Chris, my tuning algorithm isn¡¯t too different than the article you referenced, but I think you will find that the tuning algorithm in the article results in a lot more switches to find a solution. ?It is certainly thorough, but without a way to re-use tunes by frequency matching, it might not be an ideal trade off.
I start out using an optimal table to find a point to start hill climbing, going from the most likely to least likely, rather than running through all the Ls and Cs by 8
Then rather than look in all 8 directions, I only look in 2 directions along one axis and then the other. But identical to the article, I keep reducing by a factor of 2.
I only start walking the diagonals if I haven¡¯t gotten a good match by this point in my 8 way search function.?
I have seen the ¡®false¡¯ peek problem with my test points mentioned in the article, but it is very very rare. ?I doubt it¡¯s happening much in the field when you look at all the data. ?I believe it might be related to the component step size bing closer to 3 so sometimes a couple of inductor steps is better than one capacitor step or visa versa. Going to binary component values would fix this problem, but introduced the problem that imprecise components or parasitics on the board would result in reversals values with binary steps of 1. ?
