Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

donald wrote: Question : In the 74HCT9046BCN - does a high on the inhibit line Knobble the P/F detectors as well as the VCO? I've never had occasion to use the INH pin. The 2009 NXP datasheet says it shuts down the whole circuit: "The inhibit function differs. For the 74HCT4046A a

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Question : In the 74HCT9046BCN - does a high on the inhibit line Knobble the P/F detectors as well as the VCO? On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:34 PM, donald collie wrote: > Thankyou to all who responded to my querie - I`ve got 5 74HCT9046BCN on a > slow boat from China. They

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Thankyou to all who responded to my querie - I`ve got 5 74HCT9046BCN on a slow boat from China. They will retrofit the projects where I used a 4046 without much pcb surgery. PLL`s are fun, especially when yo can watch them lock on a Tek 7834 :-) I interloaned the weighty tome again, and am

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Hi Charles, On 05/06/2018 06:08 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote: > Magnus wrote: > >> If you use it without care and knowledge, beware. That goes for any >> tool we apply > > Indeed!  The Cardinal Rule of design!  (So often unfollowed) > > "An engineer is someone who can figure out what

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Magnus wrote: If you use it without care and knowledge, beware. That goes for any tool we apply Indeed! The Cardinal Rule of design! (So often unfollowed) "An engineer is someone who can figure out what questions need to be asked, figure out how to answer them, and tell when they are

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Hi, On 05/06/2018 01:02 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote: > Alexander wrote: > >> but as I wrote a while ego ADI has a bit different chip which is free of >> dead zone and much faster > > Hell, there are literally hundreds of PLL chips, lots of them better at > various things than the 4046.  I did

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Alexander wrote: but as I wrote a while ego ADI has a bit different chip which is free of dead zone and much faster Hell, there are literally hundreds of PLL chips, lots of them better at various things than the 4046. I did not suggest that the 4046/7046/9046 is the best PLL for any

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

but as I wrote a while ego ADI has a bit different chip which is free of dead zone and much faster, I used it for low phase-noise clock generator for 3,1Gb/s fiber optic systems of C-Cor/Comlux in the end of the past century, now I am on vacation and do not have my engineering note books with

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

See below for further information on working with the 4046/7046/9046 PLL families, including must-have design tools for anyone designing with these devices. I wrote: The "flaw" in the 4046 is a dead zone around zero error in Phase Comparator 2 (the PC one generally uses). Magnus responded:

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Hi, When I was going to build a Brooks Shera's GPSDO in 2009, I ordered from him some parts that I needed. He graciously added a couple of Texas Instruments' 74HC4046AE that was used in the phase detector because, according to him, these parts from other manufacturers would not work

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

While we are on the subject of the 74HC4046, I would like to point out a confusing error in the TI datasheet for this part, found at http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd74hc4046a.pdf The waveform diagram for Phase Comparator 3, Fig. 7 on p. 5, has inverted waveforms for PC3out and VCOin. PC3out

[time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Hi All, I interested in discussion about 4046, in lars GPSDO he use 4046 as phase comparator must I replace this Chip for CD74HCT4046A btw I also have many TC5081 I wonder how to test the circuit use this chip if have same problem with 4046.Thank YouAnton

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

>On 4/18/2018 4:34 AM, John Miles wrote: >> Ulrich Rohde's book indicates that this problem was first documented in 1978 >> in an EDN article by some authors named Egan and Clark. Newer PFDs >> implement the 'antibacklash' logic that Rohde mentions. If you really must >> use a 4046, I'd look

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

On 4/18/2018 3:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: The real benefit of the 4044 and 4046 lies in that they where CMOS devices and integrated well with other CMOS devices, and could help to The original MC4044 is TTL, not CMOS. There is a CMOS "CD4044" but it is something completely different,

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Hi, On 04/18/2018 10:57 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote: > Rick wrote: > >> The book is incorrect.  A patent issued in 1976 (US4023116A) >> covering the Fairchild 11C44 developed by Eric Breeze predates >> the EDN article by several years.  I still remember the big >> splash the 11C44 made when it

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Rick wrote: The book is incorrect. A patent issued in 1976 (US4023116A) covering the Fairchild 11C44 developed by Eric Breeze predates the EDN article by several years. I still remember the big splash the 11C44 made when it was introduced in 1976. The Fairchild ECL data book had a famous

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

On 04/18/2018 03:17 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote: > donald wrote: > >> HEF4046BCN`s, but have >> recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better >> chip to retrofit? > > As Bill said, the HCT9046 is the improved version of the 4046. > > The "flaw" in the 4046 is a

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

I too would recommend the 74HCT9046A instead of the 4046. The data sheet is here; https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/74HCT9046A.pdf *Ms. Tisha Hayes* On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote: > Hi > > If this is a new build, why use a 4046 in the first

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

On 4/18/2018 6:27 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote: Hi If this is a new build, why use a 4046 in the first place? There are many newer parts that will do all sorts of things. If this is a repair of something that has been running for years, is it > 5V supply to the chips? If so, you are pretty much

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

On 4/18/2018 4:34 AM, John Miles wrote: Ulrich Rohde's book indicates that this problem was first documented in 1978 in an EDN article by some authors named Egan and Clark. Newer PFDs implement the 'antibacklash' logic that Rohde mentions. If you really must use a 4046, I'd look for a

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Hi If this is a new build, why use a 4046 in the first place? There are many newer parts that will do all sorts of things. If this is a repair of something that has been running for years, is it > 5V supply to the chips? If so, you are pretty much stuck with 4000 series CMOS. There are no

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

donald wrote: HEF4046BCN`s, but have recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better chip to retrofit? As Bill said, the HCT9046 is the improved version of the 4046. The "flaw" in the 4046 is a dead zone around zero error in Phase Comparator 2 (the PC one generally

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

There is no dead time issue at all with 4046 PLL's using the built-in XOR (Type I) phase detector. There can be a dead-time issue with 4046 PLL's using the built-in type II (flip-flop) edge detector. The 74HCT9046A uses current sources instead of voltage sources in its type II (flip-flop) edge

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

> -Original Message- > From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of > donald collie > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:40 AM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement > > Thankyou At

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement Thankyou Attila. I remember reading a book on PLL theory, recently,writen by a very knowledgable fellow, but I didn`t think to make a copy of his critique of the 4046. I recall that the nub of it was that the 4046 isn`t suitable for some

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Thankyou Attila. I remember reading a book on PLL theory, recently,writen by a very knowledgable fellow, but I didn`t think to make a copy of his critique of the 4046. I recall that the nub of it was that the 4046 isn`t suitable for some applications because of a design flaw. Perhaps somebody in

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

Why not try one, the 74HC4046 is pin compatible I think, you may need to make some changes to use the '7046 version but you can then make a value judgement if the flaw had in fact mainfested itself as a problem in your design? On 18 April 2018 at 09:04, donald collie

Re: [time-nuts] 4046 replacement

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:04:02 +1200 donald collie wrote: > I have 4 frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but have > recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better > chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN

[time-nuts] 4046 replacement

I have 4 frequency synthesiser projects, each using HEF4046BCN`s, but have recently read that this CMOS IC has a design flaw. What would be a better chip to retrofit? I`m thinking perhaps a HEF74HC4046AN [that`s if it doesn`t have the same bug], or a 74HC7046AN - which is similar. Both these