqn:mix:iq-frame-rotation} is the common form of a frame rotation by the angle $\varphi_L$ in Cartesian coordinates (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-frame-rotation}).
747:
748: The simultaneous detection of the input signal with two mixers pumped in quadrature is common in telecommunications, where QAM modulations are widely used\footnote{For example, the well known wireless standard 811g (WiFi) is a 64 QAM\@. The transmitted signal is of the form \req{eqn:mix:x-y-signal}, with $x$ and $y$ quantized in 8 level (3 bits) each.}.
749: The theory of coherent communication is analyzed in \cite{viterbi:communication}.
750: Devices like that of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-scalar-iq}, known as I-Q detectors, are commercially available from numerous manufacturers. Section~\ref{sec:mix:specials-iqs} provide more details on these devices.
751: \begin{figure}[t]
752: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-lc-scalar-iq}
753: \caption{Basic I-Q detector.}
754: \label{fig:mix-lc-scalar-iq}
755: \end{figure}
756:
757:
758:
759:
760:
761: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
762: \subsection{Linearity}\label{ssec:mix:linearity}
763: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
764: A function $f(\cdot)$ is said linear \cite{rudin:mathematical-analysis} if it has the following two properties
765: \begin{gather}
766: f(ax)=af(x)\\
767: f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)~.
768: \end{gather}
769: The same definition applies to operators.
770: When a sinusoidal signal of appropriate power and frequency is sent to the LO port, \emph{the mixer is linear}, that is, \emph{the output signal $v_o(t)$ is a linear function of the input $v_i(t)$}. This can be easily proved for the case of simple conversion [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:lc-vo}]
771: \begin{align}
772: v_o(t) & = \frac{1}{2U}\,V_LA_i(t)\:\Bigl\{
773: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l-\omega_i)t-\varphi_i(t)\bigr]+
774: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]\Bigr\}
775: \nonumber
776: \end{align}
777: The linearity of $v_o(t)$ vs.\ $v_i(t)$ can also be demonstrated in the case of the multi-harmonic conversion, either by taking a square wave as the LO internal signal [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:lc-vo-multih}], or by using the internal LO signal of real mixers [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:lc-vo-multihreal}]. In fact, the Fourier series is a linear superposition of sinusoids, each of which treated as above.
778: In practice, the double balanced mixer can be used in a wide range of
779: frequency (up to $10^4$), where it is linear in a wide range of power, which may exceed $10^{16}$ (160 dB).
780:
781: In large-signal conditions, the mixer output signal can be expanded as
782: the polynomial
783: %
784: \begin{equation}
785: v_o(v_i) = a_0 + a_1v_i + a_2v_i^2 + a_3v_i^3 + \ldots~~.
786: \label{eqn:mix-nonlinear-polynomial}
787: \end{equation}
788: %
789: The symmetric topology cancels the even powers of $v_i$, for the above
790: polynomial can not be truncated at the second order. Yet, the
791: coefficient $a_2$ is nonzero because of the residual asymmetry in the
792: diodes and in the baluns. Another reason to keep the third-order term
793: is the adjacent channel interference. In
794: principle, transformer nonlinearity should also be analyzed. In
795: practice, this problem is absent in microwave mixers, and a minor
796: concern with ferrite cores. The coefficient $a_1$ is the invese loss
797: $\ell$. The coefficients $a_2$ and $a_3$ are never given explicitely.
798: Instead, the intercept power (IP2 and IP3) is given, that is, the
799: power at which the nonlinear term ($a_2v_i^2$ and $a_3v_i^3$) is equal
800: to the linear term.
801:
802:
803:
804: %==============================================
805: \section{Mixer loss}\label{sec:mix:loss}
806: %==============================================
807: The conversion efficiency of the mixer is operationally defined via
808: the two-tone measurement shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:mix-loss}.
809: This is the case of a superheterodyne receiver in which the incoming signal is an unmodulated sinusoid $v_i(t)=V_i\cos\omega_it$, well below saturation. The LO sinusoid is set to the nominal saturation power.
810: In this condition, and neglecting the harmonic terms higher than the first, the output signal consists of a pair of sinusoids of frequency $\omega_o=|\omega_l\pm\omega_i|$. One of these sinusoids, usually
811: $|\omega_l-\omega_i|$ is selected. The SSB power loss $\ell^2$ of
812: the mixer is defined\footnote{In our previous articles we took $\ell=P_i/P_o$ instead of $\ell^2=P_i/P_o$. The practical use is unchanged because $\ell$ is always given in dB.} as
813: %
814: \begin{equation}
815: \frac{1}{\ell^2}=\frac{P_o}{P_i}
816: \qquad\text{SSB loss $\ell$}
817: \label{eqn:mix-ssb-loss-def}
818: \end{equation}
819: %
820: where $P_i$ is the power of the RF input, and $P_o$ is the power of the IF output at the selected freqency. The specifications of virtually all mixes resort to this definition.
821: %
822: \begin{figure}[t]
823: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-loss}
824: \caption{Definition of the SSB loss $\ell$.}
825: \label{fig:mix-loss}
826: \end{figure}
827:
828: The loss is about constant in a wide range of power and frequency.
829: The upper limit of the RF power range is the saturation power,
830: specified as the compression power $P_{1\unit{dB}}$ at which the loss
831: increases by 1 dB\@.
832:
833:
834: \paragraph{Intrinsic SSB loss.}
835: %----------------------------------------------------------------
836: The lowest loss refers to the ideal case of the zero-threshold diode, free from resistive dissipation.
837: The LO power is entirely wasted in switching the diodes. Under this assumptions, the ring of Figure~\ref{fig:mix-dbm} works as a loss-free switch that inverts or not the polarity of the RF, $v_o(t)=\pm v_i(t)$, according to the sign of $v_l(t)$. Of course, the instantaneous output power is conserved
838: \begin{align}
839: \frac{1}{R_0}\:v_i^2(t) &= \frac{1}{R_0}\:v_o^2(t)~~.
840: \end{align}
841: Nonetheless, the mixer splits the input power into the conversion products at frequency $|\omega_i\pm\omega_l|$ and higher harmonics, for only a fraction of the input power is converted into the desired frequency.
842: There result a loss \emph{inherent} in the frequency conversion process, found with the definition \req{eqn:mix-ssb-loss-def}.
843:
844: In the described conditions, the internal LO signal is a unit square wave ($V_S=1$ V), whose Fourier series expansion is
845: \begin{equation}
846: v_l(t) = \frac{4}{\pi}\left[
847: \cos\omega_lt-\frac{1}{3}\cos3\omega_lt
848: +\frac{1}{5}\cos5\omega_lt -\ldots+\ldots\right]~~.
849: \end{equation}
850: %
851: Only the first term of the above contributes to the down-converted
852: signal at the frequency $\omega_b=|\omega_i-\omega_l|$.
853: The peak amplitude of this term is $V_L=\frac{4}{\pi}$ V\@. Hence,
854: %
855: \begin{align}
856: v_o(t)
857: &= \frac{1}{U}\,v_l(t)\,v_i(t) \\
858: &= \frac{4}{\pi}\cos(\omega_lt) \; V_i\cos(\omega_it)\\
859: &= \frac{4}{\pi} V_i \; \frac{1}{2}\Bigl\{
860: \cos[(\omega_i-\omega_l)t]+\cos[(\omega_i+\omega_l)t]\Bigr\}\\
861: &= \frac{2}{\pi}V_i \; \cos[\omega_bt] \qquad\mbox{rubbing out
862: the USB}
863: \end{align}
864: %
865: The RF and IF power are
866: %
867: \begin{equation}
868: P_i=\frac{V_i^2}{2R_0} \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
869: P_o=\frac{1}{2R_0}\,\frac{4V_i^2}{\pi^2}
870: \end{equation}
871: %
872: from which the minimum loss $\ell=\sqrt{P_i/P_o}$ is
873: %
874: \begin{equation}
875: \ell=\frac{\pi}{2}~~\simeq1.57~~\text{(3.92 dB)}
876: \qquad\text{minimum SSB loss}.
877: \end{equation}
878: %
879:
880:
881:
882:
883: \paragraph{SSB loss of actual mixers.}
884: %----------------------------------------------------------------
885: The loss of microwave mixer is usually between 6 dB for the 1-octave
886: devices, and 9 dB for 3-octave units. The difference is due to the
887: microstrip baluns that match the nonlinear impedance of the diodes to
888: the 50 \ohm\ input over the device bandwidth. In the case of a narrow-band mixer optimized for conversion efficiency, the SSB loss can be of 4.5 dB \cite{ogawa80mtt}. The loss of most HF/UHF mixers is of about 5--6 dB in a band up to three decades. This is due to the low loss and to the large bandwidth of the tranmission-line transformers. Generally,
889: the LO saturation power is between 5 and 10 mW (7--10 dBm). Some
890: mixers, optimized for best linearity make use of two or three diodes
891: in series, or of two diode rings (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:mix-multidiode}),
892: and need larger LO power (up to 1 W). The advantage of these mixers is high intercept power, at the cost of larger loss (2--3 dB more).
893: When the frequencies multiple of the LO frequency are exploited to convert the input signal, it may be necessary to measure the conversion loss. A scheme is proposed in Fig.\ \ref{fig:mix-loss-harm}.
894: \begin{figure}[t]
895: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-loss-harm}
896: \caption{Measurement of the mixer loss in harmonic coversion.}
897: \label{fig:mix-loss-harm}
898: \end{figure}
899:
900:
901:
902: \paragraph{Derivation of the internal LO voltage from the loss.}
903: %----------------------------------------------------------------
904: For the purpose of analytical calculus, the amplitude $V_L$ of the internal LO signal is often needed. With real (lossy) mixers, it holds that $V_L<\frac{4}{\pi}$ V\@. $V_L$ can be derived by equating the
905: output power $P_i/\ell^2$ to the power of the output product.
906: The usefulness of this approach is in that $\ell$ is always specified. Let
907: \begin{equation}
908: v_i(t)=V_i\cos\left[\omega_i(t)+\varphi_i\right]
909: \end{equation}
910: %
911: the RF input, and select the lower\footnote{Some experimental
912: advantages arise from taking $\omega_b=|\omega_i-\omega_l|$ instead
913: of $\omega_b=|\omega_i+\omega_l|$.} output frequency $\omega_b=|\omega_i-\omega_l|$.
914: The internal LO signal is
915: \begin{equation}
916: v_l(t)=V_L\cos(\omega_lt+\varphi_l)~~.
917: \end{equation}
918: Measuring the output power, we can drop the phases $\varphi$ and $\varphi_l$. Hence, the output signal is
919: \begin{align}
920: v_o(t)&=\frac{1}{U}V_iV_L
921: \big[\cos\omega_it+\cos\omega_lt\big]*h_{bp}(t)\\
922: &=\frac{1}{U}V_iV_L \frac{1}{2}\cos(\omega_i-\omega_l)t
923: \end{align}
924: The output power is
925: \begin{equation}
926: P_o=\frac{1}{2R_0} \; \frac{1}{4U^2}V_i^2V_L^2~~
927: \label{eqn:mix:po-product}
928: \end{equation}
929: when the input power is
930: \begin{equation}
931: P_i=\frac{1}{2R_0}\,V_i^2~~.
932: \end{equation}
933: Combining the two above Equations with the definition of
934: $\ell$ [Eq.\ \req{eqn:mix:po-product}], we obtain
935: \begin{equation}
936: \frac{1}{\ell^2} \: \frac{1}{2R_0}A_i^2 =
937: \frac{1}{2R_0} \; \frac{1}{4U^2}A_i^2V_L^2~~,
938: \end{equation}
939: hence
940: \begin{equation}
941: V_L = \frac{2U}{\ell}\qquad\text{Internal LO peak amplitude}.
942: \label{eqn:mix:equiv-lo-v}
943: \end{equation}
944: %
945: Interestingly, the loss of most mixers is close to 6 dB, for
946: $V_L\simeq1$ V, while the intrinsic loss $\ell=\pi/2$ yields
947: $V_L=4/\pi\simeq1.27$~V\@.
948:
949:
950: \paragraph{What if the LO power differs from the nominal power?}
951: %----------------------------------------------------------------
952: \begin{figure}[t]
953: %\centering\includegraphics[bb=250 20 220 580, scale=0.6]{mix-p12}
954: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-if-vs-lo-power}
955: \caption{Conversion loss measured at various LO
956: power levels (1990 p.~12).}
957: \label{fig:mix-if-vs-lo-power}
958: \end{figure}
959: When the LO input is saturated, the LO power has little or no effect on the output signal.
960: This fact is often referred as \emph{power desensitization} (also LO desensitization, or pump desensitization). In a narrow power range, say ${\pm}2$ dB from the nominal power, the conversion loss changes slightly, and noise also varies. The internal Schottky diodes exhibit exponential $i=i(v)$ characteristics, hence lower LO power is not sufficient to
961: saturate the diodes, and the the ring is unable to switch. The conversion
962: efficiency $1/\ell$ is reduced, and drops abruptly some 10 dB below the nominal LO power. As a side effect of loss, white
963: noise increases. Figure~\ref{fig:mix-if-vs-lo-power} shows an example of output
964: power as a function of the RF power, for various LO power levels.
965: Below the nominal LO power, flicker noise increases. Whereas
966: this phenomenon is still unclear, we guess that this is due to the
967: increased fraction of period in which the diodes are neither open
968: circuit or saturated, and that up conversion of the near-dc flickering
969: of the junction takes place during this transition time .
970:
971: Insufficient LO power may also impair symmetry, and in turn the
972: cancellation of even hamonics. The physical explanation is that saturated
973: current is limited by the diode bulk resistance, which is more
974: reproducible than the exponential law of the forward current.
975: Increasing the fraction of time in which the exponential law dominates
976: emphasizes the asymmetry of the diodes.
977:
978: Too high LO power may increase noise, and damage the mixer. Special
979: care is recommanded with high-level mixers, in which the nominal LO
980: power of of 50 mW or more, and in the miniaturized mixers, where the small size limits the heat evacuation.
981:
982: According to the model of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-model}, the LO clipper
983: limits the internal voltage to ${\pm}V_S$, which turns the input
984: sinusoid into a trapezoidal waveform. Hence, the input power affects
985: the duration of the wavefronts, and in turns the harmonic contents.
986: As a result, a circuit may be sensitive to the LO power if stray input
987: signals are not filtered out properly.
988:
989: Finally, changing the LO power affects the dc voltage at the IF
990: output. This can be a serious problem when the mixer is used as a
991: synchronous converter or as a phase detector.
992:
993:
994:
995:
996:
997:
998:
999:
1000: %================================================================
1001: \section{Saturated Modes}\label{sec:mix:saturated-modes}
1002: %================================================================
1003: %
1004: When both RF and LO inputs are saturated, the mixer behavior changes
1005: radically. The mixer can no longer be described as a simple switch
1006: that invert or not the RF signal, depending on the LO sign. Instead,
1007: at each instant the largest signal controls the switch, and sets the
1008: polarity of the other one. Of course, the roles are interchanged
1009: continuously. Strong odd-order harmonics of the two input frequencies
1010: are present, while even-order harmonics are attenuated or cancelled by
1011: symmetry. Saturation means that amplitude has little effect on the
1012: output, for saturated modes are useful in phase detectors or in
1013: frequency synthesis, where amplitudes are constant. A further
1014: consequence of saturation is phase noise multiplication, which is
1015: inherent in harmonic generation. In the case of saturated modes,
1016: phase noise multiplication takes place in both LO and RF.
1017:
1018: In saturated modes the specified maximum power at the RF port is
1019: always exceeded. When this maximum power is exceeded, the mixer
1020: leaves the ``normal'' linear operation, still remaining in a safe
1021: operating range until the ``absolute maximum ratings'' are approached.
1022: Read page \pageref{sec:mix:safe-op}.
1023:
1024: The model of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-model} describes some
1025: characteristics, as it emphasizes the internally clipped waveforms,
1026: and the cancellation of even harmonics. Yet, the model fails in
1027: predicting amplitude because the ring is no longer a multiplier. The
1028: output amplitude is lower than expected.
1029:
1030:
1031:
1032: %================================================================
1033: \subsection{Saturated Frequency Converter (SC) Mode}\label{sec:mix:sc-mode}
1034: %================================================================
1035: %
1036: The conditions for the mixer to operate in SC mode are
1037: %
1038: \begin{itemize}\item the LO and the RF ports are saturated by sinusoidal signals,
1039: \item the input frequencies are not equal, and the ratio
1040: $\omega_l/\omega_i$ is not too close to the the ratio of two small
1041: integers (say, 5--7),
1042: \item the output is band-passed.
1043: \end{itemize}%
1044: Let the input signals
1045: %
1046: \begin{align}
1047: v_i(t) & = V'_P\cos\omega_it\\
1048: v_p(t) & = V''_P\cos\omega_lt~~.
1049: \end{align}
1050: %
1051: If possible, the saturated amplitudes $V'_P$ and $V''_P$ should be
1052: equal. The main output signal consists of the pair of sinusoids
1053: %
1054: \begin{equation}
1055: v_o(t)=V_O\cos(\omega_l-\omega_i)t+V_O\cos(\omega_l+\omega_i)t
1056: \label{eqn:mix:sfc-vo}
1057: \end{equation}
1058: %
1059: that derives from the product $v_i(t)\,v_l(t)$. Yet, the output
1060: amplitude $V_O$ is chiefly due to the internal structure of the mixer,
1061: and only partially influenced by $V'_P$ and $V''_P$. A bandpass
1062: filter selects the upper or the lower frequency of
1063: \req{eqn:mix:sfc-vo}.
1064:
1065: The unsuitability of the model of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-model} to
1066: predict amplitude can be seen in the following example.
1067:
1068: \begin{example}
1069: Replacing $V'_P$ and $V''_P$ with $V_L$ yields
1070: $V_O=\frac{1}{2}UV_L^2$. Let us consider typical mixer that has a
1071: loss of 6 dB when the LO has the nominal power of 5 mW (7~dBm).
1072: From Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:equiv-lo-v} we get $V_L\simeq1$~V, thus we
1073: expect $V_O=250$ mV, and an output power $V_O^2/2R_0=2.5$ mW ($+4$
1074: dBm) with $R_0=50$~\ohm. Yet, the actual power is hardly higher
1075: than 1.25~mW ($+1$~dBm).
1076: \end{example}
1077:
1078: Accounting for the harmoncs, the output signal is
1079: %
1080: \begin{equation}
1081: v_o(t)=\sum_{\text{odd}~h,k}V_{hk}\cos(h\omega_l+k\omega_i)t
1082: \qquad\begin{array}{c}
1083: \text{\small positive frequencies}\\[-0.5ex]
1084: \omega_{hk}=h\omega_l+k\omega_i>0
1085: \end{array}~~,
1086: \label{eqn:mix:sfc-vo-harm}
1087: \end{equation}
1088: %
1089: where the sum is extended to the positive output frequencies, i.e.,
1090: $h\omega_l+k\omega_i>0$. $V_{hk}$ decreases more rapidely than the
1091: product $|hk|$, and drops abruptly outside the bandwidth.
1092: Figure~\ref{fig:mix-sc-harm} shows an example of spectra involving
1093: harmonics.
1094:
1095: The contition on the ratio $\omega_l/\omega_i$ two output frequencies
1096: $\omega_{h'k'}$ and $\omega_{h''k''}$ do not degenerate in a single
1097: spectral line, at least for small $h$ and $k$. This problem is
1098: explained in Section~\ref{sec:mix:dc-mode}.
1099:
1100: \begin{figure}[t]
1101: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-sc-harm}
1102: \caption{Frequency conversion with a saturated mixer.}
1103: \label{fig:mix-sc-harm}
1104: \end{figure}
1105:
1106: Other authors write the output frequencies as
1107: $|{\pm}h\omega_l{\pm}k\omega_i|$, with positive $h$ and $k$. We
1108: recommend to keep the sign of $h$ and $k$. One reason is that the
1109: positive and negative subscripts of $V_{hk}$ make the spectrum
1110: measurements unambiguously identifiable. Another reason is that input
1111: phase fluctuations are multiplied by $h$ and $k$, and wrong results
1112: may be obtained discarding the sign.
1113:
1114:
1115:
1116: %================================================================
1117: \subsection{Degenerated Frequency Converter (DC) Mode}\label{sec:mix:dc-mode}
1118: %================================================================
1119: %
1120: The conditions for the mixer to operate in DC mode are the following
1121: %
1122: \begin{itemize}\item the LO and the RF ports are saturated by sinusoidal signals,
1123: \item the input frequencies are not equal, and the ratio
1124: $\omega_l/\omega_i$ is equal or close to the the ratio of two small
1125: integers (say, 5--7 max.),
1126: \item the output is band-passed.
1127: \end{itemize}%
1128: When $\omega_l$ and $\omega_i$ are multiple of a common frequency
1129: $\omega_0$, thus
1130: %
1131: \begin{equation}
1132: \omega_l=p\omega_0\quad\text{and}\quad\omega_i=q\omega_0
1133: \qquad\text{integer}~p{>}0,~q{>}0,~p{\neq}q~~,
1134: \label{eqn:mix:dfc-cond}
1135: \end{equation}
1136: %
1137: the sum~\req{eqn:mix:sfc-vo-harm} degenerates, and groups of terms
1138: collapse into fewer terms of frequency $n\omega_0$, integer $n$. The
1139: combined effect of saturation and symmetry produces strong odd-order
1140: harmonics $h\omega_l$ and $k\omega_i$
1141: %
1142: \begin{align*}
1143: &\omega_l\,{:} &v_{l1}&=V_1\cos(p\omega_0t+\varphi_l)&\qquad
1144: &\omega_i\,{:} &v_{i1}&=V_1\cos(q\omega_0t+\varphi_i)\\
1145: &3\omega_l\,{:}&v_{l3}&=V_3\cos(3p\omega_0t+3\varphi_l)&\qquad
1146: &3\omega_i\,{:}&v_{i3}&=V_3\cos(3q\omega_0t+3\varphi_i)\\%[-1ex]
1147: &\cdots &\cdots &\qquad\cdots&\qquad
1148: &\cdots &\cdots &\qquad\cdots\\[-1ex]
1149: &h\omega_l\,{:}&v_{lh}&=V_h\cos(hp\omega_0t+h\varphi_l)&\qquad
1150: &k\omega_i\,{:}&v_{ik}&=V_k\cos(kq\omega_0t+k\varphi_i)\\%[-1ex]
1151: &\cdots &\cdots &\qquad\cdots&\qquad
1152: &\cdots &\cdots &\qquad\cdots
1153: \end{align*}
1154: %
1155: inside the mixer. After time-domain multiplication, all the cross
1156: products appear, with amplitude $V_{hk}$, frequency $(hp+kq)\omega_0$,
1157: and phase $h\varphi_l+k\varphi_i$. The generic output term of
1158: frequency $n\omega_0$ derives from the vector sum of all the terms for
1159: which
1160: %
1161: \begin{equation}
1162: hp+kq=n~~,
1163: \end{equation}
1164: %
1165: thus
1166: %
1167: \begin{equation}
1168: v_n(t)=\sum_{\substack{h,k~\text{pair\,:}\\hp+kq=n}}
1169: V_{hk}\cos(n\omega_0t+h\varphi_l+k\varphi_i)
1170: \label{eqn:mix:dfc-vn}
1171: \end{equation}
1172: %
1173: Reality is even more complex than \req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn} because
1174: %
1175: \begin{itemize}\item some asymmetry is always present, thus even-order harmonics,
1176: \item each term of \req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn} may contain an additional
1177: constant phase $\varphi_{hk}$,
1178: \item for a given $\omega_l$\,$\omega_i$ pair, several output
1179: frequencies $n\omega_0$ exist, each one described by
1180: \req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn}. Due to nonlinearity, the $v_n(t)$ interact
1181: with one another.
1182: \end{itemize}%
1183: Fortunately, the amplitudes $V_{hk}$ decrease rapidly with $|hk|$,
1184: therefore the sum \req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn} can be accurately estimated
1185: from a small number of terms, while almost all the difficulty resides
1186: in parameter measurement. For this reason, there is no point in
1187: devlopping a sophisticated theory, and the few cases of interest can
1188: be anlyzed individually. The following example is representative of
1189: the reality.
1190:
1191:
1192: \begin{example}
1193: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1194: The input frequencies are $f_l=5$ MHz and $f_i=10$ MHz, and we select
1195: the output frequency $f_o=5$ MHz with an appropriate bnd-pas filter.
1196: Thus $f_0=5$ MHz, $p=1$, $q=2$, and $n=1$. The output
1197: signal~\req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn} results from the following terms
1198: \begin{equation*}
1199: \begin{array}{cc|ccc|cl}
1200: hf_l+kf_i=nf_0 &&&hp+kq=n&&&v_n(t)\\\hline
1201: -1{\times}5+1{\times}10=5&&&-1{\times}1{+1}{\times}2=1&&&V_{-1\,1}\cos(\omega_0t{-}\varphi_l{+}\varphi_i)\\
1202: +3{\times}5-1{\times}10=5&&&+3{\times}1{-1}{\times}2=1&&&V_{3\,-1}\cos(\omega_0t{+}3\varphi_l{-}\varphi_i)\\
1203: -5{\times}5+3{\times}10=5&&&-5{\times}1{+3}{\times}2=1&&&V_{-5\,3}\cos(\omega_0t{-}5\varphi_l{+}3\varphi_i)\\
1204: +7{\times}5-3{\times}10=5&&&+7{\times}1{-1}{\times}2=1&&&V_{7\,-3}\cos(\omega_0t{+}7\varphi_l{-}3\varphi_i)\\
1205: -9{\times}5+5{\times}10=5&&&-9{\times}1{+5}{\times}2=1&&&V_{-9\,5}\cos(\omega_0t{+}7\varphi_l{-}3\varphi_i)\\
1206: \cdots &&&\cdots &&&\cdots
1207: \end{array}%
1208: \end{equation*}%
1209: \end{example}
1210:
1211:
1212: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1213: \subsection{Phase Amplification Mechanism}\label{sec:mix:phase-ampli}
1214: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1215: \begin{figure}[t]
1216: \centering~~~\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-phasors}\par
1217: \caption{Simplified picture of degenerated frequency conversion.
1218: Only $\mathbf{V_{-1\,1}}$ and $\mathbf{V_{3\,{-1}}}$ are taken into account, with $\varphi_i=0$.
1219: Top: phasor representation.
1220: Bottom: output voltage, and phase gain as a function of the static phase $\varphi_l$.}
1221: \label{fig:mix-phasors}
1222: \end{figure}
1223:
1224: Introducing the phasor (Fresnel vector) representation\footnote{In this section we use uppercase boldface for phase vectors, as in $\mathbf{V}=Ve^{j\varphi}$. $V$ is the rms voltage.}
1225: Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn} becomes $\mathbf{V_n}=\sum\mathbf{V_{hk}}$,
1226: thus
1227: %
1228: \begin{equation}
1229: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,V_n\,e^{j\varphi_n}=
1230: \sum_{\substack{h,k~\text{pair\,:}\\hp+kq=n}}
1231: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,V_{hk}\,e^{j\varphi_{hk}}
1232: \qquad\text{with}\;\varphi_{hk}=h\varphi_l+k\varphi_i~~.
1233: \label{eqn:mix:dfc-vn-vec}
1234: \end{equation}
1235: %
1236: Both $V_n$ and $\varphi_n$ are function of $\varphi_l$ and
1237: $\varphi_i$, thus function of the phase relationship between the two
1238: inputs. Let $\phi$ the fluctuation of the static phase $\varphi$. The
1239: output phase fluctuation is
1240: %
1241: \begin{equation}
1242: \phi_n=
1243: \frac{\partial\varphi_n}{\partial\varphi_l}\,\phi_l +
1244: \frac{\partial\varphi_n}{\partial\varphi_i}\,\phi_i~~,
1245: \label{eqn:mix:dfc-phasegain}
1246: \end{equation}
1247: %
1248: where the derivatives are evaluated in the static working point.
1249: There follows that the input phase fluctuations $\varphi_l$ and $\varphi_i$ are amplified or attenuated (gain lower than one) by the mixer.
1250: The phase gain/attenuation mechanism is a consequence of degeneracy. The effect on phase noise was discovered studying the regenerative frequency dividers \cite{rubiola92im}.
1251:
1252: Figure~\ref{fig:mix-phasors} shows a simplified example in which a 5~MHz
1253: signal is obtained by mixing a 5~MHz and a 10~MHz, accounting only for two modes ($10-5$ and $3{\times}5-10$). For $\varphi_l=0$, the
1254: vectors are in phase, and the amplitude is at its maximum. A small
1255: negative $\varphi_n$ results from $\mathbf{V_{-1\,1}}$ and
1256: $\mathbf{V_{3\,{-1}}}$ pulling in opposite directions. A phase fluctuation is therefore attenuated. For
1257: $\varphi_l=\pi/4\simeq0.785$, the vectors are opposite, and the
1258: amplitude is at its minimum. The combined effect of
1259: $\mathbf{V_{-1\,1}}$ and $\mathbf{V_{3\,{-1}}}$ yields a large
1260: negative $\varphi_n$. With $V_{3\,{-1}}/V_{-1\,1}=0.2$ ($-14$ dB),
1261: the phase gain $\partial\varphi_n/\partial\varphi_l$ spans from
1262: $-0.33$ and $2$, while it would be $-1$ (constant) if only the $-1,1$
1263: mode was present.
1264:
1265: The experimentalist not aware of degeneracy may obtain disappointing
1266: results when low-order harmonics are present, as in the above example.
1267: The deliberate exploitation of degeneracy to manage phase noise is one
1268: of the most exhotic uses of the mixer.
1269:
1270:
1271:
1272: \begin{figure}[t]
1273: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-dfc-meas}
1274: \caption{Parameter masurement of a degenerated frequency converter.}
1275: \label{fig:mix-dfc-meas}
1276: \end{figure}
1277: %
1278: \begin{figure}[t]
1279: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-phase-gain-spectrum}
1280: \caption{Amplitude, phase, and phase gain in a
1281: degenerated frequency converter.}
1282: \label{fig:mix-phase-gain-spectrum}
1283: \end{figure}
1284: \begin{figure}[t]
1285: \centering\includefig{\LARGEscale}{mix-phase-gain}
1286: \caption{Amplitude, phase, and phase gain in a
1287: degenerated frequency converter.}
1288: \label{fig:mix-phase-gain}
1289: \end{figure}
1290: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1291: \paragraph{Parameter Measurement.}
1292: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1293: There are two simple ways to measure the parameters of a degenerated
1294: frequency converter (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-dfc-meas}).
1295:
1296: The first method is the separate measurement of the coefficients
1297: $V_{hk}$ of Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn} by means of a spectrum analyzer.
1298: One input signal is set at a frequency $\delta$ off the nominal
1299: frequency $\omega_l$ (or $\omega_i$). In this condition degeneracy is
1300: broken, and all the terms of Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn} are visible as
1301: separate frequencies. The offset $\delta$ must be large enough to enable the accurate measurement of all the spectral lines with a spectrum
1302: analyzer, but small enough not to affect the mixer operation. Values
1303: of 10--50 kHz are useful in the HF/UHF bands, and up to 1 MHz at
1304: higher frequencies. Figure~\ref{fig:mix-phase-gain-spectrum} provides an example.
1305: This method is simple and provides insight.
1306: On the other hand, it is not very accurate because it hides the phase errors $\varphi_{hk}$ that may be present in each term.
1307:
1308: The second method consists of the direct measurement of $\mathbf{V_n}$
1309: [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn-vec}] as a function of the input phase,
1310: $\varphi_l$ or $\varphi_i$, by means of a vector voltmeter. This gives
1311: amplitude and phase, from which the phase gain is derived. For the
1312: measurement to be possible, the three signals must be converted to the
1313: same frequency $\omega_0$ with approprate dividers. Of course, the
1314: mixer must be measured in the same conditions (RF and LO power) of the
1315: final application. While one vector voltmter is sufficient, it is
1316: better to use two vector voltmters because the measurement accounts
1317: for the reflected waves in the specific circuit. In some cases good results are
1318: obtained with resistive power splitters located close to the mixer
1319: because these splitters are not directional. Interestingly, most
1320: frequency synthesizers can be adjusted in phase even if this feature
1321: is not explicitely provided. The trick consists of misaligning the
1322: internal quartz oscillator when the instrument is locked to an
1323: external frequency reference. If the internal phase locked loop does
1324: not contain an integrator, the misalignamet turns into a phase shift,
1325: to be determined a posteriori. The drawback of the direct measurement
1326: method is that it requires up to two vector voltmeters, two frequency
1327: synthesizers and three frequency dividers. In the general case, the
1328: dividers can not be replaced with commercial synthesizers because a
1329: synthesizer generally accepts only a small set of round input
1330: frequencies (5~MHz or 10~MHz).
1331: Figure~\ref{fig:mix-phase-gain} shows an example of direct measurement,
1332: compared to the calculated values, based on the first method.
1333:
1334:
1335:
1336:
1337: %===========================================
1338: \subsection{Phase Detector (PD) Mode}\label{sec:mix:pd-mode}
1339: %===========================================
1340: The mixer works as a phase detector in the following conditions
1341: %
1342: \begin{itemize}\item the LO and the RF ports are saturated by sinusoidal signals of
1343: the same frequency $\omega_0$, about in quadrature,
1344: \item the output is low-passed.
1345: \end{itemize}%
1346: \begin{figure}[t]
1347: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-vphi}\\[1em]
1348: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-vphi-measured}
1349: \caption{Example of phase detector characteristics:
1350: output voltage as a function of $\phi$ (data are from a handbook Macom) and
1351: phase-to-voltage gain as a function of power (measured).}
1352: \label{fig:mix-vphi}
1353: \label{fig:mix-vphi-measured}
1354: \end{figure}
1355: %
1356: The product of such input signals is
1357: %
1358: \begin{equation}
1359: \cos\Bigl(\omega_0t+\varphi\Bigr)\,
1360: \cos\Bigl(\omega_0t-\frac{\pi}{2}\Bigr) =
1361: \frac{1}{2}\,\sin\Bigl(2\omega_0t+\varphi\Bigr) -
1362: \frac{1}{2}\,\sin\varphi~~,
1363: \label{eqn:mix:pd-base}
1364: \end{equation}
1365: %
1366: from which one obtains a sinusoid of frequency $2\omega_0$, and a dc
1367: term $-\frac{1}{2}\sin\varphi$ that is equal to $-\frac{1}{2}\varphi$
1368: for small $\varphi$. The output signal of an actual mixer is a
1369: distorted sinusoid of frequency $2\omega_0$ plus a dc term, which can
1370: be approximated by
1371: %
1372: \begin{equation}
1373: v_o(t)=V_2\sin\bigl(2\omega_0t+\varphi\bigr) - V_0\sin\varphi~~.
1374: \label{eqn:mix:pd-sat}
1375: \end{equation}
1376: %
1377: $V_2$ and $V_0$ are experimental parameters that depend on the
1378: specific mixer and on power. Due to saturation, the maximum of
1379: $|v_o(t)|$ is about independent of $\phi$, hence $V_2$ decreases as
1380: the absolute value of the dc term increases.
1381:
1382: Using the $2\omega_0$ output signal to double the input frequency is a
1383: poor choice because (i) the quadrature condition can only be obtained
1384: in a limited bandwidth, (ii) the IF circuit is usually designed for
1385: frequencies lower than the RF and LO. A better choice is to use a
1386: reversed mode.
1387:
1388: When the PD mode is used close to the quadrature conditions, the
1389: deviation of dc response from $\sin\varphi$ can be ignored. After
1390: low-pass filtering, the output signal is\footnote{The
1391: phase-to-voltage gain is also written as $k_\phi$ (with the
1392: alternate shape of $\phi$) because it is used with the small
1393: fluctuations $\phi$.}
1394: %
1395: \begin{equation}
1396: v_o= - k_\varphi\varphi + V\p{os}~~,
1397: \label{eqn:mix:pd-real}
1398: \end{equation}
1399: %
1400: where $k_\varphi$ is the phase-to-voltage gain [the same as $V_0$ in
1401: Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:pd-sat}], and $V\p{os}$ is the dc offset that derives
1402: from asymmetry. Figure~\ref{fig:mix-vphi} shows an example of phase
1403: detector charactaristics. The IF output can be loaded to a high
1404: resistance in order to increase the gain $k_\varphi$.
1405:
1406: It is often convenient to set the input phase for zero dc output, which
1407: compensate for $V\p{os}$. This condition occurs at some random---yet
1408: constant---phase a few degrees off the quadrature conditions, in a
1409: range where the mixer characteristics are virtually unaffected.
1410:
1411: Due to diode asymmetry, the input power affects $V\p{os}$. Exploiting
1412: the asymmetry of the entire $v(i)$ law of the diodes, it is often
1413: possible to null the output response to the fluctuation of the input
1414: power, therefore to make the mixer insensitive to amplitude
1415: modulation. This involves setting the phase between the inputs to an
1416: appropriate value, to be determined experimentally. In our
1417: experience, the major problem is that there are distinct AM
1418: sensitivities
1419: %
1420: \begin{equation}
1421: \frac{dv_o}{dP_l},\qquad
1422: \frac{dv_o}{dP_i},\qquad
1423: \frac{dv_o}{d(P_l+P_i)}~~,
1424: \end{equation}
1425: %
1426: and that nulling one of them is not beneficial to the other two. In
1427: some cases the nulls occurr within some 5\degrees\ from the
1428: quadrarure, in other cases farther, where the side effects of the
1429: offset are detrimental.
1430:
1431:
1432: %============================================
1433: \section{Reversed Modes}\label{sec:mix:reversed-modes}
1434: %============================================
1435: %
1436: \begin{figure}[t]
1437: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-modul}
1438: \caption{Reversed-mode modulator.}
1439: \label{fig:mix-modul}
1440: \end{figure}
1441: %
1442: The mixer can be reversed taking the IF port as the input and the RF
1443: port as the output (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-modul}). The LO signal makes
1444: the diodes switch, exactly as in the normal modes. The major
1445: difference versus the normal modes is the coupling bandwidth: the
1446: output is now ac-coupled via the RF balun, while the input is in most cases
1447: dc-coupled. When impedance-matching is not needed, the IF input can
1448: be driven with a current source.
1449:
1450:
1451:
1452: %============================================
1453: \subsection{Linear Modulator (LM)}\label{sec:mix:lm-mode}
1454: %============================================
1455: The mixer works as a LM in the following conditions
1456: %
1457: \begin{itemize}\item the LO port is saturated by a sinusoidal signal,
1458: \item a near-dc signal is present at the IF input,
1459: \item the IF input current is lower than the saturation
1460: current\footnote{The mixer saturation current, which can be of some
1461: mA, should not be mistaken for the diode reverse saturation
1462: current. The latter can be in the range from $10^{-15}$ A to $10^{-15}$ A.}~$I_S$.
1463: \end{itemize}%
1464: As usual, the LO pump forces the diodes to switch. At zero input
1465: current, due to symmetry, no signal is present at the RF output. When
1466: a positive current $i_i$ is present, the resistance of D2 and D4
1467: averaged over the period decreases, and the conduction angle of D2 and
1468: D4 increases. The average resistance of D1 and D3 increases, and
1469: their conduction angle decreases. Therefore, a small voltage $v_o(t)$
1470: appears at the RF output, of amplitude proportional to $i_i$, in phase
1471: with $v_p(t)$. Similarly, a negative $i_i$ produces an output voltage
1472: proportional to $i_i$, of phase opposite to $v_p(t)$. The mixer can
1473: be represented as the system of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-rev-model}, which is
1474: similar to the LC model (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-model}) but for the
1475: input-output filters.
1476: %
1477: \begin{figure}[t]
1478: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-rev-model}
1479: \caption{Reverse-mode model of a mixer.}
1480: \label{fig:mix-rev-model}
1481: \end{figure}
1482: %
1483: The internal saturated LO signal can be approximated with a sinusoid
1484: $v_l(t)=V_L\cos\omega_lt$, [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:lo}], or expanded as
1485: Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:multih-lo-1}. Strictly, $V_L$ can not be derived
1486: from the reverse loss, which is not documented. Reciprocity should
1487: not given for granted. Nonetheless, measuring some mixers we found
1488: that the `conventional' (forward) SSB loss $\ell$ and
1489: Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:equiv-lo-v} provide useful approximation of reverse
1490: behavior. Thus, the mixer operates as a linear modulator described by
1491: %
1492: \begin{align}
1493: v_o(t) &= \frac1U\,v_i(t)\,v_l(t)\\[1ex]
1494: &= \frac1U\,v_i(t)\,V_L\cos\omega_lt~~.
1495: \label{eqn:mix:rev-mod-dc}
1496: \end{align}
1497:
1498:
1499: \begin{example}
1500: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1501: The LO signal of a mixer (Mini-Circuits ZFM-2) is a sinusoid of
1502: frequency $f_l=100$ MHz and power $P=5$ mW (7~dBm). In such
1503: conditions the nominal SSB loss is $\ell=2$ (6~dB). By virtue of
1504: Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:equiv-lo-v}, $V_L=1$~V\@. When the input current is
1505: $i_i=2$~mA dc, the input voltage is $v_i=R_0i_i=100$~mV with
1506: $R_0=50$~\ohm. After Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:rev-mod-dc}, we expect an output
1507: signal of 100 mV peak, thus 71 mV rms. This is close to the measured
1508: value of 75 mV\@. The latter is obtained fitting the the low-current
1509: experimental data of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-iq-mod-gain}. Beyond $i_i=3$~mA,
1510: the mixer lives gradually the linear behavior, and saturates at some
1511: 230 mV rms of output signal, when $i_i\approx12$~mA dc. Similar
1512: results were obtained testing other mixers.
1513: \end{example}
1514: %
1515: \begin{figure}[t]
1516: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-iq-mod-gain}
1517: \caption{Gain of a mixer used ad a modulator.
1518: Input is driven with a current source. Output is terminated to
1519: 50~\ohm.}
1520: \label{fig:mix-iq-mod-gain}
1521: \end{figure}
1522:
1523:
1524: %============================================
1525: \subsection{Reverse Linear Converter (RLC)}\label{sec:mix:rlc-mode}
1526: %============================================
1527: %
1528: The mixer works as a RLC in the following conditions
1529: %
1530: \begin{itemize}\item the LO port is saturated by a sinusoidal signal,
1531: \item a small narrowband signal is present at the IF input, which is
1532: not saturated,
1533: \item LO and the IF separated in the frequency domain,
1534: \item an optional filter selects one of the beat products.
1535: \end{itemize}%
1536: This mode is similar to the LM mode. Letting
1537: $v_i(t)=A_i(t)\cos[\omega_i(t)+\varphi_i(t)]$ the input, the output
1538: signal is
1539: %
1540: \begin{align}
1541: v_o(t) & = \frac{1}{U}~v_i(t)\,v_l(t) \\[0.5ex]
1542: & = \frac{1}{U}~A_i(t)\cos\bigl[\omega_it+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]%
1543: ~~V_L\cos(\omega_lt) \\[0.5ex]
1544: & = \frac{1}{2U}\,V_LA_i(t)\:\Bigl\{
1545: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l-\omega_i)t-\varphi_i(t)\bigr]+
1546: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]\Bigr\}~~.
1547: \label{eqn:mix:rev-mod-ac}
1548: \end{align}
1549: %
1550: The model of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-rev-model} still holds, and the
1551: internal LO amplitude $V_L$ can be estimated using
1552: Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:equiv-lo-v} and the `conventional' SSB loss $\ell$.
1553:
1554: If an external bandpass filter, not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-rev-model},
1555: is present, the output signal is
1556: %
1557: \begin{align}
1558: v_o(t) &= \frac{1}{2U}\,V_LA_i(t)\,
1559: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l-\omega_i)t-\varphi_i(t)\bigr]
1560: \qquad\text{LSB,}\qquad\qquad\text{or}\\[1ex]
1561: v_o(t) &= \frac{1}{2U}\,V_LA_i(t)\,
1562: \cos\bigl[(\omega_l+\omega_i)t+\varphi_i(t)\bigr]
1563: \qquad\text{USB}~~,
1564: \end{align}
1565: %
1566: under the obvious condition that the signal bandwidth fits into the
1567: filter passband.
1568:
1569:
1570:
1571:
1572:
1573: %===========================================
1574: \subsection{Digital Modulator (DM) Mode}\label{sec:mix:dm-mode}
1575: %===========================================
1576: The mixer works as a DM in the following conditions
1577: %
1578: \begin{itemize}\item the LO port is saturated by a sinusoidal signal,
1579: \item a large near-dc current is present at the IF input, which is
1580: saturated,
1581: \item the RF output is bandpassed.
1582: \end{itemize}%
1583: Let $v_p=V_P\cos\omega_lt$ the LO input signal, $i_i={\pm}I_i$ the IF
1584: input current, and $V_O$ the saturated output amplitude. The output
1585: signal is
1586: %
1587: \begin{equation}
1588: v_o(t) = \mbox{sgn}(i_i)\:V_O\cos\omega_lt~~,
1589: \label{eqn:mix:dm-out}
1590: \end{equation}
1591: %
1592: where $\mbox{sgn}(\cdot)$ is the signum function.
1593: Equation~\req{eqn:mix:dm-out} represents a BPSK (binary phase shift keying)
1594: modulation driven by the input current $i_i$.
1595:
1596:
1597:
1598: %================================================================
1599: \subsection{Reverse Saturated Converter (RSC) Mode}\label{sec:mix:rsc-mode}
1600: %================================================================
1601: %
1602: The mixer works in the RSC mode under the following conditions
1603: %
1604: \begin{itemize}\item the LO and the IF ports are saturated by sinusoidal signals,
1605: \item the input frequencies are not equal, and the ratio
1606: $\omega_l/\omega_i$ is not too close to the the ratio of two small
1607: integers (say, 5-7 max.),
1608: \item the output is band-passed.
1609: \end{itemize}%
1610: The RSC mode is similar to the SC mode, for the explanations given in
1611: Section~\ref{sec:mix:sc-mode} also apply to the RSC mode. The only
1612: difference between SC and RSC is the input and output bandwidth,
1613: because IF and RF are interchanged.
1614:
1615:
1616:
1617: %=============================================
1618: \subsection{Reverse Degenerated Converter (RDC) Mode}\label{sec:mix:rdc-mode}
1619: %=============================================
1620: The mixer works in the RDC mode when
1621: %
1622: \begin{itemize}\item the LO and the IF ports are saturated by sinusoidal signals,
1623: \item the input frequencies are equal, or the ratio
1624: $\omega_l/\omega_i$ is equal or close to the the ratio of two small
1625: integers (say, no more than 5--7),
1626: \item the output is band-passed.
1627: \end{itemize}%
1628: The RDC mode is similar to the DC mode (Section~\ref{sec:mix:sc-mode})
1629: but for the trivial difference in the input and output bandwidth, as the roles of
1630: IF and RF are interchanged. The output signal results from the
1631: vector addition of several beat signals, each one with its own
1632: phase and amplitude.
1633:
1634: It is to be made clear that when two equal input frequencies ($\omega_i=\omega_l=\omega_0$) are sent to the input, the reverse mode differs significantly from the normal mode. In the DC mode, this condition would turn the degenerated converter mode into the phase-detector mode. But in the reversed modes no dc output is permitted because the RF port is ac coupled. Of course, a large $2\omega_0$ signal is always present at the RF output, resulting from the vector addition of
1635: several signals, which makes the RDC mode an efficient frequency doubler.
1636:
1637:
1638: \begin{example}
1639: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1640: The input frequencies are $f_l=f_i=5$ MHz, and we select the output
1641: $f_o=10$ MHz. Thus $f_0=5$ MHz, $p=1$, $q=1$, and $n=2$. The output
1642: signal~[Eq.~\req{eqn:mix:dfc-vn}] results from the follwoing terms
1643: %
1644: \begin{equation*}
1645: \begin{array}{cc|ccc|cl}
1646: hf_l+kf_i=nf_0 &&&hp+kq=n&&&v_n(t)\\\hline
1647: +1{\times}5+1{\times}5=10&&&+1{\times}1{+1}{\times}1=2&&&V_{1\,1}\cos(\omega_0t{+}\varphi_l{+}\varphi_i)\\
1648: +3{\times}5-1{\times}5=10&&&+3{\times}1{-1}{\times}1=2&&&V_{3\,{-1}}\cos(\omega_0t{+}3\varphi_l{-}\varphi_i)\\
1649: -1{\times}5+3{\times}5=10&&&-1{\times}1{+3}{\times}1=2&&&V_{-1\,3}\cos(\omega_0t{-}\varphi_l{+}3\varphi_i)\\
1650: +5{\times}5-3{\times}5=10&&&+5{\times}1{-3}{\times}1=2&&&V_{5\,-{3}}\cos(\omega_0t{+}5\varphi_l{-}3\varphi_i)\\
1651: -3{\times}5+5{\times}5=10&&&-3{\times}1{+5}{\times}1=2&&&V_{-3\,5}\cos(\omega_0t{-}3\varphi_l{+}5\varphi_i)\\
1652: \cdots &&&\cdots &&&\cdots
1653: \end{array}
1654: \end{equation*}
1655: %
1656: \end{example}
1657:
1658:
1659:
1660: %================================================================
1661: \section{Special Mixers and I-Q Mixers}\label{sec:mix:specials-iqs}
1662: %================================================================
1663: %
1664: \begin{figure}[t]
1665: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-multidiode}
1666: \caption{Diode assemblies of high linearity mixers.}
1667: \label{fig:mix-multidiode}
1668: \end{figure}
1669:
1670: \paragraph{Phase Detector.}
1671: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1672: Some mixers are explicitely designed to operate in the phase detector
1673: mode. In some cases such devices are actually general-purpose mixers \emph{documented}
1674: for phase detector operation. Often the IF output impedance is larger than 50 \ohm, typically 500 \ohm. The main advantage of this higher impedance is a lower residual white noise of the system. In fact, the output preamplifier can hardly be noise-matched to an input
1675: resistance lower than a few hundreds Ohms. The IF bandwidth reduction that results from the increased output impedance is not relevant in practice. The residual flicker, which is the most relevant parameter for a number of measurements, is usually not documented\footnote{I never come across a phase detector whose residual flicker is documented.}.
1676:
1677:
1678: \paragraph{Analog Modulator / Variable Attenuator.}
1679: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1680: A mixer can be designed and \emph{documented} to be used in a reverse mode as an analog modulator (See Sec.~\ref{sec:mix:lm-mode}). The fancy name ``variable attenuator'' is sometimes used. Yet, the mixer operation is more general than that of a simple attenuator because the mixer input current can be either positive or negative, and the output signal changes sign when the input current is negative.
1681:
1682:
1683: \paragraph{BPSK Modulator.}
1684: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1685: The BPSK modulator differs from the analog modulator in that the IF input is saturated (See Sec.~\ref{sec:mix:dm-mode}). Once again, the device may differ from a general-purpose mixer mostly in the documentation.
1686:
1687:
1688: \paragraph{High Linearity Mixers.}
1689: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1690: In some cases low intermodulation performance must be achieved at any
1691: cost. Special mixers are used, based on a ring in which the diodes
1692: are replaced with the more complex elements shown in
1693: Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-multidiode} (classes~I-III). High linearity is
1694: achieved by forcing the diodes to switch abruptly in the presence of a
1695: large pump signal. These mixers, as compared to the single-diode
1696: ones, need large LO power, up to 1 W, and show higher loss.
1697:
1698: \begin{figure}[t]
1699: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-improved-z-match}
1700: \caption{Improved impedance-matching mixer.}
1701: \label{fig:mix-improved-z-match}
1702: \end{figure}
1703:
1704: \paragraph{Improved Impedance-Matching Mixers.}
1705: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1706: The 90\degrees\ hybrid junction, used as a power splitter,
1707: has the useful property that the input (output) is always impedance
1708: matched when the isolation port is correctly terminated and the two
1709: outputs (inputs) are loaded with equal impedances. This property is
1710: exploited joining two equal double-balanced mixers to form the
1711: improved mixer of Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-improved-z-match} (Class~IV mixer). Other
1712: schemes are possible, based on the same idea.
1713:
1714:
1715: \paragraph{Double-Double-Balanced Mixers.}
1716: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1717: \begin{figure}[t]
1718: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-ddbm}
1719: \caption{Double-double-balanced mixer.}
1720: \label{fig:mix-ddbm}
1721: \end{figure}
1722: %
1723: The double-double-balanced mixer (Figure~\ref{fig:mix-ddbm}) shows high
1724: 1 dB compression point, thus high dynamic range and low distortion,
1725: and high isolation. This device is sometimes called \emph{triple
1726: balanced mixer} because it is balanced at the three ports. Other
1727: schemes are possible.
1728:
1729:
1730: \paragraph{Image-Rejection Mixer.}
1731: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1732: %
1733: \begin{figure}[t]
1734: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-img-rej}
1735: \caption{Image-rejection mixer.}
1736: \label{fig:mix-img-rej}
1737: \end{figure}
1738: %
1739: Let us go back to the frequency conversion system of
1740: Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-image}, in which the LSB and the USB are
1741: converted into the same IF frequency $\omega_b$. The scheme of
1742: Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-img-rej} divides the IF components, enabling the
1743: selection of the LSB or the USB input (RF) signal.
1744:
1745: Let us for short $a=\omega_it$ and $b=\omega_lt$ the instantaneous phase of the RF and LO signal. The converted signals, at the IF output of the mixers are
1746: \begin{align*}
1747: v_1&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}U} V_IV_L\, \sin a \, \cos b\\[0.5ex]
1748: v_2&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}U} V_IV_L\, \cos a \, \cos b~~,
1749: \end{align*}
1750: thus
1751: \begin{align*}
1752: v_1&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}U} V_IV_L \Bigl[\sin(a-b)+\sin(a+b)\Bigr] \\[0.5ex]
1753: v_2&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}U} V_IV_L \Bigl[\cos(a-b)+\cos(a+b)\Bigr]~~.
1754: \end{align*}
1755: %
1756: The path of the hybrid junction labeled `$-90^\circ$' turns the phase of the positive-frequency signals by $-90^\circ$, and the phase of the negative-frequencies signal by $+90^\circ$. The
1757: rotated signals are
1758: \begin{align*}
1759: v''_1 &=\begin{cases}
1760: \frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L\bigl[-\cos(a-b)-\cos(a+b)\bigr] &a{>}b\\[0.5ex]
1761: \frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L\bigl[+\cos(a-b)+\cos(a+b)\bigr] &a{<}b
1762: \end{cases}\\[2ex]
1763: v''_2 &=\begin{cases}
1764: \frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L \bigl[+\sin(a-b)+\sin(a+b)\bigr] &a{>}b\\[0.5ex]
1765: \frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L \bigl[-\sin(a-b)-\sin(a+b)\bigr] &a{<}b
1766: \end{cases}
1767: \end{align*}
1768: which also account for a factor $1/\sqrt{2}$ due to energy conservation. The non-rotated signals are
1769: \begin{align*}
1770: v'_1&=\frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L \bigl[\sin(a-b)+\sin(a+b)\bigr] \\[0.5ex]
1771: v'_2&=\frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L \bigl[\cos(a-b)+\cos(a+b)\bigr]~~.
1772: \end{align*}
1773: %
1774: The output signals are
1775: %
1776: \begin{align}
1777: v_\text{USB}=v''_1+v'_2&=\begin{cases}
1778: \frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L \bigl[\sin(a-b)+\sin(a+b)\bigr]
1779: & a{>}b~~\text{\footnotesize (USB taken in)}\\[0.5ex]
1780: 0
1781: & a{<}b~~\text{\footnotesize (LSB rejected)}
1782: \end{cases} \\[2ex]
1783: v_\text{LSB}=v'_1+v''_2&=\begin{cases}
1784: 0
1785: &a{>}b~~\text{\footnotesize (USB rejected)}\\[0.5ex]
1786: \frac{1}{4U} V_IV_L \bigl[\cos(a-b)+\cos(a+b)\bigr]
1787: &a{<}b~~\text{\footnotesize (LSB taken in)}
1788: \end{cases}
1789: \end{align}
1790:
1791: The unwanted sideband is never cancelled completely. A rejection of 20 dB is common in practice.
1792: The main reason to prefer the image-rejection mixer to a (simple) mixer is noise. Let us assume that the LO frequency $\omega_l$ and the IF center frequency $\omega_\text{IF}$ are given.
1793: The mixer converts both $|\omega_l-\omega_\text{IF}|$ and $|\omega_l+\omega_\text{IF}|$ to $\omega_\text{IF}$, while the image-rejection mixer converts only one of these channels. Yet, the noise of the electronic circuits is present at both frequencies.
1794:
1795: \begin{example}
1796: The IF filter of a FM receiver has a bandwidth of 300 kHz centered at 10.7 MHz. In order to receive a channel at 91 MHz, we tune the local oscillator to 101.7 MHz ($101.7-10.7=91$). A mixer down-convert to IF two channels, the desired one (91 MHz) and the image frequency at 122.4 MHz ($101.7+10.7=122.4$). In the best case, only noise is present at the image frequency (122.4 MHz), which is taken in by the mixer, yet not by the image-rejection mixer.
1797: \end{example}
1798:
1799: \paragraph{SSB Modulator.}
1800: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1801: \begin{figure}[t]
1802: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-ssb-mod}
1803: \caption{SSB modulator.}
1804: \label{fig:mix-ssb-mod}
1805: \end{figure}
1806: \begin{figure}[t]
1807: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-iq-modulators}
1808: \caption{I-Q modulators.}
1809: \label{fig:mix-iq-modulators}
1810: \end{figure}
1811: %
1812: The SSB modulator (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-ssb-mod}) is a different arrangement of the same blocks used in the image-rejection mixer. The main purpose of this device is to modulate a carrier by adding only one sideband, either LSB or USB\@. All explanations are given on the scheme, in Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-ssb-mod}.
1813:
1814:
1815: \paragraph{I-Q Detectors and Modulators.}
1816: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1817: \begin{figure}[ht]
1818: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-iq-detectors}
1819: \caption{I-Q detectors.}
1820: \label{fig:mix-iq-detectors}
1821: \end{figure}
1822: %
1823: The two-axis synchronous detector introduced in Section~\ref{ssec:mix:sd-mode} is commercially available in (at least) two practical implementations, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-iq-detectors}.
1824: Of course, the conversion loss is increased by the loss of the input power splitter,
1825: which is of 3--4 dB\@. For the same reason, the required LO power is increased by 3--4 dB\@.
1826: The I-Q mixer can be reversed, operating as a modulator, as the simple mixer did (Sec.~\ref{sec:mix:lm-mode}). A number of I-Q modulators are available off the shelf, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-iq-modulators}.
1827: Other configurations of I-Q detector/modulator are possible, with similar characteristics.
1828:
1829: \begin{figure}[t]
1830: \includefig{\smallscale}{mix-sd-v6p9fig}
1831: \caption{DSB loss of a home-made VHF I-Q detector, based on Mini Circuits mixers and power splitters.}
1832: \label{fig:mix-sd-v6p9fig}
1833: \end{figure}
1834: The Type-2 detector seems to work better than the Type-1 because the $180^\circ$ junction exhibit higher symmetry and lower loss than the $90^\circ$ junction. Some power loss and asymmetry is more tolerated at the LO port, which is saturated. Figure~\ref{fig:mix-sd-v6p9fig} gives an idea of actual loss asymmetry. In addition, there can be a phase error, that is a deviation from quadrature, of a few degrees.
1835:
1836:
1837: \begin{figure}[t]
1838: \centering\includefig{\smallscale}{mix-iq-identify}
1839: \caption{Understanding the phase relationships inside an I-Q detector.}
1840: \label{fig:mix-iq-identify}
1841: \end{figure}
1842: Finally, it is worth pointing out that the phase relationships shown in Figures~\ref{fig:mix-iq-detectors}--\ref{fig:mix-iq-modulators} result from a technical choice, for they should not be given for granted. Letting the phase of the LO arbitrary, there are two possible choices, Q leads I or Q lags I\@. The experimentalist may come across unclear or ambiguous documentation,
1843: hence inspection is recommended. Figure~\ref{fig:mix-iq-identify} shows a possible method. The FFT analyzer is used to measure the phase of the signal Q versus the reference signal I\@.
1844: I have some preference for $\omega_s>\omega_l$, and for a beat note $\frac{1}{2\pi}\omega_b=\frac{1}{2\pi}|\omega_s-\omega_b|$ of some 1--5 kHz. A phase-meter, a vector voltmeter, or a lock-in amplifier can be used instead of the dual-channel FFT analyzer.
1845:
1846:
1847:
1848: %=============================================
1849: \section{Non-ideal behavior}
1850: %=============================================
1851: Most of the issues discussed here resort to the general background on radio-frequency and microwave background, for they are listed quickly only for the sake of completeness.
1852: The book \cite{razavi:rf-microelectronics} is a good reference.
1853:
1854: \begin{figure}[t]
1855: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-twotone-ip3}
1856: \caption{.}
1857: \label{fig:mix-twotone-ip3}
1858: \end{figure}
1859:
1860: \begin{description}
1861: \item[Impedance matching.]~Inputs and output of the mixer only approximate the nominal impedance, for reflection are present in the circuit. In practice, the impedance mismatching depends on frequency and power.
1862:
1863: \item[Isolation and crosstalk.]~A fraction of the input power leaks to the output, and to the other input as well. Often, isolating the LO port is relevant because of power.
1864:
1865: \item[1 dB compression point.] At high input power, of about 10 dB below the LO power, the mixer starts saturating, hence the SSB loss increases. The 1 dB compression power is defined as the compression power at which the loss increases by 1 dB (Figure~\ref{fig:mix-loss}).
1866:
1867: \item[Non-linearity.]~The mixer behavior deviates from the ideal linear model of Section~\ref{ssec:mix:linearity}, for the input-output relationship is of the form
1868: \begin{math}
1869: v_o(v_i) = a_0 + a_1v_i + a_2v_i^2 + a_3v_i^3 + \ldots~~
1870: \end{math}
1871: [Eq.~\req{eqn:mix-nonlinear-polynomial}, here repeated].
1872: In radio engineering the cubic term, $a_3v_i^3$, is often the main concern. This is due to the fact that, when two strong adjacent-channel signals are present at $\Delta\omega$ and $2\Delta\omega$ off the received frequency $\omega_i$, a conversion product falls exactly at $\omega_i$, which causes interference. Being $\Delta\omega\ll\omega_i$, a preselector filter can not fix the problem.
1873:
1874: \item[Offset.]~In `synchronous detector' mode, the output differs from the expected value by a dc offset, which depends on the LO power and of frequency. The same problem is present in the in `phase detector' mode, where also the RF power affects the offset. This occurs because of saturation.
1875:
1876: \item[Internal phase shift.]~The presence of a small phase lag at each port inside the mixer has no effect in most application. Of course, in the case of I-Q devices the quadrature accuracy is relevant.
1877:
1878: \end{description}
1879:
1880:
1881:
1882:
1883: %==============================================
1884: \section{Mixer Noise}
1885: %==============================================
1886: The mixer noise were studied since the early time of radars \cite{radlab-v15-torrey:crystal-rectifiers,bergmann68iretmtt}. Significantly lower noise was later obtained with the Schottky diode \cite{barber67mtt,gewartowski71mtt}, and afterwards with the double balanced mixer. More recent and complete analysis of the mixer noise is available in \cite{held78mtt-1,held78mtt-2,kerr78mtt-0,kerr78mtt-1,kerr78mtt-2}.
1887: Nonetheless in the design electronics, and even in \emph{low-noise} electronics, the mixer noise is often a second-order issue because:
1888: \begin{enumerate}
1889: \item Nowadays mixers exhibit low noise figure, of the order of 1 dB\@.
1890: \item The mixer is almost always preceded by an amplifier.
1891: \item The mixer picks up noise from a number of frequency slots sometimes difficult to predict.
1892: \end{enumerate}
1893: Noise pick-ups from various frequency slots is probably the major practical issue. The presence of the USB/LSB pair makes the image-rejection mixer (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-img-rej}, p.~\pageref{fig:mix-img-rej}) appealing. Two phenomena deserve attention. The first one is the multi-harmonic frequency conversion (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-lc-harm} p.~\pageref{fig:mix-lc-harm} and Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-ld-harm} p.~\pageref{fig:mix-ld-harm}), by which noise is converted to the IF band from the sidebands of frequencies multiple of the LO frequency. The second phenomenon is a step in the output noise spectrum at the LO frequency, in the presence of white noise at the RF port (Fig.~\ref{fig:mix-noise-step}). Only a graphical proof is given here. The output slots IF1, IF2, and IF3 are down-converted from the input slots RF3+RF4, RF2+RF5, and RF1+RF6, respectively. Thus, the conversion power loss is $\ell^2/2$. At higher frequencies, the output slots IF4, IF5, \ldots, come from RF7, RF8, \ldots, for the loss is $\ell^2$. The analytical proof follows exactly the graphical proof, after increasing to infinity the number of frequency slots so that their width is $d\omega$.
1894:
1895: \begin{figure}[ht]
1896: \centering\includefig{\normalscale}{mix-noise-step}
1897: \caption{A step appears in the conversion of white noise.}
1898: \label{fig:mix-noise-step}
1899: \end{figure}
1900:
1901: Flicker ($1/f$) noise is generally not documented. All the references found about the mixer noise are limited to classical white noise, that is, thermal and shot noise, while the flicker noise is not considered. The flicker behavior of mixer may depend on the operating mode, as listed in Table~\ref{tab:mix:modes} (p.~\pageref{tab:mix:modes}). Yet, the general rule is that flicker noise is a near-dc phenomenon, powered by the LO pump. Then, the near-dc flicker is up-converted by non-linearity and brougt to the output; or available at the output, in the `synchronous detector' mode (Sec.~\ref{ssec:mix:sd-mode}) and in the `phase detector' mode (Sec.~\ref{sec:mix:pd-mode}), where the dc signal is taken at the output.
1902:
1903:
1904:
1905: %================================================================
1906: \section{Where to learn more}
1907: %================================================================
1908: %
1909: Our approach, which consists of identifying and analyzing the modes of
1910: Table~\ref{tab:mix:modes}, is original. Thus, there are no specific
1911: references.
1912:
1913: A lot can be learned from the data sheets of commercial mixers and
1914: from the accompaining application notes. Unfortunately, learning in
1915: this way requires patience because manufacturer tend to use their own
1916: notation, and because of the commercial-oriented approach. Another
1917: problem is that the analysis is often too simplified, which makes
1918: difficult to fit technical information into theory. Watkins Johnson\footnote{http://www.wj.com/technotes/}
1919: application notes \cite{wj:mixers-1,wj:mixers-2} provide useful
1920: general description and invaluable understanding of intermodulation
1921: \cite{wj:selecting-mixers}. We also found useful the Anzac
1922: \cite{anzac:mixers,anzac:modulators}, Macom \cite{macom:mixers} and
1923: Mini-Circuits
1924: \cite{minicircuits:understanding-mixers,minicircuits:mixer-terms}
1925: application notes.
1926:
1927: Reading books and book chapters on mixers, one may surprised by the
1928: difference between standpoints. A book edited by E. L.
1929: Kollberg~\cite{kollberg:mixers} collects a series of articles, most of
1930: which published in the IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and
1931: Technology and other IEEE Journals. This collection covers virtually all relevant topics.
1932: The non-specialist may be interested at least in the first part, about basic mixer theory. The classical book written by S. A. Maas~\cite{maas:mixers} is a must on the subject.
1933:
1934: A few books about radio engineering contains a chapter on mixers. We
1935: found useful chapter 3 (\emph{mixers}) of McClaning \&
1936: al.~\cite[pp.~261--344]{mcclaning:receivers}, chapter~7
1937: (\emph{Mixers}) of Krauss \&
1938: al.~\cite[pp.~188--220]{krauss:radio-engineering}, chapter~6
1939: (\emph{Mixers}) of Rohde \&
1940: al.~\cite[pp.~277--318]{rohde:communications-receivers}, and Chapter 7
1941: (\emph{Microwave Mixer Design}), of Vendelin \&
1942: al.\cite{vendelin:microwave-circuit-design}.
1943:
1944: Some radio amateur handbooks provide experiment-oriented information of great value, hard
1945: to find elsewere. Transmission-line transformers and baluns are
1946: described in \cite{sevick:transmission-line}. Recent editions of the
1947: the ARRL Handbook~\cite{straw:arrl-handbook-99} contain a chapter on
1948: mixers (chapter 15 in the 1999 edition), written by
1949: D. Newkirk and R. Karlquist, full of practical information and
1950: common sense.
1951:
1952:
1953: %==================================
1954: \def\bibfile#1{#1}
1955: %\def\bibfile#1{/home/rubiola/docs/bib/#1}
1956: %==================================
1957: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
1958: \bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
1959: \bibliography{\bibfile{ref-short},%
1960: \bibfile{references},%
1961: \bibfile{rubiola}}
1962:
1963: \end{document}
1964: