Re: [time-nuts] eLoran is up and operating. Looking good

[Ruslan Nabioullin]

On 02/06/2017 09:06 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

On Feb 6, 2017, at 7:38 PM, Ruslan Nabioullin
 wrote:

So any ideas on how likely it will be that eLORAN becomes deployed
with at least partial US coverage within the next 5--10 years?


No, this is not the world as I would like it to be. It is the world
we live in now and are likely to live in for the foreseeable future.


Yes, from the perspective of myself and my fellow transhumanists, the 
world is quite primitive in all aspects.  I yearn for the day when 
singularity will take over and our primitive species is relegated to 
wildlife status.  But I digress, as usual.



If we are looking at it purely as a timing reference the outlook is
not real good. Best guess about 1 in 1,000. I’m probably estimating
that on the generous side. If there is some other magic use for the
thing (or a couple dozen other uses) that might change the equation.
Right now those other uses are not very obvious.

Why the lousy outlook:

1) The way a system like this gets funded is for it to have  a lot of
users. It might also get funded if some crazy black project needs it.
That’s not happening with Loran. Loran died in the first place due to
a lack of users. 2) For a system like this to have a lot of users,
you need to pass regulations requiring it’s use. That may seem odd,
but that’s the way it works. Loran co-existed with GPS for a long
time. GPS was *less* reliable back then than it is today.  Using
Loran for timing was a very rare thing outside a handful of labs. 3)
To regulate it into major systems, it needs to have at least a
country wide coverage and more likely a bit more than that. Without
that there isn’t enough of a timing market to address. You need to
retrofit it into every cell tower in the country (for instance). 4)
Loran getting into buildings from a single site (even fairly close) …
not so much if they are full of switching power supplies, you have a
problem. You need to have *many* Loran transmitters. Cell timing is
moving out of the “edge” and into the central hubs. That means
buildings full of switchers. 5) Tying multiple time sources into a
system costs big money. If you only have two clocks, how do you
decide which one is wrong? Not an easy question to answer. That money
has to come from somebody. Nobody wants to pay. The cell carriers
have never been excited about investment that does not immediately
result in more customers. 6) There are multiple competing “for pay”
backup timing systems. Adding another one to the mix is pretty hard
to justify. Even more so if you can “steal” timing off of one and not
pay for it. That would be the case with an eLoran that works with all
our old gear. 7) Like it or not, justified or not, cost effective
(not), the world is hung up on space based systems. There is no
excitement in 1950’s technology. 8) Loran for exact timing has some
major issues with propagation delay. If your goal is the same as the
system specs ( < 100 ns) that’s going to be a really tough nut to
crack. Do they *need* < 100 ns? It’s in the spec …


Makes sense---I was doubtful that it would be successful in non-niche 
commercial areas, considering the different priorities and philosophy 
(or lack thereof) in mind by the manufacturers and userbase.



Right now we have multiple broadcast time sources running 24/7 at
various frequencies with various coverage zones. As far as I know
*none* of them are tied into major systems. That’s just the way it
is, and it’s nothing new. Even in military systems, multiple time
sources into a system is a very rare thing. In commercial systems …


Yes, WWV/WWVH, WWVB, and CHU, within North America.  Very sad to hear 
that---fusing standards and external sources of diverse characteristics 
(MTBF, Allan deviation, propagation mode, sociopolitical considerations, 
etc.) is the central approach of my project.


WWVB altered the signal format in '12, rendering phase locked-loop-based 
receivers into metal paperweights (i.e., the remaining lab units used as 
a fallback), and apparently there is no replacement nor retrofit, like a 
Costas Loop (the only receiver I have found is a Meinberg USB unit, 
which very well might not even work with the new format; I have in fact 
submitted multiple quote requests, to no avail).  At the very least 
millions of domestic and personal radio clocks use it (along with a 
couple other analogs in some other parts of the world, like DCF77), not 
that this approach is remotely optimal.


As for WWV/WWVH and CHU, it's quite a sad situation---I have only 
counted 1--2 registered NTP servers that actually use at least one 
channel, despite the fact that: 1. NTP has decoding modules built-in for 
all these signals; 2. the equipment setup is typically simpler and 
cheaper compared to dealing with mounting a GPS antenna on the roof and 
interfacing with PPS, esp. if one uses a Chinese $6.50 incl. shipping HF 
receiver off eBay; 3. it's a decent, and essentially only (not counting 

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[jimlux]

On 2/6/17 6:24 PM, Alexander Pummer wrote:

hi Magnus, how about the effect of that cheap 2,7K on the active device
if it is bipolar?



I wish it were easy to get 2.7k in space.. that's the temperature you're 
radiating to.. At 300K you can radiate a few hundred watts/square meter. 
 When you have finally got down to, say 50K, the radiative heat 
transfer gets pretty small. That T^4 bites you pretty hard.  And on the 
surface of Mars, or Europa, or (worst yet) Venus, that 2.7K radiative 
sink is not so easy to get.  And there's also that 5500K source in the 
sky putting a kW/square meter into you.


But more practically - you see all sorts of cool idea for mesh networks 
and what not.  But they're all "plug the 802.11 node into the 5V wall 
wart" kinds of things.  Just the VCO to make the 2.4GHz probably 
consumes a significant amount of power.


I'd like those mesh nodes to be, say, 10s of mW total power, when 
they're on.  Another problem, of course, is that a superhet receiver 
needs an LO to receive.


So very low power oscillators are of some interest - and low phase noise 
is because, well, this is time nuts.. An RC blocking oscillator isn't as 
interesting.



By the way, some colleagues are building a box to get some Rb atoms down 
to picoKelvins.. Check out Cold Atom Lab.  Push a button and a couple 
seconds later, you have a Bose-Einstein Condensate.





Greetings

Alex

On 2/6/2017 4:35 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

Hi,

On 02/07/2017 12:36 AM, jimlux wrote:

On 2/6/17 2:37 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

One of the most basic reasons for putting out > +20 dbm is that you
had a spec of -195 dbc / Hz for the noise floor :)

Some of these specs *are* a bit mutually exclusive.


Sure.. And to be honest, I'm not sure that some of the folks coming up
with paper requirements for these speculative low power transmitters are
aware of that.  They take dBc values from 1 Watt transmitters and assume
you can meet that with your 1 mW transmitter.



Then again couldn't you cool your oscillator.. that gets the T part of
the kT down lower 

Cool that puppy down to <1K and get 25dB noise improvement, eh?


Your 50 ohm termination resistor will be a great source of that noise.
For a narrow-band fixed signal you can terminate with whatever
reactive network you feel confident with instead. If you match
impedance well enough it will work fairly well. Some oscillators have
far-out impedances far from 50 Ohm anyway so impedance matching is
so-so and most of the noise comes from the termination resistor.

Besides, for the deep space stuff you have cheap access to 2.7 K or so
anyway, right? :)

Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13900 - Release Date:
02/06/17


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[Hal Murray]

jim...@earthlink.net said:
> Then again couldn't you cool your oscillator.. that gets the T part of  the
> kT down lower  
> Cool that puppy down to <1K and get 25dB noise improvement, eh? 

What sort of temperatures can I easily get on a space craft if I point 
something away from the sun?


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[Alexander Pummer]

hi Magnus, how about the effect of that cheap 2,7K on the active device 
if it is bipolar?


Greetings

Alex

On 2/6/2017 4:35 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

Hi,

On 02/07/2017 12:36 AM, jimlux wrote:

On 2/6/17 2:37 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

One of the most basic reasons for putting out > +20 dbm is that you
had a spec of -195 dbc / Hz for the noise floor :)

Some of these specs *are* a bit mutually exclusive.


Sure.. And to be honest, I'm not sure that some of the folks coming up
with paper requirements for these speculative low power transmitters are
aware of that.  They take dBc values from 1 Watt transmitters and assume
you can meet that with your 1 mW transmitter.



Then again couldn't you cool your oscillator.. that gets the T part of
the kT down lower 

Cool that puppy down to <1K and get 25dB noise improvement, eh?


Your 50 ohm termination resistor will be a great source of that noise.
For a narrow-band fixed signal you can terminate with whatever 
reactive network you feel confident with instead. If you match 
impedance well enough it will work fairly well. Some oscillators have 
far-out impedances far from 50 Ohm anyway so impedance matching is 
so-so and most of the noise comes from the termination resistor.


Besides, for the deep space stuff you have cheap access to 2.7 K or so 
anyway, right? :)


Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

and follow the instructions there.


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13900 - Release Date: 
02/06/17


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] eLoran is up and operating. Looking good

[Bob Camp]

Hi


> On Feb 6, 2017, at 7:38 PM, Ruslan Nabioullin  wrote:
> 
> So any ideas on how likely it will be that eLORAN becomes deployed with at 
> least partial US coverage within the next 5--10 years?

No, this is not the world as I would like it to be. It is the world we live in 
now and are likely to live in for the foreseeable future. 

If we are looking at it purely as a timing reference the outlook is not real 
good. Best guess about 1 in 1,000. I’m probably estimating 
that on the generous side. If there is some other magic use for the thing (or a 
couple dozen other uses) that might change the 
equation. Right now those other uses are not very obvious. 

Why the lousy outlook:

1) The way a system like this gets funded is for it to have  a lot of users. It 
might also get 
funded if some crazy black project needs it. That’s not happening with Loran. 
Loran died in
the first place due to a lack of users. 
2) For a system like this to have a lot of users, you need to pass regulations 
requiring it’s use. 
That may seem odd, but that’s the way it works. Loran co-existed with GPS for a 
long time.
GPS was *less* reliable back then than it is today.  Using Loran for timing was 
a very rare thing
outside a handful of labs. 
3) To regulate it into major systems, it needs to have at least a country wide 
coverage and 
more likely a bit more than that. Without that there isn’t enough of a timing 
market to address. 
You need to retrofit it into every cell tower in the country (for instance). 
4) Loran getting into buildings from a single site (even fairly close) … not so 
much if they are 
full of switching power supplies, you have a problem. You need to have *many* 
Loran transmitters. Cell timing 
is moving out of the “edge” and into the central hubs. That means buildings 
full of switchers. 
5) Tying multiple time sources into a system costs big money. If you only have 
two clocks, how
do you decide which one is wrong? Not an easy question to answer. That money 
has to come
from somebody. Nobody wants to pay. The cell carriers have never been excited 
about 
investment that does not immediately result in more customers. 
6) There are multiple competing “for pay” backup timing systems. Adding another 
one to
the mix is pretty hard to justify. Even more so if you can “steal” timing off 
of one and 
not pay for it. That would be the case with an eLoran that works with all our 
old gear. 
7) Like it or not, justified or not, cost effective (not), the world is hung up 
on space based
systems. There is no excitement in 1950’s technology. 
8) Loran for exact timing has some major issues with propagation delay. If your 
goal 
is the same as the system specs ( < 100 ns) that’s going to be a really tough 
nut to
crack. Do they *need* < 100 ns? It’s in the spec … 


Will they keep studying it as long as they can get funding for the study? Of 
course they will. 
How long will people keep pitching in for that funding … could be years. Five 
to ten year
studies that go nowhere are not at all uncommon. 

Right now we have multiple broadcast time sources running 24/7 at various 
frequencies 
with various coverage zones. As far as I know *none* of them are tied into 
major systems. 
That’s just the way it is, and it’s nothing new. Even in military systems, 
multiple time sources
into a system is a very rare thing. In commercial systems … 

Again, I’m not arguing that this is an ideal world. 

Bob


>  There exists a solid company working on its R (UrsaNav), apparently 
> increased awareness in government, and UrsaNav entered into a partnership 
> with Spectracom for integrating its UN-152B (modern SDR-based eLORAN, 
> Loran-C, and Chayka frequency and time transfer receiver) for GNSS fallback, 
> which has been tested for commercial applications (e.g., NYSE), so apparently 
> there is some commercial demand (I have been told by an engineer at Google 
> that they are aware of this for Spanner and their other R projects 
> requiring time metrology, but have not decided yet).
> 
> -Ruslan
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[Bob Camp]

Hi

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Magnus Danielson  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 02/07/2017 12:36 AM, jimlux wrote:
>> On 2/6/17 2:37 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> One of the most basic reasons for putting out > +20 dbm is that you
>>> had a spec of -195 dbc / Hz for the noise floor :)
>>> 
>>> Some of these specs *are* a bit mutually exclusive.
>> 
>> Sure.. And to be honest, I'm not sure that some of the folks coming up
>> with paper requirements for these speculative low power transmitters are
>> aware of that.  They take dBc values from 1 Watt transmitters and assume
>> you can meet that with your 1 mW transmitter.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Then again couldn't you cool your oscillator.. that gets the T part of
>> the kT down lower 
>> 
>> Cool that puppy down to <1K and get 25dB noise improvement, eh?
> 
> Your 50 ohm termination resistor will be a great source of that noise.
> For a narrow-band fixed signal you can terminate with whatever reactive 
> network you feel confident with instead. If you match impedance well enough 
> it will work fairly well. Some oscillators have far-out impedances far from 
> 50 Ohm anyway so impedance matching is so-so and most of the noise comes from 
> the termination resistor.
> 
> Besides, for the deep space stuff you have cheap access to 2.7 K or so 
> anyway, right? :)

Ok so, I have a device that puts out 1 mw (0 dbm) of power. I want the phase 
noise to be -195 dbc. What 
source and load resistance do I use?  :)

I *can* use an infinite load, that will get me a whopping 3 db of noise 
improvement. That only 
leaves another 17 or so db still to be found. Of course I’m not going to 
deliver 1mw into
an infinite load so we now loop back through what does putting out 1 mw really 
mean? 

If my source is purely reactive I have a phase angle between voltage and 
current. I now have energy
coming out and not power. Back to the same question about 1 mw. 

Yes you can run in and out of rabbit holes for weeks on this one :)

Bob

> 
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[Bob Camp]

HI

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 6:36 PM, jimlux  wrote:
> 
> On 2/6/17 2:37 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> One of the most basic reasons for putting out > +20 dbm is that you
>> had a spec of -195 dbc / Hz for the noise floor :)
>> 
>> Some of these specs *are* a bit mutually exclusive.
> 
> Sure.. And to be honest, I'm not sure that some of the folks coming up with 
> paper requirements for these speculative low power transmitters are aware of 
> that.  They take dBc values from 1 Watt transmitters and assume you can meet 
> that with your 1 mW transmitter.
> 
> 
> 
> Then again couldn't you cool your oscillator.. that gets the T part of the kT 
> down lower 
> 
> Cool that puppy down to <1K and get 25dB noise improvement, eh?

Sounds like a low cost solution :)

The other proposed solution is to source the signal out of a zero ohm source. 
It’s not clear
which one actually costs less.

Bob

> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:19 PM, jimlux  wrote:
>>> 
>>> We're always looking for low DC power, but quiet (close in), oscillators 
>>> for spaceflight applications, particularly as the spacecraft get smaller.
>>> 
>>> I was intrigued by the paper Ulrich posted which actually called out a "mW 
>>> RF out for mW DC in" as part of their FoM.
>>> 
>>> Is there a list somewhere of what sort of DC/RF efficiencies are 
>>> possible/typical.  In particular, I'm interested in topologies/designs that 
>>> put out low powers.. (1 mW or less).  There's lots of designs that put out 
>>> a convenient +10dBm or +13dBm or 3.3V CMOS square wave or whatever.. but 
>>> sometimes, you only need to radiate a few mW  (I would think the low power 
>>> Bluetooth/Zigbee/802.15 folks have been thinking about this)
>>> 
>>> Jim
>>> ___
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to 
>>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] eLoran is up and operating. Looking good

[Ruslan Nabioullin]

So any ideas on how likely it will be that eLORAN becomes deployed with 
at least partial US coverage within the next 5--10 years?  There exists 
a solid company working on its R (UrsaNav), apparently increased 
awareness in government, and UrsaNav entered into a partnership with 
Spectracom for integrating its UN-152B (modern SDR-based eLORAN, 
Loran-C, and Chayka frequency and time transfer receiver) for GNSS 
fallback, which has been tested for commercial applications (e.g., 
NYSE), so apparently there is some commercial demand (I have been told 
by an engineer at Google that they are aware of this for Spanner and 
their other R projects requiring time metrology, but have not decided 
yet).


-Ruslan
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[Magnus Danielson]

Hi,

On 02/07/2017 12:36 AM, jimlux wrote:

On 2/6/17 2:37 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

One of the most basic reasons for putting out > +20 dbm is that you
had a spec of -195 dbc / Hz for the noise floor :)

Some of these specs *are* a bit mutually exclusive.


Sure.. And to be honest, I'm not sure that some of the folks coming up
with paper requirements for these speculative low power transmitters are
aware of that.  They take dBc values from 1 Watt transmitters and assume
you can meet that with your 1 mW transmitter.



Then again couldn't you cool your oscillator.. that gets the T part of
the kT down lower 

Cool that puppy down to <1K and get 25dB noise improvement, eh?


Your 50 ohm termination resistor will be a great source of that noise.
For a narrow-band fixed signal you can terminate with whatever reactive 
network you feel confident with instead. If you match impedance well 
enough it will work fairly well. Some oscillators have far-out 
impedances far from 50 Ohm anyway so impedance matching is so-so and 
most of the noise comes from the termination resistor.


Besides, for the deep space stuff you have cheap access to 2.7 K or so 
anyway, right? :)


Cheers,
Magnus
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[jimlux]

On 2/6/17 2:37 PM, Bob Camp wrote:

Hi

One of the most basic reasons for putting out > +20 dbm is that you
had a spec of -195 dbc / Hz for the noise floor :)

Some of these specs *are* a bit mutually exclusive.


Sure.. And to be honest, I'm not sure that some of the folks coming up 
with paper requirements for these speculative low power transmitters are 
aware of that.  They take dBc values from 1 Watt transmitters and assume 
you can meet that with your 1 mW transmitter.




Then again couldn't you cool your oscillator.. that gets the T part of 
the kT down lower 


Cool that puppy down to <1K and get 25dB noise improvement, eh?





Bob


On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:19 PM, jimlux  wrote:

We're always looking for low DC power, but quiet (close in), oscillators for 
spaceflight applications, particularly as the spacecraft get smaller.

I was intrigued by the paper Ulrich posted which actually called out a "mW RF out 
for mW DC in" as part of their FoM.

Is there a list somewhere of what sort of DC/RF efficiencies are 
possible/typical.  In particular, I'm interested in topologies/designs that put 
out low powers.. (1 mW or less).  There's lots of designs that put out a 
convenient +10dBm or +13dBm or 3.3V CMOS square wave or whatever.. but 
sometimes, you only need to radiate a few mW  (I would think the low power 
Bluetooth/Zigbee/802.15 folks have been thinking about this)

Jim
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Dropbox is cool, but...

[shouldbe q931]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Bruce Lane  wrote:
>
>
> On 05-Feb-17 16:42, Didier Juges wrote:
>
>> Yes, I noticed that before.
>> I have a number of tools that don't like running off a Dropbox folder,
>> including several software development tools for starter. Too many files
>> opened at the same time.
>> Don't assume that because it looks like a normal folder, it works like one,
>> even though for many things, it does work remarkably well.
>
> 
>
> In the interest of presenting alternatives -- I dumped Dropbox a while
> back, due to their increasingly invasive 'privacy' policies.
>
> A good alternative for me has been Sync: https://www.sync.com/
>
> Their 'Free' package includes 5GB -- More than I would ever possibly
> use for an online sharing account. ;-)
>
> Keep the peace(es).
>

For private sync between machines (on the local LAN and over the
Internet) I use https://syncthing.net/
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[Bob Camp]

Hi

One of the most basic reasons for putting out > +20 dbm is that you 
had a spec of -195 dbc / Hz for the noise floor :) 

Some of these specs *are* a bit mutually exclusive. 

Bob

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:19 PM, jimlux  wrote:
> 
> We're always looking for low DC power, but quiet (close in), oscillators for 
> spaceflight applications, particularly as the spacecraft get smaller.
> 
> I was intrigued by the paper Ulrich posted which actually called out a "mW RF 
> out for mW DC in" as part of their FoM.
> 
> Is there a list somewhere of what sort of DC/RF efficiencies are 
> possible/typical.  In particular, I'm interested in topologies/designs that 
> put out low powers.. (1 mW or less).  There's lots of designs that put out a 
> convenient +10dBm or +13dBm or 3.3V CMOS square wave or whatever.. but 
> sometimes, you only need to radiate a few mW  (I would think the low power 
> Bluetooth/Zigbee/802.15 folks have been thinking about this)
> 
> Jim
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] low power, but quiet, oscillators

[jimlux]

We're always looking for low DC power, but quiet (close in), oscillators 
for spaceflight applications, particularly as the spacecraft get smaller.


I was intrigued by the paper Ulrich posted which actually called out a 
"mW RF out for mW DC in" as part of their FoM.


Is there a list somewhere of what sort of DC/RF efficiencies are 
possible/typical.  In particular, I'm interested in topologies/designs 
that put out low powers.. (1 mW or less).  There's lots of designs that 
put out a convenient +10dBm or +13dBm or 3.3V CMOS square wave or 
whatever.. but sometimes, you only need to radiate a few mW  (I would 
think the low power Bluetooth/Zigbee/802.15 folks have been thinking 
about this)


Jim
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Lucent KS-24361 REF 0 standalone

[Bob Camp]

Hi

The only serial dialog between the two units is a repeat of the output of the
GPS module. My guess is that there is some subtle difference between
the Oncore data and they skytraq….

Bob

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Thomas Petig  wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> I am currently trying to repeat previous work of members of this list in
> convincing the REF 0, to run standalone with a given 1PPS signal from a
> gps. Similar to:
> https://syncchannel.blogspot.se/2015/08/standalone-operation-of-lucent-ks-24361.html
> 
> I am using a skytraq gps with 100ms, 74AC04 for inverting and level
> shifting and I added the jumper wires on J5. I simulate the Oncore
> messages with a python script using a usb->uart cable and triggering on
> the 1PPS pulse on the CTS line. I am sending @@Ea, @@En, @@Bb, @@Ap,
> @@Aw, @@Ag, @@At, @@Az, @@Bj, @@Bo with a delay of 75 ms, as suggested
> in the blog above:
> https://github.com/thpe/oncore/blob/master/oncore_emu.py
> 
> Surprisingly, I have a constant delay of 0.8 ms, and only a jitter of
> +/-0.1 ms for the oncore messages compared to the pulse on the CTS line.
> 
> Short everything is working and if I force external 1PPS usage it locks
> to it (NO GPS light goes off). Using pForth:
> 1 force_ext_1pps
> 1 force_gps_1pps
> 
> But, it does not do it on its own, since it ignores the tracking mode
> for the satellites and, I guess after reading the Z3801A manual,
> therefore it claims the GPS 1PPS signal as invalid. E.g., for the entry
> with @@Ea:
> 0x02, 0x08, 0xFF, 0x82
> meaning satellite 2 in mode 8 (used for positioning) it assumes mode 0.
> The other values, like signal strength 0xFF and channel status 0x82 are
> taken, even if I change them to something else. The mode value is
> ignored no matter what it says.
> 
> In the attached files on sees that "GPS 1PPS Invalid: not tracking", and
> the mode of the is 0. I forced it to use the external 1PPS signal.
> 
> So, the question what tiny detail did I miss while reading the mailing
> list archive and those blogs on how to set the REF 0 up for standalone
> operation just using the Oncore messages?
> 
> Does someone has dump of the communication between REF 1 and
> REF 0, until the REF 0 is happy (I don't have a REF 1)?
> 
> Regards,
>   Thomas
>   DK6KD
>   SA6CID
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Lucent KS-24361 REF 0 standalone

[Thomas Petig]

Hi everyone,
I am currently trying to repeat previous work of members of this list in
convincing the REF 0, to run standalone with a given 1PPS signal from a
gps. Similar to:
https://syncchannel.blogspot.se/2015/08/standalone-operation-of-lucent-ks-24361.html

I am using a skytraq gps with 100ms, 74AC04 for inverting and level
shifting and I added the jumper wires on J5. I simulate the Oncore
messages with a python script using a usb->uart cable and triggering on
the 1PPS pulse on the CTS line. I am sending @@Ea, @@En, @@Bb, @@Ap,
@@Aw, @@Ag, @@At, @@Az, @@Bj, @@Bo with a delay of 75 ms, as suggested
in the blog above:
https://github.com/thpe/oncore/blob/master/oncore_emu.py

Surprisingly, I have a constant delay of 0.8 ms, and only a jitter of
+/-0.1 ms for the oncore messages compared to the pulse on the CTS line.

Short everything is working and if I force external 1PPS usage it locks
to it (NO GPS light goes off). Using pForth:
1 force_ext_1pps
1 force_gps_1pps

But, it does not do it on its own, since it ignores the tracking mode
for the satellites and, I guess after reading the Z3801A manual,
therefore it claims the GPS 1PPS signal as invalid. E.g., for the entry
with @@Ea:
0x02, 0x08, 0xFF, 0x82
meaning satellite 2 in mode 8 (used for positioning) it assumes mode 0.
The other values, like signal strength 0xFF and channel status 0x82 are
taken, even if I change them to something else. The mode value is
ignored no matter what it says.

In the attached files on sees that "GPS 1PPS Invalid: not tracking", and
the mode of the is 0. I forced it to use the external 1PPS signal.

So, the question what tiny detail did I miss while reading the mailing
list archive and those blogs on how to set the REF 0 up for standalone
operation just using the Oncore messages?

Does someone has dump of the communication between REF 1 and
REF 0, until the REF 0 is happy (I don't have a REF 1)?

Regards,
   Thomas
   DK6KD
   SA6CID
--- Primary Receiver Status ---
SYNCHRONIZATION . [ Outputs Valid ]
SmartClock Mode ___   Reference Outputs ___
>> Locked to GPS  TFOM 3 FFOM 0
   Recovery   1PPS TI +10.0 ns relative to GPS
   Holdover   HOLD THR 1.000 us
   Power-up   Holdover Uncertainty 
  Predict  2.0 us/initial 24 hrs

ACQUISITION  [ GPS 1PPS Valid ]
Tracking: 0    Not Tracking: 10 ___   Time 
   PRN  El  Az  PRN  El  Az   GPS  00:09:07 01 Jan 1998
   * 2  80  16   17  32   5   GPS 1PPS Invalid: not tracking
   * 4  48  32   18  48   0   ANT DLY  0 ns
   * 6  64   0Position 
   * 8  90   0MODE Hold
   *10  90   1
   *12  90   2LAT  N  23:18:06.080
   *14  90   3LON  E   8:59:34.784
   *16  90   4HGT+2.56 m  (GPS)
   *attempting to track   
HEALTH MONITOR . [ OK ]
Self Test: OKInt Pwr: OK   Oven Pwr: OK   OCXO: OK   EFC: OK   GPS Rcv: OK
TIME  0:00:15.0 DATE   1/01/1998
LAT  N  23:18:06.080
LON  E   8:59:34.784VIS SATS   10
HGT (msl)  2.56 TRACK SATS   8
HGT (gps)  2.56 RX STATUS   20
PDOP0.0

CHN  SVID  MODE   SS  STATUS
 1 2 0   25582
 2 4 0   25582
 3 6 0   25582
 4 8 0   25582
 510 0   25582
 612 0   25582
 714 0   25582
 816 0   25582
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[KA2WEU--- via time-nuts]

2 points: 
 
First I do not get copies of my own mail... strange  .
 
Second a complete treatment including the results is in 
 
 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7546729/ 
These  results are superior  to other publication , and the paper is 
complete.  Probably only very few do a complete literature search. The Disco 
oscillator,  while  applaudable (for its time ) is not used commercially in any 
product  . 
73 de  Ulrich N1UL 
 
 
In a message dated 2/6/2017 11:00:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
dk...@arcor.de writes:

Am 06.02.2017 um  14:08 schrieb Richard (Rick) Karlquist:
> Agreed, for low phase noise  FLOOR, it is imperative to
> take the signal out through the  crystal.  However, for
> close in noise (say ADEV at t=1), the  Driscoll has
> worked well for me.  I have been able to reach  ADEV
> = 10^-11 at 100 MHz at using suitable resonators.
>
>  Rick

But one won't be able to use the power right out of the  crystal
for anything. So it will have to be amplified &  buffered.

If you can do that without lifting the noise floor,  then
you've got to ask yourself one question  :-)

Why don't I  use that little wonder for the sustaining amplifier, too?

And - why do  I divide the precious crystal power between the 2
amplifiers at the  location where it hurts most: where the level is 
smallest?

When you  compare the Driscoll and the Burgoon (sp??) output
coupling through the  crystal, you see it is exactly the same.
One might even apply the current  step up trick from Burgoon.

The current through the drains/collectors  is enforced by the
crystal, operating into a near-short. Off-resonance the  transistor
has complete negative feedback and no gain.

On the output  side of the buffer, losing a dB or two for sustaining
the oscillation does  not hurt.


A thing I do not like about the typical Colpitts is that  it is never
on the series resonance of the crystal. That means that
the  feedback divider is part of the resonance which increases
the number of  critical parts.

In the Driscoll, the sustaining feedback is quite a  wideband thing
and mostly decoupled from the sharp crystal  resonance.


regards, Gerhard, DK4XP



>
> On  2/6/2017 4:35 AM, ka2...@aol.com wrote:
>> Not quiet, using the  crystal also as filter gives much better numbers 
>>  ,
>> 73 de Ulrich N1UL
>>
>> In a message dated  2/6/2017 7:30:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> rich...@karlquist.com  writes:
>>
>> I would say the 2 stage  "Driscoll" oscillator is the
>> way to go.  I  have had good luck with it up to 100 MHz.
>> The  first stage has the crystal in series with the
>>  emitter, but is otherwise a grounded emitter stage.
>>   The second stage is in cascode as a grounded  base.
>> The important operating condition is that  only
>> the second stage limits.  First  publications on
>> it were in the early 1970's  (search Michael Driscoll).
>>
>> Rick  Karlquist N6RK  

___
time-nuts mailing  list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the  instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] TICC update

[John Ackermann N8UR]

Our contract manufacturer has started loading software and testing the 
TICC systems (and so far, they all work!), and should ship the 
production run to TAPR by the end of the week.  We'll start shipping 
them to customers shortly after they arrive at the office.


We still have units available for order:
http://tapr.org/kits_ticc.html

John
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] eLoran is up and operating. Looking good

[paul swed]

Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] What to do with a 5061A/5061B with dead NiCds

[Scott McGrath]

I would second the UPS idea in addition to rebuilding the internal pack which I 
see as more of a carryover supply while physically moving the standArd or 
performing maintenance on the line / 24VDC inputs

Content by Scott
Typos by Siri

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Scott McGrath  wrote:
> 
> I went with option #2 and opted for batteries plus to rebuild the packs as I 
> recall it was about 80 dollars to rebuild the pack which included a 1 year 
> warranty
> 
> The problem with moving to lithium batteries is building the battery 
> management system and safety systems needed for the SAFE operation of lithium 
> cells.
> 
> Content by Scott
> Typos by Siri
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 6:27 PM, Skip Withrow  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello time-nuts,
>> 
>> I have 5061A and 5061B units with the battery option and dead battery
>> packs.  My question is what makes the most sense when refurbing these units?
>> 
>> 1.  Yank the old battery out and just leave it that way.  Running the unit
>> on a UPS would preserve the functionality.
>> 
>> 2. Replace the pack with a rebuilt NiCd pack.  I'm sure Batteries Plus
>> would be happy to do it, but sounds expensive.
>> 
>> 3. Replace the pack with a NiMH pack, and really crank down the float
>> current of the 5061.
>> 
>> 4. Replace the pack with Li-ion battery.  Would be a much smaller battery,
>> but the charging circuit would have to be pitched.  Building in a Li-ion
>> charge controller sounds like it could be a project (which I don't
>> necessarily want).
>> 
>> 5. Yank the old battery pack and run the 5061 on two 12V batteries with an
>> appropriate power supply/charger (basically a version of #1).
>> 
>> Any thoughts on these or other options would be appreciated.  Thanks in
>> advance.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Skip Withrow
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 06.02.2017 um 14:08 schrieb Richard (Rick) Karlquist:

Agreed, for low phase noise FLOOR, it is imperative to
take the signal out through the crystal.  However, for
close in noise (say ADEV at t=1), the Driscoll has
worked well for me.  I have been able to reach ADEV
= 10^-11 at 100 MHz at using suitable resonators.

Rick


But one won't be able to use the power right out of the crystal
for anything. So it will have to be amplified & buffered.

If you can do that without lifting the noise floor, then
you've got to ask yourself one question  :-)

Why don't I use that little wonder for the sustaining amplifier, too?

And - why do I divide the precious crystal power between the 2
amplifiers at the location where it hurts most: where the level is smallest?

When you compare the Driscoll and the Burgoon (sp??) output
coupling through the crystal, you see it is exactly the same.
One might even apply the current step up trick from Burgoon.

The current through the drains/collectors is enforced by the
crystal, operating into a near-short. Off-resonance the transistor
has complete negative feedback and no gain.

On the output side of the buffer, losing a dB or two for sustaining
the oscillation does not hurt.


A thing I do not like about the typical Colpitts is that it is never
on the series resonance of the crystal. That means that
the feedback divider is part of the resonance which increases
the number of critical parts.

In the Driscoll, the sustaining feedback is quite a wideband thing
and mostly decoupled from the sharp crystal resonance.


regards, Gerhard, DK4XP





On 2/6/2017 4:35 AM, ka2...@aol.com wrote:
Not quiet, using the crystal also as filter gives much better numbers 
,

73 de Ulrich N1UL

In a message dated 2/6/2017 7:30:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rich...@karlquist.com writes:

I would say the 2 stage "Driscoll" oscillator is the
way to go.  I have had good luck with it up to 100 MHz.
The first stage has the crystal in series with the
emitter, but is otherwise a grounded emitter stage.
The second stage is in cascode as a grounded base.
The important operating condition is that only
the second stage limits.  First publications on
it were in the early 1970's (search Michael Driscoll).

Rick Karlquist N6RK 


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] What to do with a 5061A/5061B with dead NiCds

[paul swed]

Much has been said and I favor the lead acid approach.
My luck with nicad has not been good. I purchased brand new ones for a Tek
TDR 1502 and they did not last that long and as mentioned quite expensive.
I actually have some older nicads that must be 30 years old and they still
hold a charge, have not leaked and are pretty amazing. I believe that like
all things business has figured out how to give them a defined lifetime.
(Short)
The lead acid battery approach offers simplicity.
Wide range of charging approaches that are simple.
Can choose to use a plain old UPS as an example though the efficiency is
not great.
Good luck Skip.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Alex Pummer  wrote:

> it is a "ventilated flooded" battery?
>
> 73
>
> if it s a flooded battery it is very easy to fix it
>
>
>
> On 2/5/2017 3:27 PM, Skip Withrow wrote:
>
>> Hello time-nuts,
>>
>> I have 5061A and 5061B units with the battery option and dead battery
>> packs.  My question is what makes the most sense when refurbing these
>> units?
>>
>> 1.  Yank the old battery out and just leave it that way.  Running the unit
>> on a UPS would preserve the functionality.
>>
>> 2. Replace the pack with a rebuilt NiCd pack.  I'm sure Batteries Plus
>> would be happy to do it, but sounds expensive.
>>
>> 3. Replace the pack with a NiMH pack, and really crank down the float
>> current of the 5061.
>>
>> 4. Replace the pack with Li-ion battery.  Would be a much smaller battery,
>> but the charging circuit would have to be pitched.  Building in a Li-ion
>> charge controller sounds like it could be a project (which I don't
>> necessarily want).
>>
>> 5. Yank the old battery pack and run the 5061 on two 12V batteries with an
>> appropriate power supply/charger (basically a version of #1).
>>
>> Any thoughts on these or other options would be appreciated.  Thanks in
>> advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Skip Withrow
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m
>> ailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>>
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13896 - Release Date: 02/05/17
>>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m
> ailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] What interrupts aging?

[William H. Fite]

No, it is not possible to grow absolutely perfect quartz crystals, nor do
they occur naturally. I had a connection with some Corning researchers
years ago who were trying to do exactly that. They found it impossible to
control the hundreds of variables necessary to accomplish that goal.
Happily, they also found it to be unnecessary, even for applications
considerably more demanding than the time-and-frequency issues that concern
this list.

On Monday, February 6, 2017, Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
wrote:

>
>
> On 2/5/2017 4:19 PM, Peter Reilley wrote:
>
>> I am curious: is the quartz in a high quality quartz crystal perfect?
>> That is; is the
>>
>> crystalline lattice perfect, without flaws or impurities?   I assume
>> that the quartz is
>>
>> grown in a furnace, can we grow perfect quartz crystals?
>>
>> Pete.
>>
>>
> Even a perfect crystal has thermal stress as the temperature changes.
>
> Rick
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/m
> ailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>


-- 
If you gaze long into an abyss, your coffee will get cold.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] What to do with a 5061A/5061B with dead NiCds

[Scott McGrath]

I went with option #2 and opted for batteries plus to rebuild the packs as I 
recall it was about 80 dollars to rebuild the pack which included a 1 year 
warranty

The problem with moving to lithium batteries is building the battery management 
system and safety systems needed for the SAFE operation of lithium cells.

Content by Scott
Typos by Siri

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 6:27 PM, Skip Withrow  wrote:
> 
> Hello time-nuts,
> 
> I have 5061A and 5061B units with the battery option and dead battery
> packs.  My question is what makes the most sense when refurbing these units?
> 
> 1.  Yank the old battery out and just leave it that way.  Running the unit
> on a UPS would preserve the functionality.
> 
> 2. Replace the pack with a rebuilt NiCd pack.  I'm sure Batteries Plus
> would be happy to do it, but sounds expensive.
> 
> 3. Replace the pack with a NiMH pack, and really crank down the float
> current of the 5061.
> 
> 4. Replace the pack with Li-ion battery.  Would be a much smaller battery,
> but the charging circuit would have to be pitched.  Building in a Li-ion
> charge controller sounds like it could be a project (which I don't
> necessarily want).
> 
> 5. Yank the old battery pack and run the 5061 on two 12V batteries with an
> appropriate power supply/charger (basically a version of #1).
> 
> Any thoughts on these or other options would be appreciated.  Thanks in
> advance.
> 
> Regards,
> Skip Withrow
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

Agreed, for low phase noise FLOOR, it is imperative to
take the signal out through the crystal.  However, for
close in noise (say ADEV at t=1), the Driscoll has
worked well for me.  I have been able to reach ADEV
= 10^-11 at 100 MHz at using suitable resonators.

Rick

On 2/6/2017 4:35 AM, ka2...@aol.com wrote:

Not quiet, using the crystal also as filter gives much better numbers ,
73 de Ulrich N1UL

In a message dated 2/6/2017 7:30:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rich...@karlquist.com writes:

I would say the 2 stage "Driscoll" oscillator is the
way to go.  I have had good luck with it up to 100 MHz.
The first stage has the crystal in series with the
emitter, but is otherwise a grounded emitter stage.
The second stage is in cascode as a grounded base.
The important operating condition is that only
the second stage limits.  First publications on
it were in the early 1970's (search Michael Driscoll).

Rick Karlquist N6RK

On 2/6/2017 1:06 AM, Yeti Yetos wrote:
> Good morning,
> What's the optimal  oscillator topology for low phase noise (low
frequency
> noise and phase noise floor) for  25Mhz/50Mhz/100Mhz frequency
range.?
>
> Best regards, Rafal
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[KA2WEU--- via time-nuts]

That is the pragmatic deflection reply . but essentially you are  
correct 
 
 
In a message dated 2/6/2017 7:57:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
kb...@n1k.org writes:

Hi

One could easily spend years answering this sort of  question. Several 
people on the 
list *have* done so. Two of them have  already tossed up answers. 

What are you trying to do?

What is  your definition of “low”? 

How well equipped are you to test this sort  of thing? 

How much tweaking are you willing to do?

Do you have  a source of (custom) low noise crystals?

Lots of questions and lots of  twists and turns in the answers as a result. 

Bob

> On Feb 6,  2017, at 4:06 AM, Yeti Yetos  wrote:
>  
> Good morning,
> What's the optimal  oscillator topology  for low phase noise (low 
frequency
> noise and phase noise floor)  for  25Mhz/50Mhz/100Mhz frequency  range.?
> 
> Best  regards, Rafal
> ___
>  time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the  instructions  there.

___
time-nuts  mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the  instructions there.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[Bob Camp]

Hi

One could easily spend years answering this sort of question. Several people on 
the 
list *have* done so. Two of them have already tossed up answers. 

What are you trying to do?

What is your definition of “low”? 

How well equipped are you to test this sort of thing? 

How much tweaking are you willing to do?

Do you have a source of (custom) low noise crystals?

Lots of questions and lots of twists and turns in the answers as a result. 

Bob

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:06 AM, Yeti Yetos  wrote:
> 
> Good morning,
> What's the optimal  oscillator topology for low phase noise (low frequency
> noise and phase noise floor) for  25Mhz/50Mhz/100Mhz frequency  range.?
> 
> Best regards, Rafal
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[KA2WEU--- via time-nuts]

Not quiet, using the crystal also as filter gives much better numbers  ,
73 de Ulrich N1UL 
 
 
In a message dated 2/6/2017 7:30:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rich...@karlquist.com writes:

I would  say the 2 stage "Driscoll" oscillator is the
way to go.  I have had  good luck with it up to 100 MHz.
The first stage has the crystal in series  with the
emitter, but is otherwise a grounded emitter stage.
The second  stage is in cascode as a grounded base.
The important operating condition  is that only
the second stage limits.  First publications on
it  were in the early 1970's (search Michael Driscoll).

Rick Karlquist  N6RK

On 2/6/2017 1:06 AM, Yeti Yetos wrote:
> Good  morning,
> What's the optimal  oscillator topology for low phase  noise (low 
frequency
> noise and phase noise floor) for   25Mhz/50Mhz/100Mhz frequency  range.?
>
> Best regards,  Rafal
> ___
>  time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the  instructions  there.
>
>
___
time-nuts  mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the  instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

I would say the 2 stage "Driscoll" oscillator is the
way to go.  I have had good luck with it up to 100 MHz.
The first stage has the crystal in series with the
emitter, but is otherwise a grounded emitter stage.
The second stage is in cascode as a grounded base.
The important operating condition is that only
the second stage limits.  First publications on
it were in the early 1970's (search Michael Driscoll).

Rick Karlquist N6RK

On 2/6/2017 1:06 AM, Yeti Yetos wrote:

Good morning,
What's the optimal  oscillator topology for low phase noise (low frequency
noise and phase noise floor) for  25Mhz/50Mhz/100Mhz frequency  range.?

Best regards, Rafal
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] What interrupts aging?

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 2/5/2017 4:19 PM, Peter Reilley wrote:

I am curious: is the quartz in a high quality quartz crystal perfect?
That is; is the

crystalline lattice perfect, without flaws or impurities?   I assume
that the quartz is

grown in a furnace, can we grow perfect quartz crystals?

Pete.



Even a perfect crystal has thermal stress as the temperature changes.

Rick
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[KA2WEU--- via time-nuts]

A optimized Colpitts circuit 
 
73 de Ulrich 
 
 
In a message dated 2/6/2017 5:30:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rtoporow...@gmail.com writes:

Good  morning,
What's the optimal  oscillator topology for low phase noise  (low frequency
noise and phase noise floor) for  25Mhz/50Mhz/100Mhz  frequency  range.?

Best regards,  Rafal
___
time-nuts mailing  list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the  instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Optimal oscillator topology for diffrent frequency range

[Yeti Yetos]

Good morning,
What's the optimal  oscillator topology for low phase noise (low frequency
noise and phase noise floor) for  25Mhz/50Mhz/100Mhz frequency  range.?

Best regards, Rafal
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.